kitchen table math, the sequel: "When Progressiveness Leads to Backwardness"

Friday, February 2, 2007

"When Progressiveness Leads to Backwardness"

Amity Shlaes' op ed on the history of progressive education (posted at NYC HOLD) is the best very short piece explaining how we got here that I've seen.
Progressive education, by which I mean forsaking content for utility and a child-centered focus on creativity, also has a strong tradition in Britain. A. S. Neill, the famous progressive educator, founded Summerhill, the progressive school, in Suffolk, England, not Suffolk County, New York. But the progressive movement has not touched most British schools to anything like the degree it has penetrated in America. As Diane Ravitch, the academic and former assistant secretary of education, points out in Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, a history of progressive education, America is now a nation of Summerhills. Most American teachers and principals frown on traditional schooling. Rote learning is out, as are American and European history and demanding math. Instead educators impart things they find fun or politically appealing. The attitude has become so ingrained that anyone challenging it risks being labeled elitist, even un-American. The New World, the message is, has never liked or needed Old World–style learning.

This, as Ms. Ravitch shows, is a myth. American schools were not always anti-intellectual. As recently as 1910, half of those in high school studied Latin—even though many were immigrants who were also learning English. As recently as the 1930s, eight-year-olds in Philadelphia’s public schools routinely memorized biographies of Alfred the Great, William Tell, and Florence Nightingale. Grammar schools demanded that small children demonstrate a skill today not required of even Ivy-bound 18-year-olds—to answer questions such as “A harness was sold for three-quarters of four-fifths of what it cost. What was the percentage loss?”

Such knowledge was then deemed the best weapon to abolish class. “The famous simile of the educational ladder, with its foot in the gutter and its top in the university,” wrote one educator, “is a fact many times verified in the knowledge of every intelligent adult.”

Then, though, came the progressives, who argued that children needed living knowledge, not dead artifacts. They started small, by throwing out the Greeks and Romans, and worked from there. By the 1940s the schools in Battle Creek, Michigan, had halved the share of students enrolled in college prep classes, while introducing health studies and “basic living” courses. Schools replaced mythology and history with the more amorphous social studies.

The youth-centered 1960s gave the trend fresh life. Now old-fashioned, content-oriented education was deemed not merely useless but dangerously authoritarian. Schools sought to cater to children and offered, as one Michigan scholar wrote, “an endless list of subjects to attract and interest students, such as Girl Talk and What’s Happening.” The schools, the scholar noted, had “simply given up on any attempt to exert any moral authority relative to education.” By 1970, Neill’s book Summerhill, which promoted his experimental methods, was required reading at 600 universities, selling 200,000 copies. What had started as a tiny war against Homer and Herodotus had turned into a siege, a watering down of every part of the curriculum for all ages. Today even basic math skills such as long division and the division of fractions are under assault. Teachers explicitly dismiss them as outdated and hand out calculators to children in the first grade.
This is the key passage:
They started small, by throwing out the Greeks and Romans, and worked from there. By the 1940s the schools in Battle Creek, Michigan, had halved the share of students enrolled in college prep classes, while introducing health studies and “basic living” courses.
Labaree on the 2 progressivisms & which one won

Progressive education wasn't just one thing; it was two things.

pedagogical progressivism (Dewey)

administrative progressivism (Thorndike)

Here's Labaree:
The second thing we need to recognize about the history of this movement is that the administrative progressives trounced their pedagogical counterparts. Ellen Lagemann explains this with admirable precision: ‘I have often argued to students, only in part to be perverse, that one cannot understand the history of education in the United States during the twentieth century unless one realizes that Edward L.Thorndike won and John Dewey lost.’
I get the sense that more than a few ktm readers, writers, and commenters see high school as the release from progressive ed. The evidence? It's in high school where tracking begins.

For my district and I'm sure for others, that's wrong. Tracking was invented by the progressive ed movement, and at the district level it's not about high standards for teaching or content.

It's about tracking.

It's about selecting an elite from amongst an already self-selected group of students.
[T]he main thrust of the social efficiency curriculum, with its emphasis on core principles of the pedagogical progressives. It mandated exactly the kind of topdown curriculum that the latter abhorred, imposed on students in order to serve society’s need for particular skills and knowledge, and forcing them spend their time in schools becoming socialized for the adult social roles they will play. This puts priority on learning particular subject matter instead of learning to learn; it elevates the interests of society and of school administrators over the interests of students; it makes the classroom a preparation for adulthood rather than an exploration of childhood; and, in the name of these social benefits, it risks extinguishing the child’s engagement in learning and curiosity about the world. It was, in short, exactly the kind of curriculum that Dewey deplored, ‘externally presented material, conceived and generated in standpoints and attitudes remote from the child, and developed in motives alien to him’.

Not only did the social efficiency curriculum threaten the kind of natural learning process treasured by the pedagogical progressives, but it also threatened the values of social justice and egalitarian community that were central to their beliefs. This curriculum was radical in its challenge to traditional notions of academic education, but it was profoundly conservative in its embrace of the existing social order and in its eagerness to prepare students for predetermined positions within that order. It introduced tracking and ability grouping into American schools; it introduced ability testing and guidance as ways of sorting students into the appropriate classes; and it institutionalized the educational reproduction of social inequality by creating a system in which educational differences followed from and in turn reinforced differences in class, gender and race.
In our district what I think I see is John Dewey progressive ed K-5 replaced by Edward Thorndike progressive ed 6-12.

So far I prefer Dewey.

Jay Mathews, as it turns out, lived in Scarsdale and experienced "Westchester tracking" firsthand. More later.

spilt religion - Hirsch on progressive education & Romanticism
David Labaree on the 2 factions
Labaree on constructivism
Hirsch on Labaree
Hirsch, E.D., "Romancing the Child," Education Next, 1 (Spring 2001).
Labaree, David F., "Progressivism, Schools, and Schools of Education: An American Romance," Paedagogica Historica (Gent), 41 (Feb. 2005), 275–89. (pdf file)

57 comments:

BeckyC said...

It concerns me when school administrators decide there will only be, say X seats of Earth Science offered... and they refuse to make adjustments to increase the number of seats available the next year based on demand this year. They're not responding to demand. They tell us that we don't know what's good for our kids, and their process is not transparent. Sorry to be a wet blanket about socialism this morning, but the connection with socialism is that experts decide, rather than a free market meeting the demands of parents to choose their child's course of study.

SteveH said...

"Tracking was invented by the progressive ed movement, and at the district level it's not about high standards for teaching or content. It's about tracking."

I'm not sure what you mean by "high standards for teaching or content". One could argue that the honors track teachers are no better than other teachers, but I would be surprised if the content of your honors track courses are no better than the general ed track courses. I would agree, however, that due to poor teaching and curricula in K-8, tracking of kids in high school is:

"It's about selecting an elite from amongst an already self-selected group of students."

It was like this when I was growing up in public schools using a "traditional" curriculum. The onus is on the child and parents. I have made the argument that it's worse nowadays because there is even more onus on parents to make sure kids are taught correctly and have all of the basic skills and knowledge they need. Schools now take less responsibility for learning. This makes the tracking in high school even more self-selecting.

There has always been issues of how kids get selected for tracks. Im my day (starting in 7th grade), it was based on the Iowa Basics test and the recommendation of teachers. There were a limited number of slots and that probably didn't vary based on whether there were a bigger crop of smarter students one year to the next.

My feeling is that you give schools way too much credit for having any sort on basis in philosophical or pedagogical thought. They might talk that way to sound impressive, but my opinion is that schools are governed by much more practical concerns, like union contracts, budgets, and getting through another day.

Our public high school has tracks and the honors track is very well regarded. This doesn't mean that they teach well or the lower schools prepare the kids properly for this track. Then again, I don't think this is a deliberate philosophical policy by the school. They think they are doing a fine job. They would probably argue very strongly that it isn't a self-selection process. They might admit, however, that due to budget and scheduling concerns, they can't have more kids in the honors track.

One could argue that they have pretty low expectations for students if they think that only 'X' number of students can make it in the honors track. I don't think this is philosophical. I think it stems from fact that they can't admit that K-8 school are so bad that they are preventing a lot of kids from reaching the honors tracks. As I have said, if you wait long enough, all problems look external.


"I get the sense that more than a few ktm readers, writers, and commenters see high school as the release from progressive ed. The evidence? It's in high school where tracking begins."

"Release from progressive ed"? Well, I guess I can't really say what progressive ed is anymore. Tracking in high school is a release from the low expectation, all kids are the same philosophy at our K-8 schools. It a release from a denigration of mastery of knowledge and skills. It doesn't mean that high schools are doing a good job. It doesn't mean that schools ever were or ever will be anything more than survival of the fittest or lucky.

I would say that the modern world of fuzzy progressive K-6 (or 8) education makes it much more difficult to be prepared for the traditional self-selecting world of high school and college.

As Everyday math says, they don't want to teach your kids material in 5th grade because many adults don't need to know that sort of thing. This is a self-fulfilling prophesy that's worse that self-selection. They do it to you.

Anonymous said...

Instead educators impart things they find fun or politically appealing.

But most parents would chose the same for their children. "Edutainment" toys and classes wouldn't be possible without a sizable consumer demand. The parents I know rave about how much fun their child thinks a particular teacher or class is rather than how much was learned. College students prefer easier and fun courses as well.

As the captain says in Cool Hand Luke, 'What we have here is a failure to delay gratification."

