Clarification on the Curricula of Classical Christian Schools

[Sam Jer]

Hello,

I heard more than once about the Classical Christian Schools and on how they function, but it's always a vague explanation of the progression of grammar logic rhetoric, and some reference to studying Latin. There was on a recent thread a discussion of the use of various western classics in classical education too. But I am still quite confused as to the structure. What does the grammar stage actually mean? I read pre modern grammar schools would start by rigourously teaching the students Latin grammar. Is this the CCS approach too? What precisely happens at the logic stage? At the rhetoric stage? Is the day still divided by different focuses/subjects/teachers, or is everything blended in one? Where does math come in, and how much focus, if any, is given STEM? Is any of it in English, ir do you just learn Latin and then run ahead with that?

 

[Theoretical]

There're at least two types of Christian classical approaches, but I think the two dominant varieties are those that follow a Grammar-Logic-Rhetoric process and those that would be more Great Books, English boarding oriented, even if not explicitly linked to Adler's list or their derivatives.

The former is essentially taking Dorothy Sayers' lecture on "The Lost Tools of Learning" and applying it to an entire primary and secondary educational system, often with explicit divisions of Grammar/Logic/Rhetoric for the various subjects.

The other approach is more along the lines of what classical Catholic or English boarding schools do, albeit with more or less Protestant lenses.

In my area, the following two schools are good examples of each, though they're more oriented towards middle and high schoolers. Both involve learning Latin and Greek, and involve significant study of the classics. There's also homeschool curricula that would mirror these two approaches, though probably more tilted towards the trivium approach.

Trivium style: https://covenantdallas.com/

Broadly Classical: https://www.cambridgedallas.org/ This school I have significant familiarity with, and their programs and approach were directly derived from this local Catholic school with additional influences from English Boarding Schools (such as the house system): https://school.cistercian.org/

 

[Frisian Gardener]

Where does Charlotte Mason fit on this spectrum, or is that something else completely? Homeschooling v. institutional schooling, curriculum, and the like are all decisions I'm going to need to start making in a couple of years or so, and I don't want to get caught unprepared.

 

[RamistThomist]

Where does Charlotte Mason fit on this spectrum, or is that something else completely? Homeschooling v. institutional schooling, curriculum, and the like are all decisions I'm going to need to start making in a couple of years or so, and I don't want to get caught unprepared.

Usually homeschool, but not necessarily so. I think she has good ideas but she works better as a supplement, at least for me.

I have a love-hate relationship with the idea of classical schooling. I love the classics. Dorothy Sayers is one of my favorite prose stylists. However, she admitted she had no background knowledge on education when she gave her famous trivium. She was a marketing genius for Guinness Beer. Sure, classical advocates will say that the trivium predates Sayers, and it does, but we really aren't doing classical education the way the medievals did, either. Most classical advocates aren't teaching astronomy. Not only are they not teaching astronomy, but they aren't grounding their worldview in the harmonic unity of astronomy, music, and geometry.

Parrot, pert, and poet is nice, but that doesn't necessarily correspond to the human experience.

Classical schools normally do a great job on history and literature. I'm not saying they do poorly on math and science. Some excel. I'm saying that they have to make a deliberate effort to excel in those two subjects. I know of some classical academies who drop ball on math and science. I mean, these kids are sometimes two grades behind the public schools.

I generally favor Mortimer Adler's approach, but I see him more as a tool than a program.

 

[No Other Name]

Most classical advocates aren't teaching astronomy. Not only are they not teaching astronomy, but they aren't grounding their worldview in the harmonic unity of astronomy, music, and geometry.

Amen.

Even if a curriculum (classical or not) includes astronomy, so many go chasing the (way too slowly) dying fads of cosmology: "big bang" inflation, string theory, M-theory, multiverse, loop quantum gravity ad nauseum and try to jam these academic-sounding ideas in a popular version for HS students doomed to not even be aware that they are being fed pseudoscience.

