K-W Classical Education Blog

Check out this, like, video

2010-02-20T15:18:00.003-05:00

Watch this entertaining video about how we talk today. Have we lost the ability to speak with conviction? What's gone wrong?

http://vimeo.com/3829682

Mandatory Relativism in Quebec

2009-09-04T10:19:00.001-04:00

News article from LifeSiteNews.com

Quebec Judge Denies Families Religious Exemption From Mandatory School Course in Relativism
Course presents homosexuality as normal choice - Is also mandatory for homeschoolers

By Patrick B. Craine

DRUMMONDVILLE, Quebec, August 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Quebec Superior Court has denied a petition from concerned Catholic parents who wanted exemptions for their children from the province's mandatory relativism program, 'Ethics and Religious Culture' (ERC).

In making his decision, the judge, Justice Jean-Guy Dubois, relied heavily on two Catholic sources: (1) the testimony of a Catholic theologian who emphasized that the Catholic Church values instruction in other religions, and (2) the position of the Assembly of Quebec Catholic Bishops, who did not support "a priori" exemptions based on religion.

Even without the support of his brother bishops, Quebec City Cardinal Marc Ouellet has spoken out vigorously against the relativistic religion program, saying the course "subjects religions to the control and the interests of the State and puts an end to religious freedoms in school which were acquired many generations ago."

The program, developed by the Quebec Ministry of Education, was mandated as of the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year for all students, including homeschoolers, and spans from grade 1 to the end of high school.

In a spirit of openness and questioning, the relativist curriculum covers a spectrum of world religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and aboriginal spirituality, as well as pseudo-religions such as atheism. The curriculum presents homosexuality as a normal choice for family life, aiming, for example, in grade 1 and 2 "to bring children to explore the diversity of relationships of interdependence between members of different types of families."

The curriculum replaced a previous religious education program that allowed parents to choose between a Catholic, Protestant, or secular curriculum.

The new program sparked a loud outcry from the Quebec religious community, especially among the Catholic parents, and marches have been held in protest. Over 1,700 requests for exemptions have been submitted, but all have been refused. Children whose parents have removed them from the class have faced sanctions, including suspension.

In this case, the parents made their appeal on the grounds that the school program violated their freedom of conscience and religion. Before the case, the parents stated that the mandatory nature of the course violated these freedoms "in that the course imposes on the student a polytheistic vision of the religious phenomenon, is relativist, separates ethics from morality, and claims to maintain a neutrality in dealing with ethical questions, and interferes with the ability of parents to transmit their faith to their child."

Justice Dubois disagrees, however, stating in his decision that their freedom is not violated because the curriculum does not require the children to believe that which it teaches.

"In light of all the evidence presented," he wrote, "the court does not see how the ... course limits the plaintiff's freedom of conscience and of religion for the children when it provides an overall presentation of various religions without obliging the children to adhere to them."

The judge based his ruling in part on the testimony of theologian Fr. Gilles Routhier of Laval University who presented the Catholic teaching that religious education is primarily the responsibility of the parents, and that the Catholic Church values instruction in other religions, rather than seeing such instruction as impugning the freedom of conscience.

Further, the judge quoted a March 11, 2008 letter written by Bishop Martin Veillette, president of the bishops' assembly and bishop of Trois-Rivières, to Minister of Education Michelle Courchesne, which stated that the ERC program is not objectionable enough in itself to warrant an exemption. Exemptions should only be given after the fact, he said, if the program is discovered to have caused injury.

"We know it requires a very serious reason to justify an exemption from a school program," he wrote. "The most serious reason would be without doubt the violation of the freedom of conscience, which is a fundamental right. The program in itself does not seem to us to be vulnerable to such a dispute a priori [before the fact]. It is rather a posteriori [after the fact], based on experience, that a demand for exemption could in our view become admissible in cases where an injury might be serious enough."

Based on this evidence from Fr. Routhier and the bishops, the judge wrote, "the court does not see how a Catholic child who attends the ERC course could be violated in his conscience and his religion. Even the leaders of the Catholic Church admit the validity of an objective presentation of other religions."

"While the school presents various religions in the ERC program, that does not mean that the child is put in a obligatory or coercive situation," he wrote. "It is up to parents and pastors of the Catholic Church, in the case of the plaintiffs, to ensure their children understand that the religious precepts of Catholicism to which they belong, can be implemented in a free and enlightened way while recognizing the existence of other religions."

Montreal's Loyola Catholic High School, a private Catholic boys' school, presented its case against the mandatory ERC curriculum in June, and awaits the court's decision. Loyola was also refused an exemption, despite the fact that they have had a required study of world religions in their program for twelve years.

Principal Paul Donovan wrote in a letter to the Montreal Gazette that Loyola was willing to offer the program in a way more in line with the school's Catholic and Jesuit identity, but the Ministry objected to the Catholic context. "We were informed that these things cannot be taught 'according to ministerial expectation' in a Catholic context," he wrote. "Our question to the courts, since the ministry would not talk with us, is quite simply, Why not?"

According to Daniel Weinstock, a professor who consulted in the drafting of the ERC, one faith should not be given preference to another in religious instruction. "Part of the mandate of the course is to present religion in an even-handed way," he wrote in a recent MacLeans magazine report. "If a school has as its guiding intention to inculcate children into the Catholic faith, it clearly means a part of their mandate is not to present all religions in an even-handed way."

