THE PROGRESSIVE ASSAULT ON THE CHRISTIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM

A PARENTS NATIONAL NETWORK REPORT
By Karen Holgate, President

INTRODUCTION

While the back-to-basics movement has been directed mostly at returning our public schools to researched-based teaching methodologies, there are now signs that Outcome Based Education (OBE), the "progressive education" promoted under School to Work (STW), is spreading within private school networks. The teaching methodologies promoted under OBE/STW education reform have little to do with effective education, i.e., objectively measured knowledge of science, math, history, etc. Instead affective outcomes—attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors—are the desired goal.

One would suspect that, of the private schools, it would be secular institutions that would be most susceptible to such dumbing-down fads as whole language, "cooperative learning," "constuctivist" new, new math, “portfolio assessment”, "inventive spelling," death education, and other OBE techniques. Unfortunately, many of the complaints are now emanating from private Christian schools attached to Bible-based conservative Christian denominations. Parents National Network (PNN), along with other education policy groups nationwide, are receiving an increasing number of calls and letters from concerned parents who have children enrolled in private schools. And parents from these schools now find themselves asking: “Where do we go when the last bastion of defense is succumbing to secular, progressive ideologies that have nothing to do with core academics? Why do we now find ourselves fighting the same fight in our Christian schools?”

Many Christian schools have a history of establishing good, solid schools which use tried and true teaching methods based on strong empirical research. However, as this report will show, it now appears that many are now turning their teacher training programs over to progressives whose graduates are busily turning Christian schools into pale imitations of public schools -- at least when it comes to education methodology and philosophy.

In some instances these private schools are implementing failed programs that are being discarded even in public schools. After ten years of whole language, California’s fourth grade students tied for last place in the nationwide NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) test. So dismal were California’s results using this failed method that legislation was passed to mandate the use of phonics throughout the state. Why then are some Christian colleges (training new teachers) and some Christian schools still advocating this failed method to teach reading?

Far too much teacher preparation material focuses almost exclusively on process, not learning or performance; a classic sign of progressive education thought. Many models promote "Cooperative Learning," "Group Learning," "Group Investigations," and "Group Projects." The trend urges that students should be taught in groups, assigned projects in groups and tested in groups, even though research shows group learning to be a total failure (see more about this later in this report).

OBE/STW promotes the idea that children need to be in charge of their own learning, or as the course curricula state, "directing their own work." This is just another failed method—sometimes called the "open classroom," or, as some call it, the "child-centered classroom." Indeed, a Christian teacher conference passed out material that suggested teachers pose these questions to their students:

"What would you like school to do for you?”

“What, specifically, do you want to learn?”

“Do you think it is important to learn any skills? If so, which ones?"

A Concordia University¹ report states that in the course of group learning, "Each team member is responsible for knowing that his or her teammates understand the assignment." So now, not only are students mapping out their own lesson plans, but they are supposed to be responsible for their classmates as well! Who needs teachers? This also raises the questions: How do children know what they NEED to learn? Do Christian schools now teach only what students think they want to learn? Is this really what parents want for their children? Is this what Christian leadership wants for their students?

Another teaching model discussed states, "The focus of the strategies is not to pour facts into the student's head, not to bring about some specific behavior outcome-rather, it is to draw out the student's own creativity."

A teaching model titled, "Exploration of Feelings," is likewise devoid of learning, but the central strategy here is, as stated, to have "Students explore others' feelings or actions." This strategy urges the use of dramatic stories to evoke sadness, anger, joy, etc. and then assign students to question each other on the feelings being experienced. This exercise may be great when used by a trained, licensed psychologist; but used in classrooms by teachers not trained in psychology could have devastating results! In many states, practicing psychology without a license, or credential, in psychology is illegal!

Another reason for the leftward drift of Christian schools is the recent effort by some to obtain accreditation status from liberal, highly secular accreditation agencies such as the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)² . A number of reports have surfaced that WASC has threatened to withhold accreditation from Christian schools unless they agree to make certain changes in their curriculum, methodology, and even management practices that are more in line with "progressive" education practices.

WASC makes no secret of their desire to alter a school's mission. Page 228 of WASC's accreditation guidelines book, published two years ago, states:

"Change--We cannot expect to change our long-held traditions to reorganize our army and to create cities without internal opposition. Among you chieftains and Huns will be those whose spirits cling to our past ways. We will show patience with you unenlightened ones.” Attila the Hun

Ironically, there is no need for Christian elementary, middle, or high schools to obtain dual accreditation. There are no colleges or universities who reject students based on the accreditation status of elementary or secondary schools. College admission officers look at grade transcripts and SAT scores, not the accreditation status of the school.

Yet, the myth persists. The fact that so many Christian schools are now seeking dual accreditation status gives the impression that progressives are using the accreditation hammer to force its "backward" schools to “modernize”. Not surprisingly, secular accreditation material is often evident at Christian teacher conferences.

How do you know if you have OBE/STW in your school (public or private)? Look for the buzzwords including those mentioned above, plus “conflict resolution,” “portfolio assessment,” “consensus,” etc. Is your school seeking accreditation by a secular accrediting firm (dual accreditation)? Or does your school use or promote Mortimer Adler’s The Paideia Proposal?

If so, these should serve as warnings that your school is utilizing curriculum and methodologies with which you may not agree and are like those currently being promoted in public schools throughout America. The purpose of this report is to give Christian parents, teachers, principals and pastors an inside look at what is being promoted to Christian schools as the latest in education.

HIGHLIGHTS OF ONE CHRISTIAN TEACHER CONFERENCE

Most attendees of this conference³ were K-12 teachers or administrators. Most were members of their denomination and deeply committed Christians. The purpose of the conference was to teach educators the "latest" teaching strategies and techniques⁴.

With the exception of a few isolated workshops on promoting Christian values within the classroom, the material covered differed little from the education conferences hosted by various public school professional associations. Sadly, the workshops attended were dominated by the progressive view of education. In some seminars it was subtle; in others it was so blatant a few of the older and wiser educators left the seminar with looks of disgust on their faces.

In three days of conference, it did not appear that many, if any, workshops focused on empirical research-based techniques. Every failed education fad was covered, and covered well. It is amazing that time could be spent in U.S. History on how to show films such as "Buckwheat Dies" from Saturday Night Live, yet not even touch on the latest reading research from the National Institute of Child Development verifying that systematic phonics is the only effective way to teach reading.

MATHEMATICS WORKSHOP

This workshop was shocking. A math educator taught this workshop. Entitled, "Let's Get To It! Implementing Change In Mathematics", This teacher unabashedly promoted "constructivist" math. Often a leader in experimental teaching techniques, California’s students again suffered under “new new math.” This widely publicized “warm and fuzzy” math plummeted California's math scores to near bottom on nationwide tests.

Indeed, just recently, the California State Board of Education re-wrote both the Math Curriculum Frameworks and the Math Academic Standards in order to purge out the new new math techniques which has been so disastrous for California students. Why are religious schools promoting another failed education approach that public schools are discarding?

This approach to math plays down computational skills and employs various games and essay writing as a way of allegedly helping a child understand math concepts. The instructor is an active member of both the California Mathematics Council and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the two leading "new new math" organizations.

The seminar did not discuss the controversy this approach has caused throughout the country Indeed, the Conference program simply states, "Discuss how educators can introduce the components of mathematically powerful learning such as open-ended investigations; collaborative learning; integration of topic areas; communication through writing and presenting math; changes in questioning techniques; use of multiple assessments."

One handout explained her techniques quite well. On the first page, the handout states that the old ineffective way of teaching math, "teaches rules, fixed or specific process and skills....emphasizes recall....identifies sequential steps," but did not teach "understanding." It then proceeded to disparage memorization and computational skills throughout.

When this writer’s daughter attended a Christian school, the teachers stressed the importance of memorization—including scripture. They explained that the very act of memorization was conducive to, and cultivated, learning.

The advice given to teachers on how to implement new new math included the following choice quotes:

"Visit schools in your area that are teaching reform curriculum."
(Don’t most parents who send their children to religious schools do so because they want them OUT of the public school reform mindset?)

"Make a commitment to have a student-centered classroom."
(This means the implementation of OBE techniques such as allowing children to set their own goals, to grade themselves, etc., techniques which, of course, result in a total dumbing down of the classroom.)

"Commit to group learning....arrange student desks into groups to make a physical beginning of this process."
(Group learning is the rage in public schools but totally undermines individual learning and accountability. More about this topic later in the report.)

"Learn for Understanding....try to eliminate worksheets that force students to do repetitive drill work."
(This represents the classic tenet of STW reform. “With respect to curriculum, one theme is prominent… ‘Less is more’.”)⁵

"Question the textbook: Unless you begin to question why you are teaching what you are, the change process cannot even begin. Begin to skip some topics and spend extra time on others based on the NCTM standards."
(This assumes most religious schools still use traditional math books, which most do, so teachers are encouraged to switch to texts based on the NCTM standards, the same standards which have come under attack by prominent mathematicians for de-emphasizing computational skills.)

In a handout titled "Communication Activities for the Classroom," one gets a better view (shocking view) of what this speaker considers to be math:

"Have students write their own questions concerning material covered."

"Offer extra credit for submitting possible test questions."

"Use free-writes or journals to help students think about their progress in learning content; understanding process and evaluating their own attitudes toward their learning."

"Student evaluation of each other's Problem of the week..."

"Group problem solving."

Suggested activities included:

“[write a]…love story about a romance between a circle and a trapezoid, a play about the wonderful world of zero, an autobiography of a right angle, a menu for a restaurant a family of four could eat a dinner for under $20.00”

“Draw a picture of a mathematician and describe what a mathematician does."

