"Classical education basically means good education: teaching students how to learn anything by defining and storing terms, clearly thinking about the reconciliation of new ideas with old information, and wisely using knowledge and understanding to benefit their community."
The definition disturbed me so I thought about it for a while and then posted a comment on the blog stating that I felt the post missed the classical boat somewhat. Within minutes my comment was removed. As a matter of fact, I noticed that the author had no comments whatsoever on her blog which left me wondering if others had ever disagreed with her. So since I have my own blog (forum), I decided to put my thoughts up here.
While the definition above could be a definition of 'good education' it most certainly misses the classical mark. But in many homeschooling circles anything that seems better than what is going on in the public schools is termed 'classical.'
Not too long ago I had this to say about the current use of the term 'classical':
To begin with CiRCE is a conference for classical educators, but I have decided not to use the word CLASSICAL anymore. The word has been hijacked to the point of meaninglessness. It has become a marketing scheme and a tool. We now have programs that can only be called blab schools being marketed as classical: Classical Blab.
Andrew Kern's definition of classical education:
"Classical education is the cultivation of wisdom and virtue by nourishing the soul on truth, goodness, and beauty by means of the seven liberal arts and the four sciences. "
Let us just say that we will now, on this blog, dismiss the term classical and begin to talk about true education without the formerly helpful word classical. Let me also say that I think the the ideas promoted by Charlotte Mason in her original books clearly fall within the boundaries of that definition. But I am done with categories.
I am sick to death of McClassical, distilled and denuded of life marketed via fear and anxiety."
The author of the previously quoted blog added this to her definition:
"For example, a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) who uses accounting practices to ensure the company’s employees receive the salaries they deserve, shares the good news that God loves honest scales whether the CFO knows it or not. A CFO who uses accounting practices to cheat the CEO reveals the depravity of man and our need for the good news.
Both know the lingo and principles (grammar) of accounting. Both know how to reconcile their understanding (dialectic) of accounting practices. Both know how to use their understanding and knowledge by manipulating their results for good or evil."
The above quotation doesn't seem to have anything to do with classical education. Neither man appears to have been educated classically. Classical cannot be a stand-in definition for theology or "I agree with this practice." As a matter of fact, doing good is not a stand in for theology either. CFO #1 may be an honest and fair CFO but that makes him neither theologically sound nor classically educated.
The liberal arts, as we have frequently stated, were the arts of the free man. The liberal arts cannot be married to utility because they are outside the realm of utility.
Divorcing the grammar of a subject from ideas is unnatural and soulless and cannot under any circumstances be called 'classical.' The reason I bring this up is because much of what is termed classical these days separates ideas from all three stages of the trivium. This is unnatural and inappropriate. The ideas are the thing to win the heart of the king.
And by the way "Conversation" goes two ways. That means you can disagree with me if you want to.
30 comments:
I'm looking for the "like" button! Any definition of education that smacks of pragmatism makes my skin crawl. I recently ran across a quote by Horace Mann that basically argued for universal "education" by talking about the importance of having wise judges, informed citizens, blah blah blah. What Mann seems to miss, along with everyone else, is that a liberally educated man will be a good citizen, a wise juror, etc, but educating with the goal of citizenship in mind will not produce a liberal/free mind.
(Pardon my half-formed distracted thought here; it sounds like I have at least one child in the throes of death in the next room :)
So you do or don't want to talk about 'classical'? :)
I like Kern's definition, myself. It is helpful for me, when I approach a new subject, to know the categories of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and to know that I can use those categories as a sort of methodology for attacking that subject. However, comma, my final, ultimate goal for my children is not that they be able to "learning anything" (even though I do hope they are able to). It is, rather, what Kern says. I mean, really, if you leave off the "seven liberal arts and the four sciences" portion of the statement, Kern is almost explaining what it means to be a Christian parent.
Angelina: Hope no one died. ;)
Mystie: Stirring the pot again so soon? :)
You caught me, Mystie. I actually caught myself but decided to ignore myself.
Cindy, I knew you realized it, and I wanted to comment in order to subscribe to the comments. :)
I count that there are at least 4 distinct groups that use the term 'classical' mean something different by it. SWB, Adler, Memoria Press, ACCS, & any curriculum that isn't a textbook or unit study. Who is "right" in their use? I don't know. I think I would grant the word to the classicists if I had to pick a group, and then I'd count myself among the "true education" types. :)
And they thought "classical" sounded elitist. :)
Oh good, Cindy. This conversation is still going. I am not educating my children in order to get a job, I am educating my children in order to be "real" human beings. My father would disinherit me if he knew that. ;) He is the ultimate pragmatist.
I love Psalm 19 because it contains so much of what I want my children to know--God and His creation, His law which is perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true and righteous, and the beauty which is found in Him, in His world, and the lovely poetry in which He wrote it. In fact, if I were really daring and radical, I think I could cobble together a "classical" education just using the Bible, a math book, and nature. But I'm too much of a coward to ignore the hoops to be jumped in order to go to college.
Joy(VA) whose oldest is taking the PSAT for the first time tomorrow--where have the years gone?
One of the things I said in my original comment on the other blog was that while I spend a lot of time on this blog discussing these things I am still hesitant to call what I do in my home classical.
Charlotte Mason has a book called, Toward a Philosophy of Education. I have always liked the humility of that title. I am moving towards classical in a sense.
I completely understand what you are saying, Joy. I have often thought if I was really doing 'classical' I wouldn't need to buy another thing.
These sorts of disagreements can be very helpful in forcing the defining of terms.
So let's see - classic methodology, classic content, classic outcome as would be viewed as classical somewhere around 1500-2000 years ago in the West... will that do? Problem is that sinful humans will always try to twist the outcomes to fit their own desires.
Precisely, Dave :) which is why I say lets just lose the word "classical."
Make that "let's".
Lack of continuity in form and definition seems to be a mark of post-modernism.
For example, not too many years ago everyone would have understand what the word *marriage* means/meant.
Now it's been re-defined.
Education is not the only area affected by this affliction :-\
Discernment required.
Though it's unpleasant, and people often don't play fair, don't you think "fighting" for a proper definition of a useful word is a worthwhile pursuit? I think Dana's analogy to the word "marriage" is a good one, and other helpful terms that are necessary for description and understand also deserve to be held tightly by those who care about real communication. Without those terms to define and pin down meaning, then we are without an anchor.
If anyone can help bring some understanding to what "classical" education is, I think you are up for it. :-)
Yes, I'd rather not give it over quickly, if it is what we are striving for. On the other hand, we also have to communicate with whoever our audience is. I hesitate to identify myself as classical in my own circles, because people assume I mean SWB/WTM.
I *love* Kern's definition. That's what I want to strive for. However, is it the proper definition for the word? That's what I don't know. My understanding (I hope, anyway) of education is informed more by (or at least persuaded more by) the nature of God & man & Creation than in Aristotle or Plato or anything of that sort (anything I know that is actually classical in that sense is third-hand, and I have no desire to delve there myself). So is it really classical still? Christian classical? Christ-centered classical?
What *does* it mean to be classical? My priorities and mindset are in shifting mode right now, as I absorb the conference talks.
Or, if we give over classical to the others who want to claim it, what is the best alternative?
Historically, *classical* means
of, or pertaining to, or characteristic of Greek and Roman antiquity
Soooooo,
IF
one is striving for a Christian/Biblical worldview in the education of their charges, discernment is in order when choosing *classical* ONLY.
As I said before I am more comfortable saying that I am "towards" something more so than having arrived.
And this got me thinking. I don't particular mind that SWB uses the term classical even when I disagree with her methods. She is shooting "towards" a mark.
But to absolutely not even strive for the mark and just pick up a word almost as a marketing tool, is something else altogether.
Classical may mean many things but there are some things that it does not mean.
I don't want to be the gate keeper over the word Classical but I do want to at least speak up when it is used to produce fear and anxiety.
For most people classical just means rigorous and I am beginning to think that is an unfair way of looking at the word.
"Classical may mean many things but there are some things that it does not mean."
Good point!
Hm, I was just looking up Kern's quote again, and actually he splits it between 'education,' 'classical,' and 'Christian.' Education is cultivating the soul on TGB, classical is the seven liberal arts and the four science, and Christian is toward the end of knowing and glorifying God. So, according to his definitions, I am all in on education & Christian education, and I'm still figuring out the classical bit.
