classical education/trivium/Latin/Greek

[ZZZenAgain]

Am thinking of asking MN to set up a sub-topic in education on classical education but not sure if there would be enough interest to warrant a separate topic.

Is there anyone who is strongly for or against classical education?

(Am currently reading "Climbing Parnassus" and thinking about this whole thing a bit.)

DS started Latin last term and I am amazed and delighted at how well he's taken to it.

He's doing the Cambridge Latin course, and the teacher reads them classical myths too.

He's dyslexic, and finds Latin much easier than French.

Think it is great as otherwise basics of grammar and semantics get overlooked. ds is dypsraxic and struggles with MFL but the orderliness and logic of Latin seems to work for him and he loves the myths. Not sure it deserves a separate topic though.

LIZS - surely it would be better if all DCs were taught grammar and semantics as part of the standard/basic English literacy curriculum, rather than using Latin as a (rather poor, IMO) substitute?

Maybe but it is not as formally taught as in the past, even by my school days, and learning Latin and Greek (and many MFL) demands an understanding of grammatical terms. At worst reinforces what may have been taught as part of English lessons but for many may fill the gaps.

Hi everyone, thanks for posting. I see there is not huge, i.e. widespread interest!

Beyond grammar teaching / semantics , I do feel that like music or philosophy, the study of Latin or Greek is a value in itself but don't mean to force that opinion down anyone's throat.

Has anyone read Dorothy Sayer's Lost Tools of Learning If so, what did you think of it?

interested in anything anyone has to say for or against classical education though

DS did Latin as a timetabled lesson in year 7 but in year 8 and 9 it is an extra lesson in the lunch hour. He's doing really well with it but the lunchtime thing means that not everyone turns up and so sometimes lessons are wasted. If he wants to take the GCSE then it will be an extra and will probably just be him doing it - I don't think he is averse to the idea but who knows what 14 year old boys really think! I personally think its a good thing for him to do but will find out more in the approaching options evening.

I haven't read that book, ZZZen.

I actually have quite strong feelings against the teaching of Latin and Ancient Greek. I think the modern world is a very complex place to navigate and that most school curricula do not adequately equip children with certain very basic tools that they will require in order to make an even moderate success of their lives, in particular economics and the skills with which to decrypt and analyse our highly visual culture.

Lost tools of learning is a lecture (that's the complete text on the link). The book I was talking about in the OP is this one:

Sorry about the confusion.

Climbing Parnassus

"the skills with which to decrypt and analyse our highly visual culture."

didn't know what you meant with that bonsoir, can you elaborate a bit?

We live in a highly visual culture (media everywhere) and most people have absolutely no way of understanding how the visual media that surround them penetrate their brains and influence their choices.

School teaches literary analysis as a matter of course - analysing words. But most people see many more images in a day than words - and have very little idea of how to analyse them. And hence are, to a large extent, their victims.

surely it would be better if all DCs were taught grammar and semantics as part of the standard/basic English literacy curriculum, rather than using Latin as a (rather poor, IMO) substitute?

Completely agree, Bonsoir. I come from a time when grammar was no longer taught, although a particular primary school teacher disagreed with that policy and taught us a bit. Doing Latin probably also helped provide a better feel for cases and Latinate vocabulary, but I would much rather be taught English grammar than a substitute.

I think that it is a shame to lose the ability to read the classical texts in the original language, and that applies not just to Latin and Greek, but it is not useful for most people.

RRocks

DS started Latin last term. He is considering continuing it for GCSE. I am glad of this as he hates History, and GCSE would allow him to study the past without the specific skill focus that GCSE History requires.

I actually think that the Latin syllabus is a more appropriate approach to understanding the past than the very narrow approach that History as a subject takes.

A lot that's taught in schools isn't directly useful in our everyday lives! I am very biased as I am a Classics graduate, so is my husband and it looks likely that my daughter will do a Classics degree too. My son did Latin GCSE. I think there are lots of good reasons to learn either Latin or Ancient Greek or both. Looking at the linguistic ones, as there are lots of others that could equally come from studying Classical Civilisation with no language work:

1. It hugely boosts a pupil's English vocabulary and spelling as so many English words are derived from either Latin or Greek.

1. Some of the world's greatest literature was written in Latin and Greek. Any work of literature is better read in the original than in translation. I admit you do have to reach quite a high level of fluency to benefit here, though!

1. Because Latin and Greek are very different grammatically from English, you have to develop a rigorously logical approach to translation to be able to understand them. English relies on word order for its grammar - so 'The cat loves the dog' means something very different from 'The dog loves the cat' - but Latin and Greek are inflected, ie the forms of words change to indicate what job each word is doing in the sentence. Word order is far less important. Hence, in Latin if you want to say the dog loves the cat you say 'canis amat felem' or 'canis felem amat' or 'amat canis felem', or 'felem amat canis' or 'felem canis amat' or 'amat felem canis' - they all mean the same thing.

