E is for Excellence...NOT!
Excellence is a shibboleth among the movers and shakers in education. Who doesn't love excellence? Who shouldn't strive for it, recognize it, reward it, promote it? Excellence is a lot of things, all of them good...or better, or really, really great. The rub comes when one stops to ask with regard to what? And having answered the question 'with regard to what?', does the notion of excellence really add anything to the conversation?
The source of this tomfoolery with words is that we in education are prone to want to move from worse to better, from lower to higher, from OK to really good, all without every clarifying what it is that we are working toward. Phrases like "A World Class Education" are good, I suppose, but at the end of the day we might want to be specific about what that means. What is education, by the way? Can it be reliably measured, and if so, is that measure the same thing as education or does it just stand in as a surrogate for the real thing? And if education is some 'real thing' beyond the measure, in what does it consist, and how do we know that our measures are, in fact, good surrogates?
Excellence. An empty phrase.
Imaginative Education takes a good run at answering the question. Want to get involved in the conversation? Read The Educated Mind. Join in the conversation. It matters that we be clear about our purposes.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Educator's Alphabet: D
D is for Detrimental Departments
It doesn't matter which. State Departments of Education, University Education Departments, all departures from the unity of the task at hand are detriments. Departments, divisions, commissions, associations committed to the development of one or another aspect of education as though each may be cultivated in a Petri dish and then grafted back onto the whole: all are distractions. All are industries and occasions for careerism. As such, all are understandable. But none ca be said to contribute to student achievement.
To look at just one example: In Oregon, as soon as students are required to receive instruction from highly qualified subject area specialists (generally in 6th or 7th grades) passing rates in reading and math begin to decline. By 10th grade, after several years of departmentalized instruction, 30% of students who met the 5th Grade Math benchmark fail to pass the 10th Grade Assessment. Thirty percent! In Reading, 15% fall by the wayside as the result of departmentalization, and in Science the departmental decline is 23%.
As for those departments of a different sort, those whose primary task is to enforce compliance with policies and procedures that have been proven ineffective, no need to dwell there. Let our motto be: All Departments, Depart Away!
It doesn't matter which. State Departments of Education, University Education Departments, all departures from the unity of the task at hand are detriments. Departments, divisions, commissions, associations committed to the development of one or another aspect of education as though each may be cultivated in a Petri dish and then grafted back onto the whole: all are distractions. All are industries and occasions for careerism. As such, all are understandable. But none ca be said to contribute to student achievement.
To look at just one example: In Oregon, as soon as students are required to receive instruction from highly qualified subject area specialists (generally in 6th or 7th grades) passing rates in reading and math begin to decline. By 10th grade, after several years of departmentalized instruction, 30% of students who met the 5th Grade Math benchmark fail to pass the 10th Grade Assessment. Thirty percent! In Reading, 15% fall by the wayside as the result of departmentalization, and in Science the departmental decline is 23%.
As for those departments of a different sort, those whose primary task is to enforce compliance with policies and procedures that have been proven ineffective, no need to dwell there. Let our motto be: All Departments, Depart Away!
The Educator's Alphabet: B
B is for Bulfinch, Thomas. And for good reason.
First, because Thomas Bulfinch organized and presented Greek mythology in a way that has resonated with generations of new readers. His contribution is immeasurable.
Second, education is fraught with myths and legends that would fill several more volumes but, unlike those of the Greeks, they would illuminate nothing of the human condition. A collection of popular and professional misunderstandings regarding education would be more appropriate to a Reality TV show (America's Dumbest Ideas?) than to a beautifully illustrated, leather-bound volume. They really don't rise to the level of 'myth' except in its most derogatory usage. Still, I didn't have the nerve to suggest that B should be for B.S., so we are stuck with 'myths' and with the shameless exploitation of the first letter of Thomas' last name...
Ten myths that prevent academic achievement in schools.
1. Children come in various types with each type constituting a unique subspecies.
2. All children can learn the same material at the same age and at the same rate.
3. Large schools are more efficient that small schools.
4. Students are happier when they have more choices.
5. Communication is more important than student achievement.
6. Schools should reflect the values of their respective communities.
7. Algebra can only be taught by a math specialist.
8. Math specialists can't be expected to teach English or History.
9. Achievement in the early grades is essential to achievement later in life.
10. Instruction in phonics is necessary to the mastery of reading.
These are just 10 myths, in no particular order. There are dozens more that might have made the list. The pervasiveness of these myths makes school improvement a slow and ponderous process, as efforts are often grounded in one or more myths and too many people are unprepared to call Bulfinch.
