I discovered homeschooling because I have two sisters who homeschooled some of their kids. It made a very positive impression on me that I instantly fell in love with it and dreamed and planned of homeschooling my own kids even if I still didn’t have kids back then.
By God’s grace, I did have children some years later and so my dreams of homeschooling were rekindled.
However, I was completely ignorant of anything about homeschooling or learning or education.
Because I used to think that homeschooling was simply bringing the school home. As in I thought it was just a matter of grabbing a copy of the same books used in a school and then teaching them exactly the way it was taught, but at home and with me as the teacher.
Little did I know that when you take on the responsibility and direct the education of your children at home, you have free rein on practically anything that has to do with “school” (e.g., like what books to use or even when to start formal academics), which is so liberating but, yes, daunting as well.
In other words, there are a lot of questions you need to ask yourself and a lot of choices and decisions that you need to make.
One of which is how to teach your child.
Homeschooling styles
So to prepare myself, when my eldest turned three, I asked homeschooling friends for tips and guidance on how should I go about homeschooling.
One friend said that the first thing I should do was look into the different educational philosophies or learning methods or styles around and choose what I would like to use or follow.
So I did.
And that was how my eyes were opened into the wonderful world of homeschooling, and it is truly a world in itself because within its realm lies a variety of learning styles, philosophies, methods, curricula, and what have you.
And it is also truly wonderful because to belong in it is an eye-opening experience as it will expand your views on learning and education.
This was how I encountered (neo-)Classical education, Waldorf education, Montessori, Unit Studies, and Eclectic homeschooling, to name a few.
I will not discuss their respective philosophies here because they’re beyond the scope of this post and I think Google (or ChatGPT) would be able to give you a better explanation of each than I can.
There is also Unschooling which, technically, is an educational style where you do not employ any method or routine used in a traditional school. It is not an educational philosophy per se.
So in a sense, every homeschooling family is unschooling, technically, if you follow the definition above. It does not necessarily mean not having any structure in educating your child or just following your child’s lead or interests, though it could definitely mean that way if you want to.
Unschooling simply means steering away from any learning method associated with traditional or conventional schools.
And let me just mention deschooling. It is also not an educational philosophy but it is a sort of “therapy” for children who have gone to a regular school but are having a difficult time transitioning to homeschooling.
For such situations, deschooling is employed by parents to “detoxify” kids from the school system and acclimatize them to the homeschooling atmosphere. It usually involves taking a few months to even a full year of informal learning, or homeschooling only light or easy subjects before diving into more serious academics.
And, of course, there’s Charlotte Mason, which we use and follow.
How I discovered Charlotte Mason
As I have previously mentioned, I was introduced to Charlotte Mason (CM) through Gina Roldan, the founder and directress of Living Learning Homeschool (LLH), a local homeschool service provider. She is a friend in Church and because I know that she is a home educator, I would ask her about homeschooling when we’d see each other in Church.
In one of our chance conversations, she mentioned that she homeschools with CM. But she didn’t really explain who she was or what it was. She did advise me to read For the Children’s Sake (which has somewhat become the standard introductory book to CM) but I couldn’t get hold of a copy of it so I, of course, resorted to good ol’ Google to learn about CM.
Google led me to AmblesideOnline (AO) and it was through AO that I first got to know CM and first learned about her principles.
AO’s FAQ gave me a basic but concise explanation of CM’s philosophies (which are contained not only in six volumes but in many Parents’ Review articles as well) and it challenged my preconceived notions about learning and education, and, right then and there, I had what you would say was a paradigm shift.
Because CM’s principles are so contrary to what we commonly, traditionally, and conventionally know about education which, if I may say and I say this with all humility, is not a lot. We really don’t know anything about education and learning. What we just know is that parents need to send children to school because that’s just the way the world works.
Why aren’t we challenging this thinking?
Personally, learning about CM was a very enlightening experience, akin to hearing the gospel and it felt like discovering the truth.
I got sold.
AO whetted my appetite for CM.
I was intrigued and wanted to learn more.
So I googled more.
But all the other blogs I read practically said the same thing: that there is no substitute to reading CM’s volumes to learn her philosophy. (And if I may add, reading also the various Parents’ Review articles CM edited because some of her philosophies are better explained in them).
So off I went to search for a copy of her volumes. At that time (around 2018), CM isn’t as popular as it is right now in the Philippines. It was just slowly starting to take off, I think, so getting a copy of her volumes was not as easy as it is now.
I actually had to ask a friend who was vacationing in the US to bring me home a copy (I always prefer hardcopies over ebooks). That was how I got a set of CM’s volumes, after which I started to read Volume 1 followed by Volume 6 before I started to read the rest.
I haven’t finished reading all her volumes yet because I re-read both Volumes 1 and 6 twice after reading them the first time (I got this advise from Karen Glass somewhere online, probably the AO forum or Facebook Group).
