Constructivist crap in Christian colleges: The indoctrination of teacher education

Educational Forum, The, Winter 2002 by Bull, Bernard F

The constructivist epistemology is based on the assumption that a student constructs knowledge. Making meaning is different from discovering knowledge. The former originates inside the learner (subjective), and the latter originates outside and is discovered (objective). For the constructivist, there can be no absolute truth or reality. So why is constructivist epistemology presented in most colleges of education as the only methodology for teaching?

Students who take national examinations with a bias for another philosophical position will be penalized if they answer by their convictions rather than according to indoctrination from their institution. Indoctrination in constructivist epistemology is especially repugnant in a church-related college, because it clashes with a moral axiology.

INDOCTRINATION

Though university faculty members scream out loud against indoctrination as a deadly sin, teacher educators practice it as though it were sacred. Mortimer Adler (1977, xxxiii) differentiated doctrinal and dialectical teaching: "The doctrinal teaching of disciples enables them to learn what the master thinks. The dialectical teaching of students enables them to think for themselves. I would go further and say that the doctrinal method indoctrinates, and only the dialectical method teaches." Constructivists use the doctrinal method and are making disciples. Not many individuals are brave enough to speak out against the liberal media bias that indoctrinates our nation daily. One such character in the field of education is Maureen Stout (2000, 142), who wrote, "The public school is being transformed from a vehicle for public education to a vehicle for mass indoctrination into a very damaging set of ideas." Stout (2000,176) continued, this "indoctrination is also built on myths and lies; those of the self-esteem movement. Teacher educators are not evil people. It is safe to say that virtually all of them have the best interests of their students at heart. But there is no question that today's teachers in training are being indoctrinated to believe everything they are told about Johnny's self-esteem."

Our future teachers are being brainwashed to accept the self-esteem movement and to use only constructivist methodology such as cooperative learning, whole language, invented spelling, and portfolio evaluation. More shocking, moral education is absent from the curriculum because each student must construct his or her own moral code.

MORAL EDUCATION

As Stout (2000,40) noted, "Emotivism is the view that there is no rational or moral framework, and no set of rules, that can help us decide which moral perspective is better than another. Everything is just opinion; there's no real 'truth' out there, and everyone's view is just as good as everyone else's." Emotivism is "in," and moral education is "out" in today's colleges of education. As Bullough (2000, 324) suggested, "Certain subjects and opinions are understood as off limits; cultural conservatism is a sin; multiculturalism sacred." Bullough described how his students' recent autobiographies contained no religious references. This shift seemed strange to him; after all, people are attracted to teaching because of the service motive and a sense of "calling. " After explicit directions to be honest about their lives, several students did write about spiritual elements. Bullough (2000, 328) concluded, "Those who sought to educate teachers of an earlier generation knew that religious experience is central to their work with and fox children." Today, moral education has been pushed aside by the constructivist philosophy that promotes moral relativism.

TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE

In recent years, it has seemed politically correct to be tolerant of everything-and, if one believes in moral relativism, that is acceptable. As Stout (2000) explained, WE must not tolerate lynchings or murderous acts. Tolerance must be weighed against other moral values. Surely we can not accept child sacrifices, incest, the mailing of anthrax, or terrorist attacks. As Stout (2000, 231) warned, "Putting tolerance on too high a pedestal merely reinforces moral relativism. Too much tolerance renders us incapable of identifying what is honorable, moral behavior and judging what is evil. And if we lose the ability to judge good from bad, we lose the moral foundation of a civil society."

Along with teaching respect for cultural differences and mores, we must teach students how to make moral and ethical decisions and be able to recognize and prevent evil. Some students have learned the lesson of Columbine High School and are now reporting students who bring guns to school. They did not learn the lesson from their teachers, who taught them since kindergarten not to tattle. We must teach them to tell an adult if persons or property are in danger. This practice would require them to make moral judgments. In secular schools, this can be taught in basic core values; in religious schools, it would permeate the curriculum.