The Reason Our Kids Can't Spell

Many thanks to Justin Donathan for hooking me up with this fun little ditty:

English Pronunciation 

by G. Nolst Trenité

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.I will teach you in my verse like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it’s written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.
Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation’s OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.
Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.
Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation (think of Psyche!)
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won’t it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It’s a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.
Finally, which rhymes with enough,
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is to give up.

Coming to Terms

I only know one person, other than myself, who is geeky enough to read the book I just read, and that's Tim LeCroy.  The difference is, HE would understand it!

It has taken me 3-4 months to labor through The Trivium: Understanding the Nature and Function of Language.  Sister Miriam Joseph writes in somewhat technical and sometimes tedious detail, which meant I spent significant time re-reading sentences and paragraphs which I didn't understand the first time through.  At some points I determined to keep going without fully understanding, but other times I was delighted at her ability to make philosophical sense of the everyday science (or should I say miracle?) of language.

When the listener or reader obtains from and through language, the identical proposition intended by the speaker or writer, he understands; they have "come to terms."

Does that seem like a statement of the overly obvious?  Yet how very difficult it is to achieve in reality!  How often do any of us feel that we have sufficiently communicated the full intention of our thoughts...AND...that they have, in turn, been received exactly as we intended?

The process of transferring thought from one being to another is highly complex and involves nearly innumerable variables.  At the most basic level, the two minds must assign the same denotative value to the words being used (that is, the explicit dictionary definition).  If either party holds a broader or more narrow definition to even a single word, some degree of misunderstanding has already begun.  And that's before we even consider the impact of connotative associations which arise from culture, sub-culture, vernacular, and individual experience!  In every written or verbal exchange, then, each word or term provides opportunity for the original intent to be lost or distorted.

Additionally, the interpretation of ideas can vary widely based on personal and corporate context, as well as philosophical, moral or religious presuppositions.  "Morality" and "religion" are themselves prime examples of terms or ideas that are rarely understood primarily in light of their dictionary definitions, but instead are very personally understood based on background, experience, instruction, worldview, and beliefs.

This grid through which we interpret words and ideas also includes emotion, which we tend to overlook in this process we call communication, but should not be underrated!  Not only can terms and ideas convey or arouse emotion, but phrasing, tone, countenance, body language, and personal experience all color the transaction.

In other words, every word, every phrase, every inflection I use to communicate, is chosen through the very personal, very individualized grid of my background, my intention, my understanding, my beliefs and my emotions.  It is then filtered through the very personal, very individualized and likely very different grid of the recipient.

If we consider the layers involved in even the "simplest" transfer of ideas, we will either come away wondering if meaningful communication is even possible, or we will be in awe at how often we achieve a high enough level of understanding to live, work and laugh with one another!

Of course, many of our daily interactions are fundamental enough that we can "come to terms" rather easily.  BUT...as soon as we begin to exchange words and ideas which carry great import or to which we are personally attached, the likelihood of miscommunication skyrockets, if for no other reason than we are most sensitive to being thoroughly understood when the subject at hand matters to us.

This complexity is the reason I place high value on the study of language and logic (formal and material).  The more commonality we can achieve in our understanding of words and the more clarity in our lines of thinking, the more readily we can convey the full intent of our thoughts and ideas to others, thereby achieving real understanding.

Now...Sister Miriam didn't talk about any of THIS in her book.  These are just my derivative thoughts (are there any other kind?) prompted by the quote above.  If the world of language intrigues you, I don't necessarily recommend this book!  Complete some vocab studies and examine Quintillian's approach to expression.   If the world of logic attracts you, I don't necessarily recommend this book!  Complete a high-school logic course instead.  However, if you fall into the rare category of word-language-logic-philosophy-rhetoric geek and enjoy reading paragraphs like this:

The predicate of an affirmative proposition is, however, distributed whenever the proposition is a definition, by virtue of the following reasoning: (1) a definition is always an A proposition (necessary affirmative) and therefore its subject is distributed through the form; (2) the predicate, being the definition of the subject (whether by genus and differentia or by property), has not only the same intension but the same extension as the subject, namely, full extension and is therefore distributed (through the matter, the terms, although not through the forms, the copula).  The very fact that a definition is convertible proves that the predicate has the same extension as the subject, and therefore, since the subject is distributed, so is the predicate.  Conversion is the test of distribution. 

If you like that...then this is the book for YOU!! 

Now you understand why I latched onto the first quote!  I understood it.  Sister Miriam and I "came to terms."

ADHD Overdose?

Catholic author, John Rosemund, was once a willing and active participant in what he now calls the ADHD Establishment. He readily and frequently dispensed the diagnosis of ADHD and its standard medications at the behest of parents and teachers, but now considers himself "reformed and repentant" regarding his former opinions.

In his book, The Diseasing of America's Children, Rosemund attempts to enlighten and empower parents by taking on the Establishment, exposing what he believes are myths which have led to excessive diagnosis and overmedication. He argues that no definitive biological basis has been discovered that would qualify ADHD [or its sister diagnoses of ODD (oppositional defiant disorder), EOBD (early onset biploar disorder), or PDD (pervasive developmental disorder)], as disease, yet they are given the status of disease. All diagnoses are purely symptomatic and the list of "symptoms" easily applies to a large segment of the population, particularly most boys under age 10 and nearly every toddler regardless of gender! Yet, this list remains the primary justification for medicating an extreme number of increasingly younger children.