“Read-arounds of homework”

“Group problem solving”

“Group quiz/test-taking—usually precedes individual testing”

Needless to say, this instructor’s techniques have little to do with mathematics but are guaranteed to set children back years. Teachers already feel they have too little time for computational skills; now they are being asked to use this valuable time to have students write a love story about a trapezoid?

ALTERNATIVE FILMS IN THE CLASSROOM

In one workshop, "Cool Clips --Alternative Video for United States History" was handed out. This was a menu of suggested films—none presented Christian themes; rather it was a list of films and cartoons that challenged existing orthodoxies—thus the title "alternative."

On this list were such inane films as "Donald Gets Drafted," to illustrate opposition to the draft, "Duck and Cover," a film about nuclear weapons and how horrible they are (no mention, of course, about their role in ending WWII); Strawberry Fields Forever" from the Beatle Anthology; "Christmas at the Bunkers" from the television show, All in the Family; and "Buckwheat Dies," from Saturday Night Live. (Many Christian parents would oppose many of the suggestions on this handout.)

One would hope that religious schools would, at least, promote films that are patriotic, teach about American heroes, promote certain virtues, or illustrate Christian principles in action. After all, American culture already drenches our children with "alternative views" every time they watch television, see a movie, listen to a rock band, or read a public school textbook. Why should Christian schools reemphasize alternative values?

PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING WORKSHOPS

Another tenet of progressive education philosophy is the idea that teachers should engage in psychological analysis and treatment within the confines of the classroom. Most teachers, however, do not receive the necessary training to engage in this practice.

Evidence of this practice can be seen with the emphasis on self-esteem and "death education" (an attempt to counsel children about life and death issues) in our public schools. Such activities have led to numerous lawsuits, primarily brought by parents who feel that schools have no right to engage in practices of a non-academic nature--especially psychological counseling that might undermine religious beliefs or parental rights.

DEATH EDUCATION

Indeed, death or "grief" education, as this conference called it, is believed to be a contributing factor in at least a half-dozen student suicides as a result of exposing already depressed children to incessant lectures about death, dying and suicide. The psycho-babble currently being practiced in schools throughout the nation has caused extreme concern among many psychologists. Indeed, the California Association of School Psychologists were so alarmed by this practice, they actively joined with other psychologists, parents and teachers, in support of legislation carried by California Assemblyman George House. Assemblyman House's bill prohibits California teachers from engaging in psychological practices without a license. His bill overwhelmingly passed the State Legislature and was signed into law by California Governor Pete Wilson.

The conference had three workshops dealing with psychological issues; "Meeting The Grieving Child At The Classroom Door," "Counseling Tips For Teachers Who Weren't Trained As Counselors," and "Helping Students Manage Family Stress and Trauma At School." While those teaching these courses were licensed counselors, they apparently did not have qualms about imparting their techniques to educators without counseling experience or licenses. In fact, during one session a concerned teacher asked, “Since we aren’t psychologists, how far can we go with these techniques?” The response? “Not far.” What does that mean?

From the session on death education, attendees were given information about how to exact feelings by having students answer such questions as:

“When will I die?”

“Who will take care of me”

“How did I cause the death of ____________?”

This presenter also advocated asking students to, “Give detailed expressions that affirm painful feelings,” and to “Go beyond ‘God has a plan.’” She further stated,

“In order to help your students to grieve, and to get rid of the bad feelings, it depends on you! Begin by encouraging the child to smack a Styrofoam cup, or poke holes in it, tear it, or throw it. Some teachers bring in a pillow and let the child scream into it, punch it, or have a pillow fight.”

Several “menu options” were offered as “manipulatives” to “assist in helping kids get their feelings out” and advocated the daily use of “Journaling” for children to deal with their “feelings.” It was suggested that grieving students should write sentences that express their feelings.

One shocking view expressed was that it was critical for children who have suffered a death in their family to “view the dead.” When asked, “What if the body is mutilated?,” the instructor replied, “No mutilation can exceed a child's worst nightmare.”

The bottom line is that the use of psychology in the classroom blatantly undermines the prerogatives of parents, and one would presume, violates the Biblical beliefs of most Christian schools. Indeed, this workshop specifically encouraged educators to handle grieving children by getting "a school family together where the children can share," and if the child didn't actually witness the tragedy, "have the child draw what he didn't get to see," for "the family." This counselor apparently believes the progressive rationale that the “school family” takes precedence over “the real Biblical family”. This sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” concept and has no place in a Christian school.

This obsession with feelings is not only a dangerous approach but undermines parental rights.

For years public school parents have been complaining about elementary children being forced to write their own obituaries and dates of birth and death on their own tombstones. However, while being interviewed recently on Phyllis Schafly’s radio show, this writer was struck by the emotion in the voice of a caller from Spokane, Washington. She was appalled that a local Christian school had not only had students fill out their tombstones but took students to view “cut up cadavers”.

A parent from one Christian school, upset over the increasing frequency of questions that involved students feelings (instead of asking questions to determine knowledge) sent a copy of one of her child’s classroom assignments. After reading Land of the Dead, students were asked: “Write about your first experience with death. This could be the first funeral you went to, or the first time someone close to you died. What effect did it have on you? What are your personal feelings on death?”