I have finished Volume 2 (once), though, and am currently reading Volume 3 (which I’ve actually started a long time ago but haven’t and couldn’t finish just yet because, you know, life happens).
How other learning styles fare
I didn’t do an in-depth study of the different learning styles I mentioned above (kasi hindi naman ako gagawa ng thesis, haha) but just enough research to get the gist of their philosophies and for me to make an informed decision as to what I think would be best for my family.
(And sometimes, actually, you’d know right off the bat if an educational philosophy is for you or not). Each educational philosophy have their own merits, I believe. And as they say, to each their own.
But I think choosing an educational philosophy or homeschooling style would boil down to what your educational goals are and why you want to homeschool.
For us, we chose Charlotte Mason because it is the educational philosophy which resonates deeply with me and which mostly aligns with the educational goals I have for my kids (which I explain in full detail a little later).
But, very quickly, I would like to share why other learning styles didn’t win me over.
(Neo-)Classical education (i.e., trivium-based). There is actually confusion on what a classical education is. But let me just say that the classical education movement currently popular in homeschooling circles nowadays is actually a neo-classical education and is a modern educational philosophy which is distinct from the classical education known for its use of traditional learning methods.
From what I’ve read, neo-classical education somewhat view children as “data machines” or empty receptacles that needs to be filled with knowledge. And maybe that is why in the early years, neo-classical educators focus on filling children with information through memorization (rote learning). But education is not simply acquiring facts or information, it is more than that.
Waldorf education. I didn’t bother to look further into a Waldorf education when I learned that its founder had occultic tendencies. An educational philosophy (or any philosophy for that matter) will always reflect the personal beliefs and faith of its author/s and I do not want to have anything to do with it because it goes against my own faith. That being said, I think one cannot separate or utilize only the educational aspects of a philosophy apart from its roots/origins/founding theories.
Montessori. I do believe a Montessori education is a very good kind of education. I don’t think you could go wrong in choosing it (just make sure the school you are sending your kids to is a genuine Montessori school). I actually think it is the best alternative to homeschooling.
However, Montessori learning requires a lot of hands-on (not to mention expensive) learning materials, especially during the early, elementary years, and it requires intensive and formal training and preparation on the part of teachers. So it is difficult (or even impossible) to adapt it at home. I think Montessori’s methods are developed for a class setting, not for the home.
Unit Studies. In Unit Studies, the lessons for the subjects a child is learning are presented around a single theme. Preparing for a Unit Study, therefore, would require a teacher to find and make connections of the different subject matters to make sure they are in line with a given theme. Finding and making connections, which is what learning is all about, is, therefore, done by the teacher, not the student.
Eclectic homeschooling. Eclectic homeschooling is educating with a mix and match of different methods and resources. While it sounds like a good idea because you can have the best of all worlds, it also sounds exhausting and overwhelming (at least for me) to choose which would be the best mix and match out of the many resources available. Decision-making is paralyzing when we are faced with too many choices.
Unschooling. As I have mentioned above, unschooling simply means teaching your kids any way you see fit without using conventional school methods. So if you educate your children at home following your chosen educational philosophy or even your own informal learning style, and do not just bring the school at home, your family are unschoolers.
But if you mean unschooling in a child-led sense, i.e., teaching according to what interests your child, I can not do it. I can not be an unschooler because I am a person who needs structure and a plan (e.g., curriculum) that I need to meticulously follow. I am not so much of a spontaneous person or a “go with the flow” type and I would go crazy if I will just follow my child’s lead. Unschooling does not suit my personality and is, therefore, not for me.
So why Charlotte Mason?
I am not a CM expert. I haven’t finished reading all her volumes yet. But I’m sharing below some of her principles which resonated with me and which made me choose her over other learning methods.
Beyond short lessons, nature study, and the riches, we chose CM…
Because CM postulated that the knowledge of God is the most important matter and the goal of education
One of CM’s biggest “selling point” for me was that she was a Christian and her philosophies were developed from a Christian worldview.
(I am not a CM purist, though. I do not fully subscribe to everything she says. For example, I think she holds a different soteriology or theology of salvation from the one I believe in. But I would not be discussing them here because it is beyond the scope of this post. And I haven’t delved deeply into it, actually. Also, she is human, not God, so I don’t take everything she says as absolute truth).
Anyway, an educational philosophy that pursues the knowledge of God as its end goal is one worth espousing because it concurs with the Bible, the standard and authority of truth. And as a Christian, I have to concur with it, too.
Man lives to worship and glorify God. But how are we going to fulfill this purpose if we do not know Him?
I am reminded of a time when an educator encouraged me to send my kids to a highly reputable school. To persuade me, she told me that the graduates of that school have an almost 100% passing rate in the college entrance exam of the top three universities in Manila.