Rosemund's arguments are detailed and convincing, citing numerous studies but, not surprisingly, I was on his side before I read it, so I wasn't exactly a hard-sell! In my admittedly limited experience as mother and teacher, I have seen wonders worked in "diagnosed" children by the simple application of clearly enforced boundaries, gracious discipline and high expectations. In the author's wider realm of experience, the removal of ADHD-inducing behaviors (regular TV and video game-playing) has also had profound effects on many children, in reducing or eliminating "symptoms."

He advocates significant environmental and philosophical shifts in parenting and education that will "cure" the "disease" in a vast majority of cases, and he provides substantial anecdotal evidence to corroborate his claims.

Mr. Rosemund addresses the issues intelligently, but not without considerable, and potentially misplaced, dogmatism, so if you choose to read the book, be prepared! He treats his recommendations for parents as absolute values when they might simply represent some of several effective, reasonable solutions. His traditional, no-nonsense approach to parenting might produce a desired behavioral result, but may not be the most Biblical approach and should therefore be modified accordingly.

Having said that, I still think this book should be required reading for every teacher and for parents of any child who has been diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, EOBD or PDD, as an alternative approach to medications whose long-term effects have yet to be determined.

Check it out.

In Defense of Latin - Again

Yeah, yeah. I know. Beating a dead horse is neither productive nor admirable. BUT...I found this "article" the other day that I had written for the school where I used to teach. The marketing gals there asked both myself and Mr. Klousia, the REAL Latin teacher, to write an essay on the advantages of learning Latin that could be used on the school's website. Of course, I complied, because I'm just like that...cooperative and helpful and all. No, no. No cause for accolades...it just comes naturally to me.

In the end, the school chose to use the article by the more educated and experienced of the two of us, so mine was relegated to the trash heap where it lay until now. If you really don't give a rip, or are tired of hearing about Latin and language and all that stuff I love to talk about, then go to April's blog. She's highly entertaining...I'm not.

On the other hand, if you're already bored, or enjoy the beating of a dead horse - I'm sure there's nothing in here I haven't said before - then stick around.

"Why, in the age of the Internet and the global economy, dwell upon words and deeds of people long dead who wrote and spoke in tongues equally dead? Education should help us get things." (Tracy Lee Simmons in Climbing Parnassus)

Any attempt to persuade the modern mind of the reasons to study the ancient languages must necessarily begin by addressing one aspect of modern educational philosophy. We must resist the temptation to view the purpose of education as primarily utilitarian. That is, to propel us toward a profitable or fulfilling career. Education whose first aim is to employ is the education of slaves, the mere training of a work force. The education of free men requires more - much more! Liberal education must endow its students with a heart of wisdom that discerns, loves and produces that which is true, beautiful, just and virtuous. John Milton once said, "Liberty hath a double edge, fit only to be handled by just and virtuous men." In the hands of a fool, liberty becomes an "unwieldy mischief."

To live well as free men then, our educational pursuit must reach into realms largely unfamiliar to us in order to mold and refine our intellect and spirit. The Greeks and Romans, with their many faults, lived thoughtfully, contemplating what it meant to live well as humans and citizens. The also cultivated clarity of thought as well as beauty and precision of speech. The study of their language and literature is invaluable "to make us better than our untutored natures lead us to be." (Climbing Parnassus, p. 32)

Acknowledging that our study of classical languages is not grounded in their usefulness does not negate the practical advantages that accompany this endeavor. One benefit is that the modern Romance Languages can be fairly easily apprehended on one's own after rigorous training in Latin. Additionally, an enormous number of English words are derived from both Latin and Greek. Therefore, students of these languages will possess a broader vocabulary as well as the means to choose words that most accurately communicate their ideas.

Latin is a language in which the slightest alteration can transform the meaning of a sentence or phrase. This requires students to refine their observational and analytical skills - two essential tools for life-long learners! The student of these languages is forced to examine and understand grammar and syntax at at level beyond most of today's English grammar courses. Besides sharpening the skills mentioned previously, this understanding enables students to both read and write at more complex intellectual levels.

Once students are proficient and can read the classical literature in its original form, they have access to some of history's most cultured and prolific rhetoricians. One cannot truly hope to become rhetorically adept without exposure to the masters whose writings offer unsurpassed beauty and depth.

The acquisition of Latin, then, naturally reinforces the classical stages of learning and should enable our students to excel as readers, thinkers, writers and speakers. That is a very utilitarian outcome!

Finally, undergirding the philosophical and practical reasons to heartily pursue the study of Latin, stands the foundation - words are fundamentally theological! They are the language of the Triune God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit commune with words. God has revealed Himself to man through words; with words He fashioned the earth; with words He conversed with saints of old. He has preserved His truth for eternity in written words as well as in Jesus Christ, the Living and Final Word.

