Sayers & Classical Christian Education

[Casey]

So we have the high hopes of homeschooling our children. I'd be happy with a smaller classical Christian school, too. But anyway, I've been trying to read up some and understand all the principles involved. This might be potentially controversial. So please try to understand before responding and defending the way you've been doing things. I have recently been reading this book:

Amazon.com: Wisdom and Eloquence: A Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning: Robert Littlejohn, Charles T. Evans: Books


I'll be the first to admit I haven't done a lot of reading on classical Christian education, but I have done some. In this book the authors make an interesting claim, and I've come to believe the way they are setting things up is true. I could be wrong, so I thought it would be worth discussing. Dorothy Sayers' Lost Tools of Learning speech/article set forth a basic understanding of classical education and jump-started a movement in that direction. Right. So a lot of our foundational understanding of classical education comes from (has been mediated through) Sayers' understanding of classical education. Well, the authors of this book argue that Sayers' got something wrong, and so now most classical Christians schools follow her slightly-skewed understanding.

They argue (and some of this may be put in my own words as I've munched on what they said) that Sayers' has confused method with material, the manner of teaching something with the subjects that are actually taught. So you have three stages in Sayers': grammar, logic, rhetoric. To quote off some random classical Christian school's website, "every subject has its Trivium." But the authors say this is misguided. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric should not be thought of as "learning stages" but rather as subjects. Whatever value the idea of "learning stages" has, they should not be confused with grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

Let me illustrate. Following Sayer's manner of speaking, many talk of "the grammar of history." Then "the logic of history." Maybe "the rhetoric of history"? So you have the grammar of math, the logic of math, and the rhetoric of math. You have the grammar of theology, the logic of theology, the rhetoric of theology. You have the grammar of Latin, the logic of Latin, and the rhetoric of Latin. And so on. What's the problem? Grammar, logic, and rhetoric are no longer subjects. Would we likewise say that there is a "grammar of grammar, logic of grammar, and rhetoric of grammar"? Sounds silly. "The grammar of logic, the logic of logic, the rhetoric of logic"? No, again sound silly. "The grammar of rhetoric, the logic of rhetoric, the rhetoric of rhetoric"? Again, doesn't make sense.

What Sayer's has accidentally done is removed grammar, logic, and rhetoric from the curriculum by turning these subjects into stages (aka, manners/methods of teaching subjects). But grammar is an actual subject, as is logic and rhetoric. All the subjects can be taught in stages, but the stages shouldn't be called "grammar, logic, and rhetoric." They argue in the book that those teaching in the medieval ages were concerned with the subjects, and not necessarily the method. Hopefully what I've explained here makes sense. Sayer's has equivocated on the words and so it's entered a large level of confusion which makes it hard to understand what the authors of the book have argued regarding her view.

So instead of teaching "the grammar of history," you just teach the basics or foundations or simple facts history. Grammar is a subject, not a stage. Perhaps you don't teach a young child grammar, you teach the alphabet and spelling, etc. But the alphabet and spelling is not grammar. It's inappropriate to call it grammar. And only languages have grammar, so the word should be reserved for that. Likewise, logic. Logic is a subject, not a stage. So maybe you don't teach logic until the child has grown a bit. Or maybe you teach basic principles of logic early on. But it's not right to call it the "grammar of logic," because logic doesn't have grammar. Logic doesn't have a "rhetorical" aspect either. Rhetoric is a subject, not a stage. If a child writes a history paper for presentation, that presentation may include principles of rhetoric (just as it included principles of grammar when forming sentences, etc.), but presenting a history paper should not be equated with teaching rhetoric. Rhetoric is its own stand-alone subject. Writing and presenting a history paper is primarily something fitting in the "subject" of history, which would then include principles learned in other subjects. Participating in something like a debate club would be, obviously, principally related to rhetoric.

Well, anyway, this is a long post. I hope I haven't horribly confused anyone. The book also argues that the trivium and the quadrivium should all be taught from the very beginning and all considered subjects and not methods. At this point I'm convinced by what they've argued; and again, I'm not expert! Interested in your thoughts/reactions . . .

