Tales
Told By Idiots
December,
2004
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?
Sane and morally responsible persons and organizations
make inductions (beliefs) based on experience. Insane and morally irresponsible persons and organizations create
experiences based on what they already believe.
The following will show that the field of education bears a striking
resemblance to a collective delusion--powered by the fancies and
hallucinations of ed perfessers,
transmitted to new teachers through dream machine degree programs, and acted
out in the micro mental hospitals called schools.
Let's be good clinicians and examine the madness more carefully, shall we?
Education War
You know about the education war: whole language
vs. systematic and explicit reading instruction; fuzziest math vs.
well-designed math; multi-culti history and
literature vs. high level study of classical texts.
But this war isn't over values only. It's also over what SORT of intellect
will prevail. Rational vs. nonrational
or even anti-rational.
Folks in the know about family systems say that trivial arguments at dinner
("I ask five times before she passes the salt!") are about something
bigger—for example, one person's willingness to satisfy another person's
needs. In other words, skirmishes are nested within battles, and battles
are nested within wars. That's the case in education, which is divided
between two main camps:
1. The current education establishment: so-called "progressive"
educators (constructivists, whole languagists,
advocates of "developmentally appropriate practices," postmodernists)
who occupy positions of power and influence.
2. The education anti-establishment: so-called traditionalists
or "instructivists" (Finn & Ravitch, 1996) who advocate focused, logically progressive,
teacher-led instruction aimed at mastery of classical ideas and skills, and who
challenge the ideas underlying progressive education and offer clear
field-tested alternatives.
Instructivists include advocates of Direct
Instruction (commercial curricula), direct instruction (Rosenshine,
1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986), applied
behavior analysis, and Precision Teaching.
What sorts of conflicts are there between these two camps?
First, there are skirmishes about details of teaching—for
example, whether students should be taught to sound out words as the primary
strategy (instructivists), or taught to use context
cues (the shape of a word, the placement of a word in a sentence) to guess
what words say (constructivists). Or, in math, whether students should
first master elementary skills before they try to solve problems
that require the elementary skills (instructivists),
or learn the elementary skills in the context of solving problems
(constructivists)—which means that students have to learn both
elementary skills and problem solving strategies at the same time.
These skirmishes are embedded in larger curricular battles. For
example, traditionalist-instructivists see reading,
science, history, and math as knowledge systems that contain meanings and
truths independent of what individuals may think, and therefore regard
education as a means of bringing students into those systems via
teacher-directed instruction.
Constructivists, in contrast, see reading (literature), science, history, and
math as having no truths or meanings apart from individuals; the meaning
of a novel is constructed by readers; mathematical truths are matters of group
negotiation. Therefore, the teacher's role is not to transmit meanings and
truths (which are said to have no independent existence) but to help students
to construct these.
Curricular battles over reading, math, history, science, and other bodies of
knowledge are embedded in a larger war over social agendas and the social
functions of education. For example, "progressive
educators" believe that education in a democratic, technically advanced,
affluent society should be about:
(1) self-development for both teachers and students, fostered in a
quasi-therapeutic, "student-centered" environment;
(2) the promotion of (their vision of) social justice; and
(3) liberation of the individual from the allegedly repressive and self-stifling
coercive force of social institutions and external bodies of knowledge.
In contrast, instructivist-traditionalists believe
that education in a democratic, technically advanced, affluent society must
be about the preservation and perfection of democratic social institutions and
the intellectual and moral development of the individual (the two being
inseparable) by ensuring that individuals acquire the knowledge systems
required for their society's functioning, and that persons learn how to think
skillfully (reason) so that they (knowing how to judge the adequacy of
information and argumentation) will be able to make wise and morally good
personal and societal choices.
Yet, it would be a mistake to think that skirmishes (about method), battles
(over curricula), and war (over the functions of education) are merely
differences in the research bases used, instructional styles preferred,
or personal and group opinions and philosophies of the two
camps—differences that could perhaps be reconciled with more reading, more
research, and more discussion.
The two camps are opposed in a more fundamental and I think irreconcilable
way; namely, the quality of intellect itself as that intellect is
directed towards investigating and communicating about reality and
knowledge.
