"There is a crack,
A crack, in everything,
That's how the light gets in..."
Leonard Cohen
I believe that we are currently experiencing an historic peak in the government's effort to create and exploit efficiencies in education. Money is tight. Why not strive to achieve desired outputs with minimum inputs? Why not economize? None of us would settle for leaky plumbing, so why should we settle for inefficiencies in our education pipeline?
And while we're on the subject, what does a good plumbing system look like? How do we judge it? Well, I suppose we'd start with no leaks. All of the water should be contained. When we turn on a fawcet, we want the water to be hot or cold, depending on our purposes, and we want it to be clean. We want it to be at a constant, reliable pressure. We want the system to be functionally invisible, really, and to provide us fresh, running water at our convenience with little or no upkeep. We don't care about (or even distinguish among) separate drops of water, the flow is the thing. O.K., bad analogy. Children can't be the indistinguishable drops of water...that's just silly. Clearly, the plumbing analogy won't hold water. We need a new analogy. Can they be shoes? Automobiles? Electrons? Dollars? Services? In the efficiency model, what exactly are the kids?
Or maybe it's not the kids that are the product. Maybe we're producing knowledge. Units of education, so to speak. Bits of ability to come to terms with the world. Test scores? Each point on a test would have to represent a single, unique, identical unit of education. (Otherwise running statistical analysis is just numerology and not mathematics). Not only that, but the test scores as we move from grade to grade would have to be perfectly aligned, which we know is not the case.
Neither educated children as a 'product' nor education conceived of as identical, consumable units provides a remotely satisfactory description of the work of schools. Neither our children nor their individual achievements can be standardized, and without standardization of both inputs and outputs there is no way to calculate efficiency. And yet the government, undaunted by the realities on the ground, extends its reach ever further into the classroom and compulsively measures everything that can be weighed, plumbed or counted.
But like leaky plumbing or bad wiring, government efforts at steering the course and managing the flow of our children's learning fail constantly and create a perennial nuisance for those of us who live and work in the school house. This is particularly true in that the state's obsession with measurement robs us of valuable classroom time and diverts our focus from learning. It also commits thousands of dollars to technology that exists primarily for the administration of tests.
What is the silver lining in all of this? It is that the accountability system leaks like a sieve. It is perhaps the least efficient aspect of the state government's involvement in education, and one simply must sit for a moment and enjoy the irony of the 'inefficient efficiency expert.' Chaplin would have had a field day filming the bumbling Sargent tripping over his own boot strings while attempting to form up his squad! And we are thankful for their inefficiency. Because while they roam about like the Tin Man trying to learn ballet, there is room inside the leaky, creaky system for really good schools to operate. And while filling out the latest PE report (how many P.E. facilities do you have, are they gymnasiums or play sheds, who teaches P.E. to whom, by grade level, and for how many minutes a week) wastes considerable time, it doesn't have to interfere with the work of teachers and students and only detracts modestly from the support that we are able to afford them. And the testing system, while it is expensive, intrusive, and counter-productive, offers the state the 'sense' of accountability and keeps the funding (which our constituents provide!) flowing back to the district.
So let us resist the temptation to improve state oversight of schools. They are good people doing their best. Embrace them as they are. Because where education is concerned, the inefficiencies, the cracks in the system, are where the light gets in.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Multiage Practice
Thanks to Randy Trani, Ed.D., for his kind permission to post what follows:
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Multi-age Education
From Fallacies in Education: Why Schools are Mired in Mediocrity
By Randy K. Trani and Robert K. Irvine
Why would a School go multi-age?
There are two main reasons schools use multi-age education. First, it is pedagogically sound, in short it is better than single grade level education. Second, it is economically the most efficient way to operate a school.
Corbett provides and interesting case study in what can happen to achievement when a district adopts a multi-age approach. Since Corbett has gone to multi-age education both the high school and middle school have gained national recognition as being among the best schools in the country. The success of the high school and middle school can be traced directly back to the move to multi-age classrooms.
Corbett's most thoroughly multi-age program is their math program. When you allow students to work in a multi-age environment and combine that configuration with a continuous progress approach great things happen. Math students are expected to make progress at their own rate without regard to their age; this is what we call continuous progress. Corbett uses this approach in all disciplines not just math. This forces a school to regroup students according to achievement level rather than grade level. When this approach is used it is not uncommon to find 3rd-6th grade students working in the same math room, or 7th-12th grade students working together in pre-calculus. The end result of this approach has led Corbett High School students to take and pass Advanced Placement Calculus exams at a rate more than 1000 times what would be expected of a school their size.
Who Says that Multi-Age Classrooms are Better?
Looking at Corbett's steady improvement over the last 10 years provides evidence that this method of instruction is better than the old single grade level configuration. Comparing Corbett's K-12 achievement to all other schools in the state, the vast majority of which are still using the assembly line single grade level model of Henry Ford's era, also provides evidence that this way is better. So, we say it is better. But does anyone else?
A review of more than 2,000,000 peer reviewed articles on education, when filtered for articles pertaining to multi-age education, produces a unified voice from the education community that this model is better than the single grade level model, particularly with regard to social, emotional, and developmental needs of students. In fact there appears to be no serious dissenting voices in the peer reviewed literature with regard to multi-age classrooms.
What does the literature say about traditional grade level classrooms?
According to Hallion (1994) John Dewey one of the foremost authorities on education considered graded classrooms too confining and machine like.
Pardini (2005) says that graded education is the antithesis of developmentally appropriate practice, and despite its popularity there is no research showing that it helps students.
Placing students in classrooms according to their age within a given time to cover curricular expectations is detrimental to their academic, social, and psychological growth (Goodland & Anderson, 1987).
Children's learning is effected negatively when they are forced to follow grade level constraints (Copeland, 1998).
Although traditional classrooms continue to be the most common way of organizing elementary students there is no evidence to show that all children of the same 12-month age range are able to learn the same things, the same way, at the same time (Katz, 1995).
Drawbacks of traditional classrooms include first, children of the same age vary in readiness to learn. Second, children have different learning styles so a single grade level classroom is unlikely to be effective for all children. Third, traditional classrooms compare children with each other. Children who are not within the norm are considered failures. This leads to feelings of discouragement and low self esteem (Gaustad, 1992).
What does the literature say about achievement in multi-age classrooms?
Research studies reporting significant outcomes for students in non graded classroom have demonstrated improved performance in language, including vocabulary and literacy, and in mathematics (Kinsey, 2002).
A continuous progress approach produces superior academic performance and children do better academically (Calkins, 1992).
Teachers report that through a continuous progress approach they experience fewer classroom behavior problems. Classrooms that use a continuous progress approach experience more time on task, they become self regulators, and help enforce classroom rules (Hanes, 2008).
First graders in multi-age classrooms function at significantly higher average cognitive development then first graders in traditional classrooms (Cromey, 1999).
Continuous progress multi-age schools make students responsible for their own learning and produce increased learning (Mack, 2004).
New Zealand, the country with the highest literacy rate in the world, uses multi-age grouping as a common educational practice (Kasten & Clark, 1993).
In 1981 Milburn compared the reading achievement scores of 6-11 year old children in multi age and single grade level classrooms. Children in multi-age classrooms scored significantly higher on standardized tests, especially the young children.
In nongraded classrooms, students of different abilities, interests and backgrounds can interact, and student in all ranges of ability can benefit from nongradedness (Merrit, 2008)
The state of Kentucky mandated non-graded programs. A review of Kentucky's top 20% of all students showed that they outperformed the top 20% of all other states (Viadero, 1996).
Applying a continuous progress approach utilizing grouping children of various age and ability levels maximizes teaching and learning (Nye, 1993).
Students in multi-age classrooms have more positive attitudes about school, develop and exhibit more advanced social skills, benefit in the areas of cognitive development, and show improve performance in reasoning skills (Merrit, 2008; Green, 1997; Kruglik, 1993; Stegelin, 1997; Thelin, 1981).
Children in multi-age classrooms attained a higher cognitive developmental level at a faster pace compared to children in traditional classroom and they scored significantly higher on a standardized reading achievement test (Fosco, et. al., 2004).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
A major meta analysis of 57 multi-age studies that examined standardized academic achievement test scores of multi-age and traditional grade level found that in 91% of the studies the multi-age students scored as well or better than their grade level peers (Paven, 1992).
Learning in non-graded classrooms is more developmentally sound (Kruglik, 1993).
