Classical Schools and the Generational Struggle with Technology

Perhaps the most helpful acknowledgment toward understanding the very real challenges that we face with technology is that our schools are governed and managed by Boomers II and Gen X who hire Gen X and Gen Y educators to teach Gen Z students whose parents are Gen X/Y and whose grandparents are Boomers I/II. Each generation uses, responds to and feels differently about technology, and keeping it all straight could be someone’s full time job!

An interesting read for Classical Christian Educators is What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly. His basic message is that technology is an irresistible (almost organic) force in our culture that is neither inherently good nor evil. It is up to us to interact with and use technology in ways that genuinely enhance learning, build community and effectively further Christ’s kingdom.

But, there is within the classical mindset a natural resistance to technology – and with good reason. However, given that Gen Z has never known the relatively tech-free world that parents and educators remember, we risk relegation to irrelevance and obscurity, even the death of a movement, if we are not informed, proactive and strategic in our technology policies and practices.

This is not about content. It is about a medium. Sheer exposure to (much more, immersion in) the new technologies forms the brain differently and, if unchecked, can actually limit the ability to learn through traditional means. At the very least, technology is profoundly changing the way our students learn. Ultimately, we must choose between meeting students where they are and facing dramatically declining enrollment.

We’ve long known about learning modalities, and that different students learn best through visual, auditory or kinesthetic modes. The most effective educator will “pitch” the lesson to all three “kinds of learners” while purposefully developing all three learning styles in each student. Developing skill is as important as gaining knowledge. If we haven’t prepared the visual learner for the still predominately auditory world of the college classroom, we have failed him. A similar approach to technology must now be layered upon the many responsibilities that today’s teachers juggle.

Communication

Our schools send letters, annual reports, donor requests, newsletters, report cards, transcripts and thank you notes via US mail. Some recipients love and depend on this form of communication while others simply pile it with the bills, magazines and junk mail until it is convenient to toss it (unread) into the nearest trash bin. Teachers may send class calendars, assignments and announcements home in homework folders, but increasing numbers of two-income and single-parent families would rather read it online.

Email, phone and even text broadcasts are becoming standard, resulting in conflicting complaints of too much or too little communication and the occasional request to “take me off your broadcast list.” Some stakeholders cleverly create unique email accounts for school communications, which can then be conveniently ignored. Meanwhile, individual email communication is beginning to consume an inordinate amount of time for teachers and principals, adding to the burden of teaching and increasing the likelihood of misunderstanding and professional burnout.

Additionally, most schools are adopting administrative software and/or website portals with individual teacher blog, dropbox and calendar capabilities to manage everything from lesson plans to athletic game cancellations. Each system has its limitations, and few schools are truly happy with what they are using. “To push or not to push” is becoming the new Shakespearean expression.

How people want to receive and process their information varies greatly with lifestyle and generation. And with increasing consumerism and a struggling economy, the savvy school will endeavor to communicate with stakeholders according to their individual preferences as much as possible.

Instruction

Among the unfortunate misconceptions that conventional educators and the popular media have cultivated among today’s parents is that student access to technology in the classroom guarantees better learning. A Christian school in our area is advertising that every 4th-12th grade student is provided a MacBook, and every K-3 classroom is equipped with a SmartBoard. Really? I suspect this is more about market pressures than pedagogy, and it may be the easier route to take than educating prospective parents in the genuine educational benefits of limiting technology in the classroom.

But, the reality, substantiated by educational research, is that computers in the hands of students (especially young students) are often a distraction from learning. At many, if not most, conventional schools computers have taken the place of the film as the latest version of in-class baby sitters, freeing teachers from the burdensome responsibility of actually teaching.

Further, technology in the hands of teachers, improperly used, can also hinder learning. While, Power Point can be a tremendous teaching tool, reading slide- after-slide of sentences can be even more effective at putting students to sleep than a dry lecture alone. Worse still is the time so often wasted when technology doesn’t work. Precious minutes slip by while a teacher (or his students) fiddles with buttons and cables, hoping that something he does will help the lesson begin or resume.

