Implementing a Curriculum by the Book
What, if any, will be the long-term consequences of the continued use of published curricula in classical Christian education? You may well imagine the implications of this for the long-term viability of the movement. Faculty would have to develop their faculties with a vision of liberal education liberated from bondage to curriculum manuals. Intentional mentorship and apprenticeship would have to continue (or begin). Humane communication would have to take place between members of the community as a whole, even between communities surrounding individual schools. There would be little room for philosophical inbreeding as ideas are exchanged between members of a broader community rooted more firmly in the ideals we have otherwise been attempting to purchase for $39.95 plus shipping.
I’m not suggesting that we abandon the use of all published curricula and teaching manuals, but perhaps we should think twice about using them as a default first option. Should we not seek to embody the ideals of education ourselves, making the published curricula and manuals obsolete or at least so inadequate next to the mastery that dwells within our communities of scholarship that they are no longer necessary or desirable?
Reinventing the wheel just might be the best way to obtain the use of the wheel as well as understand its place in the world. Any thoughts on this?
May 20th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
As you have noted earlier, the Kern man has requested I share a little of the thoughts I have been having about the very notions several of your posts have discussed at this year’s Circe Conf. I am looking forward to what I hope is less a “talk” and more a number of us “talking” about this vital aspect of pressing forward with a vision for liberal education.
Published material is not de facto “bad” but rather has the temptation toward laziness that can kill in the classroom. If each day, or any day, is “okay, class, let’s turn back to page 55 where we left off and keep moving through this spit polished lesson so you can take the test this Friday,” then you have real issues with the academic rigor that should first characterize the teacher before it can possibly “rub off” on the student.
My concern is less about the curricula than about the means by which it is brought into our midst. I think there are some great tools out there in boxes, or on book shelves, but there seem too few who wish to go about the acquisition of those things in a “permanent” way. I find too many CCE folk are quick to adopt what is working in some one else’s school because, after all, it works, for them. And don’t we want the same results they are getting? When I reference the notion of “permanence” it is to focus on the manner in which the material is brought into the classroom. If the packing popcorn is still flitting to the floor as we start into the first lesson, we are in essence stealing other folks thunder, and it will sound flat.
You have put your finger on the very pulse of my own thoughts in highlighting the community being built among the faculty. Hick’s vision of a school within a school has been forming this vision in my own mind of a place where by humility, hard work, and the encouragement of like-minded colleagues, a permanent place of learning comes to be in people, not in having the right “stuff” in the Curriculum Closet. How many schools have such a closet? I have never visited one that did not. I have often been struck when visiting abroad, especially in third world places, that great education can happen with very little “stuff.” There certainly were no closets full of fluff there. But there were passionate, rigorous, humble servants of God who sought to reproduce themselves in others.
A great faculty trumps all the boxes of stuff in the world, though great teachers have this tendency to pile lots of books and stuff around their desks as they become the folks who teach others well.
Mr. Poteat, are you coming to Memphis? Love to not only continue this online, but in person over some fine wine.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:14 am
I’m planning to be there in Memphis, and I would enjoy any opportunity to discuss these issues at greater length.
I think the issue of permanence is important because it is related not only to how the matter of a curriculum is “owned” by the faculty but also to how the faculty view themselves as scholars. The basics of the matter of any published curriculum are not a living, growing body of knowledge; the curriculum is static. When those ideas are given permanence within the faculty, they can then become parts of an organic body of knowledge, being extended as the faculty continue to learn and contribute their own voices to the conversation of the ages. Perhaps it is vital for faculty to avoid the trap of viewing themselves as conduits of information and to instead view themselves as heirs to a vineyard that needs cultivation and of which their students will one day become heirs themselves.
June 5th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
OK if I eavesdrop on that conversation?? Fascinating stuff here!
June 7th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Of course, Camille, but don’t be surprized if you end up sharing your ideas too.