Reason, Madness, Flapdoodle
[Galileo
to Kepler, 1610]
My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned
here,
who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have
steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope?
What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?
The reader may have begun to sense that what
passes for thinking in public education—Edland--would
be considered intellectual impairment in any other field, and that “methods” hailed
as “best practices” would be deemed quackery if revealed to the nation. We’ve had an initial look at differences
between the education establishment (progressivist) and
the anti-establishment (traditionalist).
Yet, it would be a mistake to think that skirmishes (about teaching method),
battles (over curricula), and culture war (over the functions of education and core
American values and social institutions--reason, accountability, moral
responsibility, hard work, mastery, belief in external rules of conduct, the family
as paramount socializing institution) are merely differences in the research
bases used, instructional styles preferred, or personal and group opinions
and philosophies—differences that could perhaps be reconciled with more
reading, more research, and more discussion. A big
mistake.
The two camps are opposed in a
more fundamental and irreconcilable way; namely, the quality
of intellect itself, as
that intellect investigates and communicates about reality and
knowledge. Indeed, intellectual differences between anti-establishment
traditionalists and establishment progressivists are
best described by the opposing terms rational vs. irrational, reasonable vs.
unreasonable, coherent vs. incoherent, metaphysically healthy vs. metaphysically
demented. The educational establishment suffers from collective nonrationality, or anti-rationality, which helps to explain
why Edland: (1) almost always makes the wrong
choices; and (2) is oblivious to its history of tragi-comic
buffoonery easily revealed in course syllabi, progressive teaching methods,
"mission statements," plans for "school reform," job
descriptions, and proposals for new degree programs and government grants. Let's see some of the evidence.
Sane and morally responsible
persons and organizations make inductions (develop beliefs) based on
experience. Insane and morally irresponsible persons and organizations create experiences based on what they
already believe. This chapter shows that the field of education bears a
striking resemblance to a collective delusion--powered by the fancies and
hallucinations of education professors, transmitted to new teachers through
dream machine degree programs, and acted out in the micro mental hospitals
called public schools. Let's be good clinicians and examine the madness more
carefully, shall we?
The
World as Fact vs. Fancy
One mark of maturity (and sanity) is recognizing and acting on the
assumption that the world—reality—has features independent of what we may
believe and wish those features to be. Here we see the first clear
difference in intellect between traditionalists and progressivists.
The traditionalist—whether a teacher,
school principal, district administrator, education professor, or member of a
state department of public instruction--reads the announcements, legislation,
regulations, and grant proposal forms for No Child Left Behind and Reading
First, and then (treating these as immutable facts) adapts his or her
behavior accordingly by:
1. Determining the consequences of
writing a Reading First proposal that conforms to the guidelines vs. does
not conform to the guidelines.
2. Improving teacher training,
evaluation, and supervision to meet the requirements
of No Child Left Behind. And
3. Collecting objective data
(i.e., capable of assessment by others besides the data collector) on student achievement.
In marked contrast, the progressivist school principal, district administrator,
education professor, or state department of public instruction official who
(resembling a petulant child) feels his or her power threatened by the external
authority of No Child Left Behind and Reading First, responds by:
1. Thinking
wishfully that these will soon go away and therefore can be ignored.
2. Writing grant proposals that fly in
the face of funding agency requirements, but
believes this won't be noticed (as a mad person believes a tin foil hat makes him invisible).
3. Changes the definitions of words--as
if this doesn’t violate their common meanings. For
example, "scientific research" for the progressivist
does not mean controlled,
experimental, quantitative, replicated research using validated instruments, but instead means qualitative note-taking
and anecdotes, because this definition
enables the progressivist (in his or her mind) to believe he or she has evidence to
back up progressive fads and flapdoodle.
Action
Reasonably Fitted to Circumstances
We consider it reasonable (and sane) to
smash a fly with a flyswatter—a cheap, tested implement that is focused on the
task at hand. We consider it madness if a person burns his house down to
get the fly. The same judgment of reasonableness applies in
education. For example, the traditionalist educator:
1. Knows there
is a mountain of basic and applied research on reading.
2. Reads a large sample of that research.
3. Learns there are field tested programs
consistent with the preponderance of
research that effectively teach the main reading skills (phonemic awareness, sound-symbol relationships and
decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension). And therefore
(4) Uses these programs in his or her school, district, or state.
This is reasonable, morally responsible—and sane.
In stark raving contrast, the progressivist educator (not in touch with or not accurately
depicting reality):
1. Does not know
or does not care that there are tons of basic and applied research on reading.
2. Does not read this research, or reads
a small self-serving sample (so that his or
her belief system is unchallenged).
3. Does not know of, does not care to know about, or rejects (with contempt and hauteur) field tested programs
consistent with the preponderance of research. Why? Because he or she does not like them. And
4. Instead of using these
effective reading programs in his or her school, district, or state (irrational), requires teachers with almost no
training in instructional design, to invent
their own curricula (unreasonable) using an ersatz assortment of basal readers, nondecodable
text (kids can’t read the words in
the text), qualitative assessments that are unreliable and invalid (do not measure what is taught),
spelling books, and made up lessons—in
short, a "curriculum" that is unsystematic, untested, redundant, has glaring logical holes, and will not
work.
H.L. Mencken's line, written in 1928, captures this madness well: "Their programs of study sound like the
fantastic inventions of comedians gone insane." However, the immorality
and fundamental dementia is disguised behind words such as "teacher
empowerment," "ownership," and "professional
development."
Circumspection
A sane person checks his clothing before entering a room, notes that his pants
are open, and fixes it up. An intellectually insufficient person checks
his pants by touching his hat, walks into the room and hears snickers of
persons who notice the open pants, and says to himself,
"They'll never notice."
A similar thing exists in
education. Rational and sane education schools (rare as Spartan swords
from 400 BC)--somehow blessed with a squad of traditionalist professors who
have managed to get tenure, do not fear their hostile progressivist
colleagues, and are aware of the low status of education schools, superficial
teacher training, faddish ideas, and threats posed by alternative
certification--examine the education school curriculum in light of the
criticisms and threat, and then change core beliefs, research base, mission,
rules for judging what is credible, curricula, and assessment of graduates.
Not so in education schools dominated by progressivists
who:
1. Are not aware of the criticisms and
threats, or believe everyone else is wrong. "We need to get the word out about how
good we are." In psychiatry,
this is considered a delusion of grandeur.
2. Hire new faculty who will sustain the
school's progressivist orientation despite the fact that this orientation is
the root cause of low level of scholarship,
ill-preparation of new teachers, and threat to the existence of education
schools.
3. Create more fanciful portraits of themselves for in-school self-celebration (self-delusion) and public
presentation; e.g., calling themselves "flagships of reform," "stewards of
At this point, demented thinking is well beyond silly and approaches criminal
negligence.
Word Salad and Other Possible Symptoms of Dementia
A last clear difference between
traditionalists and progressivists is progressivists’ tenuous connection to and mis-communication about reality. Or, as Heinrich Heine
(1797-1856) said, "Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when
he was merely stupid." In this
final section we suggest that the nonrationality or
anti-rationality of Edland reveals features of
significant intellectual impairment akin to a psychiatric disorder.
We consider a person rational, sane,
and competent who assumes that words and utterances signify real things and who
speaks and writes in a way that coherently describes or explains the real
world. In contrast, we consider a person irrational, insane, and/ or
incompetent who assumes that words and utterances refer to (mean) whatever
he or she wants them to—or to nothing at all--and whose speaking
and writing are phantasmagoric, dream-like, disjointed, and bear little
relationship to the external world.
The more one reads progressivist
journal articles and books, course syllabi, and education school documents
(such as mission statements and program descriptions), the more one must admit
that these writings bear the marks of psychiatric disorder. Examples include:
1. Delusional thinking, or a fixed and usually false or fantastic idea
that is sustained despite
contradicting facts.
2. Loose associations. For
example, asserting causal connections among clearly
unrelated events.
3. Palilalia, in which a perseverated
word is repeated with increasing frequency.
4. Paragrammatism, or a
disorder of grammatical construction.
5. Neologisms, or made-up, nonsensical words.
6. Repeated use of stock words and phrases.
7. Driveling, or combining parts of an idea in a way that any meaning is
totally hidden.
