Every vision of education relies on an inchoate anthropology—an implicit understanding of what it is to be human. This article seeks to bring the anthropologies implicit in modern and classical visions of education to light. Uncovering their respective understandings of freedom and disability reveals why we should accept the anthropology implicit in a classical vision of education. This understanding of anthropology through the lens of disability leads us to the heart of classical education by illuminating the strange vocations both of persons with disabilities and of classical educators. Further, it has important implications for the practices of classical schools in welcoming students with disabilities and learning differences.

As contemporary classical education continues maturing as a pedagogical tradition, an institutional reality, and an academic tradition, the need has grown to clarify the nature of the project and to understand how it relates to the past. The classical education movement, which seeks to encourage human flourishing by studying and imitating the past, uses an unstable terminology to describe itself. Some speak of a “Renaissance,” others work toward what they call a “Renewal,” and still others conceive of the project in terms of a “Recovery.” In using these terms, contemporary educators and writers, knowingly or not, reenact historiographical debates about the nature of Western culture and embrace differing opinions about the meaning of the term “classical” and consequently, about what period or periods of the past are worthy of imitation. This article seeks to clarify the history of these terms, delineate how the process of cultural emulation works, and encourage classical educators to come to a deeper appreciation of the past as they chart a course for the future of their disciplines.

In an era marked by change in American schools, Professor William C. Bagley (1873–1946) defended traditional education. Contra the work of educational progressivists such as John Dewey who sought to rid schools of rote memorization and book learning in favor of “learning by doing,” Bagley’s defense of the intellectual work of schools included a notion of utility that emphasized the value of library work, learning to conduct basic research as a meaningful exercise for lifelong learning, and reading books to gain general knowledge. This article begins by exploring Bagley’s vision of utility as put forward in “Education and Utility,” then examines how Bagley’s approach differed from Dewey’s, and concludes with observations about what high school students, and others, can learn from old books and through assigned intellectual tasks in schools.

The primary aim of this study is to fortify classical education against influential but dangerously constricted conceptions of assessment and accountability. This effort is supported by the strikingly insightful defender of liberal arts education, Harry S. Broudy, a preeminent voice in philosophy of education during the mid to late twentieth century. The article explores Broudy’s call for general or liberal education, highlighting the seminal epistemology of Michael Polanyi, upon which Broudy’s call stands. Exploration of Broudy’s epistemological rationale for classical education offers an occasion for reflection on the sort of person formed by such activity. The article will show that at the heart of comprehensive discussion of the ends, content, and methods of classical education, and manifest in the educational theory of Polanyi and Broudy, is a focus on shaping the moral imagination. Such shaping constitutes the character formation that is the fundamental objective of classical education.