The concept of banning mobile devices in schools should be thought of first and foremost about the learning environment. As we consider the role that phones play in the lives of children, there are good reasons why families might consider placing a phone in their child’s hands. There is a feeling of safety to be able to contact one another at a moment’s notice. Parents have the ability to find their location through tracking apps. Not only is there a feeling of safety, but there is also a feeling of technological advantage in a world that is so driven by devices. Or to put it another way, parents feel that by not entrusting these devices to children, they will fall behind their peers in ways that might have implications for their education and careers.

However, more and more parents, teachers and leaders are waking up to the idea that mobile devices are harmful for children. Haidt highlights four ways that phones have harmed children: social deprivation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction. There is much onus on parents to lead the charge in the battle to save children from these harms. But there is equally a burden of responsibility on schools to not only protect children from these harms, but also to educate and train students to rise to the challenge of our phone-based society. To that end, we need to talk about phone-free policies for our school. On top of that, we need to go beyond restrictions to encourage healthy face-to-face interactions within the school environment, to train students in gaining deep focus, and to provide a holistic framework that equips students to understand the role of technology in their lives.

A Review of The Anxious Generation

The 2024 release of Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation has swept the nation, appearing on the New York Times bestseller list for nonfiction every week since its publication in late March. This is not the first time he has written on topics pertaining to mental health and its modern causes, having co-authored The Coddling of the American Mind with Greg Lukianoff. What is not in question is that children today are describing themselves as experiencing greater depression and anxiety than previous generations. The debatable matter is what exactly has caused this increase to occur. Haidt’s answer is what he calls the “phone-based childhood.”

Without a doubt, the presence of smart phones in the pockets of our children has dramatically changed the experience of being a child. Haidt spells out the factors that contribute to the rising anxiety among children, adolescents and young adults. There are serious psychological implications for children growing up in a world that is hyper-connected to the internet. In particular, there are “four foundational harms” associated with a phone-based childhood, according to Haidt. First, children are deprived of face-to-face social interactions. Social media is often consumed in isolation within a virtual world at the expense of being physically present with others in the real world. Haidt writes, “Children need face-to-face, synchronous, embodied, physical play” (121). The absence of this kind of in-person interaction means that children lose out on the opportunities to learn the skills of social exchange and personal identity within groups where you have to navigate complex human dynamics.

Second, children are deprived of the sleep they need not only to support healthy physical growth, but also to consolidate their internal selves. When we sleep, there is a tremendous amount of activity that processes our experiences of life, be that what has been learned in school or the social interactions with friends and family. Haidt cites a study by Jean Twenge that found that “heavy use of screen media was associated with shorter sleep duration, longer sleep latency, and more mid-sleep awakenings” (124). Screen use, then, comes at a cost that can go unseen. Reduced hours of sleep and poor quality of sleep will have a dramatic impact on aspects of children such as concentration and mood.

Third, children are deprived of the power of attention. Smart phones increase the number of notifications and interrupts linear thought constantly. Haidt spells out the implications:

“Attention is a choice we make to stay on one task, one line of thinking, one mental road, even as attractive off-ramps beckon. When we fail to make that choice and allow ourselves to be frequently sidetracked, we end up in ‘the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state’ that [American psychologist William] James said is the opposite of attention.” (127)

Such deprivation of the power of attention has an obvious and significant impact on learning. The importance of attention has recently been expressed as the key factor driving excellence. According to Daniel Goleman in his book Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence, attention connects to every aspect of life and achievement:

“In very recent years the science of attention has blossomed far beyond vigilance. That science tells us these skills determine how well we perform any task. If they are stunted, we do poorly; if muscular, we can excel. Our very nimbleness in life depends on this subtle faculty. While the link between attention and excellence remains hidden most of the time, it ripples through almost everything we seek to accomplish.” (2-3)

For this reason, the deprivation of attention strikes a blow at a core level, crippling the ability to students to shape their lives through the application of skills they might acquire.

Fourth, children suffer from the addictive nature of the apps on their smartphones (and in many cases other screen-based devices). Haidt is clear that the addictive nature of these devices does not mean that students are therefore addicted. He does, however, point out that “their desires are being hacked and their actions manipulated nonetheless.” (130) To put it another way, the pings, notifications, and alarms have a Pavlovian effect on children at a stage when they are most neurologically maleable. Social media and online games are often created to trigger addictive responses by teenagers, leaving them vulnerable to techniques that cause the them to spend more and more time in social media apps like Instagram and online games like Fortnite.

Additional Recent Research

Haidt’s book is well written making it an engaging and fairly easy read. This can potentially mask how well researched The Anxious Generation in fact is. Looking at the long list of references in the back, it is clear that Haidt has spent considerable time poring over the data. Even so, there does remain some amount of research that in the main corroborates Haidt’s perspective that smart phone are detrimental to children and adolescents.

One such corroboration is found in a review study published the summer of 2022 in the journal European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reviewed 25 studies published between 2011 and 2019 finding that the use of mobile phones and wireless devices “may be associated with poorer mental health in children and adolescents.” (Girela-Serrano, B.M., et al. “Impact of mobile phones and wireless devices use on children and adolescents’ mental health: a systematic review.” Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 33 (2024), 1621–1651.) What I find interesting about this review is that for the first decade of the existence of the iPhone, scientists were already aware of potential detriments to children and adolescents.

More recently, Bora Colak, in an essay published in 2024, explores recent data to examine the association between the use of smartphones and social media and problems children and adolescents experience in mental health. Similar to Haidt, Colak recommends increased awareness and policy initiatives to protect children and adolescents from harm. (Bora Colak, “Potential Harms of Excessive Social Media and Smartphone Use on Youth Mental Health,” in Dancyger, et al., eds., Pediatric Nonadherence (Springer, 2024), 59-70).

Granting that not every child experiences smartphone addiction in the extreme, the potential for continual harm for children and adolescents exists. One recent study looked at potential molecular and neurological pathologies associated with smartphone addiction, suggesting the implementation of anti-addiction therapies to mitigate the impact of smartphone addiction. (Faijan, et al. “Smartphone Addiction among Students and its Harmful Effects on MentalHealth, Oxidative Stress, and Neurodegeneration towards FutureModulation of Anti-Addiction Therapies: A Comprehensive Survey basedon SLR, Research Questions, and Network Visualization Techniques,” CNS & Neurological Disorders – Drug Targets 22 (2023), 1070-1089.)

Taken together, these and other recent studies should alarm parents and educators of the harm that smartphones and social media can inflict on children and adolescents. The potential harm to children is great enough that in 2023 Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released an Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health. The advisory states, “Extreme, inappropriate, and harmful content continues to be easily and widely accessible by children and adolescents. This can be spread through direct pushes, unwanted content exchanges, and algorithmic designs.” (8) In other words, the individuals who are most vulnerable to harm are not properly protected against some of the ways these social media are designed. Murthy strengthened his statement a year later in piece he published in the New York Times, calling for warning labels on social media platforms along the lines of those found on cigarette boxes.

Advice for Schools

What is clear from Haidt’s book and recent studies is that smartphone and social media use by children and adolescents can be harmful. As a result, parents and schools should amplify their protections for children. In this section, we will outline a few steps that can be taken in schools to proactively respond to these trends.

Become Truly Phone Free

Many schools have phone policies of some sort. Haidt amplifies the issue when he writes, “A phone ‘ban’ limited to class time is nearly useless. This is why schools should go phone-free for the entirety of the school day.” (249, emphasis original). Such an approach requires a secure location for phones where they can be parked far enough away from where students do academic work for them to be truly separated from the device.

At Clapham School, we implemented a program where a phone storage cabinet was placed near the receptionist desk. As students enter the school, they place their phone in the “phone home” and proceed into the school where they learn in classes and interact with one another without phones present. The advantages of this approach are that the phone is in a secure location and there is a responsible adult present at all times. The presence of the adult is important both for the security of the phones, but also to facilitate accountability for the students. Rather than sneaking access to the phone during passing periods, breaks or lunch, students are more inclined to interact with each other. If a situation arises where the student needs to ask a parent a question, they are permitted to go to the receptionist area to use the phone in a designed location. Unsurprisingly, these needs have been fairly rare. When the phone is not easily accessible at all times, many of those “needs” seem to evaporate.

