I was invited to speak at a local rotary club on the subject of educational reform. I presented a brief version of my "Connected Learning" whitepaper. During the Q&A a person asked a question that I have been struggling with for the last 30 years. I now pose the question to you.
If Universities train teachers are they not responsible for the failures in public education?
All of my research has led me over and over again to the same conclusion, an unequivocal yes!
The problems in education were first reported in the 1960s. Over the last 45 years the problem has only gotten more profound. During the same time we created more Ph.D.s than existed in all the rest of human history.
Our schools of education are filled with them. It is almost impossible to get a job teaching in one of these schools without a Ph.D. Veteran public school educators are rejected in favor of research oriented Ph.D.s with little or no in the trenches teaching experience.
Classroom practice, in schools of education, ignors good pedagogy, learning theory and common sense in favor of what is expediant. One Indiana University reports that the average college professor spends 2 hours in practical discussions per semester.
If schools of education would reform themselves then better teachers would be trained and reform of education would occur in years rather than decades.
Universities and schools of education give preference to research rather than skills in educational praxis. Tenure is awarded for the papers written rather than skill in the classroom and the quality of that research.
Even with research, quantity seems to take precedence over quality. The issue of quality is only indirectly addressed by rating the Journal of publication rather than the article itself. A scholar who writes a few high quality papers might not do so well when it comes to tenure. The scholar who writes mediocre works, prolifically, may well receive the benefits.
The practitioner of high quality teaching is third on the list, if at all. One has to ask, is there is any direct relationship between research (formal) and the quality of teaching? If there is, I have not seen it. Both are worthy goals, but it takes time and effort to be a great professor. In most cases there is not enough time in the day to be both. The fact is that this research paradox is about the reputation of the school not the quality of the instruction.
Academe is measured by the number of Nobel Laureates on the faculty, not how many thinking, caring, motivated leaders they produce.
Donald Kennedy, former president of Stanford University, wrote, "I hope we can agree that the quantitative use of research output as a criterion for appointment or promotion is a bankrupt idea." Despite this admonition it remains entrenched in most Universities.
The modeling and imitation of faculty gives legitimacy to impoverish methods. Teachers learn and behave in their own classrooms by modeling the examples provide by their professors. If professors provide good examples they will have a positive impact on developing better teachers.
We don't need more trivial research, we need rigorous application of what we already know.
It is often said that the problems lie with the political realities of communities and the nation. I assert it is the responsibility of the Universities to understand those realities and to prepare teachers to face them. It is a responsibility to the society, that in effect, gives them the privilege of being professors.
There, I've said it. I have finally admitted to myself that our Colleges and Universities have created the problem by the systemic failure to heal themselves.
I know that my colleagues will say that my criticism is unfounded and this failure does not happen at their schools. If you are reflexive and honest with your appraisal you will know the truth of it.
The next time you do not give back an exam for 3 weeks, remember my plea.
Tell me I'm wrong, but come with evidence. Denial is not a river in Africa.
Reid Cornwell
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
There was a markable difference between the teachers I had in my college years that were there just for the research, and those that had a genuine teaching vocation.
Thank you... Will you write a further article with some of your suggestions fleshed out a bit? As will all big problems, I realize you do not have all the answers, but with this realization of the lacks in collegiate education of new teachers, it is the beginning of wisdom. Like the boy who says to his mentor, "but I do not understand?" and the Mentor responds, " and that is the beginning of wisdom"
I hope we can take this, "beginning of wisdom" and perhaps build on it. I see a book in your future if you are able to devote the time to the project. Either way, I look forward to your thoughts and I will do my homework, so that I may learn what I can in order to help as a parent and a friend of Education.
Thank you,
I suspect that you were at best in diapers when the rhetoric began. Society has come to expect the lowest common denominator from the creators of "New Math",
Ebonics use of calculators in exams. Let's not forget that Ph.D. educators created "No Child Left Behind" standards. The system is bankrupt and the solution is not curriculum reform.
It does seem rather odd to talk of teaching teaching,but isn't that what the question boils down to?
I think the President tried, but he truly did not have the be4st advisers with the NCLB act.
Living in Texas now, I see schools driven by the testing and the children being taught how to take the test almost as often as being taught subject material.
That was my experience in secondary education. Frankly, text book publishers do more to show how to teach from a given textbook than education professors. There were a few exceptions but not many.
Also, special education teaching classes were far better than regular education classes. Here they need ed to explain how things were taught so we could all look for innovative ways to teach to young people with special needs. THe creativity and encourage were tremendous.
Come on folks let's change the world.
Why are they not prepared for what can happen - when kids fail tests, when parents come in, when a kid has an emotional meltdown, when no one in the class reads anywhere NEAR grade level.
They don't know how to get the kids to be quiet and listen, how to see a fight before it breaks out, NOTHING.
I think that "on the job training" just doesn't cut it as a teacher. We wouldn't want our medical profession to learn as they go, why should teachers?
If I may come at this from "outside the box" of educators, the simplest cause of the educational system's breakdown has been the lack of enforcement of discipline, caused by a fear of being sued for punishing students. That said, one would think that the teachers' unions (Randi Weingarten, et al) would support their members who are victims of students. For some reason, they oppose stricter discipline in the classroom, and from the administrative level.
-Lee exactly, if he knew enough how to make a change then why isn't he doing it...
His notion was to train 30 new teachers a semester in the correct method. Does not seem to have worked.
Does anyone really know what characteristics distinguish good teachers? And then how to establish a method of teaching the same?
