"Classical Learning" - the Old/New Theme for Public Education Reform

You might have heard this term in the news, "classical education." It actually has a definition and a structure associated with it but, like many things, the GOP is twisting it to push education reform into a narrow mold that would look very familiar to most adults today. That's not a good thing.

I believe most adults would say that reading/writing and math are the key elements for most education - they are the foundation for learning. (I would stick Science in there as well but sadly, that doesn't happen a lot in elementary school.) Naturally, there is the need for other subjects as students get older plus a big dose of arts throughout a student's academic career. 

One key item to note: public education in the U.S. really varies from state to state, district to district and especially more so because charter schools can (and do) go off in different directions from a traditional public school. Our country is multi-cultural and diverse and, since we are finally as a nation coming to the understanding that all our history cannot be white-based, many families want their children's backgrounds to feel part of the curriculum being taught. There is no single pedagogy in the U.S. system.

Background

Originally, classical education comes from Greek/Roman traditions of education, decidedly in the liberal arts, guided by the Western World canon. In medieval times, the curriculum was what was considered important to know AND added in values around Christianity.  It also utilized Latin as an important feature; it is probable that most of our Founding fathers knew Latin. This education was largely for the wealthy.

But the U.S. went its own way in the 19th century, starting with Horace Mann, the education reformer, who started the movement towards free public education. He believed it would instill values and character to students plus loyalty to democracy and our country. Later on, in the 20th century that ran up against John Dewey, another education reformer, who thought teaching should be more "modern" and problem-solving that would include democracy AND social reforms. This was  considered "progressive" education. That would move classroom teaching towards actual democracy in the classroom and away from an emphasis on tradition and authority. 

Then, in 1947, Dorothy Sayers, an English writer and scholar, wrote her seminal essay, "The Lost Tools of Learning." (I include a link to the entire thing but confess I read some crib notes; it's a fairly long essay.) She believed that many people showed an inability to discern and think critically. She claimed that without critical thinking abilities, citizens of a country could be easily swayed by authoritarians. She advocated a return to the classical form of education believing that language learning would be useful for the entirety of one's life. She made this claim that the "trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric)" corresponds to stages child development.

What is Classical Education?

From a charter school website, Connecting Waters (bold mine):

Advocates of the classical approach believe that children move through certain developmental learning stages. The learning strengths of each of those stages are considered carefully as classical educators systematically teach students to learn in three sequential, interrelated levels. They apply teaching methods they consider appropriate at the various levels in order to help students learn more effectively.

The three level process for educating students using the classical approach is called the trivium. The three levels include the grammar, dialectic/formal logic, and the rhetoric stages. The trivium educational pattern is designed to train students to learn and apply facts, think logically, and express themselves effectively.

• Grammar stage (elementary grade level) - At this stage, children display a natural ability to memorize and absorb large amounts of information. The emphasis at this level is on filling the students' minds with facts and on developing and refining their skills of memorization, observation, and listening.

• Dialectic / Formal Logic stage (middle school level) - At this stage, children begin to demonstrate independent and abstract thinking. Teaching at this level, takes advantage of the students' natural tendencies to argue and question. Students are trained to support their ideas with facts, draw logical conclusions, and recognize flaws in arguments.

• Rhetoric stage (high school level) - At this stage children become more concerned with how they are perceived by other people. Knowledge and skills acquired from the prior stages are applied and built upon. Students are trained to write and speak with clarity, eloquence, and persuasiveness in order to present their ideas and express themselves effectively.

The grammar stage includes much singing/chanting in order to retain/master information. This early stage is more about memorizing and mastery than original thought. 

This sets the stage for middle school where independent thought comes in and challenging students to consider arguments and state opinions based on valid points. 

Lastly, we see high school where the foundation built in the two earlier stages allows for higher growth. 

A key point to make about classical learning is that they bring in history/civics at the earliest stages. Here's why (from the Manhattan Institute):

A knowledge of history is regarded as the backbone of classical education because it accomplishes three objectives. 

• First, history informs students of how we have arrived at the current moment. 

• Second, it serves as a bulwark against arrogance, putting students’ community and country into a proper context of the vast span of global civilization. [21] 

• Third, history provides examples of people’s and civilizations’ successes and failures, thus offering lessons to students who will be history makers in their own time.

What fascinates me is that the source of that information above is from a right-wing think tank and yet it seems to be what progressives also might think important especially that "bulwark against arrogance" part as well as learning from history's mistakes. 

As well, there is this component to classical education:

Study of the visual and performing arts grants students access to classical works and compositions, while also giving them avenues for self-expression.

But then we get to another facet of classical education which is values. In earlier times, this would have been taught through religion. In the present-day, that would come via civics and discipline.

Ethics and character training are essential for two primary reasons. First, discipline and accountability are virtues in and of themselves, and classical education seeks to transform the whole student. Second, classical education is invested in ethics because proper character guides students on how to pursue truth.

Perhaps the most significant distinction of a classical education is its insistence that specific values matter. Attempts at value-neutrality fail to produce an environment suitable for knowledge acquisition and dialogue.

Here's where the embrace of "classical" education is coming in from the GOP. Because of course what is "proper character?" I think at a very basic level you could get a large majority of parents to agree on some "virtues" but then you run into cultural issues that might derail classical learning. Are students to leave those at the schoolhouse door? We are just too far gone in our history as a country to say that the values of, say, the '50s are the values of today. 

Yay or Nay?

Here's a good article on the pros and cons of classical education. What I have seen from my reading is the notion that classical education could be good for many students as a teaching and learning model. Indeed, many homeschooling parents use it.  I could agree with that BUT again, you run into the wall of "whose values?" "whose history?" 

Much of my reading finds wording like "reading the timeless classics" like Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men, et al. You should join me on Twitter as you see many teachers saying they hate those books because of their white-centered focus, hurtful language, etc. One teacher said they have bad "vibes." We saw this play out at Ballard High School where a student took offense at a lesson an LA teacher created on Frankenstein as racially biased. 

I can see many good things in classical education but I would think in order to use it, it would have to reflect the realities of today's time. 

There is no going back and all the classical education in the world won't change that. We need to keep an eye out for how the Right wants to change public education. 

Thoughts?