Obama lays out vision for education reform steeped in ‘deep pragmatism’ and not ‘clouded by ideology.’
Obama lays out vision for education reform steeped in ‘deep pragmatism’ and not ‘clouded by ideology.’
Just a few moments ago, President-elect Barack Obama announced Arne Duncan – the superintendent of the Chicago schools – as the next Secretary of Education. Duncan is being described as someone “known for taking tough steps to improve schools while maintaining respectful relations with teachers and their unions.” During the press conference to announce his choice, Obama was asked to lay out his vision on education reform:
OBAMA: What we can expect is that each and every day, we are thinking about new and innovative ways to make schools better. … One of the things that Arne and I share is a deep pragmatism in terms of how we go about this. If pay-for-performance works and we can work with teachers so that they don’t feel like it’s being imposed on them, but instead, they’ve got an option for different compensation mechanisms in order for us to encourage high performance, then that’s something we should explore.
If charter schools work, let’s try that. Let’s not be clouded by ideology when it comes to figuring out what helps our kids.
Watch it:
The Wonk Room has more details on Duncan’s background.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
OOH! OOH! Can we teach Real Science? Can we teach scientifically fact-based sex-education, too?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pmTeaching children to think!!
What a concept!
December 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pmWhen JFK inspired this country to literally reach for the moon, our schools and school children improved their performance, particularly in science.
My prediction is that BHO will inspire this nation in similar fashion, particularly among those of color and we will see a renewed surge in academic achievement. BHO will talk to us in an intelligent, educated fashion and we as a nation will respond in kind.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:01 pmof course, an educated populace is the one thing that the right wing fears the most….
December 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pmAnd you can see Bush scratching his head….”vision? I got vision. Sh*t, 20/20. Least when I ain’t drunk.”
December 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pmThe man can say nothing better than anybody!!
December 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pmJust the facts, man. Science and facts. Sounds kinda nice.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pmICEMAN is proof of Bush’s failure on education:
A child left way, waaayyyyyyyyy behind.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:12 pmDamn lokidog, you are fast!
December 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pmFix private student loan laws too please.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pmPoor little troll. Any utterance longer than what would fit on a bumper sticker loses all meaning.
Poster child for the Child Left Behind.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pmDid somebody say something on aisle 6?
December 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pmDamn lokidog, you are fast!
nanlichi,
Nah, just proving (hopefully) great minds think alike! :)
December 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Did somebody say something on aisle 6?
December 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
—–
That’s the freezer aisle… everything is frozen.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pmOne factor–one ‘variable’–alone is responsible for 65-70% of between-student variance on standardized student achievement tests. This has been established over and over again, since researchers began measuring such things, more than half-a-century ago.
I usta write tests for one of the big testing services. Tests are ALWAYS written to “standards.” Those standards are invariably those of the white, middle-to-upper-middle class. Children nurtured and raised amid these standards are inevitably going to have advantages when their own family ’standards’ are those on which the supposedly “objective” tests examine them.
This is NOT rocket science. Duncan is an acolyte of the school of performance which loads inordinate significance on the scores of tests which begin with the assumptions that the folks for whom the ’standards’ consist of community norms will be best able to understand and reply to the questions asked, the competences ‘tested.’
The Business Roundtable is enthusiastic about this appointment. This signals to me that Obama bought into the bidness/neocon/phonics/testing regime of the bushevik NCLB, and he won’t try to redirect emphases away from rote performance.
I can’t say I’m disappointed. I wasn’t really expecting anything else. Early on, I’d heard Linda Darling-Hammond was in the running. She, at least, has actually been a teacher. (I doubt Duncan even attended a public school, afaik)But she’d be thought to be “ideological,” and not “pragmatic” enough, at least by the Bidness Roundtable and ilk, whose approval and support Obama’s demonstrating daily is the only constituency he cares anything about, rhetoric and gesture notwithstanding.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:32 pm“Pay for performance” is not deeply pragmatic. It’s an ideology and will do for education, what it did for Wall Street.
