DO you think the average theological knowledge has plumetted in the last 50 years?

[gtsecc]

?

[JasonV]

Good question Glen. In my view, I think our theological knowledge has grown thanks in large part to the internet. People who wanted to know, now have others who can teach them without the need of a seminary. We also have access to books online, as well as the opportunity to search for books that we may want that didn't exist before.

So again, I think that theological knowledge has grown quite a bit. But it's a double edged sword. Because of this knowledge, some are questioning orthodoxy and deciding that hetrodoxy is just as valid. So for the people who are 100% in their beliefs, this could pose a problem. For me of course, I think it's great anyhow, but that's just me. :)

[higgs2]

?

I don't know about plummetted, but I would say it has been distorted in many ways. For example, the "Left Behind" series has resulting in many people thinking that dispensationalism is orthodox Christian doctrine.

[TomUK]

Not at all. I think the average Christian is reading far more now than they ever have done.

[SirTimothy]

Good heavens, no. I would say that theological knowledge has increased dramatically. Except in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches where they never listen to anything new... but VII was a positive step forward, I'm just worried BXVI will destroy all that...

[higgs2]

Good heavens, no. I would say that theological knowledge has increased dramatically. Except in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches where they never listen to anything new... but VII was a positive step forward, I'm just worried BXVI will destroy all that...

Where have you BEEN?!

[Simon_Templar]

Yes, it has.

Education in general has plumetted in the last 50 years.

[karen freeinchristman]

One of the major problems is that, in general, we have lost the tradition of storytelling. And storytelling, in centuries past, was the main way for the general population to learn theology. So we became dependant on the printed word. But now the problem is that many people no longer read, except for popular works. With the invention of the TV, leisure time is not spent reading as much as it used to.

We have now got the medium of the internet, and that is where many people are educating themselves; the problem there is that we are subjected to a vast array of interesting things to look at and learn through the internet. So unless a person makes the effort, they won't encounter theology very often.

I think that we could do more in our local churches to enthus people about theology. Somehow.

[ebia]

One of the major problems is that, in general, we have lost the tradition of storytelling. And storytelling, in centuries past, was the main way for the general population to learn theology. So we became dependant on the printed word. But now the problem is that many people no longer read, except for popular works. With the invention of the TV, leisure time is not spent reading as much as it used to.

We have now got the medium of the internet, and that is where many people are educating themselves; the problem there is that we are subjected to a vast array of interesting things to look at and learn through the internet. So unless a person makes the effort, they won't encounter theology very often.

I think that we could do more in our local churches to enthus people about theology. Somehow.
Just to add to that, as NT Wright noted a few years ago, a lot of ordinary people in the pews picked up a lot of their theology from the hymns. The lack of theology beyond "Jesus loves me" is so many of the contempory songs comes at a cost.

[Tomoz]

Just to add to that, as NT Wright noted a few years ago, a lot of ordinary people in the pews picked up a lot of their theology from the hymns. The lack of theology beyond "Jesus loves me" is so many of the contempory songs comes at a cost.

I think that is spot on.
I think it is important to have "Jesus loves me" songs - our faith and devotion can't be based purely on intellect - but it does need to be balanced with worship songs or hymns that are a little more theologically dense. Then the congregation learns without even realising it! In our church we sing contemporary worship songs, and we seem to have that balance really in place - in fact our minister thinks about it a lot.
I mean, if you look at some of the early Christian hymns that Paul quotes in 1 Timothy, Colossians etc., they are actually quite well developed theologically.

Again though, we should remember that, as Karl Barth said, all the theology in the world only helps us to understand better the simple fact that "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so" :-)

[RedneckAnglican]

is this a trick question?...

I've listened to older people tell me about thier conformation classes and the things they had to do...i don't see many kids today even having conformation...I beleive that's why so many kids are leaving the Church when they pass 18 and go off to college...they just don't have a firm grasp of what they believe and why...

can I prove this?...no...but I think there is plenty of empirical evidence to support that claim...

[ebia]

is this a trick question?...

I've listened to older people tell me about thier conformation classes and the things they had to do...

I can't speak for further back, but the confirmation classes my other half attended 2 years ago were considerably more in depth than the ones I attended 27 years ago.

i don't see many kids today even having conformation.
Considering confirmation has long been a passing out ceremony (at least in the CofE and Australia) this might not be a bad thing - confirm them as teenages and never see them again. RCC might have it better, confirming them while they are still in primary school, before they are get to the teenage wish to do their own thing.


