Faulty, Fadish, Feel-good Philosophies and How to Avoid Their Propagation

Over their careers, teachers, and by extension their students, are subjected to a tremendous amount of Faulty, Faddish, Feel-good Methods that don't work but are pushed very vigorously for a while and then discarded.  They take a lot of time to learn and implement.  They also take a toll of emotional energy from teachers to change what they are doing, with a resultant loss of trust or faith in actually finding the truth about anything, despite the fact that there are better ways and worse ways of teaching that can be proven.

Students are harmed in two ways by these fffphies, as I call them.  They are obviously harmed when they are taught by ineffective methods, with incorrect ideas, or by lost time.  They are also hurt as teachers' emotional energy is dissipated through a constant imposition of these fffphies.

So do we just have to put up with these losses?  I believe that much of this problem is caused because teachers and especially their trainers/professors don't know or study the history of these philosophies in education or their origins, many of which have their base in the constructivist philosophy and have been resurrected/modified in one form or another.  Let me give a few examples from the past century.

The earliest example I am aware of is from the movie The Music Man.  The Music Man is a flimflammer that knows nothing about teaching people to play the instruments he is selling.  He uses "the think program" idea to avoid teaching.  The students are supposed to "think" about how to play rather than being bored by practicing.

The next example is from the book To Kill a Mockingbird in chapters 2 and 4.  In chapter 2 Scout gets a new teacher, Miss Caroline, in 1st grade and is told by Jem, an older student, "Our teacher says Miss Caroline’s introducing a new way of teaching. She learned about it in college. It’ll be in all the grades soon. You don’t have to learn much out of books that way...."  Scout explains, "The Dewey Decimal System consisted, in part, of Miss Caroline waving cards at us on which were printed 'the,' 'cat,' 'rat,' 'man,' and 'you.'"  The "new" way to teach reading was with sight words and not phonics, and parents were NOT to teach their children how to read.

In chapter 4 Scout further describes the "new" ways of teaching. "The remainder of my schooldays were no more auspicious than the first. Indeed, they were an endless Project that slowly evolved into a Unit, in which miles of construction paper and wax crayon were expended by the State of Alabama in its well-meaning but fruitless efforts to teach me Group Dynamics."  Constructivism has always been about projects, with all their busy-work, and about group work.

The third example comes from my parents.  My father was 5 years older than my mother and was taught reading by phonics - the "old" way.  This made him a good speller as well as a good reader.  My mother came along later and went to one of the newer city schools, which had adopted the "new" ways of teaching, which meant sight words and no phonics.  Though she became an excellent writer on her own later, wrote several books, and even published one, she could never spell correctly.

Those that were educated by the "new" methods from John Dewey (constructivism) during the Depression era were the ones who ended up of age to be the new recruits when World War II began.  Because of these methods of teaching math, the new recruits could not do the math needed in the army and had to be reeducated before they could use artillery or many other army jobs.  There is a little movie clip by Abbott and Costello that is quite humorous showing the "creative" ways of doing math that the constructivists are always pushing at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkbQDEXJy2k.

As a result of the poor performance of the "new" constructivist way of teaching during the 30's and early 40's, constructivism was dropped and tried-and-true methods were used during the 50's.  However most university professors still believed in constructivism despite the evidence.  When Sputnik circled the earth, these proponents of constructivism saw that as a reason to reintroduce this teaching philosophy back into the schools, indeed it went rampant on the university campuses with extreme variations that gave us the "new morality" (the same old immorality), and "Values Clarification" (which made values "old-fashioned"), because "truth is merely what you perceive it to be."

In the K-12 schools sight word reading was reintroduced, and phonics, grammar, and spelling rules were ridiculed as "old-fashioned" and of no value.  "Be creative!" they said.  The 60's were also when the term "New Math" was coined and promoted by the proponents of constructivism.  In the 70's many began to oppose these faulty methods and began the Back-to-Basics movement to return schools to using phonics, grammar, spelling, times tables, and facts in history and science instead of the "creative," subjective ways constructivists were pushing.

In the 80's and 90's constructivists changed the terminology to "Whole Language" and were going to use the term "Whole Math" instead of "New Math" until Whole Language was discredited as a terrible way to teach Language Arts.  Project Follow Through, the biggest ever study done on teaching methods proved conclusively that constructivist programs by whatever name were ineffective and that direct instruction was better.  The study fell on deaf ears in the colleges of education and was swept under the rug.

As the Back to Basics movement changed into the Standards movement, the proponents again changed the names for the same methodologies using terms such as "Balanced Literacy" for Whole Language and "Standards-Based Math" for New or Whole Math.  To fight the ever changing target of new names that confused the public, allowing these ideas to be reintroduced over and over, the opponents came up with the No Child Left Behind legislation that was supposed to show with testing what really worked and what didn't and use government to push out these faulty philosophies.

