Talk:Classical education movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelsey.rakoczy. Peer reviewers: Jiletka, FawnTail, Emmaschroder, Mbannon6182.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Overlapping modern/classical content?

The "secondary" section appears to discuss how modern "classical education" is taught, in contrast to the classical "classical education" in the rest of the section. I suggest someone with a better understanding of the subject than myself move the inapropriate material to the "modern" section below. If this material is correctly placed, then the stuff about the Socratic method being preferable needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV. matturn 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is now 2009 and the preceding comment has still not been appropriately addressed. I am not very familiar with this movement and I turn to Wikipedia for an explanation. But the article bounces back and forth between the past tense and present tense. It is very unclear what elements of medieval education are being practiced in the modern movement. There still needs to be a clear separation so that people like me can understand the background (in one section) and the modern movement (the main article). --seberle (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess. Nothing in the two preceding comments has been addressed. It is impossible to know what is historical background and what is description of current practice in the classical education movement. I am adding a tag until this article makes sense.--seberle (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this article could benefit from a compare/contrast with modern education around the world. This article could also benefit from a presentation of the opposing viewpoint about classical education and it's effectivenesss, as of now, the article seems to be biased in favor of classical education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.51 (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the compare to "modern education" suggestion, at least specifically in this article. That is because trying to shoehorn two fundamentally incompatible POVs would make the article excessively politicized and full of contention between their adherents. All the more so given that one of the POVs is heavily favored in the media and "studies have shown" and so, per Wikipedia rules, would have a major edge pushing its claims running roughshod over opposition. Indeed, the two viewpoints are so incompatible that they disagree even with factual basis of foundational claims of the other side, e.g. classical educationists considering modern educationists' claim of teaching "creativity" to be a blatant lie. So I think it is preferable to keep the bulk of this article mostly focused on "pro classical" POV and have comparisons and/or criticisms either in separate section or, even better in a separate article along the lines of "Comparison of classical and modern education based on media claims and latest edschool research". 76.119.30.87 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is now 2011 and these concerns have still not been addressed. The confusion in this article between the modern classical education movement and the Medieval university is spilling over into other articles as well (e.g. math education). A clear distinction needs to be made between the two. What elements of medieval education are actually being included in the modern movement? --seberle (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to help clarify this article. Most of the pieces appear to be here, but the intro in particular is awkward. I have made an attempt to make this more integrated by rewriting the into. The picture was also very distracting and has been modified. Discussion of Figure moved into history rather than left in logo. --CCeducator (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I spent a while trying to integrate the entire "miss mosh." I think by clarifying the header names, adding some subsections and cleaning up the references (some) it reads more clearly. Part of the problem was that "modern education" and "classical education" use different methodologies. In particular, modern education does not like the idea of grammar (rote learning) and wants to impart understanding from the beginning (answering why - before the building blocks exist to answer why). This is much oversimplified, but I think the first heading was somewhat misleading in the parallels to modern education. I left the words, but tried to point out the contrast. Hopefully it makes sense. --CCeducator (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading through these comments I just want to add that I agree with them all. But Ihave read the article this morning, thirteen years after concerns were first raised about it above and eight since the last comment on this particular thread, and nothing seems to have been substantially improved. Or rather - since I don't want to disparage the efforts of those of you have tried to improve it - I can't believe how bad it must have been before those improvements, since large parts of it remain nonsensical today. At least some of it seems to me to have been written as spoof or deliberate provocation. The 'one to amuse companions and another to decorate one's domicile' passage certainly reads that way, and that whole central section on 'the three stages' is unsupported. It is a article which needs a complete overhaul. As someone said above, it is just a total mess. Liamcalling (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

resource for teaching using socratic method

Michael Strong's book "Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice"

Primary Education

So was the trivium taught to younger students (as the this article implies) or to entering students at medieval universities (as the trivium article states)?

