Educational Theory Thread

[Achwienichtig]

So, I recently downloaded the audiobook "The Schools We Need: And Why We Don't Have Them" by E.D. Hirsch. I have gotten about a quarter of the way through, and I must say, it has already made me rethink a great many of my beliefs concerning both how schools are actually run and how they should be run.

A little background on myself: I have a good foundational knowledge (though not exhaustive by any means) of education theory. I've taken grad coursework on the philosophy of education, and I am pretty well versed in Jean Jacques Rousseau (the first person to really delve into the subject) and John Dewey. My own education was a mixture of homeschooling, unschooling, and private schooling. My knowledge of the public school system is woefully inadequate beyond what I have heard about in the news and what I have been told by a few educators themselves.

Most of what I have heard in my coursework, the popular media, and the few educators I talk to goes along this line: The education system is broken. We are teaching to the test rather than engaging the students in actual learning. We are not teaching our students in ways that develop their characters. School is not arranged in a way that retains the child's interests. It is boring drudgery over scattered facts. What is needed is an education system based on the psychological development of the child. (Some educators also believe in trying to develop the child's moral sense, but that is not a very P.C. thing to say.) We also need to find ways of conveying facts meaningfully, through activities that integrate the child's already existent interests with new facts and interconnections.

This theory of education has always made sense to me, but Hirsch has really got me rethinking all of this. According to Hirsch, the above paragraph has it completely backwards. He says American education (and he has America specifically in mind) has been trying since the 1920's to work with the child's psychological development by way of integrated activities that maintain the child's interest. The result: utter failure! What has resulted is a complete lack of standardization of curriculum between schools and even between grade levels and teachers within the same school, and the child fairs much worse in this environment.

If other people are interested in discussing this further, we can go into the specifics of Hirsch's arguments later. I would like to open up discussion about education in general. I am particularly interested in comparing educational theories at work in other countries. I'm also interested in learning about the various theories of education that I might not be as well educated in.This thread doesn't need to be about Hirsch in particular. He just happens to be the figure that has me rethinking my theories at the moment. Specifically, he has got me entirely rethinking my opposition to the Common Core Curriculum (another topic we can talk about).

Open for discussion

 

[Valjean]

This sounds like an interesting subject.
I have no particular expertise in education, but am aware of some of the problems you mentioned and that other countries approach education very differently.
Some knowledgeable discussion on the subject should be interesting.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think that a lot of the problem comes down to the fixed mindset vs. the growth mindset. Too many of our educational institutions (and probably a great deal of parents) favor a fixed mindset, that is they encourage children to identify with their achievements rather than the work they did to get there. My stepdaughter breezed through elementary school, and all along the way her parents and teachers told her how smart and gifted she was. Now she's in middle school and is struggling with the more difficult assignments. She's probably thinking, I know I'm smart, everybody tells me I'm smart, so this should be easy, but it's not easy, therefore something is wrong with me. She was never rewarded for effort, and my wife and I are trying to fix that. She (and students in her predicament) need to get to the place where they associate hard work itself with something positive, rather than the boredom mentioned by the OP.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I think that a lot of the problem comes down to the fixed mindset vs. the growth mindset. Too many of our educational institutions (and probably a great deal of parents) favor a fixed mindset, that is they encourage children to identify with their achievements rather than the work they did to get there. My stepdaughter breezed through elementary school, and all along the way her parents and teachers told her how smart and gifted she was. Now she's in middle school and is struggling with the more difficult assignments. She's probably thinking, I know I'm smart, everybody tells me I'm smart, so this should be easy, but it's not easy, therefore something is wrong with me. She was never rewarded for effort, and my wife and I are trying to fix that. She (and students in her predicament) need to get to the place where they associate hard work itself with something positive, rather than the boredom mentioned by the OP.

That is very interesting. Most people nowadays would say the exact opposite. They say that kids get too much reward for participation and not enough reward for actual achievement. The theory is that if participation is rewarded that takes away the incentive to achieve. I might have once agreed with this sentiment, even if I thought it was a little simplistic.

