Post Modernism and Education

Definition

Postmodernism is the philosophy which believes that truth does not exist or is unknowable.
Truth is viewed as being relative to the culture. For example, when describing the American Creed,
which includes the God-given rights of life, liberty and property, textbooks often imply that these
rights may be true for Americans, but people in other countries and cultures see things quite
differently. This viewpoint reflects the pervasive influence of postmodernism in todays education
system. Postmodernists believe that truth is defined by each individual culture. Truth is relative, not
universal.
If truth is defined by each culture, then it is not real truth. Truth, by its nature, is universal.
Truth is absolute. Relative truth is not truth. Postmodernists replace the word truth with words like
perspectives, constructs or points of view. That is, they believe the best we can do is describe
how various groups see the world; but we cannot presume to know what is true.
Postmodernism is largely the result of Darwinian evolution because Darwinism destroys the
basis for knowledge. Darwinism is the view that all existence consists of nature plus time plus
chance. That means that our ideas, including what we may think is true, also consist of nature plus
time plus chance. The way we think is reduced to a luck of the draw kind of analysis. Americans
drew one card by chance, South Africans drew a different card; as a result both cultures see things
differently, but neither view can be viewed as better, or more true, than the other.
Postmodernism is now the most important worldview impacting American education.
Postmodern education is based on the assumption that what people think to be knowledge really
consists of mere constructs (ways of looking at the world), not truth. Postmodern education is
accurately defined in the following statement:
A key word to learn when trying to understand postmodern education is constructivism.
Constructivism is the main underlying learning theory in postmodern education. The
basic idea is that all knowledge is invented or "constructed" in the minds of people.
Knowledge is not discovered as modernists would claim. In other words, the ideas
teachers teach and students learn do not correspond to "reality," they are merely human
constructions. Knowledge, ideas and language are created by people, not because they
are "true," but rather because they are useful.

Reality is a story. All reality exists, not objectively--out there--but in the mind of those
who perceive it. Nobody's version of reality can claim to have more objective authority
because all versions are merely human creations.
The authors quoted above are also accurate in their description of the effect postmodernism is
having on education. Quoting Ruth Zuzovsky, they say, Another major feature of this tentative,
relativist, and instrumentalist [pragmatic] concept of knowledge is the equal worth of knowledge
constructed by the learner, the teachers, or the scientists." Genuine education ceases to exist under
this postmodern paradigm.
Following postmodern thinking, the purpose of education shifts from teaching academic
knowledge and skills to providing for a learning environment where students construct their own
knowledge. Teachers are then told to become the guide on the side and not be the sage on the
stage.
The guide on the side mentality, clearly the most important pedagogical principle in modern
American education, is the result of the education cartels love-affair with postmodernism.
Discovery learning, creative spelling, and an over-emphasis on group projects and other social
settings are additional consequences of postmodern thought.
Postmodernists reduce the study of history to perspectives of history. There are differing
perspectives of history, of course. The question is whether history is only that.
A few months ago the author had an email conversation about postmodernist history with a high
school student who had objected to several of his articles criticizing International Baccalaureate
schools for promoting postmodernism. She said, however, that when they studied the bombing of
Pearl Harbor, they first watched a film on the event produced from the American point of view, and
they next watched a film from the Japanese point of view. History was all a matter of ones
perspective, she said.
In response the author agreed that there were differing perspectives in history, and understanding
those perspectives was important, but the question was then raised if it was also true that on a day
certain the Japanese did in fact bomb Pearl Harbor? At that point the student discontinued the
conversation. To give the obvious answer of yes would have been to deny the postmodern ideology
with which she had been indoctrinated, a step she was not willing to take.
The National Education Standards (de facto federal curriculum. See the authors Fed Ed: The New
Federal Curriculum and How Its Enforced, St. Paul: EdWatch, 2002) adhere to the postmodern
worldview. The National Social Studies Curriculum Standards, for example, written by the National
Council of Social Studies, even define the purpose of education in terms of students forming their
own constructs. These standards define knowledge as being constructs. This is
postmodernism, pure and simple.

