False Promises of Classical Education

[Trivium Academy]

I'm doing research right now for a talk I'm giving this weekend about classical education and I found this scathing article about classical education, namely Adler's Great Books, Cultural Literacy and The Well-Trained Mind as secular selections and goes onto Christian Classical starring Doug Wilson.

 

I'm very interested in what some of the veterans think about this. Do you feel that teaching logic and reading Great Books provided your children with a useable education? Are we missing the mark?

 

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-summer/false-promise-classical-education.asp

 

Curious,

[Daisy]

I started reading it but I've got to cook dinner. I may have to print it off and mull over it a while. Initial reaction is that I agree with SOME of what he says, but can already tell that I'm going to chuck much of what he is saying out the window because his bias is already shining through. But maybe I'm reading into it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since I haven't gotten through it all yet. I'm also not a die-hard classical educator so anything I "get" out of the ariticle will have to be evaluated in that light.

[Audrey]

I think one of the biggest criticisms of classical homeschooling stems from it's Western focus. Sure, let's just have them read the Great Books (of dead white males) and study (dead white male) logic and rhetoric, and learn Latin (a language only used by priviledged white people). *please read the slight edge of sarcasm in that*

 

I don't completely disagree with that criticism. Much of what classical homeschoolers are studying is very euro-centric. However, we live in a culture whose iconography is euro-centric. We need to know those references. Additionally, we who are "in the trenches" of homeschooling see that there is more to classical education than a small handful of books, none of which can be called the definitive work on classical homeschooling. I would go so far as to argue that even all together, they still do not define classical homeschooling. Depending upon the homeschooler -- and who could argue that we are not a massively diverse bunch? -- one may choose to steer the focus in any number of non-eurocentric directions at any given point in the school term.

 

As to the question: are we missing the mark? Yes, some of us are most definitely missing the mark. We are educating human beings -- human beings with all their individual quirks and foibles -- not automatons. We cannot expect to pull out a single cookie cutter curriculum and expect it to work for all of our children. Some of us do not take the extra steps to customize, tweak and re-work resources to make them suit what our individual children need. So, in that sense, yes -- sometimes we are missing the mark. However, we are not missing the mark any more than any other educational form is, whether that be traditional public schools, progressive private schools or anything else.

[Mama Bear]

Quoting from the article, wherein TWTM is criticized:

 

There is no stage in a child’s development during which it is proper to teach him facts apart from their relationships to one another, because beyond the perceptual level, no fact is self-contained, or intelligible on its own, independent of connections to and differentiations from the rest of his knowledge. While teaching a young child the meaning of the word “renowned,†you would not properly ask him to memorize the definition and part of speech. You might offer examples of historical figures who could be called renowned and ask the students to think of examples of their own; you might compare “renowned†to “famous†or “infamous,†identifying the common element of their meanings and making clear the distinctions among them; you might ask the students to think of an antonym for renowned; you might ask them to write a fictional paragraph that describes someone who goes from obscurity to renown. Such exercises, which require connections, differentiations, applications, and creativity from the child, are essential to his coming to thoroughly grasp the meaning of the word.

 

Well, duh.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes take a while to digest these things and that my second or fifteenth looks at the material are often far more revealing, but... I think the author's "complaint" is exactly why I use TWTM. While my kids don't do everything just as TWTM lays it out (and who does?), I've found it to be indispensable as a model, in large part for exactly the attributes which the author claims make it weak.

 

I'm wondering what others will have to say. Clarity seems elusive when reading through such condescension. The tone rather obscures the argument for me.

[Trivium Academy]

 

As to the question: are we missing the mark? Yes, some of us are most definitely missing the mark. We are educating human beings -- human beings with all their individual quirks and foibles -- not automatons. We cannot expect to pull out a single cookie cutter curriculum and expect it to work for all of our children. Some of us do not take the extra steps to customize, tweak and re-work resources to make them suit what our individual children need. So, in that sense, yes -- sometimes we are missing the mark. However, we are not missing the mark any more than any other educational form is, whether that be traditional public schools, progressive private schools or anything else.

 

Maybe I should have expanded that question. What I mean is, are we missing the mark by trying to teach logic and read the Great Books with children who have no scope of understanding beyond what we are feeding them? There have been many conversations about books that meant more, had more depth when read as an adult or even in college moreso that in younger years.

 

When we attempt to teach our logic stage students logic, is it really helping them in the long run or are we throwing a difficult subject their way in hopes of producing a well-thinking individual even though they might not possess the maturity and worldly knowledge to utilize the learned information in an effective way. I'm not talking about cookie cutter education, I want to know about the subjects that classical education exposes students to that other approaches aren't using: Latin, logic, rhetoric, Great Books studies involving analytical reading, and philosophy.

