The Law of Diversity

I like what he has to say here about diversity more than what he said about it in the first part of the book.  This is, in part, because he avoided the concept of entropy.  That is both good and bad.  It is bad because I think entropy in society and culture is something that needs to be dealt with-- and in the schools.  The more society changes in a short period of time, the more it tends towards chaos, dysfunction and its own demise.  But it is good that he put forward this narrative the way he did, because it is a strong narrative.  He splits it into four parts:  language, religion, culture and art.

There is a saying I hear often (I think is comes from Russian) that says, the more languages you know the more people you are.  Languages give you a different perspective on the world, that is true.  I think in the US it should be mandatory to learn a second language in elementary school.   Aside from the problem of funding those programs, I see the biggest issues in the way is the question of what language should be taught.  It is somewhat impractical to have different students in the same class take different languages, or at least more difficult.  But if they are all going to take the same language, how is that language chosen?  In some countries the default second language is that of the nearest big neighbor, or the language of the biggest ally or trading partner.  That makes sense.  However, as Postman points out, most places in the US are isolated from other languages, there is no second language that is needed on a daily basis.  In any case, I think that the choice of the language is not nearly as important as the fact that it is there.  The younger one learns a second language the easier it is for them to learn a third...  So even if German is chosen and the student never uses German, at least they have the experience and knowledge of another language, and that will (some experts say, and my experience tells me) make it easier to learn a language of their choice later. The point should be to learn a second language, any language in elementary school.

Religion is very important, and so are old religions.  Religion does (or should do) for society what Postman wants the narratives to do for education: give it a why.   I agree with what he says here and have always thought that a Humanities course should be required for all high school graduates.  This class could do comparative religion, philosophy, etc.  I think that is the way that schools could deal with the Creationism issue; teach evolution in science class because it is science and teach creationism in Humanities class, because it does not belong in science.  Islamaphobia could be dealt with in this class as well.  I have often slipped these things in to history classes I have taught because they are issues that students need to hear about and reflect upon.  In terms of myth, I think that those things need to be taught as well.  I usually teach myth and legends by pointing out that they are origin stories, as are religious stories.  Believe the stories or not (and really the difference for me between a myth and a religious story is that the former is no longer believed by people around us while the latter is) they are about how things started or came to be.  They give insight into the logic and organization of a people, and they should be taught and reflected upon.  They give us a view of how diverse human thought and culture can be.

His issue with how culture is usually dealt with (a culture fair that is about dress and food) is a good point.  An emphasis on the meaning   and reasons for traditions is needed.  I guess I don't have much more to say about that. 

It seems to me that Postman exaggerates the importance of museums.  I not against studying museums as he lays it out, but I am not sure that the idea of a museum is as much about defining humanity as he thinks.  I am big on tradition (because I think that is all we really have as a foundation in society) and museums show us our tradition and other traditions that we can learn or borrow from.   I think art is the language of feelings and that we need to expose students to as much old art as we can: literature, myth, painting, music, theater, etc.  These things shape feelings, thoughts and individuals and then society.  Pop art often just reproduces, mindlessly and unquestioningly, everyday things.  Exceptional artists do more, they critique or add to common culture and/or inspire people.  The great artists of the past are considered great and are still around because they did that.  Exposure to as many of those great artists as possible should be a goal of education, especially exposing students to ones that they might not other wise come into contact with.  Along with exposure, school should put those artist and works into context in terms of why they were important then and why they are still valuable today. 

I liked his chapter more than I thought I would.

The American Experiment

The American Experiment

I think this narrative is really a no brainer.  It really isn't something that I can see organizing a whole educational system around, but it is what I think civics and American history classes should be organized around. 

The way he talks about being part of the argument reminds me of Rorty's continuing the discussion.

Fallen Angel

Teaching subjects from a historical perspective played a large part in this chapter, and I liked that.   I think that is a very important angle to bring into education.  Learning the history or development of a subject is a great way to see how its knowledge is important and how it is still flawed.  I tried to use this in history classes when I taught them.  It is a great way to show how different times and different people saw and see things differently.  I think it is important to point out the questions that those 'facts' are the answer too.  (More about that I think when we get to the Word Weaver chapter.)

