| Author | |
LLMom
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 19 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 995
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 11:05am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Here is an article by Fr. Hardon on Catholic education. Let me know what you think. I will post thought in another post because I can't figure out how to highlight certain paragraphs.
The Dewey Legend in American Education
In a feature article published in Education Digest in 1950, we read: "It is conceded on all hands that John Dewey is our outstanding educational philosopher; his influence on American education has been immense."1 This, in one sentence, is a summary of the Dewey legend. For, although it is true that Dewey's influence on American education has been immense, it is only in a very qualified sense that we can call him an outstanding philosopher. Certainly a philosopher's real greatness is not to be estimated by the mere extent of his influence, but also and especially by the effects, good or bad, which his philosophy has had on contemporary civilization and will have on subsequent civilization. Measured by this standard, Dewey's title to fame must be balanced by the extent of the evil which his principles of social naturalism and pragmatic experimentalism have produced in the United States.
The Play-Complex in Education
Under modern progressivism, school discipline and work, which have been of the essence of education since the dawn of history, are to be substituted with freedom and play. According to Dewey, " . . . children should be allowed as much freedom as possible. . . . No individual child is [to be] forced to a task that does not appeal . . . A discipline based on moral ground [is] a mere excuse for forcing [pupils] to do something simply because some grown-up person wants it done."2
Written in 1915, these ideas have been adopted in thousands of American schools. Writing on the subject in 1951, a Catholic educator made this observation:
One of the principles that are doing as much as anything else to undermine American schools is the fixed notion that education has to be fun. We won't have our children subjected to anything hard or bothersome. We have practically adopted as a national education motto: "If it isn't easy, it isn't educational."3
He rightly traces this kind of pedagogy to the theories of John Dewey, and specifically to Dewey's penchant for Hegelianism:
Among the more formal influences encouraging educators in their soft pedagogy is the educational theory of John Dewey.
Dewey, influenced by his early Hegelianism, declared war on all dualisms . . . One of the dichotomies Dewey attacked was that between work and play. Unhappy about this opposition, he argued that given the proper setting (note the environmentalism), work would become play. Naturally he applied this notion to schooling and concluded that in a healthy educational environment, where children are engaged in matters of vital interest to them personally, the spirit of play will prevail. No doubt Dewey did not mean this to be taken as sentimentally as it has been by so many of his followers, but certainly his doctrine is a main prop, though not the only prop, supporting, the "play way" in American education.4
What are some of the consequences of this "fun-complex" in education?
The consequences . . . are many and obvious . . . Homework is considered an old-fashioned institution, a carry-over from the days when schooling was unpleasant, an interference with the child's and the family's recreation . . . Drill, repetition, recitation, and memory-work are dismissed as drudgery.5
The writer is acquainted with an elementary-school teacher with years of experience who was forced to give up her position because, as she said, "I could not comply with orders to allow the children to talk as much as they wished during school hours, having been told: 'Silence in the classroom is not to be tolerated; it is repressive.'"
Education Without Teacher Domination
Along the same lines is the change from "teacher domination" to "pupil initiative" promoted by progressive education. According to Deweyan psychology, "The present approach to our young children excludes the authoritarian approach to child guidance, counsel, and teaching."6 Writing in October, 1951, a former high school teacher tells of her experience with this liberal type of schooling. Her article, entitled "My Adventures as a Teacher," is a series of almost incredible incidents that are the daily lot of suffering teachers in progressive schools.7 One day the students brought a portable radio to school and insisted on listening to a ball game during her history class; she had to submit. On another occasion, she relates, "I corrected a noisy girl who talked incessantly. Her reply was: 'You are wasting your time telling me not to talk, because I intend to continue talking.' Progressive education!"8 She continues: "After three weeks of inattention, rudeness, and the growing knowledge that none of my students were reading their textbooks, I decided I had taken enough of this progressive school and decided to ask for a transfer.9 With a long term of experience on which to draw, she sums up her verdict on this new pedagogy minus teacher domination:
Progressive education is based on some false assumptions. It assumes that all boys and girls can be entertained to a point where they will be interested in all subjects. This is untrue . . . The old-fashioned theory that a student should study what he needs to know rather than what interests him is sounder than the new theory.
