Author Topic: The soft bigotry of low expectations  (Read 6719 times)

House of Mustard

  • Level 44
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Fell Points: 3
  • Firstborn Unicorn
    • View Profile
    • robisonwells.com
The soft bigotry of low expectations
« on: September 08, 2004, 11:40:42 AM »
So, for those of you who don't already know, I'm beginning work on a Masters degree in education.  Right now, I'm just starting -- taking the first education classes I've ever taken (my undergrad was in political science and history).  Last night, while going through the assigned readings, I found this gem listed under the heading of "Red Flags of Ineffective Teaching:"

"[The teacher] Emphasizes facts and correct answers."

You know, people wonder why American kids can't find the United States on a map.  I think this is the kind of educational nonsense that Bush was referring to when he said "We need to stomp out the soft bigotry of low expectations."  (In his RNC speech.)

Anyway, if someone would like to explain this to me, go ahead, although I doubt I'll like the explanation.  The class is tonight and I intend on bringing this up with the professor.  I'll let you know what she says.

(The article, incidentally, is "Qualities of Effective Teachers" by James H. Stronge.)
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.

www.robisonwells.com

House of Mustard

  • Level 44
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Fell Points: 3
  • Firstborn Unicorn
    • View Profile
    • robisonwells.com
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2004, 11:53:51 AM »
After writing that, I was reminded of one of Jack Handey's Deep Thoughts:

Quote
Instead of having "answers" on a math test, they should just call them "impressions," and if you got a different "impression," so what, can't we all be brothers?
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.

www.robisonwells.com

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2004, 12:15:57 PM »
Yeah, that's about the gist of it I think. I mean, the capital of Virginia is Richmond. If you say it's something else, then you're wrong, no matter how touchy-feely you want to be about being wrong, you're wrong.

Anyway, this reminds of a joke. Is the capital of Kentucky pronounced "Loo-iss-ville" or "Loo-ee-ville," or even as many locals say it, "Louahvieh."



None of the above. It's "Frankfort"

Lieutenant Kije

  • Level 33
  • *
  • Posts: 1945
  • Fell Points: 1
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2004, 12:38:44 PM »
Sorry - I do have an education degree and I'd have to say that if we got back to emphasizing facts and correct answers then we'd be taking a trip back to nineteenth century public schools, where the schoolmaster/marm reads from a grammar book aloud and the students repeat it back verbatim.

The key word in that phrase is "emphasizing."  A teacher that emphasizes facts and correct answers tells the students what those facts and correct answers are and expects the students to memorize them.  If memorization was the key to learning, then our educational system would look a whole lot different than it does.  

Teachers can teach facts - it's not only acceptable but necessary.  But what teachers try to focus on are concepts and learning - how to arrive at the facts - so that when a student is faced with a situation they haven't memorized the fact for, they can figure out how to find it on their own.

42

  • RPG Editors
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2004, 01:26:33 PM »
I agree with Kije, having onece been an education major. Memorization is a lower form of intelligence, sure it's necessary but there's a lot more to learning than memorization. In truth, being able to recall a fact doesn't say much about a person's intelligence or education level.
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

Tekiel

  • Level 11
  • *
  • Posts: 457
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Justin Bailey
    • View Profile
    • Tek's site
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2004, 02:17:11 PM »
Kije got it right.  You'll probably hear exactly what he said when you bring it up to your professor.  Mostly, people are starting to realize that they grew up memorizing facts and such, and don't know any of the answers anymore (since they only memorized the stuff long enough to pass the tests).  Plus, they  are also realizing that they didn't enjoy school so why can't they change something (like how to teach) so that their kids can enjoy school?  

Basically, the emphasis, though still including rote and memorization where absolutely necessary, is on teaching kids in a "fun" way so that they can enjoy school.  And also finding ways to teach kids all that information without using rote (because, you know, memorizing is one of the hardest ways to learn something).
Ignorance is a common ailment.  In time, it goes away.  Unless it proves fatal.
"It is the writing of someone who assumes he has something to say." -Becca Manwaring

House of Mustard

  • Level 44
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Fell Points: 3
  • Firstborn Unicorn
    • View Profile
    • robisonwells.com
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2004, 02:32:49 PM »
Sorry, but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation.  If it was talking about memorization, then it probably would have said memorization.  

