Maintaining Traditions of Practical Wisdom: Not Becoming a “Fool.”
Practical wisdom is not musing about how someone else in a hypothetical situation ought to act. It’s about “What am I do?” -- right here and right now, with this person. A practically wise person doesn’t merely speculate about what’s proper; she does it.
-- Schwartz, B & Sharpe, K Practical Wisdom. The Right Way to Do the Right Thing. (2010) New York: (Penguin) Riverhead. p.7.
Ever noticed how many of the things we purchase come with assurances of “foolproof” usage? Why is that? Probably because, in order to save money, we purchase things that need assembly, or finishing of one kind or another, yet we are unlikely to have the familiarity with the objects involved to know how to avoid technical problems with them.
Those of us with a lot of schooling like to believe that having read abstruse texts and done difficult mathematics has somehow made us clever and handy when dealing with physical objects in the real world. Why waste money on completed items, or hire presumed “experts” -- likely a person with a few days instruction -- to assemble them for us, when we can do the job ourselves?
But just try, for the first time, to do any of the following:
a. digging a round hole one foot deep;
b. baking a soufflé ;
c. hammering a nail into a board;
d. assembling a small multicomputer network with peripherals.
We would do well to start off with some ancient wisdom: nothing is as easy as it looks. The few days’ instruction the kid at the hardware or electronics store gets is a few days more than we have. But, rather than take a few days to consider and prepare for what has to be done, we -- not wishing to “waste time” -- rush ahead and, if we are lucky, do a barely passable job.
If we break something, we put it back into the box and take it back to the store, telling them that “it came that way,” or, "It must have been defective. It broke under normal usage." The merchant, generally without objection, takes it back -- it has insurance (or warranty sales) covering such losses; and, a sale is a sale, the profit being substantial enough to cover several replacements -- for which they get credit from the manufacturer anyway.
It is this cycle of short-term use and replacement that keeps much of the economy going. If fashion can’t make you “upgrade,” foolishness will.
But this is true not only for DVD players, or IKEA furniture, or automobiles or houses -- “fixer-uppers” -- , but also, increasingly, for medical care, law, scientific research and education. (See Schwartz & Sharpe, cited above, throughout.) Political and market, rather than disciplinary, considerations are at work to “fool-proof” the professions.
In education, unlike in other public service professions who know better than to wash their dirty laundry in public, there are always crusading “reformers” who are quite willing to point out who the fools are: thus we have recurrent attempts at “teacher-proofing” the curriculum. (See On The Viability Of A Curriculum Leadership Role )
The success of this approach can be judged, for example, by the fact that, despite great hoopla and hype, Teach for America has yet to take over even small minority of public schools. It is the rare dilettante who has the patience, the dedication, to pursue expertise.
But public service professionals, themselves, tend to shy away from rigorous resistance to the inroads made by those who would dilute professional norms and judgment for the sake of easy political and economic gain.
For references and to examine these issues further, see Minimizing Politicization in Public Service Decision-Making
Cordially
--- EGR
Politics and School Reform
There are disturbing signs that even many individuals and groups who should know better have learned little about the complexities of schools and educational improvements and are comfortable with the old bromides. Simple diagnoses and correspondingly simple solutions abound. --- John Goodlad, A Place Called School
Talk is cheap. In that realm where politics and education overlap, the currency is even more debased. Nothing is easier to declare or harder to deliver than campaign promises regarding schooling. Complex educational issues invariably generate simplistic political solutions. But slogans offer little help when practical implementation is attempted.
In the article whose URL is given below, we explain why it works this way. The factors our investigation deals with are expectations, consensus, tasks, and resources. Considering only these four items and how they interact, we will show that, even at the simplest level, schooling issues are politically complex.
To continue the discussion see Politics, Consensus and Educational Reform
Cordially,
-- EGR
The National Standards Problem: Chasing the Ends of Different Rainbows
As school districts move closer to adopting the Common Core State Standards, some educators report they feel more prepared than two years ago. The standards will go into effect in three years, but some still question whether that is enough time to prepare. There is still a long way to go, some say, and several outstanding questions, such as the level of professional development that will be available. -- ASCD SmartBrief 3/20/12
The United States of America’s public schools lack common standards because like a rainbow, where an “end” is located depends upon one’s location when perceiving it. “Citizenship,” “Skills” and “Tradition” -- under some interpretation -- have long been goals of public schooling. But depending on the community involved there is wide variation as to what these goals cook down to in the day-to-day practice of schooling.