As you consider implementing a phone-free policy at your school, there are few principles to keep in mind. One, the policy needs to begin with the security of the students’ devices, because if they feel their property is not secure, there will be immediate resistance. Two, the policy needs to have some amount of flexibility where students can have a designated location where they can transact any interactions that come up during the day. By having that location near the receptionist, an appropriate approach can be that the student use the school phone to reach parents, thereby negating even further the “need” for the personal device. Three, there needs to be true separation. A location in a classroom can end up being quite the distraction as the phones buzz and squawk throughout the day. It can be difficult to find a central location that can accommodate the student traffic and maintain optimal security. Four, having an adult present at the secure location means there’s on-the-ground support for policy implementation. Finally, there needs to be an inspiring set of ideas that motivate the policy. Showing students the pathway to rich fellowship and deep learning helps them to know that there is something good and worthwhile they are committing to, rather than seeing such a policy as solely the deprivation of their property.

Write a Technology Policy

Now, having a phone-free school does not mean having a technology-free school entirely. The reality is that students must be well equipped to navigate a world full of technological and virtual components. At one level, schools need to develop a strong technology policy. The guiding principle should be the academic use of technology. Students must learn how to use basic apps such as Word, a school-based email account, presentation platforms and spreadsheets. Most of these tools can be incorporated into the general objectives across the curriculum. For instance, teachers can articulate objectives that will see students able to format text, format documents, set up tables, integrate graphics, set up templates, use table of contents, use different methods of citations including footnotes. These kinds of objectives situate technology within a set of learning outcomes that wed technology to academic production.

The next level of technological training should incorporate the use of video production. After Covid, the use of video meetings has become a reality even in the academic space. Thus, when we think about rhetorical training, students should not only think about written and oral production, but what it takes to be not only comfortable on camera, but to view this as a medium for persuasive communication. Along these same lines, I could see schools articulating objectives where students learn how to develop their own blogs and complete assignments by producing video content. This set of outcomes equips students to inhabit the virtual world that is part of their reality not solely as consumers but as creators. As such, I think they are more likely to have a greater sense of their own identity consistent with their real-world selves rather than being swayed by an onslaught of influences through social media platforms.

In order to accomplish these technological outcomes, I do think there should be a some clear parameters set with regard to the use of technology in school. Three immediately come to mind. First, devices – and here I mean predominantly laptops or tablets – should only be taken out under the direction of a teacher. Here I am trying to push back against the inundation of devices in the classroom. Students should still experience school as a place where paper books are opened in literature class, and math problems are solved with pencils in hand. Second, it should be expressly stated that there is no social media or entertainment sites open in school. The sole purpose for devices is their academic use. This curtails the switching between windows to support singular focus on the work at hand. It also encourages face-to-face interactions outside the classroom, rather than students gathering around a laptop to watch a YouTube video. Third, screens ought to face out towards the public. This means that anybody walking by or circulating in a classroom can quickly and easily see what is happening on screen. These kinds of approaches to the technology policy enable accountability and mentoring, strengthening the habits of students in the school context.

Get Parent Commitment

Implementing a phone-free school program cannot happen without good parent partnership. Schools can help parents by providing readings and workshops to address the issues facing parents today. Administrators and teachers should invite discussion with parents to learn more about the pain points they experience raising children in a world with smartphones and social media. In all likelihood, a phone-free school is exactly what they would want for their children. That being said, good communication is necessary in order to assuage fears parents might have about their ability to stay in touch with their children when out of the home. These fears are often associated with safety concerns, so they will want to know the measures the school will take to ensure the safety of their child.

One way to amplify parent commitment is to embed the phone-free school program within a larger movement. A compelling vision has been cast by Justin Earley, author of Common Rule and Habits of the Household. He sets forth ten practices that help individuals, households and communities to develop healthy relationships with technology. One of the ten practices is a phone-free school. Set within a context of personal, family and community standards, the alignment of this visionary approach enables everyone to work together towards the goal of healthy approaches to technology in our lives. One of the tools available to individuals is a commitment form that can be signed. What something like this can do for a community is to put some kind of stake in the ground that states a commitment to certain standards of conduct. You can find more information about the movement, the practices and the form at hangtenmovement.com.

Get Outside

Returning for the moment to Haidt’s thesis that we have increased vigilance regarding playing outside and decreased vigilance regarding playing online, my advice to educators is to get the students outside. Children need more time experiencing the real world in unstructured play out of doors, particularly in contact with the richness that nature has to offer. There is actually good research to support this. The mindfulness movement gathered momentum in light of the Covid epidemic, and much of the research tells the tale that being outside in nature improves mood and decreases anxiety. Walking in nature can improve one’s mood even more than physical exercise alone, according to a 2020 study (Olafsdottir, et al. “Health Benefits of Walking in Nature: A Randomized Controlled Study Under Conditions of Real-Life Stress,” Environment and Behavior, 52 (2020), 248-274). Even if an immersive experience in nature is hard to come by, even taking a walk in an urban environment was shown to have positive results on the mood of students (Jingni Ma, et al., “Effectiveness of a mindful nature walking intervention on sleep quality and mood in university students during Covid-19: A randomised control study,” EXPLORE 19 (2023), 405-416.) The long and short of this is that we should enable students to experience the benefits of real world.

There are lots of ways that you can enable students to make rich connections with the outdoors. Sometimes even a simple walk taking only five to ten minutes can completely change the mood of the day for your class. Getting outdoors can take a more formal approach by planning a nature study lesson. Plan field trips where the day is spent at a local garden, farm or arboretum. The goal is to get outside and have a meaningful interaction with the physical space we inhabit.

Training the Prophetic Voice by Dr. Patrick Egan is a must-read for classical Christian educators seeking to build a robust rhetoric program. Grounded in biblical theology, this insightful book provides a framework for developing students’ prophetic voices – the ability to speak with wisdom, clarity, and conviction on the issues that matter most.

As an experienced educator, Dr. Egan understands the vital role rhetoric plays in shaping the next generation of Christian leaders. Through time-tested principles and practical guidance, he equips teachers to cultivate students who can articulate the truth with passion and purpose.

Whether you’re looking to revitalize your existing rhetoric curriculum or lay the foundation for a new program, Training the Prophetic Voice is an invaluable resource. Discover how to empower your students to become effective communicators, courageous truth-tellers, and agents of transformation in their communities and beyond.

Order your copy of Training the Prophetic Voice today and unlock the power of your students’ voice in your classroom.

The post Are You Ready to Become a Phone-free School? appeared first on .

Technology – and here I mean specifically screen-based devices – has transformed all aspects of our lives. Now, there are upsides to this technological transformation such as instant access to our fitness data or knowledge of the whereabouts of our children. But even these positives come with the burden of responsibility which is never easy to bear and easily leads to fixation on oneself or surveillance of our loved ones.

In schools, the implementation of screen-based devices seems to be what people mean when they speak of needing more money for schools. The devices come with certain upsides such as student management systems, testing portals, real-time feedback, etc. Yet many of these upsides come at a human cost. In his book Public Education in the Digital Age, Morgan Anderson asserts, “Technologically mediated interactions risk undermining authentic dialogue through its dehumanizing effects.” His framework for education is to view power as fundamentally exploitative, and he sees how tech companies have inundated classrooms with their devices, which thereby mediate human interactions. He is not necessarily calling for a return to traditional classrooms in a way that coheres with our educational renewal movement. Yet his point that technological incursions into our classrooms comes at a human cost is one we ought to pay attention to.

The discussion-based learning that is part and parcel of the great books tradition simply cannot be as effectively implemented through devices as through in-person interactions. That is not to say that one cannot receive a fine education through remote learning and that one cannot engage in quality discussions with the tiny headshots on a screen. I know of several programs that aim at high-quality remote learning experiences. It’s just that there are no replacements for the physical proximity of others in the learning environment. My conjecture is that low-tech schooling neither ought to be considered inferior to the tech-based classrooms of today nor ought to be thought of merely as reactions to the tech-driven models of modern education.

