Here is the video of Alfie Kohn's keynote at the 2014 Regina Teachers' Convention in Saskatchewan, Canada.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Success -- it's not always what you see
When I came across this graphic on Twitter via Greg Miller, I have a couple questions:
Students. Have you ever worked really hard and learned a lot about something and received a low grade? Have you ever slacked off and learned almost nothing but received a high grade?
Parents. Can you think of someone you went to school with, and you knew they were really smart, but they always received low grades? Can you think of someone who received really high grades but you knew they were a dolt and that they had, at best, a superficial understanding?
Teachers. Can you think of a student who you knew to be a critical and creative thinker but often scored low on standardized tests? Can you think of a student who you knew to be quite a shallow and superficial thinker, but often scored high?
When I ask these questions to students, parents and teachers, I often get a lot of head nodding. People seem to understand the point.
Testsandgrades are broken.
They don't tell us what we think they tell to us and they distract us from learning.
For an authentic alternative to testsandgrades, check out my chapter Reduced to Numbers: from concealing to revealing learning.
For an authentic alternative to testsandgrades, check out my chapter Reduced to Numbers: from concealing to revealing learning.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
"Old" and "New" math
There's a lot of talk about "new" math and "old" math.
If I had to distill the math wars down to a simple idea, I would probably say that constructivist (new) math calls for an increase emphasis on understanding while simultaneously calling for a decrease emphasis on direct instruction of facts and algorithms.
The math wars get heated when critics come to see these changes to mean an elimination of basic skills and precise answers.
I would like to address three frequently asked questions about constructivist math:
Math hasn't changed and neither have kids, so why are we changing how we teach math?
Maybe math and children haven't changed, but our understanding for how children learn math is more sophisticated than generations ago.
Memorization is important and it is a very real product of learning, but memorization is not the primary purpose. Memorization is something that happens because children learn and understand mathematics first.
In math there is one right answer. Doesn't this new math just confuse kids and convince them to hate it?
Let's not pretend that traditional math instruction didn't confuse and turn a lot of students off of math. When adults think back on their schooling, it's easy to succumb to something called Nostesia which is a hallucinogenic mixture of 50% nostalgia and 50% amnesia which distorts rational thinking.
I remember dividing fractions. I was told to flip the second fraction and then multiply. It was a trick that enabled me to get high scores on tests. To this day, I have absolutely no idea why I flip the second fraction and multiply. This felt like magic when it should have been math.
If we want to confuse and turn students off math, I can think of no better strategy than to make math a ventriloquist act where children are merely told the most efficient ways of getting the right answer. When students are simply told the most efficient way of getting the answer, they get in the habit of looking to the adult or the book instead of thinking things through.
Canada's ranking on international tests like PISA are dropping. Doesn't this mean we should go back to basics and traditional math?
Since 2009, Alberta has dropped from 9th to 10th place in world rankings. A 2 per cent drop in our raw scores on math over two years has led to hysteria. The sky is not falling. It's also important to note that the children who wrote the 2012 PISA test had "old" math for their first seven years of school and only 3 years of "new" math.
My point is not to indict "new" or "old" math. There are many variables that may be responsible for the score changes. One factor is class sizes are growing. Since 2009, Alberta has added 41,000 new students and only 106 teachers.
Too many people confuse causation and correlation in an attempt to draw convenient conclusions that they simply can't prove. No one can prove that the change in PISA scores were because of teacher instruction. For example, we know that the strongest predictor of student performance on achievement tests is socio-economic status.
By idolizing PISA rankings, we risk chasing after Asian countries who achieve high scores with very different priorities and questionable means. PISA envy can lead us to aspire to be more like top-ranking Asian education systems even though those same Asian countries are desperate to reform their schools to look more like ours.
The math wars, like all wars, are ultimately destructive. Let's keep in mind that too many of us merely endured math or flat out hated it. Either way, it's safe to say that not enough of us loved it.
And we aren't going to get more children to love math by pretending that school already doesn't have enough lectures, direct instruction, worksheets, textbooks, tests and memorization.
I would like to address three frequently asked questions about constructivist math:
Math hasn't changed and neither have kids, so why are we changing how we teach math?
Maybe math and children haven't changed, but our understanding for how children learn math is more sophisticated than generations ago.
Memorization is important and it is a very real product of learning, but memorization is not the primary purpose. Memorization is something that happens because children learn and understand mathematics first.
