The Latin-Centered Curriculum

LCC to be "mere classical education." I don't know if you've read my book, but I go into some detail in the first chapter defining what classical education has meant historically and how modern reinterpretations of it diverge from that historical understanding. Most of the points on the Distinctives list contrast LCC with what I (and others) call neoclassical education - methods based on Dorothy Sayers' essay "The Lost Tools of Learning." These methods have developed over the last 25 years, mostly in the United States.

For example, the first point on my "Distinctives" list reads, "Classical education treats classical languages and mathematics as the organizing principles of education." Contrast that with Susan Wise Bauer's statement that "[c]lassical education has three distinctives: it follows the pattern of the trivium, is language-focused rather than image-focused, and is centered around the story of history." There is nothing here that speaks of classical languages; history is at the center. In fact, Bauer says very pointedly in The Well-Trained Mind that Latin is not the defining characteristic of classical education. That can only be true if "classical education" has been substantially redefined, and that is exactly what has happened in the last 25 years. I am trying to revive the older, traditional understanding of the term.

This leads us to my second distinctive: "Classical education ... treats the medieval Trivium subjects - Latin grammar, logic, and rhetoric - as disciplines in their own right. It suggests that to place undo emphasis on "ages and stages" can lead to rigidity in the curriculum and an unnatural emphasis on technique in teaching." When Susan Wise Bauer says that "classical education...follows the pattern of the trivium" she is referring to Dorothy Sayers' reinterpretation of the medieval trivium as stages of learning. Some neoclassical educators (not so much Bauer, here) over-emphasize decontextualized memorization in the early grades because of Sayers' influence. This is a far cry from the historical meaning of the Trivium. I would argue that one cannot separate the content of classical education from the form without getting very different results.

Point five says, "Rather than rushing students from book to book, from author to author, classical education invites students to contemplate the representative masterpieces of each historical period." Here the contrast with neoclassical education is marked. Look at the number of titles suggested for middle school English in popular neoclassical programs. (I give specific examples in my book.) This is not multum non multa; it is "more is better."

And so on though the list. Each point speaks to a particular tendency in neoclassical education that, in my estimation, misses the mark. If you read the first chapter of my book, especially the revisions in the new edition, you will see where the distinctions lie. I analyze both the strengths and weaknesses of the Sayers Trivium and explain why I don't base my own understanding of classical education on it.

Often the distinctions are a matter of emphasis. Many neoclassical educators promote the study of Latin, but they do so for rather different reasons than the ones that drive LCC. Some share my concern for the moral aspects of education, although they often limit that to narrow doctrinal positions, or severely limit classical literary content on religious grounds. Some promote the study of logic, but strictly in service to Christian apologetics.

None of this is to say that neoclassical education is not worth pursuing or that it will produce poorly educated adults. But it is different both in content and in form from what I describe in LCC. Those differences are often unclear to homeschoolers - hence my "Distinctives" list.

I hope that answers your question!

-Drew

***
"I wonder how far I shall carry any opinion with me when I plead for active effort to revive the general use of Latin?" - Hilaire Belloc
***