Emily asked, "Why are we afraid to tell students that the world is not fair?"
This is an excellent question worthy of discussion, and I can only begin to scratch the surface here, but I shall do my best to present some reasons for why we do this.
The primary reason for not telling students that the world is unfair, at least at lower levels, is to preserve in them some element of idealism. Why would we do this? Frankly, it's vital to keep idealism alive because without it, we have no hope of ever moving forward. We must first envision a better world, an ideal world, so that we may take practical steps to move towards a more equitable world.
There is no doubt that the world, as it is, is inherently unfair. Some are given far more opportunities than others. But this does not always have to be the case. We have the potential to make a fairer, more equitable world (not perfectly fair, as there are always elements outside of our control), but we need to have the drive to do so. We need to believe that we can make the world better, need that drive to improve our lots in life, or we are doomed to slavery and oppression. To deny even that seed of hope to our next generation is a disservice to our species, our society, and ourselves.
To end with a question: Is it more important to present the world as it is, or the world as it could be?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Delivering Educational Products, and Other Free-Market Frauds
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/03-4
I read this article today and thought immediately of PTL. There is something perverse about describing education in economic terminology, teachers as "producers," students as "consumers," and applying the mythological "free market" to higher education. This is especially disturbing in light of a recent lawsuit being brought against a for-profit college chain under allegations of fraud. Is this the "free market" we want in charge of our education?
There is little doubt that privatization is actually harmful to the consumer when it comes to services. Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those of the private insurance industry. Privatization is proving a blow to public libraries. And of course, for-profit colleges suck up federal dollars to give worthless degrees to students who are then forced to default on their loans because they cannot find a job (as the article on fraud mentions, for-profit colleges make up 12% of the students in higher education, but takes in 25% of federal education aid, and 50% of students who default on education loans attended for-profits).
To end with a question: Is it wise to treat a school like a business?
I read this article today and thought immediately of PTL. There is something perverse about describing education in economic terminology, teachers as "producers," students as "consumers," and applying the mythological "free market" to higher education. This is especially disturbing in light of a recent lawsuit being brought against a for-profit college chain under allegations of fraud. Is this the "free market" we want in charge of our education?
There is little doubt that privatization is actually harmful to the consumer when it comes to services. Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those of the private insurance industry. Privatization is proving a blow to public libraries. And of course, for-profit colleges suck up federal dollars to give worthless degrees to students who are then forced to default on their loans because they cannot find a job (as the article on fraud mentions, for-profit colleges make up 12% of the students in higher education, but takes in 25% of federal education aid, and 50% of students who default on education loans attended for-profits).
To end with a question: Is it wise to treat a school like a business?
Monday, May 2, 2011
A New Measure for Classroom Quality
A recent article in the New York Times addresses one of the key elements of the education reform "debates" that have been going on of late -- specifically, how to address the quality of a teacher.
The article puts forward a simple method of measuring teacher quality: amount of instruction time. In brief, the author suggests that an effective way to measure teacher performance is how much class time is spent on instruction vs time spent trying to maintain order, conduct non-instructional classroom business, etc. In addition, making the teachers available to students for remedial instruction and tutoring, as well as availability of online resources for tutoring, would help narrow the gap education gap between those children of rich, highly educated families and poor, less-educated families.
On the surface, this seems like a good idea. There is certainly no denying that more efficient delivery of content, and availability of extra help resources would be a boon to students. However, there are practical problems with some elements. The assumption that poorer students will have access to the internet outside of school may well be a dangerous one to make, and the success of efficient delivery of material is still dependent on the students being able to actually come to school in the first place (and be motivated to do so). These extra resources, and focus on efficient teaching, are nice, but resources that are unused are of little value. Great ideas overall, but I doubt that they will be effective alone.
To end with a question: How might we best encourage underperforming students to take advantage of educational resources to supplement their education outside of the classroom?
The article puts forward a simple method of measuring teacher quality: amount of instruction time. In brief, the author suggests that an effective way to measure teacher performance is how much class time is spent on instruction vs time spent trying to maintain order, conduct non-instructional classroom business, etc. In addition, making the teachers available to students for remedial instruction and tutoring, as well as availability of online resources for tutoring, would help narrow the gap education gap between those children of rich, highly educated families and poor, less-educated families.
On the surface, this seems like a good idea. There is certainly no denying that more efficient delivery of content, and availability of extra help resources would be a boon to students. However, there are practical problems with some elements. The assumption that poorer students will have access to the internet outside of school may well be a dangerous one to make, and the success of efficient delivery of material is still dependent on the students being able to actually come to school in the first place (and be motivated to do so). These extra resources, and focus on efficient teaching, are nice, but resources that are unused are of little value. Great ideas overall, but I doubt that they will be effective alone.
To end with a question: How might we best encourage underperforming students to take advantage of educational resources to supplement their education outside of the classroom?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
On Private Vs Public Schooling: A Response
Shelby asked: "Which would be the more effective route to take for educational reformation: more alternative, private schools, or revamping public schools?"
As I have mentioned numerous times before, I am a product of private education (parochial school for K-8, Catholic prep school for 9-12). My parents insisted on sending me to private schools because of the sorry state of our town's public schools (the public high school in my hometown lost its accreditation when I was applying to private high schools). I have never been in a public school, so my only experience with the public education system is indirect, through articles and books describing it.
Despite this, I am a firm believer that effective education reform must make revamping our public schools a key facet. As Shelby pointed out in her post, not all (or even most) people can afford a private education for their children. Indeed, I am convinced that one of the key factors in the success of private over public education is that private schools tend to have far better resources than public schools. As I view education as a public good, our education reform efforts must necessarily rely strongly on public schools.
I was originally going to blog about the article that Shelby linked (I'll provide the link here, as well, since I will draw that in). Our teachers are, without a doubt, woefully underpaid and underprepared for the challenges that they are faced with, especially considering the growing hostility that state and local governments seem to be showing towards them. We do not pay our teachers enough to make a living, we don't give them enough resources to properly teach, we stick them with far too many children to teach, and then demonize them as "bad teachers" when their students fail.
However, this emphasis on schools may be missing the elephant in the room. In a letter to the editor to the NY Times, one teacher asks "what am I to do with the one [student] who spent two weeks in a mental hospital, the two who have run away, the one with no ride to school, the three who have been suspended for drugs and the countless others who attend class only one or two days a week?"
School is an important place to try to improve. But investment in to schools will be inadequate unless we couple it with a renewed War on Poverty and work to provide a better home life for our nation's poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
To end with a question: Can education alone counter the deleterious affects of poverty?
As I have mentioned numerous times before, I am a product of private education (parochial school for K-8, Catholic prep school for 9-12). My parents insisted on sending me to private schools because of the sorry state of our town's public schools (the public high school in my hometown lost its accreditation when I was applying to private high schools). I have never been in a public school, so my only experience with the public education system is indirect, through articles and books describing it.
Despite this, I am a firm believer that effective education reform must make revamping our public schools a key facet. As Shelby pointed out in her post, not all (or even most) people can afford a private education for their children. Indeed, I am convinced that one of the key factors in the success of private over public education is that private schools tend to have far better resources than public schools. As I view education as a public good, our education reform efforts must necessarily rely strongly on public schools.
I was originally going to blog about the article that Shelby linked (I'll provide the link here, as well, since I will draw that in). Our teachers are, without a doubt, woefully underpaid and underprepared for the challenges that they are faced with, especially considering the growing hostility that state and local governments seem to be showing towards them. We do not pay our teachers enough to make a living, we don't give them enough resources to properly teach, we stick them with far too many children to teach, and then demonize them as "bad teachers" when their students fail.
However, this emphasis on schools may be missing the elephant in the room. In a letter to the editor to the NY Times, one teacher asks "what am I to do with the one [student] who spent two weeks in a mental hospital, the two who have run away, the one with no ride to school, the three who have been suspended for drugs and the countless others who attend class only one or two days a week?"
School is an important place to try to improve. But investment in to schools will be inadequate unless we couple it with a renewed War on Poverty and work to provide a better home life for our nation's poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
To end with a question: Can education alone counter the deleterious affects of poverty?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Teacher as Authority Figure: A Response
Stephen asked: "Can a teacher be an authority figure while truly fostering skeptical independent thought about authority figures?"
I think that it is more than possible for a teacher to be an authority figure while fostering independent thought about authority figures. The key is that the teacher must not exercise authority arbitrarily. A good teacher should be a good model for a fair authority figure, specifically:
The teacher should not inflict punishments on students arbitrarily.
The teacher should explain to the students why the rules exist, why it is to their advantage to follow them, and the consequences of not following them.
The teacher should use appropriate punishments fitting to the offense committed.
