Like Rick, I was really struck by the way that the educational issues Isocrates discusses mirror many of our own educational concerns/issues. The first thing I noticed was the way that Isocrates insists that the student is a reflection of the teacher's ability or good work. On page 223 he claims, "If some of those who have associated with me have behaved well toward Athens, toward their friends, and toward their own households, I ask you to praise them and not give thanks to me; however, if they turned out to be wicked and the sort of men who denounce others, indict them, law charges, and desire their goods, then punish me." I think we see this blame the teacher attitude in our K-12 schools frequently. While Isocrates focuses on the student's civic participation as evidence of the teacher's success, we tend to focus on the child's test scores. Both of these foci seem to be lacking an additional practical component -- that is, students are people living in the world. So, other influences (cultural, familial, etc.) also have potential to influence them and their performance.
Isocrates also takes on an issue that still provides an area of debate for us -- natural ability. On pages 240-241, Isocrates discusses the natural ability of students saying, "real ability is found only in those who excel both in native talent and training." While Isocrates acknowledges that training can, for some, produce great results, he is hesitant to say that training can compensate for a lack of natural ability. Isocrates' three stages of learning (natural ability, specific education, and implementation of skills) are completely dependent on natural ability as a foundation. Isocrates concedes that, "if men whose natures are inferior to these apply themselves to practice and training, they become better, not just than they were but also than those who are naturally talented." This follows Isocrates' discussion of motivation and he seems to be claiming that, although natural ability is important, learning can be made available to those that are motivated. It seems that we still have this debate in education all the time and even, I would argue, at the college level. We still question whether natural ability is the basis for authentic learning.
Reading Isocrates this week, I felt like I had walked into a current educational debate. While I'm willing to grant Isocrates a little bit of grace for not having figured these things out,but I find myself not wanting to grant the same grace in the current debate. Why can't we figure these things out thousands of years later? Does that say something in particular about the issues?
You said what I'm trying to say, Christine, only about 1,000 times better. Plus your headline is clever. I'm tempted to see class issues at work in Socrates and Isocrates critiques of the sophists and their assertions of what should be studied. Socrates claimed that philosophy should be the focus of study; he grudgingly admitted to the benefits of studying rhetoric after realizing that there was a big demand for these skills. Isocrates seems to have bought into Socrates' argument; he asserts the primacy of philosophical study but he defines philosophy as "the study and practical application of ethics, politics, and public speaking" (Intro to Isocrates 3). I bet that definition would have made Socrates really mad.
Isocrates himself classifies his paideia as practical, so this may seem to nullify charges of class-ism against him – until you note his emphasis on the need for students to possess a natural ability. So maybe what Socrates and Isocrates really find irritating about the sophists is their willingness to teach all comers (who have the cash for tuition).
This concern with who has access to higher education has come up time and again, most recently here after WWII. Instead of thinking students had to have natural ability, education’s gatekeepers claim that students needed to have the proper background and training, language skills, etc. Seems like the same thing Isocrates was claiming.
(Side comment: I also tend to think that Socrates was insecure about his abilities as a teacher. He claimed that virtue could not be taught – but really what I suspect is that he felt HE couldn’t teach virtue. )