Thank you for posting those quotes, Phyllo. I doubt I’ll read enough on the subject to determine if her observations on the actual changes in teaching due to effects of such ideology have validity, but her arguments as to how teaching should be approached seem well done.
Honesty should be the focus, so the question then is, what form is more honest. It seems that much over one or two hundred years ago, education was almost entirely classical based, meaning ancient Greek and Latin. If a classics teacher were to try to pass off such teachings as a direct reflection on the modern world, then that would be dishonest, but it seems that no institutionalized teaching has ever been willing to make statements about the contemporary world. That almost goes without saying because truth rarely flatters those in charge in contemporary times, and so would be repressed. So the classics education while censored, is honest so long as it doesn’t claim to be anything else.
Then to be more pragmatic one can learn skills to better make a living in the world. If it is clear that this is not a replacement style for classical education, but simply something completely different, then this form of education’s honesty is in its effects; if the student learns to successfully implement it or not.
The question then becomes what various parents or communities in general expect of their children. If they have no confidence in teaching them the classics, or something like that, then so be it, let them have job training and learn so-called life skills. But, if that is all one expects their children capable of or their educational system capable of providing (due to budget issues, etc.) then be honest about it. Arentd is correct in saying that learning-by-doing gives students no foundation for a broader perspective on the world.
But, then a classical education doesn’t automatically give a student anymore perspective, it simply gives them a basis should they wish to obtain one. Education is always going to be conforming, but if its a quality one, then should the student become independent minded enough to have his own thoughts and strength to correctly perceive the world based in his own direct observations, he will find himself extremely grateful for the classical education he received.
But, when concerning one with no mind of his own, unless he wishes to be a classical teacher himself, or is rich and finds it useful for idol conversation, he will likely resent the time “wasted” learning the classics or basics, and will wish he was simply told how it is he could live in the world, in the time, place, and situation he finds himself in, with as little effort as possible.
With that said, modern days institutions, likely more than ever, encourage conformity and reliance. One who has not been taught facts, and fundamentals in thinking, will forever be reliant on living in the way that their skill set is useful, in other words would be reliant on the institution which provides such opportunities or work.
In my experience public schools are neither teaching the basics or life-skills to any quality extent, but are highly focused on so-called independent thinking. Where, one is not taught what is so, or how to do something, but simply taught that whatever thought that comes to their mind, as long as it’s within a socially acceptable construct, is as valid as any other.
What’s ironic is that such an education is perfect for the life and occupations most Americans will have. One learns to tolerate idiocy from others, and not to appear to be too intelligent themselves; perfect for the growing service industry which is essentially what most jobs, whether considered professional or blue-collar, are coming to. Here the customer, whether one ordering food at a restaurant or ordering large qualities of merchandise or services from a corporation, is always right, so long as he can pay, and no degree of nonsense is to be disrespected.