Quintilian vs. Modern American Education
Quintilian set forth in his Institutio Oratoria, primarily in book 2, the guidelines by which young writers should be taught. Among his many comments are a note that the teacher should not be too dry (2.4.8) and that it is best to lead the young pupil where he would naturally go rather than to “fight against nature” (2.8.10). The responsibility of choosing the eventual destination of the pupil is left to the “master of rhetoric” (2.8.7), though Quintilian does strongly suggest that a master teacher should teach a wide variety of subjects to the orator (2.8.13). Finally, Quintilian suggests that “two things are especially to be avoided: one, to attempt what cannot be accomplished, and the other, to divert a pupil from what he does well to something else for which he is less qualified.” (2.8.14)
Modern American education has taken much from Quintilian. A wide range of liberal arts is taught and a variety of instructional styles is encouraged. However, the American system of education is setup with the goal of instructing all students equally. This is embedded in the philosophy of the system. Because of this, major choices have been made that cause the American system of education to differ in substantial degree from the systems of other countries. Other shifts in design during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, when mass education became more common, are greatly at odds with Quintilian’s views.
Quintilian would be most concerned with the following changes in childhood education: Regimentation and commercialization of early instruction, lack of consistency or continuity from one year to the next, shift of evaluation from qualitative judgments to fact based assessments, lack of individualized instruction, and lack of student input into their own learning.
Research in the early parts of this century led to Title 1 and various Head Start programs. As the research showed that students who learned to read early were better readers upon their entrance into school, the majority of the funding was to pre-kindergarten and kindergarten aged children. As many working with these students at the time, 1965, were not educators, materials soon flooded the market aimed at helping disadvantaged youth. This had the expected result of increasing readiness for school. (NHSA). Quintilian, on the other hand, had this to say about the education of the early child (1.1.20):
Yet I am not so unacquainted with differences of age as to think that we should urge those of tender years severely or exact a full complement of work from them. For it will be necessary, above all things, to take care lest the child should conceive a dislike to the application which he cannot yet love, and continue to dread the bitterness which he has once tasted, even beyond the years of infancy. Let his instruction be an amusement to him; let him be questioned and praised; let him never feel pleased that he does not know a thing; and sometimes, if he is unwilling to learn, let another be taught before him, of whom he may be envious. Let him strive for victory now and then, and generally suppose that he gains it; and let his powers be called forth by rewards such as that age prizes.
In this section lie the most obvious differences between Quintilian’s view of education and that of modern society. Quintilian has a very individualized view of education, while modern society is attempting to turn out masses of children. Quintilian supposes that an individual tutor can provide motivation in a one on one basis, while modern society has taken the assembly line concept into the field of education.
In his article Waiting for the Transformation, Arthur Levine suggests that “America’s current education system, created during the industrial era, resembles an assembly line, the era’s quintessential method of production.” He continues by stating that “this approach to education no longer makes sense.” Some of the reasons for this strongly resemble Quintilian’s statement above, though Levine’s wording suggests this is new when he says “We now know that all students learn at different rates”.
What has been lost between Quintilian’s statements and the modern educational system is lack of individual instruction, and respect for the individual abilities of each student. The implications of this are clear. Students are now being taught in a standard assembly line method, with the process being favored over the final outcome (Levine). Because all students learn differently, only some of them actually achieve the outcome.
Levine goes on to suggest that a more individualized system is needed, a system that stresses the outcome itself over the process. This system would then allow students to learn at their own rate, as both Quintilian and Levine recommend.
The lack of an individualized system has led to the current state of education today. Students are taught grade by grade, in the same fashion, and many of them are dropping out or failing before the end of their traditional schooling. Those that pass do so by memorizing and parroting back what was taught in class. While this is sometimes considered a failing in the student, a close look at the materials used in the school system shows that this is a problem inherent in the instructional design. Consider the Open Court reading program which is designed specifically to standardize reading instruction. The teacher’s handbook tells the teacher exactly what to say, and provides specific training for students to encourage an identifiable rote response. Administrators who are checking for compliance with standards expect to hear the lessons presented as instructed, and often go to the extend of checking that the teacher is on the exact lesson expected on a given day.
What is the result of this? Those students who learn well by this system thrive. Those students who, either because of individual learning differences or lack of preparation, cannot learn via this system learn less effectively. Similar approaches show up in math and writing instruction.
Consider the format of the standard five paragraph essay. In order to write an essay, students must learn a large number of skills and concepts. The thesis must be understood, supporting details must be written, and evidence used to support all points. In some approaches to writing instruction, Students are taught, by rote, what each sentence should contain. Some approaches structure this to such detail that a particular sentence number in a particular paragraph must be an example.
Again, students who learn well from rote instruction can learn from this system. It does work for some. For other students, this leads to a lack of creativity and little or no true understanding of composition as a form of communication between the author and the reader. For all of these students, the compositions become dry. Compare this dryness to Quintilian’s suggestion about teaching composition to young writers, “Let that age be daring, invent much, and delight in what it invents, though it be often not sufficiently severe and correct. The remedy for exuberance is easy; barrenness is incurable by any labor.” (2.4.6) Indeed, a common criticism of the modern educational system is that it emphasizes structure to such an extent that creativity suffers. As creativity is an essential portion of problem solving, fears for the future seem justified.
