Ken Robinson is famed for his inspirational books, lectures, and articles about the importance of creativity.
In this article, he describes how standardization has broken education, and what we must do to change it.
It is tempting to reprint the article in its entirety because it is so beautifully written, but I will give you a start so you are tempted to read it yourself.
The problem with fixing it in the U.S. is that the only way to end standardization is to change the federal law that mandates that all children must learn the same thing in the same way and be prepared to answer multiple-choice questions that satisfy Pearson or some other giant testing corporation.
But the way to make that happen is to start now. Opt out. Write letters to the editor. Speak up at Parent meetings and in the teachers’ lounge. Get your union–if you are in one–to take a stand. Be relentless. Promote creativity, diversity of thought, and a stubborn resistance to standardization. Treasure collaboration, oppose competition. Value each person for his or her unique gifts. That’s hard, but that’s where we need to go in our thinking and our actions.
Robinson begins:
We are all born with fathomless capacities, but what we make of them has everything to do with education. One role of education is to help people develop their natural talents and abilities; the other is to help them make their way in the world around them. Too often, education falls short on both counts. As we face an increasingly febrile future, it’s vital to do better. For that to happen, education has to be urgently transformed. We have the resources and the expertise, but now we need the vision and commitment.
In my book, You, Your Child and School, I make a distinction between learning, education and school. Learning is acquiring new skills and understanding; education is an organised system of learning; a school is a community of learners. All children love to learn, but many have a hard time with education and some have big problems with school.
Usually, the problem is not the learners – it’s the inherent bias of education and the enforced culture of schools. For generations, formal education has been systematically biased towards narrow forms of academic ability. The result is that it largely disregards the marvellous diversity of human talents and interests.
For the past generation especially, politicians have been smothering schools in a depressing culture of standardisation. As a result, they have been marginalising the very capabilities our children need to create a more equitable and sustainable world – by which I mean creativity, compassion citizenship and collaboration.
As far as we know, human beings are the most creative creatures ever to walk the Earth. We are endowed with deep powers of imagination and the physical capacities to realise our imaginings in complex languages, theories and beliefs, as well as in the tangible forms of technology, architecture, agriculture, the arts and the sciences and so on.
The trouble is that, in the past 300 years, we have created civilisations that have dislocated our relationships with the natural environment and that now imperil our survival as a species. We face existential challenges. We have immense capabilities to innovate, but the clock is ticking and education is the only key to unlocking these capacities – not the torpid system of testing we have now, but forms of education that celebrate and cultivate these unique powers deliberately.
Diane Though the below article from InsideHigherEd (on David Brooks’ book: “The Second Mountain”) doesn’t mention testing, it shows what education is supposed to do for students, and what cannot be TESTED for, except perhaps in one’s obituary. But regardless of what you think of Brooks’ politics, his notion of what education is supposed to do is spot-on. Here are some relevant snips:
“The measure of a college education is not whether students like what they hear at the end of a particular lecture, it’s whether they return to the ideas, texts and insights they were presented over the course of their lives and find fresh meaning that can be applied in creative ways to diverse and challenging situations.”
“Here’s how Brooks puts it: ‘I felt more formed by my college education twenty-five years out than I did on the day I graduated … (the University of Chicago) offered us the true wine, and made it harder later in life to be satisfied with the cheap stuff.’ . . .”
“He says elsewhere: ‘I think back to my college years and am so grateful for a university … that gave me the open stacks where I could find The New Masses, and had the gall to force me to read a book that at the time I truly hated. A school can transform a life.'”
“College and the Intellectual Journey | Inside Higher Ed / “What I learned about a liberal arts education from ‘The Second Mountain’ by David Brooks.” Article by Eboo Patell / http://www.insidehighered.com
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/conversations-diversity/college-and-intellectual-journey?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=bbd0901525-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-bbd0901525-198488425&mc_cid=bbd0901525&mc_eid=f743ca9d07
While looking up info for a friend, I noted that the California Dept. of Ed has what can only be described as a mission statement on standardized testing. (Let’s get Corporate. Yay!) “The California Department of Education (CDE) is committed to establishing innovative achievement and proficiency assessments for students. These assessments include item types that model and promote high-quality teaching and student learning and ensure that all of California students are well prepared for college and careers in today’s competitive global economy.” Innovative? The tests model high-quality teaching? College and career? Competitive global economy? All the reform buzzwords are artfully represented. You read this and wonder whether to laugh, or cry, or maybe both…
when “competitive global economy” is now strategically hiding “non-creative, low-paid worker bee computer economy”
ciedie aech It seems that the whole Bill Gates’ thing is so enamored with (their own) technology that they all have completely erased from their consciousness what face-to-face communications is about, especially as is needed for babies, children, and young people, e.g., what occurs between REAL parents and teachers, and REAL children and students.
Even if their so-called “personalized instruction” model can work for many mature adults, that model completely overlooks what we (should) know about pre-K-12 and the familial/social aspects of the long phase of human development circa at least 20 years of it.
Education is not only about accumulating knowledge, but also about becoming human, and about maturing and engaging humanly. Insofar as computers cannot, on principle, deliver that demanding kind of maturing, they are “person-alized” in name only and, if made systematic in education, aka to replace REAL teacher-student relationships, they are not only NOT educational, but are also quite dangerous. CBK
YES.
“Education is not only about accumulating knowledge, but also about becoming human, and about maturing and engaging humanly.”
Don’t expect computer geeks who design and develop “personalized (sic) learning” to understand this. They are simply incapable. It’s not that they have forgotten or erased from consciousness what face to face communication is about. It’s that they never knew what it was about to begin with.
In fact, that’s precisely why they chose the career they did: because they are far more at home interacting with machines than with people.
Believe me. I spent a good part of my career working with these types.
As I read the Robinson article, I started to think about Peter Greene’s recent post that laments the inability of young people to problem solve. Both posts attribute this cognitive inflexibility to standardized testing and standardization. Standardization is a reductionist, behaviorist activity. Real thinking is an open ended activity that involves reading, writing and thinking. As Robinson points out, it also activates the creative part of the brain. Bubble tests promote right versus wrong thinking while the real world is often a lot of shades of gray. It is in the shades of gray we find the creative, complex and critical thinking. Divergent, not convergent, thinking is what is needed in a world as complex as ours. We need to engage the whole person in the learning process because the best problem solvers are those that know how to collaborate and build consensus with others. That is why learning should be social.
Education needs reform, but not in the way of the fake reformers. We need to return to where we were before NCLB when real reading, writing and thinking built bridges to flexible cognition and broader understanding. http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/04/have-we-stolen-generations-independent.html
“”Kids these days,” the complaint begins. “They cannot think for themselves.” The complaint has come across my desk three times this week, voiced by someone in the higher education world complaining about the quality of student arriving in their ivy-covered halls.”
Peter Greene writes this
“Kids these days,” the complaint begins. “They cannot think for themselves.” The complaint has come across my desk three times this week, voiced by someone in the higher education world complaining about the quality of student arriving in their ivy-covered halls.”
In my experience, students haven’t lost the ability. They assume education is about being told how and what to do. So if I tell the students “try to think about how to solve this problem”, their first thought is “This guy is lazy, he doesn’t want to give us examples, he wants us do all the work instead of teaching us how to do stuff.” And when they see that I am not kidding, then they say “No way I can do this.” So my main job is to give them back their long-lost confidence in their ability to explore their own thoughts.
So the issue of students’ not thinking for themselves is psychological, and we do not face an irreparable physical damage.
My first quote was supposed to be “I started to think about Peter Greene’s recent post that laments the inability of young people to problem solve. “
“I started to think about Peter Greene’s recent post that laments the inability of young people to problem solve. “
Peter Greene writes this
“Kids these days,” the complaint begins. “They cannot think for themselves.” The complaint has come across my desk three times this week, voiced by someone in the higher education world complaining about the quality of student arriving in their ivy-covered halls.”
In my experience, students haven’t lost the ability. They assume education is about being told how and what to do. So if I tell the students “try to think about how to solve this problem”, their first thought is “This guy is lazy, he doesn’t want to give us examples, he wants us do all the work instead of teaching us how to do stuff.” And when they see that I am not kidding, then they say “No way I can do this.” So my main job is to give them back their long-lost confidence in their ability to explore their own thoughts.
So the issue of students’ not thinking for themselves is psychological, and we do not face an irreparable physical damage.
I have also witnessed this loss of confidence in one’s ability to think.
It’s actually very ironic, given the sales pitch for Common Core about how it would help students think critically.
One of my nephews used to be very confident in his mathematical abilities before Common Core reared its ugly head. After just a few years, he no longer thought he could do math AT ALL.
It’s just recently that he is getting back his confidence AFTER LEAVING the public schools for the private school where my brother teaches.
I seriously doubt that the fellow who developed the Common Core math standards (Jason Zimba) has any clue how much damage he did, not just by dumbing down the math, but by making kids hate math and think they can’t do it.
Zimba benefitted greatly from the writing of the standards, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. He benefitted at the expense of millions of students.
If Hell were real, there would certainly be a special place reserved for people like Jason Zimba and David Coleman.
“After just a few years, he no longer thought he could do math AT ALL.”
Somthing similar happened to my son. Luckily, he didn’t lose his confidence, he just lost interest in a subject where his own ideas about how to solve math problems didn’t matter. In 6th grade, after I suggested that he should not give up telling the teacher about his own methods of solving some problems, he even told me the Biblical wisdom “There is no reason to talk if you are not listened to.”
well said
“Nonstandard Deviation”
(versification of Yong Zhao – aka “The Zhao
of Education”)
Deviation from the norm’s
Anathema to school deforms
But variance is future’s seed
Not a thing that we should weed
School standardization
To standardize the schools
Ambition of the fools
Cuz uniform results
Are not for kids, but bolts
I read all of your poems, SomeDAM Poet.
They are great. Thank you.
Thanks Yvonne. I read all your comments too. I like your no BS way of saying things.
Some of the world’s best thinkers were those that had no access to technology at all. Our “philosopher king,” #45, is a vulgar materialist that lives on a steady diet of Fox News and cheeseburgers.
“Kidgets”
(wish I’d thought of that!)
Your kids are simply kidgets
They must be standardized
Like manufactured widgets
They must be standard sized
They can not even vary
By single nano meter
We aim to really bury
The variation seed here
“Rejecting Motley Kids”
When you eschew
The motley crew
Remainder do
What you want ‘em to
Standards Trump Piaget
Piaget said ‘Let them play’
Coleman says “No way”
Cuomo says “It’s testing day”
What more is there to say?
“Driving Miss Crazy”
Standards drive the testing
And testing drives the teaching
And teaching drives divesting
From outcomes worth the reaching
Ha! Good one.
Exactly.
“The Master Plan”
Initial step‘s to break their will
The second step’s to tame
The final step’s to work the mill
With robots, all the same
“Bird Counts”
Murmur of earth
Concerto of birds
Value and worth
Uncounted by nerds
These are just magnificent, SomeDAM. You are elevating light verse to a whole other level. Thank you. You are indeed the Poet Laureate of the Resistance!
Thanks for the thoughtful poems!
You are more than welcome!
I also read all your comments, retired teacher!
The comments are where I get my inspiration😀
But variance is future’s seed
Not a thing that we should weed
TRUTH!!!
So much to unpack and analyze in Sir Ken’s speech. Of course he’s right to bash the testing, but so much of what he says is charlatanry. I’ll say more after I teach seven periods in a row; no time now.
Charlatanry….And I assume you have not met him.
•
I have met Sir Ken a couple times at conferences and seminars back in the day (1980s, 1990s).
My impression: Mixed feelings perhaps from too much exposure. But, he is a performance artist and skilled in framing ideas so they resonate with his audience. In this article for WIRED, he appears to have repeated some not very insightful claims about creativity (same song for a long time) with a bow now to transforming schools, fixing them, personalized whatever with the “ecology” metaphor that appeals to techies and the futurists at KnowledeWorks.
I think the following YouTube, though longish, is a better presentation of how he thinks than the Wired magazine example.
In 2000 Sir Ken was hired to guide a large institution in California, The Getty Museum and its educational projects. He was there for about four years. He is now a US citizen.
The business community is attracted to his thinking because many are preoccupied with innovation, entrepreneurship, and creativity.
If you want to know a little about his work in the USA, the following podcast has some biography and also mentions Pasi Sahlberg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0pQzuPnAaA
He is a frequent speaker at conferences and knows how to market himself. http://sirkenrobinson.com
I can see how doublespeak about creativity is weaving its way through CA education. His work appears to be heavily engaged in all things artistic. Are they planning to conform the arts?
Gates has been desirous of creating his own stable of artists for decades. Decades ago his lawyers told me he didn’t understand why he can’t have total control of copy rights when he buys a work of art. Will education be used to restructure art law?
People, please put on your critical thinking hats when reading Sir Ken Robinson’s word salads.
“One role of education is to help people develop their natural talents and abilities; the other is to help them make their way in the world around them.”
Notice how this sentence says so little yet sounds so definitive and authoritative. My charlatan-dar is activated.
“…education has to be urgently transformed” said every would-be edu-reformer hack ever. Yeah, a complete overhaul right away!
“We have the resources and the expertise, but now we need the vision and commitment”
Of course “we” have the expertise. Cue pitch for new book…
“In my book, You, Your Child and School…”
“For generations, formal education has been systematically biased towards narrow forms of academic ability. The result is that it largely disregards the marvellous diversity of human talents and interests.”
Oh, those unimaginative teachers! Harping on math and history when they should be allowing non-academic in-born talents like ice cream scooping and bull castration to flourish. Why don’t y’all just let a thousand flowers bloom? So easy and so good.
“For the past generation especially, politicians have been smothering schools in a depressing culture of standardisation. As a result, they have been marginalising the very capabilities our children need to create a more equitable and sustainable world – by which I mean creativity, compassion citizenship and collaboration.”
How to unpack this mess? He wants an equitable and sustainable world. He claims to know that creativity, compassionate citizenship and collaboration are the things that will get us there. Hmm. Just these? What’s his evidence? Shouldn’t he at least add “knowledge” to the list? Or did he just pull these concepts out of his butt and plonk them down, like a real snake-oil salesman, because they sound good and vaguely plausible? But suppose these 3 C’s really are the key –these 3 C’s are qualities that Common Core and NGSS purport to develop. Common Core and NGSS are the epitome of “the culture of standardization” that Sir Ken says is “smothering” and “marginalizing” the 3 C’s. Incoherent!
“As far as we know, human beings are the most creative creatures ever to walk the Earth. We are endowed with deep powers of imagination and the physical capacities to realise our imaginings in complex languages, theories and beliefs, as well as in the tangible forms of technology, architecture, agriculture, the arts and the sciences and so on.”
The rapturous bromides of a New Age self-help guru. “The physical capacities to realize our imaginings in complex languages…” Huh?
“The trouble is that, in the past 300 years, we have created civilisations that have dislocated our relationships with the natural environment and that now imperil our survival as a species.”
Dislocated our relationships? Where did the relationships go? To Mars?
“We face existential challenges. We have immense capabilities to innovate…”
But Sir Ken, isn’t the last 300 years of innovation precisely what has “dislocated” our “relationships” with Nature? You want MORE innovation?
“…but the clock is ticking and education is the only key to unlocking these capacities – not the torpid system of testing we have now, but forms of education that celebrate and cultivate these unique powers deliberately.”
Oh yes, the only way to prevent human extinction is to blaze forward with a completely new, untested program of education that will do all sorts of marvelous things that no schooling has ever done before. And where can one find the secret to this innovative, world-saving education? In Sir Ken’s new book, of course!
I understand why people listen to Sir Ken –he panders to their wishes –but he should not be considered a serious or cogent thinker about education.
Outstanding.
What’s the frequency Kenneth?
And here’s a fun game. Without rereading Robinson’s article, can you pick the sentence that’s from it among these Tony Robbins-ish quotes?
“Sometimes, the most brilliant and intelligent minds do not shine in standardized tests because they do not have standardized minds.”
“When we are too certain of our opinions, we run the risk of ignoring any evidence that conflicts with our views.”
“The basic responsibility of public education is to develop a sense of citizenship, an understanding of democracy, and a readiness to help improve one’s community and society.”
“They recognize that schools must foster young peoples’ natural appetites for learning; that schools themselves must be creative, compassionate, democratic and collaborative.”
“Unless they understand deeply the sources of our democracy, they will take it for granted and fail to exercise their rights and responsibilities.”
Holy cow … what do you think about this?
http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Mary-Gordon.htm
Mary Gordon, who founded the international Roots of Empathy program, will discuss how to cultivate emotional literacy in children at three free events next week on Oahu and Maui.
http://tinyurl.com/y6t8k7kn
This concerns me. And then there’s GRIT.
“The Gritted Age”
The “Gritted Age”
Was full of grit
And “Gated Age”
Is full of it
Gritted Age: Age of the Great Gritsby
Gates Age: Age of the Great GatesB
Good poem on GRIT, SomeDAM Poet.
It’s just CRAZY.
I would say that 45 has GRIT, but he hasn’t a GRIP on reality.
ROFLMAO, SomeDAM!
The last battleground …
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-true-american-tragedy-is-playing-out-in-our-classrooms/
This is a good article that explains how we continue to lose our way by divesting in public education. That is the real crisis. Unless we clean out the complicit politicians, nothing will improve. Parents need join the fight against the corporate incursion of our schools.
From the linked to article”The truth of the matter is that a society that refuses to adequately invest in the education of its children is refusing to invest in the future. Think of it as nihilism on a grand scale.”
I would call what is being done to our schools “cannibalism” because it is not just that we are failing to invest but that there is a highly coordinated effort at the highest levels of our government and business to dismember public education in the US.
And this is happening from higher education to even preschools. I FEAR for our preschools once the politicians get their grubby hands on it.
I also noticed that the word, DYSLEXIA, is being used to CONTROL the curriculum. The O-G people sure have a lot of parents fooled.
Last night on TV, I saw a social on dyslexia and O-G. classroom after classroom with students were engaged in doing stupid things with NONSENSE words. This thing about reading ‘on grade level’ – whatever that means has students doing insane things re: phonics and nonsense words.
I know these kids. I’ve worked with these kids. I
asked a 3rd grade girl why she thought she was having trouble learning to read. She busted out crying and wailed, “I AM TOO STUPID TO LEARN HOW TO READ.” When I probed more about why she thought this about herself, she said, “I’m in the LOW reading group and I’ve been reading those same stupid books since first grade.”
There was NOTHING wrong with this child. Her problem was being OVER-PHONICATED to the point that she was just sounding out words using text that didn’t make sense.
BTW, I saw this child in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grades and the problem was the SAME … TOO MUCH PHONICS and reading books that did not make sense.
I told her 3rd grade teacher that I would take this child each week when at this school and read with her. We went to the school’s library and selected books she wanted to read. All I did was read with her. Guess what? It only took 3 sessions of reading books she enjoyed and which made sense, and this child was reading well and she never stopped reading.
