Iron Indignation and Bloody Siege

Professor Plum hopes that Y'all had a cozy and spiritually fulfilling Christmas. 

I made the best stuffing ever--not that anyone asked.  Let's just say: sausage particles, chopped red peppers, mushrooms, cashews (added last), shredded roast pork [pretty disgusting so far!], and five or six shots of scotch--the former went into the aforementioned stuffing; the latter went into me. 

Even the calico-colored feral cat who lives outside (which pretty much goes along with the feral motif)--and whose trust I'm trying to win  [I borrow five bucks from him and then pay him back immediately]--tucked into his ration of stuffing with significant gusto.  You know the weird sounds they make.  Sort of moaning and growling.

But enough of this homey stuff... So many billowy edubutts; so few steel-toed boots.

To take a Ph.D. in education in most American seminaries, is an enterprise that requires no more real acumen or information than taking a degree in window dressing....Most pedagogues...are simply dull persons who have found it easy to get along by dancing to whatever tune happens to be lined out. At this dancing they have trained themselves to swallow any imaginable fad or folly, and always with enthusiasm. The schools reek with this puerile nonsense. Their programs of study sound like the fantastic inventions of comedians gone insane. The teaching of the elements is abandoned for a dreadful mass of useless fol-de-rols... Or examine a dozen or so of the dissertations...turned out by candidates for the doctorate at any eminent penitentiary for pedagogues, say Teachers College, Columbia. What you will find is a state of mind that will shock you. It is so feeble that it is scarcely a state of mind at all. (From "The war on intelligence," December 31, 1928, published in A second Mencken chrestomathy. Vintage, 1994.)

Well, THAT being the case!

The cannons have their bowels full of wrath,
And ready mounted are they to spit forth
Their iron indignation 'gainst your walls:
All preparation for a bloody siege...
[King John, II:I]

[Great comments in the comments section--which is a clever spot to put them.  See Pedant on math.]

Ed schools are the main route to certification and teaching jobs.  [If we were guided by the rule, Honesty is the best pollyseed, we should say, Ed schools are a three year cruise on a Ship of Fools--a journey from Natural Ignorance to Trained Stupidity.]  However, there is increasing evidence that teachers who avoided ed schools and took alternative routes to certification (e.g., major in a serious field, receive several months training in instructional communication and classroom management, get close supervision and on-the-job training in a good school) teach just as well, as judged by their students' achievement. 

The expansion of effective, less expensive, faster, and more accountable forms of teacher training is part of a strategy to weaken the monopoly held by ed schools. 

The other part is revealing--for all right-thinking persons and groups to see--the arrogance, vanity, ineptitude, and intransigence of most ed schools.

                                 The War in Education

There is a war in public education. The war is over

1.  Beliefs about how children learn and what they need to learn. 

2.  The most effective ways to teach reading, math, science, history and other bodies of knowledge.

3.  Accountability and moral responsibility for educational outcomes.

4. What teachers need to know how to do, and who should train and certify them.

There are two sides to this war.  One is the education establishment. The other is the education anti-establishment.  (A sample of resources will be in our next portion of rant.) Clearly, schools of education are part of the war.  The question many persons ask is whether they will survive or even should survive it.

It's pretty clear--to Professor Plum--that the war over schooling is part of a larger war over western civilization--that is, over western

1.  Social institutions--(a) macro institutions such as the political state, legal, economic, religous, medical, and military, and (b) local institutions and groups that stand between persons and the macro institutions (family, church, club, neighborhood, office).

2.  Ways of thinking:  reason, critique of dogma, calculation of costs and benefits.

3.  Values:  freedom, the person, the person's moral responsibilities.

4.  Core ideas: social contract; there is a reality independent of whether or what we believe; there are moral and ethical "oughts" that are independent of whether or what we believe and how we act; there is Divinity beneath which or within which we exist.

I'm willing to wager, or bet, that persons and groups on each side of the education war (the progressive establishment vs. the traditional anti-establishment) are also on opposite sides of the civilization war.  I would wager that in contrast to the anti-establishment, the ed establishment is

1.  More likely to denigrate western institutions (e.g., to disparage capitalism, the military, the traditional family, and religion), even to the point of radically changing or eliminating some of them.

2.  Less likely to question its beliefs and submit them to the test of data.  Instead, validation is a matter of the strength of beliefs (the believer salivates) and the extent to which beliefs are shared  (everyone else--except a few heretics-- sees things the same way).

3.  Less likely to believe there is or could be anything like immutable laws of ethics and morality (oughts and ought nots).  Instead, facts and truth are relative and are social constructions.

4.  Less cautious about imposing its beliefs on other persons and groups.  Instead, they are certain they are right. Therefore, they feel both compelled and justified in imposing their beliefs, and not seeing it as such.

I may be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Here, for me, is the test.  [Caution!!  Skip this if violence against women makes you sick and/or makes you reach for a firearm.      I mean it.]

