Coincidence

This is not the picture I selected to appear in this post, but it actually is perfect for what I wanted to say in this post because... it was not my choice.

So, what is it then? Was it coincidence? Was it an accident? Was divine intervention? Or, was it the force? (My son would say it was surely the force.)

Well, I stopped believing in coincidences several years ago so it cannot be a coincidence. They no longer exist.

As far as accidents, they have become synonyms for coincidences. They happen, but there is almost always a cause or a reason for their causation.

I do believe in divine intervention, and I have to since I do not believe in coincidences or accidents.

The force, well, that was not real; the only reason I included it was out of my love for my son. So, that leaves me with divine intervention as the answer to this puzzle. There was a reason it was selected, and since I do not know that reason I will have to speculate a little.

The picture means nothing to me, but someone some day will read this post and look at the picture and be moved. The picture will mean something to them that it does not mean to me or to you. It will flood their mind with memories and thoughts and motivate them to do something or call someone. And, the whole time the rest of us will never know anything more about this picture.

I think we can all agree, in one way or another, to this idea, but on what we will all certainly disagree is what this idea is called. Some of you will say coincidence, others will call it an accident, my son might attribute it to the force, but for me, I will call it divine intervention. What is it that causes each of us to define it and label differently? The answer is belief.

Where does belief begin, become ingrained and solidify? Answer... school.

So enjoy your summer, but when fall rolls around and the school year begins, make sure you know the beliefs of those who teach your children because those beliefs will one day be the beliefs of your children, if you are not careful.

Common Core

The Common Core curriculum push is being felt in most public schools, many private schools and even in many Christian schools. Is it evil? Is it good?

I would say that it is neither evil nor good. It is a response to the growing concern over the increasing failings of the American educational system. As a country, our international literacy and math scores have been in decline for years. The common core is the first collective response to this issue.

The elements of common core all find their home in tougher standards and rigor. The example in this post is an example of that rigor. It is also an example of asking the student to think in different and higher categories. While I applaud the idea... we do need students to think in higher categories and to work harder, I have some concerns.

In an article in the New York Times, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus wrote,

"It is the uniformity of the exams and the skills ostensibly linked to them that appeal to the Core’s supporters, like Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Bill and Melinda Gates. They believe that tougher standards, and eventually higher standardized test scores, will make America more competitive in the global brain race. “If we’ve encouraged anything from Washington, it’s for states to set a high bar for what students should know to be able to do to compete in today’s global economy,” Mr. Duncan wrote to us in an e-mail."

Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, is an avid supporter of the Common Core along with Bill and Melinda Gates. But, what they do not understand, in my humble opinion, is the complexity of culture and the place of education in that complexity.

Students step out of culture (by way of the family) into a school. The school then molds the students into the adults the culture desires. The common core is a radical change in objectives, and that change came suddenly with little to no communication. Yet, the culture has continued to go in the opposite direction. Now, we have a school system asking students to become accountable, hard working and higher categorical thinkers while those students step out of a culture demanding less and less from its adults in respect to those same three objectives. Government grows and so does the number of adults on government programs. More is being asked of our students than of our adults. So, of course there is going to be a disconnect.

Hacker and Dreifus wrote concerning the motivation behind the common core push,

"The answer is simple. “College and career skills are the same,” Ken Wagner, New York State’s associate commissioner of education for curriculum, assessment and educational technology, told us. The presumption is that the kind of “critical thinking” taught in classrooms — and tested by the Common Core — improves job performance, whether it’s driving a bus or performing neurosurgery. But Anthony Carnevale, the director of Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce, calls the Common Core a “one-size-fits-all pathway governed by abstract academic content."

Hacker and Dreifus ask the question, "In sum, the Common Core takes as its model schools from which most students go on to selective colleges. Is this really a level playing field? Or has the game been so prearranged that many, if not most, of the players will fail?" While I do not think common core is a malicious attempt to fail students collectively, I do think it was a good idea that received support and funding quickly which produced a gathering growing movement that could not be stopped.

What will come of it? I have no idea. But, before judging it too harshly, gather your information, first, before you listen to all pundits who offer their views, and then, arrive at your own view.  

Sir Ken Robinson

Sir Ken Robinson has some interesting things to say about education. I have posted a very interesting interview of Robinson on education.

Do our schools really kill creativity in children? Read the interview, but be warned; his comments might make you just a little uncomfortable.

The Question of Education

As I inch closer to the completion of my dissertation, I have been confronted with a question to which I was sure I had the answer. And, as is the case in most true education, the more I have read and studied the more I have moved away from my original answer.

The question is this: what is education? Because everyone has attended school, everyone thinks they know the answer to the question. With that knowledge, most consider the question once or twice, and then move on to more "important" things.

As I have read Rousseau, Dewey, Hume and Kant, I have come to the realize that the question is actually more important than the answer to the question. Each has taken education and turned it one way and addressed it another way in order to present their views on the process, but one of the things that stood out to me reading these philosophical giants is the question... it was always in the front of their thinking and never dismissed.