Multi-age classrooms maximize student learning (Aina, 2001).
Mix- age programs permit flexible learning arrangements for developmentally appropriate instruction of all students. The approach creates an active learning environment that encourages individual development and and fosters growth of staff and students (Hanes, 2008).
What does the literature say about social/emotional development in multi-age classrooms.
One of the most important benefits of multi-age groupings is the opportunity to learn nurturing behaviors (Tangen-Foster, 1998)
Mixed age groups were shown to be better at taking turns than single-age groups, and to exhibit greater social responsibility and sensitivity to others (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
Social competence develops for younger children as they observe and emulate the behavior of older classmates, who in turn grow in their role as nurtures and teachers (Katz, 1995).
In multi-age groups fewer children are isolated or rejected by peers. Children are more willing to watch our for one another, to include less popular children in play, and to ask one another for assistance with problems (Mclellan & Kinsey, 1996).
Multi-age classrooms improve life for middle school students particularly in the social, emotional, and developmental arenas (Petrie, Lindauer, Dotson, & Tountasakis, 1996).
Students in multi-age classrooms have more positive attitudes about school, develop and exhibit more advanced social skills, benefit in the areas of cognitive development, and show improve performance in reasoning skills (Merrit, 2008; Green, 1997; Kruglik, 1993; Stegelin, 1997; Thelin, 1981).
Teachers report that through a continuous progress approach they experience fewer classroom behavior problems. Classrooms that use a continuous progress approach experience more time on task, they become self regulators, and help enforce classroom rules (Hanes, 2008).
When students are placed in same-age groups and asked to complete a task there is more bullying behavior than in multi-age group (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
Multi-age classrooms allow teachers and students to develop long-term learning partnerships (McLaughlin, Irvin, & Doda, 1999).
Mix- age programs permit flexible learning arrangements for developmentally appropriate instruction of all students. The approach creates an active learning environment that encourages individual development and and fosters growth of staff and students (Hanes, 2008).
What does the literature say about special populations and multi-age classrooms?
Multi-age grouping is good for special needs children since it creates a classroom where individual differences are more likely to be accepted and more importantly are expected, and roles are found to suit the strengths of all children (Clark, 1996, Tangen-Foster 1998).
In nongraded classrooms, students of different abilities, interests and backgrounds can interact, and student in all ranges of ability can benefit from nongradedness (Merrit, 2008)
In a review of a K-2 school Fu et al. (1999) found that for single-age classrooms the first week of school is the hardest week for teachers, while the teachers in the K-2 classrooms had a far different experience. The teachers new most of the parents and students and instead of one teacher having to train 24 new students each year, the teacher had 16 classroom helpers to welcome the 8 new Kindergarten students each year. Kindergarten students and their older peers enjoyed a much smoother start to the school year then other children in single grade classrooms. Furthermore, parents expressed satisfaction with the arrangement and also had a much smoother start to the school year.
When students are placed in same-age groups and asked to complete a task there is more bullying behavior than in multi-age group (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
What does the literature say about parents and multi-age classrooms?
Communication lines between parents and teachers are open and maintained better in multi-age classrooms (Aina, 2001).
In a review of a K-2 school Fu et al. (1999) found that for single-age classrooms the first week of school is the hardest week for teachers, while the teachers in the K-2 classrooms had a far different experience. The teachers new most of the parents and students and instead of one teacher having to train 24 new students each year, the teacher had 16 classroom helpers to welcome the 8 new Kindergarten students each year. Kindergarten students and their older peers enjoyed a much smoother start to the school year then other children in single grade classrooms. Furthermore, parents expressed satisfaction with the arrangement and also had a much smoother start to the school year.
By working with students individually in multi-age classrooms, teachers are better able to provide useful information to parents about how to assist their child (Kruglik, 1993; Pardini 2005).
Schools often face difficulties with parents , or community members at large, who view themselves as experts on education simply because they themselves went through the primary grades, or that they “know what is best for their child”, or because “it was good enough for me so why is it not good enough for my kid”. Educating parents by showing them the literature as well as the success of schools that use multi-age education can help minimize these distractions (Petrie, Lindauer, and McKinney, 1998)
Parents sometimes feel apprehension about new multi-age programs. They want to know what the benefits for their child will be, will they learn more or less? Multi-age grouping is actually more natural and educationally more beneficial than many realize (Aina, 2001)
Often times multi-age configurations never get off the ground because administrators are unwilling to take on, and convince, the inevitable “Doubting Thomases” in every community. Taking on one more political task of reassuring anxious parents and community members is often one task too many for school leaders who have extensive responsibilities of advocating for school bonds, formulating yearly budgets, providing building maintenance, fighting drugs, etc. Yet, multi-age schools promise to deliver Americans the schools they demand and need. The challenge for administrators is to convince the public that yesterday's graded barriers need to be replaced with tomorrow nongraded opportunities (Yarborough, B. & Johnson, R., 2000).
Multi-Age Rersources
Aina, O. (2001), Maximizing learning in early childhood multiage classrooms: Child, teacher, and parent perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2001.
Calkins, T. (1992) Off the track: Children thrive in ungraded primary school. School Administrator
49 (5) 8-133.
Chas, P. & Dolan, J. (1994). Full Circle: A new look at multi-age education. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman Publishers.
Clark, A. (1996). Special needs children and mixed-age grouping. The Magnet Newsletter. 5(1). Internet document retrieved from http://ericeece.org.pubs.mag.magfal96.html#b.
Copeland, K. (1998) Reflections. Primary Voices K-6. 6 (2) p44-46.
Cromey, A. (1999). Impact of multi-age programming on social competency in five to seven year old children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, Institute of Psychology.
Fu, D., Hartle, L., Lamme, L., Copenhaver, J., Adams, D., Harmon, C., and Reneke, S. (1999). A comfortable start for Everyone: The first week of school in three multi-age (K-2) classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol 27, No. 2, 1999
Fosco, A., Schlesser, R., & Andal, J.(2004). Multiage programming effects on the cognitive developmental level and reading achievement in early elementary school children. Reading Psychology, 25:1-17, 2004.
Gaustad, J. (1992) Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and developmentally appropriate education for primary children. Oregon School Study Council, 35(7) 1-38.
Goodland, J. I. & Anderson, R. H. (1987). The Non-graded elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press
Green, B. G. (1997) Reading instruction in the nongraded classroom. Reading Psychology, 18(1), 69- 76.
Hanes, J. (2008). Continous Progress Approach. Research Starters. Ebsco Research Starters 1-7.
Hallion, A. M. (1994). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Washington DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 373 899), p25.
Kasten, W. C., Clarke, B. K. (1993) The multiage classroom: A family of learners, Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen
Katz, L. G. (1995, May). The Benefits of mixed-age grouping. ERIC Digest.
Kinsey, S. G. (2002). Multiage grouping and academic achievement. Washington, DC: Education Resource Center (document number ED 466 328).
Kruglik, M (1993). Results from nongraded classroom program: Good, bad, and unclear. Curriculum Review, 33(4), 16.
Mack, J. (2004) Continuous progress schools see the “whole child”. Education, Vol. 129, No. 2, p.324- 27.
Maeda, B. (1994) The Multi-age classroom: An inside look at one community of learners. Los Angeles, CA: Creative Teaching Press.
McClellan, D. & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children develop social skill and a sense of belonging. The Magnet Newsletter 5(1) retrieved from http://ericeece.org/pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
McLaughlin, H., Irvin J. L., & Doda, N. M. (1999). Crossing the grade level gap: Research on multiage grouping. Middle School Journal, 30(3), 55-58.
Merrit, R., (2008). Non-Graded Instruction. Research Starters. Ebsco Research Starters 1-9.
Milburn, D. (1981). A study of multi-age or family-grouped classrooms. Phi Delt Kappan,
62(7), 513-514.
Nye, B. (1993) Questions and Answers about multiage grouping. Educational Research Service (ERS)
Spectrum. 38-45.
Pardini, P. (2005) The slowdown of the muttiage classroom. School Administrator. 62(3) 22-30.
Paven, B. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 22-25.
Petrie, G.; Lindauer, P.; Dotson, K.; & Tountasakis, M. (1996) The nongraded middle school: Can it improve life for early adolescents? Education, Vol. 121. No. 4, p 781-786.
Steglin, D. A. (1998). Creating contexts for middle-age learning. Childhood Education, 74(4), 234-236.
