If you object to cross-posting as a way to tunnel through inter- and
intra-disciplinary barriers or have no interest in "Where the Mayor
Went Right," please hit "delete" now. And if you respond to this long
(31 kB) post, please don't hit the reply button unless you prune the
original message normally contained in your reply down to a few
lines, otherwise you may inflict this entire post yet again on
suffering list subscribers.
In his Math-Teach post of 12 May 2005, Wayne Bishop (2005) copied a
recent Wall Street Journal article titled "Would You Want To Study at
a Bloomberg School?" by Diane Ravitch (2005) into the Math-Teach
archives. Therein progressive-education basher Ravitch vented her
distress over Mayor Bloomberg's management of the New York City
public schools.
Ravitch offered this interpretation of Bloomberg's effort to improve
NYC schools [BRACKETED BY LINES "RRRRR. . .; yes, I know the
bracketing format is unorthodox, but it avoids "'quotes'" within
"quotes," and clearly indicates who wrote what - more than can be
said for the posts of many reply-button pushers; my CAPS]:
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Neither Mr. Bloomberg nor Mr. Klein. . . [Microsoft nemesis and
chancellor of NYC public schools] . . . . knew about the war of words
that had been raging among educators for many years.
ON THE ONE SIDE, BELOVED BY SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION, ARE THE CENTURY-OLD
IDEAS OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION, NOW CALLED "CONSTRUCTIVISM."
Associated with this philosophy are such approaches as whole
language, fuzzy math, and invented spelling, as well as disdain for
phonics and grammar, an insistence that there are no right answers
(just different ways to solve problems), and an emphasis on students'
self esteem. Constructivists dislike any kind of ability grouping or
special classes for gifted children. By diminishing the authority of
the teacher, constructivist methods often create discipline problems.
On the other side are those who believe that learning depends on both
highly skilled teachers and student effort, that students need
self-discipline more than self-esteem, that accuracy is important,
that in many cases there truly are right answers and wrong answers
(the Civil War was not caused by Reconstruction), and that
instructional methods should be chosen because they are effective,
not because they fit one's philosophical values.
Messrs. Bloomberg and Klein embarked on school reform knowing nothing
of this heated debate. Mr. Klein selected Diana Lam as his top
deputy. At the time she was superintendent of schools in Providence,
R.I. More important, SHE WAS A CONSTRUCTIVIST and a proponent of
bilingual education. At her urging, the mayor expanded bilingual
education instead of eliminating it. Ms. Lam picked citywide reading
and math programs that no one would describe as "back to basics." The
reading program, called Month-by-Month Phonics, is akin -- despite
its name -- to the whole-language philosophy. Because of the
program's weak phonics component, the New York State Education
Department withheld $38 million in federal funds until Mr. Klein
reluctantly installed a research-based reading program in 49 of the
city's nearly 700 elementary schools. The city's elementary
mathematics program, Everyday Math, has been criticized by university
mathematicians who complain that it neglects basic computational
skills.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
In my opinion, Bloomberg and Klein "WENT RIGHT," not wrong, by
bringing modern pedagogy into the NYC public school system.
As the perceptive Eric Hart (2005) writes: "While research has not
proven that progressive methods will always work in every situation
(an unattainable goal for both research and any instructional
method), the existing research strongly supports progressive
approaches. This is research that has been published [not
Internet-published . . .(as by Wayne Bishop). . . .] and reviewed,
for example, by the National Research Council. . . [see also Sections
II and III of Hake (2005b)]. . . So, based on Ms. Ravitch's advice to
use instructional methods that are effective, which methods should we
use? Should we use the traditional methods she champions but which
have demonstrably failed? Or perhaps we should do as she says, [what]
the smart, pragmatic Mr. Bloomberg is doing, and use the
research-based progressive methods."
Furthermore, Andy Isaacs (2005), co-author of "Everyday Math". . .
.[<http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/>]. . . shows the vacuity of
Ravitch's implication that Everyday Math "neglects basic
computational skills." Isaacs writes: "The research evidence. . .
[see e.g.