Another mother said a similar assignment was given her elementary school age daughter shortly after a grandparent died. Her daughter had been very close to her grandparent and was just getting over the ordeal of losing someone she loved so much. The assignment triggered nightmares and other emotional trauma.

All of the above were done without parental notification or permission.

The National Institute of Mental Health actually says about suicide prevention and death education classes, “..new research suggests that such programs may actually increase distress in the young people who are most vulnerable.” Other psychologists have said that by discussing these issues in the classroom a child’s “safe zone” is violated; when that happens it can create crisis. These psychologists say that troubled or grieving children should be counseled by a professional; non-troubled children have no reason to be subjected to discussions on death, dying or suicide.

EXPLORING FEELINGS

In a second workshop taught by the same instructor, it was suggested that teachers engage in a "softball toss" with the children. In this exercise students and teacher stand in a circle while the teacher tosses the ball to each child with the instruction to finish a specific sentence, i.e., "When I let my feelings out I_________________." She said, "Children don't always know how to express feelings in words so we need to teach them," and recommended a text used by Concordia University called "Getting Along." Apparently, it gives more ideas about how to entice children to talk about their feelings.

Most parents have no idea such activity is occurring. When one educator spoke in the workshop about using techniques from “Getting Along” in his classroom, this writer asked him afterwards if parents had granted him consent. He said, "No;" but added it was mentioned in the school newsletter. When asked if the newsletter was specific as to what types of activities were taking place, he again said, "No."

One handout showed a drawing of a child with suggested conversation topics written on his body. These included: "One of the bad things about my school," and "What makes me cry." On another handout, behavior characteristics were listed of "Children Who Hate" and "Children Who Hurt." Some characteristics appeared to be highly subjective and could lead to teachers placing psychological labels on students. For example, children with "behavior problems" and those who are "older than peers" are listed on the "Children Who Hate" list! That may be half of the kids in a classroom!

Confusion about what to look for in children who “might” be troubled was apparent when one educator asked, “So many of these characteristics can be present in children, how are we to know what constitutes a real problem and what doesn’t?” She was told that teachers need to be careful not to misjudge students! But wasn’t that the point of her workshop? On one hand she was asking teachers to practice psychology; on the other hand she was telling them not to go too far or engage in uneducated guessing!

A classroom assignment for ninth graders at a Christian school in Northern California asked children, after reading an assigned book, to write their about “ideas, opinions or feelings” about the text. This mother was concerned because she was well aware of the problem public education parents had with the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). This highly protested and now defunct test assigned numerous depressing reading selections then asked students their “thoughts, feelings and attitudes” about the material. In a hearing before California’s state legislature proponents of CLAS admitted that only 15% of the language arts portion of the “assessment” actually tested reading skills. In fact, it was made quite clear that CLAS sought to “evoke strong emotional responses” from students. The Christian parent asked, “Why are we perpetuating this non-academic education in Christian schools?”

ANGER MANGAGMENT

“Help Students Manage Family Stress and Trauma at School” was the title of a workshop designed to show teachers how to help children cope with anger. In order to deal with student stress and anger, one suggested exercise was to

"Have kids write three things they didn’t like over the weekend and one thing they did."

This was suggested for Monday mornings because, as attendees were told, when the kids come back to school after being home all weekend, "they have to get that anger out of their systems."

Once again, as in the previous workshops, the assumption was that home is a traumatic place and psychological counseling is needed to counter the bad influence of the parents. The danger here, of course, is that such an exercise plants the notion in children's minds that home is a bad place, indeed, the inference is that children are three times more likely to be angry and stressed by being home over the weekend that they were happy! It is doubtful parents are told of this exercise. Is this really why Christian parents send their children to Christian schools?

This speaker continually remarked that she wished she had more time to really go “into these things.” She made it clear she wasn’t able to explain in depth how to deal with sensitive issues. Again, isn’t that the whole point? Why was this conference so focused on psychological practices with teachers who are not trained in psychology? The potential for harm is incalculable!

Evidence that these techniques are already being implemented in Christian schools is apparent by an assignment found in one school. The title, “How to treat an enemy” asked students: “Can you think of anyone who you would consider an enemy? Put that person’s initials here: ____”

This question not only encourages students to identify an enemy in their own minds but asks them to give clues to the teacher. Is this really necessary?

This particular questionnaire continues by instructing students to “Circle the way that people normally relate to their enemies.” The student whose paper was sent to PNN circled: “Put them down whenever possible; Give them dirty looks; Pray for them (he wrote in pencil—‘sometimes’); Think about ways to torture them; Hope they die a slow and painful death.”

Another assignment actually asked the students to name two people with whom they had had angry words; then asked them to explain what steps they had used to settle the argument peaceably. This practice is known in Goals 2000/Outcome Based education as “conflict resolution.” The guiding premise is that no one is right or wrong; it is only important to settle the “conflict” peacefully.

The parent who sent these exercises was as furious about the number of assignments as he was about the content. He wanted to know why the school was spending so much time on non-academic curriculum; and voiced his frustration that this was the type of thing he was trying to avoid by sending his children to a Christian school.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING WORKSHOP

Among the most damaging fads that have caused so many public school systems to so rapidly decline over the last two decades is "Cooperative," or "Group Learning."

In this teaching technique, students are placed into groups of 4-9 and told to complete a project together, or sometimes even take a test together as a group, with talking between group members allowed. This used to be called "cheating."

The Center for Direct Instruction in Eugene, Oregon has documented how Cooperative Learning has undermined both individual accountability and competition; yet both are traits one must learn in order to succeed in life. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests Cooperative Learning improves academic performance. The technique appears to be motivated purely by political and social reasons, not academic.

Indeed, the roots of Cooperative Learning are Marxist in origin. The Soviets attempted to implement such tactics in order to be consistent with their socialist system. However, when they discovered that the more intelligent kids performed all the work, while even the laziest group members received the same grade, it was declared a failure. Naturally, the Soviets decided they wanted all children to be productive citizens so they returned to individualized learning. Why is this formula for failure being promoted in religious schools?

The high priest of Cooperative Learning in the United States is Alfie Kohn, an educator who travels the country training teachers how to implement this technique. His very popular book, "The Case Against Competition," makes it clear that he views competition as evil and that the way to root out competition in our society is to immerse our students in Cooperative Learning. A 1995 course description taught by Kohn said,

“Our culture trains children to accept the value of defeating other people—at school, at work, at play, and at home. This workshop which follows the presenter’s keynote speech on the destructiveness of rewards, will show that competition is actually destructive to self-esteem, poisonous to relationships, and counterproductive with respect to learning. Strategies for eliminating contests, competitive games, and other win/lose activities will be discussed.”

This is the ridiculous methodology promoted in “cooperative learning.” What advocates of this preposterous thinking fail to explain is how this relates to real life and/or how it will prepare children to accept—and learn from—failure; and how to graciously handle success.

The teacher for "Complex Instruction: Discovery Learning Through Cooperative Interaction," combined her cooperative learning techniques with those of “multiple intelligences.” (More on “intelligences” in the next section.) She began her workshop by advocating that teachers delegate their authority to students. She said this was necessary because, “We’re changing from an industrial nation to an information and technology age; from socialization of the family to group dynamics.”

She then introduced Howard Gardner’s “New Age” concepts by advocating the “Seven Multiple Intelligences.” These include: “Guided Imagery, Centering, Emotional Processing, Mind Mapping,” and “Know Thyself” procedures. These are well known eastern religious techniques.

Included in this workshop was more cooperative learning strategies that included “Stanford Complex Instruction” methods. One quote from this teaching method included: “A cooperative learning model is better than traditional teacher facilitated instruction.” However, when questioned about validated research in support of the concepts, she wasn’t able to cite any studies.

The "Complex Instruction Model" handout included a cooperative learning lesson plan for a science project based upon metric measurement as it pertained to fluid capacity and temperature. Under the heading "Student Objective," it stated, "Students, in groups, will demonstrate the ability to estimate water temperature within a 10+ - accuracy...." In this model students are never allowed to learn on a individual basis.

It then went on to say, "The teacher asks each group of students to come to consensus on estimating the water temperature." Remember, as with other progressive teaching techniques, process is all important, not whether you have the right answer. The goal is to reach group consensus. The lesson handout ends with a large print message that states, in an Orwellian way, "REMEMBER! No one of us is as smart as all of us together!" This is not only empirically false, but it is a blatant attempt to undermine individual achievement.

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES WORKSHOPS

One fad making the education conference circuit is "multiple intelligences." This is the notion that people have at least seven, and maybe as many as nine, separate intelligences. Since first writing about the original seven, Gardner has “found” an eighth and is now studying a possible ninth. And, of course, every time Gardner “discovers” a new intelligence he sells a new book. Pretty clever.

There is no empirical research that supports Gardner’s theory but the education consultants are making large sums of money promoting it. Further, many educators and scientists refute Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. They contend he is confusing aptitudes with intelligence. To completely restructure how children are taught based upon a theory without empirical, replicable research, and not accepted by experts in the field is asinine!

The instructor of one workshop, "Celebrating Intelligence," essentially advocated the total revamping of curriculum and teaching practices in order to take advantage of so-called multiple intelligences. The intelligences were defined as linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, logical/mathematical, musical, and bodily kinesthetic.

Once again, the focus of this workshop was on feelings, attitudes and emotions—not on academics. The core of the philosophy presented was the idea that the more we engage a child emotionally, the more they learn. This of course has not been proved. Couldn’t it be argued that constantly engaging a student’s emotions could work the opposite way and so emotionally drain a student that he/she would be less likely to learn?

"Create a safe environment to bring in emotions and feelings" and "Whatever you do--teach to raise self-esteem" were big points for this instructor. Contrary to this teacher’s opinion, however, research shows that self-esteem taught in isolation may actually be harmful. In fact, self-esteem comes naturally with the mastering of basic skills, something completely ignored at this conference; self-esteem is earned not learned!

This instructor gave one bizarre example of how to involve emotions. She had a big chart on the wall with squares in which different designs had been drawn. She pointed out how she had students choose a square and tell how the design affected them by asking them, "Pick out a design about how you feel..." Does she REALLY believe children feel in shapes?

This instructor promoted teaching methods based upon "Bloom's Taxonomies," an unproven theory about how the mind works; however, it is very popular among progressive educators. Bloom's theory of education is that it is a vehicle by which children's belief systems can be altered:

"A large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs...a child is not truly using his higher order thinking skills until he no longer believes in absolutes of right and wrong."

No absolutes? The Bible is filled with absolutes!

The hand-out on Multiple Intelligences detailed how teaching practices would have to radically change in order to take advantage of this new theory. Here are quotes describing the changes that would have to be made—remember these are to be used in core curriculum, i.e., math, science, etc.:

Implement Cooperative Learning: Students "Learn best by cooperating with others.” Also: "Delegation of authority for problem solving to the group of students working at the learning stations; students are responsible for helping everyone complete the assigned task and for managing social relations within the group."

Focus on feelings: "Share a feeling a character has in the story, asking the student to respond -- Did you ever feel like this character?"

Personal Journal writing: "Begin a personal journal where the student may share personal feelings, predictions, and thoughts about the work."

Role Playing. "Act out actions or feelings of a character in the book."

Teacher as facilitator: "During learning-centered activities, the teacher acts as a facilitator, allowing children to develop cooperative skills and solve problems on their own."

Destruction of Individualism: "Not one of us is as smart as all of us together."

Learning slowed down to the slowest learner: "Remember--nobody is done until everybody is done!"

Amazingly, the handout makes no mention of mastering basic skills.

PORTFOLIOS/PEER REVIEW WORKSHOP

This workshop, entitled "Writing Portfolios: A School-Wide Endeavor," was presented in the “team teaching” mode and praised portfolios as the ultimate method in assessing student work. Instead of report cards, the teachers have students prepare portfolios, i.e., create a collection of their work.

What alarms many parents, however, is the non-academic nature of portfolios. Many assignments contained within the portfolio are often those that relate to the child’s “journaling,” i.e., answering questions of a personal nature.

Some of the material will be "self-graded;" other material will be "peer graded." And naturally, the student's worst work will not be included. But the portfolio looks good to the student, to his teacher, and to his parents, even though he may be totally behind in learning basic skills.

Teachers like portfolios because they do not have to engage in the difficult work of giving grades to students based upon actual performance and mastery of various topics. One of the teachers of this workshop even admitted as much: "Portfolios have changed my life...because I don't do that [grading] anymore."

She emphasized this point again with a hand-out that listed the benefits of portfolios:

“Grading everyday ruins my social life.”

“I'm tired of taking responsibility for my student's work; I'm throwing the ball in
their court!”

“Portfolio is a buzz word, and I don't want to feel like I'm teaching the way my teachers taught me." [as if that is automatically bad]

This amazing woman even stated that she tells parents at the beginning of the year that their child's work will not be sent home: "If they want to see their child's work, the portfolios are available in the classroom!” This places an additional burden on parents to continually go to the school if they want to see how their child is doing. Doesn’t she want parental feedback?

Instead of grading and evaluating student work as most parents assume teachers are paid to do, this workshop encourages Christian educators to utilize "Peer review." Peer review is another progressive teaching technique which, again, has no research to back up its effectiveness. In this bizarre substitution for teacher given grades, students critique each other's work.

The problem with peer review is that the students will only be able to grade their peers at their own proficiency level. Even if you match smarter kids with slower kids, the effect is to slow down the faster learners so they spend their time trying to critique others instead of moving ahead themselves. Moreover, students will go easy on one another since they know the student they are critiquing may soon be critiquing them. Again, this technique epitomizes the progressive tenet of leveling the abilities of all students.

One fourth grade teacher raised his hand and said he had tried “peer review”. “It just didn’t work,” he said. He went on to tell the attendees that his students didn’t understand what they were supposed to do; didn’t understand how to grade someone else’s work, etc. This didn’t daunt the presenters—their advice was to just keep doing it. “Model for them” until they get it. When questioned about the lack of immediate corrective feedback from an “expert teacher,” the presenters both hemmed and hawed and then said they used other forms of grading too. They didn’t quite explain what the “other forms” were or how they helped the student!

One of these presenters claimed the "benefits" of portfolio grading for students included: "They determine and set own goals" and "Self-evaluation -- Students identify their own strengths and weaknesses." Isn’t that what teachers are paid to do?! This particular teacher, who served on the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation committee at her school, said that portfolio grading was one of the top items looked at by WASC. She explained that it was extremely important for attendees of the workshop to go back to their schools and lobby the principal to support the portfolio technique so that it became a “school-wide,” not just classroom, change. By soliciting support from the principal, she said, the teacher in the next classroom who might not want to change his old ways, could be “forced” into adopting portfolio assessments.

