Everyone is used to FAQs showing up on websites, especially for tech support when they want you to figure it out for yourself so they don’t have to spend as much of their resources to handhold their customers through technical problems. In education the objective is the opposite. They don’t want any questions at all. Education FUQs are Frequently Unasked Questions about our education system and its realities. The thesis is that unasked questions are unanswered questions. Most of you are probably a bit nonplussed because for most school districts the flow of information from them is robust and it makes you assume that everything is as well as could be expected with the “stingy budgets” they have to work with. Following are some favorite unasked questions and some abbreviated answers. The hope is that they will motivate you to begin asking your local schools some of these questions and that you do not accept their answer as the truth without significant follow up questions and some independent research. If you do it well, your conclusion will surely be that the information from the educators is at best slanted propaganda and at worst outright lies. Sorry if that puts you off but it is true.
FUQs related to education in America
1. How does my local school’s student achievement compare to other education entities, globally? A favorite game played by school districts is to compare themselves to only other districts within the same state or local area. To assess your school district’s performance you must measure it against the best global competition. This is really the only metric that matters.
2. Why can’t we seem to make progress on reducing the achievement gap between the minority and poor kids and their demographically better off peers? Robert Kennedy called the achievement gap a stain on our national honor over 3 decades ago. Yet, the problem is worse now than when he commented on it. Billions of dollars have been spent but to no avail except for enriching the adults who work in education.
3. Why do educators always clamor for more money, more money, more money? Two reasons. First, it makes a great excuse for not performing better since they can claim we didn’t provide them with all the resources they say they need to do their job. Second, it is greed so that the individuals and the power groups who make their living at the public education trough can be further enriched and politically empowered. One fact to ponder is that the funding per pupil in American education has increased by about twice the rate of inflation for over 4 decades. Yet, achievement of the students has not improved and in some ways is worse.
4. Is it reasonable to use graduation from an education school teacher or leadership program as the basis for certification? No, the education schools are basically diploma mills whose purpose is to extract money from the education system to fund other parts of the university. They provide little rigor and virtually none in subject matter.
5. Is it reasonable to pay teachers based on years of experience rather than their performance? No.
6. Are education doctorates required for superintendents to perform their jobs? No, if they were of value our education performance would be top notch not abysmal as is the reality. We have an oversupply of education doctorates and an undersupply of competent education leaders.
7. Why do politicians legislate education funding by specifying process very tightly in a one size fits all formula rather than specifying the required results with penalties in resource availability if the results are not attained? Short answer—the legislatures want to lock the status quo in place to please their campaign donors.
There are many more questions that need to be asked. However, if you start with these you will be much further along than most on the road to objective understanding of our failed education process.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Progressive Education Wrong from the Beginning Three
Conclusions/Action Plan
What is to be done if we care about rescuing our kids’ futures let alone America’s competitiveness in the global society? First, we must overcome the belief that changing the system at its foundational level is not required and that incremental changes can solve the problems. As the E.D. Hirsch quote at the beginning of part one points out, the current Progressive dominated education system is evil. Why, because it harms kids and especially poor and minority kids. You cannot overcome evil through negotiations (I have tried). You cannot overcome evil by being “reasonable.” There is only one way to eliminate the progressive poison from the education system. Sadly, that is through all out war.
Now is a good time to reiterate JFK’s remarks from the introduction of Part Two. “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” We could replace “nation” with educator, “assure survival” with assure a high quality education to our kids, and the “success of liberty” with ensuring the ability of our kids to compete in the global meritocracy.
No, I am not calling for taking up arms literally. But I am talking about setting clear goals for the total elimination of the current harmful system and its pseudo scientific underpinnings over time. It would be nice if we could convince the politicians of the danger to our kids with enough force to give them the backbone required to legislate the elimination of the current system, replacing it with a new one (modeled on the very successful American Common School movement that was trashed by the Progressives beginning a hundred years ago).
I don’t believe that is likely because the Progressives would throw lots of sand in the gears of progress trying to lead the pols off into the weeds. They would call for more “study” of the problem which is ridiculous. They have consistently failed to meet the needs of our kids and no amount of added time will provide productive approaches from within the insular and inbred education system. They simply don’t have the knowledge and objectivity to contribute constructively in solving the problem. Therefore, their inputs are worthless and do not justify wasting time on their machinations.
What needs to be done is known. It needs to be acted on quickly. The Progressives will never agree willingly. If we care about the kids we can’t allow compromise because what they do is harmful to kids and none of it must survive. We must remember they have had their way for most of the last century and have done immeasurable harm. They have no credibility and must give way for the right education system to be implemented so that our kids, all of them including the gap kids, can learn to their potential and expect a brighter future.
What will be difficult enough but will work is to structure the federal and state money going to education in a way that requires they perform MUCH BETTER QUICKLY. This would automatically cause movement away from the Progressive, content-free, discovery approaches because they take longer and never achieve the high learning levels of the content-rich approaches of the American Common School movement we used in the past and that our “much more successful in educating their kids” global competitors are using.
Money is the lifeblood that feeds the Progressive education machine. The waste of precious resources within the current system is gargantuan. To begin with, we must turn a deaf ear to the claims that will surely come if such an effort is undertaken. That is, the first cries of pain from the educators will be that “you are hurting the kids.” This will be untrue if the program is designed properly. They have been hurting the kids for decades, but when they do it that is OK. We need to put a stop to their depredations and finally serve the kids as they deserve. The new initiative would be structured such that the only ones to feel pain would be those who didn’t start performing better quickly. This would require a change in legislative approach from specifying process to nine decimal places to specifying required results with penalties for not producing those results. This is a much more sensible approach as it allows districts to tailor their approach to the needs on the local level, not the current top-down, central control process that represents a one size fits all approach.