Thus, acquiring an understanding of language that is broad and deep, opens the door for clearer understanding of God's very communication with us. (The necessity of the Holy Spirit's presence is assumed.) God could have spoken to us in any way He chose - He chose to combine beauty and truth, utilizing precise words, captivating stories and illuminating word pictures. Our highest aim is to know our Creator, and to know him most fully, we must understand His language: words.

Our next aim, as God's image bearers, is to imitate Him. We should strive to communicate the same way He does - clearly and beautifully - in the accurate and artful presentation of Truth. Here it is appropriate to pause and consider Paul's rebuke to the Christians at Corinth who were being deceived by the "clever speech" of some false teachers. He admonishes them not to be drawn toward division and heresy by "wise-sounding" words. Our purpose is not to teach high and heady language to our students so that they "sound" good, nor do we want them to be puffed up with knowledge. We do want to assist them in the "pulling down of strongholds," the refutation of "vain philosophies" and the destruction of "every argument raised up against the knowledge of God." (I Cor. 10)

Our desire is that through the rigorous study of the ancient languages, each student will discern what is true and articulate it according to the bent of their audience. We hope to equip the students to fulfill their Christian duties by readily answering their opponents and just as readily edifying the body of Christ in a manner worthy of their calling in Christ Jesus.

This is why we study the words and deeds of people long dead...for the cultivation of wisdom in His children who will advance the reputation of Christ and will work effectively for the strengthening of His kingdom on earth.

If that wasn't enough for you, I once again highly recommend Climbing Parnassus: A New Apologia for Greek and Latin by Tracy Lee Simmons. Not only does he establish a thorough argument for studying the ancient languages, but he also offers much wisdom on the nature and decline of modern education in general. It is a well-written, delightful-to-read dissertation.

Chesterton on Education

The fashionable fallacy is that by education we can give people something that we have not got. To hear people talk one would think it was some sort of magic chemistry...

So begin the musings of Gilbert Keith Chesterton on modern education. He concludes that education is a method of transferring truth, and not only can we not transfer that which we do not possess, but we must do so authoritatively, not timidly.

I know that certain crazy pedants have attempted to counter this difficulty by maintaining that education is not instruction at all, does not teach by authority at all. They present the process as coming, not from the outside, from the teacher, but entirely from inside the boy. Education, they say, is the Latin for leading out or drawing out the dormant faculties of each person. Somewhere far down in the dim boyish soul is a primordial yearning to learn Greek accents or to wear clean collars; and the schoolmaster only gently and tenderly liberates this imprisoned purpose. Sealed up in the newborn babe are the intrinsic secrets of how to eat asparagus and what was the date of Bannockburn. The educator only draws out the child's own unapparent love of long division; only leads out the child's slightly veiled preference for milk pudding to tarts. I am not sure I believe in the derivation (of the word 'education' from the Latin)...but I am much more certain that I do not agree with the doctrine. There is, indeed, in each living creature a collection of forces and functions; but education means producing these in particular shapes and training them to particular purposes, or it means nothing at all. Speaking is the most practical instance of the whole situation. You may indeed "draw out" squeals and grunts from the child by simply poking him and pulling him about...But you will wait and watch very patiently indeed before you draw the English language out of him. That you have got to put into him; and there is an end to the matter.

Classical Education: The Pitfalls

The number one pitfall of CE is arrogance.

First, let me post a disclaimer: I am not of a modern, relativistic mindset which believes that simply declaring one thing superior to another constitutes arrogance. A healthy part of education is learning to distinguish the good from the great. Passing judgements as to the value of a thing - whether a work of art, a musical composition, a narrative, or a method of educating - is a necessary outworking of knowledge.

I openly state that I believe Classical Christian Ed, when well-implemented, is superior to more traditional approaches. Its goals are loftier, its content heartier, its approach more methodical and purposeful, etc. That is my firm opinion. At the same time, I openly acknowledge that it is not the only way or even the only good way to educate our Christian children. My own children are no longer being educated classically, and while I find that very unfortunate and I sometimes mourn what we have lost, I don't believe for a minute that my children will fail in life or in their Christianity because they are not in a classical school.

So, when I talk about arrogance, I'm not referring to statements declaring one method to be better than another. I assume that most of us choose to run various aspects of our lives in a particular way because we think "this way is better than that way." The reality is that there is a best way to cook pasta...and I want to know what it is. That doesn't mean there's only one way and that everyone who does it otherwise is a failure at cooking! Likewise, there are lousy, good, better and best ways to educate.

The problem arises when the belief that Classical Education is the best way to educate, is accompanied by an underlying foundation of scoffing and mockery, both at government education and at modern Christian education. Some of the criticisms set forth are absolutely valid! The weaknesses, and even sometimes folly, which they expose, are truly weakness and folly! But the attitude which drives the exposure is not one of humility or desire to restore, but a desire to look good...to sound important...to set "us" over against "them" in a way that exalts us and denigrates them.

This arrogance manifests itself in a variety of ways: perhaps in an unwillingness to listen to parental feedback; engaging in provocative and destructive rhetoric about others; resistance to outside evaluation; refusal to incorporate ideas and methods that don't come from within the "circle"; a disregard for all modern contributions to educational theory; a willingness to "experiment" with curriculum and approaches that are untried and unproven; etc., etc., etc.