The teacher should respect students, and in return expect to be respected.
The teacher should show willingness to listen to the needs of the students, and respond accordingly, within reason.
Yes, this may not be a particularly specific list, and perhaps a tad vague. But the point is that a teacher, I think, can and should be a model authority figure, and through that role guide students into navigating relationships with authority figures.
To end with a question: How much authority should a teacher have in the classroom (or, put another way, when should the teacher assert authority, and when should the teacher defer to other authorities (administration, parents, law enforcement, etc))?
I think that it is more than possible for a teacher to be an authority figure while fostering independent thought about authority figures. The key is that the teacher must not exercise authority arbitrarily. A good teacher should be a good model for a fair authority figure, specifically:
The teacher should not inflict punishments on students arbitrarily.
The teacher should explain to the students why the rules exist, why it is to their advantage to follow them, and the consequences of not following them.
The teacher should use appropriate punishments fitting to the offense committed.
The teacher should respect students, and in return expect to be respected.
The teacher should show willingness to listen to the needs of the students, and respond accordingly, within reason.
Yes, this may not be a particularly specific list, and perhaps a tad vague. But the point is that a teacher, I think, can and should be a model authority figure, and through that role guide students into navigating relationships with authority figures.
To end with a question: How much authority should a teacher have in the classroom (or, put another way, when should the teacher assert authority, and when should the teacher defer to other authorities (administration, parents, law enforcement, etc))?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Is Learning Fun?
A line from Kim's response to a question on a previous post of mine has gotten me thinking. Kim asserted that "It is true that learning is fun." But is it? I'm not so sure.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/who-we-are/201104/how-educators-misunderstand-students
In the above article, the author, Steven Reiss, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Psyciatry at Ohio State University, says that the answer is, quite simply, "no." His assertion is that learning is not, in fact, fun, except for a small number of people who are so enamored with it that they become educators. These individuals make the mistake of assuming that something that is true for them must be true for everyone.
In fact, google "is learning fun?" and the results come up with a plethora of results on how to MAKE learning fun. This should cause some pause. If learning is inherently fun, why must we take extra effort to MAKE it fun? Shouldn't it be fun in and of itself?
This error, the assumption that learning is fun for ONE person must mean that learning is fun for EVERYONE, reeks of the sort of blindness that can commonly be seen in evangelists. They are firm in their belief that THEIR church is the right way and the best way to reach, and thus feel compelled to try to convince others that their way is right. But just because this religion is right for the evangelist does not necessarily mean it will be right for the family next door, the politician down the street, or the atheists across the country. Intelligent, reasonable people would find this idea absurd. So why do we cling to the notion that learning must be fun, when most children (and adults!) clearly do not find it either fun or worthwhile?
This post is filled with questions, so feel free to answer any one of those, or indeed the title of the post: Is learning fun?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/who-we-are/201104/how-educators-misunderstand-students
In the above article, the author, Steven Reiss, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Psyciatry at Ohio State University, says that the answer is, quite simply, "no." His assertion is that learning is not, in fact, fun, except for a small number of people who are so enamored with it that they become educators. These individuals make the mistake of assuming that something that is true for them must be true for everyone.
In fact, google "is learning fun?" and the results come up with a plethora of results on how to MAKE learning fun. This should cause some pause. If learning is inherently fun, why must we take extra effort to MAKE it fun? Shouldn't it be fun in and of itself?
This error, the assumption that learning is fun for ONE person must mean that learning is fun for EVERYONE, reeks of the sort of blindness that can commonly be seen in evangelists. They are firm in their belief that THEIR church is the right way and the best way to reach
This post is filled with questions, so feel free to answer any one of those, or indeed the title of the post: Is learning fun?
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The Talking Heads of School Reform
This article lays out some of the major problems of the education reform "debates" that have been going on in this country: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/weekinreview/10reform.html
The above quote illustrates a problem that, while certainly prevalent in all forms of political discourse today, is especially disheartening when dealing with an issues as important as education. Any real discussion is drowned out by the entrenched partisan interests that seem to do nothing but talk past each other about little details, while completely missing the heart of the issue. The worst of it is that (charitably, perhaps) these are well-meaning people with genuine concern for our education system, who are simply woefully ignorant of the big picture, clinging madly to details like standardized tests or charter schools, trying to find a panacea for our ailing school system without seeming to realize that meaningful reform will require much more than this or that fix.
The issue is much bigger than just looking at schools. Our schools mirror our society. If we want to fix failing schools, we cannot do it by simply trying to institute more standardized tests or replacing public schools with charter schools. We need to fix the inequalities in the economic and political system that lead to the issues we face in schools. When there are no jobs, when crime is the only way to make a living, when children go to sleep hungry because their parents can't afford food (and 15 million children in this nation live in poverty), it's absurd to think that a standardized test is going to help their education. They need stability at home to succeed in school and beyond, and to achieve this, we need to bolster our social welfare programs, and reorganize our economy to bring decent jobs so our struggling families can make ends meet.
To end with a question: Schools are undoubtedly vital institutions for the perpetuation of our society. Given that, can meaningful school reform be successfully enacted absent reforms to the surrounding political and economic systems?
As is often the case with morally charged policy issues — remember welfare reform? — false dichotomies seem to have replaced fruitful conversation. If you support the teachers’ union, you don’t care about the students. If you are critical of the teachers’ union, you don’t care about the teachers. If you are in favor of charter schools, you are opposed to public schools. If you believe in increased testing, you are on board with the corruption of our liberal society’s most cherished educational values. If you are against increased testing, you are against accountability. It goes on. Neither side seems capable of listening to the other.
The above quote illustrates a problem that, while certainly prevalent in all forms of political discourse today, is especially disheartening when dealing with an issues as important as education. Any real discussion is drowned out by the entrenched partisan interests that seem to do nothing but talk past each other about little details, while completely missing the heart of the issue. The worst of it is that (charitably, perhaps) these are well-meaning people with genuine concern for our education system, who are simply woefully ignorant of the big picture, clinging madly to details like standardized tests or charter schools, trying to find a panacea for our ailing school system without seeming to realize that meaningful reform will require much more than this or that fix.
The issue is much bigger than just looking at schools. Our schools mirror our society. If we want to fix failing schools, we cannot do it by simply trying to institute more standardized tests or replacing public schools with charter schools. We need to fix the inequalities in the economic and political system that lead to the issues we face in schools. When there are no jobs, when crime is the only way to make a living, when children go to sleep hungry because their parents can't afford food (and 15 million children in this nation live in poverty), it's absurd to think that a standardized test is going to help their education. They need stability at home to succeed in school and beyond, and to achieve this, we need to bolster our social welfare programs, and reorganize our economy to bring decent jobs so our struggling families can make ends meet.
To end with a question: Schools are undoubtedly vital institutions for the perpetuation of our society. Given that, can meaningful school reform be successfully enacted absent reforms to the surrounding political and economic systems?
On the Utility of Higher Education: A Response
Bryan asked: "Do you agree with the idea that college is not meant for everyone?"
I most certainly agree with this idea. As Bryan pointed out in his post, there are many jobs for which a college education is not required, and there are certainly a number of people who are in college only because of the oft-touted belief that one needs a college education to be able to get a good, high-paying job.
There are, of course, certain merits to college education. It can provide specialized skills that one might need for certain careers, like those in medicine. Extended schooling also gives the student the time and resources to develop a deep body of knowledge, useful for careers in education or research-based fields like the natural sciences.
But there is no need for everyone to pursue an advanced degree. Indeed, a large body of college graduates can have very negative effects. A number of fields are facing the issue of too many qualified candidates -- great for the companies (and colleges!) that are hiring, but not so much for the candidates who spent years getting a degree only to be unable to find a job as each position they apply for is heavily contested by other equally qualified candidates. And of course, our country has far too many lawyers.
The question of who should get a college education ultimately comes down to finding the skills of the individual, and the sometimes difficult project of matching those skills to an occupation that will pay a decent wage.
To end with a question: Is pursuing a college education worthwhile if one does not intend to use the skills from that education (for example, perhaps, going to medical school if one does not want to practice medicine)?
I most certainly agree with this idea. As Bryan pointed out in his post, there are many jobs for which a college education is not required, and there are certainly a number of people who are in college only because of the oft-touted belief that one needs a college education to be able to get a good, high-paying job.
There are, of course, certain merits to college education. It can provide specialized skills that one might need for certain careers, like those in medicine. Extended schooling also gives the student the time and resources to develop a deep body of knowledge, useful for careers in education or research-based fields like the natural sciences.
But there is no need for everyone to pursue an advanced degree. Indeed, a large body of college graduates can have very negative effects. A number of fields are facing the issue of too many qualified candidates -- great for the companies (and colleges!) that are hiring, but not so much for the candidates who spent years getting a degree only to be unable to find a job as each position they apply for is heavily contested by other equally qualified candidates. And of course, our country has far too many lawyers.
The question of who should get a college education ultimately comes down to finding the skills of the individual, and the sometimes difficult project of matching those skills to an occupation that will pay a decent wage.
To end with a question: Is pursuing a college education worthwhile if one does not intend to use the skills from that education (for example, perhaps, going to medical school if one does not want to practice medicine)?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A Primer on Class Struggle
As I mentioned in class today, this article gives a very concise introduction to identifying class struggle in modern America. I highly recommend it.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Expectations and Relatability: A Response
Mike asked: "Do you remember more from stricter, hard-grading, coercive teachers? Cool, enticing teachers? Any other type of teachers? Have you felt your attitude about certain teachers/teaching styles has shifted since beginning college?"
There lies a great difficulty in determining what kind of teacher is "best," as different students will be better served by different types of teachers performing in different ways.
In my own experience, for example, I have found that I work best under teachers who have high expectations for students, but maintain a somewhat open, almost laid-back classroom. The best example I can draw from prep school was my Junior Honors English teacher. He was one of the toughest graders in the school, and we all knew it. But he was hardly coercive in his tactics. He was funny, social, very interested in his students' well-being, more than willing to take extra time after class to talk with students about not only class, but anything they had on their minds. Our classes were largely driven by discussion, and he had a knack for drawing his students out and engaging them in the discussion of the text. Combined with his infectious enthusiasm, this teacher never failed to bring the best out of his students -- as long as they were willing to put in the work.
College has only reinforced that the best teachers, for me, are the ones who have high expectations but hold a genuine interest in their students. The teachers a student can approach to talk about class and about life, the ones who care about their subject as much as they care about their students, and who are willing to put in the effort wherever possible to engage the interested students, seem to be best. Which returns us to the question of engaging the students.
One can have the best teacher in the world, but if the student is not interested in the subject, the possibility of real, lasting learning is slim. What, then, do we do about such situations? I have my own thoughts, but I shall save them for another post.
To end with a question (or two): Should we require students to take classes in subjects in which they are not interested? At what point do our intentions of ensuring an educated person begin to violate the autonomy of the student?
There lies a great difficulty in determining what kind of teacher is "best," as different students will be better served by different types of teachers performing in different ways.
In my own experience, for example, I have found that I work best under teachers who have high expectations for students, but maintain a somewhat open, almost laid-back classroom. The best example I can draw from prep school was my Junior Honors English teacher. He was one of the toughest graders in the school, and we all knew it. But he was hardly coercive in his tactics. He was funny, social, very interested in his students' well-being, more than willing to take extra time after class to talk with students about not only class, but anything they had on their minds. Our classes were largely driven by discussion, and he had a knack for drawing his students out and engaging them in the discussion of the text. Combined with his infectious enthusiasm, this teacher never failed to bring the best out of his students -- as long as they were willing to put in the work.
College has only reinforced that the best teachers, for me, are the ones who have high expectations but hold a genuine interest in their students. The teachers a student can approach to talk about class and about life, the ones who care about their subject as much as they care about their students, and who are willing to put in the effort wherever possible to engage the interested students, seem to be best. Which returns us to the question of engaging the students.
One can have the best teacher in the world, but if the student is not interested in the subject, the possibility of real, lasting learning is slim. What, then, do we do about such situations? I have my own thoughts, but I shall save them for another post.
To end with a question (or two): Should we require students to take classes in subjects in which they are not interested? At what point do our intentions of ensuring an educated person begin to violate the autonomy of the student?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Value of Testing?
Jacob asked: "We talk often of testing alternatives, but what benefit do tests provide that we must replace?"
A proper answer to this question must begin with an examination of why we use tests in the first place. Tests, to the best of my knowledge, are intended to be a tool for measuring the academic prowess of a student. While they may not always live up to that intention, the hope at least is that they can show us what students understand, and what they have yet to learn.
This measurement of students' abilities and potential is somewhat important, though primarily within the school system. Top universities only want to take the brightest students, so that the universities' reputation for excellence is maintained, and they can continue to attract intelligent students, professors at the cutting edge of their fields, and donations from powerful and successful alumni and other organizations. In a similar vein, we want to try to attract intelligent people to teach our children in schools (a goal that would be much easier if teachers were given better pay and more respect in our society, but that's beside the point). And how do we determine if a person is fit to be a teacher? We give them tests to try to measure their knowledge of the subjects they will be teaching, and their ability to impart that knowledge in their students. Again, tests may or may not actually be useful in these aims, but those goals are what we strive for when we test.
This is as full a definition as I can muster as to why we have testing. Imprecise a tool as they may be, tests seem to be the only method we have of determining a student's academic strengths and potential.
To end with a question (or three): Given how little grades seem to mean outside of the academy, might it be possible to do away with them? How important is measuring academic ability within the academy? And if we were to get rid of grades, how might we restructure our education system to best benefit students?
A proper answer to this question must begin with an examination of why we use tests in the first place. Tests, to the best of my knowledge, are intended to be a tool for measuring the academic prowess of a student. While they may not always live up to that intention, the hope at least is that they can show us what students understand, and what they have yet to learn.
This measurement of students' abilities and potential is somewhat important, though primarily within the school system. Top universities only want to take the brightest students, so that the universities' reputation for excellence is maintained, and they can continue to attract intelligent students, professors at the cutting edge of their fields, and donations from powerful and successful alumni and other organizations. In a similar vein, we want to try to attract intelligent people to teach our children in schools (a goal that would be much easier if teachers were given better pay and more respect in our society, but that's beside the point). And how do we determine if a person is fit to be a teacher? We give them tests to try to measure their knowledge of the subjects they will be teaching, and their ability to impart that knowledge in their students. Again, tests may or may not actually be useful in these aims, but those goals are what we strive for when we test.
This is as full a definition as I can muster as to why we have testing. Imprecise a tool as they may be, tests seem to be the only method we have of determining a student's academic strengths and potential.
To end with a question (or three): Given how little grades seem to mean outside of the academy, might it be possible to do away with them? How important is measuring academic ability within the academy? And if we were to get rid of grades, how might we restructure our education system to best benefit students?
Blogging about Babies: Roots of Empathy
I am rather surprised (and mildly disappointed with myself) to see that I have not posted yet on a wonderful program: Roots of Empathy.
The "Roots of Empathy" program is based on a simple premise: babies bring out the nurturing instincts in humans, and thus interacting with them is a useful tool for battling bullying in schools. As discussed in this New York Times article, it's quite effective: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/fighting-bullying-with-babies/
The article describes how the interaction with the infant has a tremendous affect on the students, drawing out their nurturing instincts and making the class a calmer, kinder place -- and this from just one day a month of interacting with an infant.
There are many lessons we can take from this program. As a few suggestions: humans are not meant to live in age-segregated isolation; humans have a natural tendency to care for others when in a natural setting; babies are awesome. Whatever you take from it, though, one thing is certain: interactions with young children and infants is extremely beneficial for those people (children, adolescents, and adults) who care for them.
To end with a question: Should programs like "Roots of Empathy" be more widely used in schools?
The "Roots of Empathy" program is based on a simple premise: babies bring out the nurturing instincts in humans, and thus interacting with them is a useful tool for battling bullying in schools. As discussed in this New York Times article, it's quite effective: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/fighting-bullying-with-babies/
The article describes how the interaction with the infant has a tremendous affect on the students, drawing out their nurturing instincts and making the class a calmer, kinder place -- and this from just one day a month of interacting with an infant.
There are many lessons we can take from this program. As a few suggestions: humans are not meant to live in age-segregated isolation; humans have a natural tendency to care for others when in a natural setting; babies are awesome. Whatever you take from it, though, one thing is certain: interactions with young children and infants is extremely beneficial for those people (children, adolescents, and adults) who care for them.
To end with a question: Should programs like "Roots of Empathy" be more widely used in schools?
Grades and Grades: Age Segregation in Primary and Secondary School
We began to touch on this in class on Wednesday, but I wanted to give a more explicit treatment to this: "grades" in the sense of age segregation (first grade, fifth grade, etc).
Perhaps one of the most strikingly illogical aspects of our K-12 education system is this arbitrary division of children by age. Nowhere else in society are people segregated by age as they are in school. In an office, we do not have separate areas and expectations of a 22 year old versus a 45 year old. We do not maintain separate grocery stores for 30 year olds and 50 year olds. Even in universities, such age segregation does not happen. Any given class in university can have a spread of ages, from the 18 year old freshman to the 60+ year old non-trad taking a course simply for the joy of learning. And yet, in K-12, we box up all the 6 year olds with 6 year olds, 9 year olds with 9 year olds, and we consider this to be normal.