Tangen-Foster, J & Tangen-Foster, L (1998) The caring capacity: A case for multi-age experiential learning, Electronic Green Journal, 1998.
Viadero, D. (1996). Mixed Blessings. Education Week, 15:33, 31-33. Editorial project in education, Inc. Washington, DC.
Yarborough, B. & Johnson, R. (2000). Nongraded schools: Why their promise has not been realized and should be reconsidered. Contemporary Education, 2000, Vol. 71 Issue 3, p.42.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Multi-age Education
From Fallacies in Education: Why Schools are Mired in Mediocrity
By Randy K. Trani and Robert K. Irvine
Why would a School go multi-age?
There are two main reasons schools use multi-age education. First, it is pedagogically sound, in short it is better than single grade level education. Second, it is economically the most efficient way to operate a school.
Corbett provides and interesting case study in what can happen to achievement when a district adopts a multi-age approach. Since Corbett has gone to multi-age education both the high school and middle school have gained national recognition as being among the best schools in the country. The success of the high school and middle school can be traced directly back to the move to multi-age classrooms.
Corbett's most thoroughly multi-age program is their math program. When you allow students to work in a multi-age environment and combine that configuration with a continuous progress approach great things happen. Math students are expected to make progress at their own rate without regard to their age; this is what we call continuous progress. Corbett uses this approach in all disciplines not just math. This forces a school to regroup students according to achievement level rather than grade level. When this approach is used it is not uncommon to find 3rd-6th grade students working in the same math room, or 7th-12th grade students working together in pre-calculus. The end result of this approach has led Corbett High School students to take and pass Advanced Placement Calculus exams at a rate more than 1000 times what would be expected of a school their size.
Who Says that Multi-Age Classrooms are Better?
Looking at Corbett's steady improvement over the last 10 years provides evidence that this method of instruction is better than the old single grade level configuration. Comparing Corbett's K-12 achievement to all other schools in the state, the vast majority of which are still using the assembly line single grade level model of Henry Ford's era, also provides evidence that this way is better. So, we say it is better. But does anyone else?
A review of more than 2,000,000 peer reviewed articles on education, when filtered for articles pertaining to multi-age education, produces a unified voice from the education community that this model is better than the single grade level model, particularly with regard to social, emotional, and developmental needs of students. In fact there appears to be no serious dissenting voices in the peer reviewed literature with regard to multi-age classrooms.
What does the literature say about traditional grade level classrooms?
According to Hallion (1994) John Dewey one of the foremost authorities on education considered graded classrooms too confining and machine like.
Pardini (2005) says that graded education is the antithesis of developmentally appropriate practice, and despite its popularity there is no research showing that it helps students.
Placing students in classrooms according to their age within a given time to cover curricular expectations is detrimental to their academic, social, and psychological growth (Goodland & Anderson, 1987).
Children's learning is effected negatively when they are forced to follow grade level constraints (Copeland, 1998).
Although traditional classrooms continue to be the most common way of organizing elementary students there is no evidence to show that all children of the same 12-month age range are able to learn the same things, the same way, at the same time (Katz, 1995).
Drawbacks of traditional classrooms include first, children of the same age vary in readiness to learn. Second, children have different learning styles so a single grade level classroom is unlikely to be effective for all children. Third, traditional classrooms compare children with each other. Children who are not within the norm are considered failures. This leads to feelings of discouragement and low self esteem (Gaustad, 1992).
What does the literature say about achievement in multi-age classrooms?
Research studies reporting significant outcomes for students in non graded classroom have demonstrated improved performance in language, including vocabulary and literacy, and in mathematics (Kinsey, 2002).
A continuous progress approach produces superior academic performance and children do better academically (Calkins, 1992).
Teachers report that through a continuous progress approach they experience fewer classroom behavior problems. Classrooms that use a continuous progress approach experience more time on task, they become self regulators, and help enforce classroom rules (Hanes, 2008).
First graders in multi-age classrooms function at significantly higher average cognitive development then first graders in traditional classrooms (Cromey, 1999).
Continuous progress multi-age schools make students responsible for their own learning and produce increased learning (Mack, 2004).
New Zealand, the country with the highest literacy rate in the world, uses multi-age grouping as a common educational practice (Kasten & Clark, 1993).
In 1981 Milburn compared the reading achievement scores of 6-11 year old children in multi age and single grade level classrooms. Children in multi-age classrooms scored significantly higher on standardized tests, especially the young children.
In nongraded classrooms, students of different abilities, interests and backgrounds can interact, and student in all ranges of ability can benefit from nongradedness (Merrit, 2008)
The state of Kentucky mandated non-graded programs. A review of Kentucky's top 20% of all students showed that they outperformed the top 20% of all other states (Viadero, 1996).
Applying a continuous progress approach utilizing grouping children of various age and ability levels maximizes teaching and learning (Nye, 1993).
Students in multi-age classrooms have more positive attitudes about school, develop and exhibit more advanced social skills, benefit in the areas of cognitive development, and show improve performance in reasoning skills (Merrit, 2008; Green, 1997; Kruglik, 1993; Stegelin, 1997; Thelin, 1981).
Children in multi-age classrooms attained a higher cognitive developmental level at a faster pace compared to children in traditional classroom and they scored significantly higher on a standardized reading achievement test (Fosco, et. al., 2004).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
A major meta analysis of 57 multi-age studies that examined standardized academic achievement test scores of multi-age and traditional grade level found that in 91% of the studies the multi-age students scored as well or better than their grade level peers (Paven, 1992).
Learning in non-graded classrooms is more developmentally sound (Kruglik, 1993).
Multi-age classrooms maximize student learning (Aina, 2001).
Mix- age programs permit flexible learning arrangements for developmentally appropriate instruction of all students. The approach creates an active learning environment that encourages individual development and and fosters growth of staff and students (Hanes, 2008).
What does the literature say about social/emotional development in multi-age classrooms.
One of the most important benefits of multi-age groupings is the opportunity to learn nurturing behaviors (Tangen-Foster, 1998)
Mixed age groups were shown to be better at taking turns than single-age groups, and to exhibit greater social responsibility and sensitivity to others (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
Social competence develops for younger children as they observe and emulate the behavior of older classmates, who in turn grow in their role as nurtures and teachers (Katz, 1995).
In multi-age groups fewer children are isolated or rejected by peers. Children are more willing to watch our for one another, to include less popular children in play, and to ask one another for assistance with problems (Mclellan & Kinsey, 1996).
Multi-age classrooms improve life for middle school students particularly in the social, emotional, and developmental arenas (Petrie, Lindauer, Dotson, & Tountasakis, 1996).
Students in multi-age classrooms have more positive attitudes about school, develop and exhibit more advanced social skills, benefit in the areas of cognitive development, and show improve performance in reasoning skills (Merrit, 2008; Green, 1997; Kruglik, 1993; Stegelin, 1997; Thelin, 1981).
Teachers report that through a continuous progress approach they experience fewer classroom behavior problems. Classrooms that use a continuous progress approach experience more time on task, they become self regulators, and help enforce classroom rules (Hanes, 2008).
When students are placed in same-age groups and asked to complete a task there is more bullying behavior than in multi-age group (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
Multi-age classrooms allow teachers and students to develop long-term learning partnerships (McLaughlin, Irvin, & Doda, 1999).
Mix- age programs permit flexible learning arrangements for developmentally appropriate instruction of all students. The approach creates an active learning environment that encourages individual development and and fosters growth of staff and students (Hanes, 2008).
What does the literature say about special populations and multi-age classrooms?
Multi-age grouping is good for special needs children since it creates a classroom where individual differences are more likely to be accepted and more importantly are expected, and roles are found to suit the strengths of all children (Clark, 1996, Tangen-Foster 1998).
In nongraded classrooms, students of different abilities, interests and backgrounds can interact, and student in all ranges of ability can benefit from nongradedness (Merrit, 2008)
In a review of a K-2 school Fu et al. (1999) found that for single-age classrooms the first week of school is the hardest week for teachers, while the teachers in the K-2 classrooms had a far different experience. The teachers new most of the parents and students and instead of one teacher having to train 24 new students each year, the teacher had 16 classroom helpers to welcome the 8 new Kindergarten students each year. Kindergarten students and their older peers enjoyed a much smoother start to the school year then other children in single grade classrooms. Furthermore, parents expressed satisfaction with the arrangement and also had a much smoother start to the school year.
When students are placed in same-age groups and asked to complete a task there is more bullying behavior than in multi-age group (Chase & Dolan, 1994).