Dewey, in 1938, addressed educators with the idea of considering this question daily. His view is that this is a question that those of us in education must wrestle with daily in order to progress as educators. Education, the process, is much more than curriculum, pedagogy and policies. There is not a quick and sure answer to most questions, especially questions regarding education. But, if we consider the question every day, we start to slowly understand that the question keeps our thinking on the true nature of education... a process that is living, changing and so influential.

What is education? Let me think about it and get back to you.  

Plato and the Future of Education

As we consider the future of education, I think it helpful to consider Plato's thoughts on education as well. Those in education seem to be at a crossroads of sorts in their acceptance of Plato as they push an agenda that is as far from Plato's own educational thoughts.

The Hellenistic influence is still powerful and widespread, but where the power and influence seem to be waning is in the field of education. When considering the future of education one reads of ideas like the virtual classroom and of self learning. We see the rise of the student in the educational process, which is, in itself, not all bad, but at the same time, we, also see the sinking of the teacher. There is a sense that the teacher can be replaced in this process because the process is about information. The paradox that technology brings is masked by the bells and whistles of technology, but a look back at Plato will quickly expose these new ideas for what they really are... old failed philosophies.

In his Republic, Plato presented his idea society. In his ideal state, matters are overseen by a guardian class, and slaves, and craftsmen and merchants are to know their place. It is this guardian class who are educated while other classes are only educated according to their vocational needs. While I disagree with Plato's views on education below the guardian class, I can still marvel in the education he proposes for the guardian class. It is this education that has been embraced by so many.

First, Plato believed that educators must have a deep concern for the well-being and future of those students they teach. Plato believed, correctly, that educating was a moral exercise, and it was the duty of the teacher to search for truth and virtue with the students they teach, and guide those they have a the responsibility to teach. This is a huge part of the role of a teacher, and it should not be left to a virtual classroom or technology.

Second, there is the ‘Socratic teaching method’. The teacher must know his or her subject, but as a true philosopher he or she also must know the limits of their knowledge. It is here that we see the power of dialogue – the joint exploration of a subject –  and the idea that knowledge will not come from teaching alone but from the questioning that occurs inside true dialogue. True dialogue requires a relationship between a teacher and a student, and that relationship must be based on truth, trust and concern.

Third, this is where we find Plato's conceptualization of the differing educational requirements associated with various life stages. We find the classical Greek concern for body and mind. We find the importance of exercise and discipline and of stories and games. Plato’s philosopher guardians followed an educational path of life until they were 50 years old. This speaks to the idea that education is not something to be learned, but a philosophy for life.

The current trend in educational thought as little in common with these thoughts. These ideas on education will only be transferred in a classroom with a caring, well-educated responsible adult. They will never be captured in a virtual classroom or in an educational process rooted in technology.

A Running Dialogue on Teaching

In this post, I start to write about the process of teaching and then, follow it. Each paragraph is a new thought, prompted by thoughts in the previous paragraph. So, here we go!

Everyone thinks that they have the answers to education, and the reality is, they probably do. After all, we went to school; we were all taught, right?

Personally, I don't think education was meant to be standardized yet that is what many are trying to do. Why? Well, first, most continue to think that education is the panacea that will fix all that is wrong with current culture. The truth is this: education reflects the power of culture and the "normativity" of that culture.

Secondly, education does indoctrinate and inculcate children with a certain worldview and way of thinking. To teach in a Socratic way is to allow the child and the process some freedom to develop in ways different than the norms of society. The powers of culture do not want that to happen. They want to reinforce the normative structure of current culture, for better or worse, through the educational process.

Currently, the powers, in this country, are in the process of standardizing the standards in a movement towards core competency. The movement, inside of itself, is a step in the right direction, but again, it only sets the stakes in the ground. Reaching those stakes is another effort indeed. That effort requires teachers who are equipped, schools that are funded, parents who are supportive and students who are motivated to learn.

Even though all these things are important, I still think each one pales in comparison to what is really important inside this process of education. This element is the very reason why private schools out-perform public schools. It is the reason most home-school students are successful. It is the reason why most expensive schools are successful. And that important element is the relationship between the teacher and the student, which opens up a multitude of other issues to be considered.

In regard to curriculum, some of it is poor, but the majority of it can be thrown into one category... good. In my opinion, curriculum will not make or break a school; teachers will, and teachers who are given the room and the space to build relationships with students will teacher to the highest level regardless of the curriculum put in front of them, provided that they come to the process with the right perspective. Poor curriculum will certainly have an effect on education, but equipping teachers with proper tools, educating them correctly and allowing them the space to build relationships with students will most certainly produce results.

Regarding curriculum, why do we need it? I do not ask this question in rebellion and as a means to do away with current curriculum; my question is more epistemological: what are the reasons for its use? If we have standards, do we need curriculum? Asking teachers to meet standards and adhere to curriculum would seem to me to stifle relationships with the students. If we throw standardized test preparation into the midst, building quality relationships with students becomes an uncertainty, at best.