This woman is being prepared to get her brains bashed out with rocks.  Apparently, she has done something to offend  the "men" in her community.  Perhaps she was uppity.  The point is, I've shown this and similar pictures to ed colleagues.  Except for a few colleagues who see education the way I do, the rest say that, while it's horrible,

1.  "You can't judge other cultures."  [I say, "Why not, idiot?"]

2.  "It's not OUR business to interfere."  [I say, "Then whose business IS it, dummy?!"]

3.  "What's so great about US?  After all, WE (had slavery, have hanged black persons, massacred civilians in Viet Nam)." [I say, "Do you have ANY capacity to reason, imbecile?!"]

I see these reactions as clear evidence of a defect that's beyond any words I know.  Yes, you can point out the illogic, the ignorance of history, the incompetence at analysis, the adolescent pride in thinking that moral and cultural relativism are signs of high intelligence and deep insight (when in fact they are signs of stupidity and cowardice), and the use of trivial statements to dismiss moral responsibility.  But the disease is way beyond that.  What, I don't know. 

I just love it when people dismiss what's GOING to happen to that poor woman as irrelevant to THEM, and in the next breath yammer about "humanistic" teaching.   Surprisingly, you can get sent to jail for punching these people in the teeth. 

"Hey, what's all this?  What's all this!"

"I punched him in the teeth, Officer O'Riley."

"Punched him in the teeth, did you?  He's bleedin' pretty freely."

"Yeah.  Heh Heh."

"And what might the reason be, if you'll be so kind?"

"He's an eel skin, Officer.  A  dried bull's pizzle.  A churlish, toad-spotted puttock.  A notable coward, and an infinite and endless liar.  A gleeking lout.  A soul so filthy it would demean spit."

"Is he then?  All that, you say?  Then you hold him and let ME punch him in the teeth a few times."

Love those Boston coppers!

Who's The Education Establishment?

The education establishment has controlled public schooling for at least 100 years. The establishment defines itself with terms such as progressive, child-centered, holistic, constructivist, and developmentally appropriate. These words are said to describe a coherent and research-validated philosophy of education, or pedagogy. 

The education establishment also promotes curricula and instructional methods consistent with its dominant philosophy. Examples include constructivist math and reading curricula (e.g., whole language and Reading Recovery); so-called discovery or inquiry learning; an emphasis on process (e.g., children's so-called struggle to construct knowledge); and a strong rejection of what the establishment labels traditional, conservative, and developmentally inappropriate methods of instruction—in particular rejection of an approach (supported by the preponderance of scientific research cited in the next rant) that stresses teaching subjects (drawn from traditional bodies of knowledge) to the level of mastery in a logically progressive sequence of increasingly complex skills, with the teacher at first assuming a strong directive role providing extensive practice, systematic correction of errors, and regular assessment to monitor the effects of instruction.

One branch of the education establishment—calling itself critical pedagogy, critical ethnography, and postmodernist (found in the work of Michael Apple, Peter McLaren, Henry Giroux, and Paulo Friere) is based on a marxian view of society, and has as its alleged aim the liberation of children from the oppression of schooling and other western social institutions and values. 

Who are the actors in the education establishment?   What are their roles?   The education establishment is a large assemblage of like-minded persons and organizations. There are education leaders and spokespersons, such as Alfie Kohn, Richard Allington, Linda Darling-Hammond, and David Berliner. 

There are organizations that promulgate the dominant philosophy of progressivism, certify the proper socialization of teachers and administrators, and work to legitimize establishment ideas and establishment-approved curricula and methods.  These organizations include NCATE (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education), NCTE (National Council for Teachers of English), NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children), NCTM (National Council for Teachers of Mathematics), IRA (International Reading Association), and the NEA (National Education Association).

There are publishers, such as Heinemann, who transform establishment ideas into sellable form for wider distribution.

And there are hundreds of schools of education. Judging from their websites and publications of faculty, ed schools with rare exceptions train new teachers within the boundaries of establishment doctrine.  In this way, education schools disseminate and sustain establishment ideas, values, and social agendas, and pass these on to the next generation of teachers.  And this helps to sustain the establishment's control over public schooling.

                     Who's The Education Anti-establishment

The opposition, or anti-establishment, consists of scholars (such as E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Diane Ravitch, Chester Finn., Thomas Sowell, John Stone, Lynne Cheney, Sandra Stotsky, Lisa Delpit, Kieran Egan, Richard Mitchell, and the National Association of Scholars) who critically examine the foundational so-called progressive, Romantic modernist beliefs at the core of establishment doctrine.

There are researchers, such as Mike Podgursky (on whether NCATE approval and National Board certification signify a difference in teacher quality), Eric Hanushek (on whether advanced teacher training makes a difference), Lance Izumi and the Pacific Research Institute (who reveal ed schools' resistance to altering the constructivist core of their curricula despite major shifts in research and education policy), and Barak Rosenshine, Edwin Ellis, Robert Dixon, Edward Kameenui, Deborah Simmons, Jerry Brophy, Barbara Foorman, and many others on designing effective instruction.