“Punished by Rewards” compiled studies showing the impact of extrinsic motivators, the basis of P4P.
Alfie Kohn has an article in the upcoming Nation on this topic:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/soe.htm
December 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pmAs a former Chicagoan, I think Arne Duncan is a good pick. He is young and is willing to try new ideas, to think outside of the box; the results may be mixed, at times, but the goals, the thought processes, the willingness to be open-minded are all worthy attributes.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pmDoes this mean we’ll be revisiting standardized tests for 4th graders? My daughter is in the 1st grade and they’re already teaching to the test. And they have to, funding is directly tied to a test that doesn’t measure what is most important, critical thinking skills. All NCLB does is create compliant minds and students who expect to be spoon fed answers for tests.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pmBribing children to think?
Bribing them with Pizza Hut pizzas, brought us overweight children who later hate to read.
Look at Wall Street CEO’s still addicted to their bonuses.
Pay for performance will deform education and health care, just like it did to America’s financial sector.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pmChicken little predicts that Obama is just like bush. You really live in a strange reality.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pmLes Perlman (MIT faculty) has written a lot on the flaws of standardized tests as assesment tools, especially ones that are graded by machines. He has developed a method that he’s taught students for taking the ACT that creates high scoring nonsense by using strategically placed big words and references to random dates, etc. I wish I had a link for this, sorry.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pmICEMAN Says:
The man can say nothing better than anybody!!
ICEMAN assumes the second person when describing his own inanity…how sophisticated.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pmFred Says:
tokin librul Says:
This signals to me that Obama bought into the bidness/neocon/phonics/testing regime of the bushevik NCLB, and he won’t try to redirect emphases away from rote performance.
Chicken little predicts that Obama is just like bush. You really live in a strange reality.
He’s just tokin’
December 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pmPost #16 above is absolutely correct. “Pay-for-performance” is a standard’s based quantitive assessment that absolutely ignores real societal issues that plague poor performing school districts.
It perpetuates the myth that teachers alone are responsible for the academic success of our children and if teachers worked just a little harder, then they could educate children who have never been read to by their parents, children who don’t eat breakfast before school, children whose parents never completed high school themselves, children who are homeless or whose parents are drug addicts.
“Pay-for-performance” is NOT “deeply pragmatic;” it’s insulting to teachers.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pmChicken little predicts that Obama is just like bush. You really live in a strange reality.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
What flavor izzat Kool-Aid, Fred? Must be real relaxing.
If you value independent thinking in kids, you have to foster it, coddle it, cherish it at home. It’s NEVER gonna be a part of a test-centered curriculum, and a whole system of pedagogies that inculcates compliance and obedience and order as intellectual values to which you must subscribe for success in the system…That’s the NCLB way. If Obama doesn’t renounce it, another half-generation of citizens will be subjected to the abuses instituted by the busheviks…This appointment suggests he won’t abandon it, or much try to change it in any substantive way…
December 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pmLook tokin and indymachead, this is what he said:
Notice the part that says “If something works, lets try it” This is the key, adopting a plan that is just theory like “no child left behind” and then sticking to it when it is obvious that it is failing is what republicans do…..
We try things till we find something or multiple things that work…….
December 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm“Pay-for-performance” is NOT “deeply pragmatic;” it’s insulting to teachers.
Right-ee-o…it is also deeply ideological, except that the ‘conventional wisdom’ is never permitted to be called ‘ideological.’
I’ve been a class-room teacher. The whole system collaborates against children learning to think in any meaningful way. Somebody above mentioned Alphie Kohn. He’s one of a number of scholars–most of whom are former or still-active teachers–who propose alternative approaches. Henry Giroux is another. bell hooks. Shirley Brice-Heath.
But the purpose of ’school’ in Murka is not to train children to think; it is to induce them into the intellectual paralysis of complete and perfect consumerhood. Critical competence is the LAST thing students learn in school, if by it you mean not merely rejecting ‘conventional wisdom,’ but knowing the reasons for rejecting it.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pmFred, charter schools are the approved means of the neo/paleo-con ideologues to reduce the power of teacher unions sufficiently that they can be drowned in oine of Grover Norquist’s capacitous bathtubs.
You have to understand, fred. Managers NEVER undertake any reforms that, whatsoever else they may be intended to do, do not also attack and attempt to undermine the power of unions.
It’s like you should never examine USer foreign policy without always having at the back of your mind: It’s about the energy, stupid.
the same is true for the anti-union sentiment of many school administrators…
December 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pmCan we stop the “who is a troll” talk and talk about the merits of the pick?
On to those merits — what a great choice. Thoughtful, innovative, willing to try out new ideas, at times willing to take on the unions.
Tokin liberal — there is a difference between “charter schools” and “vouchers.” Charter schools allows schools to innovate. That’s a good thing.
With Arne Duncan leading the way, the questions that will be asked include “How do we inspire our kids?” and “How do we get more parents involved” instead of “How do we keep science out of schools?”
This is exactly the sort of change we were promised.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm#1 Problem – Parents, who let their kids play video games to keep them quiet.
#2 Problem – Kids who think being a loser is cool.
There is very little chance of turning these things around without the help of Hollywood.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pmIndymach –
As a parent who is going to have to spend $16,000 per year to send my kids to private schools because the public schools are still not doing the job (despite Duncan’s great effort), I can tell you some teacher’s NEED insulting.
Beating up on teachers is not the sole solution. That was not Duncan’s way. But certainly there are some bad teachers (or teachers who just don’t care) and we need to do something about that problem. Duncan has done that pretty well in Chicago.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pmWith Arne Duncan leading the way, the questions that will be asked include “How do we inspire our kids?” and “How do we get more parents involved”
(I expect to see Arne turn his head to reveal half his face burned away…)
Easy answers. Make them richer for several generations. Infallible.
Critical students learn to be critical at home. NOT IN SCHOOL. Schools HATE “critical” thinkers. Mostly they become the “push-outs.” (Usually they’re called ‘drop-outs’ but that blames the victims.)
otherwise, there’d be a lot more of them…
December 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pmTokin,
First, of course critical thinking should be taught at home. But when mom is on crack and dad’s in jail, it can be tough for students to pick up values at home.
But that’s the great thing about Arne Duncan.
With him running the show, school will be different.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:50 pm“Critical thinking” and “asking questions” will be GOOD, for a change.
With him running the show, school will be different.
“Critical thinking” and “asking questions” will be GOOD, for a change.
Answering test questions correcty is NOT critical thinking.
Duncan is an acolyte of all the approved ‘teach-the-test’ regimens. He’s never been in a public school classroom in his life, except as a distinguished visitor. He’s a fuukin consultant…His ‘results’ in Chicago are indifferent at best, even at the meaningless tasks that style of schooling sets for students.
Have you EVER read anybody really critical of the ’schools’? Kozol? Kohn? Deborah Maier? Susan Ohanian?
December 16th, 2008 at 3:06 pmBuckie Boy Says:
#1 Problem – Parents, who let their kids play video games to keep them quiet.
#2 Problem – Kids who think being a loser is cool.
Somebody’s making a LOT of money off such conditions–or some other condition is answered thereby–or the conditions you describe wouldn’t persist.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:08 pmI think a collective sigh of relief just passed through the education community
December 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pmSkeeter says: Tokin liberal — there is a difference between “charter schools” and “vouchers.” Charter schools allows schools to innovate. That’s a good thing.
Charter schools often enable school administrators to hire non-union teachers. They also usually entail pledges from teachers to commit to the “goals” of the charter, which frequently means teachers must give up autonomy in the classroom, and permit the admin to dismiss teachers not sufficiently “with the program,’ no matter what the program.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pmvinylspear Says:
I think a collective sigh of relief just passed through the education community
December 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pmDecember 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
You say ’sigh of relief,’ I say “shudder of disappointment.”
Tokin,
First, nice choice of language. It provides a great insight into your own education and your own thought process.
But to the point — You think Duncan is just about standardized tests?
This is a thread about education. You may want to do some reading before making comments since you could not be further from the truth.
Somehow though, I don’t think that is the issue. From your posts, it seems like your REAL objection is that Arne Duncan is going to do what needs to be done, even if that means getting rid of some bad teachers. And you don’t like that, do you, Tokin?
You believe in change, as long as YOU don’t have to change.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pmTokin,
Stay the course! Stay with the current program! That’s your view?
And you call yourself a liberal?
Our public schools have failed. Change is needed. That is why Sen. Obama won in a landslide.
This was a great choice and the fact that the status-quo backers are mad as hell is a great sign.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pmMost people can’t pronounce ideology correctly, let alone know what it means. Democrat ideas about how to run things generally WORK well, if the Repugs don’t interfere too much.
Its just cowardly to say “I’ll be pragmatic, not ideological”
Hmph.
Obama & ALL Democrats: STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS!
December 16th, 2008 at 3:27 pmSkeeter, you haven’t read enough of tokins posts. tokin thinks Obama is just another bush. Odd reality where this person lives.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:35 pmtokin librul Says:
But the purpose of ’school’ in Murka is not to train children to think; it is to induce them into the intellectual paralysis of complete and perfect consumerhood. Critical competence is the LAST thing students learn in school, if by it you mean not merely rejecting ‘conventional wisdom,’ but knowing the reasons for rejecting it.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
__________
Agreed completely. But changing the paradigm of American education is not going to come from a one-shot solution, and it can’t be imposed from the DOE down.
Yes, any policy can be abused if it’s not well-crafted. Charter schools can be a great incubator for innovative teaching of critical thinking methods, but they have a downside as union busters. Standardized testing is ripe for teach-to-the-test abuse, but unfortunately it’s about the only consistent metric we have for assessing knowledge acquisition. Pay-for-performance schemes for teachers and students have potential to work if they’re narrowly-tailored, but they’re just begging for people to game the system. No one solution is going to fix anything, and with the state of our public education system, we shouldn’t be taking any options off the table.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pmSomehow y’all have been convinced that “more of the same” with a NEW name is somehow a “change.”
That has a name. It’s called “rebranding.” New and improved stuff that failed the last time they tried it, too.
I am not advocating the status quo. What I’m saying that what you think is change isn’t. It’s the same old, same old authoritarianism veiled behind a rhetoric of ‘responsibility.’
Y’all folks never learn…
December 16th, 2008 at 3:45 pmWe got your message, loud and clear. Now get out of the way and let real progressives work without pulling them down while they try to make things better.
You can’t make it a failure just by saying it’s so. You are not all knowing. You can’t say that things won’t get better now that bush is gone…….your speculation is unbridled pessimism. Keep it to yourself.
If you have constructive criticizm, that is one thing but to constantly poo poo efforts by others to make things better just makes you the turd in the punchbowl.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm“As a parent who is going to have to spend $16,000 per year to send my kids to private schools because the public schools are still not doing the job”
Where is the evidence that private schools are getting the job done? I local and might I add very expensive private school in my region uses biology texts that my public school abandoned years ago, is staffed by uncertified teachers and is riddled with far more drugs, alcohol, and promiscuity than the worst of the urban public schools I have ever worked in as the students have more disposable income and less supervision.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:51 pmTo suggest that the public education system has failed seems to suggest that it was successful at sometime in the past. If so when did this failure kick in?
December 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pmSkeeter sez:Our public schools have failed. Change is needed. That is why Sen. Obama won in a landslide.
If you think schools are failures, you do not understand the purpose of the schools.
Joel Spring stated it 40 years ago, succinctly: It is to sort students according to their utility to the dominant social order.
I have put it less brutally: it is to ensure that as few students/children as possible escape the social/economic niches for which they were born.
To accomplish this, the schools supply retroactive evidence, in the forms of grades, report cards, test scores and the dreaded permanent record, which rationalizes and justifis, post facto, the fates prescribed for the students before they’d ever crossed the threshold of kindergarten (if they ever did; which is another indicator).
School is brutally efficient at what is it designed to do.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pmdbadass,
You talk about “private schools” as if they are all the same.
For me, it is a matter of SPECIFC private school(s). Although I have not made the choice (or had my kids admitted) I can tell you that the private schools I am considering for my children have far more interesting and innovative approaches to education than are found in public schools.
Hopefully if Duncan’s idea move forward, when it it time for high school I might consider a public high school for my kids.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:59 pmdbadass, the public school system has become so worthless for furthering education that it is no longer required to attend college.
We pulled our kids out of the public school system, not because of drugs, etc. but because they were not educating them.
They are all now university grads except one who is a senior at a state college.
What is the priority in the public school system…..in my area it’s sports. Much more money spent on stadiums, tracks, weight lifting rooms, etc. than is spent on labs, computers, teachers salaries, etc.
Who are the pets and stars in the public schools? The jocks and cheerleaders. Who were the boys at columbine looking for? Jocks and cheerleaders.
When you set a class of kids above all the others and don’t require them to even attend class in many cases and give them free rides to bully in the halls you will have more columbines, it’s inevitable.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pmWhen sports became the priority and there were suddenly as many administrators as there were teachers, complete with a large administration building that keeps the school from functioning as a place to further education.
tokin, what you say is blatantly wrong. I remember when sports was used to keep the kids that were falling behind interested in school. In the 60’s under JFK education soared and science and mathematics students were the stars. All children were encouraged to make themselves ready for college and the public school system was geared for that purpose.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:04 pmFred rebukes and chastises me: “your speculation is unbridled pessimism. Keep it to yourself.”
But of course that is not at all true. My observations are neither speculative nor are they pessimistic. I am quite able to supply citations, chapter and verse, if it would satisfy you.
But satisfaction is not what you want.
You want to believe your anointed one will lead you into lands of milk and honey…
Sorry. I don’t do ‘anointed.’ I am a skeptic, and a cynic, who happens also to hold a Ph.D. in education and have extensive classroom experience at several levels in several states.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm“You talk about “private schools” as if they are all the same.”
Indeed and by intent for is that not exactly what you are saying of the public ones?
December 16th, 2008 at 4:07 pmAll children were encouraged to make themselves ready for college and the public school system was geared for that purpose.
mebbee you haven’t noticed, but that all changed when Nixon noticed all those well-educated kids were ferociously, vociferously opposing his war in SE Asia? mostly, they stopped teaching civics and government by the late ’70s. speaking of coaches, there’s a whole litany of social-studies teaching coaches faults. Coaches had to teach something, so they got civics/govt…there’s a certain abstract humor in that fact: the people involved in arguably the least democratic activities in school–sports–were supposed to teach students to be good–that is, critical–citizens…
December 16th, 2008 at 4:12 pmYeah, all the Ph.D’s I know say things like:
Why oh why do I doubt you?
December 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pmDB,
December 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pmI’m not clear on your point.
I think innovative approaches are good, whether in public or private schools. I think parental involvement is good, whether in public or private schools. I’m not doing a blanket condemnation of all public schools nor am I endorsing all private schools.
What I am saying is that as a general rule, change is good and Arne Duncan should bring the change we need.
Now you seem to be admitting that it can work. Which is it? Seems obvious to me that now is our opportunity to change that but you refuse to believe that it can happen.
Your judgment that Obama and the dems are just like the republicans will be proven to be wrong. You will never admit it though. You will simply dissapear or change your username.
Skeptics and cynics are the same as pessimists if you can’t ever see any light.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pmWhy oh why do I doubt you?