But, do we want today's teachers building relationships with our students? That seems the more relevant question. I think the answer depends on the school and situation, but the question, just the same, is paramount because teachers still wield enormous power. The process of education is still a trusted means of transferring information from one generation to the next; because of this nature, parents walk their children into this process expecting teachers to imprint their knowledge and expertise onto their children (We can talk on whether this is a true educational process later.). With all that is taking place today, should we not demand more knowledge about the school, the class and the teacher that will be educating our children?

If the teacher possess this power and is paramount to this process we call education, the question them becomes multi-layered. How do we train teachers well? How do we filter out those that should never be teachers? How do we rid ourselves of those teachers who are already part of our system and have proven to be untrustworthy, inadequate and corrupt? Currently, we have no answers to these questions, or maybe we do, but those answers lie in places we would rather leave in the dark. To find those answers would reveal the true focus of our current educational process which appears to be one reality but is really another.

I will stop here as I believe I have created more questions than answers. Please keep in mind that those thoughts above are thoughts in process and not ends within themselves. I am and will always be
an advocate of education, especially Christian education that produces students who can answer the call of I John 4:1 as adults! Blessings

 

Power and the Examination

Michel Foucault had some interesting things to say about power and the idea of the examination in a school setting.

"The examination did not simply mark the end of an apprenticeship; it was one of its permanent factors; it was woven into it through a constantly repeated ritual of power. The examination enabled the teacher, while transmitting his knowledge, to transform his pupils into a whole field of knowledge."

"... the examination in a school was a constant exchanger of knowledge; it guaranteed the movement of knowledge from the teacher to the pupil, but it extracted from the pupil a knowledge destined and reserved for the teacher."

"The examination transformed the economy of visibility into the exercise of power. Traditionally, power was what was seen, what was shown and what was manifested and, paradoxically, found the principle of its force in the movement by which it deployed that force."

"And the examination is the technique by which power, instead of emitting the signs of its potency, instead of imposing its mark on its subjects, holds them in a mechanism of objectification. In this space of domination, disciplinary power manifests its potency, essentially by arranging objects. The examination is, as it were, the ceremony of this objectification." 

These quotes refer not only to the transformation of schools but to students as well, and not just those in K - 12 settings, but in colleges, medical schools, seminaries alike. The examination, according to Foucault, has allowed power to become more powerful by way of providing it a means of exertion that turns students into objects. Power by way of the examination, according to Foucault, "places individuals in a field of surveillance" in a complexity of objectification in order to "capture and fix" them in place according to the norms presented and reinforced by the examination.

Is there validity in Foucault's assertions? How important is the examination? Does it really tell us as much as we think it does?

Interesting thoughts...
  

The Future of Education in the United States

What is the future of education in this country? Will it be radically different than it is today? As you can imagine, there are many different views on this subject. Most views are, simply that, a view with no power to implement or gain traction leading to any real change. But, there is one view that has gained some traction.

This view is referenced as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and it is a view that is gaining ground in many areas of education, and not just those areas in the public venue. Educational Leadership (EL) magazine has a nice summary of the movement. Read the article HERE. It is a bit confusing as it seems to be accepted by contradictory views. Read the article and see how it fits with your own view of the world.

Thoughts on School Choice

When considering school choice one must also consider Equality of Educational Opportunity, as it is the consensus regarding the product of current education in this country. Nicholas C. Burbles and Ann L. Sherman, in their article, Equal Educational Opportunity: Ideal of Ideology, provide a valid understanding of Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO), which flows out of James Coleman’s original thoughts on the subject. Burbles and Sherman (1979) describe EEO as a distributive principle, which provides access to education that is considered as equal access. To them, equal access must meet two requirements: there must be an opportunity for education, and that opportunity must be the same for all.

School choice, from a conservative perspective, is still considered in a positive light, but, should it be? I want to unpack that argument a bit in light of my exposure to this idea of EEO. Coleman’s original comments relate EEO directly to the child and the family by way of economic production. The family, originally, provided access to the education needed in order to maintain the family’s means of economic production. There was no need for EEO, or better said, EEO was a natural by- product of the family structure, which also served as the primary economic means of the day. The family unit functioned in a familial manner as well as an economic one, and therefore, provide the education children needed for the times.

The modern understanding of EEO arrived simultaneously with the onset of public tax-supported education brought on by the industrial revolution’s demand for labor outside the home. The family unit was the structure of society, and, as I stated above, managed EEO as a by product of its natural state; however, all of that changed almost overnight as fathers began to work outside the home, and thus, a new issue in need of resolution was created as a by product of the industrial revolution. This is a reminder of the causal effects our actions always have regardless of intent. Again, in the past, the family provided the education that provided the needed entry point to the labor force, which was usually the family farm. The industrial revolution changed all of that and changed the meaning of education in the United States, and, from the onset, our educational focus was on equality. Was this focus an attempt to set things back to the balance of pre-industrial revolutionary standards or was it the only habitual response known at the time? Or, was it something else all together? Today, the goal of education still seems to be equality, specifically, EEO. What, practically, is EEO? Coleman references the following elements in regards to EEO:

1.       Provision of a free education up to a given level which was the entry point into the labor force.

2.       Providing a common curriculum for all children, regardless of background.

3.       Providing that children for diverse backgrounds attend the same school.

4.       Providing equality within a given locality.

Upon first glance, these seem to be fairly straight forward, but, according to Coleman, they come with two important assumptions that must, first, be considered. First, these elements assume that the existence of free schools eliminate economic sources of inequality of opportunity. And, second, these elements assume that opportunity lies only in a given common curriculum, and that the amount of exposure to this curriculum constitutes the amount of opportunity. I will add a third important assumption: that of education as the great panacea capable of solving all of life's problems; this collective ethos still resonates with us today as public schools, courtesy of the Federal Department of Education, inch closer and closer to a national one-size-fits-all school system.

