Thomas Armstrong recently wrote a provocative book with the same title as this essay. I invited him to write a post for this blog, and he did. His point of view stands in sharp contrast to the current policy environment of testing, data, competition, and punishment for teachers, principals, students, and schools that don’t hit test score benchmarks.
He writes:
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (the ‘’nation’s report card’’), recently released reading and math test scores for fourth- and sixth-graders and the results have been less than stellar. Showing declines in reading and little progress in math, these results are bound to stimulate calls for new education reforms. However, we should keep in mind the historical context in U.S. efforts to raise achievement levels in our schools. This campaign for school reform dates as far back as 1983, when the then U.S. Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell, wrote his seminal report ‘’A Nation at Risk’’ stating that American schools were being ‘’eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity.’’
His paper unleashed what became a concerted attempt over the next thirty-five years to reform our schools. The leaders in this effort were politicians (particularly state governors), CEOs of large corporations, and education bureaucrats. They held summits, passed laws (including the infamous No Child Left Behind Act), instituted more ‘’rigorous’’ requirements for students, and promoted new forms of standardized testing and curricula. Yet as noted above, American academic achievement levels haven’t changed much. Similar evidence of little to no progress in test results over time among U.S. students can be seen in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests given every three years to 15-year olds in over seventy countries (the results of the latest scores from 2018 will be released December 3rd).
Perhaps it wasn’t all that wise to entrust our nation’s educational welfare to a bunch of politicians, corporate executives, and bureaucrats. Maybe there’s some other authority we can call upon who could put us on the right track with regard to education policy in America. In fact, I’d like to suggest a radical alternative: why not Albert Einstein? After all, he’s usually the first person that pops into one’s head when thinking of the world’s smartest person. His theories have literally changed the way we view the universe. And as it turns out, Einstein had strong opinions about how education should be conducted which we could profitably apply to our current lack of educational progress.
First of all, if Einstein ran our schools, he pretty definitely would discourage the current focus on standardization of curriculum and testing. In an essay entitled ‘’On Education,’’ he wrote: ‘’A community of standardized individuals without personal originality and personal aims would be a poor community without possibilities for development.’’ Instead, Einstein likely would place a lot of emphasis in our classrooms on unleashing students’ imagination. It was through his own imagination that he helped create a totally new way of looking at reality. In high school, for example, he visualized himself racing alongside of a beam of light, and in his young adulthood, he imagined what it would feel like to be in a closed elevator in outer space as it began to accelerate (the experience would be equivalent to gravity). These visual-kinesthetic images were the intellectual ‘’seeds’’ for his special and general theories of relativity.
Another capacity that Einstein would most probably encourage in the schools is the promotion of students’ curiosity. Quoted in a 1955 Life Magazine article, he said ‘’The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day. Never lose a sense of holy curiosity.’’ Einstein’s attitude toward curiosity stands in stark contrast to today’s typical classroom in the United States where students are required to make progress on hundreds of tasks that are a part of the Common Core State Standards used by over forty states, which includes such instructional goals as being able to ‘’ensure subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent agreement’’ in language arts and to ‘’solve word problems leading to equations of the form px +q = r, where p, q, and r are specific rational numbers’’ in math. There’s not much room in these standards for authentic curiosity.
Einstein cautioned us to keep our priorities straight with respect to education when he wrote: ‘’It is essential that the student acquire an understanding of and a lively feeling for values. He must acquire a vivid sense of the beautiful and of the morally good. Otherwise he—with his specialized knowledge—more closely resembles a well-trained dog than a harmoniously developed person.’’ If, in our rush to raise test scores, we ignore such guidelines from one of the smartest individuals who ever lived, we do so at our own peril.
Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D. is the author of If Einstein Ran the Schools: Revitalizing U.S. Education. Visit his website: www.institute4learning.com. Follow him on Twitter: @Dr_Armstrong.
