Seeing is Believing Vs. Believing is Seeing:
The Fundamental Problem in Education

Martin A.  Kozloff
February 20, 2003

Folks in the know about family systems say that trivial arguments at dinner ("I ask five times before she passes the salt!") are about something bigger—for example, one person's willingness to satisfy another person's needs.  In other words, skirmishes are nested within battles, and battles are nested within wars.  That's the case in education, which is divided between two main camps:

1.   The current education establishment: so-called "progressive" educators (constructivists, whole languagists, advocates of "developmentally appropriate practices," postmodernists) who occupy positions of power and influence.

2.   The education anti-establishment: so-called traditionalists or "instructivists" (Finn & Ravitch, 1996) who advocate focused, logically progressive, teacher-led instruction aimed at mastery of classical ideas and skills, and who challenge the ideas underlying progressive education and offer clear field-tested alternatives.  Instructivists include advocates of Direct Instruction (commercial curricula), direct instruction (Rosenshine, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986), applied behavior analysis, and Precision Teaching. 

What sorts of conflicts are there between these two camps?

First, there are skirmishes about details of teaching—for example, whether students should be taught to sound out words as the primary strategy (instructivists), or taught to use context cues (the shape of a word, the placement of a word in a sentence) to guess what words say (constructivists).  Or, in math, whether students should first master elementary skills before they try to solve problems that require the elementary skills (instructivists), or learn the elementary skills in the context of solving problems (constructivists)—which means that students have to learn both elementary skills and problem solving strategies at the same time.
            These skirmishes are embedded in larger curricular battles.  For example, traditionalist-instructivists see reading and math, for example, as knowledge systems that contain meanings and truths independent of what individuals may think, and therefore regard education as a means of bringing students into those systems via teacher-directed instruction.  Constructivists, in contrast, see reading (literature) and math as having no truths or meanings apart from individuals; the meaning of a novel is constructed by readers; mathematical truths are matters of group negotiation.  Therefore, the teacher's role is not to transmit meanings and truths (which are said to have no independent existence) but to help students to construct these.
            Curricular battles over reading, math, history, science, and other bodies of knowledge are embedded in a larger war over social agendas and the social functions of education.  For example, "progressive educators" believe that education in a democratic, technically advanced, affluent society should be about (1) self-development for both teachers and students, fostered in a quasi-therapeutic, "student-centered" environment; (2) the promotion of (their vision of) social justice; and (3) liberation of the individual from the allegedly repressive and self-stifling coercive force of social institutions and external bodies of knowledge. 
            In contrast, instructivist-traditionalists believe that education in a democratic, technically advanced, affluent society must be about the preservation and perfection of democratic social institutions and the intellectual and moral development of the individual (the two being inseparable) by ensuring that individuals acquire the knowledge systems required for their society's functioning, and that persons learn how to think skillfully (reason) so that they (knowing how to judge the adequacy of information and argumentation) will be able to make wise and morally good personal and societal choices.
            Yet, it would be a mistake to think that the skirmishes (about method), battles (over curricula), and war (over the functions of education) are merely differences in the research bases used, instructional styles preferred, or personal and group opinions and philosophies of the two camps—differences that could perhaps be reconciled with more reading, more research, and more discussion.  The two camps are opposed in a more fundamental way; namely, the quality of intellect itself as that intellect is directed towards investigating and communicating about reality and knowledge.  Indeed, the evidence will show that at this level differences between traditionalists-instructivists and progressivist-constructivists can be accurately rendered by the opposing terms rational vs. irrational, reasonable vs. unreasonable, coherent vs. incoherent, metaphysically healthy vs. metaphysically demented.  Let's see some of the evidence.

