Can We Stop Further Dumbing Down Through The Courts?
Do we really have to go to court — expensive — to get the law to stop education systems from using bad methods (malpractice)?
I know of only one case where education methods and content were taken to court and the customer won ! (Please let us know if there are other cases where the courts allowed such cases to even be considered.)
This is the case and it’s fully described in these two blog posts of mine:
√ Maybe going to court is the only way. In England when Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was challenged by some parents no-one listened until a court case ruled otherwise. There is a UK law, Sec 406 of the School Act, which forbids the promotion of partisan political views in teaching.
The Judge (2007) did not forbid the showing of the film, but provided legal guidelines for continued showings:
– It is understood the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument
– If teachers do not make this clear they are in breach of the Section and guilty of political indoctrination
– Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of students when the film is shown.
http://www.parentsteachingparents.net/2014/02/maybe-going-to-court-is-the-only-way/
√ Anti-indoctrination guidelines for schools. When Gore’s film was shown in 2008 in class without any balance a father took the issue to court. He won, was awarded 2/3 costs against the Government and changed history in that any future showings of the film in UK government schools must follow court ordered guidelines. The nine inaccuracies are described in this post:
http://www.parentsteachingparents.net/2013/12/anti-indoctrination-laws-for-schools/
As far as extra money and higher priority for adult education in Ontario, as part of their Achieving Excellence (21st Century Learning) thrust, there is probably some foundation for illegalities to be proven.
For example there is the question of balance. In an Ontario report (Beyond the Book: Learning From Our History), I read that three approaches are being used — “Some programs used the whole language approach, some the Laubach system, and others the “consçientization” approach of the Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire.” (p17) If teaching literacy is to be part of a successful adult education program I’m wondering why the successful phonics approach to teaching English is not being used. Or is there an adult ed embargo on phonics as there is (unfortunately) to a great extent in K-12? Phonics is a practical program that does not insist on worldview methodologies regarding social justice, oppression, emancipation, etc. as the other approaches do. There is a decided element of “radicalization” in those three methods.
If “constructivism” is part of “philosophy” and practice being used in adult education then this is another angle that can be examined for wrongdoings, malpractice and worldview imposition. I am currently reading with great interest how the Science Wars and the current Math Wars have been affected by the intrusion of constructivism into the teaching of these subjects. About the Reading Wars, this is what the author has to say: “’Whole-language’ literacy teaching was enormously expensive and very ineffective, and consequently inflicted lifelong damage on many students . . . “ This was in New Zealand. This is a 95 pg report by Michael R Matthews on his experience in editing the academic journal “Science & Education — fascinating reading — Reflection on 25 Years of Journal Editorship, 2015 — http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-015-9764-8/fulltext.html