Talk:Classical education movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Overlapping modern/classical content?[edit]

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)

resource for teaching using socratic method[edit]

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

Primary Education[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Globalization[edit]

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

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)