Talk:Classical education movement

message: The "secondary" section appears to discuss how modern "classical education" is taught, in contrast to the classical "classical education" in the rest of the section. I suggest someone with a better understanding of the subject than myself move the inapropriate material to the "modern" section below. If this material is correctly placed, then the stuff about the Socratic method being preferable needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV. matturn 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the compare to "modern education" suggestion, at least specifically in this article. That is because trying to shoehorn two fundamentally incompatible POVs would make the article excessively politicized and full of contention between their adherents. All the more so given that one of the POVs is heavily favored in the media and "studies have shown" and so, per Wikipedia rules, would have a major edge pushing its claims running roughshod over opposition. Indeed, the two viewpoints are so incompatible that they disagree even with factual basis of foundational claims of the other side, e.g. classical educationists considering modern educationists' claim of teaching "creativity" to be a blatant lie. So I think it is preferable to keep the bulk of this article mostly focused on "pro classical" POV and have comparisons and/or criticisms either in separate section or, even better in a separate article along the lines of "Comparison of classical and modern education based on media claims and latest edschool research". 76.119.30.87 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlapping modern/classical content?

message: Everything in the article as it stands is exposition of the contemporary American Classical education movement, and this is how the page should be renamed.  There is some information about ancient and medieval trends that have inspired the movement, but the lens and assumptions are those of the contemporary world.  This is extremely simple to prove: Herodotus' Histories were an important source for teaching history...for whom?  Not for anyone in the Medieval West, obviously.  Children are sponges for vocabulary acquisition...as discussed by what ancient or Medieval author?  "To amuse companions, and...to decorate one's domicile" were goals in the cathedral schools or universities serving clerics in the Medieval West?  There is no answer to any of these questions, and there is no prospect of converting an article on this subject to an article on the entirely different subject of education in the past ages.  I'm not saying the historical content needs to go (it clearly provides the background theory for the modern movement), although such ludicrous statements as that Plutarch's Lives were a textbook in the Middle Ages need to be discarded. My diagnosis can moreover be inferred from the previous comments on this page.  If there is any valid information on the subject of Medieval education that can be attributed to a reliable source, perhaps it would be welcome at the better article on that subject, Medieval university.  Wareh 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there was no discussion here, I have completed the move.  Classical education will still point readers to this page, in addition to encyclopedia articles that provide some historical treatment of the educational practices of antiquity and the Middle Ages.  Wareh 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever wrote this incoherent farrago is absolutely clueless about the history of education, not to mention history in general. Medieval education and classical education are not the same thing at all, but instead are complete opposites. Returning to the education of the Middle Ages and its uncouth, garbled Latin would be a step back into ignorance and barbarism.
In the Middle Ages, Greek was not taught and Latin grammar strayed far away from Classical Latin, becoming a subject of derision and ridicule for later scholars. In the Middle Ages, teachers used anthologies and little excerpts, which students copied from dictation. They did not actual texts or whole books because there weren't enough of them. The actual texts were hidden away in monasteries. During the Renaissance scholars went to the monasteries and had multiple copies made of these manuscript which then then collated with manuscripts from other monasteries, filling in gaps and systematically correcting errors. This (philology) was the great accomplishment of humanism. The most important author for these humanists was Cicero, the inventor of humanism. Cicero recommended educating the "whole person" so as to form an orator who could participate in civic affairs and talk intelligently on many subjects. 
Renaissance educators abandoned the Medieval Trivium and Quadrivium in favor of Cicero's studiae humanitatis, restored the teaching of Greek and Hebrew, and reformed Latin grammar reformed to make it agree with the grammar of Cicero. They also introduced a clear handwriting, even before the introduction of printing.  
Renaissance Humanist scholars reintroduced the educational use of whole texts in the original languages, newly edited to get rid of the copyists many many mistakes.
The modern "Great Books" program teaches so-called great books in (often very mediocre) English translation, which is completely contrary to the Classical (and Renaissance) spirit, etc., etc. 173.77.111.82 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article misnamed

message: The article refers to a work called "Aristotle's Logic", but there is no such work.  This section is unsourced so I'm not sure whether the writer meant the Organon, one of the particular works on logic, or some course derived from Aristotelian logic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.77.26 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle's Logic 

message: The primary reason this article is confusing is that it is not clear when the article is addressing medieval education and when it is describing the modern American movement which partly imitates medieval education. This problem has persisted for over five years without any attempt at correction. It would be really good if an expert could edit this article. See the first discussion section above. --seberle (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main problem with this article 

message: The movement(s) for classical education are many.  Classical Christian education refers to a specific flavor.  
The modern Classical Christian education movement in the USA refers to a growth in schools based on  .  The article Classical Christian education basically discusses this specific flavor.
AFA-NCF (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the tag. No argument has been advanced for this merge, despite the fact that the tag has been there for over two years. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not merge with Classical Christian education

message: Attempting to add relevant external links is being met with arbitrary deletion. Jasonmhood (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded flavor by adding some external links

message: Work appears to have been done to relate classical education to the historical Western definition and to include information on other non-western perceptions of classical.  I have therefore removed
If you believe this is inappropriate please discuss what you believe is missing.
User:CCeducator (User talk:CCeducator) CCeducator 21:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalization

message: It needs a section on criticisms and alternative approaches. In the meantime, it would benefit from a flag about the subjectivity of its content. 2600:1700:3681:5000:4DF3:CB9B:E6B7:20AF (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Will consider how to improve in this regard. -- Jjhake (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've tagged it as unbalanced. Tried to fix it a bit but it still needs a lot of work. Mvolz (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry missed this comment before I replied to you at more length in a new section below. Thank you for the work and the tag as unbalanced (which I agree is a key aspect involved with improvement of this article). -- Jjhake (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page reads like an advertisement 

message: This entry is called the "Classical education movement," which in large part has become a movement in love with a grave misunderstanding. It is a misunderstanding of the (almost worshiped) article, "The Lost Tools of Learning" by Sayers, which is referenced in the entry. Sayers did not intend for her article to be a paradigm of education; she was merely exploring an interesting correlation between the trivium of the liberal arts and a very simplistic model of child development. Classical education, on the contrary, is just that: an education in the classics. And in order to learn the classics, you need to learn Latin and Greek. (See Tracy Lee Simmons's book Climbing Parnassus for an excellent explanation of classical education.) That being said, there are two issues that need to be addressed concerning this entry:
1. Although largely mistaken, this movement does exist, and deserves to have an entry. It also needs to be distinguished from real Latin-Greek education.
2. This entry needs to be extremely clear in the fact that the pop-classical movement is less of a classical movement per se, and more of a move both to a liberal arts education and a simple developmental paradigm.  --Nathanael Hahn (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful thoughts here to consider. I'd be interested to chat more about your thoughts on possible improvements. Is there article content somewhere already on Latin-Greek education? Do you think that that The Liberal Arts Tradition by Ravi Jain and Kevin Clark involves more of an actual renewal? -- Jjhake (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity on the topic sorely needed