So, perhaps the biggest distinction isn't in the classical, but in education vs. schooling.
That is, "all in" in the sense of being convinced and working "toward" it, not that I've got it already, of course! :)
I need more information and thinking time before I know whether or not I'm working toward, because I haven't figured out exactly what that means or looks like. I'm on board with the trivium - Latin, Logic, & Rhetoric, but that might be as far as I can get.
And I'm only in it theoretically, philosophically right now, as we're only in 1st grade here! :)
When did it start being called "Classical"? If it was in the middle ages, that makes sense. For us though, what we're striving toward is something that came into its own in the middle ages and then got derailed. We want to recover the best of that, and add to it.
Therefore I'm inclined to call it Medieval education... but then I like yanking people's chains and I know what the word "medieval" conjures up in most folks' minds.
*evil grin*
I meant to say "build on it" not "add to it."
Okay, I've been thinking about this more and I think that my own method would more be called medieval, which I see someone already mentioned, and part of that is because I hesitate to outright hold hands with the Greeks and Romans. However, I also use a Hebraic method in that I think in the Shema there is an actual method suggested: conversation throughout daily life, focusing on permanent things. I do not think the Official Classical Method necessarily includes the latter...
I love this conversation. Everyone's thoughts are helping me draw lines in my mind as far as where one thing ends and another begins.
I had also thought about 'medieval.' My biggest hesitation is my recent love affair with Socratic dialogue. Socratic dialogue has in it the seed for putting rest back into classical education and also I think it is more like what Christ did with his disciples and similar to Deuteronomy 6:6-9.
I think the interesting thing about the New Classical is that it takes Classical adds Christian and then removes Classical. Or it is like a skeleton with all the life sucked out of it. Rigorous maybe but lifeless.
After re-reading the original definition again and checking my own biases, I still have such a visceral reaction that that is *not* what a classical education is. The first word that jumps out at me is "basically". "Classical education is *basically* good education..." Is it that basic? That obvious? So simple? Then why have the classical modes and content been rejected and slowly erased from education in the west? Surely no one has stopped wanting "good" education.
There is something in classical education that offends the modern mind to the point that these ancient paths have been forsaken (with relish!).
Is it the content--goodness, truth, beauty, permanent/great ideas, the apparent lack of utility in being liberally educated?
Is it the structure--first the liberal arts (which include the mathematical arts of the quadrivium), then the natural, humane, philosophic and theological sciences? We want to seem to know so many things, so we place subjects before arts.
Or is it the ends?--Wisdom and virtue. The good life. The wise man speaking well. Etc.
I'm hesitant to ignore the wisdom of the Greeks in education as well, Cindy. I think I have more in common with a pre-modern Greek who believes that education should form the soul and move a man toward understanding the good, true, and beautiful. Than the modern Christian who (mistakenly) sees education as training for a vocation. Who sees education as merely a set of tools to problem solve and make good choices.
At last year's Circe conference Andrew spoke about the history of education in America. And his description of turn-of-the-century "liberal arts" education, looks much like what I see in most contemporary stylings of classical ed. There is a solid emphasis on the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic, classic works of western literature are studied, and Latin is a required course. Is this classical? Has enough been recovered at this point? Or is there something more than the right subjects to study in the right order?
I think it must be about the end goals. But the goals will change what is studied and how. If education is to cultivate wisdom and virtue in a student, then we must put before them good, true, and beautiful ideas on which their minds can feed. This is where the content of the truly classical education is important--we know there are certain works in the Western tradition filled with these great ideas. And we know that there are arts (grammar, dialectic, rhetoric) which better enable the student to read, contemplate, and speak about these great ideas. There are modes of instruction which are superior to leading a student toward this reading, thinking, speaking--Socratic and mimetic.
The problem seems to be that we want to take these older ideas (classical education in general) and force it to fit our modern scientific categories. As though people are computers or experiments. Put in the data for later retrieval and optimal output.
I realize these comments are a little scattered. I've been sick and in a house with little sick ones all week, so my powers of communication are more sub-par than usual! Ask Angelina, I'm more coherent in live conversations where there's back and forth, since I think best while speaking. ;-)
It's been a great discussion though!
Jami
Amen, Jami!!
