A Lively Kind of Learning: Mastering the Seminar Method by Jennette DeCelles-Zwerneman

A fellow teacher recommended a website to help us as we craft our Seminar class. On that site I discovered A Lively Kind of Learning: Mastering the Seminar Method by Jennette DeCelles-Zwerneman. It turned out to be a very helpful book. I recommended that our entire team read the short treatise and discuss a la "book club"!

I found several worthy gems: "The goals of the seminar are to teach the following skills and habits of mind: how to read well with sensitivity to genre; how to speak precisely in a spirited, adult conversation marked by wonder and rigor; how to defend their positions and gracefully change their minds when necessary; how to think through a thorny problem from beginning to end with precision; and how to think about the world more generally." (p. 5)

Something to reflect on: "Another more sober complaint against conducting seminars with high school students is that it invites arrogance in young people who enjoy minimal experience of the world and who are already prone to sophomoric pronouncements. (p. 6)

The goal: "If a seminar discussion is successful, the students should know that they have learned something at its conclusion." (p. 8)

Questions to ask: "Why do you say that? What do you mean by that? Where is that in the text?

Can you expand on that? How can you maintain that reading in light of this other passage? You are now contradicting what you said before; did you mean to do that? What would we have to assume to believe what you're saying is true?" (p. 9)

A call to center the text: "Seminar leaders should always begin with the concrete text before them. The rest will follow naturally. The students should know that the text is the source of their discussion and that they should not be consulting outside sources." (p. 20)

A word of advice on what to do; "When sorting through philosophical texts, an exceptionally useful habit to acquire is the practice of distilling arguments on a one-half sheet of paper in outline form. Restricting oneself this way has the effect of clarifying the issues and disciplining the mind." (p. 28)

The author outlines "Six Patterns for Leading Seminar":

1. Recreate the drama, collect the questions. "Learning to ask good questions is an important intellectual skill that should be acquired in seminar training." (p. 36)
2. Arguments: Find them first than evaluate. "The students are directed to locate the thesis of an argu-ment, the argument's logical construction, and the evidence offered by the interlocutor for that position." (p. 36)
3. Two by Two. "In this pattern, the students are working together, building a shared experience of the text. They are seeing it through the eyes of their colleagues, and they are seeing afresh what they had missed on their own." (p. 40)
4. Line by line. "We are trying to teach the students how to read, and that involves occasions of close, detailed investigation of the text." (p. 44)
5. Competing Essays. "The fifth kind of seminar discussion is based on two competing essays written by the students themselves...The essay assignment would have to solicit opposing but arguable positions." (p. 49)
6. The Big Picture. "It involves comparing and contrasting assessments of various authors on a variety of overlapping concerns an interests." (p. 50)

Finally the book ends with "Common Mistakes that Spoil a Seminar."

The Expert: "[T]hey fear the unruly and often unpredictable nature of the seminar. They are frightened when students start interrupting each other. Because they fear the seemingly gigantic pauses that sometimes open up in these conversations, they fill them, instead of patiently waiting for the students to catch up...If the seminar leader plays the Expert long enough, the students will catch on and wait for him to settle the debate..."(p. 57)

The Traffic Cop: "They believe their purpose is to stay out of the way and keep the traffic moving by calling on students to speak; directing traffic by quieting interruptions and ticketing malcontents; and waving travelers through the intersection by cueing up the next remark." (p. 60)

The best Seminar teacher functions as an "Experienced Mountain Guide."The skillful teacher needs to be intellectually alive, energetic, and opportunistic. When the students move the conversation into unexpected territory, and the issues arising are potentially fruitful, the teacher needs to guide that conversation and move in the fresh direction suggested by the students' questions and remarks." (p. 61)

And finally, my biggest takeaway: "One of the most important skills students gain in these discussions is learning how to engage each other, not just the teacher, in a lengthy and substantive exchange. It is imperative that the students be consistently redirected to address one another in these conversations." (p. 76)

In true Seminar fashion, the author details the Final Cause of Seminar: "We want them to become reflective, rigorous, intellectually honest, spiritually sensitive, and competent readers of a wide and various selection of genres. The seminar should cultivate in the students the ability to think through problems independently, collaboratively, and imaginatively; to scrutinize arguments and evaluate the truth of those ar-guments; to imaginatively observe and reflect on the created world in a piece of literature and the development and motivation of the characters who inhabit that world; and to be genuinely moved by the beauty and the suffering they confront in their reading. Finally, the students should acquire an understanding of the world and their place in it." (p. 89)

Ithaca by Claire North

I read Ithaca by Claire North because I saw it on a shelf of recommendation at the library and because I'm interested in the subject matter. It's fresh take on a very old story made it definitely worth it. It takes the Odyssey and flip it on its head. Rather than hear the story from Odysseus point of view, it shows us Penelope as seen through the eyes of Hera. 

The author does a good job delving into the complicated world inhabited by Penelope. She especially provides insight into the relationship with her son Telemachus and the threats he faced. She intrigues with the introduction of an "Egyptian" but we never really get the payoff. 

Penelope must prove her strength against mysterious invaders, while keeping the suitors at bay and not at each other's throats. The clock is ticking and her son is in the crosshairs. No word from Odysseus, her loyalty does not seem to be necessarily to him, as much as to keeping herself, her son, and her island alive. She seems to succeed to live another day, but so many questions remain.

That was one of the issues I had with the book. The ending was ambiguous and not fulfilling. Odysseus does not even return to banish the suitors. Who is the mysterious "Egyptian"?

I discovered this is part one of a trilogy. I'm interested to read the others. Hopefully the questions will be answered. 

Clair North has done a good job retelling an ancient story. Her narrator, Hera, is funny, irreverent, and smart. The language grates a little with anachronistic phrasing and jenky metaphors. But overall, a fun ride.

The Pattern of God's Truth by Frank E Gaebelein

The Pattern of God's Truth by Frank E Gaebelein is a timely reminder to Christian teachers and schools that all truth is God's truth. 

    The primary responsibility of a teacher is to lead her students towards the truth of God and into the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom. Yet all too often we fall victim to a worldly mentality that treats academic knowledge as distinct from the kind of truth that forms us spiritually. We have made the mistake of applying the label “Christian” to our schools and calling it good. Yet Gaebelein reminds us that all truth is God's truth, and therefore truth, by definition, must be integrated and point to God as its ultimate source. We, as Christians, have no trouble recognizing God as the fount of all knowledge and all truth, but often we teach our subject so removed from this idea that our students are little better off than had they received a secular education. The point of education is to direct our students towards God; knowledge is the path.

    The key to a thoroughly Christian education is a Christian teacher. As hard as it seems to believe, some Christian schools have found the task of hiring only Christian teachers a hurdle too high. Apparently some are willing to compromise for the sake of competence in the subject. Yet Gaebelein insists that teachers must not only be committed Christians, but knowledgeable of their subject and teachers of the Bible. They must have a thoroughly informed Christian worldview. These kinds of teachers will most naturally infuse revealed truth into reasoned truth as they integrate the truths found in Scripture with the truths found in the textbooks. And they will naturally point out errors in the texts when a conflict arises with Scripture. These teachers, fully immersed in a relationship with Christ, are the only teachers suitable to integrating all truth.