In math there is one right answer. Doesn't this new math just confuse kids and convince them to hate it?
Let's not pretend that traditional math instruction didn't confuse and turn a lot of students off of math. When adults think back on their schooling, it's easy to succumb to something called Nostesia which is a hallucinogenic mixture of 50% nostalgia and 50% amnesia which distorts rational thinking.
I remember dividing fractions. I was told to flip the second fraction and then multiply. It was a trick that enabled me to get high scores on tests. To this day, I have absolutely no idea why I flip the second fraction and multiply. This felt like magic when it should have been math.
If we want to confuse and turn students off math, I can think of no better strategy than to make math a ventriloquist act where children are merely told the most efficient ways of getting the right answer. When students are simply told the most efficient way of getting the answer, they get in the habit of looking to the adult or the book instead of thinking things through.
Canada's ranking on international tests like PISA are dropping. Doesn't this mean we should go back to basics and traditional math?
Since 2009, Alberta has dropped from 9th to 10th place in world rankings. A 2 per cent drop in our raw scores on math over two years has led to hysteria. The sky is not falling. It's also important to note that the children who wrote the 2012 PISA test had "old" math for their first seven years of school and only 3 years of "new" math.
My point is not to indict "new" or "old" math. There are many variables that may be responsible for the score changes. One factor is class sizes are growing. Since 2009, Alberta has added 41,000 new students and only 106 teachers.
Too many people confuse causation and correlation in an attempt to draw convenient conclusions that they simply can't prove. No one can prove that the change in PISA scores were because of teacher instruction. For example, we know that the strongest predictor of student performance on achievement tests is socio-economic status.
By idolizing PISA rankings, we risk chasing after Asian countries who achieve high scores with very different priorities and questionable means. PISA envy can lead us to aspire to be more like top-ranking Asian education systems even though those same Asian countries are desperate to reform their schools to look more like ours.
The math wars, like all wars, are ultimately destructive. Let's keep in mind that too many of us merely endured math or flat out hated it. Either way, it's safe to say that not enough of us loved it.
And we aren't going to get more children to love math by pretending that school already doesn't have enough lectures, direct instruction, worksheets, textbooks, tests and memorization.
This is a shorter version of a longer post that I wrote on the math wars here.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Are we a political match?
The Alberta Party has launched a campaign called Political Match, a website designed to communicate Alberta Party values and to allow Albertans to determine if their values are a match for the Alberta Party.“We have seen significant interest in the Alberta Party in the past several months and it’s ramped up since the resignation of Premier Redford,” said Alberta Party leader Greg Clark. “The goal of this campaign is to let Albertans looking for a political home that there is a moderate option that fits with their core values.”
The site is available at www.politicalmatch.ca and is loosely based on CBC’s VoteCompass. It asks 26 questions and asks if the values expressed in each statement are shared by the respondent, then identifies whether the Alberta Party might be a good fit for them.
“Some of the questions are provocative, but we want to show Albertans we won’t back down from tough topics,” said Clark.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Alberta needs to be healthy and wealthy
I attended a Wildrose meet and greet event in Red Deer where leader of the Wildrose Danielle Smith gave a talk and took questions. I went because I wanted to see and hear what the Wildrose are doing and what the people who would attend a Wildrose event are saying and thinking.
I was there to learn.
Danielle Smith talked about the ridiculous wages that some government administrators make like the head of Alberta Health Services or Redford's chief of staff.
Talking about income inequality is often a great way to get labelled a communist or a socialist, but when Danielle Smith and the Wildrose talk about government employees who make a ridiculous salary, they get head nods and hell-yeahs from Wildrose and NDP alike.
Danielle Smith elicited gasps from the crowd when she said that the Alberta Union of Public Employees (AUPE) reported that many of their frontline members don't make $45,000 in an entire year -- which happens to be the cost of Alison Redford's flights to Nelson Mandela's funeral.
Danielle Smith talked about the ridiculous wages that some government administrators make like the head of Alberta Health Services or Redford's chief of staff.
Talking about income inequality is often a great way to get labelled a communist or a socialist, but when Danielle Smith and the Wildrose talk about government employees who make a ridiculous salary, they get head nods and hell-yeahs from Wildrose and NDP alike.
Albertans who don't make six figures have a problem with public-sector employees who do.