This has been done. I thinkthey call it effective practices.
We don't need more trivial research, we need rigorous application of what we already know.
At first thought it would seem what is needed is another Locke or Rousseau, a pre-eminent intelligence of conviction and foresight to provide a new application of the available knowledge concerning education and learning. With further reflection comes the realization that education, like politics, religion or philosophy is heavily reliant on theories. History shows that all such unquantifiable and intangible things are most effective when applied by their originators. Once the founding principles and ideas of "The Enlightened One" become institutionalized, the property and responsibility of followers of average intelligence, they are misapplied or not adhered to because they are not fully understood or agreed with or even form the bases of the working philosophy of the inheritors. It is for these reasons that John Dewey spent his latter years fighting against corruptions of his educational ideas.
This is due largely to a theory having little intrinsic value. Its worth is in its usefulness, which is determined by its user's creativity and imagination. Who this person is, their beliefs, values, needs and other prior existing personal characteristics compromise with any theory they take on. Imposed as part of a job requirement it becomes degraded. Seized by an adventurer seeking a means to self-aggrandizement it is discarded. This behavior requires that anything new must be made concrete, something of substance that is adaptable to its user and the fads and fashions of the times while maintaining its essential integrity. From the two curricula presented earlier it can be seen that what we teach, 5+4=9, has remained the same. That this is a fact all children should learn is validated by history which demonstrates it to be an enduring truth despite attempts to attach to it temporal dogma. Only the rhetoric of the reformers varies according to the emphasis of those earlier identified forces external to the schools concerned children that are not learning.
A further direction needed is revealed by this concern. Despite the disruption to learning caused by the reform movement, children do continue to learn, as is their biological imperative.
I think you and I have debated this issue before: You blame teachers; you further blame teachers of teachers, i.e., college professors. You call our work "trivial research," (which I would assume does not include your own as an example). Here you conclude with a demand for "evidence" to refute your claim that educational degree programs--and the professors of education--are the source for the problems in education. Yet there's an irony here: You cite research to bolster your own claims, but then demand "evidence" from those who disagree: What kind of evidence do you find credible that isn't produced by, in your term, "trivial research?"
Put simply, what kind of evidence would be convincing? Would personal experience, or anecdotal evidence do the trick? Does the evidence have to have "data," or does it have to be drawn from an "empirical study?" What kind of empirical study isn't considered "trivial research" to someone--not least of which yourself?
I ask because, of course I disagree with your conclusion that college professors are the "disease" that's killing modern education. The contradiction, though, emerges when you cite a study (one done by . . . a college professor?) to prove your thesis. And how do we know that our educational system is "diseased" except for some (trivial?) study done by probably someone with a college degree (who was undoubtedly taught by some incompetent college professor somewhere).
How do we know there's a problem unless someone does (trivial?) research to identify it? Although I am criticizing your method, I am also disagreeing with your findings/conclusions. I believe you have grossly oversimplified a *socio-cultural and political* malaise; you're blaming the doctor for the patient's ailments.
Finally I am curious:
If there are teachers out there, whose pedagogy is consitent with "best practices," who did the research to find out what the best practices are? And who taught *them?*
I think Lee Smith might have said it best when he said above that "the rhetoric of the reformers varies according to the emphasis of . . . forces external to the schools." If one were to research (via tools learned probably in college) the cycle of "Educational Crises" in America, one would find that it's cyclical, and usually the calls for "reform" are external to those who have the most at stake: politicians, big business, etc., all call for reform throughout U.S. history--even as educators and the teachers of teachers, are fervently doing their work to show that the same politicians and corporate alarmists have misunderstood the problem. When they finally home in on "parents," then the buck usually stops with those who have the least say in curriculum reform or pedagogical practices. Rarely do they ask the kids in school if educational reform is needed; they'd likely just ask to go outside.
The difference in your denunciation of education professors is that you're blaming the very profession that identifies the problems in the first place.
~LC.
Like every generalization my comment struggles under its own weight. Gather posts are low stakes essays and scholarly posts are high stakes.
I have encouraged everyone to read the whitepaper "A Conceptual Framework for Re-forming Education." It is my documented high stakes argument.
If you will you will see that I am an advocate for "re-forming" not "reforming". This distinction is thus. We have the data derived from educational research all the way back to Dewey (yes academics did it). We have multi-disciplinary theory and praxis that correlates to one another. It is this intersection is most fertile.
I am very aware that reformation is disruptive. I suggests a parallel development of pedagogically comparable systems. One is compulsary the other is an available resource that is based on best practice and theory.
My rub with academia is that with all of the evidence available, the college classroom is the least likely place to find re-forming methodologies. Through my gather postings I have offered examples.
I'll try again more explicitly. Best practice says that immediate re-enforcement is the best outcome of assessment. Yet it is common practice to take days and weeks to return tests. Why? We have the technology to make testing occur in real time.
There few attempts to use assessment formatively in academia. It conflicts with the strutural artifacts of tenure.
The Education department at the University of Denver, until very recently, had no joint projects with computer science. The adult education programs operate autonomously from psych, soc and education. This is fundamentally true at UCD, CU, CSU, UWyo and is generally true across the breadth of academia.
Pedagogist do not borrow from adrogogist.
Academic education departments should lead the Universities in development of good practice. They should be role models for good practice campus-wide.
Disagree if you will, but it remains that Universities and colleges teach teachers.