“ensure subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent agreement’’ is not even an example of an imagination-restricting exercise. It’s an example of time-wasting on trivialities typical of CCSS-ELA. Children whose native lang is Eng are already doing this w/o fail when they enter K; if in ESL they’re learning how. There are a couple of exceptions that may pop up for African-Americans (e.g. ‘I be going’) which are not errors, they’re antiquities illustrating dialect & should be acknowledged, so students understand they’re learning to use the mainstream Eng “dialect,” not changing wrong to right.
The only possible application of such a non-skill “skill” is teaching the grammatical rules underpinning how children already speak/ write, which has some merit, at the right age. 3rd gr is probably too early & unutterable boring at that age. I’d reserve grammar for 5th or higher, whenever readings begin to get into some dicey syntax.
“Be” serves in sentences like “He be tired” as a habitual aspect marker, indicating an action done over an extended period of time, often, or typically. It’s a distinction that AAVE makes and that Standard English LACKS. Lacking this distinction, the latter is poorer, less expressive, in this respect.
sidenote, perhpas not exactly on target: I remember trying to tell my sister about the missing long-term ‘be’ factor in English where many of my students would use the sentence/concept of “He be’s with her” to describe a long term commitment of a guy to a girlfriend (or vice versa)
Bob,
Have you read the book (series of lectures, really) by Minae Mizumura entitled ‘The Fall of Language in the Age of English’?
Based on your comment, I think you might enjoy the experience. Mizumura is naturally focused on the Japanese language, yet her insight also extends to all ‘non-standard’ ways of expression being ground under the boot heel of the dominant culture. She pointedly illuminates what is being lost.
Arigatō, daidarosu, for this recommendation. I will definitely check it out. This is of double interest to me because I’ve been learning some Japanese (learning Japanese is a big hill to climb). I’m curious about the title, The Fall of Language. . . .” because I’m suspicious of most claims about languages deteriorating over time and suspect that it’s rarely true that this is, in fact, happening, except when the speaker community is dramatically declining.
Ah, I see that this is about the English language as a viral contagion infecting other languages worldwide. Interesting stuff.
Einstein had second (and third, and fifth) thoughts about many of his ideas which were originally correct.
For example, Einstein thought his cosmological constant was his biggest blunder, but it turned out it is just what is needed in his equations of general relativity to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe that was discovered in 1998.
Einstein also thought that Black holes were not real, even though they were predicted by his equations.
Einstein also changed his mind about gravitational waves (which he himself orginally predicted one hundred years ago).
Einstein thought he was wrong about many things that turned out to be right on the money.
The lesson is that Einstein’s ideas should not be dismissed just because Einstein said so.😂
Have you read the stuff Einstein wrote about education?
I have and quite frankly, much of it made — and still makes — a great deal of sense.
When people take thinking seriously, they may change their views as new evidence emerges.
That’s okay.
I once quoted John Maynard Keynes, who said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Actually, in the case of Einstein, it was not even the facts that changed his mind in every case.
In the case of Black holes, he just didn’t like the idea that a Black hole has a “singularity” at its center where energy density becomes infinite.
In the case of gravitational waves, Einstein had a debate with himself over a period of almost twenty years about whether they were real or not and it actually wasn’t until 60 years after his death that the facts came out — and they were found, just as Einstein had originally predicted.
The little collection of Einstein’s writings on education and politics entitled “Ideas and Opinions” is one of my most treasured books.
Mine too, Bob.
What strikes me most about Einstein is that he was able to get to the crux of the matter and ask the critical questions.
This was true not just about physics but about the other subjects he considered.
That is not to say that he was always right. He wasnt., Not even about all the physics he worked on. For example, he famously said that “God does not play dice” when in fact, all the evidence to date indicates that She does.
But even on the latter matter, Einstein (along with Podalsky and Rosen) came up with a deeply probing thought experiment that it took decades to “resolve” ( and some physicists are still not convinced it has been)
Einstein admitted he didn’t really know what he was talking about at the end of “On Education”. Many of his ill-informed sayings have done harm.
Citations needed.
Second the citations needed sentiment.