I will touch more on the issues of age segregation later. For now, though, I would like to relate this to our discussion of grades, for this is but one useful example of the downfalls of age segregation. By giving grades, we expect a certain level of performance from students. We have a notion of what a 10 year old child SHOULD know, and give grades to measure that. The problem comes when we realize that the grading rubric comes to an average. The average 7 year old SHOULD be able to pass this. The danger of averages is that you have extremes at both ends, and both of these are punished. The child who is not quite up to our level of work expected of his age is made to look stupid, ridiculed for his inability to maintain the level of work expected of his age. The above average student fairs no better. The child who is above average is held back, forced to do work she has already shown herself more than capable of completing, and she finds herself locked in to her grade because of her age, denying her the advancement of her education that she is more than capable of achieving should we give her the chance.
To end with a question: How might we equitably address differences in academic ability in children in regards to their education?
Perhaps one of the most strikingly illogical aspects of our K-12 education system is this arbitrary division of children by age. Nowhere else in society are people segregated by age as they are in school. In an office, we do not have separate areas and expectations of a 22 year old versus a 45 year old. We do not maintain separate grocery stores for 30 year olds and 50 year olds. Even in universities, such age segregation does not happen. Any given class in university can have a spread of ages, from the 18 year old freshman to the 60+ year old non-trad taking a course simply for the joy of learning. And yet, in K-12, we box up all the 6 year olds with 6 year olds, 9 year olds with 9 year olds, and we consider this to be normal.
I will touch more on the issues of age segregation later. For now, though, I would like to relate this to our discussion of grades, for this is but one useful example of the downfalls of age segregation. By giving grades, we expect a certain level of performance from students. We have a notion of what a 10 year old child SHOULD know, and give grades to measure that. The problem comes when we realize that the grading rubric comes to an average. The average 7 year old SHOULD be able to pass this. The danger of averages is that you have extremes at both ends, and both of these are punished. The child who is not quite up to our level of work expected of his age is made to look stupid, ridiculed for his inability to maintain the level of work expected of his age. The above average student fairs no better. The child who is above average is held back, forced to do work she has already shown herself more than capable of completing, and she finds herself locked in to her grade because of her age, denying her the advancement of her education that she is more than capable of achieving should we give her the chance.
To end with a question: How might we equitably address differences in academic ability in children in regards to their education?
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Music as a Personal Universal
I've been giving some thought to just how exactly music affects the listener, so I would like to take this opportunity to put forward a thought: music as a personal universal.
What does this mean? Music is universal in that it can, and often does, produce profound emotional responses from the listener. Certain tones, chords, melodies, harmonies, etc, undeniably affect our emotions in a variety of ways, many of which are predictable within, and perhaps between, cultures. But there is more to music than simply the universal human response. This is the personal.
Music is personal in that it affects each individual in different ways. How exactly music affects a person is deeply intertwined into who they are -- the culture they grew up in, their education, their experiences, their tastes. Many people associate certain songs with certain feelings or times in their lives, perhaps the song to which one danced with a high school sweet heart, a song that played during a particularly traumatic personal experience, or a song that simply jumped out at a person and grabbed them for some reason. There are myriad ways through which a person can connect to a particular piece or style of music, and in this, music can be, and often is, deeply personal.
To end with a question: Given the great variety of instruments and musical genres, what might be the most efficient way to introduce students to music, and at what point should this introduction begin?
What does this mean? Music is universal in that it can, and often does, produce profound emotional responses from the listener. Certain tones, chords, melodies, harmonies, etc, undeniably affect our emotions in a variety of ways, many of which are predictable within, and perhaps between, cultures. But there is more to music than simply the universal human response. This is the personal.
Music is personal in that it affects each individual in different ways. How exactly music affects a person is deeply intertwined into who they are -- the culture they grew up in, their education, their experiences, their tastes. Many people associate certain songs with certain feelings or times in their lives, perhaps the song to which one danced with a high school sweet heart, a song that played during a particularly traumatic personal experience, or a song that simply jumped out at a person and grabbed them for some reason. There are myriad ways through which a person can connect to a particular piece or style of music, and in this, music can be, and often is, deeply personal.
To end with a question: Given the great variety of instruments and musical genres, what might be the most efficient way to introduce students to music, and at what point should this introduction begin?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
On the Economics of Art Education
A quick romp around the internet seems to reveal some notable statistics about music education. It would seem, at first glance, that music education seems to coincide with high academic performance. People who have received music education score higher on the SAT's. 9 out of 10 people with postgraduate degrees received some form of music education. On the surface, this seems to be an argument for incorporating music education into the standard curriculum.
I find myself with some doubts about the usefulness of these statistics, though. For all the benefits they seem to tout, I see little exploration of the economic side. For example... perhaps those schools with high achievement and music education have the resources to provide a higher quality education (and have the spare resources to devote to music education) because of the affluence of the neighborhoods in which they are located. Perhaps music education simply coincides with a higher academic achievement because those who receive it are already receiving a high-quality education and can afford the luxury of the arts.
Perhaps it is my cynical side showing, but I feel like the complexity of the issue is being skirted for the sake of being able to make such blanket statements about the usefulness of music education. Do not get me wrong -- I am a supporter of art education, and had a fairly diverse background in learning the arts (I took lessons on the piano, guitar, clarinet, and mandolin, was a soloist in my church's youth choir (before I fled from Catholicism), I did a lot of drawing in my younger years, took a couple drawing classes in prep school, and I continue to write short stories and poetry, a habit I adopted in the 4th grade). In addition, I think that there are several valid arguments for the inclusion of the arts in education. But I also think that we have an equally pressing issue to attend to, specifically, insuring equality of educational access and quality for all people.
To end with a question (or two): What role should the arts play in education? And does music education actually improve academic success, or does it merely coincide with a higher quality education within a district that can afford such luxuries?
I find myself with some doubts about the usefulness of these statistics, though. For all the benefits they seem to tout, I see little exploration of the economic side. For example... perhaps those schools with high achievement and music education have the resources to provide a higher quality education (and have the spare resources to devote to music education) because of the affluence of the neighborhoods in which they are located. Perhaps music education simply coincides with a higher academic achievement because those who receive it are already receiving a high-quality education and can afford the luxury of the arts.
Perhaps it is my cynical side showing, but I feel like the complexity of the issue is being skirted for the sake of being able to make such blanket statements about the usefulness of music education. Do not get me wrong -- I am a supporter of art education, and had a fairly diverse background in learning the arts (I took lessons on the piano, guitar, clarinet, and mandolin, was a soloist in my church's youth choir (before I fled from Catholicism), I did a lot of drawing in my younger years, took a couple drawing classes in prep school, and I continue to write short stories and poetry, a habit I adopted in the 4th grade). In addition, I think that there are several valid arguments for the inclusion of the arts in education. But I also think that we have an equally pressing issue to attend to, specifically, insuring equality of educational access and quality for all people.
To end with a question (or two): What role should the arts play in education? And does music education actually improve academic success, or does it merely coincide with a higher quality education within a district that can afford such luxuries?
Rationalization of the "Core Academic Subjects:" A Response
Emily asked: "why are students required to take Math, Science, English, and Social Studies? Why were these subjects deemed the most worthy of learning?"
Simply put, these core subjects are a required basis for functioning in a democractic society, subjects which all citizens should have at least a basic grasp of for the benefit of themselves and the state which they select to govern them.
English gains its importance from communication ability. Without a knowledge of the language, and the analytic skills we gain from writing about literature, a democratic society cannot function. Language and argumentation are the very foundation upon which a democratic society functions -- reasoned, rational debate about issues.
Social Studies are important for a multi-cultural society (such as ours) as a key ground to understand those whom we will come into contact with, both on a daily basis and those once-in-a-lifetime meetings. It is also important to be educated on the mistakes of the past, lest we fall victim to them again in the present.
Math is a skill which benefits all people, particularly in an economic sense. In a free market economy, we must have a firm foundation of how to calculate costs and benefits, how to balance budgets, and how to do the most good for the most people -- in addition to knowing math for skills like adjusting proportions when cooking for multiple people (or for one). Math can also be useful for putting some perspective onto statistics, such as "one person killed by a shark in a nation of 300 million" being such a statistically negligible phenomenon that it's hardly worth wasting our time worrying aboutit, particularly in the face of such statistics as 30-40 million people in our nation being unable to afford health insurance. Social justice, anyone?
