Roots of Classical Education

One major focus of this blog is education, specifically methodologies well-fitted for homeschooling. While I have long been interested in the Charlotte Mason method because that is essentially the method used with me when I was growing up, Husband and I are interested in classical education for a number of reasons. Come with me as I explore the roots of the classical education method(s).

How has Education Fit in the History of Christianity?

Briefly, Christians have used education from the beginning as a tool for service and evangelism (see Wright's quote in this post). Hopefully, I'll write another post about that topic to keep this one from becoming too long, but suffice it to say, classical Christian education was well in place by the School Edict of AD 362.

What's the Timeline of Classical Education Specifically?

Classical education has a long history, beginning in "classical" times. Please bear in mind that the sources I found that are easier for the general reader to understand and process are also overwhelmingly slanted toward the idea that classical education is awesome (or similar strongly positive adjective). Based on this source, we can trace several milestones in classical education:

• 400 BC: Aristotle founded a school in Greece for training leaders in virtue, using the concepts of trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, astronomy, music, geometry). Though these Latin terms weren't yet used until AD 500 or thereabouts, the intended outcomes were similar across time: fortitude, justice, prudence, temperance, and others.
• AD 0-200: Greek schools continued; the apostle Paul and other biblical authors were influenced by these philosophical ideas and brought them into their writings. Second-century church fathers writing on how classical schools and Christianity related included Justin Martyr, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria.
• AD 325: the first Council of Nicaea took place. Additional church fathers at this time were educated using the trivium-quadrivium concept and used the skills they learned to clearly think through and express what today are major Christian doctrines that weren't necessarily "visible" or "clear" in the Bible.
• It is assumed that the classical education model was dominant in Western cultures in the next centuries.
• AD 1852-1918: public schools were set up in all of the United States.
• AD 1950: peak enrollment in public schools (80-90%). Progressive education was introduced around this time, which had quite different methodology and assumptions from classical education.
• AD 1970s: Mortimer Adler reacted against the progressive model to develop the Paideia Schools as a secular, classical alternative to public education.
• AD 1980: three parent-founded schools sought to revive the classical model from a Christian perspective.

Two Takes on the Modern Classical Movement

Based on the timeline above, it is safe to say that the "modern" classical movement started around the 1970s. I found two very interesting sources (this one by Susan Wise Bauer, a big name in Christian classical education, and this one by Lisa VanDamme, founder of the VanDamme Academy in California.

Susan Wise Bauer

Let's first look at Susan's conception of a modern classical education model. Key components of such a model are (1) progression through 3 stages (trivium) as the child grows and matures, (2) focus on written and oral language to educate, and (3) recognition of the interrelatedness of all knowledge. 

Relating to point (1), grades 1-4 or thereabouts are spent in the "grammar stage" where the focus is on memorization of poems, stories, concrete or abstract facts, and rules of language (English and Latin, typically). Grades 5-8 or so are spent in the "logic stage" to focus on the abstract as well as the "why" behind facts, fields of knowledge, and the rules of formal logic. Grades 9-12 are spent in the "rhetoric stage" to learn how to express oneself and one's knowledge in an effective way, whether oral or written. Some academic specialization occurs during this stage.

Relating to point (2), the focus on using language rather than video images is meant to force the brain to use more focused attention to learn. I think many people who understand how one learns would agree with this rationale.

Related to point (3), the implication of integrating the quadrivium with a trivium timeline, for Bauer, is that the child cycles through all of recorded history three times throughout a K-12 education, building complexity with each layer. The first grade of each cycle is spent in ancient history, the second in the Middle Ages, the third in the Renaissance and Reformation, and the fourth in modern times (Enlightenment and after).

Overall, Bauer sees classical education as extremely systematic and therefore beneficial to helping students link knowledge together in their heads, developing moral virtue (per Aristotle) along the way.

Lisa VanDamme

VanDamme writes for The Objective Standard, which applies Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy to other fields of knowledge. Please note: Objectivism is, as Husband puts it, as close to Satanism as one can get without being actually Satanist, because it treats selfishness as a virtue. The title of this particular 2007 article ("The False Promise of Classical Education") clearly indicates the conclusions.

First, the flaws of classical education from a non-classical perspective, based on both objectivism and current theories of how children learn:

• Organizing knowledge non-hierarchically--asking younger children to learn abstractions (e.g., grammar rules explicitly stated) before letting their older selves learn specifics
• Rigidly distinguishing between content and thinking skills about that content
• Insistence on over-integration of knowledge and theories, leading to an exaggerated Dunning-Kruger effect.

