Education

I read a couple of interesting articles last week about education in the US, specifically reform in education.

One was by Diane Ravitch, who used to be an expert in education until she stopped agreeing with the politicians. Yep, she was often cited and quoted about reforms, that is, the reforms the politicians desired in education. She seems to have done a bit of a turn-around, though. That has caused her to become a pariah of sorts. For instance, once a supporter of charter schools, she has examined the data--all of it--and has come away much less impressed than she once was.

She uses data to back up her ideas. And she looks to successful education systems, those which seem to be teaching their students/children the most effectively. Finland seems to fit that bill. Oddly, many of those who oppose her new views also point to Finland's success, but they don't look any farther than the results. For them, the only thing is results, not how they were achieved. I really don't know if the US and Finland can be compared; that is, do we match up with the Finns sociologically, family patterns, TV and video time, etc.? I don't know. But Ravitch points out some very interesting things. First, something overlooked by many, is that the Finns are not at all "test-crazy." One standardized test is given to students annually, but it is not used to measure individual standing, teacher or school performance, etc. It's results are seen nationally. No money, no teacher or administrator jobs, none of that is dependent on the test results. And there's no "teaching to the test," cheating, and the like. Hmmm. Second, the very best students are attracted to education. Unlike the US, where for decades the easiest major, the one least rigorous, has been the one found in schools of education, Finnish teachers must pass tough standards, esp in their fields. Third, the Finns demand the same education of all students for the first nine years. Then choices can be made, for vocational school or college prep (?), for the last years. And it works. For those obsessed with test scores, Finland ranks at or near the top of the only international test its students take.

Teachers in Finland are given the responsibility to make decisions, in their schools and in their individual classrooms. They are accountable, but are also given the time to make responsible efforts and choices. And, because they are chosen from the best of the best, they are respected by the community, much like doctors and other real professionals.

I have just one question. Ravitch, like the Finns, calls for schools to be run by "experts in education." Who, in the US, exactly are the "experts?" She correctly criticizes our schools of education. She recognizes that our teachers are not, unlike the Finns, the best of the best. So, then, where do we find our experts?

The other article focused on a movement at Harvard. It "seeks to jolt university teaching." But there seem to be several contradictory paths taken here. I was nodding when I read criticism of more recent students. Their level of curiosity and all that goes with that have declined over the last 20 years.

And I was reminded of my own college education at Amherst, one I may not have recognized at the time as being outstanding. Over the years, though, I have come to appreciate it and my professors more and more. Lectures, it is claimed by a number of the Harvard folks, don't do the trick. They cite the usual criticisms, "passive learning," failure to attach meaning to what is learned, applying that learning, among them. But I remember my AC lectures (Yep, we had some, in addition to the seminars of 10-12 students.) and they were engaging, esp since we knew we had to write papers on them (and our readings). Those papers were going to be thoroughly read and evaluated, with tons of comments. Some were on the papers (in red ink no less!); some were delivered in seminars; some in professors' offices ("If that's the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another school," I was once told.). "No sloppy thinking" or some derivative of that was a common comment. In that context, lectures are not at all as bad as suggested here.

But some "myths" about learning/education are also confronted. One involves "different learning styles." Whoa! Is that so? "There's no evidence, zero, that teaching methods should be matched up with different learning styles. It's intuitively appealing, but not scientifically supported." Boy, some folks have become pretty rich preaching about "different learning styles."

Writing--and lots of it--is a most effective teaching/learning tool. I don't think the Harvard folks were talking about term papers, but shorter ones. At AC, we had papers, 3 to 5 pages, due each Monday for most classes. (OK, coming out of high school, I thought "3 to 5 pages" was a term paper!) The topics were often very difficult, gleaned from readings and lectures. I recently had a talk with a colleague, who was decrying the falling enrollment in his classes. He asked what sort of assignments I had, probing, I think, if my classes were "easy" and attracting more students. I told him I assigned a short essay every week and a half or so. He grimaced and said, likely without thinking, "Oh, so it's pretty easy." He proceeded to tell me of his assignments, every two or three weeks, of ten or more pages. Hmmm. I should bring this article in to him.

Yep, there's a lot to learn--and unlearn--about education.