As for grading the portfolios, this is not done as one may think. Attendees were advised to "Assess growth from beginning of year to end of year." The inference here was not to compare the students with others on their ability to grasp content but rather on their general growth. In other words, a child might receive an "A"--not because he is doing "A" work on a traditional grading scale--but because he improved considerably over his previous work. Nonetheless, this means the child could receive an "A" even though his performance might be at what would traditionally be considered "D" level work. Of course, the parents will be happy -- until the SAT scores come out.

Both workshop presenters admitted that no scientific evidence exists that portfolio assessment works but "we see both process and product." Here are quotes from the workshop handout:

"The teacher can encourage critical thinking by having students decide which of their works to include in the portfolio..."

Under "Student Roles: Student "participates in self and peer assessment ...collaborates with peers about strengths and weaknesses."

Under assessing portfolios: "No criticism – only provide suggestions for change..."

THE PAIDEIA PROGRAM⁷

Paideia, which loosely translated in Greek means “upbringing of a child”, was founded by Mortimer Adler, a humanist and believer in a One World system of government. In his writings, Adler advocates that “the state requires its citizens to sacrifice individual goods either for the sake of the good of the community or in order to promote the general welfare.”⁸ He continues by stating “the community has no grounds whatsoever for prohibiting or censuring simple fornication, or other forms of sexual behavior that were once regarded as perverse or unnatural.”

Adler designed Paideia to center around teaching “The Great Books.” These Great Books, chosen by Adler, are a collection of widely recognized classics. However, as one 6th grade teacher noted in reviewing the Paideia program, Adler’s idea of studying the classics is not reading the entire text, but only selected portions and then participating in what Adler refers to as “Socratic Questioning.” (Socrates is described by historians as a man who neglected his family while wandering the streets asking questions of people designed to cause doubt about accepted moral values.)

To get a better idea of the types of discussions that might occur from reading his selected excerpts, consider the following: in Split Nolan, by Bill Naughton, the main character is killed by a car; Flight, by John Steinbeck, is about a fugitive who while dying of thirst while wandering in the desert, falls off a cliff and dies; in Veldt, children calmly eat a picnic lunch while watching their parents being eaten by lions; and in Shirley Jackson’s, The Lottery, a woman’s children participate in her stoning because she was chosen by the community to be stoned to death as a sacrifice to the gods of abundant harvest.

Adler believes these Socratic questioning sessions are more important than having teachers, as experts, teach children facts and knowledge. In a 1982 “Firing Line” interview with William Buckley, Adler said teachers should “never impart any knowledge whatsoever.” He went on to say that “sitting around a table with a moderator of discussion based on the reading of a books that’s not a textbook, because textbooks aren’t discussable” is the ultimate form of learning.

When it is understood that Adler’s basic philosophy is based on humanism (all truth is within oneself) and the elimination of all national sovereignty, one begins to understand that Adler’s intent is not designed to engage reasoned debate on the merits of literary prose but rather guides children—beginning in first grade—into questioning established morals and values by eliciting strong emotional responses. By Adler’s own statements, it becomes clear that Paideia is not designed to educate students in the traditional sense. Robert C. Kanoy, Assistant Dean of the University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill, where the National Paideia Center is located, wrote, “…the Paideia program was not developed to raise scores on standardized achievement tests. Rather its purpose is to improve conceptual understanding, lifelong learning, and higher-order thinking skills.”

How do parents know if their child has developed the traits so desired under Paideia? The answer—they don’t. None of those desired skills can be objectively measured. Indeed, a closer inspection reveals that the desired outcomes listed in Paideia’s own “General Characteristics of Essential Elements” is little different than those found in OBE/STW.

The following are a sampling of some of Paideia’s “Essential Elements.”

- A Paideia school is a student-centered school. Goals: Higher self-esteem, increased responsibility among students for their own learning.
- Students in a Paideia school learn to become self-governing; discipline is administered through conflict resolution. Goals: peer mediation and counseling.
- All teachers and administrators are lifelong learners. Goals: teachers are generalists. Elements to avoid: teachers as specialists.
- A Paideia school is dedicated to the learning of all students; all students succeed. Goals: cooperative learning, community-school partnerships.
- All teachers use coaching techniques for the majority of their instructional program. Goals: student-centered learning. Elements to avoid: teacher dominated classrooms.
- A Paideia school stresses the same integrated core curriculum for all the students and teaches all students in heterogeneous groups. Elements to avoid: academic segregation, rigid curriculum with core subjects.
- In a Paideia school, assessment of students and teachers is individualized rather than standardized, emphasizing portfolio and narrative assessments rather than traditional grading and appraisal. Goals: students and teachers planning together, student responsibility for learning, performance based models. Elements to avoid: traditional report cards, unhealthy competition, test-driven curriculum.

