I seem to be opposed to the philosophy of this book while agreeing with many of its conclusions.
I'm of the opinion that turning education into an academic discipline rather than a professional practice was a huge mistake, and that we actually know less about how to properly educate students in 2026 then we did back in 1926.
We have thousands of years of accumulated knowledge of how to run a classroom that we've turned our backs on in favor of chasing the latest peer-reviewed studies on how people process language or different communities learn differently.
None of this matters unless the classroom is ordered, has discipline, has distractions removed, and teachers are willing to compel students to read, practice math problems, and learn by rote the few things that every person should memorize.
Disabled students that cannot do these things need to be placed in a separate class and non-disabled students that fail should fail out of school entirely.
All of these practices were perfectly normal in public schools circa 1970 and there's no reason why we cannot return to this style of teaching.
None of this is in the least bit hard. American schools have previously taken malnourished and disadvantaged children who grew up in horrific tenements and dire rural poverty and taught them to read, write, and do arithmetic. No child born in the 21st century faces anything like these deficits. We just need to relearn what we used to do in an average 20th century school.
I'm curious if these views will prompt debate. Obviously parents and administrators will be utterly opposed to what I've suggested because nobody wants to discipline Johnny or take responsibility for disciplining Johnny, but we will remain where we are or decay further unless we recognize that having the student leave a teacher's friend is not the best approach, and that grading needs to be honest and severe.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts, Anecdotage; I think you are covering some important ground here. While reading your post, the following excerpt from another chapter of Traitorous Education came to mind (where I discuss my thoughts on the importance of "marrying" education with science so we can, as you so eloquently put it, avoid turning our backs on many years' worth of "accumulated knowledge of how to run a classroom") so I thought I'd post it here to see if it helped further this discussion:
I think these two loves of mine—education excellence and science—should be (and stay) married to each other. This is because they are excellent together, struggle when they are apart, and when they are separated it harms all “the children” (i.e., all the people in a given society). Before getting into the importance of this marriage, I think I should also clarify what I mean by “science” because there are a variety of ways people seem to conceptualize it. To me, science is the use of one’s mind and senses—or, rationalism and empiricism, respectively—to move toward a more valid understanding of oneself, others, and/or one’s environment. In other words, science cannot reasonably be defined as what people with science degrees do. Indeed, sometimes what scientists do is not very scientific, as the chapters following this one will illustrate. Rather, science is a way of thinking that anyone who is willing to put in the work can engage in at any moment and in relation to any topic, including health, politics, parenting—and, yes, education.
I think this definition of science raises two important questions: (1) what does it mean to “move toward validity”? and (2) how does that differ from “finding Absolute Truth”? I believe that an understanding of the difference between validity and Absolute Truth is critical—and, it seems to me, all too rare. I define validity as the best appraisal of the truth one can attain, given the relevant evidence to which one does and does not have access. For example, all the claims in this book are based on evidence I have gathered using my mind (i.e., rationalism) and senses (i.e., empiricism). This evidence is in the form of:
• my own research,
• my reading of others’ research,
• my own direct experiences in the classroom, and
• stories from other educators, students, parents, and administrators.
I think the overlap among all the sources of data listed above may have helped me come to some valid conclusions. However, I am aware that there is—and always will be—some relevant data that I have not included in my analysis. In other words, I know I will never know everything on the topic of education excellence because it is impossible for any human being to do so.
"... the concept of “the downside of being an expert,” ... reflects on how expertise, while valuable, can inadvertently lead to complacency, closed-mindedness, and resistance to new perspectives."
Reminds me of what Planck said about how science advances, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
See the entry (they are in alphabetical order) on Epistemic Trespassing -- which is a real concept from philosophy (Google Scholar search will turn it right up).
I'm working my way through this list and thought I'd comment on this term: "Alliesheimers disease: A memory loss condition whereby one conveniently forgets one’s widely espoused principles of equity and inclusion when providing 'allyship' to those on your side by attempting to stigmatize, punish, or ostracize those on the other side."
During a faculty meeting at a school I taught at a few years ago, there was a discussion of making "all students feel welcome." There was a lot of focus on making sure that certain groups of students felt comfortable, but I noticed that many of the suggestions for these groups of students might cause other groups of students to feel "unwelcome." When I pointed this out--and how the goal of making every single student feel welcome all the time may be unrealistic (due to the fact that what makes one student feel welcome could make another student feel unwelcome)--I was told that we didn't need to be concerned about these other groups of students. When I shared my thoughts on how leaving certain groups of students off the "welcome train" seemed to run counter to the stated mission of "making all students feel welcome," I was told we needed to move on--which made me feel quite unwelcome. :)
As with the school described in my portion of the article above, it seemed to me that my public declaration of my desire to discuss methods of including all students in this "welcoming initiative" was my de facto resignation letter, so I began looking into other schools to teach at during the next academic year. Sure enough (and as predicted), my contract at this school was not renewed, so I moved on to my next school. The journey continues . . . and another chapter of Traitorous Education may be on its way soon!
Yes, Sharon. Science advances one funeral at a time! And I think a logical fallacy is often the culprit: "I am truly expert at something, therefore I wrongly believe I am truly expert at everything (or other things on which I am not an expert)." And at the end of the day, the evidence, not the reputation of someone who knows the evidence, must prevail.
Kuhn also speaks of the generational turnover in the sciences. I'm old enough to have had a geology prof who would not accept continental drift! Ideological capture of academia & education by the left has given this a particularly painful spin especially for those of us who fled academia because of it.
Sharon, Martin, and Sigdrifr, your posts immediately brought to mind the following excerpt from another chapter in Traitorous Education that covers one potential barrier to advancing with the relevant science (i.e., the pursuit of "Absolute Truth"--rather than "validity"), so I thought I'd post it here for your consideration:
The pursuit of Absolute Truth, on the other hand, implies a belief that one can eventually gain access to all the important data and infallibly interpret it. This is something I think no person (or group of people) can ever reasonably claim to have done, no matter how long they have studied and/or experienced something. As certain as one may feel about a topic, there can always be something out there one has not considered or will never be able to know for sure. I think one of the worst side-effects of what I have come to call “irrational certitude” is its negative effects on motivation for learning. If one believes one has found an Absolute Truth, why bother to learn more about the topic? If one believes someone else has found Absolute Truth, why bother to seek out other sources of (potentially conflicting) information?
For example, if I irrationally believed that all of the claims in this book represented Absolute Truth—or, that I have taken in all the relevant data that there are (or ever will be) about these claims and that my interpretation of all these data was absolutely unassailable—I am unlikely to be motivated to:
a) listen to anyone with a different viewpoint and/or
b) keep up with new scientific findings on education excellence and the promotion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of satisfaction.
Why should I waste my time listening to others or reading new research if I already know all there is to know? On a related note, if I could convince others that I had access to the Absolute Truth, I could harm their motivation in a similar way. Why should others listen to views that oppose mine if they are convinced I know everything there is to know about education excellence?
Because there are often new scientific findings and new ways to interpret these (and previous) findings, irrational certainty is likely to result in my being simultaneously:
a) ignorant of new findings in my field (and/or alternative ways in which to interpret them) and
b) confident that I know everything worth knowing.
Furthermore, if I combine this ignorance-centered confidence with a certain amount of persuasion, I could spread this irrational certitude to others, like a mind virus. I trust that I do not have to point out the various problems with the promotion of this frequently dangerous combination of ignorance, confidence, and persuasion. I imagine that you, dear reader, can easily come up with a variety of examples, both in your own life and throughout history, of confident, ignorant, and persuasive people who have caused themselves and/or others quite a bit of unnecessary pain and suffering.
I seem to be opposed to the philosophy of this book while agreeing with many of its conclusions.
