There are more than 16,000 school districts in the United States and nearly all of them boast that they develop ‘critical thinking.’ Click on any of their mission statements and you will find affirmations such as this from the Lordstown Ohio School District: “We believe in the development of critical thinking skills.” But what would happen if critical thinking actually were effectively taught? Suppose the youngsters began skillfully scrutinizing things that really matter, such as common customs, principles, and beliefs. Imagine they learned to critically examine the values that direct our lives and define the good, the true, the beautiful? They would certainly be thinking critically. But would educators who encourage this sort of critical analysis receive hearty congratulations, or have to flee a rampaging mob of angry, torch-wielding villagers?
Critical thinking is notmere logic chopping. You know, “these are the premises” and “this is a conclusion,” sort of thing. That kind of ‘critical thinking’ is harmless in that it rarely results in serious challenges to anything deeply believed. That is precisely why this style of ‘critical thinking is taught in school while nothing relating to actual critical thought is even touched upon.
Actual critical thinking involves systematically considering the deep assumptions that the vast majority of people, including most parents, take utterly for granted. And real critical thought would also have to consider basic written authorities, such as the Bible and the Constitution AND those who interpret them for us. Priests, preachers rabbis, and Supreme Court justices, for instance.
Some argue that it isn't necessary to tackle such sensitive issues head on. They argue that by teaching generic methods of thinking learners will, sooner or later, bring these tools to bear on those deep assumptions and basic authorities that are central to their lives. But too many things, such as the psychological and emotional upset it promotes, interfere with this transfer of learning. If you want people to really think critically, far better to provide them with direct and well focused vitally important opportunities to do so. But should educators do this, they had better be prepared to find another job.
Some argue that it isn't necessary to tackle such sensitive issues head on. They argue that by teaching generic methods of thinking learners will, sooner or later, bring these tools to bear on those deep assumptions and basic authorities that are central to their lives. But too many things, such as the psychological and emotional upset it promotes, interfere with this transfer of learning. If you want people to really think critically, far better to provide them with direct and well focused vitally important opportunities to do so. But should educators do this, they had better be prepared to find another job.
Is this excessively cynical. Not at all. Take a look at what's going on in states where a single complaint from a parent with an obviously limited intellect can ultimately result in book banning. Where any investigation that might distress a student, make them feel guilty for instance, is now legally verboten. And this style of thought policing is so popular that politicians who push it are able to make a serious bid for the presidency of the United States.
It's impossible to think critically without it being potentially upsetting. Serious thought is, by its very nature, unsettling. That's the price we must pay for actually growing up instead of remaining a child intellectually and emotionally .
1 comment:
Just because you're a vegetarian doesn't mean you don't know how to cut meat!
Post a Comment