If educational standards are formulated and reformulated so as to be acceptable to the majority of U.S. citizens, for example
a. voting at regular elections (not, criticizing public officials), or,
b. making a good living (not, doing “menial” work), or
c. observing patriotic and religious holidays (not, participating in actions of civil disobedience)
then they will be vaguely and sloganistically formulated. This means that they will need interpretation to be implemented at the local level. There they will be specified according to local needs and understandings and cease being national standards, except as so much verbiage.
But, locally derived educational standards that are clear and unequivocal guides to implementation in some communities will not likely be acceptable at the localities across the many different kinds of communities that constitute this nation. They will be criticized as they always have been as “One Size Fits All”-Curriculum. Consequently they will never do as national standards.
Let’s briefly consider a simple planning activity: milestoning. Write down a publicly verifiable description of the end-states desired, and then, of several intermediate steps leading to them. Let’s refer to the ASCD SmartBrief text in the epigraph above.
What would count as a school district’s “adopting Common Core State Standards” ? A school board resolution? Principal or staffs claims of acceptance? Students having homework deriving from appropriate materials? Or something else?
From the other end of the milestone chain we might ask what counts as a publicly verifiable indicator of (two or more) different school districts’ “moving closer to Common Core State Standards”? Just noticing, for example, groups of people moving more or less in a given direction doesn’t guarantee everyone will all end up at the same location. It’s not merely a matter of their “having the same goals in mind,” but, more importantly, of their sharing a common understanding of what the practical implementation of such goals would play out to be in their special situations.
This is very much like the old instructional conundrums: if you “individualize” down to the level of the actual individual student how do you reasonably give different students comparable grades? What counts as their having received the “same” curriculum? Do changes in method for the sake of individualization count as acceptable “variations” or undesirable “deviations.”
To examine these issues further, see both A. Wishful Thinking: National Standards for 15,000 Independent School Boards! and
B. Making Effective Teachers: engineering or wishful thinking?
Cordially
--- EGR
“Protection”: Prevention, Extortion, Compensation?
”I just bought a magic medallion!”
“What does it do?”
“It protects me from attack by Komodo Dragon.”
“There aren’t any Komodo Dragons roaming loose within 10,000 miles from here.”
“See! It really works! -- Tired, old joke.
A well-recognized symbol for the idea of protection is the umbrella. An umbrella prevents rain -- to some extent -- from wetting you. But the hoodlum who demands money from a shopkeeper as “protection” is engaged in extortion. Unlike the rain – that raineth on the just and unjust alike, unconditionally – the hoodlum inflicts the damage selectively on those who refuse his demands.
Many schools do something similar to the extortionist, in pursuing a “mission” to increase parental involvement. In many schools parents who are particularly generous in donating time or money, get “special consideration” for their children when it comes to disciplinary treatments or failures for weak academic performance.
Not a small part of what purports to be “special education” engages in such extortionary activities. Little wonder that many school people complain that an IEP (Individualized Educational Program) is a free Do-Not-Go-To-Jail ticket for students whose parents are “involved” or aggressive enough to secure one for their child. Many a private and parochial school, especially ones on tight budgets, understand that generous parent donations help school administrators and teachers recognize the extra, special “needs” of the donors’ children.
Insurance companies play another trick. It is surprising that it works, but it does. They regularly muddle the distinction between protection as prevention and protection as compensation. Parents and travelers, nonetheless, will buy insurance “protection” against events that are unlikely preventable.
School insurance may pay a parent $20,000 dollars if their child loses a finger while playing or working in the school shop. It doesn’t prevent such occurrences from happening. If the schools manage to pass on the insurance costs to parents – as they often do in private or parochial education – there is little pressure on the school to take preventative steps against injury. This is why both private and parochial schools – as well as colleges -- permit the risks involved in some of the more combative sports, like football, lacrosse, rugby and boxing.
To examine these issues further, see Hurt, Harm & Safety
Cordially
--- EGR
Escaping Accountablity: selecting the “right” scapegoat.
It is ironic that the United States should have been founded by intellectuals, for throughout most of our political history, the intellectual has been for the most part either an outsider, a servant or a scapegoat. -- Richard Hofstadter
The other day I heard an interview on National Public Radio during which the guest, to the apparent delight of the host, expressed the view that it was time to “hold colleges and universities responsible for the failure of their students to graduate on time.”