 

[Megs]

Where does Charlotte Mason fit on this spectrum, or is that something else completely? Homeschooling v. institutional schooling, curriculum, and the like are all decisions I'm going to need to start making in a couple of years or so, and I don't want to get caught unprepared.

Here is what Ambleside Online, a leading Charlotte Mason homeschooling curriculum, says at https://amblesideonline.org/faq:

CM is not Classical Education in the way homeschoolers understand classical education today. Charlotte Mason did not adhere to the trivium idea of stages of a child's mind, although her method dovetails nicely with classical education and falls very squarely and firmly with the classical tradition as practiced for centuries by a stream of Christian educators and philosophers. When trying to contrast CM with CE, Michelle Duker suggests "thinking through the following thought questions, which will require some reading of the two perspectives: 1. What is the view of a child in each method? What is a child? 2. What is the purpose of education? 3. What is the role of the teacher/parent?" Rather than having students read classics in dead languages for cultural literacy as traditional classical required, Charlotte Mason felt that there were just as many wonderful books that her students should be reading and reflecting on in their own native English language. (Read Karen Glass's article about CM and CE, and a related post she wrote to Truthquest. Karen has also written a book about the subject called Consider This: Charlotte Mason and the Classical Tradition ($amzn) (K) Karen did a related Q&A podcast with Cindy Rollins, and an interview with Paideia Academy.)

There is more on comparing CM to other homeschooling approaches at the same link.

Generally, I have seen CM education classified as a species of classical education, though not one that divides things into three stages. The focus in CM education is on ideas at all levels of education, as encountered in living books. My kids have loved CM materials more than most of the classical materials we have used.

 

[RamistThomist]

Amen.

Even if a curriculum (classical or not) includes astronomy, so many go chasing the (way too slowly) dying fads of cosmology: "big bang" inflation, string theory, M-theory, multiverse, loop quantum gravity ad nauseum and try to jam these academic-sounding ideas in a popular version for HS students doomed to not even be aware that they are being fed pseudoscience.

Say it ain't so. I've finally gotten to the place where I have a second grade understanding of string theory. LOL.

I also have a lot riding on whether the Philadelphia Experiment happened.

So, Michio Kaku isn't a reliable guide?

 

[No Other Name]

Say it ain't so. I've finally gotten to the place where I have a second grade understanding of string theory. LOL.

I also have a lot riding on whether the Philadelphia Experiment happened.

So, Michio Kaku isn't a reliable guide?

My excellent brother in Christ,

I am not even sure how to respond.

After I got my Bachelors in Pastoral Ministry, I went to get a Bachelors in Physics and an MSc in Astrophysics. I wanted to be a new significant creation scientist. Better than everyone else before.

After God thoroughly scorched my waxen wings and broke me down to less than a shell of nothing, I humbly re-studied what I had previously learned (both science and pastoral ministry).

So I am no expert, but I did learn that:

1) My undergrad String Theory course was largely a waste of time. Now, there is something significant in the math of it. There is definitely an elegance to the equations that is highly suggestive of ... something there. Just what it is, no one knows at all. It is akin to smoke in a room but no one can find where it is coming from. And it would be foolish to say: "In this case, everyone, where there is smoke there is in fact no fire."

But not only is it so highly improbable to discover magnetic monopoles, not only is that idea bizarre in and of itself, but to even explore the idea of the meaning of other spacetime dimensions deeply enough would require a ludicrous load of math classes: differential geometry, topology, and a lot more. I stopped looking about Year 1 of my masters program. It takes years of intensive study to even comprehend the mathematical statements of the theory. And even if there is some kind of a payoff in the inherent beauty of the math, it may very well not be knowable this side of paradise.

2) I have no idea what you could have riding on the Philadelphia Experiment. If you say Nephilim, I am in! hahahaha (just poking fun at some 'Spooky Universe' podcasters there lol)

3) You may be joking, but just in case: Michio Kaku is not reliable. Maybe half (?) of his stuff is real science. The other half(ish) is scientific explanations of academia-approved science fiction. I think he started more 60/40 but that was no longer the case the last time I paid attention to him.

 

[ZackF]

My excellent brother in Christ,

I am not even sure how to respond.