December 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
prob’ly cuz you don’t hold a graduate degree in education, or possess six years teaching experience in schools.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pmThis is not ment to be argumentative or anything but why invest in a phD in ed for six years of teaching? Do you still teach? Really I am not trying to be a jerk but 6 years doesn’t really strike me as extensive especially whereas it was spread over several states and levels. What exactly do you do know with this background
December 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pmstrike that k from know please
December 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pmno, read what i have been saying.
not until all students have equivalent family advantages with the middle-class students for whom the tests are written can there be any significant change in the educational achievement of students as measured by tests…
Read something, fred. You patently know naught whereof you speak, sir.
I’ve provided an adequate curriculum for a short grad seminar in the sociology of education. Joel Spring, Jonathan Kozol, Alfie Kohn, Deborah Maier, Susan Ahanian. Henry Giroux. If you get through those, even onw book each, there are plenty of others when you’ve finished with them.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pmTo be a school “reformer” is to support:
* a heavy reliance on fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests to evaluate students and schools, generally in place of more authentic forms of assessment;
* the imposition of prescriptive, top-down teaching standards and curriculum mandates;
* a disproportionate emphasis on rote learning—memorizing facts and practicing skills—particularly for poor kids;
* a behaviorist model of motivation in which rewards (notably money) and punishments are used on teachers and students to compel compliance or raise test scores;
* a corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling, the point being to prepare children to “compete” as future employees; and
* charter schools, many of which are run by for-profit companies.
link is at #16
December 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pmReally I am not trying to be a jerk but 6 years doesn’t really strike me as extensive especially whereas it was spread over several states and levels.
probably cuz you never spend 6 years in the classroom.
What exactly do you do know with this background
December 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I usta teach in teacher education. 16 years (long enough for ya?). Now I’m retired. I left the profession early to care for my aged, dying parents. I was at that so long I lost contact with ‘the field.’ To return to it i would have had to get a whole new phd, for which i had neither the desire nor the resources. So I retired.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pmtokin,
Are you claiming that because certain families are not middle class, we should just accept poor education for those families?
We are going to have to disgree on this. My view is that schools should make an extra effort to get economically disadvantaged students to do well academically, while Tokin believes we should just toss up our hands and walk away.
State of the Division:
You need to read your own posts. Points 2 and 6 are in direct conflict.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm63
Indeed you are correct. I haven’t spent 6 years. I have spent 16 in public schools, a few in private schools, and some in residential field environmental ed centers. I also hold two Masters but only one in ed
So six years of experience was sufficient to prepare you to prepare those that will spend a lifetime doing it?
December 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pmNot to put too fine a point on it:
No other expedient will suffice as long as the standards for success are what the middle- and upper-middle classes say they are…
December 16th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
So six years of experience was sufficient to prepare you to prepare those that will spend a lifetime doing it?
I hated teaching in the schools. It was stifling. that’s why I went to grad school.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:42 pmIndeed you are correct. I haven’t spent 6 years. I have spent 16 in public schools, a few in private schools, and some in residential field environmental ed centers. I also hold two Masters but only one in ed
yeah, I got a masters too…in “reading.” what’s your’s?
December 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pmSo when you say you used to teach in teacher ed are you saying you taught in the ed program at some college or university? Why would you have needed a new degree to retrun to a field for which you had such experience? Again just curious and not trying to be in anyway accusatory or anything…
December 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pmYou can be whatever you want in the obscurity of these blogs. That doesn’t carry any weight. Even if I thought you were really what you claim, I would be concerned for any students exposed to your cynicism.
Throwing credentials around is about as dishonest as one can be as far as I’m concerned. If you want to prove it then I will accept it. Otherwise it’s just the beer talking.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:46 pmSkeeter: Are you claiming that because certain families are not middle class, we should just accept poor education for those families?
No. I proposed my solution at #66. It’s you who seem willing to abandon the poor, to nostrums and platitudes and the tender mercies of the marketplace…
December 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm“yeah, I got a masters too…in “reading.” what’s your’s?”