There are foundations and unions (such as Heartland, Council for Basic Education, No Excuses, National Right to Read, Heritage, Fordham, and the American Federation of Teachers) that advocate research-based curricula, greater consumer control, and argue for either radical reform of schools of education or their replacement by more effective and less expensive alternatives.

There are consumer organizations and movements, such as Education Consumers, Oregon Education Consumers, http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com, homeschooling, and vouchers.

There are national organizations (such as the National Council on Teacher Quality) that are critical of progressivist ideologies and social agendas, and are creating alternative forms of teacher preparation and certification that could be adopted by states.

Finally, there is the federal government (specifically, the Department of Education) that has criticized ed school curricula; presented an alternative description of what effective instruction looks like; developed an alternative, research-validated description of effective reading and early language instruction; identified the minimum set of skills new teachers need; and, through the incentive of grant money, is encouraging states to reform everything from their conception of reading acquisition down to how ed schools train new teachers to teach reading.

The education anti-establishment is larger than it has ever been.  Its criticisms of dominant, progressive/constructivist philosophy and curricula are highly focused and widely shared within the anti-establishment (in other words, the anti-establishment is cohesive and has a focused mission). It is vocal.  And some of its members and organizations have control over money, law, regulations, and certification. 

Here, in brief, is a 10-point summary of the anti-establishment critique of ed schools.

The Anti-establishment Critique of Ed Schools

First, ed schools offer little convincing evidence that new graduates know how to teach. Few education schools (with notable exceptions in Louisiana, Oregon, Kansas, Texas, and Florida) evaluate students during and at the end of their curriculum in light of an objective, performance-based inventory of knowledge and practical skills derived from the preponderance of scientific research on effective instruction.  Nor are more than a few ed schools able to show that interns and new graduates foster substantial change in the children they teach. 

This absence of direct evidence that ed schools serve their manifest function helps to explain why ed schools seek certification from organizations such as NCATE.  Most ed schools must rely on external organizations to provide a legitimizing seal of approval.  This sustains a symbiotic relationship between ed schools and certifiers. Indeed, the more ed schools come under criticism from the anti-establishment, the more new certifying organizations are created—each with a predictable set of progressivist standards.

Second, new graduates are not taught exactly how to teach and are ill-prepared when they have their own classrooms.  Ed schools teach students to construct superficial lesson plans, write reflective journals, create literacy philosophies, and assemble these into portfolios, but new graduates do not know exactly how to teach concepts, rules, and cognitive strategies; do not know exactly how to teach school children to synthesize elementary skills into larger wholes; do not know exactly what sorts of errors school students will make in each subject and how to correct errors; do not know exactly how to design instruction so that it fosters the different phases of learning (acquisition, fluency, generalization, retention, and independence); and do not know exactly how to teach language, reading, math, and other subjects.

Third, the dominant majority of professors in typical ed schools (i.e., progressive and constructivist) arrogate to themselves and to their schools a mission and social agenda contrary to what is wanted by the public. Many education professors portray themselves, and claim that teachers should see themselves, as stewards of America's children, as social revolutionaries (or at least social reformers) positioned to redress alleged failings of our society, as advocates of the socially disadvantaged, seeking to foster equality and social justice. 

This as a stunning example of hubris.  No one asked, elected, or appointed education professors and ed schools to be social reformers.  Nor is there reason to believe that education professors possess the humility and wisdom needed to do this.  And the social agenda surely distracts education students from the one thing that is mandated and paid for by the public—namely, to learn exactly how to use research tested routines to teach most subjects.

Fourth, ed school teacher training curricula rest on and are misguided by empirically weak and logically flawed constructivist speculations on how children learn, and therefore how children should and should not be taught. Here, here, here, and here are examples of some of the false and/or psychotic ideas in establishment writings that have a powerful influence on what is taught in ed schools, and therefore a strong influence on how new teachers misteach.

Summarizing the demented ed school canon...

1.  Learning is not hard. 

2.  Knowledge is acquired incidentally, without explicit instruction. 

3.  Children do not acquire knowledge from a teacher; they discover it.  Teachers therefore should not teach; they should merely facilitate.

Fifth, when teachers use so-called progressive curricula and teaching methods taught in ed schools (such as a whole language approach to beginning reading, constructivist math, and inquiry approaches to literature and science), a substantial proportion of school children don't learn—as reflected in low school achievement overall and by enormous discrepancies between students of different social classes and ethnic groups.  Indeed, students most likely to be ill-served (namely, the disadvantaged and minorities) are the very students whom progressive education professors claim to champion.

The ed establishment, for obvious reasons of self-protection, attributes failure to learn to other factors (family, social class, teacher insensitivity to cultural differences, too much teacher directedness).  In fact, failure to learn is in most cases simply the result of technically inept instruction.  We know how to teach; ed schools, districts, and schools refuse to do it.

Sixth, ed schools do not adequately teach students the logic of scientific reasoning; specifically, how to define concepts and judge the adequacy of definitions; how to identify the propositions and arguments in a text; how to assess the logical validity of an education professor's or writer's argument and the credibility of conclusions.   