But, when properly understood and utilized as a tool to enhance teaching and learning, technology can elevate instruction to a whole new level while meeting Gen Z students “where they are.” Static or dynamic projection of a live Internet feed via LCD or SmartBoard can absolutely bring Art, History, Science and current events to life. And, while “feature-length” films will bore Gen Z, a brief YouTube clip on any of thousands of topics can capture their interest and imagination. Or Air Playing an excerpt from an iBook (iPad to monitor) can turn static textbook images, illustrations and graphs into interactive experiences. And, the creative use of a website or app can demonstrate in minutes what ordinarily takes a whole class period or a field trip in some academic disciplines.

The key, as with any tool, is that technology should be one among several methods used for effective instruction. The teacher who tethers himself to the keyboard and gives up hands-on activities, class discussion, solving problems or diagramming sentences at the board, and getting outside now and then will be a poorer teacher for his use of technology. While technology might be part of every lesson, it should not be ALL of any lesson.

Student Use of Technology

Those attending last summer’s SCL conference in Charleston heard Susan Wise Bauer advocate teaching proper QWERTY keyboarding and Internet search skills beginning in 4th grade. Whether schools takes this advice really should depend on their strategic placement of “the grammar of computing” in their whole-school scope and sequence and not on pressures imposed by what the school down the street is doing. Performance data (theirs and ours) is the better litmus test as to who is providing the better education.

A general principle of skills placement is that we don’t hold a student responsible for a skill until we have taught it to them. And, once we have taught it to them, we should immediately begin to hold them responsible to use it so as not to let them fall out of practice.

Schools must first ask at what level they will begin to regularly require word processed and Internet search assignments. No doubt a processed assignment is easier to grade, but at what stage is it best for the student? The answer must take a number of things into consideration. Among them: Will word processing and/or computer searches require additional home time for assignments, leaving less time for other critical practice and study? Will penmanship and the developmental (tactile) benefits of handwriting suffer? Will students be properly supervised/ protected in fulfilling assigned tasks using the Internet? And, can you be sure who has done the assignment? These issues must then be weighed against the concern that waiting too late to teach proper computing skills will mean having to overcome bad habits formed through self teaching. If not by 4th grade, students should acquire these skills at least by middle school, and use them regularly thereafter.

And, what of smart devices and laptop computer use in the high school classroom? Again, Gen Z students may find greater efficiency with note-taking and class participation using their technology. Smart devices can double as sophisticated calculators, and run quick Internet searches – on the spot. Obviously, clear guidelines and accountability are essential; devices out in plain sight, ringers off, no texting, no tweeting, use as directed.

Frankly, we are probably less than two years away from having every high school text available as an iBook or on Kindle. Some very fine texts are already available. This could mean a huge savings to schools and families, could lighten the back pack load and, with cloud access from any computer or device, could mean never leaving the book at school. But as much sense as this seems to make, we are wise to manage every transition incrementally – learning what works and what doesn’t work for us in the process.

The same applies to another personal prediction that computer labs will soon be a thing of the past, as schools begin to provide “smart spaces” and “hotspots” outside the classroom for wireless student/teacher interactive learning. Such spaces will feel like Starbucks with a SmartBoard, where anyone can easily send his device’s image to the big screen for group discussion, problem solving or creative development. It is already the case at colleges and universities that 80% of learning takes place outside the classroom. The question for us, as K-12 educators, is can Gen Z high schoolers be far behind their college counterparts?

Abuse of Technology

Parenting is harder than it used to be. Generally speaking, few parents know what their kids’ devices can do, or what they are doing with them. And, adult perceptions aside, kids are often genuinely naive about appropriate use of their devices. Both need instruction and guidance from us as educators.

On the one hand, Gen Z kids are far more savvy about technology than their parents and teachers. They understand what their devices can do, how to circumvent parental controls and how to set up dummy social media accounts for their parents to monitor. On the other hand, even “good kids” are so desensitized by prime time television, the popular music culture and peer attitudes that language and topics which are highly offensive to Gen X parents are just “normal,” even seemingly innocent.

Our new challenge, as schools in the classical and biblical traditions, is to adjust our thoughts and actions when it comes to partnering with today’s parents. We must still be ever so cautious not to usurp parental authority. It remains the case that our calling is as schools – not parents/ families. But parents are, perhaps, more in need of godly wisdom and assistance from educators than ever before. It is more likely than not that a parent’s first hint that her child is into something inappropriate or dangerous will come from a school official who has discovered it through the regular “buzz” about school. I have always erred on the side of leaving too much, rather than too little, to parental authority and responsibility. But for those reasons stated above and a variety of others, including the necessity of preserving a school culture that honors Christ, I am embracing a pretty substantial paradigm shift for one who has spent 21 years in classical Christian schooling. I am arguing that whatever a student posts through any medium, whatever he or she says or claims to have done, should be addressed as though it occurred at school. Discipline should not be left to the parent, but should be meted out at school for the good of the student and the good of the school community.

Students should be instructed (and parents informed) regarding what is and what is not appropriate for “virtual living,” and students should be trained in the godly behavior of holding one another accountable for living appropriately in the physical and virtual worlds. This is especially important when it comes to what is said about fellow students and authority figures. Cyber bullying and publicly trashing one’s school are injurious to both the perpetrator and the victim of such behaviors and will quickly undermine a positive school culture if unchecked.

Although our focus is solidly upon our students, perhaps we need to take more seriously than ever the notion that our schools are responsible to educate many constituencies: students, teachers, board members, donors, our broader communities and (saving them for last) parents. Workshops on topics such as Internet Safety, Cyber Bullying, Social Media, Classical Learning: What the Data Say, When to Let Your Student Drive a Smart Device, etc… will be great for some. But, remembering the generational differences of your intended audience, it may be best to push and post headlines with clickable links to pertinent articles or, better yet, YouTube videos on these and other important topics. The more our families learn, in ways that are best for them to learn, the more our schools will enjoy the benefits of a cohesive community of faith and learning, both physically and virtually.

Human Assessment

The plural of anecdote is data.” To a great extent we have the higher education community to thank for the concept of assessment – at least as it pertains to education. Assessment became the mantra of higher education accreditation in the 1990s, leading to the generation of massive amounts of data at colleges and universities across the nation. But, what to do with all these data? That was the dilemma faced by thousands of institutions until the turn of the millennium when accrediting agencies began to realize the purpose of the data produced through assessment was institutional improvement. Suddenly, only data that were relevant to answering questions about institutional direction and strategic improvement were of value, and such data could genuinely help frame and answer questions that, in turn, could guide the improvement process.

Similarly, assessment applied to human performance (i.e., evaluation) must be improvement–focused. And, the best evidence that improvement is possible or, indeed, warranted is, likewise, data. No longer is the subjective opinion of a single supervisor, based upon the perfunctory annual (or semi-annual) visit to the classroom sufficient to convince the professional educator that improvement is necessary or important. Without data trends, corroborated by a variety of sources, the performance review process is reduced to little more than a difference of opinion, often between someone with many years of classroom experience (the reviewee) and an administrator with, perhaps, considerably less classroom experience (the reviewer).

In reality, there are numerous predictors of professional success for the contemporary independent school teacher, with mastery of subject, curriculum development, pedagogy, and instructional and classroom management skills sharing the lime light with other now equally important indicators. Today’s master teacher must also master a growing set of essential soft skills, such as team work, peer and supervisor relations, parent communication, and student relationship building. So, the effective assessment process must accumulate and benefit from data relevant to each of these aspects of professional development and success.