..I beleive that's why so many kids are leaving the Church when they pass 18 and go off to college...they just don't have a firm grasp of what they believe and why...
In my experience I would say that most either get obsessed by religion when the go to college, or put it on one side for a while. That's not the problem - the question is whether they come back to it later.

can I prove this?...no...but I think there is plenty of empirical evidence to support that claim...
... not at all convinced.

[RedneckAnglican]

if that's the way things work down there, then GOD bless y'all...but that's not what I've seen here...my first 2 years of college I lived in a dorm of 200 guys...there were 3 of us that went to Church on a regular basis...that's right 3 out of 200...

[ebia]

if that's the way things work down there, then GOD bless y'all...but that's not what I've seen here...my first 2 years of college I lived in a dorm of 200 guys...there were 3 of us that went to Church on a regular basis...that's right 3 out of 200...
Firstly, let me be clear, I went to university in England. Only my teaching diploma is Australian, and Australian universities are very different places than English or American ones in that most people go to one close to where they live - next to no-one leaves home to go college in Australia unless home is a small country town (a tiny minority in this, the most urbanised English speaking country on earth).

Having got that out of the way, I'm not saying that people do go to church while they are at college - quite the opposite in many cases (including mine). That's to be expected - those are years for figuring out who you are as distinct from who you were raised to be. What's important is whether the faith they have is strong enough to come back to the church in due time. Hardly any of the Anglicans I knew at university went to church at the time (including me), but a reasonable proportion of us found our own ways back eventually.

The people who did go to church at university, for the most part, were at the extreme conservative ends of Christianity.

[No Swansong]

is this a trick question?...

I've listened to older people tell me about thier conformation classes and the things they had to do...i don't see many kids today even having conformation...I beleive that's why so many kids are leaving the Church when they pass 18 and go off to college...they just don't have a firm grasp of what they believe and why...

can I prove this?...no...but I think there is plenty of empirical evidence to support that claim...
Agreed. I think the current "feel good do it" air that pervades the Church has tossed such disciplines as Theology, Logic and Ethics out with the bathwater. It does start with the Children. How many of our Children can even quote the 10 commandments? How many know any significant portion of Scripture? How many of them have any idea what Scripture, Tradition, and Reason even mean? I would be willing to believe that most have a vague idea about Scripture, few could give an accurate definition of Tradition and almost none of them have any idea what Reason means. What will be the face of Christianity in general and specifically of Anglicanism in 50 years?

[Simon_Templar]

Agreed. I think the current "feel good do it" air that pervades the Church has tossed such disciplines as Theology, Logic and Ethics out with the bathwater. It does start with the Children. How many of our Children can even quote the 10 commandments? How many know any significant portion of Scripture? How many of them have any idea what Scripture, Tradition, and Reason even mean? I would be willing to believe that most have a vague idea about Scripture, few could give an accurate definition of Tradition and almost none of them have any idea what Reason means. What will be the face of Christianity in general and specifically of Anglicanism in 50 years?
This is exactly the situation. Education in general, including christian education (ie theology etc) has become progressively more and more lazy over the last 50 years, probably the last 100 years.

The more difficult disciplines are simply either not undertaken, or they are simplified out of existence. Anything which was deemed too hard, or too advanced was removed from primary education, the result was that people couldn't handle it in secondary education anymore either, so it has gradually been removed there as well.

In technical skill fields this is possibly less true simply because you can't dumb down technical skills and still have success in a technical field. The real problem is in the area of humanities (including theology).
In some ways humanities seem less important because they don't have the direct application that technical skills do, but the impact they have upon society and culture is really far more important, but harder to quantify and see. (at least until its too late)

[ebia]

I wondered how long it would take for this to decend into the fasionable, media driven, bashing of current education.

[Simon_Templar]

I wondered how long it would take for this to decend into the fasionable, media driven, bashing of current education.
media nothing, my entire family are teachers, I went to school to be a teacher, education is in my blood :)

I've put alot of thought and reading into the progression of education over the last 150 years.

[ebia]

I'm not going to debate it - the discussion is heated enough without. Suffice to say I don't buy into it at all. The "good old days" of education never existed.

[TomUK]

[QUOTE=Simon_Templar;28701537]This is exactly the situation. Education in general, including christian education (ie theology etc) has become progressively more and more lazy over the last 50 years, probably the last 100 years.