The World as Fact Vs. Fancy
            One mark of maturity (and sanity) is recognizing and acting on the assumption that the world—reality—has features independent of what we may believe and wish those features to be.  Here we see the first clear difference in intellect between traditionalist-instructivists and progressivist-constructivists.  The traditionalist-instructivist—whether a teacher, school principal, district administrator, education professor, or member of a state department of public instruction--reads the announcements, legislation, regulations, and grant proposal forms for No Child Left Behind and Reading First, and then (treating these as immutable facts) adapts his or her behavior accordingly by: (1) determining the real-world consequences of writing a Reading First proposal that conforms to the guidelines vs. does not conform to the guidelines; (2) improving teacher training, evaluation, and supervision to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind; and (3) collecting objective data (i.e., data capable of assessment by others besides the data collector) on student achievement.
            In marked contrast, the progressivist-constructivist school principal, district administrator, education professor, or state department of public instruction official who (resembling a petulant child) feels his or her power threatened by the external authority of No Child Left Behind and Reading First, responds by: (1) thinking wishfully that these will soon go away and therefore may be ignored; (2) writes grant proposals that fly in the face of funding agency requirements, but believes this won't be noticed (as a mad person believes a tin foil hat makes him invisible); and (3) changes the definitions of words--as if this does not violate their common meanings.  For example, "scientific research" for the progressivist-constructivist does not mean controlled, experimental, quantitative, replicated research using validated instruments, but instead means qualitative notetaking, because this definition enables the progressivist-constructivist (in his or her mind) to make no changes in how he or she thinks and acts. 

Action Reasonably Fitted to Circumstances
            We consider it reasonable (and sane) to smash a fly with a flyswatter—a cheap, tested implement that is focused on the task at hand.  We consider it madness if a person burns his house down to get the fly.  The same judgment of reasonableness applies in education.  For example, the traditionalist-instructivist educator: (1) knows there is much basic and applied research on reading; (2) reads a good sample of that research; (3) learns there are field tested programs consistent with the preponderance of research that effectively teach the "big ideas" in reading (phonemic awareness, sound-symbol relationships and decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension); and therefore (4) uses these programs in his or her school, district, or state.  This is called reasonable, morally responsible—and sane.
            In stark raving contrast, the progressivist-constructivist educator (not in touch with or not accurately depicting reality): (1) does not know or does not care that there is much basic and applied research on reading; (2) does not read this research or reads a self-serving sample (so that his or her belief system is unchallenged); (3) fails to see that there are field tested programs consistent with the preponderance of research or rejects these programs (with contempt and hauteur) because he or she does not like them; and (4) instead of using these effective programs in his or her school, district, or state (irrational), requires teachers with no training in these matters to invent their own curricula (unreasonable) using an ersatz assortment of basal readers, nondecodable text, qualitative assessments not aligned with what is taught, spelling books, and made up lessons—that is, a "curriculum" that is unsystematic, untested, redundant, and has glaring curricular holes.  H.L. Mencken's line, written in 1928, captures this madness well:

        "Their programs of study sound like the fantastic inventions of comedians gone insane."  

However, the immorality and fundamental dementia in this is disguised behind words such as "teacher empowerment," "ownership," and "professional development." 

Circumspection
            A sane person checks his clothing before entering a room, notes that his pants are open, and fixes it up.  An intellectually insufficient person checks his pants by touching his hat, walks into the room and hears snickers of persons who notice the open pants, and says to himself, "They'll never notice."  A similar thing exists in education.  Rational and sane education schools (rare as Spartan swords from 400 BC)--somehow blessed with a squad of traditionalist-instructivist professors who have managed to get tenure and do not fear constructivist-progressivist colleagues, and are aware of the low status of ed schools on college campuses, superficial teacher training, faddish ideas, and threats posed by alternative certification--examine the ed school curriculum in light of the criticisms and threat, and then change core beliefs, research base, mission, rules for judging what is credible, curricula, and assessment of graduates.
            Not so in education schools dominated by progressivist-constructivists who: (1) are not aware of the criticisms and threats or believe everyone else is wrong ("We need to get the word out about how good we are."  In psychiatry, this is considered a delusion of grandeur.); (2) hire new faculty who sustain the school's progressivist-constructivist orientation despite the fact that this orientation is the root cause of low level of scholarship, ill-preparation of new teachers, and threat to the existence of ed schools; and (3) create more fanciful portraits of themselves for in-school self-celebration (self-delusion) and public presentation; e.g., calling themselves "flagships of reform," "stewards of America's children,"  "champions of social justice," "fostering life-long learning and reflection."  At this point, demented thinking is well beyond silly and approaches suicidal.