I’m sure she thought it was enough to convince me to send my kids to the school. But I was not persuaded. Not only because I was bent on homeschooling my kids from the start, but because passing the college entrance exam of the top universities is not my goal in educating my kids.
Of course I would like my kids to go to a good and reputable college. I would be a liar if I’d say I do not want to.
But that is not the goal why I am educating my kids. It would be rather superficial if that is my only goal.
CM reminded me that there is a higher purpose in educating children. And it is not only biblical but it could and should serve as the North Star in our academic endeavors. And when the going gets tough, or when we feel lost in the journey, this compass can lead us back to the right path.
It may not be obvious, but CM’s whole philosophy and methods (e.g., nature study, living books, art study, etc.), are actually centered towards the purpose of attaining the knowledge of God.
And that is why I love the CM philosophy, because everything it recommends is with the purpose to know God.
…it is ‘necessary’ to believe in God; that, therefore, the knowledge of God is the principal knowledge, and the chief end of education.
Volume 1, page VIII
…the culmination of all education (which may, at the same time, be reached by a little child) is that personal knowledge of and intimacy with God in which our being finds its fullest perfections.
Volume 3, page 95
Of the three sorts of knowledge proper to a child,—the knowledge of God, of man, and of the universe,—the knowledge of God ranks first in importance, is indispensable, and most happy-making.
Volume 6, p. 158
Because CM acknowledged that God is the Supreme Educator
We may know this truth, but it does not necessarily and automatically mean that we apply it in the education of our childen. And I know this because (1) I’ve doubted myself if I could really and possibly teach my kids, (2) people have doubted me, not to mention have actually looked down on my kids, because they don’t think I could really and possibly teach my kids, and (3) parents are reluctant to homeschool, even if they want to, because they doubt if they could really and possibly teach their kids.
Why do we doubt ourselves as parents? Because there is the notion that learning depends upon the skill and knowledge of a teacher. To a certain extent, this is true.
But we must realize “The Great Recognition,” as CM mason puts it, the truth that there is a Supreme Educator that teaches all mankind. And it is God, His Holy Spirit, who is the Divine Teacher where every insight and knowledge, whether it is academic (e.g., Math) or spiritual (e.g., understanding the Bible), is from God without which we wouldn’t be able to discern if not for His grace.
Again, we may (already) know this truth. But it is so easy to overlook this.
So we need to remind ourselves because The Great Recognition has significant implications in educating our children.
For one, we tend to focus on ourselves and teach our children on our own strength, as if everything, e.g., their salvation and success in life, depends on us.
But CM says parents are simply co-educators. It means God is the main worker in the work of educating our children.
Also, as humans, we are weak, we have limited strength and capacities, and our own education is limited as well. Moreover, we do not and can not have access to our children’s innermost thoughts and minds, their spirits. But God has, and God can.
It is a great comfort and assurance, therefore, to know that our children’s education does not completely depend on us, not on our skills, knowledge, or expertise. Thus, our burden can be made lighter if we rest on the truth that God is constantly at work in the lives of our children and it is His work and grace that makes our children understand and accept His truth.
And I find it very agreeable that CM acknowledges, emphasizes, and gives credit to the role of God and the Holy Spirit in a child’s educational career. Is there any educational philosophy out there that does this?
…the great recognition, that God the Holy Spirit is Himself, personally, the Imparter of knowledge, the Instructor of youth, the Inspirer of genius, is a conception so far lost to us that we should think it distinctly irreverent to conceive of the divine teaching as co-operating with ours in a child’s arithmetic lesson, for example… the Florentine mind of the middle ages… believed that every fruitful idea, every original conception, whether in Euclid, or grammar, or music, was a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit, without any thought at all as to whether the person so inspired named himself by the name of God, or recognized whence his inspiration came.
Volume 2, pages 270-271
In the things of science, in the things of art, in the things of practical everyday life, his God doth instruct him and doth teach him… Let this be the mother’s key to the whole of the education of each boy and each girl…
Volume 2, page 273
…his practical skill in the use of tools and instruments, from a knife and fork to a microscope, and in the sensible management of all the affairs of life—these also come from the Lord… Let the mother… never contemplate any kind of instruction for her child, except under the sense of the divine co-operation.
Volume 2, pages 273-274
…but the new thing to us is, that grammar, for example, may be taught in such a way as to invite and obtain the co-operation of the Divine Teacher, or in such a way as to exclude His illuminating presence from the schoolroom. We do not mean that spiritual virtues may be exhibited by the teacher, and encouraged in the child in the course of a grammar lesson; this is no doubt true, and is to be remembered; but perhaps the immediate point is that the teaching of grammar… is, we may venture to believe, accompanied by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, of whom is all knowledge.
Volume 2, page 274
…the Lord the Holy Spirit is the supreme educator of mankind…
Volume 3, page 95
We… teach [children] that the Divine Spirit has constant access to their spirits, and is their continual Helper in all the interests, duties and joys of life.