After I got my Bachelors in Pastoral Ministry, I went to get a Bachelors in Physics and an MSc in Astrophysics. I wanted to be a new significant creation scientist. Better than everyone else before.

After God thoroughly scorched my waxen wings and broke me down to less than a shell of nothing, I humbly re-studied what I had previously learned (both science and pastoral ministry).

So I am no expert, but I did learn that:

1) My undergrad String Theory course was largely a waste of time. Now, there is something significant in the math of it. There is definitely an elegance to the equations that is highly suggestive of ... something there. Just what it is, no one knows at all. It is akin to smoke in a room but no one can find where it is coming from. And it would be foolish to say: "In this case, everyone, where there is smoke there is in fact no fire."

But not only is it so highly improbable to discover magnetic monopoles, not only is that idea bizarre in and of itself, but to even explore the idea of the meaning of other spacetime dimensions deeply enough would require a ludicrous load of math classes: differential geometry, topology, and a lot more. I stopped looking about Year 1 of my masters program. It takes years of intensive study to even comprehend the mathematical statements of the theory. And even if there is some kind of a payoff in the inherent beauty of the math, it may very well not be knowable this side of paradise.

2) I have no idea what you could have riding on the Philadelphia Experiment. If you say Nephilim, I am in! hahahaha (just poking fun at some 'Spooky Universe' podcasters there lol)

3) You may be joking, but just in case: Michio Kaku is not reliable. Maybe half (?) of his stuff is real science. The other half(ish) is scientific explanations of academia-approved science fiction. I think he started more 60/40 but that was no longer the case the last time I paid attention to him.

 

[RamistThomist]

My excellent brother in Christ,

I am not even sure how to respond.

After I got my Bachelors in Pastoral Ministry, I went to get a Bachelors in Physics and an MSc in Astrophysics. I wanted to be a new significant creation scientist. Better than everyone else before.

After God thoroughly scorched my waxen wings and broke me down to less than a shell of nothing, I humbly re-studied what I had previously learned (both science and pastoral ministry).

So I am no expert, but I did learn that:

1) My undergrad String Theory course was largely a waste of time. Now, there is something significant in the math of it. There is definitely an elegance to the equations that is highly suggestive of ... something there. Just what it is, no one knows at all. It is akin to smoke in a room but no one can find where it is coming from. And it would be foolish to say: "In this case, everyone, where there is smoke there is in fact no fire."

But not only is it so highly improbable to discover magnetic monopoles, not only is that idea bizarre in and of itself, but to even explore the idea of the meaning of other spacetime dimensions deeply enough would require a ludicrous load of math classes: differential geometry, topology, and a lot more. I stopped looking about Year 1 of my masters program. It takes years of intensive study to even comprehend the mathematical statements of the theory. And even if there is some kind of a payoff in the inherent beauty of the math, it may very well not be knowable this side of paradise.

2) I have no idea what you could have riding on the Philadelphia Experiment. If you say Nephilim, I am in! hahahaha (just poking fun at some 'Spooky Universe' podcasters there lol)

3) You may be joking, but just in case: Michio Kaku is not reliable. Maybe half (?) of his stuff is real science. The other half(ish) is scientific explanations of academia-approved science fiction. I think he started more 60/40 but that was no longer the case the last time I paid attention to him.

Thank you, sincerely. I've read a good bit about Einstein and some by him, so I have a 5th grade understanding of relativity. I think I get the idea behind string theory, but there is little I can practically do with it.

I hear you on Kaku. I just see clips of him on different talkumentaries.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Hello,

I heard more than once about the Classical Christian Schools and on how they function, but it's always a vague explanation of the progression of grammar logic rhetoric, and some reference to studying Latin. There was on a recent thread a discussion of the use of various western classics in classical education too. But I am still quite confused as to the structure. What does the grammar stage actually mean? I read pre modern grammar schools would start by rigourously teaching the students Latin grammar. Is this the CCS approach too? What precisely happens at the logic stage? At the rhetoric stage? Is the day still divided by different focuses/subjects/teachers, or is everything blended in one? Where does math come in, and how much focus, if any, is given STEM? Is any of it in English, ir do you just learn Latin and then run ahead with that?