Catherine Johnson said...

but the connection with socialism is that experts decide

It's so way worse than that.

The situation here is that the "naturals," the kids who can take Ms. K's course and get 100s on tests, are universally viewed as the kids who "belong" in the course.

Which of course is correct.

(I don't think they belong there, either, but at least they're learning.)

The rest of the kids don't belong.

When we talk about a "market" and "parent demand" we're talking about parent demand to put our kids in courses where they don't belong.

There is NO demand - none - for a different pedagogy.

Actually, that may be my next project.

I finally figured out, thanks to this morning's meeting, what bugs me about "differentiated instruction."

Differentiated instruction always means differentiated curriculum.

I want differentiated pedagogy.

If you're going to put regular kids into advanced courses you're going to mastery teaching.

Doug Sundseth said...

"When Progressiveness Leads to Backwardness", it's considered a feature, not a bug, by the proponents.

Catherine Johnson said...

The onus is on the child and parents. I have made the argument that it's worse nowadays because there is even more onus on parents to make sure kids are taught correctly and have all of the basic skills and knowledge they need. Schools now take less responsibility for learning. This makes the tracking in high school even more self-selecting.

Exactly.

Except that this isn't really possible.

By the time you get to middle school you have major resistance from your child, who is becoming more independent, and who should be more independent.

You also have major interference from homework.

Afterschooling is a stopgap measure.

Catherine Johnson said...

Tracking in high school is a release from the low expectation, all kids are the same philosophy at our K-8 schools. It a release from a denigration of mastery of knowledge and skills.

It's not.

That's what I'm saying.

There is a total denigration of mastery of knowledge and skills.

The ONLY thing I'm hearing grades 7-12 talk about now is "high-level," conceptual understanding and analysis.

The reason kids are struggling in the Earth Science course is that it's "conceptual." "They have to think abstractly." "They need to be able to think."

They don't have to "memorize."

This isn't my interpretation; this is what the science teacher who attended the meeting said.

That's why the course isn't for every child.

Some 8th graders aren't developmentally ready to think abstractly about earth science.

IT'S DEVELOPMENTAL.

That's what the parents said; that's what the teacher said; that's what the principal said.

(The teacher, by the way, is one of the best in the school. She doesn't teach Earth Science because she's not certified to teach it. If she did teach it I suspect kids wouldn't be struggling.)

The teacher said that in the regular classes you can "get by" on memorizing.

In Earth Science you can't "get by" on memorizing.

You have to be able to think abstractly.

The parents agreed.

The entire district believes that pushy parents think their kids are brilliant and push them into courses where they don't belong.

The reason they don't belong is that the courses are conceptual and require abstract thought.

Different kids reach a developmental point at which they can do abstract thought at different points.

Scarsdale, btw, is trying to get rid of AP courses.

They want to do more conceptual courses it appears.

etc.

The break between K-5 and 6-12 is the break between one kind of constructivism and another kind.

Catherine Johnson said...

At least it is here.

Think about our math chair.

The only think she talks about is "understanding."

"Understanding" and "abstract thinking" are the only concepts guiding activity in grades 6-12; at least they're the only words getting used by teachers & administrators here.

SteveH said...

"There is a total denigration of mastery of knowledge and skills."

I haven't seen this, but I've mostly studied the honors math track and gotten second-hand feedback from parents on other subjects. The school now has, however, some sort of senior portfolio project that everyone has to do. I have heard about some invasions of fuzzy learning in high school, but I don't know the extent of it and it seems to have avoided the honors track. At least they aren't all sitting around Harkness Tables with their laptops open.


"You have to be able to think abstractly."

This means that you have to guess what the teacher wants from a set of equally-likely choices.



"Scarsdale, btw, is trying to get rid of AP courses."

Is this the new trend? Anywhere else? I haven't heard a peep about this around here. Has anyone else heard about this at their high school? Are there any papers that support this idea. I could come up with valid reasons for eliminating the AP courses, but I doubt that my reasons would have anything to do with the school's reasons.



Again, I think you give them too much credit by attributing to them some sort of philosophical basis. How about going from one kind of incompetence to another kind?


"The only think she talks about is understanding.'"

The words coming out of their mouths sound pedagogical, but it's really ignorance. Using these words doesn't magically change ignorance and incompetence to philosophy and pedagogy. Just like in K-8, the talk about understanding and critical thinking just gives intellectual cover to their ignorance.

You want to meet them at some sort of philosophical level, but no one is there.


If some teacher talks about understanding to me, I will directly challenge him/her to explain exactly what it is and how they teach it. They might as well talk about space aliens coming into class to zap their brains.

Anonymous said...

I think that AP courses now have to be accredited.

"The College Board is happy to announce the official launch of the AP Course Audit, the process through which schools may request authorization to label their 2007-08 courses "AP."