<http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/educators/em_research_summary_8.pdf>
(124 kB)]. . . . about Everyday Mathematics indicates that it
improves both basic and higher-level skills. In a study of more than
39,000 students using Everyday Mathematics and a similar number of
students in matched comparison schools not using the curriculum, for
example, the Everyday Mathematics students consistently outperformed
the comparison students on higher-level skills such as measurement,
geometry, algebra, and problem solving and also on basic skills such
as paper-and-pencil computation. Many other studies of Everyday
Mathematics have been carried out - far more than for any other
elementary mathematics curriculum - and the data show that the
program is effective. For Ravitch to repeat such an ill-founded
claim about our materials is disappointing."
IMHO, Ravitch should take the time to carefully research the issues
instead of shooting from the hip so as to promote "The Needless War
Between Traditionalists and Progressives" [Bickman (2004)]. In
addition, Ravitch displays little understanding of the "many faces of
constructivism" [Phillips (1995), Hake (2001a)]. Cognitive scientists
Lauren Resnik and Megan Hall (1998) called one such face "knowledge
based constructivism" (KBC).
I think KBC is consistent with the orientation of most effective
physics teachers and physics education researchers (PER's). PER's
have demonstrated [Hake (1998a,b; 2002a,b)] that "interactive
engagement methods," based on KBC, yield normalized gains in
conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics that are about two
standard deviations greater than those produced by the "traditional"
methods so admired by Ravitch and her associates at the Brookings
Institution <http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/brown_hp.htm>, Hoover
Institution <http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/>, and Fordham Foundation
<http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/index.cfm>.
Resnick & Hall (1998) wrote [bracketed by lines R&H-R&H-R&H. . .";
*emphasis* in the original]:
R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H
. . . . cognitive science. . .[see, e.g., Bransford et al. (2000)].
. . confirms Piaget's claim that people must *construct* their
understanding; they do not simply register what the world shows or
tells them, as a camera or a tape recorder does. To "know" something,
indeed even to memorize effectively, people must build a mental
representation that imposes order and coherence on experience and
information. Learning is interpretive and inferential; it involves
active processes of reasoning and a kind of 'talking back' to the
world - not just taking it as it comes. Competent learners engage,
furthermore, in a great deal of self-management of their cognitive
processes, that is, in forms of cognition known as *metacognitive*
and *self monitoring*.
This much sounds like the child-centered, process theories of
education. Early on, however, cognitive scientists found that they
could not account for problem solving and learning without attending
to what people already *knew*. . . . . In every field of thought,
cognitive scientists found that knowledge is essential to thinking
and acquiring new knowledge - in other words to learning. . . The
repeated findings about the centrality of knowledge in learning make
perfect sense for a constructivist theory of learning, because one
has to have something with which to construct. But they turn out to
be almost as challenging to Piagetian or Deweyan theories of pedagogy
as to Thorndikean ones. This is because they insist that knowledge -
*correct* knowledge - is essential at every point in learning. And
they make it impossible to suggest that education for the information
age should not trouble itself with facts and information, but only
with processes of learning and thinking. What we know now is that
just facts alone do not constitute true knowledge and thinking power,
so thinking processes cannot proceed without something to think
about. Knowledge is in again, but alongside thinking, indeed,
intertwined with it, not instead of thinking. So although it is
essential for children to have the experience of discovering and
inventing, their experience must be of one of disciplined invention,
that is, by established processes of reasoning and logic.
[The above advocated] *Knowledge-based Constructivism*, taken
seriously, points to a position that can moderate the century-long
polarity between passive drill pedagogies and child-centered
discovery pedagogies.
R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H-R&H
For further commentary on Ravitch's revisionist version of
progressivism and her naive views on math/science education see my
post "Re: Ravitch's 'Left Back'" [Hake (2001b)], and the reviews of
"Left Back" by Herbert Zimiles (2001), John Rury (2001), William
Wraga (2001), and Dewey scholar Alan Ryan (2001).