Honestly, the heart of the whole thing may lie in assessment. As long as we continue to assess with the same tools our methods will be essentially the same, no matter what we call them.
Being home from church with sick children (again) is allowing me some time to read back through this.
I am not completely content with what I said before about holding hands with the Greeks and Romans, and I do think the modes of instruction that Jami mentioned (Socratic and mimetic) are extremely helpful, and I am deliberately learning more about them in order to use them here at home.
With that said, the reason I made the comment about Greeks and Romans has to do with the fact that it was a completely pagan culture that Christians were called out of and so I do believe that this should give me pause. At the same time, we can raise the question: were the modes of instruction peculiar to the Greeks? Or are they good things which transcend the Greek culture?
I am thinking here of, for instance, Colossians 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." The empty philosophy and tradition of men at that time was...Roman in nature. Hence my hesitation.
However, I just caught up on some reading over on Dana's blog, and this helped me a lot. She quotes a book (Education in America) which says: The medieval philosophers, in studying Aristotle and Plato, wished to know all those things and only those things which were true. Where the truths of these philosophers were not complete, they asked themselves how to complete them.
I am also assuming that whatever was not true was thrown out.
My personal concern is that I embrace Christ rather than Greek speculation. I am not saying that there are not Permanent Things which the Greeks can teach us, but rather that our beliefs about everything, including education, rest firmly first and foremost in Scripture.
As an example, I would say that when John Hodges taught in his lecture The Nature of the Arts and Their Place in the Curriculum that singing inspires every significant human activity, and his entire argument was based on the idea that Zeus and Memory had nine daughters, the Muses, and the Muses inspired all important human activity, and they did this by singing, I get concerned. He is basically asserting that a Greek myth reveals something absolute and knowable about the nature of the universe, a precarious position to take, in my opinion. I spent some time in Scripture trying to sort this out. And I do think that Scripture points to music having far greater significance than we think of it; I have more study I want to do on that topic. However, arguing for a permanent concept like that from Greek pagan mythology alone concerns me.
Does this make sense?
So I guess what I'm struggling here is not just definitions alone, but making sure that my definitions and methods are always and forever subjected to the correction of Scripture.
Brandy,
I don't have time right now for a thorough comment but I just want to say that I think it is valid for a Christian to question the things you are questioning. Essential. But in my own questioning I have become more comfortable with some things Greek than I was in earlier years. There are still many, many things I think we should avoid. I am not even one of those who is able to justify certain topics as plundering the Egyptians. The Bible clearly tells us to not even discuss "the things they do in secret" so I almost always err on not reading about blatant sin.
So this haggling away at a definition really is helpful..for me.
Cindy,
I just wanted to thank you for creaing a place for "helpful haggling"--not argument and debate for the mere sake of argument and debate, but rather a chance for all of us to think aloud together while searching out the truth. I always appreciate your blog.
Hi Cindy,
I'm just now catching up with my blog subscriptions and hope it's not too late to jump in here. Some quick observations -
If we don't define this, someone else will (and they are). Let's not give up!
When I hear rigorous (as it is used in a "we're so rigorous" sense) I immediately think of "rigor mortis." Not a good association for me! I don't want to "kill" anything when I teach it. (Thinking of Andrew K's analogy of studying a carcass rather than a living thing.)
I'm a female. I think by talking. Thank you for opening up this conversation.
Hugs,
Renee
You crack me up, Renee!!
Hi Cindy,
I help to moderate the blog you mentioned, and just wanted to drop you a note to apologize for your difficulties in posting a comment. Your comment certainly wasn't deleted; there must have been a glitch in the site, as it never appeared for us. Hope you'll try again! Thanks for opening the conversation here as well...
-Jen, CC Team
Thanks for the taking time to comment, Jen. But I am still confused. You don't ever get comments on your blog? Maybe there is a glitch with your comment program. I did comment and it said 1 comment when I was finished and then the comment was gone.
Classical Conversations frequently refers to the number of families in its sphere. Do these families not read the blog? Read and never comment?
Because of the nature of comments this may sound antagonistic but my tone is sincere questioning about your system for comments.
I know many, many people who are interested in these topics and in the nature of classical models would love to discourse on some of the topics on your blog. It would be a great forum to continue to haggle our way to a definition that would benefit all. Iron sharpening iron.
Post a Comment