Wading into the Shallows

In the midst of the initial rise of the iPhone to the ubiquitous everyday carry device, Nicholas Carr’s 2010 publication of The Shallows called readers to carefully consider the perils of internet technology. It is worth interacting a bit with exactly what he means by “shallow” when it comes to cognitive function. In his chapter “The Juggler’s Brain” he lays out the cognitive benefits attained through sustained use of devices and the internet. The main benefits center around low-level cognitive functions. Carr writes:

“Research shows that certain cognitive skills are strengthened, sometimes substantially, by our use of computers and the Net. These tend to involve lower-level, or more primitive, mental functions such as hand-eye coordination, reflex response, and the processing of visual cues.”

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows, 139

There is a particular way the brain develops when it interacts with the high-powered devices we have on our desks and in our pockets. Particular neurons fire together weaving immense skill into regions of the brain associated with sight (visual cortex) and movement (cerebellum). We could add to Carr’s list video games and streaming services. Most of these screen-based technologies will activate certain areas of the brain while leaving others dormant. We will come back to this idea later to develop strategies to make the most of screen-based technologies to optimize high-level cognitive functions for learning.

Carr explores several other advantages that come with the relatively recent technologies that have entered our homes and schools. One of the uses that is often championed for having ready access to devices for learning is the ability to search and browse the internet to access relevant information. Carr notes how web searches “strengthen brain functions related to certain kinds of fast-paced problem solving, particularly those involving the recognition of patterns in a welter of data” (139). He goes so far as to say that users become “adept at quickly distinguishing among competing informational cues, analyzing their salient characteristics, and judging whether they’ll have practical benefit,” however, trends from social media argue otherwise. It seems to have become the case that users are more and more at the mercy of algorithms that filter information which rather stunts good judgment and discernment. But even granting Carr’s point, we should note how users become good at filtering information, which may feel like a higher-order thinking skill. But in actuality, simply finding data amounts to very little if one cannot then make something of it. We’ll see in a moment what Carr has to say about that.

One additional positive benefit that comes with the use of devices is what Carr explaines as “a small expansion in the capacity of our working memory.” Carr goes on to cite Small and Vorgan’s book iBrain who actually call our ability to hold in our minds massive amounts of informational tidbits “digital ADD.” They write, “many of us are developing neural circuitry that is customized for rapid and incisive spurts of directed attention” (Small and Vorgan 21). It is important to add the distinction that a greater capacity of working memory is not the same thing as cultivating a greater capacity in long-term memory. Much that gets stored in working memory gets flushed rather quickly. If you were to look back at your search history from even a week ago, you might be surprised at what you have since forgotten.

So much for the benefits of devices for our cognition. But what about the detriments? Carr questions whether technology is actually making us more intelligent. He argues that internet access “may make our brains more nimble when it comes to multitasking, but improving our ability to multitask actually hampers our ability to think deeply and creatively” (Carr 140). To put it another way, you can either develop single tasking or multitasking, and one comes at the cost of the other. It really behooves us, therefore, to consider which is the more valuable of the two. Many studies have shown how multitasking or task switching have many detrimental effects on executive function, emotional wellbeing and skills development. Whereas single tasking has more positive gains especially when learners are focused on meaningful work and develop transferrable skills. Carr gets at this same point when he quotes David Meyer, “You can train until you’re blue in the face and you’d never be as good as if you just focused on one thing at a time.”

Carr next interacts with the work of Patricia Greenfield from her 2009 article published in the apex journal Science. While internet-based devices have enhanced our visual-spatial cognitive capacity, there has been “a weakening of our capacities for the kind of ‘deep processing’ that underpins ‘mindful acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection.’” (141 quoting Patricia M. Greenfield, “Technology and Informal Education, Science, 323 (January 2, 2009): 69-71.) The word Carr uses is “weakening.” It is not as though when we enhance the visual and motor cortices that the neocortex comes along for the ride. Instead, attention, perception and long-term memory actually suffer. Think of it this way. The brain is a high-efficiency machine. If the brain perceives that it needs to shift to visual-spatial engagement with the highly stimulating world of the internet, then it will redirect its energies to visual and motor skills. Instead, if it perceives that more work ought to be put into singular attention, deep thought, perception, then it will direct its energies there instead.

What all of this amounts to is that the brain when exposed to devices, particularly for longs periods of time, begins to take on the characteristics of the devices. You have rapid switching between tasks, the ability to churn lots of data, and attention gets shifted amongst multiple stimuli. What gets lost is deep insight into the kind of thought that creates meaning. Carr concludes:

“The mental functions that are losing the “survival of the busiest” brain cell battle are those that support calm, linear thought—the ones we use in traversing a lengthy narrative or an involved argument, the ones we draw on when we reflect on our experiences or contemplate an outward or inward phenomenon. The winners are those functions that help us speedily locate, categorize, and assess disparate bits of information in a variety of forms, that let us maintain our mental bearings while being bombarded by stimuli. These functions are, not coincidentally, very similar to the ones performed by computers, which are programmed for the high-speed transfer of data in and out of memory. Once again, we seem to be taking on the characteristics of a popular new intellectual technology.”

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows, 142

Having waded into the shallows, we can see that a high-tech classroom promises certain kinds of cognitive intelligence, but not the kind that sets children up for meaningful engagement with the important questions of life. Focused work on the great books and wrestling with the great ideas runs counter to the shallow attention of the multi-tasking mechanisms we are becoming in the hands of our devices.

Read more about Nicholas Carr’s work as it connects to habit training in my article “Habit Formation: You, Your Plastic Mind, and Your Internet“

Diving into the Deep

Carr’s book, well over a decade old, still rings true today. The digital natives of today have been inundated with even more devices now with smartphones in the hands of veritably every student. Parents and teachers alike feel powerless to stem the tide as it feels like children ought to have these technologies in order to succeed in a new technological age, not to mention the ways in which such technologies keep the safe. The perception of success and safety come at the cost of an increasing shallowness as explored in the previous section. So what perspective can help us navigate a setting in which new, more powerful smartphones are released annually?

Here is where we take a step into the deep end. Cal Newport came out with two books that masterfully cut across the bow of the technological ship driving recklessly into the shallows. He released Deep Work in 2016 and then Digital Minimalism in 2019. It is worth exploring these two to get a sense of the emerging hope we have as an educational movement whereby we can with confidence commit ourselves to low-tech schooling.

The thesis of Deep Work is stated succinctly in the introduction. Newport looks at two economic factors, one having to do with the scarcity of deep work and then correspondingly the increasing value placed on deep work. He writes:

“The ability to perform deep work is becoming increasingly rare at exactly the same time it is becoming increasingly valuable in our economy. As a consequence, the few who cultivate this skill, and then make it the core of their working life, will thrive.”

Cal Newport, Deep Work, 14

This is a central tenet of the new economy. Many think that the new economy is all about new technologies usurping the old system of manufacture-based industry. To some extent that is true. But the new economy is all about creativity and the creation of meaning out of the inundation of overwhelming attention-grabbing stimuli. On the face of it, the new economy can degenerate into mass consumptionism, with individuals binging Netflix shows, scrolling social media feeds, and following the latest YouTube personality. However, the new economy is also a place where deep work is rewarded because for those who can focus their attention and energies, they can create work that is meaningful.

It is instructive to consider Newport’s definition of shallow work as “noncognitively demanding, logistical-style tasks, often performed while distracted. These efforts tend not to create much new value in the world and are easy to replicate” (Deep Work 228). The examples Newport uses to explore shallow work are connected to the work place, especially the academic field. Yet, his definition of shallow work provides us a good guide as to the work we ought to engage in and assign in schools. If our schools are to graduate into the new economy with the rare and valuable ability to perform deep work, we need to avoid shallow work. I highly recommend reading Jason’s article on “Deep Reading” to explore further what it means to engage in the kind of deep work Newport is describing.

Now I would argue that there is a role for screen-based technology in schools. While I champion low-tech schooling, it would be irresponsible to send graduates off into the world unable to connect their deep work to the technological context that surrounds us. Here is where Cal Newport’s other book Digital Minimalism comes to bear. He defines digital minimalism as “a philosophy of technology use in which you focus your online time on a small number of carefully selected and optimized activities that strongly support things you value, and then happily miss out on everything else.” (Digital Minimalism 28) The approach hinted at here embraces the use of technology, but clearly defines the parameters of its use. Our screen-based devices can be great tools, but terrible masters. And giving them unlimited time and attention places us at their service.

So, how do we set the parameters? Here I would like to outline a few principles and practices that can help you provide excellent technological training in a low-tech schooling environment.

First, clearly define the tools to be used. Consider what a student actually needs to be able to use to succeed as a student, particularly in college and career. This really boils down to only a few applications. They need to learn how to manage an email inbox and to write professional email correspondence. They need to learn how to format a paper in a word processor. Those two are the major ones, and if that is all your school trained students in, they would be well served. On top of this, you could choose to teach them effective use of presentation sofware such as PowerPoint. They could learn how to manage data in a spreadsheet. You could even go above and beyond by teaching them how to code. I could envision a rhetoric program incorporating some aspect of video-conferencing etiquette or cultivating the skills of video recording and editing. Notice, though, that the choices available are a rather short list. One needs only readily available programs on a laptop to access most of what one needs to train students in the academic use of technology.

Second, clearly articulate the goals for technology use. One could list what students will not do, such as check social media, watch videos, listen to music or play games. More importantly, establishing learning outcomes lets everyone know what we’re working toward. Our students will learn how to format papers according to the three major style guides typically used in higher education programs. Our students will learn how to manage a school-based email account with training in professional etiquette that receives regular review and grades each quarter. Our students will develop professional-looking PowerPoint slides according to sound design principles for their senior thesis presentations. With goals such as these, teachers and students gain clarity on why they are bringing their laptops and what they are using them for. The teacher knows well that the laptop has no need to be out during the classroom discussion of Pride and Prejudice, but that it will be taken out when the paper is written analyzing a character from the novel.

Third, repeatedly provide feedback to students on their use of technology. Teachers should tell students when they are mindlessly taking out a laptop. They should be able to note how demanding the tasks are that they are performing. Remember, we are guiding them toward the rare and valuable deep work and steering them away from the shallows. So, if a student has been given ample time to complete a paper in class, but the work is shallow, then we need to start asking them how they used their time. I might even need to sit right next to them to strengthen their capacity to engage in deep and meaningful work.

Ultimately, our educational renewal movement is well positioned to provide the new economy with capable young men and women ready to create deep and meaningful work. I recommend no screen-based technology through middle school and then very intentional incorporation of technology in high school. We want to cultivate an environment conducive to deep learning so that technology becomes the final piece of the puzzle for students well trained in reading, discussing and writing. The liability of bringing technology in too soon can result in a shallow learning environment that stunts the capacity of our students to excel in college, career and life. It is up to us to train them in the creation of meaning rather than merely being consumers.

New from Educational Renaissance Publishing

Buy the book!

The post Low-tech Schooling: Avoiding the Shallows in a High-tech Society appeared first on .

On the other hand, this extended digression, which took its cue from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics Book II, has provided an opportunity for us to lay the foundations of Aristotle’s distinctive vision in ways that we could not easily do without. For instance, the fact that Aristotle can refer off-handedly to arts as diverse as building, lyre-playing, navigation, medical practice, grammar and music helps to illustrate the breadth of the category of techne for him. Before the canonization of the liberal arts as “academic subjects”, there is a helpful clarity with which Plato and Aristotle understand them as productive arts, alongside other forms of craftsmanship.

But perhaps more important considerations even than this are the power of habit, the place of instruction, and the essential role of exercise, training and focused practice in the acquisition of both character and craftsmanship. Since time immemorial, it has been tempting to over-emphasize the knowledge-transfer approach to education instead of the more practice-oriented apprenticeship in the arts. While we could blame such a phenomenon on the Enlightenment, the Sophists of Socrates’s day arguably made the same error, as did medieval and Renaissance educators of all sorts. The universal human tendency to take short-cuts, even to our detriment, can probably account for our neglect of a fully orbed apprenticeship. If we could simply pass on a few memorable aphorisms or a book of “information”, rather than the considerable personal and temporal investment of apprenticing a learner through the stages of novice, apprentice, and journeyman, then why wouldn’t we simply do the former? 

In this article we will explore the apprenticeship model of training in the arts by situating the arts in time and place, and defending our five fold division of the arts, which adds two categories and slightly reframes the divisions of Chris Hall’s and Kevin Clark and Ravi Jain’s three fold paradigm. To their liberal, fine and common arts, we add athletics, games and sports, and the professions and trades. But before we can explain why, we must situate the arts as traditions in place and time.

Situating Techne as Traditions in Place and Time

One of the benefits of viewing the arts from the perspective of apprenticeship, rather than information-transfer, is that it draws attention to the traditional status of all arts. Human beings develop traditions of making things, and the arts are nothing more nor less than these traditions of productive skill that we have developed in various times and places and for various purposes. Aristotle’s way of talking about this involves his philosophical distinction between things that are variable and things that exist of necessity:

In the variable are included both things made and things done; making and acting are different (for their nature we treat even the discussions outside our school as reliable); so that the reasoned state of capacity to act is different from the reasoned state of capacity to make. Hence too they are not included one in the other; for neither is acting making nor is making acting. Now since architecture is an art and is essentially a reasoned state of capacity to make, and there is neither any art that is not such a state nor any such state that is not an art, art is identical with a state of capacity to make, involving a true course of reasoning. All art is concerned with coming into being, i.e. with contriving and considering how something may come into being which is capable of either being or not being, and whose origin is in the maker and not in the thing made; for art is concerned neither with things that are, or come into being, by necessity, nor with things that do so in accordance with nature (since these have their origin in themselves). Making and acting being different, art must be a matter of making, not of acting. And in a sense chance and art are concerned with the same objects; as Agathon says, ‘art loves chance and chance loves art’. Art, then, as has been said, is a state concerned with making, involving a true course of reasoning, and lack of art on the contrary is a state concerned with making, involving a false course of reasoning; both are concerned with the variable. (Nicomachean Ethics Book VI, ch. 4)

This passage provides Aristotle’s definition of techne, distinguishing it particularly from phronesis which is concerned with human action rather than production. But it also illuminates the idea that arts have their originators, and their traditions, their schools of thought, if you will, that are very much situated in time and place. 

This understanding of arts is well embodied in the Renaissance fresco painting on the Spanish chapel of Santa Maria Novella, which depicts the captain figures of various arts and theological sciences, as well as an angelic representation of the art to replace a pagan god or goddess. Charlotte Mason found inspiration from this fresco (and John Ruskin’s exposition of it) for her Great Recognition that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate source of all that is true, good and beautiful in these man-made traditions. For our purposes, the significance of the “captain figure” is that he is the originator of a tradition. Even if others in the tradition added new insights and methods—as of course Euclid did not perfect for all time the art of geometry—nevertheless the originator or master proponent of the art stands at the fountainhead of a tradition of artistic wisdom. 

In a similar way, the end of Genesis chapter 4 tells of Jabal, the originator of the art of keeping livestock, of Jubal, the originator of the arts of lyre- and pipe-playing and of Tubal-cain, the originator of the arts of bronze- and iron-working (see Gen 4:20-22). These human arts had a beginning, an originator, and a tradition of proper artistry associated with them. The apprenticeship process regularly occurred in families or clans that passed on this tradition of craftsmanship in the bonded relationship of father to son, mother to daughter. That is why these figures in Genesis 4 are called the father of all who practice those arts. The goal of such apprenticeship was mastery of the traditional skills, rules, and creative processes, embodied as a holistic way of life passed on from one’s ancestors. 

