someone should clarify

rfowler who-is-at mecn.mass.edu
Sat, 04 May 1996 12:33:35 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with those who think that Stone's article is very sloppy.
One of the problems with it is that he doesn't understand the
construct that he is trying to bash. He excoriates, not
developmentalism, but his own misunderstanding of
developmentalism. Specifically, he collapses two of the three
streams of educational thought that Kohlberg and Mayer (1972)
identified, "romanticism" and "progressivism" (or cognitive
developmentalism), into the category of romanticism. According
to him, the problem that a developmental approach to education
has created is that we now have legions of romantic educators who
are neglecting to ask children to exert effort, to act
responsibly, to learn. His message for teacher educators is
this: we are failing America's children, because we are
succeeding in teaching romanticism (which he mistakenly labels as
developmentalism) to our students.

One problem with this critique, as others have noted, is that if
you spend much time in the schools, there are very few romantics
out there in the primary grades; and even fewer in the middle and
the high schools. Instead, what you usually find are teachers
who rely too much--for my taste, at least--on direct instruction
as a means of teaching.

Contrary to Stone, I think a more apt critique of American
teacher educators--and I include myself in this critique--is
this: teachers educators are failing America's children because
we are failing to teach (a legitimate version) of
developmentalism to our students. Indeed, this is the message of
those portions of the education reform movement which call for
schools and colleges to become "communities of learners."

Why do we fail? I can't speak for all, but I can speak of some
of the obstacles that I am still attempting to overcome in my
teaching. 1) I never experienced an inquiry based-approach to
education as a student--at any level. 2) The teaching models
that I have experienced have been almost exclusively teacher-
centered, especially at the college level. (This relates to the
recent discussion about the uses and abuses of the lecture in the
College classroom.) 3) When I do think my students and I have
co-constructed a common understanding based on the ideas of a
Dewey, a Piaget, or a Vygotsky, I often find that I am wrong. To
use Piagetian terminology, my students assimilate the ideas of
these theorists to their (largely behaviorist) notions of
instruction. I suppose this should not be surprising, though,
since they have experienced the same kind of education that I
have. 4) There are so few models of what I consider superlative
teaching practice out in the schools, that I am often placing
students with teachers that I don't consider role models.

I suppose that I might as well "confess" now what I have
obviously revealed above: yes, I am a transmissionary; and my
biggest concern is that I am not achieving my mission.

One final note. For an informed critique of the abuses of a
developmental approach to education and to child rearing, see
William Damon's (1994) GREATER EXPECTATIONS published by the Free
Press.

Clarke Fowler
Assistant Transmissionary
Salem State College
Education Department
352 Lafayette St.
Salem, MA 01978
(508) 740-7041
rfowler who-is-at mecn.mass.edu