San Francisco Board of Education agrees to take dignified action


National Review

To fight the awakened classroom, go to Source: College Education Program.

In the last few months, there are countless stories of kindergarten-to-high school schools that have succumbed to and endorsed the overkill of progressive ideology. White, class material celebrating communism, and “ethnomathematics” that does not emphasize the need to find the “right answer.” Thankfully, most teachers I know don’t cope with such extreme situations. My own colleagues whisper their concerns and discuss their disapproval after such a meeting. A poll at Education Week found that most teachers perceive it to be moderate. These stories reveal the problem, but it is not the political progressiveism of most teachers. This is similar to ignoring the surrounding floods and shining light on individual cases of flood damage. You need to deal with a broken faucet. In this case, the university promoting progressive educational theory. I’m conservative, but I started my career as an advocate of progressive education just because I didn’t know there was nothing else. Most teachers are not openly in line with political progressiveism, but they still seek pedagogical guidance and curriculum materials from universities. As long as the university trains our teachers, influences our practice and creates teaching materials, the faucets will work unchecked. To combat the progressiveism of public schools, conservatives need to focus on universities, not on public schools or their teachers. Progressivist education can be broadly divided into two iterations. The first is relatively benign, but the effect is questionable. In the view of educational theorists such as Dewey and Rousseau, the school is not intended to convey the best culture or shape the character of the student, but merely to observe and propose. Instead of teacher-led classrooms and classical curriculum, students choose their literature and follow their interests. Many conservatives and liberals are very pleased with such a child-centered learning philosophy. The second iteration features feminists such as structuralists, Marxists, Michel Foucault, Paulo Freire, and bellhooks. They pursued an approach to teaching called “critical pedagogy.” The idea of ​​”getting an education”. Progressive pedagogy in Rousseau’s tradition has mediocre results, but is politically neutral. Critical pedagogy is a promotion that seeks to pass as guidance. The worst faculties of education are pushing for ideas such as “activist pedagogy.” This, as the name implies, will see students growing up, becoming activists and destroying the society in which they live. In the 90’s, long before critical race theory entered the general glossary, Gloria Radson Billings advanced the need for “critical race theory” in schools. Even Billings maintained a belief in academic excellence, but authors like Ibram X. Kendy instead abandoned proposing to test students with mere knowledge of their environment. did. In my own graduate program, our textbooks suggested that if a teacher needed to teach classical literature, he should do so through a Marxist, feminist, postcolonial, or critical racing “lens”. .. There is no such idea around educational theory. Critical pedagogy was not a training class or element of my teacher. That was the foundation. Such ideas weren’t pushed to individual courses, but they also affected seemingly unrelated classes in policy and instruction. Foucault, bellhooks and Freire were canons. Frederick M, Director of Education Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute. Hess found that this approach was common across college faculties. This reality has an impact. Our managers, teaching materials, policy makers, politicians, trade union leaders, and current trends in education all come from universities. As long as the faucet is up and running, our school will be flooded with such ideas, regardless of the political identification of the teacher. The consequences of this ideological approach to education are far more detrimental than some promotional lessons. Ideas have consequences, and these ideas appear in useless instructions. Professor Timothy Shanahan considered one of the popular curriculums that emerged from these ideas and said that these methods “are unlikely to lead to the success of literacy in all public school children in the United States.” Said. Basically, our school needs to consider such ideologies and embrace effective teaching methods in the classroom. I started my career as an advocate of critical pedagogy, allowing students to choose their own books, providing independent reading time, and always choosing conversations about results. Seeing the slightest results, I looked for other ways. I started taking my students to Romeo and Juliet and established expectations for their clear actions. Critical theory of education will predict the disorder in my classroom. The exact opposite happened. A student came to me and told me, “No book has really understood me so far and has given me so much guidance in my own life.” Another wrote me a letter thanking her for showing her that the book has a lot to teach. My most difficult student, who gave me a lot of detention, thanked me a few years later and asked me to be his mentor. He said he knew I care about him because I wasn’t blind to his cheating. Thankfully, this effort doesn’t have to be one of my personal persuasion. There are policies that can disperse the influence of universities and put pressure on the adoption of effective teaching methods. First, teacher licenses don’t have to stay in the realm of college. Education professor Gary Houchens said, “If education training can be offered in different environments with comparable quality, for example in a district-based professional development program, the market should definitely be open to them.” Insist briefly. Already, individual district programs and organizations such as ResearchEd and Teach for America all offer powerful alternatives that can collectively disproportionate university monopolies. Perhaps a former business owner with several pedagogy classes will make a convenient addition to any school building, even without a degree. Second, and perhaps more importantly, in the last two decades, even countless charter schools like the Michaela School and even the entire system like the Uncommon School have worked primarily with poor minority students. Nevertheless, it boasts incredible academic success. To do so, they reject the progressive theory of education and instead rely on classical literature, clear action expectations, and direct instruction. As the number of these schools continues to grow, they become the best argument that goes against university theory. If these charters give results, no matter what some ethnography says, why listen to the academic fools of some disgruntled scholars? Catherine Birbalsin and Doug Remov have shown that they are the leading spirits behind Mikaela and Uncommon, respectively, who can practice and succeed in traditional educational theories. In addition, they have published best-selling books to promote effective teaching methods. Finally, ideology and self-interest are calcifying the basis of humanity. Such editorials and the examples given by Remov and Birbalsin can persuade a small number of people, but the overall adoption of best practices is years before school profits are threatened. .. The words are compelling, but the effect of money changes. If the school can’t even achieve mediocrity, but is still receiving funding, there is little pressure to improve. Conversely, school choice is not a property tax, but a policy of linking funds to student attendance. If the student moves, the funding will follow. Under such a system, if parents see progressive politics going through as guidance, or if school pedagogy makes students illiterate, parents move their children and money elsewhere. You can take it with you. Some parents were still able to choose a building that promotes an awakened ideology, but I suspect that enough people will choose that choice for the survival of any institution. In short, most teachers claim to be at least moderate. The institutions that train them are not. If you only focus on some quirky lessons or individual districts, spend time scooping out floods while the faucet is in operation.