When you’re woken in the middle of the night by some female shouting at a door down the corridor from you and you can’t get back to sleep so you check the email on the iPad and see this from Chuckles and read it, then thoughts naturally go back to schooldays.
Because you look at what’s written on that page, knowing it to be true from your own last two decades of experiences and yet they were anything but your own experiences in your own schooldays.
The scene – covered walkway outside the school building, concrete steps, double doors locked in front, leading onto the corridor off which ran the classrooms, the little tacker beside you [for you were both about 6] boasting he already knows how to write “A”, the little bstd and all you can offer to counter him is that you can say the numbers up to 10 or whatever but you really couldn’t because you forgot what came after 6 – that’s one of the earliest memories.
Teachers? They were all “the staff”, a body which worked together to ejukate you in Stalag 13. Not nasty, not nice, not anything. They were your teachers. All the boys adored Miss Coombes in Year 2 and on a rare time off for illness, perhaps the only one in my entire primary education, I insisted my mother let me walk to school to give her an apple. Not return to lessons of course, I wasn’t a complete idiot – no, just to give her an apple.
And she could have reacted better. Bemused, she asked if I was back and when I said no, she seemed miffed, which now seems strange as I don’t think she liked me all that much. Whilst a good boy in class, I was a bit independent and asked too many questions. Maybe I was a bit of a smarta**e too.
Miss Sealey was the Year 3, everyone was frightened as she was about 50 and stern, dressed sternly. She turned out OK, quite nice but no memories of her other than that. I’m glad there was no male until Year 4, as males might have been a bit intimidating. Mr. Laub was Year 4, sense of humour – first teacher with a sense of humour, cracked jokes. Hell, no woman ever cracked jokes, although they could be nice and approachable.
Two more male teachers completed my primary age education. My parents put me through a state primary education and then sent me to public school – so primary was the end of my time in the real world. I recall this horrible exam at the end of primary, in which I apparently did rather well.
Coming back to the women teachers and even the males, the most untoward thing I can recall was being “made to” do crochet and knitting in Year 6, girly stuff. The girls, on the other hand, had to learn about the internal combustion engine so they got their comeuppance. Looking back, that was pretty progressive for those days. We sat at double desks with the sloping wooden lids and the gap for the ceramic inkwell, a monitor had to fill those each morning. Vaguely remember the quills although they were more a plastic cylinder in the end of which the nib fitted.
Again, coming back to the women teachers – I’ve nothing really to say. Nine paragraphs and I can’t say they were anything but the authorities at the time. No one would have dreamed of badmouthing one, not even the bad boys, nor did anyone think too much about them at all. They were our teachers, we sat in rows, we did our lessons. Occasionally we did this all hold hands and chant ring-a-ring-a-rosies – in the early years – but never after Year 2.
Knew my tables, could read and write, my handwriting was terrible, we went swimming as a school at a local baths, we played football or cricket at breaktime. So reading the article Chuckles sent, I know it to be so and yet I’ve no recollection of any of that guff in my own primary education. Huggy feely, find-yourself, emotional bonding? Give it a break – yuk, I’d have run a mile and so would the other boys and half the girls.
So what’s happened in the interim? Well you know that, patient reader, you know that and yes, it is political. We’ve identified the global left monster, as distinct from the left-liberal patsy – people like Wundt, Alinsky, Benjamin, Marcuse – amazing how many of those are Jewish names, as the author of the article identifies a Jewish name, Kagan, as one of the main culprits.
Though I support Israel as opposed to the throat-slitters and see the Jewish people as essentially different to the Ashkenazis running the world, e.g. the Rothschilds, slowly, it has to be acknowledged that Jewish names do keep coming up. Still don’t wish to go down that path. Not with the Muslims as the bete noire.
But the destruction of education, especially by the throwing out of the cognitive in favour of the touchy-feely, is what we would call feminization of education. Masculization would be lining students up in rank and file and marching them to the loo in one of their designated loo times for the day.
So it’s important for the purposes of this post that “feminization” not be directly related to a woman, nor “masculinization” to a man, ditto with matriarchy and patriarchy. They’re concepts, ways of thinking, different approaches. No doubt there are many leftist men and possibly even Tories quite soft inside and some women quite hard.
Looking back at my women teachers in primary, they were certainly neither excessively soft luvvy-duvvy nor martinet. They were women, they were respected, they did not intrude themselves upon us as today. Our mothers were the ones who intruded themselves – the teachers didn’t see this as their task. Every kid, practically, had a mum and dad, a few families we heard rumours – the parents had split and the kids did not have the full complement of parents. We felt so sorry for those kids because they did grow up problem kids as a rule.
The first intrusion I recall – and that was because I was teacher training – was in the late 70s with this open plan classroom education. I still think the principle’s not bad – one teacher does the lecture to the big group, the other does the tutoring of the small group in the other room, having knocked the wall through between the two classrooms. Our progressive teacher trainers were hellbent on bring us Neale and Summerhill and the concept of kids only going to lessons they liked, swearing at teachers if they wished, rampant sex if they wished.
Took another half century to really catch on mainstream. Now there are no boundaries. and of course, no decent education worth speaking of.
The author mentions the Kagan method. Hell, you could say Montessori, any number of schemes, all commercially backed.
