Professor Plum's Relentless Rants on Eduquackery

Tales Told By Idiots. Part 1.

Galileo to Kepler, 1610    
My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here,
who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have
steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope?
What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?

Sane and morally responsible persons and organizations make inductions (beliefs) based on experience.  Insane and morally irresponsible persons and organizations create experiences based on what they already believe.

The following will show that the field of education bears a striking resemblance to a collective delusion--powered by the fancies and hallucinations of ed perfessers, transmitted to new teachers through dream machine degree programs, and acted out in the micro mental hospitals called schools.

Let's be good clinicians and examine the madness more carefully, shall we?

Education War
You know about the education war:  whole language vs. systematic and explicit reading instruction; fuzziest math vs. well-designed math; mutli-culty history and literature vs. high level study of classical texts.

But this war isn't over values only.  It's also over what SORT of intellect will prevail.  Rational vs. nonrational or even anti-rational.

Folks in the know about family systems say that trivial arguments at dinner ("I ask five times before she passes the salt!") are about something bigger—for example, one person's willingness to satisfy another person's needs. In other words, skirmishes are nested within battles, and battles are nested within wars. That's the case in education, which is divided between two main camps:

1. The current education establishment: so-called "progressive" educators (constructivists, whole languagists, advocates of "developmentally appropriate practices," postmodernists) who occupy positions of power and influence.

2. The education anti-establishment: so-called traditionalists or "instructivists" (Finn & Ravitch, 1996) who advocate focused, logically progressive, teacher-led instruction aimed at mastery of classical ideas and skills, and who challenge the ideas underlying progressive education and offer clear field-tested alternatives. 

Instructivists include advocates of Direct Instruction (commercial curricula), direct instruction (Rosenshine, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986), applied behavior analysis, and Precision Teaching. 

What sorts of conflicts are there between these two camps?
First, there are skirmishes about details of teaching—for example, whether students should be taught to sound out words as the primary strategy (instructivists), or taught to use context cues (the shape of a word, the placement of a word in a sentence) to guess what words say (constructivists). Or, in math, whether students should first master elementary skills before they try to solve problems that require the elementary skills (instructivists), or learn the elementary skills in the context of solving problems (constructivists)—which means that students have to learn both elementary skills and problem solving strategies at the same time.
            
These skirmishes are embedded in larger curricular battles. For example, traditionalist-instructivists see reading, science, history, and math as knowledge systems that contain meanings and truths independent of what individuals may think, and therefore regard education as a means of bringing students into those systems via teacher-directed instruction. 

Constructivists, in contrast, see reading (literature), science, history, and math as having no truths or meanings apart from individuals; the meaning of a novel is constructed by readers; mathematical truths are matters of group negotiation. Therefore, the teacher's role is not to transmit meanings and truths (which are said to have no independent existence) but to help students to construct these.
            
Curricular battles over reading, math, history, science, and other bodies of knowledge are embedded in a larger war over social agendas and the social functions of education. For example, "progressive educators" believe that education in a democratic, technically advanced, affluent society should be about:

(1) self-development for both teachers and students, fostered in a quasi-therapeutic, "student-centered" environment;

(2) the promotion of (their vision of) social justice; and

(3) liberation of the individual from the allegedly repressive and self-stifling coercive force of social institutions and external bodies of knowledge.
            
In contrast, instructivist-traditionalists believe that education in a democratic, technically advanced, affluent society must be about the preservation and perfection of democratic social institutions and the intellectual and moral development of the individual (the two being inseparable) by ensuring that individuals acquire the knowledge systems required for their society's functioning, and that persons learn how to think skillfully (reason) so that they (knowing how to judge the adequacy of information and argumentation) will be able to make wise and morally good personal and societal choices.
            
Yet, it would be a mistake to think that skirmishes (about method), battles (over curricula), and war (over the functions of education) are merely differences in the research bases used, instructional styles preferred, or personal and group opinions and philosophies of the two camps—differences that could perhaps be reconciled with more reading, more research, and more discussion. 

The two camps are opposed in a more fundamental and I think irreconcilable way; namely, the quality of intellect itself as that intellect is directed towards investigating and communicating about reality and knowledge. 

Indeed, differences between traditionalists-instructivists and progressivist-constructivists can be accurately rendered by the opposing terms rational vs. irrational, reasonable vs. unreasonable, coherent vs. incoherent, metaphysically healthy vs. metaphysically demented. Let's see some of the evidence.

The World as Fact Vs. Fancy 
One mark of maturity (and sanity) is recognizing and acting on the assumption that the world—reality—has features independent of what we may believe and wish those features to be. Here we see the first clear difference in intellect between traditionalist-instructivists and progressivist-constructivists. 

The traditionalist-instructivist—whether a teacher, school principal, district administrator, education professor, or member of a state department of public instruction--reads the announcements, legislation, regulations, and grant proposal forms for No Child Left Behind and Reading First, and then (treating these as immutable facts) adapts his or her behavior accordingly by:

(1) determining the real-world consequences of writing a Reading First proposal that conforms to the guidelines vs. does not conform to the guidelines;

(2) improving teacher training, evaluation, and supervision to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind; and

(3) collecting objective data (i.e., data capable of assessment by others besides the data collector) on student achievement.
            
In marked contrast, the progressivist-constructivist school principal, district administrator, education professor, or state department of public instruction official who (resembling a petulant child) feels his or her power threatened by the external authority of No Child Left Behind and Reading First, responds by:

(1) thinking wishfully that these will soon go away and therefore may be ignored;

(2) writing grant proposals that fly in the face of funding agency requirements, but believes this won't be noticed (as a mad person believes a tin foil hat makes him invisible); and

(3) changes the definitions of words--as if this does not violate their common meanings. For example, "scientific research" for the progressivist-constructivist does not mean controlled, experimental, quantitative, replicated research using validated instruments, but instead means qualitative notetaking, because this definition enables the progressivist-constructivist (in his or her mind) to make no changes in how he or she thinks and acts. 

Action Reasonably Fitted to Circumstances 
We consider it reasonable (and sane) to smash a fly with a flyswatter—a cheap, tested implement that is focused on the task at hand. We consider it madness if a person burns his house down to get the fly. The same judgment of reasonableness applies in education. 

For example, the traditionalist-instructivist educator:

(1) knows there is much basic and applied research on reading;

(2) reads a good sample of that research;

(3) learns there are field tested programs consistent with the preponderance of research that effectively teach the "big ideas" in reading (phonemic awareness, sound-symbol relationships and decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension); and therefore

(4) uses these programs in his or her school, district, or state. 