Word Salad and Other Possible Symptoms of Dementia
            A last clear difference between traditionalist-instructivists and progressivist-constructivists is their connection to and communication about reality.  We consider a person rational, sane, and competent who assumes that words and utterances signify real things and who speaks and writes in a way that coherently describes or explains the real world.  In contrast, we consider a person irrational, insane, and/ or incompetent who assumes that words and utterances refer to (mean) whatever he or she wants them to—or to nothing at all--and whose speaking and writing are phantasmagoric, dream-like, disjointed, and bear little relationship to the external world.  The more one reads progressivist-constructivist journal articles and books, course syllabi, and ed school documents (such as mission statements and program descriptions), the more one must admit that these writings bear the marks of psychiatric disorder, as described at http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:0KPpTR7hhyEC:mindmelt.co.uk/trickcyclists/docs/Descriptive%2520Psychopathology.doc+hebephrenic+word+salad&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Examples include:

1.   Delusional thinking, or "a fixed, (usually) false or fantastic idea, held in the face of evidence to the contrary…"

2.   Loose associations.

3.   Palilalia, in which a perseverated word is repeated with increasing frequency. 

4.   Paragrammatism, or a disorder of grammatical construction.

5.   Neologisms, or made-up, nonsensical words.

6.   Repeated use of stock words and phrases.

7.   Drivelling, or "the muddling of elements within an idea to the extent that the meaning is totally obscured to the listener."

8.   Word salad, or "an apparently random and illogical mixture of sounds and words."

            The writing samples, below, of progressivist-constructivists show striking similarities to the symptoms of serious psychiatric disorder. (Many of these samples are attended by quotations from classical literature.)  I'm not saying the writers are mentally ill; I'm saying their writing: (1) is similar to examples of psychosis found in psychiatric literature; and (2) makes as much sense (and is as useful educationally) as the writings of persons suffering from severe psychiatric disorder.
            The writing samples immediately following are from whole language advocates, and seem to show significant detachment from the reality (facts at hand) known to sentient persons--the reality of how children learn to read and how they are best taught--as depicted by the preponderance of empirical (real, external world) research.

"Learning is continuous, spontaneous, and effortless, requiring no particular attention, conscious motivation, or specific reinforcement." (Smith, 1992, p. 432)  [This may be an example of neologism.  Smith has reinvented the meaning of "learning" or is simply inventing a fantastical vision of what learning is.  Either way, his statement has little connection with factual reality.]  

And here we wander in illusions:
Some blessed power deliver us from hence!
[Antipholus of Syracuse, in A Comedy of Errors, IV, III, 43]

"Reading without guessing is not reading at all."  (Smith, 1973).  [Another example of a fanciful vision, this time applied to reading.  The statement appears to be rooted firmly not in the world of external fact but in the rich inner world of incredible imagery and word play where anything--including insane theories of reading--goes.]  

...when a man's fancy gets astride on his reason, when imagination is at cuffs with his senses, and common understanding as well as common sense, is kicked out of doors, the first proselyte he makes is himself...[Jonathan Swift. A tale of a tub. 1704]

"Reading by 'phonics' is demonstrably impossible (ask any computer)." (Smith, 1986).  [Denial of obvious fact.  "See that bumblebee flying over there?  It's not flying."]  

It is not materialism that is the chief curse of the world, but idealism. Men get into trouble by taking their gaudy visions and hallucinations seriously. [H.L. Mencken. From the Smart Set, June, 1920.]

"Early in our miscue research, we concluded…That a story is easier to read than a page, a page easier to read than a paragraph, a paragraph easier than a sentence, a sentence easier than a word, and a word easier than a letter. Our research continues to support this conclusion and we believe it to be true…" (Goodman & Goodman, 1981). [Millions of vulnerable children are illiterate in part because the Goodmans believed their crackpot idea was true--and thousands of teachers believed them.  Is the Goodmans' assertion to be taken as anything other than a catchy device for seducing naive readers into seeing themselves as rebels against the traditional and reality-based way of teaching reading; namely, beginning with the sounds made by letters?  I think not.  The easy induction of new teachers into the mad fantasy of whole language may account for the bizarre  "strategies" (using pictures, the shape of words, and other "cues" to guess at words) that their mistaught students use to "read" whole books when they don't even know what sounds the letters make.]