CM’s 20 Principles, Volume 6, page XXXI (A Short Synopsis)
Because CM recognized that there is no distinction between the secular and spiritual life of a child
We sometimes and tend to view education as something secular, as exclusively or simply about learning academics, or something that is non-spiritual and, therefore, does not necessarily matter to God.
But “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (James 1:17)”, which means that every thought or insight, whether it is spiritual (virtue) or academic (knowledge), is from God.
There is, therefore, no dichotomy between the two (knowledge vs. virtue). The academic and spiritual life of a child is, therefore, a united whole.
Following this line of thought, education, therefore, ceases to be a secular pursuit but becomes a very sacred endeavor, instead.
…knowledge and virtue are fundamentally identical, and that if virtue be divine in its origin, so must knowledge be also.
Volume 2, pages 271
We do not merely give a religious education, because that would seem to imply the possibility of some other education, a secular education, for example. But we hold that all education is divine…
Volume 3, page 95
We allow no separation to grow up between the intellectual and ‘spiritual’ life of children…
CM’s 20 Principles, Volume 6, page XXXI (A Short Synopsis)
Because CM knew that good habits produce character
Even before James Clear’s Atomic Habits became a New York Times Best Seller with his “revolutionary” idea that (good) habits can profoundly improve your life, CM had already put forward the case for developing good habits because she knew that habits define character.
This is why habit training from the onset, even before the start of formal academics, is part of her educational philosophy.
…the habits of the child produce the character of the man…
Volume 1, page 118
…parents are either passively or actively forming… habits in their children upon which… future character and conduct depend.
Volume 1, page 118
The child who starts in life with, say, twenty good habits, begins with a certain capital which he will lay out to endless profit as the years go on.
Volume 1, page 136
Because CM highly esteemed and had deep faith in mothers
I was once told by an educator that I can not homeschool because I do not have any training or material to educate my children at home.
Ouch!
But CM says otherwise.
In spite of not being a mother herself, something that others criticize her for, CM demanded a lot and had very high expectations from mothers that a lot of homeschooling mothers say she is out of touch of the realities of motherhood and her demands and expectations are just impossible for any mother to meet, especially in this day and age.
But I believe that CM’s demands and expectations from mothers came from her deep faith that they are able, capable, and qualified for the task of bringing up and educating their children. She actually believed that mothers are the best teachers for their children and that the future depends greatly on them.
And that’s why I love CM. Her great respect for mothers is so far from how other educational philosophies view mothers and parents, where they are made to believe that they are not enough, or inferior, that they are incapable of teaching their children, that they couldn’t possibly provide or do everything their children need to grow into well-educated persons, so they tell them that they (parents) need to send their kids to them, the (so-called) experts.
I cannot count the number of times I’ve been told by well-meaning people to send my kids to school. What does that mean? It means they do not think that I am able, capable, and qualified to educate my children myself. They think other people are better.
So far, CM is the only educational philosophy that I know (let me know if there are others) that highly respects and regards mothers enough to believe that they are qualified for the reason that (only) mothers inherently possess the first agent in education—maternal love.
It is upon the mothers of the present that the future of the world depends… because it is the mothers who have the sole direction of the children’s early, most impressible years.
Volume 1, page 2
“The mother is qualified,” says Pestalozzi, “and qualified by the Creator Himself, to become the principal agent in the development of her child.”
Volume 1, page 2
…mothers work wonders once they are convinced that wonders are demanded of them.
Volume 1, page 44
Mothers are on the whole more successful in communicating [the knowledge of God] than are teachers who know the children less well and have a narrower, poorer standard of measurement for their minds. Parents do not talk down to children…
Volume 6, page 158
Because CM highly esteemed and have deep faith in children
Not only did CM highly esteemed mothers, she highly esteemed children as well.
The first time I finished reading her 6th volume, I remember admiring CM so much because of her high regard and respect for children. Her first principle actually states that “children are born persons”.
Of course, every human is a person.
But what exactly did she mean by “children are born persons”?
Well, while others believed that children’s minds are still undeveloped and, therefore, couldn’t think and comprehend a lot of stuff yet, CM believed otherwise. She believed the minds of children and all their faculties are already present, able and capable of thinking and learning as much as an adult does. This is what she meant when she said that children are born persons.
She believed that children can comprehend and articulate, and in fact, has an appetite and actually crave for what adults may consider as hard or serious stuff. As an analogy, think of solid, real food vs. commercial, cereal baby food.
CM actually frowned upon stuff that are usually marketed for children because she finds that most “for kids” stuff are diluted or watered-down, with no significant nutrients, and would, therefore, not feed children’s minds. They may be appealing (like sweets and candies) but they are not really healthy or useful.
And this is why her philosophy requires that children be provided with only the best and the highest quality of works (solid, real, whole food), whether in terms of literature, music, arts, etc. To do otherwise would be a disservice to children and an assault to their personhood.
