Standards based instruction uses the latest information from cognitive
science regarding active learning, etc. Standards based instruction is
NOT a back to the basics (and teach only the basic skills) movement.
Pay close attention to the rhetoric used by various groups as they
voice their opinions about what mathematics educations should or should
not be.
>>> Vern Kays <vkays@RICHLAND.CC.IL.US> 10/23 4:57 PM >>>
Interesting reading
>X-Sender: jbecker@saluki-mail.siu.edu
>Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:58:05 -0500
>To: jbecker@siu.edu
>From: Jerry Becker <jbecker@siu.edu>
>Subject: Getting Back to Basics
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
mail.richland.cc.il.us id OAA14488
>
>******************************************************
>Thanks for Carol Fry Bohlin for bringing this article to our
attention.
>******************************************************
>
>>From The Washington Post, Sunday, October 10, 1999; Page B03
>[See
>http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/10/131l-101099-idx.h
tml ]
>
>Getting Back to Basics
>
>First Lesson: Unlearn How We Learned
>
>By Alfie Kohn
>
>We are facing an educational emergency in this country. You've heard
that
>claim before, of course, but this time there's a twist: Much of the
current
>crisis is the result of policies enacted in the name of improving
>schools--specifically, in the name of "standards" and
"accountability."
>
>Naturally, this rhetoric finds a ready audience: Who wants to come
out
>against higher standards? But the dirty little secret of American
education
>in the late 1990s is that real learning is being squeezed out of
classrooms
>because people who don't know much about education have decided it's
time
>to get tough.
>
>The top-down, heavy-handed "Tougher Standards" movement has
essentially
>taken over many of our schools, with the full support of business
groups,
>politicians of both parties and many journalists. The primary
opposition
>comes from those who actually do the educating--and, as our
children's
>schools are transformed into giant test-prep centers, increasingly
from
>parents as well.
>
>The first problem is that raising standards has come to mean little
more
>than higher scores on poorly designed standardized tests. The more
schools
>commit themselves to improving performance on these tests, the more
>meaningful opportunities to learn are sacrificed. Every hour spent
drilling
>students to ace these exams is an hour not spent helping them become
>creative, critical, curious learners. Thus, the drive for high scores
is
>tantamount to lowering standards--a paradox rarely appreciated by
those who
>make, or report on, education policy.
>
>Children are tested to the point of absurdity in the name of
>"accountability," which often turns out to be a code word for more
control
>over what happens in classrooms by people who are not in classrooms.
This
>has an effect on learning similar to the effect that a noose has on
>breathing. Particularly counterproductive is the use of bribes and
threats
>to coerce schools and students into raising test scores, including
>"high-stakes" testing that determines whether students can graduate or
even
>move on to the next grade.
>
>A few years back, a group of Colorado researchers asked some teachers
to
>instruct their students on a specific task. About half the teachers
were
>told that when they were finished, their students must "perform up to
>standards" and do well on a test about the task. The rest of the
teachers,
>given the identical task to teach, were simply invited to "facilitate
the
>children's learning." At the end, when all the students were tested,
the
>students in the "standards" classrooms did worse on the task than the
other
>students.
>
>The teachers in the standards-oriented classrooms in effect became
drill
>sergeants, removing virtually any opportunity for the students to play
an
>active role in designing their own learning. The teachers were
controlled,
>and they responded by becoming controlling.
>
>This transformation is taking place across the country. One example
can
>stand for thousands: A widely respected middle-school teacher in
Wisconsin,
>famous for helping students create their own innovative learning
projects,
>stood up at a community meeting one evening and announced that he
"used to
>be" a good teacher. These days, he explained, he just handed out
textbooks
>and quizzed his students on what they had memorized. He had changed
his
>teaching approach because he was increasingly being held accountable
for
>test scores. The kind of wide-ranging and enthusiastic exploration of
ideas
>that once characterized his classroom could not survive when the
emphasis
>was on preparing students to take a standardized test.
>
>The consensus that we need tougher standards is closely connected to
the
>notion that we need to go back to basics--what might be called the
"bunch
>o' facts" model of instruction. Traditionalists typically believe we
can
>make students learn by the sheer force of didactic instruction, by
having
>the teacher stand at the front of the room, perhaps writing on the
>blackboard while disgorging information that everyone else in the room
is
>supposed to lap up and copy down. The teacher tells; the students
listen.
>And when they aren't listening, they're reading things like textbooks
in
>such a way as to absorb information. Then come the quizzes,
compulsory
>recitations and other ways of proving that they remember what they
were
>told.
>
>Here education is conceived as transferring or transmitting facts,
pouring
>knowledge into empty vessels. This transmission model is found in
first
>grade classrooms devoted to the explicit teaching of phonics and in
high
>school honors classes where teachers slap transparencies on the
overhead
>projector and lecture endlessly about Romantic poets or genetic codes.
As a
>rule, the more that standardized tests are used (and their results
>emphasized), the more we would expect schools to adopt this approach
to
>teaching students of all ages.
