Line Upon Loving Line

The following precepts are the fruit of time I am spending right now trying to better understand the role of Language Arts in the high school curriculum.

  1. Language is fundamental to human flourishing. Without some facility in communication, man is unable to express himself to another, limiting him greatly in the expression of love.
  2. Love is more powerful than persuasive force. By this I mean that the sophist (who desires to control others through speech) is inferior to the one who passionately pursues truth in himself and others out of a love for truth.  Without beating it to death, this precept depends then upon the three oppositions to sophistry stated as…
    • Truth exists.
    • Truth can be known.
    • Truth can be, and should be, expressed, and that expression should be done from a motive of love for the truth and for the ones seeking it.
  3. So at its base, the learning of a language, or the bettering of oneself in a language, should come from a center of love for truth. I will not develop a whole supraset of thoughts here about truth, God, the Logos, etc, but this is where it belongs.
  4. Language is an art. All language has science within it (there are rules to grammar, logic and rhetoric that must be learned) but it is correctly considered as an art (something the student learns to “do”).  To be precise, the above mentioned three arts comprise together the Language or Grammatical Arts (Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric) but these are so closely aligned and dependent upon each other that they can be referred to jointly when studied in English as the English Language Arts.  Emphasizing knowledge of the subject rather than requiring facility with it will do great damage to the student’s understanding and ultimately love of the subject.  This confusion of science and art is a major flaw in contemporary education.  This leads to a number of sub-precepts…
    • Each art has its basic actions or fundamental skills. For language, this seems to at least imply an artist who can read, write, speak, and listen well.
    • Art must be demonstrated. With language this means all the actions common to the art must be modeled by the master teacher, and then practiced by the student under the watchful care of the master.
    • Mastery of an art is assessed by a master seeing the student perform. So all Language Arts teaching must involve both formative and summative assessments of all four basic functions in language.  A good English teacher makes his students speak, read, write, and listen often and with constant coaching on how to do it better.
  5. All art needs a muse; some thought must precede the act of language. This seems the basis for centering the English class on great literature.
    • Great literature provides great thoughts for the student to springboard from into their own expressions (both oral and written).
    • Great writing becomes a model for the student’s own attempts at the art.
    • Broad reading in great literature (meaning from different times, places, and purposes) will provide a full palate of materials from which the student can work to build their own enlarged understanding and expressed wisdom.
  6. The Language Arts should constantly induce love of words (Grammar), sentences (Logic), and those works of art they produce (Rhetoric). Given how broad these three Arts are, this is obviously simplistic, but should contain the basis of a good English class.

These musing have kept my mind swirling around the central concepts of Love vs. Power.  Far too much of education today is not about bringing a student toward the same love the master has for their subject, but rather coerce each other toward mutual power.  The teacher of today wants students who perform well so their job is secure.  The student of today wants a good grade so they can get the most financial reward from their “education” as is possible.  The sad fact seems to remain that while many “read” their way through an impressive list of books in school (or bore themselves with the Sparknotes available in lieu of such reading), once the grade is gone they have no love for or desire to continue reading for pleasure and real growth.  We may have to rethink the national literacy statistics.

Advertisements

What Would Constitute the Teacher’s Creed?

My school has asked me to articulate the basic tenets of education at our institution.  Is this is frustratingly fun exercise for me.  Frustrating because I am trying to boil so much down into few words, and fun because it is asking me to articulate the most exciting project I know: that of educating the souls of God’s children.

The following is not what I have put together for my school – it is its own community and cannot be expected to follow my thinking fully (I don’t think any school should fully follow any one person’s definition of education, while many try and thus fail).

The Teacher’s Creed

I believe that all education is a leading souls out from darkness into the Light of the eternal Logos, Who is Christ.

The direct effect of embodying the Logos is the cultivation of wisdom and virtue in the life of the learner.

Integrated learning within the Logos casts aside all fragmentation of knowledge, seeing the unity of all Truth within the Godhead.  All learning is moral and leads toward a greater understanding of God’s world, His redemptive plan for that world now fallen, and immortality in Christ.

Good learning in the Logos teaches…

  • that God honors those who honor Him, which is the foundation for a proper view of oneself. Respect for others and self is best found in a sincere love for the Truth.
  • all real learning occurs in the mind that is taught nothing that it can teach itself.
  • that with increased learning should come increased service and responsibility. Real learning changes how one lives, not just what one knows.
  • that loving God with our minds requires we learn to think clearly, critically, and independently while maintaining a proper respect for authority and tradition.
  • that the basis for all learning is the embodiment of ideas, so that education leads the learner from knowledge, to understanding, and then on into wisdom, which is simply artful living.
  • that most learning begins and continues in the context of great, open, compelling questions.
  • that no learner is an island unto himself, but a part of the community of truth. This means the learner must gain the ability to respect and interact with others, especially those who disagree with them.
  • that the mind, body, and soul of every learner is an integrated and real entity, requiring that all three aspects be addressed by anything wishing to be called education.

