Follow Ups

Post Followup

Pages from the Past: Good Reads Message Board

E. D. Hirsch's The Schools We Need
Author: Aimee Natal	January 10, 2000 at 13:48:04

	I'm in the middle of E. D. Hirsch, Jr.'s _The Schools We Need & Why We Don't Have Them_ (1996). Hirsch is doing a good job of dimantling a bunch of common, accepted "catch phrases" such as: traditional vs. modern "merely verbal" vs. "hands-on" premature vs. "developmentally" appropriate fragmented vs. integrated boring vs. interesting lockstep vs. individualized He speaks of "intellectual capital" and, using Jesus' words from the parable in Matthew 13:12, says he who has it, gets more and he who doesn't, even the little he has will be lost. There's an interesting few paragraphs in which he criticizes the "tool metaphor," which I wonder may apply to the idea of the Trivium being giving children the "tools for learning." See page 21 in his book. He traces other popular phrases (even today) such as "teach the child, no the subject" back to the Romantic notion that it is. Here are a few salient bullet points from p 66: * To stress "critical thinking skills" while de-emphasizing knowledge REDUCES a student's capacity to think critically. * Giving a child constant praise to bolster self-esteem regardless of academic achievement breeds complacency, or skepticism, or both, and, ultimately, a DECLINE in self-esteem. * For a teacher to pay significant attention to each individual child in a class of twenty to forty students means individual NEGLECT for most children most of the time. * Schoolwork that has been called "developmentally inappropriate" has proved to be highly appropriate to millions of students the world over, while the infantile pablum now fed to American children IS developmentally inappropriate (in a downward direction) and often bores them. He quotes Froebel, Pestalozzi, Frances Parker, William Kilpatrick- showing how they were all Romantics with no belief in original sin. Before the Romantic movement, the underlying concept of education assumed that a child is a still-to-be-formed creature who needs to be molded. He calls the current popular notions of learning style and multiple intelligences "scientized versions of Romantic individualism." HE states that progressivism in education is simply anti-intellectualism, a contempt for knowledge for its own sake. I recommend checking this book out at your library. I'm going to do a small write-up about Hirsch on my webpage in Feb 2000 - see http://userweb.idsonline.com/arnmrn91/index.htm Sincerely, Aimee Natal Natal Home Page
Follow Ups
Post Followup
	Name:    E-Mail:    Subject:    > I'm in the middle of E. D. Hirsch, Jr.'s _The Schools We > Need & Why We Don't Have Them_ (1996). Hirsch is doing a > good job of dimantling a bunch of common, accepted "catch > phrases" such as: traditional vs. modern "merely verbal" > vs. "hands-on" premature vs. "developmentally" appropriate > fragmented vs. integrated boring vs. interesting lockstep > vs. individualized > > He speaks of "intellectual capital" and, using Jesus' words > from the parable in Matthew 13:12, says he who has it, gets > more and he who doesn't, even the little he has will be > lost. > > There's an interesting few paragraphs in which he criticizes the "tool metaphor," which I wonder may apply to the idea of the Trivium being giving children the "tools for learning." See page 21 in his book. > > He traces other popular phrases (even today) such as "teach > the child, no the subject" back to the Romantic notion that > it is. > > Here are a few salient bullet points from p 66: * To stress > "critical thinking skills" while de-emphasizing knowledge > REDUCES a student's capacity to think critically. * Giving > a child constant praise to bolster self-esteem regardless > of academic achievement breeds complacency, or skepticism, > or both, and, ultimately, a DECLINE in self-esteem. * For a > teacher to pay significant attention to each individual > child in a class of twenty to forty students means > individual NEGLECT for most children most of the time. * > Schoolwork that has been called "developmentally > inappropriate" has proved to be highly appropriate to > millions of students the world over, while the infantile > pablum now fed to American children IS developmentally > inappropriate (in a downward direction) and often bores > them. > > He quotes Froebel, Pestalozzi, Frances Parker, William Kilpatrick- showing how they were all Romantics with no belief in original sin. Before the Romantic movement, the underlying concept of education assumed that a child is a still-to-be-formed creature who needs to be molded. > > He calls the current popular notions of learning style and > multiple intelligences "scientized versions of Romantic > individualism." HE states that progressivism in education > is simply anti-intellectualism, a contempt for knowledge > for its own sake. > > I recommend checking this book out at your library. > > I'm going to do a small write-up about Hirsch on my webpage > in Feb 2000 - see > http://userweb.idsonline.com/arnmrn91/index.htm > > Sincerely, Aimee Natal Optional link URL:    Link title:    Optional image URL:
Served by ruboard 1.2.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev.