The deliberate corruption of the education system.

[EmeraldHope]

Why do they always say it is for the purpose of leading people into a "socialist" world government" when that is clearly not the case? Socialism is NOT the same as totalitarianism which is, in fact, what the PTB are after. Socialism is a government controlled by the people, for the people. If this is what Iserbyt concludes, then I have to think that she is a victim of what she is describing: dumbing down.

Laura I think it may because of American's idea of what socilism has been everywhere it was enacted. As far as I know there has never been true socialism. In the countries where it was implemented the people never controlled anything- a small privledged group did. So I think when people say socialism they mean it in that context which is pretty much the same as totaliitarianism. Additionaly it is being implemented by stealth and the results are making the kids less aware and intellengent.

Given this lady's age the social programming she would have had during the her younger years would have buned socialism being a very bad thing deep in her brain, and would be assoicated with CHina, Stalin, Mao, and Russia espcially . So I think it is where the confusion lies.

 

[Beau]

Why do they always say it is for the purpose of leading people into a "socialist" world government" when that is clearly not the case? Socialism is NOT the same as totalitarianism which is, in fact, what the PTB are after. Socialism is a government controlled by the people, for the people. If this is what Iserbyt concludes, then I have to think that she is a victim of what she is describing: dumbing down.

Laura I think it may because of American's idea of what socilism has been everywhere it was enacted. As far as I know there has never been true socialism. In the countries where it was implemented the people never controlled anything- a small privledged group did. So I think when people say socialism they mean it in that context which is pretty much the same as totaliitarianism. Additionaly it is being implemented by stealth and the results are making the kids less aware and intellengent.

Given this lady's age the social programming she would have had during the her younger years would have buned socialism being a very bad thing deep in her brain, and would be assoicated with CHina, Stalin, Mao, and Russia espcially . So I think it is where the confusion lies.

So basically she's been propagandized to not think clearly and understand socialism for what it is but rather to think what her government has told the people what socialism is. Either she has been dumbed down herself or she is deliberately misconstruing her conclusions to lead people astray. Not a good sign either way.

 

[EmeraldHope]

Why do they always say it is for the purpose of leading people into a "socialist" world government" when that is clearly not the case? Socialism is NOT the same as totalitarianism which is, in fact, what the PTB are after. Socialism is a government controlled by the people, for the people. If this is what Iserbyt concludes, then I have to think that she is a victim of what she is describing: dumbing down.

Laura I think it may because of American's idea of what socilism has been everywhere it was enacted. As far as I know there has never been true socialism. In the countries where it was implemented the people never controlled anything- a small privledged group did. So I think when people say socialism they mean it in that context which is pretty much the same as totaliitarianism. Additionaly it is being implemented by stealth and the results are making the kids less aware and intellengent.

Given this lady's age the social programming she would have had during the her younger years would have buned socialism being a very bad thing deep in her brain, and would be assoicated with CHina, Stalin, Mao, and Russia espcially . So I think it is where the confusion lies.

So basically she's been propagandized to not think clearly and understand socialism for what it is but rather to think what her government has told the people what socialism is. Either she has been dumbed down herself or she is deliberately misconstruing her conclusions to lead people astray. Not a good sign either way.

I agree . I am not saying she is correct at all. I'm just trying to say there may be a sacred cow or 2 in the heap there.
Or ,like you say , intentional misleading is a possibility.
Sadly, a great deal of Americans have an aversion to the word socialism for the reason I gave above. It is a program of course, but they think they are justified in it, and that they're correct.

 

[FireShadow]

Why do they always say it is for the purpose of leading people into a "socialist" world government" when that is clearly not the case? Socialism is NOT the same as totalitarianism which is, in fact, what the PTB are after. Socialism is a government controlled by the people, for the people. If this is what Iserbyt concludes, then I have to think that she is a victim of what she is describing: dumbing down.

Thank you! I was thinking the same thing - in this case and in many others (including articles I have read and people I have spoken with). I have experienced much cognitive dissonance as a result - it is so insane. For example, earlier in the documentary, she even mentioned that it was business (read "capitalists") and labor who instigated this program. How did it turn into Socialists? A little projection, perhaps?

Seems engineered to make everyone "paranoid" of socialism so they will run into the arms of the capitalists to keep them safe! At least, that is how it looks to me.

Edit: Forgot to distinguish the following comment as referring to the documentary (not the e-book).

I had mixed feelings about what she had to say. On the one hand, where she talked of the goals of having children learn to go with the crowd and avoid punishment, I was in agreement that this was not something I approved of. However, where she talked of methods to determine individual children's learning styles and catering instruction to target those styles, she seemed to associate the methods with the goals as being "bad". To my mind, the methods are merely the tools that can be used for good or bad. If one is trying to find the best way to teach children, then knowing their learning styles can be a good thing - depends on what you are trying to teach the children.

 

[Woodsman]

Indeed. I had this and misplaced it. Thanks for that link.

From the Foreword of the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - E Book :

Charlotte Iserbyt is to be greatly commended for having put together the most formidable and practical compilation of documentation describing the “deliberate dumbing down” of American children by their education system. Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists.

One of the Appendices:
Excerpts from “The National Alliance for Restructuring Education:
Schools—and Systems—for the 21st Century”

Another one of the Appendices:
A Proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation by the National Center on Education and the Economy
Attn.: Marc Tucker, President
39 State Street, Suite 500, Rochester (Monroe County), NY 14614
Phone: (716) 546-7620 and FAX: (716) 546-3145

and its Partners:

State of Arkansas
Apple Computer, Inc. <=================
State of Kentucky
Center for the Study of Social Policy
State of New York
Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, Pittsburgh, PA
Harvard Project on Effective Services, Rochester, NY
Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh
San Diego, CA
State of Vermont
National Alliance of Business
State of Washington
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, White Plains, NY
New Standards Project
Xerox Corporation <=================

Another one of the Appendices:
“Our Children: The Drones” by Ann Herzer, M.A., Reading Specialist. This two-part article was written in 1984

My instincts go bananas whenever Apple is mentioned; I mean I actually feel the heat of real anger in my belly whenever I consider Apple, and I've never quite understood it. This has been true for more than 20 years, and I didn't think it was simply a case of, "The Hobbits in Bree are Queer," (I was annoyed with Apple long before I ever owned a PC and was able to join in that infernal debate). I've always just found the company's design ethics and thinking to be clearly geared towards making people dumb, rewarding laziness of the mind.

The first piece of "evidence" I ran across was watching a computer geek friend of mine who had been since he was a kid building his own computers, (back when "building" meant soldering chips to a board yourself). Then he bought a Mac, and only a couple of years later he had devolved into such ignorance about the machine on his desk that he sounded like a child. It made my jaw drop. I don't expect most people to have their heads full of highly technical knowledge, but he had already possessed it, had worked hard to get there and then it was just all gone. With regard to computers, Apple did his thinking for him and lulled him into a womb-like experiential state. It seemed to me that this thinking infected other aspects of his life as well. It was really upsetting.

I've since gotten chills (the bad kind) watching Apple market its "iPod" series of machines to the world, especially its latest travesty, (a keyboardless finger-painting computer designed for people to absorb message but not generate it; the internet without that bothersome interactivity component; your participation reduced to pressing the "Buy Now" button.).

It doesn't surprise me at all to see Apple listed as a partner in that education project; it was obvious they were trying to make people into babies through studied social engineering and deliberate design and marketing, (even their public relations people dress and behave like door to door religion salesmen, even going so far as to call themselves "Evangelists"), but I didn't suspect it might have been connected to a larger studied plan of mind-warfare.

Xerox is curious. They invented the mouse and the GUI as we know it today. Apparently Steve Jobs got the whole idea for the Mac while visiting the Xerox Parc computer labs.

 

[FireShadow]

Another thought:

As she described the system of "each child will demonstrate" vs "the teacher will teach", I agreed that (what she described) sounded pretty extreme. On the other hand, she seemed to imply that just teaching the material and letting each child fend for themselves was preferable. Seemed sort of "black and white" to me. What is wrong with some remedial teaching to make sure each child has a chance of learning? Again, I think some distinction regarding what is being taught should be emphasized.

Overall, I thought that she too often associated method with goal. As some of the methods mentioned could actually be used positively (osit). Is this an example of PTB using some otherwise positive methods for nefarious goals? (No surprise there). Is it just an example of someone who is so confused herself that she cannot see clearly? Is it a deliberate spin on her part? I don't know.

 

[FireShadow]

Indeed. I had this and misplaced it. Thanks for that link.

From the Foreword of the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America - E Book :

Charlotte Iserbyt is to be greatly commended for having put together the most formidable and practical compilation of documentation describing the “deliberate dumbing down” of American children by their education system. Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists.

