Loading ...January 22nd, 2008Shaky Speculation: The Lost Tools Of Learning
This post is the 2nd in a series on the flawed premise of the classical home education renewal movement. The first post was called “Why The Well-Trained Mind Will Drive You Crazy!“
* * * * *
First, here’s a little history lesson. The classical model of ancient Greece and Rome was resurrected during Emperor Charlemagne’s reign in the Middle Ages and given a Christian twist. This classical Christian model which included the trivium, the quadrivium, and many more subjects was faithfully followed in Europe and North America for several centuries thereafter until around the middle of the 1800s when the Common School Movement began in the United States in response to a huge immigrant influx. A secular public educational model and lack of classically-trained teachers effectively removed the classical Christian method from schools. For the next 100 years, classical education was practically nonexistent with the exception of some prestigious private academies which catered to the elite classes.
During the 1940s, British author Dorothy Sayers, presented an essay at Oxford University called The Lost Tools of Learning in which she compared the sorry state of modern education with the historically preferable state of classical education. She proposed that we had lost the tools necessary for learning how to think. In the early 1990s, respected pastor and private school educator, Douglas Wilson read Sayers’ essay and then wrote his own book, Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning
Early in the essay, Sayers accurately recounts the composition of the medieval classical education: first, the trivium which included the “tools” of learning: grammar (language acquisition) logic (critical thinking), and rhetoric (written and oral composition) which young men tackled before moving on to the quadrivium (the specific “subjects” of arithmetic, astronomy, music, and geometry.) In her anguish over the modern state of nations where men and women don’t know how to think, Sayers speculates that there may be a connection between the medieval trivium and the stages of child development. She posits:
what if the psychology of the child progresses through the 3 stages of the trivium?
Sayers names the 3 stages of child development poll-parrot, pert, and poetic; she then concludes that the 3 stages of the trivium are “singularly appropriate” to the 3 stages of child development. Based upon her own personal experience as a child, preteen, and teen, this hypothesis does seem to make sense, but in real life, it has never been clinically proven, and in fact, in my own experience as a mom who has tried to follow this model, I have found that the 2 pieces do not correlate. In fact, Sayers absolves herself from blame by saying, “My views about child psychology are, I admit, neither orthodox nor enlightened.”
My objection relates to the current classical renewal movement’s (1) misinterpretation of Sayer’s personal opinion on child development as gospel truth, (2) misapplication of Sayers’ hypothesis to a 12 year schedule, and (3) deviation from the historic classical education model by tackling subjects as soon as the child can read. In practice, we have taken a public school model (12 years of subjects) and dressed it up by incorporating classic literature, ancient languages, formal logic, and oratory as follows: 4 years (grades 1-4) in the “grammar” phase doing subjects, 4 years (grades 5-8) in the “logic” phase doing subjects, and 4 years (grades 9-12) in the “rhetoric phase doing subjects. No wonder moms and dads who try to adopt a classical education model fail! If you look closely, this is a public school paradigm with “classical” subjects tacked on!
Medieval scholars did NOT impose a 12 year trivium on their apprentices. They taught their students the basics first (the trivium: first grammar, then logic, then rhetoric), and when the student had the tools for critical thinking, speaking, and writing, he or she was instructed in subjects. In our current culture, we rush to formally educate; you might be surprised to discover that medieval and colonial students began the trivium at a much older age (14 years old) and quickly progressed through the trivium so that they could dive into the meatier subjects of the quadrivium. In later years, additional subjects were added to the curriculum including law, medicine, and theology.
* * * * *
In my next post, I’ll discuss options for classically educating your home school children. I’d love to read your own experience with any of the books mentioned, so please leave your comments below.
Or would you rather read the feed? Here's a 
January 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
[…] my last post, Shaky Speculation: The Lost Tools of Learning, I examined the history of classical Christian education and why the current renewal movement is […]
February 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Robert Littlejohn and Charles Evans in their book “Wisdom and Eloquence” says that Sayers is wrong when she divides the trivium into three progressive parts. Littlejohn and Evans claim that the Medieval view of the trivium is that grammer, logic, and rhetoric are to be taught together from the first grade forward. Have you read this book?
February 7th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Yes, Joseph, I have the book, and the margins are covered in scribbled thoughts and questions! My own experience in executing the trivium is that the three disciplines overlap through the years. In other words, they are not three consecutive stages or disciplines like Sayers proposes, but rather more like the Littlejohn and Evans formula; the three disciplines are generally formed concurrently. When my kids were just learning phonics (grammar or language acquisition) they were also playing with math manipulatives (logic or critical thinking) and practicing narration after reading a picture book (rhetoric or effective communication.) However, I also recognize that sometimes my kids have had to learn to organize and outline an essay (logic or critical thinking) before they could effectively deliver the content (rhetoric) so in that example, the acquisition of the skills did not occur at the same time but rather one after the other.