Science is important, not only for the growing prominence of technology in our every day lives, but in the functioning of the state. When debates such as climate change and Darwinian evolution are going on in our state houses, it is vital for the population to have at least a basic understanding of science so that we are enabled to make appropriate decisions on these issues.
This, then, brings us to the role of the arts in education (music included). What possible benefit could there be to a democratic state for encouraging art? I certainly have my own views, but I feel I am getting long-winded.
To end with a question: What are some of the potential benefits of incorporating the arts into education? What may be its draw-backs?
Simply put, these core subjects are a required basis for functioning in a democractic society, subjects which all citizens should have at least a basic grasp of for the benefit of themselves and the state which they select to govern them.
English gains its importance from communication ability. Without a knowledge of the language, and the analytic skills we gain from writing about literature, a democratic society cannot function. Language and argumentation are the very foundation upon which a democratic society functions -- reasoned, rational debate about issues.
Social Studies are important for a multi-cultural society (such as ours) as a key ground to understand those whom we will come into contact with, both on a daily basis and those once-in-a-lifetime meetings. It is also important to be educated on the mistakes of the past, lest we fall victim to them again in the present.
Math is a skill which benefits all people, particularly in an economic sense. In a free market economy, we must have a firm foundation of how to calculate costs and benefits, how to balance budgets, and how to do the most good for the most people -- in addition to knowing math for skills like adjusting proportions when cooking for multiple people (or for one). Math can also be useful for putting some perspective onto statistics, such as "one person killed by a shark in a nation of 300 million" being such a statistically negligible phenomenon that it's hardly worth wasting our time worrying aboutit, particularly in the face of such statistics as 30-40 million people in our nation being unable to afford health insurance. Social justice, anyone?
Science is important, not only for the growing prominence of technology in our every day lives, but in the functioning of the state. When debates such as climate change and Darwinian evolution are going on in our state houses, it is vital for the population to have at least a basic understanding of science so that we are enabled to make appropriate decisions on these issues.
This, then, brings us to the role of the arts in education (music included). What possible benefit could there be to a democratic state for encouraging art? I certainly have my own views, but I feel I am getting long-winded.
To end with a question: What are some of the potential benefits of incorporating the arts into education? What may be its draw-backs?
Sunday, February 27, 2011
On CR, RC, and PTL
The more I contemplate it, the more Constructivist Realism seems to make the most sense to me as a theory for understanding the world. It does not (dogmatically) deny the existence of an external world (as Radical Constructivism does), and allows for change in our constructions -- and our understanding -- as new evidence is revealed through our explorations of the world. It almost makes me wonder why Radical Constructivism is so insistent on neither affirming nor denying the existence of an external world, for without something to experience... how can we have experience?
Interesting as this question is to consider, though, I have begun to wonder where the intersection lies between these theories and pedagogy (the subject of the course). I can see, certainly, where Constructivist Realism (or Trivial Constructivism, as has been used elsewhere) are useful in the classroom, particularly where it takes the useful parts of Radical Constructivism (experiencing the world) and dispenses with the extraneous parts, those that distract us from living (the dogmatic insistence on "metaphysical agnosticism"). It seems almost as though this debate over how far to take constructivism is getting us away from teaching and learning as we dive into the minefields of this particular contemporary philosophical debate.
I do not question the importance of reaching a reasonable conclusion on this particular debate. Indeed, hammering out this distinction will be useful for addressing other questions, like what methods are most appropriate to teaching, what subjects should be taught, when to teach them, etc. But other key questions -- of pragmatic as well as philosophical issues -- lie in a separate world, questions of morality, of compulsory education, of state-support vs. private industry, and the value of certain subjects to education. I think that at least touching on these topics is vital to do our course on the Philosophy of Teaching and Learning justice, and I fear that we may not get to touch these as we continue to debate Radical Constructivism vs. Constructivist Realism vs. Realism. I hope that my fears are unfounded.
To end with a question: How vital is the question of metaphysics to education?
Interesting as this question is to consider, though, I have begun to wonder where the intersection lies between these theories and pedagogy (the subject of the course). I can see, certainly, where Constructivist Realism (or Trivial Constructivism, as has been used elsewhere) are useful in the classroom, particularly where it takes the useful parts of Radical Constructivism (experiencing the world) and dispenses with the extraneous parts, those that distract us from living (the dogmatic insistence on "metaphysical agnosticism"). It seems almost as though this debate over how far to take constructivism is getting us away from teaching and learning as we dive into the minefields of this particular contemporary philosophical debate.
I do not question the importance of reaching a reasonable conclusion on this particular debate. Indeed, hammering out this distinction will be useful for addressing other questions, like what methods are most appropriate to teaching, what subjects should be taught, when to teach them, etc. But other key questions -- of pragmatic as well as philosophical issues -- lie in a separate world, questions of morality, of compulsory education, of state-support vs. private industry, and the value of certain subjects to education. I think that at least touching on these topics is vital to do our course on the Philosophy of Teaching and Learning justice, and I fear that we may not get to touch these as we continue to debate Radical Constructivism vs. Constructivist Realism vs. Realism. I hope that my fears are unfounded.
To end with a question: How vital is the question of metaphysics to education?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
On What Makes A Great Teacher: A Response
Bryan asked, "In your educational experience, what to you makes the best teachers?"
The best teachers, in my experience, share a few traits, which, for convenience, I shall list.
Good teachers are:
1) Knowledgeable on the subject they teach.
2) Visibly enjoy the subject matter they teach.
3) Can present it in a way that is accessible to all, or almost all, of their students.
4) Take an active, genuine interest in their students, both in terms of their understanding of the material and, to an extent, their personal well-being.
Part of this, of course, has to do with education. Part of it may come from training. Element one clearly points to this. Element two is a related point. If the teacher doesn't like the subject, it will be difficult for the teacher to make the students interested in it.
The third element comes to what I shall describe as the art of teaching. It is the ability to creatively present material in ways that are engaging, memorable, and meaningful. This may well be something that can be taught, to a certain extent. Though it takes practice and creativity to properly implement.
The fourth element is where things get murkiest. I do not have a firm definition for where this should be delineated. Therefore I shall, I think, bring my question for this post: To what extent should teachers take interest in their students' well-being? Where are the lines between appropriate student/teacher interaction and inappropriate interaction?
The best teachers, in my experience, share a few traits, which, for convenience, I shall list.
Good teachers are:
1) Knowledgeable on the subject they teach.
2) Visibly enjoy the subject matter they teach.
3) Can present it in a way that is accessible to all, or almost all, of their students.
4) Take an active, genuine interest in their students, both in terms of their understanding of the material and, to an extent, their personal well-being.
Part of this, of course, has to do with education. Part of it may come from training. Element one clearly points to this. Element two is a related point. If the teacher doesn't like the subject, it will be difficult for the teacher to make the students interested in it.
The third element comes to what I shall describe as the art of teaching. It is the ability to creatively present material in ways that are engaging, memorable, and meaningful. This may well be something that can be taught, to a certain extent. Though it takes practice and creativity to properly implement.
The fourth element is where things get murkiest. I do not have a firm definition for where this should be delineated. Therefore I shall, I think, bring my question for this post: To what extent should teachers take interest in their students' well-being? Where are the lines between appropriate student/teacher interaction and inappropriate interaction?
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Enjoyability of Education: A Response
Kim asked: "How important is it that students enjoy their education and should this be a goal in teaching?"
I do not claim to be an expert in education, though I do think that enjoyability plays a certain factor into learning. Speaking from experience, several of my teachers in prep school (notably history and English teachers -- funny how the humanities tends to find folks who are talented at making human connections) were quite effective at doing just that. I mentioned a US history teacher in a previous post who had a knack for drawing amusing, informative analogies between history and our school. It was, I think, a very effective way to keep the class engaged while imparting the information.
Making education enjoyable is, at the least, a useful tool for teachers, and at least from my experience, is an effective way to keep students interested in their education while they learn. While entertaining education should not be the ONLY goal, it certainly seems to have its place in the classroom.
To end with a question: What methods might make learning math or science enjoyable?
I do not claim to be an expert in education, though I do think that enjoyability plays a certain factor into learning. Speaking from experience, several of my teachers in prep school (notably history and English teachers -- funny how the humanities tends to find folks who are talented at making human connections) were quite effective at doing just that. I mentioned a US history teacher in a previous post who had a knack for drawing amusing, informative analogies between history and our school. It was, I think, a very effective way to keep the class engaged while imparting the information.
Making education enjoyable is, at the least, a useful tool for teachers, and at least from my experience, is an effective way to keep students interested in their education while they learn. While entertaining education should not be the ONLY goal, it certainly seems to have its place in the classroom.