Progressive education which overemphasizes "learn by doing" and underemphasizes "learn by thinking, reading, and writing" is turning out men and women who are not leader material. Its products are not thinking men.10
She concludes with pungent humor, "At one time the qualifications for teaching were personality, intelligence and a social conscience. Under the progressive system the main qualification is iron nerves . . . which drives so many teachers from the profession."11
Another critic, prominent educator and author of several books on pedagogy, believes that "those in charge of what is called 'education' have little perception of what schooling is supposed to be or do."12 Concretely, he says:
A great failing of American schools is a basic irresponsibility which they develop in the students. For society there is grave danger when its youth are unchallenged in the impression that there can be reward without quest, wages without work, a master's prestige without a masters skill, marriage without fidelity, national security without individual sacrifice.13
Whence arises this sense of irresponsibility? From the lack of authoritative discipline which has been removed, on Deweyan principles, from a large segment of the public schools.
We find public school systems which promote all children at the end of each academic year regardless of whether their work has been good, bad or indifferent. Twenty years ago a high school teacher was expected to fail those who had not mastered 60 per cent of the subject matter of the course. So stern a teacher is no longer tolerated. He is subjected first to persuasion, then to pressure, to abandon such outdated ways.14
Scientific Method and Morality
It is axiomatic with Dewey that "educational theory . . . must contest the notion that morals are something wholly separate from and above science and scientific method."15 According to traditional philosophy, morality is finally based on established principles which stem from the nature of man. They are as fixed and immutable as human nature itself. "There is nothing novel in this view," says Dewey. "Nevertheless it is an expression of a provincial and conventional view, of a culture that is pre-scientific in the sense that science bears today."16 The correct, modern appraisal of morality is that the scientific "method of inquiry and test that has wrought marvels in one field is to be applied so as to extend and advance our knowledge in moral and social matters." This means that the "truths in morals [are] of the same kind as in science — namely, working hypotheses that on the one hand condense the results of continued prior experience and inquiry, and on the other hand direct further fruitful inquiry."17 Consequently, the only thing necessary to promote good morals among people is to furnish them, as in science, with an adequate body of facts, and to encourage them to put these facts into experimental practice with a view to arriving at some working hypothesis which may serve as a temporary standard of moral conduct.
Perhaps the most notorious application of this principle has been in the matter of sex education. Arguing that what young people need to control their libido is the knowledge of its functions and the evils of abuse, progressive educators led by Dewey have made sex instruction a commonplace in American public schools. Occasional complaints in the press indicate to what limits this instruction has gone. In a syndicated article in Look, August 30, 1949, one mother said that "far too many of our school children are being taught far too much about sex."18 She goes on to explain that her sixteen-year-old daughter in high school was given assigned reading in a medical textbook on sexology, illustrated and so detailed that a few years ago a similar book could not even be purchased from the bookseller without a doctor's certificate. It is not clear to her, she confesses, how, for example, young people in their teens "are benefited by learning the most satisfactory positions for conjugal relations."19
The extent of sex instruction in progressive schools may be gauged from the following facts. A nineteen-minute sex film, called "Human Growth," which pictures sexual details on "how life begins and continues," has been reprinted over 215 times and is being used in hundreds of junior high schools in most of the forty-eight States. "Human Growth" made national headlines in 1949 when the citizens of Middletown, New York, led by a Catholic minority, succeeded in having the film banned from the local public schools. The McGraw-Hill Book Company has also issued 450 prints of a twenty-one-minute sex film, entitled "Human Reproduction." Originally intended for colleges, this picture has been requested by seventy-one public school systems. It is medically graphic in illustrating the functions of the female, human body in the various stages of pregnancy.