    The question then becomes how to practically integrate the material from various subjects with God’s revealed truth in Scripture. Gaebelein starts with the subject he believes most would find difficult to integrate - mathematics. He describes a teacher able to portray the beauty found in the patterns and laws of mathematics that reflect an orderly and rational God. For Gaebelein each subject reveals a portion of God’s character. The teacher who can reveal the beauty of numbers and their relation to each other can also reveal the beauty of a God who made math possible in the first place. Numbers, patterns, rational laws are all the products of a Mind that is rational and beautiful in its orderliness. Two plus two equals four because God created a world that reflects His commitment to order and rules; two plus two will always equal four, in every conceivable circumstance, throughout all time, because God is the same in all circumstances, throughout all of time. He is not random nor changeable. Math is because God is.

    Finally Gaebelein calls us to look beyond the walls of the classroom in our integration of truth. In extra-curricular activities, in discipline, in chapel services, in the marketing of the school, and in our personal search for scholarship, Christians must see everything as a way to lead others to the fear and admonition of the Lord. Often we think of extra-curricular activities as just that, extra. But Gaebelein makes it clear that all activities must point to the character of God and lead students into a relationship with him. Discipline must reflect the sacrificial love of Christ. Our chapel services must direct the students towards a loving and holy God. Marketing must accurately reflect the capabilities and vision of the school. Christian schools must be sold as discipling institutions, not places of career advancement. And Christians must avoid the temptation to shun worldly scholarship pursuits. Some believe ours should be a simple faith and want to avoid high levels of academic achievement. But if all truth is God's truth, more knowledge can and should lead to a deeper love and understanding of God. 

    Christian education is a high and holy calling. It is not for the faint of heart. “But for those who are called, for those who have for youth a Christ-like love and sympathy, Christian education is a glorious work. It means dealing with the most important and precious material in the world -- growing human souls. Few professions bear so plainly the marks of the Lord Jesus, which are the marks of self-sacrifice.” (108)

Something They Will Not Forget by Joshua Gibbs

Joshua Gibbs is my hero and my mentor teacher. He has never met me and has no idea I exist, but that doesn't stop me from referring to him as my mentor. When it was announced that he had written Something They Will Not Forget, I put in a pre-order and anxiously awaited its arrival. In typical Joshua Gibbs fashion, he blows away all the detritus that has gathered around teaching and reveals precious nuggets.

The book is basically an apologetic for his idea of a catechism. Well, a catechism is not exactly his idea, but an old one, resurrected and used to great benefit within a classical classroom. But in the process of making his argument, he first needs to demolish some strongholds.

He first tackles the teacher and student's natural aversion to subjectivity. He brilliantly points out that even the most objective question, "What date was the Divine Comedy written?" is still very subjective. The fact that the questions even exists is a subjective call on the part of the teacher. In fact, if we do it right as teachers, we will find that the "subjective" topics withstand the test of time far better than the seemingly objective ones will. The Pieta is beautiful. While that is subjective, it is true and defensible and will continue to be true for another millennia. Whether or not Pluto is a planet seems to change daily. Yet at one time, "List the 9 planets" seemed a perfectly reasonable objective question. A beautiful example is stated, "Seven hundred years later, the world still attends to Dante's Comedy, even though every page of the book is shot through with Dante's [false] geocentric beliefs." (p. 14) Often, the subjective things are the important things. Besides, the objective things are often forgotten and need to be looked up later anyways.

Which brings him to why and how we remember. After quizzing his students on what they remember from previous classes and being repeatedly disappointed with how little they remember, he tried to understand why it was that certain things stuck. When asking his students how they memorized the things they still recalled, "They answered this question one by one, all their answers began with the same two words: We all... Simply put, everything they remembered years later had been memorized as a group." (p. 26) He recognized a power in memorizing as a group, at a certain time and location. The students seemed to instinctively realize that the teacher had found something worthy enough of precious class time to devote the necessary minutes and hours to the recitation of a piece of text. "In fact, students do not learn what the teacher tests on, they learn what he lavishes his minutes and hours on." (p. 27)

Joshua Gibbs' idea of a catechism is to start each class period with a set of questions and answers recited by the whole class which covers all the most important material for the year. This 5-7 minute exercise involves reciting from primary sources in answer to universal and virtue-inducing questions. The benefits are manifold. As for time, Gibbs reminds us that the first few minutes of class are usually a waste anyways. But beyond that, the catechism shifts the student's mind and puts him in a place where he is ready to discuss the big ideas and read hard texts. The rest of the class becomes a continuation of the catechism. New material is being introduced that relates to and is informed by the material already quoted in recitation.

To the skeptic, he states,

Those teachers who are most happy with [the catechism], and most convinced of its worth, have not tried to skimp on the time they commit to daily recitations. On the other hand, those who report only mild success say they use a catechism "once a week," or that their own catechisms are much shorter than the kind I recommend. So, too, some readers of this book may be tempted to write a three-minute catechism for their own classes to save time; however, it is unlikely the short catechism will reference all the significant material from the curriculum. Neither is the short catechism all that imposing, and students will not be inclined to respect something quick and perfunctory. The shorter the catechism, the less of an accomplishment it is. (p. 34)

Describing its most impactful benefit, Gibbs says,

While the recitation of a catechism involves speaking, it is paradoxical speaking, for it is also silence—a slowly accruing silence. Pagans repeat their prayers because their gods have thick skulls, and Christians repeat their prayers because they have thick skulls. Pagans believe they will be heard for their many words, but Christians believe they themselves will hear for their many words—and they will hear because they are silent, but God is speaking through them. Repetition clears the path from distractions. (p. 40)

I have found this to be true in my own classroom. The catechism clears the mind of the distractions of the hallway and the other students. It "cleanses the pallet" so to speak.

Moving on to the Classical Curriculum, Gibbs turns the spotlight on me, specifically. He states that "Classical" is not a curriculum, although we'd like to think it's that easy. Rather than present something that has stood the test of time as an ego-gratifying exercise, we need to be careful to put the author in the position of authority. It is not me and it is certainly not the student. Never read something deep and meaningful and ask, "What do you think?" It gives the students an authority over the text he has not earned. The catechism helps establish the authority set down by the author by quoting an author in his own words as the the answer to some moral important question.

Steps for writing a catechism:
1. Foundational Questions: Gibbs begins all of his catechisms with these seven questions:

1. Gentlemen, what are you?
2. Ladies, what are you?
3. What does it mean to rule yourself?
4. Who has made you kings and queens?
5. What is bondage to decay?
6. What does it mean to be human?
7. Why should we seek virtue?

These questions literally set the foundation for why we are doing education at all.
Then he moves onto questions with answers answered by the content of the class. But even these should have some distance between the question and the answer. Ideally, a catechism question will ask a moral question like, "What do we believe?" rather than, "What is the Nicene Creed?"

2. Curriculum Condensed: Gibbs calls us to use those parts from the texts we will study to

"convey a strong moral vision, not merely a summary of content. It is a catechism, after all, and not a survey. If the catechism would prove inoffensive to men who embrace falsehood and preach deception, then the catechism is worthless...The catechism is a preparation for life, a preparation for the Judgment, not a preparation for the SAT." (p. 72) 

3. Presentation: When the teacher first presents the idea of a catechism, he may have to first own up to the system's failure to inculcate true and resilient knowledge. Ask the students what they remember from the "cram and spit it out" days, and then compare that to things they truly remember. What is the difference. Apologize for wasting their time asking them to memorize things everyone know will be forgotten in a few weeks.

"The institution of the catechism ought to come as a relief to everyone, then, and the teacher should express this relief when moving students from a system which wastes everyone's time to a system wherein canonized texts are memorized for life. If some kind of joy, liberty, and emancipation does not accompany the institution of the catechism, the teacher does not know what the catechism really is." (p. 75)

Finally, Gibbs summarizes up his apologetic for a catechism with the following:

For a moment, imagine the classical school where all classes began with a catechism. Consider the staggering volume of the canon which might be memorized before graduation. Imagine commencement ceremonies where the graduates could recite great literature and Scripture for an hour before receiving their diplomas. Imagine the weight of all that glory." (p. 117)

Forgotten Heroes of American Education edited by J. Wesley Null and Diane Ravitch

After reading left Back by Diane Ravitch, I was interested in Forgotten Heroes of American Education edited by J. Wesley Null and Diane Ravitch Because it had her name on it. However this is a completely different animal. It is not written by her, nor even primarily edited by her. Rather it's a collection of essays put together by J. Wesley Null of educational reform critics. She helped out a bit in the editing when she found out he was including one of her favorite critics, William Bagley. He was referenced to a small extent in her book Left Back, but this anthology gives him prime consideration. 

Since it is a collection of short essays, it is difficult to summarize. But I will try to boil them down to their central points. 

An opening essay by Ravitch proposes that nothing less than the foundation of education is at stake and this book is a necessary tool if we are to restore education to its primary function. She states, "The dominant philosophy that feeds the profession of teaching today is not the only option. There is an alternative. The time has arrived for a new vision. I want everyone who picks up this book to know that this volume — in no uncertain terms — supplies the best and most reliable foundation for this new vision." (xix ) After reading most of the book, (more on that later) I'm not sure it will accomplish what it attempts to accomplish. It's a bit esoteric and although its insights still prove true, it is devoid of much of the context necessary to truly absorb the principles. 

That being said, the authors referenced definitely have much to teach us. Ravitch worries that readers will recoil at the title "Hero" being given to these authors. Yet she makes a startlingly insightful point. "We love in a time that rejects the idea of heroes. Without heroes, however, we never get heroism. Without heroes, we never get ideals and virtues. And without heroism and ideals, our nation will not prosper socially, culturally, politically, morally, or economically...Without heroes, we cannot get better at what we do." (xxvi -xxvii ) Our culture is in the business of destroying heroes. We hold them to the impossible standard of "Perfect" and lament as icon after icon is found to have feet of clay. We are telling our children that no one upholds our values perfectly and therefore it is not even worth the try. What kind of a message is that! For this insight alone, the book was worth it!

Half of the book focuses on the writings of William C. Bagley. Null describes him as a hero who, "time and again, in the course of a long career as a teacher of teachers, ... Stood up and debated those whose ideas were harmful to American education. He was a staunch defender of high academic standards, discipline in the classroom, clear thinking, and common-sense approaches to education children." (1)

Craftsmanship in Teaching (1908) details Bagely's vision of the teacher as a craftsman who is always working to improve his craft. He takes the vow of devotion to his artistry, fidelity to his calling, acceptance of poverty and a life of service, as well as a commitment to idealism. Despite the difficulties, Bagley has no room for the cynic in the teaching profession. Teachers must treat their craft as if it is the most important thing in the world and convey this attitude to their students. One important insight Bagley gives concerns the desire of teachers to have their students like them. To this, Bagley replies, "Let me say that this is beside the question. It is not, from his standpoint, a matter of the pupils liking their teacher, but of the teacher liking his pupils. That, I take it, must be constantly the point of view. If you ask the other question first, you will be tempted to gain your end by means that are almost certain to prove fatal, — to bribe and pet and cajole and flatter, to resort to the dangerous expedient of playing to the gallery; but the liking that you get in this way is not worth the price that you pay for it." (15) Wow. Here is where I want more! What does that look like?

Ideals versus Generalized Habits (1904) describes the still current idea that we should shoot for the results and eschew the hard work necessary to get there. Null states that over the generations, educators had believed that learning hard subjects like Latin taught the habits and skills of self-discipline, logical thinking, and good study habits. But modern research had "proved" that there is no transfer. That is learning Latin teaches a student Latin and that's it. However, Bagley makes the case that a hard-won habit, leads more easily to another habit, and eventually to the ideal for which we strive. So learning to work hard in one area, if not teaching the specific skills necessary for another, at least teaches the value and ideal of hard work. 

The School's Responsibility for Developing the Controls of Conduct (1907) Furthers this idea of developing habits. In order to create habits that transfer, schools must create a prejudice for those habits. "Far more fundamental than the technical facts are the prejudices in favor of dogged persistence, unflinching application, relentless industry, and a determination to conquer, whatever the cost." (32) Otherwise, we think we can rely on reason alone to get us to the habit of being good. But Bagley counters, "We are either good by habit or we go to the bad very quickly." (29) Habits take hard work to inculcate, however. 

Optimism in Teaching (1908) discusses the propensity to become discouraged in the profession of teaching, as the task of civilizing each new generation seems a daunting challenge. Yet there is a case to be made for optimism. It is given to today's teacher the opportunity to bring the principles of Western Civilization to the widest audience yet with the advent of universal education. We have the privilege and honor of passing on what has been bequeathed to us from Aristotle forward. 

The Ideal Teacher (1908) was a commencement speech that Bagley gave to newly graduated teachers. He defined the ideal teacher as someone who "would combine, in the right proportion, all of the good qualities of all of the good teachers that we have ever known or hear of. The ideal teacher is and always must be a creature, not of flesh and blood, but of imagination..." (50) he describes a teacher he ran across who was once a man of adventure, seeking his fortune across the West. Although he had little education, Bagley states, ""It were far better if we who were supposed to be competent to the task of education should sit reverently at the feet of this man, than that we should presume to instruct him For knowledge may come from books, and even youth may possess it, but wisdom comes only from experience, and this man had that wisdom in far greater measure than we of books and laboratories and classrooms could ever hope to have it. He had lived years while we were living days." (54) What a testament to the true mark of an ideal teacher, wisdom.