This O-G stuff approved by the FEDS is just AWFUL.
I also know a person who lost her job as salesclerk for Macy’s (Ala Moana Shopping Center). She decided she needed to make $$$$$ so she hung up a sign and started tutoring kids. Guess what she uses to teach kids how to read? YUP…she uses O-G stuff. When I asked her if she ever read with the kids she tutored without missing a beat, her response was, “ONLY IF I HAVE TIME.”
HUH? HUH? HUH?
I am sure she is making lots of money ruining children’s lives and their love of reading.
It is just ALL so SAD and ridiculous.
The final paragraph really resonated with me, “The movement towards personalisation is already advancing in medicine. We must move quickly in that direction in education, too. We have the tools and the professional talents. We need to stir the motivation, vision, optimism and political commitment. That too is a task for education.”
I have found that when I talk to colleagues who work in cancer research and have children in schools, they unanimously understand and internalize that argument. One-size-fits-all cancer treatment is fast becoming a thing of the past at the best research and treatment institutions throughout the nation. Perhaps I can entice one or two of them to consider writing an article about this.
Teachers as diagnosticians. . .
. . . No Thanks!
I have some concerns with his conclusion. He seems to be promoting technology and personalized learning that works with technology.
Also the whole ecosystem thinking?
I have some concerns about his message and where he stands in all of this.
As usual, you completely misinterpret my remarks. Personalized medicine is about tailoring treatment to each person’s genetics and fitness level, and specific drugs and other procedures are determined by how they match up to each person’s genetics. The field is called genomics. The analogy for teaching has absolutely nothing to do with technology. It has to do with determining what approach, out of all available methods, individuals teachers, etc., is best for each student. That would include collaborative projects. I thought that was what we were for here. Jeesh, open up your minds and don’t jump to preconceived conclusions. The doctors I’ve talked to about this get it immediately. Too bad you here don’t.
My concern, GregB, is that overall teachers have taken on a diagnostician role, which implies that the teaching and learning process can and should come under the rubric of “normality”, which in itself implies standardization. Deviations from the norm are seen as reasons for therapeutic intervention instead of various expressions of the “human”.
Now we’ve seen what happens in totalitarian regimes in which aberrations and straying too far from the normal ends up being “diagnosed and cured”, cured by death many times.
Do we really want that type of diagnostic programming of the students?
See my long response below if you are interested.
Personalized medicine means something very different from personalized learning.
The latter essentially means “computerized” and depersonalized.
Ironically, because of the computer component, personalized learning depends on standardization so that software companies can produce just a few versions rather than customized software.
That’s why Bill Gates was so adamant about Common Core
Yep.
What resonates with me is the indisputable fact that standardization has crushed the true spirit of education and the individual spirits of teachers and students. I cannot help but be reminded of computerized curriculum, though, when I read of building schools with personalization. I have to think of personalized [sic] learning [sic]. Since I’m reading Winners Take All, I have to keep in mind that this is a TedTalk aimed at a tech investor audience, not at intellectuals.
All the language of “investment philanthropy” is present. And I have to hope that the tech investor audience hears the message that they crushed education with their meddling, not the message that there is a new way to meddle. Corporate involvement has been entirely destructive, and the only way to stop the destructiveness is to stop corporate involvement. Shove the standards. Give the tests the heave ho. Pay taxes. Keep the screens out of my classroom. Just let me teach.
Tech investors will never hear that they crushed education with their meddling. in fact, they will never hear anything they do not want to hear and they sure as hell do not want to hear that they have “meddled” or that anything they have done has had a negative effect.
Bill Gates is a perfect example. He blames the disaster of Common Core on teachers and parents. And of course, on Diane Ravitch and probably on everyone who comments on this blog.
These people are in deep denial about the disastrous effect they have had on millions of teachers and students.
SomeDAMPoet I think there’s allot to it–but one thing is the false and tacit equation of monetary wealth with ALL sorts of other kinds of excellence, not only by Gates but by all in our own culture who are gaa-gaa about those with monetary wealth.
The other thing is that (as you refer to some technicians) “geeks” are not other species. However, as educators we can say that they do tell us (as the conversation here between GregB and D. Swacker suggests) of the wide range of human development (and lack of it) that falls within the boundaries of normative education and human living.
Regardless of what is considered ordinary and normative, or even creative and rightly outside the bounds of “normative” in such creative persons, I wish those folks that you refer to a huge store of new experiences, insights, self-correctives, and deepening of one’s interior life that could fall under the general rubric of “education,” or even “lifetime maturing,” in what formative years they have left. CBK
Tech investors are too busy seeking to cash in on software to care, or even understand the horrible damage they have done. I blame the politicians for opening up the flood gates to all the capitalists. The government invited them in because they are so “brilliant” that they can create cheap products that are about seventy-five percent marketing. The government is totally complicit.
Left Coast Teacher, you don’t seem to understand that the way you achieve personalization and innovation is through standardization and regimentation and imposition of these by top-down authority because it is personalized and innovative if Bill Gates says it is. If we followed your way of thinking, pretty soon ordinary schmucks like researchers and classroom practitioners and college professors would start having ideas and showing initiative far beyond their caste, and the natural order that established the divine right of Bill to do the thinking for all the rest of us would be upset.
Personalization. Like giving teachers enough time in their schedules that they can actually work one-on-one with students and meet their particular needs?
Or like giving them all software to replace their teachers that is “personalized” because it hauls off with a diagnostic test before plopping students down at some place in an invariant, predetermined sequence of online modules that narrowly teach to the test based on the puerile Gates/Coleman bullet list of “common” (in the sense of base, ordinary, received, unexamined) standards?
When I read that bit about personalization in Robinson’s speech, I thought, OK, here is a guy who is not in a classroom singing the song that the Silicon Valley Ed Deformers want people to hear–the siren song of depersonalized educational software.
It would be very sad indeed if Ken Robinson became the pretty face, the song-and-dance man, for the Ed Deform Depersonalized Education Show.
“We have an opportunity now to rethink the whole ecosystem of education. We need to reinvent schools.”
“It’s about building schools that value the social dimension of learning
making education more organic and less formulaic.”
“schools must be creative, compassionate, democratic and collaborative. And they must be more personalized”
Ken has clearly spent little time teaching a class of high needs adolescents. Typical higher ed blather.
I am not in higher ed and I agree with everything you quoted from Ken Robinson. (Not that I agree with everything he says.)
I am concerned about his references to digital learning. Standardization is wrong, but using it to justify personalized instruction, which is online learning, is wrong too.
nancyebailey While I agree with your sentiment, I would add nuance to the idea that standardization is entirely wrong. Generally, standardization is merely an attempt to put known order into a regularly anticipated process.
On the other hand, standardization used as a kind of rubber stamp, and as a way to eliminate difference and the need to give it room, is the enemy of anything named: human education, especially when such standardization is for the sake of some shallow person’s or group’s ideas of convenience or worse, money-saving, or power-producing schemes; and certainly the enemy in the case of using because some wealthy and well-meaning guy bought the idea that all teachers are bad for students because they, themselves, are not “standardized.”
As a general rule, we need standards; but we need to apply and use them, or ignore them, intelligently? CBK
I am referring to the heavy standardization and test-taking I think Sir Ken Robinson is referring too.
nancyebaily Thank you for your clarifying response. CBK
No, we do not “need” rigid, universal “standards” imposed top-down.
Education deformers love asking, “OK. You don’t like these standards, So what’s your alternative?” And they expect stone-cold silence in response. Sorry to disappoint. Here’s an alternative to top-down, invariant, inflexible, mandatory, amateurish “standards” like those foisted on the country with no vetting whatsoever:
In place of the grade-by-grade bullet list, we could have a few general guidelines (a very broad framework–perhaps four or five principles), continually revisited and critiqued, that provide the degrees of freedom within which real curricular and pedagogical innovation can occur
and
open-source crowd sourcing of alternative, innovative ideas. In other words, we could have
–Competing, voluntary learning progressions, curriculum outlines, reading lists, pedagogical approaches, lesson templates, etc.,
–for particular domains,
–posted by scholars, researcher, curriculum developers, and teachers to an open national portal or wiki, and
–subjected to ongoing, vigorous, public debate and refinement
–based on results in the classroom and ongoing research and development,
–freely adopted by autonomous local schools and districts
–used to design varied learning paths for students with varying needs
–and subjected to continual critique by teacher-led schools–teachers who are given the time in their schedules to subject those, and their own practice, to ongoing critique via something like Japanese Lesson Study.
Bob Shepherd Pease remember that my response about standardization was to the comment: “Standardization is bad.” <–Maybe some nuance needed there perhaps?
But then I get back from you and the person who originated the statement all sorts of adjectives and qualifiers, like rigid, one-size-fits-all, “top-down, invariant, inflexible, mandatory, amateurish” . . . which is exactly what I was asking for–standards are not “bad,” but need to be developed and used intelligently.
THOSE adjectives and qualifies are examples of UN-intelligently implemented standards. CBK
Understood, Ms. King. But I do think that standardization is “bad.” I’ll gladly second Albert Einstein’s opinion on the matter:
“Standardization robs life of its spice. . . . I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe ins tandardizing human beings. Standardization is a great peril which threatens American culture. . . . Ford is undoubtedly a man of genius. . . [but] Such men do not always realize that the adoration which the receive is not a tribute to their personality but to their power or their pocketbook. Great captains of industry and great kings fall into the same error. An invisible wall impedes their vision.” –Albert Einstein, in an interview with George Sylvester Viereck, Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929
Good old Albert E., the charlatan, talking in general terms, without getting down to the real deal like E=mc^2.