Inside the second assumption lies a problem that must be addressed as it is one that grows each year. Annually, we continue to hold our communities and schools responsible for the education of our children, yet their roles continue to remain very much passive. I posit that one side of this equation must change in order to begin to even approach the issue of reform. Applying such logic to real world solutions would equate to a coach that runs all practices but has no control over his team during games, but that coach is still held responsible for the wins and losses of the team. Part-time active control is never active and always passive, no matter the levied responsibility applied.

Back to EEO, according to Coleman, EEO is the equality of results given the same individual input. Inequality comes from differences in inputs that lead to different outputs or inequality, and according to Coleman, those are the four general points of inequality:

1.       Differences, in terms of community input into schools

2.       Differences regarding racial composition of schools

3.       Differences in those intangible characteristics of schools

4.       Differences regarding the consequences of each school. 

Coleman acknowledges that this concept of EEO is a shifting concept and will shift over time in areas of curriculum: shifts include toward curriculum that is more academic, more diversified and more expectant of all children attending college. I will add that these shifts are the results of shifts in current culture which leads me to categorize the current state of public education regarding EEO as inequality. Which, again, brings us to that provocative question: what is the purpose of education? Is it equality, excellence, or something else? Currently, the product has been decided for the approximately 94% of American families who choose public education for their children, and it is EEO, or at least some form of it. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a form of equality with the heaviest element focusing on equal opportunity. I submit, that the product is the real issue regarding education in general. We are fragmented, as a nation, on what the product of education is to be. Before solving our education problems, we must first come to a consensus on this idea of product of education.

The next logical question is to define school choice as that is the overall questions of the post. While this is an easily assumed concept, it still warrants a definition of terms. School choice, for me, is the choice afforded to parents regarding the education of their children. Currently, in the American educational landscape, those choices that are considered for the question of school choice would fall into the following categories: public, private, faith-based, religious, sectarian, vocational, technical and home. There are few restrictions on parental choice as most parents are free to make the educational choices for their children with little intervention from the government. Those of us, and I include myself in this collective state, who endorse school choice do so making several assumptions. First, we assume that choice means competition and competition will leads us to excellence. Second, we assume choice means responsibility and that everyone will assume the same responsibility that choice affords. And, finally, we assume, or forget, that choice is open choice. Kenneth Howe brings up an important point regarding the perils of open choice. Choice, with no constraints or parameters, is also dangerous as it can lead to choices not compatible with growth or education excellence. We need only look back at history to see countless examples of the perils of open choice education. What, then, are we to do with school choice?  

Based on our current product of education, with is still this general idea of equality, I would have to conclude that school choice detracts from all forms of equality, if equality is our agreed upon product of education. There are several reasons for this. First, school choice does not provide equal access for all students. Multiple options with no control or constraint actually detract from equality, whether they produce a superior product or not is not the issue; the issue is the product they produce is not equal to other products. Second, there is a lack of control and accountability regarding school choice in regard to states, communities and regions as well as religious groups and non-religious groups. This lack of control limits opportunities in education, especially those educational aspects contributing to overall democracy. Third, there is no continuity or sameness, and that is a hallmark of EEO and of equality in choice. With a diverse group of school options coupled with these three issues, the only logical answer to the original question is that school choice detracts from equality and EEO, if these are our preferred products of education. The answer to my question regarding school choice should lead to another question: is the current product of education the right product?

The last word is this. I am not comfortable with equality or EEO serving as the product of education. I am working through my thoughts on this and on what should serve as the product of education. I believe equality, EEO and even equity are all pieces of the overall product of education, but my sense is there is still a large piece of the product missing. What is this missing piece? Is its absence intentional or a mistake? I am still a strong advocate for school choice, but not for reasons of EEO, equality or equity. Stay tuned for more thoughts on this and what this missing piece is. For now, these are my current thoughts on school choice after having been part of a class on political philosophy conducted by my advisor who is one of the brightest minds I have ever met. Blessings to all!

A Different Look at Schooling

What would school look like without its normative pieces? Do we really need books? What about desks? And, while we are on the subject, what about teachers? Are all these things really  necessary?

I am sure your first response is to gasp and immediately answer in the affirmative. Why, of course, all of these things are necessary; they are what make a school a school, right? Well, it depends.

