Tracy Press

It is not so much an indictment of teachers as it is an indictment of the one-dimensional worldview teachers are given in universities and colleges that provide credentialing courses. So it never occurs to these teachers to question the validity of what they are taught. A rigid conventional orthodoxy stifles alternative ideas.

Teachers are taught that the accumulation of knowledge is happening at such a frightening pace that it is futile to emphasize facts, since facts will become obsolete over a short time. It is better to teach students "critical thinking" skills so they can analyze the changes and become "lifelong learners." Teachers are to emphasize process and pedagogy, instead of factual content.

Teachers are taught that learning is natural and that forcing students to learn what they don’t want is detrimental to a child’s natural curiosity. Teachers are to be "facilitators" and not "drill instructors."

The outcome of these high sounding ideas is the destruction of egalitarianism (equal opportunity) for the urban poor and socially disadvantaged. Children of affluent and socially intact families are given the facts at home that form the intellectual foundation in which higher learning thinking can occur. The poor are left at a disadvantage that becomes greater with time as the "haves" get more knowledge at home and the "have-nots" get less for a myriad of reasons. The poor become part of a new class structure doomed to second-class citizenship.

To be fair, many in education are finally seeing that the definition of stupidity is continuing to try the same methodology and expect different results. There is an increased emphasis on teaching grade-level content standards, but many standards are still too vague to be effective.

If the poor and socially disadvantaged are to have a chance, there must be an emphasis on core knowledge of factual learning again grade by grade. Until then, any additional money contributed will not produce the desired results.

• Scott Hurban, a longtime Tracy resident, is a public school teacher in a Stockton high school.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (17)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Vernon , July 27, 2007

I truly believe that if a child has intelligence and curiosity, he/she can attain a high level of success even if they are poor and/or disadvantaged. It's easy to think that disadvantaged kids with minimal family structure are hanging out at the mall or street corner, while the rich kids are in homes gathered around the dinner table discussing worldy events. But the reality probably is that most kids (rich or poor) are hanging out or working at jobs and/or in school.

I don't believe that because a child comes from an "affluent and socially intact family and is given the facts at home" that he/she therefore has the intellectual foundation for higher learning thinking. (President Bush comes to my mind as an example to disprove THAT theory...)

I disagree that educators need to spend more time drilling facts. Who is to say that the "facts" presented by the educator are not skewed towards a particular belief. (i.e. It was only 2 years ago that the Kansas City school board rejected the theory of evolution, before reinstating it again.) The public library with its books and free computers for use and even television (The Discovery Channel, PBS, History Channel, Learning Channel, etc) can be the great egalitarian equalizers.

But "critical thinking" is a crucial skill that must be taught -- in conjunction with teaching the "facts." Our children should not be spoonfed facts, but taught how to critically analyze the "facts" they come upon.
(I, too, have been a public school teacher and learned at an early age -- you just have to work harder if you're poor.)

...
written by Mark Davis , July 27, 2007

It's an interesting theory that parallels Bloom's Closing of the American Mind (which I have read, unlike Hirsch). The missing component to me is a range of contending cultural factors that grew up simultaneously with Hirsch's time period.

We have the acceleration of the growth/change of knowledge (my 8-year-old just corrected me on Jupiter's number of moons; darn Gallileo probe!). We have urban-flight from urban cores enhancing the ratio of underprivileged who have parents with low educational achievement as well. In conjunction with that, we have the most basic statistical realization that parent's educational level is the primary determinant of student success although, as Vernon points out, it is not predestining.

I'd be curious to find out what assortment of facts drilled into kids would be just right to maximize outcomes in the Hurban/Hirsch universe? Facts (other than basic math moving through algebra) are little needed for the SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT or GMAT (MCAT excluded). Cultural literacy might be nice but does it translate into college acceptance? Not nearly as much as critical thinking skills, it seems.

I, like Vernon, taught a few years, but I was in a foreign system based on the British curriculum. The material was not inherently different from the US, but there was more covered on the exit exams.

...
written by Mark David Ecklestein , July 27, 2007

I have a bachelor's degree from a competitive major university. I still learn new facts every day.