For Aristotle then, artistry as an educational goal is not an abstract intellectual skill, like the objectives of analysis, synthesis, application or evaluation from Bloom’s Taxonomy. Instead, artistry must always have a qualifying area or ‘subject’ that is traditional in nature. Mastering the art of navigation, for instance, constitutes a situated set of complex skills that experienced navigators had charted out over the course of generations, using what knowledge and tools were available to them to accomplish the desired goal of sailing from one place to another. The art of navigation is thus necessarily historically and culturally situated. When a pilot in the navy learns navigation today, he learns a very different set of sub-skills than that of a sailor in the ancient Mediterranean. 

As new technologies are developed, new techne adapt to the new circumstances. Traditions of craftsmanship are continually being updated, honed and passed on to the next generation (or else abandoned entirely), but they are not fixed entities. The tradition of navigation is fluid, changing with the winds of societal structures, goals and technologies. It might seem obvious, but landlocked people groups do not develop a rich tradition of craftsmanship in navigation.  

The upshot of this insight is to call into question the objectivism of Bloom’s taxonomy. A student cannot become a master of analysis; he must learn to analyze a particular thing, within a tradition of insight about that thing, in a way that suits the goals of a broader human project. An apprentice navigator can learn to analyze the clouds and the feeling of the wind, can become sensitive to a drop in barometric pressure that anticipates the coming of a storm, so that he can direct the sailors in taking preparatory measures to safely weather the onslaught. But this ability, this artistry of his, if you will, is unlikely to transfer to the analysis of a farmer deciding when to plant or harvest his crops. We cannot train a student to have general craftsmanship, like we can teach him general knowledge (that is, not unless we mean apprenticing him in the basics of a host of common crafts, which might in fact be desirable…). We can only train a student in a particular artistic tradition. 

I should not be heard, however, as endorsing a postmodern relativism that drops all standards of excellence or measures of conformity to truth. Rather, it is in recognizing the situatedness of the arts that we can consistently affirm the transcendence of truth, goodness and beauty themselves. Human artistry points toward but never encompasses transcendental wisdom. Moreover, the arts must always interact productively with the world as it is, which is why Aristotle’s definition of artistry as “a state of capacity to make, involving a true course of reasoning” is so brilliant. As an intellectual virtue, craftsmanship must involve a conformity of the mind to truth, to the way things really are, in the making of whatever product is intended. It cannot be a wish-fulfillment, but must actually produce the intended result in the world, given the constraints of the materials and processes. The artist’s intention must come to birth in the product. Arts are both traditional and truthful.

But human beings do not always like to make the same sorts of things. Styles of buildings change, just as do styles of speeches, poems, and the like. Of course, each area of human craftsmanship can also develop a better awareness of the nature of reality (the corresponding science), such that medical practitioners today can diagnose and treat ailments much more effectively (or should we say excellently…) than the ancients. This is why the distinction between purposeful and deliberate practice is so helpful, because we should know the nature of the pathway we are trying to lead our students on. Is this a paved road or a jungle trek that we are embarking upon? The answer may depend on the time and place, as well as the exact art we are trying to cultivate excellence in. Artistry and craftsmanship are culturally and historically situated.

A Fivefold Division of the Arts

The situatedness of the arts lays a crucial foundation for the classical Christian renewal movement. And that is because it will be very easy for those who turn back to forget to look forward. What I mean is that looking back at the historical traditions, whether of the liberal arts, the fine arts or the common arts, does not provide us with the answers we need for developing these traditions in the modern era. Recovering the traditions of the past necessarily involves updating and developing them in accordance with our new cultural and historical situation. 

Up to this point, the classical renewal movement has focused its attention on the recovery of various arts: the trivium as stages (Wilson via Sayers), then language arts sub-skills and the quadrivium (Littlejohn and Evans), then the liberal arts tradition culminating in philosophy and theology as well as early training in piety, gymnastic and music (Clark and Jain), and now the common arts (see Chris Hall’s recent Common Arts Education). Of course, classical Christian schools have always valued the fine and performing arts, as well as athletics and sports, to the extent possible in their growing schools. The recovery of historical traditions in the arts have arguably been the first steps in restoring the intellectual virtue of artistry or craftsmanship to our list of educational objectives. And these steps backward have been valuable indeed. 

But in and of themselves these backward steps do not answer the question of exactly what types of artistry to aim at in our schools. And while I cannot answer this question for individual schools, as it is a matter of culture and calling, raising the issue will help to justify offering my own five fold division of the arts, when others have proposed only three. 

Techne — Artistry or craftsmanship

1. Athletics, games and sports
2. Common and domestic arts
3. Professions and trades
4. Fine and performing arts
5. The liberal arts of language and number

The Liberal Arts Tradition and the Status of Athletics, Games and Sports

In their description of the liberal arts, Kevin Clark and Ravi Jain distinguish between arts and sciences in a way that accords with the Aristotelian tradition of intellectual virtues, even if they focus more on objectified ‘subjects’, rather than the subjective and traditionally defined artistry of Aristotle. Their comments on an art as imitation joined with reason are spot on for all the later followers of an artistic tradition (even if not for the originator who discovered it):

The ancients and medievals had clear distinctions between imitation, art, and science. All things, whether poems, statues, or swords, were made by either imitation or art. A science, on the other hand, was a body of knowledge organized by the principles of demonstrative reason, requiring a knowledge of causes but producing nothing on its own—the knowledge was enough. A science could thus describe any such body of knowledge. Subjects as diverse as ethics and mechanics could be described as sciences. The arts were different. One of the ancient patterns in education was that imitation precedes art. An art could only be attained from an extensive foundation in action and imitation forming cultivated habits. Thus, to learn the art of the blacksmith, one would have to imitate a blacksmith for a time. To learn the art of the lyre, one had to practice it imitatively. But an art required more than simply imitation. An art arose only when imitation was joined with reason. In De Musica, Augustine clarifies that a songbird can sing beautifully through imitation and instinct, but because it has no reason, it cannot sing by art…. It is particularly an art that joins imitation with reason in order to produce something. An art is the nexus between imitation and science, the former being only in the body and the latter being only in the mind. (LAT 40)

This passage is foundational for explaining to modern educators the classical distinction between an art and a science. However, one Aristotelian distinction that Clark and Jain do not maintain is between the types of reasoning engaged by man as maker, doer and knower. Because of this, their line between artistry and scientific knowledge is not as clear and bold as it is for Aristotle. The challenge with their treatment is that it blurs the boundary in a way that arguably still privileges knowledge over practice, when for Aristotle only a “bare knowledge” is necessary for artistry (see Nic. Ethics II.4). The reasoning of craftsmanship must be true, but it is not therefore a possession of scientific knowledge, which would be a separate intellectual virtue for Aristotle. 

The only reason why I would hesitantly venture to criticize such brilliant friends and luminaries of our movement is the importance of placing the liberal arts firmly back in the category of artistry or craftsmanship, when they have been watered down into ‘subjects’ of general knowledge for so long. I also deliberately do not limit them to seven in number following the canonical mode, because the divisions and natural developments of the tradition are matters that should be up for discussion as we recover them for the modern era. Should algebra and calculus be added to the quadrivium? Would grammar be better subdivided into Phonics, Spelling, Reading and Grammar? While it is handy to maintain 3s and 7s for symbolic and numerological reasons, there may be downsides to this division for modern proponents of the tradition that outweigh the benefits. We can still speak and act in a way that is continuous with the tradition, while accounting for appropriate developments of the tradition. 