1. English grammar benefits: I think they do exist, but not as many as people sometimes think. My daughter says she learned very little grammar in her French and Spanish lessons, and even less in English - all the grammar she knows came from Latin and Greek. This is not ideal as beyond a certain very basic level the grammar is, as I've said, very different. But if this is the only way pupils are ever instructed about terms like tense, plural, passive - well, so be it. Better this little bit than nothing. Ought to be done in English lessons, though.

1. Learning lots of vocabulary and grammar is excellent memory training (this applies to learning any language).

I'd enjoy a thread on this, but I'm not sure it warrants a whole topic. Incidentally, though, as a Classics teacher I have taught pupils to analyse what they see as well as what they read. Greek art, particularly vase painting and sculpture, but most of all Roman art, particularly the iconography introduced by Augustus at the beginning of the imperial period, offer fascinating insights into how images were used to influence the viewer. Obviously not something that tends to be taught until A level, but my GCSE Classical Civ pupils sometimes chose an aspect of ancient art as a coursework topic, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I have been reading quite a bit about classical education online and there seems to be a strong interest in it these days, in particular amongst American home-schoolers, along with Latin and even Greek. Seems that as a result of this trend, more schools are offering these languages too in order to meet the parental demand. Interesting development.

I am not sure that I would fancy teaching Greek as a parent if I had no previous knowledge of it but hats off to those who manage to successfully do so. Presumably a lot of those parents teaching Greek to their dc will be Christian and the aim is to have them read the Septuagint in Koine. Am not really sure. Dh and I learnt Latin and Greek at school, both of us felt more comfortable with Latin than Greek. Dh is better at both than I ever was. Dd is learning Latin at her own request and loves it, also fascinated by the whole historical background but then I am an historian so we "do" history all the time (i.e. I talk about it all the time).

I think I do agree with the idea I see cropping up a lot in discussions on this subject that the concept of non multum, multa which is to say fewer subjects but taught in depth which is what classical education was, was actually better than the broad curriculum we have these days. Sometimes I find it great to see all the topics dc cover these days but then how often is anything truly grasped? Grammar is covered for instance but apparently not understood (judging by other threads on this topic on here).

When it comes to grammar, I would agree that grammar could be thoroughly taught when a modern foreign language is taught; however the reality IME is that it is not. A dc will not pass an A level in French or German without understanding the grammar of the language to some degree but that dc will not have anything like the grasp of grammar that an A level pass in Latin would require. It depends what an educator thinks is important: truly understanding grammar and how language works - or communicating to some basic degree in a modern language.

I have the impression that the British take on education is quite utilitarian as opposed to other European countries that I know about from personal experience where being well-versed in liberal subjects is a sign of being a generally well-educated person and it is not all a matter of "what job do you want to do?" which seems to be the main interest of parents in the UK. I do agree that education will need to prepare dc for the world of work but that is not the only role of education IMO. Actually I think this is the main reason that so many traditional subjects have fallen by the wayside which is not the case in other countries.

I suppose though that Latin/Greek/study of the classics has never been the study of the masses. I wonder how many dc are currently learning either language in the UK and from what age/how many hours a week. It would be intersting to know...

I do agree with you Wellie and others, it doesn't generate enough interest for a separate topic.

Interesting what you say MIlly about the history. Sometimes the piecemeal way in which we approach history loses people IMO. They know a bit here and a bit here but are confused as to how it all hangs together.

I have sometimes wondered when I had to teach first year students of history how to go about it. So much of what you have to do is actually remedial work tbh. They often lack the basic tools to get on with the subject and have big gaps of knowledge - including so much basic understanding of historical events, which IMO they should really have left school armed with.

I could imagine that outside of mathematical/science based subjects this is often the case. Possibly pupils leave school and enter university very well prepared to start courses in those types of subjects.

LondonMother and there you see the influence of home!

We are influenced a gret deal by what our parents like and can do, aren't we? Presumably the bulk of parents have no in-depth knowledge of the classics and so cannot really pass it on to their dc whose schools are also not offering the subjects in any depth. In this way of course it all gets lost in the end.

We use some aspects of 'classical education' with our DCs (we home educate) but I don't think it warrants its own sub-topic.

We follow the 'Trivium' to an extent - have 2 at the Grammar stage and 1 at the Logic stage. Fortunately there are lots of resources available from the US as there is very little here!

