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.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
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.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Pascal: Geometry, Finesse and Which is Which
Nearly 400 years ago, the French philosopher and mathematician Pascal posited two ways of knowing about the world...two fundamental capacities of the human mind. One he called the "geometrical bent", meaning the capacity to break things down, analyze, calculate, predict with precision, and apply unalterable principles such as those that characterize mathematics and (with some limits) the physical sciences.
The second human capacity he called (pardon my French) 'esprit de finesse', which Jacques Barzun (whose essay 'Culture High and Dry' informs this posting) translates as 'intuitive understanding'. Intellectual finesse (which seems to me closer to what Pascal called it) is necessary for understanding and succeeding in those areas of human endeavor that do not lend themselves to measurement, analysis, calculation, precise prediction and the application of unalterable principles. Finesse is necessary to the apprehension of those things that can't be 'broken down' (the literal meaning of analysis), rearranged and improved through engineering.
What could be more evident than that education is an endeavor of this second sort? What could be ironic than that contemporary educators somehow became so enamored of Pascals 'geometric bent' that they continually misapply it to an endeavor that he himself would have said was clearly a matter of 'esprit de finesse'? A geometry of teaching? A science of education? An utterly preposterous, though clearly profitable, notion. Charlatans playing on the fears and anxieties of parents and governing boards are all too ready to insist that a geometry of education is not only possible but is (forever, it seems) just around the corner as the result of each year's revolutionary new scientifically-based methods of delivery! Today they even offer it over the internet!
But what about the criterion of predictability? At what point does generation after generation of abject failure add up to evidence that the 'geometry of education' possesses no predictive power and is therefor (by it's own standards) a failure? When do we admit that such an approach has borne no fruit for decades and holds no promise for the future? Why do we cling so desperately to a failed model (all in the name of Continuous Improvement!)?
I suggest that it is because the alternative is unthinkable, and perhaps in two senses of that word.
First, it is politically unthinkable because a reliance on the experience, judgment and (yes) finesse of expert teachers strips the state of the appearance of control over the process. ODE, TSPC, Schools of Education, all depend on the myth that teachers and teaching can be mass-produced in accordance with the principles of scientific management. The unfortunate thing about the current level of state control is that while government agencies have some control over the behavior of some of the adults (mostly the administrators and support staff at district offices) they clearly have no control over the quality of education or the experience of the students in our schools. Still, this appearance of control evidently plays an important role in someone's thinking about how 'the education question' ought to be addressed. (That they can only address 'the education question' and not education itself ought to be apparent from the lack of progress over the past 20 years).
Second, perhaps finesse with regard to education is simply outside the experience of the current generation of 'deciders'. The illusion of scientific management, which was born outside of education, can be learned elsewhere, imported, and easily (mis)applied to schools and schooling. It requires no knowledge of education per se. Perhaps those who (whether from inside or outside the field) understand so little about education as to imagine that it can be scientifically managed are simply incapable of rethinking schools as places where finesse drives success. Perhaps they have never seen success up close, thus their infatuation with 'improvement' and their despairing of real results.
But even given all of that, why the appeal to Pascal? What makes him a reliable guide? Is this just a case of dragging up the name of some old European because he supports my take on things? Maybe. But Pascal understood 'the geometrical bent' that drives education policy today. And he could have predicted that it's application to education would produce disastrous results. It has. And he proposed an alternative way of thinking about problems that don't lend themselves to technical/geometrical solutions. What Pascal called 'intuitive understanding' is a viable alternative to what has repeatedly proved to be a failed stance toward education. Maybe it shouldn't matter that he wrote nearly 400 years ago. Maybe it should matter more that he appears to have been on to something that we have missed to the detriment of our kids. Maybe we should take a break from planning and think instead. Every year that we delay, we misdirect hundreds of millions of dollars toward wasteful activity and we fail to keep the promise that we make to our children each time we invite them to spend a day at school.
We can do better. But if we lack the commitment to revisit some basic assumptions then we must continue to grind inevitably toward to the same failed conclusions that got us to this point. That's not going to be good enough. That's not going to be good enough even if there is adequate funding for education over the next three years. Given the more likely scenario of near-historic shortfalls, the risk represented by a commitment to the educational status quo is simply unacceptable. We may not, in either practical or moral terms, fail to change.
The second human capacity he called (pardon my French) 'esprit de finesse', which Jacques Barzun (whose essay 'Culture High and Dry' informs this posting) translates as 'intuitive understanding'. Intellectual finesse (which seems to me closer to what Pascal called it) is necessary for understanding and succeeding in those areas of human endeavor that do not lend themselves to measurement, analysis, calculation, precise prediction and the application of unalterable principles. Finesse is necessary to the apprehension of those things that can't be 'broken down' (the literal meaning of analysis), rearranged and improved through engineering.