Article misnamed

Everything in the article as it stands is exposition of the contemporary American Classical education movement, and this is how the page should be renamed. There is some information about ancient and medieval trends that have inspired the movement, but the lens and assumptions are those of the contemporary world. This is extremely simple to prove: Herodotus' Histories were an important source for teaching history...for whom? Not for anyone in the Medieval West, obviously. Children are sponges for vocabulary acquisition...as discussed by what ancient or Medieval author? "To amuse companions, and...to decorate one's domicile" were goals in the cathedral schools or universities serving clerics in the Medieval West? There is no answer to any of these questions, and there is no prospect of converting an article on this subject to an article on the entirely different subject of education in the past ages. I'm not saying the historical content needs to go (it clearly provides the background theory for the modern movement), although such ludicrous statements as that Plutarch's Lives were a textbook in the Middle Ages need to be discarded. My diagnosis can moreover be inferred from the previous comments on this page. If there is any valid information on the subject of Medieval education that can be attributed to a reliable source, perhaps it would be welcome at the better article on that subject, Medieval university. Wareh 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As there was no discussion here, I have completed the move. Classical education will still point readers to this page, in addition to encyclopedia articles that provide some historical treatment of the educational practices of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Wareh 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this incoherent farrago is absolutely clueless about the history of education, not to mention history in general. Medieval education and classical education are not the same thing at all, but instead are complete opposites. Returning to the education of the Middle Ages and its uncouth, garbled Latin would be a step back into ignorance and barbarism.

In the Middle Ages, Greek was not taught and Latin grammar strayed far away from Classical Latin, becoming a subject of derision and ridicule for later scholars. In the Middle Ages, teachers used anthologies and little excerpts, which students copied from dictation. They did not actual texts or whole books because there weren't enough of them. The actual texts were hidden away in monasteries. During the Renaissance scholars went to the monasteries and had multiple copies made of these manuscript which then then collated with manuscripts from other monasteries, filling in gaps and systematically correcting errors. This (philology) was the great accomplishment of humanism. The most important author for these humanists was Cicero, the inventor of humanism. Cicero recommended educating the "whole person" so as to form an orator who could participate in civic affairs and talk intelligently on many subjects.

Renaissance educators abandoned the Medieval Trivium and Quadrivium in favor of Cicero's studiae humanitatis, restored the teaching of Greek and Hebrew, and reformed Latin grammar reformed to make it agree with the grammar of Cicero. They also introduced a clear handwriting, even before the introduction of printing.

Renaissance Humanist scholars reintroduced the educational use of whole texts in the original languages, newly edited to get rid of the copyists many many mistakes.

The modern "Great Books" program teaches so-called great books in (often very mediocre) English translation, which is completely contrary to the Classical (and Renaissance) spirit, etc., etc. 173.77.111.82 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle's Logic

The article refers to a work called "Aristotle's Logic", but there is no such work. This section is unsourced so I'm not sure whether the writer meant the Organon, one of the particular works on logic, or some course derived from Aristotelian logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.77.26 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Main problem with this article

The primary reason this article is confusing is that it is not clear when the article is addressing medieval education and when it is describing the modern American movement which partly imitates medieval education. This problem has persisted for over five years without any attempt at correction. It would be really good if an expert could edit this article. See the first discussion section above. --seberle (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not merge with Classical Christian education

The movement(s) for classical education are many. Classical Christian education refers to a specific flavor.

The modern Classical Christian education movement in the USA refers to a growth in schools based on Wilson, Douglas (1991). Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning: An Approach to Distinctively Christian Education. Good News Publishers. ISBN 0891075836.. The article Classical Christian education basically discusses this specific flavor.

AFA-NCF (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the tag. No argument has been advanced for this merge, despite the fact that the tag has been there for over two years. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanded flavor by adding some external links

Attempting to add relevant external links is being met with arbitrary deletion. Jasonmhood (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Included link to international Classical Christian Schools (I am sure there are just Classical ones, but I do not know them). Added some good classical external links=> Latin Library & Classical Page. I would encourage others to add some relevant links. CCeducator 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFA-NCF (talk • contribs)

Globalization

Work appears to have been done to relate classical education to the historical Western definition and to include information on other non-western perceptions of classical. I have therefore removed {{Globalize}} If you believe this is inappropriate please discuss what you believe is missing. User:CCeducator (User talk:CCeducator) CCeducator 21:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement

It needs a section on criticisms and alternative approaches. In the meantime, it would benefit from a flag about the subjectivity of its content. 2600:1700:3681:5000:4DF3:CB9B:E6B7:20AF (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Will consider how to improve in this regard. -- Jjhake (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged it as unbalanced. Tried to fix it a bit but it still needs a lot of work. Mvolz (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry missed this comment before I replied to you at more length in a new section below. Thank you for the work and the tag as unbalanced (which I agree is a key aspect involved with improvement of this article). -- Jjhake (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarity on the topic sorely needed

This entry is called the "Classical education movement," which in large part has become a movement in love with a grave misunderstanding. It is a misunderstanding of the (almost worshiped) article, "The Lost Tools of Learning" by Sayers, which is referenced in the entry. Sayers did not intend for her article to be a paradigm of education; she was merely exploring an interesting correlation between the trivium of the liberal arts and a very simplistic model of child development. Classical education, on the contrary, is just that: an education in the classics. And in order to learn the classics, you need to learn Latin and Greek. (See Tracy Lee Simmons's book Climbing Parnassus for an excellent explanation of classical education.) That being said, there are two issues that need to be addressed concerning this entry:

1. Although largely mistaken, this movement does exist, and deserves to have an entry. It also needs to be distinguished from real Latin-Greek education.