First, because Thomas Bulfinch organized and presented Greek mythology in a way that has resonated with generations of new readers. His contribution is immeasurable.
Second, education is fraught with myths and legends that would fill several more volumes but, unlike those of the Greeks, they would illuminate nothing of the human condition. A collection of popular and professional misunderstandings regarding education would be more appropriate to a Reality TV show (America's Dumbest Ideas?) than to a beautifully illustrated, leather-bound volume. They really don't rise to the level of 'myth' except in its most derogatory usage. Still, I didn't have the nerve to suggest that B should be for B.S., so we are stuck with 'myths' and with the shameless exploitation of the first letter of Thomas' last name...
Ten myths that prevent academic achievement in schools.
1. Children come in various types with each type constituting a unique subspecies.
2. All children can learn the same material at the same age and at the same rate.
3. Large schools are more efficient that small schools.
4. Students are happier when they have more choices.
5. Communication is more important than student achievement.
6. Schools should reflect the values of their respective communities.
7. Algebra can only be taught by a math specialist.
8. Math specialists can't be expected to teach English or History.
9. Achievement in the early grades is essential to achievement later in life.
10. Instruction in phonics is necessary to the mastery of reading.
These are just 10 myths, in no particular order. There are dozens more that might have made the list. The pervasiveness of these myths makes school improvement a slow and ponderous process, as efforts are often grounded in one or more myths and too many people are unprepared to call Bulfinch.
The Educator's Alphabet: A
A is for Anthropology
Anthropology is the study of culture. Education is the transmission of culture. Simple. But to say what education IS necessarily implies what education is not. And the bulk of thinking and planning regarding schools is based on profound misunderstanding of the enterprise. The Education-Industrial Complex systematically prepares professionals, produces curricula, proposes policies and writes legislation based upon what education is decidedly NOT.
Education is not the process by which one person at a time learns one concept at a time. Educational psychology is an oxymoron, yet the majority of what is taught to pre-service teachers regarding how learning happens is informed by various 'psychologies of learning'. Most recently this has meant a return to the Behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, though it is rarely acknowledged a such. But whether it is Skinner, Piaget, Maslow or Dewey, psychology has little to add to the conversation. And while the adherents of various psychologies of learning continue to produce brilliant tri-fold brochures and intricately-boxed revolutionary reading programs, they have produced nothing of note with regard to student achievement. Still, it's a lucrative living, so don't expect these folks to go away any time soon!
Education is not business. It fascinates me that educators (particularly administrators) all but wag their tails in anticipation of the next volume of Wisdom Literature' due out from one business guru or another. Granted, these are bright guys (they seem all to be guys, but I don't pay that much attention) who write and speak in sweeping certainties regarding problems that have plagued educators for decades. I understand why someone would hope that they carry stone tablets to pass down from the mountain top from which they have only recently descended. But in the end, it's a new, improved Day Planner rather than the hoped-for stone tablet, and in six months it will be made obsolete by the next, brand-new breakthrough in systemic science. The only consolation for the humiliation of having hoped for something useful is that the next conference is to held in Florida in the off season...not to be missed!
Schools are not societies, and social engineering doesn't work. I won't bother offending various folks one at a time by listing the acronyms that represent literally dozens of program the have required expensive trainings, materials, and staffing but have not improved student achievement. The acronyms survive by providing their own measures of 'improvement' that are fully aside from achievement, but their evidence is mostly a matter of re-defining reality so that what was once a discipline referral is now called an intervention and, wonder of wonders, the number of 'discipline referrals' is significantly reduced. But again, if a reduction of 'discipline referrals' doesn't result in increased student achievement, what have the results got to do with education?
Why doesn't social engineering work? Because schools are cultures. Take note that I'm not saying that schools 'have' cultures, as though 'school culture' was an attribute of a school, subject to manipulation. The mountains of literature that address school culture in this manner are simply mistaken, and those who have taken the advice of such authors have the lack of results to prove it. Nope. Schools don't 'have' cultures. They ARE cultures. They are dense accumulations of face-to-face interactions, and their various aspects cannot be manipulated independently of the whole. And while social engineering envisions a system in which changing one sort of input can immediately impact a corresponding output, cultures change very gradually, holistically, and much more thoroughly.