There's no way any education, formal or otherwise, can hope to teach all the "facts". (And anyone ever read James Lowen's "Lies my teacher told me"? As a history major, I found out most of the "facts" I learned in grade and high school, at least in American history, weren't so much factual). But I have a solid basis for learning and understanding that I use now. Not to say that educators ought to ignore facts, but I think an ability to think and analyze is much more valuable than an ability to regurgitate names and dates. I think it's much better for a class to discuss and debate something than it is to be told "THIS IS SO," and nod their heads politely in unison and move onto the next "fact".

Plus since it's Hurban, the "facts" he's teaching are probably all bogus anyway

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

"Lies my Teacher Told Me" was an excellent book. No one is denying the need for critical thinking skills. They are useless though if you don't have a foundation in which to critically think from. Just because you can't teach all the facts doesn't mean that you shouldn't treat some. Such an argument is like, "Why take a bath everyday, when you'll just get dirty again." Besides with the two of you, if I said the sky was blue, you would argue with me that it wasn't just because you don't want to agree.

...
written by elementary school teacher , July 28, 2007

Hirsch's argument is valid. He is not advocating that educators simply teach a list of facts. Instead, he argues that there is a core of knowledge that, when taught in elementary school, provides a base from which children can learn more. This base then makes it possible for children to engage in higher level thinking. Without base knowledge about a subject, how can a child think critically about it. Furthermore, the knowledge Hirsch advocates for children to know is the basic knowledge that most Americans take for granted - topics discussed in newspapers, magazines, television.
What Hirsch advocates is that more content is taught in school, along with engaging children in endeavors at various levels of Bloom's Taxonomy.

...
written by Mark Davis , July 28, 2007

But, wait a minute, it's not that Hirsch's ideas aren't valid, or that I think that facts should not be taught (I won't speak for MDE). Hurban and EST are now modulating the tone down from idiocy like "The outcome of these high sounding ideas is the destruction of egalitarianism (equal opportunity) for the urban poor and socially disadvantaged." There is no chance whatsoever that Hurban or Hirsch could demonstrate that that is the case. It's pure ideological speculation that they merely want to be true. No one can even demonstrate that homework adds value or correlates with educational success.

And with statements like "Besides with the two of you, if I said the sky was blue, you would argue with me that it wasn't just because you don't want to agree." Correct, I do disagree with you when you draw conclusions based on ideological positions after beginning with relatively benign initial precepts. It's the lack of nuance that is at issue. You also have a tendency to be factually incorrect.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

Mark, whenever you disagree with me, I know I am on the right track. You constantly make assumptions about what people say without proof. This is either the case or you are just a bold face liar. I, therefore, will believe the former. The author makes a very convincing case based upon several long term quantitative studies. However, you would rather call me names and be intellectually lazy rather than read it for yourself. By the way, embicile, IUD's were often sold as contraceptives, but were clearly abortive in nature. How can someone with your level of education be so ignorant? May the Lord have mercy or your soul. I hope Darwin keeps you company when you cease to exist. What a curse life must be without God, no matter how you may deny it.
I have satisfaction in knowing that you must fear me or you would not protest so much. I am a teacher and there is not a thing you can do about it. How does that make you feel? If I have my way, there were be many more like me and there will be nothing you can do about that either. In fact, that is my life long quest and I have allies throughout the U.S. that will help me.
More people read the paper than ever look at your silly blog.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

You are fooling yourself if you don't think your views are ideologically driven. Everyone has a frame of reference. At least I have the honesty to admit it and have never hidden it as it should be part of the debate. Like most liberals who try to live the illusion that they are impartial, you spend more time lying to yourself than to others. Trying to be openminded, you are the most intolerant and hateful of all. Will you come to my graduation. I think I will get a doctorate after that. Probably in history and I will love to show it to you when you try and present your intellectual superiority.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

Mark,
When did anyone say anything about homework?
I could never tolerate arrogance and you are full of it. That is what makes Micky a better man than you. He has a sense of humility

...
written by Mark Davis , July 28, 2007

Wow, when someone is reduced to simple name calling, I know I am on the right track!

As I mention, I think A. Bloom (to differentiate from Bloom's Taxonomy and the neato constructivism-style stuff) is fairly interesting. I also like Paideia by Mort Adler and was intrigued by your initial discussion of Hirsch. You are good to remind me that I have not actually read Hirsch, though I did just read several critiques of him that analyzed many problems with his pedagogical and social notions. I like learning new things and am emotionally quite temperate, so I forgive you your above sins.

