Posts
Or, "We Have Co-opted Another Word".
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/08/07boaler_ep.h28.html?tmp=82481106
Jo Boaler shows the best that they can do. If you're like me, the "anti-knowledge" term will get you thinking in the wrong direction. After a while, you will stop and say "What?????"
The underlying theme is that parents are stupid. Not really. They're just stupid when they listen to any group other than the schools.
At best, you can say that there is a difference of opinion over what constitutes proper research. You can also say that there is a difference of opinion over what constitutes a proper math education. But the point is that parents should not be allowed to decide.
Actually, Jo Boaler's use of "anti-knowledge" is misleading. She is claiming that groups are trying to hide the "knowledge" that curricula (I guess like Everyday Math.) are effective because the studies don't meet certain criteria. Then she co-opts Sen. Obama's use of knowledge to mean what she is talking about. Pretty soon we're going to lose control over the words "content" and "mastery".
Is this the best level of debate we can expect?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well that just ruined my day.
I'd rank that article with all the political mud being slung on both sides in that last few days.
You're right Steve. Dr. Boaler thinks we're stupid. All those parents with math degrees and careers that depend upon content and mastery haven't a clue. Neither do the countless math professors who have spoken out for years.
According to Dr. Boaler we're all anti-knowledge, apparently. What a tidy way to dismiss all the evidence to the contrary. I'd argue that she has the anti-knowledge label pegged bass ackwards.
Yep. My goat's been gotten.
On the bright side, with a couple of glaring exceptions, there are some excellent comments to the article that are worth reading. I look forward to reading many more.
"But there is a reason for the sorry state of math education that is not due to schools or teachers, but to the dangerous suppression of research knowledge about ways to teach math well."
I would love to see the results of a nationally normed test which exmines the mathematic knowledge of teachers and those school administrators making mathematics curriculum decisions. Until then I cannot see how Ms. Boaler can claim that schools are teachers are not part of the problem. Strangely enough, when you ask the top performing schools what sets them apart from other countries, they quickly point to the credentials and abilities of their teachers. Of course, they also have superior curricula to work with. Successful countries don't choose Everyday Math or Ivestigations, for example. They choose Singapore Math or something very much along those lines.
P.S. Ms. Boaler, You ask a very good questions. Where has all the knowledge gone because it's certainly not to be found in math class these days. It is being carefully developed and secured by parents who insist on afterschooling or homeschooling with something far superior than what is available in most of our schools. Singapore Math comes immediately to mind. I think the Kumon kids are pretty well off too.
You beat me to it!
I got my ASCD "SmartBrief" with that link, and I thought, Wow! An article on Ed Week saying knowledge is good!
Then I started skimming the thing and.... whoa.
The author is making a stab at coopting the word "knowledge."
I'm wondering whether that's possible.
Ed school constructivism is so opposed to knowledge that I'm thinking she's not going to be able to persuade others to follow her example.
But we'll see.
The parts of it I read were nasty. "Mudslinging" is the right term. I need to get over there to lodge a complaint.
Again, a core issue is that parents have no voice and no way to advocate for their children.
We're like the Global Poor: We are the objects of the Half-trillion dollar educational "BLOB's" ministrations.
We are neither Principals nor Agents! (Picked up that lingo from Easterly...)
What a piss-poor piece of writing. She writes up some insubstantial fairy and expects people to swallow it whole.
And some do.
Yikes.
These are the people who want to define critical thinking, understanding, best practices, and authentic learning for us.
"This article is available to registered guests only."
You used to be able to read the article and comments without registering. Why the change?
Ed Week has "open houses" in which anyone can read any article in the current issue. They do this to entice membership and subscriptions. Then they close it. If you are registered, but non-paying they'll allow you two free articles to read from the current issue.
good grief
I'm finally reading this thing:
Campaigners held secret meetings with parents, feeding them incorrect information. They phoned a range of colleges and asked them, “Would you accept a student if he or she had not taken any math in high school, just talked about math?†Many of the colleges said no, and the campaigners formed a list of them that they then delivered to parents. They told the parents that their children would not be eligible for college if they continued with the problem-solving approach to math. Stanford, one of the universities on the list, later had to write to the school saying that this was untrue. Unfortunately, the damage had been done.
The campaigners then moved on to students, trailing after them at break times, pressuring them to sign a petition to end the math program. By the time the teachers learned about the campaign, it was all over. The campaigners had convinced the parents and the school board that teachers would have to go back to their old methods. Now, desks at the school are in rows, teachers lecture, and the problem-solving that students loved has gone. The teachers at the school were demoralized and defeated. One of them, an inspirational veteran of 20 years, left the profession.
oh, yeeeaaahhhhhh
that has the ring of truth
show me one school --- ONE --- where parents were able to force administrators to dump constructivism and provide a classical education for students
SHOW ME ONE
Ed Week has no business printing fabrications.
actually, the rebuttal to Boaler linked above and written by Milgram et. al. tells us that at least twice, parents at sf bay area schools succeeded in forcing the schools to dump IMP in their high schools. These are the schools Boaler code names as Hilltop/Hillside (sic in Milgram) and Greendale.
>>show me one school --- ONE --- where parents were able to force administrators to dump constructivism and provide a classical education for students
Alpine District in Utah...I don't remember all the moves in the war, but when we looked into moving there two years ago, one of the outcomes was that a parent could home school any subject you wanted. The parent page is : http://snow.prohosting.com/mathiq/
That of course wouldn't fly in NY.
Post a Comment