Posts from — April 2009

We preface today’s post with a brief interchange between Professor Steven Dutch and one of his students:

Student:

If something as vast as mathematics or science or history can pass through your brain without even scraping the sides on the way through, that’s a pretty big hole. Are you sure it’s the course that doesn’t relate to anything?

Educational Theory

As we move towards greater use of technology within education, there is a push away from the traditional, teacher-centered classroom to one that is student-centered. While offering some very interesting potential for teachers, one element that appears to be taken for granted as we seek to make a student-centered classroom work is the need for a motivated learner.

One of the most significant criticisms leveled against teacher-centered classrooms is that such an environment actually fosters a level of student passivity over time. The belief is that using more of a “guide on the side” or a discovery-learning approach featuring essential question formats would be far superior to our current practice of a set curricula driving classroom instruction.

That belief is founded in great part on the notion that curiosity is an innate characteristic in children. Therefore, in teacher preparation programs, the focus should be on developing a teaching arsenal that unleashes this fundamental human trait.

Such a belief has lead to a discussion that we should replace traditional pedagogical or “child-leading” teaching strategies with andragogical or “man-leading” approaches. The shift is seen as moving away from “taught” education to learning that is self-directed.

But as we noted earlier, such a shift is dependent upon a certain level of motivation from the learner as well as the notion that curiosity is innate.

Sir Ken Robinson

In June of 2006, Ted.com posted a presentation from Sir Ken Robinson. That video soon made its way around the internet, especially within the educational community.

Robinson insists that we do not get the best out of people because we educate our children to become good workers instead of creative thinkers. According to Robinson, students come with restless minds and bodies. But instead of cultivating this energy and a child’s natural curiosity, Robinson insists that schools either ignore or even stigmatize children.

“We are educating people out of their creativity,” Robinson says.

As others have suggested, Robinson sees curiosity as an innate trait. He also postures that creativity is similarly embedded within us. These thoughts or beliefs are gradually seeping into our educational culture and are forming the basis for a strong shift in teaching practices.

An Invalid Assumption?

In his article, “Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?,” Professor Steven Dutch takes very strong exception to the assumption that curiosity is innate.

Dutch calls the idea that “humans are intrinsically curious, with an inborn love of learning” the Standard Model. He includes in that standard model the fundamental notion espoused by many that “children are insatiably curious about their world, but by the time they are adults, a stifling educational system has beaten it out of them.”

To say Dutch disagrees with this position would be a simple understatement. Dutch begins by offering some questions of the rhetorical kind.

If we humans were in fact innately curious, “Why should it be possible to stifle these qualities at all?” asks Dutch. “Assuming that there are people with a vested interest in stifling curiosity and creativity, why should they be able to prevail over those members of society who value curiosity and creativity?

“If curiosity and creativity are general traits of human beings, anti-intellectualism should be a rare and aberrant phenomenon,” offers Dutch. “It should be regarded as a variety of mental retardation, or a condition as undesirable as impotence.”

Instead, Dutch offers a different rationale. Instead, “curiosity and creativity collide headlong with another trait deeply rooted in biology, the desire to minimize effort and expenditure of energy.”

Dutch believes that curiosity and creativity most likely evolve as offshoots of play. In comparing human actions to that of animals, Dutch notes that “even in species whose young are noted for playfulness and inquisitiveness, adults do not exhibit the same level or kind of play.”

The reason:

“They don’t need to – they have already learned their environment, and play both takes energy and may distract them from necessary vigilance.”

Therefore, far from being beaten out of the young, we “should probably expect curiosity to decline as humans get older, just in the natural order of things. It’s ridiculous to expect adults to grow physically at the same rate as babies, and probably as silly to expect them to grow intellectually at the same rate.”

Dutch goes on to examine a magazine article subtitled, “Should Learning Be Its Own Reward?”

Turning the question a tad, Dutch asks: “Why isn’t learning a sufficient reward? You don’t have to offer people incentives to have sex, or eat strawberry shortcake, or go to Disneyland. For most people those activities are their own reward. Why isn’t learning in the same class?”