Einstein had second (and third, and fifth) thoughts about many of his ideas which were originally correct.
For example, Einstein thought his cosmological constant was his biggest blunder, but it turned out it is just what is needed in his equations of general relativity to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe that was discovered in 1998.
Einstein also thought that Black holes were not real, even though they were predicted by his equations.
Einstein also changed his mind about gravitational waves (which he himself orginally predicted one hundred years ago).
Einstein thought he was wrong about many things that turned out to be right on the money.
The lesson is that Einstein’s ideas should not be dismissed just because Einstein said so.😂
Have you read the stuff Einstein wrote about education?
I have and quite frankly, much of it made — and still makes — a great deal of sense.
“Finally, I wish to emphasize once more that what has been said here in a somewhat categorical form does not claim to mean more than the personal opinion of a man, which is founded upon nothing but his own personal exprience, which he has gathered as a student and as a teacher.” –Einstein, “On Education”, 1931
Einstein respected science. Cognitive science has revealed much about learning since 1931 and much of it contradicts Einstein’s musings. Surfing the progressivist zeitgeist of the time, Einstein denigrated fact learning; yet new research shows that the creativity and critical thinking he valued actually depend on fact learning. Einstein would scorn those today who quote him as an authority while neglecting to read the current cognitive science.
An excellent point, Ponderosa, and well made. Anyone who has visited a Core Knowledge School will know that learning facts and creativity/ imagination aren’t mutually exclusive.
This is not what Ponderosa says, Bob. She claims that kids and their teachers should be single-mindedly preoccupied with learning facts in school and creativity later in life will automatically come to them as the facts in their long term memory will give birth to new ideas.
What some cognitive scientists say about learning is questionable, to say the least. In particular, knowledge is not (cannot be) defined, learning is not defined, and evaluation of results is done via tests: like how well kids are doing on some (timed) math tests. Learning is not a science just because the word science is attached to it. It’s most definitely not an exact science, though many people try to talk about it as if the “science” of learning had some irrefutable conclusions backed by precise formulas and definitions.
For whatever reason, fact lovers do not want to allow kids to experiment, ask questions. “That’s for adults.”
Btw, Einstein was famous for not learning very well the so called facts of classical physics, and that left his mind open for new possibilities. Many scientists, mathematicians report the same experience. People with the most facts in their brains are not the best scientists at all. Why this is consistently dismissed by “content only education” advocates is not clear, though understandable.
I quoted here many time George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist at UC Berkeley, who doesn’t share Ponderosa’s rigid views on learning. Nevertheless, his opinion is conveniently dismissed and claims of Willingham who supports Ponderosa’s views are favored.
Here Lakoff talks about the role of art education as a facilitator of imagination and new ideas . It’s difficult to claim that he talks about learning science facts will give you the great new ideas. 🙂 Learning is not just a single process that can be described by simple “facts only” or “skills only” recipes, or by a “short term–long term memory allocation” model.
Some fatuous, oft-quoted things Einstein said about education:
“Education is what remains after one forgets what one learned in school.”
This bodyslam against schools should be abhorred by all teachers. It is an utter rejection of the value of formal schooling. Formal schooling is necessary because ordinary life experiences to do not efficiently impart the knowledge one needs to operate in a complex civilization like ours (e.g. we cannot leave the learning of impeachment, ozone, subpoena, TBI and opiod to chance). The fact that this elementary knowledge gets integrated into long-term memory and thereby ceases to be visible to ourselves leads many, like Einstein, to mistakenly think it’s all been forgotten and that schooling has therefore been fruitless. Some has indeed been forgotten, but much has been retained by long-term memory. The reason we recognize so many words in texts, for example, is proof that we’ve been exposed to them before –often this exposure occurred in schools, even if details about the circumstances of this exposure have fallen away. The fallacy that formal schooling is fruitless and dispensable is now disproven by cognitive science and must be actively combated by teachers.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
No, imagination is the fruit of knowledge. A great chef sits and imagines a killer meal –by poring through vast mental archives of background knowledge about previous meals, ingredients, techniques, etc. James Joyce said, “Imagination is memory.” The better-stocked the memory, the richer the imagination.
