INTRODUCTION

“Do not be conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Romans 12:2

Legacy Classical has taken three bold moves away from the appearance of the world’s government schools. While our school started with the intent of mimicking what we thought were “best practices”, after 13 years of studying the bible, studying classical education, and learning the history of our current American school system, the leaders concluded that the world’s “best practices” fall short in comparison to God’s design for education. 

God’s design for education begins and ends with the home. He wants us to teach and admonish our children throughout the day as we complete family chores, play with siblings, or serve our neighborhood. 

We truly believe that the last 170 years of education has done more harm than good for the Kingdom of God. Children raised in Christian homes are leaving the faith at an alarming rate and we have to ask why. We believe there is a direct correlation between government-funded public schools and the decline in how Americans “religiously identify.” 

Romans 12:2 says, “Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.”

We want God to transform our children, so we should not copy the behavior of the world - even in how we educate our children. We want school days to closely reflect how we learn and grow naturally. For this reason, we have decided to use the following three bold moves:  multi-age classes, narrative grading, and family-centric content. 

WHAT WE ARE DOING

What are multi-age classes? Multi-age classrooms are classrooms where students learn and grow together across more than one grade level. Currently, the grade level system adopted by the government is a k-12 system adopted from Prussia in the early 19th century. Before this, America had smaller schools where multi-age classrooms were common. During this multi-age classroom era, America had excellent literacy rates, some as high as 98%! That is outstanding when compared to today which says 54% of Americans have a literacy rate below the age of 11.

What are the benefits of multi-age classes? The following benefits are summarized from various research studies and have been documented in the journal “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiage Classrooms in the Era of NCLB Accountability” 2008.

• Student disobedience is lower

• Higher language development

• Significant gains in reading and language skills

• Higher cognitive developmental level

• Creates a caring environment

• Sense of continuity and connection

• Students learn at an individual pace to reach their full potential

• Improved student attitudes

• Decreased discipline referrals

• Increased attendance

• Improve peer relations among students.

What are the disadvantages of multi-age classes?  According to the article above, the following disadvantages are also summarized.

• Rejection by parents (fear of quality instruction) (however the article states “Often the parents involved more in school life are the ones who promote and prefer to have their children in multiage classrooms.” As a University-model school parent, we are plenty involved!

• Solution: Provide quality instruction!

• Teacher buy-in (fear of preparedness and differentiation, concern for greater workload)

• Solution: Let’s get prepared! Provide instructors with professional development focused on differentiated learning and narrative grading!

• Not compatible with grade-level content state testing

• Solution: Not a problem. We don’t take state tests anyway!

How are Legacy Classical’s multi-age classes structured? We have always enrolled students into grade levels based on their ability more than their age. Having six to seven “forms” supports a philosophy we have held since 2010. Notice there is an overlap in the ages.

• Form 1 (age 4 - 6) typically Prek and Kindergarten

• Form 2 (ages 6 - 8) typically first and second grade

• Form 3 (ages 8 - 10) typically third and fourth grade

• Form 4 (ages 10 - 12) typically fifth and sixth grade

• Form 5 (ages 12 - 14) typically seventh and eighth grade

• Form 6 (ages 14 - 16) typically ninth and tenth grade

• Form 7 (ages 16 - 18) typically eleventh and twelfth grade

How can a teacher teach both first and second-grade curriculum? Simply put, they don’t. Multi-age classrooms are not a “curriculum-centered approach”. Curriculum-centered instruction only came about in the mid-nineteenth century because of immigration and compulsory attendance laws. (Song et al.) Curriculum-centered instruction is only needed if you are teaching to a test. We don’t want our students studying to get a good grade. We want them curious and wondering and seeking out information because it is exciting and enjoyable.

Multi-age classrooms are mastery-based learning. A set of learning targets are determined and the instructor verifies the student is making progress. A first-year Form 2 student would learn what the second-year Form 2 student learns, but the teacher (and parent) would not expect mastery from the first-year Form 2 student. 

What are “learning targets”? Depending on who you ask, these can be called “standards”, “objectives”, or “benchmarks”. We chose the term “learning targets” because they feel very friendly and easy to understand: Here is the target I am going after! Learning targets and assessing with narrative grading (a 1 - 4 scale instead of A-F scale) has anecdotal evidence of reducing teacher workload and grading. By using specific targeted expectations, a teacher can decide on assignments and assessments that literally target it. With the A-F grading scale, if the child received a C nobody would have known what the child needed to improve on. However, with narrative grading, the feedback would be anecdotal such as a rubric or checklist that indicates strengths and weaknesses. 

So narrative grading is our second bold move. While ours will not look exactly like the attached article, it is a great synopsis of what this classical school has been doing for years. “In Defense of Mastery Pt 2”

How about all those levels of curriculum books like Shurley English 3 and 4 or All About Reading 1 and 2 Well, a curriculum-centered approach to education makes a strong, financial case for curriculum companies. Once you pull out the learning targets from Shurley English 3 and 4, there are very few deviations. It’s almost like level 3 is to introduce the skills and level 4 is a review with an expectation of mastery while introducing a shockingly small additional skillset. Honestly, by focusing on the higher “curriculum” book, we are allowing the younger students an opportunity to go further than they would have had otherwise. And if the student does not understand it the first year, they have an additional year to master it.

How about math? Math will always be the outlier. We will still have math as the first period of the day to allow for students who far excel and would need to be in a higher form than the one they spend the rest of the day in. However, it is still possible to provide vertical alignment and curriculum mapping for students to learn math in a multi-age classroom. 

What is vertical alignment and curriculum mapping? This is when an educator breaks down a textbook and lines up all the learning targets (as closely as possible) like a ladder. Let’s say chapter 1 in first grade is calendar and time but calendar and time for 2nd grade is in chapter 3. The educator determines where the learning targets are taught in the book and then creates a chart for the teacher to refer to when teaching. Your child’s assignments may seem “out of order” at times, but they will be scheduled this way deliberately. 

How would a teacher teach first and second-grade math at the same time using vertical alignment? Here is an example: The Learning Target is “I can develop place values of thousands (ages 7 or 8); hundreds, tens, and ones (age 6)”. The teacher begins by teaching all the students about place values for hundreds, tens, and ones. This is new information for the 6-year-old but a review for the 7 or 8-year-old. Once the teacher determines that the 6-year-old has a solid grasp, the first years can move to a math center while the teacher keeps the older students with her for the second part of the lesson: developing place value to the thousands. 

What if my child is a first year student in the Form and can do the higher learning target of place value to the thousands? Hopefully, the teacher is aware of this and includes that first year student with the second-year students. This is where differentiation is so great! 

Our final bold move is called Family-Centric Learning. What is that? This is such a “no-brainer” that we want to apologize for not doing it sooner. As we discussed before, America’s government schools are curriculum-centered for students to score well on mandated tests. When we modeled Legacy Classical after government schools, we did not ask ‘why’ every grade had to learn a completely different science, history, math, and grammar topic. We were sheeple and just followed the template. Now we know better. We know that the BEST learning at home (and at school) happens when we are all on the same page. If we can cycle through content and focus on SKILLS (learning targets), then we can develop great conversations and dig deeper into discussions. We can learn from one another, mentor each other, and grow together!

Post by Dr. Jeffrey Bond

Let's think critically about modern education's love affair with "critical thinking." But why would anyone be critical of critical thinking? Consider, if you will, what "critical thinking" was intended to replace: right reason. So what's the difference?

Critical thinking lacks a telos, as if thinking critically is an end in itself. But what about right reason? At its most basic, right reason is an orderly and valid thought leading to knowledge. As such, it is epitomized by philosophy or scientific inquiry. So whether we are discussing planets or poetry, we must reason rightly, that is, invoke a science proportionate to the subject matter under consideration. Now right reason, by dint of being right, is not only the habit of proceeding correctly in our scientific thinking, but it is also the habit of science itself. The expression "habit of science" refers to a virtue inhering in the intellect that consists in the very content of knowledge about this or that subject matter. In short, reason is right precisely so long as it both proceeds well and, in the process, attains its object, which is science or knowledge. Hence, right reason at the same time is perfective of the individual human subject and yields an objective content that is universally true. So, if we think rightly about critical thinking, we should reject it in favor of the right reason.

In order to make this practical for a teacher, let’s explain the difference in HOW a teacher would approach a lesson using the right reason vs. using critical thinking. -- I have some ideas, but would love to hear yours. Perhaps an example of the same subject in a lesson and how these two ways look quite different when teaching the same lesson. (Adrienne Freas)

Spelling out the difference in detail would take more than a single comment, but it really comes down to the difference between sophistry and philosophy. Perhaps the following would serve as a practical example:

I once endured a presentation by an educational specialist who was making a lot of money traveling around the country promoting the "Socratic seminar." The key to a successful Socratic seminar, she said repeatedly, is to make sure the students understand that there is "no one right answer." With that as the predetermined end, she encouraged the teacher, as if it were a goal in itself, to get the students to express their opinions about the text and to raise objections to challenge and contradict the opinions of their peers. Hence, the goal of such a class—what it meant to train them to be critical thinkers—was the mere expression of opinions where the students learned to keep asking "why" and never rest in the truth. In this scenario, the teacher's job is to bless everything that is said and to make sure that no one position prevails, as if there were no better and worse interpretations of a text. The result of this approach is what Socrates warned us about in the Republic: when students get their first taste of dialectic, they misuse arguments "as though it were play, always using them to contradict; and imitating those men by whom they are refuted, they themselves refute others, like puppies enjoying pulling and tearing with argument at those who happen to be near” (539b). Some will respond, I am sure, that the above is an unfair parody of critical thinking, but I think it illustrates well what critical thinking means for most folks out there in the educational world. If someone endorses critical thinking because they think it is synonymous with right reason, I have no quarrel with that person, but then I wonder why he is reluctant to use the traditional expression, "right reason." Most likely it is because, when push comes to shove, that person has a problem with the word "right" when it comes to reasoning.

A genuinely Socratic lesson, however, if we are to take Socrates seriously as he appears in the Platonic dialogues, would aim at truth, and the disagreements that naturally arise would be evaluated for the sake of reaching truth, or at least eliminating what is not true. Here, the teacher would ask the right questions in the right order and assist the students in the effort to ascend from opinion to truth, as explained in Socrates' divided line. The fact that not every class would come to the truth--and here it obviously depends greatly on the text in question--would not mean that there was no truth, but only that it can be extremely difficult to ascertain it.

One can only imagine how the educational specialist (read: sophist) mentioned above would have responded if Socrates had suddenly appeared and pointed out that her original principle--that there can be no right answer--is self-contradictory since it presents itself as the one right answer and an answer that tyrannically rules out the possibility of arriving at the truth. But for the sophistical expert in critical thinking, such a Socrates would have missed the whole point of a "Socratic seminar." Ah, what a fool Socrates was to think one should forfeit one's life for philosophy when one cannot ultimately distinguish between opinion and truth!

Dr. Jeffrey Bond holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in Political Philosophy. LCCA thanks Dr. Bond for his contribution to our blog and his wisdom and insight into right reasoning.