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/46361.html

A cynical person might say that some schools may prefer not going through an audit that they know they won't pass and prefer to spin that as something else.

My guess is that too many courses were being labeled as "AP" and listed that way on transcipt but were not being conducted in such a way so that the students would have a reasonable chance of passing the AP exam.

You can still take an AP exam without having taken an AP course, but to label the course as AP it has to be authorized.

Catherine Johnson said...

We've got Earth Sciences being taught "conceptually."

A lot of the students are "struggling."

This means they "don't belong in the course."

That's constructivist tracking.

In a nutshell!

Anonymous said...

Well, we got our MEAP (Michigan Educational Assessment Program) back with our children's scores. They have made two improvements that I can see: first, they take the MEAP in Oct and get the scores back in Jan. This is much more timely than in the past. They have also released more test questions.

So, here's my take on the math scores.

First, bear in mind that meeting standards only requires that you answer 50% of the questions correctly. Exceeding standards means you answered 80% or more correctly.

So for the entire district, 85% of the third graders exceeded standards. By Grade 12, only 25% of the students exceeded standards. In the third grade, only 2% of student could not even answer 50% correctly. By Grade 12, 20% could not even answer 50% correctly.

Here is one of the high school questions:
Put these numbers in numerical order from smallest to largest:
sqrt(2), 2, sqrt(3), 3.

If you want to see some released items for yourself, the website is www.michigan.gov/meap

Anne Dwyer

BeckyC said...

My feeling is that you give schools way too much credit for having any sort on basis in philosophical or pedagogical thought. They might talk that way to sound impressive, but my opinion is that schools are governed by much more practical concerns, like union contracts, budgets, and getting through another day.

So your story is that they are just doing their job.

My story is that their ideas, however imperfectly formed or understood, have real consequences for other people's children.

SteveH said...

"A cynical person might say that some schools may prefer not going through an audit that they know they won't pass and prefer to spin that as something else."

Oh! That explains a lot. Not the spin, but the audit. I had heard complaints by parents that AP courses weren't following the rules.

Catherine Johnson said...

They might talk that way to sound impressive, but my opinion is that schools are governed by much more practical concerns, like union contracts, budgets, and getting through another day.

That's the Rational Man theory of economics!

It's not true!

Ideology is hugely powerful. People used to say the same thing about Hollywood - they're there to make money. They don't care what they make as long as it's commercial.

Well, they are there to make money, but executives choose and make projects they like, not films they don't like that could make buckets of money. (It's not that simple, but close enough.)

I've been selling writing projects my entire adult life, and you can NEVER sell a project based in the idea that it will be profitable.

Same deal with schools.

School personnel have core ideas.

Core ideas like "It would be harmful if parents chose which teacher their child will have."

They believe these ideas deeply.

My school has ideas like "If a student is struggling in a class that means he doesn't belong."

These ideas are in charge.

Many a day I've seen school personnel choose to follow these ideas when the smart thing would have been to find another way.

SteveH said...

"A lot of the students are 'struggling.'"

"This means they 'don't belong in the course.'"

"That's constructivist tracking."


Our K-8 schools don't use a proper math curriculum. They don't enforce mastery of basic skills that, deep down, they know are important. They don't offer a full algebra course in 8th grade for anyone. In high school, it's all about proper placement. "Our kids hold their own." This isn't constructivism. It's incompetence and blaming the student.

SteveH said...

"So your story is that they are just doing their job."

No. I'm saying that they use fancy terms and pedagogy to hide other real problems they know about. Our schools know that differentiated instruction doesn't work well. The cream will rise to the top (in spite of the school) and the lowest ability students will get some kind of help(good or bad), but the vast majority in the middle have to do it themselves. Still, they spew out the rhetoric smokescreen.

Another way to put it is when reality bumps directly into their pedagogy (it fails), they don't modify it. They ignore the problem and just keep doing their job. You can't argue pedagogy when the problem is competence.

SteveH said...

"Ideology is hugely powerful."

I guess I'm having trouble explaining my distinction. I agree that ideology is hugely powerful. It's the main problem in our K-8 schools; less so in the high school.

But is it really ideology?

How can you argue ideology when they don't even follow their own ideology properly. They do it poorly or not at all. Everyday Math teaches many algorithms by rote. It does a bad job even for what its supposed to do. That's what I think when I look at my son's EM workbooks. Forget ideology, it's just bad and sets very low expectations. Are low expectations part of their ideology? Yes.

Schools talk about "understanding" but they can't even define it, let alone do it. They see it fail for many kids and they do nothing about it. They talk about more money, smaller class sizes, more training, and more parental involvement. And they have no basis for knowing whether what they do works or not. They don't even want to know. I was talking to another parent today about the simple things our schools could do to see if their philosophy, curriculum, and teaching methods work or not. They don't do them.

Can you call it ideology if they really screw it up? Can you call it ideology if they can't really explain what it is? Can you call it ideology if they don't want to verify whether it works or not?

A discussion of ideology assumes that they have the competence (or even care) to reevaluate their assumptions. How can you discuss ideology if they blame all problems on the implementation and not the ideology?

Instructivist said...

"Tracking was invented by the progressive ed movement, and at the district level it's not about high standards for teaching or content."

Historically, progressive ed had many inconsistent strains that put a strain on the concept. One was certainly a form of macro tracking that only deemed a small portion worthy and capable of handling a demanding curriculum. This was a way for the progressives to contain the academic curriculum which they hated. Ironically, giving access to the many to an academic curriculum was deemed "elitist" and "undemocratic". It's amazing how these progressive educators were able to stand these terms on their head with a straight face.

Today's version of progressive ed is averse to any form of ability grouping, even in the upper elementary grades. Now the talk is all about inclusion.

I see this aversion as a major obstacle to quality education. One of many obstacles. Grouping at least by behavior (since ability grouping is resisted) would be a step in the right direction. I say this from my perspective as a teacher in a big-city school with a large contingent of the behaviorally disordered and psychotic. The requirements may be different elsewhere.

Instructivist said...

The form of progressive macro tracking is not comparable to current ability grouping to the extent it happens. There is a fundamental difference. Past progressives wanted radically different curricula for different strata, i.e. abolish the academic curriculum for the many and reserve it for the few. Current tracking or ability grouping (to the extent it happens) more or less retains the same, often week, curriculum.

Instructivist said...

"Can you call it ideology if they really screw it up? Can you call it ideology if they can't really explain what it is? Can you call it ideology if they don't want to verify whether it works or not?"

I define ideology as a set of tenaciously held beliefs that are impervious to experience. It's the antithesis of pragmatism. I have first-hand experience with a pernicious form of ideology in a large urban school system in which I teach. One of the things ideologues in a position of power here do is impose the worst constructivist math junk on the huge number of failing schools in the city. Thanks to NCLB and the testing regime they know that the math skills of the vast majority of the student population are execrable, utterly disastrous. But these ideologues can't put two and two together and jettison the junk.

The math teachers don't have the freedom to choose the right math books and must suffer together with their charges. Actually, some don't suffer and like the junk. One math teacher told me math facts and the multiplication table are not needed to do math. They couldn't care less about the total lack of math skills of the students. A lot of students in the upper grades have never heard of a diameter and can't multiply 15 times 3 in their head or with paper and pencil. It's that bad.

SteveH said...

"Grouping at least by behavior (since ability grouping is resisted) would be a step in the right direction."

Our public schools don't have the behavior problems, just the ability grouping problem. Well, there are some issues with full inclusion. Some kids really shouldn't be there when they are bouncing off the walls. I think they deal with this as best they can. However, they are really stuck when it comes to differentiated instruction.

There are two levels of ideology; the ivory tower ed school level, and the real world K-12 school level. At K-12 level, the pure ideology gets transformed into something else. What comes out of their mouths is ideology, but what happens in the school is completely different. I don't think that discussing ideology with schools will have any effect when they blame everything on implementation.

Perhaps I will have a better idea about this next week when I meet with the principal of our grades 5-8 public school to talk about curriculum, differentiated instruction, enrichment, and acceleration. I told her that we were thinking about bringing our son back to the public schools. She probably doesn't know what to think because this is the age where many parents send their kids off to private schools. Perhaps I will write about why we might do this later. By the way, it's not for the academics or to save money.

We will be talking about assumptions and ideology and it will be interesting to see how she responds. My feeling is that her position will be that there are implementation problems with any ideology and they have to focus on helping those kids who need the most help. The question is whether the benefits of full inclusion in middle school override the need for ability grouping. She knows that virtually all other schools start tracking in some form by 7th grade.

There is good tracking and bad tracking, but that's really a different issue. Actually, things can get screwed up many different ways, but schools try to pass the conflicts off as a zero-sum trade-off between the needs of different groups of students. They pit (the parents of) the more able students against the less able ones. They can't or won't see it as good versus bad teaching and curricula.

It's not that they dislike tracking. It's just that they like full-inclusion more. Differentiated instruction is supposed to allow them to have both. It doesn't work and they are struggling with it. They know that it can't be done with just enrichment. Certain subjects, like math, require acceleration.

When they use enrichment, the onus is completely on the child and parents. They give out an assignment and hold the better kids to a higher standard. To get a 4 on the rubric requires much more (and a higher level of) work. They can't enforce this. If the child and/or the parents have the ability, but not the wherewithal to do the extra work, then the higher expectations have to be removed. Grade-level expectations are minimized and anything more than a minimal education is completely up the the students and parents.

Even if you accept these conditions, they don't know what to do with acceleration. If they break down and do some level of ability tracking in 7th and 8th grades, then they are assuming that all kids are able (on their own) to live up to their ability. But then, they have to assume that this is happening now. They are assuming that their system allows all kids to live up to their potential.

I suppose I could challenge the principal to show how their ideology maximizes the chances that students will live up to their potential without outside help, and why the school does not want to take on that responsibility. This reminds me of the comments that parents have to be part of the solution. Discuss. They often talk of "balance" at this point. Parents will be thanked for their input, and they will decide on all of the details. Control and ideology. Mostly control.

Instructivist said...

"There are two levels of ideology; the ivory tower ed school level, and the real world K-12 school level."

Some pragmatism intrudes into the real world K-12 school level, that is true. Unfortunately, there is also a third level of ideology, and that's the institutionalized idiocy level. Institutionalized idiocy is instituted from above. The second level (principals, teachers...) can only move within a narrow range and cannot effect effective change.

In practical terms this means among other things (again in the context of my experience in a large urban school system) that, say, in the case of math, the practices and type of textbooks (if any) are mandated from above. Agents charged with rigidly enforcing institutionalized idiocy are dispatched to failing schools (most of them) and installed on site. There, a strict, sacrosanct regimen of fruitless "discovery" with constructivist materials (Trailblazers, Connected Math) must be followed with the severely disadvanted (most of them). The result: A spectacular lack of foundational skills and knowledge. Fifth graders who can't divide six by two. Seventh graders who can't tell the difference between perimeter and area, can't identify a square and rectangle, or identify radius and diameter, let alone know that a diameter is twice the radius.

I wonder if the math panel has a clue this is going on.

Catherine Johnson said...

the institutionalized idiocy level

I just saw this -- lolllll

Catherine Johnson said...

What comes out of their mouths is ideology, but what happens in the school is completely different.

no!

In our middle school what comes out of their mouths is what happens in class.

What comes out of their mouths is:

"The student is responsible for his own learning."

"The student should take ownership of his learning."

"If a student is struggling, that means he doesn't belong in the class."

"Pushy parents get their children into classes where they don't belong."

These core beliefs are consistent with classroom practice for many teachers.

There are individual teachers for whom these beliefs aren't consistent.

They are going above and beyond.

Catherine Johnson said...

"You have to be able to think abstractly."

This means that you have to guess what the teacher wants from a set of equally-likely choices.


This is constructivism.

It is taking over, or has already taken over, 6-12 education.

Catherine Johnson said...

Schools are attempting to drop AP courses on grounds that the courses are about memorization, not analysis.

Catherine Johnson said...

Schools talk about "understanding" but they can't even define it, let alone do it. They see it fail for many kids and they do nothing about it.

In grade 6 all of this changes.

An 11-year old is a mini-college student.

That is the view.

(He is also the "whole child," but never mind.)

An 11-year old is responsible for his own learning.

He must listen in class, take notes, do his homework, remember his homework, and come in for extra help.

It's up to him.

If he "struggles" - that is the universal term, "struggles" - he does not belong in the class.

Catherine Johnson said...

Here's the language you never hear: "If he's not learning anything."

Catherine Johnson said...

ALL of the language in middle school (I suspect in high school, too) is affective, emotional, moral.

There is essentially no language of knowledge or achievement.

Catherine Johnson said...

One was certainly a form of macro tracking that only deemed a small portion worthy and capable of handling a demanding curriculum.

That' what we have here, except that the AP courses have been "opened up."

The hoi polloi are supposed to be grateful for that.

I'm grateful to Jay Mathews.

Catherine Johnson said...

Ironically, giving access to the many to an academic curriculum was deemed "elitist" and "undemocratic". It's amazing how these progressive educators were able to stand these terms on their head with a straight face.

It really is staggering.

Catherine Johnson said...

Today's version of progressive ed is averse to any form of ability grouping, even in the upper elementary grades. Now the talk is all about inclusion.

nope

not here

not even close

Catherine Johnson said...

We have an admissions process as time-consuming and anxiety-producing as the admissions process to college.

Nobody knows why some kids get the nod; the school can't tell them; the school can't tell their parents.

It's a secret.

As one middle school teacher told a parent this fall, "Frankly some of the selections surprise me."

One of the main selection criteria being used is an application essay.

Writing does not predict academic success, but that's what's used.

When parents pushed the principal to explain the admissions process he suggested they go to the teacher who had rejected their child, request a sample of writing from a student who was admitted, and compare that sample to their own child's sample.

Catherine Johnson said...

A spectacular lack of foundational skills and knowledge.

I now spend part of every day with Ed ragging on me about Christopher's spectacular lack of foundational skills and knowledge.

I SOOOOO enjoy these conversations!

Catherine Johnson said...

The cream will rise to the top

This is what people universally believe.

It is simply not true.

I am seeing (some of) the children of extremely smart, educated, accomplished parents flounder.

Not all by any means; I wish I knew how many.

That idea, that the cream rises to the top, is quite destructive in a town like mine.

Catherine Johnson said...

In fact, the pushy parent phenomenon arises partly in reaction to that belief.

When parents see their bright kids preferring to spend their childhoods playing videogames, it's up to them to push.

Our school does not push kids UP. Not ever. Our school winnows out the naturally motivated for the "unnaturaly" motivated.

The "unnaturally" motivated are the bright kids whose parents are kicing their tushies.

Catherine Johnson said...

Perhaps I will write about why we might do this later.

You must write about this!

I shouldn't say this publicly, but I'm seriously contemplating moving Christopher to Tarrytown for high school.

Apparently you can pay a fee and have your child go to a different district. (I'll have to find out how much it is. I was told $10,000 which is a lot but we could do it. If it's $16,000, which is what Ardsley is charging, forget it.)

I'm going to write a post about this soon - my question is: how much do incentives matter?

I'm coming to believe, strongly, that the last place you want to be is a wealthy school district.

I'm actually starting to think that very rich districts have a huge amount in common with very poor districts!

Catherine Johnson said...

The short version of Tarrytown is that they're in danger of not making AYP - huge influx of Hispanics each and every year - AND they are apparently highly motivated to raise white kids' achievement, too, as a counterbalance to low scores from immigrant kids.

Sounds like they have strong incentives to raise achievement at all levels.

BeckyC said...

I define ideology as a set of tenaciously held beliefs that are impervious to experience. It's the antithesis of pragmatism.

I agree very much, instructivist, except that I see teachers are being totally pragmatic about reducing their teaching workload by enthusiastically embracing a constructivist curriculum that is defended as "best practice."

Pragmatic teachers... teach according to the constructivist model.

There is no accountability for mastery in a given year, there is no loving evaluation of children's mathematical portfolios at year end, there is little tedious grading all year long because there are so few problems given in class or as homework.

Instructivist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Instructivist said...

The constructivist math regimen forced on failing schools from above here in Chicago reminds me of href="http://www.answers.com/topic/pol-pot">Anka during the genocidal Pol Pot regime. It might seem like an extreme analogy but the regime (rigidly enforced mandates from above) is killing the math ability and future of huge numbers of the disadvanted:

Pol Pot espoused a mixture of radical ideologies, the so-called "Anka" Doctrine, adapted to Khmer nationalism. Envisaging a primitive egalitarian agrarianism, the Khmer Rouge favored a temporary return to a completely agrarian society to the point that all modern technological contrivances were banned except when approved by the inner party leadership. The return to the land was intended to purify the people as a whole and create a basis for a new communist society which would eventually return to modern technology. Pol Pot aligned the country politically with the People's Republic of China and adopted an anti-Soviet line. This alignment was more political and practical than ideological. Vietnam was aligned with the Soviet Union so Cambodia aligned with the rival of the Soviet Union and Vietnam in Southeast Asia. China had been supplying the Khmer Rouge with weapons for years before they took power.

Catherine Johnson said...

Pragmatic teachers... teach according to the constructivist model.

BRILLIANT!

It is SO hard to boil things down.

You just "found the basic principle."

One of them, anyway.

Catherine Johnson said...

The parents-teaching-math-facts business really is staggering.

Teaching math facts IS HARD.

Exploring math is not.

I realize that's not entirely fair; you could put a lot of work into exploring math in a way that produces learning.

Still....getting content into children's long-term memory is very, very difficult.

Catherine Johnson said...

I know.

Anonymous said...

"Teaching math facts IS HARD."

Is it? Really? I think it is fairly straightforward. What it isn't is *FUN*.


-Mark Roulo

SteveH said...

"The student is responsible for his own learning."

"The student should take ownership of his learning."

"If a student is struggling, that means he doesn't belong in the class."

I don't call this ideology. It's silly talk. Maybe it's the "institutionalized idiocy level" of ideology, I don't know.

SteveH said...

The cream will rise to the top

"This is what people universally believe. It is simply not true."

I agree. My point was that our schools assume that this is true for everyone; that all kids will magically rise to their best level. (Schools could argue that the "cream" is defined by what's on top. If the kids are struggling, then they aren't the cream.) Perhaps the schools think that they are doing the kids a favor by tossing them into the educational deep end and seeing if they can swim.

I don't call this ideology. It's something else and I refuse to treat it as something more than what it is. I refuse to dress up incompetence as ideology. Ideology gives them an aura of respectability they don't deserve.

SteveH said...

"Teaching math facts IS HARD."

"Is it? Really? I think it is fairly straightforward. What it isn't is *FUN*."