In Clark and Jain’s liberal arts tradition paradigm, they account for athletics and sports under the ancient title of gymnastic education, and the fine and performing arts under the rubric of musical education. In their 2nd edition, they account for the common and fine arts briefly in their discussion of curriculum near the end of the book, no doubt in dialogue with Chris Hall: “To the arts that produce knowledge of the truth (liberal arts), and those that serve the common good of embodied life (common arts), it is necessary to name a third category, namely the arts that produce works of beauty” (LAT 251). Admittedly their three fold paradigm of liberal, common and fine arts is incredibly attractive for how it gestures toward the transcendental triad of truth, goodness and beauty:

As we consider these three categories of arts in their relation to the classical triad of the true, the good, and the beautiful, a wonderful picture of their mutual relevance and interdependence opens before our eyes. As the body derives life from the soul, the common arts flourish through application of the liberal arts of mathematics and language. Because wisdom is gained in service, the common arts provide the context for transforming the knowledge gained through the liberal arts into wisdom. Work and wisdom go hand in hand. Similarly, the liberal and the common arts provide the material for the arts of the beautiful—the language for poetry, the brushes and pigments for painting, the mathematical proportions for singing—but they are subsequently transformed by them. By being placed in the service of beauty, the linguistic subtleties honed by the arts of grammar and rhetoric transform into a sonnet, while the principles of architecture and geometry become the flying buttresses and vaulted ceilings of the cathedral. Beauty becomes the splendor of truth and the radiance of the good. Like the art of the winemaker transforms the juice of grapes to a fine wine, the arts of the beautiful transform the knowledge of the truth and service of the good into captivating and glorious works of art. (LAT 253)

The intertwined nature of the arts is peculiarly beautiful here; nevertheless, it is worth pressing the bounds of these categories. For instance, what is to prevent various forms of athletic feats and sporting events from qualifying as arts of the beautiful, or providing us with the good things of life? Does Roger Bannister’s four minute mile or the performance of an elite gymnast not merit the title of artistry? Certainly elite athletic performances can both gesture toward the beautiful and the good, through the illustration of exquisite teamwork or simply the fact of hitting a target with precision. After all, many sports and games derived from skills needed for common arts like hunting and armament. These sports, therefore, rehearse and celebrate the excellence of human ability in providing for the goods of life with such splendor as to rise to the level of beauty and glory. 

It might be objected that athletics, games and sports are not themselves productive arts. What after all do they produce? But this is to forget the very case of the liberal or performing arts themselves. In what way does a ballet dance differ from a gymnastic performance really? Both are ephemeral (that is, apart from the technology of video recording), but the beautiful performance in time and space for an audience is itself the ‘artifact’ created. The same can be said of every sport or game, whether competitive or not. Cannot a fireworks show be a work of art? And yet it too appears and passes in a span of seconds leading into minutes. No, athletics, games and sports deserve their own category under the intellectual virtue of techne. 

Common Arts Education and the Professions and Trades

Having established the place of athletics, games and sports, I do not perhaps need to argue for the inclusion of performing arts along with fine arts as this is a fairly standard pairing in contemporary culture and schooling in particular. What we must still discuss is the inclusion of professions and trades as separate from common and domestic arts. In his marvelous book Common Arts Education: Renewing the Classical Tradition of Training the Hands, Head, and Heart (CAP 2021), Chris Hall defines the common arts this way:

Common arts are the skills that provide for basic human needs through the creation of artifacts or the provision of services. We need to eat, drink, build shelters, defend ourselves, bargain with others, maintain our health, work raw materials into various forms, and repair artifacts that are broken. The common arts run the gamut of the skills necessary to meet those needs. (31)

He goes on to cite the lists of Hugh of Saint Victor (fabric-making, armament, commerce, agriculture, hunting, medicine, theatrics) and John Scotus Eriugena (architecture, trade, cooking, navigation) for support of this description (31). His own list, detailed throughout the book, is slightly more extensive, including agriculture, architecture, trade, tailoring and weaving, metalworking, woodworking, leatherworking, stonemasonry, navigation, medicine, cooking, armament and hunting, and animal husbandry. 

Before defending my own divisions, I would note that Hall’s method of developing the tradition regarding common arts is perfectly reasonable in its own right. The fact that he does not include theatrics fits with his own definition, and only navigation sits on the edge of his description, since it does not seem to provide for basic human needs, unless it is seen as an offshoot of trade. Hall is to be commended for putting these arts back on the map and his practical guide to restoring the training of the hands as a crucial element of the classical tradition of education, especially pre-Industrial revolution. 

In favor of further dividing his category of common arts is the fact that there are at least two ways of understanding the designation ‘common’. The first is the equivalent of ancient designation and probably Hugh of St Victor’s as well, that these arts are ‘vulgar’ or ‘common’ in the sense of having lesser status relative to the liberal and fine arts. They are non-special arts, the skill-sets of common people vs. the nobility. It thus represents the class distinctions of the ancient and medieval world. Another way of understanding the designation would be that these arts are common among the general populace of a particular culture. They are complex skills that it would be helpful for the general person to have proficiency in, whether for mere subsistence or for enjoying the finer blessings of life. In many times and places, the basic skills of hunting, agriculture, tailoring and weaving, house-building, working in metal, wood or leather, cooking and care for animals would have been common in this sense. And many of these common arts have taken us beyond “basic needs” and into the experience of luxury and abundance.

Of course, for thousands of years, most of these arts have also had their professionals and specialists, who followed a more elaborate tradition of apprenticeship and could produce higher quality and more difficult goods and services that the average person could not. Often these professions and trades would utilize more challenging skills related to the liberal arts of language and number in order to practice their craft at a high level of technical accomplishment. Typically we would use the term ‘professions and trades’ to refer to these more refined skill-sets. Common and domestic arts could then refer to skills in more general use to produce the goods commonly developed in the home or farm. 

Since we have recognized that the arts are culturally and historically situated, it becomes more helpful to differentiate between the professions and trades of a culture and the common and domestic arts, which can be cultivated without the benefit of elaborate certification. Historical professions and trades, like woodworking, metalworking and architecture, might find their place in the modern world under different names and functional descriptions, like contractor, electrician and HVAC specialist. But many of the basic subdivisions of those historical trades could feature as educational objectives in the common and domestic arts, since they could be useful to the modern household or homestead. They may no longer be common attainments in contemporary culture, but they could still be commonly useful. Likewise, craftsmanship in a modern profession or trade is a legitimate educational goal, and it is practically necessary to distinguish this from general craftsmanship in common and domestic arts.

What then is the benefit of recovering the common and domestic arts as educational goals in a world of specialization and mechanization? Chris Hall summarizes it admirably:

Similarly, the common arts appeared to suffer from distortions proportional and connected to those the liberal and fine arts seemed to endure. Because we came to outsource the meeting of our basic needs, we drifted into a utilitarian view for these as well. We earned so that we could pay for goods and services, so that we did not have to make or see to them ourselves. That freed up a lot of time, bolstered an economy, and furthered our specialization and mass production. It also left us at least one step removed from some of the skills that would allow us to meet our baseline embodied needs, and at arm’s length from the very sources of our food, clothes, defense, and other vital elements of our survival….

As the old models of apprenticeship were displaced and lost, the arts themselves suffered from the loss of traditional wisdom. Apprenticeship, let’s say in woodworking, used to involve assignments and experiments, time on task under the tutelage of a master. That experience involved hands-on practice in the proper use of tools, materials, and technique. The common arts that provide a service, like trade, involved experience in the arts of situational and material appraisal, and effective communication. (46)

In our day and age, the recovery of craftsmanship with the hands may be one of the most countercultural moves in education. Thus we find value in the five fold division of Aristotle’s techne into A) athletics, games and sports, B) common and domestic arts, C) professions and trades, D) fine and performing arts, and E) the liberal arts of language and number. But this all does not answer the pressing educational questions of which arts to train our students in at which points in their educational journey, and in what ways. 

In the next article, we will discuss a general method for training in the arts, the difference that it makes to designate artistry or craftsmanship as educational objectives in our Aristotelian taxonomy of intellectual virtues, and how we can discern which arts to cultivate in our classical Christian schools and home schools.

Earlier Articles in this series:

1. Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Purpose of Education

2. Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Importance of Objectives: 3 Blessings of Bloom’s

3. Breaking Down the Bad of Bloom’s: The False Objectivity of Education as a Modern Social Science

4. When Bloom’s Gets Ugly: Cutting the Heart Out of Education

5. What Bloom’s Left Out: A Comparison with Aristotle’s Intellectual Virtues

6. Aristotle’s Virtue Theory and a Christian Purpose of Education

7. Moral Virtue and the Intellectual Virtue of Artistry or Craftsmanship

8. Practicing in the Dark or the Day: Well-worn Paths or Bushwalking, Artistry and Moral Virtue Continued

Later articles:

10. Apprenticeship in the Arts, Part 2: A Pedagogy of Craft

11. Apprenticeship in the Arts, Part 3: Crafting Lessons in Artistry

12. Apprenticeship in the Arts, Part 4: Artistry, the Academy and the Working World

13. Apprenticeship in the Arts, Part 5: Structuring the Academy for Christian Artistry

14. Apprenticeship in the Arts, Part 6: The Transcendence and Limitations of Artistry

The post Apprenticeship in the Arts, Part 1: Traditions and Divisions appeared first on .