Student comments about Paideia include:

“…gives you a chance to say something about a topic that you would never discuss in class. And you don’t have to raise your hand.”

“…talk about topics you wouldn’t be able to talk about in your subjects…lot of fun…”

“…hear about topics you might not have heard about…”

“It’s fun. The teacher doesn’t talk as much.”

“You learn to speak your thoughts.”

“I’ve become more open-minded. Paideia has taught me to question things, not just accept what I’m taught. As a result, I’ve learned much more about life.”

“Paideia does not give the student the answers, but instead, lets the student find his own answers.”

Doesn’t it make you wonder WHAT they are talking about?

It is easy to see that Paideia aligns with the outcomes desired in OBE/STW. Indeed it is easy to see that the current curricula and teaching methodologies making inroads into Christian schools align with Paideia. There is little or no difference between what was being advocated in the Christian teacher’s conference and that promoted by Mortimer Adler, or the government’s STW.

CONCLUSION

How does the church body reconcile its theological beliefs with the most radical, progressive education theories being promoted in some of its own schools?

Christian education now stands at a crossroads. It can choose to clean house or accept the creeping liberalism that is rotting away its education and Christian mission.

Most denominational leaders probably do not understand that the "progressive" philosophy of human nature embodied by the OBE approach to education is based upon secular humanist notions that run contrary to the Christian worldview. For example, promoting group learning over individual learning and accountability has theological repercussions--the elimination of competition is totally against Biblical principles. Surely, using psychological games to replace family values is not consistent with Christian views on the family--especially when those psychological practices violate state laws!

Indeed, the acknowledged father of progressive education was Jean Jacques Rousseau, the humanist philosopher who believed the purpose of education was not to educate, but rather to find happiness and allow children to be creative. He also believed that classrooms were to be used to condition students to accept a socialized world view. This philosophy rationalized Rousseau's own lifestyle, characterized by numerous illegitimate children, stealing, lying, and the inability to hold a job.

Rousseau's philosophical heirs, Horace Mann and John Dewey, were responsible for the growth of progressive education in America. They attacked memorization, drills, phonics, and mathematical formulas by claiming such practices restrict a child's creativity! Historically, private Christian schools have resisted the tenets of progressive education and instead, did as the Bible instructs; educate children, both spiritually and academically, so that they may honor God and become productive citizens.

This is a detailed and complex argument that would have to be made to key Christian leaders before one could expect any action to be taken. Unfortunately, the task of educating Christian teachers, principals, administrators and even pastors may fall to the individual parent who understands the true nature of today’s education reform and its encroachment into the Christian community.

Armed with knowledge, parents can effectively challenge this threat to their families and schools. It is no longer enough for parents to place their children in a Christian school and expect that they will receive a strong academically based education with a firm foundation in Christian principles. Today, parents must know what is being taught—whether it is public school or Christian.

Unfortunately, parents today cannot trust that their children are safe in a Christian school; it is imperative that parents review the curricula. Parents must go to the school; ask to see the teacher’s materials, including all supplementals, and decide whether they agree with what is being taught. Parents can’t rely on what is brought home. The teacher’s manuals will give a clear picture of what is emphasized in the classroom. If the buzzwords are present; if lifelong learning, self-esteem, integrated curriculum, cooperative learning, etc. are used throughout—or if Paideia is listed as the program in use—be forewarned; the school has bought into the OBE/STW lie.

Christian parents should lovingly try to educate school and church officials; and should try to engage other parents in the process (there is strength in numbers). If the school won’t listen and won’t change, parents must act to protect their children, if that means removing their children, they may have to do so. Hopefully, there will be an another choice—a Christian school that is not using corrosive programs detrimental to children, families, church and God.

It’s true—the last line of defense is a vigilant parent. God stands ready to help if parents will take up the battle.

-END-

More education articles written by Karen Holgate can be found at: http://web.archive.org/web/20010630174636/http://paul-revere.org/ and http://www.capitolresource.org

1. “Resources: Models of Teaching,” Concordia University

2. Different regions of the nation have different accrediting associations.

3. Lutheran’s Educator Conference, November 23-25, 1997.

4. While the following material focuses primarily on the LCMS conference, the methodologies, strategies and suggested curricula are showing up in a wide array of denominations.

5. “Study of Curriculum Reform,” Office of Education Research and Improvement, US Dept. of Ed., (Oct. ‘96)

6. One method of promoting “progressive” reform in Christian schools is through “dual accreditation.” WASC is only one of these secular accrediting associations that is making inroads into Christian schools. The argument is that the “dual” accreditation will benefit students by making them more acceptable to universities. This is not true. Colleges and universities go primarily by SAT scores and grades.

7. (Paideia was not covered in the Conference but is mentioned here because it is showing up in Christian schools throughout America.)

8. “Desires of Right & Wrong,” (‘91), Mortimer Adler

Monday

July 23rd, 2001

EducationNews.org -

A Global Leading News Source

Education News

THE PROGRESSIVE ASSAULT ON THE CHRISTIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM

Hot Topics