8. Word salad, or a random and illogical
string of sounds, words, and sentences.
The writing samples of progressivists,
below, show striking similarities to the symptoms of serious psychiatric
disorder. I'm not saying the writers are mentally ill; I'm saying their
writing: (1) is similar to examples of psychosis found in psychiatric
literature; and (2) makes as much sense (and is as useful educationally) as the
writings of persons suffering from severe psychiatric disorder.
The writing samples
immediately following are from whole language advocates, and seem to show
significant detachment from the reality (facts at hand) known to sentient
persons--the reality of how children learn to read and how they are best
taught--as depicted by the preponderance of empirical (real, external world)
research. Read them slowly to get the
whole dose of nuttiness.
"Learning is continuous,
spontaneous, and effortless, requiring no particular attention,
conscious motivation, or specific reinforcement." (Smith, 1992, p. 432)
This may be an example of neologism. Smith has reinvented the meaning of
"learning" or is simply inventing a fantastical vision of what
learning is. Either way, his statement has little connection with factual
reality. Maybe he never tried learning
Greek or calculus.
"
Another example of a fanciful vision, this time applied to reading. The
statement appears to be rooted firmly not in the world of external fact but in
the rich inner world of incredible imagery and word play where
anything--including insane theories of reading--goes.
"
Denial of obvious fact, akin to saying, "See that bumblebee flying over there?
It's not flying."
"Early in our miscue
research, we concluded…That a story is easier to read than a page,
a page easier to read than a paragraph, a paragraph easier than a
sentence, a sentence easier than a word, and a word easier than a letter. Our research continues to support this
conclusion and we believe
it to be true…" (Goodman & Goodman, 1981).
Millions of vulnerable children are illiterate in part because the Goodmans believed their crackpot idea was true--and
thousands of teachers believed them. Is the Goodmans’s
assertion anything other than a catchy device for seducing naive readers into
seeing themselves as rebels against the traditional and reality-based way of
teaching reading; namely, beginning with the sounds made by letters? I
think not. The easy induction of new teachers into the mad fantasy of
whole language may account for the bizarre "strategies" (using
pictures, the shape of words, and other "cues" to guess at words)
that their mistaught students use to "read"
whole books when they don't even know what sounds the letters make.
"To the fluent reader
the alphabetic principle is completely irrelevant. He identifies every
word (if he identifies words at all) as an ideogram." (Smith, 1973).
Most folks don’t claim to know the workings of another person's thought
processes—to read minds as it were. Other persons apparently do think
they can read minds. Some of these persons are receiving needed treatment.
The next samples are consistent
with descriptions of disordered thought processes. Again, I'm not saying
the writers are disordered; just that their writing lends itself to that
interpretation.
"We cannot understand an
individual's cognitive structure without observing it interacting in
a context, within a culture." (Fosnot,
1996, p. 24)
The crucial word is "it." Fosnot
seems to be asserting that a cognitive structure is a real thing—not a convenient fiction—and that this thing
actually does things, such as interacting in a context. What does it mean
when a person treats fictions as if they were things?
"From this
perspective, learning is a constructive building process of meaning-making
that results in reflective abstractions, producing symbols
within a medium." (Fosnot,
1996, p. 27).
This frightening sentence is a string of loosely connected words that are
grammatically correct but stunning nonsense.
How does it differ from the quite mad statement, "Learning is a
constitutive process of affect-organizing that results in an inductive substratum
of signs and symbols within a knowledge trajectory"?
"Meaning is
constructed when awareness is created by observing and gathering
information…"
Another bizarre assertion, this time from a college of education website.
It appears to assert that awareness is a kind of thing that can be created—as
if it were a birdhouse or a sandwich—and that this creation depends on first
observing and gathering information. But doesn’t observing and gathering
information depend on
awareness? What do we think of the mental processes of people who get
dressed and then take a shower—in other words, do it in reverse order?
"Participation at the
social or interpersonal plane involves social interaction between two or more people
to coordinate activity face-to- face or at a distance."