Einstein had a rather nasty, ‘rigorous’ education. Perhaps it served him better than he thought, however it left a bad taste in his mouth. And, of course, so did other aspects of his life as an ethnic Jew growing up in the Germany of his time.
Einstein is perfectly entitled to reflect upon his experience. Like most folks, that experience should be part of the ‘public experience’ that leads to ‘wisdom’. Based upon the legacy of Einstein, perhaps his experience should be given a bit more weight than that of the average dude. Yet, he was a specialist in a rather narrow field.
Einstein found that one of the factors needed for ‘science’ is skepticism of the established ‘truth’. He famously said that if he had known the ‘established truth’ in his youth, he would never have published his musings. Instead of being in ‘academia’, he worked in relative isolation. Thus, he taught us that radical change involves both iconoclasm and informed naivete. Einstein knew math, but not the contemporary state of physics.
Some novelists are considered ‘profound’ for their insight into human behavior and morality. Yet, these novelists weren’t trained to be ‘experts’ in morality. They were simply individuals revealing their experience using the tools of their expertise.
“Yet, he was a specialist in a rather narrow field.”
The fundamentals of theoretical physics that now forms the basis of our understanding of the universe is a narrow field? What’s a “wide” field? Cognitive science or economics or AI?
Dear Mate,
This is in response to your criticism of my comment on Einstein, where I laid out the restrictive nature of the German educational system which made Einstein rebel. You said that my comment about Einstein being a ‘master of a narrow field’ was nonsense, and that theoretical Physics was ever so all-inclusive (or something like that).
Mate, I have a degree (admittedly, Masters) in Physics. While attaining that degree, I worked in the summers in a research group in molecular transport at an AEC contractor. I became interested in the field (an intersection between classical mechanics and thermodynamics) and then proposed that I do a thesis in that area. Only one professor in my department knew what I was talking about. Even within Physics, there are specialties. Add this to Einstein’s famous inability to accept quantum mechanics, despite Bohr’s attempt to provide him with the rationale, and you see that even Einstein had some apparent blind spots in certain areas of theoretical Physics.
Although Einstein was a very good musician, he was not an ‘expert’ at the world-class level., Einstein never wrote a great novel. Einstein was not a chemist of note. Etc., etc., etc…. Einstein was a great intellect and an expert in his particular area of specialization. He did not, however, study the mechanisms of human cognition.
Even great minds in one area can be wrong in others. Just ask Linus Pauling about his foray into biochemistry, where he kinda made himself look foolish with his ideas about ‘vitamin C’.
I hope, Ponderosa, you are not trying to give a recipe about schooling for 100% of the population. Mass education, like public education, is good and appears necessary for the average citizen, but it’s not designed to be suitable for all, such as people with serious disabilities or extraordinary talent.
“The fallacy that formal schooling is fruitless and dispensable is now disproven by cognitive science and must be actively combated by teachers.”
I doubt that the word “prove” can be used here. And it’s entirely possible that for Einstein, formal education was fruitless.
How was the formal education of Leonardo, Archimedes, Gauss? These people have created much of what is part of formal education today. Did they rely more on the proper functioning of their long term memory or their imagination and creativity?
Einstein’s sweeping statement about formal education is probably incorrect (though we know that formal education changes in time and space), and so is yours. Sweeping statements about what is true and what has been proven have not much utility outside of mathematics.
Mate, long-term memory is the font of imagination and creativity (and reading comprehension, writing ability and problem solving). This is what 50 years of cognitive science show (http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/vtt/Constructivism_Kirschner_Sweller_Clark_EP_06.pdf) (https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Expertise-Performance-Handbooks-Psychology/dp/1316502619). Do you doubt that Leonardo’s long-term memory was a richly-endowed trove that fertilized his genius? Is there some other part of the brain that is responsible for imagination and creativity? Some “creativity muscle”? If so, please identify it.