Postmodernism has even had a huge impact on the field of mathematics. The new math, which is
based on postmodern ideology, (also called integrated math, fuzzy math, constructivist math,
Chicago math and Every Day math), is now taught to one-third of our K-12 studentseven
though it is well-known that integrated math is decidedly inferior to traditional math. (See Appendix
A for more information on postmodern math.)
School textbooks are riddled with postmodern thinking. In the taxpayer subsidized history textbook
called We The People: The Citizen And The Constitution (authorized and funded in federal law HR6,
1994, and re-authorized and funded in No Child Left Behind, 2002) the writers say:
As fundamental and lasting as its guarantees have been [past tense], the U.S. Bill of
Rights is a document of the eighteenth century, reflecting the issues and concerns of
the age in which it was written. ... Other national guarantees of rights also reflect the
cultures that created them. Many of these cultures have values and priorities different
from our own. In many Asian countries, for example, the rights of the individuals are
secondary to the interests of the whole community. Islamic countries take their code
of laws from the teachings of the Koran, the book of sacred writings accepted by
Muslims as revelations to the prophet Mohammad by God. [p. 207]
This, again, is postmodern ideology. Students are here being taught that the foundational principles
of the United States (called the American Creed) are mere constructs (created by culture) and are
not really true or genuine. For that reason the U. S. Constitution and the American Creed are taught
as being of little importance. (See Appendix B for an outline of the major beliefs, or doctrines, of
postmodernism.)

Postmodernism as a Perspective

The terms "modern" and "postmodern" occupy no fixed positions; their

meanings are imprecise and highly contested. Despite this ambiguity,
however, these concepts are critical reference points for discussions that
try to make sense of what appear to be disparate cultural, economic,
political, and social changes taking place in architecture, art,

philosophy, literary criticism, the social sciences, in every day life, in

popular culture, in industry, business, technology, and education.

Modernism

Modernism requires faith that there are universals that can be discovered
through reason, that science and the scientific method are superior means
for arriving at truth and reality, and that language describes and can be
used as a credible and reliable means of access to that reality. With its
privileging of reason, modernism has long been considered the basis for
the emancipation of men and women from the bonds of ignorance associated
with stagnant tradition, narrow religions, and meager educations.
Championing democracy, modernism promises freedom, equality, justice, the
good life, and prosperity. Equating merit with high culture, modernism
provides expectations of more rigorous standards for and greater enjoyment
of the arts and architecture. Through science and scientific method,
modernism promises health, the eradication of hunger, crime, and poverty.

Modernist science claims to be progressing toward true knowledge of the

universe and to be delivering ever higher standards of living with
effectiveness and efficiency. Modernism promises stability, peace, and a
graspable sense of the rational unfolding of history. Modernism equates
change with progress, which is defined as increasing control over nature
and society.

Perhaps the most important means for understanding and carrying out the
modernist project is education. Higher education is deeply embedded in the
ideals, institutions, and vocabulary of modernism. Higher education trusts
that merit should be rewarded through good jobs, promotions, higher
status, and prestige. Higher education defends the notion that knowledge
and expertise are important for problem solving in the society. Higher
education assumes that science, scientific methods, and the science
sensibility are better means for discovering and creating truth than
tradition. Higher education treats high culture as separate from and
better than popular culture. Higher education values differentiation,

recognizing that there are different discourse communities in the academy

and that there is a difference between the inside and outside of
institutions of higher education. While valuing diversity, colleges and
universities treasure community and institutional autonomy.

(Bloland, Harland G.
Postmodernism and higher education.
Journal of Higher Education. 66(5):521-559. 1995 Sep.)

