Teaching: The Con Called Constructivism

Here’s some background for linked YouTube video titled “HOW TO TEACH ANYTHING & EVERYTHING.”======

To keep the video under 4 minutes, there’s no background given. Teachers would know a lot of it. So these comments are directed more at parents who will be experiencing this con from a distance.

One of the big developments in the last 20 years is that the Education Establishment wants to turn teachers into “facilitators.” These people won’t have to know very much because they won’t be allowed to teach very much, not in the old-fashioned sense. They will guide from the side; throw hints from the back of the room; and in general give clues until the children stumble into discovering something.

The theory is called Constructivism. More and more classrooms are designed according to Constructivist rules. Teachers must not teach facts. Kids have to figure out everything for themselves. This might work if we were talking about insights or understanding. But children need foundational knowledge ASAP. How does a child invent the knowledge that Paris is the capital of French? Even if this could happen, it’s not going to happen fast.

Constructivists always seem to be talking about brilliant grad students at Oxford, who can be set loose to discover new knowledge for themselves. But we are talking about seven-year-olds who don’t know how to spell “computer” or where their hometown is on a map of the USA. A solid foundation of basic information is essential for further academic progress. Constructivism hinders the building of this solid foundation.

Perhaps I’ve gotten too cynical. But I view Constructivism as a sophistry that guarantees more dumbing-down, and then tries to put a glimmer of legitimacy on the manufactured decline.

So this video, without ever mentioning the word, is saying no to Constructivism. Kids need knowledge. Teachers should teach it, and not only that they should teach the basic stuff again and again until children really master it.

It has more to do with modern Liberal Cultural thinking. The idea behind it is simple, that people need to come to things on their own to truly learn and apposite them.

Of course your right, it has the side benefit of people not really learning anything. I call this a benefit because a lot of people in positions of power do not really want what they claim to want: Rationalism, Free Thought, and people arriving at their own conclusions. Rather, they want them to arrive at a predestined conclusion they have set up. However, the ideas they hold to are weak ones that fall apart if challenged. Its best not to teach things fact for fact, for this way you can control the narrative, but in such a way that the Student doesn’t begin to question your Authority on the topic as you haven’t told them overtly these things, and it just seems to them that they arrived at the conclusion on there own, when the reality is they picked it up from the ambient classroom setting or culture they are Immersed in. its about leading people to a conclusion, but making them think they arrived at the conclusion on their own. People are much less likely to challenge the official narrative of they think its something hey came to on their own based on personal reflection.

It does require that not a lot is taught, and a side effect of this is we have loads of people, even from Major Universities, that simply do not know very much in depth. I swear in my own Academic studies I’ve met PhD’s who do not really understand principles that they should have learned before getting their degrees. EG, I’ve met one PhD holder in Law who didn’t understand the basis of Constitutional Law being set in Common Law, or the transcendence of Natural Law by which all other Law must be derived and which even the Will of the People was not thought to be able to overturn. His argument was that the Constitution was a purely Democratic Document that was based solely on the Will of the People and can be changed to reflect anything they wanted.

When I quoted the Federalist and Anti-Federalist and other documents from men like Jefferson and Adams whose thinking was instrumental in crafting the American legal system, and shows him that America was never intended to be a Democracy, and they even said there was a Natural Order which must be obeyed, he was dumbfounded.

Folks, I am studying Psychology and Theology, not Law, but I know this, because I just like being well read.

My Lawyer Friend was also a firm believer in the Living Document approach to the Constitution, which says it can be reinterpreted to reflect Modern Values without the need for amendments, which he said made it a great document viable for all time.

Of course this contradicts the words of the men who actually wrote the text, but who cares?

But the Scary part was, he did not really know precisely where he learned this, despite having a good memory of his Law school days.

That’s because the Teacher never stood up in class and said “Today I will teach you about the Constitution as a Living Document”. it was just discussed as if it were one, or he Living Document theory mentioned matter-of-faclty in casual conversation.

It seemed to the Students that it was True, of course, and I’ve s3en similar approaches taken in Psychology classes. Example: Homosexuality is proven to be innate and unchangeable. No one bothers to ask for real Data to support this. ( I did but was chewed out.)

Its all just so much rubbish and a sort of shell game. They want us all to be placated and simple, but accepting of the general narrative that just sort of feels like it came out of no where but is True because gosh, we all see it that way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.