To end with a question: What methods might make learning math or science enjoyable?
A Favor To Ask
Dear classmates, I have a favor to ask of you. When you respond to someone's question, please comment on the post containing the question to let the author know about your intention to reply. I have so far seen three responses to questions I have asked, but only one writer commented on my blog to inform me of my question being addressed. It is much more conducive to continuing conversation if we are made aware when our questions are addressed, as it helps keep a dialogue going between our blogs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
On "Post-modernist" Education
Having read a few of the articles for this week's Q & A, I felt compelled to make a few observations on so-called "post-modernist education theory," particularly as was developed in the articles by Hatcher and Sutton.
These two articles show some wonderful illustrations of how constructivists contort the English language and subtly imply the need for an objective "real world" while refusing to accept such a notion. As Hatcher points out, without a real world, who are we to make a claim about objective facts, including the claim that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Sutton counters that such claims are not particularly important, since they are only based on our cultural assumptions, and anti-realism of course takes this into account.
Perhaps most off-putting is Sutton's claim that, since philosophy has not yet arrived at objective truth, it cannot, and the search is futile. This is, I think, an incredibly dangerous claim. After all, if medicine has not yet produced a cure for cancer, does that mean we cannot and should stop trying? If we have not yet developed a cheap fuel that is safer for the environment than the coal, oil, and natural gas we use, does this mean that we cannot and should stop trying? Such a claim is at best absurd, and at worst a direct attack on scientific and intellectual progress.
Key to Sutton's claims to keep knowledge alive without truth is the claim that all knowledge must be "in context." This is, again, the constructivist's attempt to mangle the English language to produce "truth" by a different name. Either that, or it is a way to allow society to fragment and fall apart because of "context" and difference of opinion. After all, if South Carolina wants to teach that slavery was good and moral and that the south won the Civil War, who are we to argue? We are not from that context, nor do we have access to their particular viewpoints, and without any objective truth to reference, we have no way to disprove this radical claim.
At the end of his article, Sutton asks "Does this sound like a description of educational bamboozlement or of philosophical education conceived as both therapeutic and edifying?" My answer is that this does, in fact, sound like a description of educational bamboozlement, and to try to enact this would almost certainly come at the expense of students and their education.
To end with a question: Should we allow curricular flexibility for "local standards?"
These two articles show some wonderful illustrations of how constructivists contort the English language and subtly imply the need for an objective "real world" while refusing to accept such a notion. As Hatcher points out, without a real world, who are we to make a claim about objective facts, including the claim that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Sutton counters that such claims are not particularly important, since they are only based on our cultural assumptions, and anti-realism of course takes this into account.
Perhaps most off-putting is Sutton's claim that, since philosophy has not yet arrived at objective truth, it cannot, and the search is futile. This is, I think, an incredibly dangerous claim. After all, if medicine has not yet produced a cure for cancer, does that mean we cannot and should stop trying? If we have not yet developed a cheap fuel that is safer for the environment than the coal, oil, and natural gas we use, does this mean that we cannot and should stop trying? Such a claim is at best absurd, and at worst a direct attack on scientific and intellectual progress.
Key to Sutton's claims to keep knowledge alive without truth is the claim that all knowledge must be "in context." This is, again, the constructivist's attempt to mangle the English language to produce "truth" by a different name. Either that, or it is a way to allow society to fragment and fall apart because of "context" and difference of opinion. After all, if South Carolina wants to teach that slavery was good and moral and that the south won the Civil War, who are we to argue? We are not from that context, nor do we have access to their particular viewpoints, and without any objective truth to reference, we have no way to disprove this radical claim.
At the end of his article, Sutton asks "Does this sound like a description of educational bamboozlement or of philosophical education conceived as both therapeutic and edifying?" My answer is that this does, in fact, sound like a description of educational bamboozlement, and to try to enact this would almost certainly come at the expense of students and their education.
To end with a question: Should we allow curricular flexibility for "local standards?"
Coaching: A Response
Michael asked a number of questions about the role of coaches and sports in the curriculum.
I have never been a particular fan of sports, either for watching or for participating (as if my physique didn't betray that). Phys ed in primary school was always a chore, and the sport requirement at my prep school was the bane of my existence (until I wised up and started doing drama to dodge that particular requirement).
This does not mean that I discount the contribution of good coaches. For several years, I took training in martial arts, which not only kept me more physically active than I had been before (or, really, since), but was a fulfilling part of my day. The major difference I can identify between my in-school experience and the out-of-school experience was in the teachers. The martial arts instructors were helpful and supportive, even when pushing me to give that extra bit of effort. My phys ed teachers in primary school (and I had a new one every year -- in one year, there was a new phys ed teacher every quarter) took little effort to engage the students, and the coaches in prep school were equally distant, driving heavily towards the results, first and foremost.
Moving beyond mere anecdote, there is research suggesting that aerobic exercise, whether that be in the form of sports or some other activity, helps to improve problem solving abilities and I.Q. scores. Coupled with this "national obesity epidemic," the evidence seems to point strongly to at least SOME form of physical engagement for students.
So, should sports be considered a vital element of education? Much as it pains me to say... I think they may well be important. There is certainly room to argue that students, children as well as adults, should be engaged in at least SOME form of physical activity, and sports can provide a fun, productive way to do just that, for both the physical and mental benefits.
To end with a question: Should schools be concerned with the physical and emotional well-being of their students as well as the intellectual?
I have never been a particular fan of sports, either for watching or for participating (as if my physique didn't betray that). Phys ed in primary school was always a chore, and the sport requirement at my prep school was the bane of my existence (until I wised up and started doing drama to dodge that particular requirement).
This does not mean that I discount the contribution of good coaches. For several years, I took training in martial arts, which not only kept me more physically active than I had been before (or, really, since), but was a fulfilling part of my day. The major difference I can identify between my in-school experience and the out-of-school experience was in the teachers. The martial arts instructors were helpful and supportive, even when pushing me to give that extra bit of effort. My phys ed teachers in primary school (and I had a new one every year -- in one year, there was a new phys ed teacher every quarter) took little effort to engage the students, and the coaches in prep school were equally distant, driving heavily towards the results, first and foremost.
Moving beyond mere anecdote, there is research suggesting that aerobic exercise, whether that be in the form of sports or some other activity, helps to improve problem solving abilities and I.Q. scores. Coupled with this "national obesity epidemic," the evidence seems to point strongly to at least SOME form of physical engagement for students.
So, should sports be considered a vital element of education? Much as it pains me to say... I think they may well be important. There is certainly room to argue that students, children as well as adults, should be engaged in at least SOME form of physical activity, and sports can provide a fun, productive way to do just that, for both the physical and mental benefits.
To end with a question: Should schools be concerned with the physical and emotional well-being of their students as well as the intellectual?
Who's Teaching the Teachers?
Teachers are, without a doubt, among the most important contributors to education. A good teacher can make a profound difference in the lives of students. But who teaches the teachers?
An effort is currently underway seeking answers to that very question. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/education/09teachers.html
The standards being used by the National Council on Teacher Quality to examine and grade education schools are given on their website. They include an examination of how much time student teachers spend in the classroom, the quality of the schools in which those student teachers are placed, the student teacher's grasp of the subject(s) being taught, and performance of the school's graduates once they are fully certified and teaching.
The effort is laudable, and certainly long-overdue. Though it raises a very important issue. We do not yet have a firm idea on what, exactly, constitutes a good teacher. Without having a clear answer to that vital question, the effort to rate the quality of education schools seems almost like a waste of effort. Though it will certainly be interesting once the grades come out to find out where MCLA stands.
To end with a question: Can we accurately judge the effectiveness of education schools without having a clear way to identify effective teachers?
An effort is currently underway seeking answers to that very question. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/education/09teachers.html
The standards being used by the National Council on Teacher Quality to examine and grade education schools are given on their website. They include an examination of how much time student teachers spend in the classroom, the quality of the schools in which those student teachers are placed, the student teacher's grasp of the subject(s) being taught, and performance of the school's graduates once they are fully certified and teaching.
The effort is laudable, and certainly long-overdue. Though it raises a very important issue. We do not yet have a firm idea on what, exactly, constitutes a good teacher. Without having a clear answer to that vital question, the effort to rate the quality of education schools seems almost like a waste of effort. Though it will certainly be interesting once the grades come out to find out where MCLA stands.
To end with a question: Can we accurately judge the effectiveness of education schools without having a clear way to identify effective teachers?
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Standardized Curricula: A Response
Brittany asked: "Do you think that one standardized curriculum should be enforced nationally?"
I do not think that ONE standardized national curriculum should be enforced. I do, however, feel that there is a dire need for standardized curricula to be instituted in the US.