I tend to think that what kids need to learn is not so much self-esteem but rather self-evaluation. That is more or less the opinion of John Taylor Gatto who is a leading opponent of the current school system and who has influenced my thinking quite a bit. He argues that by making evaluation the task of the school, you tied the child's self-esteem to the judgment of other people. The only way of truly given them self-esteem is to give them the tools of self-evaluation. This might be along the lines of what you are thinking.

I certainly hope the best for your stepdaughter. I know my interest in the topic stems mostly from my kids. They are only in pre-K now, but wow, do I spend a lot of time worrying about their education!

 

[PyramidHead]

I think that a lot of the problem comes down to the fixed mindset vs. the growth mindset. Too many of our educational institutions (and probably a great deal of parents) favor a fixed mindset, that is they encourage children to identify with their achievements rather than the work they did to get there. My stepdaughter breezed through elementary school, and all along the way her parents and teachers told her how smart and gifted she was. Now she's in middle school and is struggling with the more difficult assignments. She's probably thinking, I know I'm smart, everybody tells me I'm smart, so this should be easy, but it's not easy, therefore something is wrong with me. She was never rewarded for effort, and my wife and I are trying to fix that. She (and students in her predicament) need to get to the place where they associate hard work itself with something positive, rather than the boredom mentioned by the OP.

That is very interesting. Most people nowadays would say the exact opposite. They say that kids get too much reward for participation and not enough reward for actual achievement. The theory is that if participation is rewarded that takes away the incentive to achieve. I might have once agreed with this sentiment, even if I thought it was a little simplistic.

That can be a problem too, if the participation is literally just showing up for class. Perhaps a better way to put it is this: reward achievement, but when you do, reinforce how important it was that she made a serious effort. I feel like we tend to shower kids with praise when they ace a test without studying at all, and give less praise to the kid who stays up all night studying and just manages to pass. More and more, I'm thinking that the second kid is getting more out of his education. The first kid learns "I am already smart" while the second kid learns "if I work hard, I can get smarter."

I tend to think that what kids need to learn is not so much self-esteem but rather self-evaluation. That is more or less the opinion of John Taylor Gatto who is a leading opponent of the current school system and who has influenced my thinking quite a bit. He argues that by making evaluation the task of the school, you tied the child's self-esteem to the judgment of other people. The only way of truly given them self-esteem is to give them the tools of self-evaluation. This might be along the lines of what you are thinking.

I certainly hope the best for your stepdaughter. I know my interest in the topic stems mostly from my kids. They are only in pre-K now, but wow, do I spend a lot of time worrying about their education!

You know, I had a talk with my stepdaughter about the point of her assignments. Every kid goes through that phase where they suddenly realize the factual content of their lessons has little relationship to their actual lives, and they think they're the first generation to notice it. So I basically didn't try to disagree with her. I said: you are not being asked to do a report on Magellan so you will know about Magellan when you grow up, you're doing it so you will know how to get something done on time according to specific directions, and how to gather information on a topic you don't really care about, which are skills you will definitely need when you grow up!

How does that relate to what you're saying? Well, I can't think of a lot of work situations where self-evaluation is more important than boss-evaluation. It comes down to why we send kids to school. If it's to prepare them for the reality of having a job and responsibilities, maybe it's good to make them care about the opinions of others. But if school is supposed to be where we encourage kids to think independently, so that with any luck, the next generation of successful careers won't be populated by those with the most esteem from their managers, but from themselves... you kind of have to change the whole system at once to make it worthwhile, otherwise the student could be in for a rude awakening.

 

[Achwienichtig]

That is very interesting. Most people nowadays would say the exact opposite. They say that kids get too much reward for participation and not enough reward for actual achievement. The theory is that if participation is rewarded that takes away the incentive to achieve. I might have once agreed with this sentiment, even if I thought it was a little simplistic.

