I attended a workshop by Chris Schlect in which he present results of a recent survey of longtime teachers and administrators in the ACCS. As we homeschool, I'm not in the classical school movement directly. It was fascinating to hear the inside scoop on where educators see the movement as succeeding, making progress, or struggling. There were 114 respondents, all of which have been involved in the movement at least 5 years. 43 different schools were represented.

No real suprises were presented. Most interesting to me were the issues of Latin and teaching at the Rhetoric level (a.k.a. High School). Conclusion on Latin was that students knew it well enough to "cipher" or translate original classic texts, but not like a true second language. As homeschoolers, we've never studied Latin. This helped confirm that we really aren't missing much, compared to the Classical Schools. It would be great to have a "classical" mindset that would come from immersion in Latin/Greek studies, but if most of the best schools/teachers/student had not attained it, I don't expect we will. I'll leave the translation to the experts and focus on other areas.

For the high school teaching issues, opinions varied but consensus was a general uneasiness at the results. Many schools seem strong and confident at the Grammar (Elementary) and Logic (Middle School) levels, but that confidence doesn't hold for the final years of schooling. One idea was to move to a more elective approach, narrowing the subjects depending on a student's calling.

George Grant is a classical educator who has great success teaching at the Rhetoric level. He's a brilliant man able to combine knowledge in areas of history, aesthetics, literature, culture, and church history into a coherent 4 year series of lectures. These are the Gileskirk lectures. I've heard most of the 4th year of these and they are very impressive. Dr. Grant also spoke at the conference on how he integrates these various areas so that his Rhetoric level students get the big picture. He said that the typical student is overwhelmed by his approach during the 1st year (9th grade). About 2/3 of the way through their sophomore year "the lights come on" and the student begins to really "get it". This would be about age 16 for most students.

Combining Mr. Schlect's findings about the struggles of Rhetoric teachers, with Dr. Grant's observation, with my earlier article on Puritan education, I reach the following insight. What if education for students age 16+ is more appropriately considered "college"? This would more accurately match the historical norm where a student's "secondary" schooling was considered college. Early schooling is the grammar/logic stage of preparation. Grammar is for childhood. Logic is for the short transition between childhood and adulthood. Rhetoric is for students beginning their adult lives. This would be more like today's "college" where a student begins to work on their specific calling. A good student and teacher in a discipleship/mentoring relationship could complete "college" in a couple years so that by age 18 or 19, the student is fully equipped to begin work in their calling.

This fits our experience as homeschoolers, fits the historical norm, and I believe has support from evidence presented at the ACCS conference. No one at the conference proposed such a framework, but as a homeschooler able to think outside the K-12 box, it jumped out at me.

Typically, a college interview pertains to the prospective student answering questions of the college staff or faculty.  The student is eager to be accepted and wishes to excel in the interview.  However, a more important interview would actually be a series of interviews between the student's parents and each professor that will teach the student.  If the college is effective, as professors teach the student, "the student becomes like the teacher".  So parents should want to know what type of person their child will become, should the education be successful.  Of course, if the education is not successful, the student doesn't become like the professor and the parents have wasted precious time and money. 

Here's a wise and ancient perspective on higher education from St. Augustine, a man whose brilliance is generally uncontested.  He realized his education did nothing to change his character and behavior, as he had his "back to God's light".  Make sure your professors are facing fully into the light, or their great learning and eloquence will only lead you astray.

From Confessions book 4, chapter 16: 
And what did it profit me that I, the base slave of vile affections, read unaided, and understood, all the books that I could get of the so-called liberal arts? And I took delight in them, but knew not whence came whatever in them was true and certain. For my back then was to the light, and my face towards the things enlightened; whence my face, with which I discerned the things enlightened, was not itself enlightened. Whatever was written either on rhetoric or logic, geometry, music, or arithmetic, did I, without any great difficulty, and without the teaching of any man, understand, as Thou knowest, O Lord my God, because both quickness of comprehension and acuteness of perception are Thy gifts. Yet did I not thereupon sacrifice to Thee. So, then, it served not to my use, but rather to my destruction, since I went about to get so good a portion of my substance into my own power; and I kept not my strength for Thee, but went away from Thee into a far country, to waste it upon harlotries. For what did good abilities profit me, if I did not employ them to good uses?

I've always appreciated Rick Saenz's perspective. I'm catching up on some of this blog posts and really enjoyed his series "The Lost Tools of Living". This is a clear, thoughtful examination of a "simple" agrarian life. Not an easy life, but life well lived. I recommend this especially to young men pondering their life's calling. Here's a link to the first of the series. At the top of the article, there's a link to the next, with about 5 total in the series:

Lost Tools of Living by Rick Saenz

An article in this weekend's newspaper analyzed the payback of a college degree - Does It Pay to Go to College? by Scott Burns, reminded me of the cost-benefit analysis I've been intending to do.  The unchallenged cultural assumption in modern America is that "you must go to college" or be forever lost as a second class citizen trapped in life long poverty. Let's put a pencil to this assumption and see if your typical college student is really better off...  You may be suprised to learn that an entry level worker could own a $125,000 home at age 22 free and clear with no mortgage while the typical student would need to borrow over $100,000 to buy the same home.  The young entrepreneur has 4 years work experience, owns his home outright, and is already saving for retirement while the new graduate ponders 30 years of mortgage payments [More...]

The question "is Algebra really needed if my child is not interested in math/science?" comes up now and then among homeschoolers.  Here's what I think:

Algebra is essential.  Not everyone will solve equations for a living.  But you need to be able to think in terms of "functions" - meaning how one thing varies as a result of a change to another thing on which the first thing is dependent.  To have an intuitive sense of this is priceless.  Algebra trains this type of thinking.  "Functional" thinking works in politics, relationships, science, finances, etc - really in all of life. 

Algebra is just learning to convert various functions into different forms so they can be understood and manipulated more easily.  This idea of "transforming" one problem into another type is also essential.  Some problems are truly unsolveable as presented, but clever rethinking may show how it can be solved from another perspective - another essential life skill!

Algebra is wonderful to train proper thinking, as there is always an "objectively" correct answer - not a subjective "I think/you think" impasse common to so many of the "soft" sciences.

Anyone considering leaving a corporate job and starting a family business encounters the daunting issue of health insurance costs.  Replacing the full coverage typically offered to corporate employees can easily cost over $1200 every month!  Such high costs deter many potential entrepreneurs from even considering leaving their job and its fringe benefits.  Here's our solution for prudently providing for healthcare expenses that could wreck family finances for generations, but at a fraction of full-coverage cost...