Nor do ed schools 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—so that ed school students themselves discover the most trustworthy principles of instruction and the most effective curricula, rather than merely trust what education professors tell them to believe.

Instead of research articles, data, and logic, education students are induced into the establishment thought world with a set of emotionally appealing but empirically empty shibboleths taught in every course, that are presented as knowledge and not the intellect-numbing mantra they really are.  Following are examples of common terms and prescriptions in ed schools that either don't mean anything or that are invalidated by elementary logic and serious research.  In other words, most of the following terms and prescriptions are best understood not as a summary of wisdom in the field but as advertising claims for constructivist, "child centered" methods and publications.

1. “Best Practices.”
[This is the term by which so-called progressive, "child-centered" education professors and book writers valorize what they preach. No honest or even logical person could ever claim to know what is best.]

2. “Developmentally appropriate practices."
[This phrase is used to produce a false binary opposition between (a) the so-called child-centered, progressive instruction advocated by establishment education professors (e.g., pre-school children move around the classroom from one to another "experience center"—blocks, books, paints--to "inquire") and (b) more teacher-directed, structured instruction for some subjects as advocated by the anti-establishment.  The binary opposition allows progressivist professors to demonize (as "developmentally inappropriate") whatever they do not--at the moment—sell or publish.]

3.  “The teacher is a facilitator rather than a transmitter of knowledge.  Students must discover and construct knowledge on their own.
[This is another false binary opposition.  Moreover, the preponderance of scientific research supports the teacher actually teaching—showing students how to solve problems, leading them through solutions, testing or checking to see if students have gotten it, correcting all errors, giving more examples, and providing more practice and opportunities for independent application in the future.]

4.  “Homogeneous grouping for a short time each day for certain subjects based on students’ current skills is bad.  It lowers self-esteem and creates tracks.  It is discrimination.”
[This is an example of constructing a politically correct dream world and expecting other persons to live in it.  In fact, teachers learn very quickly that children in the same class are not equal--that is, are not identical.  Some need more learning opportunities, assistance, individual attention, and practice than other students.  Some students in a class are ready for harder material than other students.  Teaching to a heterogeneous group (that is, everyone gets the same instruction despite their differences) means that virtually no children receive the kind of instruction from which they would most benefit.  The call for heterogeneous grouping (and the rejection of homogeneous grouping for a short time each day in, for example, reading and math) means that students' initial differences really do become tracks because the neediest students fall even farther behind.]

5.  “Teachers should not correct errors immediately and consistently.  Error correction makes students dependent on the teacher and threatens self-esteem."
[This prescription flows from the constructivist notion that students should construct knowledge and not be taught directly.  The problem, of course, is that if the teacher does not teach students what errors are and how to correct them, many students will not figure it out on their own.  Therefore, errors will be repeated and in time students will have huge knowledge gaps that are impossible to fill without an enormous expenditure of time and effort; e.g., reteaching basic math skills to students who have no idea what is going on in algebra class.  Predictably, these students end up both unskilled and with low self-esteem.]

6. "Frequent practice is not an effective way to foster mastery and high self-expectations.  Practice is boring and inhibits creativity. Drill and kill."
[This statement is simply false, but it is consistent with the anti-authority thread in educational progressivism that sees practice as some form of regimentation, rather than the only sure route to mastery—an idea taken for granted in every field (dance, music, martial arts, sports) outside of education schools.]

7. “Teachers should create their own curricula and lesson plans, rather than follow field tested programs.   Programs disempower teachers and hinder self expression.”
[This statement calls for teachers—with virtually no training in how to design instruction—to prepare not merely a few lessons but whole year-long curricula in reading, math, spelling, writing, science, and so on. The task is of course impossible and means that at best students receive ill-designed instruction.  Moreover it means that teachers are implicitly field testing each lesson on their own students.  It is doubtful that many families want their children to be part of such experiments. Instead of empowering teachers, this statement, in the end, leads to the disempowerment of teachers as they are denied the tools (field tested programs) that would make them master teachers. 

Doubtless the underlying reason why education professors and ed schools abhor effective field tested programs in math, reading, spelling, writing, and other subjects is that these programs make education courses and education professors' endless innovations irrelevant to new and veteran teachers alike.  Teachers would not need to take four courses that superficially cover eight approaches to teaching reading; they would simply use one of the few programs that work the best.]

Without a background in logic, and ignorant of independent bodies of research literature, education students are unable to engage in the reflection so often spoken of in schools of education, to see if there is anything credible in the mantra of progressivism they are taught.

Seventh, education professors typically read little that challenges what they already believe; ignore research that invalidates their child-centered, constructivist thought world; and mount disingenuous arguments against the preponderance of scientific research that challenges what they teach.  For example, education professors do not read the Report of the National Reading Panel (one of many huge literature reviews), and do not have their students read this and other reviews.  Or, they dismiss these reviews, and teach their students to dismiss these reviews, with off-handed comments such as, "All research is flawed" or "This document is politically motivated."  This self-imposed and self-defensive ignorance helps to ensure that what education professors believe and teach remains, to them, unchallenged. 