Just as parents create bad habits in their kids, Academics have the responsibility to model good behavior to their students. Most young educators come with a desire to positively contribute, but are shown that they can get away with expedience by bad practices.
Let's implement what we know to date and tweak as necessary. Academia has always been the wellspring of change.
"A Nation at Risk" was published in 1983. Don't you think we've studied the problem enough.
Read my paper. There are real and practicle suggestions there.
I assume you are both teachers or professors. Do you use your tests to assess your teaching or do you simply apply the curve when the class performs poorly. What is the failure rate in your classes. How much do you lecture as opposed to discovery discussions? What is the average latency between your assessments and the returm of them? How much time do you spend teaching strategies for obtaining information as opposed to spewing facts? How many of your students do you actually make an effort to know? Have you ever asked what they think of your skills and methods? Do you like to teach or is it a means to an end? Have you looked around and seen what your colleagues are actually doing in their classroms?These are the questions of positive change.
It seems pretty clear to me that anecdotal evidence is credible for you. In that case, I am tempted to answer each question you pose, in turn. But I've read the "Conceptual Framework" white paper; I'm certain that any answers, which affirm what you believe is "good teaching," won't change your re-form theories or cause you to change your beliefs about Education Department faculty or their work.
It's still regrettable that you put the blame so firmly upon those who care most--and understand most thoroughly--about learning and pedagogy. And you seem to spare all other possible contributors to the ostensible "crisis," including socio-economic factors, political pressures, and pressures from the corporate culture--all of which are brought to bear upon education faculty and their pedagogical/professional choices.
In addition to this "blame-game," (as politicians are wont to name the practice), there's another element that you should put into the mix as you sift and sort the culprits: Education professors currently suffer from small class sizes--there's a teacher shortage, and no end in sight. Soon enough, Reid, they'll only be teaching experienced faculty, and those who need a salary boost. There will be no young, bright faces in the classroom, eager to create their own pathways toward the teaching profession.
This will solve the problem, perhaps, since supply and demand dictates that they will be downsized, leave the professoriate, and turn to more lucrative work that doesn't have a tenure timeline or quizzes to grade. The education majors will have fewer professors, and those who stay within academia will be those who have nowhere else to go. Or they will be the truly incompetent few who could not care less. This is called "self-fulfilling prophecy," and the education majors won't be the only ones who lose out.
Not to worry, Reid: The scourge of education will soon be eliminated by market forces: Fewer education majors means fewer teachers, which--in turn--means fewer education professors. When their numbers are reduced so far that public schools are again taught by recent high school graduates (or community college graduates), it will be understandable since there are currenlty few professions which require so much training and preparation, only to be subject to such close scrutiny by so many.
~L.C.
I waited all day for your response. I am sad that your defensiveness doesn't allow you to answer my questions or for that matter ask me to justify my opinions. Your response seems to shoot the messenger rather than address the message.
Tell me your story. I am receptive.
Do you use your tests to assess your teaching or do you simply apply the curve when the class performs poorly?
What is the failure rate in your classes?
How much do you lecture as opposed to discovery discussions?
What is the average latency between your assessments and the returm of them?
How much time do you spend teaching strategies for obtaining information as opposed to spewing facts?
How many of your students do you actually make an effort to know?
Have you ever asked what they think of your skills and methods?
Do you like to teach or is it a means to an end?
Have you looked around and seen what your colleagues are actually doing in their classrooms?
Defensive postures occur when one perceives an assault; they are also pedagogical (or adogogical, whatever): When you describe my colleagues in disparaging, insulting terms, perhaps you will recognize that you've assaulted them.
In spite of the patronizing tone of your queries, I am perfectly capable of answering questions about my teaching practices.
I'll begin with the last (condescending) question:
Yes, I have "actually" visited my colleague's classrooms. I do so regularly, especially when they report that they're trying something new, and they'd like feedback. I have also mentored new graduate students who are learning to teach for the first time. Part of my mentoring commitment includes classroom observation at least twice during the semester. I "actually" care. I am "actually" interested in their teaching and their students.
The turnaround time for my student's assignments is never, ever more than two class periods. That includes their 5-page papers. That includes my graduate students' conference paper drafts. It is a policy that is written on my syllabi.
My failure rate hovers between 2-5 percent; I know because I track it. I deeply regret each and every failure. I have self-assessment tools that I give to my students--*in addition to* the University's mandated "Student Satisfaction Surveys." I ask for prose feedback; they are anonymous. I revise my syllabi and assignments every time I teach a course. Textbook publishers have me on speed dial because I am constantly seeking new and improved textbooks for my courses.
About a "curve:" There is no "curve" possible in a writing-intensive course, even though my students have demanded a curve—and criticized me when I refuse to create one. All of my courses require students to write, share, discuss, debate, research, and learn how to improve their research/learning skills through shared narratives about their "dead-ends" and their successes as they seek answers to self-generated problems and questions. Again, we do all this work in my classrooms, in spite of the students' clamoring for standardized tests, "bell curves," and less critical thinking, reading, writing, and sharing.
I do all of this, Reid, in spite of the fact that these students will become teachers in a public school system that will devalue the experiences and knowledge they gained in my classroom. Their passion for students will likely be tossed aside after just one semester in a public school, and where they will actually "teach" their public school students probably 3 or 4 critical "skills" before they're expected to shift their curriculum toward the state-mandated standardized tests, which will determine whether they will get to keep their jobs.