This is called reasonable, morally responsible—and sane.
            
In stark raving contrast, the progressivist-constructivist educator (not in touch with or not accurately depicting reality):

(1) does not know or does not care that there is much basic and applied research on reading;

(2) does not read this research or reads a self-serving sample (so that his or her belief system is unchallenged);

(3) fails to see that there are field tested programs consistent with the preponderance of research or rejects these programs (with contempt and hauteur) because he or she does not like them; and

(4) instead of using these effective programs in his or her school, district, or state (irrational), requires teachers with no training in these matters to invent their own curricula (unreasonable) using an ersatz assortment of basal readers, nondecodable text, qualitative assessments not aligned with what is taught, spelling books, and made up lessons—that is, a "curriculum" that is unsystematic, untested, redundant, and has glaring curricular holes.

H.L. Mencken's line, written in 1928, captures this madness well:

"Their programs of study sound like the fantastic inventions of comedians gone insane."   

However, the immorality and fundamental dementia is disguised behind words such as "teacher empowerment," "ownership," and "professional development." 

Circumspection 
A sane person checks his clothing before entering a room, notes that his pants are open, and fixes it up. An intellectually insufficient person checks his pants by touching his hat, walks into the room and hears snickers of persons who notice the open pants, and says to himself, "They'll never notice." 

A similar thing exists in education. Rational and sane education schools (rare as Spartan swords from 400 BC)--somehow blessed with a squad of traditionalist-instructivist professors who have managed to get tenure and do not fear constructivist-progressivist colleagues, and are aware of the low status of ed schools on college campuses, superficial teacher training, faddish ideas, and threats posed by alternative certification--examine the ed school curriculum in light of the criticisms and threat, and then change core beliefs, research base, mission, rules for judging what is credible, curricula, and assessment of graduates.
   
Not so in education schools dominated by progressivist-constructivists who:

(1) are not aware of the criticisms and threats, or believe everyone else is wrong ("We need to get the word out about how good we are." In psychiatry, this is considered a delusion of grandeur.);

(2) hire new faculty who sustain the school's progressivist-constructivist orientation despite the fact that this orientation is the root cause of low level of scholarship, ill-preparation of new teachers, and threat to the existence of ed schools; and

(3) create more fanciful portraits of themselves for in-school self-celebration (self-delusion) and public presentation; e.g., calling themselves "flagships of reform," "stewards of America's children," "champions of social justice," "fostering life-long learning and reflection." 

At this point, demented thinking is well beyond silly and approaches criminal negligence.

Word Salad and Other Possible Symptoms of Dementia
A last clear difference between traditionalist-instructivists and progressivist-constructivists is their connection to and communication about reality.  [In other words, the latter--who at the moment run the asylums--are NUTS.]

[Stay tuned for our next intallment of "As the worm turns".]

"Bill, oh Bill.  May I call you, Billy."

"Certainly."

"Billy, oh Billy.  Leave her.  That harpy.  That Medusa.  That slab of gorganzola.  Take me away.  Far from this madding crowd."

"Cynthia, oh Cynthia.  May I call you Louis?"

"CertainIy."

"Louis, oh Louis.  I can't leave her."

"Why, Bill, or Billy?  May I call you Mel?"

"Certainly."

"Why, Mel?  Why?"

 

 

 

Rant Reorganization

Dear Readers,

In the interest of easier navigation (yours), I figgered I ought to arrange posts into categories--as you can see over there on the left hand column. 

All the posts--current and future--on instructional design and delivery will be in the Instruction category.  [That seems to make sense.]   As I write entries, I will try to arrange and rearrange materials in a logical progression, as if they were a course.

Applications to reading will be in the Reading category. [That, too, strikes me as pretty sensible.]

This way, if you aren't too interested in the principles and details of instruction [and who in his or her right mind is?], just flit  along to a more interesting category.

On the other hand, maybe I should just create a second website--on instruction.  [I have NO idea what I am doing.  So if any of youse know about this web stuff and can offer advice, let me know, if you'd be so kind.] 

The Elegant Simplicity of Effective Instruction. Part 1

And therefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the
general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark; for
all is habit; and when you are accustomed you will see ten thousand times
better than those in the den, and you will know what the images are, and
of what they are images, because you have seen the beautiful and just and
good in their truth. And thus the order of our State will be a waking reality,
and not a dream, as is commonly the manner of States; in most of them men
are fighting with one another about shadows and are distracted
in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good.
But the truth is, that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant
to govern is the best and most quietly governed, and that in which they are most willing, the worst.
[Plato. The Republic. Book VII, 520]

Dear Reader,

Imagine a school--any level--where everyone is focused on education.  On students being led from superficial, overgeneralized, simplistic, largely wrong, ego-centric and disconnected opinions, to knowledge of and skill at using more general and more enduring truths.

Imagine a school were teachers can say exactly what every student will be able to do at the end of the course (western civ), at the end of each unit (the Persian Wars), at the end of every lesson (on Greek combat), at the end of every instructional communication (defining panoply). And teachers continually assess students' acquisition and application at every juncture.

Imagine a school where no program and no method is used but that has been field tested and shown to be highly effective.

Imagine a school were the words "authentic," "diverse," "wholistic,"  "self-esteem," "faciliate," "learning styles," and "relative" from a visiting eduquack produce howls of laughter from staff and students and an invitation to the quacker to leave.

Imagine a school where self-esteem and character are the result of hard work and success, and are not smarmy "objectives" of special workshops taught by psychobabblers.

It's all possible.  It's all real.  It's done in the inner city.  It's done in the sticks.  It's done in public schools, religious schools (Baptist, Catholic, Hebrew), charter schools, and home schools.

The common feature of all of these, and a necessary feature I think is the first item, above.  Sound epistemology--theory of knowledge.  Staff know what knowledge means and how it is most efficiently acquired and applied, or they use curricula whose design principles are derived from a sound epistemology.

At least 4000 readers [well, three] have asked that I fulfill a promise, made here, 
to discuss how to teach in the service of an ideal--to make the rare sort of school, above, into the common one. So, I'll do it.

But it'll have to be in short installments--sort of like the young ladies I dated in high school.

Here's the list.

1.  What is knowledge; how is it acquired?

2.  What is a highly effective communication format for teaching almost anything?

3.  What are the special versions of the general format that are used to teach verbal associations, concepts, rules, and strategies?

