Status Updates From The Lost Tools of Learning

Her ideas were untested at the time and I can see why she would say that. She concludes that we have lived off the capital of the tools for thre hundred years and, at some point, things will fall apart because they have not been watered.

She says that kids educated in this way might not test well in comparison to peers under modern methods until they make it through Dialectic. We see the same thing. Our kids don’t test as well but they have soft skills and they can think. She also believes that public school and the universities would not like it if this happened. The tools are far more valuable than the subjects. Well, she calls her ideas sketchy.

She does like the idea of presenting and definding a thesis at the end of high school. She envisions Grammar to be 9-11 yo, Dialectic to be 12-14 yo, Rhetoric to be 15-16 yo. Students who go vocational and workforce will not do Quadrivium. Post-rhetoric, the university bound students will then do the Quadrivium before going to the university. This leaves us with the question. Is the Trivium enough for life?

I don’t agree with some of her ideas concerning literary appreciation. Too much destructive ciriticism at any age has the risk of generating cynics and skeptics. She says it’s natural for subjects to emerge and some specialization is fine but core subjects should always be learned. The key is balance STEM kids with humanities and vice versa. High school is too early for excessive specialization.

This sounds like self-education because students are encouraged to forage for information at the library and learn what is an authoritative source. She thinks that at the end of Dialectic kids will start to see how little they know. I’m not sure that is true anymore. LOL She believes that the imagination is dormant while logic and reason rule. I don’t think so. The kids of all ages at my school are imaginative.

It has a very CMish feeling to it. She lists other things middle schoolers enjoy debating including umpire’s calls in sports, newspapers (especially to spot fallacies). They can write essays and summaries or show appreciation for a well-constructed argument. Middle schoolers will find this a way to channel their desire to nitpick and argue and parents need to nip it in the bud at home for a tolerable atmosphere.

Advanced arithmetic, algebra, and geometry go with Dialectic. I would agree. She sees history as material for discussing ethics and theology in what happened in history. Theology furnishes materials to argue and debate conduct, morals, dogma, ethics. Geography and sciences also offers material for Dialectic. She gives a wonderful example from Leslie Paul’s “The Living Hedge” discussing an extraordinary rain shower.

They are ready to focus on syntax and analysis in the logical construction of speech as well as the history of language. I like what she says about reading. They go from narration and lyrical language to essays, argument, criticism (however, I think care should be taken in criticizing literature--we don’t want cynics and critics to emerge. Some lessons may be debates and recitation may become dramatic performances.

Logic fell out of favor because of postulates. Moderns could not accept the idea that the hypothesis of an if-then statement may be false if it is not already proven. (However, they are quite happy to accept a singularity. LOL) Sayers finds value in logic because it heps you detect invalid inferences. Given enough vocabulary and the formation of words from the Grammar stage, the Dialectic can begin.

I agree with her 100 percent. Learning the Bible as a single narrative of Creation, Rebellion, and Redemption, plus learning the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and Creed are goo, too. We adore the psalms. Our textbook for the Bible is the Bible! The question now is when to start the Dialectic stage and that requires a discussion of logic first. Moderns have dropped logic and I agree that it is a shame.

I find the concept of every subject having a “grammar” in terms of tools. I do not think I would pick the same tools. She does recommend not seeing these activities as subjects, but rather they are a gathering of materials. I do agree with not explaining too much and answering the intelligent questions of children. I think she puts too much emphasis on memorizing. She values theology as the key to synthesis (bravo).

Science is organized around identifying and naming specimens from collections and learning the properties of things. Again, it’s better to be out-of-doors, seeing them holistically in their environment. Science is about wonder and more wonder comes from seeing things where they live. I do with her on learning basic math and not introducing too much too soon--a grave mistake for moderns.

Dates come naturally, especially when you have timelines posted in a classroom. She also recommends having pictures available to help them imagine other times. This is where picture study comes in handy. She recommends some memorization of maps as well as facts about natural features, customs, costumes, flora, and fauna. CM would point out that facts should be clothed in stories. I like her idea of collecting stamps.

She agrees that a spoken living language learned by ear is helpful as well. The next part is where we agree. Grammar is a time to feed children the building blocks of stories in English: myths, legends, stories, recitation of poetry. I’m sure she would include Bible and fairy tales as well. With history, we diverge. She believes in having a peg of dates to go with stories of events, anecdotes, and people. I do not.

I also think that Latin is the root of the romance languages. I think the downside of Latin is that it is not a living language. CM was looking at a second language as a way to show hospitality to neighbors which is why she favored French for the English. She prefers the Latin of the church and Middle Ages because it is easier and livelier. She recommends chanting verb conjugations for the grammar stage.