[QUOTE]

But i think more people are doing it. Surely that can't be a bad thing.

EDIT: Though on reflection i do wonder whether the whole prosperity movement perhaps rose out of spiritual ignorance.

[No Swansong]

media nothing, my entire family are teachers, I went to school to be a teacher, education is in my blood :)

I've put alot of thought and reading into the progression of education over the last 150 years.
A good number of my family members are teachers as well. (extended) All of them would agree that the quality of education has declined significantly. It is an often discussed topic in my family. It is one of the reasons my oldest son was schooled at home and my younger son is now being schooled at home. Although it is nice to learn that I am media driven. May I stop pursuing advanced degrees now considering that my observations and thoughts are not really my own?

[ebia]

A good number of my family members are teachers as well. (extended) All of them would agree that the quality of education has declined significantly. It is an often discussed topic in my family. It is one of the reasons my oldest son was schooled at home and my younger son is now being schooled at home. Although it is nice to learn that I am media driven. May I stop pursuing advanced degrees now considering that my observations and thoughts are not really my own?
Is it 4 years of living in Australia, or is the irony in this more generally obvious?

[No Swansong]

Actually it was intended.

[ebia]

Ok. Presuming we are talking about the same irony.

[Fairbairn]

I think teaching improves all the time. In the old days, it was 'chalk and talk' - the pupils had to put up with whatever teaching style the teacher used, and there was very little differentiation. Nowadays, teaching styles are a lot more varied, and they adapt to the needs of individual learners.

And the resources nowadays are amazing - even in the last 10 years the progress has been extraordinary.

Now what has declined is the behaviour of pupils (caused by poor parenting skills) and the sanctions open to teachers to deal with poor behaviour.

As for RE lessons in schools, they are far superior now than they were when I was at school. I am in awe of what these young people learn and the attitudes they develop.

Whether people study theology is dependent on whether they are interested in it. Nowadays, it is much easier to study because of the internet (because there are so many resources online, and even buying of obscure books is made possible). Even someone with a passing interest can learn something nowaday (through sites like this one, Wiki, Church Society, etc.)

[gtsecc]

How many living Anglicans can even recite the Athanasian Creed?

The Creed of Saint Athanasius

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory
equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and
one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.




So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by
himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten,
but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three
Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be
worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the
Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, is God and Man;
God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance
of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his
Manhood.
Who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from
whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their
own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

[ebia]

How many living Anglicans can even recite the Athanasian Creed?.
Why would I want to be able to recite it? I know what it says, and I know where to find it if I want to check the detail. We've moved on a bit from thinking rote memorizing is the same thing as learning.

[Simon_Templar]

Why would I want to be able to recite it? I know what it says, and I know where to find it if I want to check the detail. We've moved on a bit from thinking rote memorizing is the same thing as learning.
wrote memorization does play an important role in education. It is the foundation upon which deeper education should be built.

First students should memorize topic matter, while learning mechanics...

Like say, reciting the athanasian creed, or quote from plato, or Cicero etc, while learning the mechanics of language.

Then, when the students come to the point where they can start to learn how to think, and start to think about the deeper issues, they already know the material pretty much by heart and have it all at their beck and call, without having to search for it bit by bit, and can much more easily form a complete understanding of the topic at hand.

this is how students alway used to learn. In more recent times education went away from this model, based on the idea that reading quotes from plato, or the bible, or cicero was too difficult for kids learning how to read. It would be much easier for them to learn to read by reading simple sentances such "see dick run".

The problem as it turns out is that this then makes it much more laborious, and difficult when it comes time to actually learn the more indepth topics. Ironicly, it hasn't shown marked improvement in teaching the mechanics either. Quite the opposite. Language has suffered because kids aren't taught real language to begin with. They are taught artificially simplified and essentially boring, ugly language.

If you compare kids who were encouraged to read more complex language (like grown up fiction or poetry etc) at younger ages, they have far better language skills than those who don't read more complex language.

So.. wrote memorization has its place. It is useful for laying foundations.

[karen freeinchristman]

That does make sense, Simon_Templar. I'm not sure it's correct, but it does make sense. (The word is rote, not wrote, btw).

But just thinking about education over the past 4000 years... I mean, it was mostly oral for ages and ages. That was the main reason people were so good at rote memorization of the works of the literary geniuses of the day.