If we want to avoid many errors, offences and much foolishness, we must actively guard against pompous attitudes and seek to adorn the profession of the gospel - as it is expressed in Christian classical education - with humility. It IS possible to strive for excellence without drowning in intellectual arrogance. That should be our aim.

The Case for Grammar

Learning the rules of grammar constitutes more than rote memorization which students will remember 6 months from now. It's more than terminology and definitions which we no longer recall. Richard Mitchell explains as well, or better, than anyone, the necessity for extensive instruction in English Grammar. He argues, rightly, that there exists an inseparable connection between the structure of language and the structure of thought.

Even if I don't remember the definition of an appositive, but was required at some point to understand what it was and to practice using it correctly, then a logical connection between word and function remains. Though I may not rehearse the rule or definition as I speak or write (just as I don't rehearse the rules of phonics as I spell or read...it has become second nature), the very process by which I form thoughts has been shaped by my instruction in grammar.

Since I claim that Mr. Mitchell explains it better than anyone else, I'll let him speak for himself:

People who have learned even a little about how English works have all heard about modifiers. They know that a modifier is something that tells us something about something, and that there are many kinds of modifiers, some with tricky names. The way we teach things like this, as though they were subject to arbitrary rules like the rules of basketball, is so stupid and tedious that most people block out modifiers as soon as possible. The English system of modification, however, does not exist in a set of paltry rules that do what they can, and fail, to describe some very elaborate operations not simply of the language but of the mind. To say that an adjective modifies a noun is worth nothing unless we see that sticking adjectives on nouns is the outward equivalent of some mysterious inward process that goes on in the mind. It's not entirely absurd to think that somewhere in the past of mankind someone, for the first time, did in his mind the equivalent of putting an adjective to a noun, and saw, not only a relationship, but this special relationship between two things of different kinds. That moment was more important to our history than the flight of the Wright brothers. In sum, all the seemingly complicated kinds of modification in English are just ways of thinking and seeing how things go with each other or reflect each other. Modifiers in our language are not aids to understanding relationships; they are the ways to understand relationships. A mistake in this matter either comes from or causes a clouded mind. Usually it's both.

Just think what happens in the mind of the person who knows the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. Anyone who understands the distinction is on the brink of seeing the difference between simple fact and elaborative detail and may well begin to make judgments about the logic of such relationships. He may start bothering his head about the difference between things essential and accidental, a disorder that often leads to the discovery of tautologies. Furthermore, anyone who sees the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses is likely to understand why modifiers should be close to the things they modify and thus begin to develop a sense of the way in which ideas grow from one another. From that, it's not a long way to detecting non sequiturs and unstated premises and even false analogies.

Unfortunately, we just don't know how to teach skillful reading and writing without developing many undesirable and socially destructive side effects. Should we raise up a generation of literate Americans, very little of the America that we know would survive. We depend on a steady background level of ignorance and stupidity. A skillful reader, for instance, cannot be depended upon to buy this aftershave rather than some other because he is always weighing and considering statements that just weren't meant to be weighed and considered.

The next thing you know, they'll start listening very carefully to the words and sentences of the politicians, and they'll decide there isn't one of them worth voting for anywhere on the ballot. There's no knowing where this will end. (Less Than Words Can Say pp. 150-154)

Those final two paragraphs have more to do with his explanation of why we choose not to teach English grammar today, but they're too much fun to leave out. But the primary point to catch, is that the grammatical structure of language is directly related to the clear, logical structure of thinking. Neither one can be fully acquired apart from the other.

No "Busy Work": Part 1

In order to avoid time-wasting, pointless activities in the classroom, I commend to you a set of questions that I used when generating daily lesson plans. A beginning-of-the-year lecture by my previous headmaster led to formulation of these questions.

Do today's lessons and assignments:

Equip the students with any Tools?

Teach or refine necessary Skills?

Build the Worldview Framework?

Convey & foster Love of Learning?

Tools are those overarching means which must be at every students' disposal in order for them to do the job of learning anything. There are 3 essential tools: Language, Critical Thinking, and Communication.

The tool of language encompasses all aspects of words: reading, handwriting, vocabulary, etc.

Critical thinking is the ability to observe, analyze and evaluate anything: physical matter, words, ideas, etc.

The tool of communication equips our students to listen and respond carefully, whether in written words, spoken words, or actions taken.

Skills provide the effective means for our students to use the tools. Therefore, every skill we teach should directly relate to developing one or more of the three tools. In determining what skills need to be taught, it is helpful to start from the end and work backwards.

At what level of efficiency and dexterity do we want our graduating Seniors to use the tool of language? We want them to read and comprehend advanced literature, speak and write with clarity and grace, and listen carefully and thoughtfully. Then what skills must they master in order to arrive at that destination?

With the tool of critical thinking we desire that the students observe carefully with all their senses, that they analyze by parsing, (words, sentences, arguments, ideas, plants, rocks, wars...everything can be broken down into smaller parts in order to understand it more thoroughly!!), and evaluate wisely, making sound judgments and decisions about that which they have observed and analyzed. What skills do they need to accomplish that?