The fact of the matter (no pun intended -- har har har) is that correct answers are very important.  How in the world would you teach math or chemistry or biology without emphasizing correct answers?  I'm going to teach poli sci, which is open to a fair amount of personal interpretation -- there isn't necessarily one correct answer to the many political issues.  But there are facts.  I can't imagine trying to teach a government class without first understanding the basics of the constitution.  You can debate the interpretation of the constitution--but not until you learn the facts of it.

Sure, it's important to teach kids how to come to the right conclusions -- teach research skills, and deductive reasoning--but you teach that so that they can come to the facts and correct answers.  After all, there have to be standards: when you earn an A in English, you really ought to have a basic understanding of grammar--facts.  When you get an A in algebra, you should actually know how to solve problems.  When you get an A in US History, you should know the causes of the Civil War.

Yes, we should use other teaching methods than memorization, but those teaching methods, ultimately, should be used to obtain a knowledge of facts and correct answers.

Of course, that's my opinion.
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.

www.robisonwells.com

42

  • RPG Editors
  • Level 56
  • *
  • Posts: 4350
  • Fell Points: 8
  • Unofficial World Saver
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2004, 02:58:41 PM »
Quote
Yes, we should use other teaching methods than memorization, but those teaching methods, ultimately, should be used to obtain a knowledge of facts and correct answers.


The point of teaching is to help people learn to solve problems and find solutions, not just to give the correct answer. Facts and correct answers change, even in math and the sciences. Grammar evolves, historians rewrite history regularly, and scienctific theories get proven wrong.

If all students do is learn facts and give correct answers, then learning is limited to what is already known.

Maybe because I was learning how to teach art, but I was taught that by saying there is a correct answer, you sifle creative reasoning. Creativity is what allows a society or an industry to progress. It's also what allows inidividuals to resolve problems.

Also, HoM, I think you need to start understanding that most of the "answer" you will be teaching in history or government will only have a minimal usefullness for most of your students. 90% of all learning during a persons lifetime is done outside of a classroom situation.
The Folly of youth is to think that intelligence is a subsitute for experience. The folly of age is to think that experience is a subsitute for intelligence.

Lieutenant Kije

  • Level 33
  • *
  • Posts: 1945
  • Fell Points: 1
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2004, 03:04:14 PM »
Quote
I can't imagine trying to teach a government class without first understanding the basics of the constitution. You can debate the interpretation of the constitution--but not until you learn the facts of it.


Again: emphasis.  If you emphasize learning the facts of the Constitution, you get students who understand the facts of the Constitution, and whose understanding diminishes as a knowledge of exactly what Article II says becomes less and less necessary for them to get by in life.  If you emphasize the interpretation, you get students who not only understand the Constitution, but how it is being applied in modern legal situations, which is something they are much more likely to encounter as functioning Americans.  Yes, you have to learn the facts, but you shouldn't dwell on them (read: emphasize.)

Quote
when you earn an A in English, you really ought to have a basic understanding of grammar--facts.


When you earn an A in English, grammar is only the most basic of concepts.  The real emphasis is on composition and reading comprehension and interpretation.  Again, a base of facts (grammar) is necessary, but after the basic facts are learned you move on to more important things.  The important things should be emphasized, not the basic facts.

Quote
When you get an A in algebra, you should actually know how to solve problems.  


Math is obviously a very fact-based discipline.  But "how to solve problems" is less an issue of basic facts as it is strategies and application of facts.

Quote
When you get an A in US History, you should know the causes of the Civil War.


People are still writing books on the causes of the Civil War (and WWI, and the Great Depression, etc.)  Sure, there are basic facts, but history gets interesting when you dig deeper than the basic facts, when you uncover new facts, when you try and look at things in a new light.  That's why people are still writing about the causes of the Civil War.  

I wouldn't think of that statement as saying "facts and correct answers are not important."  Perhaps a clearer way of saying it (and spelling out the implications) would be "after establishing the basic facts and 'correct answers,' effective teachers move beyond to higher levels of comprehsion and higher-order thinking skills."

Quote
Yes, we should use other teaching methods than memorization, but those teaching methods, ultimately, should be used to obtain a knowledge of facts and correct answers.


I have said that facts are important, but I would argue that a better ultimate purpose for education is to teach people how to learn, rather than a gathering of facts and correct answers.  That way, the next generation expands on our knowledge rather than being confined to it.

