When studying in college, high school or (let’s be honest) middle school, we are taught that we must always provide evidence to support claims we make in our writing or speaking. We are taught how to research to find evidence and then to cite the sources where our evidence is found. This is how education works everywhere–well, almost everywhere.
In Christian private school circles, claims may be made with no evidence. School leaders and teachers can make claims about the history of Christian education without any fear of their readers or hearers asking them for evidence. The “classical education movement” has developed among Christian homeschool families and private school communities with school board members, administrators, teachers–even clergy–making claims about Christian education to students and parents for which they can provide no evidence.
As a Catholic classicist, I have wondered: (a) Why Christians would do this? and (b) How Christians could fall for this? I have written an entry-level book on the history and principles of classical education, which I am going to be developing into a comprehensive and thoroughly documented work in coming years. I have discussed the goals, principles and history of classical education in many articles and talks–proving very clearly that what “classical education” proponents are saying is demonstrably false. They do not even pretend to make a defense for their message because they know that their audience doesn’t care. The promotion of this false classical education movement and the reception of it by Christian families is growing.
Why?
Here’s the situation:
- Most Christians living in America (and elsewhere) do not know true Christian philosophy or the history of Christian education.
The truth of this is confessed by Christians themselves. They readily admit that they received a poor education, never learned history or philosophy, etc. - Christian parents with “conservative” values in America are desperately seeking alternatives to what they perceive to be threatening “liberal” study programs for their children.
This desperation can be proven by the lack of specific principles guiding education decisions of Christian parents and the “trial and error” approach they take in seeking study programs for their children. The perception that modern school environments (public schools, local Catholic schools, colleges, universities, etc.) are threatening to their children is evidenced by the claims regularly made that schools are “liberal”, “indoctrinating”, “brainwashing”, etc.. Ask a “conservative” Christian what they think of these institutions and they will answer so. - This ignorance and desperation creates an educational market in which con men can propose an apparent solution that will sell.
Con men, or sophists, are men who pretend to have wisdom for the sake of making money. These men know that their target audience is not capable of discovering their deception and that appearances are all that are needed to win their support. They know that the ignorant do not think to ask for demonstrative evidence, historical proof, authoritative recommendations, etc., but that they are opinionated, self-confident people who follow their own desires and “common sense” (i.e., appearances). - The “classical education movement” is that apparent solution and its proponents are those con men.
The “classical education movement”, which presents a completely unfounded message about a “classical method” of education supposedly used by wise men throughout history–marketed with images pulled without context from the past, simple catch-phrases and exotic terms that the ignorant marvel at (as Aristotle explained)–is the perfect product. The con men assure arrogant parents that they have everything they need to give their children a “classical education” and draw them further and further away from any sources of accountability. No one asks for any evidence. By the time the con men are finished, they have persuaded Christians living in the 21st century that nothing but their institutions, resources and activities are necessary.
Now, the problem that the con men run into is that their plan really depends on getting people away from other sources of information. Online study programs are not desired because allowing Christians to use the internet leaves them accessible to sources that contradict what the con men tell them. Therefore, they tell their audience that it’s much better to study offline, with books, than online. Moreover, because homeschooling really doesn’t give the con men the control they desire, they would prefer that Christians attend private schools that they create and run. The problem with this plan is that there are never enough students in a given location to make such a school sustainable, but this is not a challenge for the “classical education movement” because there is no actual curriculum or standard to be followed. They can accept anything that the market desires while maintaining all of the appearances of change.
By the time the schools are actually running, there is barely any difference between a “classical school” and the modern schools that already exist in town except for (a) the superficial appearances of change (uniforms, mottoes, etc.) and (b) the persons in control. When examined, the school model is the same, the curriculum is the same, the results are nearly the same. Nothing is actually changing except who is in control.
If a “classical school” is challenged with evidence from education history, some will acknowledge that they are not actually doing what the wise men and saints did in the past. Rather than admitting that they are advertising falsely, however, they will justify their school’s activity by blaming the people and saying that they are not ready for real classical education. However, they don’t know that to be true because, (a) from the beginning, the con men have been the source of the false “classical education” and (b) the con men don’t actually know anything about real classical education. When they are pressed, to give an account for their claims and activities, they respond with something like this, which I received this week:
“At the core of our approach is a spirit of humility and a belief that we do not have all the answers. It is possible that this approach will allow in a measure of intellectual mediocrity. But our mission is to imitate Christ as best we can, as humble servants. The devil’s favorite tools to wedge his way inside a faithful person are arrogance, ego, and pride. We will prefer a meek, humble, and maybe even ‘normal’ school to one that breeds elitism or dismisses the alternatives…We are open to whatever school will instill that ideology in us and our students, and the final outcome we will entrust to God’s will.”
This is craziness.
These claims about being uncertain and humble are made by men and women who are starting new schools in places where other schools already exist. While suggesting that one questioning them with evidence may be driven by the arrogance and pride of the devil, they ignore the fact that their criticism of existing schools is actually doing what they warn of–and that they are doing so by means of false claims. That the claims made by the school about education are demonstratively false apparently has no effect on the school’s talk about “imitating Christ as humble servants”. That men take upon themselves roles of “headmaster” and “teacher” in fields which they have never studied in no way contradicts the way of the meek. The school organizers may compromise and accept being “normal” as fine, so long as they are in control of that new school. That the schools take names for themselves like “Veritas (Truth) Academy” (sic) should not, apparently, be understood as suggesting that anyone in the school thinks himself to “have all the answers”. No, when asked to give an account to historical evidence, these con men transform into little lambs who recognize that there are many different ways to seek what they apparently can’t find at any of the existing schools in the area. Of course, when it’s time to advertise, or speak to their target audience behind closed doors, they sing a very different tune.
In the Classical Liberal Arts Academy, we work to actually “research, restore, publish and teach the classical liberal arts”–as they were actually known and taught by wise men and saints throughout history. We do not make claims about any educational “methods” or content that we are not ready to support with hard evidence. We believe that the way to guard against arrogance, pride, etc., is to avoid making claims that cannot be supported with evidence. When we do make claims that are supported by evidence, we trust more in the evidence than in our claims. That’s what real academic humility and intellectual honesty looks like. The only way for us to restore real classical education is by carefully researching and providing evidence for every step we take back to the right road.
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. We’re on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back.”
C.S. Lewis
Local communities will not supply sufficient interest or support for the development and maintenance of real classical education in the 21st century. Individual students, scattered around the world, will take up these studies and persevere in them, as they always have. Technology available to us will allow them to do so affordably, at their own pace, within the context of a balanced Christian life. Real classical schools were always small and led by masters who studied to “have all the answers”–at least all the answers needed to direct children through the classical studies they themselves studied. These teachers are, of course, rare today, but it’s only by the restoration of real classical Catholic education that they will increase in the next generation. Private schools will not be the instrument of this change, nor do any students need them to be in the 21st century.
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P., Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
mail@classicalliberalarts.com