According to Maeda (1994) there is mounting evidence that multi-age classrooms have the following benefits:
Optimal learning occurs in a nurturing environment.
They foster self esteem and improved decision making.
Individual differences are accommodated.
Learning is more holistic.
Students construct their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them.
What does the literature say about parents and multi-age classrooms?
Communication lines between parents and teachers are open and maintained better in multi-age classrooms (Aina, 2001).
In a review of a K-2 school Fu et al. (1999) found that for single-age classrooms the first week of school is the hardest week for teachers, while the teachers in the K-2 classrooms had a far different experience. The teachers new most of the parents and students and instead of one teacher having to train 24 new students each year, the teacher had 16 classroom helpers to welcome the 8 new Kindergarten students each year. Kindergarten students and their older peers enjoyed a much smoother start to the school year then other children in single grade classrooms. Furthermore, parents expressed satisfaction with the arrangement and also had a much smoother start to the school year.
By working with students individually in multi-age classrooms, teachers are better able to provide useful information to parents about how to assist their child (Kruglik, 1993; Pardini 2005).
Schools often face difficulties with parents , or community members at large, who view themselves as experts on education simply because they themselves went through the primary grades, or that they “know what is best for their child”, or because “it was good enough for me so why is it not good enough for my kid”. Educating parents by showing them the literature as well as the success of schools that use multi-age education can help minimize these distractions (Petrie, Lindauer, and McKinney, 1998)
Parents sometimes feel apprehension about new multi-age programs. They want to know what the benefits for their child will be, will they learn more or less? Multi-age grouping is actually more natural and educationally more beneficial than many realize (Aina, 2001)
Often times multi-age configurations never get off the ground because administrators are unwilling to take on, and convince, the inevitable “Doubting Thomases” in every community. Taking on one more political task of reassuring anxious parents and community members is often one task too many for school leaders who have extensive responsibilities of advocating for school bonds, formulating yearly budgets, providing building maintenance, fighting drugs, etc. Yet, multi-age schools promise to deliver Americans the schools they demand and need. The challenge for administrators is to convince the public that yesterday's graded barriers need to be replaced with tomorrow nongraded opportunities (Yarborough, B. & Johnson, R., 2000).
Multi-Age Rersources
Aina, O. (2001), Maximizing learning in early childhood multiage classrooms: Child, teacher, and parent perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2001.
Calkins, T. (1992) Off the track: Children thrive in ungraded primary school. School Administrator
49 (5) 8-133.
Chas, P. & Dolan, J. (1994). Full Circle: A new look at multi-age education. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman Publishers.
Clark, A. (1996). Special needs children and mixed-age grouping. The Magnet Newsletter. 5(1). Internet document retrieved from http://ericeece.org.pubs.mag.magfal96.html#b.
Copeland, K. (1998) Reflections. Primary Voices K-6. 6 (2) p44-46.
Cromey, A. (1999). Impact of multi-age programming on social competency in five to seven year old children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, Institute of Psychology.
Fu, D., Hartle, L., Lamme, L., Copenhaver, J., Adams, D., Harmon, C., and Reneke, S. (1999). A comfortable start for Everyone: The first week of school in three multi-age (K-2) classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol 27, No. 2, 1999
Fosco, A., Schlesser, R., & Andal, J.(2004). Multiage programming effects on the cognitive developmental level and reading achievement in early elementary school children. Reading Psychology, 25:1-17, 2004.
Gaustad, J. (1992) Nongraded education: Mixed-age, integrated, and developmentally appropriate education for primary children. Oregon School Study Council, 35(7) 1-38.
Goodland, J. I. & Anderson, R. H. (1987). The Non-graded elementary school. New York: Teachers College Press
Green, B. G. (1997) Reading instruction in the nongraded classroom. Reading Psychology, 18(1), 69- 76.
Hanes, J. (2008). Continous Progress Approach. Research Starters. Ebsco Research Starters 1-7.
Hallion, A. M. (1994). Strategies for developing multi-age classrooms. Washington DC: Education Resources Research Center (document number ED 373 899), p25.
Kasten, W. C., Clarke, B. K. (1993) The multiage classroom: A family of learners, Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen
Katz, L. G. (1995, May). The Benefits of mixed-age grouping. ERIC Digest.
Kinsey, S. G. (2002). Multiage grouping and academic achievement. Washington, DC: Education Resource Center (document number ED 466 328).
Kruglik, M (1993). Results from nongraded classroom program: Good, bad, and unclear. Curriculum Review, 33(4), 16.
Mack, J. (2004) Continuous progress schools see the “whole child”. Education, Vol. 129, No. 2, p.324- 27.
Maeda, B. (1994) The Multi-age classroom: An inside look at one community of learners. Los Angeles, CA: Creative Teaching Press.
McClellan, D. & Kinsey, S. (1996). Mixed-age grouping helps children develop social skill and a sense of belonging. The Magnet Newsletter 5(1) retrieved from http://ericeece.org/pubs/mag/magfal96.html#a
McLaughlin, H., Irvin J. L., & Doda, N. M. (1999). Crossing the grade level gap: Research on multiage grouping. Middle School Journal, 30(3), 55-58.
Merrit, R., (2008). Non-Graded Instruction. Research Starters. Ebsco Research Starters 1-9.
Milburn, D. (1981). A study of multi-age or family-grouped classrooms. Phi Delt Kappan,
62(7), 513-514.
Nye, B. (1993) Questions and Answers about multiage grouping. Educational Research Service (ERS)
Spectrum. 38-45.
Pardini, P. (2005) The slowdown of the muttiage classroom. School Administrator. 62(3) 22-30.
Paven, B. (1992). The benefits of nongraded schools. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 22-25.
Petrie, G.; Lindauer, P.; Dotson, K.; & Tountasakis, M. (1996) The nongraded middle school: Can it improve life for early adolescents? Education, Vol. 121. No. 4, p 781-786.
Steglin, D. A. (1998). Creating contexts for middle-age learning. Childhood Education, 74(4), 234-236.
Tangen-Foster, J & Tangen-Foster, L (1998) The caring capacity: A case for multi-age experiential learning, Electronic Green Journal, 1998.
Viadero, D. (1996). Mixed Blessings. Education Week, 15:33, 31-33. Editorial project in education, Inc. Washington, DC.
Yarborough, B. & Johnson, R. (2000). Nongraded schools: Why their promise has not been realized and should be reconsidered. Contemporary Education, 2000, Vol. 71 Issue 3, p.42.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
"To See The World in a Grain of Sand"
William Blake
"Soon we shall know everything the 18th Century didn't know, and nothing it did, and it will be hard to live with us."
Randall Jerrel
The single greatest threat to the life of the mind, the uniquely modern challenge to becoming educated, is that we are constantly exposed to information from sources both reliable and otherwise. In some ways, this exposure is a thing of wonder. But it is only wonderful for those who have cultivated the expertise and wisdom to know how to sort the real from the fantastic, what matters from what does not. To the unprepared consumer, the torrent of words and images that permeate our lives may create the illusion of understanding, but it can never truly inform us.
There is a simple, daunting mathematics that is the inevitable result of the 'information glut', and it is this: Any attempt at becoming 'educated' by learning some significant, fixed proportion of the world's accumulated knowledge is utterly futile, and grows more futile as the totality of human knowledge grows. It is impossible to keep up.
In the Natural Sciences, it has been 150 years since the passing of Alexander von Humbolt, the last man who was believed to have mastered the total knowledge in the field. Today, such a feat is beyond the realm of possibility. It is beyond the realm of reason for a hundred people, or a thousand, all working together. It is beyond the realm of possibility for a thousand people in the field of biology alone. In practical terms, there may not even be a 'field' of biology, as it has been parsed into ever-narrower sub-fields and specialties.
If education is a race to master some fixed percentage (even if it is called a 'core') of human knowledge, then the finish line is receding inevitably toward a horizon that we may never approach. We have lost that race already. Any attempt to measure educational achievement in these terms is utterly impractical.
While it is impossible to know 'everything', and futile to attempt to master some fixed percentage of everything that is known, we ought not lose track of the possibility and the value of knowing virtually everything about some very small aspect of the world.
What is the value of knowing 'everything' about some relatively modest topic?
