Newsgroup: it.istruzione.scuola
Titolo: Gramsci e la Scuola

Su
http://www.cgilscuola.it/index1.htm
leggiamo:
Date: 06/9/01 03:04:42 PM
Name: Antonia
Email:
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scuola e Autonomia
"Quando è necessario si deve ricorrere alla coercizione, che, è ovvio, non
ha niente a che vedere con l'autoritarismo o con l'imposizione
predeterminata [...], si tratta piuttosto di abituare lo scolaro a un severo
metodo di studio che richieda impegno e sacrifici, di liberarlo dalla
pigrizia e dall'infantilismo, d'inserirlo in una molteplicità di rapporti
che arricchiscano la sua umanità.
Il concetto di coercizione porta al rifiuto della scuola "facile" che un
malinteso puerocentrismo propugna. Motivi sociali e pedagogici invece
impongono una scuola difficile, specialmente per coloro che si portano
dietro uno stato di arretratezza dovuto all'ambiente."
A. Gramsci "La formazione dell'uomo" Editori Riuniti
-----------------
prelevato per voi da
Azoth
--
"Io sono il Drago velenoso, presente dappertutto, che può essere acquistato
ad un prezzo irrisorio"  Basilio Valentino

 che arricchiscano la sua umanit?.


E.D. Hirsch, Jr., professore di "education and humanities" all' Università
della Virginia, è autore del libro *The Schools We Need, and Why We Don't
Have Them*.
In questo articolo Hirsch sintetizza brevemente il suo pensiero, definendosi
un progressista in campo politico ed un conservatore in campo educativo.
L'educazione cosiddetta democratica conduce paradossalmente all'ingiustizia
sociale.
L'idea non è nuova: già Gramsci aveva individuato i pericoli, per le classi
subalterne,  di certi metodi naturalistici e project-oriented.
Esiste una relazione inversa tra progressismo educativo e progressismo
sociale: l'educazione progressista porta allo status quo in campo sociale,
mentre l'educazione conservatrice è l'unica che possa garantire ai ragazzi
più deprivati un miglioramento delle loro condizioni.
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY TRADITIONAL EDUCATION IS MORE PROGRESSIVE
By E.D.Hirsch Jr
I would label myself a political liberal and an educational conservative, or
perhaps more accurately, an educational pragmatist. Political liberals
really ought to oppose progressive educational ideas because they have led
to practical failure and greater social inequity. The only practical way to
achieve liberalism's aim of greater social justice is to pursue conservative
educational policies.
This is not a new idea. In 1932, the Communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci
detected the paradoxical consequences of the new "democratic" education that
stressed naturalistic approaches over hard work and the transmission of
knowledge. Writing from jail (where he had been imprisoned by Mussolini)
Gramsci observed that
*Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts.
Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order.. The most
paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new type of school is advocated as
being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate
social differences but to crystallize them in Chinese complexities.*
Gramsci saw that it was a serious error to discredit learning methods like
phonics and memorization of the multiplication table as "outdated" or
"conservative." That was the nub of the standoff between himself and another
prominent educational theorist of the political Left, Paulo Freire. Like
Gramsci, Freire (a Brazilian) was interested in methods of educating the
poor. Unlike Gramsci, Freire has been quite influential in the United
States.
Like other educational progressives, Freire rejected traditional subject
matter and derided the "banking theory of schooling," whereby the teacher
provides the child with a lot of "rote-learned" information. This
conservative approach, according to Freire, numbs the critical faculties of
students and preserves the oppressor class. He called for a change of both
content and methods. Teachers should present new content that would
celebrate the culture of the oppressed, and they should also instruct in new
methods that would encourage intellectual resistance. In short, Freire, like
other modern educational writers, linked political and educational
progressivism.
Gramsci took the opposite view. He held that political progressivism
demanded educational traditionalism. The oppressed class should be taught to
master the tools of power and authority-the ability to read, write, and
communicate-and should gain enough traditional knowledge to understand the
worlds of nature and culture surrounding them. Children, particularly the
children of the poor, should not be encouraged to follow "natural"
inclinations, which would only keep them ignorant and make them slaves of
emotion. They should learn the value of hard work, gain the knowledge that
leads to understanding, and master the traditional culture in order to
command its rhetoric, as Gramsci himself had learned to do.
History has proved Gramsci a better prophet than Freire. Modern nations that
have followed Gramscian principles have improved the condition and
heightened the political, social, and economic power of their lower classes.
By contrast, nations that have adopted the principles of Freire (including
our own) have failed to elevate the economic and social status of their most
underprivileged citizens.
Gramsci was not the only observer to predict the inegalitarian consequences
of the educational methods variously described as "naturalistic,"
"project-oriented," "critical-thinking," and "democratic." I focus on
Gramsci as a revered theorist of the Left in order to make a strategic
point. Ideological polarizations on educational issues tend to be facile and
premature. Not only is there a practical separation between educational
conservatism and political conservatism, but there is an inverse relation
between educational liberalism and social liberalism. Educational liberalism
is a sure means for preserving the social status quo, whereas the best
practices of educational conservatism are the only means whereby children
from disadvantaged homes can secure the knowledge and skills that will
enable them to improve their condition.
Unfortunately, many of today's American educators paint traditional
education as the arch-enemy of "humane" modern education. Even everyday
classroom language unfairly pits the two alternatives against one another.
Here are some typical descriptions used by progressives to compare old and
new methods:
Traditional      vs. Modern
Merely verbal vs. Hands-on
Premature       vs. Developmentally appropriate
Fragmented     vs. Integrated
Boring             vs. Interesting
Lockstep         vs. Individualized

