What is the most important thing in teaching?
At ECS, some of our curriculum is published by Memoria Press. Their spring catalogue included a very good article by Martin Cothran entitled “Principles of Pedagogy.” In it, Cothran argues that a major distinction between classical education and modern education relates to how each regards content versus delivery:
“The most important thing in teaching is not the how, but the what. Pedagogy does not determine content: Content determines pedagogy. Modern educators tend to put more emphasis on pedagogy, subordinating content to technique. Classical education aims to do the opposite.“
Incidentally, pedagogy is “the science of how to teach.”
Cothran goes on to argue that the modern culture’s obsession with psychology and soulless behavior modification has elevated teaching methods to preeminent levels in teacher training programs rather than ensuring that would-be educators actually have something to teach (that is, a mastery of content). This passes the sniff test when one darkens the door of a neighboring middle school or university. He’s got a point.
Ironically, Cothran reminds his readers that “The original definition of psychology was ‘the study of the soul.’ Classical education understands that in order to form the souls of our students—which is what teaching is—we must first know the form of the human soul.” He’s right. Also, moderns have redefined psychology to be the “scientific study of mind and behavior,” which is necessary if we are going to deny the existence of the pupil’s soul. I mean, if the pupils in the desks don’t have souls, when what should we do?
It’s fitting at this point to suggest one place where I’d push back on Mr. Cothran’s argument, though some may call it splitting hairs. He says that “the most important thing in teaching is…the what.” At ECS, while we believe that the how and what of teaching are important, we would say that the most important thing is the who, both instructors and the instructed. I’ll list three quick reasons why I say this.
First, a good man will not teach bad content. The material being taught simply cannot be divorced from the person doing the teaching. Just as the man who would be the mouthpiece of God to a congregation must meet certain character criteria, so the character of the teacher matters a good deal if he would stand before his students without hypocrisy or reservation.
Second, we are built for fellowship. Knowledge is inextricably linked to wisdom, to be sure, but to what end? Fellowship with the Father and with one another. Education must first be about people who live in fellowship with other people, and about shaping souls to build culture. This is central to our school’s own cultural efforts, from recess to conflict resolution (including discipline procedures) to conversations in the parking lot after school. It’s why we love Matthew 18 so much!
Third, we are imitative creatures who will become like our teachers when our training is complete (cf. Luke 6:40). It’s not a matter of if, but rather when or who?
Each of these deserves more fleshing out, but that must suffice for the moment. In fact, there’s a lot more to the whole article, including a great working explanation of the arts and the sciences, as well as a fleshing out of the ethos, pathos, and logos. But I’ll let you read it if you’re so inclined.
For now, as you’re making plans for next fall, and as you’re talking with your friends and neighbors about education, bear in mind that we are not just a secular school alternative; we are working to form souls rather than modify behavior, and that is not splitting hairs; it makes all the difference. Increasingly, secular schools are abandoning the things we depend on: objective truth, objective morality, and the existence of the soul. Can what they’re doing be called education? Aristotle would say, “No, sir.”
Risus est bellum!
Jonathan