This sentence, also from an education school website, is (1) a clear example of
driveling; (2) shows a poverty of ideas (as if it were a big insight that
social interaction involves two or more people); and (3) asserts bizarre
notions; e.g., that the purpose of social interaction is to coordinate
activity--when social interaction IS that activity.
"Our student-centered
professional development model is predicated on the belief…
Our student-centered
professional development model rests on the following assumptions…
Our student-centered
professional development model emphasizes the dynamic nature…
Our student-centered
professional development model emphasizes the types of knowledge…"
The above litany is another slice of the collective mental operations (i.e.,
sponge cake) at a college of education. Note the repeated use of stock
phrases—as a substitute for saying anything sensible.
"meaning
is constructed"…"meaning making"… "construct
and share their own
learning"…"ongoing reflection"…"reflection on their own
practice."… "outlets for reflection"…"make subject matter
meaningful to students"… "creates learning experiences"… "meaningful
learning experiences"… "managing the learning environment"… "reflective, inquiry-oriented"… "engage in
inquiry"… "reflection and inquiry into their
own practices"… "critical,
reflective, inquiring learners"… "teacher
preparation…is reflective"… "Think
reflectively"…
The above is from several education school websites. The samples show perseveration
and palilalia in the use of the same stock words and
empty phrases.
Now contrast the above driveling, palilalic, perseverative, loosely
connected and otherwise bizarre and delusional assertions from progressivists with a few lines from the works of
traditionalist writers.
"Teachers should make
explanations brief and concise." (Stein, Silbert,
& Carnine, 1997)
"The essential
characteristic of any good signal is its clarity." (Stein, Silbert, & Carnine, 1997)
"Because simple facts have
but one example, namely themselves, there can be no actual range of
examples." (Kameenui & Simmons, 1990)
"The overt sound blending
phase continues until the reader accurately and consistently decodes words at a
rate of one letter per second." (Kameenui
& Simmons, 1990)
"Decoding—is the central
skill in initial reading." (Engelmann, Haddox, & Bruner,
1983).
"After each teacher
presentation, students should be asked to model positive examples
for each behavioral rule." (Walker, Colvin, &
Ramsey, 1994).
The above statements refer to observable events and have clear implications for
planning and delivering instruction. As
with Missy discussed in Chapter 3, the writers of verified, useful, and sane
statements are ignored and vilified by the progressivist
education establishment, as we will see in chapters .
I believe our studies permit the
following generalization: In marked contrast to the writing of traditionalist
educators, progressivist (establishment) writing and
thinking are often incoherent, illogical, disconnected from the external world,, and are in many ways describable with a list of symptoms
of psychiatric disorder. Several implications follow.
1. It's no use
reasoning with these persons and groups. They have created and live within a different and a shared
dream-like reality, with different rules of
verification and falsification made up on the run as protection from discovery--much as a person suffering from
paranoid psychosis attempts to make a
rational case that everyone else is nuts.
2. Just as dangerous mental patients
should not have keys to the drug locker, these
persons and groups should not be allowed to miseducate
children, mistrain
teachers, or infect educational policy with their deluded ideation and pathological
practices.
The irreconcilable differences between traditionalists (anti-establishment) and
progressivists (establishment, who dominate
education) is not new.
I should have seen it as early as 1968--our next chapter.
Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., &
Bruner, E. (1983). Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons.
Finn, C.E., & Ravitch, D.
(1996). Educational reform 1995-1996. A report from the
Educational Excellence Network. http://www.edexcellence.net/library/epciv.html
Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.) (1996).
Constructivism : theory, perspectives, and practice.
Goodman, K. & Goodman, Y. (1981). Twenty questions
about teaching language. Educational Leadership, 38, 437-442.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(2001). Standards for professional development schools. Spring.
http://www.ncate.org/standard/m_stds.htm
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis
of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60-69.
Rosenshine,
B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (Third edition) (pp. 376-391).
York
Smith, F. (1992). Learning to read:
The never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 432-441.
Smith, F. (1973). Psychology and
reading.
Smith, J. (1986). Essays
into literacy.
Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D (1997). Designing
effective mathematics instruction.
Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1994).
Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies
and best practices.
Weaver, C. (1988). Reading process &
practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole
language.