2. This entry needs to be extremely clear in the fact that the pop-classical movement is less of a classical movement per se, and more of a move both to a liberal arts education and a simple developmental paradigm. --Nathanael Hahn (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Helpful thoughts here to consider. I'd be interested to chat more about your thoughts on possible improvements. Is there article content somewhere already on Latin-Greek education? Do you think that that The Liberal Arts Tradition by Ravi Jain and Kevin Clark involves more of an actual renewal? -- Jjhake (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Move article to "Classical education renewal"

More of the literature and the secondary sources seem to refer to a "renewal" than a "movement" so having this current title redirect to "Classical education renewal" as the primary name seems best. Thoughts? -- Jjhake (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. This needs a lot more discussion, and should be done via WP:RM. ("Perform requested move" is also a bit strange for an edit summary when you requested it yourself!) It is doubtful that "renewal" is the most common name (what is your evidence?) and "movement" is certainly used to describe it: e.g. Classical Education: The Movement Sweeping America. StAnselm (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Thank you for the feedback. Makes sense. I'll pull together and share a survey of the terminology that I'm seeing. -- Jjhake (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@StAnselm: below are a few quick examples. I'm seeing "renewal" very broadly and increasingly in the sources over the past couple of years. It would be difficult to do a complete numerical analysis of history of usages, but I'll keep looking over the history of names used since the early 1980s when the history of the renewal more movement began. Glad to get your thoughts and input as well.

• https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-growing-movement-to-restore-classical-education
• https://catholicliberaleducation.org/recommendations-for-renewal/
• https://classicalacademicpress.com/blogs/classical-insights/the-legacy-and-modern-renewal-of-classical-education
• https://christopherperrin.substack.com/
• https://societyforclassicallearning.org/the-impact-of-the-classical-renewal-movement-on-higher-education/
• https://chalkboardreview.com/doug-wilson-on-pioneering-the-classical-education-renewal-movement/

Jjhake (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the first one has two bob each way: "classical renewal movement". StAnselm (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The standard thing is to provide all of the common names and redirect to the one most widely showing up. These are the two most common, and there may be a couple of others. I'll update the article opening along the lines of what I'm thinking is pretty standard. Jjhake (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

unbalanced tag and work

@Mvolz: the unbalanced tag makes sense, and I appreciate the work you've done so far in addressing some of the unbalanced concerns. However, in reviewing a few of your specific edits so far, I'm seeing some that do not have a reason that is clear to me. These seem to be worth more discussion or explanation on a first glance:

1. As noted in the "Prevalence" still, there are hundreds of public charger schools that are shaped by ideas in the classical renewal, so I'm not sure why this should be removed entirely from the lead section. Better sources and more specific numbers are needed, but I suspect from what I have seen that charter classical schools are close or ahead in number of students served to independent classical schools.
2. It seems notable to keep at least the reference to "peer-reviewed" in place with the description of the new Principia journal.
3. Why remove The College Fix as an example of a new story citing the classical renewal?
4. Several other books are critical of the "three stages" ideas including Liberal Arts Tradition by Clark and Jain as well as Wisdom and Eloquence: A Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning by Littlejohn and Evans. These should be cited along with VanDamme in this regard.

Your section on "Criticism" was badly needed (and needs further development, no doubt). Several other edits by you also have clear reasons. Thanks for the help with this article. I hope several folks can sustain ongoing improvements. --Jjhake (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

As someone who just found this article (through a link from trivium), and who has no strong feelings for or against the merits of the described movement: This article gushes with breathless enthusiasm; therefore it is difficult to take it seriously. The "Recent history" section (why "Recent"?) is weighed down with accounts of media posts from the last two years or so, with the dates of their appearance — giving a naive sense that history is changing before our eyes.

This is not the way to write an encyclopedia article. Less presentism, please. Don't try to anticipate events or trends. Don't lard the article with terms like "growing movement." Be neutral and as concise as possible. Believe it or not, that kind of article will better serve classical education advocates (and almost all other readers) than will and an advocacy piece disguised as an encyclopedia article. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)