TheologyThoughts

According to some experts, there are at least 6 different types of classical education models. Perhaps the most familiar to many is the Trivium method. I'd like to suggest in this essay that what is most important is not the particular shape or form of any one model, but certain basic principles that have to be in place for any educational model to work. I'm going to focus specifically on "liberal arts" type stuff, since I am singularly unqualified to talk about math and science, though I believe any decent program needs good stiff doses of both.

1) Kids have to be taught to read. I don't mean simply the mechanics of reading, though of course we start with that, but they have to be taught to read in depth. They have to be taught to understand what they are reading, and reflect on it based on a Christian worldview (remember, these essays are about Christian education). This requires the teacher to read with the students, to encourage them to think about what they are reading, and to guide their interpretation of the text. Will this bias the students? Absolutely. I would argue students can only begin to appreciate other viewpoints if they have a good, solid viewpoint to begin. In my own educational experience, teachers who tried to be broad and open about issues were often as bland as white rice and as nourishing as cardboard. Teachers who really believed something, even if I disagreed, were far more inspiring and informative.

Along with this, what the student reads is key. Looking over the curriculum for 7th and 8th graders when I was teaching a summer English course to those grade levels, I was singularly unimpressed with nearly all the choices recommended by various educational websites. Instead, why not read really good literature? I actually ended up doing "The War of the Worlds" with one group -- not only well written, but seminal science fiction. Many of our modern authors show their debt to previous generations of writers. Why not start our students with the source and foundation, rather than derivative materials?

Let me give one anecdotal example. I had a student who was quite taken with the Warhammer series. Not exactly "great" literature even by modern standards. I asked him about a current book in that series that he was reading. He commented that there was less action in the book than in others of the series, but a lot on the actual composition and politics of the galactic empire. I asked him, "Do you think you would appreciate that piece of it, if it weren't for what you had learned here through studying history and literature?" He replied, "I probably wouldn't like it at all, but you're right -- the galactic empire is really the Roman Empire writ large..." Now, that's a paraphrase of what he actually said, but true to the spirit of it. If he can do that with one novel, he can do it with many more, and not just novels.

Speaking of Classics, a thorough exposure to classical literature itself is essential to grasp the entire Western literary tradition. Now part of this is the biblical tradition -- biblical literacy is extremely important not only in its own right, but also for understanding the majority of literature penned in the Western world since the triumph of Christianity in late antiquity. Of nearly equal importance for the latter is the classical tradition, the actual writings produced in the ancient world. Homer, the Greek and Roman playwrights, Vergil, Cicero. Again, we cannot truly understand or appreciate the development of the Western Tradition apart from these and other authors of that period. How can we grasp the Founding Father's understanding of democracy unless we kow the Greeks and the signficiance of the Battle of Marathon? We cannot fully understand our modern world unless we understand how Augustus reformulated the Republic into the Empire. By analogy, the difference is between reading for surface understanding and reading in depth. Which we do we want the future leaders of our society to have?

Now, someone might object that "What you've said is fine, but isn't it sufficient simply to read these things in translation? Why bother learning Latin and Greek, I mean, that's so, like, 19th century..."

My complete answer will be in the next blog entry. Here, suffice it to say that while reading in translation is good, especially with a good teacher, learning the original languages brings benefits both immediate and long term, or, as the apostle Paul might say, "much in every way."