If there is sufficient interest, Professor Plum will unload more bilge, on topics such as

4.  How to design (or evaluate and select) an effective curriculum.

5.  How to design an effective chunk (say, a three-week unit) in a curriculum.  [For example, the one my class did on the Persian Wars.]

6.  How to improve a curriculum or curriculum materials.

7.  Others

Well, that oughta hold us till next week?

Here goes...

I.  What is Knowledge?  How Do We Know?

If I communicate well you will see differently.  You will be among a few hundred persons in this world who know the logical basis of learning and instruction--right from Plato, Aristotle, Roger Bacon, Frances Bacon, John Stuart Mill, and Siegfried Engelmann.  I didn't invent it, you understand.  [I'm not near smart enough.]  I got it from all the folks who mentored me.

The true project of an educator is philosophy.

1.     We live in two worlds: (1) the world of things and events: and
        (2) the world of knowledge (ideas) by which we study and communicate
        about the world of things and events.

2.    The world of things and events is superficial, ever-changing, and particular.
        You can't see oranges in general; only particular oranges that are
        transforming every instant.

 3.     However, knowledge (for example, concepts and rule relationships) is anatomical. Knowledge describes the structure and interconnections among things and events, and explains how they come into being, change, and pass away. Knowledge is enduring and is general. Individual persons and their actions come and go, but the concept of humankind and the rules of moral behavior can exist forever and can remain constant—in the form of ideas, or knowledge.

 4.     The classical role of teacher is to educate—to lead students out of the cave of self-interested beliefs, to knowledge of what is general--universal, stable, and enduring. For example…

You teach about the Revolutionary War, Civil War, First and Second World       Wars, Cold War, and war with Islamic totalitarianism—not ONLY so your students can think and talk about these particular wars, but MORE IMPORTANTLY so they can think and talk about concepts, rules, and theories of war and geopolitics generally, and apply this general (i.e., not limited to particular cases) knowledge to other wars in other times and places.

 Likewise, you teach students to sound out slip, slim, man, rim, lip, lamp, and ram, not so they can read these words only, but so they learn the general strategy for sounding out all regular words.

 When you show your students how to solve 10 equations having one unknown (x = 3 + 12; or 6 x 5 = y) you are not teaching the solution to those 10 particular equations only. You are at the same time teaching the general strategy for solving all equations of that TYPE.  The 10 problems and their solutions are examples of the general type of problem and its general method (strategy) of solution.  That (the general—the idea) is what you really want students to learn. (Otherwise, how can they generalize to new examples?)

 5.     However, we’ve got a problem. We can’t teach or learn what is general, constant, or universal (a concept, rule relationship, or strategy) directly or by itself. We can’t see (and a teacher can’t show) the concept (idea) red—only red things that are examples of the concept red.  The concept is in the head. It is cognitive. It is an IDEA abstracted from (taken out of) the examples of red things. 

         Likewise, we can’t teach or learn the word sounding out strategy itself—without particular words to sound out. We can’t see a rule relationship. We can only abstract a rule (that we can say or draw) from particular examples of the rule relationship. Again, as teachers, we can only present examples. The students’ minds have to see (“get,” “grasp”) the connections among the examples and then abstract (induce, figure out) what is general—a verbal association (e.g., fact), concept, rule, or strategy. [PLEASE read that sentence again.]  Our job is to present information (examples via demonstration and explanation) in such a clear way that it is easy for our students to INDUCE (“get”) the idea—the general.

 6.     Cognitive knowledge (i.e., how we represent and communicate about the world of things and events) consists of

      a. verbal associations--knowledge of names  (or descriptors).

b. concepts--knowledge of kinds.

c. rule relationships--knowledge of connections.

d. cognitive strategies--knowledge of

(1) big pictures; e.g., theories and models that describe, explain, and predict; and  

(2) routines for getting answers; e.g., deductive and inductive reasoning, methods for solving problems, methods for analyzing documents. 

Everything you say, think, read, and write boils down to these four forms of knowledge.  This makes instruction elegantly simple.  If everything you teach (e.g., the Greek panoply--armor and weapons carried by the Greek hoplite) is either a verbal association, concept, rule, or strategy; and if the mind, or learning mechanism, performs a number of step-functions to move from examples to knowledge (to induce a verbal association, concept, rule, or strategy); and if there is a communication format whose logic matches the logic "used" by the learning mechanism, then, regarding instruction, all the teacher has to know is WHAT form of knowledge she is teaching, and know the proper communication format for teaching it.

7.     The question is, How does a teacher help students move from examples (particular things and events) to general knowledge (of verbal associations, concepts, rule relationships, and strategies) that represents and enables students accurately to communicate about things and events? The answer is: The teacher helps students to apply a series of logical, mental steps (operations) to examples. If this is done well, students get the concept, rule, or strategy that is revealed by the examples.

8.     You might say that the mind (learning mechanism) performs certain logical operations, or mental steps, to move from examples (particular things) to cognitive knowledge (general). Therefore, the fastest and most effective way to teach (help students acquire and apply knowledge) is to make it easy for their minds to follow the logical steps. For example…

a. The logic of a verbal association is THIS ONE THING GOES WITH THAT ONE THING. To “get” a verbal association means to get THAT THIS ONE THING goes with THAT ONE THING. Therefore, the most effective and fastest way to teach a verbal association is simply to say, THIS ONE THING goes with THAT ONE THING.

“That (point) is a door…. What is that?... door…. Yes, point to door.”

“Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Say that with me…  [Test.  Who wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence? Tell me a fact about Thomas Jefferson?]

b. The logic of a concept is ALL OF THESE EXAMPLES HAVE SOMETHING(S) IN COMMON. THEY SHARE A SAMENESS in their features.

 So, to get a concept means to get (induce) the sameness common to the examples (particulars) but NOT found in the NONEXAMPLES. 

 Therefore, the most effective and fastest way to teach a concept is to teach WHAT THE SAMENESS IS that is COMMON to the EXAMPLES but NOT found in the NONEXAMPLES. Specifically,

 (1) Teach students how to examine examples and nonexamples. For example, students see and identify the features of rocks that are crystalline vs. not crystalline (size, shape, color, and structure).

  (2) Show examples one at a time, label them as examples, and point out the common features that make them “same.” “See the planes in the structure.”

  (3) Juxtapose examples and nonexamples of crystal and noncrystal; label the nonexamples (“This is NOT crystalline.”) and point out the absence in the nonexamples of the features common to crystal. “See, unlike crystal there are no planes in the structure.”