I can think of several centuries, though, where the general population of western society were pretty low on the education front. Those who were well educated were in the rich minority, to be sure.

I personally think things are just so different today (paradigm shift!) and we have experienced such huge changes over the past 50 years in nearly every realm of civilisation, that people can't really go about education in the same way that it used to be done.

[Simon_Templar]

That does make sense, Simon_Templar. I'm not sure it's correct, but it does make sense. (The word is rote, not wrote, btw).

But just thinking about education over the past 4000 years... I mean, it was mostly oral for ages and ages. That was the main reason people were so good at rote memorization of the works of the literary geniuses of the day.

I can think of several centuries, though, where the general population of western society were pretty low on the education front. Those who were well educated were in the rich minority, to be sure.

I personally think things are just so different today (paradigm shift!) and we have experienced such huge changes over the past 50 years in nearly every realm of civilisation, that people can't really go about education in the same way that it used to be done.
The explosion of education among the common people began in the 1750's in england, wales, and the American colonies. Prior to that education was not commonly available (in the sense we think of it) to the common folk. Most commoners had some education in the sense of apprenticeship for their profession. They did not usually know how to read and write or things like that, at least with any proficiency.

Then, as a result of the great awakening which swept england, wales, and america, people of all social classes began to heavily emphasize reading the bible. The result was that literacy surged in all three areas. Within a decade or so literacy rates in the american colonies reached the 90's percents among men, and lagged among women in the 50's or 60's

Over the next 100 years literacy rates continued to be high, with the rate among women rising to match that among men. by the mid 1800's the US had a literacy rate around 95-99%

in the 1850's the institution of state run curriculums and state sponsored education began a significant shift in the philosophy of how people should be educated. Since that point literacy rates in the country have pretty much continuously declined.

according the US government surveys of literacy only about 33% of college grads are currently considered to be "proficient" or highly literate.
The rest of the numbers I'm a little fuzy on in memory.. but I believe a little less than 50% of the population were at a level of literacy where they would have trouble reading a news paper. Of that 50% the bottom 20% (again if memory serves) were functionally illiterate, which means they couldn't read and write enough to fill out a job application.

PS.. I'm not saying this as a disagreement with your post, I just thought you might be interested to see when literacy became common etc.

[ebia]

As I said before, I'm not going to debate it here.

[DeoJuvante]

Keep in mind that the Australian education system is very different from the American system (thanks be to God). What may be true of the US is not necessarily true of Australia or, for that matter, other countries.

[karen freeinchristman]

The explosion of education among the common people began in the 1750's in england, wales, and the American colonies. Prior to that education was not commonly available (in the sense we think of it) to the common folk. Most commoners had some education in the sense of apprenticeship for their profession. They did not usually know how to read and write or things like that, at least with any proficiency.

Then, as a result of the great awakening which swept england, wales, and america, people of all social classes began to heavily emphasize reading the bible. The result was that literacy surged in all three areas. Within a decade or so literacy rates in the american colonies reached the 90's percents among men, and lagged among women in the 50's or 60's

Over the next 100 years literacy rates continued to be high, with the rate among women rising to match that among men. by the mid 1800's the US had a literacy rate around 95-99%

in the 1850's the institution of state run curriculums and state sponsored education began a significant shift in the philosophy of how people should be educated. Since that point literacy rates in the country have pretty much continuously declined.

according the US government surveys of literacy only about 33% of college grads are currently considered to be "proficient" or highly literate.
The rest of the numbers I'm a little fuzy on in memory.. but I believe a little less than 50% of the population were at a level of literacy where they would have trouble reading a news paper. Of that 50% the bottom 20% (again if memory serves) were functionally illiterate, which means they couldn't read and write enough to fill out a job application.

PS.. I'm not saying this as a disagreement with your post, I just thought you might be interested to see when literacy became common etc.
Thanks for posting this. I am thinking that we probably would see a correlation between illiteracy and poverty, even in the 21st century. It is a vicious cycle, of course; if you can't read/write, you won't get much of a job. Poverty isn't a very good motivator, as far as I can imagine.

But I do think the post-modern era has something to do with this scenario. The Enlightenment era (the Age of Reason), was characterised by a belief in progress. People believed that all problems were solvable; it was just a matter of time. Now we have come to the realisation that this isn't the way things have worked out to be. We've landed ourselves in more of a mess from our so-called 'progress', in many ways. People now are much more cynical of anything that is described as 'truth'. People now are interested in 'what works for me', and if something different 'works for you', then that is OK. (This description is based on my experience and also on my studies).

This is just an objective observation, that I think goes some way towards an explanation of why many people do not seem to be interested in the academic study of what we might call 'serious' subjects.

I do think that we are in a place now that is not predictable. There seems to be renewed interest in subjects like philosophy and theology.

[Simon_Templar]

Thanks for posting this. I am thinking that we probably would see a correlation between illiteracy and poverty, even in the 21st century. It is a vicious cycle, of course; if you can't read/write, you won't get much of a job. Poverty isn't a very good motivator, as far as I can imagine.

But I do think the post-modern era has something to do with this scenario. The Enlightenment era (the Age of Reason), was characterised by a belief in progress. People believed that all problems were solvable; it was just a matter of time. Now we have come to the realisation that this isn't the way things have worked out to be. We've landed ourselves in more of a mess from our so-called 'progress', in many ways. People now are much more cynical of anything that is described as 'truth'. People now are interested in 'what works for me', and if something different 'works for you', then that is OK. (This description is based on my experience and also on my studies).

This is just an objective observation, that I think goes some way towards an explanation of why many people do not seem to be interested in the academic study of what we might call 'serious' subjects.

I do think that we are in a place now that is not predictable. There seems to be renewed interest in subjects like philosophy and theology.
hehe, now we're getting to the question of which came first the chicken or the egg.. or in our case, the paradigm shift, or the shift in educational philosophy (and results).

We are deffinetly living at the cusp of a philosophical change, from modernism to post modernism. This undoubtedly has already affected education. At the same time, however, there is a significant case to be made for the idea that educational philosophy over the last 50 years or more, contributed significantly to producing the current philosophical shift.

there is a book written by a teacher named John taylor Gatto, the title is "dumbing us down". Mr. Gatto was a well recognized educator in new york for many years. The premise of his book is that the american education system contains a series of underlying 'principles' (for lack of a better word) that it instills in the students.

I think he was spot on with his observations, and I would further argue that some of the principles he points out directly contribute to producing the post-modern mindset.

[karen freeinchristman]

hehe, now we're getting to the question of which came first the chicken or the egg.. or in our case, the paradigm shift, or the shift in educational philosophy (and results).

We are deffinetly living at the cusp of a philosophical change, from modernism to post modernism. This undoubtedly has already affected education. At the same time, however, there is a significant case to be made for the idea that educational philosophy over the last 50 years or more, contributed significantly to producing the current philosophical shift.

there is a book written by a teacher named John taylor Gatto, the title is "dumbing us down". Mr. Gatto was a well recognized educator in new york for many years. The premise of his book is that the american education system contains a series of underlying 'principles' (for lack of a better word) that it instills in the students.

I think he was spot on with his observations, and I would further argue that some of the principles he points out directly contribute to producing the post-modern mindset.

That's an interesting theory, but I tend to disagree with it. Mainly because I think the cause of post-modern thought is that we have seen the results of progress and we are not impressed. OK, so there have been significant advances in medicine and science. What has been the dark side to all of that? I don't need to spell it out. People aren't stupid. We haven't got all the answers. We haven't progressed to a point that is superior to generations past. In this post-modern era, we have come to that realisation.

I think the post-modern mindset has not been caused by a dumbing-down, but by the realisation that science is not equivalent to truth. I think the pursuit of truth still goes on, but I do feel that too many people have decided to opt out and concentrate on the search for happiness instead (and of course, they never truly find it if they only look within the temporal realm).

[Simon_Templar]

That's an interesting theory, but I tend to disagree with it. Mainly because I think the cause of post-modern thought is that we have seen the results of progress and we are not impressed. OK, so there have been significant advances in medicine and science. What has been the dark side to all of that? I don't need to spell it out. People aren't stupid. We haven't got all the answers. We haven't progressed to a point that is superior to generations past. In this post-modern era, we have come to that realisation.

I think the post-modern mindset has not been caused by a dumbing-down, but by the realisation that science is not equivalent to truth. I think the pursuit of truth still goes on, but I do feel that too many people have decided to opt out and concentrate on the search for happiness instead (and of course, they never truly find it if they only look within the temporal realm).
its not just about a simple "dumbing down" although the title obviously gives that impression.