Highly beneficial actions—getting rid of the disastrously wrong and harmful “Standard Operating Procedures”
1. Cut the salary budgets of the federal and state education bureaucracies by 10% per year for 5 years, then reassess whether to continue cutting. They are staffed by those trained (brainwashed) in the progressive process. They have no ability to be objective about the harm being done or ability to pursue quality improvement until they have seen the elephant (faced adversity which forces reality to set in).
2. Increase NAEP testing requirements to be equivalent to the average of the top 5 best performing nations by subject within one year. This is not a justification for a typical multi-year “research project, just take the latest data available from the global achievement tests and get on with it. The goal can be refined over time but initially a fast approach is required and very reasonable because it will put much higher expectations into the system putting educators on notice that the old ways will not suffice.
3. Require state achievement test scores to increase by 20% per year until they are equivalent to the NAEP levels. We must not let it take longer. It can be done. Educators will have a fit about how can you track something like this with changing standards, etc? You can do it accurately enough to measure positive results. Being 80% right quickly is FAR better than being 95% right in a few years. The over precision of nonsense is one of the well practiced delaying tactics that has prevented improvement for decades. That must end. There are times when a SWAG is more than adequate. Scientific Wild Ass Guess.
4. Require, if fed and state money is desired, that districts cut central administration salary budgets by 10% per year unless the district has improved their achievement test results in math and reading by at least 25% per year until they are within 25% of the goal. Then adjust the yearly requirement to getting half way to the ultimate standard for two years and the rest of the way in the following year. Put in place rules that the school-based admin cannot be grown to provide “homes” for central admin personnel or reduced to provide money to pay for current central administration activities. Thus, the cuts must impact the people who would be most responsible for improving the quality of education for the kids if they fail to perform. Also, the requirement should hit the superintendent and those administrators who report directly to him/her by 15% per year if the yearly improvements are not achieved. This will give them a strong incentive to perform as change leaders versus their current entrenched defense of the status quo. Some will say that might cause many to leave. Good, they are not doing anything positive anyway and certainly won’t be missed from a performance point of view.
5. Require districts to eliminate the Progressive doctrine, “how-to, no content” curricula within 2 years or face total loss of fed and state funding until they accomplish the task. These curricula are the foundational sources of the poison being injected into the system and must be eliminated immediately. Replace with content-rich curricula and direct instruction. There will be loud complaints that you can’t afford or get the books and other materials required in that amount of time. It can be done. You might not end up with shiny new color printed books for a few years but eliminating the current “pretty” trash being used on our kids and replacing it with materials on the positive side of the ledger would be a huge and immediate improvement. If you think about it the constructivist or discovery methods so favored by the Progressives are totally contrary to workable approaches to exploring new territories. Throughout history when people have gone into new territories they have used knowledgeable guides to help them successful get where they want to go safely. Shouldn’t our kids have the benefit of teaching that has the knowledge and experience to lead them on the way to subject understanding instead of the current wandering in the wilderness unstructured Progressive approach. It is so obvious why the direct instruction to high knowledge standards is working so well for our global competitors.
6. Decouple all education school training from teacher and leadership certification requirements. We need to stop the flow of more “brainwashed in the wrong doctrine” people into the system, especially since the education schools do not teach subject matter with any rigor. Replace with rigorous subject matter testing every two years to maintain certification both for new and current teachers. Provide alternative certification processes to allow those with real educations in subjects to fill the void created by current educators leaving because they aren’t motivated or capable of passing the rigorous subject matter tests within a year. If we want (need) to teach our kids to a level that allows them to compete globally, we must not allow educators who can’t perform well to remain in the system. Most will be able to perform acceptably if they decide to. If not, it is their choice.
You might be thinking, this would be a very contentious process. You are right. But, you need to realize that it is the only way that the current “harmful to kids” process can be repaired to something that will serve our kids and country well. Ignoring reality has gotten us where we are. Continuing down that path hoping things will get better is a craven fool’s approach to the problem. We know from the results of the last many decades that educators are incapable of positive change unless they are forced to do so to keep their jobs. It is easier to continue ignoring the reality but aren’t the kids worth some discomfort? Make no mistake though, the Progressives are formidable foes. Previous assaults on their “fiefdom” have failed because they had more staying power than the attackers, not because their doctrine was right. It will take consistent and strong long-term effort to finally break their disastrous for our kids grip on our educational system. Remember that any delay in action allows millions of kids to continue being harmed.
A last comment for our “political leaders”
Your initial reaction to this proposal is that it is unworkable. The first fear is that the teachers unions who are among the biggest campaign contributors will literally “kill” the candidacy of anyone who supports this approach. You are right to be concerned, but if this is done on a uniform basis across a whole state or country their impact will be greatly diluted. That is, their current fearsome reputation is based on their ability to devote overwhelming resources both monetarily and on the ground to given “problem” elections. They have been able to do that because the problem elections are localized and rare as is the occurrence of politicians with backbone and desire to do what is right not what will get them reelected. If they had to spread their resources over a much larger spectrum of political races their impact would be tiny in comparison.
Thus, everyone doing this approach at the same time provides a safe and sane way to go. That is why it needs to be done on at least a whole state basis and preferably on a whole country basis. If on a whole country basis the requirements must be tighter than those that are part of NCLB. That is, NCLB left “weasel room” for each state to set their own standard definitions of proficiency which has resulted in a great deal of “sandbagging” in that area to the detriment of the kids. That is, a lot of stripes were painted on the pavement and called high hurdles for proficiency levels. That must not be allowed in the future.
If the schools were forced to report their true performance in a global context, parents, business groups, the whole community; all but those feeding at the government education trough would be appalled and motivated to see the problem fixed immediately.
We all have work to do. We need to start immediately demanding that our kids get a rigorous education not a coddled one.