  (4) Acquisition test. Present the examples and nonexamples just shown.  Ask, “Is this (crystalline)? Yes. How do you know?” [Student uses the definition to justify his answer--his deduction.]

  (5) Later, work on generalization/discrimination with new examples and nonexamples.

 c. The logic of a rule relationship, or proposition, is THIS CLASS (group, set) of examples/things (CONCEPT) GOES WITH THAT CLASS (group, set) of examples/things (CONCEPT).

 All mammals are vertebrates. [All of the class of mammals is INSIDE the class of vertebrates.]

No terrorist can be trusted in peace negotiations. [No person in the class of terrorist is in the class of persons that can be trusted in peace negotiations.

The more the enemy’s infrastructure (fuel, transportation, communication) is destroyed, the less the enemy resists after defeat. [The class of events that involves destroying enemy infrastructure CAUSES the class of events that involves resistance.]

Therefore, the most effective and fastest way to teach a rule relationship is to teach THE RELATIONSHIP (GOESTOGETHERNESS) COMMON to the EXAMPLES. Here’s how.

     (1) Pre-teach students how to examine examples and to identify sameness and difference in the features; e.g., poems, historical documents, rocks, slides of phases of cell division, wars (weapons, size of armies, duration, amount of destruction of soldiers, amount of destruction of infrastructure, amount of enemy resistance after defeat of main forces).

     (2) Either state the rule relationship (and have students repeat and write it) OR tell them that they are to compare and contrast examples and discover (induce) and state the relationship.  [Of course, the second  REQUIRES that you FIRST teach students how to do the steps of induction.]

     (3) Show examples and point out the goestogetherness (co-variation) among certain variables—that is, point out the relationship across the examples. Or, show examples and have students identify the goestogetherness. [It is better for you to do this first—model—and then have students do it with new examples.] For example,

“Boys and girls, here’s a rule. The more the enemy’s infrastructure (of water, waste, power, communication, roads, food) is destroyed, the less  resistance the enemy will mount after defeat of its military.”

“Here is an example of the rule. In the Third Punic War (149-146 BC) Rome totally destroyed Carthaginian infrastructure. Down to the ground. Even salted the fields. Carthage then put up no resistance."

“Here’s another example. In the War Between the States, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman burned southern cities, homes,materials, and fields. The Confederate soldiers put up little resistance after that.”

“Here’s a contrasting example. Union General Grant killed soldiers, but unlike Sherman, did not destroy  cities. Even though  Confederate soldiers died by tens of thousands, they kept on fighting.

 [Of course, students can get these examples from various texts.]

  (4) Have students identify and state the relationship (goestogetherness) common to the examples. “The greater….the less…”

  (5) Give new and/or hypothetical examples and/or have students invent them. Ask what will happen if (there is more or less destruction of infra-structure). Then ask, How do you know? (Students give rule.) And give new examples of more and less resistance after defeat, and ask why. Again, students apply the rule.

 d. The logic of a cognitive strategy is a sequence of LOGICALLY ARRANGED, OR PROGRESSIVE STEPS (each next step depends, logically, on accomplishing the earlier ones; and each step, logically, makes the next steps possible), GOVERNED BY RULES (“If the product is ten or more, write the…”), and USING CONCEPTS (product, tens, ones, column, times, carry) AND VERBAL ASSOCIATIONS (seven times five is 35).

 So, to get a cognitive strategy is to get (induce) the logical arrangement of steps (and to see the necessary progression) and the concepts, rules, and verbal associations needed.

Therefore, the fastest and most effective way to teach a cognitive strategy is to teach the sequence of steps, the logical necessity of the progression, and all of the concepts, rules, and verbal associations needed. You should teach most of the concepts, rules, and verbal associations beforehand, so that during instruction on the strategy, you are mostly teaching the steps.

 You may have to teach a strategy in chunks (forward chaining). 1; 12; 123; 1234.... Or 1; 2; 12; 3; 123; 4; 1234… It is also important to describe what you are doing as you demonstrate the routine so that students learn to verbalize the concepts, rules, and steps (conspicuous strategy instruction).

This ends whatever we were doing. 

Review....

We saw that there are four and only four kinds of cognitive knowledge.  [Fogive me for asking, but what are they?]  Notice that some forms have a simpler logical structure than others.  In a verbal association, This implies That.  In a strategy, one step requires knowledge of rules, concepts, and verbal assocations, and logically implies the next.  Getting (inducing) a verbal association, concept, rule, or strategy from examples involves a logical routine performed by the "learning mechanism"  (Engelmann and Carnine.  Theory of Instruction).  There is a communication format that is designed to make it EASY for the learning mechanism to perform the logical routine and to induce knowledge of what is general from the examples.

In a later installment, we will examine those formats.

Thanks for reading.  Have a beer and a shot of tequila.

 

Disguised cheaters and prating mountebanks

They say this town is full of cozenage,
As, nimble jugglers that deceive the eye,
Dark-working sorcerers that change the mind,
Soul-killing witches that deform the body,
Disguised cheaters, prating mountebanks,
And many such-like liberties of sin:
If it prove so, I will be gone the sooner.
(Antipholus of

Syracuse, in A Comedy of Errors, I, II, 97)

Once in awhile Professor Plum’s meds wear off and he tells the truth.

Yestere’en, Plum was listening to colleagues discussing hot topics such as

“The changing role of principal in an age of accountability.” [Yeah, try less group therapy and more teaching.]

“The superintendent in an age of postmodernism.” [Why? Derrida is DEAD!!]

“Creating a schoolwide learning community.” [Pardon me, Rufus. What was it BEFORE!?]

You can see that the world needs MORE of this sort of piffle. 

Well, I guess I couldn't stand any more of this bilge--so far from the reality of poor instruction outside surrounding us, and so I said...

"Well, I'd like to know just how many thousands of poor and minority kids I have to test, showing that after 6 years of schooling they still can’t read, before the Bert and Ernie School of Education changes its whole language reading program into something that doesn't screw these kids day after day after day.  The fools in the Department of Pedagogy are so sure they're right that they have no idea how damned stupid they really are.  A bunch of arrogant windbags.  If they were honest, they'd simply hand kids a broom in kindergarten and tell them to make friends with it, because that's the life that our colleagues are preparing them for." [I continued in this winning vein awhile.]

One colleague—Professor Cumbaya--said, “Well, it must be hard for them to give up years of commitment to one approach."

Aw, poor babies. Pauvre petites.

Do you see the construction trades resisting new materials??