What are the results of this mass sex education? It is commonly agreed that "sexual delinquency has increased tremendously in our public schools."20 And the reason? The judgment of some social workers and criminologists is that a major factor has been promiscuous sex instruction based on Deweyan scientism. For years back they have denounced this practice as a threat to American morality. Fourteen years ago in a composite statement to the press, a noted gynecologist and a social service director warned the nation of the evils of public courses in sexology21 Doctor Cary, New York gynecologist, attributed the lowering standards of educated women in America to the fact that "universities were providing women with knowledge of contraceptives, without emphasizing emotional entanglements."22 And the social service director blamed sex education in high school for much of the promiscuity "among American youth. The boys and girls become curious and want to put their knowledge in practice. I think the less said the better to people of that impressionable age."23
At the University of California, the school authorities were constrained to introduce sex instruction in answer to a demand from the student body, 2,700 voting in favor of co-educational classes of instruction on the intimacies of marital and pre-marital relations. According to an official report, "No aspect of sex life and marriage is ignored. Motion pictures, including a two-reel film on child-birth . . . help strip the mystery from matters once discussed ignorantly and guiltily in private conversation."24 Consistent with Deweyan, scientific morality, the students periodically voted on the morality of certain questions, the majority opinion being publicized as the accepted moral standard. Following are the percentage figures for one such student referendum:25
Subject Per Cent of Total Vote
Desirable Permissible Wrong
Pre-marital sex experience for men 10 31 59
Pre-marital sex experience for women 2 19 79
Use of contraceptives 65 28 7
The University of California has been a Dewey stronghold since 1899, when he spoke to the philosophers of that institution on the general subject of "The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy."26 His last public appearance at the University of California was in 1930, to give the dedication address on the opening of the new campus in Los Angeles.27
Educational Liberalism and American Social Problems
In 1931, American public school teachers were warned by one of their leaders that Deweyan pedagogy was producing a generation of moral weaklings. The breakdown of authority and the demand for freedom preached by Dewey, he said, are responsible for the changed attitude on the part of grown-ups toward marriage and divorce. "It is an interesting — and sad — commentary, that the identical theory which glorifies freedom as the inalienable right of children in their education can also serve to rationalize a social standard which will inevitably deny to children in ever increasing numbers the right to a normal home."28
Another authority was still more explicit. Criticizing Deweyan individualism in the schools, he maintained that "the cult of individualism which finds authority only in its own wants and satisfactions is responsible for the excessive amount of crime, for the number of divorces, for the slackened control of the family."29
That was twenty years ago. Divorce statistics before and since fully confirm these conclusions that family disintegration keeps pace with educational liberalism. From 1890 to 1948, the number of divorces granted in the United States had increased from 33,000 to 408,000 per year; and the ratio of divorces to marriage increased by 300 per cent. The national ratio of divorces to marriages in 1890 was 5.5 to 100; by 1948, it had arisen to 22.0 to 100, or about one divorce to every four marriages.
In a book called Ethics, first published by Dewey and Tufts in 1912 and later translated into Chinese and Japanese, prospective teachers were told that while "the increase in divorce seems to indicate a radical change in the attitude toward marriage," this is only another example of the revolutionary changes which are taking place in every phase of modem life.30 Divorce . . . does not necessarily imply that the institution of marriage is a failure, for divorced persons not infrequently marry again in the hope of a more successful union," which practice the authors sanctify with their approval.31 After American school teachers have been indoctrinated in these principles for forty years, the wonder is not why the nation's social problems should exist but why they are not infinitely worse.
Growing Opposition to Dewey's Principles of Education
Within recent years, a reaction has set in against John Dewey which promises to neutralize, if not dissolve, his present hold on the educational policies of American public schools. A graphic instance of this is the dismissal in 1950 of Willard E. Goslin, superintendent of schools in Pasadena, California. Goslin, a fervent disciple of Dewey, was a former president of the American Association of School Administrators and superintendent of schools in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for five years before he came to Pasadena in 1948. In one year, he introduced a score of changes in school discipline and curriculum that brought on his head the protests of thousands of irate parents. There was to be no subject matter prescribed for class; there was to be no set program of studies; there was to be no specific period in the school day for any particular subject; there was to be no system of marks or report cards, and there were to be no examinations. It was suggested that children remain with a given teacher for a few years, working on projects which grew from their own interests. This would give rise to spontaneous learning, rather than impose upon children any systematic learning of basic skills and fundamental information.
On July 2, 1950, Willard Goslin's resignation was demanded by the Pasadena Board of Education, under pressure from parents. Two years' experience with progressive education was all they needed to have none of it. In the words of one of their spokesmen, "The parents did not approve of this kind of education. They sent their children to school to learn something, and when they remonstrated that nothing was being learned, they were rebuffed for being behind times. The verdict in Pasadena was that 'education for democracy' is not education at all; it is training for the collectivized society."32 The Pasadena incident made national headlines when Goslin and his fellow-Deweyites defended their dismissal by accusing the California authorities of "reactionary fascism."