 

I saw the bias in the article, the misjudgments, the lack of deeper research further than reading the actual books that were foot-noted and possibly not even reading the books foot-noted in their entirety. I understand that.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I'm doing research right now for a talk I'm giving this weekend about classical education and I found this scathing article about classical education, namely Adler's Great Books, Cultural Literacy and The Well-Trained Mind as secular selections and goes onto Christian Classical starring Doug Wilson.

 

I'm very interested in what some of the veterans think about this. Do you feel that teaching logic and reading Great Books provided your children with a useable education? Are we missing the mark?

 

 

 

It seems worth recognizing that this "journal" is devoted to the philosophy of objectivism, which is the philosophy originated (or at least popularized) by Ayn Rand.

 

I think that she overstates the disconnectedness of what is studied under classical education. Does magnetism and atomic structure show up in the primary grades, yes, at some level. But to teach a child that atoms exist is no more reliant on faith than to teach them that Hawaii exists (or to explain to a Hawaiian child what a tornado or snow is like).

 

On the other hand, if being taught about the solar system must wait until one can understand the theories of Kepler and Copernicus, then we can cross it right off the list for most Americans.

 

I only skimmed the article, but honestly, it seemed hardly worth refuting. There are some good critiques of classical education. But I wouldn't really count this one among them. If your talk is before a Christian audience, I think that this is especially true. Their concerns are likely to lay in a different quarter.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It seems worth recognizing that this "journal" is devoted to the philosophy of objectivism, which is the philosophy originated (or at least popularized) by Ayn Rand.

 

 

 

Yeah, that was my response.

 

Meh.

[Mama Bear]

Jessica, you said:

 

...are we missing the mark by trying to teach logic and read the Great Books with children who have no scope of understanding beyond what we are feeding them?

 

Certainly not! It's hard to know what will stick with a particular child, long-term, and I would certainly urge anyone who is beginning with little ones to not overload them (know your kids), but I can't tell you how cool it's been for my kids to recognize certain phrases from Shakespeare, or to have listened to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and then read it and talk about it in relationship to what goes on now in terms of undersea activity. How about my 10yo, upon discussion of penguins' loss of eggs to freezing when/if they slip from feet to ice, musing that "life sure would be easier for them if they had opposable thumbs."

 

These are the things that make me wanna cheer. The kids learn and then, as their abilities move from concrete into the abstract, they weave those facts into a useful knowledge base/understanding of the world around them.

 

Find me someone who doesn't value this and I'll show you a parent who'd rather not be bothered with parenting. Or much else, frankly.

 

(Rowr. Stepping off the soapbox now.)

[Audrey]

Maybe I should have expanded that question. What I mean is, are we missing the mark by trying to teach logic and read the Great Books with children who have no scope of understanding beyond what we are feeding them? There have been many conversations about books that meant more, had more depth when read as an adult or even in college moreso that in younger years.

 

When we attempt to teach our logic stage students logic, is it really helping them in the long run or are we throwing a difficult subject their way in hopes of producing a well-thinking individual even though they might not possess the maturity and worldly knowledge to utilize the learned information in an effective way. I'm not talking about cookie cutter education, I want to know about the subjects that classical education exposes students to that other approaches aren't using: Latin, logic, rhetoric, Great Books studies involving analytical reading, and philosophy.

 

 

 

 

Hmm... not sure that is different from what I'm saying. Some children are going to benefit from the exposure, but it is certainly no guarantee that it will produce "better" people. The author of the article was dealing in pretty strict absolutes. My point was that there are no absolutes. Some hs'ers really do push at their children even when it is obvious the child can't/won't benefit from certain subjects. It's all in the individual.

 

You used the phrase "false promise." I wonder if that's an expectation that gets assumed by many hs'ers. I can think of some acquaintances who do believe they have a "promise" of a better education because of their classical choice, but I don't believe that has anything to do with the reality of their choice of education. I'm pretty sure SWB, for example, doesn't promise her way is going to produce XYZ results, but we (the collective we) tend to want to feel like we've got a promise.

 

Maybe I'm not explaining my thought too well.. I hope that made sense.

[WTMindy]

 

I think that she overstates the disconnectedness of what is studied under classical education. Does magnetism and atomic structure show up in the primary grades, yes, at some level. But to teach a child that atoms exist is no more reliant on faith than to teach them that Hawaii exists (or to explain to a Hawaiian child what a tornado or snow is like).

