As I read book II, I couldn't help but feel like I was reading a textbook for K-12 teachers. Quintilian tells us that the teacher must adjust to the pace of the students, saying, "but the eloquent professor must also be a man of sense, not ignorant of teaching and capable o lowering himself to the capacity of the learner" (96). The teacher cannot be boring or dry because a dry master is like dry soil in which nothing will grow (100). Additionally, in chapter 6, Quintilian discusses how the teacher should scaffold instruction. That is, the teacher should instruct more explicitly at first, and as the student learns and grows, instruction should be less explicit until the student works independently.
I could go on an on, but most of you have covered the educational points already. But Quintilian helped me to think about how these guidelines for education are still so central to our educational practices and beliefs. And, if this is the case, I began to consider the rhetorical nature of education. That is, Quintilian tells us that education should be responsive -- the way that rhetoric is responsive. Education acts -- in the way that rhetoric acts. It seems that current advocates of educational theories/programs that run counter to the mainstream theories of education might benefit from a education in rhetoric.
Before I end, I just quickly want to respond to Pepper. Mark, I know that you took issue with the parent metaphor that Quintilian uses. I can't tell you how many elementary and secondary teachers I know who referred to their students as their "kids." In fact, I did the same thing when I taught secondary school. This wasn't simply a semantic move, the relationship between teachers and students at that level really does take on a familial feel. It's a bit hard to explain, but I don't really think that Quintilian was off the mark here. As a secondary teacher, I was involved in the lives of my students in an integral way and, for many of the students, I was much more than simply a teacher and they were much more to me than simply students.
Granted, I was in no way considering the elementary and secondary levels of education-- stuck in my own bias towards talking about college level education like it's the only kind. So excellent point. And Q was talking about students of a much younger age, so again, I can totally see where you're coming from.
The metaphor still kinda freaks me out though
Thanks for the perspective!