It all depends on what your view of school is. If your view of school is strictly academic pragmatism, in other words, school is for securing the best grades and the best college preparation in order to prepare for college then, maybe, those normative pieces aren't as important as you might think. If it is test scores that you are after and AP classes and scholarship money then there is a case to be made that all of these pieces of education that we naturally and by default associate with schools aren't as important as we all thought.

Click HERE to read about an experimental school that has none of those "bothersome" pieces. It is a school with one room, no teachers and no rules. Every student has a desk and a computer. They each work at their own pace and do quite well at it, at least according to test scores. The school is the New Country School in Minnesota, and the only class that is taught in the school is math. Adults are viewed as guides and are there only to assist if needed.

While I will acknowledge the school's academic success I also must ask some serious questions. The school is certainly set up for one type of student; how well will other students do in its setting? Those who are self motivated I am sure do very well in this setting, but one has to ask this question: could these students soar even higher with a teacher or two? This school is making some serious statements about education. It is presenting a view of education that is very different than the one we all know and love. I am not ready to embrace or reject this school's pedagogical methodology, but I do believe it is worthy of observation.

If school is only about academics then this is something to consider, but what about morality and responsibility? What about service and unity? How will these students assimilate into greater society? How will they learn to serve, to be responsible and to consider others before themselves? Are not these things also part of a quality education? 

Read the article, but before you jump to judge one way or the other... picture yourself in the setting. How would you do? Would it be freeing or would you miss the structure and instruction? I am not sure most students are ready for the freedom it proposes, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Enjoy the article! I hope it forces you to think outside of the box about education. Anytime that happens it is always a good thing. Blessings! 

Vygotsky's Constructivism

Way back at the University of South Carolina, I was exposed to an obscure learning theorist named Lev Vygotsky. I immediately gravitated towards him as he gave words and meaning to a lot of what I was feeling at the time. Today, Vygotsky and his theories are becoming popular again, which brings me to this post. I will explain, although briefly, some of Vygotsky;s views as they are captured in his general theory of constructivism as captured in the constructivist tower pictured here.

Most of Vygotsky's theories stressed the foundational role of social interaction in the development of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). He believed strongly, as I still do, that socialization plays a pivotal role in the process of "making meaning (his term)." Vygotsky argued that, "learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function" (1978, p. 90). To Vygotsky, social learning precedes development.

To understand what Vygotsky means by this idea of social learning preceding development, it is important to examine two of his main principles: the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The MKO refers to someone, a teacher, parent or tutor, who has a better understanding and a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a task, a process, an idea, a concept or content. Now, here is where I break away from current thought.

Current promoted theory regarding the MKO states that the MKO need not be a person at all (Galloway, 2001). The key to the MKO's influence is that they/it must have more knowledge about the topic being learned than the learner does. While this is an important factor it certainly is not the only factor. I believe that there are other important traits the MKO must have in order to maximize potential and connection with Vygotsky's second concept, the ZPD. For me, it is important that the MKO be someone the learner is connected with socially since the cognitive is not the only factor in full blown development. There is much more to say here, but that is another article. For our purposes today, the MKO, for me, must be a person who is actively engaged and discipling the learner in more ways than knowledge for many reasons, but one is all I will explain today.

Digressing for a moment to Bloom's Taxonomy, Bloom made it clear that there were three domains of learning: the Cognitive (thinking), the Affective (emotion and morality), and the Psycho-motor (movement). When referencing any environment where learning is taking place, one must always consider two important points. First, learning takes place in all three domains, and two, the teacher has an enormous impact on the learner. These cannot be disregarded.

Now, this concept of the MKO does not stand alone; instead, it is integrally related to the second important principle of Vygotsky's work, the ZPD. Taken together, both the MKO and the ZPD form the foundation of the scaffolding component of his cognitive apprenticeship model of instruction. Vygotsky (1978) defined the ZPD as the distance between the "actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 86). Vygotsky (1978) believed that when a student is at the ZPD for a particular task, providing the appropriate assistance (scaffolding) will give the student enough of a "boost" to achieve the task. For me, that "boost" can really multiple if the MKO is an actual person building off of previous work and a growing relationship with the student. This scaffolding concept can take the form of many things, but, in my opinion, it all flows easier when the MKO is involved in a growing mentor relationship with the student.

To clarify,  the ZPD is the area between the things that a learner can do on her own and the things that she cannot yet do, even with assistance. As we learn, this zone moves towards the things that the learner cannot do with assistance, gradually pulling more of those things into the things the learner can do on her own until the learner begins to do more and more things on her own. There are many variations of this concept in play today, but the main ideas are fairly standard.

In closing, Vygotsky's Mind in Society is well worth the read. It is a little choppy and hard to read, in places, due to its translation, but reading it will give you some deeper insight into the two concepts above. For me, these are important concepts that everyone should understand deeply when teaching children. Teaching is one of the most important things we do as people, and in order to do it well, we must continue to learn and grow. Happy Reading!