Post-modern just means coming after modernism. The term is used to refer to a period in history
(the one were in now), but it is also used to refer to a set of ideas that go with this period in history.
This set of ideas is a reaction toand, to some extent, a rejection ofthe ideas of modernism.
What are these ideasand why do they matter?
First of all, what are modernisms big ideas? These ideas are important because they frame most of
the thinking of most people in Western cultures (whether they know it or not). They also frame our
major institutions, including those of education.
Beginning in the midlate 18th century, the modern period of European history was a time of great
social, political, and economic change (the Industrial Revolution and the American and French
Revolutions took place in this period). It saw the development of capitalism, industrialisation, nation
states, and science, as well as a major expansion of European interests into the rest of the world. It
was seen as a time of great progressand progress is an important metaphor for this time
All this was made possible by some big ideas, which, very briefly, are as follows.
First, is the idea of people as rational, autonomous individuals or selves, who think and act
independently of other selves. This idea, which seems natural and obvious to those of us enculturated
and educated in the Western European tradition, underpins all modern social, political, and economic
thought (including education). It is, however, a construct, and it is a construct that has some
important material effects. Among other things, it excludes many people, and it de-emphasises the
relationships and connections between people.

The second big idea of modernism is the notion of reason and knowledge (particularly scientific
knowledge) as the route to human freedom and happiness (and education as having a major role to
play in this). The knowledge being talked about here is know what knowledge of a particular kind: it
is knowledge that describes and articulates a stable order of things, a grand plan that will,
eventually, all be known. It is also knowledge that assumes a particular kind of knowerthe rational,
autonomous, individual described above.
These ideas have long been criticised by people from groups who are marginalised by them (e.g.
women, indigenous peoples, and working-class people).
Post-modernism is basically a critique of these ideas.
According to one theorist, post modernism is the passage from solid (stable) times to liquid times
(Bauman 2007). It is the end of traditional structures and institutions, and the end of what another
theorist calls grand narrativesthe big, one-size-fits-all stories of modern thought (Lyotard 1984).
There is a loss of faith in the idea of progress, the idea that we are gradually heading along the one
true pathway towards certain universal goals such as the full picture of knowledge, or equality and
justice. Instead, there is an emphasis on multiple pathways and plurality; on diversity and difference;
and on the partiality of all knowledge (that is, the idea that we can only have an incomplete picture,
and the idea that all knowledge is biased). Change is seen, not as a linear progression, but as a series
of networks and flows, connections and reconnections that, because they are always forming and
reforming, never have time to solidify.
Thus, where modern thought emphasises direction, order, coherence, stability, simplicity, control,
autonomy, and universality, post modern thought emphasises fragmentation, diversity, discontinuity,
contingency, pragmatism, multiplicity, and connections.

(References
Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.
Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.

Objectives

Post Modernists as Teachers

Contirbutions

Merits of Post Modernism

Demerits of Post Modernism

hen most Christians raise concerns about the state of public education, they tend to focus on practices that directly
conflict with biblical values. Graphic sex education, moral relativism, lax discipline policies, and open hostility to
Christianity are some of the most commonly cited reasons for removing children from public schools.
While these are all valid concerns, they are symptoms of a much deeper problem. In fact, public schools are infected
with a philosophy that runs counter to the values of most parents, even those who do not subscribe to any religious
faith.
This philosophy goes by many names, but it is perhaps best known as constructivism. Essentially, constructivism
says that teachers should help students construct their own understanding of the world around them and opposes
any attempt to pass along a defined canon of knowledge to students. In its purest form, constructivism claims its
impossible to know or convey objective truth. Some of the other names for this philosophy include progressive
education, romanticism, or even romantic progressivism.
If you think this approach sounds a lot like postmodernism, you are correct. In fact, constructivism is what you can
expect from a teacher who embraces postmodernist assumptions.