What is to be done if we care about rescuing our kids’ futures let alone America’s competitiveness in the global society? First, we must overcome the belief that changing the system at its foundational level is not required and that incremental changes can solve the problems. As the E.D. Hirsch quote at the beginning of part one points out, the current Progressive dominated education system is evil. Why, because it harms kids and especially poor and minority kids. You cannot overcome evil through negotiations (I have tried). You cannot overcome evil by being “reasonable.” There is only one way to eliminate the progressive poison from the education system. Sadly, that is through all out war.
Now is a good time to reiterate JFK’s remarks from the introduction of Part Two. “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” We could replace “nation” with educator, “assure survival” with assure a high quality education to our kids, and the “success of liberty” with ensuring the ability of our kids to compete in the global meritocracy.
No, I am not calling for taking up arms literally. But I am talking about setting clear goals for the total elimination of the current harmful system and its pseudo scientific underpinnings over time. It would be nice if we could convince the politicians of the danger to our kids with enough force to give them the backbone required to legislate the elimination of the current system, replacing it with a new one (modeled on the very successful American Common School movement that was trashed by the Progressives beginning a hundred years ago).
I don’t believe that is likely because the Progressives would throw lots of sand in the gears of progress trying to lead the pols off into the weeds. They would call for more “study” of the problem which is ridiculous. They have consistently failed to meet the needs of our kids and no amount of added time will provide productive approaches from within the insular and inbred education system. They simply don’t have the knowledge and objectivity to contribute constructively in solving the problem. Therefore, their inputs are worthless and do not justify wasting time on their machinations.
What needs to be done is known. It needs to be acted on quickly. The Progressives will never agree willingly. If we care about the kids we can’t allow compromise because what they do is harmful to kids and none of it must survive. We must remember they have had their way for most of the last century and have done immeasurable harm. They have no credibility and must give way for the right education system to be implemented so that our kids, all of them including the gap kids, can learn to their potential and expect a brighter future.
What will be difficult enough but will work is to structure the federal and state money going to education in a way that requires they perform MUCH BETTER QUICKLY. This would automatically cause movement away from the Progressive, content-free, discovery approaches because they take longer and never achieve the high learning levels of the content-rich approaches of the American Common School movement we used in the past and that our “much more successful in educating their kids” global competitors are using.
Money is the lifeblood that feeds the Progressive education machine. The waste of precious resources within the current system is gargantuan. To begin with, we must turn a deaf ear to the claims that will surely come if such an effort is undertaken. That is, the first cries of pain from the educators will be that “you are hurting the kids.” This will be untrue if the program is designed properly. They have been hurting the kids for decades, but when they do it that is OK. We need to put a stop to their depredations and finally serve the kids as they deserve. The new initiative would be structured such that the only ones to feel pain would be those who didn’t start performing better quickly. This would require a change in legislative approach from specifying process to nine decimal places to specifying required results with penalties for not producing those results. This is a much more sensible approach as it allows districts to tailor their approach to the needs on the local level, not the current top-down, central control process that represents a one size fits all approach.
Highly beneficial actions—getting rid of the disastrously wrong and harmful “Standard Operating Procedures”
1. Cut the salary budgets of the federal and state education bureaucracies by 10% per year for 5 years, then reassess whether to continue cutting. They are staffed by those trained (brainwashed) in the progressive process. They have no ability to be objective about the harm being done or ability to pursue quality improvement until they have seen the elephant (faced adversity which forces reality to set in).
2. Increase NAEP testing requirements to be equivalent to the average of the top 5 best performing nations by subject within one year. This is not a justification for a typical multi-year “research project, just take the latest data available from the global achievement tests and get on with it. The goal can be refined over time but initially a fast approach is required and very reasonable because it will put much higher expectations into the system putting educators on notice that the old ways will not suffice.
3. Require state achievement test scores to increase by 20% per year until they are equivalent to the NAEP levels. We must not let it take longer. It can be done. Educators will have a fit about how can you track something like this with changing standards, etc? You can do it accurately enough to measure positive results. Being 80% right quickly is FAR better than being 95% right in a few years. The over precision of nonsense is one of the well practiced delaying tactics that has prevented improvement for decades. That must end. There are times when a SWAG is more than adequate. Scientific Wild Ass Guess.
4. Require, if fed and state money is desired, that districts cut central administration salary budgets by 10% per year unless the district has improved their achievement test results in math and reading by at least 25% per year until they are within 25% of the goal. Then adjust the yearly requirement to getting half way to the ultimate standard for two years and the rest of the way in the following year. Put in place rules that the school-based admin cannot be grown to provide “homes” for central admin personnel or reduced to provide money to pay for current central administration activities. Thus, the cuts must impact the people who would be most responsible for improving the quality of education for the kids if they fail to perform. Also, the requirement should hit the superintendent and those administrators who report directly to him/her by 15% per year if the yearly improvements are not achieved. This will give them a strong incentive to perform as change leaders versus their current entrenched defense of the status quo. Some will say that might cause many to leave. Good, they are not doing anything positive anyway and certainly won’t be missed from a performance point of view.
5. Require districts to eliminate the Progressive doctrine, “how-to, no content” curricula within 2 years or face total loss of fed and state funding until they accomplish the task. These curricula are the foundational sources of the poison being injected into the system and must be eliminated immediately. Replace with content-rich curricula and direct instruction. There will be loud complaints that you can’t afford or get the books and other materials required in that amount of time. It can be done. You might not end up with shiny new color printed books for a few years but eliminating the current “pretty” trash being used on our kids and replacing it with materials on the positive side of the ledger would be a huge and immediate improvement. If you think about it the constructivist or discovery methods so favored by the Progressives are totally contrary to workable approaches to exploring new territories. Throughout history when people have gone into new territories they have used knowledgeable guides to help them successful get where they want to go safely. Shouldn’t our kids have the benefit of teaching that has the knowledge and experience to lead them on the way to subject understanding instead of the current wandering in the wilderness unstructured Progressive approach. It is so obvious why the direct instruction to high knowledge standards is working so well for our global competitors.