The liberal mind (Classically Liberal, if you will) is, however, a mind built on careful examination of ideas and material fact. Ideas are held contingently, to quote Bertrand Russell. It is skeptical of broad claims and applies principles of necessary and sufficient conditions to justify those claims. I contend that what drives you is opposition to this idea as manifest in your hostility. Criticism is not to be tolerated in such a totalitarianism of ideology and concept, much like religion often (but not always) imposes a totalitarianism that requires absolutism is opposition to reason.

I wish you the best, however, and enjoy these little discussions.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

Mark, how pious of you to forgive me. What did the elemenary school teacher ever do to you for you to call her an idiot ( read what you said)?

As you know, almost NOTHING can be proven with research when it comes to humans , because we are not determined beings. However, the correlations between having a basis of factual knowledge and success are quite high and he sites study after study going back to the 1960's. Not only that, like most studies they have validity, they are based on common sense.

You made all kinds of assumptions about my beliefs in terms of liberty when it comes to social issues which were based on nothing but your own preconceived notions about me. I am actually quite libertarian on most issues. I do see a need for government to protect children from being murdered by their parents ( abortion) or being put in bad family situations ( gay marriage of which I am not going to debate with you now) as chidlren are not the property of their parents to be done with as they will. Ohterwise let liberty reign.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

By the way, I always try to give someone the benifit of the doubt and read first source material other than critiques. That is why I personally read the Quran instead of reading about the Quran. Having read it, I am surprised that all Muslims are suicidal killers. I am glad 75% have rejected this obvious theme.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

Correction: I am surprised that all Muslims ARE NOT suicidal killers

...
written by Mark Davis , July 28, 2007

Factually incorrect, once again: I did not accuse EST of anything other than "modulating the tone done". I did declare your claim idiocy because it is not derived from any factual basis.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

Then you are the idiot. I'll try it again. I know you aren't an English teacher but perhaps you are a victim of what Hirsch was trying to tell you. If there are any words I use you need me to define, don't hesitate to ask. You know what define means, right? This sign ? means do you have any questions? If you read the book, read meaning to decode the words the author wrote and comprehend , you will find that there are many ( that means a lot) of studies that show a correlation between lack of factual understanding and how well students do in school. In fact, schools that have adopted his methodogy have shown success among the urban poor ( those are people who have no money and live at a disadvantage). I, myself, who have worked among the poor for 7 years see exactly what he is talking about. I have also been through the credentialing progtrams and know exactly what they teach and why.
If I have misinterpreted what you said, I apologize. This is something I do with my students when I make an error for I do not have a God complex. Now I stated that some products, like the IUD, are sold as contraceptives, which are, in fact, abortive devices. I was right and you were wrong. As I recall, rather than ask me why I said this, you merely began to foam at the mouth and accuse me of ranting. If you aren't man enough to admit you were wrong , then my argument that you are arrogant stands and I pity your son who has you as an example of what a father ought to be. By the way, my children are all successful and people of integrity and abhore arrogance. Maybe I'll transfer to Tracy just so I can teach your son English, that way he can pass it along to you.

...
written by scott e. hurban , July 28, 2007

By the way, the author brought up the egalitarian argument and supported it with evidence ( evidence is imformation that supports what he believes) and not me. I was merely stating some of the conclusions of the book and passing it along to others along with a suggestion they read it. Again, having reread your statement about you calling the other writer an idiot, I see I was wrong upon a third reading. At this point, that makes me more of a man than you. I love my A average in graduate school and the respect I have from the professors.

eel free to quote that back to me as you appear to lack your own words. By the way, I'm done with you now. Feel free to answer the vapor.

...
written by Mark Davis , July 29, 2007

It's perhaps too bad that you turned off because I felt I did you a disservice in not reading further. So now I have and think there are some useful ideas in Hirsch (as with Bloom and Adler). I especially like his analysis of the positive correlates of background knowledge with educational outcomes when holding socioeconomic status still. A national curriculum is an interesting idea, too.

So my only complaint really falls to the issue of nuance in your overreaching and provocative statements. This parallels my critique of your other notes concerning "Liberalism" and "tyranny", which you use as simplistic code words for very complex ideas that deserve better treatment. If you make provocative statements, I suggest that you should be prepared for provocation.