With the tool of communication we may expect our students to write persuasively and engagingly, with coherence, perspicuity (that was for you, Joanie!), mature structure and eloquent style. We want them to articulate confidently and gracefully with finely-tuned words, phrases and ideas. Think about what it takes to get them there.

When we think these things through, we more easily eliminate wasteful and superfluous activity. We need never resort to busy-work in order to fill the day and to appear that we are accomplishing something!

I'll talk about Worldview and Love of Learning next time.

Logic

In describing Formal Logic, I asserted that it is not concerned with truth. That can sound really confusing...how can an idea be logical if it is not true. Well, the "FORM" of the argument can be sound. For example:

All men are slobs.

Joe is a man. Therefore, Joe is a slob.

That, my friends, is a sound logical argument.

All men are slobs.

Rita is not a man. Therefore, Rita is not a slob.

That is NOT a sound logical argument. Non sequitur.

Regardless of the truth of the first assertion that "all men are slobs," one argument follows logically while the other does not. The job of Formal Logic is simply to recognize and point out these type of fallacies.

Material Logic, on the other hand, begins with evaluating the truth of the original assumption, and only analyzes the validity of the argument after establishing the truth of the statements involved. Can it be proven as true that all men are slobs? If so, we proceed to evaluate the form. If not, it has failed on the basis of its content.

Make sense?

Classical Education: Hallmarks 5

One final hallmark of Classical Ed is its commitment to fostering the ability to logically and artfully communicate truth, AKA: Rhetoric.

This discipline incorporates all the others: familiarity with history and literature, competency with language, and clarity of thought aid our students in their quest to communicate well.

Since I have written extensively on this in the past, I'll refer you to all the posts titled "On Rhetoric" (put that in the search window above and you'll find them). Yes, it's one of those series I haven't completed, but I've said an awful lot...so check it out, if you're so inclined.

This concludes my "Hallmarks" portion of the series. In summary, CE places a long-term and weighty emphasis on the following:

History

Language

Literature

Logic

Rhetoric

Next: The Pitfalls

Classical Education: Hallmarks 4

Classical Education requires its students to study Logic. What does that mean? One simple definition states: Logic is the science and the art of reason.

Logic is a prerequisite to the study of philosophy and it has several branches. For many of us, our only educational exposure was in mathematics...whether we knew it or not, we were learning a form of Symbolic Logic.

Formal Logic teaches students to analyze the validity of the relationship between ideas, arguments, and conclusions. These are based on formulaic connections that can be signified with symbols. You know, this is really hard to explain in an understandable way! I've never tried to do this before and it's not easy! Anyway, Formal Logic is based not so much on truth of content, as consistency of thoughts and statements: students learn to recognize and construct both deductive and inductive arguments, as well as to identify fallacious reasoning. It's all about FORM.

Material Logic follows the teaching of Formal Logic on the educational spectrum, and is primarily concerned with Truth content. It applies the forms learned in Formal Logic, but goes further in evaluating the Truth of the statements and conclusions. It requires analyzing word-use, definitions, and truth-values. It's all about CONTENT and is very philosophical in nature.

Clear as mud? In case none of that makes sense, let me redeem this post by quoting 2 men worthy of being listened to. Our friend, Augustine of Hippo, in his On Christian Doctrine, says this:

...the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin in God. For just as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained; in the same way, he who says, "When the consequent is false, the antecedent must be false," also says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so.

G.K. Chesterton says this:

Logic and truth ... have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with the fidelity and accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs ... Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding out truth; on the contrary, truth is a necessary instrument for using logic--for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth ... Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

So, if I made no sense, at least draw something from these wise men!

Classical Education: Hallmarks 3

In addition to intensified programs in History and Language, CE is also unique in its early and sustained attention to Literature. Real literature. Students do not read a select chapter here and there from the canon of great books in order to pique their interest. Instead, they devour book after book after book...and love it because they feel "grown up" and because we attempt to set before them the best of the best.

As is usually the case, there remain disputes about how this literature is best approached. Some suggest taking each piece nice and slow and evaluating every single literary, biblical, philosophical, philological, historical and symbolic aspect. Others advocate quantity: read, read, read...fast and furiously...they'll pick it up on all this stuff automatically over time.

I advocate something in the middle of these two extremes.

When a student is forced to slug through a book at a snail's pace, catching every minute detail, something of the literary cadence is lost, and it can even become drudgery. Besides, a good book demands to be read! Extensive evaluation is tortuous!

At the same time, a student will certainly not become adept at identifying figures of speech and description, or at evaluating the stature of a written work, simply by exposure. For instance, if you don't teach and point up examples of "Inclusion" your student will never recognize it on his own and a layer of the joy of reading will be lost to him. Thus with dozens of other literary techniques. Likewise, if they are not taught to identify ideas and worldviews behind the story, a layer of meaning and depth is left undiscovered.

I have found that, generally speaking, from the 3rd grade on, 8-10 books a school year is a reasonable number. To gain the most educational profit, yet not lose the momentum of the story by over-analyzing it, focus in on the particular literary strengths of the author.

For example, when my 5th graders read Where the Red Fern Grows, we talked about its worldview and studied vocabulary (as we do with every piece of literature), but our special focus was on Rawls' masterful use of imagery. His ability to paint a picture in the mind's eye is stunning, so recognizing and imitating these descriptions was prominent. However, when reading Johnny Tremain, plot, and historical setting were emphasized. With Amos Fortune, we focused on the ways that time and circumstance (setting) affect character development and growth; whereas with The Hobbit, we emphasized fantasy and symbolism.

This doesn't mean that we neglect other important aspects of these books, but we touch on some features cursorily, while lingering on those which are superior or which the student is in need of learning. You might be surprised how quickly they catch on and begin recognizing these elements even when you don't point it out. It becomes habitual for them to notice similes, metaphors, foreshadowing, worldview statements, etc. so that it carries over into their independent reading...and that is the goal!

Our aim is not to have students pass a test, or correctly define terms...for a few weeks. Our aim is to teach them to read with purpose and to impose sound evaluation and judgements on what they read 25 years from now! We are not teaching mere facts, but forming minds.

Practice is essential. "Studying" through a book necessarily slows you down and extracts at least a measure of delight; however, with lots of practice, students begin to almost unconsciously absorb the literary and worldview techniques in a book without losing momentum or joy. It becomes second nature to analyze and process as you go.

Classical Education: Hallmarks 2

Another distinguishing feature of CE, is its very deliberate, intense study of language.

The tools used to foster skills in this area are Phonics & Spelling, English Grammar, Latin, Greek, Literature, Composition and Systematic Vocabulary Study. The primacy of language studies cannot be overemphasized! The student who has a vice-grip on language has the wide world at his disposal!

I have written extensively on these in the past, so I'll make a few remarks, then offer links to previous posts.

We lay the foundation for continuing growth in language, by teaching our students to read, and by reading to them extensively. It is essential that as they progress through Grammar school, we set before them challenging literature and vocabulary. Not that which is beyond their reach, but that which is outside their experience. The best way to cultivate mastery of the language, is to couple systematic instruction in spelling, vocabulary, and grammar, with copious amounts of intelligent talk and intelligent reading.

If our students are to be prepared to access primary-source historical documents, they must have at their disposal a substantial word-base, the inductive and deductive skills to ascertain the meaning of new words, and the grammatical proficiency to wade through lengthy, complex sentence structures - all of which enable them to comprehend and digest these works.

An excellent, aggressive classical education will incorporate all the necessary means to ensure its students have mastered the English language. Of course, I must mention that the study of Latin and Greek are extremely helpful in this regard. Not only because of the abundance of words we draw from them (in that case, roots study alone would be sufficient), but they offer greater insight into grammar and the structure of language than the study of English grammar alone provides.

If you're interested in reading more on these topics, follow the links below.

The Theology of Words

Copia: Lots of Words

Vocabulary Acquisition

Teaching Spelling

Classical Education: Hallmarks 1B

Continuing from post "Hallmarks 1A" where I asserted: An unparalleled focus on history is one of the hallmarks of an excellent classical education.

After 6th grade, when students have completed a chronological study of history from Creation to WWII (with an early emphasis on their own history...family, community, state, country, etc.), they're ready to start at the beginning and do it again. This time the focus is less on biography and story and concentrates instead on firming up the chronology, which is crucial to an accurate and thorough understanding of history!

Since students will complete this 2nd cycle in 2 years (7th-8th grades), obviously the teacher is not able to teach in great depth. The goal should be for each student to identify all the major eras and movements in history, know the primary ideas that emerged during those time frames, and be able to place prominent men and events accurately within those eras. "Men" would include political figures, theologians, artists, composers, philosphers, authors, religious leaders, scientists, etc. "Events" would include the rise and fall of kingdoms, battles, influential beliefs, technological advances, etc. We want our students to KNOW THE FLOW and begin to be familiar with the cultures from which these men and events sprang as well as the cultural changes to which they gave birth.

The display of a visual timeline and students' routine interaction with that timeline is essential. They should also be involved in creating their own...not dozens of little timelines, but a coherent whole. I can't stress enough that this image of the flow of time should be firmly planted and called forth in their minds in order for their 3rd trip through history to prove most beneficial. Remember, if you (the instructor) present an overwhelming amount of data, students will never retain it. The purpose of these 2 years is to cement that information which we want them to remember decades from now. Again, concentrate on the flow and where men and events fit rather than on exact dates. Only a few handfuls of dates need to be learned...students may not know the exact dates when Magellan sailed, but they should readily and precisely place him at the right place on a timeline (i.e. in the correct era, and correctly between surrounding events).

Once students master this flow of history, they are prepared to plunge head first into a third round with an in-depth emphasis on philosophy and ideas. The purpose is for students to recognize that every cultural expression - art, politics, wars, economics, literature, movies, etc. etc. etc. - are all outworkings of belief which either conform to or challenge the "zeitgeist." None of these are isolated events occurring in a vacuum. They are influenced by and exert influence on one another. When taken together, students not only gain a thorough understanding of and "feel" for a particular era but, as stated previously, they grasp the connection between belief and action...between ideas and their consequences.

I'll try to use another post later in the series to talk about resources that provide the necessary "content" for this type of history study. For now let this suffice: I recommend lots of age-appropriate biography, historical fiction and fine-art images for the 1st round, a solid text on Western Cilvilzation provides a pretty good summary of history for round 2 (even if you don't use the text itself with your students, it will help you determine the most significant events and people that should be highlighted!). And finally, primary sources should be your greatest resource during the 3rd round...speeches, essays, autobiographies, letters, historical documents (political and religious), along with the art, literature and music produced during the age being studied.

Classical Education: Hallmarks 1A

As hinted at previously, there is no such thing as a cookie-cutter classical school. Within the community exists a diverse range of opinions and emphases; however, I will propose a couple aspects which I consider hallmarks of an excellent classical education.

CE is dinstinguished by an unparalleled focus on history: the center around which all, or at least most, other content is organized. Not only is it central to the curriculum, but it is taught chronologically - revolutionary, I know - and the cycle is completed 3 times before a student graduates from high school. I have heard 2 major arguments against teaching history this way, so I'll briefly defend the practice.

Some purport that young children don't understand the concept of "Time" and therefore do not benefit from, and can in fact be confused by, chronological study. Now, it is certainly true that they do not grasp the philosophical meaning and language of "Time" but then...neither do I! But they certainly DO, from a very early age, understand the simple idea that one thing happened before another. That is all that is required. We don't let the fact that they don't understand the relationship between "symbol" and "the thing signified" keep us from teaching them to read, do we?

Another argument is that young children cannot understand that which is outside their realm of experience, so it is sufficient to teach them the history of their own family, city, school, etc. There is some validity to this argument, but if carried too far, we would fail to teach many things to our children. A significant part of education is bringing the student face-to-face with unfamiliar people, places and ideas. Additionally, by the time children enter school, they should have already have ample experience with "that which they haven't seen or experienced" through the development of their imaginations!

The validity of this argument is found in one of the foundational principles of teaching: that you begin with the familiar and proceed to the unfamiliar. Granted. That is a highly instructive and valuable principle with which I have no disagreement. Coupling this approach with the belief that children should be most familiar with their own history, leads to this suggested course of study:

Kindergarten - Family and community history

1st Grade - State history and some early American

2nd Grade - More Early American; begin Ancient Egypt 2nd semester

3rd Grade - Ancient Greece & Rome

4th Grade - Medieval (Augustine - Reformation)

5th Grade - Explorers & Early American (through Westward Expansion)

6th Grade - Civil War - WWII

This first cycle through history should be taught using stories, images, and memorization! Stories of great men and women who sacrificed for the good of others, and stories of events that changed the course of the world. HISTORY IS NOT BORING unless we make it so. History is fraught with fascinating accounts that captivate the hearts and minds of children. A wealth of biography and historical fiction are available for these ages...use them! Along with the stories, utilize images (a good way to incorporate fine art into your curriculum) that offer realistic representation of the era being studied, allowing the children to see the stories in their minds with some degree of accuracy. Those "facts" of history that are significant enough to require retention, should be set to songs, chants and rhymes which will be reviewed year after year. The rest provides exposure to lives that are worthy of emulation, or demonstrate the destruction wrought by foolishness. Children begin to sift all of history through the grid of God's sovereignty, and they begin to recognize the way He uses both man's wisdom and folly to bring about His own purposes. Next to the Scriptures themselves, history probably provides the greatest opportunity for growth in wisdom.

Around 4th-6th grade, depending on the maturity of your students, intensify the level of critical-thinking applied to the stories. As these children enter the "Logic" phase of learning, they benefit from being asked hard questions about men, events, decisions, and consequences. Challenge them to evaluate the ideas and beliefs behind these.

As this post has already become lengthier than I intended, I'll reserve the remainder of the history discussion for the next installment!

Classical Education: Virtuous Living 2

So what does it mean to attain the goal of Classical Education...to "live well"? It means to manifest honesty, integrity, faithfulness, sobriety, respect, determination, compassion, charity, patience, generosity and selflessness. Even non-Christians view these as worthy traits which, if practiced by the majority, would improve the world in which we live.

At least that was once the case.

Unfortunately, a sustained and pervasive relativism and skepticism has characterized education for enough years to make it difficult for our society to agree, not only on which characteristics qualify as virtues, but also on the definition of those qualities which we all deem as virtuous.

In order to last, true virtue must be rooted in Christianity. Unless firmly grounded and held in place by a system of belief, it will be blown about by every new wind, or blown away like chaff.

Why is honesty a virtue? Because the majority of citizens views it as such? What if they cease to recognize its value? Does it then cease to be a virtue? The same questions can be asked regarding every noble quality. The only enduring answer requires belief in a system of unalterable absolutes. Christians know those absolutes spring from the very essence of our Creator. He embodies and manifests all the virtues which we desire to emulate. Because they originate in Him, they are eternal and unchangeable in their goodness. How do we determine and define virtue? We look to the Author of all virtue and in His word and actions we see the Virtuous Image which we are created to reflect, then we strive to conform ourselves more and more to that Image.

Does that mean that classical education is only profitable for Christians? Well...no. Its benefits are more permanent when its recipients embrace Christianity, but the law of God is written on the hearts of all men so, when it is not entirely suppressed, even the unbeliever recognizes the value of a life well-lived and guided by virtue.