…children can take in ideas and principles, whether the latter be moral or mechanical, as quickly and clearly as we do ourselves (perhaps, more so)…
Volume 1, page 229
Imagination does not stir at the suggestion of the feeble, much diluted stuff that is too often put into children’s hands.
Volume 1, page 294
A child is a person in whom all possibilities are present—present now at this very moment—not to be educated after years and efforts manifold on the part of the educator.
Volume 2, page 260
We begin by believing in the children as spiritual beings of unmeasured powers—intellectual, moral, spiritual—capable of receiving and constantly enjoying intuitions from the intimate converse of the Divine Spirit.
Volume 2, page 277
…we recognize that his power of comprehension is at least equal to our own…
Volume 2, page 278
…children are more than we, their elders, except that their ignorance is illimitable.
Volume 6, page 10
Children no more come into the world without provision for dealing with knowledge than without provision for dealing with food. They bring with them not only that intellectual appetite, the desire for knowledge, but also an enormous, an unlimited power of attention to which the power of retention (memory) seems to be attached, as one digestive process succeeds another, until the final assimilation.
Volume 6, pages 14-15
Because CM believed children learn independently, even without instruction
CM believed that teaching, e.g., lecturing, explaining, too much talk, etc. is not only unnecessary but actually hinders children from truly learning (and this has actually been validated by modern science).
CM observed and made the conclusion that children learn independently because it is inherent for a child to learn. It is what a child does. It is his/her function, role, and duty.
As such, the teacher/parent is not responsible for a child’s learning, per se. Again, children are born persons—their minds are already functioning as it should—and the Holy Spirit is the Educator.
And again, as an analogy, think of food. We are responsible for taking in food. But we are never and could never be responsible for its digestion and the assimilation of nutrients. Our bodies do them intuitively and automatically because it is its function. It is how our bodies work.
It is the same with learning. The parents’ responsibility is to present a feast of whole and nutritious brain foods (e.g., ideas found in living books), then leave the “digestion” and “assimilation” of knowledge to the child, letting the child do it’s function.
CM referred to this as self-education.
“…all elaborate and special systems of education… seem to me to be built up on the supposition that every child is a kind of idiot who must be taught to think, whereas if the child is left to himself he will think more and better, if less showily.”
CM quoting Miss Sullivan in Volume 1, pages 195-196
When a child is reading, he should not be teased with questions as to the meaning of what he has read…
Volume 1, page 228
…given the right book, it must not be diluted with talk or broken up with questions, but given to the boy in fit portions as wholesome meat for his mind, in the full trust that a child’s mind is able to deal with its proper food.
Volume 1, page 232
Let them get at the books themselves, and do not let them be flooded with a warm diluent at the lips of their teacher. The teacher’s business is… by no means to be the fountain-head and source of all knowledge in his or her own person. The less parents and teachers talk-in and expound their rations of knowledge and thought… the better for the children… Children must be allowed to ruminate, must be left alone with their own thoughts. They will ask for help if they want it.
Volume 3, page 162
…children were well equipped to deal with ideas, and that explanations, questionings, amplifications, are unnecessary and wearisome. Children have a natural appetite for knowledge which is informed with thought… the whole intellectual apparatus of the teacher, his power of vivid presentation, apt illustration, able summing up, subtle questioning, all these were hindrances and intervened between children and the right nutriment duly served.
Volume 6, pages 10-11
…self-education is the only possible education; the rest is mere veneer laid on the surface of a child’s nature.
Volume 6, page 240
There is no education but self-education and only as the young student works with his own mind is anything effected.
Volume 6, page 289
Because CM believed in the power of reading books…
True story: I was once invited to teach in a very small private college.
A week into my new teaching gig, however, I was instructed by the owner-administrator of the college not to give my students reading assignments more than five pages long because, get this, it would be too much effort on the student’s part. Mahihirapan daw sila. I should limit the time students read, I was told, only during class hours.
Again, true story.
Yes, seriously.
I couldn’t take the insult the school was doing to their students so I quit after a month.
So when I encountered CM, I felt “vindicated” and felt I have found an ally.
Because (a large part of) learning is acquired through reading, which CM is adamant about.
CM argued that because the mind is a spiritual organism, what it feeds on (the food it requires), therefore, should be spiritual in nature as well. And according to CM, the spiritual food of the mind are ideas.
Ideas, as we know, are intangible and, therefore, could only be transmitted between minds, i.e., through reading.
And that’s the necessity of books.
And that’s why in a CM education, (living) books take center stage.
The most common and the monstrous defect in the education of the day is that children fail to acquire the habit of reading.
Volume 1, page 227
A child has not begun his education until he has acquired the habit of reading to himself, with interest and pleasure, books fully on a level with his intelligence.
