Progressive Miseducation 101

NY Sun ^ | Sept. 5, 2003 | Andrew Wolf

[Frank T]

In preparation for the new school year that is set to begin on Monday,teachers,principals,and even parent coordinators are being subjected to endless hours of “professional development.” In fact, hundreds of millions of dollars, an unprecedented amount anywhere, will be spent every year to train these staffers. So that us ordinary folk can keep up with the Bloomberg educational “reforms,” I humbly submit this short “professional development” course to help parents and taxpayers understand what is really going on. The new uniform literacy curriculum is actually not a curriculum at all.

[Frank T]

With Republicans like Bloomberg, who needs Democrats?

[alisasny]

As long as teachers are unionized and tenured there is no chance of any meaningful reform that will help students. This goes for everywhere not just NYC.

BTW Guiliani tried with all his power to reform education in NYC and was tormented at every turn.

One could only imagine what he could have done if given the chance.

[Madam Theophilus]

Actually the educational problem in our country is the result of a much deeper philosophical change about the nature of man and theories of knowledge. Our modern educational systems are just the logical and 'progressive' implementation of Rousseau's educational theories. What we experienced in our youth was abnormal in the sense that these ideas had not yet been able to totally be institutionalized yet. Our schools were half Christian still - by that I mean not that they taught the Bible directly, but were based on the Biblical idea of the nature of man and knowledge. That all is now totally erased.

[Born Conservative]

[moog]

Tenure, what's that?

[moog]

Bloomberg's a Republican???:)

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

In years such as the period from 1895 through the 1930's, 6th through 8th grade graduates from NYC public schools knew and appreciated much, much more math, world literature, drama, spelling, grammar, geography, history, poetry, civics, etiquette, etc than graduate students at today's NYC public and private universities.

Rote memory was part of the methodology. Rows of seats and respect for the teacher were other parts.

What's more, those unsung teachers accomplished the education of their students with large classes and without teachers' aides.

Immigrant kids in particular were thrilled when they had opportunity to attend school.

[Old Student]

"Our modern educational systems are just the logical and 'progressive' implementation of Rousseau's educational theories."

Not to mention that Rousseau's educational theories were never actually practiced to develop them by Rousseau. He abandoned the only child he ever had, and spent his non-writing time drinking and carousing.

Child-centered learning isn't bad. That is actually what kids are doing when they play. But teaching is supposed to be directing (or leading) the children to examine the things and ideas they need to learn about. Without the direction, they're liable to miss essentials.

If you had a science project about rocketry, and the kids were able to work on it themselves, without supervision, would they develop a rocket, or a bomb? It would depend on what they already knew, but should we, as teachers and parents, take that chance?

[latina4dubya]

In years such as the period from 1895 through the 1930's, 6th through 8th grade graduates from NYC public schools knew and appreciated much, much more math, world literature, drama, spelling, grammar, geography, history, poetry, civics, etiquette, etc than graduate students at today's NYC public and private universities.

yes--it was still based somewhat on the "classical education" method... which is what we are now giving our days--at home... highly recommended reading: A Thomas Jefferson Education by Oliver Van Demille, The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto and Climbing Parnassus by Tracy Lee Simmons.

[Osage Orange]

Tenure, what's that?

A type of singer?

[joylyn]

Yes, and up until the 1930's the people who educated teachers respected learning. Today, they don't. In fact, they sneer at Western civilization and all its works and deeds; meainwhile, they mainly see the schools as a vehicle for social engineering. This attitude filters down to many (not all) teachers, the media, school boards, parents and, ultimately, to students. No federal program, Democrat or Republican, will make a bit of difference until this situation changes.

[Madam Theophilus]

Agree on Rousseau - he was the archtype of The Intellectual (as Paul Johnson has pointed out in his book) - lay down dictates for all except oneself. However, as to child centered education, it depends upon one's epistomology, as I said before. Children learn by playing but is that learning from within themselves/from their environment only? If there were no direct instruction by their parents/adults, what would they learn? It seems we are seeing the answer in the public school system.

[Old Student]

"If there were no direct instruction by their parents/adults, what would they learn? It seems we are seeing the answer in the public school system.

You more or less restate my point. The kids need the direction, because some of what they learn by themselves can be deadly, if they aren't warned of what to be careful off. The only real difference between a rocket and a bomb is the properly-sized hole in the casing. A rocket without the hole in it IS a bomb. In a solid-fuel rocket, cracks in the fuel mass can cause the burn to go out of control, turning it into a bomb because the expanding gasses can't vent through the nozzle fast enough.

Guided learning, child-centered, can be quite effective. Not all public schools forget to give the guidance. Not all public school teachers do, either. What we need to do is encourage it where we find it, and expose where it is not. That will eventually solve the problem for us. Teachers can't do it alone, either. There are FAR too few parents involved. We need their help as well. (not to mention aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents)

[Madam Theophilus]

I do not believe you understand my point at all.

[Old Student]

"I do not believe you understand my point at all."

Then you need to explain better, apparently. Let me see if I can do so, first. Child-centered learning can work well if it is, in fact, guided by teachers, rather than letting the students go entirely their own way. If it is not guided, the children can learn little or nothing of value, and can, in fact, harm themselves and others. You seem to think that public schools do only the unguided portion of child-centered learning. Am I close?

[moog]

Tenure, what's that?
"A type of singer?"

Something I ate last night?