I agree with Mark. It's also tedious, but that's really the same thing. They have 45 minutes to an hour a day for 180 days a year. It's not that difficult. Actually, many kids love doing worksheets if they have been taught how to do the problems.

SteveH said...

"I realize that's not entirely fair; you could put a lot of work into exploring math in a way that produces learning."

Anything less is not "exploring". Once again, they use ideological words to cover up ignorance and incompetence.

"Well, I didn't really fix your car. I talked to it and we explored a number of solutions, but it's up to your car to want to be fixed. It has to take ownership of the process. I can't do it myself."

Catherine Johnson said...

I don't call this ideology. It's silly talk.

It may be silly & it may be talk, but it's a core belief in our middle school (and probably high school, too).

It's very serious, and it has serious consequences.

Many, many parents believe this, too.

During the science curriculum meeting everyone except me was talking about why a lot of kids just aren't cut out to take Earth Science in 8th grade.

One parent said a lot of kids don't have that level of responsibility yet.

This is way past talk.

Catherine Johnson said...

You have to realize, the "middle school model" is sui generis and it is very, very, VERY SERIOUS.

It's about the "whole child" and they're not kidding.

Our school is plastered with huge "FOCUS" words.

fairness, ownership, (I forget the others)

This month the kids are being endlessly mau-maued about how they must "take ownership" of their school, which means they shouldn't litter the playground.

Our middle school talks about character almost exclusively.

Funny thing is, the teachers are, at this point, pretty much ignoring it - except for the new young math teacher, of course.

Catherine Johnson said...

We had a funny moment at the parent meeting with the principal.

The issue of character education came up (huge loser for Ed and me; parents love character education - at least, the parents there did; all the parents I know loathe it)

Anyway, character ed came up and Ed and I brought of FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES.

The principal and assistant principal got stern looks on their faces and told us it had come to their attention that the 8th grade teachers are NOT teaching FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES.

Ed and I said, GOOD!

Then I said, "WE WANT THAT TEACHER! WE WANT THE TEACHER WHO ISN'T TEACHING FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES!"

That made an excellent impression on everyone.

Catherine Johnson said...

The fact that middle school social studies teachers are ignoring FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES did make an excellent impression on us, however.

Instructivist said...

"Pragmatic teachers... teach according to the constructivist model."

By its very nature, pragmatism can take many forms. The form depends on the goals. If the goal is not to exert oneself, then constructivism is ideal for the lazy. No ideological commitment is required.

Anonymous said...

The teaching of math facts is not hard.

Committing math facts to memory is hard because it is tedious.

The ability of making committing math facts to memory fun is hard but possible.

It requires an almost infinite amount of activities that use the exact same math facts. And it requires a knowledge of what kids at each age find interesting.

Here's an example: on Sat I teach a 1st and 2nd grade math booster class with all girls. Math hopscotch is a great game. Each child has to hop on the correct square to answer the question. And each child watching checks to see of the answer is right. So they have to solve the problem themselves also. So for 20 min, you have children completely engrossed in memorizing math facts.

For the 2nd and 3rd grade class, there are all boys. We played Aggravation. Boys at that age love games, especially ones that allow you to send another player back to the beginning. We played for the last 20 min of class. They went through the entire deck of multiplicaton facts at least 3 times. By the end of class, they wanted to stay and keep playing.

If the kids get bored, I change the game, but they still need the math facts to play.

The key absolutely is making sure they memorize their math facts before they need them to solve problems.

Anne Dwyer

SteveH said...

"It may be silly & it may be talk, but it's a core belief in our middle school (and probably high school, too). It's very serious, and it has serious consequences."

I didn't say it wasn't serious, but I think you have to ignore generalized concepts like beliefs and ideologies and get down to details.


"One parent said a lot of kids don't have that level of responsibility yet."

This is specific. The obvious question is what are the requirements to get into Earth Science in 8th grade. Are they clearly defined? Are the kids properly prepared? There can be arguments over the requirements for the course, but having some sort of magical "responsibility" selection process is incompetence.

In college, course requirements are clearly defined. They are in a catalog. Advisors work with students from before the first day to make sure there is no confusion. You can argue over the requirements, but there they are in black and white. I can't imagine a college having some sort of undefinable or magic litmus test to register for a course. The only thing I have ever seen is the requirement to get special approval if you don't have the published requirements.

This should be true for math tracks or honors tracks in middle or high school. It's not about taking ownership or having responsibility. It has to do with defining requirements, making sure that everyone understands the requirements, and making sure that all students have the opportunity to get there. It's the school's job to give the kids the opportunity to get there.

Having a magic or secret process for getting into the honors track in high school is not a belief or ideology. It's incompetence.

I think that most belief and ideological questions can be reframed in terms of competence and fairness when you get down to the implementation details.