CRITICAL THINKING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS? not a chance!

A extensive sampling of school district mission statements reveals that just about every American public school claims they nourish critical thinking. That's sheer humbug. The prime directive actually operative in every public school district is: Never challenge the cherished beliefs, or commitments, of significant elements of the local community. With more than 90% of our public schools controlled by locally elected boards, how could it be otherwise? What elected school board member is going to want students taught to think critically about anything a significant number of voters regard as sacrosanct? No board appointed school superintendent wants that either. The same applies to teachers who are capable of critical thought to begin with. 

Consider this example: Critical thinking necessarily includes close examination of religious truth claims. Yet that's clearly off-limits in any public school. Imagine, for instance, a teacher asking students to critically examine whether or not the existence of evil - particularly the physical suffering of innocents - can be reconciled with a deity believed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.. 

They might specifically be asked to consider, for instance, why an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God permits cancer to originate and metastasize in the brains of innocent children? Encouraging students to consider this "argument from evil" doubtless encourages critical thought. But any teacher, board member, or school superintendent, who encourages such an examination had better have alternative career options at the ready.

Here's one more example: Imagine asking high schoolers to critically examine use of the term, "fallen hero." They might be asked, for instance, were those military men and women killed in the second Iraq war really "fallen heroes?" Let's imagine a hypothetical lesson concerning this question. Say the students learn from examining news clips from that era that President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney and numerous other high ranking government officials assured Americans, indeed the whole world via the United Nations, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and also harbored al-Qaida terrorists. Then the students learn from subsequent clips that both claims were proven to be patently false. The students are then asked: "Were those killed in combat to eliminate these non-existent threats really "fallen heroes?" Why or why not?" 

Such a lesson requires serious critical thinking. But imagine the white hot reaction of arm-chair "patriots." Especially the ones who never put themselves at risk. They would be incensed! And, if they got wind of it, such a lesson would doubtless gain "fair and balanced" treatment on Fox News. That's when all the American flag lapel pin wearing Washington politicians would emerge from their congressional clown car, pretend outrage, and demand corrective action. Would teaching such a lesson work out well for the teacher involved? Do you doubt it involves critical thinking?

So you see, no locally elected board of education is going to countenance teaching students to think critically about ANY values or perspectives that are uncritically cherished by significant elements of the local community. No superintendent who values their job will either. So forget those thousands upon thousands of school district mission statements claiming that they foster critical thinking. No, they don't; and no they won't! At least not about anything that really matters. And that, my friend, is that.

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT CRITICAL THINKING

There are more than 16,000 school districts in the United States and just about all of them boast that they foster ‘critical thinking. Check out school mission or vision statements, for example. Thousands include heart-warming affirmations like this one from the Lordstown, Ohio School District: “We believe in the development of critical thinking skills.” Then there is the Calvin Wiley Elementary school in North Carolina. They assures all and sundry that their vision, "is to engage in critical thinking and inspire lifelong learning for 21st Century success."

These, and the thousand. of others like them, are commendable commitments. But what would happen if school kids actually were taught to think critically? We're not talking about mere logic chopping here — the usual “these are the premises” and “this is a conclusion,” sort of thing. Such so-called ‘critical thinking’ is both harmless and useless because it rarely results in serious considerations of anything of consequence.  No. by critical thinking we mean systematically reconsidering the deep assumptions that most of us take for granted. We also mean questioning basic authority — including sacred and semi-sacred documents and those who interpret them. When "critical thinking" fails to include that sort of things it is hardly thinking, much less critical.


Imagine encouraging kids to consider what would have happened if the American Revolution had never happened. We could ask them, "Would we still be a colony of Great Britain?" The obvious answer is no. No doubt we would have gone through the same process as Canada, New Zealand and Australia and today would have long been a fully independent nation. But try encouraging that critical thought and see where it gets you. Or suppose students were taught how to truly, seriously and boldly scrutinize traditional religious beliefs? We might encourage them to ponder, for instance, why a supposedly loving God permits so much physical suffering in the world. If God loves us, what's with things like hare lips, cerebral palsy and spina-bifida? This question of physical evil has engaged critical thinkers, including brilliant Christian ones, for a great many years. But should educators  encourage this sort of critical thinking they would have to flee a rampaging mob of angry, torch-wielding villagers.

Some might argue that it isn't necessary to tackle such controversial issues head on in order to teach kids to think critically. They maintain that by teaching generic methods, learners will, sooner or later, bring these methods to bear on critical matters. This is a forlorn hope because all sorts of things can interfere with this sort of transfer of learning. If we really want young people to  think critically, they must be provided with a direct, well focused and conspicuously relevant opportunity to do so.  Teachers should just be prepared to find another job should when they do so. 


See http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/ISMS.html for another dimension of this inquiry.l

What Blocks School Improvement

Before No Child Left Behind was even a glint in the nation's eye, Bill Clinton proposed Goals 2000 (the Educate America Act)in the early years of his first term. Originally its focus was on the formulation of national educational standards; but this emphasis quickly failed. What happened?

Education Week claims “Fears that the program would lead to federal control over local curriculum decisions drove Congress, governors and school administrators to move Goals 2000 away from its standards emphasis toward a loosely affiliated series of projects and computer purchases.” But was fear of federal control the real bugbear?

I don’t think so. We shy away from meaningful national education standards because every attempt at their formulation collides with the elemental fact that there is no consensus regarding what American kids should know and be able to do; nor is there agreement on how they should do it. When we launch national educational goal setting efforts, they inevitably founder on this rock of disagreement.

An alternative, imposed by No Child Left Behind, is to require states to set standards. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is little or no deep agreement at the state level. As soon as state legislators begin to define the details the whole thing tends to either break down into acrimonious haggling or we end up with standards that lack broad public support.

What about generating standards at the level of the 16,000 plus school districts? After all districts are often far more uniform than entire states can be. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of districts deep agreement still is non-existent. Try to reach agreement on any truly fundamental matter, say at a school board meeting, and just watch blood pressures rise as consensus evaporates.

This fundamental lack of agreement concerning the means and ends of public schooling is the basic reality that has troubled, presently troubles and will continue to trouble every serious effort at school improvement. The only way to generate consensus, and it will be a superficial one at that, is by formulating goals that are so vague as to be practically useless.

Google a sample of school district mission statements and see for yourself. Every one of them will rely on happy talk and buzz words. In this way a shallow and practically useless consensus is maintained. And as soon as we press for details the whole thing falls apart.

What is to be done? Continue to concoct superficial, warm and fuzzy goals and then ignore them when real work needs to be done.

Trouble is that strategy puts real pressure on superintendents, principals and, especially, teachers. That's because the closer you get to actual classroom practice the more useless, or even counterproductive, vague goals become. When its time to teach reading, for example, detailed decisions have to be made. That's why every classroom teacher should adopt Harry Truman's motto, "THE BUCK STOPS HERE!"

To further examine these and related issues, see articles at www.newfoundations.com