This hit home big time amongst the room of people in Red Deer -- I saw heads nodding everywhere. The tension in the room was escalating. If Smith was trying to elicit an emotional response, she hit everyone, including me, between the eyes.
Smith also talked about making Alberta's Heritage Fund a priority and pointed to Norway's Oil Savings Fund that now sits at over $900 Billion, compared to Alberta's $17 Billion.
That's some of what Danielle Smith and the Wildrose talk about.
Here's some of what Danielle Smith and the Wildrose don't talk about.
Like Smith and the Wildrose, I too am interested in what Alberta can learn from Norway. It turns out that Norway does a better job of saving money in the bank and keeping kids off the street. Smith and the Wildrose make a point to be envious over Norway's bank account, while ignoring their superior skills in keeping children out of poverty. I think Albertans care about both, and so should any political party worthy of governance.
The whole point of being fiscally responsible is born out of the idea that responsible adults don't run up a tab and then throw the bill at our next generation of children. If this matters, and it really does, then so does ensuring that our present generation of children don't live in poverty.
It is disingenuous to talk about government cronyism and then ignore Alberta's growing income gap and children living in poverty. (Did you know that the top Canadian CEOs earn average workers' salary in a day and a half?)
Anyone who wants to talk about fiscal responsibility or education without talking about reducing poverty has an agenda and should be challenged, and anyone who talks about social responsibility and reducing poverty without talking about balancing the books is irresponsible and should be challenged.
If we care about children, then we need to talk about fiscal and social responsibilities. For too long, Alberta political parties have been marinated in ideology that prioritizes one at the expense of the other. The ancient tug o' war between left and right over fiscal and social responsibilities is an old and tired political model that have many people angry, cynical or apathetic.
If you are a fiscally responsible and socially conscious Albertan who is looking for a different way of doing politics, then I invite you to check out Greg Clark and the Alberta Party.
Greg Clark and the Alberta Party believes, "we can have a strong economy. We can have a strong commitment to the environment. A strong balance sheet and a strong social conscience."
The Alberta Party understands that it is easier and cheaper to build strong children than to repair broken people. Their social policies reflect an understanding for the idea that an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure.
The Alberta Party is a breath of fresh air that Alberta desperately needs.
Winston Churchill once said:
Smith also talked about making Alberta's Heritage Fund a priority and pointed to Norway's Oil Savings Fund that now sits at over $900 Billion, compared to Alberta's $17 Billion.That's some of what Danielle Smith and the Wildrose talk about.
Here's some of what Danielle Smith and the Wildrose don't talk about.
Like Smith and the Wildrose, I too am interested in what Alberta can learn from Norway. It turns out that Norway does a better job of saving money in the bank and keeping kids off the street. Smith and the Wildrose make a point to be envious over Norway's bank account, while ignoring their superior skills in keeping children out of poverty. I think Albertans care about both, and so should any political party worthy of governance.
The whole point of being fiscally responsible is born out of the idea that responsible adults don't run up a tab and then throw the bill at our next generation of children. If this matters, and it really does, then so does ensuring that our present generation of children don't live in poverty.
Anyone who wants to talk about fiscal responsibility or education without talking about reducing poverty has an agenda and should be challenged, and anyone who talks about social responsibility and reducing poverty without talking about balancing the books is irresponsible and should be challenged.
If we care about children, then we need to talk about fiscal and social responsibilities. For too long, Alberta political parties have been marinated in ideology that prioritizes one at the expense of the other. The ancient tug o' war between left and right over fiscal and social responsibilities is an old and tired political model that have many people angry, cynical or apathetic.
If you are a fiscally responsible and socially conscious Albertan who is looking for a different way of doing politics, then I invite you to check out Greg Clark and the Alberta Party.
Greg Clark and the Alberta Party believes, "we can have a strong economy. We can have a strong commitment to the environment. A strong balance sheet and a strong social conscience."
The Alberta Party understands that it is easier and cheaper to build strong children than to repair broken people. Their social policies reflect an understanding for the idea that an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure.
The Alberta Party is a breath of fresh air that Alberta desperately needs.
Winston Churchill once said:
Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.
While I give Churchill full credit for being pithy, this kind of black and white thinking holds us back. If Alberta is going to be healthy and wealthy, we have to stop choosing between having a brain or a heart.
Alberta needs both.
Alberta needs the Alberta Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)