I'm of the opinion that turning education into an academic discipline rather than a professional practice was a huge mistake, and that we actually know less about how to properly educate students in 2026 then we did back in 1926.
We have thousands of years of accumulated knowledge of how to run a classroom that we've turned our backs on in favor of chasing the latest peer-reviewed studies on how people process language or different communities learn differently.
None of this matters unless the classroom is ordered, has discipline, has distractions removed, and teachers are willing to compel students to read, practice math problems, and learn by rote the few things that every person should memorize.
Disabled students that cannot do these things need to be placed in a separate class and non-disabled students that fail should fail out of school entirely.
All of these practices were perfectly normal in public schools circa 1970 and there's no reason why we cannot return to this style of teaching.
None of this is in the least bit hard. American schools have previously taken malnourished and disadvantaged children who grew up in horrific tenements and dire rural poverty and taught them to read, write, and do arithmetic. No child born in the 21st century faces anything like these deficits. We just need to relearn what we used to do in an average 20th century school.
I'm curious if these views will prompt debate. Obviously parents and administrators will be utterly opposed to what I've suggested because nobody wants to discipline Johnny or take responsibility for disciplining Johnny, but we will remain where we are or decay further unless we recognize that having the student leave a teacher's friend is not the best approach, and that grading needs to be honest and severe.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts, Anecdotage; I think you are covering some important ground here. While reading your post, the following excerpt from another chapter of Traitorous Education came to mind (where I discuss my thoughts on the importance of "marrying" education with science so we can, as you so eloquently put it, avoid turning our backs on many years' worth of "accumulated knowledge of how to run a classroom") so I thought I'd post it here to see if it helped further this discussion:
I think these two loves of mine—education excellence and science—should be (and stay) married to each other. This is because they are excellent together, struggle when they are apart, and when they are separated it harms all “the children” (i.e., all the people in a given society). Before getting into the importance of this marriage, I think I should also clarify what I mean by “science” because there are a variety of ways people seem to conceptualize it. To me, science is the use of one’s mind and senses—or, rationalism and empiricism, respectively—to move toward a more valid understanding of oneself, others, and/or one’s environment. In other words, science cannot reasonably be defined as what people with science degrees do. Indeed, sometimes what scientists do is not very scientific, as the chapters following this one will illustrate. Rather, science is a way of thinking that anyone who is willing to put in the work can engage in at any moment and in relation to any topic, including health, politics, parenting—and, yes, education.
I think this definition of science raises two important questions: (1) what does it mean to “move toward validity”? and (2) how does that differ from “finding Absolute Truth”? I believe that an understanding of the difference between validity and Absolute Truth is critical—and, it seems to me, all too rare. I define validity as the best appraisal of the truth one can attain, given the relevant evidence to which one does and does not have access. For example, all the claims in this book are based on evidence I have gathered using my mind (i.e., rationalism) and senses (i.e., empiricism). This evidence is in the form of:
• my own research,
• my reading of others’ research,
• my own direct experiences in the classroom, and
• stories from other educators, students, parents, and administrators.
I think the overlap among all the sources of data listed above may have helped me come to some valid conclusions. However, I am aware that there is—and always will be—some relevant data that I have not included in my analysis. In other words, I know I will never know everything on the topic of education excellence because it is impossible for any human being to do so.
"... the concept of “the downside of being an expert,” ... reflects on how expertise, while valuable, can inadvertently lead to complacency, closed-mindedness, and resistance to new perspectives."
Reminds me of what Planck said about how science advances, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Heh. The Orwelexicon has this covered:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-new-expanded-illustrated-orwelexicon
See the entry (they are in alphabetical order) on Epistemic Trespassing -- which is a real concept from philosophy (Google Scholar search will turn it right up).
