Ask anyone, and they’ll likely tell you that the main difference between classical education and mainstream public education is difficulty. Some may even assume, wrongly, that classical education is only for the ultra-intelligent.
This is far from the truth. Classical education is notably more rigorous than public education (fourth-grade reading lists in classical schools might include titles such as Beowulf, Little Women, and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), but rigor is not the primary distinction.
Rather, the true difference is scope.
Compare this to modern public education, which grew out of the “common school” movement under Horace Mann. Students are taught to follow structure and comply, and the main goal is meeting basic benchmarks.
The result is an education characterized by mundane tasks, weak content, little to no one-on-one time with teachers, and a one-dimensional view of learning.
Sociologists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis even went as far as to claim that public schools are miniature workplaces: students earn grades for obedience and busywork the way employees earn paychecks.
As a product of public education myself, I remember being horrified in eleventh grade when my Algebra 2 teacher announced that we’d be using a flipped classroom model, in which students teach themselves new concepts at home, then complete worksheets under supervision during class time. In practice, that meant I taught myself at home while the teacher’s role diminished to reviewing worksheets.
Now, compare this to classical education.
As a centuries-old approach dating back to ancient Greece, classical education aims to form the whole person, not just prepare students for the next test and move them along.