Within his article, Dutch offers numerous examples that contradict the notion that humans are fundamentally creative and curious. To which Dutch goes on to formulate his conclusion, “that there is something fundamentally wrong with” the standard model of human nature.

Curiosity and Creativity, Acquired Tastes

Dutch insists that curiosity and creativity are acquired adult tastes.

“Some people naturally enjoy running, and some people naturally enjoy creating,” writes Dutch, “but it is probably equally futile to expect either to become widely popular among the general population. Couch potatoes may enjoy an occasional bout of physical activity and normally incurious people may enjoy an occasional challenge, but neither can be cited as evidence that humans in general have an innate love of physical or mental activity.”

And as for children and innate creativity, Dutch insists we must “distinguish between tinkering and creativity.” He explains:

“Tinkering consists of exploring relatively minor variations on known themes, or subjecting new stimuli to an array of already known techniques. Babies tinker constantly. They put every new object in their mouth. Eventually they figure out that most things are not good to eat.”

This isn’t real curiosity according to Dutch. Instead, serious curiosity “consists of actively seeking new kinds of stimuli.” And as for creativity, well children are not exactly “juxtaposing objects and ideas in new ways, and having a sound intuition for separating the significant result from the trivial.”

In his eyes children are not innately curious. Instead, they are tinkerers with generally short attention spans.

As an example he turns to Mozart who actually began composing music at age three. Dutch notes that “none of his juvenile pieces are played today except as musical curiosities” as they are nothing more than variations based on existing musical patterns.

“As a child, he was a tinkerer,” writes Dutch. “A very bright one, to be sure – he was Mozart after all – but still only a tinkerer. His adult creativity vastly exceeded his creativity as a child, and even as an adult, his last few years vastly outshone his earlier period. We also should note that his childhood achievements were hyped, and in some cases assisted, by his father.”

And almost as if he were setting out to respond directly to Sir Ken Robinson, Dutch adds:

“I’ve heard people claim they have never seen a child who wasn’t curious and couldn’t be motivated to learn.” But the problem is that “they fail to distinguish between tinkering and real curiosity and creativity. All children are tinkerers; it does not follow that all can or will develop curiosity and creativity in any profound sense.”

Ultimately, Dutch insists, “the curiosity and creativity of children is very superficial.”

And as for we humans being innately curious, “it is mostly a low order curiosity concerned with immediate gratification of a particular desire to know, and mostly oriented toward immediate practical results. There is no persuasive evidence that any societies have ever had a high proportion of people who were deeply curious in a systematic, disciplined way.”

Resisting Innovation

As but another specific point in the matter, Dutch notes the propensity for individuals and entire societies to resist innovation. If we were in fact, innately curious and creative, innovation should not only be welcomed, it should be our fundamental norm.

Such is simply not the case. Instead, historically we have craved certainty and operated, all too often from the perspective, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

As a total human species, we have not demonstrated the propensity to be either curious or creative. Such behaviors appear to exist more in isolation, very much in line with Dutch’s assertion, “some people enjoy running and some enjoy creating.”

While Sir Ken Robinson’s video offers great food for thought, it just might not be as on target as first suggested. It seems terribly cynical to say, but perhaps, as Dutch notes, the assertion that our institutions are “directed toward making us conform and stifling inquisitiveness and creativity” may be nothing more than our convenient excuse for the fact that so many “bright, inquisitive children” grow up to be nothing more than “shallow and jaded adults.”

When it comes to intelligence, there has always been one fundamental question:

Is it a function of nature? Is it simply encoded in a child’s genes?

Or is it a function of nurture? Is it more about the environment that a child grows up in?

Richard Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, addresses the topic in fundamental detail in his new book, “Intelligence and How to Get It.” And thank goodness for teachers, Nisbett insists that nurture is in fact paramount to intellectual development.

In fact, his message matches almost verbatim what we have discussed previously on our site:

• Praise the effort, not the achievement
• Teach the concept of delayed gratification
• Limit reprimands and use praise to stimulate curiosity.

