Ever since classical education became popular again, I've been trying to wrap my mind around what it is. Some people tell me that I'm a classical educator. Others say I'm not. I can't figure out who has the "naming rights" to say what is and isn't "classical."
One thing I do know. I like my congregation's school, and it's definitely known as a classical academy. I like how the teachers and students interact. I love how the staff recognizes that they draw their authority from the parents, and don't see the parents as the ones there to support the school. I like many of the materials they use at our school; their list of books looks remarkably similar to mine (except for math and grammar). I love that our school has chapel every day and great catechesis.
The last couple of weeks, I've been editing a project for the school. Over and over again, the materials talk about "training a child to think." Even when the materials tell about Latin class or memorizing math factoids, it's always with "teaching them to THINK" in view.
This makes me wonder if the ability to think critically is the main determinant of what constitutes "classical education." And if so, would those who consider themselves "classical" see others (who use very different methods to achieve thinkingness) as classical too?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dunno if this helps you or not, but I think that the popularity of classical education really has its roots (whether we're conscious of it or not) in C.S. Lewis, who had a huge impact on the way we think about a "liberal" (for him) or "classical" education.
ReplyDeleteFor him, a proper education had three primary elements (not subjects): grammar, logic, rhetoric. Every subject has a grammar, a fundamental knowledge that has to be learned - but you can't just stop there. You have to proceed to logic, learning how to *think* about the subject. And from there, he even said that we ought to become so comfortable with every subject, so knowledgeable, so able to think about it, that we can talk about it. That's not all that "rhetoric" entails, but that's a pretty basic overview.
Also of note: Lewis didn't like tests and he didn't like secondary sources.
He didn't come up with a rigorous method for achieving all of these things (grammar, logic, rhetoric), but these three things he emphasized a lot and said were the three cornerstones of a "classical" or "liberal" education.
When I say that Lewis didn't come up with a rigorous method for achieving all of these things, that's not quite correct - he did for his own students. But he didn't say that there was "one method" for achieving these goals. I'm not sure how anyone can possibly make that claim.
ReplyDeleteNathan, I realize that "grammar, logic, rhetoric" is one of the cornerstones of classical education. I do not, however, understand why it is unique to classical ed. I mean, there are different ways classical-ed handles the stages than does progressive-ed. But still, it's very simple that you have to know something about a subject before you can think about it, and you can't persuade anyone about the subject until you've thought about it first. So, although classical-ed claims the "grammar, logic, rhetoric" stages as their thing, I'm not sure I agree. The lingo may be unique to classical-ed, but I think the reality is pervasive through all educational philosophies.
ReplyDelete"The lingo may be unique to classical-ed, but I think the reality is pervasive through all educational philosophies."
ReplyDeleteI agree that the grammar/logic/rhetoric paradigm reflects how most people learn most things. But I don't think all educational philosophies acknowledge that to be the case. Not all of them use it to inform how things are taught. One of the big problems with modern progressive education is that too often it asks kids in the grammar phase to do logic or rhetoric types of tasks they are not ready for. It works against what is natural, whereas I think the classical paradigm of grammar/logic/rhetoric builds on it.
Cheryl, I agree that schools may ask kids to do things they are not ready for, but I can't help but think that the progressive-ed teachers think that the kids have some knowledge of the subject [grammar stage]. How could they ask them to write about something or analyze it or give a presentation on the subject (or solve a problem) if the kids have no knowledge? Now, maybe the teachers haven't taught that information, but aren't they assuming the kids have picked it up somewhere?
ReplyDelete"How could they ask them to write about something or analyze it or give a presentation on the subject (or solve a problem) if the kids have no knowledge?"
ReplyDeleteExactly. But I think that's exactly what they do sometimes. They ask elementary school kids to have and express opinions about political or cultural topics that even the experts haven't figured out. They ask kids to come up with plans for solving societal problems that people have never been able to solve. I think they often skip right over teaching the what of a topic (because that's so boring, you see) and zoom ahead to the how and the why because it is more interesting and open-ended and "fun." So instead of learning who the presidents were and what they did, elementary students go right to discussing what makes a good president. That sort of thing. And I don't think the teachers think the students already have that info. They just don't think it's important. I think it is a big part of the problem with education today.