This ignorance also gives any right-thinking person good reason to dismiss the scholarly pretensions of education professors and, instead, to see ed schools as ideology-driven, nonrational, disconnected from external bodies of scientific research, unaccountable for what they teach, and therefore vulnerable to the charge that ed schools have many of the features of a closed society, or cult.

In addition, ed schools sustain a progressivist-constructivist thought world by hiring persons who are educationally correct—i.e., who espouse the same doctrine as the committee that hires them, and therefore won't upset existing relations of power and won't (by drawing on different bodies of research) challenge anyone to think very hard.

An eighth criticism is that education professors and ed schools generally occupy a safe distance from the public that: (a) pays them and (b) is harmed by the pernicious and worthless fads (whole language, brain-based learning,  multiple intelligence, learning styles, constructivist math) that come from education professors and that continually infest schools.  Education professors and ed schools have no contract with children, families, teachers, and schools; have little direct contact with children, families, teachers, and schools; and receive no corrective consequences for sending ill-trained new teachers and destructive fads into the schools.

This insularity enables ed professors and ed schools to regard their activities as a form of play.  They adopt a philosophy (say, constructivism or postmodernism); they think of interesting ways it could be used in schools; they have exciting conversations with like-minded colleagues; they get a grant (or at least get a school) that will enable them to implement their new idea; they take some kind of data, usually field notes that support what they already believe; and then publish a series of articles that bring tenure and prestige.

This a perversion of the idea of scholarship and of the mandate that ed schools turn out teachers who know exactly how to teach, and not turn out fanciful and fashionable projects that waste children's irreplaceable time and in essence constitute exploitation of public schools.

A ninth criticism is that ed schools attempt to maintain the appearance of being self-reflective, in touch with scientific research in the field, and responsive to the needs of schools by conjuring up one after another innovation or initiative. But these innovations and initiatives do nothing to change the core progressivist thought world and teacher training curricula, and often do little or nothing to assist public schools.  Recent examples are the so-called infusion of technology into public schools (e.g., computerized reading programs) and extraordinarily expensive remedial reading programs of questionable merit (Reading Recovery).

A final criticism is that unlike medicine, structural engineering, and food science, ed schools do not have a knowledge base shared within and across schools, and that rests on scientific research--i.e., experimental, longitudinal, quantitative, replicated research whose findings are turned into conclusions and instructional implications only after they are examined in the light of the rules of right reasoning. 

In other words, ed schools are anomic (lawless, normless) cultures.  Neither old nor allegedly innovative curricula and methods are generated by a solid body of empirical propositions that say, If you do X, Y will happen.  Nor are so-called innovative curricula and methods rejected because they are found to be logically absurd and empirically pernicious to children.  For, there are no empirical research generalizations and no rules for reasoning that are accepted as being independent of and as having an authority greater than what the education professor or school may think of them, and that therefore oblige an intellectually honest professor or school to reject groundless beliefs and fanciful innovations. 

Indeed, the tenets of constructivism and postmodernism attack the very possibility that there can be any truths and rules for reasoning external to the individual—for these independent truths and rules (given the egoism bred by the Romantic modernist thought world) are said to stifle the academic freedom and creativity of the individual. Unfortunately, this anomie has left unchallenged fatally flawed curricula that damage the life chances of many children who depend on the honesty, humility, and rationality of educators.
 
I suspect that ed schools will not notice the criticisms against them, will not examine themselves, and will not improve themselves.  Nor are universities likely to dump ed schools, widely known as cash cows.   Perhaps the most feasible course is simply to make ed schools irrelevant by promoting alternative certification and training.

 

Comments

[Michael]

"No honest or even logical person could ever claim to know what is best."

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but does not this comment (about "best practices") contradict what you say elsewhere, for example, when you say that Ed schools do not teach their students "exactly" how to teach?

[plum]

Good point, Michael!!

But watch how I weasel out of the logical trap...

No BEST way to teach because that implies you've tried then all--which is impossible.

BUT, you can have an EXACT way to teach (do x, then y, then z) even if it is not best. In fact, if you DO try many different but exactly specified ways, you're more likely to be able to say with confidence which was the better.

[Actually, that's wasn't too bad.]

[pedant]

"No BEST way to teach because that implies you've tried then all--which is impossible."

I don't find the professor's weaseling out effort convincing. There aren't infinite ways to teach. If the objective is well defined then it should be possible to ascertain the best teaching method empirically.

Spelling alert: The word in the heading should be SIEGE

[pedant]

Professor Plum's description of the growing strength of the anti-establishment is reassuring and encouraging. It is also encouraging that (at this point) the government plays a positive role in the form of the Ed Department. However, there is a huge fly in the ointment in the form of the tax-supported National Science Foundation. An arm of NSF, called EHR, is under the complete control of progressive/constructivist ed cultists. EHR (NSF) has spent billions to promote constructivist (a/k/a fuzzy math, rainforest math, voodoo math, etc.) on many fronts.