However, more significant than dissatisfaction with Dewey's pedagogical methods has been the growing opposition to the principles on which his pedagogy is founded. And among these, the most fundamental is undoubtedly his doctrine of socialistic naturalism, whose first postulate is the denial of a personal God. Accordingly, the only religion which progressive education recognizes is the "religion" of social improvement and the progress of civil society. Divisive ecclesiastical elements, since they are inimical to civil unity, are to be eliminated. And since the basis of ecclesiasticism is religious instruction, this must be gradually but firmly eradicated from American education. "Schools," says Dewey, "serve best the cause of religion in serving the cause of social unification."33 They are "more religious in substance and in promise without any of the conventional badges and machinery of religious instruction than they could be in cultivating these forms at the expense of a state-consciousness."34
Now it is precisely here in the matter of religious education that Dewey's philosophical principles have been most strongly and effectively opposed. It is safe to say that during the past several years, more than ever before in the Nation's history, non-Catholic educators and civil authorities have restated the absolute necessity of some kind of religious training in the schools if America is to save herself from moral disintegration.
Nicholas Murray Butler, while president of Columbia University, declared in a public address: "This generation is beginning to forget the place which religious instruction must occupy in education if that education is to be truly sound and liberal . . . the United States is not pagan but religious, and must have freedom of religious teaching and of religious faith."35 This statement is deeply significant, coming from Dewey's former superior at Columbia for many years.
Canon Bernard I. Bell, Episcopal scholar and educator, in an article and later in a national radio program in 1950, reduced the defects of American education to four points: (1) lack of discipline, (2) developing irresponsibility, (3) failure to train leaders, and (4) absence of religious instruction.36 The last is "the most deep-rooted ailment of our school system."37 His criticism is bitter:
About all that most Americans possess nowadays in the way of religion is a number of prejudices, chiefly against faiths other than those with which they have traditional affiliations . . . Perhaps half of them — not more — go once in a while to some church which they joined with only a foggy idea of its tenets or requirements.38
Historically, he points out: "Our schools were founded by those who considered religion of primary importance . . . Yet out of our public schools come successive generations of young people born of Christian families, of the Christian tradition — and ignorant of the faith of Christianity."39
However, non-Catholics have not limited expressing their dissatisfaction to mere words. Delegates of the Lutheran Church, in their national convention in 1950, passed a series of resolutions on the question of religious education of the young. They castigate the gross injustice which prevails today in the public school system. On the one hand, they state, "The children of religious parents may not receive religious education in connection with the daily public school program." On the other hand, they maintain, "The children of godless parents are receiving at public expense the kind of education their parents want them to have."40 Their solution is the one which American Catholics had long recognized as indispensable. They urge "the building and maintenance of parochial schools for the children of their sect."41
Moreover, in the public schools themselves, in spite of the low figure of 26.8 per cent of American cities and towns which allow released time from public schools for religious instruction, statistics for the past twenty years are very promising. Official surveys indicate an increase of 150 per cent in religious instruction programs from 1932 to 1949. In 1932, only 10.7 per cent of our cities and towns permitted released-time programs; in 1949, such programs were allowed in 26.8 per cent of the cities and town.42
Still more encouraging is the fact that 45.9 per cent of the cities with a population over 100,000 had released-time religious instruction programs for pupils in the public schools. In other words, the 26.8 figure is deceptively low, because it is based on the mere number of cities reporting and does not take into account the size of the cities in question.43
Conclusion
John Dewey, in one of his most frequently quoted statements, said: "Education as such has no aims."44 By this he meant that education, like man, is self-sufficient and an end in itself. Unlike Dewey, American Catholics and other Americans believe, with Pope Pius XI, that "education consists essentially in preparing man for what he must be and for what he must do here below, in order to attain to the sublime end for which he was created."45 Catholics have, therefore, developed an educational system of their own which at present numbers 4,027,511 students in nearly 12,000 institutions from elementary school to university.46 The annual cost of operating this gigantic educational program, exclusive of the capital costs for buildings and debt service, runs over a half billion dollars — this in spite of the very low subsistence salaries paid for the services of religious teachers, who make up 90 per cent of the teaching staff. Without government assistance, this educational enterprise is made possible only through the generosity of the Catholic laity and the devotion of teachers consecrated to the work of training the young. Only God knows what sacrifices this involves, but no sacrifice is too great to protect our Catholic youth from the naturalism that has invaded secular education in the United States.
Notes
1 Boyd H. Bode, "Pragmatism in Education, Dewey's Contribution," Education Digest, XV (February, 1950), 5.
2 John Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow, p. 26. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1915.
3 Charles F. Donovan, S.J., "Dilution in American Education," America, LXXXVI (November 3, 1951), 121.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 John Dewey, "The Philosopher-in-the-Making," Saturday Review of Literature, XXXII (October 22, 1949), 43.