In recent years, Trinity Academy of Raleigh has gradually implemented such a process, incrementally adding survey data from peers, parents and students to already existing supervisor and self-evaluation instruments. Instruments have been collaboratively developed and revised by teachers and supervisors, with input from students and parents, where appropriate. Brainstorm sessions have identified professional and relational skills and characteristics that are valued by each constituency group, and online surveys (Survey Monkey) have been used to prioritize a list of 20 assessment questions for each instrument. Surveys have been similarly created for teaching assistants, academic administrators and administrative staff. Parents and upper school students have completed the surveys online, and staff have identified peers who could reasonably review their performance and whose performance they could confidently review via online survey.

Although we are still learning, we have already seen considerable value in this process for relevant professional development and genuine performance improvement. The data speak for themselves, especially as compared to whole-staff averages for the 20 assessment questions. Staff are readily able to see patterns from multiple sources that corroborate both areas of professional strength and those where improvement is necessary. We have found it to be a creative way to provide objective feedback for typically subjective notions about performance.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of our implementation of the process is building a credible means of rewarding current performance and performance improvement into the process. For three years, our board has designated a generous pool of “merit compensation.” Everyone gets something, but higher performers (as judged by survey data sets) are rewarded more generously. Perhaps not surprisingly, this reward system has been met with decidedly polarized reaction. As NAIS president Patrick Bassett notes in speaking engagements:

The culture of schools’ workplace militates against innovative thinking about compensation: Teachers prefer predictable, non-competitive compensation and resist being “singled out.” NOTE: Research shows, on the other hand, that rigid pay scales discourage high ability individuals to enter or stay in teaching. (Goldhaber, The Urban Institute, “How Has Teacher Compensation Changed?” Selected Papers in School Finance 2000-2001).

The system is not perfect, but is far superior to the “standard” in many independent schools. As Paideia, Inc. president Bruce Lockerbie often quips: “The first evaluation most private school teachers or administrators receive is on the back of a pink slip.”

It is important to express thanks to Eddie Krenson, VP for Non-Public Schools with SACS- CASI, for leading Trinity Academy in the initial process of implementation of principles of performance review that he has personally adapted from Independent School Management (ISM).

Top 3 Things the Board Can Do To Strengthen or Weaken the Board-Head Relationships

“The average tenure of school heads is about 5.5 years and the average length of trustee service is 3.5 years. Due to these patterns, there needs to be more ‘touchstones’ of approved and understood tools to retain mission integrety and protect the school from crisis. The strategic plan helps to ensure this. Simultaneously, we must improve governance practices to define boundaries of authority and to extend the tenure for heads, board chairs and board members.” John C. Littleford. Senior Partner, Littleford Associates. Originally a panel discussion, this session will engage attendees in sharing wisdom on board/head relationships. Specifics about clear expectations, effective communication, mutual trust , and collaborative long-term and strategic planning will be foremost among the topics covered.

Robert Littlejohn

Dr. Littlejohn is Head of School at Trinity Academy of Raleigh, North Carolina. As a Ph.D Biologist, he has authored two college biology laboratory texts and has published 26 reports of original research in the fields of Ecology, Plant Physiology, Biochemistry and Science Educational Theory. In 2006, he coauthored Wisdom and Eloquence: a Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning, published by Crossway Books, Chicago. His career spans 26 years in K-12 and higher education, during which he has served in a variety of teaching and administrative capacities, including Academic Vice President for a liberal arts college and Director for a consortium of ten colleges and universities. He was founding headmaster for New Covenant Schools in Virginia, founding executive director for the society for Classical Learning and a founding board member for the American School of Lyon, France. He is a certified facilitator for Appreciative Inquiry, an AQIP reviewer for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and a Consultant to Colleges and schools across the nation.

Tools for Teacher Evaluation

Performance evaluation is usually an uncomfortable experience for educators. But, when educators help design a process that drives improvement and leads to better learning, everyone benefits. This session describes such a process, and provides examples of survey instruments and data summaries that form the basis for positive formative assessment of teaching and learning.