Point well made, Mate! Hope you are recovering well, btw. In his comments, Einstein was addressing, in particular, the importance of cultural diversity, but he couched his comment quite broadly, in keeping with much else that he had to say, throughout his life, about education, some of which is collected in the book of essay called Ideas and Opinions. He wasn’t a fan of conventional thinking and official restrictions on freedom of thought and teaching.
However, you make an excellent point about using whatever standards are promulgated wisely. If these were meant as general RECOMMENDATIONS, they would be less dangerous. But the fact is that the Gates/Coleman bullet list has become the de facto, default curriculum in ELA and mathematics in the US. That’s a grave mistake.
I apologize, Ms. King. I did not intend to ascribe to you support for rigid, universal standards. Your point is well made. Again, my apologies.
Bob Shepherd Thank you for the Einstein quote–I love and keep quotes like that. CBK
I do see how my comment could be read as making such an ascription to you, Ms. King, and I am profoundly sorry about that. I wrote in two much haste and wasn’t clear. Your comments show quite clearly, in contrast to the poorly worded opening line in my response, that you believe that standards need to be taken with a grain of salt and used with a critical mind and with considerable reflection. So, again, my apologies!!!
cx: researchers
cx: too much haste, ofc. Oh for an edit button!
I have to admit, as much as I learn from and enjoy the observations on some of the commentators here, sometimes the same people just bug the hell out of me (I’m sure many of you feel the same way about me). What bothers me here is how so many of you cherry pick phrases and impose your preconceived ideas about Robinson’s words with meanings that my or any fair reading just don’t support. Together, you strike me as a mob mentality rather than a discerning audience. Another thing that strikes me is that many of the comments above are illustrations the misinterpretation of political spectrums. Many use the imagery of a straight line to visualize the grays between the extremes of right/left, conservative/liberal, revolutionary/reactionary. The implication is that the extremes are intellectually far apart. But the reality of extremist opinions is actually an unclosed circle in which the extremes overlap. Hannah Arendt’s argument in The Origins of Totalitarianism explained this; how the far right of Naziism and the far left of Stalinism were actually ideological siblings. That’s what I see in the comments here. Many of your ideas start to converge with many of the very processes you claim to oppose so fervently.
These knee-jerk comments about sentence fragments in the article and ascribed meanings and phrases that are not even it. As an example of the latter, three people whose judgment I respect immensely engage in a discussion about the phrase “competitive global economy.” Anyone who gleaned or skipped Robinson’s article and read these comments would think he used that phrase. He did not. Another commentator who often has incisive comments writes, “so much of what he says is charlatanry. I’ll say more after I teach seven periods in a row; no time now.” To put that out there seems to me to be the rhetorical equivalent of a drive-by shooting. Yet another claims that Robinson “has clearly spent little time teaching a class of high needs adolescents” and distills it as “Typical higher ed blather.”
So, let’s take a look at some of this “charlatanry” and “blather.” As Diane quotes above, “For the past generation especially, politicians have been smothering schools in a depressing culture of standardisation. As a result, they have been marginalising the very capabilities our children need to create a more equitable and sustainable world – by which I mean creativity, compassion citizenship and collaboration.” Ponderosa responds by imposing his/her wildly inchoate venom with a sarcastic “Just these?” claiming Robinson is a “snake-oil salesman” and “suppose[s]” these “qualities” are linked to “Common Core and NGSS” before mocking “the culture of standardization [sic, the original is British English]” and calls it “Incoherent!” As I read it, Robinson is acknowledging and supporting the very things we declare every day on this blog. Ponderosa links this statement to “Common Core and NGSS”, Robinson most certainly does not, in fact, if one reads the entire article, he consistently argues against it. And how is the fact that “We are endowed with deep powers of imagination and physical capacities to realise our imaginings in complex languages, theories and beliefs, as well as in the tangible forms of technology, architecture, agriculture, the arts and the sciences and so on”, according to Ponderosa, a “rapturous bromide of a New Age self-help guru”? Doesn’t Robinson’s statement reflect the précis of any good World History class? Do we not agree with Robinson that education is now dominated by a “torpid system of testing”? Does he not acknowledge, as we do, that “formal education has been systematically biased towards narrow forms of academic ability” and that “politicians have been smothering schools in a depressing culture of standardisation”? And are we now condemning anyone with a “new book”? Is that the new standard? If yes, then let’s burn Diane’s books, Steve Singer’s book, Noliwe Rooks’ book. After all they must have an agenda to make money, nothing else at all.
Do we not agree with Robinson that “the torpid system of testing we have now” is a bad thing? Aren’t we for “forms of education that celebrate and cultivate these unique powers deliberately.” Do we not agree that collaboration in education is vital? Should we not celebrate when one writes “our education system is not based on collaboration—it’s based on competition”? Isn’t that the same sentiment that been stated hundreds of times in differing ways on this blog? Do we not agree that digital technology has a place in education, especially when teachers are given the autonomy to use it as we see fit? Nowhere does Robinson equate digital learning with online learning. Nor should anyone read this into it. A couple of years ago, I had a strong disagreement with Lloyd about the value and authenticity of Wikipedia. Has not history and experience proven him to be correct and me as having been dead wrong? When Robinson writes about texts that students can come back to as they get older, is he not standing up for teachers to make decisions and not the publishers of textbooks? (I have to confess that after my first three months of teaching, I was given the autonomy by my headmaster to discard textbooks in favor of books that students could put on their bookshelves and come back to in future years. So this observations spoke to me.)
But getting back to where I made my first comment above, SDP implies in his/her statement, “Personalized medicine means something very different from personalized learning”, that Robinson’s use of the latter is analogous to how deformers pervert the latter. In my view, this is as intellectually dishonest as my friend Duane’s distillation of this into, “Teachers as diagnosticians…No, Thanks!” He takes his simplification further, going so far as calling it “totalitarian [Please see my comment on Hannah Arendt above].” Hyperbole is not strong enough a word to describe this. I believe Duane implies definitions, terms, and intent that are nowhere to be found in Robinson’s article. And yes, Duane, there is a certain amount of diagnostic work that every good teacher should engage in. A good teacher considers the needs of every student and discerns what works and what doesn’t. It really helps if that teacher has small class sizes to get to know each student. Just because the terms diagnostic and assess have been purloined by deformers does not make them invalid in every case. That’s where these things called nuance, experiences, and discretion come into the teaching profession.
So indulge me to explain what personalized medicine is and strives to be—something I feel that I am on solid ground to explain—and why Robinson’s short piece (unfortunately this monologue is turning out to be longer than his commentary—what it is and how I believe it corresponds to legitimate idea of personalized learning—not the perverted form Silicon Valley/Seattle types are trying to foist on us. A few years ago a National Research Council report described it as the “tailoring of a medical treatment to individual characteristics of each patient (e.g. genetic, biomarker, phenotypic, or psychosocial characteristics).” It uses big data as a tool to be used by physicians who work in collaborative teams. It does not use a one-size-fits-all model which has been the hallmark of medical care for more than a century. It only works if physicians collaborate with specialists, if they consider all the individual characteristics of a patient, and incorporates emerging therapies in clinical trials. And it is ever changing with new discoveries. What worked yesterday for this patient might well be the worst thing to do tomorrow for that patient. If that is not the model for what we want in our classrooms—no standardized testing, small class sizes, the ability of teachers to innovate, experiment and take risks—then what the hell do we want. I suggest a reading of Robinson’s article without ideological glasses and rigid blinders would be a good place to continue contemplation.
I always respect and appreciate your comments, and almost always agree. We very rarely disagree. I usually agree with Ken Robinson too. — Doctors of medicine use tools. Teachers use tools. What many of us are worried about is the long-standing monied push to make tools use teachers.
We have zero disagreement on your last sentence. I just don’t read that in the article posted.
We read it differently. That’s the beauty of it.
“What many of us are worried about is the long-standing monied push to make tools use teachers.” –So, so beautifully said!
Bob, it’s not a contest, but you must be the best teacher in the country.
Robinson has long been a champion of real personalization and individuation–of creating diverse, varied paths that suit the proclivities and interests of particular students. We need cosmologists AND cosmeticians. I could not agree with this more. Our schools should be gardens with many paths. But you must admit, Greg, that some paragraphs of this piece could have been lifted verbatim from a marketing pitch for depersonalized learning software. That’s disturbing.
GregB, this is exactly main tricks of the reformers: they use phrases which, in fact, describe sound educational goals or principles and hiding behind these phrases, they execute privatization. So now if we hear back these phrases from anybody, we think, they must be reformers.
The original ideas behind “critical and creative thinking”, “personalized learning”, “helping disadvantaged kids”, “have freedome of choice” were all good, and we shouldn’t let reformers dictate our vocabulary.
Mate Wierdl Yes. That’s the reformers engaging in Orwellian DOUBLE-SPEAK–and it’s also a well-known tool of fascism–to put on the costume of your opponent and speak their language. Everything is code for something else, and often its opposite. CBK
(See H. Arendt’s “Origins of Totalitarianism” for an excellent historically-based critique of fascism.)
“The final paragraph really resonated with me, “The movement towards personalisation is already advancing in medicine. We must move quickly in that direction in education, too.”
My response which you quote “Teachers as diagnosticians…No, Thanks!” was to your quote, nothing more. I don’t agree with the teachers as diagnostician concept.
Do teachers constantly assess, evaluate, judge what a student is learning? No doubt. But medical evaluations are nowhere conceptually near to teacher assessments. Two different realms of human experience.