One of the Appendices:
Excerpts from “The National Alliance for Restructuring Education:
Schools—and Systems—for the 21st Century”

Another one of the Appendices:
A Proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation by the National Center on Education and the Economy
Attn.: Marc Tucker, President
39 State Street, Suite 500, Rochester (Monroe County), NY 14614
Phone: (716) 546-7620 and FAX: (716) 546-3145

and its Partners:

State of Arkansas
Apple Computer, Inc. <=================
State of Kentucky
Center for the Study of Social Policy
State of New York
Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, Pittsburgh, PA
Harvard Project on Effective Services, Rochester, NY
Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh
San Diego, CA
State of Vermont
National Alliance of Business
State of Washington
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, White Plains, NY
New Standards Project
Xerox Corporation <=================

Another one of the Appendices:
“Our Children: The Drones” by Ann Herzer, M.A., Reading Specialist. This two-part article was written in 1984

My instincts go bananas whenever Apple is mentioned; I mean I actually feel the heat of real anger in my belly whenever I consider Apple, and I've never quite understood it. This has been true for more than 20 years, and I didn't think it was simply a case of, "The Hobbits in Bree are Queer," (I was annoyed with Apple long before I ever owned a PC and was able to join in that infernal debate). I've always just found the company's design ethics and thinking to be clearly geared towards making people dumb, rewarding laziness of the mind.

The first piece of "evidence" I ran across was watching a computer geek friend of mine who had been since he was a kid building his own computers, (back when "building" meant soldering chips to a board yourself). Then he bought a Mac, and only a couple of years later he had devolved into such ignorance about the machine on his desk that he sounded like a child. It made my jaw drop. I don't expect most people to have their heads full of highly technical knowledge, but he had already possessed it, had worked hard to get there and then it was just all gone. With regard to computers, Apple did his thinking for him and lulled him into a womb-like experiential state. It seemed to me that this thinking infected other aspects of his life as well. It was really upsetting.

I've since gotten chills (the bad kind) watching Apple market its "iPod" series of machines to the world, especially its latest travesty, (a keyboardless finger-painting computer designed for people to absorb message but not generate it; the internet without that bothersome interactivity component; your participation reduced to pressing the "Buy Now" button.).

It doesn't surprise me at all to see Apple listed as a partner in that education project; it was obvious they were trying to make people into babies through studied social engineering and deliberate design and marketing, (even their public relations people dress and behave like door to door religion salesmen, even going so far as to call themselves "Evangelists"), but I didn't suspect it might have been connected to a larger studied plan of mind-warfare.

Xerox is curious. They invented the mouse and the GUI as we know it today. Apparently Steve Jobs got the whole idea for the Mac while visiting the Xerox Parc computer labs.

Wow. I never thought of it this way! I have not been much of a participant of the "great debate", but my husband has. He has been an Apple fan from the beginning, so I have heard the arguments. I will have to send him the link to your comment...see what he has to say.

For my part, I am not sure what is so bad about not knowing all the technical details in order to run a machine. In today's world, there is so much to know and so little time to learn it, that I would like a machine to do what I want without having to take a course in operating it! I certainly like to know "the basics" of the machines I operate. As with my automobile - I know enough to be able to fix a few problems and to talk somewhat intelligently to a mechanic, but do I really need a machine that requires me to have extensive knowledge in order to operate it?

 

[Erykah]

Thank you for link to the video and the discussion that has followed. Having worked in the field of education for the last 10 years I had many ah ha moments during this video. The terminology used by states to deceive parents into thinking they have the child’s best intentions at heart is shocking. :O The terminology used by these boards and curriculum development teams are manipulative and a distraction from the larger agenda; control Phrases like authentic assessment, diagnostic assessment, portfolios, exit outcomes, educational objectives, etc. means little to parents who aren’t involved in the system and who have little knowledge of how the education system works.

Having seen and experienced the larger agenda of compulsory education I decided to change my focus and move into homeschooling. When researching other methods of learning and education I found John Taylor Gatto’s work http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/index.htm. He has written several excellent books 2 in particular: Underground History of American and Dumbing Us Down: the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling

About John Taylor Gatto -

"No one in America today is better qualified to report on the true condition of our government education system than John Taylor Gatto, the now-famous educator who spent 26 years teaching in six different schools in New York City and quit because he could no longer take part in a system that destroys lives by destroying minds"

After watching the Who Controls our Children Video and again re reading and researching Gatto’s theories I found this on utube John Taylor Gatto’s: Schooling is not Education 5 parts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKci3_cmlqI

What Gatto describes in this 5 part interview with a local radio station KPFK in Los Angeles fits well with this discussion:

Gatto’s assessment of what he terms ‘Government Monopoly Schooling’ – what are we teaching children now?