House of Mustard

  • Level 44
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Fell Points: 3
  • Firstborn Unicorn
    • View Profile
    • robisonwells.com
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2004, 05:50:50 PM »
Quote
Again: emphasis.  If you emphasize learning the facts of the Constitution, you get students who understand the facts of the Constitution, and whose understanding diminishes as a knowledge of exactly what Article II says becomes less and less necessary for them to get by in life.  If you emphasize the interpretation, you get students who not only understand the Constitution, but how it is being applied in modern legal situations, which is something they are much more likely to encounter as functioning Americans.  Yes, you have to learn the facts, but you shouldn't dwell on them (read: emphasize.)


But that's the whole point: you can't emphasize the interpretation, because the interpretation is what changes.  There are four major schools of thought in constitutional law, and who knows how many minor.  What I see as more important is that the kids learn the facts, so that they can make the interpretation they agree with.

***Edit***
I had originally written out a response to each paragraph, but it didn't really get my point across.  I guess this is what I really think:  Educational theory changes from decade to decade, and I personally think that our current theory is faulty.  I do not agree, and I doubt I'll ever agree, that facts, correct answers, and standards of achievement can be pushed aside in favor of "teaching students how to learn."  

It's not that I believe that is a bad goal--I would love it if students emerged from high school knowing how to learn, and loving learning, but I don't see any statistics showing that it's working.

Thinking back on high school, the classes where I learned the most were the classes where the teacher had high expectations that he (or she) expected us to meet.  They were the same teachers who knew their subjects inside and out.  

On the other hand, the teachers who spent a lot of time on group projects, or 'alternative learning methods' did nothing for me.  Generally, the alternative teaching styles were a wide open door, letting students slack off as much as they pleased.  It was those teacher that you knew you could play -- you knew you could get around whatever requirements they set, and you did the least amount of work possible.

Of course, I know what you're going to say: if that's what was going on in those classes, then those teachers weren't doing it the right way.  I'll certainly concede that.  I've read enough education literature to know that they fell short in numerous areas.  I'll I can say is this: I learned a lot in classes that expected a lot, and that actually taught me things, and I didn't learn much in the classes that didn't.
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.

www.robisonwells.com

Lieutenant Kije

  • Level 33
  • *
  • Posts: 1945
  • Fell Points: 1
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2004, 06:58:10 PM »
Quote
What I see as more important is that the kids learn the facts, so that they can make the interpretation they agree with.

I agree.  But you'll also have to teach them the interpretation, because most students won't take those facts and use them on their own, and read up on Constitutional theory of their own free will.  They'll forget them.  So you teach the interpretation too, and that's when you take the facts and make them alive (sorry for the cheesy educational imagery) - when you get the students to move beyond the facts and integrate them with their own beliefs, experience, etc.  I guess I just think that the facts are means to an end, and not ends themselves.

I remember fairly little of distinction when it comes to high school, and to be honest most of the facts I have long since forgotten as I have not used them since I learned them (e.g. most of the math, specifics about the books I read, names/dates/places from history, the rules of handball, etc.)  I believe that school - especially high school - should excite the student about something.  Help them to figure out what they enjoy and what they are good at.  And focusing on facts doesn't achieve that as well as other means, in my opinion.  Once a student knows what they want they will go get it themselves, and learning is so much easier when the students are motivated in this way.  I think that a lot of high school students (maybe most, maybe all but a few) really know enough about what's out there and about who they are to know what they want.  So school can expose them to a broad range of ideas and subjects and do it in interesting, engaging ways.

Now I do completely agree with you that the teacher that demands the most gets the most, and that often "touchy-feely" approaches haven't been high on demands.  I believe that new approaches, open-ended instruction, and higher-level activities can and should be demanding and structured.  High school students do need to be guided.  It's much more difficult to provide demands and structure in such an environment, I believe, but it can be done.  

I think that when the President reamrked about "the soft bigotry of low expectations" he was talking just about that - teachers who don't demand enough of their students.

Sigyn

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Nonononono
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2004, 07:40:07 PM »
My brother-in-law is fifteen and has just started high school.  His English teacher is, in his words, a "hippie", meaning she emphasizes free thinking and interpretation rather than facts and basic information.  He hates the class.  The last time he went, all the students spent ten minutes contemplating a raisin and then writing their feelings about it.  How does this help with English?  He feels like he isn't learning anything and just writes the crap she wants to hear.  He prefers the classes where he actually learns facts that he can apply and build on.

