Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Common Core dumb-down

Why Constructivism and Direct Instruction will Damage Your Child’s Brain – Part 1
Posted on October 7, 2014 Written by Oak Norton, utahnsagainstcommoncore.com
Sac­ri­lege! Direct Instruc­tion is bad??? By the end of this 3 part arti­cle I hope to explain what I mean by this before my home­school and char­ter school friends storm the cas­tle, though they do have some­thing to ponder.
Back­ground: What Moti­vates Us
I recently lis­tened to a book on tape called “Drive,” by Daniel Pink. The book is about the sci­ence behind moti­va­tion. It’s a fas­ci­nat­ing sub­ject explain­ing the appro­pri­ate­ness of reward sys­tems and what increases or decreases moti­va­tion. He says that what we really seek is auton­omy, mas­tery, and pur­pose. When we are given high amounts of auton­omy, the oppor­tu­nity to per­form chal­leng­ing work at our level of com­pe­tency so we expe­ri­ence growth, and have mean­ing­ful pur­pose behind what we are doing, we expe­ri­ence some­thing called flow, a term coined by psy­chol­o­gist Mihály Csík­szent­mi­há­lyi mean­ing focused moti­va­tion. When we are denied these 3 ele­ments in var­i­ous degrees, we do not gain the state of focus and con­cen­tra­tion to max­i­mize our per­for­mance. You need to under­stand this to under­stand one of the edu­ca­tional philoso­phies I’m going to discuss.
Every­one is moti­vated either intrin­si­cally or extrin­si­cally. We are also rewarded either intrin­si­cally or extrin­si­cally. You either get joy out of what you’re doing, or some­thing exter­nal to you is your reward for doing it. What the stud­ies show is that when extrin­sic moti­va­tors are used incor­rectly, it can destroy intrin­sic moti­va­tion and dam­age that mech­a­nism alto­gether. There are times when both can be used effec­tively, but when intrin­sic moti­va­tion is key, such as in the area of edu­ca­tion, then intro­duc­ing extrin­sic moti­va­tors can cause seri­ous harm to the true long-term goals we have of chil­dren becom­ing life-time learners.
Here’s how it works. If some­one is doing algo­rith­mic work that could per­haps be auto­mated and doesn’t require cre­ative think­ing, those actions can be moti­vated by a reward or incen­tive sys­tem where the per­son knows they will be rewarded for com­plet­ing the task. For exam­ple, mov­ing boxes from one side of a ware­house to the other or rak­ing the leaves. These don’t require cre­ative processes (under most cir­cum­stances) and so you can incen­tivize them.
How­ever, as soon as you step into any­thing requir­ing think­ing and cre­ativ­ity, to pro­vide an extrin­sic moti­va­tor actu­ally decreases moti­va­tion and out­comes because what the indi­vid­ual could have done for intrin­sic pur­poses has been made to appear to be work instead of play. Instead of striv­ing for mas­tery for the chal­lenge itself, the bribe/incentive/reward turns it into work. Once on that path, rewards moti­vate peo­ple to seek rewards. In stud­ies men­tioned in Daniel’s book, cre­ative peo­ple are less cre­ative when they know there is a reward in it for them as if doing the thing itself isn’t enough. For exam­ple, ask­ing a child to read a book because it’s excit­ing and fun would turn into work for them if you offered them $10 to read it because they would begin to per­ceive that if you have to pay them to do it, you might be think­ing they really won’t like it and must moti­vate them with money.
If you’d like to watch Daniel Pink’s TED talk on moti­va­tion, it’s highly worth watching: 
A Lit­tle Edu­ca­tion History
Now we need to lay a lit­tle edu­ca­tion his­tory frame­work before we get to the meat of what’s going on.
In the early 1800’s, the Pruss­ian army was frus­trated that its sol­diers weren’t per­form­ing on the bat­tle­fields with pre­cise order. They wanted to make sure that future sol­diers didn’t have this prob­lem so they imple­mented com­pul­sory edu­ca­tion on their chil­dren and began psy­cho­log­i­cal approaches to edu­ca­tion to cre­ate the desired result of obe­di­ent chil­dren that would do exactly as they wanted.
Hall­marks of this Pruss­ian edu­ca­tion sys­tem included com­pul­sory atten­dance, national train­ing for teach­ers, national test­ing for stu­dents, national cur­ricu­lum for each grade, and manda­tory kinder­garten. The phi­los­o­phy it was based in was that humans were sci­en­tific objects. There is only a body, brain, and ner­vous sys­tem. There is no God, and no spirit, so every­thing in this sci­en­tific object was sub­ject to a stimulus/response system.
In the mid 1800’s, Horace Mann was trained at Leipzig uni­ver­sity in this method­ol­ogy and returned to Amer­ica to imple­ment it here. Up until this time, com­pul­sory edu­ca­tion was not used in Amer­ica. When it was imple­mented, par­ents rose up to stop it and the mili­tia was called out to force chil­dren to pub­lic schools until the prac­tice became accepted. John Tay­lor Gatto talks about this in his accep­tance speech when he was awarded the NY City Teacher of the Year award for the 3rd time. He also points out that prior to com­pul­sory edu­ca­tion, the lit­er­acy rate in Mass­a­chu­setts was 98% and after com­pul­sory edu­ca­tion was imple­mented it dropped and has never exceeded 91% since then.
G. Stan­ley Hall was another trained in this phi­los­o­phy at Leipzig and he was John Dewey’s men­tor. In 1934, John Dewey became one of the orig­i­nal sig­na­to­ries of the human­ist man­i­festo. The man­i­festo was a social­is­tic, athe­is­tic, reli­gious doc­u­ment pro­nounc­ing that there was no God or spirit and that man was to fare accord­ing to his capa­bil­i­ties. Through­out his life, Dewey sought to use the school sys­tem to imple­ment col­lec­tivist philoso­phies on chil­dren in an attempt to have them lose indi­vid­u­al­ity and pro­mote socialism.
Dewey wrote, “chil­dren who know how to think for them­selves spoil the har­mony of the col­lec­tive soci­ety which is com­ing, where every­one is inter­de­pen­dent.” (Human Events, 10/18/96)
He also wrote, “you can’t make social­ists out of indi­vid­u­al­ists.” (Gor­don, What’s Hap­pened To Our Schools? P. 16)
Another well known indi­vid­ual trained at Leipzig was Ivan Pavlov, famous for his bell ring­ing gen­er­at­ing sali­va­tion in dogs. Intro­duce a stim­u­lus and reward a proper response and these psy­chol­o­gists trained chil­dren the same way. To them, there was no such thing as chil­dren with divine poten­tial and indi­vid­ual God-given tal­ents and abil­i­ties, they were lumps of clay ready to be formed to what­ever the teach­ers desired them to become, given the proper stim­u­lus of course. Cor­rec­tion, Horace Mann referred to chil­dren as “wax,” not clay.
What did these psy­chol­o­gists want teach­ers to do to chil­dren? Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Har­vard pro­fes­sor of edu­ca­tion and psy­chi­a­try said this in this address to the Child­hood Inter­na­tional Edu­ca­tion sem­i­nar in 1973.
“Every child in Amer­ica enter­ing school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with cer­tain alle­giances to our found­ing fathers, toward our elected offi­cials, toward his par­ents, toward a belief in a super­nat­ural being, and toward the sov­er­eignty of this nation as a sep­a­rate entity. It’s up to you as teach­ers to make all these sick chil­dren well – by cre­at­ing the inter­na­tional child of the future.”
Ben­jamin Bloom, another psy­chol­o­gist and edu­ca­tor, most famous for his work on his hier­ar­chy of learn­ing, said we needed to move chil­dren toward higher order think­ing and defined it like this.
“…a stu­dent attains ‘higher order think­ing’ when he no longer believes in right or wrong. A large part of what we call good teach­ing is a teacher´s abil­ity to obtain affec­tive objec­tives by chal­leng­ing the student’s fixed beliefs. …a large part of what we call teach­ing is that the teacher should be able to use edu­ca­tion to reor­ga­nize a child’s thoughts, atti­tudes, and feelings.”
So we can imme­di­ately see that those who strongly influ­ence the edu­ca­tion sys­tem are in many cases cor­rupt god­less indi­vid­u­als who desire noth­ing more than to take chil­dren out of the home at young ages and reshape their belief system.
Last year the Texas Repub­li­can Party amended their plat­form to include this new item, demon­strat­ing that they under­stood this issue very clearly.
“Knowledge-Based Edu­ca­tion – We oppose the teach­ing of Higher Order Think­ing Skills (HOTS) (val­ues clar­i­fi­ca­tion), crit­i­cal think­ing skills and sim­i­lar pro­grams that are sim­ply a rela­bel­ing of Outcome-Based Edu­ca­tion (OBE) (mas­tery learn­ing) which focus on behav­ior mod­i­fi­ca­tion and have the pur­pose of chal­leng­ing the student’s fixed beliefs and under­min­ing parental authority.”
Oh, but all is well in Utah, right?
John Good­lad is the mod­ern era dis­ci­ple of John Dewey. He’s an athe­ist, social­ist, human­ist, anti-family, pro-social jus­tice edu­ca­tor that is one of the pre­mier voices lis­tened to in numer­ous edu­ca­tion depart­ments across the coun­try includ­ing BYU’s McKay School of Edu­ca­tion. Go fig­ure. Many quotes could be shared from Good­lad but I’ll just share a couple.
“Most youth still hold the same val­ues of their parents…if we do not alter this pat­tern, if we don’t reso­cial­ize, our sys­tem will decay.” – John Good­lad, School­ing for the Future, Issue #9, 1971
“Pub­lic edu­ca­tion has served as a check on the power of parents and this is another pow­er­ful rea­son for main­tain­ing it.” – John Good­lad, Devel­op­ing Demo­c­ra­tic Char­ac­ter in the Young, pg. 165
With peo­ple like this influ­enc­ing the sys­tem, is it any won­der that pub­lic edu­ca­tion is in decay? The goal these peo­ple are work­ing toward is social­iza­tion, and a dis­rup­tion and over­turn­ing of fam­ily values.
Con­tin­ued in Part 2

Related Posts

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)