“Hell, no, we're not gonna use fireproof wood and hurricane-safe roofs. Dawb and wattle. Dawb and wattle. Cow flop and sticks, just like the old days.”

But somehow we're supposed to excuse the infantile “cathexis” of ed perfessers for their child-destroying “practices.” What kinda field dignifies THAT justification or explanation for fat-headed intransigence in the face of decades of data showing what you are DOING to kids?

Well, as Leon Russell once said, "It's a hard raaaaaiiinnn, gonna fall."

Demons:  Medusa, Picollus, Ribesal.

Now could I drink hot blood

'Tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn, and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world: Now could I drink hot blood,
And do such bitter business as the day
Would quake to look on.(Hamlet, in Hamlet, III: II)

Nice lines, eh?  Nothing to do with this post, though.

I just wanna say that youse are sending in great comments.  Thoughtful...  Insightful... Dead on... And I learn something.  I wish I could respond to every one.   

So well thy words become thee as thy wounds;
They smack of honor both.
(Duncan, in Macbeth, I: II)

Choosing drapes while the house burns down

Dear Readers,

I direct your valuable attensh to the excellent blog, Crooked Timber. And to a fine post by John Quiggan on Nov 9. Mr. Quiggan makes one assertion with which I respectfully disagree.

“The vast majority of spelling errors arise from the use of the obvious phonetic spelling rather than the “correct” spelling that is part of the whole language. So one of the costs of the phonic approach is the need to learn, by rote, the vast number of exceptions and special cases that make spelling English such a miserable experience for the uninitiated.”

This is not quite true. Take this sentence, “The vast majority of spelling errors arise from the use of the obvious phonetic spelling…” 

In fact, unless a person knows phonics (which sounds go with which letters), the only way a person can spell at all is by memorizing words. Now how many words are there in the ordinary repertoire—25,000? Does it even make sense to suggest that anyone really memorizes all of those and generally produces them (spells them) accurately? When was the last time you memorized 25,000 anything and could reproduce them accurately?

Moreover, there are relatively FEW irregularities in English spelling and most of these irregularities are REGULAR irregularities. tough, enough, slough. Pronounced ufff. Clearly not the way o or u or g or h are usually pronounced. But how many ough words are there? So, a kid learns that when he sees ough, DON’T say ooouuughuh. Say uff. And with practice, the kid remembers that. It is not exactly learning a rule any more than learning that m says mmm is learning a rule. The kid learns, see ough say uff. Not a big problem.

The and said. Irregular, Just teach a kid like this.

Boys and girls (point to the). This is a FUNNY word. Let’s sound it out… t hhh eee. That’s funny. That’s how we sound out the word, but that’s not how we SAY the word. We say (you know). 

So, the teacher makes sure that kids FIRST use the right strategy—sound it out. And then learn the convention—it says the.

I believe only 5% or words are irregular—sound differently from the way the letters usually sound. Okay, at worst, memorize those. Would you rather memorize 25,000?

Check these for more info…

http://www.balancedreading.com/sightword.html

http://www.neuhaus.org/Scientific_Spelling/Page9.htm

http://www.nrrf.org/teaching_phonics.htm

In summary, irregular words are not an obstacle to teaching kids to read using knowledge of letter-sound correspondence, and irregular words do NOT make a case fore whole language—because in the absence of SOLID phonics knowledge, kids have to memorize ALL words or guess.

One commenter states, “However, the real surprise they turned up was that the teaching technique used was far less important than whether or not students arrived at school knowing what books were and how they worked.” [Posted by Posted by dm · November  9, 2004 10:25 PM]

I’m not arguing with dm, but I would point out that simply knowing what a book is for and how books work is not what teaches kids to read. This is a spurious correlation, as I’m sure dm knows. Kids who know what books are and how they work have obviously been reading with family members.  They have no doubt already been taught the basics—alphabet, phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, sounding out words, and some sight words. THAT is why they learn to read pretty quickly in school—they are half way there!

And THIS is one of the weaknesses of whole language research! They do not control for all the other sources of reading instruction, but take credit for how much a kid knows AT THE END. I’ve NEVER seen a wl study that controls for these outside variables. Therefore you can’t say if wl in school taught anything.

However, there have been a lot of controlled studies in which some schools use wl and others use systematic instruction on phonics. Outside reading influences are likely to be equally distributed. Invariably, kids taught phonics explicitly, end up better readers.

http://www.phonics.com/nichdsynthesis.asp

Some folks on the Crooked Timber site argued that Chinese and Japanese persons can’t read with phonics—they have to memorize the characters. They seemed to be making the case for whole language. However, it takes Chinese and Japanese kids about 4 years longer to get to the proficiency of kids who learn phonics. In fact, the Chinese introduced phonics for that reason.

Check here http://englishplus.com/news/news0900.htm

Dan Simon, at Crooked Timber, says it all, here… “Years ago, I met a ‘reading specialist’ for a Toronto-area school board that had adopted the ‘whole language’ approach. Her job, she told me, was to go from school to school, helping students who were having difficulty learning to read. In practice, apparently, that meant teaching the phonics method to students who weren’t sharp enough to figure it out for themselves.” [Posted by Dan Simon · November 10, 2004 12:37 AM

 

Closely related to this, one bright person in my class tonight asked me if the diff between systematic and explicit reading instruction vs. whole language is a difference between learning via deduction (explicit = deduction. Tell them the sounds made by the letters and then they use this to read); whole language = inductive. Show them words and students figure out the code—what sounds go with what letters).

But this is wrong. Both approaches involve “getting” knowledge of the code via inductive reasoning—inducing the general pattern (f says ffff, r says rrrr) from examples (this f and that r and another f, and another r).

 

The difference is that systematic/explicit instruction communicates in a way that makes the inductions easy—by showing and labeling examples (This letter says rrr. This letter does NOT say rrr); by teaching letter-sounds in isolation (so kids can focus on the right letters as the teacher says the sound); by testing immediately to see if kids get it; by using 100% decodable texts at first (i.e., kids know all the letter-sounds in all the words in the story).

 

“Whole language, in contrast,” I said, “is like throwing crap on the wall and expecting kids to figure out what it means.”

 

No offense to anyone, but the debate should be over. We have an alphabetic writing system. So, teach kids what sounds the letters make. Duuuuhhhh.

We learn best when instruction is logically clear. WL is NOT logically clear. It is like expecting kids to see the hunter in Orion. [I still can’t see it.] If it’s there, SHOW THEM!!