In light of potential parallels between the transformative effects of the Black Death and Coronavirus, I put forward several ways in which we might see shifts in society today. First, we ought to be prepared for society to change in dramatic ways. Second, we should anticipate new interest in spiritual matters. And third, we should expect that our educational renewal movement with its emphasis on truth derived from the great books of Western society will be a guiding light in a post-pandemic world.

After a year of schooling during the pandemic, we may now be seeing light at the end of the tunnel. Although I am an optimistic person by nature, my disposition toward the end of the pandemic is, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Yet, if we are nearing the end of hybrid learning, mask wearing, health screening and vaccinations, perhaps now is a good time to take stock of insights gained during a crazy year. Here I offer three insights from doing school for a year during the Covid pandemic. Then I suggest three ways we can be prepared for what I’m predicting will be an educational Renaissance.

Technology Cannot Replace Good Education

There were already many online educational platforms before the pandemic. When schools went completely remote in Spring 2020, new technologies sprang into place to enable online, remote learning. Programs like Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams allowed teachers to meet with students, set up breakout rooms, and share content away from brick-and-mortar schoolhouses. My school has a reputation for being low tech; really low tech. And yet we pivoted on a dime, devoting three days to teacher training to show them how to use Zoom effectively to lead their classes. When we returned to classes in the fall, our school offered hybrid learning. Families could choose to remain remote. Every classroom was set up to have students join via Microsoft Teams, through which assignments could be distributed to in-person and remote students.

The use of technology to meet the needs of education during the pandemic did much to provide a holistic appraisal of the value of a technology-based overhaul to education. What we learned is that education has largely operated as it ever has. The application of different technologies really didn’t revolutionize education at all. Instead, it tended to reveal disparities in different kinds of schools. Inner city and rural schools were impacted by a lack of devices in homes, especially those with multiple children, or a lack of internet connectivity. Technology did little to address the educational needs of low-income families. Even though one could sign up for a free Zoom account, one still needs a device and quality internet access to participate in remote schooling.

Technology has a tendency to expose good and bad teaching. I have heard many classical Christian schools gaining more widespread reputations for quality education while public schools have been slated for a lack of quality. One reason for this is that parents can sit beside their children during remote learning. Increased access means increased scrutiny. An influx of new admissions at classical schools is due to a growing dissatisfaction with what’s on offer at conventional schools.

Instead of a revolution, we are primed to experience a renewal. Parents, students, and teachers alike are ready for a return to “normal” schooling. For those of us in the classical Christian schooling movement, that means a return from this influx of devices and screen time. In our educational renewal movement, we need to emphasize all the more our distinctives of value-rich education, personal formation and physical presence. Reading actual books and discussing them in the classroom is so important, and the marketplace is primed to find value in what we offer like never before.

Physical Presence is Essential for a Good Education

The experiment in remote learning during Covid has also shown that being physically present in a classroom is so important for holistic learning. One of the challenges of remote learning has been the disconnectedness of students. When a child joins a 45-minute class with the video feed ending when class is done, the child can’t participate in non-instructional time like a snack break or recess. These moments are equally part of the educational environment, providing training in relational and emotional skills. Even during instructional time, remote students seem to have greater difficulty participating in discussion and debate. Technology provides access to the classroom, but it also stands in the way of full participation. For one, it is impossible to see an entire class on one screen. Audio is frequently a problem, making it so that key points in discussion are lost. It is so much harder to stay motivated and attentive when accessing a learning environment through a laptop screen.

Theologically, we know that being physically present with one another is better than being in isolation from one another. The author of Hebrews calls us believers to not forsake meeting together (Heb. 10:25). While this pertains to Christians gathering for worship and scriptural instruction, it points to the benefits we share when we enjoy fellowship with one another. Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes in his book Life Together:

“It is true, of course, that what is an unspeakable gift of God for the lonely individual is easily disregarded and trodden under foot by those who have the gift every day. It is easily forgotten that the fellowship of Christian brethren is a gift of grace, a gift of the Kingdom of God that any day may be taken from us, that the time that still separates us from utter loneliness may be brief indeed.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, pg. 20

We are not meant to be alone. I think this is true in an educational sense as well. I don’t mean to say that the individual doesn’t bear a certain amount of responsibility. But when we have groups of students in classrooms, the sum is greater than the parts. This is not only true in group activities, but there is a sense of accountability and mutual care that is gained when learning amongst others even when doing individual work. Teachers are able to be present with students to “lend strength” in their weakness to instill habits of virtues.

As we return to normal classroom life, we must be mindful of how powerful the atmosphere of learning is. Being together, while important, is not the chief end of education. Charlotte Mason explores how several different stimuli detract from the most powerful of the desires we should cultivate: the love of knowledge. She writes:

“It will be said with truth that most children delight in school; they delight in the stimulus of school life, in the social stir of companionship; they are emulous, eager for reward and praise; they enjoy the thousand lawful interests of school life, including the attractive personality of such and such a teacher; but it seems doubtful whether the love of knowledge, in itself and for itself; is usually a powerful motive with the young scholar. The matter is important, because, of all the joyous motives of school life, the love of knowledge is the only abiding one; the only one which determines the scale, so to speak, upon which the person will hereafter live.”

Charlotte Mason, School Education, pg. 245-246

When the disruption of our school atmospheres, either through remote learning or social distancing, comes to an end, we can create a false delight in school through an emphasis on school furniture, recess or just being physically together. The true value of life together is not actually the stimulation of being with other people. Instead, it is to enjoy the love of knowledge with others. Schools that have no love of knowledge suffered tremendously during remote learning. Why attend classes? Why turn the camera on? Why participate? The stimulus of the classroom was gone, and there was no true love of knowledge to sustain the children. But when we have cultivated a true love of knowledge, we can truly sustain the life of the mind remotely, during social distancing, and most especially when we return to normal classrooms.

Masks, My Friends, Seem to Work

How is it that masks have become so politicized? I myself have no interest in addressing the politics that have cropped up around mask wearing. It really is a shame the extent to which everything has become political (by which we no longer mean matters concerning policies of state, but whether a person toes a given party line). Yes, I am bringing up masks, but I merely do so to make a simple observation. Masks, my friends, seem to work.

I don’t know the science of the matter. I only know anecdotally that in our school that enacted a policy of mask wearing throughout the school year, we had very few students absent due to the flu or colds. Attendance was outstanding this year. I myself didn’t get sick at all, that is until mask requirements started to go away late this spring. In looking for an explanation for this, it occurred to me that mask wearing actually helped us to mitigate the transmission of just about everything that interrupts the flow of the school year.

Now, I honestly don’t know what to do with this information. It could be that we enjoyed a wild year with mask wearing and just so happened to reduce the number of cold and flu symptoms. Perhaps masks will become so hated that we will never again enjoy the absence of the cold and flu. Alternatively, our society might become slightly more comfortable with masks as has happened in other cultures. Voluntary mask wearing seems to be a way to show kindness to others to stop or slow the transmission of disease. Again, I’m not sure what to think about all that we’ve learned about masks, but I imagine in the aftermath of Covid, discussions about masks won’t entirely go away.

Being Ready for the Renaissance

As I listen to friends and family, the impact of Covid on schools has been dramatic. Conventional schooling did not show itself to be nearly as adept as expected. If anything, remote learning revealed all the more the shortcomings of progressive education. More and more parents are questioning the “normal” school options. The uptick of interest at my school might be an outlier, but I sense that the classical Christian school movement will get a closer look from parents who have become dissatisfied with the education on offer during Covid. What can we do to be ready?

