Ted Dintersmith is a most unusual venture capitalist. He recently co-authored a book with Harvard professor Tony Wagner called “Most Likely to Succeed,” and also produced a documentary of the same name that is critical of rote learning, standardized testing, and no-excuses charter schools.
In this post, EduShyster interviews Ted Dintersmith, and he will surprise you with his candor. He has taken the documentary on the road, to show parents and students the value of project-based learning.
EduShyster asks Dintersmith whether there is any hope, and he tells her to look at any kindergarten and think about ways to capture the spirit and motivation you see there. (That is, unless it is a kindergarten that is subject to standardized testing.)
He answers:
When people say *is there any hope?* I say walk with me through kindergartens all over your state. Look at the the characteristics of every five year old. If we just didn’t screw that up there is every reason to be optimistic. If we could take those characteristics and develop them and make them more powerful through education, there’d be all sorts of reasons for optimism. What kids tell me in state after state—and I’ve now been in 25 out of 50 states with this film—is that when they have the chance to experience project-based learning, they thrive and blossom and develop confidence.
Dintersmith is a huge supporter of projects driven by students’ passions as opposed to adults compelling students to do what they expect of them. This is good news! A venture capitalist who has seen the light.
I am currently reading the book and enjoying it.
This is good to read!
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Too many charters treat students like Skinnerian rats. When these students are required to direct their own inquiry into a particular topic, they are lost. If they never learned to take initiative to analyze and synthesize information, they are left without the tools to do so in higher education. That is one reason why so many people with liberal arts degrees are often flexible and adaptable, even though politicians extol the virtues of STEM. Trough project based learning, students are used to investigating and directing their own exploration of topics.
Be a KID-Watcher.
I’m only about 50 pages into the book so I’ll reserve judgment, but my eyebrows sure went up when he said that “A Nation at Risk” was “prescient”.
He also seems to think that every class is run in lecture format, which, from what I’ve heard from most teachers hasn’t really been true for a couple decades now. And he’s worried about kids’ heads getting stuffed with the minutiae of content, whereas, with the shift to PARCC and SBAC, the problem is that there actually is no content. It’s all about vague “skills” (never needed in the real world) like “close reading” and picking out the one main idea (which is whatever the test manufacturer says it is) – the content is just the vehicle for learning these “skills” (Peter Greene has written on this a few times).
But I think overall I basically agree with where he’s headed and it’s sure nice to find a rich person who isn’t spouting off about higher test scores.
We had a series of community meetings on the public schools and project based learning was the most popular idea presented, by a mile. The hand’s down winner with public school parents and community members.
I thought it was interesting because it’s presented as “new” and this is a conservative area. It was the single idea presented that they got excited about and actually discussed among themselves, without prompting or cheerleading.
Okay, I’m now all the way up to page 65 and I’m ready to throw the book out the window. Of a moving vehicle. In the rain. I’m surprised that you’re enjoying it, Diane. It’s all the things that you rage about. The idea that schools are responsible for our economic success – if we change schools, then the economy will miraculously improve and we’ll all find great, fulfilling, creative jobs. It’s a neoliberal praise of the gig economy – we’re all going to have to piece together our livelihoods however we can and we’ll have to be “creative” and “innovative” to do it. Robots and information technology are going to replace nearly all non-creative human activity – there will even be patient care robots in hospitals! All human touch will be eliminated, so creativity is the only hope. There Is No Alternative.
Except that that renders nearly 6 billion of us superfluous. There simply isn’t that much need for that many creatives. We only need so many books and articles, so many movies made, so many inventions created. There simply isn’t a market for all of us to create and be entreprenurial. It’s the death knell of humanity if that’s the way we insist on going.
I’ll be putting the book aside for a while as I’m pretty sure it’s spiking my blood pressure into stroke territory. Yes, I agree strongly with project-based learning, but not with the evil vision Dintersmith and Wagner have in mind for the world. Progressive education is all about humanity. They are all about erasing humanity.
Dienne,
What I liked about the book was that it disparages standardized testing, charters, and Common Core. No, I don’t think the schools–good or bad–change the economy, but I liked the emphasis on passion, purpose, and play rather than scripted boring lessons.
I heard a sound bite on the latest Republican “debate” in which Rubio and Carson criticized the push for higher wages because it would make machines cheaper than people and destroy more jobs. So basically the argument is that certain people should be doomed to living on the edge because the jobs they do are not worth enough to pay them a living wage. Say what?!! It’s alright for some people to spend their lives holding down multiple starvation wage jobs to support themselves and their families, so someone else can make more money? At what point do we acknowledge that obscene profits generated by slave wages are immoral?
Exactly. And that’s part of my revulsion with Dintersmith’s book. He acts like globalization and technology are just natural, inevitable forces like gravity or earthquakes. He completely refuses to acknowledge that those are choices made by human beings in pursuit of profit, and that other choices could be made.
I read a book many years ago by Jacques Ellul about technology. His point was that technology can’t be reversed. I’d say the problem with the Wagner-Dintersmith book is that they recognize that huge numbers of jibe will disappear and assume that individuals can make their own work. I’m not convinced but I like their critique of testing, Common Core, and charters.
I think what Dienne and I are saying is that we do not have to accept that technology can only be used in a way that will eliminate massive numbers of jobs. At some point, increased efficiency won’t make a damned bit of difference because there won’t be enough people left who can afford to buy these efficiently produced products. We need to be thinking outside of the box and thinking about how technology can be used to enhance everyone’s lives not just how it can improve a corporation’s bottom line. Don’t have enough jobs with living wages? Well, then maybe it is time to think about ways to reduce work loads and hours, raise wages and hire more people. Maybe it’s time to study what risk means. Is it the corporation that invests in a new product or the employees that lose their jobs when someone else decides they want to buy out the business. Is it the executive who takes a golden parachute or the guy who loses a job on which his family depends? I don’t care if we can claim that companies that began here get to claim they are tops in the world. Who cares that we have more billionaires than the rest of the world combined when over 20% of our children live in poverty? Educators are not the ones with outdated ideas.
The Singularity is Coming.
I have to watch the movie next week; our principal is making us. I’m skeptical, because as some other commenters have pointed out, Tony Wagner is a smart, decent guy, but he has to couch everything he says in ways that suck up to our society’s elites. I had a funny exchange with him a few years ago, which I described in a blog post:
http://literacyinleafstrewn.blogspot.com/2013/01/us-test-scores-are-very-good-when.html?m=1