7 Virginia R. Rowland, "My Adventures as a Teacher," The Sign, XXXI (October, 1951), 34-37.
8 Ibid., 35.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 37.
11 Ibid.
12 Bernard Iddings Bell, "Our Schools — Their Four Grievous Faults," Reader's Digest, LVIII (January, 1951), 124.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 John Dewey, "Challenge to Liberal Thought," Fortune, XXX (August, 1944) 190.
16 Ibid., 188.
17 Ibid.
18 "Sex Education," Look (August 30, 1949), 29.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., 30.
21 Detroit Times, February 6, 1938.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 D. Jennings, "Sex in the Classroom," Reader's Digest, XLVIII (February, 1946), 16.
26 John Dewey, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy, pp. 242-270. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1910.
27 John Dewey, Higher Education Faces the Future, pp. 273-282. New York: Horace Liveright and Co., 1930.
28 William C. Bagley, Education, Crime and Social Progress, p. 36. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931.
29 Isaac L. Kandel, "The New School," Teachers College Record, XXXIII (March, 1932), 508.
30 John Dewey and James H. Tufts, Ethics, p. 499. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1949.
31 Ibid.
32 Harold J. O'Loughlin, "Progressive Education in Pasadena," Catholic Digest, XVI (October, 1951), 93.
33 John Dewey, "Religion in Our Schools," The Hibbert Journal, VI (July, 1908), 807.
34 Ibid.
35 Nicholas Murray Butler, "Religion in Education," Catholic Digest, VI (March, 1942), 9 and 10.
36 Bell, op. cit., 124.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 The Catholic Transcript (Hartford, Conn. ), July 6, 1950.
41 Ibid.
42 Edward B. Rooney, S.J., "The Relation of Religion to Public Education in the United States," Lumen Vitae, V, 1 (January-March, 1950), 91.
43 Ibid., 92.
44 John Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. 125. New York: Macmillan Co., 1916.
45 Pope Pius XI, "Christian Education of Youth," Five Great Encyclicals, p. 39. Edited by Gerald C. Treacy, S.J. New York: Paulist Press, 1939.
46 N.C.W.C. News Service (Washington, D.C. ), September 8, 1952.
This item 5942 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
__________________
Lisa
For veteran & former homeschool moms
homeschooling ideas
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LLMom
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 19 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 995
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 11:14am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dewey attacked was that between work and play. Unhappy about this opposition, he argued that given the proper setting (note the environmentalism), work would become play. Naturally he applied this notion to schooling and concluded that in a healthy educational environment, where children are engaged in matters of vital interest to them personally, the spirit of play will prevail. No doubt Dewey did not mean this to be taken as sentimentally as it has been by so many of his followers, but certainly his doctrine is a main prop, though not the only prop, supporting, the "play way" in American education.4
Do you think he is talking here about unit study/hands on type stuff? I have wondered about this concept--Do I need to make something fun for the children just to interest them? Shouldn't they learn something for the sake of knowledge?
Progressive education is based on some false assumptions. It assumes that all boys and girls can be entertained to a point where they will be interested in all subjects. This is untrue . . . The old-fashioned theory that a student should study what he needs to know rather than what interests him is sounder than the new theory.
Progressive education which overemphasizes "learn by doing" and underemphasizes "learn by thinking, reading, and writing" is turning out men and women who are not leader material. Its products are not thinking men.10
This follows along the same lines. Is learning by doing the best way? I have a housefull and I struggle with doing hands on things, even read a louds. I have decided not to feel guilty (well most of the time I succeed) because I am in a season of my life right now with many little ones. So reading a loud happens late at night or in the car and the hands on stuff happens only if the kids can do it themselves.
I am just wondering what really is "Catholic education?" Can it include everything that works for our family and that it can be different for different seasons of our lives?
__________________
Lisa
For veteran & former homeschool moms
homeschooling ideas
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Cay Gibson
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 16 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5193
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 11:37am | IP Logged
|
|
|
LLMom wrote:
I am just wondering what really is "Catholic education?" Can it include everything that works for our family and that it can be different for different seasons of our lives? |
|
|
I certainly hope so. We are a Catholic family, living a Catholic lifestyle. I may have a long road to hoe in learning everything about my faith (truth and all) but I'm taking it a day at a time, a season at a time and I don't want to be discouraged from the overall focus of getting myself and my dc to Heaven some day. It has taken me 39 yrs to get to the point I'm at. It certainly didn't happen overnight or when I was a teenager.
My dc have all commented that they can't imagine marrying someone out of the faith. Of course, they haven't "fallin' in love" yet.  But we have great friends who are converts and who have made some of the better Catholics.