Loving Rightly

I have long been a fan of St. Augustine’s teaching on Ordo Amoris, the right ordering of our loves.  I believe it is much of what really is entailed in education.  Teaching a soul to love the best things the most really what the Liberal Arts are focused on.  So…

…If loving rightly is the key to happiness (and it is)

…and we teach children today to love themselves more than anything else

…and they learn what we teach

…then whatever comes between them and themselves will be less loved.

Fallen man has always loved himself too much.  What, therefore, is the natural result of teaching a young child to love themselves more, than how to align their love of self in such a way that God and their fellow humans come before their love of themselves?

I am afraid I have spent too much of my teaching career trying to convince students to love the given subject of study rather than showing them how their own happiness is wrapped up in the Giver of the subject.  The notion of Christ at the Center, that He is the Logos, that no matter what is being studied, all things bring us to Him and He brings us to eternal life is hard in a distracted world.  Our souls have become addicted to distraction, screens, and love of the mirror.

“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”  ― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses

It Goes Both Ways

I sat in my office chair and reflected on what had just happened.  It is not like this does not happen often (because it does) but sometimes you are hit right between the eyes with it.  My students had just enlightened me.

Often in my seminar course, where I am seated and sharing equally in the lessons the Great Conversation teaches us all, I learn new things from Plato, Augustine, or Camus.  In my literature courses as well, the students find things I have never seen.  But this time it was a Freshman!

My course for the Freshmen introduces them into the Intellectual Life and teaches them the basic skills to thrive in high school and college.  We play around with such basic skills as reading, writing, speaking, and listening.  It is a class where I feel “safe” with the subject material.  And yet, on this day, the clouds parted and light poured in.

wg_crepuscular_rays

” I think you are selling something none of us want to buy.”

The student was unblinking and bold as he stated what it seemed to him the majority of his classmates were thinking.  We had been discussing reading and why it is so central to the Intellectual Life, and perhaps, all of life.  I had poured out my passion for reading, and books, and ideas, and learning, and…and…then this bald statement.  The wind kind of came out of the sails.

“What do you mean by that?”  I was convinced that if he rethought his statement, he would see the error.  But instead, he and his classmates began answering the question in spades.

“Of what real value is reading in today’s world?”

“Who needs to read anything when you can Google it?”

“What job requires reading?”

That is when the light struck me in the eyes.  Our modern world makes little of reading.  When I was young (and dinosaurs threatened my extinction), there was tremendous guilt for the young person who did not read.  He or she would hide or disguise their lack of reading.  Now the tables seem to be turned.  Reading for any prolonged period of time is mostly seen as either recreational or utilitarian.  “Of course I will read if it will bring me some monetary benefit.”  But don’t hurt yourself reading more than you have to; keep this to a minimum.  Read smart.  Those on the cutting edge will let SparkNotes do the heavy reading for them and they get the gist in bulleted points.  Most of what we as adults model to young people is how to read as little as possible, not how to read more and better.  Far too many of us (and I hope you note I am including myself here) read a title or half a sentence and then click on to the next thing.

So did this moment destroy my passion for teaching students to read?  No.  But it sure helped me see more clearly that such instruction is more and more a counter-cultural activity, not something to be assumed.  I had answers to the questions they raised, but the fact that they are now being raised when they really were not even questions in my youth helped me learn a lesson I hope I never forget: learning is as much about what we love as what we know.  We are what we love.

21st Century Problem

Studying humans is a hard thing to do.  We are not a discrete lump of information, and we don’t pattern very well.  Most of the mis-guided assumptions of past ideologies about how science can tame the wildness of anthropological study are just that: wrong guesses.  But that being said, we still try to discover what truths we can find in the morass of data that is ever growing in various Excel sheets of the world.  My peremptory point is this: science is limited in what it can tell us about education.

But…many are looking at whether the leap to electronic media is helping or hindering the pursuit of educational excellence.  Read this overview from the Business Insider and then consider my few “off the cuff” considerations of the issue of whether screens or pages are better.

Meditations on the Surface of the Issue:

  1. The media are different – ink on paper is not the same as light on screens.
  2. A potential impact on these author’s study could be that by studying college students, they are still studying students who learned to read on paper and moved to a screen after acquiring their reading skills. Not sure if their findings hold years from now when screen reading is all that has been done.  That does not dismiss everything, it just makes me wonder how much is incidental and how much is necessary.
  3. There is probably a connection between reading speed and reading comprehension, so the fact that online is faster would lead me to the conclusion that it was less comprehending. The key here is not necessarily to change media, but to slow down.
  4. How much of this discussion is a matter of taste, or a discussion of the familiar vs the new rather than a real substantive discussion of benefits compared?
  5. The “digital revolution” is over, we just have to figure out how to live with it. I am not seriously considering trying to promote a counter-revolution, but all such paradigm shifts include unintended consequences that usually impact front line folks way more than those who implemented the shift, such as teachers in the classroom figuring out how to “use” an ipad to promote learning.