I would guess that the vast majority of educators can't name three anthropologists. Many can, on the other hand, name three prominent business theorists. (I have always suspected that this deference to business gurus is grounded in the apparent desire of educators to dress like bankers and in their tendency to look down on those who prefer to dress more like professionals doing field work.) I would also argue that of all of the social sciences, anthropology is easily the most promising for those seeking insights into schools and schooling.
Anthropologists have one habit that educators can hardly abide. They describe cultures as they are without Utopian intent. Educators want Utopia. They want a Utopia of feeling, a Utopia of consensus, of democratic self-congratulations. But to do the hard work of influencing a culture? That's slow work, with no guarantees, no instant gratification, no strategic plan, no sure-fire, teacher-proof, Title I-approved formula. But that's the work. And Anthropology might provide the best clues regarding where to start. It certainly provides sound reasons to predict with some confidence what won't work...meaning that anthropological understanding could have saved Oregon and dozens of its districts hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past few years.
Anthropology is the study of culture. Education is the transmission of culture. Simple. But to say what education IS necessarily implies what education is not. And the bulk of thinking and planning regarding schools is based on profound misunderstanding of the enterprise. The Education-Industrial Complex systematically prepares professionals, produces curricula, proposes policies and writes legislation based upon what education is decidedly NOT.
Education is not the process by which one person at a time learns one concept at a time. Educational psychology is an oxymoron, yet the majority of what is taught to pre-service teachers regarding how learning happens is informed by various 'psychologies of learning'. Most recently this has meant a return to the Behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, though it is rarely acknowledged a such. But whether it is Skinner, Piaget, Maslow or Dewey, psychology has little to add to the conversation. And while the adherents of various psychologies of learning continue to produce brilliant tri-fold brochures and intricately-boxed revolutionary reading programs, they have produced nothing of note with regard to student achievement. Still, it's a lucrative living, so don't expect these folks to go away any time soon!
Education is not business. It fascinates me that educators (particularly administrators) all but wag their tails in anticipation of the next volume of Wisdom Literature' due out from one business guru or another. Granted, these are bright guys (they seem all to be guys, but I don't pay that much attention) who write and speak in sweeping certainties regarding problems that have plagued educators for decades. I understand why someone would hope that they carry stone tablets to pass down from the mountain top from which they have only recently descended. But in the end, it's a new, improved Day Planner rather than the hoped-for stone tablet, and in six months it will be made obsolete by the next, brand-new breakthrough in systemic science. The only consolation for the humiliation of having hoped for something useful is that the next conference is to held in Florida in the off season...not to be missed!
Schools are not societies, and social engineering doesn't work. I won't bother offending various folks one at a time by listing the acronyms that represent literally dozens of program the have required expensive trainings, materials, and staffing but have not improved student achievement. The acronyms survive by providing their own measures of 'improvement' that are fully aside from achievement, but their evidence is mostly a matter of re-defining reality so that what was once a discipline referral is now called an intervention and, wonder of wonders, the number of 'discipline referrals' is significantly reduced. But again, if a reduction of 'discipline referrals' doesn't result in increased student achievement, what have the results got to do with education?
Why doesn't social engineering work? Because schools are cultures. Take note that I'm not saying that schools 'have' cultures, as though 'school culture' was an attribute of a school, subject to manipulation. The mountains of literature that address school culture in this manner are simply mistaken, and those who have taken the advice of such authors have the lack of results to prove it. Nope. Schools don't 'have' cultures. They ARE cultures. They are dense accumulations of face-to-face interactions, and their various aspects cannot be manipulated independently of the whole. And while social engineering envisions a system in which changing one sort of input can immediately impact a corresponding output, cultures change very gradually, holistically, and much more thoroughly.
I would guess that the vast majority of educators can't name three anthropologists. Many can, on the other hand, name three prominent business theorists. (I have always suspected that this deference to business gurus is grounded in the apparent desire of educators to dress like bankers and in their tendency to look down on those who prefer to dress more like professionals doing field work.) I would also argue that of all of the social sciences, anthropology is easily the most promising for those seeking insights into schools and schooling.
Anthropologists have one habit that educators can hardly abide. They describe cultures as they are without Utopian intent. Educators want Utopia. They want a Utopia of feeling, a Utopia of consensus, of democratic self-congratulations. But to do the hard work of influencing a culture? That's slow work, with no guarantees, no instant gratification, no strategic plan, no sure-fire, teacher-proof, Title I-approved formula. But that's the work. And Anthropology might provide the best clues regarding where to start. It certainly provides sound reasons to predict with some confidence what won't work...meaning that anthropological understanding could have saved Oregon and dozens of its districts hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past few years.