Beginning reading should not be so ill-designed that it makes kids struggle at what can and should be so easy.

 

 

The correct answer is...America did it!

“And FIRST prize goes to…(a hush spreads through the audience of self-important pinheads)…Jamie Chomskunk, for her paper entitled, ‘3000 Americans deserved it.’"

The crowd of baby-boomer America-hating upper middle class useful idiots cheers.

“That’s my Jamie,” says Mr. Fred ‘Was Stalin Really So Bad?’ Chomskunk. “That girl’s going somewhere! She’s already a member of the Palestine Solidarity Movement. She’ll be in Israel next year putting a stop to selfish Israelis trying to prevent their kids being blown into blood puddles.  Jamie’s learning great resistance techniques at Camp Moveon. She’s all set to take on a tractor.”

“And second prize goes to….Scotty Moorestench….for his essay entitled, ‘Why I Hate America. And Why You Should, Too.’”

Well, enough of that. I can feel my blood pressure going up and there are no ed perfessers nearby to crack upside the head.

But YOU can read all about it here…..

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15762

“Moreover, as Peterson himself concedes, the majority of students leave his classroom convinced that the driving force behind the world’s problems—problems they have been taught to believe fuel terrorism—is the United States.”

Is it more than coincidence, more than plain stupidity, that these “educators” (propagandists) find THE reason for arab-muslim terror to be American “policies” and not local despotism, raving imams, hyperpatriarchal culture, and the Koran, which is pretty explicit, at least a hundred times, about removing heads, fingers, hands, and legs from unbelievers, and that such murder and mutilation are desired by allah? We think not.

Yes, Professor Plum admits it. He loves this country and her people. And his hatred of her enemies—foreign, domestic, and in hiding—is beyond measure. 

“Well, there goes half the readership, Plum!  Nice job."

"And your point would be--assuming you HAVE a point?"

"Now they know what you really are--nothin' but a God-fearin', gun-totin, America-lovin Redneck."

"I use sunscreen.  Number 50."

"Ha Ha.  So funny we forgot to laugh. I can hear half the crowd right-clicking themselves outa here."

"We keep no secrets.  Sham destroys relationships.  In truth, I'm a Jacksonian... Semper Paratus...and I imagine most folks who visit here are, too.  We live in marked contrast to the majority of deaducators, who are pie-faced Quacksonians.
Besides, folks who come here to set a spell are concerned with issues that affect their kids and our nation.  They are interested in freedom, and its price.  They let the other guys worry about names."
 

At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one's belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one's home?...
If . . . if . . . We didn't love freedom enough. And even more--we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! (p. 13) [Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipeligo, 1918-1956. 1973]

 

 

Insanity = Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome

Thanks to Dr. Cookie for passing this along from Joanne Jacobs's site...  November 9 entry.  Follow the links for the whole story of how this game is played at kids' expense.

http://www.joannejacobs.com/

Reading Recovery is, again, shown to be as effective as doing nothing, but this outcome costs about 4 grand per kid.  [Such a deal!]

For 4 grand, buy each kid a computer and 100 great books and Funnix, from funnix.com.  Funnix will teach them to read.  Then the kids can read the books and get a good bit of education from the web.

Of course, administrators insist they will still USE Reading Recovery because, after all, the probablility that kids improve is at the level of chance.  [This is their idea of effectiveness.]

If this were a business they'd all be in jail.

However, citizens are becoming grumpy about this and some schools may begin to use DI. In which case, no kids will qualify for Reading Recovery because they'll be reading, not guessing.

In response, expect signficant propaganda from the RR crowd, who stand to lose control, prestige, and CASH.  Shouts of "Academic freedom!!!"  [That's like a drug company saying, "You can decide NOT to use our products just 'cause they don't work!  'Pharmaceutical freedom!'"]

Speaking of which, here is a poster made by students at an ed school.  Notice that it recommends that students use THREE kinds of "cues" to read words--not comprehend words; just know what they say.

1.  Syntax.  As in "What KIND of word goes here?"

2.  Context.  As in "What word seems to fit the meaning so far?"

3.  "Graphophonics."  That is, the sounds make by the letters, or letter-sound correspondence.  This is the ONLY "cue" that should be used.  The others are NOT READING.  Strictly whole language and Reading Recovery misteaching--which ensures that some kids will need remedial reading.  Whole language makes kids illiterate and then kids are passed down the hall to the Reading Recovery teacher.  How do YOU spell S  C  A  M?

See the goofy grammar?

"...using prior knowledge of the context of the text..."  The context of the TEXT is a PAGE.  They mean, the meaning of the text...

"...applying knowledge about how our language goes together..."  Language "goes together"?  Goes together with what?  "Our language goes well with a cheeseburger and a side of fries."

This in NOT merely sloppy writing, Dear Readers.  This reveals THINKING, or the absence thereof.  These students do not GET the concept that as you read you build a sense of what it is about, and that THIS is a context for comprending the next chunks of text.

They also don't have any idea of the components of our language and how these are organized: phones, phonemes, morphemes, syllables, words, grammar, syntax, sentence, argument, etc.

Why?  Because their "literacy perfessers" don't know!

Note, too, that the poster is proudly displayed amidst a bunch of loathesome decorations!  Yup!  That's ed school.  All flash and no bullet.  The word on the right is "Multicultural education."  Which means, intense study of tacos or yams, depending on the culture whose "practices" are being "celebrated" at the moment. 

Students don't celebrate wife-beating and female genital mutilation, though.  They aren't told about it.

I discussed these very practices with some ed students--who were so proud they'd just learned about cultural relativiity in their "social studies methods" courses. I had the audacity to call these practices immoral, depraved, disgusting, and evil.  But these well-indoctrinated young persons said I was being "ethnocentric" and that I shouldn't judge other cultures.  And that values and practices are relative--whatever that means.

I said, "Well if members of a culture consider their practices to be moral and taken for granted as the way to do things, then how CAN they judge what they do?  They can't.  Therefore, the ONLY kind of judge would BE from another culture."

"Yes, but then you would be imposing YOUR values on them."

"So?  Why is that bad?"

"Because good and bad are relative?"

"No, what people CALL good and bad may be relative.  But what IS good and bad is NOT relative.  Think of what would happen if we did not make the distinction between how we NAME things and what things ARE.... I call it 'soft thing' and hit you on the head with it--a brick.  How about if men get together in this culture and decide that mutilating women is a GOOD idea--and YOU are first?  Do you think that any practice that produces pain and life long suffering for a hundred million women is a GOOD thing?"

