Navigate KTM
- KitchenTableMath
- What's New
- FAQ
- Book-style Index
- Ask a Question
- Search Comments
- Search Blog Posts
- Monthly Archives
- Search by Category
- Register as a User
- Register as our Guest
Kitchen Table Math
KTM User Pages
Service Groups
- Mathematically Correct
- WhatWorksClearinghouse
- Progressive Policy Institute
- Education Trust
- Illinois Loop
- Fordham Foundation
- New York City HOLD
Parent Groups
- Plano Parent Rights
- Informed Residents of Reading
- Teach Us Math
- Save Our Children from Mediocre Math
Personal Pages
Blogs
- Animals In Translation
- Eduwonk
- The Education Wonks
- Instructivist
- Jenny D
- Joanne Jacobs
- Learning Curves
- Math And Text
- MathMan
- Number 2 Pencil
- Oh, snap!
- Parent Pundit
- Vlorbik
- D-Ed Reckoning
- Teens And Tweens
Special lists
Help
03 Aug 2006 - 19:29
character ed
I'm surprised to discover that, if I had to choose, I would come down on the "serious problem" side of this issue. I don't want public schools to teach religious faith, though I support vouchers for religious schools and I wish to heck our schools would teach the Bible as subject matter content. Biblical literacy: a good thing. On the other hand, I don't want public schools teaching values - namely narcissism and yay-me blather - that directly contradict my own religious values. At Main Street School (grades 4-5) the kids apparently recited some kind of self-respect affirmation each and every morning, after the Pledge of Allegiance. Christopher can't remember the words now, and neither can I, but he thinks he had to say something like, "I am an amazing person." Every single morning. I am an amazing person. Then, at the 5th grade graduation, the superintendent read an "Alphabet of Values" - "A is for Achievement" - that kind of thing. Most of it was nice, but the entry for L was awful:
It may have been even worse; it may have been "Love yourself first and best." blech I was sitting there thinking, "So what happened to Love thy neighbor as thyself?" (Which leads me to think it probably was "Love yourself first and best.") As far as I'm concerned, there are many, many occasions in life when loving yourself first is a very bad idea. Anyone who a) gets married and b) has kids is going to experience these occasions. Probably anyone going into the teaching profession is going to experience them. I don't want my kids being taught to love themselves first. I also don't want them spending a lot of time thinking, "I am an amazing person." As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that spending any at all time thinking the words I-am-an-amazing-person is a terrible idea, and I could probably support my view empirically if I had all day to scan the archives of the PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN. (I have no idea whether this particular study does or does not support the anti-I am amazing person viewpoint. I think it might.)
So, yes.
At this point I'm thinking a failure to teach "religious values" is a problem.
some good news Loveless:
This jibes with my feeling that teachers are more likely than their superiors to think radical constructivism is a crock. Hirsch has a nice observation to the effect that while no one has been able to defeat ed school ideology, no one's been able to defeat reality, either. Students learn the way they learn. Teachers are in the trenches.
question from the audience
So the question is, given the fact that lots more money poured into the schools over the past decades hasn't improved them, can lots more money poured into the schools make schools worse? My feeling is yes. It's possible to have too much money. This reminds me of the various studies showing that rich people undergo all kinds of unnecessary surgery. My line on that used to be, "You go into Cedars-Sinai for a c-section, you come out with a nose job." In context - i.e. living baja Beverly Hills - it was funny.
-- CatherineJohnson - 03 Aug 2006 Back to main page.
Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.