Amidst all this bustle, it is not reason which carries the prize, but eloquence: and no man needs ever despair of gaining proselytes to the most extravagant hypothesis, who has art enough to represent it in any favourable colours. [David Hume. A treatise of human nature.1738]

"To the fluent reader the alphabetic principle is completely irrelevant. He identifies every word (if he identifies words at all) as an ideogram." (Smith, 1973).  [Most folks do not claim to know the workings of another person's thought processes—to read minds as it were.  Other persons apparently do think they can read minds.  Some of these persons are receiving needed treatment.]

            The next samples are consistent with descriptions of disordered thought processes.  Again, I'm not saying the writers are disordered; just that their writing lends itself to that interpretion.

"We cannot understand an individual's cognitive structure without observing it interacting in a context, within a culture."  (Fosnot, 1996, p. 24)  [The crucial word is "it."  Fosnot seems to be asserting that a cognitive structure is a real thing—not a convenient fiction—and that this thing actually does things, such as interacting in a context.  What does it mean when a person treats fictions as if they were things?]

"From this perspective, learning is a constructive building process of meaning-making that results in reflective abstractions, producing symbols within a medium."  (Fosnot, 1996, p. 27).  [This sentence appears to be a string of loosely connected words that are grammatically correct but are nonsense—at least that's the way it appears. In what ways does it differ from the quite mad statement, "Learning is a constitutive process of affect-organizing that results in an inductive substratum of signs and symbols within a knowledge trajectory"?]  

Erect your schemes with as much method and skill as you please; yet if the materials be nothing but dirt, spun out of your own entrails, the edifice will conclude at last in a cobweb, the duration of which, like that of other spiders' webs, may be imputed to their being forgotten, or neglected, or hid in a corner. [Jonathan Swift. The battle of the books. 1704]

"Meaning is constructed when awareness is created by observing and gathering information…" [Another bizarre assertion, this time from a college of education website.  It appears to assert that awareness is a kind of thing that can be created—as if it were a bird house or a sandwich—and that this creation depends on first observing and gathering information.  But doesn’t that depend on awareness?  What do we think of the mental processes of people who get dressed and then take a shower—in other words, do it in reverse order?]  

...how we clutch at shadows as if they were substances;
and sleep deepest while fancying ourselves most awake.
[Thomas Carlyle. Sartor resartus. 1836]

"Professional knowledge is advanced by the human need to engage in inquiry."  [Also from a college of education website.  It has the earmarks of "driveling" defined above.  Forget whether humans have a need to engage in inquiry.  The idea that professional knowledge is advanced by that alleged need is surely drivel.]  

"PDSs have distinct characteristics. They are learning environment that supports candidate and faculty development within the context of meeting all children's needs. PDS partners are guided by a common vision of teaching and learning, which is grounded in research and practitioner knowledge. PDS partners share responsibility for professionals and students; they blend their expertise and resources to meet their shared goals. PDS partners hold themselves accountable, and they are accountable to the public for maintaining high standards for P– 12 students, candidates, faculty, and other professionals. In order to accomplish their goals, PDS partners create new roles, responsibilities, and structures; they utilize their resources differently. Finally, PDS partnerships are committed to providing equitable learning opportunities for all, and to preparing candidates and faculty to meet the needs of diverse student populations." (NCATE, 2001) [This passage from NCATE regarding professional development systems--in which ed schools make connections with public schools--is suggestive of delusional thinking.  NCATE does not make the crucial distinction between what they wish were the case or what ed schools claim is the case vs. what--in stark contrast--is the case; namely, there is no evidence that PDS partnerships involve any of what NCATE says.]

I do not like these weary and played-out people who wrap themselves in wisdom and look "objective"; I do not like the agitators dressed up as heroes who wear the magic cap of ideals on their straw heads; I do not like these ambitious artists who like to pose as ascetics and priests but who are at bottom only tragic buffoons... [Nietzsche. The genealogy of morals. Third essay, section 26]

"Participation at the social or interpersonal plane involves social interaction between two or more people to coordinate activity face-to-face or at a distance."  [This sentence, from an ed school website, is (1) a clear example of driveling; (2) shows a poverty of ideas (as if it were a big insight that social interaction involves two or more people); and (3) asserts bizarre notions; e.g., that the purpose of social interaction is to coordinate activity--when social interaction IS that activity.]