What could be more evident than that education is an endeavor of this second sort? What could be ironic than that contemporary educators somehow became so enamored of Pascals 'geometric bent' that they continually misapply it to an endeavor that he himself would have said was clearly a matter of 'esprit de finesse'? A geometry of teaching? A science of education? An utterly preposterous, though clearly profitable, notion. Charlatans playing on the fears and anxieties of parents and governing boards are all too ready to insist that a geometry of education is not only possible but is (forever, it seems) just around the corner as the result of each year's revolutionary new scientifically-based methods of delivery! Today they even offer it over the internet!
But what about the criterion of predictability? At what point does generation after generation of abject failure add up to evidence that the 'geometry of education' possesses no predictive power and is therefor (by it's own standards) a failure? When do we admit that such an approach has borne no fruit for decades and holds no promise for the future? Why do we cling so desperately to a failed model (all in the name of Continuous Improvement!)?
I suggest that it is because the alternative is unthinkable, and perhaps in two senses of that word.
First, it is politically unthinkable because a reliance on the experience, judgment and (yes) finesse of expert teachers strips the state of the appearance of control over the process. ODE, TSPC, Schools of Education, all depend on the myth that teachers and teaching can be mass-produced in accordance with the principles of scientific management. The unfortunate thing about the current level of state control is that while government agencies have some control over the behavior of some of the adults (mostly the administrators and support staff at district offices) they clearly have no control over the quality of education or the experience of the students in our schools. Still, this appearance of control evidently plays an important role in someone's thinking about how 'the education question' ought to be addressed. (That they can only address 'the education question' and not education itself ought to be apparent from the lack of progress over the past 20 years).
Second, perhaps finesse with regard to education is simply outside the experience of the current generation of 'deciders'. The illusion of scientific management, which was born outside of education, can be learned elsewhere, imported, and easily (mis)applied to schools and schooling. It requires no knowledge of education per se. Perhaps those who (whether from inside or outside the field) understand so little about education as to imagine that it can be scientifically managed are simply incapable of rethinking schools as places where finesse drives success. Perhaps they have never seen success up close, thus their infatuation with 'improvement' and their despairing of real results.
But even given all of that, why the appeal to Pascal? What makes him a reliable guide? Is this just a case of dragging up the name of some old European because he supports my take on things? Maybe. But Pascal understood 'the geometrical bent' that drives education policy today. And he could have predicted that it's application to education would produce disastrous results. It has. And he proposed an alternative way of thinking about problems that don't lend themselves to technical/geometrical solutions. What Pascal called 'intuitive understanding' is a viable alternative to what has repeatedly proved to be a failed stance toward education. Maybe it shouldn't matter that he wrote nearly 400 years ago. Maybe it should matter more that he appears to have been on to something that we have missed to the detriment of our kids. Maybe we should take a break from planning and think instead. Every year that we delay, we misdirect hundreds of millions of dollars toward wasteful activity and we fail to keep the promise that we make to our children each time we invite them to spend a day at school.
We can do better. But if we lack the commitment to revisit some basic assumptions then we must continue to grind inevitably toward to the same failed conclusions that got us to this point. That's not going to be good enough. That's not going to be good enough even if there is adequate funding for education over the next three years. Given the more likely scenario of near-historic shortfalls, the risk represented by a commitment to the educational status quo is simply unacceptable. We may not, in either practical or moral terms, fail to change.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Ripples of Hope?
Just a few weeks ago the Oregon Department of Education announced that it has not, for some years now, had the 'time' to nominate schools for national recognition (Blue Ribbon Schools). Given that the Department has had time to sponsor banquets for schools that, according to the state assessment folks, have 'improved' their performance on State Assessments, the issue is clearly not time so much as priorities.
Along the same lines, for the past two years the Oregon Department of Education has failed to publicly recognize Oregon's Advanced Placement State Scholars...students who have set the bar for Advanced Placement achievement in Oregon. Each year one boy and one girl from Oregon are selected based on their total number of AP exams passed during high school. The College Board does all the work, even going so far as to provide sample letters of congratulations and press releases. ODE has shown no interest.
In 2008 Corbett was ranked #8 in the nation by Newsweek Magazine, and the Oregon Department of Education chose never to publicly acknowledge the achievement. Nor did it ever mention that Corbett was the only Oregon school to be awarded Gold Medal status (and a top 100 ranking) by U.S. News and World Report. Because of my association with Corbett, I am likely more bothered than most by these omissions. But the trend of elevating 'improvement' to the highest (only?) educational value and of repeatedly devaluing or ignoring excellence should be troubling to anyone who cares about schools.
