Teaching Children to Think

With the advent of education reform, parents hear the phrase "critical thinking" and "higher order thinking skills."  Critics of education reform say that these phrases do not define teaching children to think.  What is the difference?

To discipline the mind of a child, to teach a child how to think, is not a singular endeavor that is embarked upon in a given time slot on a given day in school.  It is achieved through a rigorous and thorough liberal arts education (the basics), rote and drill, and teaching methodologies that are designed to keep children on task, learning knowledge and skills, and growing in mental capacity and capability.  Just so it is not misinterpreted, when I use the word "skills," what I speak of are those laws that form the foundation of a structured discipline; ie, word structure, laws of mathematics, laws of English usage and structure, etc.  The goal is to hone and discipline the mind of the child such that the child knows how to think and can take a vast body of knowledge, critique it for accuracy and efficacy, and use that body of knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion as an individual.  In order to do this, you must have a structured scope and sequence, built year on year, such that you are ever increasing the mental capacity and capability of the child, and your teachers must be taught the teaching methodologies that hone and discipline the mind of the child. 

Under education reform, teachers are not taught how to hone and discipline the mind of the child; the classroom is child-centered—constructivist—using manipulatives that do not require mental discipline.  When a child has to use a calculator to figure out the answer to 12 X 12, that child does not have mental discipline, whereas the child who can rattle off 144 when you ask what 12 X 12 is, is learning mental discipline—making his mind do what he wants it to do when he wants it to do it; giving the child the tools to command order and discipline in his mind, and to make his mind respond when he wants it to.

There is a vast difference between how traditionalists and progressives view the brain.  Traditionalists view the brain as an inexhaustible sponge that can soak up an infinite amount of knowledge and information – factual and nonfactual.  Traditionalists believe that the capacity and capability of the brain is infinite, given mental discipline and the abilities that spring therefrom.  Traditionalists believe that properly disciplined, the brain provides the path to intellectual capability.  Traditionalists also believe that the brain is unique to the individual.

The progressive, on the other hand, treats the mind like a computer – take information in, process it, and output it – all on command.  They deny the ability of the brain to function beyond input, process, and output mode as they believe the individual brain is not more than part of the Universal Mind, the collective mind.  In other words, someone else should do your "thinking" for you, and you should simply be conditioned to a perceived environment so you act in all the "proper" ways.  If you go through your sample state assessments, you will undoubtedly find that teachers are to "prompt" children.  Richard Stiggins says that teachers should display the prompt or "trigger" words around the classroom so when the teacher uses them, the children will know what the teacher wants them to do.  This is all based on Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and other taxonomies, as well, that categorize what the child should look like when he/she exits the education system.  As the quote from Bloom's Taxonomy, on my education index page, states – the "intended behaviors."  If you pick up a copy of Developing Minds, edited by Art Costa, and read it, you will discover that the mind of the child is equated to a computer – input, process, output on command, on prompt or trigger.  This is one of the reasons that those who have researched education reform say that the purpose is to produce robots.

In the past thirty years of education, while teachers have done rote and drill – memorization, if you will – the teachers have been sadly lacking in methodology to hone and discipline the mind of the child.  When education reform advocates started denigrating "the old system," they focused on the rote and drill but carefully avoided the fact that it is whether the teacher has been trained in the proper methodologies to augment rote and drill that made the difference in whether the child learns mental discipline.  Since most parents really have no clue what traditional (or classical) education is, they hadn't a clue what was really wrong, so bought the reformers' propaganda.

© March 1999; Lynn M Stuter