Comments on: Disagreeing with Jeff Utecht

By: Gilbert Halcrow

Gilbert Halcrow — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I will not labor over, or place value on the cultural differences between the US and China or how either explicit or hidden curriculum shapes students in either country.
10 years in Hong Kong has taught me – it isn’t where China is even today it is where it will be in another 5 years and while not US bashing here – where will the US be? China already recognizes it cultural predisposition towards compliance and collectivism and the mind set that creates. So they, along with several other Asian nations are pouring considerable amounts of money into lateral thinking programs and creative arts.
It is a gross misrepresentation also to believe that there is any shortage of entrepreneurs, innovators or creative people in China – it is perhaps the US-centric view which fails to recognize it; because of the humility with which the Chinese conduct themselves, as it is a culture still focused on egalitarian values and no one want to obtusely stand out.
Generalisations about the state of China’s education system are as risky as claiming every toy in China is painted with ‘lead-based’ paint – scare tactics and self congratulation are only postponing the inevitable.

By: Jeff Johnson

Jeff Johnson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

The tendancy of schools (and school leaders) to *not* change, to embrace the status quo, is powerful.

I especially agree with you statement, “whatever advantages America may enjoy over China regarding critical thinking, creativity, innovation, and the like might be occurring despite our schools, not because of them.”

There’s no doubt we have the tools for creative exploration and analytical thinking. They are better than ever. We just don’t value — based on how student creativity and analysis is assessed and reported — these as products of successful education.

For the most part, I think the people that attend conferences like NECC and CoSN and actively create, participate in and read blogs, tweets, diigs, podcasts, etc. “get it.” But I don’t think this includes most school leaders and decision makers.

In most high schools, a walk down any hall when classes are in session reveals one voice – the teacher’s – in almost every classroom. And if you could randomly poll HS students to reply to “what one word comes to mind when you think of high school,” the most common answer by far would be “boring.”

We spend a small fortune on technology tools and services and mostly use them for lower order thinking skills. If you ask school adminsitrators and teachers to talk about how students use technology, they’ll likely talk about word processing and doing research using the web. It’s not that word processing and internet searches aren’t valuable, it’s that it’s not really much better (in terms of student outcomes) than writing by hand or looking up information in books.

At NECC this year, we saw ISTE’s free Classroom Observation Tool, ICOT. ICOT quickly gets at the essential “does it make a difference” question. I hope ICOT gets widespread use soon.

By: Matthew Wilson

Matthew Wilson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Jeff said, “And if you could randomly poll HS students to reply to ‘what one word comes to mind when you think of high school,’ the most common answer by far would be ‘boring.’”

How is that different from when you went to school? How is that different from when your parents went to school? Your Grandparents? Their parents?

I’m not sure that it IS different. So, why has there been a push over the past 30+ years to “fix” our “failing schools?” Maybe it focuses attention away from other institutions that are truly broken. If schools were failing the communities they serve, wouldn’t there be general outrage among that population (ex: Clayton County, GA)? If the educational system was truly broken, why isn’t it the priority of our political leaders rather than something they dust off every four years when they run for office?

Maybe we aren’t doing as bad as some folks would like use to think. According to Gallup: 46% of Americans are satisfied with the quality of education their students are getting.( http://www.gallup.com/poll/1612/Education.aspx ) Compare that to the satisfaction numbers of the Congress (20%) and our President(32%) we aren’t doing so bad.

Do we have room to improve? Absolutely. Is it all doom and gloom? Absolutely not.

PS: When the public was asked how to best improve the educational system, they didn’t say change how we teach or what we teach with, they said smaller class size and hire higher quality teachers. Not a bad idea if you ask me.

By: Alfred Thompson

Alfred Thompson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I think a lot depends on the grade level, the school, and especially the teacher. When I look at how my wife runs her middle school classes there is a lot of encouragement to learn on their own and to use the Internet and other tools to do so. In computer science courses, my area and one where I talk to many teachers around the country, there is a lot of self-directed learning going on. There is a lot of teachers teaching students how to learn, pointing them in a direction and getting out of the way. In fact I would agrue that if you want “critical thinking, creativity, innovation, and the like” then adding more computer science courses would be a good place to start.

By: Sue King

Sue King — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I believe to base how our schools are doing on the opinion of the satisfaction level of parents is a flawed measure. The parents who are satisfied are so BECAUSE schools are primarily like what they were when they attended them. Parents are every bit as resistant to change in schooling as are many teachers, administrators, etc. You cannot simplify the issue by looking at the lack of outrage about the current status – people do not know what they do not know; they cannot envision anything different for education because they do not know anything different can exist.

As far as teaching our students how to think, critically dissect and analyze, etc. I see two extremes – the talking at students who are passive receptors of information that they are then asked to do something less than meaningful with OR the assignment of an activity or project, often times to a group, with little understanding of what it is we expect ALL students to know and be able to do when they are finished. Teachers must still TEACH – they must design meaningful instruction with the understanding of the purpose and goals to be achieved. They must determine how they will be tell if students were successful. They must give students meaningful and specific feedback along the way as a means of guiding the learning. I see lots of glitter and fluff – using technology many times – but I see very limited evidence that the result of these time intensive activities is the development of higher levels of critical thinking and understanding by students.

There needs to be greater discussion about what meaningful, engaging (not entertaining), and relevant instruction and learning look like. I am eager to check out the classroom observation tool mentioned.

By: Arnie

Arnie — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I agree with Scott that in the main there is little discovery learning. This is a kind of new learning gap – high-performing schools are “allowed” to spend time on such things, under-performers aren’t.

Our schools are the envy of no other developed country. Fortunately, it must not matter that much. Our current economic place in the world may be the result of forces mostly (though not completely) outside of the school doors.

By: wmchamberlain

wmchamberlain — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I think the point is moot. Does it really matter what we are doing in comparison to other schools in other countries? The conversation that needs to take place is, “What is the purpose of our schools?” In the United States today, nobody can answer that question, because we as a society have not decided. We cannot expect our schools to direct our students toward a goal we have not set.

I have heard some say the purpose of education is to get kids ready for the marketplace. Others say it is to create well rounded individuals. We all espouse the goal of creating lifelong learners. Which is it? Are there better goals for education than these?

There have been many books, many ideas floating through the edublogosphere lately, The Wisdom of Crowds, A Whole New Mind, The World is Flat, but they haven’t answered the question either. They are more likely to confuse it. We need to work harder in math and science because we aren’t producing enough engineers. We need to develop creativity if we are to compete. This is all wonderful, thought provoking stuff, but it still doesn’t answer the question.

Now No Child Left Behind has focused my school and many others to work towards a test that measures memorization instead of application. Is this the goal our schools should strive for? Does this represent the wisdom of the educational crowd?

I love the mental stimulation of the conversations we have on the internet, but I don’t think any of them compares in importance to answering the simple question of, “What is the purpose of our school?”

By: Bob Heiny

Bob Heiny — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Interesting post, Scott. I used to see education the way you described. Now, I see the school glass half full. I toured a handful of schools in CT, NJ, NY, and PA this late spring that have extended public records of exactly what you infer you want to see. I, as do others, know of many more. I agree that there is room for additional schools with teachers who meet the strict criteria that has raised student thinking and other academic performance to the level of the ones I visited. Best wishes on your quest.

By: Scott McLeod

Scott McLeod — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

@Bob: Thanks for the words of encouragement. I travel a lot and see many different schools all over the country. Like you, I see a ‘handful of schools’ here and there. And I read about ‘many more.’ The problem is that we have 125,000 public and private schools in the U.S. I don’t think we’re topping 5% of the schools yet (in terms of most classes in their building doing this on a regular basis)… Disagree?

By: Matthew Wilson

Matthew Wilson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

@Chamerlain: I think the question of “What is the purpose of our schools?” is a great one and easier to answer than you think. The answer: Whatever the local community wants it to do. With more than 90% of all school funds coming from the state and local level, how can it not? If the local population wants the school to create students that are going to head to college, it will happen. If the community wants students for the local work force, that will happen as well. The Constitution doesn’t put education under the Federal umbrella, but rather in the State’s purview. So you are right in a sense when you compare our system to an educational system that are centrally controlled and funded.

The concept of an ignorant proletariat is dangerous to educators. If the schools do not meet the needs of the community the board/Super/Principle/teachers will be changed until it does.

@Bob: I have had the privilege of being a student or a teacher in at least 10 different school systems (both public and private) in 5 different states and I agree with you. In every school I was challenged by teachers and Admin to push the boundaries and think critically about the world around me. I’m not saying my experience is indicative of U.S. schools in general, but it does give me a positive outlook for the future.