My own research into the medieval trivium revealed that the trivium was not officially started as early as Littlejohn/Evans suggest (first grade); rather, I read that many masters wouldn’t take a child until they had reached 13 or 14 years of age. Of course, the teenager certainly would have already been acquiring the language (grammar), critical thinking (logic), and communication skills (rhetoric) simply by informally responding to life in a family.
As for the statement that medieval scholars started the trivium in first grade, grades are a contemporary idea that medieval men probably didn’t use. I suspect that comment from Littlejohn and Evans probably arises from the status quo in U.S. public and private education (enroll a child at 6 years of age.) They both run private schools which start a child in 1st grade, so they have a vested interest in proposing an early start. I think we as parents begin the transmittal of all three skills from birth, and it is really up to each parent as to when to officially kick off the formal education, and that decision might also be influenced by the regulations of each state.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Diane,
I agree with what you are saying.I understood your above post to be talking about going from grammer to logic to Rhetoric but I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I don’t remember if Littlejohn and Evans actually say it all starts in the first grade. I was just applying it(trivium)to our modern grade school system. I guess I should of just said “young age”. Thanks for your posts.
Joseph Patterson
February 11th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Hi Joseph,
Thanks so much for your willingness to engage on this topic! I’m planning on continuing the series on the trivium as soon as I complete the home education philosophy series, so let’s keep talking! I was not classically educated as a child, so the process of rediscovering the historical trivium is a daily discovery as we try new things!
February 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
[…] Bauer, The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home (revised in 2004) applies the “Lost Tools of Learning” educational theory of Dorothy Sayers to systematically train the child over a twelve year period. […]
April 30th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Diane,
In regard to your comment above:
“Of course, the teenager certainly would have already been acquiring the language (grammar), critical thinking (logic), and communication skills (rhetoric) simply by informally responding to life in a family.”
Do you think that in today’s society, that our children will naturally acquire the same level of language, critical thinking, and communication skills by simply responding to life in a family, as they did in the medieval time period? Or do you feel that we need to somewhat artificially promote the development of some of these skills?
Oh, and BTW, I came here because of your post on the IEW Yahoo Group that you made pointing me here, and now I am a little overwhelmed where to begin! There is so much interesting and good information on your web site here that I want to read it all “yesterday”!
April 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Cindy,
Welcome! Please don’t feel overwhelmed. I’m in the process of laying out my philosophy of classical education, so you haven’t missed much. If I were you, I would start by reading the posts listed on “The Trivium” page (see blue tab near header). I should be finishing the 3rd skill, “Communicating Well” soon. (If you click on a link under Communicating Well that isn’t active yet, that means the post will be published in a day or two.)
As for the natural acquisition of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, my statement assumed the vital interaction of parents, siblings, and relatives who actively include the teen in sophisticated conversations of various content and style.
Even with the most eloquent parents, however, we need specific training in language, logic, and rhetoric just like the medieval scholars. For instance, my kids are avid readers, but they still make occasional punctuation mistakes and don’t always structure their paragraphs with a singular topic. So, I supplement what they are receiving at home in informal instruction with formal instruction.
I’ll be launching into details about each of the 3 skill sets and how I assess skill levels in future posts. In anticipation of questions like yours, I’m in the process of interviewing several home school kids of various ages to see where they stand in terms of the 3 skills, and I’ll be publishing a “makeover” of my recommendations soon. So, please be patient with me as I juggle raising my own classical scholars and serving the many rising classical scholars in the community.
Thanks again for the questions and compliments!
Diane
April 30th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
So far, from what I have read, this sounds like it meshes well with A Thomas Jefferson Education. What are your thoughts on the comparison of the 2? Classical Education, as you have defined it and not as defined by WTM, seems to have as its goal the same thing that TJEd does - creating leaders and thinkers, not just workers. I am very interested in learning more about Classical Ed as defined on this site and its implementation, as the WTM methods turned me off completely as too rigid and strict!
Thanks,
Cindy
May 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’ve read both TJEd and TWTM twice, and I think if I had to draw a continuum, I would place TWTM at the far right (with right being very structured) and TJEd closer to the left (with left very unstructured). I say closer to the left because I think John Holt (see my post on his philosophy) is the mirror image of TWTM with unschooling which has no structure except that which the child imposes. DeMille structures the younger child’s time, but when the teen hits the scholar phase, he allows the student to structure, with supervision. In this regard, my philosophy is very similar to DeMille’s. My daughter, Meredith (almost 16yo) came to me with the request that she study Irish History, Irish Lit, and the Irish-Gaelic language. I was delighted and gave her my blessings, but here is where I differ from DeMille. DeMille would probably accept this as enough, but since my husband and I see the value of not only the classical methods but also the classical content (the impact on Western culture and identity), Meredith also is studying ancient Greek and Roman history and classic lit as well as latin. So I allow her freedom to explore her own interests, but we have a core knowledge base that we expect to acquire, too. It may sound like extra work, but it’s really not because we don’t rigidly follow a 36 week textbook for each - she’s reading in both histories/lits/languages enough to qualify for high school credit. So, on my contiuum, I fall between DeMille and Wise/Bauer.
The bottom line is that you and your husband are the ones who get to set the philosophy. I’m very pragmatic, so if it doesn’t work, we try something else while trying to stick with our core values and philosophy about home education. Hope this helps!
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
We are Catholics. My kids are raised now, but I ran across Sayer’s essay when they were very young and it intrigued me a great deal, especially the poll parrot phase. As a result of that experience, I agree with you totally when you write, “My objection relates to the current classical renewal movement’s … (2) misapplication of Sayers’ hypothesis to a 12 year schedule,” for I have seen classically based Christian schools identify that period as the first three years of grade school. In my opinion this is too late by about two to three years.
Sayer’s “poll parrot phase” put a name on what we were experiencing with our children from about age three and a half. It happened like this. At some point for night prayers we began saying the Our Father with our five year old son. Our three year old daughter was kneeling beside him and reciting along with us. After two weeks (probably much less- this was a long time ago, and I am estimating) we began reciting the Hail Mary. Shortly they had it by memory. Then the “Glory Be to the Father.” Here I began to be very intrigued, and typed out a copy of Psalm 1 for my wife and myself to read aloud. After two weeks, the children had it down. Then Psalm 2. Piece of cake. Here I am sorry to say my courage and my industry failed me. Was this child abuse???
Around this time I became very tired of the efforts to turn St. Patrick’s Day into “Irish Day,” so I typed out a 36 line version of “The Shield of St. Patrick,” put a shamrock in the upper right hand corner and plastered it all over the apartment complex. It occurred to me that it might make a nice night prayer for a few days, but after that my kids said, “Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, can we memorize this?!” Incredible. So it became our night prayer for about four or five years. The love of learning and the desire for God had already taken hold in their hearts.
When David came to First Grade in the parochial school, I was very unhappy with the lack of doctrinal content in the relgious instruction, so we began work with the Baltimore Catechism. Here again, David’s four year old sister was present and we were astounded to realize after some time that she also was learning all these difficult catechism questions. When she entered first grade she knew a great deal more doctrine by heart than graduating eighth graders. Of course, all this was without understanding. It was merely “poll parrot”- but it corresponded perfectly with Dorothy Sayer’s observations. In subsequent reading of biographies I have seen this several times, where a four year old child picks up instruction being given to an old sibling. We don’t think four year olds are capable of anything of the kind, but the universal experience is that they are all capable of picking up Chinese or Russian or Urdu- or whatever else is available for them to memorize. It merely remains for us to take full advantage of this fact and make available to them things worthy of memory.
Here from notes made in 1984: “Going into the first grade my little Stephanie knows the Ten Commandments, the Precepts of the Church, the Apostle’s Creed, the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary and the Hail Holy Queen. She also knows the Our Father, the Hail Mary, the Glory Be in English and Latin. She knows the prayer to her angel, the Act of Contrition. In fact, since we have been doing this together as a family, she knows everything that my son had to learn (according to me) to make his First Confession and first Holy Communion, including 18 questions and answers on the Mass as a sacrifice. She can tell you why we make the sign of the cross, what a sacramental is, what faith, hope and charity are. She even knows why God made her, which is more than can be said for a great many college graduates. She also knows the Shield of St. Patrick, Psalm 1, Psalm 20, Psalm 26. And she knows tons more than this. It is amazing what can be accomplished in fifteen minutes per night over the course of the school year.”
Here I need to say that I don’t think my kids are gifted. They may have been somewhat above average because their gifts were cultivated, but I think variations on the poll parrot theme can be wrought in all young children, during the time of language aquisition- the poll parrot phase.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 am
Lee,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reflections! How blessed your precious children are to have had a Dad who was alert to the opportunities for training in righteousness. Your story illustrates that each parent can select the specific content to be taught to the child whether it be prayers, songs, poems, stories, or dialogue. What a privilege we have as parents to hold these tender hearts and minds that our Father has entrusted to us for a brief time. May each of us be as intentional in our duty as you were!