The Danger of Postmodernism

In his excellent book How to Kill Adventist Education, Shane Anderson identifies postmodernism as a threat to the
church and its schools. This is not surprising since postmodernisms denial of absolute truth runs directly counter to
the many truth statements contained in Scripture.
Among other things, the Bible proclaims that God created the world (Gen. 1:1), sin is the cause of death (Rom. 5:12),
Jesus rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:4), and we face judgment after death (Heb. 9:27). These are but a few of the key
biblical doctrines that cannot be altered without undermining the basis for our faith.
Although postmodernists often claim their ideas are new, they really arent. When Satan tempted Eve in the Garden
of Eden, he confused her by asking whether God actually said that she could not eat of any tree in the garden (Gen.
3:1). Even though Gods warning to Adam and Eve was clear, Satan sowed doubt by asking whether God really
meant what He said. Similarly, modern-day postmodernists claim that the authors intent doesnt matter, and all
individuals can construct their own meaning.

How Postmodernism Infects Educational Philosophy

At the beginning of the twentieth century John Dewey, a professor at Columbia Teachers College, argued that more
hands-on learning needed to take place in schools. This led many of his disciples, most notably William Kilpatrick, to
conclude that a child-centered and project-based learning approach that focuses on process rather than content is
the best approach. Ironically, Dewey himself felt his disciples took some of his ideas too far. But by this point the
constructivist approach took on a life of its own as it came to dominate virtually all education faculties.

n 1996 E. D. Hirsch, Jr., an English professor at the University of

Virginia, authored a book called The Schools We Need and Why We Dont Have Them. In his book Hirsch
documented the many ways in which the public education system emphasizes the so-called process of learning but
downplays the importance of specific content knowledge. Critics of Hirsch generally respond, not by claiming his
depiction is wrong, but rather by defending their anti-knowledge approach.
This is something Ive experienced firsthand. Sometime ago I spoke to faculty of education students and professors
at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. During my presentation I emphasized the importance of content in the
curriculum and argued for a sharper focus on basic skills.
Immediately after my presentation an education professor and a doctoral student delivered a formal response.
Incredibly, they both denied the importance of content knowledge and explicitly stated that there is no one piece of
knowledge that everyone should have in common. They argued that the content of the curriculum is irrelevant since it
is impossible for us to agree on what knowledge should be required.
When I asked them whether it would be OK if Canadian schools completely removed any reference to Confederation
(the Canadian version of Independence Day), however, they had no response. At that point the dean of education
said she agreed with me that Canadian students should learn something about Confederation. Fortunately, at least
one person in the department recognized the logical absurdity of a position that completely denies the need for
knowledge.

Constructivism in the Curriculum

Constructivists dislike any instruction that involves so-called rote learning or drill and practice. Hence, they oppose
the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and advocate something called whole language. Phonics teaches
students to sound out the individual letters in words, while whole language encourages students to guess the words
by looking at pictures and the surrounding context. Whole language had its origins in the early twentieth century,
although its most recent manifestation surfaced in the mid-1980s.
Even though multiple research studies throughout the years demonstrated the superiority of the phonics approach,
whole language became dominant in public schools. Fortunately, most educators gradually came to realize that the
wholesale abandonment of phonics instruction was a mistake. While most schools have since incorporated some
phonics in reading instruction, whole language still has far more influence than it should.
We see a similar methodology reflected in the current approach to teaching mathematics. Instead of learning basic
skills in a sequential, step-by-step manner, constructivists want students to invent their own way of answering math
questions. Thus we have math textbooks that fail to show students the most efficient way to solve a problem and
curriculum guides that no longer require students to memorize their multiplication facts. The result is an increasingly
large number of students who cannot do basic math upon graduating high school.
W. Stephen Wilson is a math professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. He recently reviewed
math curriculum standards from all 50 states and wrote about his findings in the March 2011 edition of Educational
Leadership. His article, In Defense of Mathematical Foundations, gets to the heart of whats wrong with math
instruction in schools:

The majority of states fail to focus on the mathematics that elementary school children need to learn to be successful
in college math. And thats arithmeticunderstanding and fluency with the standard procedures for addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and division. . . . It almost seemed like a plot to prevent children from leaving home for
college or, at least, to get them to come home quickly because of lack of preparedness (italics supplied).
The same dilution of the curriculum can be seen in subjects such as social studies and science. Instead of acquiring
content knowledge, students spend a lot of time on self-discovery projects that fail to teach them the essential ideas
and facts in these important fields.

