There is another destructive and devastating trend in state schools: psychobabble has entered pedagogy and is taking over. Children, we are told by state educators, need to be affirmed.
Years ago we attended a "prize" giving at a small primary school. It lasted quite a long time. Why? Everyone was awarded a prize. There was a prize for the biggest smile; for the neatest hair; for helpfulness to the teacher; for kindness--you get the picture. The rationale was that it was vital to the well-being and development of the child that no-one was left out, everyone be affirmed. Disappointment was banished from the school.
Again, you ask why? Clearly this is not reality impinging upon the classroom. Once again, state schools see themselves as preparing children to be model citizens in our Western secular democratic societies which are, as we have seen, pluralistic and multi-cultural. Since nothing can be excluded, philosophically or religiously, everything must be accepted.
These days a few political leaders in the West (Angela Merkel and David Cameron) have been bold enough to declare that multi-culturalism is a tragic failure, a mad experiment that has not worked. Its ramifications do not work in state schools either.
Meaningful learning cannot get far if "A is not non-A" is ignored. Modern education must affirm both "A" and "non-A", since to speak of "non-A" is implicitly discriminatory and negative. Pupils that embrace both "A" and "non-A" must be told they are wrong, incorrect if they are to be educated. But that does not accord with the "affirmation narrative".
In recent decades it has become common to regard children as fragile, emotionally vulnerable things who cannot be expected to cope with real intellectual challenge. It was in this vein that in April 2007 UK teachers were instructed by (Education Secretary) Alan Johnson that they should routinely praise their pupils. According to guidelines, teachers ought to reward children five times as often as they punish them for disrupting lessons. . . . Increasingly the therapeutic objective of making children feel good about themselves is seen as the primary objective of schooling.
Frank Furedi, in Robert Whelan, ed., The Corruption of the Curriculum, p. 8f
The New Zealand curriculum has swallowed this psychobabble hook, line and sinker.
Learning is inseparable from it social and cultural context. Students learn best when they feel accepted, when they enjoy positive relationships with their fellow students and teachers, and when they are able to be active, visible members of the learning community. Effective teachers foster positive relationships within environments that are caring, inclusive, non-discriminatory and cohesive.
"Effective Pedagogy", The New Zealand Curriculum, p.34.
When this is applied to particular subjects, heuristic chaos results. Take history. "I think Hitler was not a bad chap," says one student. "It is good to have structure and order." Teacher: "Well said. We must care about Hitler's memory. We must not discriminate against him. We are all human beings and we must pull together. Excellent point."
An exaggeration? No. It's that bad. In both the UK and in New Zealand, the subject of terrorism has recently been thrust to the fore of history curricula. Materials to help teachers cover this topic have been hastily assembled.
This material being promoted presents terrorism as its victims as having, broadly speaking, equal points of view. After all, "new history" is about "value relativism"--all views are equal since history is all a matter of opinion. A pack . . . contains 13 sources. Four of these are about Osama bin Laden, including one source that provides extracts from his own words across a range of topics and another source that transcribes his words about the September 11th attack. These two pro-Bin Laden sources are "balanced" only by a fairly neutral biography of Bin Laden and by a copy of the FBI Wanted Poster for him.
Across the other nine sources two are pro-US, two are anti-US and four are, broadly, neutral. The final source provides 16 quotations from the world press on the third anniversary of 9/11. Eight of these press reports come from the Islamic world and are largely hostile to the West. The other eight are from Europe and Asia. Five of them are critical of the US. The US press is not represented.
What is clear is that these teaching materials include substantial evidence to justify terrorism.
Chris McGovern, The New History Boys, Whelan, op cit., p.63f.
This idiocy is a direct result of the psychobabble of affirmation, affirmation, affirmation. Objectivity means that anything is acceptable to someone. Affirmation means that any views must be accorded respect.
Teaching history has become "New History". Wonderful. The achievement of "skills" rather than knowledge now drive the subject.
Teach what content you like. It really does not matter. "New History" is not reliant upon any specific content.
Ibid, p.67
It is important to realise that this is not a sudden development. This process of "using" the subject of history (or social studies) as a pretext to build "model citizens" has been gathering steam for over forty years. There can be no turning back now. The West long ago relinquished the one meta-narrative that gives a framework to reverse this drift into irrational meaninglessness. Just how meaningless becomes clear when perspectivalism rears its ugly post-modern head.
The current UK National Curriculum document in the UK requires that history be taught "perspectivally". Every perspective is equally valid.
. . . children must be taught history through four "diversity" perspectives--"the social, cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity of the societies studied". In addition, perspectives on "experiences", on "ideas", on "beliefs", and on "attitudes" relating to each of men, women and children must be taught--"the experiences and range of ideas, beliefs and attitudes of men, women and children" in the "periods and societies studied". This amounts to another 12 perspectives. . . .
Although the National Curriculum document does not always use the word "perspective" there are, in effect, 24 of them. . . . The obsession with "political correctness" in most of these perspectives is clear. Take any landmark personality or event in history and start applying these perspectives to its teaching and we see how the familiar and famous can easily become the unfamiliar and the uninformative. . . .
These perspective act as a kind of filter. It a battle is taught it is as likely to be through a "social" or "gender" perspective--conditions on board HMS Victory or the rule of women in World War II munitions factories--than it is to be about military events at Trafalgar or El Alamein. When children learn about Elizabeth I they are as likely to learn about how she dressed and went about her daily life as they are about what she did. The unfolding narrative of what happened across the Tudor period does not have to be covered.
Ibid., p.71f. Emphasis, ours.
There will be some who argue that this will be a pendulum phenomenon. The irrationality and idiocy of New History will generate its own counter reaction, and things will move back to a meta-narrative of our "unfolding story". Don't hold your breath. What story would that be? The West in its headlong rush to deny the Living God has been forced into a relentlessly sceptical position where meaning is what we say it is.
But the relentlessness is not finished yet. Meaning is what "we say it is" has now gone still further. Meaning is now what I say it is. Hence the emergence of constructivism--the latest pedagogical fad, which is the most consistent end-point of scepticism yet seen. Since truth is radically relative and perspectival, it is also individual. Therefore, each pupil needs his or her own personally constructed curriculum. (Incidentally, we believe this is why the teaching profession lusts after having the Internet available in classrooms. It has little to do with teaching and educating. Rather, its attraction is that it facilitates students to construct their own "thought-world".)
We will address this in the next piece in the series. Meanwhile we reiterate: state schooling appears irretrievably lost. Given the philosophical, religious and cultural forces arrayed against the state education system, it would appear the entire edifice can only go one way--from failure to ever greater failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment