Thanks a lot for sharing this interesting article with us. I have several
comments to make.
1. I really admire the author of the article for her depiction of the
opponents' ideas. I can definitely recognize myself in her portray of
educational professors. I'm comfortable with Deborah's (Saunders, the
author of the article) "basic facts" about constructivism (or progressivism,
or whatever label to use).
2. I think that the article is not fair because there is tacit assumption
that constructivism/progressivism-oriented professors of ed shape US
education. I don't think it is true or even close to be true. Public
Agenda forgot to ask for ed professors' opinions about how many school
teachers TRULY run classrooms according to the constructivism described in
the article, how many schools, school districts, school boards, and states
allow the teachers to run the classroom in a constructivist way? Finally,
how many ed professor do in their own classrooms what they preach the
teachers should do?
3. I also think that the author is right to some degree by pointing out
that constructivism-oriented educators often dismiss some curricula (e.g.,
"basic facts," "computation," "spelling," "phonics") (I can provide a long
list of references to support this point). I agree with Debra that it is
not a good thing. I am with Jerome Bruner who once said something like
that, any child can be taught any curricula at any age but it should be done
in an HONEST WAY. It seems to me that an honest way of teaching "basic
facts" (or phonics, or spelling, or computation) is to ask why the suggested
facts have to be basic for myself as a teacher, for other people, and for
the students. I think that the constructivist focus should be on
meaningfulness of learning for the all participants (especially the
students) rather than on specific curricula. I strongly believe that
phonics can very exciting and extremely helpful for kids. And vise versa,
so called "whole language curricula" can be as terminal as a gun bullet.
For example, my literature loving son now hates "The Diary of Anna Frank"
after his seven grade English teacher did "whole language block" on this
book. I think we should prioritize the discussion of questions WHY? (i.e.,
educational philosophy or teaching models) rather than WHAT? (i.e.,
curricula) or HOW? (i.e., teaching methods).
What do you think?
I definitely give my students to read and discuss this article.
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Coons <lcoons who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>; Laboratory Comp. Human
Cognition <lchc who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, October 27, 1997 4:54 PM
Subject: north county times (monday, 10/27/97)
>
>Blame 'edu-crats' for dumb kids
>
>
>
>Half of fourth-graders who took a new national science test could not
>identify the Atlantic and Pacific oceans on a map. That fact may upset
>you, but to go by a survey of 900 education professors, few teachers of
>teachers are losing sleep over the news.
>
>Public Agenda, the New York-based policy group that conducted the survey,
>found that only 33 percent of education professors believe students should
>know the names and locations of the 50 states before getting a high school
>diploma. As one Los Angeles ed prof explained, "Why should they know that?
>They need to know how to find out where they are. When I need to know
>that, I can go look it up."
>
>Is it any wonder that some schools fail when teaching professors who
>don't care whether kids know basic facts? As the study showed, the
>ultimate "edu-crats" demonstrate little love of knowledge. They worship
>process. They see teaching as an exercise in helping students learn how to
>find out things. To them, knowledge is a byproduct.
>
>Public Agenda asked: When teachers assign specific questions in math or
>history, is it more important that kids struggle to find the right answer
>or that kids give the right answer? An amazing 86 percent said that
>struggling was more important. Only 12 percent preferred a right answer.
>
>Are teachers "facilitators of learning" or "conveyors of knowledge"?
>Facilitators, 92 percent agreed; 7 percent answered conveyors. The key is
>to turn out lifelong learners who are excited about learning. Education
>professors are striving for a nation of ill-informed, would-be
>autodidacts.
>
>Ed schools have turned into re-education camps, where the main focus is to
>produce like-minded facilitators. Imagine education professors more
>interested in attitude than actual knowledge.
>
>One question: How are kids supposed to be excited about learning when
>they're not learning much of anything?
>
>One important point: Cult-like edu profs don't always agree with teachers
>who have been pressed to practice this edu-babble in the classroom. More
>ed profs (54 percent) than teachers (40 percent) believe in mixing fast
>and slow learners in the same class. More teachers (88 percent) than ed
>profs (66 percent) believe in taking persistent troublemakers out of
>classes so that other kids can learn. Fewer ed profs (49 percent) than
>teachers (62 percent) believe students should have to pass proficiency
>tests to graduate into higher grades.
>
>"They are honest even when it does not redound to their benefit," Public
>Agenda Executive Director Deborah Wadsworth noted. To wit: 75 percent of
>education professors said their students have trouble writing essays free
>of grammatical and spelling mistakes. Yet 68 percent said most graduates
>come close to their ideal of a teacher.
>
>Then most profs blame the media for the public's decline of confidence in
>public schools.
>
>Wrong. If you want to know where the decline in public schools
>incubates, here's your answer. New teachers must pass a 10th grade level
>test to become certified in California. In 1991-1992, 29 percent
>of-graduate students flunked that test the first time they took it.
>That number contains some foreign students, but it still smarts,
>especially when adults who hadn't been in school for 20-plus years scored
>better than graduate and undergraduate test-takers.
>
>Some minority groups have sued the state to end the test because too many
>minorities fail it. They'd do better to sue the colleges that gave these
>would-be teachers passing grades year in and out.
>
>As Wadsworth noted, the ed profs dismiss the public's views on schools as
>"outmoded and mistaken."
>
>Yet they're the dons who turn out lifelong learners who can't pass a 10th
>grade test. Maybe they do know how to learn, but they surely don't know
>how to learn from their mistakes.
>
>Debra J. Saunders is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.
>
------------------------------------
Eugene Matusov
Willard Hall#206G
Department of Educational Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716, USA
phone: (302) 831-1266
fax: (302) 831-4445
email: ematusov who-is-at UDel.edu
web: http://www.ematusov.com
------------------------------------