Education and Utility (1909) addresses the idea of a useful education. Bagley believes an education is useful to the extent it teacher the rewards of effort, problem-solving, and perspective. We fail students when we neglect to teach them the rewards of hard work. Of a particularly onerous task he had to accomplish when a boy, Bagley says, "That experience not only taught me the necessity for doing disagreeable tasks, -- for attacking them hopefully and cheerfully, -- but it also taught me that disagreeable tasks, it attached in the right way, and persisted in with patience, often become attractive in themselves." (62) Since life is a series of disagreeable tasks, it is of unlimited benefit to learn to persist.While we don't intentionally give students difficult tasks, we let them know that no progress is possible without it. Because of currents in the water of educational theory, he cautions, "Of so much I am certain, however, at the outset; if the pupil takes the attitude that we are there to interest and entertain him, we shall make a sorry fiasco of the whole matter..." (65) We need to systematically teach how to get hold of knowledge when needed, how to master it, how to apply it, and how to go further to discover previously unknown facts. 

The Scientific Spirit in Education (1910) is an essay in which Bagley still believes that modern science can be helpful to educational theory. Increasingly he began to see this as an error and relied on the social and moral aspects of educational theory instead. But at this time, he believed different educational theories should be subjected to the scientific method. Test them fairly and see which ones most accomplish the goals of education. He felt too many theories were just that and had no actual counterpart in the real world. In abandoning tradition wholesale, the new educational theorists were courting disaster. He thought a more scientific approach would eliminate prejudice either for the old or the new.

The Future Training of Teachers (1913) shows that even at this early date, teachers were not being trained in how to teach, a lament I make frequently. He regrets that rather than transmitting what we know about effective teaching from generation to generation, we continue to "relearn the lessons of the past through the same blind, stumbling process." (87) Plus he lamented that teacher are forced to pay for their own training and then offered low pay when they actually get a job. 

Some Handicaps to Education in a Democracy (1916) points out some of the obstacles the field of education faces in a democracy like America. Education is so decentralized and schizophrenic in its implementation in the name of local control, that it is very hard to see what actually works and then to scale that. He also laments the low opinion of teaching and teachers in the society and wishes the culture would begin to appreciate the hard work required to pass on civilization to the next generation and treat the profession accordingly. At the same time, he recognizes a dangerous progressive strain in educational theory. Perhaps this is part of the cause of the situation he laments. People want quick cure-alls and educational charlatans are ready and willing to provide them. Bagley preaches the unpopular message of hard work, "Real freedom, the only kind of freedom that does not sink one in hopeless individualism, is not the kind that comes as a gift, but the kind that comes as a conquest --  the freedom that has been bought at the price of sacrifice and effort. And real freedom must be won anew by each generation and by each individual. There is nothing more heavily fraught with peril than the notion that this payment can be escaped or that the spiritual capital that the past has accumulated can support the spiritual life of the present and the future. We must in truth stand upon the shoulders of those who have gone before; but we must stand, not recline; and standing, we too must pay the price.." (99)

The Distinction Between Academic and Professional Subjects (1918) looks at the ways that the professionalization of teachers led to an unhealthy focus on research and intellectualism rather than the mundane tasks of teaching teachers and moral philosophy. He calls for a program or specific subject matter classes taught in the way the teacher would be expected to teach. In addition, the teacher candidate should have knowledge of students gained from actual interaction with real pupils in training schools. These laboratory schools would provide role model teachers for the teaching candidates to emulate. Imagine! Teaching teachers in a systematic way. 

Education and Our Democracy (1918) continues themes addressed earlier including the lack of a national idea of what education is trying to accomplish, how to accomplish that, and how to teach teachers to teach. 

The Status of the Classroom Teacher (1918) in Bagley's opinion is that teaching as a profession is not held to be a "real job." Therefore people don't need to spend years preparing for it or be able to make a living doing it. Bagley muses that maybe the federal government should get involved. 

The Nation's Debt to Normal Schools (1921) give credit to the schools in the trenches of teaching teachers to teach. He states, "If the schooling of your children has been more humanely governed, more intelligently directed, more mindful of children's needs and children's capacities than was your own schooling, you have the American normal school to thank in large part for the fact." (128) He is happy to see the normal schools extending their mission to teaching high school teachers and providing a bridge between the older normal schools that catered to grammar school and the university.

*Projects and Purposes in Teaching and in Learning (1921) addresses the latest in educational theory, Project-Based Learning. Although this seems the latest and greatest today, Bagley claims this has been going on for at least a generation. He sees it as a dangerous phenomena because of some of the assumptions it makes. First, it makes too much of a blurring between the lines between disciplines. This is one of those things that needs moderation. All learning is connected, but at the same time, there are distinctive disciplines that need to be taught systematically and coherently. It also assumes that PBL leads to better retention and transfer of skills to other areas. Bagley worries that PBL destroys the idea of knowledge for knowledge sake. Everything must be made practical. Ironically, he finds PBL to be impractical and leads to the abdication of adult authority in the learning process. The point of an education is not to solve problems, exclusively, but rather, "it furnishes foundation, backgrounds, perspectives, points of view, attitudes, tastes, and a host of other things that determine conduct in a very real fashion... Only a small fraction of it is made up of items of skill and items of information which one deliberately uses in solving what most people call problems." (137)

Preparing Teachers for the Urban Service (1922) offers two basic beliefs Bagley has for training teachers. "I believe that the prime function of education is to conserve and extend upon as nearly a universal scale as possible what is best thought of as the spiritual heritage of mankind -- the skills, the traditions, the ideas, the ideals, and the standards of conduct that have been wrought out of the experience of the race." The teacher must love the heritage he has been bequeathed, and also understand the difficulty in passing that on to a pupil. (142) In addition, he believes that teaching should be compared to the production of fine art rather than a mechanistic skill. 

The Army Tests and the Pro-Nordic Propaganda (1924) refutes a book that had just come out by Carl C. Brigham. In it, Brigham proposes that the new IQ tests done by the army were legitimate tests of intelligence, that different scores meant there were different native intelligence levels, and that the Nordic race had the highest intelligence. Bagley counters this with his own beliefs. He holds that the IQ tests are actually measures of the quality of an education the student received. Between the races, he sees a lot of overlap in intelligence scores and shows a closer correlation to the quality of schools rather than race. Additionally, he believes it is impossible to determine the intelligence level of a race and once again points to the quality of the school systems in different areas of the country. 