6. Decouple all education school training from teacher and leadership certification requirements. We need to stop the flow of more “brainwashed in the wrong doctrine” people into the system, especially since the education schools do not teach subject matter with any rigor. Replace with rigorous subject matter testing every two years to maintain certification both for new and current teachers. Provide alternative certification processes to allow those with real educations in subjects to fill the void created by current educators leaving because they aren’t motivated or capable of passing the rigorous subject matter tests within a year. If we want (need) to teach our kids to a level that allows them to compete globally, we must not allow educators who can’t perform well to remain in the system. Most will be able to perform acceptably if they decide to. If not, it is their choice.
You might be thinking, this would be a very contentious process. You are right. But, you need to realize that it is the only way that the current “harmful to kids” process can be repaired to something that will serve our kids and country well. Ignoring reality has gotten us where we are. Continuing down that path hoping things will get better is a craven fool’s approach to the problem. We know from the results of the last many decades that educators are incapable of positive change unless they are forced to do so to keep their jobs. It is easier to continue ignoring the reality but aren’t the kids worth some discomfort? Make no mistake though, the Progressives are formidable foes. Previous assaults on their “fiefdom” have failed because they had more staying power than the attackers, not because their doctrine was right. It will take consistent and strong long-term effort to finally break their disastrous for our kids grip on our educational system. Remember that any delay in action allows millions of kids to continue being harmed.
A last comment for our “political leaders”
Your initial reaction to this proposal is that it is unworkable. The first fear is that the teachers unions who are among the biggest campaign contributors will literally “kill” the candidacy of anyone who supports this approach. You are right to be concerned, but if this is done on a uniform basis across a whole state or country their impact will be greatly diluted. That is, their current fearsome reputation is based on their ability to devote overwhelming resources both monetarily and on the ground to given “problem” elections. They have been able to do that because the problem elections are localized and rare as is the occurrence of politicians with backbone and desire to do what is right not what will get them reelected. If they had to spread their resources over a much larger spectrum of political races their impact would be tiny in comparison.
Thus, everyone doing this approach at the same time provides a safe and sane way to go. That is why it needs to be done on at least a whole state basis and preferably on a whole country basis. If on a whole country basis the requirements must be tighter than those that are part of NCLB. That is, NCLB left “weasel room” for each state to set their own standard definitions of proficiency which has resulted in a great deal of “sandbagging” in that area to the detriment of the kids. That is, a lot of stripes were painted on the pavement and called high hurdles for proficiency levels. That must not be allowed in the future.
If the schools were forced to report their true performance in a global context, parents, business groups, the whole community; all but those feeding at the government education trough would be appalled and motivated to see the problem fixed immediately.
We all have work to do. We need to start immediately demanding that our kids get a rigorous education not a coddled one.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Progressive Education Wrong from the Beginning Two
The Realities
• Constructivist approaches as pushed by Progressives are ineffective because they take too long (students wandering in the wilderness) and they don’t provide the growing base of subject knowledge required to succeed as grade levels increase. This is why the comparative failure of our students versus their global peers increases as grade level increases. That is, fourth grade pupils are more competitive with their peers that are our 15 year old students with their peers. Progressives muddy the water by doing slanted or myopic research studies that show that their approaches work. And to a point they do, just not nearly well enough to allow our kids to compete with their global peers. Our (progressive) car in the race is a Model T Ford and the competitor nations are driving fast, reliable current model cars. They run circles around us. So yes, the Model T works, just not well enough to allow our kids to compete for the high paying jobs in the global economy. A typical progressive “advertisement” for the superiority of their method is the ubiquitous claim that they teach critical thinking skills. But the skill they teach is worthless without knowledge of the subject which they never provide at any level worth talking about. Thus, they say things that sound reasonable and of value but there is no substance behind it as is proven by the huge gap between our kids performance and that of our strongest competitor nations’ kids.
• Educators are trained (brainwashed) in the progressive education doctrine in their education school training. This is extremely consistent across the country with very few exceptions; U of Virginia and Hillsdale College are a couple of lonely examples doing it right.
• Education school leadership training is weak (on purpose?) so that the so- called leaders do not have the ability to lead transformative change. “Go along, get along” status quo preservation is the best they can do. That is, they are earning at most a quarter of their high salaries.
• The bureaucracies tasked to provide leadership and quality control over the uses of education funding from federal and state sources are staffed virtually exclusively by education insiders, that is, those brainwashed in education principles that haven’t worked and can’t work to the required high standard.
• The favored educator approaches to criticism of our education system’s failed practices are;
o Ignore the criticism, maybe the complainer(s) will go away.
o Pretend to value the criticism and begin a “study” of the problem with committees and inputs from “education experts.” For educators, only those brainwashed in the party line have input worth listening to. And of course their input supports the harmful status quo.
Quotes from The Knowledge Deficit, E.D. Hirsch Jr.
The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about reading comprehension.
The dominant ideas in American education are virtually unchallenged within the educational community. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled. This is because of the history of American education schools…the history of these schools, which are institutions that train almost all of the teachers and administrators . . . is the history of intellectual cloning.
o Even if action is taken it is in the form of “polishing the rotten apple.” Most often it takes the form of being determined to do the same wrong things that have never worked in the past, but this time do them better. A great example of this is the “best practices” idea. In education, best practices mean doing the wrong thing really well. You can begin to see why, even though huge amounts of money have been thrown at the education system over many decades, nothing gets better, except that the pay and benefits of the educators is increased out of all relationship to the results being achieved.
o The truth is suppressed within education by ironbound use of political correctness and Group Think methods. If you can’t openly search for and admit the truth, you will not be able to recognize and solve real problems. Outsiders recognize the problems very well and perhaps some insiders do too. However, the insiders know that speaking out is not allowed. While education entities are loath to fire a poor performer, they have over and over found the ability to fire a truth teller with no delay or remorse.