.

 

Dang! She needs to use fewer words! :D I agree with all you said, Sebastian, and you summed up what I wanted to say much better than I can.

[Karenciavo]

I thought this article was discussed on the old board, maybe a year ago? You may what to check the WTM boards archives Jessica.

[Trivium Academy]

I thought this article was discussed on the old board, maybe a year ago? You may what to check the WTM boards archives Jessica.

 

I will, the website shows Summer of 2007 so maybe it was. I'll look. :) UPDATE: I looked and I couldn't find it other than going through "View Old Board" numerous times, I'm unable to locate it. That's fine, I just wondered what the board thought about this, I take issue with a number of things the author said but there are some points that have made me ponder too.

[Trivium Academy]

You used the phrase "false promise."

I didn't use the phrase, it is the title of the article.

 

Otherwise I understand what you're saying.

[Sharon H in IL]

Over-simplifies and misrepresents the arguments of the classical educators she cites.

 

Ex: If a child memorizes something without comprehending it fully in an early grade, he must of course still fail to understand it by high school.

 

Or: Bauer & Wise suggest that they aren't the final authorities on your child's religious education, rather, that role should be filled by the parents in concert with their church. Which of course means that being subject to church discipline is brainwashing of the vilest sort, inevitably producing robotic automatons.

 

Pretty easy to refute, I'd say.

[Mamagistra]

I thought this article was discussed on the old board, maybe a year ago? You may what to check the WTM boards archives Jessica.

 

Yes, I remember this going around last year, at which time it was equally verbose. ;)

[Audrey]

Yes, sorry... I didn't mean to say it was "your" phrase.

[dangermom]

I've read the essay until the beginning of the "Classical Christian Education" part, and I disagree with the premise. She overstates a lot about WTM's philosophy. I'm not sure I'd really call Hirsch a "classical" guy anyway, and I think she's describing classical education all wrong. But the big thing is her insistence that a student must learn from first principles; that true learning can only take place when you have gone through the entire history of a subject.

 

So she claims that a child should not be taught about the solar system before he can understand Copernicus and Galileo, and atoms should not be taught until the end of an entire physics course. This is nonsense (which would result in very few people knowing anything about atoms). There is no particular reason that the order of discovery should be the order in which a subject is taught, and indeed I should think it would often be counterproductive.

 

As an example, I offer calculus. A student can learn a lot of calculus and do solid, useful things with it by, say, 17. He can go on to study higher-level calculus in college, may even use it daily in his work as an adult. Yet the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a vastly complex proof that is well above the abilities of most people who learn calculus. A math major would learn it in college, but not a physics major or an engineering major. My husband uses high-level calculus in his work and thinks it's fun, but he's never even read the proof (though it's on a shelf somewhere around here). If we didn't teach calculus to anyone who couldn't first understand the Fundamental Theorem that underlies it, it would be limited to a few people and modern engineering would simply not exist.

 

Besides which, it's ridiculous to say that a child shouldn't be allowed to learn neat things like the solar system. Think of all the fun we'd miss!

 

The author says that teaching students anything without doing it from first principles is not education, but indoctrination. Then, at one point, she happily describes one of her students catching her teacher out in 'bad teaching' by presenting a conclusion before all the evidence. But why does the student believe that such a method is bad teaching? Because she's been indoctrinated to believe it, right?

 

She then goes on to say that values or morals cannot be discussed by younger children at all, since one needs to know pretty much everything ever known before one is able to talk about honesty, justice, and so on. That's just silly.

 

So. Classical education isn't for everyone, and it isn't the only way to get a decent education. But (as the all-knowing mother of a 7yo) IMO it's got a better chance than many ways. I'm hoping that this method will help me to raise kids who are curious about the world, able to think and speak clearly, and generally well-equipped to be productive, articulate citizens of our country.

[Tami]

I thought this article was a yawner. Also, the author comes across as quite intolerant of and biased against religious education. I wouldn't give it a second thought. :)

[Snickerdoodle]

Even if these subjects were discussed on the previous forum, don't forget it's always new to someone.

 

[Karenciavo]

Even if these subjects were discussed on the previous forum, don't forget it's always new to someone.

 

 

right, I brought it up because I thought Jessica could find some insight at the old board too.

[LizzyBee]

I found it interesting that her very last paragraph is exactly why I chose Classical Education and TWTM.

[Rhondabee]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already....