"Our student-centered professional development model is predicated on the belief… Our student-centered professional development model rests on the following assumptions… Our student-centered professional development model emphasizes the dynamic nature… Our student-centered professional development model emphasizes the types of knowledge…"  [Another slice of the collective mental sponge cake at a college of education.  Note the repeated use of stock phrases—as a substitute for saying anything sensible.]  

Words, words. High Air-castles are cunningly built of Words, The words well bedded also in good Logic-mortar; wherein, however, no Knowledge will come to lodge. [Thomas Carlyle. Sartor resartus. 1836]

"meaning is constructed"…"meaning making"…"construct and share their own learning"…"ongoing reflection"…"reflection on their own practice."…"outlets for reflection"…"make subject matter meaningful to students"…"creates learning experiences"…"meaningful learning experiences"…"managing the learning environment"…"reflective, inquiry-oriented"…"engage in inquiry"…"reflection and inquiry into their own practices"…"critical, reflective, inquiring learners"…"teacher preparation…is reflective"…"Think reflectively"…[More from ed school websites, showing perseveration and palilalia in the use of the same stock words and empty phrases.]  

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw.
Alas! Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar.
[T.S. Eliot. The hollow men.1925]

"The Lubyanka College of Education (not the real name) is dedicated to preparing you to teach in the real world."  [This wins the prize for the most disconnected from reality.]  

For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved." [Max Weber. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. 1904-5]

            Contrast the above driveling, palilalic, perseverative, loosely connected and otherwise bizarre and delusional assertions with a few lines from the works of traditionalist-instructivist writers.

  "Teachers should make explanations brief and concise." (Stein, Silbert, &   Carnine, 1997)

  "The essential characteristic of any good signal is its clarity." (Stein, Silbert, & Carnine, 1997)

"Because simple facts have but one example, namely themselves, there can be no actual range of examples."  (Kameenui & Simmons, 1990)

"The overt sound blending phase continues until the reader accurately and consistently decodes words at a rate of one letter per second."  (Kameenui & Simmons, 1990)

"Decoding—is the central skill in initial reading."  (Engelmann, Haddox, & Bruner, 1983).

"After each teacher presentation, students should be asked to model positive examples for each behavioral rule."  (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1994).

            I believe we are permitted the following generalization:  In marked contrast to the writing of traditionalist-instructivist educators, progressivist-constructivist writing (and probably thinking—as that is what is written) is often incoherent, illogical, disconnected from the external world in which assertions can be tested, and is in many ways describable with a list of symptoms of psychiatric disorder.  Several implications follow.  (1) It's no use reasoning with these persons and groups.  They have created and live within a different and a shared dream-like reality, with different rules of verification and falsification made up on the run as protection from discovery--much as a person suffering from paranoid psychosis attempts to make a rational case that everyone else is nuts.   (2) Just as dangerous mental patients should not have keys to the drug locker, these persons and groups should not be allowed to miseducate children, mistrain teachers, or infect educational policy with their deluded ideation and pathological  practices. 

Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., & Bruner, E. (1983).  Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons.  New York:  Simon & Schuster.

Finn, C.E., & Ravitch, D. (1996). Educational reform 1995-1996. A report from the Educational Excellence Network. http://www.edexcellence.net/library/epciv.html

Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.)  (1996).   Constructivism : theory, perspectives, and practice. New York : Teachers College Press.  

Goodman, K. & Goodman, Y. (1981). Twenty questions about teaching language. Educational Leadership, 38, 437-442.

Mencken, H.L. (1994).  From "The war on intelligence," December 31, 1928, published in A second Mencken chrestomathy. NY:  Vintage.

Rosenshine, B. (1986).  Synthesis of research on explicit teaching.  Educational Leadership, 43, 60-69.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986).  Teaching functions.  In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Third edition) (pp. 376-391).  New York:  McMillan.

Smith, F. (1992). Learning to read: The never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 432-441.

Smith, F. (1973). Psychology and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Smith, J. (1986). Essays into literacy.  Exter, NH: Heinemann.

Stein, M., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D (1997).  Designing effective mathematics instruction.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Merrill.

Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1994).  Antisocial behavior in school:  Strategies and best practices.  Pacific Grove, CA:  Brooks/Cole.

Weaver, C. (1988). Reading process & practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.