“Public colleges,” he explained, “have never been held accountable for, that is, given state appropriations in proportion to, the success of their students. The have received funds merely on the basis of the number admitted.” Things had to change!
Excuse me! Is this a person who has ever worried about grade inflation? Or about “empty diplomas?” Should “party-school” graduates number among the most successful? Will medical schools, in the long run, also, be held to this notion of accountability?
The provost of a local college in Philadelphia, strapped for funds, recently informed the faculty that all their classes will begin to be “bimodal.” What is this? Well, in the past, there were two groups of students identified by the admissions committee: those who met admissions standards; and, those who failed to meet them. The former group had, on the average, higher high school and SAT averages than the latter.
To increase university income, both groups will now be admitted. It is up to the professors to “individualize instruction according to the unique needs of the student” in order to that No Student be Left Behind.
Professorial reaction has been muted to the point of indiscernibility, much like that of many public school teachers was, when No Child Left Behind was vaunted as a “school reform.”
I learned from my mentors many years ago when I was pursuing licensure as a school principal that the Primary Rule of Administration was CYA, Cover Your Asse(t)s. You practice the first rule by putting to use the Second Rule of Administration.
The Second Rule of Administration, I have learned through experience, is, “Never Scapegoat the Squeaky Wheel, ” that is, “Dump on the Humble, the Self-sacrificing and the Patient.” (And on those stupid enough to believe that it is “unprofessional” to protect their own interests.)
For references and to examine these issues further, see Reforming Teacher Education?: Just "Tinkering Around the Edges"
Cordially
--- EGR
Multiculturalism in America and Europe: success vs failure?
All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure. -- Mark Twain
President Sarkozy of France has declared the country’s policy of multiculturalism a failure. His judgment is supported for their respective countries by British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar.
How has America presumably “succeeded” when, by the admission of their own leaders, so many European countries have failed? There are possibly three factors that explain it: space&time, hypocrisy and lack of taste.
Space&Time: -- Compaction vs Dispersion; Election-to-election vs Centuries. Sarkozy complains about Muslims praying outside on the street of their overcrowded mosques. But where do French Catholic children line up for holy day and First Communion processions? Or the bulls run in Pamplona (Spain)? Or crowds gather to hear the Pope?
It is no accident that the leaders who have pronounced multiculturalism a failure are elected officials who confuse their need to win the next election with the time needed to make real accommodations among different peoples.
Sarkozy dislikes unassimilated communities co-existing next to each other. In the U.S. ghettoes served communal and nurturant purposes until economic success within different groups enabled moving out to more ample housing, protected by isolation or law from bigoted ethnic restrictions.
Hypocrisy: Elite vs Democratic. Through their public schools Americans inculcate the practice of speaking out of both sides of the mouth which, at least eleven score and fifteen years ago, our patrician, forked-tongue forefathers brought forth upon this nation. (Slavery and aboriginal annihilation with freedom and justice for all.)
Everyday events bear this practice out. In the U.S., pornography and religion can both be big sales -- always a sign of Divine Providence. Distributors of “adult” entertainment in the U.S. not infrequently begin their efforts by “provoking” resistance from local church leaders. There is a symbiotic relationship between the clergy’s desire to stoke religious fervor and the pornography sales manager’s need to maximize the impact of his advertising budget.
Finally, “Lack of Taste” -- Patrician vs Plebian. Taste is socially accepted bigotry. It is supported by presumed entitlements to taking umbrage, declaring as whim demands, “I find that offensive.” (We’ve all learned from Thumper’s mother that “If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.") Peoples in Europe -- but by no means exclusively there -- who choose their leaders from among their “social betters” find it easier to ape those betters by adapting their tastes, since their intellect or wealth is harder to come by. (Americans like to ape them, too. Vide fashion.)
Struggles between those who have or don’t have “taste” is what powers no small part of the US economy, e.g. “talk shows” abound while public television drama starves. Reconciling with your wife and daughter on the Jerry Springer show, after confessing that you fathered your own grandchildren, is a quick ticket to back-home, down-home celebrity.
European leaders, faced with massive immigrations stoppable only by adopting politically risky exclusion laws, made rational decisions to adopt multicultural policies. James G. March (Ambiguity and Choice, 1976) has suggested that we would be better off with less rationality; that we might be well served by a concept of "sensible foolishness". (I suspect our more classically trained European leaders would find this advice hard to take.) We become sensibly foolish, writes March, by treating goals as hypotheses, intuition as real, hypocrisy as a transition, memory as an enemy and experience as theory. We become really, really pragmatic Americans.
For references and to examine these issues further, see Productivity, Politics and Hypocrisy in American Public Education: school organization as instrument and expression
Cordially
--- EGR
What Makes a Good Teacher Supervisor?
A good supervisor realizes that in many instances student teachers perform in a certain manner because they are expected, by superiors and parents, for example, to teach that way; not, because there are good scientific grounds for their practice. For example, language teachers may be expected to use vocabulary lists for memorization and teach about verb tenses. Why? Because that is what administrators or students' parents remember from their days in school. Scientific pedagogy is not infrequently stifled by tradition.
But what is essential to being a supervisor and a good one at that? Merely the job title? I don't think anyone would be comfortable with that answer. We would not want to to leave it up to chance, nor favoritism or prejudice. On the contrary, we would expect that a person designated as a supervisor to have certain reasonable and desirable characteristics. Important among these would likely be knowledge, skills and attitudes of a certain sort. Here are some criteria of hopefully general application.
Our first criterion might be: a supervisor should be committed to improving the education of the students who are being taught by his/her supervisee. Note that "improving education" invokes values of a certain general sort, without being over specific as to exactly which ones. A usable definition of supervision should be possible without restriction to certain ideologies or philosophies.
Our second criterion is: A supervisor must have pedagogically relevant knowledge of subject matter. It is not enough for, say, a person designated as a supervisor of physics teachers to have gotten A's in physics courses herself; but rather she must posses two other capacities:
a. she must know how to represent that knowledge in ways that promote learning in those less experienced than she; and
b. she must know how to help the student teacher to represent his or her knowledge to the student.
Note how such words as "relevant knowledge" and "promoting learning" insinuate a values commitment without constraining it within specific ideological or philosophical framework. This enables supervision-defining skills and attitudes to be offered to a variety of persons without bias to a particular world view. Some knowledge, skills and attitudes can be trans-ideological, focussing on technique and means, rather than ultimate ends.
A good supervisor is, herself, a good teacher. She must be able to imagine herself ignorant and be willing to experiment with strategies to bring herself, as ignorant, to be knowledgeable. In addition, the supervisor must be willing to negotiate with her supervisee a characterization of the criticized lesson which communicates a fair and "teacherly" concern with improvement, based on educational, rather than personal reasons.
Our final criterion is that a supervisor should be professionally skeptical of the institution's ability to enhance educational outcomes: the school in which her supervisee works may engage in practices which undermine the learning of the pupils her supervisee teaches.
To be a professional is to be not entirely subjugated to one's employer; rather, it is to maintain certain standards in the face of possible institutional pressures to "sell out," i.e. to sacrifice educational goals to bureaucratic or political convenience.
The context of much teacher supervision undermines reasonable expectation of educational outcome. For example, supervisors are not infrequently given insufficient time to observe; or, they are assigned to "evaluate" teachers for punitive reasons, or in areas in which they, the supervisors, have little knowledge of subject or pedagogy.
It is not unreasonable to expect that organizational functions will normally interfere with educational ones. Pedagogical rhythms may be interrupted for the sake of the numerous supportive functions the school provides. However, it is the supervisor's duty to deflect, resist and subvert any interventions which debase the educational process.
For continued examination of this topic, see Do Schools Really Need Curriculum Supervisors? Confusing Role with Function.
Cordially,
--- EGR
Kids Don’t Want to Learn? Why Not Pay Them?
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the class room
Teachers leave those kids alone -- Pink Floyd
When students don't do their homework, don't pay attention, are disruptive, cut class, or play hooky, we talk about them as "not wanting to learn." We jump to the conclusion that such students don't want to learn anything at anytime in any place for any reason, when, in fact, it may be that a particular student doesn't want to learn a particular thing in a particular place at a particular time for a particular reason.
Do we even bother to recognize that students, just like we adults, have their own priorities? And if we adults think our priorities should override the kids' is it anything much more than a matter of our convenience? (Of course, we always say, "But it's for their own good!" Really?)
What adults would sit confined, having to ask permission just to relieve themselves, for five or more hours a day for no pay, even in the unlikely case they believed it would do them some longterm good?
For more on this see Dragons, Sea Monsters, and Kids Who Don't Want to Learn
Cordially,
-- EGR
Cosmetic Grammar: attaining “Class” through speech change?
In a world where you are "so-so"
Where competitors are few
Happiness is knowing
There are those worse off than you.-- Phemelistophes (BCE 8321)
In the US all citizens are, so it is taught, equal before the Law. Socially, this just won't do. Nearly everyone searches to discover someone who is of a "class" lower than his or her own. It's an esteem-builder. Our educational systems abet this process.
A rise in "Class" -- which good democrats officially deny exists -- means higher Status. In this land of Equality and Liberty (but only reluctantly, Fraternity) such ascension is almost universally welcome.
Status signals access to entitlements. High Status is the promise of a life full of perks: goods and services not needing proportionate payment in time, trouble or money. In a culture where physical necessities are generally satisfied, status anxiety is a widely stimulated market motivator: a casual review of advertising confirms this observation.
In America there are many avenues to Status. Wealth, beauty, family, these good ol' standbys are, for us red-blooded Americans, enviable but no longer necessary. Piety, knowledge and practical skill -- those historically monkish or lower class accomplishments -- are fading, too. We needn't even wait for the fickle finger of Celebrity. Status can be gotten much more easily by adjusting your speech.
But this is no news: didn't Henry Higgins teach just this to Liza Doolittle? Yes, but with one big difference. Henry insisted on Liza's conforming to "high class" standards of grammar and pronounciation.
Not only public media spokespersons, but college faculty -- even those profess to despise the notion of social class-- use patterns of speech that mimic "upper class" grammar while they violate it. This overcorrection is not done so much deliberately to defy standard grammatical norms as, perhaps, to stave off feelings of a threat to one's superior status.
"Me and Jim seen a hawk," says Bill to Grandma. Grandma, a retired schoolteacher, will almost invariably correct, "You mean, 'Jim and I saw a hawk." If Bill grows up to speak like most status striving Americans he will -- as an adult -- be heard to say things like:
"Mom visited Jim and I," or
"That message was meant for Jim and I,"
as though the word "me" were to be expunged from the language, a blatant sign of "lower class" membership.
I have heard such variations come of the mouths of even insistently grammatically fastidious college professors, for example,
"I found Jim and I's books in the lab," and
"Between Jim and I there is no disagreeement."
The issue, here, is not "good grammar." It is not even one of consistency. Almost all real-world performance is muddled somewhat from standard. The interesting question is: why do people, who would vehemently protest knowing language conventions de-correct themselves in practice?
I suspect that it is the American game of one-upmanship that plays a role in this.
For more examples, contrasts and discussion see The Case for Case.
Cordially.
EGR
Productivity vs Politics in Public Schools
Too many cooks spoil the broth -- Proverb
Do political, rather than educational concerns determine schooling decisions? For example, a major concern in our public schools is the placement of special education students in regular classrooms. This is generally seen as involving "politics," i.e. favoritism. Although school people follow presumably equitable legal procedures, the reality is that parents often threaten boards of education with costly lawsuits to get unusual treatment for their kids, even though a decision in their favor cannot be considered as setting a precedent.
In the School District of Philadelphia, about 1975, a board member was shocked to find out no one could tell him what non-real estate property the school district owned. Consequently, the command was issued that students (about 200,000) were to be sent home for a week while teachers applied numbered labels to desks, chairs, blackboards, TV's, lab equipment of all kinds -- even boxes of paper clips. Inventory lists were to be created and submitted at the end of the week.
And so it was done. There were no control mechanisms in place. There was no double-checking. In fact, there was no provision made for collating the information collected. When standard-test-time rolled around soon after, a local newspaper reporter -- unofficial "friend" of the school board -- came up with the by now all too familiar explanation for low test scores: poor teaching.
Is there some way of reducing educationally irrelevant influence to a minimum? "Too many cooks spoil the broth." Maybe so. But isn't the argument really about who is competent to be head chef? And, more importantly, whether that matters?
To examine these and similar issues further, see Productivity, Politics and Hypocrisy in American Public Education
Cordially,
-- EGR