What is Professionalized Subject-Matter? (1928) continues to address one of Bagley's chief concerns, how to teach teachers. I love this particular essay because he lays out a practical solution. Teacher should be taught how to teach in subject matter classes. In other words, their history classes should be teaching them history in the way they should teach history to their students. I love this. It models the behavior. But what is going on instead in subject matter classes is that the professors think that the budding teachers will be taught how to teach in some other class. Bagley calls this thinking, "George, in the ed school, will do it." These "George" classes, however, never happen. And teachers are not getting the training they need. He disdains the idea of a "general method" to teaching and firmly believes that the best methodologies are subject specific. "Techniques which are merely 'fastened on' to subject-matter instead of growing out of the very nature and function of subject-matter have not helped us much in the past nor will they help us much in the future."(165)

The Teacher's Contribution to Modern Progress (1929) points out the necessity to educate the masses. In fact, Bagley warns that uneducated masses are fertile ground for totalitarians. For most of human history, education was available only to the elites. Bagley praises universal education and the teachers who work day in and day out in the trenches educating the whole population. "What is seems to guarantee is a reasonable measure of social order, a reasonable measure of patience in discussion and deliberation, a reasonable measure of adaptability to changes that are either desired or inevitable... the education of the masses can ensure the continuance of order and of orderly institutions even if leadership is not forthcoming. And this seems to be a fairly significant service. What the future needs is a self-perpetuating, self-governing, self-controlled democracy, and it is a folly to dream that this can be achieved without paying the price." (186) 

Teaching as a Fine Art (1930) states that since teaching deals with the subtleties and nuances of the human mind, it is the hardest of all the sciences. In fact, Bagley recognizes that we may never fully comprehend how and why students learn. Therefore, we should treat teaching as an art form, constantly to be worked at and perfected. 

The Upward Expansion of Mass Education (1930) explains Bagley's concern that although he praises universal education, it has unfortunately led to a dumbing down of curriculum. And as Progressives have become ever more involved, education has gotten worse. Rather than simply making a great education available to all who would avail themselves of it, the educational establishment worked to make it "attractive, pleasant, and profitable to all." (194) Because high school and college are not mandatory, it became a numbers game. He points to five dispiriting developments:

1. elimination of comprehensive exams

2. elimination of promotional requirements

3. abandonment of coherent curriculum

4. lowering of standards to reflect averages

5. dependence on a charismatic teacher to insure order and industry, rather than achievement for its own sake, pride in good workmanship, and respect for law and order.

What Does the Dominant American Theory of Education Imply for the Redirection of the Professional Education of Teachers? (1933) delineates Bagley's worries that at Progressives are taking over education and Project-Based Learning is becoming more prevalent, the question becomes, how do we teach teachers? At this time, we are abandoning subject matter, so why should teachers learn subject matter? Teaching has become a muddle to Bagley and he worries that Ed schools will not know what to do.

The Ideal Preparation of a Teacher of Secondary Mathematics from the Point of View of an Educationist (1933) describes the ways in which a teacher should become very proficient in his own subject as well as another, related field. But should, at the same time, work to have a well-rounded education so he can see how all knowledge fits together. "In short, instead of multiplying what we are calling integrated courses crossing many subject-matter lines, I should prefer to safeguard the essential unity within the field but to have teh teacher so well equipped that he can point out to the learner teh relationships between his field and the fields of his colleagues. This will effect the end that the integrationists have in mind, I believe, and at the same time prevent the catastrophe that befalls the learner when the fusion courses become confusion courses." (213)

*Modern Educational Theories and Practical Considerations (1933) continues Bagley's attacks on Progressive education. Although he advocates for some limited amount of freedom for the students to pursue their interests, he fears that Progressives have taken this idea too far and all learning is devolving to what they call "activity programs," or in today's parlance Project-Based Learning. He calls this "an educational theory which encourages the belief that there is no difference between the work attitude and the play attitude [which] not only flies in the face of the plainest facts of experience, it is also charged with social dynamite." (219) Interestingly, in tracking what made teachers most successful, the single most important characteristic was the study of Latin in high school. Although he was not a Classist, this finding caused him to look into what made classical education so successful. He discovered, "In all history, perhaps, no body of educational practices has so well integrated the rights of the individual with the welfare and progress of society. It was a balanced, high-minded education, consciously designed to produce men who would be worthy of the name, "free," and competent to the serious duties of responsible citizenship in a social order in which collective action was determined by the collective will of the free citizens." (221) From this system, we got a Golden Age unparalleled in human history. 

However, Bagley fears that the Progressives are working against all that. "The tenets of the [Progressive] theory imply that freedom is a gift. In the history of the race, true freedom — whether freedom from personal thralldom or freedom from fear, fraud, want, superstition and error — true freedom has never been a gift but always a conquest. In one way or another each generation must make this conquest for itself if it would truly free." (223) He points to the work of another critic, Dr. Kandel, who has pointed out that the biggest advocates of an individualized education, where the students decide their own curriculum based simply on utility, now lament the destruction of society at the height of the Great Depression, which they blame on too much focus the individuals place on themselves. "Today the Progressives are shocked to look out on American society well-nigh wrecked on the rocks of individualism. But do they look back on their own teaching over the past two decades!" (223) It's absolutely amazing to see that Bagley called what today we call the latest in educational theory over 80 years ago!

Are Essentialists the True Progressives (1938) addresses the centuries-old battle between Progressive education and Essentialism. Null defines the Essentialists as those who "argued in favor of teachers teaching an organized curriculum to all students, the necessity for a reasonable degree of system in the organization of curriculum, sound teacher education, and teh desirability for teachers to teach a body of core democratic principles to each generation of young Americans." (235) Bagley believes that since it is Essentialist who are able to produce results which satisfy the criterion that would allow students to "live consistently as far as is humanly possible with the ideals of clear thinking, including an unwillingness to be swayed by prejudices or by the temptations to ignore facts that do not happen to fit one's preconceived theories" (243) they are then the true Progressives. 

Latin from an Educationist's Point of View (1941) decries the movement to rid the schools of Latin based on bad science and bad ideology. Therefore, he begs the Classicists to make their case. Bagley was not a Classicist, but over the course of his lifetime, he came to regret this deficiency. He states, "It has been a severe handicap to me throughout my professional life. Indeed, a keen awareness of this deficiency long since convinced me that the attitude toward the classics of many of my fellow-workers in the professional study of education was shortsighted and, in some of its consequences, little less than tragic." (259) While opposition to teaching Latin has its roots in the Seventeenth Century, the advent of universal education meant that standards had to be relaxed. Latin was an easy target. While acknowledging that not everyone has the mental acuity to master Latin, he believes the studies that show "that those who study Latin to the point of reasonable mastery acquire a mental equipment that gives them a distinct advantage over those who miss this discipline." (262) Bagley laments that his fellow educators disregard this fact because it does not jive with their preconceived notions.

Null then moves onto other Progressive Education critics. At this point the essays became a little too dense for me, and without the context hard to process. However, some stood out. I summarize a few of those here.

Isaac Kandal is the first critic Null turns to after Bagley.

Is the New Education Progressive? (1936) discusses an idea that is all the rage today, child-centered education, but was already well in place in 1936. Kandal faults the Progressives and their educational agenda for failing to actually train up the students. It is chaotic with no end goal in sight. Kandal believes that only a traditional teacher with a teacher-led classroom can instill the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for true progress.

Prejudice The Garden Toward Roses? (1936) continues the attack on progressive education. It sounds great, but like so many ideas that sound great, they often fail in practice. Even Dewey was starting to sound the alarm, but his theories had gotten away from him and he was too late. Kandal believes the attacks on traditionalism as boring and ineffective were straw men arguments and didn't reflect the reality of what had been going on in the classroom. But Kandal wasn't a purist. He believed in Essentialist philosophy with some progressive methodology that actually worked.

*Address at St. Paul's Chapel, Columbia University (1940) is an excellent essay decrying the loss of faith and therefore the loss of a connection to each other and the Golden Rule. This prescient speech points to the connection between this loss and Nazism as well as other notorious -ism's. 

The Fantasia of Current Education (1941) takes on progressive education for always the the new even when it makes no sense. They are enthralled by novelty.

The Cult of Uncertainty (1943) attacks progressive education for its obvious failures and has led to the lack of Americans to self-govern.

Character Formation: A Historical Perspective (1959) shows that while the focus and methods have varied over time, education was always assumed to inculcate the moral values necessary for the continuation of civilization. 

Null has also included writings from Chalres DeGarmo, David Felmley, William Torrey Harris, Charles Alexander McMurry, William Ruediger, Edward Austin Sheldon, as well as a few essays from the progressive giant John Dewey, himself. Because the focus is criticism of progressive education, these can become a bit repetitive. That's why I didn't summarize them all. I found Kandal even more enlightening and easy to follow than Bagley. But overall, I really enjoyed reading some excellent intellectuals and their prescient commentary that is so relevant today. 

*Particular favorite essay

Begin Here by Jacques Barzun

Begin Here by Jacques Barzun begins with this wonderful quote to school superintendents in 1967, "To remove ignorance is the sole duty of the school. To fail in that battle when the enemy is by nature inactive, when your troops are numbered in the ten thousands, and when you have spent billions on equipment is to suffer a stupid defeat." 

This book was written in 1991 as a response to the decade-long attempts to "reform" education. In fact that was what was happening. Education was being re-formed. Re-formed into something it never should have been. An ephemeral concept of "Education" as a purveyor of social good had replaced actual teaching and learning. Therefore, at this point in history, neither education nor teaching and learning was taking place. 

Barzun has collected a series of lectures and essays concerning the state of education and put them all into this book. He introduces each with a few words of his own. This made for an interesting book, but it felt a bit disjointed as it moved from thesis to thesis. But the overarching theme of the book was the sorry state of education and the various explanation and prescriptions offered. I do not summarize each piece here. That would be an undertaking similar to re-writing the book. But I do attempt to summarize a few that piqued my interest. 

One issue that had cropped up by this time was the failure to properly teach reading. Society began to notice the illiteracy of the population. "The general anxiety is fit retribution for the 50-year folly of the look-and-say method of teaching reading, coupled with the assumption that the children of the poor, the black, and the Hispanics cannot learn... This is criminal nonsense." (p. 16) The normal desire of all children to learn had been quashed by non-teaching and the notion had been allowed to take hold in the vacuum that actually learning was below the dignity of students now addicted to the opinions of their peers. Somehow, educators developed the notion that humans can learn without reading. We began to value doing over reading in our pursuit of egalitarianism. 

Another essay decried modern testing. The ease of multiple-choice tests has led to scatter shot learning of random facts. Banesh Hoffmann attacked these kinds of test. "Leaving to one side the errors of fact and misleading wordings that he came across in sample tests, he found that this mode of testing suppresses the natural diversity of minds, penalizes the more imaginative, and perpetuates conventional opinions." (p. 36)  "Knowing something -- really knowing it -- means being able to summon it up out of the blue; the facts must be produced in their right relations and with their correct significance. When you know something, you can tell it to somebody else. It is these profound platitudes that condemn mechanical testing and its influence on the learning mind." (p. 34) "Of course, teachers in most schools today would be appalled at the idea of giving only, or mainly essay examinations. Large classes and the load of extraneous paperwork make it impossible to read and correct several batches of papers each  time a test is appropriate. This obstacle cannot, indeed be got over. But what it means is not that objective tests are good; it means that present school arrangements are bad." (p. 35)

In a chapter titled, Ideas versus Notions, Barzun introduces the idea that schools have lost their mission, attempting to do what it was never intended to do. "Educational nonsense always comes from zeal displacing soberness and flouting the conditions of the two fundamentals: teaching and learning. To be a school means to teach some few well-known things, for only certain things can be taught." (p. 49) "Schools are not intended to moralize a wicked world but to impart knowledge and develop intelligence, with only two social aims in mind: prepare to take on one's share in the world's work and, perhaps in addition, lend a hand in improving society, after schooling is done. Anything else is the nonsense we have been living with." (p. 50)

The next section of the book deals with Curriculum.

He begins with an essay on a subject near and dear to my heart, history. Properly taught, history should "come alive" as described by students bored with "dates and dead people" enthusiastically support. It should challenge the learner and broaden the mind. "A good teacher will so present, relate, and discuss with the class the facts to be learned that he or she will steadily stir up the imaginations of the listeners. History is not dead and does not need resuscitation; it lives in our habits of thought and our institutions, our prejudices and our purposes, and what the history course does is to tell how these things and thoughts came to be as they are." (p. 71-72) "The teacher who conducts a discussion on readings in history should start out with a definite historical question, and it should never be, who was right or wrong, but what was possible at such and such a juncture? What could so-and-so have done, or refrained from doing, to achieve this purpose? Was the purpose really in the interests of the group he or she was leading? Were other choices open? -- and so on.... All assertions other than factual reminders must be accompanied by reasons: What is the evidence for what you say? What reasoning leads you to conclude as you do?" (p. 77) What a delightful way to teach history!

He moves onto The Art of Making Teachers. This is right up my alley! Barzun states, "Up to now teacher training has been done by people unfitted for the job, by temperament and by purpose. By temperament they have no interest in Learning or capacity for it; by purpose they are bent not on instruction but on social word. They care little about history or science or good English, but they grow keen about any scheme of betterment." (96) Here we find my favorite quote in the book, "What then are the native qualities to look for in the person who, though not one of those born to the task, would make a good teacher? And what sort of training should such a person get? As to the first requirement: brains enough to feel bewildered and revolted by the educationist language -- and courage enough to admit it. Next, a strong interest in some branch of learning, meaning any one of the genuine school subjects." (p. 98)

This leads to an essay called, "Occupational Disease: Verbal Inflation." "For the last fifty years, American Education has pursued a policy of overstatement about its role and substance; it has lived by continual exaggeration of what it is for and what it can do. The medium naturally is words, words misunderstood and misapplied -- it is verbal inflation." (p. 104) Meaningless words mucking up the meaning and purpose of education.  "What then is the remedy? It is obvious, in plain sight, staring us in the face. We must sober up; give up getting drunk on hope and verbiage: stop writing committee reports, guidelines, objectives. Mimeographed paper is the hard drug of the educational world. All those words ending in  -tion and -ive are narcotics that break down the mind permanently." (p. 109) "The sole justification of teaching, of the school itself, is that the student comes out of it able to do something he could not do before." (p. 112) How refreshing!