Classical Education: Virtuous Living 1

Classical education is not job-training.

The foundational philosophy of C.E. asserts that the goal of education is not economic, but living a good life.

All free men, regardless of the work they will eventually pursue, need a measure of knowledge, understanding and wisdom which will enable them to lead virtuous lives. Therefore, classical ed neglects, for a time, strictly utilitarian, job-specific skills in favor of cultivating a mastery of language, perspicuity of thought and purity of life.

The ancients believed this education must lead its students to discern the transcendent values of Goodness, Beauty and Truth. Exposure to the best and highest in all disciplines would result in refined tastes and sound judgements. They insisted that not all ideas or expressions of ideas are equally valid and virtuous, and that students do not instinctively know the difference and therefore must be trained to know. These assertions highly offend modern sensibilities and have led some to label this education as elitist. It can be, if we let it, but is not inherently so. (More about that when I address the pitfalls of C.E.)

The goal, then, of Classical Education is not for its students to achieve high SAT scores, be accepted at an Ivy League school, obtain a particular job, reach a certain level of financial gain, or to be labeled as successful, but rather to acquire wisdom which will enable its possessor to live well in every capacity of life - his home, his workplace, his neighborhod, his community, and his world.

Classical Education: The Trivium

What is Classical Education?

If you asked that question of 10 people within the Classical Education community, you would receive 10 variations on a theme. I've had a couple people ask me this lately, so here's my take:

First of all, Classical Education does not mean that we educate the same way the Greeks or Romans did. The ancient Greeks, thank God, did not start our schools. Greek education was reserved for wealthy families who hired tutors for their boys only, and these tutors frequently engaged in homosexual relations with their students. The entire Greek culture was one of pagan, idolatrous, hedonistic belief and lifestyle. That is absolutely not what modern classical education is about. Nor do we exclusively study the civilizations of western antiquity. We do utilize the languages of the classical culture as well as their techniques for logical thinking and effective communication, and we do see these cultures as the spring of our own civilization, but I'll talk more about that later. For now, let it suffice to say that classical education draws heavily from Reformation era thinking, as well as modern theory and practices, and could probably more accurately be called a Liberal Arts education.

One practical proof of this is that most everyone in the classical community, when asked to describe this education, will first cite Dorothy Sayers essay on the "Trivium" as the defining characteristic of this education. You can't get much more modern and much less classical (in era) than Miss Sayers. I believe this Trivium only scratches the surface of a methodology which is usually supported by the philosophical underpinnings of a rigorous liberal arts education.

So, what is this Trivium that everyone loves to talk about? It is an approach to education that seeks to help children learn according to their natural bent at particular ages.

For example: young children - from about age 2-10 - have the capacity to quickly and easily memorize copious amounts of information. They really love to show off what they've learned! They love to rhyme, sing, and move. They're utterly captivated by good stories. A classical classroom will captilize on these loves, by incorporating them into the learning strategy. History stories are set to rhyme. Scientific definitions are tailored to familiar tunes. Grammar facts are chanted aloud. This is the first "stage" of learning, referred to as the Grammar or Poll Parrot stage.

The next stage is the Logic, or Pert stage. From around age 11 or so (these ages vary slightly among individual children....children enter the next stage when they begin demonstrating characteristics of that stage), children are not nearly as fond of chanting and singing but are unceasingly fond of asking difficult questions that they think you can't answer. They seek diligently for any inconsistencies in your reasoning or ideas, and are more than happy to point them out. They begin to wonder "why" and "how" about the truths and facts they have learned previously. The classical teacher uses these characteristics to his advantage. Students are taught formal logic, and they are encouraged to begin to see the connections between all the facts they have learned. Questions and vigorous dialogue are standard practice..Rather than fear the questioning student or see him simply as rebellious, the teacher welcomes those questions (obviously, Christian students must be taught to ask out of respect and genuine curiosity, not merely a desire to ensnare the teacher!). There's just one little problem: this requires a truly knowledgeable, confident and very patient teacher!

As students enter high school (age 14 or so), they desire to make their opinions known. They have begun to take ownership of certain beliefs, ideas and interests and want to express them...either through speech, the written word, music or even poetry. Therefore this is referred to as the Rhetoric or Poetic stage. Students who have been well-taught, are ready to fine-tune their preferred avenue of expression by means of repetition, exposure to masters, and a well-equipped instructor who can teach them how to bolster their weaknesses and maximize their strengths.

In this stage, students can consider an era of history and draw conclusions about actions and ideas by studying in concert: national events, political beliefs, philosophy, science/technology, literature, art, music, theology, and church history. When taken as a whole, the student is able to recognize the cause and effect between these facets of life, which are not separate subjects, but intertwined expressions and outworkings of beliefs. They begin to understand the consequences of ideas and the way cultures are shaped, which leads them to evaluate their own ideas and culture.

So, there you have round 1! Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric...or Poll, Pert and Poetic. It is generally agreed that MODERN Classical Education utilizes this "Trivium" approach to learning. After 10 years of active involvement in this type of education, I am convinced of its merits, and believe it effectively capitalizes on the natural learning inclinations of each age.

More to come...