“I believe Duane implies definitions, terms, and intent that are nowhere to be found in Robinson’s article.”
Please point out where I have done so.
Again, my response was to your thoughts not Robinson’s.
Look up personalized medicine or as some call it, precision medicine. You have no idea what you are talking about here. You do on many other things, but not on this topic. To equate personalized medicine as it is practiced by the few who can with the perverted definition of personalized learning used by the people we both abhor is plain wrong.
Yes, I do understand about “precision medicine”. As one who has spent his entire adult life around medical professionals, who has a son who had multiple operations, and who has far too many contacts himself with modern medicine (thank god for it) I’m very aware of what is being done.
And I thoroughly agree with your last sentence. But. . .
I didn’t equate them. What I am saying is that the attempt to turn the teaching and learning process into one of diagnostic normality and deviance from the norm is not the way to “improve” that process. And that also doesn’t mean that I don’t think that teachers don’t assess, evaluate and/or judge what and how a student is learning. The medial diagnostic field has hard scientific parameters within which to work and analyze situations. The teaching and learning process does not to any degree at all have those types of truly scientific parameters.
The object of the assessment/analysis of the two fields are different-one, medicine, which is to come up with a health care plan for the individual to overcome their health issue. The other, teaching and learning process has as it’s goal the optimum development of the student, both mind and body, as determined by the individual and his/her parent/guardian (obviously with the help of the teacher).
Why do you believe that you know whether or not I “have no idea what I am talking about here”?
It appears more to me that “we have failure to communicate here”:
The downside of this forum, Duane, is that sometimes we write things in haste and unthinkingly that are easily misinterpreted. I think when I and Ken Robinson use the term personalized medicine, I believe, based on what you wrote, it is very different from they way you understand it. I do not know your personal situation with your son, but if this has been happening for more than 8-10 years, then I think you equate a “personal approach” with personalized medicine. The latter is a relatively new field, primarily in cancer, that very few doctors are qualified to practice.
That’s why Robinson’s analogy struck a chord with me. I’ve been thinking the same thing for the past couple of years. It’s about so much more than diagnosing. I won’t get into it, but I didn’t mean to be condescending, but in rereading my original comment, it certainly was. And I apologize for that. I wish we could sit down over a few beers at a bar and have a real, nuanced conversation to explain my point of view.
But back to the point of this thread: Diane’s headline reads, “Standardization Crushes the Spirit of Education and of Learners.” Why the hell are we arguing about this and parsing the language of the article like closed-minded curmudgeons? Doesn’t that sum up the the one thing that binds virtually everyone who comes here?
Greg
Perhaps it did not occur to you that what you have called “intellectual dishonesty” on the part of myself and Duane is simply a difference of interpretation.
You assumed that Robinson was not referring to “computerized learning” (aka depersonalized learning) when he used the term “personalized learning”, but unless you have asked him, I don’t see how you can be so sure from a reading of that article.
First, the article was written in Wired and Robinson certainly knows the audience. Second, he made quite explicit reference to digital technologies:
”
The proliferating reach of digital technologies is the best recent evidence of our capacities for collaboration. Digital technologies could be the most far-reaching and consequential change in human history – a potential step change in our evolution as a species. Digital technologies are also changing the context in which we educate people, and what we’re educating them for. They can help us support teaching and make education more vibrant and more collaborative. Wikipedia is the largest compilation of human knowledge ever attempted, and it’s entirely collaborative and self-correcting.”
Are we really supposed to believe that Robinson is unaware of how the term “personalized learning” has been used in the digital context by people like Zuckerberg? And if he was aware of that perverted use of the term and intended something different, why did he not make a point of drawing a distinction between what he was referring to and the fairly common (if not most prevalent) use of the term by Zuckerberg and others?
I know you might have a hard time understanding this, but what you have labeled “intellectual that dishonesty”, I would call skepticism.
And yes, I am skeptical when I see “personalized learning” used in an article referring to digital technologies in Wired magazine.
I would note that I did not call you intellectually dishonest for your different interpretation.
And by the way, I also share some of ponderosa and flerp’s skepticism regarding other parts of the piece.
But then again, I’m just intellectually dishonest and reacting in a knee jerk way while Greg the Oracle knows all.
Ha ha ha.
“Are we really supposed to believe that Robinson is unaware of how the term “personalized learning” has been used in the digital context by people like Zuckerberg?”
Robinson may very well be the the one who originated the idea of personalized learning. See this talk from 2006 at about 14 minutes.
But it’s not clear, if he is fond of the Zuckerberg project that has been giving such headaches to kids in Kansas.
Lest I be called intellectually dishonest twice (intellectually dishonest squared?), I would note that Robinson does not actually use the term “personalized learning” in the article.
But does in the video I just linked to.
Well, Robinson also gives a plug for Kipp (the mega charter chain) at 14 min, so my skepticism has just increased, not decreased.
It’s that KIPP? Hm. What’s so great about their system?
Make that “my intellectual dishonesty has just increased, not decreased”
I keep mistaking intellectual dishonesty for skepticism.
My bad
Or is it “mistaking skepticism for intellectual dishonesty”?
Either way I am clearly confused.
Mate
Here’s what Diane Ravitch has said about Kipp
https://dianeravitch.net/2018/06/19/san-francisco-5th-graders-at-malcolm-x-elementary-outscore-peers-at-kipp/
“KIPP is the Walmart of charter schools, opening in communities where they are not wanted and destroying local public schools”
How a charter chain relates to “personalized learning” is unclear.
But then again, what would I know?
I’m just intellectually dishonest.
“You assumed that Robinson was not referring to “computerized learning” (aka depersonalized learning) when he used the term ‘personalized learning’, but unless you have asked him, I don’t see how you can be so sure from a reading of that article.”
I assumed nothing. In fact, you assumed he WAS referring to computerized learning when there is nothing in the article that says that. I don’t see how you can be so sure from a reading of that article.
Since we both seem to be assuming, what does that say about each of us? 😇
I assumed one thing and you assumed the opposite.
But tge difference between me and you is that I did not call you intellectually dishonest for your assumption.
What does that say about you?
It is intellectually dishonest because you read what you want to read into something that is just not there. That is the definition of being intellectually dishonest. I stand by that. I call that being honest.
GregB I have to admit I was too lazy to address the responses that bothered me as they did you, but here want to endorse what you say in your thoughtful note. I did write about standardization, however, and invite response to that note.
Also to Duane Swacker, I like much of what you say here and enjoy your way of “speaking;” however, I must also say that I think I hear some over-reacting in this issue about teachers analyzing students? In many schools that I have been acquainted with (for years), there are specialists in-school or on-call (like with medicine) that are cued by teachers who care for, even love, their students and who have been well-trained to recognize red-flags and problems, often before they can fester and take hold of a student’s educational abilities–all to the students’ advantage. <–but if this is not what this argument is about, then I will stand corrected.
But I do have to agree with GregB, that sometimes–not always–I sense that Knee-Jerk has entered the building. CBK
Thanks, CBK. Sorry for the various typos and wrong words, but I hope anyone who reads this will see and forgive them.
GregB I think we are all suffering from a case of reformer-overload, and from playing whack-a-mole with those who use Orwell’s writings for their moral and political playbook. CBK
CBK,
In what fashion have I overreacted to teacher assessing as part of the teaching and learning process vs teacher as diagnostician?
Hi Duane E Swacker: This comes to mind:
“Duane E Swacker
April 30, 2019 at 12:23 pm
Teachers as diagnosticians. . .. . . No Thanks!”
Diagnostics covers a huge number of educational issues that manifest in students. And teachers cannot bring correctives to students or refer to other professionals unless they have some training and education in many kinds of diagnostics. CBK
And I disagree with the need for teachers to be trained as diagnosticians. I’ll leave that to the professionals. Now, that doesn’t mean I haven’t referred students and/or sought the help of those qualified for those students.
I just don’t agree with the fundamental concept of medicalizing, in the sense of diagnosing abnormalities to be “fixed”. I see that many times those supposed abnormalities are just expressions of human behavior that don’t happen to fit into the confining/constraining environment of the schools.
If what I said is an “overreaction” so be it. I stand by what I said. Silence in the face of educational malpractice is. . . .
Duane e Swacker First, there are many kinds of diagnostics, not all are physical. Many have to do with speech corrections (my son had such a problem caught and corrected through well-developed methods). psychological disorders that, if caught early, can respond well to treatment. Second, teachers are “professionals” too . . . . and they are often the first-line of defense, so to speak, for being able to recognize when something is wrong in all of the complex developmental issues that children display.
Of course what you say has some truth to it–but the point of “overreaction” is the same thing as “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” Your complaint, it seems to me, is about the misuse of diagnostics, not diagnostics that are intelligently trained-for and applied appropriately. CBK
“Your complaint, it seems to me, is about the misuse of diagnostics, not diagnostics that are intelligently trained-for and applied appropriately.”
I’ve not thrown all diagnostics out with the bath water.
What I see is a turn towards a medicalization/normality model of education instead of working with individual students for them to what they believe they need to do (obviously with younger students with the cooperation of the parents/guardians). That normalization is such that it requires standardization and abnormality as the norm. I don’t agree with that turn. I stand by what I have written.