7 deadly lessons

1. Confusion
2. Class position
3. Indifference
4. Emotional dependency
5. Intellectual Dependency
6. Provisional Self Esteem
7. Can’t hide- Constant Surveillance


Part 4

“School as it was built is an essential support system for a vision of social engineering that condemns most people to be subordinate stones in a pyramid that narrows as it ascends to a terminal of control. Schools teach exactly what they are intended to teach and they do it well. How to be a good Egyptian and were your place is in the pyramid.”

Part 5

“Isn’t it rue that the only people that can teach anything are people in the white heat of learning themselves… I am not talking about education, you can train somebody in some simple operation… but if you want someone to become educated what you have to do, it seems to me, is to awaken their mind to the passion of discovery and you don’t do that by memorizing things and giving them back on a test. “

 

[Jones]

I've been thinking on this topic from the angle of literacy for some time (I apologise if this has already been covered in the video links, I haven't watched them yet). When I went to school, in order to read we were first taught the alphabet. Then we were taught a list of common sounds that each letter could represent along with a word to demonstrate that sound. Reading was then a process of 'sounding' each word out. If we come across a word that was new, we could sound it out based on the letters and either get the word right, perhaps because we'd heard it in conversation, or get within spitting distance of it so that someone more knowledgable could correct us.

In this country kids haven't been taught to read that way for many years. They have to learn to recognise the word as a whole and I believe that this is a major contributor to the escalation in literacy problems over the years.

When I think of sharing the information here on this site, I've often felt that some that I would like to share it with would never get the benefit because reading is such a chore for them, they simply choose not to read because it is a very slow and painstaking undertaking. Then when they have read, their ability to comprehend what is written is also not adequate to the task. I think here of young adults who, when they recieve a standard letter from an organisation, have to ask their parents what it means!

If knowledge protects and a significant portion of that knowledge comes from the written word, then how will people with literacy problems caused by ineffective teaching methods ever increase their awareness?

 

[Stevie Argyl]

Is anyone here from the UK and remembers The Little red schoolbook which circulated in the early 70s? Basically aimed at primary school children, was a kind of socialist slant but outlined the streaming process of education as well as exploring smoking , drugs etc. But the streaming of education really hit home to me, I read it at primary school and it discussed how kids are streamed for small % management/uni/good jobs and the bulk are to have lowered expectations so they will do jobs considered monotonous. It was a eye opener to then attend a secondary school that had what they then called classes for 'remedial education' , a two tier class system in a state school.

 

[Erykah]

Hello Jones the topic of literacy is an important one and I wanted to respond to a couple of comments you made:

“I've been thinking on this topic from the angle of literacy for some time (I apologise if this has already been covered in the video links, I haven't watched them yet). When I went to school, in order to read we were first taught the alphabet. Then we were taught a list of common sounds that each letter could represent along with a word to demonstrate that sound. Reading was then a process of 'sounding' each word out. If we come across a word that was new, we could sound it out based on the letters and either get the word right, perhaps because we'd heard it in conversation, or get within spitting distance of it so that someone more knowledgable could correct us.

Years ago when we went to school we were taught to read using Phonics, basically the approach you shared above. Children were taught to sound out words using the phonetic sounds of each letter and then combining the sounds to come up with a word. This approach is useful and gives children the power to figure out words with help from teachers and parents. This approach has also been used with success in adult literacy classes.

In this country kids haven't been taught to read that way for many years. They have “to learn to recognise the word as a whole and I believe that this is a major contributor to the escalation in literacy problems over the years.

This new approach to reading is called Whole Language and it has replaced the phonics-based system. Basically children are expected to memorize words through what are called kill and drill techniques. Flash cards and worksheets with the same words presented over and over until the child recognizes the word. And as you state I agree, this has led to an escalation in literacy problems. As children are no longer given useful tools to decode unknown words but are rather given a ‘preapproved list’ of words that need to memorized. Another example of dumbing down children, don’t provide useful tools and skills just feed them information and hope they regurgitate it.

As an Elementary trained teacher I work with children that have reading and writing difficulties. The children are mostly in the public school system and for one reason or another have fallen behind. They struggle to keep up and seem to lack tools such as phonics to help them master reading and writing. Usually I start by reintroducing phonics, playing with word sounds, rhyming, poetry and reading books like Dr. Seuss - The Cat in the Hat. These books are great for children learning to read and becoming familiar with how language works, the stories and language are fun and children naturally pick up the rhythm of the words and how they flow throughout the story.
Not to mention enjoyable for the child and stimulating the brain in creative ways :D

If knowledge protects and a significant portion of that knowledge comes from the written word, then how will people with literacy problems caused by ineffective teaching methods ever increase their awareness?