The Educator's Alphabet: C
C is for Conflict.
We all love peace. Educators and school board members are no exception. Board members especially are prone to the utopian belief that if we are all doing our jobs, then there should be no tension, no conflict among our constituents or between constituents and ourselves. If someone is upset, the theory goes, then there must be something wrong. There is danger in this belief. Attempts to put an end to tensions, to ban conflict from the conversation, can lead only to banality. And the conflict will continue in some modified form.
Education is conflict, bred of the tensions between the past and the future, between competing political interests, each with its favored 'history', favored 'science', favorite reality. And those are the good days.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension between a single family's aspirations for its own child(ren) and the need to share.
Education is conflict, bred of the gap between the expert judgment of practitioners and the common wisdom(s) of consumers. This tension is exacerbated by competing 'expert' paradigms and wildly divergent 'wisdoms' among consumers. It reaches critical mass due to the utter certainty with which each expert as well as each consumer holds that his or her private expertise or personal wisdom is uniquely correct.
Education is conflict, bred of the fact that in spite of the expression of myriad varieties of expertise and wisdom, each particular school can only be a compromise among competing perspectives. It can never be anyone's ideal of 'perfect', and it will always reflect the practical reality that some folks will have more influence than will others.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension that when some teacher, somewhere, says 'no' to some student, that student will sometimes respond as though 'no' was an entirely novel concept.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension that results when the word 'student' is replaced by the word 'parent'.
Education is conflict, bred of tension caused when the common core requirements of today are seen as a criticism of the education of previous generations. It is exacerbated by the fact that sometimes this is actually the case.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension created when the daughter of a lawyer, who aspires to be a cowgirl, sits and a calculus class with the son of a fisherman, who wants to be a doctor.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension created by the demand that all children be educated and the fact that little or no thought has been given to what that even means.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension between our best democratic impulses (No Child Left Behind) and the reality that some children are more able than others and that there is (thankfully) no technology for eliminating those differences. (Though the vast majority of schools are currently organized so as to prevent our most able students from fully realizing their potential. At the same time, Title I and Special Education programs are typically designed to prevent our most challenged students from realizing theirs as well).
Education is conflict, bred of the fact that even in a democratic society, there are no democratic means by which to resolve a single one of these conflicts.
Education is conflict. Always has been. But it is not war. In education, nobody wins. Not decisively. Not finally. There may be battles, and there may be lulls. There may even be celebrations by 'victors'. But the tensions persist, even if they are below the surface for time. The tensions are the nature of the enterprise, and they are irresolvable. They are the framework within which all schools must operate, and they are ignored or denied at the expense of the mission.
We all love peace. Educators and school board members are no exception. Board members especially are prone to the utopian belief that if we are all doing our jobs, then there should be no tension, no conflict among our constituents or between constituents and ourselves. If someone is upset, the theory goes, then there must be something wrong. There is danger in this belief. Attempts to put an end to tensions, to ban conflict from the conversation, can lead only to banality. And the conflict will continue in some modified form.
Education is conflict, bred of the tensions between the past and the future, between competing political interests, each with its favored 'history', favored 'science', favorite reality. And those are the good days.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension between a single family's aspirations for its own child(ren) and the need to share.
Education is conflict, bred of the gap between the expert judgment of practitioners and the common wisdom(s) of consumers. This tension is exacerbated by competing 'expert' paradigms and wildly divergent 'wisdoms' among consumers. It reaches critical mass due to the utter certainty with which each expert as well as each consumer holds that his or her private expertise or personal wisdom is uniquely correct.
Education is conflict, bred of the fact that in spite of the expression of myriad varieties of expertise and wisdom, each particular school can only be a compromise among competing perspectives. It can never be anyone's ideal of 'perfect', and it will always reflect the practical reality that some folks will have more influence than will others.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension that when some teacher, somewhere, says 'no' to some student, that student will sometimes respond as though 'no' was an entirely novel concept.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension that results when the word 'student' is replaced by the word 'parent'.
Education is conflict, bred of tension caused when the common core requirements of today are seen as a criticism of the education of previous generations. It is exacerbated by the fact that sometimes this is actually the case.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension created when the daughter of a lawyer, who aspires to be a cowgirl, sits and a calculus class with the son of a fisherman, who wants to be a doctor.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension created by the demand that all children be educated and the fact that little or no thought has been given to what that even means.