As a placidly retired teacher, I know well the outrageous left-wing bias of school curriculums insofar as their content is concerned. Hopefully I demonstrated that to some degree in my last missive. But it’s not just content about which one must be wary; it’s also the process by which the content (or lack thereof) is transmitted to students. This is called pedagogy, and the reigning ideas on it are also severely demented. One might even suspect a deliberate plan to oppress the American people in state-sponsored ignorance, if one were conspiratorially minded. I don’t believe those theories, but one can understand how some do.
Take Kagan, an educational publishing and consulting company well within the mainstream of educational thought in 2015 America. According to Kagan, the most important skills for schools to inculcate are “emotional intelligence” because “In today’s world teamwork skills are employability skills.” True to their word, the teaching fads they extol feature mindless student interaction which is blithely free of any academic content. As for “emotional intelligence,” that is a mere fantasy which emanated from the mind of a dreamer and self-styled educational theorist named Howard Garner.
At the very beginning of my blogging, I gathered various sources in a tome about education today. No point repeating all that here but it goes through the process of how the dumbing down took place and even then it barely touched on it.
The bit which struck home to me the most was the appendix on research methods and how some research methods have been quietly excluded in favour of others which give a different result. This appendix is also worth a look.
A very short except plucked from a mass of material:
Another explanation offered by researchers is that schools don’t know good research when they see it. They are easily drawn to familiar practices supported by weak evidence.
Unfamiliar practices supported by very credible evidence are often ignored. As discussed below, there is merit to this view.
From the standpoint of science, experimental studies are far more convincing than descriptive and correlational ones, yet school personnel often ignore the stronger and adopt innovations suggested by the weaker.
For example, during the 1960s and 1970s correlational studies suggesting self-esteem enhancement as a means to improved achievement led to sweeping changes in teacher training and schooling. Experimental findings to the contrary were ignored (Scheirer & Kraut, 1979).
From all the reading, what comes through is that the “ever onwards and upwards”, “change for change’s sake, for fear of being antediluvian”, tied in with big money selling new ideas, underpins curriculum development. And it is a constant drip-drip-drip into teachers’ minds.
Ever priding themselves on being “professional” the teaching fraternity have these in-service days at which new orthodoxies are presented via Power Point and it simply isn’t good for one’s reputation to question them. It took decades for more conservative educators to question Bloom, Piaget and Dewey and yet these should have been challenged from the outset.
But it was all being abetted, from the top down. Key people, e.g. the lecturer at the teacher training institution, presented the next orthodoxy. Thus throwing out chanting tables became all the rage, never learning spelling lists, “discovering” grammar through one’s creative writing. Whaaa? I look back now at this guff and wonder how sane people ever pushed it.
“Child-based” education – what bollox. What that was meant to mean was that anyone supporting tradtional methodologies was obviously “teacher-based” and that would never do, not caring for the child, not listening to him, not taking his wishes into account.
The other day, a commenter at OoL wrote of “forcing children”to do things. What sort of talk is that? At primary school, when you entered the classroom, did you think: “What is this oppressor teacher going to force upon me today?” and after you’d learnt about corresponding angles or quadrilaterals, did you leave the room thinking, “My human rights were messed with then?”
It’s just rubbish. Sure there were oppressive adults but in general, a child just does not think that way – he wants to know what’s next on the agenda, are we there yet? He needs structure and security, known limits but security doesn’t mean rushing to him if he hits his hand on a wall, fawn all over him, kissing it – well actually, were that a young female teacher … no matter, let’s press on.
Coming finally to the point – just because a woman is female, it does not mean she is over-feminized, by definition. Those female teachers of mine were neither feminized nor masculinized – they were just teachers. Not sure if you see what I’m getting at here.
But today, feminization is almost a caricature and it’s gone mainstream. Thus no child can be exposed to anything, safety must come first before any risk, everything must be bureaucratized and copious notes kept on everything, this trumps living and learning at the school of hard knocks. Competition is anathema. Anything hardening a child up to face and cope with the world is verboten.
This is not the female herself at fault nor the male. It is the “-ization”, the ideology, the concept which is wrong, which is excessive and you know very well what will follow it – a backlash. And whom will the backlash be against? Women themselves, not the caricatured concept.
This is wicked because it is deliberate – see those appendices again. And there were males involved in pushing it, far more than women. And when it swings completely the other way to masculization, regimentation, military rows of desks, the man will be hated again.
But though males and females are both suceptible, there really is a way women approach things and women dominate primary education:
This brings up the question of females’ faculty for skepticism and critical thinking, in particular when they are presented with information from an “authority.” If the presenter is wearing a tie when he says it, well, that means it must be true. Look, they made a graph, so that’s science. PowerPoint has a similar mystic effect.
Case in point, Kagan’s literature presents some studies with laughably small sample sizes and outlandish claims of success for their practices (And allows them henceforth to use the impudent “research has shown…”).
This proved sufficient for every single attendee, all of whom were either too indifferent or too illiterate to notice such obvious methodological flaws.
This, essentially, is what all those appendices pointed to in the wash up. Another example. Have you ever been at a lesson or session and people are sitting around. How many of the females are waiting, pens poised and notetaking paper ready? How many males are doing that? Or are they lounging around bignoting to the women?
That’s an example with holes in it but the overall thrust is quite certain.
The people behind it all in education, pushing this wild pendulum in the interests of “progress” – they need trying and hanging, seriously. So yes, we are currently in the grip of feminization, Matriarchy and it is just as bad as masculinization, Patriarchy were.
Why no middle ground? Well no one suffers then, do they? And Alinsky and mates wanted people to suffer because their masters hated people, just as these do: