Banner
A Lot of Work Yet to Do PDF Print E-mail
Education - Education
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Monday, 11 April 2011 06:49

Let me begin by recommending this conference, and then add a few words commending the topic of it.

Classical Conversations, sponsor of this conference, is doing fine work promoting classical education for a homeschool setting. The conference features both Nancy Pearcey and Leigh Bortins. Leigh Bortins is the founder of Classical Conversations, and Nancy Pearcey is the author of Total Truth and Saving Leonardo. I have not yet gotten to my copy of Saving Leonardo, but Total Truth was fantastic. What we need is worldview thinking that does not have that deadly whiff of sulphurous pomothot, and that is what Pearcey delivers -- biblical worldview thinking that actually believes the Bible . . . always a plus in my book. If you are able to attend this conference, I think you will be edified.

When I said I wanted to commend the topic of the conference, I meant beyond the time frame of this conference. I meant for years to come. Involved as we have been in the recovery of classical Christian education, the focus has been on the lower grades, and at some point we have to seriously address what we use to fill out higher education.

The medieval university used to be centered on the "seven liberal arts," which the early father Cassiodorus identified with the seven pillars of the house of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs. First was the Trivium, and then the Quadrivium. The first word referred to a three-way intersection of subjects -- grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. After that, the students took up the study of four subjects -- arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.

ACCS schools follow what I call the "Sayers Insight," using the inculcation of the Trivium as "the tools of learning," and therefore as a fundamental prerequisite for the learning of anything else (whether the subjects of the Quadrivium or not). Further, the Trivium itself has been broken out in sequential fashion, starting first with grammar, then moving on to dialectic, and then to rhetoric.

Here are some of the problems our discussion of the Quadrivium has to address. We are engaged in this labor at New St. Andrews, and I am grateful that others are taking up the challenge as well.

First, in the medieval period it was possible for a man to learn all that a university had to teach. Today that is impossible. Some of this is a function of the universities losing their way in a morass of "subjects" "majors" and "electives," and the rest a function of us knowing a whole lot more than we used to. The tipping point was about the time of the Renaissance, and the lost ideal of a Renaissance man.

Second, a glance at the subjects of the Quadrivium doesn't seem to us to reveal anything that is specifically liberal artsy. Arithmetic? Geometry? Astronomy? The closest cousin is music, and a modern liberal arts degree need not include a lick of music (although we allow, in a broadminded way, that it may). Just as the modern university has wandered from the way, so also the orphaned major for future English teachers has accepted a very truncated view of what it means to be educated in the liberal arts. The medieval approach included high levels of what we would call engineering, which is why the cathedrals are still standing. The modern tendency has been to divorce and isolate things that belong together.

And last, a classical education that truly equips the modern student needs to include subjects that were not part of the medieval system, but needs to figure out a way to do so that is not an insult to this ancient structure of education. A cathedral is not a structure that cannot have an addition built centuries later. That has been done many times. Not only so, but it has been done in atrocious ways, and in ways that matched the original genius. That is an image that we need to have in mind as we figure out where to put the calculus and the American history.

But in any case, we have a lot of work to do.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Tim Enloe  Monday, April 11, 2011 10:25 am
As I've gained some experience on the lower grades, something I've been wrestling with is whether "the Sayers Insight" is sufficient, or even if it is being properly used as it is.

A Liberal Arts education was in the ages when it was dominant, primarily a *literary* education - as in, primarily based in literature. The Trivium was not so much generic "tools of learning" as it was an entire program of literary education. Each text read had its own grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and by continual and reflective exposure to many, many texts, the whole effect on the learning mind was to open it up to Reality, to make it "free" (libera) of unexamined prejudices and able to receive the lessons of Reality without fear of having to change opinions because of being shown to be wrong.

I don't know how it would work in our modern context, especially with some of our modern subjects like the hard sciences, but it seems to me that a return to *literature* as the basis of the whole education is a step that needs to be taken. Children should be reading lots of books in an environment of seriously talking about those books, and doing less "worksheets" and "quizzes" and "tests" that are all tied into a mechanistic, scientificized system of "grades" and "GPAs" and so forth.
Tim Enloe  Monday, April 11, 2011 10:27 am
Of course, the hurdles to such ideas as I noted above would be not just Government intrusion, but getting the parents who pay the bills to understand that "grades" and "GPAs" and the like are not true measures of education.
Caca Fuego  - Liberal arts for all?  Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:37 am
One Charybdisian question that will need to be addressed without getting the ship sucked to the bottom concerns the students themselves -- do all people need to go to college? There are different approaches proposed by conservatives who see the mainstream answer ("Yes! Of course!") as flawed.

From a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on educational philosophy:

Quote:
I understand why the top students in America study physics, chemistry, calculus and classic literature. The kids in this brainy group are the future professors, scientists, thinkers and engineers who will propel civilization forward. But why do we make B students sit through these same classes? That's like trying to train your cat to do your taxes—a waste of time and money. Wouldn't it make more sense to teach B students something useful, like entrepreneurship?

This reminded me of Charles Murray's three-part series in the WSJ on educating "B students" differently -- "Intelligence in the Classroom," "Aztecs vs. Greeks," and "What's Wrong with Vocational School?" (cf. also his "For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time") and Christopher Caldwell's "What a College Education Buys" which is in part a comment on that series.
Tim Enloe  Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:04 am
No, all people do not need to go to college. This myth, which I myself grew up hearing, is based on an "instrumentalization" of education in the sense that education has come to be seen as just one more tool useful for "getting a job" and "making money." Why should you go to college? Because "having a degree" will enable you to get a better job and make more money.

This is central fallacy of our age, and sadly, I think many universities are complicit in it. It is, after all, "good for business," and mainstream education these days isn't much if not a business.