Lockstep         vs. Individualized
Finisce cosě o č venuto a mancare qualcosa?
Grazie
	Gianni

 Finisce cosě o č venuto a mancare qualcosa?
Ecco il resto. E' piuttosto lungo, come vedi, e non volevo appesantire
troppo il thread. Poi c'č sempre qualche newsreader che vorrebbe la
traduzione e... come si fa? (cmq ho altra roba in archivio! Anche gli USA
hanno i loro Maragliani, Vertecchi, Russo e Ferroni. E litigano a tutto
spiano anche laggiů).
Ciao
Pat
-------------------------------------------
Parents presented with such choices for their children's education would be
unlikely to prefer traditional, merely verbal, premature, fragmented,
boring, and lockstep instruction to instruction that is modern, hands-on,
developmentally appropriate, integrated, interesting, and individualized.
But of course this is a loaded and misleading contrast. Let's look at those
simple polarities one at a time.
Traditional vs. Modern Instruction - Reproduced below is a typical
progressivist caricature of traditional knowledge-based education:
The emphasis that permeated the traditional school was recitation,
memorization, recall, testing, grades, promotion, and failure. And for this
kind of education it was necesary that children primarily listen, sit quiet
and attentive in seats, try to fix in their minds what the teacher told
them, commit to memory the lessons assigned to them, and then, somewhat like
a cormorant, be ready at all times to disgorge the intake...This fixed,
closed, authoritarian system of education perfectly fitted the needs of a
static religion, a static church, a static caste system , astatic economic
system.
This argument ignores the fact that traditional knowledge-based schooling is
currently employed with great success in most other advanced nations. It
fails to note that challenging subject matter-the core of traditional
education-can be taught in a lively, demanding way.
If parents were told straightforwardly that the so-called "untraditional" or
"modern" mode of education now dominant in our schools has coincided with
the decline of academic competencies among our students, they might be less
enthusiastic about the experiment. When these dismal outcomes are pointed
out, progressive educators usually reply that progressivism has never been
tried "properly." That is false. It is merely the fail-safe defense that
apologists use for all unsuccessful theories.
Merely Verbal vs. Hands-on Instruction - The idea that students will learn
better if they see, feel, and touch the subjects they are studying has such
obvious merit that it would be amazing if traditional education did not make
use of multisensory methods of teaching. And indeed, if one studies the
history of educational methods, one finds that every traditionalist theorist
advocates hands-on methods where they lead to good results. The hidden
progressivist agenda on this issue lies in the disparagement of verbal
learning. An essential aspect of understanding in human beings is the
ability to speak or write about what one has assimilated. Disparaging verbal
learning is especially harmful to children who come to school with
restricted vocabularies because of family disadvantages.
Premature vs. Developmentally Appropriate Instruction - A fear of
"premature" instruction has led to the removal of significant knowledge from
grade-school curricula. Once again, the primary victims of this
impoverishment of education are disadvantaged children. Advantaged children
gain much of the withheld knowledge at home. If "premature" instruction is
such a grave risk, why do young children of comparable ages in other lands
absorb such knowledge with great benefit and no ill effects? The label
"developmentally appropriate" is generally applied without any empirical
basis-simply on the basis of a "gut reaction" by progressive educators.
Fragmented vs. Integrated Instruction - Both traditionalists and
progressives prefer instruction which shows how things fit together and at
the same time helps secure what is being learned by reinforcing it in a
variety of contexts. The pseudopolarization over "fragmented" teaching has
been exploited ever since the teens of this century to disparage the direct
teaching of subject matters such as mathematics, spelling, and biology in
classes that are specifically devoted to those topics. The whole outdated
concept of subject matters is to be replaced by "thematic" or
"project-oriented" instruction. The result has been not integration at all
but the failure
of students to learn the most basic elements of the different subject
matters.
Boring vs. Interesting Instruction - This opposition is used to withhold
academic subject matters such as ancient history and science from children
in the early grades on the grounds that true education proceeds from the
child's own experience rather than externally "imposed" concepts. Because it
is true that children learn best when new knowledge builds upon what they
already know, progressives insist that early schooling should be limited to
subjects that have direct relevance to the child's life, such as "my