Standardized curricula would do much for the educational attainment and advancement of American students. It would insure that all students are given equal opportunity to learn, and that students do not miss out on vital information and educational experiences due to the particular practices in a region. It would also (hopefully) insure that all students have a roughly equal base of knowledge and skills to build upon as they continue their education to the post-secondary level, and insure a wide range of educational experiences, as well as enabling the collection of meaningful data comparing educational attainment of students between states.
This does not imply that the entirety of a student's academic career through secondary school be mandated by the state. However, certain standards should apply, expecting a minimum level of competence in reading, writing, math, and science, with certain flexibility in the curriculum for students to explore interests, including deeper study into one field or more.
A useful example of this is the UK's education system. In the UK, a national curriculum is enforced from the ages of 5 to 16. During this time, students take a standard, state-mandated curriculum with a core of math, science, and English, as well as other subjects, including history, modern foreign language, art, and physical education, required at various levels. After age 16, students can opt for two additional years of secondary education, in which they are given flexibility in their course selections, and acts as an introduction to university-level work (passing those last two years of secondary school is the equivalent of a year of university-level study -- hence most UK undergraduate programs being 3 years rather than 4). As an alternative, students having completed their 11th year of schooling can go to vocational school to learn a trade. Despite its flaws, it gives all students a base of knowledge to build on.
To end with a question: Should students all be expected to take traditional "academic subjects" to age 18, or should we allow more flexibility for technical/vocational education?
I do not think that ONE standardized national curriculum should be enforced. I do, however, feel that there is a dire need for standardized curricula to be instituted in the US.
Standardized curricula would do much for the educational attainment and advancement of American students. It would insure that all students are given equal opportunity to learn, and that students do not miss out on vital information and educational experiences due to the particular practices in a region. It would also (hopefully) insure that all students have a roughly equal base of knowledge and skills to build upon as they continue their education to the post-secondary level, and insure a wide range of educational experiences, as well as enabling the collection of meaningful data comparing educational attainment of students between states.
This does not imply that the entirety of a student's academic career through secondary school be mandated by the state. However, certain standards should apply, expecting a minimum level of competence in reading, writing, math, and science, with certain flexibility in the curriculum for students to explore interests, including deeper study into one field or more.
A useful example of this is the UK's education system. In the UK, a national curriculum is enforced from the ages of 5 to 16. During this time, students take a standard, state-mandated curriculum with a core of math, science, and English, as well as other subjects, including history, modern foreign language, art, and physical education, required at various levels. After age 16, students can opt for two additional years of secondary education, in which they are given flexibility in their course selections, and acts as an introduction to university-level work (passing those last two years of secondary school is the equivalent of a year of university-level study -- hence most UK undergraduate programs being 3 years rather than 4). As an alternative, students having completed their 11th year of schooling can go to vocational school to learn a trade. Despite its flaws, it gives all students a base of knowledge to build on.
To end with a question: Should students all be expected to take traditional "academic subjects" to age 18, or should we allow more flexibility for technical/vocational education?
Quality Education: A Response
Jessica asked "What do you think is quality education? What materials should be used for quality education?"
I think that what constitutes a quality education is as much about the teaching style as the materials used, and each subject has a most-useful style for teaching to maximize student interest and learning. The methods and materials should be scaled to the age and maturity of students.
In a nutshell, in primary education, emphasis should be placed on skill development -- memorizing simple math operations (if you can't add two plus two in your head, something's wrong), learning how to write properly -- and basic introductions to subject areas -- first introduction to the narrative of history, basic studies of the various fields of science, the beginnings of literary analysis.
Secondary education should build on the foundation of primary education and emphasize critical thinking skills (as seen in literature discussion, historical analysis, mathematical reasoning, and scientific exploration) while introducing students to the skills and concepts needed for advanced study (thus, English emphasizes writing well and discussing and analyzing literature, History focuses on analysis and evaluation of primary sources, Math on understanding and applying mathematical principles, Science on understanding the fundamentals of how the world works and how to create and test hypotheses about specific questions).
The materials used are certainly important, especially in secondary school (English should present a range of classic and contemporary works, History use primary source documents alongside textbooks, Science use experiments to help illustrate concepts, etc), but equally important is HOW the information is conveyed. A good teacher is necessary to facilitate class discussion and help explain concepts to students in ways that are relevant to the students. As an example, one of the best history teachers I had in prep school would explain the historical events we were studying by putting them into a hypothetical scenario involving the school. "What the British did with forcing quartering was like if the US government decided that the 101st Airborne Division was going to camp out on our campus, and we had to provide them food and shelter."
Perhaps the last important aspect of quality education is WHAT, exactly, to teach. Up through secondary school, a liberal arts education is, I think, most appropriate, to allow students to explore academic subjects and find what they most enjoy and are most proficient at. Ideally, students would combine study of literature, history, math, and science with art, philosophy, and foreign language study. However, this track of study may not be appropriate for all students. There are, of course, many jobs that are vital to the functioning of our economy that do not require a liberal arts education and a four year degree. Plumbers do not need calculus to fix a kitchen sink, and builders need not be conversant in Kant to construct a house.
Before I get too long-winded, I shall end with a question or two: What role should schools (primary and secondary in particular) play in helping students determine a career path, and how should they go about doing this?
I think that what constitutes a quality education is as much about the teaching style as the materials used, and each subject has a most-useful style for teaching to maximize student interest and learning. The methods and materials should be scaled to the age and maturity of students.
In a nutshell, in primary education, emphasis should be placed on skill development -- memorizing simple math operations (if you can't add two plus two in your head, something's wrong), learning how to write properly -- and basic introductions to subject areas -- first introduction to the narrative of history, basic studies of the various fields of science, the beginnings of literary analysis.
Secondary education should build on the foundation of primary education and emphasize critical thinking skills (as seen in literature discussion, historical analysis, mathematical reasoning, and scientific exploration) while introducing students to the skills and concepts needed for advanced study (thus, English emphasizes writing well and discussing and analyzing literature, History focuses on analysis and evaluation of primary sources, Math on understanding and applying mathematical principles, Science on understanding the fundamentals of how the world works and how to create and test hypotheses about specific questions).
The materials used are certainly important, especially in secondary school (English should present a range of classic and contemporary works, History use primary source documents alongside textbooks, Science use experiments to help illustrate concepts, etc), but equally important is HOW the information is conveyed. A good teacher is necessary to facilitate class discussion and help explain concepts to students in ways that are relevant to the students. As an example, one of the best history teachers I had in prep school would explain the historical events we were studying by putting them into a hypothetical scenario involving the school. "What the British did with forcing quartering was like if the US government decided that the 101st Airborne Division was going to camp out on our campus, and we had to provide them food and shelter."
Perhaps the last important aspect of quality education is WHAT, exactly, to teach. Up through secondary school, a liberal arts education is, I think, most appropriate, to allow students to explore academic subjects and find what they most enjoy and are most proficient at. Ideally, students would combine study of literature, history, math, and science with art, philosophy, and foreign language study. However, this track of study may not be appropriate for all students. There are, of course, many jobs that are vital to the functioning of our economy that do not require a liberal arts education and a four year degree. Plumbers do not need calculus to fix a kitchen sink, and builders need not be conversant in Kant to construct a house.
Before I get too long-winded, I shall end with a question or two: What role should schools (primary and secondary in particular) play in helping students determine a career path, and how should they go about doing this?
The Perils of Multiculturalism
Earlier today, the Prime Minister of the UK launched an attack on multiculturalism as it has been expressed in the UK and Europe. His criticism, in summary, is that the "hands-off approach" to multiculturalism has created a fragmented society that can foster extremism, and called on European governments to pursue "much more active, muscular liberalism."
There is certainly an argument for taking care with multiculturalism. We do not want to entirely quash the traditions from which our various citizens hail, particularly in a nation like ours that is built, in a very real sense, on the backs of immigrants. Undoubtedly, almost all of us can trace our ancestry back to another continent -- Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands. Surely, many of these cultures have positive things to contribute to society. The question becomes, then, to what extent do we allow varying cultures to express themselves, and to what extent do we insist on integration into "mainstream" society? Do we allows Muslims to practice Sharia law in their communities, or push our system of laws on them? Do we insist that immigrants learn English, or allow them to continue to speak their native (where non-English) tongues? And, perhaps most relevant to us... to what extent do we teach to, and about, the varying cultures that make up our society?
I do not purport to have any answers. I only provide the questions.
