Developmentalism: An Obscure but Pervasive Restriction
Despite continuing criticism of public education, experimentally demonstrated and field tested teaching methods have been ignored, rejected, and abandoned. Instead of a stable consensus regarding best teaching practices, there seems only an unending succession of innovations. A longstanding educatio...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Book |
Published: |
Arizona State University,
1996-04-01T00:00:00Z.
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
MARC
LEADER | 00000 am a22000003u 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | doaj_1f9af0fde5b942c0917536d157fbf14f | ||
042 | |a dc | ||
100 | 1 | 0 | |a J. E. Stone |e author |
245 | 0 | 0 | |a Developmentalism: An Obscure but Pervasive Restriction |
260 | |b Arizona State University, |c 1996-04-01T00:00:00Z. | ||
500 | |a 1068-2341 | ||
520 | |a Despite continuing criticism of public education, experimentally demonstrated and field tested teaching methods have been ignored, rejected, and abandoned. Instead of a stable consensus regarding best teaching practices, there seems only an unending succession of innovations. A longstanding educational doctrine appears to underlie this anomalous state of affairs. Termed developmentalism, it presumes "natural" ontogenesis to be optimal and it requires experimentally demonstrated teaching practices to overcome a presumption that they interfere with an optimal developmental trajectory. It also discourages teachers and parents from asserting themselves with children. Instead of effective interventions, it seeks the preservation of a postulated natural perfection. Developmentalism's rich history is expressed in a literature extending over 400 years. Its notable exponents include Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget; and its most recent expressions include "developmentally appropriate practice" and "constructivism." In the years during which it gained ascendance, developmentalism served as a basis for rejecting harsh and inhumane teaching methods. Today it impedes efforts to hold schools accountable for student academic achievement. | ||
546 | |a EN | ||
546 | |a ES | ||
546 | |a PT | ||
690 | |a Education | ||
690 | |a L | ||
655 | 7 | |a article |2 local | |
786 | 0 | |n Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol 4, p 8 (1996) | |
787 | 0 | |n http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/631 | |
787 | 0 | |n https://doaj.org/toc/1068-2341 | |
856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doaj.org/article/1f9af0fde5b942c0917536d157fbf14f |z Connect to this object online. |