Deemphasizing the Role of the Teacher

Because constructivism encourages students to construct their own knowledge, it logically leads to a deemphasis on
the teachers role in the classroom. One of the most common sayings in education faculties is that a teacher should
be a guide on the side rather than a sage on the stage. This means that teachers should not spend a lot of time in
front of their class lecturing but should rather be on the side helping students discover things for themselves.
It is revealing, however, that virtually all constructivist educators dont follow their own advice when trying to convince
teachers to adopt their methodologies. For example, Alfie Kohn, one of the strongest advocates of the guide on the
side approach, gives dozens of lectures every year trying to persuade teachers not to lecture. Why does he not
abandon the lecture format when it is apparently so ineffective?
The reason is obvious. Kohn has only a short time to convey his ideas, and he realizes that the most effective way of
doing it is in a formal presentation that he has composed and organized. It is ironic that the purveyors of the
constructivist approach regularly use nonconstructivist methods when promoting their ideas.
Not only does relegating teachers to mere guides fly in the face of common senseit is not even supported by
educational research. John Hattie is director of the Melbourne Education Research Unit at the University of
Melbourne, Australia. His 2009 book, Visible Learning, synthesizes the results of more than 60,000 research studies
on factors that lead to student achievement. His conclusion about the impact of the constructivist approach is clear:
The role of the constructivist teacher is claimed to be more of facilitation to provide opportunities for individual
students to acquire knowledge and construct meaning through their own activities, and through discussion, reflection,
and the sharing of ideas with other learners with minimal corrective intervention. . . . These kinds of statements are
almost directly opposite to the successful recipe for teaching and learning (p. 26).
One reason the constructivist approach fails so miserably is that it contradicts human nature. Children need clear
instruction (Prov. 22:6), discipline (Prov. 19:18), and a willingness to accept guidance (Prov. 13:1). Like all of us,
children have a sinful nature, and it is the height of folly to assume they can be left on their own to set their own
learning goals.
In her book Education Ellen White wisely emphasizes the importance of discipline:
It should be made plain that the government of God knows no compromise with evil. Neither in the home nor in the
school should disobedience be tolerated. No parent or teacher who has at heart the well-being of those under his
care will compromise with the stubborn self-will that defies authority or resorts to subterfuge or evasion in order to
escape obedience (p. 290).
Only a teacher who maintains firm control of their classroom can hope to maintain proper order. All too often, public
school classrooms are so chaotic and disorganized that it is amazing students learn anything at all.

What Should We Do?

Fortunately, there are alternatives to public education. Adventists operate the largest Protestant school system in the
world and provide students with an education based firmly on biblical principles. In addition, data from the
CognitiveGenesis project shows that students in Adventist schools outperform public school students in basic
academic skills. So parents who choose Adventist schools can be confident in the education their children will
receive.
For those who remain in the public system, whether by necessity or by choice, it is important to remember that not all
schools are equally infected by postmodernism. Many teachers still use traditional methods of instruction, and some
even support biblical values. Parents will need to use discernment when determining how trusting they can be of their
local public school.
We would all be wise to follow the advice of the apostle Paul: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy

and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to
Christ (Col. 2:8, ESV).*
Lets not allow the faulty philosophy underpinning of our public education system to rob our children of their faith.
___________
* Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News
Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

_____________
Michael Zwaagstra, M.Ed., is a public high school teacher and coauthor of the book Whats Wrong With Our Schools
and How We Can Fix Them. He lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. This article was published April 18, 2013.