What I'm getting at is that we are all in the process of learning and God will find a way to get to us if our hearts and souls are open to Him and His mercy...be it through Catholic books, artwork and music or some other means. A "Catholic" education does not secure salvation. My dh went to public school. His 3 brothers went to Catholic school. He is the only one still an active Catholic. We trust in God's mercy for the others, as we are not here to judge them. God has set us on different paths.
Education is a process of learning. I'm wondering at all this talk...here and on the DIM thread. It's definitely serving as a form of education. There may be some falisies in our statements and certainly no one is an authority, but we are digging and searching and shifting the information in an attempt to find God's truth.
All this discussion is certainly "educating" each one of us. Under whose authority? God's authority, I'll bet. And if we do it with kindness and understanding and open discernment, then I think God is pleased and He will work to lead us down the right path.
__________________
Cay Gibson
"There are 49 states, then there is Louisiana." ~ Chef Emeril
wife to Mark '86
mom to 5
Cajun Cottage Under the Oaks
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Marybeth
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 02 2005
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1277
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 12:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisa,
Thank you for posting this article. I look forward to getting a chance to read and take in all that Fr. Hardon has to say.
He was such a good and holy priest.
May he rest in the peace of Christ.
Marybeth
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Leonie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2831
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 6:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think education can be both work and play. This is not to disagree with Fr Hardon, or to agree with Dewey. I am not an expert on education or on Catholic education, but I can see what works in my Catholic homeschool.
Sometimes, there is a season of hands on. Sometimes there is a season of more concentrated study. Sometimes these seasons occur because of family demands, ages of students, subject matter, materials.
I really don't think there is a dichotomy here - work and study, play and fun. There is more of a blend - life includes all of these and, in our homeschool, education includes all of these. Moral education encourages learning what is right, doing what is right, even if one finds it difficult - but we do this not on our own, but with the grace of God and the graces of the sacraments. And one can still seek joy, even fun, in this difficulty - as St Paul says, being content.
And sometimes it is the attiude that makes the differece. Study can be simultaneously work and fun and hard and engaging and interesting. I can choose to undertake some work that is other wise unpleasant, with an attitude of fun. I can encourage my dc to do the same. I can se "attitude boundaries".
I have found relaxed unit studies to be easier for me with a large family. I have also found literature based unit studies/themes to be engaging and fun.  I have found that my dc learn effectively in this connected fashion. But that doesn't mean that all they do is that which they want, is that which is fun. There is balance even in hands on, unit study learning - and for some large families ( like mine), it is a most effective way to learn. For others, it is not.
I believe that the interweaving of our Faith, of reading Catholic materials,of learning about the Saints, of going to Mass and to Confession, of applying discipline and self dicipline, I believe these are are what makes my family's education Catholic.
It *is different to a Catholic school education - but that is surely not a bad thing? It *is a Catholic homeschool and by it's nature, not solely a school.
Leonie in Sydney
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
tovlo4801
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 28 2005
Location: Minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 8:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
OK. I don't want to disagree with Fr. Hardon or agree with Dewey either. I know very little of either of them except by all accounts Fr. Hardon was a wise man who was a supporter of homeschooling and apparently we don't like Dewey much.
Here's what struck me from reading the article. Many of the examples of the problems of progressive education didn't seem to stem from the sort of education they were receiving, but from a lack of discipline. Can't you still allow the child's interests to guide the sort of studies they follow without cowering in a corner afraid of telling them no? If their choices are immoral or uncharitable of course they should not be allowed to pursue them. I also think that there can be balance. You can have certain things that are required of children while still leaving ample time for the child to direct studies as well. I think Willa talks about discipline and delight education. (I'm not sure I've got her categories right...)
I guess it sounded like blanket condemnation of something that might have good things too. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
The divorce comments really struck me because troubled marriages are an issue that is very close to my heart. I agree that at the heart of divorce is often a selfish attitude of doing whatever pleases me at the moment and a lacking sense of commitment. I've expressed concerns about the possible connection between unschooling and commitment to marriage in another post. Though again, it just seems to be a confusion of educational practices and discipline. I really think that if a child is taught (perhaps through some disciplined means) to understand the spiritual requirements of living a life of faith, you can still pursue some interest driven forms of education without incurring the complete breakdown of respect that is described in the article.