Alan Ryan wrote: ". . .how plausible is Diane Ravitch's charge that
progressive education is intrinsically anti-intellectual, and second,
how defensible is her alternative? The answer to the first question
is surely that she entirely fails to make her case. . . . . What
Professor Ravitch has done, forgivably but wrongly, is to conflate
the main intellectual challenges to her own egalitarian
traditionalism: vocational education, life adjustment, a distaste for
tough instructional methods in the classroom, and a hankering for
utopia; into one enterprise, progressivism
It is ironic that several days ago progressivism basher Ravitch
received the United Federation of Teachers' prestigious John Dewey
Award for Excellence in Education [Hoover (2005)] !!.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience
does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative.
--John Dewey
REFERENCES
Bickman, M. 2003. "Minding American Education," Teachers College
Press; for a brief description of this AERA award-winning book see
<http://www.mindingamericaneducation.com/>.
Bickman. M. 2004. "Won't You Come Home John Dewey?" Los Angeles Times
OpEd piece, online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407&L=pod&O=A&P=10696>,
scroll to the Appendix. Originally more meaningfully titled "The
Needless War Between Traditionalists and Progressives and How to End
It," but retitled by the LA Times OpEd editor [God save us from
such!]. Bickman wrote [my CAPS]: "One of the reasons this continuing
conflict is so heartbreaking is that, around the turn of the last
century, JOHN DEWEY WAS ABLE TO CREATE RESOLUTIONS BOTH IN A
PHILOSOPHIC AND PRACTICAL SENSE. He looked out on an educational
landscape torn between similar apparently competing philosophies. One
group centered on the notion of 'child-study' and the person of G.
Stanley Hall. This group had a Rousseau-like sentimentality about
nature and children, and it was more concerned with what it saw as
health and wholeness than with intellectual growth. On the other side
was a group that stressed high academic achievement as defined and
organized by curricula and textbooks, led by William Torrey Harris,
U.S. commissioner of education. In this view, the standard curriculum
- arithmetic, geography, history, grammar and literature, the "five
windows of the soul," as Harris called them - rescued the young mind
from its immediate narrowness. Instead of enlisting on one side or
the other, Dewey, in a crucial 1902 article, "The Child and the
Curriculum,". . . .[now in Dewey (1990)]. . . conceptualized each
position so that it would no longer seem a matter of the child versus
the curriculum. DEWEY'S CRUCIAL POINT WAS NOT MERELY THAT NEITHER
SIDE WAS RIGHT, BUT THAT THE PROBLEMS WERE CREATED BY THE
POLARIZATION ITSELF, BY TURNING A DYNAMIC PROCESS INTO HARDENED,
STATIC OPPOSITIONS. His solution was to stop thinking of the child's
experience as also something hard and fast, and instead see it as
something fluent, embryonic and vital. EXPERIENCE WITHOUT CONCEPTS IS
SHALLOW AND STAGNANT; SIMILARLY, CONCEPTS WITHOUT IMMEDIATE
CONNECTIONS TO EXPERIENCE ARE INERT AND USELESS," See also Bickman
(2003).
Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking, eds. 2000. "How people
learn: brain, mind, experience, and school." Nat. Acad. Press; online
at <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html>. This is
an update of the earlier 1999 edition. Bransford et al. write: ". .
. synapse addition and modification are lifelong processes, driven by
experience. In essence, the quality of information to which one is
exposed and the amount of information one acquires is reflected
throughout life in the structure of the brain. This process is
probably not the only way that information is stored in the brain,
but it is a very important way that provides insight into how people
learn." The fact that "inquiry" and "interactive-engagement" methods
are far more effective in promoting conceptual understanding than
traditional passive-student methods is probably related to the
"enhanced synapse addition and modification" induced by those methods.
Bishop, W. 2005. "Where the Mayor Went Wrong," Math-Teach post of 12
May 2005 9:52 AM; online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3765541&tstart=0>.
Dewey, J. 1990. "The School and Society, The Child and the
Curriculum," with an introduction by Philip W. Jackson. Univ. of
Chicago Press. Originally published in 1956. "The School and Society"
was written in 1902.
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online as ref. 24 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or simply click on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB). A
comparison of the pre- to post-test average normalized gain <g> for
62 introductory high-school, college, and university physics courses
enrolling a total 6542 students showed that fourteen "traditional"
(T) courses (N = 2084) which made little or no use of
interactive-engagement (IE) methods achieved an average normalized
gain <g>T-ave = 0.23 plus or minus 0.04 (std dev), regardless of the
experience,
enthusiasm, talents, and motivation of the lecturers. In sharp
contrast, forty-eight courses (N = 4458) which made substantial use
of IE methods achieved an average normalized gain <g>IE-ave = 0.48
plus or minus 0.14 (std dev), almost two standard deviations of
<g>IE-ave above that of the traditional courses. Here: (a) the
average normalized gain <g> is the actual gain [<%post> - <%pre>]
divided by the maximum possible gain [100% - <%pre>] where the angle
brackets
indicate the class averages; (b) IE courses are operationally defined
as those designed at least in part to promote conceptual
understanding through interactive engagement of students in heads-on
(always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate
feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors; (c) T
courses are operationally defined courses as those reported by
instructors to make little or no use of IE methods, relying primarily
on passive-student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic problem
exams. More recently, average normalized gain differences between T
and IE courses that are consistent with the work of Hake (1998a,b)
have been reported by many other physics education research groups as
referenced in Hake (2002a,b).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or simply click on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB). This paper
is a crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a): average pre/post test
scores, standard deviations, instructional methods, materials used,
institutions, and instructors for each of the survey courses of Hake
(1998a) are tabulated and referenced.
Hake, R.R. 2001a. Re: "Mathematics and Constructivism," online at
<http://listserv.sc.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0112B&L=dewey-l&P=R2991&I=-3>.
Post of 9 Dec 2001 22:01:00-0800 to Math-Teach, Dewey-L, and PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2001b. "Re: Ravitch's 'Left Back'", online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0105&L=pod&P=R8921>. Post of
11 May
2001 16:40:09-0700 to AERA-D, AERA-J, Math-Teach, PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L.
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/>. Ecology and Society
(formerly Conservation Ecology) is a free online "peer-reviewed
journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research" with
about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods,"
Proceedings of the UNESCO-ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in
Physics, Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec. 2002; also online
as ref. 29 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>, or download directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf> (84 kB)
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Would You Want To Study at a Bloomberg School?"
AERA-L post of 16 May 2005 23:11:56-0700; online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0505&L=aera-l&T=0&O=D&P=770>.
Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct
Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50: 851 (2005); APS March
Meeting, Los Angles, CA. 21-25 March; online as ref. 36 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly by
clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/WillNCLBPromoteDSI-3.pdf> (256
kB).
Hart, E. 2005. "Re: Where the Mayor Went Wrong," Math-Teach post of
19 May 2005, 9:00 PM; online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3776792&tstart=0>.
Hoover. 2005. "Hoover Fellow Diane Ravitch Receives John Dewey
Education Award," Hoover Institution press release; online at
<http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/releases/2005/05ravitch.html>.
The release reads in part: "Renowned author and education historian
Diane Ravitch has been named the 2005 recipient of the United
Federation of Teachers' prestigious John Dewey Award for Excellence
in Education. . . . Ravitch, the Research Professor of Education at
New York University, and an outspoken critic of Mayor Michael
Bloomberg's stewardship of the New York City public schools, will be
honored on May 14 at the UFT's annual spring education conference.
'Diane is one of the only voices out there other than us supporting
teachers,' UFT president Randi Weingarten said. 'There has been no
stauncher ally of teachers being treated as professionals and the
union being a partner for - not an obstacle to - genuine reform.'. .
. Ravitch has been a friend of the UFT and the AFT since the
mid-1970s, when she first became friends with Albert Shanker and
Sandra Feldman. 'We don't always agree with her, but she is a true
friend of teachers,' Weingarten said."