"Uh..."

"Okay, here's how to figure it out.  Here's how to cut through all that bunk about relativity that Perfesser de Mented taught you.  Just imagine that whatever you decide to do on a small scale will become a UNIVERSAL rule and practice.  [Kant's moral imperative.]  ALL women are going to be mutilated.  Not just in one culture, but all! Got that?"

"Okay."

"Bad, right?"

"I guess so.  Why should THAT happen to all women?"

"Right.  It shouldn't. Now listen carefully...  If it's BAD on a universal scale, how come it's OKAY in just ONE culture?  Surely good and bad has to do with the ACT itself and not the NUMBER of times the act is performed.  If it's bad to mutilate 2 billion, it's bad to mutilate ONE!

Problem is, multi-culty perfessers don't have the brain power to get that.  We're taking .22 blanks.  Their vision of a world all singing Cumbaya and swaying back and forth while holding candles, makes their hormones drip to a considerable extent, and for them fantasy trumps reality every time.

If words were merely logical devices no one would fear them. But when they impinge upon a moron they set off his hormones, and so they are justifiably feared. [H.L. Mencken. Baltimore Evening Sun, November 18, 1929.]

Siegfried Engelmann and The audacity to teach your children well

Some of you have written that you are scared that your little ones may be mistaught at school or, at the very least, that they will not learn the amount and at the level they can master.  I STRONGLY recommend the books listed below. 

Yes, they are all by this fellow--Siegfried Engelmann.  Engelmann is a philosopher in a school of education.  The branch of philosophy is logic.  He has figured out (since the mid '60s) how to cut through all the fluff and all the irrelevant communications and activities and get down to communicating facts, concepts, rules, and strategies at increasingly high levels of complexity.  For example, Reading Mastery (which he designed) begins with m says mmm and ends with kids analyzing MacBeth.  By "kids," I mean fith graders.

How is this possible?  Because the entire sequence is a faultless logical argument or logical progression.  Everything needed for the next learning task has already been taught and reviewed. And everything taught and reviewed is used in the next, and later, tasks.  So, no time is spent RE-teaching week after week, and no time is spent learning what you don't need.

Is it rote learning?  NOOOO!  All knowledge systems begin with rote learning.  This symbol    4  does not TELL you that it signifies and symbolizes ////  Someone has to say  This (4) means ////.

Once the needed rote learning (e.g., meaning of symbols) has occurred, you can then USE the symbols to communicate much more complex concepts, rules, and strategies.

Engelmann figured out that the acquisition of knowledge is nothing but induction, and that application of knowledge is nothing but deduction.  [And I transmitted that to you in an earlier post.]  He then found that there is a simple communication format for teaching each kind of COGNITIVE knowledge--

1. Facts.  Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Boston is the capital of Massachusetts,  There are five phases of cell division....

2. Concepts. red, color, democracy, political oprganization.

3. Rules. Exploitation fosters opposition.  When the sum is greater than 9, carry....

4. Strategies.  The routine for analyzing a poem, writing a paper, developing a model that summarizes different kinds of wars.

I gave an example of this in an earlier post.

So, if a teacher uses the correct format, he or she can be sure that communication will be as clear and therefore as effective and efficient as you can get it.

And that is how Zig Engelmann and his colleagues develop all those Direct Instruction progams--which are field tested for YEARS before they are sold. 

Engelmann once told me that he worked five years on a program called Reasoning and Writing--I think that was the one.  The teachers who tested it told him it had logical flaws.  "So," he said, "I burned it in the backyard and started over."

I asked him how he creates a program (that could have 300 lessons).  He said that he starts at the end (what are students supposed to be able to do when they are done?) and works backwards.

Let's be honest, unlike the ordinary ed perfesser, eduguru, and fly-by-night edubook writer (who come off badly--brainwise--when put up against a chicken) Engelmann and his colleagues are geniuses--which means they work REAL hard for a loooooong time.

They say you can't be a prophet in your own country.  Well, that's true here.  Engelmann (and DI in general) has been shunned by the progressive ed establishment all these decades.  Why?  BECAUSE DI WORKS!!  It works so well that it becomes clear that any other form of instruction (less logical) DAMAGES kids.  So, to save themselves (because junk is what they sell) they have to demonize DI and hide the data showing how well it works.  How do you spell f r a u d?

[You can thank George W. Bush and Rod Paige for emphasizing systematic and explicit instruction in reading, and next math--because DI is THE EXEMPLAR of that.]

I'm not saying that DI is the only way to teach, and I have NO financial interest in the publisher (SRA/McGraw-Hill), but if you want instruction that has these features--clear, effective, efficient, high level--then DI would be your best bet.

 

Engelmann's bio 

Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons.

Preventing failure in the primary grades

Give your child a superior mind

If your kids are struggling to read k-3, then use 100 Easy Lessons.  [In fact, teach them to read before they get to school!!] If your kids are older (grade 3 to adult) DEMAND that your school use Corrective Reading. 

You can be sure that your kid is not alone.  It should be a schoowide endeavor.  [I can explain if you want.]

If you get the three above books, you will know just how much your kids CAN learn and just exactly how they SHOULD  be taught.  And you will be able to teach them.

In planning any operation, it is vital to remember, and constantly repeat to oneself, two things: "In war nothing is impossible, provided you use audacity," and "Do not take counsel of your fears." [George S. Patton, Jr. War as I knew it, 1947.]

Things Fall Apart. Part 2

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. The power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing….Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. …Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals [Alexis de Tocqueville. From Democracy in

America, Volume II. 1840]

 

In our last shipment, we tried to answer the question, How come schools so often do such a poor job? Isn't a trillion bucks and a hundred years enough?

One reason, we decided, is that, unlike serious professions, education has NO shared and strong knowledge base that says, "Teach like this, not (for the love of G-d!) like that."  That knowledge IS there; always has been.  But the field refuses to weaken its hold, and its opportunities for ever-increasing daffy innovations, by subordinating itself to an external power--facts and reason.

The absence of an uncontrovertible knowledge base frees the egos of deaducators to think and do what they will to kids stuck in schools six hours a day, 180 days a year.  At the same time, the progressivist ed establishment hides its real motives--control and self-aggrandizement--behind nauseating slogans that members never tire of chanting.

"We are the champions of social justice."  [Oh, put a sock in it, will ya?]

"We are the stewards of America's children." [Who asked you?]

Well, you know what all the nibs say about a lie that's repeated often enough. 

