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.

Bullying policies and legislation

All of us have experienced "bullying" or manipulation by threats.  None of us like being bullied, because it is with threats that we are pushed into doing something we do not want to do.  These threats can be for physical harm, social intimidation, blackmail, or ridicule.

Since we all have experienced the negative feelings associated with it, we all want to jump on the bandwagon when someone proposes outlawing it - as if there was a policy or law that when passed would just do away with it or, for those who want revenge, punish the perpetrator.  Few people will admit to having tried to manipulate someone else by a threat, though we have all done it.  We only see ourselves as the victims of "bad" people, who need to be manipulated, by threats of punishment or intimidation, into not bullying!

Do you see where this is going?!  Now most people will, at this point, say, "Well, you have to bully the bully to stop him/her from bullying."  The trouble is, it doesn't really work, though it can hide it.  What it usually does is make someone, who is intent on manipulating someone else, more sophisticated in their bullying.  In fact many if not most bullying laws and policies end up being used by bullies to further bully their victims!

Here is one example from the Expect Respect Program.  (Most problems with policies like this come when they are adopted as a "program," a nice little package that policymakers can just drop into place and say their work is done.)

Expect Respect has two major concepts, or golden rules:

Rule 1: If someone is feeling disrespected, they have the right to ask the person to stop what they are doing.

Rule 2: If someone asks you to stop, you have to stop what you were doing - even if you don’t think you were doing anything wrong.

It sounds great!  If they bully you, and you tell them to stop, they HAVE to stop...or you'll tell someone.  Do we really think that someone intent on bullying is just going to stop, because we say that?  The trouble comes where it says "- even if you don't think you were doing anything wrong."  This can then be used by a bully. (I hate using that term to describe one of God's children, because we have all done it.  It makes it seem as though someone was a demon in human form that can never change.)

The training that the school is then required to do (one MORE thing to do - as if they weren't already dealing with it), provides a response that can then be used by the "bully" to stop someone from doing right when the "bully" doesn't like it.  For example, one student tries to stop another from butting into a line.  The student in the wrong can then say, "Stop, you're bullying me!  Now you have to stop bothering me, or I will get you in trouble."  While we might say, "Go ahead and you'll be the one in trouble!"  But a little kid doesn't always think of that, and many times will be intimidated by the threat so they let the bully butt into line.

Many other examples can be given of a timid person in the right being bullied into allowing bad behavior by someone using the "program" designed to stop it.  This has been done over and over with anti-discrimination programs and legislation at the adult level.  Innocent people get discriminated against by the very legislation that was supposed to eliminate it.

Bullying is not stopped by "programs."  It is a process that people have to go through to learn respect for other people.  Policies, legislation, and programs can't do that.  You can't "make" a person be good.  They have to be taught correct principles by precept and example and then choose the better way, which they will usually do when taught by someone who has learned that principle themselves.  You can enforce punishments for specific harm, but bullying and discrimination laws give tools, rather than shackles, to the perpetrators.

Unfortunately we live in a world where we all are still trying to master the principle of love for neighbor.  Sometimes teachers and parents themselves both slip into bullying, and other times they become the victims.  It takes judgment at the personal level.  Just as "Zero Tolerance" policies and laws frequently punish people far beyond what is right and become very inflexible, bullying policies end up doing the same.

My suggestion is this: DON'T pass anti-bullying policies and legislation.  They don't solve the problem.  Local teachers and parents are doing their best to stop it already!  Those seeking to "look like" they are solving the problem from their elevated position like to propose these measures.  But they only make things more difficult for victims and those who seek to really solve the problem - teachers in the trenches and parents.

Why Are Older Teachers Portrayed As The Problem in Teaching?

The odds of having a better teacher are higher with an older, experienced teacher than with a younger, less experienced teacher.  A school that has a higher average years of experience is more likely to have good discipline and higher test scores.  So why is it that older teachers are portrayed as the roadblock to better teaching?