Isaacs, A. 2005. "Re: Where the Mayor Went Wrong," Math-Teach post of
19 May 2005, 11:30 PM; online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=3777429&tstart=0>.
Phillips, D. C. 1995. "The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many
faces of constructivism," Educational Researcher 24(7): 5-12. Anne &
John Selden <http://mathforum.org/orlando/selden.orlando.html> write
"[Phillips] takes an exceptionally broad view of constructivism,
considering authors like von Glasersfeld, Piaget, Dewey, Kant, Kuhn,
and various feminists. What's good is the emphasis on active
participation by the learner. What's bad is the tendency toward
relativism and the 'jettisoning of any substantial rational
justification.' What's ugly is the tendency toward sectarianism --
each 'harbors some distrust of its rivals.' "
Ravitch, D. 2000. "Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms." Simon
& Shuster. See also (a) Ravitch's interview "Hard Lessons" by Sage
Stossel of the Atlantic Monthly, online to subscribers at
<http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/ba2000-11-01.htm>; and
(b) the review by Nicholas Lemann titled "Dumbing Down" in the New
Yorker of September 25, 2000.
Ravitch, D. 2005. "Would You Want To Study at a Bloomberg School?"
Wall Street Journal Online, ll May, online to Wall Street subscribers
at <http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111585804108831274,00.html>.
Also "beckered" (in honor of the redoubtable Jerry Becker) into the
AERA-L "Politics and Policy in Education Forum" archives by Hake
(2005) so as to be available to all discussion list subscribers in
the APPENDIX of
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0505&L=aera-l&T=0&O=D&P=770>.
See also recent Ravich commentaries by searching for "Ravitch" at her
staging grounds: Brookings Institution
<http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/brown_hp.htm>, Hoover Institution
<http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/>, and Fordham Foundation
<http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/index.cfm>.
Resnick, L.B. and Hall, M.W. 1998. "Learning Organizations for
Sustainable Education Reform," Daedalus 127(4): 89-118.
Rury, J.L. 2001. "The Irony of Revising Revisionism: Diane Ravitch on
Twentieth Century School Reform." Review of Ravitch (2000) in
"Education Review"; online at
<http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev123.htm>. Rury writes: "Ravitch's
argument is not difficult to summarize in a nutshell: a relatively
small but highly vocal and influential group of education professors
and their allies undermined the ability of American schools to
maintain high standards of instruction and a responsible curriculum.
. . . The basic character of educational reform, it seems, was set in
the opening decades of the twentieth century, and it was the
handiwork of an elite cabal of education 'experts' who systematically
attacked traditional forms of education with such fervor that
schooling eventually was broken down to an anti-intellectual pabulum
that sapped the academic life out of generations of American
students. Not surprisingly, given this account of the historical
record, Ravitch suggests that raising standards is the greatest
single remedy at the disposal of would-be reformers today."
Ryan. A. 2001. "Schools: The Price of Progress." New York Times Book
Review of Books; only the first paragraph is freely online for
non-subscribers at
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=14007>,
but the entire article may be purchased for $3.
Wraga, W.G. 2001. "Left Out: The Villainization of Progressive
Education in the United States," Educational Researcher, October
2001; online at <http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=428>. Wraga
writes: "In her zeal to discredit progressivism, Ravitch has
forfeited an opportunity to point to its successes, successes that
can foster the kinds of intellectual curricula that she champions and
that our students rightfully deserve and our schools desperately
need."
Zimiles, H. 2001. Review of Ravitch (2000) in "Education Review,"
online at <http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev116.htm>. Zimiles writes:
"[Ravitch (2000) serves as a sounding board for the advocacy of
traditional education; [she] is almost obsessively preoccupied with
promoting what she terms the
teaching of subject matter, with mourning its decline and advocating
its restoration to the position of primacy it once held until it was
undone by the story's scapegoat, progressive education. . . . . . In
the end, as she does throughout her book, without explanation and
reasonable justification or evidence for her conviction, a conviction
that flies in the face of experience and rationality, Ravitch calls
for a return to the scholastic mode of education of the distant past
as the most effective route to educating all children."
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