And I learned so much of what I know about pedagogy, learning, and "best practices" from the best teachers on campus: The faculty of Education Departments in the years where I was gaining my public school teaching certification. All of what I learned then is brought to bear as I teach, and they were outstanding teachers of teachers. I keep up with the research on pedagogy, and this "trivial research" enables me to develop creative and useful techniques that I hope my students will model when they become teachers.
Again, I've read your White Paper. I have also studied literacy theory, the history of educational institutions, and U.S. History, and I recognize the debate in ways that Freud would call "uncanny." Before the Civil War, "educational reformers" at the grassroots, joined Yankee politicians in order to desperately create a school curriculum that would accommodate new immigrants and the poor within the new public school systems of the North (they recognized that the slaveholding South was beyond repair). Their concern then was that these folks were not integrating into the capitalist democracy efficiently enough. They weren't becoming good factory laborers, which were desperately needed during the nascent Industrial Revolution. They created a curriculum that would transform these impoverished folks into good democratic citizens, who could be easily controlled and thereby readied for their factory jobs.
Another "crisis" in education occurred during the 60s and 70s: "Why Johnny Can't Read" identified a symptom and called it a disease. The report ignored feminization (and devaluation) of the teaching profession, and the surge of "non-traditional students" (veterans, desegregation students, etc) and called it a "crisis" based upon a downturn they saw in biased, standardized tests that are well-documented as elitist and exclusive *by design.*
As the saying goes, "There's nothing new under the sun." But there is something new in your denunciation of education department faculty: You say I am "shooting the messenger." Well, I say your scathing criticism tortures the physicians who care most about the patients, in order to get at the epidemic of overpoliticized, under funded, undervalued public education.
The best teaching on any university campus happens in the Education Department, and these colleagues share their research and their knowledge about best practices on a regular basis. Few of my colleagues in other departments care. Your condescension toward them reveals how deep and intractable the negative perception can go.
Education Departments are training teachers in ways that are entirely consistent with the research; yet these teachers are sent out into public schools where they are harassed by administration, harried by corporate interests, abused by angry parents, and disrespected (if not physically assaulted and menaced) by bored students.
I defend my colleagues because I know you are wrong in your characterization of them. And you should "read" my defensive posture as necessitated by your assault upon their commitment and passion for their profession and their students.
~L.C.
Since university age students are adults, Pedagogy may not be applicable. It is certain that there are age related difference in learning.
You and your school may be the exception to all that I have written. This is good. I am not the god-head. As I said, "I write to be falsified."
Ponder this, In the reactions to my criticism more people have agreed than disagreed. It may be that those who have not challenged me think my criticism is so out rageous that it doesn't warrant a response. Then again it may be that I hit a nerve as evidenced by the agreement. I truly wish I knew.
To my credit, I got one good teacher to tell me what they are doing. I applaud the obvious quality of your work. I can tell from your practice that we agree more than disagree.
I did not mean to patronize you. For this I apologize. My questions were an an appeal to be reflexive on issues that do not require anything more than a change of attitude to implement. Bravo to you.
As to anedotal evidence. I spend many hours in lots of schools. I know that one swallow doesn't make a summer. However, last year I visited 30 campuses. I gave 12 seminars to an average of 70 students and faculty. My observations and opinions are forged by that experience. I do not recant my criticism.
While you are the exception, in colorado 30% of the freshemen fail the muster in the first year. The pre-admission vetting should produce statistics like you express proudly (and should).
From a socialogical point of view, the defence of your colleagues is tribalistic. -Becker "Academic Tribes"
My intent is to shake up the knee-jerk defenses in academia. You admit that your colleagues in other disciplines "don't care". The fact is that your students likely take more courses in other departments than in your department. If these professors are as you say then, the education department should lead the revolution against these forces.
These professors have as much weight in providing poor models as you do. In fact, I could argue that the path of least resistance and effort is more attractive. I could also argue that mediocraty is an addiction learned from poor role models.
To quote Eldrige Cleaver, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem (generic you)."
You wrote, "Well, I say your scathing criticism tortures the physicians who care most about the patients." My experience says this is erroneous. I see more caring in Universities for research than teaching because this leads to tenure no matter what department you are in.
You used a medical metaphor to discredit my comments. The medical profession suffers from a problem that Universities also have. They do not police their own. As is the case with Universities and public education, Medicine has been politicisized because of the consumer perception that it will take external force to initiate change.
You wrote, "Education Departments are training teachers in ways that are entirely consistent with the research; yet these teachers are sent out into public schools where they are harassed by administration, harried by corporate interests, abused by angry parents, and disrespected (if not physically assaulted and menaced) by bored students."
1. Certified administrators are certificated educators trained by Universities to teach and secodarily by Universities to be administrators.
2. For whathever reasons parents are fearful for their kids and they get teachers that could not be less reponsive to the aprehension.
3. Why is education producing "Boredom"? The answer lies in my criticism.
4. Corporate interest are where most of the students will be employed. If you don't prepare student for this you are failing them.
NCLB produced explicit and quantifiable standards. These content standards can be put online in engaging ways and tested both formatively and summatively. In doing so it leaves the teachers with the time to act as mentors and interpretors for the cognitively difficult tasks of knowledge acquisition (not facts).
You provided me with a good argument for my proposal. Thank you.
When every school board in the nation has such a high degree of autonomy and socio-economic inequalities weigh so heavily against, or for, educational success, why do we still have this 19th Century system in place?
For example, it's been shown over and over again what just one factor in the equation can mean---that being property taxes---whereby the poorest areas routinely have the worst schools, which simply perpetuates the cycle.
