Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!arcsun!rob
From: rob@arcsun.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: education
Message-ID: <183@arcsun.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Mar-87 11:59:41 EST
Article-I.D.: arcsun.183
Posted: Wed Mar  4 11:59:41 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Mar-87 19:31:10 EST
References: <213@fornax.uucp> <179@arcsun.UUCP> <217@fornax.uucp> <247@pembina.alberta.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: Alberta Research Council, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 27
Summary: "experimentation"?

In article <247@pembina.alberta>, cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes:
> > [some things about "back to basics"]
> 
> ... There was a significant amount of experimentation with education in 
> the 60's. Basically educators had been saying the above for years before,
> and finally got what they wanted. The consensus is that it didn't work. The
> back to basics movement is in reaction to the 60's experiments.

Much of the so-called "experimentation" in the 60's was simply an attempt to
foist a "hip, feel-good, free" philosophy on unsuspecting youngsters, instead
of the "square, imperialist" (or whatever) philosophy that had previously
been imposed. The problem was that many students, given the option of doing
whatever they wanted, chose to do nothing.

> Which isn't to say
> it's the 30's all over again in schools, just that the topic matter is
> that same, because that's what the people need. Literacy is valuable, so
> you must teach it.

But is teaching literacy the *same thing* as teaching the definition of
gerunds? This is why there is a need for genuine education research, not
simply knee-jerk reactions against flower-child gurus.

Rob Aitken
{...alberta, ...ubc-vision}!calgary!arcsun!rob
"If at first you don't succeed, well, so much for skydiving."
                             - Someone other than me