The Nature versus Nurture Question

Nisbett takes exception to the notion that IQ is 75 to 85 percent inherited. Instead, he sees the gene implications at something less than 50 percent.

Nicholas D. Kristoff recently took a look at the nature versus nurture question and came away with enormous support of Nisbett’s book. The NY Times columnist notes the work of Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia who has conducted research that indicates IQ is minimally the result of genetics.

Kristof further cites studies that indicate that “when poor children are adopted into upper-middle-class households, their IQ’s rise by 12 points to 18 points.”

As for the importance of school, Kristof also notes that “children’s IQ’s drop or stagnate over the summer months when they are on vacation (particularly for kids whose parents don’t inflict books or summer programs on them).”

In Nisbett’s book, there is a strong push for early childhood education. Here again, Kristof offers support of Professor Nisbett by taking a look at the “Milwaukee Project.”

Assigning African-American children considered at risk for mental retardation randomly to two groups, the project offers enormous support for early childhood education. The mothers of the infants selected all had IQ’s below 80 and in many cases the fathers were absent.

The children were assigned either to a control group that received no additional support or to a group that enjoyed day care and educational programming from 6 months of age until the children were to enter first grade.

By the age of six the children experimental group had an IQ average of 120.7 as compared to the control group’s 87.2

Quality Pre-School for All

We previously noted the enormous educational success of Finland. Kati Tuurala, Microsoft’s education manager in Finland, indicates that the majority of Finland’s educational success can be traced to major reforms implemented in the 1970s.

One of those reforms centered upon an emphasis on primary education for every single child in the country. In Finland, students do not begin formal schooling until at age seven, two years after most American children begin school.

However, prior to entering school, all children have participated in a high-quality government funded preschool program. Interestingly, instead of focusing on getting a jump academically, Finland’s early-childhood program focuses on self-reflection and social behavior.

The early focus on self-reflection is seen as a key component for developing a level of personal responsibility towards learning. It is a focus more in line with the original theory of kindergarten set forth in 1837 by German Educator Friedrich Froebel. His kindergarten, literally meaning a “children’s garden,” was envisioned as a place and time where children could learn through play opportunities.

Ultimately, Finland appears to focus on the nurturing process during the preschool years and that appears to be the first step to eliminating socioeconomic differences within the school setting within the country.

Presidential Support

When it comes to the question of nature versus nurture, the data clearly indicates that the latter is indeed more than 50% of the equation. That is good news for educators, but even better news for society as a whole.

Fortunately, President Obama has come out in strong support of early childhood education, particularly for those children most at risk of school failure. Investing in quality pre-school opportunities clearly helps give children from poverty-stricken areas the chance at a stronger start in school and in life.

If we are serious about helping our children succeed in school, if we are truly interested in “Leaving No Child Behind,” we will take a hard look at this compelling data and begin investing greater sums at the early childhood level.

A little while back we acknowledged the beauty of today’s blogging world, one where information is rich and plentiful. It was in regards to a great educational myth that has become known as the “Bastardization of Dale’s Cone.”

Often overlayed against Dale’s “Cone of Experience,” an intuitive model to describe “the concreteness of various audio-visual media,” are a series of percentages. They are part of what has come to be a longstanding educational assertion regarding learning processes. It begins with: “people remember 10% of what they read.” It goes on to “20% of what they see,” and so on.

While Dale’s cone serves as nice schematic to help with analysis, Dale did not conduct any research or use the research of others to construct his model. In addition, it seems that these percentages, presented to educators for the better part of 40 years, are also not backed by research.

Thus the neat or cute summary diagram that is often used as a way to describe the learning process is not backed by any meaningful research.

The Theory of Grammar

April 16th just so happened to be the 50th anniversary of the release of one of the biggest selling grammar manuals of all time, “The Elements of Style.” It is a book that virtually every college graduate has been exposed to at some point, either in advanced composition class in high school or within the first two years of college when students must meet their composition requirement.

But the standard-bearer thousands of teachers and professors have foisted upon students for so many years may not quite be the gem it is proclaimed to be. In fact, it is more of an unpolished stone, at least if you read Geoffrey K. Pullum’s assessment of William Strunk and E.B. White’s famous style guide.