This is a good question. I am not sure of the answer. Just a thought here: if people are seeking awareness and have limited literacy skills there is always information available in audio form. Books on tape, podcasts (SOTT has a good podcast library), documentaries, informational DVD and alternative radio programs provide insightful information.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Whew... That was REALLY scary.

My thought throughout was that the primary goal is behavior modification and the dumbing down effect is simply a side effect. The behavior modification is obviously for controlling the populace and not for creating pliable workers as she seemed to imply. I say this because obviously the US is being gutted. If there are no jobs then having controllable workers is not really an issue. The system wants to create unquestioning consumers of media rather they have a job or not.

I am glad they still did phonics when I went to school. I am not sure about how well I would have done if I had to learn to read via some memorization approach. I was one of the first readers in my class, but I was one of the last to learn division in math. Thinking back on it, most of our time was spent on memorizing multiplication tables and then a sort of cursory coverage of the multiplication algorithm. As division in the real numbers is just slightly scarier looking multiplication I would have to guess that the mechanical approach to multiplication is what hamstrung me in trying to learn division.

 

[dannybananny]

If one is trying to find the best way to teach children, then knowing their learning styles can be a good thing - depends on what you are trying to teach the children.

But if there are more children and everyone has different style it's impossible to adapt if your hour of teaching lasts 45 minutes, the situation is that they have to adapt to teachers because school system isn't learning you anything but it is preparing you to work for big business like chickens are grown in farms with steroids and antibiotics, it's the same way, more faster is better for PTB but like that meat from chickens it isn't good for kids. Teachers don't have time to deal with every individual, but on other hand kids are already programmed when they come to high school by tv and pop culture and even if you try to teach them something truthful it won't always give fruits. but there are many types of classes which include play, art but many teachers are lazy on their creativity, it's easier to have frontal class then to have fun with kids and this more creative approach makes them happy and willful to learn. I'am studying on college to become professor and I think I won't have chance to work as one because there isn't much time left and there is unemployment, and to be honest I think I would not hold that job for long because I would give them all how woul you say in Anglo-American world - A-s.

And about socialism(have in mind it isn't communism, they are different) my parents lived in what was the only state that was close to socialism like it's today's Venezuela, but i think Venezuela has free speech that Yugoslavia hasn't had, Chavez said it right when he said that it is democracy, but there were few individuals that had power and you couldn't talk against system but on the other hand people had social rights that capitalist world could dream of. Now we "have" freedom to speak but the hole country and economy is ruined and sold - that was the goal and price of independence, that is better to say independence for few. I think they didn't alow to speak against system because they know how fragile the state was because of many nations it had and we know what happens when pathological' s start to talk, but I don't say those on power in former state weren't also driven by power, but people were happier. The best system would be pure socialist-democracy with free opinion and speech. Not one people ideology can succeed if people don't learn about psychopathy.

 

[FireShadow]

If one is trying to find the best way to teach children, then knowing their learning styles can be a good thing - depends on what you are trying to teach the children.

But if there are more children and everyone has different style it's impossible to adapt if your hour of teaching lasts 45 minutes, the situation is that they have to adapt to teachers because school system isn't learning you anything but it is preparing you to work for big business like chickens are grown in farms with steroids and antibiotics, it's the same way, more faster is better for PTB but like that meat from chickens it isn't good for kids. Teachers don't have time to deal with every individual, but on other hand kids are already programmed when they come to high school by tv and pop culture and even if you try to teach them something truthful it won't always give fruits. but there are many types of classes which include play, art but many teachers are lazy on their creativity, it's easier to have frontal class then to have fun with kids and this more creative approach makes them happy and willful to learn. I'am studying on college to become professor and I think I won't have chance to work as one because there isn't much time left and there is unemployment, and to be honest I think I would not hold that job for long because I would give them all how woul you say in Anglo-American world - A-s.

