Did Dorothy Sayers Get Education Wrong? | Dr. Chris Schlect's Webinar

Has the contemporary classical education movement been heading in the wrong direction since Dorothy's statements in 1947? Because that would be bad. In this webinar, Dr. Chris Schlect measures Dorothy Sayers and her detractors against the bar of history so see comes out on top.
This webinar was hosted by The History of Classical and Christian Education course at New Saint Andrews. This course is part of the Classical Christian Studies MSt: nsa.edu/ccs/

[@jencarlson3348]

Loved this! Thank you Dr. Schlect!

[@HickoryDickory86]

Dorothy Sayers' greatest mistake in this regard, and which lead many down an incorrect path in their noble efforts to restore classical education, is that she co-opted the terms of the trivium for her proposed stages of learning. That was incorrect and disingenuous (perhaps not intentional, but harmful nonetheless). The simple fact of the matter is that the trivium comprises the _arts_ of grammar, logic, and rhetoric; it never was and never will be stages of learning. Had Sayers not done this, there wouldn't be much contention about her contributions. Also, following the Sayers model strictly has potential to introduce and cover the arts out of synch to how they actually were taught and learned within history. In her model, one goes from grammar to logic to rhetoric (and the quadrivium is forgotten entirely). But if you review historical resources, it was never so strict and sequential. According to the early Jesuits' _Ratio Studiorum,_ grammar was first, but then it was followed by rhetoric (which was understood to be a natural outgrowth from and extension and expression of grammar). Only after grammar had been mastered, and after enough proficiency had been reached in rhetoric, would logic (specifically the systematic study of Aristotle's _Organon_ ) finally be introduced. It was the most intense and challenging of the arts of the trivium. That said, even if Sayers may have had genuine insights into child developmental psychology for her time, we have better models now. I'm thinking of Bloom's Taxonomy and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. They were introduced around the same time as Sayers' talk, but since then they have endured much scrutiny, refinement, and development, and so they are more profitable to the educator today. And beyond these, we now have increased knowledge of potentially powerful and effective pedagogical practices from research done in the fields of cognitive science and neuroscience (the sciences of how we learn, seeking the most effective and efficient means of learning). These could easily be integrated into any classroom's pedagogy, regardless of subject area being taught. But the caveat is this: If we're going to call something "the classical liberal arts," then we need to make sure they actually _are_ the classical liberal arts and not just classical vocabulary veneered over modern ideas.

[@nathanjames329]

I'm a bit confused. Sayers was pretty clear that combining the trivium with her model of childhood development was he own innovation. How does that make her wrong?