There are a few news things that he adds here that I think we worth addressing.  The first is the idea about teachers swapping subjects.  While I think something can be learned from this-- mainly a better perspective-- I think it should be used sparingly if at all.  (Maybe teacher training and workshops can be developed that will cultivate that perspective.)  I think it is important for the sake of the students and their education to have teachers that are knowledgeable and experienced in the field they are teaching.  This does not mean that they teach as if they have all of the answers, but that they have confidence and experience.  Confidence because they know things and can answer questions and deal with issues that come up surrounding the material.  This doesn't mean that they have all of the 'answers' but that they have knowledge to steer the students in an interesting and fruitful direction.  Experience is experience in do just that: taking questions and concerns of the students and working with them and helping the students work through them. 

Another idea he introduces in this chapter is getting away from textbooks.  In terms of literature and writing, I am all in favor of this.  Literature should be taught from novels and collections of stories and poems.  Writing can be done from articles (often found on-line) and examples of good writing from real life.  I think it would be hard to teach sciences and even history without some sort of textbook.  Postman is right that the textbooks need to be more oriented around teaching the subject historically and have a lot of primary texts in them.  Of course not having textbooks makes putting together a class more of a burden on the teacher, but the trade off would be that the teacher would be able to focus on things that they are interested in.  (There might also be cost issues, but then again textbooks are so expensive...)  That should add to the class as a whole because the teacher can bring enthusiasm to the classroom that can be contagious.  So, as few textbooks as possible and make the ones that are necessary need to have a different tone and more primary texts. 

Critical thinking is key, I agree with him on that.  I agree that students becoming cynical is not a big risk if we shift to teaching with an emphasis on error and correction.  However, I do think students giving up and just not caring will be an issue.  If it isn't True and if it may change then why bother?  (I have had many students that don't see the point in learning anything because they can just look it up if they ever need it and are often convinced that they don't need to know anything.) So there should be some focus on what we have gained from these imperfect ideas and knowledge.    Along with an understanding that knowledge changes, they need to have a respect for established knowledge.  This respect doesn't come from the fact that the knowledge is perfect and unquestionable, but because it was found by hard work and because it is useful.  What wouldn't we have if we hadn't discovered this idea or knowledge?

I liked this chapter quite a bit.  Next up, American Experiment.   

Spaceship Earth

The fable seems to be a bit more for the teachers and other adults than it does for the kids.  It is a narrative for the community to shape the way that they educate the kids.  This is OK but not what I was expecting. 

I like his emphasis on teaching subjects as histories.  I see this fitting very well in with the Fallen Angels narrative too.  I think he gets a little silly when he talks about astronomy (that thinking others might be out there can give kids meaning) and Star Trek.  (Then again I have never been too much into SciFi.) I do like what he has to say about archeology and anthropology. I am interested in see what he says later about literature.  I think a lot of what he wants to do with those two fields (and by way of teaching subjects as histories) can be done easily inside of existing literature classes. Literature is not just reading comprehension and not just made up stories.  They are stories that can elucidate the human condition and should be take seriously in that respect.  I think it is a shame that they are not, and I see using anthropology and archeology to to that is a way of bowing to the modern scientific obsession with data and evidence.  Why can't you use myths, stories and poetry to do what he wants to with anthropology and archeology?  Because they are not taken seriously, and I would assert that it is because they lack data and evidence. 

His questioning of subjects I think is good.  We have it in mind that certain subjects are core subjects and useful, but I think the justification for those classification are out of date or simply forgotten and unexamined.  We need to examine those and reevaluate. Unfortunately, I think he is right that those sorts of decisions are made with far too much influence from economics and politics.

The main point of the narrative and fable is that we need to take care of what it around us: people, things and nature.  I like this and I think it is an important lesson/awareness that is lacking these days.  But I don't care for the Spaceship Earth way of putting it and I am not sure that it deserves to be a major narrative or god.  I think it is a good minor deity. 

This was my least favorite of the narratives, and I still can find a lot that I liked in this chapter.  I am looking forward to the next.