Deconstructionism reality in public schools, part 2


I don’t remember where I posted Part 1 of this article, but here is the second part…and it speaks to the very core of what I’ve been saying about the political and social agenda (marxist-socialist propaganda in texts & teachings) in public schools. Please read carefully.

Rotten to the Core (Part 2): Readin’, Writin’ and Deconstructionism - Michelle Malkin - [page]


Michelle has done a great job in this series. I’m gonna put a link to part one here for those that didn’t read it yet so they don’t have to look for it.
Thanks CT.
Michelle Malkin » Rotten to the Core: Obama’s War on Academic Standards (Part 1)


A companion article on the mess worth a read: PJ Media » Understanding the Educational Mess We’re In

" We have long passed the time, laments Welsh poet Gillian Clarke in her new book Ice, “when the map of the earth was something we knew by/heart.” It is as if we have simply forgotten the central axiom of human development: if you know very little, you cannot do very much. Method can never be a surrogate for substance. You must work to have something there if there is ever to be something there to work with."


Townhall, as usual, is being biased. The quote they give about giving no context for the Gettysburg Address is not a quote at all, and in the article they even say that the guidelines say to refrain from giving historical context at the outset.

They then attack word cloud methods. I guess just because. Ignore the fact that they’ve already read the Gettysburg Address, studying the wording used and how often they are used is obviously an evil liberal agenda. Please, what nonsense is this?

And then deconstructionism is evil, apparently, because…well, just because. Deconstructing an idea is obviously an attempt to obscure it, not explore it more.

How exactly does deconstructing Lincoln’s speech make it LESS understandable? How does studying the wording make it LESS pertinent? How is deconstructionism bad at all?