The tweet is not on Perry's Twitter page. If he didn't tweet this, RiShawn Biddle, a well-known reformy blogger, owes him an apology.
If Perry did tweet it, and then removed it, I would like to know what thought he was trying to express. I can certainly understand if he looked at the tweet and thought, "Oh, that's not what I meant to say at all!" I personally think it would be more ethical to keep the tweet up and apologize for it or clarify your thoughts in another tweet, but that's just me.
In any case: what, Dr. Perry, did you mean?
5 comments:
He probably meant something like this article: http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_schools_boys.html
or this: http://www.themarknews.com/articles/3000-has-the-feminization-of-education-gone-too-far
or this: http://www.amazon.com/Feminization-schools-strategies-potential-Administrator/dp/B002Q8WEKS/ref=sr_1_8/188-3563931-9070254?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279636542&sr=8-8?ie=UTF8&tag=smartentreres-20
And who can forget (having once read) Grant Wiggins' proposal to abolsh the study of fiction in high schools--for the sake of the boys! Yeah, he later claimed it was a hoax; nobody believed him. (His orginal piece--try to find it--starts off with "I'm not kidding.")
Anyway this guy's UBD method is all over the place. Money's rollin' in --that's what it's all about, eh? And the war on women is pretty important too.
http://www.angelamaiers.com/2010/12/response-to-grant-wiggins-banning-fiction-proposal.html
Found it. Here's the final statement:
“So, let’s make a concerted effort to rid the curriculum of most fiction. At least half the population will thank you.”
Now which half is that?
http://www.fluency21.com/blogpost.cfm?blogID=1663
Holy cats! That Wiggins piece is something. It's right on the border of parody, but it's pretty clear to me he's serious.
The thing is, he does have a point about a lack of non-fiction in the curriculum, and how there's a disconnect between asking kids to write non-fiction essays when they read so much fiction.
But the argument he uses is awfully sexist - and suspect: the chestnuts I see include Catcher in the Rye, Huck Finn, & Lord of the Flies. And all that Shakespeare. Hardly chick-lit.
Not my field of expertise, I admit.
Yes, every crackpot idea contains a germ of truth. But it's part of the larger plan:
Pratical education for the proles . . .
They can get their stories from TV anyway.
I think you're right about the anti-women thing, Duke. Maybe it's just part of the conservo package, but it's there.
Now what did we learn about bullies in all those workshops? Q. Why do they do abuse? A. Because they CAN! Or because we let them.
Now,I've just ten minutes for George Eliot before I turn in.
(I think she could have whupped both Mr. W and your troll! Hah!)
Post a Comment