The soft bigotry of low expectations

[42]

So I see what some people on the board are saying about how they liked the teachers who emphasised learning facts and right answers.

However, I think you are being to self-centered. One of things that was pointed out ot me when I was in the education program, is that people who want to teach, or even those who are in college, do NOT represent the majority of students. A large majority of high school students do not get to attend college. Most of the students who do attend college never study education.

So why is this? Because every student learns differently. As a public school teacher, you do not get to choose who you teach. You are required, legally, to teach every student in your class whether they are a child prodigy or a mental vegetable.

Oh, and don't count on standerized testing to seperate people. Current legislation is trying to get rid of tracks, remedial and honor programs. And there is good reason for it. Honor programs and remedial programs promote stereotypes, elitism, and discrimination in schools. For something that is meant to help people, they, more often than not, favor a few and punish many.

So the current trend in teaching is to teach several modes learning. And guess what? It works. More students are successfully completing high school, attending college and having successful careers. The modernist method of teaching just created an elitist class and discriminated against minority students and students with special needs.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

not that I dont belive you,... but do you have any stats on that?... you know for gaming purposes  .

[42]

Got to: http://nces.ed.gov

http://nces.ed.gov//programs/coe/highlights/h3.asp

I would like to point out that, it seems that this thread is composed of education professionals (kije, tekial) arguing against a non-professional, uneducated heathens (everyone else). Education is a huge discipline in its own right. It's kind of like saying you been to a doctors office so you are now qualified to be a doctor.

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

Archon, actually what you're describing is known in philosophical circles as Skepticism. It also has an ancient Greek origin. The modern concept of relativism is that anyone's perspective is different, and therefore everyone's world is different, and therefore (in extreme cases) whatever anyone believes is right for them, and even if something is right for YOU, it doesn't change things for them. This concept is less abhorrent in morals and ethics (though I still think it's wrong and it still bothers me) but when it starts creeping into other areas, it gets veritably frightening.

Makes sure you don't confuse relatvism with relativity. While relativism states that everything is different for each person, relativity states that everything is the same. (ie, every person will see light traveling at the same velocity, no matter what their position or own velocity, and that all laws of physics behave the same in all perspectives in uniform motion).

42, that last post is incredibly insulting, and I will lock threads where you continue to imply that your particular background means that the comments made by other people are worthless. Yes, you may have made more classes on the subject, but that does NOT invalidate comments made by other people.  I'm not going to go into a long rant about problems with your metaphor, but it's not giving a clear picture. If you want to feel that your understanding disqualifies anyone else from giving input that's fine, but then keep it to yourself.

[House of Mustard]

It's kind of like saying you been to a doctors office so you are now qualified to be a doctor.

It makes you wonder, though, if the education programs (the programs that educate educators) are so far removed from reality that they can't see the forest for the trees.  In this particular example (the facts and correct answers thing), everyone who has been through education programs agrees with the statement (to some degree) and everyone else seems to disagree.  I've discussed this with everyone I work with -- from MBAs and CPAs to blue-collar forklift drivers -- and all of them find the notion simply absurd.  Could it be that this current round of educational theory has crossed the line out of the realm of common sense?  Obviously, educational ideas twenty years ago were different from what they are today, and some ideas (the stuff JP is learning) are different still.  If educational theory is so unstable, then why are its proponents so loyally devoted?

So anyway, here's what my professor said yesterday -- which was a surprisingly pleasant happy-medium (not as liberal as Kije, Teikel, or 42's ideas; not as bizarre as JP's; and not as conservative as mine):  Basically, she said that facts are essential, and need to be learned, but they are the end-all of the education system.  The end-all, is knowing how to utilize those facts.  She gave two examples:

1) You're in an high-level trigonometry class, and you're solving a huge problem.  If you do everything right--showing a knowledge of the overall concept--but screw up and miss a minus sign, then the answer would be wrong.  Still, the error was tiny, and not related to your knowledge of either arithmatic or trigonometry.  It was just a human error.  In that situation, you should not be horribly penalized for not reaching the 'correct answer'.

2) You're studying international relations, and debating whether the United States should have entered a war.  Ultimately, the debate is the most important thing -- it's the most relevant part of the exercise, and school should be teaching you how to think through these types of things.  But you can't think it through if you don't know the historical precedents of American foreign policy: the Monroe Doctrine; Woodrow Wilson's 14 points; etc.  Yes, the discussion is the most important part, but it can't be responsibly discussed without first knowing the facts.