I'm on the board of a CCS that just began classes this past August, and we are just in the Grammar (Elementary) grades currently. As we were preparing, we toured a number of Classical Schools. As has already been stated, they tend to come in at least three kinds: Non-Religious (e.g., Hillsdale Charter Schools, SCL), Catholic, and Evangelical/Reformed (e.g., ACCS).

From a broad-picture view, the classes are broken down into the same subjects and grades as in modern education. The difference comes in with the implementation of CCS curricula (e.g. Memoria Press, Veritas, Logos, etc), which will have different emphases at each stage not present in non-Classical education. In the early years (i.e., Grammar or Elementary), there will be much use of rote memorization, chants, lots of literature, recitation, and heaps of information that may seem more disconnected. In the middle years (i.e., Logic or Middle), there will be some training on formal logic and putting those pieces together in a coherent manner. In the later years (i.e., Rhetoric or High), there will be more presentation, debate, and often a formal thesis project with defense. As to the content, there is a larger emphasis on the Western Tradition and historic thought, and particularly in the later years a learning to engage with all the different sides of any given topic. The culture of CCS tend to be more formal (e.g., uniforms, etiquette, etc) and have stricter discipline, being teacher-led and orderly. The content as a whole is more rigorous and rooted in the heritage of Christendom, and the students from CCS at the end are out-performing by every metric (as seen in the Good Soils Report Study performed by Notre Dame).

It may be easy to criticize Sayers, ACCS, etc by saying that CCE is not *really* classical education because it applies the trivium to the development of children rather than taking them as particular subjects of the liberal arts. But wisdom is justified by her children, and the results speak for themselves.

 

[No Other Name]

Weinstein seems to believe string theory is completely false. He may be right; more to the point is the fact that physics has stopped everything to try to figure string theory and LQG out. (Weinstein knows this and "preaches" to physicists to get back to doing physics so I do like most all of what he says).

I suspect the drive for the solution to string vs. loop and the ultimate "unified theory of everything" was always a quest to once and for all "kill God" so that they can get back to doing science.

The church has a huge opportunity to do science in the areas that the secular people have left untouched to go hunting their white whale - scratch that - not a white whale. In Moby Dick, the white whale was real. To go hunting their Holy MacGuffin - and they generally don't really care if that relic is "stringy" or "loopy".

- (Note for readers not familiar with fiction: a "macguffin" is any object that is searched for by characters in fiction that is so nebulous, it could be replaced by any other object and have no effect to the plot or motivations for the characters to desperately seek it)

 

[Sam Jer]

The church has a huge opportunity to do science in the areas that the secular people have left untouched to go hunting their white whale

Which areas specifically have been left untouched?

 

[No Other Name]

Which areas specifically have been left untouched?

Most everything else besides cosmology and quantum mechanics has open questions waiting for discovery and application - particularly fluids and condensed matter.

I shouldn't say "untouched" as if there are no physicists at all working these areas, but I speak from experience, that in a backwards "publish or perish" world, the lure of the abstract fields lies in being able to find "just enough" of "something new inside there" of whatever: entangled particles, black holes, dark matter, dark energy et al that you can start to imagine you could put out 3 -maybe 5 papers - in 10 years where in the other fields, that timeframe is less likely - even if the other fields holds more promise to a future overall progress in discovery that results in real-world application.

If one is choosing the field on the basis of what is more promising career-wise for me, it is a no-brainer.

^ The unmentioned (unintentional?) incentivization of gathering the best brains towards the quest for the grand unified theory (GUT) aka "the nail in the coffin for the God of the Bible".

When I said "the church has an opportunity" I meant that too many of us come out of youth groups (and watching lots of science documentary shows that prominently feature the latest ideas of the Universe) with the jazzed-up idea that we are going to go in there with Bible in hand, merge the truth of special revelation with the portions of general revelation that they can teach us that are also true, and blow their minds at the *true* GUT, only to find most of us:

1) become seduced by their materialism and fall in line with them , or
2) we resist their sway well enough, but can find no more avenues of further exploration in cosmology than they can and become contributors to AiG, ICR etc.