Duane E Swacker: You didn’t write that. You just said something like: “Diagnostics, no thanks.” When I learn how to read minds on the net, I’ll let you know. CBK
GregB:
I appreciate that you took the time to critically read my critical reading of Sir Ken. Obviously I failed to persuade you. The guy raises all of my charlatan red flags. It’s not just this article –I had the same reaction when I saw one of his TED Talks and when I’ve read him in HuffPost. To me he’s a all-too-common type in the education world –someone who strings together crowd-pleasing platitudes and offers alluring, unproven cures –someone with scanty experience teaching or running schools who makes his money telling the public how schools should be run. Do you really believe he has the “expertise”, as he implies he has, to establish innovative forms of education that “celebrate and cultivate [kids’] unique powers deliberately” while at the same time developing their “compassionate citizenship and collaboration” capabilities? And, if so, you trust him that it’s precisely this type of education is the only way to create an “equitable and sustainable” world and the only way to save the world from destruction? To me these sound like the inflated claims of a con man. It appears he never taught in a K-12 school. He was an education professor for 12 years. He has not established his authority with me. Has he with you?
My teacher’s version of Mike Tyson’s well known quote (“Everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face.”)
Every edu-faker has a game plan to fix public education until their ideas are implemented in an overcrowded, 7th grade classroom in the period immediately after lunch/recess.
Ken’s flowery view and grandiose ideas have no meaning in the daily grind of a 180 day, 5 to 6 period school year.
“Ken’s flowery view and grandiose ideas have no meaning in the daily grind of a 180 day, 5 to 6 period school year.”
On the other hand, it’s not Ken’s fault that teaching has become a daily grind for many.
Its not his fault, but it shows that he is out of touch with the reality in the schools.
I can certainly understand why teachers have grown tired of outsiders telling them how to fix things because they have been doing it forever.
Perhaps it is time someone asked the teachers what (if anything) is wrong and how to fix things (if they need fixing)
A novel approach, I know.
“I can certainly understand why teachers have grown tired of outsiders telling them how to fix things because they have been doing it forever.”
Agreed.
Mate
One of the reasons I am skeptical of people like Robinson — and why I believe teachers like Rage are justified in their skepticism — is that they say things like
“As we face an increasingly febrile future, it’s vital to do better. For that to happen, education has to be urgently transformed”
How many times in recent decades have teachers heard that “education has to be urgently transformed”?
What precisely does that mean? (And what the hell is a febrile future?)
Why specifically do American schools have to be transformed?
What is wrong with them?
How specifically should they be transformed?
Do teachers have any say in this or should some Brit dictate how it is to be done?
As Diane, Yong Zhau and others have pointed out, our schools have served us well for decades and our higher Ed system is the envy of the world.
You know, I’m starting to agree more with ponderosa and flerp after every new reading of Robinson’s article.
The Urgency Emergency”
An Urgency
Emergency
Is why we need to change
But wait ten years
And have some beers
Until we rearrange
Ponderosa and others, I doubt you would consider my experience as a teacher as making me qualified to pontificate on education issues. I taught in the 80s from the age of 23 to 29 at two exclusive independent schools and I had less training as a teacher on my first day than a TFA teacher. Indeed, I never thought I’d be a teacher until I was told I had a teaching job. I took one education course in college, in geography, and I felt then as I do now that it was a huge waste of time. But I loved teaching in the first school I taught and the first year of the second school. I had complete autonomy. I had small class sizes. I had all the resources I needed. I worked with supportive and nurturing master teachers, one of whom taught me in college. When I told my first headmaster after a month of teaching that I was miserable teaching out of the textbooks, he asked what I would do, I told him, and then he said, “Well, do it!” I quit teaching because he died, I felt I would always be poor—funny, I still am, and because I had grown tired of trying to find different ways to say the same thing every year. I never realized the freedom to do things differently every year is a luxury most of you don’t have. So I don’t consider myself to have been a real teacher like you and the many who comment on this blog and who I met at last year’s NPE meeting.
Here’s my take on the criticism of this article: many of you—probably all of you—are dedicated teachers. Likely damn good, passionate teachers. All of you who criticize this article read things into it that just aren’t there, in my opinion. You may well be true, but that’s not a conclusion anyone can reach if they base it on the words written. Here’s what I think is happening: I think most of you who see things you want to see, who suspect the worst motives, are very much like children who have been abused or neglected for a very long time. But you’ve been abused by systems of education and, as Duane so eloquently calls them, adminimals.
I think it is hard for you to trust, to not infer motives that have damaged you, and see anything but the worst in human nature, especially when it comes to the teaching profession. I have the luxury of a very different experience. After I taught, I worked on education policy in DC and later for a national civic education organization that conducted an incredible group learning program. Since then I’ve worked on educating patients with a rare type of cancer. I have never experienced what so many of you do day after day. So, as I wrote in another comment, I follow the dictum “Trust, but verify” largely because I don’t have the proverbial skin in the game the way you do. That was my mindset as I read this article and it will remain so until I’m proven to be wrong.
Fascinating, Greg. Thanks for sharing this. Ms. King made much the same point, earlier. Many of us are, in fact, suffering from shell shock from dealing with the egregious consequences of deform in our own lives–real consequences–the trivialization of the work to which we’ve dedicated our lives, the loss of outstanding colleagues who just couldn’t stand it anymore. And so, yes, the red flags go up when people talk of personalizing learning and completely transforming schools. This sounds like Goblish, the language of Ed Deform.
GregB,
I don’t feel abused, but I am mighty skeptical of most would-be education reformers, with good reason: so many (most?) of them are frauds. Think David Coleman, Rick DuFour, Charlotte Danielson, Lucy Calkins, Robert Marzano, Grant Wiggins, Sujata Mitra, Eva Moskowitz, Wendy Kopp, the myriad fraudulent charter school founders, and on and on. Fraud and hackery is endemic in our sorry field, I’m afraid. Diane Ravitch is one of the few education intellectuals that I respect. She is a real scholar, unlike most of these people. She is motivated by a search for the truth, unlike most of these people who are just careerists or hawking something (usually both). Others I respect include E.D. Hirsch, a bona fide, first rate scholar, and Dan Willingham, a genuine scientist, and Bob Shepard, a man of real expertise in the field.
“Dan Willingham, a genuine scientist, ”
How can a noin-psychologist tell about a psychologist whether he is a genuine scientist?
Ponderosa, thank you, again and again and again, for keeping up the good fight in favor of knowledge-based education and against EduSpeak puffery. If people would think in terms of procedural knowledge instead of vague, abstract “skills,” they might actually come up with real stuff to communicate to students that they could actually use to accomplish this, that, or the other. Here, my EZ Guide to Becoming a Well-Remunerated EduPundit: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/becoming-an-edupundit-made-ez/
So why do follow this blog and read all your comments every day? Two reasons. First, one of the first education briefings I ever attended in DC featured this seemingly cold, overly analytical official from the Department of Education who said many things I found provocatively interesting, but ultimately left me cold. When I “rediscovered” her years later when she was on The Daily Show, I remembered her immediately, I noticed how she changed her tune, and that same night I ordered her books on Amazon. The reason she resonated with me was because I realized there was something desperately wrong with the education policy of the Obama administration, but I really wasn’t sure what it was. Prior to that time, I had two sons who I wanted to attend a good public school—I didn’t want them to go to Catholic or independent schools for a variety of reasons—and moved to a community where I thought we would find it. But I began to realize things were changing and the narrative of that woman I saw on The Daily Show started to make more sense.
Sadly, the system we chose has devolved into a swamp of mediocrity. Board members who seek community “status,” administrators who seek better jobs or secure pensions, teachers and coaches who seem fine with standardization because they don’t have to think about what they do, and most disturbingly, parents who really couldn’t give a damn as long as they can take pride in extracurricular activities and get their kids into college. So forgive me if I offend any of you with my comments. I think I care as much as you do about education and I’m also feeling abused—as a parent this time. Sometimes that expresses itself through my undiplomatic comments. But this is the only place I feel comfortable to make them and know that some will understand where I’m coming from.
Sir Ken’s article and his actions show that he’s on the side of the corporate agenda to promote technology over teachers.
He is not someone we should be praising. This has the new tech/corporate reform written all over it.
Have to agree with ponderosa and Rage. This reads like a Tony Robbins seminar.
Sad to say, it does.
But as I am reading it, I am hearing in my mind Robinson’s beautiful talk about the fidgety girl whose “problem” was that she was a dancer and that no one had figured that out–the girl who grew up to be one of the world’s leading choreographers AFTER they figured that out. Now, don’t take this to mean that I believe that people are all about their innate characteristics; I emphatically DON’T believe that. But some are tubas and some are pianos, and while you can play an astonishing variety of music on a tuba or a piano (jazz tuba is pretty awesome), there are, as Frost says, “roughly zones.” You can’t play Scriabin’s Etude Op. 8 No. 12 on a tuba. And an extraordinarily diverse economy needs people variously educated, not identically milled. The great orchestra needs tubas and pianos. If you actually took seriously the notion of being “college and career ready,” you would keep that in mind and not try to stretch students on the rack or lop off their parts to make them fit the same Procrustean bed. Deformers are authoritarians. They like standardization because they want everyone to do exactly and only what they are told. They really wish that teachers and students would just shut up and show the gritful obedience proper for proles. They use the term “personalization” for the same reason that Deformers name their astroturf organizations things like “Students First” and “Parent Revolution.” Not because they actually want individuation and diversity. That’s what they want to stamp out. Screw that.
“They really wish that teachers and students would just shut up and show the gritful obedience proper for proles. ”
Bob, it’s difficult to claim that Robinson ever wishes this.
Agreed. He would not do this. I intend to read his new book. I’ve long been a fan. But I do wonder whether he knows that when he talks of personalization and ed tech people talk of personalization, they are mouthing the same words but are actually talking about vastly different and antithetical things. Often, the devil is in the details. Who would oppose “higher standards.” They are higher. They hold us to standards. Who would oppose personalization? Who would oppose having a right to work? Who would oppose “K-12 scholarships”? Who would oppose putting Students First? A Parent Revolution? Who would want “Death Panels”?