Volume 1, page 229
Once the habit of reading his lesson-books with delight is set up in a child, his education is—not complete, but—ensured; he will go on for himself in spite of the obstructions which school too commonly throws in his way.
Volume 1, page 229
…knowledge… can best be derived from books, and should be got by the children out of their own books.
Volume 3, page 246
…mind appeals to mind and thought begets thought and that is how we become educated… the only vital method of education appears to be that children should read worthy books, many worthy books.
Volume 6, page 12
…there is only one way of learning, and the intelligent persons who can talk well on many subjects and the expert in one learn in the one way, that is, they read to know.
Volume 6, page 14
Because CM believed that authors are our children’s teachers…
Aside from the principle of self-education (independent learning), another reason we need not teach or lecture children is because we are not their teacher. Again, we are only co-educators of our children.
For CM, the great minds—the authors of great books—are our children’s teachers, through the Great Educator, the Holy Spirit.
The implication of this is, again, my children do not need to depend on me for their education. I need not be an expert. I need not know everything. I simply need to provide them with good books and trust their minds, the authors, and the Holy Spirit to do their work.
And again, as parents, this insight takes so much burden off our shoulders and lightens up the load of raising and educating our children.
Other educational philosophies put emphasis and depend greatly on teachers [who convince parents that they (teachers) are the experts and therefore better than them (the parents) because they are more knowledgeable, trained, have years of experience, accredited, whatever] without which children will not learn.
There is reliance on reliance, reliance on someone else.
But CM relied on the children themselves (their minds), on authors, and on the Holy Spirit.
Other educational philosophies do not believe children are capable of self-learning. And they do not believe that parents are capable of educating their children.
But CM believed otherwise.
When anybody sits down to read, the author who made the book comes and leans over his shoulder and talks to him.
Volume 4, Book 1, Chapter 1, page 3
…choose our authors… and then wait upon them respectfully to hear what they have to say to us.
Volume 4, Book II, Part I, Chapter XII, page 73 (285)
…we owe it to every child to put him in communication with great minds that he may get at great thoughts; with the minds, that is, of those who have left us great works…
Volume 6, page 12
…(however, a book should not just be any book), because CM makes a distinction between twaddle and living books
If not for CM, I wouldn’t be too judgy about books. CM taught me that, like food, there are healthy books and there are junk books.
I didn’t bother judging books before because I used to think that all books are the same and I could just let my children read anything (and just let them read a lot) for them to turn out as intelligent and smart human beings.
But CM challenged my thinking.
She made a distinction between twaddle and living books, the former being junk brain food and the latter being literature that contains living ideas that serve as nutritious food for the mind and is, therefore, a necessity.
Because living books are what feed children’s minds.
Living books are distinct from ordinary story books because a living book captivates a child’s mind. Children fed on living books, thus, find knowledge as something delightful. A love for learning is, therefore, developed at the child’s initiative, without our prodding.
Their lesson-books should offer matter for their reading… therefore they should be written with literary power.
Volume 1, page 229
…the selection of their first lesson-books is a matter of grave importance, because it rests with these to give children the idea that knowledge is supremely attractive and that reading is delightful.
Volume 1, page 229
One more thing is of vital importance; children must have books, living books. The best are not too good for them; anything less than the best is not good enough; and if it is needful to exercise economy, let go everything that belongs to soft and luxurious living before letting go the duty of supplying the books, and the frequent changes of books, which are necessary for the constant stimulation of the child’s intellectual life.
Volume 2, page 279
The children must enjoy the book. The ideas it holds must each make that sudden, delightful impact upon their minds, must cause that intellectual stir, which mark the inception of an idea.
Volume 3, page 178
It is well that we should choose our authors with judgment, as we choose our friends…
Volume 4, Book II, Part I, Chapter XII, page 73 (285)
A child’s intercourse must always be with good books, the best that we can find.
Volume 6, page 51
Because CM considered grades and prizes unnecessary to learn and to love learning
And she believed they actually hinder learning.
According to CM, children are born with curiosities and appetites which is enough to serve as motivation to learn and to love learning.
The key is to feed their minds with things that would spark their imaginations, e.g., great ideas through living books, and not only would their curiosities be satisfied but it would be maintained throughout life as well, making children life long self-learners because they find it a delight to learn.
As such, CM shied away from marks (grades), rewards, punishment, etc. because such tactics kill curiosity and without curiosity, learning would be a drag. (That external motivations hinder learning has been affirmed by modern science as well).
We simply need to satisfy children’s inherent curiosities (by feeding them living ideas) to make them lifelong delightful learners.
And it is another liberating idea because it means we do not need to put so much effort to make learning fun. Learning is fun in and of itself if we keep things just the way they are supposed to be.