neighborhood" and similar "relevant" topics.
Yet every person with enough schooling to be reading these words knows that
subject matters by themselves do not repel or attract interest. An effective
teacher can make the most distant subject interesting, and an ineffective
one can make any subject dull. The presumption that the affairs of one's own
community are more interesting than those of faraway times or places is
contradicted in every classroom that studies dinosaurs and fairy tales.
Progressives warnings about classic subject matter being "boring" or
"irrelevant" simply conceal an anti-intellectual, anti-academic bias.
Lockstep vs. Individualized Instruction - Traditional instruction is said to
impose the same content on every student, without taking into account the
child's individual strengths, weaknesses, and interests, whereas modern
instruction is tailored to each child's individual temperament.
Unquestionably, one-on-one tutorials are the most effective mode of teaching
. How, then, can we explain the paradox that individuals learn more and
better in schools where greater emphasis is placed on whole-class
instruction than on individualized tutoring? How do we explain the research
finding that even students needing extra help make more progress when whole
class instruction is emphasized over individual tutorials?
The answer lies in simple arithmetic. It is impossible to provide effective
one-on-one tutorials to 25 students at a time. When one student is being
coached individually, 24 others are being left to their own devices, usually
in silent seatwork. When, on the other hand, knowledge is effectively given
to the entire group simultaneously, more students are learning much more of
the time. The occasional individual help they receive is all the more
effective. By contrast, classrooms that march under the banner of individual
attention are often characterized by individual neglect. In short, many
progressive educational assertions that have attained the status of
unquestioned fact by being repeated constantly are huge oversimplifications.
They wither under close scrutiny. And they have done serious harm.
Among other results, hostility to traditional schooling methods and subjects
has fostered inequality. The record is clear. In the period from 1942 to
1966-before progressive theories had spread throughout our schools-public
education had begun to close the economic gap between races and social
classes. But after 1966, as sat scores went into steep decline, the
black-white wage gap abruptly stopped shrinking.
Black Americans currently earn about 16 percent less than whites at the same
grade level. Social scientists studying this have recently shown that 12 out
of those 16 percentage points can be explained by the fact that blacks have
been less well schooled. When black and white earners are matched by their
actual educational attainment, rather than just the grade level they
achieved, the black-white wage disparity drops to less than 5 percent, and
some of this remainder can be explained by factors other than racial
discrimination.
It is poor children who have been hurt most by the dominance of
"progressive" ideas, but they are not the only victims. Almost all American
children have been receiving inferior schooling that hinders them from
developing their capacities to the fullest. Compared to the rigorous
educations received by many Europeans and Asians, most American children are
"underprivileged."
Is there an available alternative to today's failed progressive education?
Yes. That alternative is knowledge-based education.
I presented for knowledge-based education in my 1987 book Cultural Literacy.
Since then, thanks to some very independent-minded principals and teachers,
I have gained valuable direct experience with teaching challenging subject
matter in early grades. In 1990, Dr. Constance Jones, the principal of Three
Oaks Elementary School in Fort Myers, Florida, made her large,
mixed-population public school the first in the nation to follow the
principles of Cultural Literacy. The stunning success of Three Oaks then led
another principal, Mr. Jeffrey Litt, to introduce the same principles to his
school, the Mohegan School, No. 67, located in the South Bronx. The Fort
Myers experiment received a lot of attention, but it was the remarkable
early results achieved in the South Bronx that drew the attention of network
news programs, Reader's Digest, and other magazines and newspapers. Public
notice for both schools led other elementary schools to make the arduous
shift to a solid, knowledge-based curriculum. The education press now calls
our school reform effort the Core Knowledge Movement. It has been fully
adopted in more than 350 public schools in 40 states, and a much larger
number of schools are successfully using the foundation's principles and
materials.
The fact that so many energetic principals and teachers have been willing
and even eager to break out of "progressive" education and return to more
effective traditional methods is our best hope for America's educational
future.