This, and related issues, are discussed in a superb account of math education by David Klein. Long piece, but well worth the effort. http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/AHistory.html

A brief excerpt:

Within a few years, the NCTM produced two additional documents as part of its standards. One published in 1991 was narrowly focused on pedagogy and the other, published in 1995, was focused on testing.58 By 1997 most state governments had adopted mathematics standards in close alignment with the NCTM standards.59

The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) was the key to the implementation of the NCTM Standards across the nation. Without the massive support it received from the NSF, the sole effect of the NCTM Standards would have been to collect dust on bookshelves. Spurred by the 1989 Education Summit attended by President Bush and all of the nation's governors, the Education and Human Resources Division (EHR) of the NSF set about to make systemic changes in the way math and science were taught in U.S. schools. The blueprint for change in mathematics would be the NCTM Standards.

The NSF proceeded purposefully. The EHR developed a series of Systemic Initiative grants to promote fundamental changes in science and mathematics education in the nation's schools. The Statewide Systemic Initiatives were launched in 1991. These grants were designed in part to encourage state education agencies to align their state mathematics standards to the NCTM Standards. The result was a remarkable uniformity and adherence to the NCTM Standards at the state level.60

Recognizing that education is largely a matter of local control, the NSF also launched its Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) program in 1994. These USI grants were designed to implement the NCTM agenda at the school district level in large cities. The USI grants were followed by a program for Rural Systemic Initiatives. By 1999, the USI had evolved into the Urban Systemic Program. This program allowed renewals of awards made under the USI program.

At first, the Systemic Initiative grants were awarded to proposals generally aligned to the educational views of the NSF, but awardees were allowed substantial freedom to develop their own strategies for reform. As the program evolved, so did the guidelines. By 1996, the NSF clarified its assumptions about what constitutes effective, standards-based education and asserted that61:

All children can learn by using and manipulating scientific and mathematical ideas that are meaningful and relate to real-world situations and to real problems.
Mathematics and science are learned by doing rather than by passive methods of learning such as watching a teacher work at the chalkboard. Inquiry-based learning and hands-on learning more effectively engage students than lectures.
The use and manipulation of scientific and mathematical ideas benefits from a variety of contributing perspectives and is, therefore, enhanced by cooperative problem solving.
Technology can make learning easier, more comprehensive, and more lasting.
This view of learning is reflected in the professional standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
The NSF was clear in its support of the NCTM Standards and of progressive education. Children should learn through group-based discovery with the help of manipulatives and calculators. Earlier research funded by the NSF, such as "Project Follow Through," which reached very different conclusions about what works best in the classroom, would not be considered.62 Regardless of what cognitive psychology might say about teaching methodologies, only constructivist programs would be supported.
Along with the Systemic Initiative awards, the NSF supported the creation and development of commercial mathematics curricula aligned to the NCTM Standards. In the decade of the 1990s, the National Science Foundation sponsored the creation of the following mathematics programs for K-12:

elementary school

Everyday Mathematics (K-6)

TERC's Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (K-5)

Math Trailblazers (TIMS) (K-5)

middle school

Connected Mathematics (6-8)

Mathematics in Context (5-8)

MathScape: Seeing and Thinking Mathematically (6-8)

MATHThematics (STEM) (6-8)

Pathways to Algebra and Geometry (MMAP) (6-7, or 7-8)

high school

Contemporary Mathematics in Context (Core-Plus Mathematics Project) (9-12)

Interactive Mathematics Program (9-12)

MATH Connections: A Secondary Mathematics Core Curriculum (9-11)

Mathematics: Modeling Our World (ARISE) (9-12)

SIMMS Integrated Mathematics: A Modeling Approach Using Technology (9-12)

The development of NCTM aligned mathematics programs for K-12 was of obvious importance to the NSF (for a list of math programs explicitly endorsed by the NCTM, see the Appendix). How could the NCTM agenda be carried out without classroom materials that were specifically aligned to the NCTMStandards? An important component of the Systemic Initiatives was the aggressive distribution of NCTM aligned curricula for classroom use. The NCTM Standards were vague as to mathematical content, but specific in its support of constructivist pedagogy, the criterion that mattered most to the NSF. It should be noted that the Systemic Initiatives sometimes promoted curricula not on the list above, such as College Preparatory Mathematics, a high school program, and MathLand, a K-6 curriculum. MathLand was one of the most controversial of the widely used programs aligned to the NCTM Standards.63

In addition to aligning state math standards to the NCTM standards and creating and distributing math books and programs aligned to those standards, the NSF attempted with considerable success to push these approaches up to the university level. Most notable in this regard was the NSF's funding of a "reform calculus" book, often referred to as "Harvard Calculus," that relied heavily on calculators and discovery work by the students, and minimized the level of high school algebra required for the program.64

The NSF also funded distribution centers to promote the curricular programs it had helped to create. For example, an NSF sponsored organization created in 1997 called, "The K-12 Mathematics Curriculum Center," had a mission statement "to support school districts as they build an effective mathematics education program using curriculum materials developed in response to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics."

