Category Archive for ‘Education Theory’ at The Core Knowledge Blog

Archive for the 'Education Theory' Category

Blame the Building

Published by Robert Pondiscio on May 7, 2008 in Education Theory. 0 Comments

Edutopia, a George Lucas-funded education newsletter with a tendency to wander off into cloud cuckoo land, has a piece on its site about “buildings that teach” which claims the way a building is designed and used has a “profound impact” on the way students learn.

“In state-of-the-art learning environments, classrooms with straight rows of desks and a teacher lecturing in the front are gone,” writes architecture professor Anne Taylor. “Instead, the indoor spaces of the school are carefully planned to encourage learning and support the developmental needs of the whole person. They consist of places for students to engage in applied hands-on inquiry, problem solving, group work, discussions, presentations, and reflection.”

Couldn’t get any further than that. Feel free to read it and report back.

Bill Ayers Is Worse Than a Terrorist. He’s An Ed School Professor

Published by Robert Pondiscio on April 25, 2008 in Education Theory and Teacher Training. 1 Comment

Critics have taken issue Barack Obama’s relationship with his neighbor, former Weatherman Bill Ayers. But it’s not Ayers radical, bomb-making past that should trouble people, writes Sol Stern in City Journal, but the far greater harm inflicted on the nation’s schoolchildren by the political and educational movement in which Ayers plays a leading role today.

“What [Obama] can be blamed for is not acknowledging that his neighbor has a political agenda that, if successful, would make it impossible to lift academic achievement for disadvantaged children,” Stern writes. “Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.”

“Unfortunately, neither Obama nor his critics in the media seem to have a clue about Ayers’s current work and his widespread influence in the education schools,” Stern writes.

Shiny, Happy Elementary Schools

Published by Robert Pondiscio on April 14, 2008 in Education Practice and Education Theory. 0 Comments

When you hear the phrase “happiest place on Earth” chances are that you think of Disneyland. But why don’t you think of elementary school, asks Rick Miller, the founder of Kids at Hope, an Arizona-based nonprofit. After all, schools have three elements necessary for an ideal environment for children: they get to be with their friends, they learn about the world, and they’re surrounded by grownups who care about them. “So, did someone decide our schools shouldn’t be happy places?” Miller asks in a piece in the Arizona Republic. “Is the process of learning incompatible with happiness? Most importantly, do we even think about the term happy when it comes to our schools?”

“Some schools focus on a rigorous curriculum and pride themselves on high academic standards. Others experiment yearly with new disciplinary programs, trying to maintain a focus on academics while struggling with student behaviors,” Miller writes. “When you read the thousands of different mission statements schools define themselves by, it is unlikely you will find such words as ‘happy’ or ‘fun’ offered as descriptors. Why not? Shouldn’t our schools be places of ‘happiness’ and ‘fun,’ or should they be relegated to serious institutions where only an examination can effectively determine a child’s future?’

It’s a great point. I’ve observed classes at elite private schools where, to be frank, the teachers were perfectly ordinary. But what great schools almost always have is a first-rate environment. The kids love being there. Likewise, I’ve seen great teachers doing their best and struggling to be effective inside grim, mirthless dumps. It’s no surprise they struggle. Even hard-charging teachers, squarely focused on raising student achievement sometimes lose sight of kids’ simple need to have fun (I confess I did). Indeed, some of the worst offenders are the most earnest, well-intentioned, who try to transfer a laudable sense of urgency to their students. At many of our worst schools, concerned not just about test scores but discipline, fun is the first thing to go as teachers–especially new teachers–fret about keeping their kids under control. And if you’d like to visit the unhappiest place on Earth sometime, visit the faculty lounge at a lousy school. Cause and effect?

“Disney learned that to create the ‘happiest place on Earth,’ he needed to find happy people to work there,” says Miller. “Not just teachers and administrators but all people who are part of the campus culture. Interestingly, it’s also been discovered that happy people are hopeful people. Thus, creating learning institutions that are, indeed, a place to experience happiness and hopefulness for the future should be a top priority along with high academic standards in every one of this country’s schools. After all, the very roots of this nation were founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

How Women’s Lib Killed Public Schools

Published by Robert Pondiscio on April 9, 2008 in Education Theory and Teaching. 0 Comments

Women’s lib killed the public school system.