Pullum is head of linguistics and English language at the University of Edinburgh. He is also the co-author of “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.”

The author writes:

“The Elements of Style” does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense.”

And of Strunk and White, Pullum adds:

“This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents. Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less.”

And as for making students better grammarians, consider this summary assessment:

“Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century.”

Some of Pullum’s criticisms:

• Some of the recommendations are vapid, like “Be clear” (how could one disagree?).

• Some are tautologous, like “Do not explain too much.” (Explaining too much means explaining more than you should, so of course you shouldn’t.)

• Many are useless, like “Omit needless words.” (The students who know which words are needless don’t need the instruction.)

• Even the truly silly advice, like “Do not inject opinion,” doesn’t really do harm. (No force on earth can prevent undergraduates from injecting opinion. And anyway, sometimes that is just what we want from them.)

Pullam takes the book apart bit by bit and offers examples from Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne of Avonlea as well as general looks at the summary work of Mark Twain and Henry James.

Nothing Sacred

Undoubtably, the knowledge explosion is tough to keep up with. But one of the great aspects of the internet is the rightful taking apart of some longstanding myths.

Whereas I was taught about George Washington and the story of a cherry tree or that Columbus was a great man and the discoverer of America, today we thankfully see truth winning out.

Hopefully educators are on to the issues of Dale’s Cone by now. But we are not so certain where English teachers stand on The Elements of Style. Is it time to follow Pullum’s lead and relegate Strunk and White’s famous tome to the educational scrap heap as well?

Come November, Maine voters will have the opportunity to vote down the state’s repressive school consolidation law.

Up in the tiny state of Maine, a great deal of time and energy over the past two years has centered upon the issue of school consolidation.

Initiated and pressed through the legislature by Democratic Governor John Baldacci, the move has been rightfully met with stiff opposition in many sectors of the state, particularly the more rural and less affluent areas. Thanks to the hard work of Skip Greenlaw and his push to create a citizen’s referendum, the issue will return this fall to the place it rightfully belongs, to the hands of Maine voters.

Enacting School Consolidation

Most educators and a large number of community members still have not forgiven the Governor for his heavy-handed approach to the matter of reducing the number of school districts in Maine. While the general consensus had been that Maine could reduce the number of school districts, that consensus was immediately weakened by the methods the governor utilized to bring about the change.

First, there was the fact that the governor made no mention of his plan to reduce the number of school districts while on the campaign trail. Once re-elected, he shocked the educational community with a proposed plan to reduce Maine’s 290 school districts to 26.

Particularly appalling was the governor’s own words at the time. Bill Nemitz, writing for the Maine Sunday Telegram quoted the governor as follows: “I’m not running for anything anymore. And I think I should take advantage of that for the citizens’ sake.”

The idea that he would admit to acting one way while campaigning and yet another once elected had some expressing that he lacked the “courage to stand up for what he truly thinks is right while running for office.”

The Maine writer went on to refer to the governor in a number of unflattering terms, calling him Baldacci the Bulldozer and likening him to the fictional character, Rocky Balboa.

Unrealistic Timeline

Within the governor’s push to consolidate were a number of unrealistic proposals. First, there was the two year timeline proposed to bring about the change and the number of potential districts.

Though the number of districts was later modified to a more manageable number of 80, the two-year timeline essentially remained intact. That timeline can certainly be tested as the state approaches the end of the second year.

To date, Maine voters have already rejected 22 of 46 proposed regional school units involving their local districts. Most recently, 11 of the 18 proposed were rejected in late January.

So more than half of the towns attempting to create regional school units have seen their community reject consolidation measures. Given that the heavy-handed approach includes stiff financial penalties for not consolidating, these votes are extremely telling of the current view of Maine citizens.

Unrealistic Projected Savings

Then there was the preposterous suggestion that within the first three years the state could see as much as $250 million in savings. Those numbers were later significantly revised to a projected $30-40 million annually.

Those dollars were to come from the reduction of central office staff. In his proposal the governor insisted that those savings would come from the reduction of “back room office personnel.” He also insisted that districts would not need to reduce the number of schools to obtain such savings.