The Education and Human Resources Division of the NSF faced a serious hurdle in carrying out its Systemic Initiatives. U.S. K-12 education collectively was a multi-billion dollar operation and the huge budgets alone gave public education an inertia that would be hard to overcome. Even though the millions of dollars at its disposal made the EHR budget large in absolute terms, it was miniscule relative to the combined budgets of the school systems that the NSF sought to reform. It would not be easy to effect major changes in K-12 mathematics and science education without access to greater resources.

To some extent private foundations contributed to the goal of implementing the NCTM Standards through teacher training programs for the curricula supported the by the NSF, and in other ways. The Noyce Foundation was especially active in promoting NCTM aligned math curricula in Massachusetts and parts of California. Others such as the W. M. Keck Foundation and Bank of America contributed as well. However, the NSF itself found ingenious ways to increase its influence. The strategy was to use small grants to leverage major changes in states and school districts. NSF Assistant Director Luther Williams, who was in charge of the Education and Human Resources Division, explained the strategy in a July 1998 Urban Systemic Initiative Summary Update:

[plum]

Terrific info, Pedant! Thanks.

Do you have any idea WHY so many groups pushed for constructivist math--esp groups that (I would have thought) care about data?

siege not seige? You mean they weren't kidding about i before e except after c? I thought it was a clever ruse.

[Garbo]

Plum, you inspire me and totally rock my world. Now, I really hate to be picky, but would you please explain your use of "disingenuous" here? (I am studying for the GRE and working on vocab. I am planning major insurgency in the ed school in which I will enroll.)

"...and mount disingenuous arguments against the preponderance of scientific research that challenges what they teach."

[plum]

By "disingenuous," I mean they are lying low crawling maggot pies--but "disingenuous" was a quicker way to say it. Are you SURE you want to go to an ed school?

There will be many of THEM... and, correspondingly, few of YOU.

[Adrian]

Garbo - if you're serious about going to ed school, go with plenty of mental arms and armor. Don't let the bastards intimidate you, numbers don't equal truth. And keep reading Plum, some of his stuff will reduce them all to jelly-kneed babblers.

Plum - I think you've got the making of the "95 Theses" for Ed Schools. (Except there are only 10 this time.) Now go forth with hammer and nail and pin a copy on every ed school bulletin board you can find! Yeah, there are plenty. And they're nicely decorated too. Gives the pions a nice break from navel-gaz... er... uh... I mean reflection.

[Michael]

Plummy, old sock, I'm afraid your "logic" won't wash. "Best practices" does not refer to "a" best anything: you'll note the plural "practices." We can argue about which practices are indeed best, but there's general agreement on some things: use the board (or overhead, or PowerPoint) when lecturing, state learning goals at the beginning of class, move around the room and engage more students, ask questions at various levels (didactic all the way to "higher order") and so on. Good teachers know this stuff, and new teachers do need to be taught it.

[JennyD]

Garbo, I have gone to ed school fully armed. It is indeed a dangerous place. But I have discovered that there is a growing insurgency. Some professors actually believe that it's important to focus on "teaching." Like, how to teach teachers. What's the best way to teach kids. What's the best way to use standardized tests. What kind of research should scholars do to figure out better ways of teaching? (Particularly disadvantged kids.)

I'm lucky. I'm in a place with hope. Be careful out there.

[Col. Mustard]

A fun exercise on a rainy day (when you don't want to get your new Barrett 50 cal wet practicing)consists of googling the 'code of ethics' for various groups - lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, butchers, bakers, etc.

Now score each of them.

Award points by how close to the top a code lists items such as "I will do no harm to my client" and "I will use only field-proven methods in the service of my client."

Subtract points for not mentioning the above items.

Subtract points by how close to the top a code lists items such as "I will take no action that could reflect adversly on a fellow practioner" or "I will never bring discredit to our cozy little band."

Add points for not requiring members to lie or remain silent about miscreanant fellow members.

Add more points for requiring the exposure of unethical behavior.

After the above exercise, you may not care if your Barrett gets wet or not!

[Garbo]

Plum, Adrian and JennyD: Thanks for your kind words of caution. Despite my penchant for solitude, I'm not as fragile as one might expect. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and parenting two rebellious teenagers is turning me into one tough old b****. I'm in my 40s, which I suppose will make me--ironically--a "nontraditional" student. I have already had one career in aerospace engineering and another teaching math.

I'm applying for Ph.D. candidacy in math education, and plan to do research along these lines: What is it that these schools are doing in which virtually 100% of the students--especially the disadvantaged--demonstrate at least grade-level proficiency in math? Why does it work? Why aren't more schools doing it? How can we in this great country spread these practices to the greatest number of children with the greatest possible speed?

Though I know, through experience and reading, some version of the answers to the first three, I think there's a need for exhaustive empirical research by someone who has studied the history, theories and politics of education, and who also knows math. Though I know I'll reject much of the nauseating mash doled out in the education courses, I'll be in a position to at least generate some insurrectionist thoughts in the next generation of teachers. I have a reputation for "stirring the pot" in a quiet and rational way.