Unfortunately it backfired.  By giving government the power to enforce "standards" it allowed the "experts" from the colleges, who by this time were completely constructivists (because you couldn't get hired as a professor unless you were a constructivist) to use that power with Common Core to force every teacher to use constructivist methods.  These "experts" designed the tests more to prove whether a teacher was using their methods rather than to show what or whether students had learned.

This short history, of the attempts by constructivists to control our schools, I hope, will help teachers and parents to hopefully not be fooled by fffphies, but to see programs for what they really are.  The "Apollo Project" in a local district appears to be the same thing disguised as something new.

Differentiation

Excerpt: "It seems that, when it comes to differentiation, teachers are either not doing it at all, or beating themselves up for not doing it as well as they're supposed to be doing it. Either way, the verdict is clear: Differentiation is a promise unfulfilled, a boondoggle of massive proportions."

"It seems to me that the only educators who assert that differentiation is doable are those who have never tried to implement it themselves: university professors, curriculum coordinators, and school principals. It's the in-the-trenches educators who know the stark reality: Differentiation is a cheap way out for school districts to pay lip service to those who demand that each child be educated to his or her fullest potential."

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/07/differentiation-doesnt-work.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-FB

Why America's Schools Have a Money Problem

I post this link, because it is a common reason stated as to why America's schools have a funding problem.  It is not incorrect, but it misses a couple big issues in the discussion.

Why America's Schools Have a Money Problem

The article has an interactive map that shows the average spending per student for every district in America.  Its conclusion is that the inequality of property tax revenues is the main cause of funding inequality between districts.  Utah's schools are mostly equalized by state law, unlike those cited, but that means they are all low.  The article is correct regarding property tax problems to a certain degree.  I might also add that for the western states it is difficult to fund schools when the federal government owns 60-70% of the land, but doesn't pay property tax.  It pays a small amount in lieu of taxes, but not nearly what property tax revenues would be.  The eastern states have almost all of their land owned privately and paying the tax.  That gives them a huge advantage, and they generally have less children too, so less students to spend it on with more revenues to begin with.

This doesn't tell the whole story however. It doesn't tell the mandated interventions for different problems that some districts have. In other words, some districts have much bigger problems with their student populations than other districts have, which government requires them then to spend more on. Some districts that are spending more may have less to spend for the average student because of these mandates.

If you compare Ogden SD with Alpine SD, you will find that Ogden spends an average of $8181. Alpine spends $5409. That's not what is spend on the average student. That is the total spent divided by the number of students. It looks like Ogden is way better off.

However Ogden has more students with interventions prescribed compared to total students than Alpine has. They are required to spend that extra on them, so in some cases those that spend more may actually have less for the regular student - all because of government intrusion, mostly federal.

Much of the so-called "waste" in administration, etc., in school district spending is not district caused. It is federal government caused, yet we unfairly blame the local districts who have their hands tied. THAT is the message that needs to get out in order to get enough support to free ourselves from federal government tyranny. The federal government mandates cost us more than the funds they provide! (What else is new?!)

Attacking Problems

One problem I see in classroom management is that many teachers, at the beginning of the year, identify a few problem students and spend great efforts in trying to "solve" those problems.  Then all year long they go around trying to put out fires that come up and "accommodating" these students.  In most cases "accommodating" these kids is not the answer, because it isn't us that need to change.  It is the student.

To me it is more important to set up what will work for most of the students, get them working and producing in class.  THEN, as the majority of the class comes on line, you can use them to help you get the problem students to start coming on line too.  This is not a hard and fast rule, but I have found that if most of the class is being successful, that will have an influence in getting the others to come along.  It gives them hope that, if they put forth the effort to change, they would be able to succeed too.  Many of those with problems don't believe, or don't know they can change, or how they should react to difficulties.

Too many educators and parents today feel that it is the adult who needs to change, when it is usually the child that needs to change.  That is not always easy or fun, but it usually works better than trying to change the environment the student is in.

Continuity and consistency, in assignments and routine, builds confidence.  This is more important than spending all of a teacher's energies in having every activity or assignment a "higher level thinking skill."  The same is true with discipline in regards to rewards and punishments.

Punishments should not be big and onerous, but rather small, so that the teacher is not reluctant to administer them.  Not all punishments have to "fit the crime," because the teacher doesn't have time or resources to fit every deviation a student might commit.  The important thing is a consistent and minimal, but easily used, punishment.  Writing a simple sentence about obedience ten times at recess or five minutes of "sleeping" time at recess are usually sufficient, or just missing recess or P.E. until the assignments are completed and turned in.