Does their attitude matter?
Six years ago, Oregon boasted three high schools among the top 500 in the nation based on participation rates in the Advanced Placement program. Last year there was only one. Is it possible that Oregon's top schools are beginning to reflect the disregard with which the State of Oregon views its high achievers?
I am deeply concerned that Oregon seems to have given up on a vision of extraordinary education, seeking instead a comfortable 'middle' in which the narrowing of 'the achievement gap' trumps all other concerns. Equity matters, which is why we organize life in Corbett as we do. But while equity is an ethical imperative, it is not an adequate vision for Oregon's future. There simply has to be more.
Do we Oregonians have a vision for our best and brightest? For exceptional students? For exemplary schools? Is there life beyond benchmarks? Learning beyond State Standards?
Oregon has been doing educational triage to the exclusion of everything else for much too long. We need to get our heads out of the 'emergency room' paradigm and start building something really interesting with our schools. This effort requires that the State leadership and the professional organizations grow into the trust that has been place in them and do something bold for a change.
Next week's annual conference of the Oregon School Boards Association is called "Ripples of Hope". Wake me when it's over. Ripples? That's what we're shooting for? How did we regress from the President's 'Audacity' to 'Ripples'? This is just too sad. Ripples?
We need to do better. We need to lay claim to a future in which Oregon places more graduates in better schools than anyone else in the country. We need to demand more from our students than others are willing to dare, and we need for more teachers to be willing to take on the impossible and make it work. 'Audacity' on a book cover is one thing. (It is certainly better than 'Ripples', but still...) We need Audacity in action.
I believe that Oregon has the talent to be extraordinary. That talent needs to be fed, and 'ripples' won't nourish it. The goal of bringing everyone up to average won't do it. Talent wants a vision. It wants boldness. Will Oregon provide either?
Along the same lines, for the past two years the Oregon Department of Education has failed to publicly recognize Oregon's Advanced Placement State Scholars...students who have set the bar for Advanced Placement achievement in Oregon. Each year one boy and one girl from Oregon are selected based on their total number of AP exams passed during high school. The College Board does all the work, even going so far as to provide sample letters of congratulations and press releases. ODE has shown no interest.
In 2008 Corbett was ranked #8 in the nation by Newsweek Magazine, and the Oregon Department of Education chose never to publicly acknowledge the achievement. Nor did it ever mention that Corbett was the only Oregon school to be awarded Gold Medal status (and a top 100 ranking) by U.S. News and World Report. Because of my association with Corbett, I am likely more bothered than most by these omissions. But the trend of elevating 'improvement' to the highest (only?) educational value and of repeatedly devaluing or ignoring excellence should be troubling to anyone who cares about schools.
Does their attitude matter?
Six years ago, Oregon boasted three high schools among the top 500 in the nation based on participation rates in the Advanced Placement program. Last year there was only one. Is it possible that Oregon's top schools are beginning to reflect the disregard with which the State of Oregon views its high achievers?
I am deeply concerned that Oregon seems to have given up on a vision of extraordinary education, seeking instead a comfortable 'middle' in which the narrowing of 'the achievement gap' trumps all other concerns. Equity matters, which is why we organize life in Corbett as we do. But while equity is an ethical imperative, it is not an adequate vision for Oregon's future. There simply has to be more.
Do we Oregonians have a vision for our best and brightest? For exceptional students? For exemplary schools? Is there life beyond benchmarks? Learning beyond State Standards?
Oregon has been doing educational triage to the exclusion of everything else for much too long. We need to get our heads out of the 'emergency room' paradigm and start building something really interesting with our schools. This effort requires that the State leadership and the professional organizations grow into the trust that has been place in them and do something bold for a change.
Next week's annual conference of the Oregon School Boards Association is called "Ripples of Hope". Wake me when it's over. Ripples? That's what we're shooting for? How did we regress from the President's 'Audacity' to 'Ripples'? This is just too sad. Ripples?
We need to do better. We need to lay claim to a future in which Oregon places more graduates in better schools than anyone else in the country. We need to demand more from our students than others are willing to dare, and we need for more teachers to be willing to take on the impossible and make it work. 'Audacity' on a book cover is one thing. (It is certainly better than 'Ripples', but still...) We need Audacity in action.
I believe that Oregon has the talent to be extraordinary. That talent needs to be fed, and 'ripples' won't nourish it. The goal of bringing everyone up to average won't do it. Talent wants a vision. It wants boldness. Will Oregon provide either?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)