I still don't really know what constitutes a "Catholic" education, but I think that studying Church documents and the catechism is a good route to beginning to understand. I don't think the requirements of a "catholic" education are quite as strict some people personally interpret it. I could be wrong, but it sure does seem that the Church has a strong respect for individual expressions while maintaining solid guidelines to help us stay on the right path.
I do think that when we consider a school-building type of education the rules need to be a little stricter to maintain order. Hardon's article was clearly about this type of education. I'm not sure how well that translates into a home/family education situation.
I am completely craft phobic. I love to read and research and go places. My kids are constant motion. I work part-time from home. All these factors would indicate a different kind of education than some others on this forum might pursue. I really think that this is allowed.
Personally I would not be concerned if your type of home education takes a more textbook/workbook direction due to the various circumstances in your home. Nor would I be concerned if your type of home education takes a very interest led crafty sort of direction. I really do feel that these circumstances and inclinations are God-given and deserve the respect of consideration in the way you live your life. I'm beginning to think the documentation supports this too.
I'll be interested to hear others take on this.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 10:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Perhaps it would be helpful to know a little more about Dewey. I don't think Fr. Hardon's arguements are all against play - but against total lack of discipline. This is a case where a tiny bit of truth - ie you don't want to stand with a switch and beat knowledge into a kid (which also did occur at times in the History of Education) and it can be made as palatable as possible while still maintaining the need for direction and expectations of excellence found in Dewey covered more sinister effects (and maybe even aims).
The discussion of the encyclical on Christian Education has paragraph 60 which is the one about being against pedagogic naturalism is followed by "If any of these terms are used, less properly, to denote the necessity of gradually more active cooperation on the part of the pupil in his own education; if the intention is to banish from education despotism and violence, which by the way, just punishment is not, this would be correct and in no way new. It would mean only what has been taught and reduced to practice by the Christian tradition in Christian education, in imitation of the methods employed by God Himself towards His creatures, of whom He demands active cooperation according to the nature of each; ...."
The document goes on to say that this is not what is intended by many(taken from both the actual documents of educational philosophers and the actual implementation of it) but what is intended is the seperation of education from authority of God, His law and thus very contemptuos towards Christianity.(paragraph 62).
I really think that Fr. Hardon recognized Dewey's intention to divorce education from God while using phrases palatable to Americans. His system is what we got in the ps of our nation. I think the results show the truth of these assertions and it is part of that caution given that ideas sometimes can dupe the average of us. Dewey was one of those I thought sounded pretty reasonable, especially compared to some of the other nuts I read, but recently I have seen more and more that associates him with the mentality of totally turning education over to the student without thought of morality. You get a lot of "How does this make you feel? and What do you think about this? " and no real connection to an ultimate truth, the commandments, our final end. I don't know if Dewey was one of those philosophers the church issued a caution against or not, but I do know we headed more and more towards a relativistic and non-content based education from about 1920 on. Even standards now are couched more in phrases of what emotional response you want, or what social/political views as opposed to whether a child can add, subtract, multiply, divide, read and write.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
guitarnan
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10883
|
| Posted: July 18 2005 at 10:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is a truly fascinating discussion. My mother was attending Catholic school in Pasadena while the Goslin fiasco was going on; I will have to ask her if she knew anything about it (doubtful).
While I am certainly no expert in evaluation educational theory or discussing pedagogy, I am certain the Good Lord intended to fully prepare me for homeschooling by sending me to be a substitute teacher in an overseas school on a small military base. I taught K-12, all subjects. What an eye-opener...and that was in 1987! For me, the hardest part was eliminating my faith perspective from discussions of history, science, etc. I found this to be virtually impossible! The second hardest part was observing the behavior of the teenagers and pre-teens. I can only imagine that it's much worse now in many schools.
At any rate, I do think that modern education in our country (USA) is going farther down the path of "touchy-feely fun stuff" than most parents would like. I have an acquaintance here who teaches 6th grade in another county, and she is totally disgusted by the "new" approach to math she is expected to adopt this fall, in which students will "self-discover" math concepts (by trial and error/experimentation/math activities) and then "journal" their findings. She is expected to stay out of the learning process and just "facilitate." She did tell her principal that when fraction time rolled around, facilitating was over and teaching would happen. IMHO, some things just need to be memorized; I certainly agree that children can memorize math facts in many different ways (drill, times tables, set to music), but in the end, everyone needs to know their math facts.
I can foresee a situation in which teachers aren't allowed to "teach" math in WV, but are still held responsible for poor standardized test scores. Who would want a job like this?
