The End of Education

I've written a bit about Neil Postman's book The End of Education awhile back. By "End" Postman doesn't mean that education is now finished (but that's what I thought when I purchased it); rather Postman means what is the result or finished product that our education produces? This is far more interesting.

I'm just returning to the book now after my Atlanta trip and helping out around the house.

It's even better than I remember.

Initially, Postman's religious, conservative tone put me off. I actually put it down figuring I'd wasted my money.

Am I glad I returned to it. On my second attempt, I took his tone with a grain of salt and by the end of the introduction, I couldn't put it down.

Now on my third time through, I find myself highlighting or underlining almost every sentence.

Here are some of the best ones - totally taken out of context and totally random, but they can stand on their own.

"All subjects should be taught from an historical perspective. I can think of no better way to demonstrate that knowledge is not a fixed thing but a continuous struggle to overcome prejudice, authoritarianism, and even 'common sense'"

"'To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child,' Cicero."

". . . all subjects are forms of discourse and that therefore almost all education is a form of language education."

"As things stand now, teachers are apt to think of themselves as truth tellers who hope to extend the intelligence of students by revealing to them, or having them discover, incontrovertible truths and enduring ideas. I would suggest a different metaphor: teachers as error detectors who hope to extend the intelligence of students by helping them reduce the mistakes in their knowledge and skills."

"Textbooks, it seems to me, are enemies of education, instruments for promoting dogmatism and trivial learning. They may save the teacher some trouble, but the trouble they inflict on the minds of students is a blight and a curse."

A possible sample essay for a 'final' exam -

"Describe five of the most significant errors scholars have made in (biology, physics, history, etc.). Indicate why they are errors, who made them, and what persons are mainly responsible for correcting them. you may receive extra credit if you can describe an error that was made by the error correctors. You will receive extra extra credit if you can suggest a possible error in our current thinking about (biology, physics, history, etc.). And you will receive extra extra extra credit if you can indicate a possible error in some strongly held belief that currently resides in your mind."

Wow. I like Postman's point in the chapter "The Fallen Angel" that schools should not try to teach 'truths' but rather teach students to be 'error detectives.'

What civilization hasn't made errors? It is our built in tragic flaw (and hubris is part of this). The point is not to defend our beliefs or only seek out those who support our beliefs (hello Michael Moore or Glen Beck). The point is to realize we are a flawed species. Even in this argument there are bound to be flaws. That's great. Learn from them and construct (or revise to use a writing term) our argument.

I agree with Postman that not only is this not done enough in schools but it is not done enough in our country.

Why argue that Bush was right (or Clinton) and that Obama is wrong? What does the term 'right' even mean? And whose agenda does being 'right' serve. (I think of a friend of mine who used to send me these wretched email forwards which were blatantly false, but which he loved (and I dare say believed) because all they did was tell him just what he wanted to hear, regardless of whether it was fact or fiction). Instead, we should ask what mistakes were made (and there certainly were mistakes made and there certainly are mistakes being made now) and what can each administration learn from the other?

That's why I hate to see one side gain control and ramrod all of their legislation through only to know full well that when the other side gains control that they'll do the same. What ever happened to compromise?

The same holds true for just about any argument or debate today. When have you ever heard on any talk radio show or news cast, Bill O'Reilly or Ed Schultz or Rush Limbaugh utter these words, "You know . . . I never thought of that. You make a great point. I was wrong. I can see where you're coming from."

You never hear that. We are so afraid of being proven wrong or dealing with disagreement that we really don't. We live in such a specialized society that if all I want to immerse myself in is far left liberal doctrine, well there are blogs for that, radio shows for that, TV shows for that, podcasts for that, newspaper columns for that . . . all telling me what I want to hear. All reaffirming my beliefs without any great debate or even the idea that there are bound to be errors in our beliefs and thinking.

That's one of the joys of teaching composition. I get to both challenge peoples' beliefs and have mine challenged. And then - if we're lucky - change our minds!

