From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Subject: Re: The Literary Canon
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 253-1481 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:05:35 GMT

In article <BsvxzL.HqM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> msmorris@watsci.waterloo.edu (Mike Morris) writes:
>
>                                  Wednesday, the 12th of August, 1992
>
>Michelle Manes chides me I think for not being realistic about
>my expectations for high-school lit education.
>
>I figure that I just did a poor job of communicating what I had on
>my mind, since I think I'm being very realistic about how bad
>this education now is.
[Lots of facinating and valid material deleted to save space & bandwidth]
>
>As to educational reform, perhaps we are not agreed, but I would insist
>that what is needed is content-based instruction, starting with first
>grade and continuing through high school. No teaching self-esteem, or
>considering that the primary purpose of school is day-care or socialization,
>but knowledge and skills. I would structure the curriculum over all twelve
>grades so that in mathematics, there'd be two years of calculus at
>the end, in science, there'd be two years of biology, two years
>of chemistry, and two years of learn-calculus-as-you-go physics.
>There'd be a broad structure in grades 1-6 of learning skills, in grades
>7-12 in introducing the application of these skills. So I'd require
>history every year. Lots of dates and timelines and geography and biographical
>sketches for grades 1-6, narrative and critical history for 7-12. I'd
>have twelve years of a foreign language, probably Spanish in the States,
>with students expected to be reading Spanish literature in 7-12. And in
>English, grades 1-6 would teach reading and writing and grammar, grades
>7-12 would be an introduction to canonical world and American
>(and sometimes local) literature and composition. This is where Homer
>and Dante and Hardy and Baldwin would come in.
>
>I would try to implement this by setting fixed-knowledge testing
>requirements for each grade level, and I would keep people back
>who didn't pass these requirements. I would also try to implement
>the modes of instruction advocated in the Mortimer Adler-led
>reform package of _The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto_.
>I would sell the idea that formal education is not so much
>a preparation for a job, that a diploma isn't a release from ever
>having to read another book, as a preparation for the kind of educational
>voyage that lasts a lifetime, a release into self-directed and self-motivated
>education. Finally, I would insist strongly on the democratic ideal
>Adler insists on: There would be no sheep and goats, no academic
>track v. vocational shop courses. Every child is educable. The same
>strong program would be for all.

Well, I've been sorta lurking in around here and hope you don't mind if I
jump in and throw in my two cents rather quickly on this topic.  I have
3 children and some very strong opinions on education and I think you are
really oversimplifying the problems with education.  For one thing, yes every
child is educable, but children don't respond equally to the same kinds of
education.  Learning is an interesting process and an interesting study.
Some people learn orally, some from written information, some by doing etc.
etc.  It's great to say "this is what we expect kids to know" but the problem
isn't really with what one wants them to know, but with _how_ to teach them.

You're advocating holding children who don't meet the standards back.
According to recent studies, holding a child back doesn't really help.  The
loss of self-esteem from "failing" and the boredom level from repeating the
same material (even if it _wasn't_ learned the first time) overrides the
advantages.  How many times will you hold them back?  Until they get it?
What if they don't, ever?  What will you do with all the children who aren't
educable by our present methods?  Also it's important to consider that these
aren't necessarily "stupid" children, or even economically disadvantaged
children.  My oldest child (11) is Learning Disabled.  Luckily for him, and
perhaps partly due to the interest in reading expressed in our household, his
disability doesn't manifest itself in reading, but mostly in mathematics,
writing (eye/hand coordination and spacing problems) and in names & dates
types of things.  Still he would have major problems meeting the requirements
you're advocating, and has problems meeting the general requirements as they
now stand (I'm not, by the way, advocating any lessening of requirements -
just giving an example of how education is not quite as simple as it might
seem).  Jason is also hard to test, but he reads at least 3 levels above his
grade level, while he has trouble with even very simple addition and 
subtraction problems.  Fortunately he seems to be learning to compensate for
his difficulty and was mainlined back into the regular classroom last year.
As we understand, most children who have some motivation learn to compensate
for learning difficulties by about the middle school level, but your very
difficult elementary education programs would be totally lost on such a child.

I also wonder if you are really considering the influence of the parents on
children.  Our family reads, and discusses reading, and emphasizes reading
constantly.  Jason taught himself to read long before he entered first grade.
I wonder if a child with similar problems in a different house would ever
have learned?  Also, if the children refuse to do the assignments (as in one
of your examples) and don't care if they're held back, and their parent's don't
care, what will you do with them?

Just as one other note, my high school history teacher believed it was totally
counter-productive to teach elementary children names and dates types of
history.  They don't have a developed sense of time-line (past, future, how
long is 100 years etc.) to place it in their minds.  He felt he had to reteach
time scale to all his high school students (upper level - honors classes by
the way) when they were old enough to understand it.  I don't have any
scientific studies to prove this theory, but from my own experience and that
of my children, I believe I agree with him.  I had to pratically relearn
any type if history after I left high school as the names and dates meant
next to nothing to me, and were not well-learned.  Perhaps, though, this is
from a similar disability to my son's as such things run in families.  However,
my seven year old still has trouble comprehending the difference between last
week and last month - both count as "a long time ago" to her, so I imagine the
difference between 100 years and 1,000 years would be really hard to explain.

Anyway just a couple of comments,
			Later,
				Laura Mollett
>
[Much more deleted for similar reasons]
>                  Mike Morris
>          (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
>
>
>


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books