 

[greenbaggins]

I would strongly disagree with the argument. I don't believe they have understood Sayers's intention, which was not to eliminate grammar, logic, and rhetoric as subjects in their own right, but rather to use those three aspects of English learning as a metaphor for how other subjects could be taught. Thus, when learning English, one has grammar, logic, and rhetoric. These are three subjects which also correspond to stages in learning English, since, if one doesn't have the vocabulary, and doesn't have a knowledge of how everything fits together logically, one cannot use rhetoric at all. Nevertheless, one can talk of building blocks (grammar), mortar (logic), and architecture (rhetoric) as a way of explaining any subject. This was Sayers's intention, in my opinion.

 

[Casey]

Is rhetoric a subject or a stage of teaching/learning? It seems to me that Sayers has confused the two and therefore equivocated on the word "rhetoric." I think the authors of the book are just saying "let rhetoric be a subject, and if you want a third stage in learning, fine, just call it something else so people don't confuse the stage with the subject."

 

[greenbaggins]

Why can't it be both? Just as we say that something is "rhetorical," that doesn't mean that it is about rhetoric. So also one could study rhetoric on its own (as Aristotle did!), and yet also see the analogies that it has with artistic statement in other fields. All knowledge is inter-connected.

 

[Casey]

It could be both, but the point is that by using the words in both ways, it leads to confusion. Would this adequately explain how math ought to be taught (if every subject has a trivium)?

- Grammar of math = Multiplication tables, etc.
- Logic of math = Algebra, geometry, etc.
- Rhetoric of math = Calculus

This is a confusion of language. Math doesn't have grammar, it has elementary principles. Math isn't logic, though it is logical. And calculus is advanced math, it's not "rhetorical." If a student made a presentation on a mathematical proof, then principles of rhetoric would be employed. But it doesn't make sense to call advanced levels of math "rhetorical" just to fit it in stages named after subjects.

And this isn't denying that all knowledge is interconnected, rather, it's an attempt at being more precise with the language used. And the book I referenced doesn't deny the value of recognizing natural stages of learning, it's just arguing that they should be called something else.

 

[Mindaboo]

We use the terms Grammar/Knowledge, Dialectic, and Wisdom to explain the different stages in the Trivium. I think it takes time to get used to the term "grammar", because we associate it with language arts.

Math does have "grammar". The terms addend, subtrahend, minuend, and the distributive, associative, commutative, and identity laws are all grammar. In the grammar stage, the focus would be on memorizing multiplication facts, the laws I just mentioned, and learning the basics. (telling time, measuring, counting, etc.) As children or adults learn they move into the other stages. We learn the language of math so that we can use it practically in every day life.

Dorothy Sayers essay isn't saying throw out all subjects, I think she is trying to show how they are all related. The idea is to show how science, history, math, language, and all subjects are related. It is more about an integration of subjects rather than compartmentalizing them.

I just read her essay and had to write a paper on it for my tutoring job with our home school group, it took me a few times of reading it to understand any of it.

I think Susan Wise Bauer does a great job of explaining a lot of these things in her book, The Well Trained Mind. It is long, but it is worth the time to read it.

I hope this helps.

 

[Casey]

I understand what Sayers & Bauer, et al., are saying. But what the authors of the book I'm reading are saying is that in classical education (prior to Sayer's article becoming popular) "trivium" was a word that represents three subjects not three stages. It seems to me that words like "elementary, intermediate, and advanced" would be more appropriate to describe the stages than using the names of three distinct subjects (stages were never historically associated with classical education). I mean you could just as well arbitrarily pick three different subjects (say "philosophy, history, and theology") to use as names for the stages. And it's not about compartmentalizing subjects, it's more about precision in language when talking about the fundamental principles of classical education. Probably I haven't been as clear or convincing as what they were saying in the book that I've been reading. Oh well . .

 

[Leslie]

I have nothing to add but I follow this thread with interest as it bears on my teaching disadvantaged children in Ethiopia. I'd love to have someone educated in classical Christian education come to my location, interact with my students for a week or two, and then help design a program to bring them from where they are to where they should be. While I usually take a dim view of short-term missions, a critical advisory job-description like this does legitimize a quick trip.

 

[rmdmphilosopher]

As a product of classical education myself, it seems to me that "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced" simply don't capture the essence of progress in a truly classical education. If we are seeking "precision in language" then we need something at least like the concepts alluded to by grammar, logic and rhetoric--the progress from perception to analysis to communication.

It may also shed some light on your wonderment to note that Sayers and Bauer do in fact 'edit' the medieval education theory from which they borrow many of their terms, by expanding the conceptions of grammar, logic and rhetoric to refer to stages of development in the psychology of students (quite valid stages, if my experience counts for anything). These stages are not merely advance from a 'basic' outlook on ideas to an 'advanced' outlook, but they actually involve a movement from interest primarily in acquiring and mirroring facts, to synthesizing and analyzing them, to transforming and expressing them. Personally, I find the designation of these stages as grammar, logic and rhetoric to be, probably, the best. If we were going to scrap those words for something less confusing--if that really is so confusing--then we would need something considerably more accurate than 'basic', 'intermediate', and 'advanced'. Don't you think that an evolution in terminology should move toward being more indicative of concepts than the opposite?

 

[Ackbeet]

I agree with Robert. Sayers didn't just take the medieval terms lock, stock, and barrel. Her main contribution, in fact, was to link the three elements of the Trivium with what was, in her mind, the three stages of child development.

Incidentally, since I'm hoping eventually to teach math and physics at a classical Christian school, I have given considerable thought to the way math and physics fit into that philosophy of teaching. I would say that each subject in math has its "grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric." The grammar is the basic facts (basic four facts for arithmetic, axioms for geometry, algebraic rules for algebra, trig identities for trigonometry, and limit rules/derivative rules/antiderivative rules for calculus), the dialectic is the way those facts fit together (might use some algebraic facts to speed up computations in arithmetic, do equation solving in algebra, theorem-proving in geometry and trigonometry, and elementary problem-solving in calculus), and finally the rhetoric is the applications of math, which are indeed much too numerous to list exhaustively (but are more numerous than most students think. Have you ever noticed how many math students are prophets? "I'm never going to need THAT in my entire life...")

Just my two cents.

 

[Grymir]

Dorthy Sayer's Lost Tools of Learning is right on. These subjects need to be taught as put forth. Greenbaggins in post #2 hits it on the button. I got her speech in a book by Douglas Wilson called "Recovering The Lost Tools Of Learning" which expounds on it, precisely spelling out how to apply it and gives examples too.

Education today is focused on subjects in and of themselves. This leads to the anti-conceptual mentality we see in so many students of the public schools. All the 'subjects' are related to each other through 'grammar, logic, rhetoric.' The problem of education today isn't that they've switched a Biblical worldview for a secular worldview, as many think (and I used to!); but that the whole structure or curriculum needs to be changed. They used to teach people how to think, not what to think. The key is that all the 'subjects' are related. And that is what the 'Lost Tools of Learning' is all about.

Personally, I think it is one of the best things ever written on education.

 

[MW]

I initially read Sayers for insight into homeschooling but found the method so helpful I began using it in my own studies. For what it's worth, it is especially adaptable to self-education because it provides a plan for conscious development, whereas the youngsters are developing under the guidance of their teachers and probably don't trace their learning in dictinct stages; but it is good for teachers nonetheless.

 

[cih1355]

I did some reading about classical Christian education on the Internet and from what I understand the grammar stage consists of learning facts, the logic stage consists of thinking critically about those facts, and the rhetoric stage consists of communicating those facts in the most compelling manner or applying those facts to your life.

The following is an example of how those stages of learning would apply to studying theology.

Grammar of theology- learning what the Bible says about God, man, sin, salvation, and so on.

Logic of theology- figuring out the implications or consequences of certain theological positions, discerning whether or not something is heresy, etc.

Rhetoric of theology- knowing how one would put the Bible into practice, learning about apologetics