Friday, September 21, 2007

Theories in education

If you believe the Teachers College of Columbia University, the leading theorists in education are still Karl Marx and John Dewey. Let's talk about the promotion of Marx, as if 100 million dead is not enough.1

I know, I know, there he goes over the top again. But, I don't make this stuff. I just read it and pass it on -- editorial comments included.

Simply subscribe to TCRecord This Week, the weekly email update from the Teachers College Record -- it's free -- to see what drives the agenda in so-called elite education colleges. This week's edition is just another example of the nonsense that goes by the name of scholarship. Read the lead article,
Learning Democratic Reason: The Adult Education Project of J├╝rgen Habermas by Stephan Brookfield, before it moves from free content to subscription-only content.

By the second page, you will have been treated to passages such as, "Giving up 'the old Marxian dream of total change' is necessary in Habermas's view if we are to work to achieve realistic and specific social change in particular contexts." Not to fear, as "(a)t times Habermas refers to himself as a Marxist, declaring in one breath that 'today I value being considered a Marxist.'"

According to Habermas, Marx failed because he didn't synthesize his theories with democracy. You see, Habermas simply wants a blend of Marxism and democracy -- the Habermas utopia. Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like the public school vision of utopia.

Yes, the whole stew is there, piled high with Marxist rhetoric, steeped in a broth of the theories -- materialism, etc. -- that drove the world to madness.

Keep in mind that the Teachers College is one of the leading education schools -- teachers of public school teachers. Again, I don't make it up, I just report it.

Note to Olentangy residents: The Teachers College Record considered the nonsense of Ruby Payne to be over-the-top; too far out. Yet, this is the agenda running
your schools, an agenda you support with your tax dollars.

note:

1. The estimate of the number of noncombatants killed by communist/socialist governments in the Twentieth Century.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

To the uninitiated, it would be easy to see how someone who stumbles upon the TCRecord would believe it was a parody of pretentious, intellectually diarrhetic, self-aggrandizing blowhards; a goof on people so insecure about the vapidity of their profession that they try to create a science around it—going so far as to creating it’s own tortured language. Making this theater of the absurd even more absurd is the disconnect between the adherents of the lofty concept of “scholarship in education” and the low-brow knowledge base and skill requisites for the actual practice of teaching. This is something akin to garbage collectors trying to fool us into believing they’re actually “sanitation engineers”.

This, of course, would be utterly laughable—true comedy—if it weren’t for the fact that eggheads (or wannabe eggheads angling to replace Dr. Davis, like Ms. Hooey) are using works of “scholarship in eduction” to base our CIP upon…that are rejected by the pretentious blowhards at the TCRecord!!!

The only thing that could be worse than the crap coming out of the TCRecord…is the TCRecord rejected crap that our Administration is basing our kids’ educations on. Something is seriously, seriously wrong here.