So, like SE mentioned, the problem comes in the word 'emphasize'.  Yes, facts and correct answers should be learned, but only to allow you apply that knowledge in creative and critical-thinking ways.

Admittedly, this is what Kije said in his first post.  It was only once we began discussing it more in depth that the more liberal ideas emerged from the group.

[42]

42, that last post is incredibly insulting, and I will lock threads where you continue to imply that your particular background means that the comments made by other people are worthless.

Sorry SE, but I've get really frustrated in discussion like this, because I can't go back an give everyone in the discussion the same experiences that I've had. My expereinces, from being on the other end of the education system have led me to very different conclusions from what I had at the student end of the system. It's something I just can't condense into a few paragraphs.

I think contemporary theories in education get defended so intensely, is because they have to be defended intensely to be given a chance. Any change in an education policy or method is almost always countered with a large opposition from the community. It's frustrating to education professionals who've spent years gathering data and going over test-cases to have it written off by a few conservative parents who can't adapt to change. I guess I just wish that there was some trust placed in the r&d end of the education field.

[House of Mustard]

But look at what the trained educators have said in this thread: that truth is relative; that facts change; that there are no solid answers.

It makes me wonder how we're supposed to believe educational theorists -- people that claim they have the answer to the problems of teaching.  Is education the only field in which there are solid answers?  Why are these various teaching methods the 'right' way to do things, if we've rejected the idea that there is a 'right way'?

[42]

It's kind of like art, what's right is whatever is right at the time. Course, to be fair to the education field, they are looking for absolutes, they're just not sure if they've found them yet. Every child, parent, school and community is diferent so finding an absolute that works for all of them is going to take decades of work, maybe longer.

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

but that's HoM's point, I think. How can they look for absolutes if there are no absolutes? If there is an absolute, then teaching that there are no absolutes is not only wrong, but it's deliberately and intentionally misleading.

which, if you're paying attention, is thing number 1 wrong with relativism in general. If everything is relative, than I can certainly believe that it's not. If everything I (and everyone else) believe is true, than relativism itself isn't true, because I believe it's not. It's proven itself out of existence.

[42]

Saying that there are no absolutes is simply a functional model for the moment. Education specialists hope to find absolutes, but so far they haven't been able to rule out very many variables. Well, they have ruled out that failure is not an option. What frustrates me about adhering to an absolute theory of education is that it usually resigns itself to saying that some children can't be taught.

[House of Mustard]

Education specialists hope to find absolutes

So, like SE and I are saying, educators and educational researchers must believe in absolutes.  How then are they able to promote teaching styles that shun absolutes?  It's self-righteously hypocritical at best.

What frustrates me about adhering to an absolute theory of education is that it usually resigns itself to saying that some children can't be taught.

What frustrates me about non-absolute theories is that they can hide behind uncertainty and flavor-of-the-month teaching styles rather than actually teach.

[Lieutenant Kije]

But look at what the trained educators have said in this thread: that truth is relative; that facts change; that there are no solid answers.

I never said that, nor implied it.

[42]

HoM or SE do you have any absolutes, that will work for every child, in every situation, every time?

You've mentioned emphasizing facts and correct answers. That teaching style will be effective for maybe 40% of the class, maybe 70% if they are an honors class. The rest of the students are simply being put at a disadvantage.

That's why there are so many teaching styles and the most successful teachers use several of them in their teaching. Sure one lesson may alienate a segment of the class, but if you change teaching styles the next lesson you can include them, then again to get the group the previous style alienated. In the big picture, you hopefully get them all.

Also, some teaching styles just don't work for some teachers or for some subjects. Getting all 6.2 million teachers in the US to use the same teaching style is just not feasible.

[House of Mustard]

True Kije, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth.  If you noticed, I mentioned that my professors comments were very in-line with your posts.  (Though that doesn't mean I agree with either of you.)

[42]

So, like SE and I are saying, educators and educational researchers must believe in absolutes.  How then are they able to promote teaching styles that shun absolutes?  It's self-righteously hypocritical at best.

Believing in absolutes doesn't mean that there are actually any. Like I said, education professors aren't sure there are any absolues, they haven't been found yet. And educators don't have the luxery to stop teaching until they find those absolutes in teaching.