As previously discussed, the modern educational system was a design based on the times. American industry had learned that the assembly line increased efficiency of production and wanted to have students who could work on the assembly line. Thus, some standardization seemed both necessary and reasonable. With the change in times to the modern era, this approach is now somewhat outdated.
In a recent article in Forbes, Clayton Christensen suggests that the assembly line approach to instruction is no longer helpful in either education or factories. He shares a long anecdote about the failings of the training in American companies and the success of trainings in equivalent factories overseas. This anecdote can be summarized as follows: In American companies, a set amount of time is dedicated to the process of instruction. For example, 58 seconds may be allowed for the installation of a car seat. At the end of the assembly line, the installation would be checked. Failures in installation would thus cost more money and time. This is analogous to the current educational system. Students are given an amount of time to learn material, a year or a semester, and then assessed at the end of that time. In an overseas car company, on the other hand, assembly was in steps and each step was checked as it was completed. This reduced the cost of finding.
Similarly, the training within each factory was different. American workers were trained to complete a task and then told to complete that entire task. Workers in the overseas company were instructed in each step of the task and never allowed to move on to the next step until the previous step was mastered. Christensen relates this quote:
"These are the seven steps required to install this seat. You don't have the privilege of learning step two until you've demonstrated mastery of step one. If you master step one in a minute, you can begin learning step two a minute from now. If step one takes you an hour, then you can learn step two in an hour. If it takes you a day, then you can learn step two tomorrow. It makes no sense for us to teach you subsequent steps if you can't do the prior ones correctly.”
This quote illustrates the principal difference between the American education system and that of some foreign countries. American culture has bought into a same size fits all system that allows students to pass on to the next lesson when they have not yet learned the previous.
Unsurprisingly, our capitalistic society is not interested in changing. Textbooks are big money and, in more recent years, assessment has become big money as well. Forbes quotes the dollar costs of student assessment growing from $1.42 billion in the 2003/2004 school year to $2.5 billion in the 2007/2008 school year.
Quintilian would be appalled. His opinion was always that the teacher should evaluate the student. While many of his examples indicate that he is considering the teacher student relationship to be one on one, Quintilian did in fact prefer public education. He stated in book1, chapter 2, that it would be better for students to be instructed in a school setting. His reasons, however, clearly indicate that he thought this type of environment was preferable because it allowed for more motivation, excitement, and thought. Teacher evaluation was based on observation, was often public, and was an opportunity to learn. In effect, Quintilian was most interested in feedback offering the students a chance to improve and allowing them to learn from their mistakes. In contrast, students in today’s public schools are far past the instructional period when their tests are evaluated. They can’t learn anything from the grades, and there is no opportunity to improve or learn as time passes.
The American educational system, designed from its beginnings to teach all children the same, and assessing students as a means of evaluation and chastisement rather than improvement, is resulting in a group of children who must either learn or fail without the benefit of the close instruction and meaningful feedback suggested by Quintilian.
But one more concern has recently come to light, one that is perhaps more meaningful than pure academics. Quintilian always suggested that rhetoricians should be of good moral character. If we consider that a CEO, a head of state, a group leader, and a teacher are all rhetoricians, this becomes very applicable to our current society. Capitalism leads to a competitive urges and a desire to be the most influential and profitable, often at the expense of morals. Our current educational system leads to similar ends, a desire to produce the highest score on the test rather than to spend time thinking about the most morally right argument.
Multiple incidents in the recent past show the impact of these changes. It might not be appropriate to blame education, as such moral faults may be inherent within capitalism itself, but education might be able to make some difference in the issue if it were designed around critical thinking and discussion rather than memorization and test scores.
Modern American education is designed to emphasize repetition and memorization to the exclusion of almost all else. This emphasis leads to students who are able to memorize, but are often left behind as individual differences cause them to learn at different rates in the assembly line of public education. The teachers, responsible for test results and statistics, and required to use assembly line instructional styles, are unable to use evaluation in a way that helps students to learn more effectively. Finally, moral instruction, which requires a close relationship between teacher and pupil as well as time and freedom to react to the needs of the student, is sorely lacking in the current system. If we are to teach youth to be ready for the new requirements of our modern, global, society; we must teach them in new methods. While Quintilian does not have all the answers for our modern society, some modern philosophers do. Michael Ableman says it well when he says,
We can push our kids, and grade them, and judge them, and try to fit them into boxes, just as we design tomatoes more so that they will fit shipping boxes than for taste or nutrition. But real learning and education will only come, I believe, when they are allowed to develop at their own speed, given good nourishment, and provided with a sense of belonging and place and some connection to the natural world.
References
Ableman, Michael, Raising Children is like Raising Good Food, Spring 2007 Independent School 66 no 3, 30 Nov 2009 Web.
Christensen, Clayton, Teaching to the New Test, 9/15/2008 Forbes 30 Nov 2009 http://www.forbes.com/ Web.
Levine, Arthur, Waiting for the Transformation, Education Week 2/25/2009, Volume 28 Issue 22 Web.
NHSA, National Head Start Association 2009. NHSA 30 Nov 2009 http://www.nhsa.org/ Web
Quintilian. Institutes of Oratory. Ed. Lee Honeycutt. Trans. John Selby Watson. 2006. Iowa State U. 30 Nov. 2009. http://honeyl.public.iastate.edu/quintilian/ Web.