• The progressive doctrine is most harmful to the “gap” students, those who because of the demographic luck of the draw were born minority or have economically poor circumstances and who score at lower levels on achievement tests. They could score much better if taught in a way that works (content rich curricula that builds on previous year’s knowledge year to year). The Progressives use the untrue excuse that “those kids can’t learn” to justify what they are doing. The more advantaged students tend to overcome the poor schools to a degree through parental or outside tutoring and other help. However, the schools have dumbed down the standards to a degree that the number of even top students who score highly on SAT, for example, has plummeted since the late 1960s.
• The education power groups support maintenance of the status quo through large campaign contributions to politicians who will toe the line they set pertaining to education. That line is not positive change but defense of the status quo.
• In my research many education leaders told me when I questioned how the kids could be so poorly served, “You don’t understand. Education is run to benefit the adults who work here, not the kids.” In the Fenty/Rhee article in the WSJ article about their experience in trying to reform Washington DC schools they state the same principle.
Coming Segment 3—Conclusions/Action Plan
• Constructivist approaches as pushed by Progressives are ineffective because they take too long (students wandering in the wilderness) and they don’t provide the growing base of subject knowledge required to succeed as grade levels increase. This is why the comparative failure of our students versus their global peers increases as grade level increases. That is, fourth grade pupils are more competitive with their peers that are our 15 year old students with their peers. Progressives muddy the water by doing slanted or myopic research studies that show that their approaches work. And to a point they do, just not nearly well enough to allow our kids to compete with their global peers. Our (progressive) car in the race is a Model T Ford and the competitor nations are driving fast, reliable current model cars. They run circles around us. So yes, the Model T works, just not well enough to allow our kids to compete for the high paying jobs in the global economy. A typical progressive “advertisement” for the superiority of their method is the ubiquitous claim that they teach critical thinking skills. But the skill they teach is worthless without knowledge of the subject which they never provide at any level worth talking about. Thus, they say things that sound reasonable and of value but there is no substance behind it as is proven by the huge gap between our kids performance and that of our strongest competitor nations’ kids.
• Educators are trained (brainwashed) in the progressive education doctrine in their education school training. This is extremely consistent across the country with very few exceptions; U of Virginia and Hillsdale College are a couple of lonely examples doing it right.
• Education school leadership training is weak (on purpose?) so that the so- called leaders do not have the ability to lead transformative change. “Go along, get along” status quo preservation is the best they can do. That is, they are earning at most a quarter of their high salaries.
• The bureaucracies tasked to provide leadership and quality control over the uses of education funding from federal and state sources are staffed virtually exclusively by education insiders, that is, those brainwashed in education principles that haven’t worked and can’t work to the required high standard.
• The favored educator approaches to criticism of our education system’s failed practices are;
o Ignore the criticism, maybe the complainer(s) will go away.
o Pretend to value the criticism and begin a “study” of the problem with committees and inputs from “education experts.” For educators, only those brainwashed in the party line have input worth listening to. And of course their input supports the harmful status quo.
Quotes from The Knowledge Deficit, E.D. Hirsch Jr.
The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about reading comprehension.
The dominant ideas in American education are virtually unchallenged within the educational community. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled. This is because of the history of American education schools…the history of these schools, which are institutions that train almost all of the teachers and administrators . . . is the history of intellectual cloning.
o Even if action is taken it is in the form of “polishing the rotten apple.” Most often it takes the form of being determined to do the same wrong things that have never worked in the past, but this time do them better. A great example of this is the “best practices” idea. In education, best practices mean doing the wrong thing really well. You can begin to see why, even though huge amounts of money have been thrown at the education system over many decades, nothing gets better, except that the pay and benefits of the educators is increased out of all relationship to the results being achieved.
o The truth is suppressed within education by ironbound use of political correctness and Group Think methods. If you can’t openly search for and admit the truth, you will not be able to recognize and solve real problems. Outsiders recognize the problems very well and perhaps some insiders do too. However, the insiders know that speaking out is not allowed. While education entities are loath to fire a poor performer, they have over and over found the ability to fire a truth teller with no delay or remorse.
• The progressive doctrine is most harmful to the “gap” students, those who because of the demographic luck of the draw were born minority or have economically poor circumstances and who score at lower levels on achievement tests. They could score much better if taught in a way that works (content rich curricula that builds on previous year’s knowledge year to year). The Progressives use the untrue excuse that “those kids can’t learn” to justify what they are doing. The more advantaged students tend to overcome the poor schools to a degree through parental or outside tutoring and other help. However, the schools have dumbed down the standards to a degree that the number of even top students who score highly on SAT, for example, has plummeted since the late 1960s.
• The education power groups support maintenance of the status quo through large campaign contributions to politicians who will toe the line they set pertaining to education. That line is not positive change but defense of the status quo.
• In my research many education leaders told me when I questioned how the kids could be so poorly served, “You don’t understand. Education is run to benefit the adults who work here, not the kids.” In the Fenty/Rhee article in the WSJ article about their experience in trying to reform Washington DC schools they state the same principle.
Coming Segment 3—Conclusions/Action Plan
Monday, November 1, 2010
Progressive Education Wrong From the Beginning
Introductory Remarks
I have no idea how many of you were in high school when John Kennedy was elected president. I do remember how thrilled I was while listening to his 1961 inaugural address. I wasn’t so thrilled later but the inaugural was a special time.
I want to quote from his speech that day.
[T]he same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. . . unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more.
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
I would ask you to remember his words as you read the three part call to stand on principle and finally correct the education system that inflicts so much harm on our children, year after year. Also, it is worth pondering on how far away we have moved from the high value placed on our founding principles as related by JFK in only 50 years.