Rewards for good work also need to be small and plentiful as well.  Green slips that go into a drawing for a variety of penny candy or cheap trinkets are plenty.

Sometimes teachers are made to feel guilty because every little action they do is not "authentic" or perfect.  It doesn't have to be.  It does need to be simple and consistent, not constantly under revision or only administered according to the mood of the teacher.

Competition is NOT a Silver Bullet for Schools

Conservative political pundits have been saying for decades that competition is what is needed to improve schools.  Part of this is based on the mistaken view that parents will always know which school is the best, that somehow they will know the methods and programs that work best for their kids and how well those methods and programs are working in a particular school.  The reality is that they probably have no idea WHAT methods or programs are being used in the school, let alone whether they are effective!  If they have an opinion on it, it is most likely based on what the school has told them rather than what the truth is.  This is true regardless of which school you refer to, district, charter, or private.

With the emphasis on competition that charter schools and the voucher movement have brought, combined with the personal ambitions of policy makers and the media's insatiable appetite for news, we see more and more spin on "new" ideas, programs, and educational schemes, all of which are attractive but untested.

Competition is based on pride.  It is not based on being good.  It is based on being better than certain others.  There is no satisfaction in being good, but only in being better than others being compared.  This leads to seeking for more things to entice parents with, to get them to bring their kids to that school.  Those things usually end up being warm-fuzzies that lack substance, because that is what is attractive or what sells.

Those warm-fuzzies could be anything from programs that claim to teach "higher-level thinking," to open classrooms, to more technology, or fancier gadgets or buildings.  Most of the time these things add much additional work to the teacher.  There are only so many things they can do in a day, so these additional things begin to take away from the ability to provide other more important things, like foundational skills that take work from both parent as well as teacher, physical exercise, subjects not tested, or money for what is more important.

I have listened in faculty meetings where the discussion was based around how to make the school more attractive, so parents won't go to another "new" charter school coming next year.  The suggestions were mostly things that for the teacher would be additional work, questionable as to its value, but the vogue thing at the time, like more iPods, etc.

This phenomenon undermines being good and turns efforts into becoming more attractive instead.  It ends up being a lot like having a garden and thinking that introducing competition from the "natural influx of competing plants" (weeds) will improve the garden.  Yes, some plants will "step up" to the competition and put out more growth, but their efforts go into competing for light and space instead of producing food.

Competition between students can be motivating when used properly.  I've used it a lot with things like knowledge bowl quiz competitions.  It can help businesses, though unbridled, or ruthless competition can also eliminate healthy competition establishing monopolies that cost more and provide less.  Competition between schools is proving to not be improving them.

The more we introduce "competition" between our schools, the more we push them into spending their time and energy in competing rather than producing, being attractive rather than building a solid foundation.

What is the problem?

There is one thing that people need to know about America's educational system, at least what it has been.  It was never a national issue until JFK used education to get himself elected.  He used the Sputnik incident to say that education needed reform.  Education had nothing to do with it.  The USSR had devoted all their resources to getting a satellite working for many reasons.  JFK said it was because our educational system was failing, and that HE would fix that.  It wasn't him who began the national takeover however it was LBJ, using the civil rights issues to interfere in education.

Our education system was actually the best in the world and every country was trying to imitate it.  Starting with LBJ politicians found that they could effectively use the issue to get themselves elected, Bush being one of most egregious.  Unfortunately, unlike Kennedy, he made good on his promise with NCLB, laying the foundation which became today's Common Core.

Thanks to all of these politicians calling for reform, most people now think our educational system is in shambles, a broken mess, which will result in our country's demise.  In reality if apples are truly compared to apples (meaning we cut out all the students the other country's don't test) we still beat virtually every country.  Not that there aren't problems, but most of those have come from all the messing that politicians, and courts, have done to it!

We don't have to totally throw out the system and start over.  We DON'T need Washington "experts" to take it over for us.  We need to return to what was one of the main things that made us great - the community owned school system.  Despite the fact that some were not as good as others, it still produced better educated students by far than any other system in the world, and was a major factor in making us great.

If Common Core is thrown out, it is not the end of the world!  Of course I believe we will be MUCH better off if we get rid of it and NCLB.  Of course to really do it right, we need to divide the big districts back to community-run organizations - removing federal and most state interference and begin to believe in government OF, BY, AND FOR the people again instead of doing it TO the people.