In today's world, where the ACLU is trying to prevent the military bases from sponsoring Boy Scout troops (not to mention the National Jamboree at Ft. A. P. Hill!), and where we spend endless hours debating just how much "religious" music can be taught in a public school, we as a country have lost sight of the goal...preparing our children for a morally straight, responsible, self-sufficient adult life. In the case of Catholic families, bringing our children up in the Faith comes, of course, before any of these goals. I believe these goals can be accomplished in many ways, and provide children with a lifelong joy in learning at the same time. What could be better than encouraging our children to find joy in continued study of our Faith? (I just started a home study course myself...I'm very happy with it so far! I hope my children watch me work on it and see that I enjoy it.)
That is how I was led (dragged?) into homeschooling...by discussing our goals with my husband and agreeing that our circumstances (transfer to an overseas location) pretty much required us to homeschool in order to preserve our focus on Catholic education. In a rural county with no Catholic schools, I am still homeschooling. Next tour, in a Baltimore suburb with unaffordable Catholic schools, I will still be homeschooling. I may not homeschool in the same way as you do, or in the same way as the only other Catholic homeschoolers in my county do (I know this to be true), but we're all pursuing the same goals, taking into account our children's needs, personalities and learning styles, our family situations, our resources and circumstances, and the guidance we receive from the Good Lord.
I agree with Richelle; where better to start than with the Catechism and documents of our Church? If we, as parents, can learn to read, love and understand these important works, we can then pass along this ability to our children as they mature. I truly appreciate the chance to read everyone's comments and questions; you all help me as I grow in understanding and appreciation of our beloved Faith, and I thank you.
__________________
Nancy in MD. Mom of ds (24) & dd (18); 31-year Navy wife, move coordinator and keeper of home fires. Writer and dance mom.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Aug 07 2005 at 1:15am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Just found this thread while looking for something else... how interesting. I read Fr Hardon's article on Dewey a few months ago while on a binge of reading his works (Fr Hardon's not Dewey's!).
I think Janet hit it right on the head. Thanks Janet because that insight helped me with a part of this whole puzzle we've been sorting out across several threads.
You wrote: I really think that Fr. Hardon recognized Dewey's intention to divorce education from God while using phrases palatable to Americans. His system is what we got in the ps of our nation. I think the results show the truth of these assertions and it is part of that caution given that ideas sometimes can dupe the average of us. Dewey was one of those I thought sounded pretty reasonable, especially compared to some of the other nuts I read, but recently I have seen more and more that associates him with the mentality of totally turning education over to the student without thought of morality. You get a lot of "How does this make you feel? and What do you think about this? " and no real connection to an ultimate truth, the commandments, our final end
We as parents/educators naturally want our children to consent to learning, and we want them to understand that learning is ultimately joyful, enriching, valuable. If that is all true, then why can't our "methods" or approach be winsome and attractive? I think of John Bosco learning to juggle, etc, in order to appeal to his friends to say Rosaries or go to confession.
We may properly use an approach suited to our understanding of what learning is about.... eg Leonie's understanding that learning is attractive, personalized to the individual, a matter of joy and passion.
But the object in mind IS to better serve God with the consent of all the faculties, as St Ignatius said, so Dewey's approach, I imagine, would be one of those criticized by Divini Illius Magistri, just because that end (service of God and obeying His laws) he dismisses as a sort of power play or manipulative device. But if the end of knowing, loving, and serving God is kept firmly in mind, then there's certainly no OBLIGATION to make learning unpleasant and difficult if it doesn't HAVE to be.
I don't think I'm saying this very well but I need to run to read a story to a 9yo before he falls asleep (at only 11 pm!!)
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JSchaaf
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 22 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 753
|
| Posted: Aug 07 2005 at 10:17am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Nancy-
Can you tell me where you taught? Because I attended school on a tiny overseas base in the 80's...
Jennifer
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
guitarnan
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10883
|
| Posted: Aug 07 2005 at 6:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jennifer,
Sure, San Vito Air Station, Brindisi, Italy.
Nancy
__________________
Nancy in MD. Mom of ds (24) & dd (18); 31-year Navy wife, move coordinator and keeper of home fires. Writer and dance mom.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JSchaaf
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 22 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 753
|
| Posted: Aug 07 2005 at 7:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks! We were in Germany and Norway. Not quite sure what I would have said if you had ended up teaching where I was attending-as I was one of the worse troublemakers!
Jennifer
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Living Learning
Topic: More on Catholic education
