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.

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.

“So, what are you working on, my friend?”

“CAN’T TELL YOU! IT TOOK ME FOUR YEARS . . .”

“OK, nice meeting you.”

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

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

We all stand on someone’s shoulders.

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 . . .”

Okay, explain Physics. You have five minutes.

Two words, sweetie: Read Dewey.

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.

Fine, please explain srring theory to me? you have five minutes.

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.