Romanticizing in Education

Romanticizing is such a huge problem in education today.  This is where we view things or people as we wish they were, instead of how they really are.  It’s kind of like lying to ourselves to make us feel good or sound good to others. It clouds our judgment of plans and actions.  It is like allowing our heart to overrule our brain!

We wish all children were just little learning machines, and all we have to do is set up the right situation, and they will just whiz through learning on their own!  It denies the fact that along with the angelic side that all children come with, there is also a demon side that must be tamed before success can come.

We frequently choose to view children “with rose colored glasses,” because we don’t want to go to the work of actually teaching them discipline, following through with them, and planning.  So we do wonderful sounding, though not very educational, “projects,” which have a great deal of busy-work to them without giving the practice students need.

We do group assignments, which we make successful by putting someone into the group who will get it done even if no one else works at it, allowing us to give credit to all, including those who did little.  We justify this by saying that this is the way “businesses” operate, when in fact businesses don’t really.  They have to have individual accountability, or they can’t justify keeping the employee on the payroll.

We use subjective assessments, so we can make sure everyone passes, regardless of effort or learning taking place.  We label these assessments as “authentic,” so they sound more valid than they really are.

We call practice “drill and kill,” because it isn’t fun.  We call teacher directed learning “lecturing,” so that gets us off the hook of really doing our job, and then justify our lack of real teaching by saying that teachers should be “a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage.”  While the romantics deny that this is the result of the philosophy, the students end up not gaining the skill necessary to be proficient.

These ideas have been replicated, with new labels over and over for a hundred years - ever since John Dewey gained credit for their origin.  They continue to be largely refuted, yet never die, because they sound so wonderful, so much like we wish children and learning were like – as one continuous round of fun and exciting explorations.

Unfortunately the results of these philosophies are students who can’t or won’t.  They promote in students an aura of awe that starts with, “I wish I was good at…” math, piano, writing, or whatever the subject is, while believing they never will be.

These ideas keep being resurrected when new teacher trainers, wanting to promote themselves or their products, assign the blame for the lack of proficiency, caused by this romantic belief, on the very things that would have provided proficiency!  These are direct instruction, practice, and building facts in students first and cementing them with deep understanding as the students gain sufficient facts to put together into understanding, rather than just trying to “deeply think” from the start.  This philosophy was manifest early on in Professor Harold Hill’s “Think System” in The Music Man!

The educational romantic wants the end (deep understanding) without the beginning and all the work in the middle.  He wants the roof without the foundation.  Human beings do not generally gain understanding by starting with the theory behind it.  They have to gain possession of the facts pertaining to it first.

As the person gains more facts, they can begin to put them together to learn the why behind them.  Some facts are more important than others in this process, despite romantics saying that it doesn’t really matter which facts they learn.  That is where the idea of “standards” came from, the desire to make sure the most important facts were taught.

Romantics, or constructivists using the philosophical name, reacting to the back-to-basics movement, conceded the need for some facts, but responded that it doesn’t really matter which facts, just have them learn some facts, and that would be good enough.

Standards were then called for, in order to make certain facts recognized as more important.  Constructivists, who were in positions of leadership that would create those standards, responded by changing the standards, which were at first measurable, into nebulous “understandings,” which were not measurable.

Because the new “standards” were subjective in nature, constructivists could then claim success with their methods, even when proficiency had not been obtained.  This continued the erosion of trust in educators, even though most teachers in the trenches adapted these ideas mostly into methods that worked, instead of what the constructivist theorists promoted.

Those who attempted to fight constructivists legislatively came up with the idea to make curriculum proven by student test scores, calling it “Standards-Based,” not realizing that constructivist had already turned standards into nebulous understandings.  By using the power of government to try to force standards, they naively gave constructivists the power to force teachers to adopt their philosophy by using tests, which they constructed to show the methods used, to ferret out teachers who would not adopt their methods.  This manifested itself in Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

With the adoption of CCSS, which are not amendable by teachers or parents, and using the tests to reveal teachers using the “closed-door veto,” constructivist have finally gotten the way to enforce their philosophy on all teachers nation-wide!  They want every state to adopt them, so that there will be no way to compare whether they accomplish their goal.

There will always be a need for a few romantics in the world to give spice and flavor.  However a plate of spaghetti would not taste good, if it were mostly spice and no noodles.  So too if constructivists/romantics control all of what and how our children are taught nation-wide, via CCSS or some other scheme, the result will not be healthy or desirable for our country’s future.  We will not be able to discern what is good and what is not.  We will not be able to judge it accurately.

In order to have the balancing effect that competition can bring, we must have variety of curriculum and methods between, not only states, but also districts.  We need to have local districts creating their own standards and comparing them against other districts in order to be able to discard what romantically may sound delicious, but in practice does not nourish.