Or

3) some of us just become HS physics teachers, and quietly go to church faithfully and lead family worship faithfully and post on Reformed forums.

 

[Andrew35]

The classical approach has much to commend it, but I personally think its adherents are a bit too enamored with the past, to the extent that they even successfully reproduce it. I suspect studying Latin and Greek, beyond the basics for building vocab and understanding grammar, is overrated at best for most students compared to studying a modern language, and I've met a number who have come through a classical ed that agree with me. The big flaw with them being as they're not actually spoken, students are missing out on a vitally important dimension of language learning.

Mind you, it's definitely superior to most education systems around to the extent that it has actually deeply reflected on what education is even for, as well as rooted in a respectable tradition. But much could be said in favor of merely drawing on it for inspiration to create something new rather than to try to return to a past that no longer exists. Not sure if anyone is doing that or no.

I myself teach in the International Baccalaureate system, and though it's been getting progressively (pun unintended) more contaminated, still has some useful ideas and insights to offer as a comprehensive, bilingual curriculum. Particularly strong is the Core for college prep, featuring an intro Epistemology class, a 4k word research essay, and a section where they have to put what they learn into practice outside the classroom. It's fundamentally all quite sound and excellent college prep. At least it was.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

I suspect studying Latin and Greek, beyond the basics for building vocab and understanding grammar, is overrated at best for most students compared to studying a modern language, and I've met a number who have come through a classical ed that agree with me. The big flaw with them being as they're not actually spoken, students are missing out on a vitally important dimension of language learning.

The primary use of Latin (beyond its practical use of being the foundation of most western languages) is that it is a scientific/objective way of learning language, and this for two reasons. First, because one is able to scrutinize a language better when it is not his own and it is not colloquial - it is an exercise in the logic of grammar. This is why inflected languages (e.g., Greek or Latin) are superior for teaching language because that logic of the parts of speech is further enforced. Second, because Latin (even more so than Greek) is so standardized, having very few exceptions to the rules of the language (unlike all other modern languages which have many exceptions due to their evolving from the influence of other languages).

In sum, Latin (or Greek) serves the purpose of learning how language works, and (as the point of CCE is to provide the tools to be an audo-didactic, life-long learner) the student who understands how language works is well equipped to learn any other language he or she chooses down the road.

 

[RamistThomist]

If the kids aren't going to commit to reading Latin (or Spanish) on a daily basis, then it isn't doing anything. Yes, it improves their vocabulary for test scores, but that is a huge investment for knowing just a few more words.

The pragmatist in me says just learn Spanish, but the same problem arises: how many kids in school keep up with Spanish? Probably the same number that keep up with Latin.

If you are going to learn Latin, sing it.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Learning Latin when one knows Spanish, and vice-versa, is pretty easy. One doesn't have to choose one or the other.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

If the kids aren't going to commit to reading Latin (or Spanish) on a daily basis, then it isn't doing anything. Yes, it improves their vocabulary for test scores, but that is a huge investment for knowing just a few more words.

The pragmatist in me says just learn Spanish, but the same problem arises: how many kids in school keep up with Spanish? Probably the same number that keep up with Latin.

I think your assertion here is overlooking the fact that it is not just the subject itself that is being taught, but also there is a faculty for learning that is being cultivated. It is not just as if all is lost because you cannot recite the various declensions a few years post-graduation. If that were so, then learning any subject (e.g., calculus or history or music) is pointless because it will not be your chosen vocation or continuing hobby. Even more so, everything is in vain because all of our memories will fade and then we will simply die. I would propose it is still worthwhile because you are training the child's mind to be able to do diligent work, to retain information, to learn for learning's sake, and to begin to recognize patterns - all of which transfer to real world skills and disciplines.

I understand and by all means respect the pragmatic impulse, but it is not one I share. But then again, perhaps that is why my wife calls me the "modern eleventh-century man" . . .