 

Is Change Good for Education?

Ken Robinson starts his compelling talk on Paradigms in Education (see a whiteboard video of that talk here) by stating rightly that education around the world seems locked in a cycle of constant reform.  Educators are hard to please.  They have quantified the human soul (or so they think) so now let’s get the “numbers” headed up.  This, coupled with the misguided assumptions of Progressive thought, means that yesterday’s answers are never useful for today’s issues.  But I beg to differ.

First, it has been very convenient for modern education to constantly be in a state of flux.  Let’s take something that is known to be fairly standard:  standardized testing.  Most insiders know that if there is one thing Standardized tests are not, it is stable.  I know the “standard” is referring to the fact that it is the same test for everyone.  But should it not also be roughly the same test today that it was ten years ago?  Otherwise any discussion of how students have performed over time is irrelevant.  If the test is changing regularly, it is not the same measurement as it was formerly.  And my perception, unauthoritative though it may be, is that the tests have not even changed for the better, but rather that the same score today indicates less proficiency than ten years ago.  So if a school’s test scores are holding steady, they are getting less proficient.  If they are getting better, they are holding even with the change curve.  Prove me wrong and I will admit it; but part of the issue here is how hidden all this is form the surface of the pond.  These things are happening deep in the ever changing currents of modern educational waters.

Second, not all change is equal.  I will try to state this clearly, and it will thus seem too bold.  If humankind is fundamentally different today than in the past (no matter here the rate of change; the simple fact of fundamental change is the point), then all that has to do with education must be in constant flux.  But if there are aspects of humankind that do not change, then we can have principles that hold true to all education, even when changes occur.  So there is a fundamental assumption that needs declaring before any real discussion can be had.  Two people who come down on opposing sides in this question can still have good debate, but in the end they will still be across the “pond” from each other.  I hold to the notion that man has a nature, and that nature (though not what it was when initially formed) is still what it was a long time ago.  This means I can find principles throughout man’s conversation about education that still apply to what I am doing today.

If by change we mean that each generation shifts its focus, or its predilections, or its tastes, etc., then it is necessary for a teacher to exercise the principle that states the teacher must meet the student where he is and then lead him to where he needs to be.  That is a principle that seems to hold no matter the context.  Educators must connect with the student.  Such principles then need only be applied to the desired ends the educator has in mind and means (which may change with changing contexts) will fall in line.  I am not saying the ends justify the means, but I am saying there is no way to discuss whether means should change without discussing the ends.

So that brings me to my final question or contemplation about change.  What “things” can change in education without changing the definition of education?  If the ends are different today than, say, fifty years ago, then we can discuss whether all ends now are better than then, or if some were better then, or thus forth.  This discussion of ends then becomes the key to the question.  So it seems that a robust discussion of what the ends of education should be, and then what path would get us to those ends is really the determinate of what changes are good or bad.

And that is my plea here.  When I interact with the professional educator world today, much is made of means.  The ends of education, I am told, are so self-evident as to be a silly discussion.  And yet I find most of the hot button issues of today’s educational debate to be ones that would be moot if more time were spent on why we educate rather than how.

So let me write down, for the umpteenth time, what is the motto of this blog and my teaching career:

Education is the cultivation of wisdom and virtue in the soul of a human by liberating effects found in the constant contemplation of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.  Period.

Chicken Soup for the Classical Teacher’s Soul

We approach the end of a school year; we are tired, therefore say these types of things over and over, when it’s quiet and you are alone:

35ef04f781f7ca28dec7664cc79c4ec3

  1. Truth exists.
  2. The Truth will set you free.
  3. You cannot make truth, nor can you sell it, nor can you make it into anything. It is.  You are related to it.
  4. Your students need Truth, as do you.
  5. Truth leads to a great number of things: God, joy, happiness, wisdom, a vocation, the ability to live rightly in this world which includes loving (a small part of which is being able to earn the money needed to care for the needs of yourself and others), etc.
  6. Much of what is frustrating in the classroom is some error or impropriety regarding #1-5.
  7. A lot more of the frustration we face in teaching is outside #1-6 and lies in other expectations and pursuits we import into education when all that is truly important is contained in #1-5.

I truly believe that if we would maintain some mantra-like grasp of these 7 things, we would teach better, with more focus, and find it much easier to love our students as God would have us love them.