Well one of them is in secondary environmental ed and the other in zoology
December 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pmTokin,
What do you do until everybody gets up to that economic level? Just forget about the schools until that time?
Or are you saying we should just abandon standards because it takes work to have certain students reach those standards?
December 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pmAgain just curious and not trying to be in anyway accusatory or anything…
December 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
you’ve never taught in a university, i’m guessing. Tenure-track job? publish or perish? Seeing my parents’ terminal appointments were indeterminate, I had to resign my post to attend to them, since I had no idea how long I’d be away. The ‘field’ moves on, as you’d know if you were a scholar, and it is imperative in ‘the field’ to stay current. Under the circumstances I couldn’t. I couldn’t simply rejoin the field. There are ‘obstacles’ to such practices.
Me? I’d worry about my pedagogy if I figured i could take a few years off (well, four, all in all, before i could have resumed my life), and then go back and pick up where i left off…
yes, Fred, indeed, i taught in teacher ed programs at two universities, big ones. It might come as a surprise to you, but in university education, skepticism is not only admired, it is required…
December 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pmSkeeter1, points #2 and #6 are education reformers points, not mine. They were cut and pasted from an article.
I believe the logic is public education needs modern management, top down, accountability focused, where students and teachers are rewarded for performance.
Private education, i.e. charter schools, would not need prescriptive restrictions as the private sector is always more efficient, always performs better.
Lots of ideology embedded in these positions.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pmWell one of them is in secondary environmental ed and the other in zoology
December 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Kewwl…If i were still interested in schools, probably I’d be inclined to some such field…Are you allowed to talk about evolution where you teach?
BTW: in #74, trading snark for snark…
December 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pmSomeone seems a little sensitive and also seems to have some manners issues.
“you’d know if you were a scholar”
“probably cuz you never spend 6 years in the classroom”
“yeah, I got a masters too…in “reading.” what’s your’s”
Not that it matters but I have already received the highest commendation my state offers to educators and my face appears on the walls of the state ed building. Wanna talk ed or do you wanna try to be condescending…
December 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pmWhat do you do until everybody gets up to that economic level? Just forget about the schools until that time?
I haven’t time or space to tell you the whole project. I spent 4 years in grad school working on that problem…Go READ…I laid out some names elsewhere here: Kozol, Ohanian, Maier, Kohn and others. Linda Darling-Hammond. “bell hooks.” Paolo Freiere. When you’ve finished them, I’ll recommend a few more, if you like.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pmtokin,
I had a physics prof who once told me “If you can’t explain your work in five minutes, you really don’t understand it.”
Looks like you spent four years working but never really got an understanding of the subject.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pmI had a physics prof who once told me “If you can’t explain your work in five minutes, you really don’t understand it.”
Fine, please explain srring theory to me? you have five minutes.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pmdbadass, it’s hard to stick to the issue when posters attack the individual, not the point made.
Things deteriorate when people attribute motive and personal characteristics in offense (or in retaliation).
I’ve incurred the wrath of the anger brothers in the past and have some compassion for tokin. It’s a challenge to respond appropriately. Sometimes it’s best to be quiet, especially if the point is already made well.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pmDid I miss the place where Skeeter1 claimed to be a physicist who was so very experienced in string theory?
December 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pmLooks like you spent four years working but never really got an understanding of the subject.
Two words, sweetie: Read Dewey.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pmDid I miss the place where Skeeter1 claimed to be a physicist who was so very experienced in string theory?
Okay, explain Physics. You have five minutes.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm“I had a physics prof who once told me “If you can’t explain your work in five minutes, you really don’t understand it.”
Fine, please explain srring theory to me? you have five minutes.”
I can’t, but the prof could. He was the expert and I was just an undergrad in a different major trying to get a Jesuit education. He understood his work and as such, he could provide a basic explanation in five minutes.
Further, I could easily explain my own work in five minutes. Or I could lecture on the subject for four hours. I’ve done both, depending on the audience. When you know your subject, you don’t fall back on “but I took four years . . .”