The basic argument is about whether to allow kids to be creative, whether to let them ask questions, give their own ideas on a subject from the very first moment they enter school, or wait with allowing their individual input till, say, they are 18.
I claim that if kids are to sit quietly in a classroom, and just listen to the teacher as she provides the content for their long term memory, they suppress their natural desire to ask questions, share their own ideas. This puts a stop to their creative instincts and their curiosity.
The issue is more psychological than anything else. If kids are not allowed to contribute their own ideas, they lose their confidence in their own abilities, since their ideas are not valued. This is exactly what’s happening in case of math. Kids (we are talking about 19 year olds!) nowadays, when I ask them “let’s think about how to solve this problem now”, they look at me with horror in their eyes, and the bravest ones tell me “just show us what to do and then we’ll do similar ones in home work”.
Unfortunately, an educator can easily turn kids into followers from an early age just by making teaching a oneway process.
Teaching is very similar to parenting. Parents who do not converse with their kids, they only give instructions to them, will likely cause their kids to think, their own thoughts are not valuable.
Even sports are not just about training muscles. The greatest champions are not necessarily the strongest, the fastest, and the best coaches nurture the athletes’ selfconfidence and other nonquantifiable psychological aspects of their thinking as much as train their muscles.
My lectures are interactive: I stop and ask if there are any questions or comments. I ask comprehension questions and questions designed to elicit speculation and synthesis. I make jokes and I have good rapport with many students. I allow students to use the knowledge I gave them as the basis of creative projects now and then. But it’s true: students often sit and listen –and I disagree with your insinuation that this is stultifying. Of course it can be (just as project based learning and other progressive faves can be). But I know for a fact that it’s many students’ favorite part of my class (as it was for me as a student; I had no urgent need to talk or problem solve or whatever about what I was just beginning to understand). I do not understand progressivists’ abhorrence of listening –which is and has always been the main vehicle for education. Do you find books stultifying as they just talk on and on without listening to you or caring about you or encouraging you? No, we love books even though our relationship with them lacks these things.
Ponderosa, I am sure that your classes are great; I do not doubt it for a minute. I am just against making recipes from them for all teachers—or for all subjects. And what you call definite science of learning which is supposed to prove that your content-heavy teaching is the only effective way to teach—simply doesn’t exist.
I read quite a few of these papers and books and they all evaluate effectiveness of teaching math using tests–often timed tests, to see how fast kids can recall concepts, and then they use some statistical methods to draw conclusions. This is already a problem, but the actual sin they commit is that they do not even identify what they consider knowledge in math. Many of these papers don’t show what the tests they use are, we just have take the authors’ word that they test math knowledge. Looking into some of the tests that are disclosed, I have to say, they look similar to tests that are given in schools—sometimes even similar to standardized tests. This is not surprising, since the papers want to use statistics to draw some conclusions, and for that you need scores of some kind—but they certainly do not test math knowledge proper.
I have no clear idea what knowledge in math is. It certainly is not a collection of definitions and formulas, though these are the ones that can be tested to see if kids have them in their “long term memory”. It’s already a mistake to base math grades on how fast kids can recall formulas and definitions, but drawing conclusions for math knowledge or teaching effectiveness from this recollection of facts is against the basic principles of science: you do not base your science on unidentified concepts and you do not draw wider conclusions than your experiments actually cover. You certainly do not want to say with great conviction “The big problem in today’s education is … and the solution is …”
As for reading books: we can always stop reading them, unlike a lecture. And reading poems or novels is different from learning something from a book. Some people (like me) rarely learn anything from a book. And some people learn best by having a conversation. I know many scientists, mathematicians who think best during a conversation—some can’t even think alone, though they are first rate scientists. They just need the friendly, intense, often personal atmosphere of a conversation, they are motivated by the feedback from the other participants. For them, thinking alone is a downer, boring, and they are just not motivated to do it. For them, doing research is very much personal experience; for example, they cannot work with people they dislike.