First, we need to double down on our identity as an educational alternative. The temptation, particularly for small schools desperately trying to grow, is to look and sound like the big schools with all the bells and whistles. It is not the programs that make for a quality education. It is a love of knowledge based on great ideas drawn from great books. That’s what our educational renewal movement is based on. That’s what we need to stick to.

Second, we need to take our message to the market. For the longest time I was skeptical about marketing. Having taught Logic, I thought of marketing as synonymous with advertising, which is rife with logical fallacies employed to mislead and manipulate customers. What I learned, though, about marketing is that the marketplace – your area of influence – needs to learn accurate information about who you are. What are your values? What is the distinctive approach to education you offer? How does your school benefit students and families? I realized that marketing in these terms was simply teaching. Now my classroom was not the four walls inside the school, it is the entire western suburbs of Chicago. I could help someone truly understand what we offer at our school. So, come up with a simple marketing plan. Post pictures of students in classrooms on social media. Write blog articles. Invite people to small-group coffees in the neighborhoods where your current families live. The more you educate your market about what makes you distinctive, the more you will attract families who are missionally aligned with you.

Finally, we need to be clear on our boundaries. As more and more families turn from conventional education, the more we need to clarify the policies that are non-negotiable. This requires effective board structures and workflows. Schools are best served by delineated standards for admissions and community culture. If your school is weak on policy, now is the time to start writing policy. If your school has good policy, set a schedule for reviewing policy, ensuring that faculty and staff are aligning practices with policy.

I think the future is bright for classical Christian education. Even though our educational renewal movement has been around over a quarter century, it really feels like we are primed to experience a new influx of interest. Let’s keep this educational Renaissance spreading!

The post After the Black Death . . . What? appeared first on .

In order to escape the technological addiction that has mystified the 21st century, it is not enough to take smartphones, laptops, and video streaming services away. They must be replaced with something better. Something deeper. Something more satisfying.

In this blog, I will put forward one compelling alternative to digital saturation. It isn’t the only alternative, nor is it a sufficient one. But it is necessary. Here I have in mind cultivating the intellectual life. By this I mean the world of story and imagination. Thoughts and ideas. Concepts and principles. The life of the mind. 

The Road to Recovery

Sadly, like some prehistoric species, the intellectual life is all but extinct in some minds. I don’t mean this in a condemning sense. It is merely a diagnosis. We have become so acquainted to consuming that the idea of cultivating the intellect sounds incredulous. At best, it sounds boring. Why think when one can switch to auto-pilot?

In theory, people are first taught to cultivate an intellectual life in school. Or are they? For most of us, school was a pragmatic transaction from day one. First-graders may be six, but they are not dull. Their social acumen is developed enough to pick up on what matters in the classroom. The usual suspects include grades, prizes, and teacher-approval. 

Imagine, however, if the first day of school was an orientation to cultivating the life of the mind. No talk of a syllabus, grade criteria, or course objectives. Instead, the teacher begins by comparing one’s mind to a garden. Gardens don’t pop into existence weed-free and fruit-bearing. They must be tended, weeded, watered, and cultivated. As does the mind. The intentional teacher, dedicated to her craft, inspires her students to cultivate an Eden in order to discover that the labor is its own reward.

People coming from schools who implement traditionally modern methods to motivate learning may struggle to cultivate the intellectual life at first. “What will I get out of it?”, “This is boring”, and “I would rather do something else” are all common reactions. But if one can move beyond these initial obstructions, there is hope for recovering interest in intellectual matters. It will take time and effort, but it is possible.

The Importance of Self-Feeding

Once the intellectual life is conceived, it requires self-feeding for sustenance. This is the brilliant insight of educator Charlotte Mason. She insisted that the life of the mind will die if it remains dependent upon the sustenance of others. This is because the mind is like an organism, a living thing that needs to take care of itself. A nascent organism that depends on other organisms will be parasitical at best and fizzle out at worst. It is up to each individual to cultivate the life of the mind through feeding it regularly.

How does one feed the intellect?

This may sound surprising to some but reading, generally speaking, is not the precise answer. There are two reasons for this. First, not all books nourish the mind in the same way. Tech addiction is one major obstruction for cultivating the intellectual life and another is a diet of shallow books. Stories that are morally vacuous, sensationalistic, and stylistically weak fall into this category. These books won’t nourish the intellect any more than a sugar-glazed donut will nourish the physical body (even if it tastes good).

Good books must be chosen for self-feeding and, subsequently, they must be chewed upon. This is the second reason that reading is not, generally speaking, a sufficient path to the self-nourished intellectual life. Our minds need to act upon that which has been read. They need to do something with the knowledge that has been encountered. How often do we read something, probably too quickly, and try to recall it later with no success? We never gave our minds time to assimilate, or digest, that which has been encountered.

For Charlotte Mason, narration is the ideal way for students to assimilate knowledge. Give children the opportunity to narrate the text without looking back, after a single-reading, and the process for self-feeding begins. The mind comes alive as it processes in real-time what it ingested moments ago. The ideas of the text become part of the mind of the student. 

Making Time for Quiet

To cultivate the intellectual life , one must first recover and nourish it. Then one must sustain it intentionally. 17th century polymath Blaise Pascal famously wrote, “All of man’s problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” Pascal’s observation is more than relevant for us today as we inhabit this present age of distraction. Technology is one contributing factor for incessant distraction, as I have already suggested.

Another factor is that most of us live in suburbs or cities. We are surrounded by people, pets, activities, stores, restaurants, and things to do. It is very difficult to find a place that is quiet and unoccupied. Professionally speaking, our work may not be physically laborious, but it mentally exhausting. And more often than not, our personal lives provide no respite. We are constantly on the go, bumping into people and things like electrons.

The solution to such mental crowdedness in order to sustain the mind is to carve out space for solitude. To be sure, minds can be nourished in social settings. Engaging thought-provoking questions, spirited debate, and penetrating discussion are all worthwhile intellectual activities. But the mind also needs time alone with no immediate distractions. It needs time to slow down, process, and reflect. It needs time to be alone.

Of course, this is easier said than done. Most of us begin feeling antsy after sitting still with no distraction for more than a few minutes. Our minds grow nervous, eager for something new to seize our attention. In reality, however, what the mind needs, even if it doesn’t realize it, is space to think. Perhaps surprisingly, making time for the mind to work brings unexpected rest.

The Benefit of Such a Life

Despite what has been written thus far, some readers may continue to struggle to see the value of the intellectual life. “What benefits will it bring?” they will wonder. “How will this support my personal advancement?” 

Questions like these miss the mark. To be sure, there is productive value in the intellectual life. I have already alluded to some examples. The nourished intellect, on average, will be more resilient than one that has been depleted. It will be more efficient in work settings. It will more effectively grapple with everyday problems. 

But here lies the paradox. The real benefit of the intellectual life is the joy of learning. One in pursuit of a nourished intellect for the sake of external benefits will eventually fizzle out. The work will grow too difficult and the benefits will no longer be perceived as worth it. Joy must accompany the process for the intellectual life to remain viable.

The good news, though, is that there is grace. As humans, we often begin our pursuit of good things for wrong, or imperfect, reasons. But amidst these mixed motivations, God can use these moments to transform us. He graciously conforms us to His image, revealing to us the goodness of Himself and the eternal reward of life with Him. When it comes to cultivating the life of the mind, we pray for God to reveal truth to us through the Holy Spirit and shape our affections to desire it and Him more and more.

Conclusion

As the apostle Paul writes in his closing remarks to the Philippians:

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you (Phil. 4: 8-9 ESV).

Amidst the busyness we all face in the modern world, may we make time for the intellectual life, reflecting on what is true, honorable, lovely, and just. Ultimately, as we engage in such reflection, may our minds turn to Him who is the manifestation of all these, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word who became flesh.

Recommended Reading:

Mind to Mind: An Essay Towards a Philosophy of Education by Charlotte Mason and Karen Glass

Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pense’es by Blaise Pascal and Peter Kreeft

Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport

Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster

The post Rest for the Weary: On Cultivating the Intellectual Life appeared first on .