That can be a problem too, if the participation is literally just showing up for class. Perhaps a better way to put it is this: reward achievement, but when you do, reinforce how important it was that she made a serious effort. I feel like we tend to shower kids with praise when they ace a test without studying at all, and give less praise to the kid who stays up all night studying and just manages to pass. More and more, I'm thinking that the second kid is getting more out of his education. The first kid learns "I am already smart" while the second kid learns "if I work hard, I can get smarter."

I tend to think that what kids need to learn is not so much self-esteem but rather self-evaluation. That is more or less the opinion of John Taylor Gatto who is a leading opponent of the current school system and who has influenced my thinking quite a bit. He argues that by making evaluation the task of the school, you tied the child's self-esteem to the judgment of other people. The only way of truly given them self-esteem is to give them the tools of self-evaluation. This might be along the lines of what you are thinking.

I certainly hope the best for your stepdaughter. I know my interest in the topic stems mostly from my kids. They are only in pre-K now, but wow, do I spend a lot of time worrying about their education!

You know, I had a talk with my stepdaughter about the point of her assignments. Every kid goes through that phase where they suddenly realize the factual content of their lessons has little relationship to their actual lives, and they think they're the first generation to notice it. So I basically didn't try to disagree with her. I said: you are not being asked to do a report on Magellan so you will know about Magellan when you grow up, you're doing it so you will know how to get something done on time according to specific directions, and how to gather information on a topic you don't really care about, which are skills you will definitely need when you grow up!

How does that relate to what you're saying? Well, I can't think of a lot of work situations where self-evaluation is more important than boss-evaluation. It comes down to why we send kids to school. If it's to prepare them for the reality of having a job and responsibilities, maybe it's good to make them care about the opinions of others. But if school is supposed to be where we encourage kids to think independently, so that with any luck, the next generation of successful careers won't be populated by those with the most esteem from their managers, but from themselves... you kind of have to change the whole system at once to make it worthwhile, otherwise the student could be in for a rude awakening.

Well, I have to run and do non-internet things. But your Magellan story reminds me of myself. I used to do assignments in poem just to make it interesting. Fortunately, I never had a teacher who didn't accept this style. If I was able to write a poem that conveyed all the information they needed, they were glad to accept it. Sometimes these also got read in class. I once wrote an eight page chemistry lab report in poem.

I was really brave back then. I don't think I would ever attempt that at work now (though I sometimes think about it). But now that I am an adult, I see the reasons for why things are the way they are and why I had to learn the things I was made to learn. My bravery in school was what saved me. I hope your stepdaughter can tap into something like that.

 

[Kharakov]

Most of what I have heard in my coursework, the popular media, and the few educators I talk to goes along this line: The education system is broken.

Unless one is deliberately cultivating a stupid, disorganized populace to gain and retain wealth and power in a democracy.

 

[J842P]

That is very interesting. Most people nowadays would say the exact opposite. They say that kids get too much reward for participation and not enough reward for actual achievement. The theory is that if participation is rewarded that takes away the incentive to achieve. I might have once agreed with this sentiment, even if I thought it was a little simplistic.

That notion might make sense, but I've never seen any evidence that it's based on a valid premise. I don't think the level of constant achievement-based scrutiny kids are subject to these days can even be compared to previous generations. I'm still in my mid-twenties. I have siblings that are significantly older than me (18 years), and they have their own kids (one who is now entering her first year of college), so I have a pretty good window into the generation before me and the generation after me. My brother was in the top tier of his high-school graduating class, and he took something like 2 or 3 AP tests. I took 13. And you don't get college credit just for taking the test. And those are just examples of voluntary high-stakes exams. I was subject to at least twice the amount of standardized testing required by the state as my brother. My niece, my brother's daughter, similarly took a large number of AP tests, and even more standardized state-mandated tests than I did. She also also has been involved in theater and has basically become a seasoned veteran of auditioning for roles by the age of 16.