Indictment/Background
“I can’t conceive of a greater social evil.” E.D. Hirsch Jr. The Making of Americans
Below are two references showing our educators’ attitude about content rigor separated by almost a century. When taken together it is easy to see that there has been no movement at all away from the disastrous progressive education doctrine that has so greatly weakened our nation’s education performance and hence competitiveness for about a century. Our economy is a huge flywheel that winds down slowly even when the driving force is taken away or reduced. The current economic malaise indicates that the slowing is starting to be serious and bodes poorly for our future if we don’t take immediate action. The harm being done to our kids and our country is catastrophic. If we don’t wake up and eliminate this “won’t work, can’t work” Progressive education doctrine from our schools, we deserve the reduction in living standards that will result. The two excerpts relate education attitudes now and at the turn of the Twentieth Century. They make the point that the Progressive education doctrine is still at full strength in our education system. While both examples are focusing on math, the Progressive approach is equally harmful in reading and all other subject areas as well.
Excerpt from Is There an Algebra Overkill? By John W. Myres (2010) Education Week
The current fixation with algebra, requiring, for instance, one or two years of it to graduate from high school or prescribing it for 7th and 8th graders without exception, strongly suggests the examination of an algebra requirement.
No doubt, algebra is a steppingstone to higher mathematics and quite necessary in professions that require extensive knowledge of math. Too, it offers insights not only into numbers, but also into general problem-solving separately. It is also reasonable for most students to have some experience with it before they leave school.
The difficulty, however, is assuming that algebra, in itself, will greatly increase everyone's ability to do the kind of mathematics that most people do in ordinary life.
Most people add, subtract, multiply, and divide, using whole numbers, fractions, decimals, and percentages. They purchase food and clothing, balance checkbooks, create budgets, verify credit card charges, measure the size of rooms, fulfill recipe requirements, and even understand baseball batting averages or horse-racing odds. These activities don't require a real knowledge of algebra.
Excerpt from A Brief History of American K-12 Mathematics Education in the 20th Century by David Klein (2003)
With roots going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau and with the guidance of John Dewey, progressive education has dominated American schools since the early years of the 20th century. That is not to say that progressive education has gone unchallenged.
Challenges increased in intensity starting in the 1950s, waxed and waned, and in the 1990s gained unprecedented strength. A consequence of the domination of progressivism during the first half of the 20th century was a predictable and remarkably steady decrease of academic content in public schools. [emphasis added]
The prescriptions for the future of mathematics education were articulated early in the 20th century by one of the nation's most influential education leaders, William Heard Kilpatrick. According to E. D. Hirsch, Kilpatrick was "the most influential introducer of progressive ideas into American schools of education." Kilpatrick was an education professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, and a protégé of John Dewey. According to Dewey, "In the best sense of the words, progressive education and the work of Dr. Kilpatrick are virtually synonymous." Kilpatrick majored in mathematics at Mercer College in Macon, Georgia. His mathematical education included some graduate work at Johns Hopkins University, but his interests changed and he eventually attended Teachers College and joined the faculty in 1911. In his 27 years at Teachers College, he taught some 35,000 students and was described by the New York Post as "the million dollar professor" because the fees paid by his students to the college exceeded this amount. In some instances there were more than 650 students in a single one of his auditorium sized classes. His book, Foundations of Method, written in 1925 became a standard text for teacher education courses across the country.
Reflecting mainstream views of progressive education, Kilpatrick rejected the notion that the study of mathematics contributed to mental discipline. His view was that subjects should be taught to students based on their direct practical value, or if students independently wanted to learn those subjects. This point of view toward education comported well with theL pedagogical methods endorsed by progressive education. Limiting education primarily to utilitarian skills sharply limited academic content, and this helped to justify the slow pace of student centered, discovery learning, the centerpiece of progressivism. [emphasis added] Kilpatrick proposed that the study of algebra and geometry in high school be discontinued “except as an intellectual luxury.” According to Kilpatrick, mathematics is “harmful rather than helpful to the kind of thinking necessary for ordinary living.” In an address before the student body at the University of Florida, Kilpatrick lectured, "We have in the past taught algebra and geometry to too many, not too few."
In 1915 Kilpatrick was asked by the National Education Association's Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education to chair a committee to study the problem of teaching mathematics in the high schools. The committee included no mathematicians and was composed entirely of educators. [emphasis added] Kilpatrick directly challenged the use of mathematics to promote mental discipline. He wrote, "No longer should the force of tradition shield any subject from scrutiny...In probably no study did this older doctrine of mental discipline find larger scope than in mathematics, in arithmetic to an appreciable extent, more in algebra, and most of all in geometry." Kilpatrick maintained in his report, The Problem of Mathematics in Secondary Education, that nothing in mathematics should be taught unless its probable value could be shown, and recommended the traditional high school mathematics curriculum for only a select few.
It was not surprising that mathematicians would object to Kilpatrick's report as an attack against the field of mathematics itself. David Eugene Smith, a mathematics professor at Teachers College and renowned historian of mathematics, tried to stop the publication of Kilpatrick's report as a part of the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, the full report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, and one of the most influential documents for education in the 20th century. Smith charged that there had been no meeting of the math committee and that Kilpatrick was the sole author of the report. Moreover, Kilpatrick's committee was not representative of teachers of mathematics or of mathematicians. Nevertheless, Kilpatrick's report was eventually published in 1920 by the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Philander P. Claxton, a friend of Kilpatrick.
Hopefully you see the point but I want to make it anyway to make sure you do. Did you catch the Progressive’s core value, “subjects should be taught to students based on their direct practical value,” or “we have taught too many algebra and geometry, not too few” stated in Klein’s article and reiterated by Myres as, “The difficulty, however, is assuming that algebra, in itself, will greatly increase everyone's ability to do the kind of mathematics that most people do in ordinary life.” This statement shows that current educators still use the Progressive mantra invoking their view of “practical value” as the excuse for dumbing down our education system. You see the deception there of “most people do in ordinary life” as if educators have an accurate view of the present or particularly the future requirements. This is an attempt to reduce the algebra requirement so that the educators can go back to their easy ways of going through the motions with no quality control on whether they actually taught the kids anything worthwhile.
The algebra requirement is justified and important if you factor in the requirements to qualify for high paying jobs in the future. [see second Freidman quote below] The two examples point to an abject failure of the Progressives who control our education system nearly 100% to recognize that life is changing. In the rising global meritocracy, our kids cannot compete without a much higher level of education.
The Progressives who believe in central control of a credulous populous by “educated on the side” expert elites are happy with the way they have controlled the dumbing down of our education system over the last century. They are delusional because they fail to realize that making the country unable to compete takes them down along with the country. However, they remain tightly focused on their original aim to create a credulous populous which is easily swayed by their expertise. They purposely did not want to provide a robust education that would lead to independent thinkers. The progressive education methods gained full traction by the late 1960s when most children who were graduating had been exposed to the progressive methods for their whole school careers. At that time achievement plummeted in SAT verbal scores for example. Since then our students have achievement levels in literacy, math and science that are uncompetitive with their best global peers as a direct result of the Progressive education takeover.\
Quotes from The World is Flat, Tom Friedman
The sense of entitlement, the sense that because we once dominated global commerce and geopolitics—and Olympic basketball—we always will, the sense that delayed gratification is a punishment worse than a spanking, the sense that our kids have to be swaddled in cotton wool so that nothing bad or disappointing or stressful ever happens to them at school is quite simply, a growing cancer on American society. And if we don’t start to reverse it, our kids are going to be in for a huge and socially disruptive shock from the flat world.
Comments from a high end systems designer, “Were Congress to pass legislation to stop the flow of Indian labor, you would have major software systems that would have nobody who knew what was going on. It is unfortunate that many management positions in IT are filled with non-technical managers who may not be fully aware of their exposure…I am an expert in information systems, not economics, but I know a high-paying job requires one be able to produce something of high value. The economy is producing the jobs both at the high end and low end, but increasingly the high-end jobs are out of reach of many. Low education means low-paying jobs, plain and simple, and this is where more and more Americans are finding themselves. Many Americans can’t believe they aren’t qualified for high-paying jobs. I call this the ‘American Idol problem.’ If you’ve ever seen the reaction of contestants when Simon Cowell tells them they have no talent, they look at him in total disbelief. I’m just hoping someday I’m not given such a rude awakening.”
Coming Segment 2—The Realities
I have no idea how many of you were in high school when John Kennedy was elected president. I do remember how thrilled I was while listening to his 1961 inaugural address. I wasn’t so thrilled later but the inaugural was a special time.
I want to quote from his speech that day.
[T]he same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. . . unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more.
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
I would ask you to remember his words as you read the three part call to stand on principle and finally correct the education system that inflicts so much harm on our children, year after year. Also, it is worth pondering on how far away we have moved from the high value placed on our founding principles as related by JFK in only 50 years.
Indictment/Background
“I can’t conceive of a greater social evil.” E.D. Hirsch Jr. The Making of Americans
Below are two references showing our educators’ attitude about content rigor separated by almost a century. When taken together it is easy to see that there has been no movement at all away from the disastrous progressive education doctrine that has so greatly weakened our nation’s education performance and hence competitiveness for about a century. Our economy is a huge flywheel that winds down slowly even when the driving force is taken away or reduced. The current economic malaise indicates that the slowing is starting to be serious and bodes poorly for our future if we don’t take immediate action. The harm being done to our kids and our country is catastrophic. If we don’t wake up and eliminate this “won’t work, can’t work” Progressive education doctrine from our schools, we deserve the reduction in living standards that will result. The two excerpts relate education attitudes now and at the turn of the Twentieth Century. They make the point that the Progressive education doctrine is still at full strength in our education system. While both examples are focusing on math, the Progressive approach is equally harmful in reading and all other subject areas as well.
Excerpt from Is There an Algebra Overkill? By John W. Myres (2010) Education Week
The current fixation with algebra, requiring, for instance, one or two years of it to graduate from high school or prescribing it for 7th and 8th graders without exception, strongly suggests the examination of an algebra requirement.
No doubt, algebra is a steppingstone to higher mathematics and quite necessary in professions that require extensive knowledge of math. Too, it offers insights not only into numbers, but also into general problem-solving separately. It is also reasonable for most students to have some experience with it before they leave school.
The difficulty, however, is assuming that algebra, in itself, will greatly increase everyone's ability to do the kind of mathematics that most people do in ordinary life.
Most people add, subtract, multiply, and divide, using whole numbers, fractions, decimals, and percentages. They purchase food and clothing, balance checkbooks, create budgets, verify credit card charges, measure the size of rooms, fulfill recipe requirements, and even understand baseball batting averages or horse-racing odds. These activities don't require a real knowledge of algebra.
Excerpt from A Brief History of American K-12 Mathematics Education in the 20th Century by David Klein (2003)
With roots going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau and with the guidance of John Dewey, progressive education has dominated American schools since the early years of the 20th century. That is not to say that progressive education has gone unchallenged.
Challenges increased in intensity starting in the 1950s, waxed and waned, and in the 1990s gained unprecedented strength. A consequence of the domination of progressivism during the first half of the 20th century was a predictable and remarkably steady decrease of academic content in public schools. [emphasis added]
The prescriptions for the future of mathematics education were articulated early in the 20th century by one of the nation's most influential education leaders, William Heard Kilpatrick. According to E. D. Hirsch, Kilpatrick was "the most influential introducer of progressive ideas into American schools of education." Kilpatrick was an education professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, and a protégé of John Dewey. According to Dewey, "In the best sense of the words, progressive education and the work of Dr. Kilpatrick are virtually synonymous." Kilpatrick majored in mathematics at Mercer College in Macon, Georgia. His mathematical education included some graduate work at Johns Hopkins University, but his interests changed and he eventually attended Teachers College and joined the faculty in 1911. In his 27 years at Teachers College, he taught some 35,000 students and was described by the New York Post as "the million dollar professor" because the fees paid by his students to the college exceeded this amount. In some instances there were more than 650 students in a single one of his auditorium sized classes. His book, Foundations of Method, written in 1925 became a standard text for teacher education courses across the country.
Reflecting mainstream views of progressive education, Kilpatrick rejected the notion that the study of mathematics contributed to mental discipline. His view was that subjects should be taught to students based on their direct practical value, or if students independently wanted to learn those subjects. This point of view toward education comported well with theL pedagogical methods endorsed by progressive education. Limiting education primarily to utilitarian skills sharply limited academic content, and this helped to justify the slow pace of student centered, discovery learning, the centerpiece of progressivism. [emphasis added] Kilpatrick proposed that the study of algebra and geometry in high school be discontinued “except as an intellectual luxury.” According to Kilpatrick, mathematics is “harmful rather than helpful to the kind of thinking necessary for ordinary living.” In an address before the student body at the University of Florida, Kilpatrick lectured, "We have in the past taught algebra and geometry to too many, not too few."
In 1915 Kilpatrick was asked by the National Education Association's Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education to chair a committee to study the problem of teaching mathematics in the high schools. The committee included no mathematicians and was composed entirely of educators. [emphasis added] Kilpatrick directly challenged the use of mathematics to promote mental discipline. He wrote, "No longer should the force of tradition shield any subject from scrutiny...In probably no study did this older doctrine of mental discipline find larger scope than in mathematics, in arithmetic to an appreciable extent, more in algebra, and most of all in geometry." Kilpatrick maintained in his report, The Problem of Mathematics in Secondary Education, that nothing in mathematics should be taught unless its probable value could be shown, and recommended the traditional high school mathematics curriculum for only a select few.
It was not surprising that mathematicians would object to Kilpatrick's report as an attack against the field of mathematics itself. David Eugene Smith, a mathematics professor at Teachers College and renowned historian of mathematics, tried to stop the publication of Kilpatrick's report as a part of the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, the full report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, and one of the most influential documents for education in the 20th century. Smith charged that there had been no meeting of the math committee and that Kilpatrick was the sole author of the report. Moreover, Kilpatrick's committee was not representative of teachers of mathematics or of mathematicians. Nevertheless, Kilpatrick's report was eventually published in 1920 by the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Philander P. Claxton, a friend of Kilpatrick.
Hopefully you see the point but I want to make it anyway to make sure you do. Did you catch the Progressive’s core value, “subjects should be taught to students based on their direct practical value,” or “we have taught too many algebra and geometry, not too few” stated in Klein’s article and reiterated by Myres as, “The difficulty, however, is assuming that algebra, in itself, will greatly increase everyone's ability to do the kind of mathematics that most people do in ordinary life.” This statement shows that current educators still use the Progressive mantra invoking their view of “practical value” as the excuse for dumbing down our education system. You see the deception there of “most people do in ordinary life” as if educators have an accurate view of the present or particularly the future requirements. This is an attempt to reduce the algebra requirement so that the educators can go back to their easy ways of going through the motions with no quality control on whether they actually taught the kids anything worthwhile.
The algebra requirement is justified and important if you factor in the requirements to qualify for high paying jobs in the future. [see second Freidman quote below] The two examples point to an abject failure of the Progressives who control our education system nearly 100% to recognize that life is changing. In the rising global meritocracy, our kids cannot compete without a much higher level of education.
The Progressives who believe in central control of a credulous populous by “educated on the side” expert elites are happy with the way they have controlled the dumbing down of our education system over the last century. They are delusional because they fail to realize that making the country unable to compete takes them down along with the country. However, they remain tightly focused on their original aim to create a credulous populous which is easily swayed by their expertise. They purposely did not want to provide a robust education that would lead to independent thinkers. The progressive education methods gained full traction by the late 1960s when most children who were graduating had been exposed to the progressive methods for their whole school careers. At that time achievement plummeted in SAT verbal scores for example. Since then our students have achievement levels in literacy, math and science that are uncompetitive with their best global peers as a direct result of the Progressive education takeover.\
Quotes from The World is Flat, Tom Friedman
The sense of entitlement, the sense that because we once dominated global commerce and geopolitics—and Olympic basketball—we always will, the sense that delayed gratification is a punishment worse than a spanking, the sense that our kids have to be swaddled in cotton wool so that nothing bad or disappointing or stressful ever happens to them at school is quite simply, a growing cancer on American society. And if we don’t start to reverse it, our kids are going to be in for a huge and socially disruptive shock from the flat world.
Comments from a high end systems designer, “Were Congress to pass legislation to stop the flow of Indian labor, you would have major software systems that would have nobody who knew what was going on. It is unfortunate that many management positions in IT are filled with non-technical managers who may not be fully aware of their exposure…I am an expert in information systems, not economics, but I know a high-paying job requires one be able to produce something of high value. The economy is producing the jobs both at the high end and low end, but increasingly the high-end jobs are out of reach of many. Low education means low-paying jobs, plain and simple, and this is where more and more Americans are finding themselves. Many Americans can’t believe they aren’t qualified for high-paying jobs. I call this the ‘American Idol problem.’ If you’ve ever seen the reaction of contestants when Simon Cowell tells them they have no talent, they look at him in total disbelief. I’m just hoping someday I’m not given such a rude awakening.”
Coming Segment 2—The Realities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