And the other key part to this is motivation. When students are pursing a path that works for them under a teacher who understands their needs, they develop intrinsic motivation, and they become life-long learners. Not going to happen if they are spending their days doing module 12 or 36 or 90 or 1,243 on standard CCSS.ELA.RI.666.v2.0 or whatever in their depersonalized education software that is referred to as “personalized” solely because some students haven’t gotten to that module yet and some have already finished it.
There are legitimate roles for educational software to play. Cyberspace can provide vast resources–entire libraries, for example. A video can be assigned to meet an individual student’s particular interest or need or can take students places they couldn’t ordinarily go (let’s travel through the cardiovascular system and stop along the way and see the sights). But most of the ed tech is simply programmed learning with a graphical user interface, narrowly focused on the puerile, invariant “standards,” and there’s an invariant progression in its use: hype, followed by initial excitement by students, followed almost immediately by boredom, followed by rebellion against using it. As a steady diet, it’s mind-numbing.
Come on guys, why do we describe articulate writing and speech as flowery, extremely clear and consistent ideas as mean spirited and charlatanry, why do we describe somebody as our enemy who could very well be our ally?
Good question
The third video down on this page is Ken Robinson’s outstanding TED Talk “Who Killed Creativity?” This doesn’t sound to me like someone who would approve of standardization and regimentation. He does indeed sound like an ally, and I liked the piece so much that I posted it on my blog with a few other wonders that are extremely important to me: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/wonders/
Thanks, MW, you succinctly say what I used too many words to say. I’ll respond to Ponderosa and Bob this evening when I have time.
GregB and Mate I also see some misunderstanding in these narratives of the RIGHT relationship between (1) general statements (e.g., Robinson’s) and (2) classroom details (the niddy-griddy of teaching). For teachers who deal with the every-day niddy griddy, look at your school’s mission statement as an example? It’s similarly generalized. It doesn’t tell you how to teach your students in that niddy-griddy. It’s a general guide. You wouldn’t want it to make a puppet out of you. Robinson’s statements (related here) are statements which act like the right generality of your mission statements.
Of course, both aspects (generalizations and specific details of our teaching) can be way off course (as all teachers know), and regular and ongoing intelligent critique should be welcomed by all; but it seems to me Robinson’s are pretty-well-written as general statements.
In fact, a teacher’s freedom to teach, and to make on-target decisions in the details of our classroom, among our specific students in the niddy-griddy, DEPENDS on a right but also tensional relationship between those two aspects, e.g., do my teaching details fall within the conscription of my school’s general mission statement? Is what Robinson says what we want generally?
My point: some of the critique about over-generalization and “flowery” speech overlooks (a) the place of generalization in such talks and in institutional situations as well as (b) the need for forward-looking critical (do-able) idealism, also generalized, that provides a guide to follow for future educational developments. CBK
When you speak or write, you need to consider your audience. If your audience is not education experts, you do not want to talk about nitty-gritty details of every-day teaching. So it’s hardly an acceptable criticism that Robinson makes fairly general statements about education, and doesn’t exhibit practical expertise.
Mate Wierdl Yes–and I would even say that generalizations can be quite practical–in the sense that when they are good, and worked out rightly in concrete circumstances by good teachers, they indeed do their part to qualify practice, or the practical situation. CBK
Ms. King makes an important point about ideals and general language. Permit me a couple examples, the first a favorite of mine, the second one that I think Ken Robinson would heartily endorse.
We are committed to working to develop curricula and pedagogy that will produce intrinsically motivated, life-long learners.
We are committed to providing students with the necessary instruction, facilities, materials, and opportunities for them to produce creative work in the arts.
Such general framework statements can be inspiring and motivating spurs to creation of exciting innovations in curricula and pedagogy.
Those are good ones, but anything more specific would be up for debate, especially in such a diverse, huge country.
And they should be. States should issue general frameworks, and these should be continually debated. That’s what we would do in a democracy.
Bob Shepherd Good examples; and when we are involved in concrete situations, we can always return to the general statement with the question: Did what I do today fall under these general guides? If so, how? CBK
Mate, anyone who says, as Ken Robinson does, that kids, in school, should spend a LOT more time dancing is, in my book, wise, wise, wise.
Especially, since he is a limper.
Ken Robinson has some ideas that are right on (de-standardize schools, creative-ize classrooms) and some bad ones (“personalize” gets too close to the business side). He has some good writing (excerpts from here) and some bad writing (his book “Creative Schools” was quite bland).
Let’s go with the good ideas, and oppose the bad ones. Don’t have to take Ken all or nothing.
Yes, as someone wrote once for Reagan, “Trust, but verify.”
That’s my favorite Unca Ronnie Raygun quote. Used it all the time in the classroom (of course crediting RR) when a student would challenge me for challenging him/her-“What you don’t trust me?”
LMAO. Greg, Dwayne. I used that phrase all the time with my students. Noonan is half crazy sometimes, but she’s a good writer.
The fact of the matter (education) is that the primary goal of students is to have as much fun with their friends as they can while doing the least amount of work. Most adults fail to understand the adolescent mind set regarding daily school life, the power of peer/social influence, and the group (mob) psychology of the classroom preferring to conflate the well educated, mature, professional adult view of learning and that of the average kid.
Kids love rote activities, they dislike having to think because they aren’t very good at it, they expect to be mostly bored in school (and they are), they do forget most of what we teach, they are not experts in any discipline so they get confused and mixed up as should be expected; they are generally incurious, they have little creative ability yjay natters, their attention spans can be measured in seconds, they enjoy sarcasm and are pretty jaded by middle school, they are, for most of their K to 12 experience almost entirely concrete learners, they can’t connect dots; they are unable to transfer their limited knowledge to new situations; and as a general rule they don’t care that much about their future beyond dismissal. No law or policy or program or product can change the intellectual, emotional, and social development of children; especially in large group settings (classrooms, cafeterias, locker rooms, hallways, etc.). We have to stop pretending we can fix what we can’t. Everyone in this business needs to relax and keep the academic expectations real.
“Everyone in this business needs to relax and keep the academic expectations real.”
For whatever reason, people with a dark, negative view think, they see reality, while it’s only their reality.
Who’s more likely to have an accurate view of reality, a 40 year veteran middle school teacher or an education school professor? Why is it usually non-teachers like Sir Ken who make grandiose claims about children’s potential? Here’s a less dark spin on what Rage just said: kids are kids. And they’re novice learners. Let’s accept them for what they are and not pretend they’re something else.
In the no-excuses charter schools, children are called “scholars.”
I can’t begin to tell you how that offends me.
Like putting a toy stethoscope on a 5-year-old and calling him or her “Dr.”
Lemme summarize what Rage said about students “They are crap, only those who don’t teach them would consider them humans.” I hear the same thing from some of my colleagues about our students, and I also read similar, proudly displayed opinion of teenagers from many parents on Facebook. Lovely.
Mate, That summary is as bad as Barr’s.
“Mate, That summary is as bad as Barr’s.”
How? This
“they can’t connect dots; they are unable to transfer their limited knowledge to new situations; and as a general rule they don’t care that much about their future beyond dismissal.
is how you describe puppies. What do you do with puppies? You train them: When to sit quietly (all eyes on the trainer all the time), when to run, when to make a noise. Puppies have no saying in anything, their opinion is uninvited. Their only acceptable behavior is to show the knowledge they have acquired. Then they get praised.
This is exactly what Success Academy does
[video src="https://greatschoolwars.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/sa_math.mp4" /]
By the way, do you know who else refers to Willingham’s findings all the time? Doug Lemov
http://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/retrieval-practice-teachers-definition-video-examples/
Why not listen to cognitive scientists, like Lakoff, who have more appreciation for kids’ talents, creativity, individual input, imagination, who explicitly say repeatedly that teaching is not just about transmission of knowledge?
Mate, I adore a lot of the students who display the traits that Rage describes (as I’d bet Rage does too). They’re often good people and often quite bright. They’re just not great students –either because they’re just very disinclined, or because they’re rank beginners and can’t really be expected to do much beyond a concrete and basic level yet, or something else. I do not believe any of them are hopeless cases, but I do think a lot of them are way beyond my powers to dramatically change. There is a powerful sluggishness, inertia, in the mass of humanity. Turning the serfs into Tolstoys is the work of ages, not one or two runs through a K-12 system. Theorists of education are never going to get it right unless you start from a sound empirical basis, it seems to me. Their models are based on a fantasy child, or the child of intellectuals, not the interesting, complex, stubborn child that exists in your average public school.
Why do you think Willingham gets it right and not Lakoff?
Exactly Ponderosa, perfectly stated.
After a 40 year career of teaching the children of the mostly “have nots” and the “have “nevers”, I have come to realize that they are mostly resigned to being trapped in America’s underbelly. Generational poverty, dependence, and economic hopelessness. Like most kids, they meet parental expectations; parents who also struggled in school and never saw education for the way out it might have been. The politically correct notion that “all kids can learn” simply isn’t true.
As Pondrosa stated, this doesn’t necessarily reflect on innate intelligence, but for a host of reasons, many kids just can’t – at least not on a level that makes much of difference. And yes, except for the small handful of truly rotten, nasty children we encounter (future psycho and sociopaths, and violent criminals) we enjoy teaching them and we appreciate them for who they are, because we’ve grown to understand that the game was never rigged for them.