But yeah, I guess my brother never got a participation trophy on his kiddie soccer team...

 

[Achwienichtig]

That is very interesting. Most people nowadays would say the exact opposite. They say that kids get too much reward for participation and not enough reward for actual achievement. The theory is that if participation is rewarded that takes away the incentive to achieve. I might have once agreed with this sentiment, even if I thought it was a little simplistic.

That notion might make sense, but I've never seen any evidence that it's based on a valid premise. I don't think the level of constant achievement-based scrutiny kids are subject to these days can even be compared to previous generations. I'm still in my mid-twenties. I have siblings that are significantly older than me (18 years), and they have their own kids (one who is now entering her first year of college), so I have a pretty good window into the generation before me and the generation after me. My brother was in the top tier of his high-school graduating class, and he took something like 2 or 3 AP tests. I took 13. And you don't get college credit just for taking the test. And those are just examples of voluntary high-stakes exams. I was subject to at least twice the amount of standardized testing required by the state as my brother. My niece, my brother's daughter, similarly took a large number of AP tests, and even more standardized state-mandated tests than I did. She also also has been involved in theater and has basically become a seasoned veteran of auditioning for roles by the age of 16.

But yeah, I guess my brother never got a participation trophy on his kiddie soccer team...

Good point.

All those participation awards are really quite hollow when the very next moment you are cramming an exam down their throats telling them that their success and worth depends on a good grade.

It has always struck me when people point to national exam scores and say things like "We are failing our kids." Of course, we are indeed failing our kids. But that is not the message the kid receives when he or she gets back the same exact test score you were talking about. The message the children get is that they are the failures. It cannot be easy for a child in such a situation to maintain his or her self-esteem in the face of "our failure."

 

[fromderinside]

That notion might make sense, but I've never seen any evidence that it's based on a valid premise. I don't think the level of constant achievement-based scrutiny kids are subject to these days can even be compared to previous generations. I'm still in my mid-twenties. I have siblings that are significantly older than me (18 years), and they have their own kids (one who is now entering her first year of college), so I have a pretty good window into the generation before me and the generation after me. My brother was in the top tier of his high-school graduating class, and he took something like 2 or 3 AP tests. I took 13. And you don't get college credit just for taking the test. And those are just examples of voluntary high-stakes exams. I was subject to at least twice the amount of standardized testing required by the state as my brother. My niece, my brother's daughter, similarly took a large number of AP tests, and even more standardized state-mandated tests than I did. She also also has been involved in theater and has basically become a seasoned veteran of auditioning for roles by the age of 16.

But yeah, I guess my brother never got a participation trophy on his kiddie soccer team...

Good point.

All those participation awards are really quite hollow when the very next moment you are cramming an exam down their throats telling them that their success and worth depends on a good grade.

It has always struck me when people point to national exam scores and say things like "We are failing our kids." Of course, we are indeed failing our kids. But that is not the message the kid receives when he or she gets back the same exact test score you were talking about. The message the children get is that they are the failures. It cannot be easy for a child in such a situation to maintain his or her self-esteem in the face of "our failure."

We have a pretty good idea how one learns. Have had one for over 2000 years.

I think what you are talking about is a national bureaucracy implementing a more or less uniform policy nation wide or state wide or city wide. Now we're all going to have our won pet "I know as well as you know" way for spending my tax dollar for educating Johnny. Obviously we can't use the best method because that would require each child learning how to learn from first doing, then observing, then being told about the number of times necessary for mastery.

Of course we can, but, that would be making some one unhappy.

levity aside.

There are many factors driving education off the road. Most of them are fundamental to bureaucratic systems of any sort, whether business, government, or individual commerce. These are the source of problems with content, testing, social status, financing, etc. The education part if we stripped away this other stuff is, as I glibly outlined, simple.

We can currently put in front of every student mechanisms that interact, allow making, building up, modelling, provide feedback, evaluate problems, guide, mentor, and facilitate students in their education.