Among other things, knowledge is fun. And I mean fun in a very serious sense. Human beings are wired to know. Knowing is a pleasurable experience. Knowledge is connectedness, to each other and to the world. Ignorance, even ignorance characterized by the accumulations of hundreds upon hundreds of unrelated facts, is a terrifying state, a state of isolation prompted by a loss of meaning. Meaning requires that we see the 'whole' of something. Meaning is necessary to our sense of well being.
Lack of meaningful knowledge manifests in negative side effects. One such side effect is confusion, which results from knowing enough to have a sense of a thing, but lacking the ability to put all of the pieces together.
Another side effect of lack of knowledge is boredom, which is, in the words of Kieran Egan, the product of ignorance.
While confusion, in the right circumstances and with proper coaching, is a valuable (sometimes crucial) learning experience, boredom is ignorance indulged. The only prescription for boredom, if we are not to give in to a crippling narcissism, is to insist upon deeper learning.
Boredom is the opposite of engagement, and this can lead to the false conclusion that the solution to boredom is to 'channel surf' until we hit upon something 'interesting'. This strategy, as its practitioners know too well, tends to have at least two negative results. First, it is always a temporary solution, resulting in the recurring need to change the subject as soon as its novelty wears off. Second, it fosters an egocentric worldview in which a child (or an immature adult) reserves the right to declare some aspect of the world to be unworthy of study based on knowing almost nothing... hardly the basis for future scholarly achievement.
Knowing some aspect of the world in depth is critical to further learning. Knowing just one thing, and knowing it intimately, is a road-map to the act of learning that transfers to all other endeavors. It is a template, a diagram, if you will, of what it means 'to know'. It foster a sense of what is reasonable, what is likely, what are more and less reliable sources of information or pathways to further knowledge, and how knowledge hangs together. Knowledge of one thing guides good thinking. The lessons learned in the process of becoming truly expert transfer to all of life's endeavors. More urgently, so do the lessons of never developing any particular expertise.
Accessing the lessons that are only available to those with expertise is what the Gorge Initiative is about. It is also what Learning in Depth is about. These are our strategies for talking back to an educational trend that promotes channel-surfing. We aspire to offer to our students the opportunities that they would miss in other schools. Other schools may skim flat rocks across the water and celebrate the bounces, while we want to teach patient, deep consideration of the pool. We want to dangle our toes in it, swim in it. Walk on it when it's frozen over. Be there to hear it thaw. We want to know the pool. We want to know the river, the salmon, and how the Gorge got its shape. We want to know who lived here before us and where they are today.
We don't propose to entertain our students with the channel-surfing curriculum. We don't intend to stave off boredom through amusement. Boredom is not a guidepost. It points to nowhere. Boredom is a symptom. It indicates a deeper problem.
The world is a place of endless surprises, worthy of contemplation. But in order to see it, we must discipline ourselves to be still. We need to pause over worthwhile ideas. It doesn't even matter so much that we stipulate ahead-of-time which worthwhile ideas as it does that we pause. The ability to think deeply and well cannot be developed in the run. We slow down.
We have no reservations that this is the best possible way to serve our children.
To educate in this manner is to make unparalleled demands on teachers, who must simply know more than those working in other schools. They too must overcome the urge to channel surf. They must resist the temptation to demand that the children are always busy. There must be time for contemplation, for puzzling, for wonder.
To educate deeply requires the patience of parents who are accustomed to other approaches to schooling. The vision of education as a production line, the school as a 'factory', the children as workers whose time on task and efficiency should be carefully monitored...these images are both pervasive and (ironically enough) counter-productive. They are the dominant image in virtually every failing school in America. They are among the childish things that we must put aside if we want to educate our children in the way that they deserve.
As a member school of Corbett School District, Corbett Charter School affords students a partnership with one of the most challenging high school programs in the country. We want them to be fully prepared to take advantage of this opportunity. Their preparation is always on our minds.
"To see the world in a grain of sand..." In a very real sense, there is no other way in which to see it. And there is no better approach to educating young children, no better way to prepare them for their futures.
"Soon we shall know everything the 18th Century didn't know, and nothing it did, and it will be hard to live with us."
Randall Jerrel
The single greatest threat to the life of the mind, the uniquely modern challenge to becoming educated, is that we are constantly exposed to information from sources both reliable and otherwise. In some ways, this exposure is a thing of wonder. But it is only wonderful for those who have cultivated the expertise and wisdom to know how to sort the real from the fantastic, what matters from what does not. To the unprepared consumer, the torrent of words and images that permeate our lives may create the illusion of understanding, but it can never truly inform us.
There is a simple, daunting mathematics that is the inevitable result of the 'information glut', and it is this: Any attempt at becoming 'educated' by learning some significant, fixed proportion of the world's accumulated knowledge is utterly futile, and grows more futile as the totality of human knowledge grows. It is impossible to keep up.
In the Natural Sciences, it has been 150 years since the passing of Alexander von Humbolt, the last man who was believed to have mastered the total knowledge in the field. Today, such a feat is beyond the realm of possibility. It is beyond the realm of reason for a hundred people, or a thousand, all working together. It is beyond the realm of possibility for a thousand people in the field of biology alone. In practical terms, there may not even be a 'field' of biology, as it has been parsed into ever-narrower sub-fields and specialties.
If education is a race to master some fixed percentage (even if it is called a 'core') of human knowledge, then the finish line is receding inevitably toward a horizon that we may never approach. We have lost that race already. Any attempt to measure educational achievement in these terms is utterly impractical.
While it is impossible to know 'everything', and futile to attempt to master some fixed percentage of everything that is known, we ought not lose track of the possibility and the value of knowing virtually everything about some very small aspect of the world.
What is the value of knowing 'everything' about some relatively modest topic?
Among other things, knowledge is fun. And I mean fun in a very serious sense. Human beings are wired to know. Knowing is a pleasurable experience. Knowledge is connectedness, to each other and to the world. Ignorance, even ignorance characterized by the accumulations of hundreds upon hundreds of unrelated facts, is a terrifying state, a state of isolation prompted by a loss of meaning. Meaning requires that we see the 'whole' of something. Meaning is necessary to our sense of well being.
Lack of meaningful knowledge manifests in negative side effects. One such side effect is confusion, which results from knowing enough to have a sense of a thing, but lacking the ability to put all of the pieces together.
Another side effect of lack of knowledge is boredom, which is, in the words of Kieran Egan, the product of ignorance.
While confusion, in the right circumstances and with proper coaching, is a valuable (sometimes crucial) learning experience, boredom is ignorance indulged. The only prescription for boredom, if we are not to give in to a crippling narcissism, is to insist upon deeper learning.
Boredom is the opposite of engagement, and this can lead to the false conclusion that the solution to boredom is to 'channel surf' until we hit upon something 'interesting'. This strategy, as its practitioners know too well, tends to have at least two negative results. First, it is always a temporary solution, resulting in the recurring need to change the subject as soon as its novelty wears off. Second, it fosters an egocentric worldview in which a child (or an immature adult) reserves the right to declare some aspect of the world to be unworthy of study based on knowing almost nothing... hardly the basis for future scholarly achievement.
Knowing some aspect of the world in depth is critical to further learning. Knowing just one thing, and knowing it intimately, is a road-map to the act of learning that transfers to all other endeavors. It is a template, a diagram, if you will, of what it means 'to know'. It foster a sense of what is reasonable, what is likely, what are more and less reliable sources of information or pathways to further knowledge, and how knowledge hangs together. Knowledge of one thing guides good thinking. The lessons learned in the process of becoming truly expert transfer to all of life's endeavors. More urgently, so do the lessons of never developing any particular expertise.
Accessing the lessons that are only available to those with expertise is what the Gorge Initiative is about. It is also what Learning in Depth is about. These are our strategies for talking back to an educational trend that promotes channel-surfing. We aspire to offer to our students the opportunities that they would miss in other schools. Other schools may skim flat rocks across the water and celebrate the bounces, while we want to teach patient, deep consideration of the pool. We want to dangle our toes in it, swim in it. Walk on it when it's frozen over. Be there to hear it thaw. We want to know the pool. We want to know the river, the salmon, and how the Gorge got its shape. We want to know who lived here before us and where they are today.
We don't propose to entertain our students with the channel-surfing curriculum. We don't intend to stave off boredom through amusement. Boredom is not a guidepost. It points to nowhere. Boredom is a symptom. It indicates a deeper problem.
The world is a place of endless surprises, worthy of contemplation. But in order to see it, we must discipline ourselves to be still. We need to pause over worthwhile ideas. It doesn't even matter so much that we stipulate ahead-of-time which worthwhile ideas as it does that we pause. The ability to think deeply and well cannot be developed in the run. We slow down.