To get a sense of the comparative real savings, though several districts have in fact been approved, the estimates outside the Governor’s office have the consolidation work thus far saving about $1.6 million.

At the same time, many communities are finding that consolidation positively impacts one town in a proposed regional school unit but does so at the expense of another town in the RSU. At the same time there are a number of unresolved issues related to federal grant eligibility. At first glance, some new units now believe that creating a larger district may have negatively impacted their access to federal grant funds.

Unrealistic Implications

In addition to the unrealistic timeline and savings projections, the governor and his aides also insisted that consolidation was the path to improving the educational offerings for Maine students. That amazing claim continues to be part of the consolidation push but those who have done any research on the matter understand full well that there is no data to support this improvement assertion.

While no hard agreement exists on optimal school size, the research generally suggests a maximum of 300-400 students for elementary schools and 400-800 for secondary schools. In addition, many studies that seek to focus on the social and emotional aspects of student success conclude that no school should be larger than 500. Only in more affluent communities can test data support larger schools and in general, the poorer the school, the smaller it should be.

In addition, there is also clear research that there is no ideal size for school districts though generally smaller districts have better achievement, affective and social outcomes. More importantly, the larger a district becomes, the greater the district resources devoted to secondary and/or non-essential activities. And as with school size, there is a negative correlation between district size and student achievement when the student population is primarily low-income.

Ultimately, a review of the data indicates that the elimination of school districts will neither improve education nor enhance cost-effectiveness.

Will of the People

Last week, the Maine legislature elected to put aside several school consolidation amendment bills and wait to see what voters have to say come November. The willingness to defer to the will of people on this matter represented a refreshing change from the legislature’s willingness to tinker with the law previously.

It also contrasted with the governor who has continued his heavy-handed approach by pledging to actively work towards defeating the pending citizen’s referendum proposal.

So finally, this fall Maine voters will have the chance to speak collectively regarding the issue. The loss of local control and the clear data that larger schools are not equated with higher educational performance will certainly bring a number of votes to repeal the law. Those will likely be offset by voters who are of the fiscal mindset that school costs must be reduced.

For both of those groups as well as those yet undecided, the February 2009 edition of Rural Policy Matters explains why all citizens should cast the repressive consolidation law aside.
 
“Maine consolidation has become what state mandated consolidation usually becomes — something the rich force on the poor for the sake of cutting their state aid.” 
 
Flickr photos courtesy of SarekofVulcan, yomanimus and lachance.

There is growing consensus that the educational system in America is falling short when it comes to preparing our children for the future. As to the method for improving our current system today, the general focus centers upon increased accountability and a need for higher academic standards.

While there is little doubt that we have many schools in need of improvement, the idea that all of our educational woes are a result of under-performing schools and inadequate instruction is a gross over-simplification. As but one example that demonstrates the enormous complexity facing public schools in our country, we note this story of homeless children which aired Tuesday, March 31st, on PBS.

The story of Tiberius is one every public school critic should hear. Able to articulate his feelings of inadequacy, yet more withdrawn and carrying a burden that no one so young should ever have to shoulder, Tiberius’ educational progress this school year could never be adequately measured by a standardized test score.

Nor should the performance of his teacher be downgraded should Tiberius be unable to demonstrate the skills necessary for promotion. It is preposterous to think that the math or writing skills of a child in need of food and clothing are not affected by the student’s predicament.

As Ms. Hoople notes so well, sometimes “their emotions get in the way.”

And in these time of severe budget cuts, is it not increasingly clear why so many inner city schools cry out when social workers become the first of educational employees to fall victim to the budget knife?

But going back to those test scores and higher standards, the words of Mr. Hannemann certainly offer a different perspective:

“You do the best that you can with the time that you have; and you just keep moving forward.”

America may, in places, have issues with school quality. But watching this PBS story it is easy to see why so many people insist that school improvement measures cannot be handled in isolation, not until we as a country begin to deal with the other crisis affecting our kids: the growing number of them living in poverty.