VanDamme's biggest issue with classical education as put forth in the modern era relates to her third point, i.e., that its integration of abstract ideas from various fields of knowledge isn't valuable because it's not based on reality that can be perceived (first point--this is not quite accurate, as actually looking at well-implemented classical curricula shows). She points out that four recent approaches (1970s-1980s) to reviving classical education share the same faults. I appreciate that she differentiates these into secular and Christian:

• Mortimer Adler's Great Books Program and Paideia Proposal (secular)
• E. D. Hirsch's Core Knowledge curriculum (secular)
• Wise and Bauer's Well-Trained Mind (Christian background but appealing to many secular homeschoolers)
• Dorothy Sayer's Lost Tools of Learning (Christian)

The article's critique of many Christian classical educators and curricula is correct in that Enlightenment epistemology is commonly used when educating children in a Christian classical setting, specifically related to interpretation of the Bible. This epistemology (system of gaining knowledge) has three components: rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism.

• Rationalism: doubt anything that can possibly be doubted by coming up with scenarios in which the "thing" would be false. (Big names: René Descartes, Gottfried Leibnitz.)
• Empiricism: prioritize knowledge that can be gained by direct measurement of something perceptible to the senses. (Big name: Francis Bacon.)
• Skepticism: criticize any authority regarding belief in knowledge. (Big names: Pierre Bayle, David Hume.)

I would agree that many Christian curricula do reflect an Enlightenment mindset, though primarily in the empiricist strand (not so much the other strand). This is typically combined with evangelicalism, leading to a literalistic interpretation of certain biblical passages that are better seen as figurative or in another literary model (ancient near Eastern literature) not seen today. There is no self-examination of the results of such teachings (e.g., the mode of creation) in light of the greater body of knowledge. As an analogy, a fish in water doesn't realize that it's in water.

However, I would argue that VanDamme utilizes just as much Enlightenment epistemology, if not more, when it comes to her preferred system of teaching and learning. This is not to say that she's wrong, but more to say that her perspective is incomplete.

Is Classical Education (In)compatible with Charlotte Mason?

There are plenty of opinions on either side of this question. As we can see from the below, your answer depends in part on your specific "flavor" of classical education. Sonya Shafer, an eloquent proponent of Charlotte Mason methodology and philosophy, interviewed Karen Glass on a book (Consider This) she wrote on the combination. (On general pros and cons of today's classical education method from a non-Christian perspective, check out this post.)

(Potentially) Incompatible

Several articles seeming to lean toward the incompatibility of the two methods tend to focus more on the differences. Here are my sources (I highly recommend that, if you only read one, read the third--from the Charlotte Mason Poetry site--it does take issue with Karen Glass's book and methodology in researching it, so is worth reading as an additional perspective).

• "The" classical approach is based on highly structured trivium and quadrivium distinctions whereas Mason's method takes a different stance than those that subscribe to a trivium-based cognitive and social development model for childhood.
• Classical approaches tend to focus more on declarative knowledge, whereas Mason integrates life activities (procedural knowledge)
• Classical approaches focus on displaying knowledge in the marketplace of ideas, whereas Mason integrates much of education with being outside in nature and appreciating the creation as an individual in society.
• Blending the trivium-based classical approach with a Charlotte Mason philosophy produces a hybrid diluting the good qualities of each method.

Compatible

Some more articles seem to lean toward the compatibility of a blended approach. This appeals to many homeschoolers; bear in mind that my sources are from an individual homeschooling mother (with potential issues in generalizing to others), a curricular resource website, and Susan Wise Bauer.

• Memory work inherent in the grammar stage of a classical model can work with narration inherent throughout Mason's method
• For one-on-one subjects and formal instruction in writing/grammar (where each child in a family is at a different knowledge level), classical techniques may work better, while for family subjects (where all children can participate at the same level) Mason's approach is smoother but may not teach writing mechanics as well
• The principle of prioritizing literature over visual media (in any classical approach, whether or not based on the trivium) fits extremely well into a more tailored Mason approach
• Mason may be seen as having adapted classical approaches from historical use to her more modern historical context; classical educators today (including Bauer) view themselves as doing the same
• The short-lesson principles of Mason's method can certainly be used in an otherwise trivium-based approach

What are Accessible Classical Education Resources?

If, after reading and considering the content of this post, you are leaning toward using partial or complete classical approaches, here are accessible resources I have read and can recommend to provide thorough descriptions and useful information.

• Sister Miriam Joseph, The Trivium (Roman Catholic perspective, specifically Thomist)
• Laura Bergquist, Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum (also Roman Catholic)
• Susan Wise Bauer & Jessie Wise, The Well-Trained Mind (currently Bauer attends an evangelical church, as far as I can ascertain)
• J. P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview (philosophical/logic portions which comprise a few of the many chapters)

What other sources have you found helpful?