Robert Littlejohn

Dr. Littlejohn is Head of School at Trinity Academy of Raleigh, North Carolina. As a Ph.D Biologist, he has authored two college biology laboratory texts and has published 26 reports of original research in the fields of Ecology, Plant Physiology, Biochemistry and Science Educational Theory. In 2006, he coauthored Wisdom and Eloquence: a Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning, published by Crossway Books, Chicago. His career spans 26 years in K-12 and higher education, during which he has served in a variety of teaching and administrative capacities, including Academic Vice President for a liberal arts college and Director for a consortium of ten colleges and universities. He was founding headmaster for New Covenant Schools in Virginia, founding executive director for the society for Classical Learning and a founding board member for the American School of Lyon, France. He is a certified facilitator for Appreciative Inquiry, an AQIP reviewer for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and a Consultant to Colleges and schools across the nation.

Curricular Planning From the Top Down

This session will address the need for curriculum planning to “begin with the end in view.” What outcomes do we want for our graduates? what knowledge, skills and virtues are essential for a graduate to reap the full benefits of the education that our mission claims to offer? We will explore a process that ensures that each grade level prepares students for the next level in a program that delivers these benefits to every student.

Robert Littlejohn

Dr. Littlejohn is Head of School at Trinity Academy of Raleigh, North Carolina. As a Ph.D Biologist, he has authored two college biology laboratory texts and has published 26 reports of original research in the fields of Ecology, Plant Physiology, Biochemistry and Science Educational Theory. In 2006, he coauthored Wisdom and Eloquence: a Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning, published by Crossway Books, Chicago. His career spans 26 years in K-12 and higher education, during which he has served in a variety of teaching and administrative capacities, including Academic Vice President for a liberal arts college and Director for a consortium of ten colleges and universities. He was founding headmaster for New Covenant Schools in Virginia, founding executive director for the society for Classical Learning and a founding board member for the American School of Lyon, France. He is a certified facilitator for Appreciative Inquiry, an AQIP reviewer for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and a Consultant to Colleges and schools across the nation.

Policing or Mentoring? A Tale of Two Colleges

The dean of students at a Christian college learned that a group of students planned to visit a popular local bar one Friday night. He and his deputy crafted an ingenious plan to address the problem. They left their homes and families rather late in the evening and set up surveillance outside the bar in order to catch the students as they exited. They indeed snared a fair number of these students and, since drinking was a serious offense at this college, the students were expelled.

Some years later, at another Christian college, a different dean of students learned that a group of students planned to visit a local bar one Friday night. Before going home from work, he headed straight for the bar and greeted the surprised students warmly as they arrived (outside, before they could enter). Through conversation, he helped each to realize that going out to a local bar was not such a good idea, considering the school’s policies on drinking. These students remained in school and enjoyed a great relationship with that dean throughout their college years—and the dean got home in time to spend Friday night with his family.

These stories pretty well summarize the whole culture or ethos of these two colleges. To put a label on the difference, one college believed in policing; the other in mentoring. And these worldviews permeated the institutions. Not only were students policed or mentored; faculty were policed or mentored, according to the institution’s bias. I worked longer at the one than I might have hoped, and I could have enjoyed a much longer stay at the other. Both colleges shaped my career path and my way of thinking about guiding students and leading faculty. But at the second college I learned what to do; at the first, what not to do.

There is a curious irony in Christ’s Golden Rule. “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you evenso to them” isn’t just good advice. It is a law of human nature, a basic psychological principle. People will treat us similarly to the way that we treat others. This doesn’t only mean that Joe will treat me like I treat him (although that is likely to be the case). It means that, in general, people will treat me similarly to how they observe me treating other people. We have that effect on one another.

In my own experience, I find that I behave differently around some people than I do around others. Around a high energy person, my energy level rises; around a lethargic person, my energy level declines; around a positive person, I am positive; around a negative person, I can more easily give way to negativism.

We humans are very powerful beings. We actually create our own culture by how we treat others. In a school setting, we either create a culture of mutual respect and grace, or we create a culture of suspicion and harshness. Generally speaking, if faculty and staff police, they are more likely to be policed. If they mentor, they will likely be mentored.

When it comes to enforcing rules, both approaches can work (as the tale of two colleges illustrates), but mentoring softens the will, while policing stiffens it. The catch is that mentoring is harder. For mentoring to work, we all have to be mentors. We all have to take responsibility. We all have to act. We all have to care. We can’t just leave it to the police.

Every school has police. Great schools are full of mentors.

Wisdom and Eloquence

I really enjoyed reading Wisdom and Eloquence by Robert Littlejohn and Charles Evans. This is a well-written book, with certain chapters that should be read and re-read by all educators seeking to provide a classical and Christian education. There is good information here for everyone involved in the work of recovering a classical and Christian education.

The book also exhibits a central pedagogical departure from the application of Dorothy Sayer’s insight in The Lost Tools of Learning. In order for me to set forth this departure appropriately, it is necessary for me to back up, and give some background history. When our founding board began discussing what kind of education we should seek to provide, we knew that we did not want a fundamentalist reactionary academy, and we knew that we did not want a compromised prep school. So we came up with the motto, “a classical and Christ-centered education.” The word classical excluded a truncated fundamentalism, and the Christ-centered excluded a compromise with unbelief. Somewhere in this process I remembered an article by Sayers that I had read some years before. We tracked down a copy, and, with the view that this represented considerably more wisdom than we knew about, we adopted it, and resolved to give it a try.

Now the heart of Sayers’s article is her application of the Trivium (grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric) to the natural stages of child development. Her argument is that the Trivium is foundational, giving the kids the “tools of learning.” Now at the time, we could not have told you anything about the history of the Trivium and its relationship to child development issues beyond what we had read in Sayers. But what we did know (from Sayers), we put into practice and the results can only be described as a roaring success.

As the years went by, we read up on what we were doing, and learned a great deal more about it. In other words, we started blind, but we didn’t stay that way. And so it turns out a lot rides on whether we describe what Sayers was advocating as her historical explication of the medieval practice or, instead of this, describing it as the Sayers insight—what somebody really ought to try sometime (for the first time). Littlejohn and Evans point out (rightly, in my view) that the historical application of the Trivium did not do it the Sayers’s way. In other words, I don’t think that little kids in 1352 were taken through the grammar stage (the way they are at Logos), and then on to the dialectic stage, and so forth.

In my book, The Case for Classical Christian Education (2003), I refer repeatedly to the Sayers insight, and this is the reason why I referred to it this way. I believe that Littlejohn and Evans are quite correct on the historical point. In other words, if we look to Sayers for information on how they were doing it “back in the day,” we are going to miss the mark. But if we look to Sayers for a valuable idea on how this approach to the Trivium could and should be applied to modern education, we will find ourselves cooking with propane and extremely pleased with the results. And that is exactly what has happened to us at Logos. There are numerous indicators that I could point to here—from stellar test scores to nationally-recognized accomplishments of graduates. We have won the state championship in mock trial nine years (out of twelve years competing), and sent a mock trial team to national competition ve times. In short, as the sage once put it, “if it ain’t broke, don’t x it.”

A proposed departure from this is a significant part of the argument presented in Wisdom and Eloquence, and the point is reiterated a number of times. In short, the central contribution that Sayers has to offer (in my view) is the major thing that Littlejohn and Evans take issue with. This is not the end of the world, and I am sure that both gentlemen remain very fine educators despite disagreeing with Sayers on this. But it does represent a significant disagreement within the classical and Christian education world, and every classical Christian school needs to decide what they are going to do on this point. Both are fine dances, but you can’t waltz and do the Texas two-step at the same time. For their part, Littlejohn and Evans want to “separate the arts from the question of cognitive development altogether” (W&E, p. 39).