>
>This model, which remains the dominant one in the United States,
enjoys the
>advantage of being familiar to most of us from our own days in school.
If
>most parents accept it--and judge teachers and schools on the basis of
how
>efficiently information is poured into their children--it may be
because no
>one has ever invited them to reconsider it. For us to question the
reliance
>on lectures, work sheets, drills and memorization, we must confront
the
>possibility that we spent a good chunk of our childhoods doing stuff
that
>was exactly as pointless as we suspected it was at the time.
>
>But cognitive scientists tell us that we're not passive receptacles,
and
>learning isn't just a matter of heaping new information on top of the
>knowledge we already have. It is a matter of coming across something
>unexpected, something that can't easily be explained by the informal
>theories we have already developed. To resolve that conflict, we have
to
>reorganize our way of understanding so we can accommodate the new
reality
>we've just encountered.
>
>The best kind of teaching takes its cue from the understanding that
people
>are active learners. In such a classroom, students are constantly
making
>decisions, becoming participants in their own education. Each is part
of a
>community of learners, coming to understand ideas from the inside out
with
>one another's help. They still acquire facts and skills, but in a
context
>and for a purpose. Their questions drive the curriculum. Learning to
think
>like scientists and historians matters more than memorizing lists of
>definitions and dates.
>
>It's simply not true that one must learn to read before being able to
read
>for understanding; it makes a lot more sense to learn to read by
reading
>for understanding. Exactly the same may be said of math: Wise
educators
>don't teach addition and subtraction as prerequisites for pursuing
>interesting problems; they teach these skills through interesting
problems.
>Students--including disadvantaged and "at-risk" students--learn skills
most
>effectively if they're invited from the beginning to think in a
>sophisticated way about the underlying concepts.
>
>Unfortunately, that kind of instruction is rare, and we are paying
the
>price. Many newspapers carried big headlines last year when U.S. high
>schoolers proved significantly less adept at math than their
counterparts
>around the globe. Less attention was given to the researchers'
conclusion
>that our students are at a disadvantage precisely because of the
prevalence
>of back-to-basics ideology in this country. American classrooms are
devoted
>more to memorizing and practicing rules and skills, at the expense of
>helping students understand what they're doing.
>
>Consider the way many 13-year-old American students dealt with a
problem
>that appeared in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The
>question was: "An army bus holds 36 soldiers. If 1,128 soldiers are
being
>bused to their training site, how many buses are needed?" If you
divide
>1,128 by 36, you get 31 with a remainder of 12, meaning it would take
32
>buses to transport the soldiers. Most students did the division
correctly,
>but fewer than one out of four got the question right. The most
common
>answer was "31 remainder 12."
>
>The shrill calls for tougher standards have had the effect of
accelerating
>the kind of instruction that produces this sort of robotic
calculation.
>False claims about new math and the whole-language reading approach
have
>driven out progressive kinds of teaching that help students become
better
>thinkers--and lifelong learners. Also, the most impressive kind of
>instruction is very difficult to sustain when a central authority
decrees a
>list of disconnected (and soon-to-be-forgotten) stuff that every
third- or
>seventh- or 11th-grader is required to know. That's why one of the
chief
>consequences of the Tougher Standards movement is that some of the
best
>teachers and principals are getting tired--or fired.
>
>The mindless phrase "raising the bar" is based on the assumption that
>harder is always better--indeed, that the difficulty level of tests
or
>texts is the most important criterion by which to judge them. A
growing
>understanding of the limits of this sensibility helps to explain why
a
>group of Virginia parents has organized in opposition to the Standards
of
>Learning being rammed into that state's classrooms. It's why some
>educators, students and parents across the country are beginning to
>consider the possibility of boycotting standardized tests.
>
>The goal here is not to make school "fun" so much as it is to create
a
>learning experience that arouses and sustains children's curiosity,
>enriching their capacities and responding to their questions in ways
that
>are deeply engaging. Those who share that goal are likely to work to
>support schooling that is profoundly nontraditional--and of
astonishingly
>higher standards.
>-----------
>Alfie Kohn is the author of the just-published "The Schools Our
Children
>Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and 'Tougher
Standards.'"
>(Houghton Mifflin).
>-----------
>* Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
>******************************************************
>
>Similar articles by Alfie Kohn that have appeared recently:
>
>Why Students Lose When "Tougher Standards" Win A Conversation with
Alfie Kohn
>by John O'Neil and Carol Tell
>
>Source: Educational Leadership Sept., 1999, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 18-23
>--------------
>Confusing Harder With Better
>
>Source: Education Week, 15 September 1999 (p. 68)
>
>**************************************************************
>*
>Jerry P. Becker
>Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction
>Southern Illinois University
>Carbondale, IL 62901-4610 USA
>Fax: (618) 453-4244
>Phone: (618) 453-4241 (office)
> (618) 457-8903 (home)
>E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu
>
>
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu
*
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu
*
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc
*
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed!
*
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
*
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************