In this, our second and final shipment, we'll discuss three more reasons why schools can't seem to do what millions of homeschooling families and many private and charter schools do every day--often better, far cheaper, and without school yard bullies, assinine time-filling assignments, and daily soul-destroying humiliations.

Bogus innovations (fads, fraud, and folly) disguised as ''best practices''
Instruction in most subjects could be routine.  We’ve known for 2000 years how to teach reading, math, rhetoric, science, history, writing, art, and other subjects. Most kids (with and without disabilities) can be taught these subjects—if instruction is well designed.  In fact, knowledge of exactly how to teach these subjects could easily be put (and has been put) in a cheap and easy to use form, such as commercial curricula, on-line programs, and CDs. 

SRA/McGraw-Hill.  Direct Instruction.
Saxon Math.
Singapore Math.
Curriculum Associates.
Sopris West.
Funnix.com
Headsprout.com
Yoyager Literacy

...to name a few.

But there’s a powerful incentive in education not to package or use effective instruction—although this would increase teachers' effectiveness and benefit students.  Instead, there’s an incentive continually to revolutionize pedagogy (theory) and technique.   Packaging and using effective and inexpensive curricula would put the battalions of sleazy education consultants, half-witted doctrinaire education perfessers, self-appointed social revolutionaries (who forget that CHE IS DEAD!), and demented gurus...out of business.   

Absence of Contract, Contact, and Accountability
In medicine, law, and business, clients contract with service providers; generally have direct contact with providers; and can hold providers accountable for not delivering the contracted outcomes or for violating professional standards.  But in edland, the innovators (e.g., professors, workshop promoters, publishers) have no contract with students, families, and nation (the consumers).  They rarely interact with anyone harmed by their innovations.  They receive no corrective consequences for "products" that don’t work and that damage kids. 

When farmers screw up, they starve. When public schools and ed schools screw up, they get a million dollar grant. 

It took me a long time, but finally I see how the game is played. 

Ed schools and their supporters (such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children, the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, the National Association for Teachers of English, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, the National Education Association) regard your children and our schools as THEIRS—theirs to play with, theirs to muck around with, theirs to experiment on. They call this Professional Development Systems--in which school districts actually sign a CONTRACT allowing ed schools to infest districts with the newest “hot ideas—and then everyone celebrates the “exciting collaboration."

Or they call it “action research”—in which education professors and grad students “try something” in a school. [What if the “something” bombs? Well, sorry, the “project” is over. “See ya next time we think of something interesting!”]  Till then, they will have published some tenure-conferring articles. And, most satisfying, they will have made the news.

               The Evening News With Dan Blather

“Professors at the Dipsy Doodle School of Education believe they have made a breakthrough in literacy education. Working closely with teachers at I. B. Gullible Elementary School, the good professors have done away with systematic instruction in grammar." [Camera pans to an obvious idiot who says]  "All that emphasis on proper grammar stifles children’s creativity. Language is a living, breathing thing. There is no need for stodgy rules or for drill in clear communication. So, at the

Gullible Elementary School, we will be doing away with grammar altogether! Speak and write any way you want. That’s the ticket!"

[Pan back to Dan.  (Clever rhyme scheme--a a)]
"So, there you have it.  It's a brave new world that has such people in't--or in it, as the case may be."

In a year or two, when their kids come home speaking as if they just had a stroke, parents will wonder—too late—what happened. But by then the perfessers and gurus will be onto another hot idea. 

"How about having kids lay on the floor and twist themselves into the shapes of the letters?  We could call it 'orthopedic phonics'.   Of course,  w  will be pretty tough, but kids with scoliosis can probably do it!"

[You think I'm kiddin', don't ya?  I mentioned this to some colleagues at a faculty meeting.  I was JOking.  They took me seriously!  "Hmm, has possibilities.  Surely they will learn the shapes if their whole body is involved."  I tell you, they are CRAZY!]

Why do districts and schools go for this--obvious--exploitation?  Simple.  No knowledge base!  They don't KNOW ahead of time what is likely to be beneficial and what is likely to be a horror.  AND, they see ed perfessers as much smarter than they are.  So, they show deference. 

"Oh, certainly.  Come on in.  Our classrooms are yours!" 
[Why not put a brown recluse spider in your shorts, too?!]

In summary, there can be no compelling sense of moral responsibility where self-importance and arrogance are bred by egoism, where no adverse consequences follow fraud and folly, and where there is no external, professional code similar to the Hippocratic oath in medicine.

Neither is there a “Guido’s Oath” as in the construction trades. “You sell me damaged goods, me and Nunzio here gonna break your legs.”

Education Schools as the Primordial Soup of Fad, Folly, and Fraud 
Schools of education are for the most part the source of pernicious innovations.  They are the carriers of the progressivist doctrine.  They induct new teachers and administrators into the progressivist thought world, and thereby ensure that another generation is prepared to injure kids with progressivist innovations. 

For example, ed school teacher training rests on progressivist (constructivist, child centered, developmentally appropriate) shibboleths concerning how children learn and therefore how children should and should not be taught: drill and kill; be a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage; teachers should facilitate but not directly teach; students should construct knowledge; don’t correct spelling errors.  These are repeated in course after course, book after book, and exam after exam in education schools.

Ed schools do not (in fact, they DARE not) teach students the logic of scientific reasoning—especially how to assess the validity of an education professor's or writer's argument and the credibility of conclusions.  Nor do ed schools commonly have students read original works (to see if in fact Piaget said what is claimed for him), to read original research articles, meta-analyses, and other literature reviews.  The result is that ed students don’t have the skill to determine the validity of the progressivist propositions and curricula they are taught; they must rely on what their professors tell them to believe.

Finally, ed schools are remarkable in their intellectual poverty, or cognitive squalor (patent pending). Ed professors rarely read anything but what they already believe; they ignore research that absolutely demolishes their child-centered, constructivist delusions; and they mount bumbling arguments against research that challenges what they teach.  And of course, ed faculty only hire persons who are educationally correct—who believe the same doctrine as the committee that hires them, and therefore won't upset existing relations of power or challenge anyone to desist with the mooing and try thinking.

As long as there's only one game in town, that's the game you play if you have to play.  If there is only one place for kids to be educated, and one place for eager students to become teachers, then whoever controls these places controls the market.  It is therefore in the best interest of our kids and our nation to support charter schools (but still hold them accountable for achievement), private schools, homeschooling, and vouchers, as well as alternative forms of teacher training and certification.

see  www.abcte.org