There is a significant amount of agreement in this disagreement. I agree that child development was not in view eight centuries ago. But suppose we reject the Sayers point considered as historical exegesis but go on to accept it considered as a new proposed pedagogical paradigm. The people who tried this in the early eighties in north Idaho didn’t know any different, and so we just went after it. The educational results have been astounding, and so if it was all based on a mistake it was therefore a very happy mistake. And further, the mistake would have been ours for assuming that Sayers was talking about how education used to be, and not about how it ought to be. I am not saying that Sayers shared any of our possible confusion on the point.

There is also an additional argument against going back to the purist view of the Trivium. One of the central reasons why we should not just return to the Trivium “as it was in the medieval period” is because
it used to be a pretty confusing hodgepodge. The simultaneous inculcation of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric (along with the Quadrivium) is something that could get away from you pretty easily, and in the middle ages, it certainly did. Reading this book by Littlejohn and Evans makes me think that they have it well in hand, but this is more than could be said for some early forms of it.

Just two final comments and I am done. The first is to make sure we keep this difference where it ought to be—as a matter of important emphasis, and not as a matter of fundamental substance. In other words, every advocate of a graded approach to the Trivium acknowledges that none of these three stages are “pure,” free from all contamination from the others. Spelling is taught in the grammar stage, and spelling is a rhetorical matter.

It is important for ACCS educators to recognize that it is not going to be “pure grammar,” and then “pure dialectic,” and then “pure rhetoric.” These are not watertight categories. Nevertheless the Sayers Insight means that we emphasize the grammar of all subjects in the elementary years, the dialectic of all subjects in the junior high years, and the rhetoric of all subjects in the high school years. But of course, each stage will have important elements of the others contained within them. Students in the rhetoric years still have to memorize things, and students in the grammar stage learn to make letters that stay within the lines, thus presenting a more pleasant rhetorical effect. For their part, Littlejohn and Evans retain an understanding of the importance of gradation—they just don’t tie it together with the language of the Trivium (e.g. pp. 130, 164).

Having said all this, I suppose it means that I believe that the Sayers Insight represents a better application of the medieval Trivium than was practiced in the medieval period itself. And it would follow from this that I believe schools that follow the Sayers Insight will enjoy richer educational fruit than schools that simply return to the practice of teaching all seven of the liberal arts at every age.

But this is just a disagreement, not a collision. I still recommend this book highly—there is much to be gained from it. Schools that follow the pattern suggested here will no doubt be superior to many of the typical American schools around them. At the same time, I do believe that ACCS schools should be encouraged to stay the course on this point. But of course I would say that—you don’t work for MacDonalds in order to sell Wendy’s burgers.

Promoting Our Differences

Professional observers of the living world (Ecologists) agree that members of the same species compete for limited natural resources such as food or shelter materials when they occupy the same physical location. But ecologists have long debated whether members of different species compete with one another for such resources within the same habitat. Whether this “inter-specific” competition exists or not, it is evident that individuals can best coexist in the same habitat if they occupy different niches. So it is with schools.

The stark reality is that the demand of students and parents seeking private education in any area is limited. However, within that limited supply there exists a continuum of educational needs, and each school must clearly understand and clearly articulate its particular niche in order to attract and keep its share of families.

The key to competing successfully in the private school market is not to be unique. This term can frighten families who want the stability of a school that implements best practices learned from similar
schools. Rather, the key is to articulate your differences in terms that are easily shared—student to student and soccer mom to soccer mom. Word of mouth will always be your best marketing, so ll those mouths with expressions that both speakers and hearers can understand and appreciate.

