My reply to Grant Wiggins

In case my comment does not pass moderation mustard at this post I am posting a copy of my reply to the comment left by Grant Wiggins here:

I wrote:

Grant Wiggins,

I would like to take issue with a few points you make here. First, most of the best teaching I have done and most of the best teaching I have observed in my time as an instructional coach would NEVER make for a good video. To insist that a video demonstrating a teacher’s teaching style be a litmus test for hiring a new teacher would completely eliminate many of the best and most effective teachers from ever finding a place in this profession. The best teaching does not come from a lectern or in front of a SMARTboard, it comes from building relationships with students, discovering what present and past experiences have shaped their understanding and guiding them toward new experiences and encounters with materials that will provide optimal growth. Moments of teacher influence in these situations are difficult if not impossible to plan as they come about through a teacher’s responsiveness to what their students are doing. It is not an easy thing to do and it certainly cannot be scripted or reduced to a formula.

Another problem I have not heard anyone mention in this whole debate is how can you have a test, be it a state mandated test or teacher drafted exam, that tests a teacher’s effectiveness when there is no agreed consensus on what the purpose of school is? The batter who averages only .167 and has his average printed in the paper at least knows what the purpose of baseball is. What is the purpose of school? Is it to prepare workers and consumers for participation in the economy? Is it to create an informed electorate? Is it to indoctrinate children into a way of thinking that will not disrupt established order? Is it to create life-long learners? Is it to prepare students for their past or is it to prepare students for their future? I ask this question a lot and I get a lot of different responses. High school seniors usually tell me the purpose of school is to help people get a better paying job. School teachers usually tell me it is to pass on a love of learning. Politicians usually say it is either to create an informed electorate or to prepare young people to compete in a world economy. What is it? One would be tempted to say yes to all of the above but there presents some contradiction.

Understanding by Design, your own formula, tells us that we have to start with an essential question then develop an appropriate assessment tool, and finally craft activities that will drive students to an enduring understanding. As far as scripted formulaic teaching methods go UBD is better than most and I support every teacher having a foundational knowledge of the concept. But, it seems to me value added assessment has failed to identify the appropriate enduring understanding to the larger essential question of, “What is the purpose of school?” How can any assessment measure to test teacher effectiveness be created, how can we know what constitutes a good teacher, if we cannot agree or identify what their purpose is?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Twitter Book Club: John Dewey (1938) Experience & Education, Ch 8

"we shall make surer and faster progress when we devote ourselves to finding out just what education is and (cont) http://tl.gd/38nm2uless than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

In this statement, the last one in this book, Dewey so totally and completely validates my thoughts on the need to engage in a larger discussion about what is the purpose of school, what is education, what is learning, what is teaching, and how do we reconcile these four things?

Twitter Book Club: John Dewey (1938) Experience & Education, Ch 7

"The way out of scholastic systems that made the past an end in itself is to make acquaintance with the (cont) http://tl.gd/38m4valess than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

"Occasions which are not and cannot be foreseen are bound to arise wherever there is intellectual freedom. They should be utilized." Deweyless than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

"the educator cannot start with knowledge already organized and proceed to ladle it out in doses." Deweyless than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

"No experience is educative that does not tend both to knowledge of more facts and entertaining of more (cont) http://tl.gd/38mfkaless than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

"The appeal [of back to basics education] may be temporarily successful in a period when general (cont) http://tl.gd/38n9ivless than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

"Failure to give constant attention to development of the intellectual content of experiences and to obtain (cont) http://tl.gd/38nbn6less than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

@anderscj That Dewey guy... he was pretty smart. :)less than a minute ago via HootSuiteChris Lehmann
chrislehmann

I was most struck with this quote and it is worth repeating here again:

"The appeal [of back to basics education] may be temporarily successful in a period when general insecurity, emotional and intellectual as well as economic, is rife. For under these conditions the desire to lean on fixed authority is active. Nevertheless, it is so out of touch with all the conditions of modern life that I believe it is folly to seek salvation in this direction." Dewey

History does seem to repeat itself. This quote applies so well to our current time of standardized testing, "common core" charter schools, and "back to the basics" education. By so completely organizing and categorizing subject matter into standards we have robbed learners of this important task for themselves, the task of making sense of the world. Dewey wrote this statement in 1938 (or at least it was published in that year). In that time the world was well into the Great Depression and as far as general insecurity the general public likely looked a lot like the general public today. One big difference today is besides economic and emotional insecurity intellectual insecurity is more pronounced in the wake of social media and the Internet.

These new information tools call into question the very nature of information. The other day I was asked by an attendee of a workshop I was giving on utilizing social media in the classroom how one is to know what is true when it comes to wikis, blogs, podcasts, social video, etc. when anyone can just post whatever they want. My answer to her was, "How do you know if anything you see, watch, hear, or read is true? It was not like traditional media never got it wrong, never printed anything untrue or misleading, or published something that contradicted other outlets?" If anything, the emergence of social media, web 2.0, citizen journalism, etc. shines a light on the issue of truthfulness in all media, not just news but also textbooks. I think this is a good thing. TYT did a piece on this topic a couple of weeks ago and I think they nailed it:



Dewey characterizes traditional education, of which standards, subject matter, and textbook curriculum are all paraphernalia, as an education of the past. In changing times, in times of instability and insecurity, it is natural for many people to want to hold on to the past and a good way to do that is with scripted standardized curriculum. By going "back to basics," by depriving learners of making their own taxonomies, by banning social media like YouTube, Wikipedia, and blogs, by mandating a scripted curriculum, by rewriting textbooks to minimize the role of individuals and groups that might promote critical self-reflection, and by holding teachers accountable to how well our students are acquainted with the past via standardized tests it delays our collective date with the future. It delay's our collective coming of age and retards our growth into societal maturity. It feels to me like we are all living in Pleasantville:



And to those who "get it" this reversion and fervent recoil to a day of 'ol is a vandalism and insult by those who choose not to open their eyes.

Twitter Book Club: John Dewey (1938) Experience & Education, Ch 6

"Plato once defined a slave as the person who executes the purposes of another, and, as has just been said, (cont) http://tl.gd/38lhi9less than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

"there is no defect in traditional education greater than it's failure to secure the active co-operation of (cont) http://tl.gd/38lirgless than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

"I have heard of cases in which children are surrounded with objects and materials and left entirely to (cont) http://tl.gd/38lr31less than a minute ago via Twittelatoranderscj
anderscj

Twitter Book Club: John Dewey (1938) Experience & Education, Ch 5

Twitter / anderscj: "The only freedom that is ... via kwout

Dewey goes out of his way in this chapter to explain why freedom needs rules and that it is rules that allow for freedom. Basically, if we have rules that govern what we do we are governed by something that is within our collective control. But, if we have no rules we are left to be governed by external forces beyond our control.

Twitter / anderscj: "Enforced quiet and acquie ... via kwout

If silence is one of those rules we decide to enforce in the learning environment we restrict our ability to know enough about our students to responsively help them. I wish the administrators at my first two schools understood this.

Twitter / anderscj: "And everyone who is ... via kwout

I believe this illustrates one of the greatest strengths of online schools. In online schools attendance is still obligatory but can only be measured with student engagement. If you are unengaged you are absent. In the brick and mortar classroom a whole class could be there in body but absent in mind.

Twitter / anderscj: "The non-social character ... via kwout