Lakoff is incoherent. In this lecture, which conveyed information to me, he said teaching is not the conveying of information. Teaching IS the conveying of information.
He’s fuzzy in many places in this lecture. At times it seems he’s saying that thinking in metaphors develops naturally and at other times he seems to be saying one needs to read novels to gain this ability. I tend to think it’s a natural aptitude. We fail at making or understanding metaphors when we lack the relevant background knowledge. The more knowledge we give kids, the better they’ll be at metaphors. In several places he makes it sound like mental workouts (e.g. reading novels) are the key; I think conveying knowledge is the key.
He implies kids only grasp what they already know. This cannot be strictly true. How did that initial knowledge get in their brains in the first place? Willingham and Hirsch claim, more cogently, that pre-existing knowledge schema facilitate acquisition of new knowledge.
At the end he suddenly springs on us the idea that learning only happens in nurturing environments, not strict environments. I’d need to hear a lot more argumentation to believe him on this. What’s the proof?
Overall I was not impressed. He seems to know his brain science well, but he’s really shaky when he tries to build a bridge to teaching and learning.
ponderosa I won’t go into detail, but I came to quite similar conclusions about other Lakoff’s lectures which I watched online. CBK
“Teaching IS the conveying of information.”
Of course, not. If there is anything that can be declared about teaching in a single sentence is that any single sentence that declares what teaching is, is bound to be simplistic.
We went through this before: kids with most information in math are not the best in math. I suspect, the same is true in many other subjects; physics is one of them.
It certainly is true that kids with the most information might be the best test takers. I suspect that’s exactly what Willingham emphasizes too: he measures successful learning by making kids take various tests. He emphasizes over and over the importance of giving quick answers to questions—moving information to short term memory from where it can be recalled qiuickly. Pretty mechanistic view of learning. It ignores the other equally important way of people think: slow thinking. This is the kind of thinking Lakoff is talking about, and the importance of developing it. He is also talking the importance of caring in learning. Fuzzy, stuff, I know. But practice supports it: kids who feel that the teacher cares about them and their learning learn more readily.
There can be too reason why Lakof may not sound scientific: one, he is talking about education, which is not science, two, he is not giving a scientific lecture to other scientists.
Let us not pretend that we know what knowledge is, and what successful teaching or learning are. These are not well defined (not even well definable) concepts, and hence we cannot build a science around them.
Imo, Willingham is not empirical, but simplistic. Science always makes simplifyng assumptions about its subject. If the simplyfying assumptions distort reality, the science is incorrect.
You can pretend that there is no such thing as nurturing kids’ creative thinking and imagination, but then you ignore reality. As Lakoff says, good art teachers do this every day. I add, math teachers should do this too.
Hitting your head on concrete can cause permanent brain damage. This is an example of the kind of knowledge all kids should learn. I’d like them to know that “Marseilles” is pronounced “Mar-say”, not “Mar-sells” too. There are a million other things a well-educated adult knows. Let’s roll up our sleeves and start teaching it.
As for the fuzzy stuff: I don’t dismiss it entirely, but it’s often the cloak for a lot of worthless twaddle. Elementary schools have almost given up on teaching facts in lieu of “higher-level” stuff like “close reading skills” and deeper understanding of math. So kids don’t know the times tables, how to read clocks, or the name of the county they live in, but, oh, what deeper understanding they have! What critical thinking skills they have! What problem solving skills they have! NOT! I see no evidence of value added, do you? I await the day when someone can show me this hoped-for student –the one who has very little knowledge in his head who is a whiz at deeper and “higher-order” thinking. Have you discovered such a student?
Guess how Shakespeare was educated? Rote learning. Lots of memorization of Latin writers’ work. I await the day Lucy Calkins’ kit of a trillion writing exercises will produce its Shakespeare. I await the day Sir Ken’s utopian school of the future produces a Shakespeare.
As we have been talking about how to teach the masses, we finally have a solid, science-based, data-driven research about how the greatest minds learned their craft throughout history: through rote learning.
Between the ages 6-18, the Great Mind was sitting quetly in school and was listening to teachers telling her how things are. When she got her highschool certificate, she finally was qualified to have her own, heavily data-based thoughts on things. Unless she went to college, where she again was exposed to more indispensible information that she obediently absorbed through memorization and quickly reproduced on exams.
We finally have the secret to how to produce the best science and art: accumulate as much information as time allows, but make sure this information is available in your brain 24/7 because the faster you can recall it, the better will be the quality of what you produce.
Nice caricature!
No, it’s a faithful description of Willingham’s overarching research into education: how to teach 6 year olds and how greatest minds become greatest minds through rote learning. There are no secrets to education anymore, it’s all about direct instruction.
I couldn’t listen to the whole interview with Lemov and Willingham. Lemov was not saying much of interest to me. However I don’t think he’s a demon, as many here seem to. I do like that he’s very empirical, unlike many so called experts on education. I also appreciate his honesty about how his first book failed to improve the practice of the teachers who read and liked it. That’s a sign he’s not a charlatan. Willingham seems far more lucid that Lakoff and far more erudite than Lemov.
This is not really about public education producing the next Shakespeare, Newton, or Eisenhower. This is about the average kid, maybe age 5 or 9 or 13 or maybe 16, a typical young, concrete learner, supportive parents who just want the best for him or her. Can any educator provide a rational argument as to how this kid will benefit from teacher promoted ignorance (the flip side of knowledge)? The arguments for this kid being knowledgeable (the flip side of ignorance) are incredibly powerful and consequential.
Here’s how I explain the benefits of knowledge to my 8th graders.
-Knowledge drives curiosity which drives knowledge acquisition
-Acquiring new knowledge improves brain development, making
you smarter
-Knowledge makes learning new information easier and more efficient
-Domain specific knowledge enables domain specific problem solving
-Knowledge makes life much more interesting
-Being knowledgeable makes you much more interesting
-Knowledge opens doors of opportunity that ignorance doesn’t even know exist
-Knowledge makes you valuable to future employers
Any educator who argues against a content rich curriculum should be disqualified from the profession
“Any educator who argues against a content rich curriculum should be disqualified from the profession”
You guys keep pretending, the argument is against content, and you go back to this over and over. No, the argument is for the claim that teaching is not just about filling kids’ brains with information and quick recollection of this information.
Ponderosa first claims that university profs shouldn’t open their mouths when it comes to teaching kids because they are not in the trenches she/he is in. Then suddenly (but not the firs time) she/he has a recipe about how the greatest minds have been and should be educated. All her/his claims are reseach-backed by the greatest mind of all: Willingham.
Rage,
I’m inclined to agree with your last statement. It really troubles me that ed schools are such bastions of anti-intellectualism.
Ponderosa,
I don’t know what you base this broad generalization about Ed schools on. It’s easy to bash them, since no one defends them. Just as people bash public schools, since no one will stand up and say, “I represent all public schools.”
I worked at Teachers College, Columbia University, for many years. My mento Lawrence Cremin was a distinguished scholar and intellectual who won a Pulitzer Prize and many other awards. Since 1994, I have been affiliated with NYU Ed school, and there are many serious scholars there too.
I have a Ph.D. In history of American education, from Columbia University, and I’m no anti-intellectual.
Take care whom you insult.
Diane, of course I don’t lump you in with the majority of ed school professors. I always think of you as a lonely exception to the rule, but I’m glad to hear you say there are other serious scholars at NYU’s school of ed. I base my generalization on the panel of ed school professors who initially rejected me because I was too “bookish” to teach public school, from the anti-intellectual gospel they preached in my ed school program, from the fact that UVA’s School of Ed professors warned their students not to take E.D. Hirsch’s classes, from the various unimpressive ed school professors I’ve met over the past 20 years, and, above all, from your book Left Back which profiles a slew of professors at Teachers College and other ed schools who discount the importance of knowledge and marginalized knowledge-lovers like Demiaskevich and Kandel.
I understand, Ponderosa. There was a strong contingent of anti-intellectuals in the Ed School world, and in the 1930s, bookishness was considered a bad thing. But my experience has taught me not to tar all education professors with the same brush. I am one myself, and I don’t hold a candle to my mentor, Cremin.
No one is pretending; and there are no arguments. There are just standards, there is current practice, there are high stakes tests, and there is an unprecedented expansion of the null curriculum in K to 8 that prove our case. Just give the CCSS or the new NGSS a read and you will see content knowledge being replaced by so-called thinking skills in almost every standard. No offense, but your viewpoint as a college math professor is a bit too far removed to understand our reality.
“No offense, but your viewpoint as a college math professor is a bit too far removed to understand our reality.”
This generic excuse (with highly questionable validity in my case) has been used way too much to avoid addressing the real issue: math education even in K-12 is not about filling kids heads with formulas and procedures which then they can quickly recall on a test.
CC was sold to some people exactly because it promised to change the long standing tradition of doing almost exclusively direct instruction in math. Exclusive direct instruction in math is not useful, it doesn’t teach math.
CC made the situation worse (because its real purpose was never to improve education but to assert tight control over the assesment of teachers and students), but that hasn’t made the problem go away.
My reality at the university: I face kids who are astonised that they need to do thinking in math other than what’s needed to memorize and recall formulas and procedures.
I can’t wait for your TED Talk, Rage.
Kids are kids. For all the reasons you give and more, it’s a mucky, frustrating, and sometimes, rarely, but sometimes exhilarating business educating them. And then there are all the problems related to not having enough time and sufficient resources. Those matters are enough to contend with. But having to contend with morons coming into one’s room to assign demerits because one’s Data Wall has not had its weekly update or the Essential Question for this lesson is in the wrong place on the white board is the proverbial straw.