To me, a math class which has a longer than 5 minute silent listening to the teacher is suspicious: how does the teacher know that the kids got what she was talking about? Thinking that “kids will get it when they do the homework” is cynical, and one of the main causes of math anxiety.
” Is there some other part of the brain that is responsible for imagination and creativity? ”
Is filling the long term memory with data and information the only and best way to make sure, kids will be creative and imaginative? Why should we discount the psychological aspects of learning: how kids feel about the teacher, how confident the kids are in their abilities, whether the teacher is likeable or entertaining, whether kids feel too confined in their seats, whether they learn better during a conversation rather than by only listening?
Bravo!
With the insertion of business people in education, the main objectives are standardization and monetization. Curiosity and imagination do not lend themselves to the type of didactic instruction that computers provide. Computers reduce content to a series of stimulus response protocols. Nurturing creativity and imagination require the freedom to think and wonder. Failed reform has attempted to strip schools of the arts and which are a natural environment to cultivate curiosity and imagination. Instead, students have been treated like monetized widgets with little opportunity for free thinking.
The only way to develop students with a sense of ethics is by allowing students to freely learn from ethical, decent people, not machines. So-called reform has attempted to strip curricula of its humanity, and the result is repeated failure. If we want students to learn freely, we need to provide with a stable, supportive environment that nurtures imagination where students may learn and grow.
“The only way to develop students with a sense of ethics is by allowing students to freely learn from ethical, decent people, not machines.”
Muy bien dicho.
My feeling, exactly. Students (like all people, and children in particular) mimic their teachers, their surrogate parents. No matter how much you instruct students to ‘do what I say’, they will more often ‘do what you do’. Thus, students taught by machines will try to emulate them.
Of course, this might make them ‘valuable’ as ‘members of the workforce’. Unfortunately, however, it won’t make them into creative, empathic human beings and will create a great deal of internal conflict based upon our specific (as in ‘species’) nature cultivated for a few hundred thousand years.
There are some things our species needs to modify (our tendency to kill each other, for example). However, neither our ability to create art and understand that our concepts are always suspect and subject to change based upon new observation are bad for our survival. We are not machines.
Deep observations, these.
“Computers reduce content to a series of stimulus response protocols.”
YES! A lot of depersonalized education software, these days, is but a recycling and reimplementation, with graphical interfaces, of failed Behaviorist programmed learning models from the past. I wrote about this here:
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/a-warning-to-parents-about-online-learning-programs/
““Nationalism is an infantile disease.”
“I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings. Standardization is a great peril which threatens American culture.”
–Albert Einstein, quoted in “What Life Means to Einstein: an Interview by George Sylvester Viereck, Saturday Evening Post, 26 Oct 1929.
Click to access what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf
We’re falling into the all-purpose genius fallacy. Bill Gates was a genius at business, not everything. Einstein, physics.
Yes, that’s a big mistake. See, for example, the many songs of praise and other encomia for Bill Gates. However, simply quoting Einstein on some nonphysics topic is not “falling into the all-purpose genius fallacy.” I quoted him because I think he’s right, and he said it well, pithily.
Tech moguls are not geniuses. It’s just a computer. Einstein was a true genius. He wasn’t just a physicist; he was a philosopher. And maybe because of his genius, unlike Bill Gates, he was a good man.
Also, Albert Einstein had Bernie Sanders hair, and Bernie hair increases intellectual energy exponentially. Energy = compassion by Bernie hair squared.
“I quoted him because I think he’s right, and he said it well, pithily.”
Apparently Ponderosa thinks, Einstein is incorrect and standardization of human beings is not a bad thing. 🙂
Imagine a school system focused on helping students appreciate the beautiful, be curious, use their imaginations, understand human values and the moral good rather than prep and test for standard and insignificant items.
Thank you Thomas Armstrong for your insight into Einstein and the schools he envisioned.
Yes. Imagine one in which students cared about their studies because we put before them material worth caring about. No one ever leapt out of bed to race to school to choose which of the multiple-choice answers following passage 6 best described an example in the passage of figurative language used to express a mood. That stuff is rightfully INCIDENTAL. But the Common [sic] Core [sic] has turned ELA curricula into collections of precisely such trivialities.
