Will Gardner is right on – pedagogical methods based in constructivist theory are not at odds with having the “coherent, knowledge-rich” curriculum that E.D Hirsch espouses. The debate is about the content of the curriculum, not the pedagogy involved.

There may be no guarantee of success of such negotiations, but failure to try is to guarantee failure.

Rather then leading on the task of trying to bring understanding to the learning process, and to develop useful metrics to determine the efficacy of various ideas, ed schools are complicit in deterring others from that pursuit.

My experience confirms Hirsch’s “theological institutes” characterization. At the big California middle school conference two years ago, I noticed that the conference bookshop only included works of an anti-curriculum stripe. I sought out the person responsible for selecting the books. She greeted me sunnily, but when I asked if she’d considered stocking E.D. Hirsch her expression turned ugly, as if I’d suggested stocking Luther in a Catholic bookstore.

My education school was indeed a brainwashing factory. Perhaps there are less theological ed schools out there, but I suspect they’re the exception rather than the norm. Based on my conversations with fellow educators, the education establishment has done a very good job of preventing teachers from learning much about or even being open to alternative views about education. It seems to me that groupthink characterizes the scene.

I don’t think pedagogical methods based in constructivist theory are necessarily at odds with having a “coherent, knowledge-rich” curriculum. In the hands of a skillful teacher, these methods allow for rigorous, deep and well-structured exploration of key concepts and content. In the hands of a poorly-equipped teacher, even the most well-designed curriculum falls flat.

Well, if his quote is accurate:

“theological institutes where heresy is viewed as an evil that its members have a civic duty to suppress…

then it’s small wonder. He’s doing the classic “lets characterize the entire group with the opinions of the farthest fringe”. Honestly, this sounds like the typical attempt to garner as many book-purchases as possible, rather than an attempt to actually help a good policy succeed.

Which is sad, because I think he’s onto an important idea.

Next up, a book reveals the Democrats are proto-communists, and another book unveils the Republicans as fascists. (And please, if you believe the Democrats really are proto-communists or the Republicans really are fascists, don’t chime in )