I finally figured out who I want to be when I grow up: Diane Ravitch. I can't expect to achieve her level of eminence, but I like to aim high.

I'm sending in my application this week. I'm considering blogging the whole ed-school experience. (Can blog be used as a transitive verb?)

[plum]

Col. Mustard's idea about the ethical code lists is terrif. 'Twould make a great post. Anyone wanna do it? I'd be happy to slap it up here. It would also make a fine op-ed piece, or article in one of the anti-establishment mags, such as Education Next or the Fordham Foundation.

The Barrett .50 caliber.... It makes one moan and growl like (or as) a feral cat tucking into its noonday ration of mouse.

http://www.barrettrifles.com

[Professor Plum would have to wear some REALLY baggy pants to sneak one of those into the house. But if caught...]

"Just what the heck is that in your pants?"

"Oh, nothing, really. The usual assortment."

"Nothing? Nothing! You ALWAYS say 'nothing.' And it's always SOMEthing."

"It would HAVE to be. That's how reality works."

"It's yet aNUTHER gun. And I emphasize YET."

"Not a gun. Don't call it a gun else you'll be sleeping with it."

"Yes. Yes. But you promised! [whining now. NEVER works.] You said, 'All done. No more.'"

"I realized the arsenal was incomplete. There was a distinct absence of .50 caliber. Left us quite vulnerable, it did."

"Get that THING out of this house." [back to anger.]

"Thing? Would you call it a thing?"

"Cut the quiz! Either IT goes or I goes." [Oooo. Ultimatum. What to do? What to DO?]

"We shall miss you... Come, Barrett. Let me introduce you to some friends. You're going to just love Ms Mossberg. What a barrel!"

Michael and Pedant are right. I was wrong. That makes twice. The first time I THOUGHT I was wrong about something but was, in fact, right; in which case, wrong.

And this time, wrong again. "Best practices," does not (as Michael suggests) imply "the best possible" (which HAD been my interp) but rather "the best we have." Therefore, logically, we CAN advocate certain communication formats and other aspects of instruction without fear of being accused of hyperbole.

I wonder if Jenny D. would honor us with some thoughts on WHY she thinks the ed professoriate is different up her (frozen) way. External forces? Internal combat and routing of the progressives?

[pedant]

Prof. Plum asks:

"Do you have any idea WHY so many groups pushed for constructivist math--esp groups that (I would have thought) care about data?"

It would be important to specify who these "groups" are. NCTM list oodles of supporting groups, but I believe they fall into the category of math "educators" not mathematicians. Indeed, constructivists distinguish sharphly between math "educators" and mathematicians and claim no attention should be paid to the latter.

Ralph Raimi (a fierce critic of fuzzy math http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/nas_talk.html

http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/identities.html

http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/
)

cites the pronouncement of a leader of fuzzy math to this effect: http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/usiskin.html

Excerpt:

Usiskin early in the article draws the analogy, that
mathematicians are to mathematics educators ("teachers and those who
train them") as biological research scientists are to practicing physicians.
The analogy is not bad, but fails to imply what Usiskin thinks it does,
which is that mathematicians are not fitted to prescribe for mathematics
education. Most biological research scientists have little interest in
clinical medicine, to be sure, nor do they pretend clinical competence,
and so most of them do not oversee or criticize the work of clinical
physicians; but there are those among them who do study and direct the
creation of new drugs and procedures, and their clinical trials, and who
understand their chemistry and practical problems well enough to write
the detailed accounts physicians rely on every day in their prescriptions.
In the same way there are mathematicians whose oversight of school
mathematics education, were it more prevalent than it is now, could be
of analogous benefit to school mathematics teaching. That is, Usiskin's
analogy itself does not support his condemnation of mathematicians'
interference in school mathematics policy at the content prescription
level. It should, indeed, gladden the mathematicas educators that the
creators of the science they would have correctly broadcast are, some of
them, taking a hand in seeing that its more subtle points are correctly
understood at the retail level.

[Mrs. Peacock]

Re: Is blogging a transitive verb?

"Of course. Else that most useful adverb 'bloggingly' could not exist," Mrs. Peacock posted bloggingly.

[Adrian]

Garbo, All I can say to that is GO KICK A**!

[Brent]

Garbo:

You have a background in Aerospace Engineering and Math and still know about transitive verbs (and presumably intransitive ones as well)? I'm impressed!

I say good luck and give 'em hell up in Edland!

[JennyD]

Garbo: Do it, and blog it all. I'm kind of doing the same thing, although I'm in the REALLY messy area of reading comprehension (Plum's favorite thing to rant about).

Come see me www.drcookie.blogspot.com

Chris Correa, www.chriscorrea.com, blogs about math ed a lot. So does a blog called Teach and Learn.

I'm one of the world's older grad students--no teenagers yet but close. It's a big asset. I had a career as a journalist, which prepared me well for the BS in ed school, and for asking impertinent questions in class.

Stick to your guns, Garbo. You'll be great.