There is certainly an argument for taking care with multiculturalism. We do not want to entirely quash the traditions from which our various citizens hail, particularly in a nation like ours that is built, in a very real sense, on the backs of immigrants. Undoubtedly, almost all of us can trace our ancestry back to another continent -- Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands. Surely, many of these cultures have positive things to contribute to society. The question becomes, then, to what extent do we allow varying cultures to express themselves, and to what extent do we insist on integration into "mainstream" society? Do we allows Muslims to practice Sharia law in their communities, or push our system of laws on them? Do we insist that immigrants learn English, or allow them to continue to speak their native (where non-English) tongues? And, perhaps most relevant to us... to what extent do we teach to, and about, the varying cultures that make up our society?
I do not purport to have any answers. I only provide the questions.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Democracy in Education -- Free Schools
As we seem to have hinted at in class, one of the bedrocks of the debate in multicultural education seems to rest on how to best provide education for future citizens of a (supposedly) free democracy. The suggestion of autocratic schools failing to reflect the democracy in which we hope to prepare our students made me think of this article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05bigcity.html
(I was actually reminded of this article earlier in the week thanks to this episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics Both are, I think, quite useful resources for this unique social experiment in education)
Free schools, in summary, are schools where there is no set curriculum. They are built upon the premise that students, if given time and freedom, will seek out their own passions, and motivate themselves to learn. The students and faculty work together to decide what the students learn, how the school is run -- essentially making the school a mini-democracy in action.
Do you think this is an effective way to educate children?
(I was actually reminded of this article earlier in the week thanks to this episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics Both are, I think, quite useful resources for this unique social experiment in education)
Free schools, in summary, are schools where there is no set curriculum. They are built upon the premise that students, if given time and freedom, will seek out their own passions, and motivate themselves to learn. The students and faculty work together to decide what the students learn, how the school is run -- essentially making the school a mini-democracy in action.
Do you think this is an effective way to educate children?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Testing and Critical Thinking: A Response
In her blog, Stephanie asked about the possibility of making essays a more important element to student evaluation than just objective testing.
One of the major flaws of objective testing, as Stephanie pointed out, is that it encourages "learning for the test," cramming information for the test without retaining it afterwards. This was a trap that I never fell in to in prep school (except perhaps in my advanced mathematics class -- and honestly, not remembering how to calculate sine, cosine, and tangent is extremely unlikely to be detrimental to my education or my life in general), though I know people who did. Granted, I attended a prep school in Connecticut, so I did not have the spectre of a big standardized test like MCAS looming over my head. Nevertheless, these tests (and in a sense, perhaps even testing in general) can do more harm than good for education.
So what of requiring more essay writing, requiring a display of critical thinking? The idea, in theory, seems to be quite sound (but then, communism looks nice on paper, too). However, there are huge practical hurdles to essay writing, particularly where large exams, testing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, are concerned. When an exam is being administered to a large number of students, the most efficient way to score them is scantron, as the MCAS primarily is (or so I have been told). Including more essays requires a far higher allocation of resources to score, both in terms of work hours required, and the salaries of educators who would need to evaluate those essays, along with the resources that would be required to determine a fair rubric for judging the "critical thinking" displayed in an essay. Coupled with the general conservative bent of school boards and the intractability of teachers unions (not to mention our education system's poor track record of efficient use of resources), the chances of significant changes to testing are exceedingly slim.
To end with a question: What might be some practical options for encouraging the teaching of, and measuring, critical thinking skills?
One of the major flaws of objective testing, as Stephanie pointed out, is that it encourages "learning for the test," cramming information for the test without retaining it afterwards. This was a trap that I never fell in to in prep school (except perhaps in my advanced mathematics class -- and honestly, not remembering how to calculate sine, cosine, and tangent is extremely unlikely to be detrimental to my education or my life in general), though I know people who did. Granted, I attended a prep school in Connecticut, so I did not have the spectre of a big standardized test like MCAS looming over my head. Nevertheless, these tests (and in a sense, perhaps even testing in general) can do more harm than good for education.
So what of requiring more essay writing, requiring a display of critical thinking? The idea, in theory, seems to be quite sound (but then, communism looks nice on paper, too). However, there are huge practical hurdles to essay writing, particularly where large exams, testing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, are concerned. When an exam is being administered to a large number of students, the most efficient way to score them is scantron, as the MCAS primarily is (or so I have been told). Including more essays requires a far higher allocation of resources to score, both in terms of work hours required, and the salaries of educators who would need to evaluate those essays, along with the resources that would be required to determine a fair rubric for judging the "critical thinking" displayed in an essay. Coupled with the general conservative bent of school boards and the intractability of teachers unions (not to mention our education system's poor track record of efficient use of resources), the chances of significant changes to testing are exceedingly slim.
To end with a question: What might be some practical options for encouraging the teaching of, and measuring, critical thinking skills?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Critical Thinking vs "Mere Reasoning."
I have been contemplating the distinction between critical thinking and reasoning since class on Wednesday. I suggested in class that seems that there is no discernible distinction between critical thinking and reasoning. Having applied further thought, I would like to attempt to defend this position.
A good starting point would be the definitions of each. To try to be as clear as possible, I will take my definitions from what I hope is a reputable source: dictionary.com
According to dictionary.com, critical thinking is "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion." Reasoning is "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises" (which is much more acceptable than "the act or process of a person who reasons," a type of definition that should never appear in a dictionary).
The dictionary definition, then, would seem to state that reasoning takes its premises as given, whereas critical thinking first evaluates those premises before drawing its conclusions. But this seems to make little sense. After all, basic logic tells us that, for an argument to be true, it must be based upon true premises. And how do we determine the veracity of premises save for the evaluation of them in the face of other information and experiences we have?
Perhaps, then, this means that, while a logical argument can be true or false, sound or unsound, critical thinking can only be true, as it takes a broad view and assures the veracity of one's claims right off the bat. This too, however, falls into the trap of an artificial distinction. If one performs an act of critical thinking which is then later shown to be invalid or logically unsound in the face of new information, does the original act of critical thinking become invalidated, "downgraded" to "mere reasoning" from "critical thinking?" I would say not.
What, then, of the proposal that critical thinking includes a crucial (critical?) element of ACTING upon the conclusions one comes to via this process? Another artificial distinction. If one reasons to a conclusion, it is only natural for one act accordingly, unless there are significant barriers to doing so -- prejudice, habituation, or a multitude of other reasons that may prevent us from acting as we deem best.
To end with a question: How might one seek to foster the skills requisite for reasoning in students?
A good starting point would be the definitions of each. To try to be as clear as possible, I will take my definitions from what I hope is a reputable source: dictionary.com
According to dictionary.com, critical thinking is "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion." Reasoning is "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises" (which is much more acceptable than "the act or process of a person who reasons," a type of definition that should never appear in a dictionary).
The dictionary definition, then, would seem to state that reasoning takes its premises as given, whereas critical thinking first evaluates those premises before drawing its conclusions. But this seems to make little sense. After all, basic logic tells us that, for an argument to be true, it must be based upon true premises. And how do we determine the veracity of premises save for the evaluation of them in the face of other information and experiences we have?
Perhaps, then, this means that, while a logical argument can be true or false, sound or unsound, critical thinking can only be true, as it takes a broad view and assures the veracity of one's claims right off the bat. This too, however, falls into the trap of an artificial distinction. If one performs an act of critical thinking which is then later shown to be invalid or logically unsound in the face of new information, does the original act of critical thinking become invalidated, "downgraded" to "mere reasoning" from "critical thinking?" I would say not.
What, then, of the proposal that critical thinking includes a crucial (critical?) element of ACTING upon the conclusions one comes to via this process? Another artificial distinction. If one reasons to a conclusion, it is only natural for one act accordingly, unless there are significant barriers to doing so -- prejudice, habituation, or a multitude of other reasons that may prevent us from acting as we deem best.
To end with a question: How might one seek to foster the skills requisite for reasoning in students?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Introduction
Greetings, all! Welcome to my pedagogy blog!
For those who read my description, you may be wondering why I reference "overly-silly models." Well, the reason is thus: I intend to make a drawing each week to serve as a model to illustrate some crazy thought of mine related to our coursework. Such will likely involve poorly-drawn circles and squares and nigh-illegible handwriting (i.e. mine). I'm hoping to get my first one up soon, and will continue to play around with my drawing software and hardware as the course progresses.
I apologize in advance for my inability to draw straight........ lines.
For those who read my description, you may be wondering why I reference "overly-silly models." Well, the reason is thus: I intend to make a drawing each week to serve as a model to illustrate some crazy thought of mine related to our coursework. Such will likely involve poorly-drawn circles and squares and nigh-illegible handwriting (i.e. mine). I'm hoping to get my first one up soon, and will continue to play around with my drawing software and hardware as the course progresses.
I apologize in advance for my inability to draw straight........ lines.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)