Finally, Barzun moves onto another subject near and dear to my heart -" Western Civ. or Western Seive." The irony of the attacks on the teaching of Western Civilization is that the critics are not the unrepresented in the curriculum, but those who are over-represented. Yet they hate their own institutions and heritage because it fails to live up to its own ideal. Rather the push is for multiculturalism and a celebration of all that is other than the West. However, "the provincialism of the West is a myth. It is the West, and not the East, that has penetrated into all parts of the globe. It is only the West that has studied, translated, and disseminated the thoughts, the histories, and the works of art of their civilizations, living an dead." (p. 131) 

So how to teach Western Civilization? Through a study of the Classics. Classic books establish a live link with the past and teach students how to really read, intelligently and thoroughly. Classics are hard and "thick" because they open up another, wider world to the reader. They provide a set of cultural touchstones so necessary in a pluralistic society. We need a common language and familiar ground over which to interact with each other. As the classics can help shape and mold character, they can help shape and mold our disparate nation, providing a place to unify. 

This book was an interesting read. But the format made it a little difficult to follow. Just as I was beginning to understand one author's thesis, we moved on to another. I understand the value in collecting essays, adding in a bit of commentary, and uniting them in one place. But as a cohesive book, it kind of threw me. Maybe I should read it again now that I understand its format. 

Climbing Parnassus

I put a bunch of books on my Amazon gift list that looked interesting based on their similarity to other books. For Christmas, Tim purchase a few of the books for me. One was Climbing Parnassus: A New Apologia for Greek and Latin by Tracy Lee Simmons. With a name like that and a foreword by William F. Buckley Jr., I had high hopes. Fortunately the book delivered. It really changed my thinking in some ways, which is saying a lot. Usually books simply reinforce my views. This one actually made a convincing argument to which I was previously unconvinced.

I'm beginning to learn Latin.

That's kind of big, because, seriously, who learns Latin at my age? What even is the point? Right? Well that's the power of the argument made by Simmons.

The book was written in 2000, so the ideas, while not exactly promulgated yesterday, are still current and modern concerns. He begins the introduction with an indictment of modern education. "Education, that vague and official word for what goes on in our schools, has also been a trinket on the shelves of snake oil salesmen and a plaything for social planners in America for well over a century. They too have been driven by the spirit of ceaseless innovation. And we have paid a high price. The peddlers have shrouded the higher and subtler goals of learning which former generations accepted and promoted. These bringers of the New have traded in the ancient ideal of wisdom for a spurious "adjustment" of mind, settling for fitting us with the most menial of skills needful for the world of the interchangeable part. They have decided we are less, not more, than wiser people have hoped humanity might become. We are masses to be housed and fed, not minds and souls seeking something beyond ourselves." (p. 3-4)

Quite an indictment. "Masses to be housed and fed, not minds and souls seeking something beyond ourselves." Whoa. I have often said, that to the Left, people are pets. Masses to be housed and fed - not individuals with hopes and dreams every bit as important as those of the elites who want to be in charge. Then along comes Simmons to reinforce my point. 

His solution? Classical education. This he defines as "a curriculum grounded upon — if not strictly limited to — Greek, Latin, and the study of the civilizations from which they arose." (p. 15) It is not just a study of ancient wisdom, but also the languages which these cultures employed. This is where I began to think, "Well it's good enough just to study the cultures and their writings, but obviously the languages themselves are not critical. That's why we have translations." I was fully prepared to accept most of his argument, but the actual learning of the languages was another story.

The title comes from an Ancient Greek concept of scaling the highest mountain in Greece. "Climbing Parnassus once helped to form the unformed mind. The arduous ascent fostered intellectual and aesthetic culture within those who had endured the strain." (p. 20) It's hard, but ultimately satisfying. This he compares to Classical education. By studying the ancient languages as well, the student is immersed in the aesthetic and intellectual culture.

Simmons raises the bar for the purpose of education to a very high level. "Liberal education ought to aim not just at furnishing the mind with serviceable knowledge and information, nor even at habituating the mind to rational methods, but at leading it to wisdom, to a quality of knowledge tempered by experienced and imbued with understanding. It should, in a word, humanize... Liberal education civilizes. It transforms us. We are better for having run its course." (p. 30) To be truly educated, learning must speak to both the mind and the soul. "The Western mind elevated this mighty philosophical aim into an ideal. The inner takes precedence over the outer, the mind and soul compose an inseparable whole, and both are fed or starved together. No option exists to train the mind alone without producing soul-deep consequences." (p. 50-51) 

"What was to be the result of all this strenuous philosophical effort? The wise citizen fit to govern first himself and then — and only then — to govern others. Precisely in this way does one become free through liberal learning: first, by acquiring the right habits; second, by intellectual strain, by learning to apprehend the Beautiful and the Good with the mind. And the mind then confirms what the soul has already learned. One can become intellectually powerful, of course, without those right habits, but what good is that? The object of the ancients was not a programmable raticinative machine. It was the cultured man or woman." (p. 59) This is the only kind of education that leads to free people. 

Modern education has given up on transmitting the values of Western Civilization. While "education" is held as a high value, no one can define what that means. Once a standard has been tossed, it's open season on what will replace it. And every opinion is just as valid as another. Modern education has created a well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed mob. The society is not longer convinced that its culture is worthy of survival. He quotes Robert Hutchins, who writes that a "system that denies the existence of values denies the possibility of education. Relativism, scientism, skepticism, and anti-intellectualism, the four horsemen of the philosophical apocalypse, have produced that chaos in education which will end in the disintegration of the West." (p. 42)

But why Greek and Latin? Why do those languages and eras have such an impact on education? "Whereas the Greeks had learned only Greek, the Romans went on to learn both Latin and Greek — and the pattern was set: to be fully educated, enculturated man in the Greco-Roman world on had to know both tongues." (p. 62) He goes on to argue, "Together Greek and Latin constituted a lingua franca for the educated, one that endured for well over a millennium that witnessed colossal turns in the life of the Western world. Indeed they survived the very nations to which they had once given voice. The classical language stood as a sign — and, some thought, a guarantor — of permanence." (p. 72) In 1834, when educators began to make a case for the removal of the classical languages, English headmaster Thomas Arnold stated, "Expel Greek and Latin from your schools, and you confine the views of the existing generations to themselves and their immediate predecessors; you will cut off many centuries of the world's experience, and ... place us in the same state as if the human race had come into existence in the year 1500." (p. 72) Today, it is worse. Today we are confined to an existence that began yesterday. 