 

The author of the linked article says:

 

"The negative consequences of a secular classical education are legion. Fundamentally, such an education fails to deliver on its promise to give students the knowledge and thinking methods they need for adult life. It fails to provide a true understanding of the crucial facts that students need to know, and it trains them in a method of dealing with abstractions that leaves them incapable of knowing what they are talking about—while simultaneously assuring them that they do know. For endless examples of this phenomenon, see the public debate over crucial cultural and political issues. See the discussions of “the universal desire for freedom†(in total ignorance of the actual attitude toward freedom of most peoples throughout history); see the confident pronouncements of catastrophic global warming by everyone from actors to seven-year-olds, without a hint of the requisite knowledge to make such claims; see the discussions of the latest foreign policy crisis, without a knowledge of the past sixty years of American history, let alone Greek or Roman military history."

 

I'm sorry. I think all of the "legion" of items she mentions here as examples of this "phenomenon" are actually the result of progressive public education - which I know from first-hand experience is NOT classical.

 

As anyone who has tried educating their children ala WTM would know, we are NOT giving our students, "a command of language and logic in a contentless void." Quite the opposite IMO.

[Tutor]

It seems worth recognizing that this "journal" is devoted to the philosophy of objectivism, which is the philosophy originated (or at least popularized) by Ayn Rand.

 

I think it is also important to keep in mind while reading the article that the author is the headmistress of a school. She obviously would like to promote her own school and her own philosophy of education in order to gain students.

 

I read this article awhile ago (I think we discussed it here, too). I don't have time to reread it now, but just keep in mind the worldview from which it is written (objectivist headmistress of a non-classical private school) and understand that perspective as much as possible before writing your response to the article.

 

Hope your research goes well.

[mcconnellboys]

I could never find this post again after my reply to you disappeared - twice - last night. I ended up mistakenly posting to you about it on the curriculum board under your post about your talk this weekend...... sigh.....

 

Regena

[mcconnellboys]

I think it is a very simple thing, however, for us to correct that fault by adding in the history, geography and literature of non-western countries. And that's what I do in my homeschool. I've never considered "classical" to mean that I would only study the classical world, only that I would adopt a classical model of study with my students regarding grammar, logic and rhetoric.

 

Regena

[mcconnellboys]

I think one reason my older son hungered to read a full translation of the Iliad was precisely because we'd read children's versions of it in both simple and middling forms during grammar and logic stage. I also think that one reason my children are not lost when viewing a Shakespearean play is precisely because we've treated Shakespeare with accessible, children's versions of his works when they were younger.

 

Regena

[Scarlett]

I don't have time to read the article, but I have a question for anyone. It seems I often see references to Classical Education (specifically SWBs TWTM) being a 'religious' method. :confused: I just don't see that. One of the main things that attracted me to SWB was her assertion that religion should be up to the parents to teach in a broad and all encompassing way. Did I dream that? I just got my copy of TWTM back yesterday (been loaned out for a year or so), but honeslty I don't recall much mention of religion at all.

[Jean in Wisc]

I'm not going to read the article--I spent too much time in the hospital today with my mom who had a heart attack this morning.:(

 

However, from what I see here in this thread I can give you this food for thought:

 

My daughter is fed up to *here* with kids in her college freshman class who have absolutely NO ABILITY to THINK. Logic is simply beyond them. Her high school classes in logic, philosophy, ethics and her reading and discussing of Great Books and in depth knowledge of history has placed her heads above her peers.

 

She is also disgusted with the large number of students who have been raised in the church and confess a Christian faith, but simply do not "walk the walk." She cannot address this with them very well because they do not have the logic skills to walk their way through the discussion!

 

Ugh.

 

'nuff said.

[Trivium Academy]

SWB/WTM is more often considered a secular method. If it is considered Christian, it may be the SOTW that the person is referring to or that SWB is a pastor's wife.

 

?

[Trivium Academy]

I'm so sorry Jean! Prayers for your mother as she heals and strength for you and everyone in the family.

[Cindyg]

I thought the author was intolerant of all education outside of her school.

[kalanamak]

and I've always found that her followers yak on an awful lot with a lot of grand words. I much prefer Rand for her application of her beliefs to a novel, say. I've always been amused with how far I can go down the path with her, but still end up in a different town.

 

 

I prefer reading a dry page of research data to such poundings-on.

YMMV

[Tonia]

I much prefer Rand for her application of her beliefs to a novel, say. I've always been amused with how far I can go down the path with her, but still end up in a different town.YMMV

 

LOL! :D I know what you mean - I've read some of her work and I agree with your assessment! Love the way you put it! :p