I think that may be one of the areas where we can start applying the research that has been done, for decades now.
Perhaps that is what Reid is really calling for. As opposed to spending time and money on *yet more research* that simply confirms what we already know (via the plentiful examples of prior research), academe turns it's significant intellectual and social influence toward enacting change.
It's easy to bicker or takes professional slights personally, but the real challenge lies elsewhere. And unfortunately, it's a challenge that requires work that isn't exactly what tenure committees are most interested in seeing. Publishing in professional journals isn't going to help...
This issue is populist in nature.
Will academe take it's future into its own hands, or will we simply bristle and/or preen for one another in our journals and conferences, as change is forced upon us from the outside?
And you can bet change is on the way in higher ed---Spelling's "Commission on Higher Education" is poised to begin using accreditation as a means to its ends. And this is just the first salvo.
My university experience crosses over 30 years and four campuses. My teaching degree came in the middle, at a state teacher's college, and my overwhelming impression is that the inspiring teachers were few and far between. There were professors who were obviously above their level and professors with good intentions that didn't result in effective communication. There were just a few that made a true difference, like the one who introduced our class to the writing of Alfie Kohn.
The best analysis of the entire, complex mess was by Frank Smith in his book The Book of Learning and Forgetting. It shifted me away from teaching to the short-term memory to developing tools, on my own, that take foreign languages to long-term memory. I don't think that we have a very good grasp of that as a profession and that good people end up arguing about things that are not really root causes but rather symptoms that look like causes.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of communication, which is in turn an extremely subtle art requiring free-flowing dialogue rather than dictatorial, curriculum-bound pipelines of pressurized knowledge. As a species, we don't have good communication skills; most of our skill lies in the area of analyzing differences and thus finding ways to disagree. The lack of ability to seek consensus is reflected in all our institutions and national behavior, through our schools and far beyond.
Beware the spelling of the word practical.
". . . it's been shown over and over again what just one factor in the equation can mean---that being property taxes---whereby the poorest areas routinely have the worst schools, which simply perpetuates the cycle."
Reid: Where does your "re-form" address socio-economic factors, e.g., taxes, poverty, and unequal distribution of wealth? I don't think "educational reforms" have ever addressed these core issues, except to say that "education is the key to social advancement," or somesuch.
It seems to me that wealthy, ignorant presidents don't seem to fit the paradigm.
~L.C.
We have found the common ground. I saw a bumper sticker that sums my view. "Somewhere in Texas a Village Has Lost Its Idiot"
On another note, I have hidden a major point in the Re-Form paper. If you aggressively seek the best, educators, the best curriculum, the best programmers and mate them to produce online learning we can provide that in multiple languages make it available nation wide.
At the core of my thinking we can embed education on the web in such a way that the kids can get the best. I am not talking about McDonaldizing education. I am taking about a resource that can be use by students, parents and teachers.
Give me the money we spend in one day in Iraq and I know where to find the people to produce what I'm suggesting. There are at least two of them involved in this thread.
I am married to another.
To circle back to the socio-economic issues, by creating a super school online and making it available to all takers. we level the playing field.
I went to dinner with my wife this evening. On the way over we were talking about this thread. She said of our county (sarcasticly) "All we have here are excetional kids and hispanics."
It made me think that if we treated all children as if they were candidates for special education it would provide learner centered praxis and advance the goals that I think we now agree on.
Also FirstMonday.org has a new article on higher education and the internet. It is a survey of 4500 academics.
Gerry - thanks again for the spell check - what do you expect from a farm boy from N.C. - I realy mean the thanks
Dan - I'm feeling well, let's finally get together.
L.C. - I really like your point of view and spunk. Invite me to speak at your school. I want to meet you.
I'm off for the evening.
Reid
Reid
Spunk?! You gotta be kidding me. . . "spunk" is the delightful characteristic of a child.
When a college professor can be described as one who exhibits "spunk," he's usually resting comfortably in a mental institution--that is, unless the term is used to describe a woman, in which case it's extremely patronizing.
(Spunk?)
There are some things I can resonate with in your definition. Wikipedia defines "Spunk" as synonymous with courage or entheusiasm. It is in the spirit of the Wikipedia definition that I offer my comments.
I admire anyone who challenges my rants. I write to be falsified.
Can you point me to a woman who has spunk in the spirit of your definition.
Reid
Why not require parents to teach their children in the same way that certain vaccinations are required? And if the parents can't do it THEN set up K-3 for them?
I do not believe that the current system can be reformed. the problems in public education are socialogically systemic and improvement of curriculum through NCLB standards is like putting a bandaid on a ruptured artery.
I am proposing that a seperate system be created, leveraging state-of-the art technology and which side steps the systemic problems.
This system could be used as complete package that could result in a diploma or it could be used as a resource for students, parents and teachers. It is in effect a parallel system.
Research has shown that online learnig is no worse or no better than the current system. i.e it couldn't hurt. But the caveate is that current technology has not yet been exploited systemicaly. i.e simulations, gaming, online assessment etc.
I don't want to wander into the swamp of local and national educational politics.
Reid
Most colleges do teach teacher efficacy. I know mine does.
Prior to Gutenburg education was not generally available. The arduous production of handwritten iluminated books made knowledge inaccessible to the average person. Each advance in communication has made more and more information available to greater and greater numbers of people.
The Internet has connected vast numbers of people to vast amounts of information and the process has only begun. As time goes on we will see resources to be learned increase exponetially.