Simmons goes on to describe the educational system of the early Greeks and Romans. Education began at home. Here they learned the language, their "letters," and the poets. At around age 7 they went off to Grammar school to gain a more formal knowledge of the grammar of the language through "constant, pulverizing drill and numbing recitation," (p. 74) where no adult cared about stifling the child's inner creativity. Next came the study of literature, specifically poetry. No one cared about "appreciation." It was the student's job to know the material, not to criticize it. "Here was brass tacks schooling, no-frills and rigorous, where the student was set to acquiring a body of knowledge — in this case, literary and cultural knowledge. No one bothered about what we call skills of 'critical thinking,' which came naturally to anyone successfully navigating this course of study. Critical thinking was a result, not a target, of classical education." (p. 75) "So the teaching was strict, the learning hard. But waiting at the far end of the journey would be civilized human beings, citizens who had learned what their culture was about and what it needed to conserve." (p. 80)

This form of education continued from the classical times throughout the middle ages and into the modern era. During that time, Christianity became fused with it, marrying its theology to the eternal search for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. But widespread, mandatory education made it increasingly difficult to maintain the rigor required. And when the "War to end all Wars" erupted, idealism became a casualty. "Heroism was dead, at least for the time being, as was the ideal of the gentleman. So was 'useless' knowledge. A new world waited to be built. Time had run out for the niceties of learning the words of the dead. The prism of classics sharpened the colors of the world no longer. Tags of classical quotation began to fall on deaf, uninstructed ears." (p. 147)

In the 1930s Albert Nock began to call for a return the classical style and aims of education. But the teaching of something previously abandoned required an argument for it implementation. It was no longer taken for granted that educated people knew their Latin and Greek. The argument took two forms. The first was a cultural literacy premise. A Classical education was necessary to interact with all of Western Civilization that had come before. Others, however, took the position that a Classical education was necessary to the formation of a human soul. This second notion is the harder argument to make. It feels undemocratic to "form" human beings. It's hard to measure, and it can fall victim to the philosophy of the one who does the forming. Yet it is this argument Simmons believes is the stronger. We no longer form humans. Our society is the poorer for it.

In making the contemporary case for the study of the classics and classical languages, Simmons states, "The glorious struggle is all a part — and an indispensable part — of climbing Parnassus. Thus do we learn both to freshen and strengthen our minds so as to be worthy conduits of high thought, eloquence, and, at the very least, clarity: not bad for one minute's, one hour's, or even one lifetime's, work. We are changed by it." (p. 179) 

To point out the need to study classic languages in order to better communicate in our native tongue, Simmons references a particularly bad piece of modern writing. He points out how far we have fallen from our Classical roots. He calls today's writing "the murky, self-important lingo emanating from the lit. crit. seminar in English departments. It doesn't exist to communicate anything to the cultivated mind. It exists to confuse and impress the easily bamboozled, uneducated, fee-paying sycophants. It pretends to profundity, but it's tripe. Language like this is not hatched for civilized people." (p. 184) What an indictment!

To make the point even more clear, he quotes C.S. Lewis at length concerning the education achieved without knowledge of the classical languages. Lewis calls the dichotomy the Optative and the Parthenon. One focuses on the construction of Greek, they other on subject matter content. "When the first fails it has, at the very least, taught the boy what knowledge is like. He may decide that he doesn't care for knowledge; but he knows he doesn't care for it, and he knows he hasn't got it. But the other fails most disastrously when it most succeeds. It teaches a man to feel vaguely cultured while he remains in fact a dunce. It makes him think he is enjoying poems he can't construe. It qualifies him to review books he does not understand, and to be intellectual without intellect." (p. 188)

As the rigor and logical rules of math form the mind to think rationally and clearly, Latin and Greek "give us codes of clarity and fluency." (p. 164) Simmons goes on to argue that Latin and Greek are the best way to learn our native tongue. "Greek and Latin were so taught for so many centuries because they were not native. Their very strangeness and dissimilarity to modern languages made them a unique, irreplaceable tool of teaching for those who would comprehend the workings of language en tout. The object was to gain an understanding of words from the inside, affording the learner an intimate familiarity with their separate and diverse natures." (p. 164-165) "Any student who has invested strenuous years with Latin, both reading and writing it, will own an obvious edge with English over those who haven't. Not only has that student learned what the words mean, he has learned what they have meant; he has seen them jostling and lounging in their original habitat. They've gamboled at his feet." (p. 168) Such a fluency of language could help avoid the meaningless quarrels arising from misunderstood and misused words.

In America, we rightly revere our Founding Fathers, "when people in power did what needed to be done about as well as you can imagine its being possible." (p. 199) We cannot separate them from their Classical education. These men knew their Latin and Greek and the civilizations that produced them. "Never have so many of the wise and well-read come together to do great things; never have book learning and practical experience combined to show the ignorant and cynical forevermore what the human mind and spirit can do when properly formed. Such wisdom cannot be manufactured for the moment — nor can it be aped. It must be cultivated. And it has to come from somewhere." (p. 200) John Adams relates a time when he decided to give up his classical studies. His dad told him that he could dig ditches instead. After a few days of arduous labor, he went back to school. Later in life, he concluded that he owed all he became to that ditch. "If we wish to understand the Founding Fathers from within, we should heed one simple axiom. Don't merely read about them; read what they read — as they read it." (p. 210)

When we look at great sentences, like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that in order to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just power from the consent of the governed..." that we can really see the majesty of their classical education. These few words contain so many large ideas, concentrated into the most melodic language, encapsulated in a single sentence. Who writes like that today? Who thinks like that? Who can boil down eternal truths, connect them together, and make the case for them like that? Today we are incapable of coming up with a similarly powerful sentiment simply because we do not have the education they had. We do not have the teachers they had. We do not have teachers with the teachers they had. Those men were able to stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants and see farther because they had been bequeathed a magnificent heritage, stretching back to and encompassing the best that humanity had to offer from the previous eons. At best, we can at least start the process. But, at best we are 100 years or more from producing anything like our Founding Fathers. 

The Classics deserve a standing "beyond use." We cannot know what a child will become. "We cannot know early on what kinds of minds and souls are waiting to develop amongst the young we teach. Not all of them may be fit as lawyers, surgeons, or software salesmen; greatness of other kinds may lie ahead for some — if only they be given the climbing gear early enough so as to help them make their own way. The impact of knowledge is impossible to predict. But this we can know: Ignorance is no asset, and the empty, formless mind is surely a positive liability. Few qualities can be more useful whatever one's future may hold, than the fortified mind." (p. 213-214)

In making the final argument for the Classics, Simmons points to classically educated authors Eliot, Auden, and Lewis. " 'To lose what I owe to Plato and Aristotle would be like the amputation of a limb,' Lewis said. 'Hardly any lawful price would seem to me too high for what I have gained by being made to learn Latin and Greek.' " (p. 223)  To compare the loss of anything to losing a limb strikes me as the ultimate endorsement. That simply cannot be said for anything in education today.

"English essayist William Hazlitt wrote that it is hard to find within people formed intellectually by means other than a classical education 'either a real love of excellence, or a belief that any excellence exists superior to their own. Everything is brought down to the vulgar level of their own ideas and pursuits.' ... An education saturating anyone in these great works of the classical past cannot help but enhance the minds and hearts of those enduring it. Our horizons broaden. We not only learn of principles discovered two or three millennia ago, we begin to grasp them. We become bigger, more tolerant, more generous. We grow up." (p. 228)

He continues to make a very strong case until the end of the book.

He convinced me. 

But the most persuasive argument was simply writing this summary. I found it better to quote him time and again because what he wrote was so succinct and perfectly encapsulated his thought. The clarity of his writing became even more clear in trying to summarize it. In short, I really couldn't. I could have quoted the entire book and just about did. 

I want to be that kind of writer.