References:

Galloway, C. M. (2001). Vygotsky's Constructionism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, amd technology. Retrieved (2012) from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cornelius Van Til and Christian Education

The older a movement gets the more distorted it becomes. Reformed theology is no exception; it is as susceptible as any other tradition. The reformed tradition links itself directly to scripture, which, lulls some into a mindset that the Reformed tradition is right in all things, and all others are wrong in comparison to it. Most Reformers would correct you right there... all comparisons are with scripture alone as it is God's perfect Holy Word.

I am Reformed because its foundation and overall composition is rooted and wrapped in God's Word. One of the truly important features of the Reformed tradition is its views and beliefs regarding education. The Reformers valued education and thought on it often.

Cornelius Van Til is one of the giants of the Reformed tradition. He has written about many subjects and done so from a reformed perceptive. Here is an article he wrote on Christian education. In regard to Van Til, I am in agreement with more of his views than I am in disagreement. This article presents a comprehensive exposition of Christian education, why it is important and how it fits into a Reformed view of the world. I think it is well worth a few moments of your time if you are even remotely interested in Christian education.

Some thoughts on Dewey

John Dewey attempted to do the impossible – link education to culture by way of the democratic ideal. Dewey’s view of democracy was one rooted somewhat in altruism, or at least, that was his initial goal. Dewey wrote in Experience and Education (1938) that democracy promotes a better quality human experience for the most members of society. Dewey’s early focus in education was rooted in this idea so his focus naturally was to build what he labeled as “democratic” schools. For Dewey, a school, by its very nature, must be part of the community. There were two fundamental criteria for his school: first, the school must be a community in which every aspect of the school is in essence a teachable moment. The second, the school should foster learning that is continuous and ongoing outside of school.

For Dewey, education was his main agency for cultural formation, but as Dewey grew older, he lost faith in this role for education. Dewey was a meliorist and it is this belief in an improving world aided by humans, that I believe, was a contributing factor to his increased pessimism in the cultural role of education. If, as Dewey believed, the world was improving and that improvement was aided and hastened by human beings, then, naturally, one of the best mechanisms for aiding the world was the processes of education. Dewey believed in a cumulative progress of culture, but in my opinion, Dewey got a few things wrong. First, he did not factor into his views the idea of power and its role in an evolving culture (I do not use the term "evolving" here in the evolutionary scientific sense but merely as a means of reference to the continuous movement of culture as opposed to the view that culture is stagnate.). Secondly, Dewey saw the structure of the economy as the central obstacle of a more just society (Schultz, 2001, p.280.). He did not see other areas as obstacles in the same way that he say the economic structure nor did he anticipate their influences on the educational process.

During Dewey's time the scientific method was growing in popularity and power. He embraced it and all of the new forces it produced, viewing it as the change that would allow education to take its rightful place as the cultural change agency he thought it was. This did not take place, and in my opinion, Dewey, here, underestimates severely the power of the industrialization and the hunger that profit and power would produce in people. The combination of these events would cause him to move away from his meliorist ways and embrace a view that society was more stagnate than he had anticipated. 

Dewey gradually recognized the problem of uniting his "democratic" school so closely to culture. He realized that this union would provide a pathway for power to enter education and eventually overtake it and consume it. Since he believed that schools were agents of culture he was concerned that schools would become not only agents of culture but agents of power capable of changing culture, but not in just ways as Dewey had visioned. Dewey felt that he had given society a tool for social change and now that tool had been hijacked by the powerful to be used for change that benefited the powerful and not society as a whole.

Is Dewey right? Has it come to that? Are schools now agents of culture and power capable of adding power to the most powerful? If our answer to any of these questions is yes, then, we must ask the next immediate question: where do our students fit into this process? Dewey believed in an educational process that included the student and one that educated the whole student. If the process is now mostly a process of collective cultural change, are we even educating individual students anymore? Hmmm?  

Schutz, Aaron. (2001) John Dewey’s conundrum: Can democratic schools empower. Teachers College Record, 103 (2), 267-302.

Democracy

Benjamin Levin, in his article, The Educational Requirement of Democracy, defined democracy as that which involves participative processes at the action level. His thought is that democracy is about this idea that people should be involved in making decisions that directly affect them. John Dewey, who I am studying on a regularly basis these days, had much to say about democracy and education.

Dewey attempted to link education with democracy because he believed we prefer democracy because it promotes a better quality of human experience for the maximum number of people. Dewey felt strongly that the traditional school had grown out of a nontraditional social order, and not an order where true democracy reigned supreme; the new school needed to reflect this true democracy. Dewey called his new schools, democratic schools; they were to be schools for all with a broad social environment, broader than anything the child could experience anywhere else. The major ingredient in Dewey's school was the most interesting. Dewey believed that each student must understand objects, events and acts in ways that provide the student the means to participate in society. Dewey calls this "social intelligence."

What does it mean to have social intelligence? I think Levin would say that it has a lot to do with how much authority one has to exercise. Before one can exercise authority one must learn to wade through situations via study, inquiry, debate, discussion and decision. This is democracy at its purest; it is a process that involves conflict and disagreement that leads to agreement and decision. Trustworthy authority is that authority that withstands challenges. Levin writes, "We cannot abolish authority, or give it away, but we can and should create in our institutions the conditions that allow authority to be challenged, and to be taken over by others who are ready to use it well, because it is what is required for a democratic society to operate." This is what builds social intelligence and provides the means to act in ways that are participatory in society. If we do not allow this action to exist in our schools how, then, can we hope to have it prevalent in our society.

If we remove social intelligence from our schools then we produce a culture void of debate, disagreement and conflict. At first glance, some would say this is Utopia; but upon closer examination, this is anything but Utopia. A culture where everyone gets along and no one argues is a culture dominated by one idea, and one where all other ideas are banished. The education we offer our children carries with it our statement on issues like authority. The discipline we use in our schools with our students communicates to them our views on authority and who gets to be involved in the decision making process. Does this mean that we turn over control of our schools to our students? No, and Levin would not advocate such an action either. But, he would say that a good idea is still a good idea whether it comes from a faculty member, a principal, a student or a parent. Levin writes that, "We can start to treat students as community members with a stake in what happens, and as people who can and will learn as they deliberate and act."

In sum, Levin advocates and Dewey would agree that the practice of democracy is tied closely to a school and its program. The decisions we make are made in the deepest parts of our souls. Often, when we are apathetic in regard to a decision we need only look within for the reason why. Levin believes that for a democracy to develop a realistic stance toward the world that democracy must require and produce high ideals, and high ideals are only found deep in your soul. Their formation begins in the early stages of development inside the process of learning... inside education.

Ideals are not formed by math, science or English, but by the teaching of those subjects to a student by an adult who is trusted to instill this information. It is the process, but it is much more. It is also the relationship between a teacher and a student that builds ideals in conjunction with the family. This teacher/student relationship is one of the first relationships built outside of the family structure. The student will learn about trust, respect and empathy in this relationship as the student experiences things first hand. It is this process that actually teaches ideals more than the products of the disciplines taught. This is where we create the ideals that provide us the foundation to make the hard decisions that ultimately build individual character and trustworthiness. Dewey linked education with democracy because education produces democracy, and a democracy will only work correctly if those living by it live according to deep rooted ideals like character and truth.

Can democracy survive without education? Dewey and Levin have their answers. What is yours?

Discipline and Discipleship

My article on discipline and discipleship can now be found on the website of the Christian Educator's Journal. Click HERE to read the entire article. Blessings!

Grounded Theory

In 1967 two researchers, Strauss and Glaser discovered the ground theory technique when they wanted more from their research. The grounded theory approach, particularly the way Strauss developed it, consists of a set of steps whose careful execution and process is considered to "guarantee" a good theory as the outcome. In light of what we know today, there is no guaranteeing anything in research.

Strauss would say that the quality of a theory can be evaluated by the process by which that theory is constructed. This contrasts with the scientific perspective which states: the quality of a theory is determined by its ability to explain new data. Grounded theory understands the true nature of data and how easy it is to manipulate it. Ground theory, like all good qualitative research, accounts for the researcher in the research.

The basic idea of a grounded theory approach is to read a textual database several times and uncover and identify variables (called categories, concepts and properties) and their interrelationships. The ability to identify variables and their relationships is termed "theoretical sensitivity" and is directly affected by many things, especially one's reading of the literature and one's use of the techniques designed to enhance sensitivity.

Open coding is one aspect of grounded theory and an important part of the analysis; it is primarily concerned with identifying, naming, categorizing and describing phenomena found in the text that is read. Essentially, every word, line, sentence, paragraph and page is read with the primary purpose of searching for the answer to the main question of grounded theory research, "what is this about?"

These labels are suppose to identify a diverse array of things like schools, data, data collection, friendship, social groups, losses, etc. They are the nouns and verbs of the conceptual world of what is being read. Readers or researchers are to find and identify the adjectives and adverbs, or as they are known in the research, the properties of these categories. Whether these come directly from the data itself, from those responding, or from the mind of the researcher depends on the goals of the research. These decisions will be made by the researcher in the way the research is set.

It is important to have fairly abstract categories in addition to very concrete ones, as the abstract ones help to generate grounded theory that leads forward to the rest of the research. Grounded research is just one of the many methods of qualitative research, and provides, what I think, is a worthy example of what qualitative research is.

Quantitative research is rooted in numbers and dependent on them to discover truth. Quantitative is as its name implies... in need of a large quantity of research in order to identify trends. It is a macro-research methodology. Qualitative research is a micro-research methodology. It drills down into one issue and tries to get as much information from that one issue to make a statement that may or may not apply to the over-all population. This is the world of research!

Waiting for "Superman"

Here is a link to the trailer for the film, Waiting for "Superman." If you don't have time to see the film then please give at least two minutes of your time to view this trailer. Regardless of your allegiances to public, private or homeschooling, one issue comes forth... we had all better come together for the sake of our children. I have posted international literacy scores on this blog for years, and can confirm that the scores referenced in this video are accurate. Be warned, this is a public video and will have advertisements on it. Clicking the upper right hand corner X will remove the ad. Thanks for watching!

A Finnish Education

A Finnish education is the best education in the world, according to many. What makes it excellent? Dr. Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator and author, has our answer for us in an article from Jenny Anderson in the New York Times.

"In his country, Dr. Sahlberg said later in an interview, teachers typically spend about four hours a day in the classroom, and are paid to spend two hours a week on professional development. At the University of Helsinki, where he teaches, 2,400 people competed last year for 120 slots in the (fully subsidized) master’s program for schoolteachers. “It’s more difficult getting into teacher education than law or medicine,” he said.
Dr. Sahlberg puts high-quality teachers at the heart of Finland’s education success story — which, as it happens, has become a personal success story of sorts, part of an American obsession with all things Finnish when it comes to schools."


Students from Finland outperform peers in 43 other nations and that includes the United States, Germany and Japan, and they do it in mathematics, science and reading skills. The performance of this small and remote European nation has a direct correlation to its educational policies enacted 40 years ago. A summary of those policies can be found in this article. In sum, here are a few of the ones I think are most important.

All kids start at the same level, regardless of their socio-economic background.

Teachers are highly respected and appreciated in Finland because all teachers need a master’s degree in order to qualify to teach in Finland.

Since the 1960s all political authorities, regardless of political affiliation, have seen education as the key to surviving and thriving in an increasingly competitive world.

The government takes care of all costs because of their commitment to free education for all.

Schools receive full autonomy in developing the daily delivery of education services. The ministry of education in Finland continues to believe that teachers, together with principals, parents and communities know best how to provide the best possible education for their children and youth.

As I close, I recommend the movie, Waiting for Superman, to all who want to get a glimpse of what is taking place in our public sector schools. Particularly noteworthy, is the two teacher unions and their responses, particularly to Michelle Rhee in our nation's capital. Education is our future, and yet, we have swallowed the lie. We believe "self" is more important than the child. If we are going to create an educational system in this country that properly prepares our students for the future, then "self" will have to take a back seat. Geoffrey Canada has a powerful quote in that film about adults being more important in a U.S. education than the child. Until we right that upside down equation, there will be little change in the majority of education choices we offer our children in this country. Blessings to all!

The End of Christian Education?

K. A. Smith, in his book, Desiring the Kingdom, suggests the following axiom, "behind every pedagogy is a philosophical anthropology." In lay man's terms, Smith is saying behind everything we do educationally is an assumption about the nature of who we are as people. Smith writes, "Thus a pedagogy that thinks about education as primarily a matter of disseminating information tends to assume that human beings are primarily "thinking things" and cognitive machines."

In that same sense, an education that is strictly focused on content and the replication of that content in one form or another promotes assumptions centered on the fact that everyone is equal and the same. The focus on content elevates content above people and attempts to push people down to a point where they will all be the same, and all in the name of equity and tolerance. The truth is that not everyone is the same or equal.

Looking around with open eyes and an open mind will quickly reveal a world of differences. There are rarely two people who look alike; there are no two people who share the same fingerprint. Even when examining twins, that examination will reveal two separate personalities. Everyone is different in some way which brings forth the following question: why the intense push to make everyone the same?

A focus on content is the only way to achieve equity, and it is done by lowering expectations and standards. No one wants to finish last, but only one can finish first. When we try and fix the rules so no one finishes last we have effectively eliminated anyone from finishing first, and we have made a statement regarding our belief concerning the nature of who we are. Smith writes, "In contrast, a pedagogy that understands education as formation usually assumes that humans beings are a different kind of animal. It is not that we don't think, but rather that our thinking and cognition arise from a more fundamental, precognitive orientation to the world."

That orientation is one that is rooted in the world as presented in the scriptures and not rooted in the randomness the current world presents. There will be those who finish first and those who do not. In the current world, there are consequences... if we are citizens of this current reality. Those of us in Christ are not. We know and understand our current reality in a way that only those with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit can, but we also understand where our real citizenship lies. Scripture teaches that the first shall be last and the last shall be first which is a bit abstract unless you understand the truth of the gospels. Our future is not dependent on how much we know or where we finish; our future is rooted in a belief in the King, our Savior, Jesus Christ. This statement does not diminish the importance of education. That is a separate discussion. Our discussion today has to do with our assumptions as presented in the way we teach and instruct.

Smith is right... behind every pedagogy is an assumption. Pedagogy is often related directly to teaching, but a closer examination of the definition reveals a closer tie to the art of instruction. Defined, it has more to do with the principles and methods of the action of instruction than instruction itself. These are rooted in what we believe more than what we teach, and the little secret is that we transfer most of those beliefs in our instruction all the time. As we argue over pedagogy and educational choices, are we also arguing over the future of Christian education? A good question that must be considered! Blessings!

IndoctriNation

Here is the trailer for a very interesting video. I have only see the trailer, which I will post here along with the following quote from Cal Thomas,

"Every Christian parent with a child in a government school should see this [movie] and be forced to confront their unwillingness to do what Scripture requires for the children on loan to them by God. A mass exodus from government schools is the only way to preserve the souls and minds of our children." Cal Thomas

IndoctriNation Trailer from IndoctriNation on Vimeo.