The more time I spend inside the educational process the more I wonder about the principle of multum non multa: not many things (multa), but much (multum). I have often wondered about curriculum and its growth as more good items are added to it. Let me share with you my thoughts, as bizarre as they might be.I believe I have come to believe (how about that statement) that curriculum should never be static but alive. But, there is a problem (is there not always)! If curriculum is alive then it is ever changing. The problem then becomes the change; curriculum must change, but I believe that change must be qualitative instead of quantitative. Quantitative change involves the addition or the subtraction (quality equates to volume here) of the pieces that make up the collective curriculum. Those pieces are disciplines, but the problem lies with the type of change. It does not matter if the school is good or poor the change that will occur will be quantitative and almost always involve an addition to the curriculum. I give an A for effort here as addition is almost always good, except in this case.
This is where the principle of multum non multa comes into play. Teaching many things inside a curriculum, in my opinion, waters down the amount of time spent on the really necessary parts of a curriculum. If a school's goal is to teach in depth and breadth then it is virtually impossible to do this with a wide variety of academic offerings. Disciplines should be taught in relation to one another as this is in itself a higher category of thought. With bundles of options no one option will ever be taught in the depth and breadth needed to produce the product a school should be producing. The next question naturally becomes, what then is primary to the curriculum? That is for another time.
I welcome other opinions as I think out loud about this. I have read several good articles regarding this principle. Please click HERE for one of the best. Oh, by the way...HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
4 comments:
Craig,
This is an excellent and timely post.
I remember seminary students from an earlier generation recounting their three year seminary course of studies. Electives were not an option until the final semester of the senior year. The boards of seminaries believed that students must master specific fields (theology, biblical studies, pastoral care, etc.). If they did not, they were not ready to minister. Core courses must not be omitted; too many electives could leave gaps that left one unprepared for ministry.
Boards of Christian schools must determine what every student must know in order to be considered an educated disciple of Jesus Christ. Similarly, core courses must be established for students preparing for undergraduate majors (math, sciences, history, etc). Too many courses falling outside these tracks can dilute the educational experience of students, leaving them unprepared for undergraduate work or unprepared to meet the general intellectual challenges of the Christian life.
By the way - thank you for a fine Sunday School class last Lord's Day. You are leading our church in thinking about ministry and education in a postmodern culture. I appreciate your efforts, and believe they will produce good fruit in our body of believers. I am looking forward to the rest of the your Sunday School series.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie,
Thank you for your kind words and for your pastoral heart. We are so blessed to be part of the Westminster family!
Core subjects become the tools for higher learning. For example reading is a tool for transferring information, math is a tool to use in understanding fundamental principles of science. Dilution is particularly risky in the lower grades. Mastery of these fundamental tools is essential if one wants to move forward his/her education.
Given this, we cannot ignore teaching fundamental values (Christian values in our case) as well in the formative years. These values create perspective providing one's moral foundation.
Thank you for your comments. Very well said!
Post a Comment