It comes with self-centeredness, angst, and a feeling of being misunderstood. The desire to express themselves leads to essays and other forms of communication. She lines up each stage with Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric, of course. In the Grammar stage, inflected languages are preferred (Latin or German) because uninflected languages require too much analysis. They will help students interpret unflected ones.

The neoclassical interpretation thinks that understanding starts then. I don’t agree! I’ve seen kids in the “grammar” stage who have an incredible amount of understanding. In fact, some already have an eye for logic and love to spot any weakness in a direction given by a teacher. I think that there is much more overlap that is being applied today. The Poetic Stage is where synthesis and creativeness happen.

That goes through elementary years with some overlap. The Pert stage (middle school) goes with contradicting, answering back, catching people in mistakes, posing conundrums, and questioning to find the fine lines. I would agree with this. What I noticed though is that some do not develop logic until late eighth grade and they find it hard to learn algebra and grammar (parsing and diagramming) until logic kicks in.

I agree in memorizing the alphabet, phonics, sight words, poems, songs, nursery rhymes, counting, basic math facts, a second language by ear (not eye). Unfortunately, the neoclassical movement has burdened children with memorizing facts which can be gleaned through reading and narrating wide and varied books which have the added advantage of encouraging thinking. I wonder what Sayers would say about the added bits.

There is a paragraph that I love!! Except, I would substitute “Charlotte Mason philosophy” for “Trivium.” What she said is what we are doing at Harvest. She believes in starting them young but gives no age limit. She imagines three stages. The first is the parrot stage in which children enjoy memorizing. I think she is right except for a couple of things. I have seen children enjoy thinking and asking hard questions.

Moderns mock the hair-splitting of medievals over obscure theological ideas. We need to look in the mirror because of the lack of reasoning. So many people appeal to emotion and they have no understanding of how to construct a logical argument. We teach kids to read without being armed with how to battle with words. We aim even more words through radio and film. We pour money into schools, but where are the tools?

Modern education teaches subjects. It is so hard-wired! I was trying to explain CM’s broad ideas of subjects to someone today and they had a very hard time of understanding how it could possibly work. The medievals focused on the tools of thinking, arguing, and speaking to be applied when they get to subjects. Because medieval subjects are more limited (primarily to theology), the essays went off the rails a bit.

Rhetoric is how to say something persuasively and elegantly. At the end of the Trivium, they would have to write a thesis, present it, defend it in front of faculty with wit, and deal with heckling. This lingers today in some form. I didn’t get heckled with my thesis presentation. LOL Grammar ends up being studied in two subjects: second language and English. Dialectic is not taught except as an extracurricular.

Sayers is looking at the object and right order. She skips the object and gets to the order: Trivium (Grammar, Dialectic, Rhetoric) and Quadrivium (Geometry, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Music). Grammar (Latin for them) is learning how a language works, how to use it, how it is put together. Dialectic is learning to define terms, make accurate statements, construct an argument, and detect fallacies in arguments (logic).

CM values the medieval idea that the Holy Spirit descends from heaven and is the teacher of all things, both the secular liberal arts and the sacred liberal arts. Moreover, there is no compartmentation between secular and sacred. She also believes that education is to teach us how to live and, obviously, God is part of that life. Loves are rightly ordered so that we can experience what God’s world has to offer.

It is so important to learn how to use tools properly before we can make art. CM does this in her curriculum. I wonder if this inspired the title. In the medieval scheme, the Trivium is the foundation to teach the art of language, which for them was Latin (unifying academic circles). The Quadrivium focuses on subjects (specialized content). The Trivium teaches language, the medium in which thought is expressed.

It is a book, and none of my goodreads friends have read it. She agrees with CM that it is distressing that a specialized education fails to provide broad critical thinking skills nor how to learn other things informally. They fail to learn the art of learning. It is like learning to play one song from memory, but not scales and reading music. It also applies to handwork like I have outlined a sloyd curriculum guide.

The editor did that. The writer of the article used circular logic by assuming the thing to be proved and there is no syllogism. The only way to do that is to assume the contrary and prove by contradiction. Another example concerns an article on education. A person may be an expert in one field and shows no better judgment in other fields than a neighbor. He remembers what, not how, he learned.

She criticizes scientists who use anthropomorphic language to describe insects. CM like Fabre not mind it for students. I wonder what Sayers would say

On Lit Life Discord, we are talking about scientists trying to disprove creationism. Sayers also talks about poorly constructed arguments that pass for proofs. Basically, materials can yield all the observed variations. There is not sufficient information to determine if a Creator did it or a random process. Likewise, a keyboard has sounds like a sonata or something screech. The composer can be a human or a cat.