However, for latin we use Galore Park 'So You Really Want to Learn Latin' as our core textbook - it covers grammar far more clearly and logically than Cambridge Latin (which we do use for translation practice and because it's fun!)

Have you read 'The Well Trained Mind'?

I pay (through the nose) for ds to have a Latin lesson every week. His comprehensive school doesn't teach Classics - and not much English for that matter. I can mop up around the edges of many subjects, but not Latin. I did German and French at school to A Level. Back in the 80s it was all "business, business, business" and "there's no point learning a dead language". I can honestly say the only time I've used German in the last 25 years is to order a meal in a German service station.

I'm not sure a whole topic could keep going, but I'm alway interested to hear about how the subject is tacked, particularly from home educators and those who do not have children at schools which teach the classics.

so you have a private tutor for Latin after school gramercy? Shame it is so expensive and there is no accessible club for dc at your school at least. Why did you choose to pay for the private lessons if you don't mind me asking? Do you feel not knowing Latin puts your ds at a disadvantage or did you just want him to access the classics? At what age did he start?

Tinu, I have read about Susan Wise Bauer's books but not actually read them. I suppose I should, The Well Trained Mind comes up a lot when I google about online, seems to have quite a following. I have read a couple of excerpts and looked at her reading list which I thought seemed a bit unrealistic but I presume she does not really expect many families to cover it all in a year. Think you use the English series she produced, IIRC? I seem to remember you mentioned it once.

So you are teaching your dc Latin yourself or do they go to a HE club for that? How is it working out? Do you like the Galore Park Latin books? Why did you choose that programme?

sorry so many questions, feel free to just answer 1 if you find time!

Ds is 12 and started Latin in September. He really enjoys it. He is quite quick on the uptake generally and his tutor says he is doing very well indeed.

The reasons: Well, I believe in "learning for life", not just learning to pass exams, and ds enjoys the intellectual challenge of the subject. Also, at his comprehensive school ds is getting a good education, but not as fancy a one as one might receive at St Ponsonby's down the road. I'll be blowed if lack of funds/not living in a grammar school area will disadvantage my dcs. I can't/don't want to pay for a private school so I'll go without a few things and top up as necessary.

learning for life - absolutely. I agree with you there 100%.

I am sure your ds will progress very well being bright, wanting to learn the language and then in a 1:1 situation which is probably the ideal since any problems will be picked up on and handled straight away.

I wish no dc were disadvantaged but I don't know how realistic it is. However I am unsure how many dp would even consider it a disadvantage that their dc don't have the opportunity to learn Latin. Many I believe just don't think it is important.

I haven't read all of WTM either (because it's quite an expensive book to buy and our library don't have it) but I borrowed it from a friend and read the bits that were relevant for now/immediate future. We do use First Language Lessons and Story of the World, which I think are excellent. I have also just ordered this book " The Core: Teaching Your Child the Foundations of Classical Education" from amazon which looks really interesting.

Galore Park can be quite hard-going and intense but it is very thorough on the grammar side and explains things very well. You can also contact the author via Galore Park, which is quite helpful (I asked what book to start on as DS1 had already done quite a bit of Cambridge Latin and GP have 2 Latin courses). I switched to GP Latin as I felt DS1 was getting confused by Cambridge because it just doesn't cover the grammar very well at all, which I think makes learning a language much harder.

DS2 and DD (10 and 9) have just started Latin this academic year and are both really enjoying the combination of GP and Cambridge. They both find it fun and enjoy learning conjugations etc. But they are used to doing that for French and Spanish and we quite often sing them to the tune of the Mexican Hat Dance! I also have a website with languages games (that I can set up) which was written by their godfather. So they really enjoy playing on that.

Latin we do at home; French/Spanish are done with 2 other families but taught by me (I'm an MFL teacher 2 days a week!) For me languages are very important but Latin in particular teaches you to be logical about your language and also gives you tools for learning other languages.

As a Latinist, I think Latin is a wonderful thing indeed.

However, my own experience of being educated in the very linguistically focused (pre-latest-reforms) Swedish school system has taught me that Latin is not the only means of teaching a rigorous approach to grammar: we were taught traditional grammar in German and French and Spanish and indeed in our own language: no absolute need to drag in the Romans.

I am rather shocked at how little my dd is learning in her French lessons, but to me that is not a reason to choose another language, but for French to be taught better.

I am also appalled at ds's lack of progress in French. His last piece of homework (to last two weeks) was drawing a poster and writing the names of the planets on it in French. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.... this is the sort of work suitable for dd who is 7, not a year 8 child.

Ds's parents evening is coming up. I am flexing my muscles (very weakly) and plucking up my (sparse) courage to say something.