|
It is an oft-repeated complaint that our schools tell kids what to think, not teach them how to think. Questioning of the material presented is not encouraged (presumably to maintain order in the room). Since my children began school, I noticed certain “facts” that arose from classroom information that I’ve had to address. Mostly, I do this directly with my child, not to the teacher. I provide the framework to be thoughtfully critical of what they have been told. I’ve not hesitated to tell my kids that the teacher is NOT always right. There is more to the story that is not given. The world is a complicated place and one should not simply accept whatever is being presented as truth, without thinking about it first.
I recognize I’m probably not going to persuade teachers to be a bit more accurate with the story of Christopher Columbus or to talk about animals in terms of evolutionary relationships (as I would prefer). It’s clear that science, art and music is marginalized to make way for intense reading and math so that standardized test score goals are met but I am willing to supply educational enrichment myself or through opportunities outside of school. But, I’m also convinced that golden opportunities within the classroom are frequently missed.
Last year, two situations came up where I chose to become directly involved. The results, you will see, made me less than hopeful about the state of education.
Over dinner one evening, my daughter casually mentioned that, in her 7th grade World Histories class, they watched a video left by the regular teacher who was away that day. She knew I’d be interested because it involved archaeology, the Bermuda Triangle, the pyramids and aliens. I might have dropped my fork at that point as the red flags waived and warning sirens sounded in my head.
I send a brief email to the teacher under the premise that I was interested in the content of the show. He replied that it was entitled “Mysteries of the Ancient World” (1994), noting “The film looks at the search to prove or disprove legends from the past such as the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Shroud of Turin, Nostradamus and the Bermuda Triangle.”
I replied to thank him and ask if the kids were given any instruction about these obviously controversial topics and what they might learn from it? He replied that it was “thought provoking” and many find it interesting. “They are not told they have to believe in any of it!” he says.
My daughter had noted that some students did find it interesting. She had previously told me how many of her friends outwardly reject evolution and believe that 2012 will be the end of the world. Kids buy into this sensationalist stuff.
Researching the Mysteries program, I easily discovered the production company and some of the “experts” featured in it are known Creation propagandists. So, I rented it to see for myself. Within the first two minutes, I was appalled and very angry. What awful, speculative nonsense was presented to students without adequate guidance as to what was being viewed! I forwarded my concerns very bluntly back to the teacher: “The only good use of a ridiculous program such as Mysteries of the Ancient World is as an example of how not to do science or education and to show how easy it is to get a false message out there. Because of all the misinformation, unsupported claims and rampant speculation in the content, it would be extremely difficult to address this video's shortcomings to a middle school class. I am interested to know if this was done at all. If not, I fear that many of the children had the seeds of diseased ideas planted in their heads. I find this type of content akin to teaching creationism in biology class - it is a biased, unsupported concept that has no place there.” The teacher simply acknowledged my concerns with no further details. Out of concern that additional agitation might affect my daughter, who did not appreciate me making an issue out of it, I waited until the school year ended to pursue this.
Later that year, prompted by my younger daughter’s interest in Bigfoot and other cryptozoological creatures, I offered to visit her 2nd grade class to talk about “monsters” – Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster and the like. I explained in writing to the teacher that kids love monsters and this would be a great topic to get them engaged in thinking about identifying good evidence, where we get our ideas about these creatures (from TV, family or peers), and if there is a sound basis for belief in them. I stressed that I do not advocate for any belief but instead for inquiring to find out the best answer. To assure the teacher that I was legitimate, I informed her that I had a Master’s Degree in Education and experience giving talks about this type of subject from a rational perspective. The teacher replied, after discussing with the school principal, that it was too touchy a subject to have in class considering where the talk could lead (presumably, they were thinking spiritual or superstitious beliefs here).
Strike two.
During the summer following that school year, I wrote to the school administration about these two incidents. I noted that each was a failed chance to promote critical thinking in the classroom.
In their reply, they informed me that the Mysteries video had been located and removed from the classroom. I suspect the word “Creationist” I used to describe the people involved may have put a fear of litigation into them.
This was a missed opportunity. The program was a stellar example of poor scholarship, lack of evidential support and logical fallacies. I would encourage such examples be shown to expose children to the erroneous information out there and how information can be distorted into what looks like fact or valid controversy. If they are taught to identify the problems with particularly popular and clearly bogus beliefs, they can acquire a skill they might apply for a lifetime. But the school curriculum experts thought otherwise, assuring me that “critical thinking” could be accomplished through their existing curriculum. The teachers were using “appropriate instructional resources” and “encouraged to implement extended thinking skills to challenge students’ thinking.” Color me less than pleased with that reply.
I came away from these experiences feeling that the school doesn’t want suggestions. They prefer parents to reinforce what is taught in the classroom, to volunteer to help with class parties and trips and pay attention to the kids’ grades – to support and not to intrude. I understand this to a degree for they have a system to follow and specific goals to meet. They may also fear a blowup from other parents who are overly sensitive to the idea of questioning the status quo (and perhaps some spiritual beliefs). Yet, what kind of program succeeds when rational input is discounted and innovation is rebuffed?
My disappointment continued this year, when I received a notice from the schools regarding the yearly televised speech by the President to school children. The notice allowed parents to opt their children out of seeing the speech. How closed-minded can you get? What a disaster it would be for students to be exposed to alternate viewpoints about important issues, wouldn’t it?
Teaching kids to think? To allow for meaningful expression of their ideas? To learn how to civilly work out disagreements? Today’s schools (and parents) fail.
Sharon Hill is a long time participant in the skeptical community. As an independent researcher on topics of science and public understanding, she writes about "sciencey" sounding claims and runs a unique skeptical newsfeed at Doubtfulnews [link: http://doubtfulnews.wordpress.com/ ]. Her website is "Doubtful" [link: http://idoubtit.wordpress.com/ ].
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