I'm working my way through this list and thought I'd comment on this term: "Alliesheimers disease: A memory loss condition whereby one conveniently forgets one’s widely espoused principles of equity and inclusion when providing 'allyship' to those on your side by attempting to stigmatize, punish, or ostracize those on the other side."
During a faculty meeting at a school I taught at a few years ago, there was a discussion of making "all students feel welcome." There was a lot of focus on making sure that certain groups of students felt comfortable, but I noticed that many of the suggestions for these groups of students might cause other groups of students to feel "unwelcome." When I pointed this out--and how the goal of making every single student feel welcome all the time may be unrealistic (due to the fact that what makes one student feel welcome could make another student feel unwelcome)--I was told that we didn't need to be concerned about these other groups of students. When I shared my thoughts on how leaving certain groups of students off the "welcome train" seemed to run counter to the stated mission of "making all students feel welcome," I was told we needed to move on--which made me feel quite unwelcome. :)
As with the school described in my portion of the article above, it seemed to me that my public declaration of my desire to discuss methods of including all students in this "welcoming initiative" was my de facto resignation letter, so I began looking into other schools to teach at during the next academic year. Sure enough (and as predicted), my contract at this school was not renewed, so I moved on to my next school. The journey continues . . . and another chapter of Traitorous Education may be on its way soon!
Yes, Sharon. Science advances one funeral at a time! And I think a logical fallacy is often the culprit: "I am truly expert at something, therefore I wrongly believe I am truly expert at everything (or other things on which I am not an expert)." And at the end of the day, the evidence, not the reputation of someone who knows the evidence, must prevail.
Kuhn also speaks of the generational turnover in the sciences. I'm old enough to have had a geology prof who would not accept continental drift! Ideological capture of academia & education by the left has given this a particularly painful spin especially for those of us who fled academia because of it.
Sharon, Martin, and Sigdrifr, your posts immediately brought to mind the following excerpt from another chapter in Traitorous Education that covers one potential barrier to advancing with the relevant science (i.e., the pursuit of "Absolute Truth"--rather than "validity"), so I thought I'd post it here for your consideration:
The pursuit of Absolute Truth, on the other hand, implies a belief that one can eventually gain access to all the important data and infallibly interpret it. This is something I think no person (or group of people) can ever reasonably claim to have done, no matter how long they have studied and/or experienced something. As certain as one may feel about a topic, there can always be something out there one has not considered or will never be able to know for sure. I think one of the worst side-effects of what I have come to call “irrational certitude” is its negative effects on motivation for learning. If one believes one has found an Absolute Truth, why bother to learn more about the topic? If one believes someone else has found Absolute Truth, why bother to seek out other sources of (potentially conflicting) information?
For example, if I irrationally believed that all of the claims in this book represented Absolute Truth—or, that I have taken in all the relevant data that there are (or ever will be) about these claims and that my interpretation of all these data was absolutely unassailable—I am unlikely to be motivated to:
a) listen to anyone with a different viewpoint and/or
b) keep up with new scientific findings on education excellence and the promotion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of satisfaction.
Why should I waste my time listening to others or reading new research if I already know all there is to know? On a related note, if I could convince others that I had access to the Absolute Truth, I could harm their motivation in a similar way. Why should others listen to views that oppose mine if they are convinced I know everything there is to know about education excellence?
Because there are often new scientific findings and new ways to interpret these (and previous) findings, irrational certainty is likely to result in my being simultaneously:
a) ignorant of new findings in my field (and/or alternative ways in which to interpret them) and
b) confident that I know everything worth knowing.
Furthermore, if I combine this ignorance-centered confidence with a certain amount of persuasion, I could spread this irrational certitude to others, like a mind virus. I trust that I do not have to point out the various problems with the promotion of this frequently dangerous combination of ignorance, confidence, and persuasion. I imagine that you, dear reader, can easily come up with a variety of examples, both in your own life and throughout history, of confident, ignorant, and persuasive people who have caused themselves and/or others quite a bit of unnecessary pain and suffering.