Differences in Methods-Beechick vs. Mason

*This is a re-post I wrote a while back about the difference in Ruth Beechick and Charlotte Mason*

I was recently explaining to someone the differences between the Ruth Beechick and Charlotte Mason methods of education, and thought I'd share here, in case someone else might be wondering the same thing. These are merely my opinions and findings from what I've read. I don't claim to know all about either method.

Both methods are very similar, but there are some distinct differences. First I'll discuss some of the ways that they are similar:

• They both endorse the use of "real" or "living" books as a means to educate children.
• They both encourage memorization of poetry.
• They both say that  the education of the "whole child" is what's important, as in teach to the child, not to the grade level.
• Both of them use copywork and dictation as a means to teach language arts, but in very different ways.
• The both believe in delaying formal grammer.
• Both teach that math should be learned by real life application for the most part.

So now that we know some similarities, let's see what some of their differences are:

• Charlotte Mason, in my opinion, had a much more liberal worldview. I do believe she was a Christian, but at that time, the evolutionary theory was accepted as the norm. Ruth Beechick, has a very strong Biblical view of everything from creation on.
• Charlotte Mason pushed heavy structure from an early age, though she did say that children should get their school done in the morning, so that they could be free to play and enjoy nature in their afternoon free time. School time was very structured though. Children started learning history, science, and other subjects, at the same time they were learning to read, and learn basic writing and math. Ruth Beechick teaches a much more relaxed approach, learning most things, especially early on through real life learning, or the "immersion method", otherwise know as living what you learn. This continues, adding structure and curriculum as needed, pushing the child only to their frustration point, not past it. She said children should be able to focus on the "3 R's" (reading, writing, and arithmetic) until 4th grade on up, when they start learning other subjects.
• Charlotte Mason used copywork as a means mostly to learn handwriting. She taught formal grammer as a seperate subject when the student was around 10 or 11. Dictation was used to teach spelling. Narration was used to teach composition, first orally, and later as written narrations. Ruth Beechick uses copywork and dictation to teach all aspects of language arts, from handwriting to grammer(using only gentle introductions until middle school), to spelling, and even composition. She also helps you condense things further by saying you can get your copywork/dictation passages from whatever the child is reading, general reading, Bible, history, or science. You can read a little more about how this is done here.
• Charlotte Mason teaches history in chronological order, I believe in 6 year rotations. History is taught by reading lots of "living" books for that time period, and having the children narrate them. Ruth Beechick promotes the use of unit studies, incorporating your language arts and other writing around what you are studying, and says that there really is no need to teach history chronologically, except for maybe in high school, simply to pull together all that they've learned.
• Science, from what I've seen, in the Charlotte Mason method is taught mostly through nature study, and again "living" books. For Ruth Beechick there's not much a difference except that she says that you can also learn science through unit studies as well.

So you can see that both differ a little bit. I think, though, that both methods would work wonderfully together, or on their own. I, personally, lend myself towards a more Beechick approach, simply because I love the relaxed and more integrated style of it. But I don't mind incorporating a little bit of Charlotte Mason as I see the need or desire to.

Blessings,
sara