I’ve grown really sick of the Deformers, Disrupters, and self-appointed EduPundits who peddle one-size-fits-all, all-around InstaFixes for education. A good teacher has a big toolkit. What works for x doesn’t for y. I could hammer a nail with a $400 micrometer, but this would probably damage the work, would destroy the micrometer, and wouldn’t do the job efficiently or effectively. But just because the micrometer is not very good for hammering, that doesn’t mean you should throw it out and rely exclusively on the hammer. Hammers aren’t very good for taking fine measurements of width. LOL. Or, to change the analogy, imagine a doctor who says, whatever the presentation of symptoms or disability, “Well, you know, you should take morphine for that.” The typical Deformer or EduPundit is THAT GUY.
One of my favorite book titles ever was given by Robert Graves to a collection of his essays–the tongue-in-cheek, self-deprecating
Difficult Questions, Easy Answers
The word “essay,” of course, means, etymologically, a sallying forth, an initial, preliminary reconnaissance, a trial, or attempt.
Essayer in French is a verb that means to try.
That’s a good one!
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
Two paths diverged in a wood and the billionaires, politicians, and technocrats took the wrong one and ignored the path Eignsten took.
Ms. Dana Goldstein should have read Armstrong’s posting before writing and submitting her article,
“After 10 Years of Hopes and Setbacks, What Happened to the Common Core?” for NY Times. (The CC was not written by “education experts” as she writes. And the governors were bribed into signing on the CC.)
She should have read how John Dewey ran his schools. Dewey and Einstein were contemporaries. Some people say that Dewey was the best mind America produced -Einstein was European.
One of my major criticism of CC is that the standards don’t develop the imagination nor curiosity which Einstein would have criticize also. CC mandates more non fiction than fiction. The imagination and affective realm are not developed via expository text. Every child comes with different skills, abilities, talents, interests, and different ethnic backgrounds. Add to that their environmental surrounding. Placing emphasis on learning more facts to augment the students’ knowledge base in lieu of developing the imagination and affective realm is problematic. Through narratives the imagination is developed by questioning, predicting, role playing, responding and making connections. Furthermore, Duane, via fiction, we study the whole person: soul, mind, and relationships in life; the sense of right and wrong; a conscience, empathy and respect for other. Plus, laughter is good for the body and the soul which great children’s authors manage to ignite among the most daunting themes. We all know that expository text fills the brain with facts but not food the soul.The wealthy and powerful, who imposed the CC Standards on the public educational system are callous people because they are indifferent to how the children suffer – emotionally, physically, and intellectually.
How children are taught to read is another grave concern. CC ‘s approach is anchored in phonics. Neophytes need to begin with their own words – words they can relate to. Phonics is a skill; readers occasionally use skills but constantly need to use strategies such as questioning, predicting, using context clues, and relating text to self. Phonics is more important for encoding- writing- than it is for learning to read. Read Maria Clay for directives in teaching reading not the CCSS. Along with emphasis on phonics some teachers send home sight words to memorize. What a waste of time and harm to send home a list of sight words to memorize plus phonic worksheets to complete! Parents should be reading to the children; children should read to parents; and read independently for pleasure. That time is stolen when a teacher mandates the memorization of meaningless word lists. Sight words can easily be recognized via context.
My grandson, in second grade, had a keen interest in magic. With his iPad he surfed the net and found information that ordinarily would have been too difficult for him to read but his keen interest and motivation superseded his readability level- exemplifying the importance of background knowledge.
Extremely well explained, Mary D. Content, questioning, nurturing curiosity and imagination are all part of the whole of learning and teaching, and it’s foolish to favor or dismiss any one of these parts. It doesn’t make sense to think, there is some kind of chicken and egg situation to point out; all these parts need to be included in the classroom from the very beginning, and they cross-effect each other throughout the years of formal education and beyond.