 

[Sam Jer]

If the kids aren't going to commit to reading Latin (or Spanish) on a daily basis, then it isn't doing anything. Yes, it improves their vocabulary for test scores, but that is a huge investment for knowing just a few more words.

The pragmatist in me says just learn Spanish, but the same problem arises: how many kids in school keep up with Spanish? Probably the same number that keep up with Latin.

If you are going to learn Latin, sing it.

Is this seriously the pronounciation people use?

 

[RamistThomist]

Is this seriously the pronounciation people use?

They seem to use it. Anyway, it "works." It is easier to memorize this way than by brute force rote memory.

I think your assertion here is overlooking the fact that it is not just the subject itself that is being taught, but also there is a faculty for learning that is being cultivated. It is not just as if all is lost because you cannot recite the various declensions a few years post-graduation. If that were so, then learning any subject (e.g., calculus or history or music) is pointless because it will not be your chosen vocation or continuing hobby. Even more so, everything is in vain because all of our memories will fade and then we will simply die. I would propose it is still worthwhile because you are training the child's mind to be able to do diligent work, to retain information, to learn for learning's sake, and to begin to recognize patterns - all of which transfer to real world skills and disciplines.

I understand and by all means respect the pragmatic impulse, but it is not one I share. But then again, perhaps that is why my wife calls me the "modern eleventh-century man" . . .

I get that the faculty is being cultivated, but that's not the point of learning a language. We learn a language to read (or better, speak) its texts.

 

[Sam Jer]

Learning Latin when one knows Spanish, and vice-versa, is pretty easy. One doesn't have to choose one or the other.

I honestly wonder how similar this is to the situation between Classical/Standard Arabic and the "Dialects". As someone learning both, they definitely do help with eachother, but like 90% of the time they would most definitely not be comprehensible just because you know the other.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Is this seriously the pronounciation people use?

If this pronunciation bothers you, you haven't seen anything yet

I honestly wonder how similar this is to the situation between Classical/Standard Arabic and the "Dialects". As someone learning both, they definitely do help with eachother, but like 90% of the time they would most definitely not be comprehensible just because you know the other.

It's probably pretty similar.


I learned Spanish in school for 5 years, and studied it for a couple on my own, before I could really hold a conversation, but knowing Spanish I could read Latin just fine after less than a year of study, and I learned to speak another romance language (Catalan) conversationally in just a few months.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

I get that the faculty is being cultivated, but that's not the point of learning a language. We learn a language to read (or better, speak) its texts.

No parent or teacher gives instruction with the expectation that each lesson will continue to be utilized. At some point, superiors make the decision that this thing is good for the child regardless of whether or not it will be used by the child. It will be good for them in the moment, and somehow by God's grace it will still be good for them later on.

 

[RamistThomist]

At some point, superiors make the decision that this thing is good for the child regardless of whether or not it will be used by the child.

I agree. That raises the next question: why do I want my daughter to learn Spanish? I want her to speak (or at least read) it. I appreciate the benefits Latin brings, but at the end of the day I want to read Latin authors.

 

[Charles Johnson]

One would be hard-pressed to find a writer before the 20th century encouraging the study of Latin, Greek, or any other language for any other reason than to read texts written in it.
Cotton Mather said of languages,
"The languages you will consider but as instruments to come at the sciences wherewith you would propose to go skillfully about the work which your God shall call you to. And esteeming them as rather helps to erudition than any parts of it you will no more value yourself as a scholar for them than the bare having of tools would make one to boast himself an artist."

I.e. the whole point of languages is to do reading in theology, philosophy, history, etc.

I suspect that the common line about how Latin is useful for all sorts of things besides reading developed to cope with the facts that 1) modern people aren't very interested in the books written in Latin, so you can't sell them on Latin with that alone, and 2) students aren't actually learning Latin well enough to read much of anything.