This eyebrow raising opinion comes courtesy of interesting blog called Cosmic Variance, run by a group of physicists and astrophysicists who hold forth about whatever they damn well please, thank you. They’ve been picking apart Matt Miller’s Atlantic piece about the crazy quilt of schools wrought by local control of education. (OK, Miller’s piece ran in January, but they’re physicists. Time is relative.)

Julianne Dalcanton, an Associate Professor of Astronomy at the University of Washington according to her bio on the site, writes about a conversation she had with a donor when she was a postdoc at the Carnegie Observatories. This elderly gent announced to her that “Women’s lib killed the public school system.”
“When I picked my jaw off the floor, I encouraged him to expand on his thesis, and found that he wasn’t completely nuts,” Dalcanton writes. “Back in the day, women of brains, talent, and ambition had two acceptable career options: nursing, and teaching. If I had been born 50 years earlier, I would not have a PhD in astrophysics. Instead, I would probably have grown up to be a school teacher, just like my grandmother. It didn’t have to pay that well, since really, what would have my other options have been? Not law school, not physics, not mechanical engineering, not finance. Today, the brightest women have far more options beyond teaching, and while some still teach, the vast majority of us work in other fields. The salaries in teaching remain low, as for many fields that have been dominated by women, guaranteeing that teaching is not as competitive with other career options available.”

Most of the commenters on Cosmic Variance, every bit as erudite as the authors, aren’t having a lot of this and let Professor Dalcanton know it. Fun reading on education in a fresh and unexpected corner of the blogosphere.

Child-Centered Learning: Are We Going Too Far?

Published by Diana Senechal on April 1, 2008 in Education Practice and Education Theory. 3 Comments

In The Fundamental Importance of the Brain and Learning for Education, Kurt W. Fischer and Mary Helen Immordino-Yang warn, “Expectations for educational neuroscience are extremely high, but at this point it could turn out to be just another fad, a popular enthusiasm that fades with time as the unreality of exaggerated expectations becomes clear.” Given Fischer’s role as advisor and former president of the International Mind, Brain and Education Society, one cannot easily dismiss such a statement. It is peculiar, in this light, that the NYC Department of Education would award a multi-million-dollar no-bid contract to a “brain-based” program like Schools Attuned®, which specifically trains teachers to diagnose students’ learning breakdowns in terms of brain function and apply relevant strategies. “Brain-based” and “child-centered” approaches both view the child (and brain) as the starting point—a laudable premise on the surface, but treacherous beneath.

My purpose here is not to criticize Schools Attuned® (whose workshops I have attended), nor to comment on the scientific aspects of brain-based programs in general. Rather, as a teacher of middle-school students, I ask whether our schools might not be taking child-centered and brain-based ideas too far, glorifying the strategy at the expense of knowledge, and accommodating the individual student beyond reason. As nice as it is to reach out to the kids, perhaps we ignore some of the dangers of over-accommodation: dilution of curriculum, isolation of the student, confusion of roles, and invasion of students’ privacy.

In Education and the General Welfare (1920), Frank K. Sechrist writes, “Any activity that is made an end in itself, when it is properly only a means to a higher end, is an educational fad.” Perhaps “success” is one such fad today. We are supposed to help every child succeed, but what does that mean? Success is only as meaningful as the thing it serves. One cannot “succeed” in general; one succeeds at a particular activity, for a particular purpose. In order to help students learn, we must establish a curriculum. Conversely, if we ignore curriculum, then we will chase our own tails in pursuit of success.

Some might argue that we are not ignoring curriculum, but rather tuning it to the individual. Why demand that an entire class read Antigone, when the individuals have different interests, levels, and needs? To these child-tuners I reply: How can we ignore two of the deepest human needs of all: to understand the world around us and to communicate with others? When I teach literature, music, or theatre to my students, I am often struck by the meanings they find and the bonds they form. Without common knowledge and common vocabulary, we are stranded and can only send out help signals.

The teacher, then, becomes the rescuer. Instead of conveying subject matter, she circulates from student to student, providing “strategies” for vague purposes. The “strategy” may be a tape recorder, checklist, behavior chart, mnemonic device, highlighting technique, stuffed animal, or soothing music. The teacher is now psychologist, maid, surrogate parent, and “guide on the side.” Students quickly figure out that teachers are supposed to serve them, and treat them accordingly. A teacher who actually teaches a specific book may be taken to task for not “differentiating” the instruction enough, or for making students read something they might not want to read. The teacher is supposed to turn her eyes away from the book and toward the child. Yet such a gaze has its dangers.

Perhaps the most insidious effect of this ultra-sensitive pedagogy is the invasiveness. We are supposed to scrutinize, diagnose, and remedy every possible learning obstacle in every child. Are they not entitled to some dignity and privacy? If the child’s mind wanders in class, must we find a “strategy” to rein the child back in? What about the child who loves daydreaming and is not harmed by it? Is it our duty or even our business to make every student perform in the way we expect? I always appreciated the teachers who let me be and who gave me help only when I asked for it. Students differ in this regard; but no child should be subjected to diagnoses that have not been substantiated by research, nor should teachers be required to diagnose brains. Teachers should remain teachers.

This is not to say that teachers should ignore students’ individual obstacles and challenges. By all means, teachers should do their best to help their students learn the subject at hand, striking the appropriate balance of class instruction and individual assistance. Teachers must know and love their subject. Within the context of excellent lessons, we can offer appropriate help to our students, who must respond with their own efforts and choices. If we do not give them this opportunity to learn and choose, then we will turn schools into social service centers– and futile ones at that, as we will have forgotten what they are for.

Diana Senechal teaches ESL and drama at a Brooklyn middle school and holds a Ph.D. in Slavic Languages and Literatures from Yale.

Teaching to the Testosterone

Published by Robert Pondiscio on March 4, 2008 in Education Practice, Education Theory and Teaching. 0 Comments

The New York Times Magazine entry on single-sex education has set tongues wagging across the edusphere. Alexander Russo likes it and posts an email from Richard Whitmire, USA Today’s editorial page editor and the head of the Education Writers Association who seems to favor single-sex ed, with caveats.

Writing over at the American Prospect, Ezra Klein dismisses single-sex ed proponent Leonard Sax as an “obvious crank.” Why that’s obvious wasn’t obvious to me, but no matter—the moment Klein described Sax as a “self-styled” neuroscientist it was obvious that what followed was going to be the product of a made-up mind. (Self-styled edublogger? Or do I need to be certified?)

The excellent Sara Mead, on the other hand is well-worth reading. She makes a point that can’t be made enough: “Actual neuroscientists…aren’t the ones banging the drum on gender-based education. In fact, many caution against trying to draw practical implications for schooling from their work….Jay Geidd, one of the preeminent neuroscientists studying brain development in children (including gender differences) cautions that gender is much too crude a tool to differentiate educational approaches: the variation within each gender is often larger than the average difference between genders, and there’s substantial overlap in the distributions.”

Continue reading ‘Teaching to the Testosterone’

Critical Thinking About Critical Thinking

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 18, 2008 in Education Practice and Education Theory. 0 Comments

There are two types of people in education: those who know the work of University of Virginia psychology professor Daniel T. Willingham, and those who should. A piece by Valerie Strauss in the Washington Post examines education’s fixation on teaching critical thinking skills. Willingham has a different view:

“There is no such thing,” he tells the Post.

Willingham and other cognitive psychologists say critical thinking skills are developed in relation to the content area in which they are acquired. They are not skills that can be acquired—or taught—in the abstract.

“You may have these fabulous critical-thinking skills, but you don’t know when they are appropriate,” Willingham says. “If you think of thought as having two components, you have factual knowledge that you know and the processes that manipulate those facts,” he added. “Everyone understands that half is no good when that half is knowledge. People don’t seem to understand that it works the other way. Having processes alone doesn’t work, either. You can’t acquire these processes in the absence of facts.”

Willingham questions the value of educational programs that offer a way to teach critical thinking — sometimes through exercises and brainteasers — that are not rooted in any particular subject. “To understand the structure and the nature of poetry, you need to read a lot of poems,” he tells the Post. “It’s the same thing with mathematics and science.”

Willingham, who is Core Knowledge board member, stole the show at EdTrust last November with his presentation “Teaching Content Is Teaching Reading” (If there’s a better rallying cry for curriculum reform, I haven’t heard it). And his regular columns in the AFT’s American Educator are required reading for the kinds of teachers who prefer research to the pedagogy du jour.

He is also the subject of a “myth busters” piece in the Post on teaching to kids “learning styles” — visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc. According to Willingham, “There is no evidence that the idea holds water.”

Multiple Literacies

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 17, 2008 in Education Theory. 0 Comments

Howard Gardner, who has made a lucrative career labeling skills and talents like musical ability and athleticism “intelligences,” is now doing the same for literacy. In an essay in the Washington Post, the Harvard professor is untroubled by dire reports of declining literacy because — what else? — “an ensemble of literacies — will continue to thrive, but in forms and formats we can’t yet envision.”

Thankfully, Gardner observes that “even in the new digital media, it’s essential to be able to read and write fluently and, if you want to capture people’s attention, to write well.” He doesn’t foresee books disappearing, although the printed word bound up at length between covers may lose its most-favored format status.

“But whatever our digital future brings, we need to overcome the perils of dualistic thinking, the notion that what lies ahead is either a utopia or a dystopia,” Gardner concludes. “If we’re going to make sense of what’s happening with literacy in our culture, we need to be able to triangulate: to bear in mind our needs and desires, the media as they once were and currently are, and the media as they’re continually transforming. It’s not easy to do. But maybe there’s a technology, just waiting to be invented, that will help us acquire this invaluable cognitive power.”

Ed Schools: Undermining Accountability?

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 11, 2008 in Education Theory, Educational Policy, Research and Reports and Teacher Training. 1 Comment

George Cunningham throws down a gauntlet at the feet of state policy makers in an interview with Michael F. Shaughnessy of ednews.org, noting that ed schools are effectively thwarting standards-based education and accountability.

A former professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology at the University of Louisville, Cunningham, recently issued a paper critical of teacher training at education schools in North Carolina and nationwide. While the public and policy-makers demand greater accountability, ed schools “do not think that academic achievement is an important purpose for schools,” he says. “They are committed to the achievement of a set of non-academic goals such as diversity, technology, critical thinking skills, and social justice.”

In plain but powerful terms Cunningham describes the disconnect between the accountability message being preached by the public and policy-makers and what new teachers are bringing to their jobs. “Newly minted teachers come out of education schools either with no awareness of the importance of academic achievement tests or with an acquired hostility towards them,” he notes, calling the situation “unsustainable.”

Continue reading ‘Ed Schools: Undermining Accountability?’

The Children Aren’t Above Average

Published by Robert Pondiscio on January 31, 2008 in Education Practice, Education Theory and Opinion. 0 Comments

If you missed Garrison Keillor’s lament about the state of education on Salon yesterday (thanks A. Russo) take a look. Stick around to scroll through the responses, many of which can be summarized as “I love Prarie Home Companion, but…”

“This is a bleak picture for an old Democrat,” writes Keillor. “Face it, the schools are not run by Republican oligarchs in top hats and spats but by perfectly nice, caring, sharing people, with a smattering of yoga/raga/tofu/mojo/mantra folks like my old confreres. Nice people are failing these kids, but when they are called on it, they get very huffy. When the grand poobah Ph.D.s of education stand up and blow, they speak with great confidence about theories of teaching, and considering the test results, the bums ought to be thrown out.”

Lots of nice people getting very huffy in the comments section.