…the Desire of Knowledge (Curiosity) was the chief instrument of education; that this desire might be paralysed or made powerless like an unused limb by encouraging other desires to intervene between a child and the knowledge proper for him; the desire for place,—emulation; for prizes—avarice; for power—ambition; for praise—vanity, might each be a stumbling block to him. It seemed to me that we teachers had unconsciously elaborated a system which should secure the discipline of the schools and the eagerness of the scholars,—by means of marks, prizes, and the like,—and yet eliminate that knowledge-hunger, itself the quite sufficient incentive to education.
Volume 6, page 11
Because CM uses narration
Back when my husband was still alive, I once caught him talking to himself. I was curious so I asked him what he was telling himself, and he said that he was just audibly narrating a thought that he needs to remember so he could recall it more easily when he needs it later.
I’m not sure if my husband was completely familiar with CM’s philosophies but when I caught him talking to himself, he exemplified the core of CM’s learning method, which is narration.
Narration, simply put, is telling back (something you have heard or read or even seen, as in a movie) in your own words.
At first glance narration may seem simple and ineffective. But it is not. It is simple, yes, but it does not necessarily mean it is easy.
It is actually a difficult mental exercise because, in the case of oral narrations, a child needs to spontaneously articulate their thoughts in a way that makes sense. And not a lot of people can do it well, at first. Even myself.
Sure you may understand and believe that you understood what you have read, but the true test of your comprehension is if you are able to articulate it, again, in a way that makes sense (e.g., chronologically and cohesively).
I love CM because of narration and I love narration because it is so intuitive/instinctive and natural or organic. As exemplified by my late husband, nobody taught him to narrate but he did so because I believe he instinctively knew that it is the way for him to learn or know.
Apply this concept to children who, we all know, are very talkative. CM simply took advantage of this natural characteristic of children, their love for talking and sharing stories, and “turned” it into a learning strategy.
Learning, therefore, is as natural as it gets.
Now, a person can narrate only if that person has already learned or knows something, a certain topic, for example, i.e., when living ideas have been fed, digested, and assimilated by the person’s mind.
Narration, therefore, is a proof or evidence of learning, albeit intangible like an exam or quiz.
As such, whenever my children narrate, I can be confident that they have comprehended and learned their lesson in “school”.
I need not worry how they perform in exams, then, because exams just usually test what students remember (if not then why are they only done periodically), not necessarily what they understand (in a CM education, narration is required for each and every lesson book).
The way I see it, narration is essentially the opposite, it tests not what a child remembers, but what a child understands.
Narration, lastly, is another reason why we need not lecture and explain too much. Try not to teach, but let a child narrate, instead, and not only will you discover but you will be amazed as well how CM’s “children are born persons” and self-education principles are so, so true.
Narration is actually the heart and soul of a CM education. As AO puts it, “you can have a CM education without classical music, art, or Shakespeare, but you can’t have a CM education without narration from living books.”
Direct questions on the subject-matter of what a child has read are always a mistake. Let him narrate what he has read, or some part of it.
Volume 1, page 228
Narrating is an art, like poetry-making or painting, because it is there, in every child’s mind, waiting to be discovered, and is not the result of any process of disciplinary education.
Volume 1, page 231
As knowledge is not assimilated until it is reproduced, children should ‘tell back’ after a single reading or hearing: or should write on some part of what they have read.
CM’s 20 Principles, Volume 6, page XXX (A Short Synopsis)
Knowledge… only becomes knowledge to a person which he has assimilated, which his mind has acted upon.
Volume 6, page 12
Narrating is not the work of a parrot, but of absorbing into oneself the beautiful thought from the book, making it one’s own and then giving it forth again with just that little touch that comes from one’s own mind.
The Story of Charlotte Mason (Essex Cholmondeley), page 125
Because CM prescribed a broad and generous curriculum
The subjects in a CM education go beyond the basic or core subjects in a typical school because CM believed that children not only need to be exposed to a wide variety of subjects (referred to in CM circles as a “feast”), but it is actually their right.
And because an educated child is a widely educated child.
Also, as CM always compares education to nutrition, a child cannot live on a restricted diet. A child needs a variety of nutrients not only to grow but to be healthy as well. The same is true when it comes to educating the mind.
Moreover, a liberal (in a wide sense) knowledge of things significantly affects how a person forms opinions and convictions and, therefore, the character of a person.
So besides the usual Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, Arts, etc., in a CM education, the feast includes, as early as Year 1, Bible, Poetry, Recitation, Foreign Language, Literature which includes Shakespeare, Nature Study, Geography, Biography of historical personalities, your own country’s History as well as World History, Composer Study (Music Appreciation), Hymns, Folk Songs, Artist Study (Art Appreciation), Handicrafts, and a lot supplemental readings. Higher years/grade levels have more.
And yes, I would admit that we are not able to do each and every subject prescribed by CM (e.g., Foreign Language, Nature Study, Handicrafts) because… well, because we’re humans. But we do try, however imperfectly.
Yes, it looks and can be overwhelming at first glance. But once you ease into a rhythm or routine and get the hang of it, you’d find that it is very doable.