Indeed, differences between traditionalists-instructivists
and progressivist-constructivists can be accurately
rendered by the opposing terms rational vs. irrational, reasonable vs.
unreasonable, coherent vs. incoherent, metaphysically healthy vs.
metaphysically demented. Let's see some of the evidence.
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 traditionalist-instructivists
and progressivist-constructivists.
The traditionalist-instructivist—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 real-world 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., data capable of assessment by others
besides the data collector) on student achievement.
In marked contrast, the progressivist-constructivist
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 may 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); and
(3) changes the definitions of words--as if this does not violate their
common meanings. For example, "scientific research" for the progressivist-constructivist does not mean controlled,
experimental, quantitative, replicated research using validated instruments,
but instead means qualitative notetaking, because
this definition enables the progressivist-constructivist
(in his or her mind) to make no changes in how he or she thinks and acts.
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-instructivist
educator:
(1) knows there is much basic and applied research on reading;
(2) reads a good sample of that research;
(3) learns there are field tested programs consistent with the preponderance of
research that effectively teach the "big ideas" in reading (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 called reasonable, morally responsible—and sane.
In stark raving contrast, the progressivist-constructivist
educator (not in touch with or not accurately depicting reality):
(1) does not know or does not care that there is much basic and applied research
on reading;
(2) does not read this research or reads a self-serving sample (so that his or
her belief system is unchallenged);
(3) fails to see that there are field tested programs consistent with the
preponderance of research or rejects these programs (with contempt and
hauteur) because he or she does not like them; and
(4) instead of using these effective programs in his or her school, district,
or state (irrational), requires teachers with no training in these matters to invent
their own curricula (unreasonable) using an ersatz assortment of basal
readers, nondecodable text, qualitative assessments
not aligned with what is taught, spelling books, and made up lessons—that is, a
"curriculum" that is unsystematic, untested, redundant, and has glaring
curricular holes.
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 are
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-instructivist professors who have
managed to get tenure and do not fear constructivist-progressivist
colleagues, and are aware of the low status of ed schools on college campuses,
superficial teacher training, faddish ideas, and threats posed by alternative
certification--examine the ed 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 progressivist-constructivists
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 sustain the school's progressivist-constructivist
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 ed schools; and
(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 America's
children," "champions of social justice," "fostering
life-long learning and reflection."
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 traditionalist-instructivists and progressivist-constructivists
is their connection to and communication about reality. [In other words,
the latter--who at the moment run the asylums--are NUTS.]
Ordinarily he was
insane, but he had lucid moments
when he was merely stupid. [Heinrich Heine,
1797-1856)
In the missive on waking
dreams, we suggested that the educational establishment, or Edland, suffers from collective nonrationality,
or even anti-rationality, which helps to explain why Edland:
(1) almost always makes the wrong choices; (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.
In this serving 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-constructivist
journal articles and books, course syllabi, and ed
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, (usually)
false or fantastic idea, held in the face of evidence to the contrary…"
2. Loose associations.
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. Drivelling,
or "the muddling of elements within an idea to the extent that the meaning
is totally obscured to the listener."
8. Word salad, or "an apparently random
and illogical mixture of sounds and words."
The writing samples, below, of progressivist-constructivists
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.
"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.]
"
[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. "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'
assertion to be taken as 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 do not 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. I leave it to you to decide if these guys really are nuts.
"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 sentence appears to be a string of loosely
connected words that are grammatically correct but are nonsense—at least that's
the way it appears. In what ways 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 bird house or a sandwich—and that this creation depends on first
observing and gathering information. But doesn’t that 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, from an ed
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…"
[Another slice of the collective mental
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"…
[More from ed school websites,
showing perseveration and palilalia
in the use of the same stock words and empty phrases.]
Contrast the above driveling, palilalic,
perseverative, loosely connected and otherwise
bizarre and delusional assertions with a few lines from the works of
traditionalist-instructivist 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).
I believe our studies permit the following generalization:
In marked contrast to the writing of traditionalist-instructivist educators, progressivist-constructivist
(establishment) writing (and thinking) are often incoherent, illogical,
disconnected from the external world in which assertions can be tested, 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, Establishment persons and groups should not be allowed to miseducate children, mistrain
teachers, or infect educational policy with their deluded ideation and
pathological practices.
References
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.
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).
Smith, F. (1973). Psychology
and reading.
Smith, J. (1986). Essays into literacy.
Exter, NH: Heinemann.
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.