We have no reservations that this is the best possible way to serve our children.
To educate in this manner is to make unparalleled demands on teachers, who must simply know more than those working in other schools. They too must overcome the urge to channel surf. They must resist the temptation to demand that the children are always busy. There must be time for contemplation, for puzzling, for wonder.
To educate deeply requires the patience of parents who are accustomed to other approaches to schooling. The vision of education as a production line, the school as a 'factory', the children as workers whose time on task and efficiency should be carefully monitored...these images are both pervasive and (ironically enough) counter-productive. They are the dominant image in virtually every failing school in America. They are among the childish things that we must put aside if we want to educate our children in the way that they deserve.
As a member school of Corbett School District, Corbett Charter School affords students a partnership with one of the most challenging high school programs in the country. We want them to be fully prepared to take advantage of this opportunity. Their preparation is always on our minds.
"To see the world in a grain of sand..." In a very real sense, there is no other way in which to see it. And there is no better approach to educating young children, no better way to prepare them for their futures.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The First 10 Bricks
From The Three Little Pigs to the Gospel According to St Matthew, Western Literature takes very seriously the business of building a home. The temptation to rush the job, to settle for unsuitable ground or inferior building materials, is known to lead to disaster.
So here is a 'mind experiment': Let's suppose that we have determined to construct a dwelling, that we have a good piece of ground, but that there is no money for construction. As if by Providence, we receive word of a design competition. Here are the rules:
"Each contestant receives 10 bricks with which to begin construction. A team of judges will evaluate the placement of those first 10 bricks. The contestant who makes the best use of the first 10 bricks will be declared the Champion! The Champion will receive an unlimited supply of building materials with which to complete the project."
What would the judges look for? Level placement? Should the bricks be solidly set in the ground? Should a perfect 'corner stone' be constructed to ensure that the rest of the eventual construction will be square? Should all 10 bricks be used, one at a time, flat on the ground to define the exterior walls and doors? The judges could use any of these or other criteria, I suppose...
There might be more than one great way to begin, but there would also be some conspicuously inept approaches. Perhaps the least wise course of action would be to imagine that the goal is to get the first 10 bricks to reach as high as possible and to stack them one on top of the other. This might be the strategy of a contestant who wanted to convince the judges that he was 'furthest along'. What makes this such a sad start? It's all too easy to imagine that the end result of this approach cannot be anything but rubble.
The moral: How high you can stack the first 10 bricks is not a good indicator of the quality of your eventual dwelling.
And you are right, that's just silly. NOBODY who gave it a moment's thought would imagine otherwise!
We are in the process of administering the newest version of the State of Oregon Assessments. They always remind me of the first 10 bricks. The State really does believe that stacking the first 10 bricks as high as possible, in preparation to take the 3rd grade assessments, is the way to begin construction. We believe otherwise, which is one reason our 10th grade passing rates are so high while our 3rd grade rates are relatively modest. It is why we are recognized nationally while being barely noticed in our home state. It always requires some explaining, so I thought I'd get a head start.
Creating a false sense of 'achievement' by working to inflate 3rd grade passing rates is a waste of time. It's bad practice. We are busy building the foundations that will put these same children in good stead when they begin to take exams that matter.
Meanwhile, perhaps one of you with artistic ability will work out a way to illustrate this metaphor. I'd love to see it.
So here is a 'mind experiment': Let's suppose that we have determined to construct a dwelling, that we have a good piece of ground, but that there is no money for construction. As if by Providence, we receive word of a design competition. Here are the rules:
"Each contestant receives 10 bricks with which to begin construction. A team of judges will evaluate the placement of those first 10 bricks. The contestant who makes the best use of the first 10 bricks will be declared the Champion! The Champion will receive an unlimited supply of building materials with which to complete the project."
What would the judges look for? Level placement? Should the bricks be solidly set in the ground? Should a perfect 'corner stone' be constructed to ensure that the rest of the eventual construction will be square? Should all 10 bricks be used, one at a time, flat on the ground to define the exterior walls and doors? The judges could use any of these or other criteria, I suppose...
There might be more than one great way to begin, but there would also be some conspicuously inept approaches. Perhaps the least wise course of action would be to imagine that the goal is to get the first 10 bricks to reach as high as possible and to stack them one on top of the other. This might be the strategy of a contestant who wanted to convince the judges that he was 'furthest along'. What makes this such a sad start? It's all too easy to imagine that the end result of this approach cannot be anything but rubble.
The moral: How high you can stack the first 10 bricks is not a good indicator of the quality of your eventual dwelling.
And you are right, that's just silly. NOBODY who gave it a moment's thought would imagine otherwise!
We are in the process of administering the newest version of the State of Oregon Assessments. They always remind me of the first 10 bricks. The State really does believe that stacking the first 10 bricks as high as possible, in preparation to take the 3rd grade assessments, is the way to begin construction. We believe otherwise, which is one reason our 10th grade passing rates are so high while our 3rd grade rates are relatively modest. It is why we are recognized nationally while being barely noticed in our home state. It always requires some explaining, so I thought I'd get a head start.
Creating a false sense of 'achievement' by working to inflate 3rd grade passing rates is a waste of time. It's bad practice. We are busy building the foundations that will put these same children in good stead when they begin to take exams that matter.
Meanwhile, perhaps one of you with artistic ability will work out a way to illustrate this metaphor. I'd love to see it.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
On the Necessity of Ironic Understanding
Kieran Egan identifies five Kinds of Understanding. The first is Somatic, and is the result of our bodily and social inheritance as human beings. The next two Kinds of Understanding, Mythic and Romantic, are built upon the acquisition of first oral, then written, language. Though vestiges of each of these Kinds of Understanding will continue to inform us throughout our lives, there are certain areas of study that are built upon, and require, Philosophic Understanding. The sciences are the prime example of Philosophic Understanding.
Philosophic Understanding becomes possible when students are able to make generalizations, theorize, and follow scripted procedures (mathematical formulas, for example). Philosophic Understanding harnesses a drive toward certainty, to know 'for sure' what is 'really' going on. High School, with its discrete courses of study (chemistry, biology and physics rather than 'general science', for example) is the reasonable educational embodiment of Philosophic Understanding.
In fact, the differences between Philosophic Understanding and Romantic Understanding are the basis for the differences between Corbett's High School and Middle School approaches. Schools that try to design middle school like high school (which the vast majority do and which the State of Oregon virtually requires!) or high school like middle school (which a few brave souls have tried and which may have good therapeutic outcomes but will never graduate hordes of AP Scholars) are making huge categorical mistakes. They are mistaking one sort of thing for another. Their results speak for themselves.
Philosophic Understanding allows access to the sciences, to mathematics, to literary analysis, to advanced performance techniques, to the application of technique to works of art, and to the study of economics, history, and politics. It allows the appreciation of grammar and syntax, sine and cosine, evolutionary theory and plate techtonics.
Philosophic Understanding enables human beings to predict, control and (to limited degrees) manipulate nature to their own advantage. Philosophic Understanding is what Sir Frances Bacon had in mind when he said 'Knowledge is Power'. Philosophic Understanding put a man on the moon (vestiges of Mythic Understanding ensured that it had to be a MAN!).
Philosophic Understanding is potent. But what are its limits? We know that Philosophic Understanding is adequate to a deep understanding of rocks. A well-trained scientist can bring to bear multiple perspectives from which almost nothing that can be known about rocks will remain hidden. And the scientist need never leave the comfort of Philosophic Understanding in this undertaking. But what about the person who wants to understand the scientist who is employing Philosophic Understanding in order to understand the rock? Can Philosophic Understanding fully comprehend the thinker who is practicing Philosophic Understanding? This is more than word play. If the answer is 'no', the consequences are immediate and significant. If the answer is 'no', then Imaginative Education has something to teach us not just about educating children, but about how we think about education.
Irony is, at its core, the understanding that the language we use to communicate our experience of the world is never fully adequate. For everything that is said, there is something made un-say-able. When we dig deeply to uncover one truth, we are building a burial mound beneath which another truth is ever less available. We have built certain habits into our ways of speaking in order to attempt to acknowledge this dilemma. We say, "one the one hand...but on the other hand", or "looking at it from one point of view", or "from my perspective". These ways of speaking pay homage to a world that simply overflows our descriptions, one in which simple categories and causal relations fail to capture our experience.
