When we moved to New Jersey back in 1993, one of my first decorating endeavors was to write a "watch out for" list on a post-it note, then stick it on one of my kitchen cabinet doors. Over time, it needed scotch tape.
Yes, that's my decorating style. You should see the rest of my house (sigh). I guess you could say I'm a practical gal. Function over form. But that's another story.
The post-it listed growing trends in our nation's schools. At the time I had only two kids, and they were two and one, but I've always been a bit of a forward thinker.
It was a brief list; after all, it had to fit on a post-it. But it said things like, politically correct historical facts, whole language, and a few other things I've forgotten.
There was one other item on that list. It said in bold letters constructivism.
That post-it stayed up for about six years--until I'd seen the word enough times that I couldn't possibly forget. (Yes, my brain is that small.)
Actually, for a while I thought constructivism wasn't in my school. At kindergarten enrollment, nobody announced "We have constructivism here." At Back to School Night, it was never mentioned. No memos came home about it.
I realize now that our school district (and maybe everybody's) doesn't announce philosophy or methodology or even curriculum to parents at all. It's none of our business.
Slowly, over time though, I saw constructivism's effects. No need to go into them here.
So here I was, more aware than most parents, and only because I had an education degree, and yet it still took me several years to realize that my school was saturated in constructivist thinking.
And it wasn't confirmed or admitted to me until 2006, when the principal, with whom I was conducting a frustrating dialogue about TERC Investigations, said to me, "Well, you know, Linda, we've always been a constructivist school."
Had I not put that post-it on the cupboard in 1993, I would likely still not have put two and two together (pardon the math pun.)
How did you know to be on the lookout for constructivism???
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing came as a very nasty shock to me.
The Norwegian report is quite helpful, because it ties up a bunch of other loose ends, namely the constructivist focus on students "taking responsibility" for their own learning.
We hear that non-stop at the middle school. "Take responsibility for their own learning," "take ownership of their own learning," etc.
In Norway the connection between constructivism and students "taking ownership" is explicit.
How I yearn for the days of self-esteem.
"So here I was, more aware than most parents, and only because I had an education degree, and yet it still took me several years to realize that my school was saturated in constructivist thinking."
ReplyDeleteThat's frightening. It's like the plague: insidious and creeping. And then there is the fait accompli.
Catherine said "How I yearn for the days of self-esteem."
ReplyDeleteCatherine, you crack me up, girl!
so how soon can we start marching in the streets?
ReplyDeleteI say we organize roving bands of protesting parents.
We can bus ourselves around to each others' communities and picket.
I first became aware there was something fishy about constructivism when I read research by Constance Kamii and she said the teaching of algorithms is based on the erroneous assumption that mathematics is a cultural heritage that must be transmitted to the next generation.
ReplyDeleteBack then, I thought hmm that's weird.
Now, I know that constructivists believe mathematics is a body of knowledge that cannot be directly transmitted from one mind (the teacher) to another mind (the child). They close their eyes and cover their ears to avoid finding out what happens outside of the classroom. They don't want to know.
They all hate the transmission part of teaching, some for purely radical reasons and some for the reason of achieving a preferred social justice.
Kamii has gone to great long lengths with her classroom research to try to prove the ability of children to reinvent arithmetic. And that transmission results in conceptual damage.
She means something very epistemically specific about reinvent, and her research is widely cited in justifying constructivist reforms of the US mathematics curriculum.
I think teachers have no problem with the transmission of information as long as the information is not absolutist, see social justice.
ReplyDeleteMath was always the fly in their fuzzy thinking ointment until they discovered it was all made up a long time ago. They then made math fuzzy by demanding children do the making up part all over again.
Unfortunatly not many children are Euler or Gauss.
Sean
Math was always the fly in their fuzzy thinking ointment until they discovered it was all made up a long time ago. They then made math fuzzy by demanding children do the making up part all over again.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunatly not many children are Euler or Gauss.
brilliant!