This happened when a former student of mine wrote an outstanding paper on the benefits of outsourcing. I didn't want to agree with him, but I ended up doing it. Now, I'm all for it (with more convincing from Thomas Friedman).

Just last year another student wrote a great paper on why we should have an internet filter (something I'm still adamantly against), but he mad excellent points and it caused me to revise my arguments against the filter.

The same is true for the debate on high stakes testing going on over at minnesotalady's blog. But it has quickly degenerated into insults and petty bickering. I'm not blaming anyone; I think this is simply a symptom of how we handle 'debate' in our culture. There can be no moderation or give and take. There has to be a winner beyond the shadow of a doubt. How can there be compromise? How can precise issues be answered when we are too busy defending ourselves or our beliefs?


But detecting errors (and best of all, realizing we can't help making them regardless of how sure we are that we're correct) and revising our positions, well, that's what learning is about. And as Postman notes, there is just far too little genuine learning going on in our society and our schools (which are reflections of the society at large).

I'm reminding of what one of my professors told me about the Jewish faith when I was in a world religions class in college. Two rabbis will enter into a debate over an issue, which each rabbi holding a copy of the Torah. They will spend their time looking up proof to support their side of the debate. If a time comes when one rabbi cannot refute the other one, the other rabbi will switch spots with him and open his Torah and begin arguing for the other rabbi!

Can you imagine that happening in our society or classrooms?

To wit - here is a great example.

Here is an editorial written by Eric, one of our scholars on the Atlanta trip, about the final destination of the trip: Stone Mountain. In it he lambasts what he calls "The Lost Cause view of the Civil War." Dr. McPherson chimed in on this when he talked about the Sons of Confederacy and their heroic view of the southern campaign.

Since all of us who went on the trip are part of the same email listserve, Eric sent us all a copy of his editorial.

Today, we received the response below - intended for all of us to read. I'll include that below --

From: Confederate Mike <[ mailto:confederatemike@gmail.com ]confederatemike@gmail.com>
Date: July 14, 2010 9:12:10 AM CDT
To: [ mailto:hultgren@crookstontimes.com ]hultgren@crookstontimes.com, [ mailto:editor@crookstontimes.com ]editor@crookstontimes.com
Subject: Eric Bergeson's Revising Civil War history is no small matter


Folks, you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing and publishing an obviously uneducated and misinformed individual's depiction of your own American history, along with his worthless opinions.

I was extremely insulted by Mr. Bergeson's text and the severe lack of knowledge about his own history. I was even more insulted by the fact that you granted him permission to publish his none sense.

Are you also living in the dark and are clueless about what caused and what actually took place during the Civil War ? It seems to be the case as you condone his silly writings.

I'm not about that start waisting my precious time in order to write several pages about the true historical facts and causes of the Civil War as I'm not here to teach a history class. Although this individual obviously requires several complete history lessons regarding your own American history.

I hope that there's someone within your group whom will reprimand Mr. Bergeson for his distasteful comments and rants. Perhaps even lead him in the right direction to the public library.

Shame on him and the person who brought his writing to the rest of this world.

Much Obliged, Confederate Mike.

Now, this response is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to our inability to logically debate.

Never does Confederate Mike ever state anything relevant to his cause! What exactly about Eric's editorial did he dislike or find wrong? How about addressing the specific issues? If the article is indeed "uneducated and misinformed" then how so? Please offer an example. What did Confederate Mike find so insulting (I mean judging from his monicker, we could take a guess!). Of course, when it finally comes down to brass tacks, he offers the statement that he is not going to waste his precious time about "the true historical facts and causes of the Civil War"!

Typical cop out. Here is a great chance to see two totally different views of the war. Yet, when one offers their take on it, another doesn't have an intelligent rebuttal based on one single 'true' fact. (a true fact? What is that even?)

But instead the response just devolves into an illogical rant.