Does all of this add up to cynicism? Not in the least. To nihilism? Only in the hands of a beginner. Ironic Understanding at its best is the cautionary tale that reminds us that good science enables certainty regarding only some aspects of the world and that it should be tempered with humility regarding other matters. It reminds us that the paradigm that allows us to understand and predict chemical reactions does not necessarily generate understanding or predictability regarding, for example, the learning (or teaching) of chemistry.
And if you have ever wondered why we seem so often to be at odds with what is going on in the education 'universe' around us, then imagine this: expertise at education requires Ironic Understanding. Among other things, the Cognitive Tool of Reflexivity must be brought to bear as part of any attempt to understand to multiple, simultaneous human interactions that constitute the educational enterprise. Attempts to comprehend education from the standpoint of Philosophic Understanding, untempered by Ironic Understanding, result in bad theorizing, bad policy-making, and ineffective practice.
So Ironic Understanding is not just a guide to better classroom practice. It offers the means to think deeply and well about education in general. It offers a critic of the 'scientific' approach to education that is crippling our schools and truncating the educational experiences of the vast majority of our children.
And now consider the direction that education policy has taken over the past 20 years. It celebrates its emphasis on Philosophic Understanding, touts its 'scientific' orientation, and fails to recognize that Philosophic Understanding represents an adolescent approach to understanding the world: powerful in some respects, but incomplete in others, and with regard to certain phenomena (the work of educators, for example) utterly incompetent. Ironic, isn't it, that the institutions with the greatest influence over K-12 education should suffer from arrested development?
That's where we live. Those are the attitudes and beliefs that we have to work around in order to be effective. Those are the people to whom we have to report the number of minutes per day that our students are spending in P.E. classes...by grade level!
Ironic Understanding rarely wins friends or elections. Socrates, a master of irony, was offered Hemlock for his efforts. But doing our best for kids has to take priority over 'getting along' or currying the favor of The Powers That Be. Irony is our defense against the worst excesses of misapplied social science, against ill-informed regulation. Irony is the difference between great education and meaningless skill-building. It's the difference between teaching facts and building the capacity for limitless learning. It's what we do. Perhaps it won't win friends, but it will help our children secure a good future. It's a simple matter of values. All we need is love. And Ironic Understanding.
Philosophic Understanding becomes possible when students are able to make generalizations, theorize, and follow scripted procedures (mathematical formulas, for example). Philosophic Understanding harnesses a drive toward certainty, to know 'for sure' what is 'really' going on. High School, with its discrete courses of study (chemistry, biology and physics rather than 'general science', for example) is the reasonable educational embodiment of Philosophic Understanding.
In fact, the differences between Philosophic Understanding and Romantic Understanding are the basis for the differences between Corbett's High School and Middle School approaches. Schools that try to design middle school like high school (which the vast majority do and which the State of Oregon virtually requires!) or high school like middle school (which a few brave souls have tried and which may have good therapeutic outcomes but will never graduate hordes of AP Scholars) are making huge categorical mistakes. They are mistaking one sort of thing for another. Their results speak for themselves.
Philosophic Understanding allows access to the sciences, to mathematics, to literary analysis, to advanced performance techniques, to the application of technique to works of art, and to the study of economics, history, and politics. It allows the appreciation of grammar and syntax, sine and cosine, evolutionary theory and plate techtonics.
Philosophic Understanding enables human beings to predict, control and (to limited degrees) manipulate nature to their own advantage. Philosophic Understanding is what Sir Frances Bacon had in mind when he said 'Knowledge is Power'. Philosophic Understanding put a man on the moon (vestiges of Mythic Understanding ensured that it had to be a MAN!).
Philosophic Understanding is potent. But what are its limits? We know that Philosophic Understanding is adequate to a deep understanding of rocks. A well-trained scientist can bring to bear multiple perspectives from which almost nothing that can be known about rocks will remain hidden. And the scientist need never leave the comfort of Philosophic Understanding in this undertaking. But what about the person who wants to understand the scientist who is employing Philosophic Understanding in order to understand the rock? Can Philosophic Understanding fully comprehend the thinker who is practicing Philosophic Understanding? This is more than word play. If the answer is 'no', the consequences are immediate and significant. If the answer is 'no', then Imaginative Education has something to teach us not just about educating children, but about how we think about education.
Irony is, at its core, the understanding that the language we use to communicate our experience of the world is never fully adequate. For everything that is said, there is something made un-say-able. When we dig deeply to uncover one truth, we are building a burial mound beneath which another truth is ever less available. We have built certain habits into our ways of speaking in order to attempt to acknowledge this dilemma. We say, "one the one hand...but on the other hand", or "looking at it from one point of view", or "from my perspective". These ways of speaking pay homage to a world that simply overflows our descriptions, one in which simple categories and causal relations fail to capture our experience.
Does all of this add up to cynicism? Not in the least. To nihilism? Only in the hands of a beginner. Ironic Understanding at its best is the cautionary tale that reminds us that good science enables certainty regarding only some aspects of the world and that it should be tempered with humility regarding other matters. It reminds us that the paradigm that allows us to understand and predict chemical reactions does not necessarily generate understanding or predictability regarding, for example, the learning (or teaching) of chemistry.
And if you have ever wondered why we seem so often to be at odds with what is going on in the education 'universe' around us, then imagine this: expertise at education requires Ironic Understanding. Among other things, the Cognitive Tool of Reflexivity must be brought to bear as part of any attempt to understand to multiple, simultaneous human interactions that constitute the educational enterprise. Attempts to comprehend education from the standpoint of Philosophic Understanding, untempered by Ironic Understanding, result in bad theorizing, bad policy-making, and ineffective practice.
So Ironic Understanding is not just a guide to better classroom practice. It offers the means to think deeply and well about education in general. It offers a critic of the 'scientific' approach to education that is crippling our schools and truncating the educational experiences of the vast majority of our children.
And now consider the direction that education policy has taken over the past 20 years. It celebrates its emphasis on Philosophic Understanding, touts its 'scientific' orientation, and fails to recognize that Philosophic Understanding represents an adolescent approach to understanding the world: powerful in some respects, but incomplete in others, and with regard to certain phenomena (the work of educators, for example) utterly incompetent. Ironic, isn't it, that the institutions with the greatest influence over K-12 education should suffer from arrested development?
That's where we live. Those are the attitudes and beliefs that we have to work around in order to be effective. Those are the people to whom we have to report the number of minutes per day that our students are spending in P.E. classes...by grade level!
Ironic Understanding rarely wins friends or elections. Socrates, a master of irony, was offered Hemlock for his efforts. But doing our best for kids has to take priority over 'getting along' or currying the favor of The Powers That Be. Irony is our defense against the worst excesses of misapplied social science, against ill-informed regulation. Irony is the difference between great education and meaningless skill-building. It's the difference between teaching facts and building the capacity for limitless learning. It's what we do. Perhaps it won't win friends, but it will help our children secure a good future. It's a simple matter of values. All we need is love. And Ironic Understanding.
What is Imaginative Education? (Or is JM right?)
"Imagination is ...reason in its most exalted mood."...Wordsworth
Imaginative Education posits that education consists in the initiation of young people into their cultural inheritance. What is that inheritance? In the broadest terms, it includes all of the achievements of humankind. More particularly, as it pertains to education, it consists in the Cognitive Tools that have been created over the course of human history. The Cognitive Tools are embedded in five Kinds of Knowing that are generally chronological, though the Cognitive Tools associated with more sophisticated Kinds of Knowing may appear 'out of sequence'. In the chronology that follows, any generalizations regarding sequence should not be mistaken for absolutes. Life is messy.
Somatic Understanding refers to those abilities that seem innate to human children as the result of their essential bodily and social experience. Somatic Understanding is predominant from Birth to the acquisition of oral language.
The Cognitive Tools associated with Somatic Understanding are: Bodily Senses. Emotional Responses and Attachments, Rhythm and Musicality, Gesture and Communication, Referencing and Intentionality.
Mythic Understanding refers to those abilities that are related to the acquisition of oral language. Mythic Understanding is predominant through the acquisition of literacy.
The Cognitive Tools associated with Mythic Understanding are: Story, Metaphor, Abstract Binary Opposites; Rhyme, Meter and Pattern; Joking and Humor; Forming Images, a Sense of Mystery; and Games, Drama and Play.
Romantic Understanding refers to abilities that are possible as the result of the development of written language, of literacy.