And about socialism(have in mind it isn't communism, they are different) my parents lived in what was the only state that was close to socialism like it's today's Venezuela, but i think Venezuela has free speech that Yugoslavia hasn't had, Chavez said it right when he said that it is democracy, but there were few individuals that had power and you couldn't talk against system but on the other hand people had social rights that capitalist world could dream of. Now we "have" freedom to speak but the hole country and economy is ruined and sold - that was the goal and price of independence, that is better to say independence for few. I think they didn't alow to speak against system because they know how fragile the state was because of many nations it had and we know what happens when pathological' s start to talk, but I don't say those on power in former state weren't also driven by power, but people were happier. The best system would be pure socialist-democracy with free opinion and speech. Not one people ideology can succeed if people don't learn about psychopathy.

I wasn't talking about 45 children with 45 styles of learning. I was referring more to some identified styles of learning (from what I remember of my studies almost 20 years ago). Depending on various sources, the terminology varies and I don't even remember all of it. Perhaps someone with fuller knowledge can correct me if I am wrong or fill in any blanks.

For example there are right brain (intuitive) thinkers and left brain (linear) thinkers. I am of the intuitive type and my husband is of the linear type. I have extreme trouble learning (or even hearing and registering) something presented to me in a linear fashion and he has an extremely difficult time learning if it is not presented in linear fashion. Needless to say, we have run into some communication problems, but awareness has helped us to work around it.

There are also modes like visual, auditory, in kinesthetic (touch). I am highly visual and somewhat kinesthetic and very low on auditory. So, for me, without visual accompaniment, I have difficulty absorbing information through auditory mode alone. It takes me longer as I must form images in my mind as I listen - Imagine my frustration listening to my husband presenting information to me auditoraly in a linear fashion. I am busy trying to form images as he is giving details without any outline for me to go by! I end up missing a lot of details and get confused. Then, he gets frustrated over my lack of understanding! And, this has nothing to do with how intelligent we are, we are both fairly intelligent and have no trouble learning once information is presented in our respective styles.

If indeed there are a handful of learning styles, then even with one teacher and many students, material can be presented in a couple of different ways to reach more (if not possible to reach all) students. I understand that constraints with funding and lack of teachers is a big problem and I am not suggesting any perfect system, merely asking why is it is "bad" to try different approaches geared to a student's learning style as the speaker in the documentary seemed to imply. And, to reiterate, I make a distinction between method (how we teach) and content (what we teach). In fact my whole point was that the speaker seemed to be blending method and content and implying the methods were as bad as the content.

I still ask, what is wrong with presenting information to students in a variety of ways so as to reach more students? What is wrong with knowing that "Johnny" is an intuitive, visual learner? What is wrong with using this knowledge to present information in a manner he can best receive it?

I think that insisting it is either "teacher adjusts to student" or "student adjusts to teacher" is rather black and white. I object to either extreme. It seems to me that leaving it all on students to "adjust to the teacher" sets some of them up for failure. (For example some people are visual and that is how they are like some people have long legs and are good at running. Would you make all those "runners" adapt to weight lifting as how they need to achieve physical fitness?) Sure, students need to adjust to the teacher as well and if they themselves became aware of their own style of learning, they could use that information to do such.

On a side note:

I agree with those above who campaign to bring back phonetics! I first encountered a victim of the new system in the late 70's in San Diego. I was 19 and she was 18. I had learned to read under the "old school" with great success. She had just graduated and could not read. She was taking classes on her own in literacy so she could learn to read. Right after graduating! She said her school had been using some "new technique" called "sight reading" and explained pretty much the same system mentioned previously. In view of how very unsuccessful her experience was, I was surprised to find out "they" are still using it and indeed that it has spread all over the country. I do not believe her lack of success in learning to read had anything to do with lack of intelligence on her part. I knew her for over a year and she seemed intelligent enough to me. I did admire her for working on her own to overcome a failure of the school system.

 

[dannybananny]

And, to reiterate, I make a distinction between method (how we teach) and content (what we teach). In fact my whole point was that the speaker seemed to be blending method and content and implying the methods were as bad as the content.

I agree with that, but teacher can by changing methods(all methods aren't bad, but i don't know how it is exactly in USA) make something interesting that is under what we teach and what we teach is what state decides and sad thing is that you can't do nothing in matter of what we learn until the people open their eyes.

I still ask, what is wrong with presenting information to students in a variety of ways so as to reach more students? What is wrong with knowing that "Johnny" is an intuitive, visual learner? What is wrong with using this knowledge to present information in a manner he can best receive it?

Nothing is wrong, it's good thing but it's not possible in this world yet. The system wants their left brain weight lifters!

I think that insisting it is either "teacher adjusts to student" or "student adjusts to teacher" is rather black and white.

I agree, i was just describing how it is and I also think it would be best way if we live in STO world that teachers should adjust to students and students to teachers.