Alfie Kohn on the state of education reform

I was listening to a panel discussion featuring Stephen Downes, Howard Gardner, Alfie Kohn and Gary Stager on Reforming Education Reform.

Here is a portion of what Alfie Kohn had to say about the state of public discourse around education reform:

The discussion that we have about education is only as good as the way that discussion is framed by the people who have ready access to the means of communication. So if public officials and corporate officials and corporate media have framed the conversation in a particular way, then it's likely that we will ask some questions and studiously avoid others. The default assumptions -- the things we take for granted because we've never been invited to reflect on them turns out to be the limits, the barriers, the boundaries to anything we talk about. So for example, if no one invites most people to rethink whether education could be more than just transmitting a set of facts or skills to passive receptacles, then nobody is likely to look around at schools and say, "how come they are still characterized by worksheets, lectures, quizzes, tests, grades and homework just as they were twenty years ago and fifty years ago." Because we think that is how school has to be. 

And if nobody has said standardized tests tend to measure what matters least and there are more meaningful and less destructive ways to assess individual students as well as whole schools then the public discussion will just be based on a sort of monosyllabic  grunting of "test scores go up that's good", and if the larger public conversation assumes that government is always a bad thing and the free market delivers results then we will be inherently suspicious about the great democratic institution of education in this country and we will look for ways to undermine its public status or be receptive to people who attempt to do that. Which is exactly what we are seeing now in the name of choice. 

Science labs are messy

I was reading an article from The Palm Beach Post called "Science teachers at Loxahatchee middle school strike back against hands-on labs, but I could have sworn I was reading America's Finest (and funniest) News Source, The Onion.

Apparently science teacher Greg Loumanis is "insulted" by some of the hands-on learning activities that are suggested to science teachers.

Why is he insulted?

According to Loumanis, he is a "data-driven" teacher who finds hands-on science experiments both inefficient and messy, so his science department at Osceola Middle School in Loxahatchee opted to get rid of hands-on science labs in their classrooms.

What data has convinced these educators to abolish hands-on science labs?

Test scores.

Since Loumanis convinced a couple colleagues to throw lab activities "out the window"in 2008 in favor of watching videos and Powerpoint lectures, they've experienced significant rises in standardized test scores.

Another common problem educators face is that they are inundated with a pre-fabricated, content-bloated, top-down mandated curriculum that is a mile-wide and an inch thick, and encourages teachers to cover  everything at break-neck speeds while uncovering almost nothing. This is precisely what Howard Gardner is referring to when he says:

The greatest enemy of understanding is coverage.

I thought reading about a science teacher who abolished hands-on labs experiments was weird enough, but then I read this quote from a professor of psychology named David Klahr:

There's little evidence to support hands-on learning.

Upon reading this, I was stunned -- I had no idea how anyone with any kind of education, let alone a psychology professor, could make such a claim, but then I realized what Klahr might have meant:

There's little evidence to support hands-on learning as the most efficient way to get through a curriculum while simultaneously raising standardized test scores.

Near the end of the article, it is made clear that there are systemic pressures being placed on teachers from outside the classroom that affect their teaching, including increased emphasis on test-based accountability, pacing guides, and merit pay.

When teachers are under intense pressure to teach specific content in a specific way with their salaries married to student test scores, it should be no surprise that teachers feel like the only tool they have is a hammer and every kid looks like a nail.

While it's true that educators who have come to see hands-on learning as a messy, inefficient inconvenience have lost the plot, it's important to realize that these educators tend to be the product of an education system that has come to see student achievement as nothing more than high scores on bad tests.

In this case, the goal is as misguided as the method, and school becomes a massive exercise in missing the point.

I thought David Wees summarized this entire mess up nicely when he tweeted:

If you measure understanding of science using only tests, you don't need to use labs.

If this is true, is the logical conclusion to challenge the labs or the tests?

Howard Gardner & Differentiation

Here's one of my favorite excerpts from this Howard Gardner interview:

"If we all had exactly the same kind of mind and there was only one kind of intelligence, then we could teach everyone the same thing, in the same way, and assess them in the same way. That would be fair. But once we realize that different people have a very different kind of minds, different kinds of strengths - some people are good at thinking spatially, some people are good at thinking language, some people are very logical, other people need to do very hands-on things, actually explore actively, and try things out. Once we realize that then an education that treats everyone the same way is absolutely the most unfair education. Because it picks out one kind of mind which I call Law Professor Minds which are very linguistic and logical and if you think like that great - but if you don't think like that there's no room in the train for you."

This makes me think about how important both differentiated instruction and differentiated assessment truly are.

Howard Gardner & Edutopia

If you get a chance, you should take a look at this piece on Howard Garder from Edutopia.

Here's the video and an excerpt from Gardner:



On the need for a new approach to assessment in schools.

Let's get real. Let's look at the kinds of things that we really value in the world. Let's be as explicit as we can. Let's provide feedback to kids from as early as possible and then let them internalize the feedback so they themselves can say what's going well, what's not going so well.

I'm a writer and initially I had to have a lot of feedback from editors, including a lot of rejections, but over time I learned what was important. I learned to edit myself and now the feedback from editors is much less necessary. And I think anybody as an adult knows that as you get to be more expert in things you don't have to do so much external critiquing, you can do what we call self-assessment. And in school, assessment shouldn't be something that's done to you, it should be something where you are the most active agent.

Covering Curriculum

"The greatest enemy of understanding is coverage."

-Howard Gardner

Here's a story I share to describe my take on the folly of covering curriculum:

Pretend you are a bus driver and have been asked to make a dozen stops where children will be waiting to be  picked up so you can take them to school. Before you can leave the bus compound, your supervisor reminds you to arrive on time, and if you are late, you will be held accountable.

You pull out of the compound and make your way to the first stop. Upon arriving you notice no one is there, but you stop anyways and open the door. Just over the horizon, you see three kids running as fast as they can, so you wait. Winded and short of breath, the boys get on the bus, thanking you for waiting. While you pull away for your next stop, you tell them it was no problem. After all, you're just glad they are going to make it to school.

At the next three stops, you find yourself again waiting for kids that need more time to get on board. You paid no special attention to these events during the first couple stops, but now, after making the first half dozen stops, you start to look at your watch.

You're getting short on time. 

You plod on to the next stop, but you are immediately disheartened to see the kids are not sitting on the bench waiting for the bus. Instead, they are off in the distance, still making their way to where they are suppose to be. 

You stop the bus, but instead of opening the door, you look at your watch. You're not late yet, but you have no time to spare...

... you look up to see the kids are still a good distance away...

... you look at your watch...

... you look at the kids, but they are no closer...

... you look at your watch...

... you grimace and bite your upper lip...

... and then you do it - you shut the door and step on the accelerator - leaving the kids behind.

As you accelerate, you look at your watch, seeing time tick by. While thinking of your supervisors departing words "you will be held accountable", you surpass the legal speed limit. 

You approach the second last stop. There's no one on the bench. You have an idea where the kids are, but you can't bring yourself to look. The bench is empty, so you drive on by.

You're not particularly proud of what you just did, but you calm you conscience by looking at your watch - you've got time to be on time.

Then you get stuck at a red light. Suddenly you don't have the little time you thought you had left. The next stop is straight ahead, and the kids are even sitting there waiting. Hope encourages a smile.

Both your smile and hope evaporates as the red ember from the light etches itself into your optical nerve. The incessant ticktocking from your watch has you convinced Captain Hook had every right to be disturbed.

The light turns green and you're off like a shot. One more stop, but you have no time.

While the kids stand up in anticipation of your arrival, you blow right past them. They may be stunned, but you arrive on time.

You pull up to the school and open the door. As the lucky few disembark, you can't seem to tame that raw feeling of disappointment. At first, you want to ask yourself "what the hell did I accomplish?" but you realize the real question is "what the hell did I not accomplish?"

Timing Limits

Howard Gardner makes the case for rethinking time limits:

Valerie Strauss's blog The Answer Sheet has a wonderful post on the limitations of time constraints. Props to Valerie as she is a writer who truly gets education.

Few tasks in life--and very few tasks in scholarship--actually depend on being able to read passages or solve math problems rapidly....IIndeed, by eliminating the timed component, the College Board would signal that background knowledge, seriousness of purpose, and effort--not speed and glibness--are the essentials of good scholarship. And if, in the future, students were allowed to bring dictionaries, or even to have access to the Web, so much the better. Such a change would far more accurately duplicate the conditions under which serious individuals at any level of expertise actually do their work.