2009-08-27T07:45:00.003-04:00

(An excerpt from a discussion we are having on the K-W Classical Education Discussion Board on Facebook regarding Lisa VanDamme's The False Promise of Classical Education.)

I would agree that history, for instance, should be taught in chronological order, but to teach science in the order of discoveries is, I agree, counter-intuitive.

To her credit, VanDamme does provide a decent analysis of today’s “progressive education,” but she does not truly understand classical education, especially as set out by Jessie Wise and Susan Wise Bauer in The Well-Trained Mind.

VanDamme believes that children should not be taught facts that they cannot fully understand. The truth is that there are many complicated concepts that may need to be taught several times, this is precisely why subjects are repeated and studied in more depth in future years.

She is also against learning anything that is not based on perceptual reality. Thus, she says, the Great Flood should not be taught since it’s not based on evidence. (Of course there is evidence of the Great Flood but she is just ignorant to the subject matter.) She is against “indoctrination,” i.e. teaching children to love their country or believe in the Bible since it does not allow them “individualism” or “liberty.” Thus, she does not want children instructed in truth or proper citizenship, she wants them find their own individuality and decide what is true for them. That sounds an awful lot like progressive relativism to me.

In her attacks on classical education, it becomes clear that VanDamme misunderstands the trivium as she refers to it as “reasoning being studied in a vacuum.” She ignores the very point of the grammar stage with her argument, which is the learning of as many facts as possible, since young children’s minds have such a great ability to absorb information.

She claims classical education is not concerned with the truth of a debate, for instance (at the logic stage of the trivium), but she misses the point. Classical education is concerned about independent learning skills, the ability to discern what is and is not relevant to an argument and to be able to promptly detect and expose invalid inferences. This is exactly what is required to find the truth!

Her fundamental belief that the Bible is not just errant but purely untrue is her largest criticism of Christian classical education and it infuriates her that these beliefs are taught as inseparable from the subject matter being studied. To me that is one of the great benefits of Christian classical education. As Douglas Wilson points out, it is not possible to have a religiously neutral classroom, it can be pretended, but it cannot be accomplished.

Retired Pres. Maleske supports Lutheran day schools

2009-08-26T10:32:00.002-04:00

In the May/June issue of Canadian Lutheran, then-president of LCC East District, Rev. Al Maleske, writes in his article on raising children in the Lutheran faith: "It is first and foremost the parents’ responsibility to raise the child, to surround the child with a protective environment that will suppress the sinful nature and encourage the function of the Holy Spirit in the child’s heart. That means church, Sunday school and, ideally, a Lutheran day school as active parts of family life."

Is it not indeed the parents' responsibility to ensure that children receive academic instruction that is consistent with the family's faith?

Classical education for all

2009-08-11T22:03:00.004-04:00

I just got back from vacation, during which time I managed to get through part of Dr. Thomas Korcok's "Forward to the Past" (see Links). It's an excellent read. One of the things that struck me as relevant to this project was the link between baptism and a liberal arts education. The point is made that through baptism all Christians have equal status before God, and therefore a liberal arts education should be accessible to everyone. If I didn't believe it before, I certainly am convinced now that a classical Lutheran school in K-W, if it's God's plan that there be one, should definitely be available to all Christian families, regardless of income level. Nowadays it goes without saying that education should be accessible to all races and colours, and to both genders. However, if a family desires a Christian education for its children, the cost of private education can be a barrier. I'm not sure if it is possible to completely overcome this -- the money to fund the school has to come from somewhere. But I think we need to approach this with the attitude that in principle, all Christian children deserve an education that would enable them to understand scripture, to eloquently defend and explain the faith, and to be fully-equipped to carry out the mandate that Christ gave them in Matthew 28:18-20. The goal is not to start some kind of elite school that only the rich kids could attend. A classical Lutheran education is rigorous and will produce well-educated children. There is this generally accepted idea that a good education has to be so expensive that only the rich could afford it. But not only the wealthy deserve a good education. This is for everyone. We need to find a way to make it accessible to the average Christian family.

Update on CCLE Conference plans

2009-06-24T21:34:00.003-04:00

After much thought and deliberation, we've come to the conclusion that we will not be attending this year's conference after all. As interesting as it would be, and as much as we'd love to go, we still have a bit of ground work to do before we'd be in a position to reap the maximum benefits from a conference such as this one. So, in the interest of using the resources available to us in the best possible way, we will postpone our participation in this conference until next year.
I'm sorry to disappoint those of you who have been eagerly anticipating the promised live-blogging from the conference.
Thanks to those who have commented on my last post -- it's nice to know that some people out there are reading this and following this project with some interest. I do have some interesting reading lined up for myself for the summer, so I'll try to post every now and then when I come across something that might start some lively discussion.

Welcome

2009-06-11T16:43:00.002-04:00

Welcome to the K-W Classical Education website and blog.

If you are local to the Kitchener-Waterloo area and are interested in classical education, please contact us. We are interested in knowing how a classical school might serve your interests. Are you looking to enroll your children in a classical school? Are you homeschooling and looking for support from a classical school? Are you interested in supporting this project, either financially or with other God-given talents? We want to hear from you!

If you are new to the classical education world, you will find a wealth of useful information on our links page.

I hope we will generate some interesting discussion on this blog. We hope to use it to share with you the developments of this project, and other interesting information relevant to classical education. The annual CCLE conference is coming up at the end of the month. Some members of this committee will be attending, and will be blogging from there. Stay tuned!