 

[Andrew35]

First, because one is able to scrutinize a language better when it is not his own and it is not colloquial - it is an exercise in the logic of grammar. This is why inflected languages (e.g., Greek or Latin) are superior for teaching language because that logic of the parts of speech is further enforced. Second, because Latin (even more so than Greek) is so standardized, having very few exceptions to the rules of the language (unlike all other modern languages which have many exceptions due to their evolving from the influence of other languages).

I'm dubious re. some of these claims. For one, less inflected languages have their own systems of logic and any the many exceptions that occur in any language--including Latin--are more easily registered, learned, and processed than you assume. Languages like Chinese, for example, which I know, is more rigorous and systematic in word order and manifests its particular logic in that fashion. It also exhibits an extremely high degree of consistency in pinyin, as the system of Romanization is quite modern and top down (which is usually whence consistency derives; languages are gloriously inconsistent and messy because they grow and change with everyday use of ordinary people and their God-blessed creativity).

Additionally, I still maintain that because the language is no longer actively spoken, students are missing out on a key, and indeed, elemental aspect of language learning, pronunciation. It is essential for students to grasp how the embodiment of a language effects the rules and structure of the same. Finally, once more, I'm not saying that learning Latin and Greek isn't great for some students; I simply would argue, as would some friends who came through the classical system, it isn't for every student. Nor, if you look at a classical education historically, was it ever intended to be.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

I suspect that the common line about how Latin is useful for all sorts of things besides reading developed to cope with the facts that 1) modern people aren't very interested in the books written in Latin, so you can't sell them on Latin with that alone, and 2) students aren't actually learning Latin well enough to read much of anything.

I think this criticism holds true. Nevertheless, I think that just because arguments change for a thing does not negate the truthfulness of the thing itself. For example, Presbyterians (in the main) argue for the baptism of infants on the grounds of the covenant, whereas that was not the primary grounds in the patristic and medieval church (so far as I am aware) - but infants should still be baptized. I grant, however, baptism is a matter of immutable dogma, whereas the study of Latin is circumstantial and prudential; so the analogy only goes so far.

I'm dubious re. some of these claims. For one, less inflected languages have their own systems of logic and any the many exceptions that occur in any language--including Latin--are more easily registered, learned, and processed than you assume. Languages like Chinese, for example, which I know, is more rigorous and systematic in word order and manifests its particular logic in that fashion. It also exhibits an extremely high degree of consistency in pinyin, as the system of Romanization is quite modern and top down (which is usually whence consistency derives; languages are gloriously inconsistent and messy because they grow and change with everyday use of ordinary people and their God-blessed creativity).

Additionally, I still maintain that because the language is no longer actively spoken, students are missing out on a key, and indeed, elemental aspect of language learning, pronunciation. It is essential for students to grasp how the embodiment of a language effects the rules and structure of the same. Finally, once more, I'm not saying that learning Latin and Greek isn't great for some students; I simply would argue, as would some friends who came through the classical system, it isn't for every student. Nor, if you look at a classical education historically, was it ever intended to be.

Your example of the regularity of irregularities is very interesting.

With regard to your second paragraph, that is the benefit of having multiple options accessible to families to choose from - a benefit which most societies have never experienced. I stick by Latin and Greek, and others do not - just like I stand by teaching and writing in cursive, and others do not.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

I think your assertion here is overlooking the fact that it is not just the subject itself that is being taught, but also there is a faculty for learning that is being cultivated. It is not just as if all is lost because you cannot recite the various declensions a few years post-graduation. If that were so, then learning any subject (e.g., calculus or history or music) is pointless because it will not be your chosen vocation or continuing hobby. Even more so, everything is in vain because all of our memories will fade and then we will simply die. I would propose it is still worthwhile because you are training the child's mind to be able to do diligent work, to retain information, to learn for learning's sake, and to begin to recognize patterns - all of which transfer to real world skills and disciplines.

I understand and by all means respect the pragmatic impulse, but it is not one I share. But then again, perhaps that is why my wife calls me the "modern eleventh-century man" . . .

The funny thing about that is that I recently found myself needing to use calculus for the first time in my career about twenty years after I was graduated from engineering school.