The Cognitive Tools associated with Romantic Understanding are: Extremes and Limits of Reality; Sense of Reality; Association with Heroes; Wonder; Humanizing of Meaning; Collections and Hobbies; Revolt and Idealism; and Context Change and Role Play. Romantic Understanding is embedded in literacy and dominates the imagination until the acquisition of Philosophical Understanding.
Philosophic Understanding is characterized by the desire for generalizations and theories, and by the quest for certainty. It is the full flower the adolescent mind. It depends on the theoretic use of language.
The Cognitive Tools of Philosophic Understanding are a Drive toward Generality, A Facility with Processes, the Lure of Certainty, General Schemes and Anomalies, the Search for Authority and Truth. The Scientific Method is the Zenith of Philosophic Understanding.
Ironic Understanding depends on the reflexive use of language. It entails a recognition of the limits of theoretical thinking, the particularity of the moment, the tenuousness of our knowledge.
The Cognitive Tools of Ironic Understanding are Reflexivity and Identity, the Limits of Theory, Particularity and Radical Epistemic Doubt. Ironic Understanding requires years of preparation and intellectual courage. That's the goal. Everything else is preliminary.
Imaginative Education posits that education consists in the initiation of young people into their cultural inheritance. What is that inheritance? In the broadest terms, it includes all of the achievements of humankind. More particularly, as it pertains to education, it consists in the Cognitive Tools that have been created over the course of human history. The Cognitive Tools are embedded in five Kinds of Knowing that are generally chronological, though the Cognitive Tools associated with more sophisticated Kinds of Knowing may appear 'out of sequence'. In the chronology that follows, any generalizations regarding sequence should not be mistaken for absolutes. Life is messy.
Somatic Understanding refers to those abilities that seem innate to human children as the result of their essential bodily and social experience. Somatic Understanding is predominant from Birth to the acquisition of oral language.
The Cognitive Tools associated with Somatic Understanding are: Bodily Senses. Emotional Responses and Attachments, Rhythm and Musicality, Gesture and Communication, Referencing and Intentionality.
Mythic Understanding refers to those abilities that are related to the acquisition of oral language. Mythic Understanding is predominant through the acquisition of literacy.
The Cognitive Tools associated with Mythic Understanding are: Story, Metaphor, Abstract Binary Opposites; Rhyme, Meter and Pattern; Joking and Humor; Forming Images, a Sense of Mystery; and Games, Drama and Play.
Romantic Understanding refers to abilities that are possible as the result of the development of written language, of literacy.
The Cognitive Tools associated with Romantic Understanding are: Extremes and Limits of Reality; Sense of Reality; Association with Heroes; Wonder; Humanizing of Meaning; Collections and Hobbies; Revolt and Idealism; and Context Change and Role Play. Romantic Understanding is embedded in literacy and dominates the imagination until the acquisition of Philosophical Understanding.
Philosophic Understanding is characterized by the desire for generalizations and theories, and by the quest for certainty. It is the full flower the adolescent mind. It depends on the theoretic use of language.
The Cognitive Tools of Philosophic Understanding are a Drive toward Generality, A Facility with Processes, the Lure of Certainty, General Schemes and Anomalies, the Search for Authority and Truth. The Scientific Method is the Zenith of Philosophic Understanding.
Ironic Understanding depends on the reflexive use of language. It entails a recognition of the limits of theoretical thinking, the particularity of the moment, the tenuousness of our knowledge.
The Cognitive Tools of Ironic Understanding are Reflexivity and Identity, the Limits of Theory, Particularity and Radical Epistemic Doubt. Ironic Understanding requires years of preparation and intellectual courage. That's the goal. Everything else is preliminary.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Open Letter to the Charter Community
Hi, folks,
Hope you are well.
Progress reports are nearly ready to go, and we are knocking on the door of the holiday season.
This is a good time to remind everyone that even though the holidays mean some days out of school, we are still doing serious work and we need everyone in school for the entire day when we are in session. This is a critical time, as we don't want a few days off to result in flagging effort.
We have been incredibly busy, and it seems almost impossible that we are coming up on Thanksgiving. I am very pleased with the progress that our children have made and with the work that the entire staff has invested in the process. The first few weeks of operation of a new school are a scary and delightful time, and I hope that we are all learning more about each others expectations as we go.
Corbett Charter School is a school of choice, and we are committed to being clearly and consistently who we are so that you can continue to make informed choices regarding what is best for each of your children. We recognize that this is not how most schools work, but we continue our commitment to a laser-like focus on extraordinary schooling and invite you to join us in doing the same.
We know that many of our core beliefs are unusual and even startling to folks. But if we believed just like everyone else, we would be setting ourselves up for average results. We do not anticipate ever being average.
One respect in which we want to see vast improvement is in student conduct. Many of our students are exemplary in this regard. Some are not. If our teachers are to be free to focus on achievement and on meeting the needs of those students who are attending to their business, then we need to limit the amount of time that they spend addressing misbehavior. The standards of good behavior in school are not a mystery and shouldn't have to be taught beyond the first few days. After that, teachers should be able to expect cooperation from their students in the vast majority of instances. Parents are the key ingredient in this key element of schooling. A classroom full of respectful, well-behaved students has virtually unlimited potential for growth. It's a wonderful thing to see. It depends, to a large degree, on the willingness of all of the adults involved to insist that school behavior is a matter of choice and that children must be held accountable for their choices.
Modern American pop culture temps us with all sorts of unfounded theories about why students misbehave. They are mostly bad psychology designed to sell books and seminars. (They are usually some derivative of the theory that 'everything is somebody else's fault!) The fact is that we humans beings are choosers, and we can be responsible for our choices. Youngsters can't be held responsible for making choices that involve complex problem-solving, but they absolutely can be (and should be) held responsible for being respectful of adults and for doing as they are instructed by a teacher. If you honestly believe otherwise, then some of our habits will seem strange. (But trust me when I say that there is a method to our sanity!
I know that we can work together to improve student conduct and that the result will be ever-increasing student achievement. It is a simple formula. We literally can't do it without you.
Thanks, and happy early holidays.
Hope you are well.
Progress reports are nearly ready to go, and we are knocking on the door of the holiday season.
This is a good time to remind everyone that even though the holidays mean some days out of school, we are still doing serious work and we need everyone in school for the entire day when we are in session. This is a critical time, as we don't want a few days off to result in flagging effort.
We have been incredibly busy, and it seems almost impossible that we are coming up on Thanksgiving. I am very pleased with the progress that our children have made and with the work that the entire staff has invested in the process. The first few weeks of operation of a new school are a scary and delightful time, and I hope that we are all learning more about each others expectations as we go.
Corbett Charter School is a school of choice, and we are committed to being clearly and consistently who we are so that you can continue to make informed choices regarding what is best for each of your children. We recognize that this is not how most schools work, but we continue our commitment to a laser-like focus on extraordinary schooling and invite you to join us in doing the same.
We know that many of our core beliefs are unusual and even startling to folks. But if we believed just like everyone else, we would be setting ourselves up for average results. We do not anticipate ever being average.
One respect in which we want to see vast improvement is in student conduct. Many of our students are exemplary in this regard. Some are not. If our teachers are to be free to focus on achievement and on meeting the needs of those students who are attending to their business, then we need to limit the amount of time that they spend addressing misbehavior. The standards of good behavior in school are not a mystery and shouldn't have to be taught beyond the first few days. After that, teachers should be able to expect cooperation from their students in the vast majority of instances. Parents are the key ingredient in this key element of schooling. A classroom full of respectful, well-behaved students has virtually unlimited potential for growth. It's a wonderful thing to see. It depends, to a large degree, on the willingness of all of the adults involved to insist that school behavior is a matter of choice and that children must be held accountable for their choices.
Modern American pop culture temps us with all sorts of unfounded theories about why students misbehave. They are mostly bad psychology designed to sell books and seminars. (They are usually some derivative of the theory that 'everything is somebody else's fault!) The fact is that we humans beings are choosers, and we can be responsible for our choices. Youngsters can't be held responsible for making choices that involve complex problem-solving, but they absolutely can be (and should be) held responsible for being respectful of adults and for doing as they are instructed by a teacher. If you honestly believe otherwise, then some of our habits will seem strange. (But trust me when I say that there is a method to our sanity!
I know that we can work together to improve student conduct and that the result will be ever-increasing student achievement. It is a simple formula. We literally can't do it without you.
Thanks, and happy early holidays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)