And no, a wide variety of subjects and a great number of living books does not overwhelm a child. On the other hand, such a feast is very enjoyable for a child, just like what CM said. Because who doesn’t love a good feast?
We find that children lay hold of all knowledge which is fitly presented to them with avidity, and therefore we maintain that a wide and generous curriculum is due to them.
Volume 2, page 232
…he has a natural affinity for all knowledge, and has a right to a generous curriculum of studies.
Volume 2, page 247
…yet most of us recognise that the public school often fails, in that it launches the average and dull boy ignorant upon the world because the curriculum has been too narrow to make any appeal to him.
Volume 3, page 246
…young people would be eager to acquire knowledge were they brought to perceive that wide knowledge of men and events is a necessary foundation for convictions which shall be just as well as reasonable. This is one reason why children should have a wide and generous curriculum. We try to put them off with a parcel of ready-made opinions, principles, convictions, and are astonished that these do not stick to them; but such things each of us has to get by his own labour. It is only a person of liberal mind whose convictions are to be trusted, because they are the ripe fruit of his knowledge.
Volume 5, pages 406-407
…the unspoken demand of children is for a wide and very varied curriculum; it is necessary that they should have some knowledge of the wide range of interests proper to them as human beings, and for no reasons of convenience or time limitations may we curtail their proper curriculum.
Volume 6, page 14
The right books are given, but not enough of them. The reading dietary is too meagre for the making of a full man. A score of first-rate books should appear in the school curriculum term by term.
Volume 6, page 305
Because CM did away with busywork
Busywork makes us lose focus on what is important.
In our desire to provide the best education for our children, we sometimes fall into the trap of making our kids do so-called educational activities one after another because we think that we need to keep them busy or we need to have a concrete output to serve as evidence of learning.
Only after learning about CM did I realized that not everything done in the name of education is actually educational or even life-giving. Like some craft activities that are just cut-and-paste or glitter and glue (though I do believe such activities are also beneficial because they develop fine motor skills). Or of writing worksheets that require the child to repetitively write the same letter all over the page.
For CM, these are examples of busywork that keeps kids busy but does not necessarily contribute to the education of children.
I guess it is because of the common notion that busywork is equated with learning.
A lot of people I know actually have the impression that my kids, being homeschooled, work on worksheet after worksheet the whole day. (Others, on the other hand, think that we do online classes). We don’t. There may be homeschooling styles that require worksheet upon worksheet. But not CM.
And this assures me again that I need not worry because the education of my children does not completely depend on me or my ability (or even credibility) or the activities I make them do (or not do).
I used to (and sometimes still) feel insecure and inadequate because I am not a crafty mom nor do I do a lot of “educational activities” with and for my kids. But CM affirmed me that my children can and will still learn even without all the busywork. In fact, she actually asks us to make do without all the busywork.
That being said, I think another strong point of CM, at least for me, is that she appears to be a minimalist and that’s why she appeals so much to a lazy mom like me 😁.
But, seriously, CM actually encourages us to minimize busywork so we can focus, instead, on activities that are truly meaningful and worthwhile.
If education is to secure the step-by-step progress of the individual and the race, it must mean something over and above the daily plodding at small tasks which goes by the name.
Volume 1, page 99
Do not let the endless succession of small things crowd great ideals out of sight and out of mind.
The Story of Charlotte Mason (Essex Cholmondeley), page 160
Because CM believed that learning is a delight
Lastly, but definitely not the least, I love that CM do not view education as a means to pursue our material dreams to live a comfortable life.
Though I have to admit that, as a Filipino, it is part of why we all educate our kids. Living in the Philippines, I don’t think we could completely take away the utilitarian view of education. But it should not be our primary goal, the be-all and end-all of education.
CM, instead, held the belief that learning and education is for delightful living.
She wants children to learn simply for the sake of learning.
We can do away with rewards and prizes because knowledge and the delight it brings is a reward in and of itself and it is the most satisfying reward there is.
…of all the joyous motives of school life, the love of knowledge is the only abiding one; the only one which determines the scale, so to speak, upon which the person will hereafter live.
Volume 3, page 246
It may be that the souls of all children are waiting for the call of knowledge to awaken them to delightful living.
Volume 6, page XXV (Author’s Preface)
…the people themselves begin to understand and to clamour for an education which shall qualify their children for life rather than for earning a living.
Volume 6, page 3
That’s it!
I know it’s very long but I hope you enjoyed reading as much as I enjoyed writing.
What I have shared above, however, are just a few of CM’s principles. To have a complete understanding of her philosophy, I would have to reiterate what those who are more experienced says: read CM volumes.
It really makes a difference when you read directly her own words compared to just reading an interpretation of her words in blogs. (Yes, even this blog).
But I hope what I have shared gave you an understanding of CM as an educational philosophy and why we chose to homeschool with her methods.