It is true that older teachers ARE a roadblock to professors, administrators, and political activists who use education to promote themselves, their programs, or their philosophies.  These teachers are much less likely to adopt practices that are not productive in the classroom.  They are more likely to have seen other similar, faulty practices.  This frustrates those who would use the schools for their own purposes.  THAT is why they portray the poor teacher as the old, fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud that needs to be pushed out!

The more we try to push these teachers out or threaten them with merit pay or with their jobs, the more we hurt the education of our children.

Videos interviewing David Cox during the campaign to divide Utah's largest school district in 2007

The following 6 videos were made to highlight the history, reasoning, progress, and issues of dividing large school districts during the 2007 campaign to divide Utah's largest school district at that time, Jordan S.D.

#1 of 6 How I came to realize the principle of dividing as the solution.
#2 of 6 The history of Utah legislation for dividing school districts.
#3 of 6 Why dividing large school districts is a better answer than vouchers.
#4 of 6 Many of the problems in education are because of large schools caused by large districts.
#5 of 6 This video deals with some finance issues of dividing large school districts.
#6 of 6 My advice to educators regarding dividing large school districts.

Education is best governed locally

"If it is believed that... elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund or any other general authority of the government than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further, and... commit to the governor and council the management of all our farms, our mills and merchants' stores. No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:420

Math Education

Math is a discipline.  That means it takes practice and effort to become proficient with it and to understand it.  It is not something we can casually be entertained by and passively gain understanding, as perhaps art or music appreciation might be considered (though to truly appreciate these, one must practice and work at them as well to fully understand).

As society has gotten more conveniences to avoid work and more entertaining distractions, we have become less willing to build discipline within ourselves and our children.  Consequently we have sought after those who would tell us that there are easier ways without practice and obedience to law.  The secular educational prophets have promoted the "Constructivist" way of learning math and other subjects.  They have promoted it by preaching that they are helping students develop deeper understanding, while derisively calling the necessary practice of math "drill and kill."

They have tried to make it fun and flashy to fit our lazy, entertainment-filled world.  Most of the time it is merely confusing avoidance of work.  When challenged they have said that parents should not interfere with the work of professionals and that they, and only they, know how kids learn "their way," as if the youth were alien beings.  They have even tried to promote it saying that this is the way females and minorities learn best, which is demeaning and dehumanizing all.

To really understand math, with a deep understanding, one must first become proficient in its operation, just as with a musical instrument.  As the proficiency is improved, one can come to appreciate its nuances and find ways to use it for benefit.  Of course guidance will greatly enhance this.  It is absolutely true that if we only practice our scales in music we will not come to appreciate music, but if we do not practice our scales we will never become proficient OR understand music truly.  The same is true of math.

Because math is so important in so many fields, we must come to understand this progression in learning and seek to avoid theories that will circumvent real and deep understanding and proficiency by those who would sell "new" books and programs or seek to gain power or glory in the field of education.  Constructivist ways tend to create students who stand in awe of math, but believe they will never be able to do it or really understand it.  No wonder we are not progressing in the field of math!

Will STC (Scholarship Tax Credits) solve the voucher problem?

Real conservatives must be wising up about vouchers, as I see several articles promoting STC over vouchers, because of the propensity for government interference in private schools with vouchers.

But if you think that STC (used to be TTC - Tuition Tax Credits) solves the problem, you've got your head in the sand.  What the government giveth, the government can take.  Whether it gives a voucher and follows it with regulations or gives a tax credit (for whatever it wants to promote, like using natural gas in cars), it can and will follow with regulations for that credit.

There is NO way to get government subsidy or tax benefits without the government getting their hands in the pie.  STC might take a little longer for the government to stick their nose in it, but it WILL come.  Make no mistake about that.

The only way to stay free is to pay for it yourself.  You take their money or credits and they will direct it their way.  If you don't trust the government with your kids, DON'T seek their money (which gets taken from us first) OR their tax credits.  They are more like bait than benefit.