The real heart of the post-modern movement is not just a denial of progress, but a denial of meaning itself. The heart of post-modernism is the denial of all meta-narative. The idea that nothing has larger meaning, there is no reason why things happen, they just happen.
There is no real interconnection between ideas, it is also fundamentally a rejection of the idea of 'rationality' etc.

I agree that the impact of events in the last century have strongly influenced this. Reaction to WWI produced the DADA movement in art, which was essentially post-modernism applied to the world of art and poetry.
Interestingly there was not as marked or big a backlash following WWII.
However, I think the philosophy of education formed a significant part of this impact.

the author of the book I mentioned has quotes on his website that sum up aspects of the book. These are from a speech he gave as his acceptance speech for "teacher of the year" award.

Some of the things the author says don't seem to apply to this issue directly, but I think they do have some tangential relationship.

In any case, the author talks about the fact that the school system teaches confusion. Everything is presented in an unrelated, unconnected manner. Everything is taught without context and frequently containing significant internal contradictions.
He goes on to say that the system essentially conditions kids to just accept that this is the way things are.

One of the other things he focuses on is what he calls teaching the kids "indifference". No subject is important enough that it can't be dropped at a moments notice when the bell rings. Education is turned into a mechanical process where by small chunks of time are devoted in assembly line fashion to a succession of topics. Every thing drops when the bell rings and you move on to something new.

One of the ones that on the surface could seem contrary to post modernism is his section on teaching intellectual dependency. School teaches kids that "we have to wait for other people better trained than ourselves to make meaning for our lives".
Only the teacher (really his superiors) is allowed to determine what should be studied, the kids are told what to think, and the good kids are the ones who think what they are supposed to, with a minimum of resistance.
The real effect of this lesson, however, along with a couple of the others is to kill personal passion. If you can't think original thoughts, if you can't pursue the things that interest you, whats the point?
I think that this is an underlying factor of the post-modern philosophy. It is largely impossible to be passionate about things that have no real meaning. Conversely, it is very difficult to see the depth of meaning present in anything, if you have no passion for that thing. The fact that so many young people are robbed of intellectual zeal, and passion for subject areas they might otherwise of loved, directly contributes to the idea that there is no meaning

I agree with you that post-modernism is a reaction against 'progressive' (really modernism, including rationality etc). Certainly that has been spurred by the failures of the 20th century, most noteably the horrors of the 20th centry. However, the way in which the philosophy is spread and kept alive is through education.

people who experienced WWI had their progressivism destroyed. This was less true with WWII but still obviously a significant impact. Yet post-modernism really didn't become the force it is today in those generations. They remained for the most part, modern and progressive.
Post-modernism has its roots laid in the generation of the 60's and vietnam, but it has blossomed among the current generation. A generation that has largely never experienced war, never personally, or first hand experienced the horrors produced by the 'isms' of the mid 20th century.

In many ways the current generation is one of the most self absorbed and unaware we have seen. They are largely post-modern in mind set, rejecting meaning, rejecting rationality, but not because they have personally experienced the failures of progressivism.

They have been taught confusion and disillusionment in school, by educators who themselves were confused and disillusioned.

[No Swansong]

hehe, now we're getting to the question of which came first the chicken or the egg.. or in our case, the paradigm shift, or the shift in educational philosophy (and results).

We are deffinetly living at the cusp of a philosophical change, from modernism to post modernism. This undoubtedly has already affected education. At the same time, however, there is a significant case to be made for the idea that educational philosophy over the last 50 years or more, contributed significantly to producing the current philosophical shift.

there is a book written by a teacher named John taylor Gatto, the title is "dumbing us down". Mr. Gatto was a well recognized educator in new york for many years. The premise of his book is that the american education system contains a series of underlying 'principles' (for lack of a better word) that it instills in the students.

I think he was spot on with his observations, and I would further argue that some of the principles he points out directly contribute to producing the post-modern mindset.
While both of you probably are more knowledgeable about the subject than I, I would like to point out a real life example.

The large public school system that we use to live in the midst of had a problem. The problem was that there was a large disparity between the standardized test scores of white children and African American children of similar economic status. Thus began a decade long "revision" of the curriculum etc. Sure enough ten years later it was announced that there was much progress made in reducing the disparity. The problem was that eventually it came to light that it was not an increase in the average African American students test score that caused the gap to shrink it was a decrease in the average score of white children. Nevertheless this was hailed as a victory because progress was being made. Of course the question becomes " what progress?"