Education is conflict, bred of the tension between our best democratic impulses (No Child Left Behind) and the reality that some children are more able than others and that there is (thankfully) no technology for eliminating those differences. (Though the vast majority of schools are currently organized so as to prevent our most able students from fully realizing their potential. At the same time, Title I and Special Education programs are typically designed to prevent our most challenged students from realizing theirs as well).
Education is conflict, bred of the fact that even in a democratic society, there are no democratic means by which to resolve a single one of these conflicts.
Education is conflict. Always has been. But it is not war. In education, nobody wins. Not decisively. Not finally. There may be battles, and there may be lulls. There may even be celebrations by 'victors'. But the tensions persist, even if they are below the surface for time. The tensions are the nature of the enterprise, and they are irresolvable. They are the framework within which all schools must operate, and they are ignored or denied at the expense of the mission.
Monday, June 7, 2010
New National Standards
For those who want defer accountability for another generation, the New (Shiny!) National Standards are just the thing. We can spend months just determining, as State Board Chair Duncan Wyse recommends, whether these standards are appropriate for Oregon's children. (What would that mean, exactly? Would we compare the proposed National Standards to the Oregon standards? Or would we look at the National Standards without reference to the Oregon standards and assume that their appropriateness was unrelated to our own work of the past 20-or-so years? One has to assume that the new National Standards, in order to be appropriate for Oregon, would have to bear a striking resemblance to the Oregon standards...in which case, tell me again why there need to be National Standards? And if there truly do need to be National Standards, why are we bothering to determine whether they are appropriate to Oregon? Who is Oregon to stand in the way of this new national necessity?)
Fun with words. And that's all any standards are. O.K. That's not all they are. They are also a colossal waste of time and money. O.K. They are more than that. They also buy time for those who, for whatever reason, wish to keep the target moving so that education will be in a constant state of retooling toward a new, re-envisioned definition of always-receding, eventual, someday success. And moments before we fail, we will shift the target again, as we did with the 10th grade math benchmarks and the now-defunct Math Problem Solving Assessment.
This is all eerily similar to Orwell's vision in 1984, in which a constant state of war,though with ever-revolving enemies, was necessary for the economy. Some purpose is served, it seems, by keeping education in a constant state of crisis but with regard to an ever-shifting threat...economic failure, social inequity, athlete's foot...
National Standards. A new measure against which to declare our utter failure (watch while ODE declares the silver lining is that we have now shined a light on the problem!), resulting in the need to convene committees, hire consultants, race to various tops, scramble for money, break large schools into small ones, combine small schools into large ones, put our right feet in, put our right feet out...
Can we not get serious? Does this game of 'shuffle the money' ever get boring? Does it get embarrassing, after awhile, to continue to pretend to know the way forward while chasing after every shiny object that catches our eyes?
National Standards. I know it's a joke, I'm just not sure who's in on it and who are its victims. I will say one thing without hesitation, though, in all seriousness. Not a single student will receive a better education as the result of our attention to this nonsense. Not one. And there is no evidence to the contrary, anywhere.
Fun with words. And that's all any standards are. O.K. That's not all they are. They are also a colossal waste of time and money. O.K. They are more than that. They also buy time for those who, for whatever reason, wish to keep the target moving so that education will be in a constant state of retooling toward a new, re-envisioned definition of always-receding, eventual, someday success. And moments before we fail, we will shift the target again, as we did with the 10th grade math benchmarks and the now-defunct Math Problem Solving Assessment.
This is all eerily similar to Orwell's vision in 1984, in which a constant state of war,though with ever-revolving enemies, was necessary for the economy. Some purpose is served, it seems, by keeping education in a constant state of crisis but with regard to an ever-shifting threat...economic failure, social inequity, athlete's foot...
National Standards. A new measure against which to declare our utter failure (watch while ODE declares the silver lining is that we have now shined a light on the problem!), resulting in the need to convene committees, hire consultants, race to various tops, scramble for money, break large schools into small ones, combine small schools into large ones, put our right feet in, put our right feet out...
Can we not get serious? Does this game of 'shuffle the money' ever get boring? Does it get embarrassing, after awhile, to continue to pretend to know the way forward while chasing after every shiny object that catches our eyes?
National Standards. I know it's a joke, I'm just not sure who's in on it and who are its victims. I will say one thing without hesitation, though, in all seriousness. Not a single student will receive a better education as the result of our attention to this nonsense. Not one. And there is no evidence to the contrary, anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)