I've had teachers that went both ways, either emphasizing facts or interpretation.  The ones who emphasized facts first and interpretation second were almost always the better teachers because they gave us a basis for our interpretation.
If I had any clue, would I be here?

Archon

  • Level 27
  • *
  • Posts: 1487
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Master of Newbie Smackdown
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2004, 07:47:47 PM »
Quote
The fact of the matter (no pun intended -- har har har) is that correct answers are very important.  How in the world would you teach math or chemistry or biology without emphasizing correct answers?


     I have had many classes, especially math, where the right answer isnt considered the priority. Most of these classes are ones where you can't just give the answer, you have to show work. Some go so far that just showing work would get you more points than just giving the answers. I hate these kinds of classes. The teachers say that the reason they make you show work is that it is more important to know how to do any variation of the problem than to just get the right answer. I am a person who makes shortcuts for myself so that I can do a lot of problems in my head. This system doesnt allow students to do stuff like that though. Which is why I disagree with it, they arent going to care if you can show your work in the real world, especially not more than the answer you got. I agree that when an answer is wrong, it is wrong, and you shouldnt get points for just trying, or for showing your work. It says to the students, "ok well that is fine if you want to do things wrong, you will still get half credit.
It isnt consistent with real life, and I think that is why it is less effective.
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide
In the depth of winter, I finally discovered that within me there lay an invincible summer. -Albert Camus

JP Dogberry

  • Level 41
  • *
  • Posts: 2713
  • Fell Points: 9
  • Master of Newbie Slapdown!
    • View Profile
    • Effusive Ambivalence
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2004, 08:10:00 PM »
Ok, I'm speaking as someone currently doing an Education degree at a rather progressive thinking university with up to date ideas. So I kinda have a clue what I'm talking about. So here is where I say: NO NO NO NO NO!

If you want to emphasise and teach facts, you are teaching in a modernist fasion. Modernism is based around rationality, science, efficiency and such; it promotes a single truth to the universe, a single correct truth and viewpoint of the world, excludes those who don't fit into this truth and rejects anything not logical, like God or art. In a modernist school, which is teacher centric, students are taught answers - the, single, correct answers, by rote. This is WRONG and STUPID.

Intepretation is a much better idea, but not the whole deal, just part of it.

We live in "New Times" or "Postmodernity". In our current worldview, all speaking points are viewed as equal, and there is no one correct truth - essentially, the modernist stance is rejected. Similarly, Informatiopn and Communication technologies have significantly changed access to information and such.

So here's a problem. You set a task, and the students easily plagerise by copying off the internet. Which is a better solution:

1) Use an essay verification engine to stamp out the plagerists.

2) Design the task differentlly, so that students can't plagerise.

Hold up, a task students can't plagerise? Simple, emphasise the skills and method. Work in teams (Since teamwork is a modern skill EVERY SINGLE PERSON will find useful when they want to get a job) and have them assign different group roles, journal their progress, and such. Give some marks for the final product, more marks for the journal and reflection. This is going to help people a lot more. Instead of just learning the facts they need to do the assignment, thewy are learning the skills they need to do the assignment, the ones that will actually be useful in later life. Essential, in fact.

It has been suggested a modernist teaching style is based on the three Rs: Reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic. In 1993, William E. Doll, Jr. suggested a matrix based on four Rs: Richness (Having an open curriculum with multple layers of meaning)  Recursion (Reflection on previous and finished tasks.) Relation (Having tasks relate back to odler ones, and those in other classes so that they become more relevent) and Rigor (A curriculum that suggests alternative ideas and - you guessed it - intepretation)

Now, in this four R curriculum, you get constructivist rather than instructivist tasks which teach skills, ideas, knowledge and such, things that are a lot more useful than facts. Especially since in New Times, there are no facts. When every viewpoint is equal, (which it is) and science disproves itself regularly (How many studies are conducted with coporate interets in mind? like those ones that proved smoking wasn't harmful or such)

By just teaching facts you're not so much a bad teacher, as one several decades out of date.
Go go super JP newbie slapdown force! - Entropy

Sigyn

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Nonononono
    • View Profile
Re: The soft bigotry of low expectations
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2004, 08:14:40 PM »
But students need facts as a basis.  How can they make any interpretations if they have nothing to interpret?
If I had any clue, would I be here?