This has been particularly difficult for classical, Christian schools. To say we are “Christian” lumps us into a category of schools whose missions and niche might be very different than ours. To say we are “classical” means something different to everyone. Saying we are “Trivium-based” usually further confuses prospective parents, and few within our schools understand or can explain the method.

It falls to every school to determine what really makes it different and to articulate that difference in the simplest language. Distill your distinctives to a sentence fragment, followed by no more than 8 bullet points. Use the best pictures you can find to illustrate your points on your website and in print.

Schools often forget two important targets in their marketing strategies: the families you already have (internal marketing = retention) and teenagers. The easiest student to enroll is the student you already have, but current families need regular reminders of the great education their child is getting through samplings of what their children are learning and data.

Many schools are terrified of a mass exodus when students reach that age when parents begin to give way to their children’s wishes about school choice. Yet most marketing efforts target parents with pictures of sweet, uniform- clad second graders reading a book with their grandmotherly teacher. Rising high-schoolers form an equally important target audience and the way to a teen’s heart is through a school culture that attracts and holds them.

Relationships are the key to the attractive school culture, especially in the middle and upper grades. It should be clear to every student that their teachers support them and care about their academic and personal success, both in and out of the classroom. Soliciting and responding to student input on school culture issues goes a long way toward building student satisfaction.

These marketing and cultural components don’t happen accidentally. The school that wants to attract and retain students will develop its culture and its marketing strategies intentionally.

Curriculum Development – Make it Classical

Curriculum is the backbone of the academic program. It is the defining character of our school’s identity. But, how can we be sure our curriculum is really “classical?” How can we know that we aren’t just teaching what every other school is teaching, with “classical” trappings? We need a curriculum development process that ensures that we are classical. In this seminar, Dr. Littlejohn helps participants identify essential objectives that can clearly inform our curriculum development and ensure that our program is truly classical.

Robert Littlejohn

Dr. Littlejohn is Head of School at Trinity Academy of Raleigh, North Carolina. As a Ph.D Biologist, he has authored two college biology laboratory texts and has published 26 reports of original research in the fields of Ecology, Plant Physiology, Biochemistry and Science Educational Theory. In 2006, he coauthored Wisdom and Eloquence: a Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning, published by Crossway Books, Chicago. His career spans 26 years in K-12 and higher education, during which he has served in a variety of teaching and administrative capacities, including Academic Vice President for a liberal arts college and Director for a consortium of ten colleges and universities. He was founding headmaster for New Covenant Schools in Virginia, founding executive director for the society for Classical Learning and a founding board member for the American School of Lyon, France. He is a certified facilitator for Appreciative Inquiry, an AQIP reviewer for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and a Consultant to Colleges and schools across the nation.

Is Your Classroom Mission Driven?

Teachers are every school’s greatest asset, and mission is every school’s most important objective. But, few things are more difficult for teachers than faithfully representing our far-too-often ethereal mission statements in the every-day trenches of the classroom. In this seminar, Dr. Littlejohn leads participants through practical steps that will ensure teachers that every lesson, every project, every field trip is mission driven, so that we are sure to deliver to our students and families exactly what they believe they are getting… mission relevant teaching.

Robert Littlejohn

Dr. Littlejohn is Head of School at Trinity Academy of Raleigh, North Carolina. As a Ph.D Biologist, he has authored two college biology laboratory texts and has published 26 reports of original research in the fields of Ecology, Plant Physiology, Biochemistry and Science Educational Theory. In 2006, he coauthored Wisdom and Eloquence: a Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning, published by Crossway Books, Chicago. His career spans 26 years in K-12 and higher education, during which he has served in a variety of teaching and administrative capacities, including Academic Vice President for a liberal arts college and Director for a consortium of ten colleges and universities. He was founding headmaster for New Covenant Schools in Virginia, founding executive director for the society for Classical Learning and a founding board member for the American School of Lyon, France. He is a certified facilitator for Appreciative Inquiry, an AQIP reviewer for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and a Consultant to Colleges and schools across the nation.