December 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pmSkeeter: Read Freire.
We all stand on someone’s shoulders.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm“dbadass, it’s hard to stick to the issue when posters attack the individual, not the point made.”
You will note that I never attacked anyone as manners do indeed matter. In fact I made it very clear that I was not trying to be argumentative nor ill mannered. I simply asked for background and clarification
December 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pmFurther, I could easily explain my own work in five minutes.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pmunless you cleaned latrines, you couldn’t explain what you do in five minutes…not if i had as little understanding of that, whatever it were, as you appear to have of education and schooling…
Here’s a place to start:
The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education by Dr. W. Edwards Deming
All three need change and a return to quality performance.
Another option is to read the Alfie Kohn article linked to in post 16.
Punished by Rewards is another winner. Kohn has lots of articles on his web site.
http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.html
December 16th, 2008 at 5:19 pmThe last one sort of forces me to discount any intelligent things that have been said by the poster.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pmTokin must be fun at dinner parties.
“So, what are you working on, my friend?”
“CAN’T TELL YOU! IT TOOK ME FOUR YEARS . . .”
“OK, nice meeting you.”
December 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pmdbadass, I wasn’t including you in the personal attack group. My apology if that was the impression.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pmAs I said earlier, sometimes it’s best to be quiet, especially if the point is already made well.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pmNot a problem stateofthedivision and 90 did not refer to 89
December 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pmThere is no such thing as a “deep prgmatism.” Not even John Dewey would have used a phrase as meaningless as that.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:11 amWe have a clue as to the new meaningless buzz words.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:55 amAs a long-time educator of educators, I see the problem as much more complex than any discussed here. If I had to pick one thing out of that complexity that might be the key issue, it’s that policy is made by too many people who either don’t know how people learn or they think it’s not relevant.
Certainly, No Child Left Behind, based on sound business principles of accountability (apparently for everyone except the top echelons given the CEO corruption recently exposed). However, business principles are totally not applicable to all the learning processes that different people bring to their schooling.
All the little paths and connections within each person’s brain are unique to him or her. Consequently, no one-size-fits-all methodology will suit very many learners. There are auditory learners and visual learners, analyzers and synthesizers, product oriented and process oriented learners; methodical and inventive, linear and random thinkers, those skilled in fact accumulation and those skilled in creative thinking. The litany of learning styles goes on and on and on; too many to deal with here.
Multiple intelligences is a well-researched, but well-ignored doctrine. I’m pretty well convinced this is because the political aspects of the educational structure is so business oriented they can only operate on one level, the bottom-line mentality: Objective, concrete, accountable. If you can’t count it, it isn’t worth anything. Unfortunately, in this learning environment those whose mental circumstances aren’t objective or concrete are ignored and lost unless they can bend their unique learning processes to that wheel. Quite a feat for a six- or seven-year old.
The current teaching processes essentially are dependent on rote memorization and based on an agricultural/industrial model. With the advent of the computer, they are obsolete. What is needed is a high tech/communication model and this requires more invention and creativity (a good reason for inclusion of the arts in any curriculum)in order to face the challenges of the 21st century. Don’t teach to the tests, teach to the individual learning process.
December 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pmAs a long-time educator of educators, I see the problem as much more complex than any discussed here. If I had to pick one thing out of that complexity that might be the key issue, it’s that policy is made by too many people who either don’t know how people learn or they think it’s not relevant.
Certainly, No Child Left Behind, based on sound business principles of accountability (apparently for everyone except the top echelons given the CEO corruption recently exposed). However, business principles are totally not applicable to all the learning processes that different people bring to their schooling.
All the little paths and connections within each person’s brain are unique to him or her. Consequently, no one-size-fits-all methodology will suit very many learners. There are auditory learners and visual learners, analyzers and synthesizers, product oriented and process oriented learners; methodical and inventive, linear and random thinkers, those skilled in fact accumulation and those skilled in creative thinking. The litany of learning styles goes on and on and on; too many to deal with here.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:32 am