The level playing field is about equal access to information. Just as Gutenburg allowed knowledge to escape from monastic and scholastic priviledge, the Internet has allowed knowledge to be available to anyone who can gain access to computers and the internet.
A textbook, by its nature, is an iteration of knowledge that has been pre-chewed by a scholar to be the "standards" for a subject body. The standards inherent in NCLB are equivalent.
I can now take a textbook, go online, and find the full text of materials used to construct that textbook. Both teachers and textbooks, at the core, are resources to synthesize vast amounts of information for learners in age appropriate formats and strategies.
Teaching is in effect a technology that precedes textbooks. Living libraries so to speak.
The internet offers the way to peel the onion of knowledge. But no matter how vast the store of information online it will still take "teachers" to make that information tru knowledge.
Let computers manage the information and data, let teachers be mentors, coaches, and synthesizers. Internet and teaching are not mutually exclusive. NCLB would be the yardstick of basic acheivment.
Grades resulting from testing, in American education, is often confounded as the goal rather than a measurement of the achievement of those goals. Testing in my opin is now more about social control than achievement.
I once gave my final exam on the fist day of a class. I graded it quickly, gave it back and the spent the semester backfilling what the students didn't know. I relegated homework to the acquisition of facts and class time to building conceptual understanding. I gave another final at the end with asounding results. The dean of my college wanted to fire me for making a mockery of the tradition processes.
One of the many cause of the failures in American education is nonsense assessment strategies. I call it abuse by testing. but that is a chapter in my book.
On the broad topic; I confidently state that universities are responsible for SOME of the failures in public education; and that you are right in saying that the forced division of teachers' attentions between researching/publishing and educating pupils is a big part of that.
The solution to this would be to stop demanding both from every individual; especially when they only want to pursue one or the other path. Universities would be well served to have separate research and education arms that can share knowledge and work together for benefit.
The biggest failure I perceive in public education is, as others have pointed to, the differences between teaching wrote and thinking.
For example: What is more important for people to know and remember; the date, the weather conditions and the materials boats were made of when Washington crossed the Delaware or why he did it and why others followed him?
An additional problem I see in public education is the use of discipline and punishment as a teaching method. If discipline were an effective teaching method our prisons would be turning out doctorates. But they are not.
Segments of society have yet to grasp that the stick is most often an anti-teaching method that closes and hardens pupil's hearts and minds and drives them away from wanting to learn. The best way to prevent disruption in the classroom is to keep every individual engaged.
Lastly, about universities and training. Once a teacher becomes a teacher training should be ongoing. There are new ideas that are being explored all of the time. You will notice also that in school districts where the children are succeeding that the teachers are included in conferences and other in-service training. Education is not rocket science. Unfortunately, education is not equal in all communities and therin lies the problem.
I was giving a seminar at the University of Denver. During the seminar I said, "Don't fix what aint broken." My department head came to me later and told me that the Dean of the Natural Science department had cornered him to complain about my using "aint".
The first time I ever heard that phrase it was spoken by William Faulkner in a late night conversation over a cigarette.
Fogleman writes about the sex life of drosophiia and Faulker created beautiful metahors. I think I like Faulkner better.
You and Fogleman should get along well. I write for Gather with no editor and no spell checker. I have editors for other venues.
People who correct other people's spelling or grammar usually have nothing else to say. The wisest man I ever met could hardly read and worked with his hands.
Frankly, I would shoot myself if all I had left was to correct spelling.
After reading your first post I discoved that you and I have more in common than difference in our thinking. I need another editor.
By the way you mis-spelled my name.
Reid
My apologies for offending. I confess, I'm dogged on myself (though still not perfect) about checking my spelling. A hanging on from the teachings of my mother and grandfather, who were a teacher and college professor, respectively. It's also a way of compensating for the fact that I have had but a few years of community college.
Let me state now what I left unstated previously; I am personally very glad to know that a man of your letters cares, studies, contemplates, writes and speaks on this topic. Change is best aided by those within.
If you read through my postings to Gather I think you'll find that I am definetly more Faulkner than Fogelman. I have no idea what "drosophiia" are, but I can see it would lend to many an intriguing rhyme or metaphor.
My apologies for misspelling your name; and my best wishes to you in all your endeavors.
Yes, what you say is true. But the problems go beyond this.
Place the best-educated teachers in the worst school systems with the lowest number of fiscal resources, poor physical facilities with students who come from multiple-problem families, and there is a limit to what teachers can do.
In Massachusetts, teachers with a Ph.D. are NOT allowed to teach in public schools, as they would compete with the growing number of Ed.D.s in the school system.
A Ph.D. also is not the correct degree for teaching; an Ed.D. may not be that wise, either.
Teaching is a gift and a calling.
If this country places more emphasis on social programs, then maybe we would get somewhere.
My children were fortunate in being able to attend the best public schools in this town, which is very close to Harvard in proximity. Many parents actually did NOT send their kids to private schools here, but chose to send them to the public schools.
The fact that my town is right next to Cambridge and has a lot of Harvard alumni is part of the reason for the success of the school system here, which sent 16 Seniors to Harvard this past September. Other students went to other Ivies and second-tier schools, as well as top State U.
The parents, Harvard, MIT and others, push the schools here and also provide a lot of financial resources in property taxes, as well as extra supplies where needed.
TThe teachers are very well trained here. The town I live in is a town rather than a bedroom suburb; we have all income levels and all ethnic groups, and multiple disabilities, as well as students bussed from Boston.
The family is the first and best teacher of all. Please remember that.
I DO think how teachers are taught and what they teach is not always optimal. These days, compared to my days in the 50s and 60s, the teaching is sometimes idiosyncratic.
Yes, what you say is true. But the problems go beyond this.
Place the best-educated teachers in the worst school systems with the lowest number of fiscal resources, poor physical facilities with students who come from multiple-problem families, and there is a limit to what teachers can do.
In Massachusetts, teachers with a Ph.D. are NOT allowed to teach in public schools, as they would compete with the growing number of Ed.D.s in the school system.
A Ph.D. also is not the correct degree for teaching; an Ed.D. may not be that wise, either.
Teaching is a gift and a calling.
If this country places more emphasis on social programs, then maybe we would get somewhere.
My children were fortunate in being able to attend the best public schools in this town, which is very close to Harvard in proximity. Many parents actually did NOT send their kids to private schools here, but chose to send them to the public schools.
The fact that my town is right next to Cambridge and has a lot of Harvard alumni is part of the reason for the success of the school system here, which sent 16 Seniors to Harvard this past September. Other students went to other Ivies and second-tier schools, as well as top State U.
The parents, Harvard, MIT and others, push the schools here and also provide a lot of financial resources in property taxes, as well as extra supplies where needed.
TThe teachers are very well trained here. The town I live in is a town rather than a bedroom suburb; we have all income levels and all ethnic groups, and multiple disabilities, as well as students bussed from Boston.
The family is the first and best teacher of all. Please remember that.
I DO think how teachers are taught and what they teach is not always optimal. These days, compared to my days in the 50s and 60s, the teaching is sometimes idiosyncratic.
And I hear about the strain on resources because local bond levies fail. And I hear about the unfunded federal mandates that leave teachers trying to manage classes that include "special needs" kids and all kinds of behavior issues with no help and little to no training.
I have never yet heard one classroom teacher tell me that their problems were rooted in what they were, or were not, taught in college.
If you want to hold academia accountable for what happens after their work is done, then we need to hold engineering schools accountable for the failure of the Big Dig. And we need to hold all business schools accountable for the current backdating of executive stock options. And we need to hold all science departments accountable for the kickback problems at NIH.
At what point, in your estimation, do graduates become accountable for their OWN choices and actions after graduation?
Any teacher you talk to will give you the parent excuse. The fact is that, they are not taught how to explain to parents the realities of the child. They don't know the realities of the child. Learning is a complex mix of political, genetic, social, pyschological and pedagogical factors. These disciplines are not integrated at the higher education level. A one semester course in educational psychology is all that is required for certification. I have taught the course and have studied the subject since 1967. I'm not sure I understand the problems. But one semester is not even a good survey of the subject. The same is true of child psychology, adolescent psychology and learning theory. Not to mention the sociology of learning groups, social psychology, curriculum research and theory.
I refuse to blame the public school classroom teacher for their ignorance. It is the University that has failed them and they are the victims as much as the kids they teach.
My personal experience supports my criticism. I have just spent 12 years in school with my youngest son. My wife is a teacher in the same district, I am an educator as well. Despite all of our relatedness, the teachers, despite our involvement, never sought our help with our child. When we tried to get information we were treated as pariahs. He is ADHD (medically diagnosed) each year we had a meeting to develop his learning plan. (504 plan) Each year that plan was ignored and promptly forgotten. We never complained and tried to work with the system.
I founded Focus On Education Foundation to help provide funds to support our schools. These teachers never took advantage of the resources. In frustration I took the money to do research myself.
I am the wrong person to talk about complaining parents. My son's teachers just didn't get it. They didn't get it because they were never taght how to get it. They were never prepared to deal with the problems they encounter. It is the role of the University to determine by way of research what is needed in the primary and secondary classrooms and to teach it to their students.
In our district they talk the talk but do not walk the walk. They talk about learner centered education and claim to be devotes' but have no clue how the make it happen in the classroom. They talk about formative assessment but do not know how to make it praxis.
Universities don't try, for the most part, to be leaner centered. The schools the young educators came from are not learner centered as well. When the young educator gets their own classroom. They know the words but have never seen "Learner Centered" in practice.
Oddly the special education teachers walk the walk and talk the talk every day. Special education, as a discipline, attempts to train the teachers correctly. We should treat every child as special and provide meaninful education plans for each and every one.
Parents see the accommodation for special kids and get angry when it appears that their child is shortshrift by comparison. The high ability children are particularly ignored. It is reflected by the shrill voices of the parents. Of course those parents are going to be vocal.
Let's not forget that the parents are not far removed from their own horror stories and experiences in schools. They bring their own baggage and anger to the equation. They don't want their kids to have the same experiences that they did.
But no it's not the university's fault that real life happens in school districts. Bureaucracy happens. People do the best they can do, and sometimes good things happen and sometimes not. If you truly believe you can personally fix the human condition, well good luck darlin'.
If you have had a rotten experience with the school district in your area, either move your kid to private school or find a better district. Going back to a university and announcing that something they taught a teacher 5 years ago is somehow responsible now for what is going wrong in your life somehow just doesn't ring true.
There are always 10 people in the world who can overcome all obstacles and leap tall buildings in a single bound. The rest of humanity just does the best they can do on any given day. C'est la vie.
My eperience was independent of my research. Anecdotal as it may be, is supported by a plethora of other people's research from the national and international research community.
I assert that you are dead wrong on "people do the best they can do". The evidence suggest otherwise. I have spent the better part of the last three years gathering that evidence.
It is my nature to be apolgetic for the system. The evidence, not my speculation, has led to the things I have said in this group. Again, I suggest you read http://tcfir.org/whitepapers/Connected%20Learning%20Framework.pdf . If you don't accept my conclusion "A Nation At Risk" speaks to the same conclusion.
With all due respect your comment suggest denial of a clear body of evidence.
I am writing a book ( already under contract) on this subject. I got the contract because of the rigorous research presented in the proposal. I am interested in knowing any information that may falsify any thing I say. If you have such evidence I would hope you tell me about it.
Of course there are people who get it right. Of course there are families that have wonderderful experiences with wonderful teachers. The fact remains that 30% of college freshmen will fail out. This is at an all time high. The fact remains that this number is more than statistically significant.
I would be delighted to come to your university and research the pratices of your faculty. I would be delighted to admit to being wrong. However, absent good evidence to the contrary I have to assume your defense is precisely what you are accusing me of doing - Generalizing from personal and anecdotal experience. ie show me the data.
I just re-read your comment. Your statement, "either move your kid to private school or find a better district." is nonsense. It discredits anything else you may have said.
It is a marvelous example of elitism, academic arrogance and priveledging. We had alot of it on our family farm. BS
My experience was independent of my research. Anecdotal as it may be, it is supported by a plethora of other people's research from the national and international research community.
I assert that you are dead wrong on "people do the best they can do". The evidence suggest otherwise. I have spent the better part of the last three years gathering that evidence.
It is my nature to be apolgetic for the system. The evidence, not my speculation or anecdotes, has led to the things I have said in this group. Again, I suggest you read http://tcfir.org/whitepapers/Connected%20Learning%20Framework.pdf . If you don't accept my conclusion "A Nation At Risk" speaks to the same conclusion.
With all due respect, your comment suggest denial of a clear body of evidence.
I am writing a book ( already under contract) on this subject. I got the contract because of the rigorous research presented in the proposal. I am interested in knowing any information that may falsify any thing I say. If you have such evidence I would hope you tell me about it.
Of course there are people who get it right. Of course there are families that have wonderderful experiences with wonderful teachers. The fact remains that 30% of college freshmen will fail. One in three young people will not graduate from high school. This is at an all time high. The fact remains that these numbers are more than statistically significant.
I would be delighted to come to your university and research the pratices of your faculty. I would be delighted to admit to being wrong. However, absent good evidence to the contrary I have to assume your defense is precisely what you are acusing me of doing - Generalizing from personal and anecdotal experience. ie show me the data.
I have interviewed hundreds of public school educators. Almost universally they have said that their college experience did not prepare them for ther classroom. Moreover they report that they had to unlearn what they learned at their college. How many of your faculty have ever taught in a public school? I know of several university professors who didn't make it to Christmas when they attempted to teach in a Public school. In most universities a 20 year veteran in public education cannot be hired in a university simply because they don't have a Ph.D. or D.Ed. Tell me how a new Ph.D., with not a shred of experience in public education, can teach anything other than theory.
I just re-read your comment. Your statement, "either move your kid to private school or find a better district." is nonsense. It discredits anything else you may have said. It is a marvelous example of elitism, academic arrogance and priveledging. We had alot of it on our family farm. BS
Expand your research; find out how many doctors can practice medicine straight out of med school without additional training. Find out how many lawyers can practice law without additional training. Find out how many engineers can walk out of a university and design new machines and buildings without additional training. Find an MBA program that guarantees that its graduates can, Day 1, manage whole corporations or even a division of one without additional training. Find ANY profession/job that where someone emerges out of college or training with knowledge sufficient to do the job without additional training. Not to mention.. how many times people are hired in jobs and then promptly told that their training is not fully relevant or out of date.
Indeed there is a need for both theoretical and practical training. Some jobs/professions are more easily taught the practical aspects while students are still in a classroom. The vast majority of jobs and professions will always require on the job training, retraining and ongoing education. This does not mean that the undergraduate or graduate education was insufficient or defective. There are always new theories and methodologies to test and the only way to test them is in the real world. Some succeed and some fail. Yes, people get hurt. Anyone who has lived in a corporation anytime in the last 15 years can easily attest to how easy it is to be hurt by testing new corporate structures and maangement theories. By what other means should they be tested?
And while you are citing the fact that people fail high school and college in large numbers, it would be very useful to know what their previous academic records were prior to matriculation, as well as their family and economic background.
But .. good luck with your book. And no, the statement about moving or changing districts is neither nonsense nor does it discredit anything else I said. If your district is indeed one of those that is not working well for you, find one that does. One assumes you would not continue to wear clothes that did not fit; one assumes that a person has the good sense to change jobs if the person and the business culture of the company are not a match. There is no contradiction between stating that some schools succeed and also stating that yours may not. You may indeed not get good results from your home district. You wouldn't be the first or last parent to move to a different school district that had programs better suited to your child.
I let the data drive the conlusions. You might benefit from that approach.
I invite you to take our paper and tear it apart word by word. Hell, I'll give you a chapter to do just that, as long as you bring good data with the criticisms. But now all I hear is vacuous opinions.
My favourite line.... I have some profs that seem to never give back exams... or papers, either.... one that I'm trying to get back was written and submitted back in early November... I know the grade I got...but without feedback, what is the use of it?