Tom Loveless on education philanthropy
The title of my paper is how program officers at education philanthropies view education. It is inspired by a 1997 study of education professors done by the Public Agenda Foundation in New York City, and in that particular survey, what Public Agenda found was, and I quote from the study: "Professors of education have a distinct, perhaps even singular prescription for what good teachers should do, one that differs markedly from that of most parents and taxpayers." [snip] The study concluded with the following. Quote. "While the public's priorities are discipline, basic skills and good behavior in the classroom, teachers of teachers severely downplay such goals." So what I decided to do was give the same survey to program officers at education foundations, and in a nutshell, what I found was that they too are far outside the mainstream, on some issues [program officers are] even farther outside the mainstream than education professors. [snip] You can see in these bottom... six different classroom activities. These are sort of mainstays of progressive education. These are thing that come under criticism by progressives over the last 100 years. Take a look. Should kids be given--this is the percentage that responded that more of this would be a good thing. Should kids be given more homework assignments? Only 21 percent of the program officers felt that they should be given more homework. 41 percent. The education professors are tougher on homework. Penalties for students who break the rules. Only 19 percent of the program officers. 37 percent, again about twice as many of education professors. And in a minute I'm going to show you what the general thinks about these things. The title of the public agenda report was Different Drummers. The program officers at the philanthropies appeared to be even more different than the different drummers, at least on issues of discipline and basic skills. Those are the two main differences. Memorization, endorsed by only 11 percent of the program officers. Prizes to reward good behavior in the classroom. This is Alfie Cohn's [ph] big problem, he has a big problem with that. Only 11 percent. And then multiple choice exams, not popular at all. source:
With the Best of Intentions: Lessons Learned in K-12 Education Philanthropy
character ed
Look at the question on schools fail to teach religious values. If you see that as a serious problem or not. Only 6 percent of program officers think that's a problem. Among traditional Christian parents, not surprisingly, 70 percent see as a problem. But even in the general public, almost half, 47 percent, think it's a serious problem.
I'm surprised to discover that, if I had to choose, I would come down on the "serious problem" side of this issue. I don't want public schools to teach religious faith, though I support vouchers for religious schools and I wish to heck our schools would teach the Bible as subject matter content. Biblical literacy: a good thing. On the other hand, I don't want public schools teaching values - namely narcissism and yay-me blather - that directly contradict my own religious values. At Main Street School (grades 4-5) the kids apparently recited some kind of self-respect affirmation each and every morning, after the Pledge of Allegiance. Christopher can't remember the words now, and neither can I, but he thinks he had to say something like, "I am an amazing person." Every single morning. I am an amazing person. Then, at the 5th grade graduation, the superintendent read an "Alphabet of Values" - "A is for Achievement" - that kind of thing. Most of it was nice, but the entry for L was awful:
L: Love yourself first and always.
It may have been even worse; it may have been "Love yourself first and best." blech I was sitting there thinking, "So what happened to Love thy neighbor as thyself?" (Which leads me to think it probably was "Love yourself first and best.") As far as I'm concerned, there are many, many occasions in life when loving yourself first is a very bad idea. Anyone who a) gets married and b) has kids is going to experience these occasions. Probably anyone going into the teaching profession is going to experience them. I don't want my kids being taught to love themselves first. I also don't want them spending a lot of time thinking, "I am an amazing person." As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that spending any at all time thinking the words I-am-an-amazing-person is a terrible idea, and I could probably support my view empirically if I had all day to scan the archives of the PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN. (I have no idea whether this particular study does or does not support the anti-I am amazing person viewpoint. I think it might.)
some good news Loveless:
The program officers with teaching experience are closer to the mainstream public views.
This jibes with my feeling that teachers are more likely than their superiors to think radical constructivism is a crock. Hirsch has a nice observation to the effect that while no one has been able to defeat ed school ideology, no one's been able to defeat reality, either. Students learn the way they learn. Teachers are in the trenches.
question from the audience
QUESTION: Hi. My question sort of is which side are you on, or actually, which side are the philanthropists on in regard to the education wars that are being fought across this country, often under the name of the reading wars or the math wars. You know, to what extent are they facilitating the reform agenda and to what extent are they facilitating maybe the opposite. MR. LOVELESS: I don't mind taking a stab at that. For the most part, they're on the neoprogressive side, which in the--I edited a book, a couple years back, called The Great Curriculum Debate, and it's about the wars in both math and reading that have occurred over the last 15 years, whole language versus phonics, and in math, math reform or NCT and math reform versus more basic emphasis on arithmetic and other traditional mathematics. And for the most part, the philanthropies have supported, financially, the neoprogressive side.
So the question is, given the fact that lots more money poured into the schools over the past decades hasn't improved them, can lots more money poured into the schools make schools worse? My feeling is yes. It's possible to have too much money. This reminds me of the various studies showing that rich people undergo all kinds of unnecessary surgery. My line on that used to be, "You go into Cedars-Sinai for a c-section, you come out with a nose job." In context - i.e. living baja Beverly Hills - it was funny.
-- CatherineJohnson - 03 Aug 2006 Back to main page.
Comments
After entering a comment, users can login anonymously as KtmGuest (password: guest) when prompted.Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.
| WebLogForm | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Tom Loveless on education philanthropy |
| TopicType: | WebLog |
| SubjectArea: | ConstructivistTeaching, DirectInstruction, EducationResearch, SchoolFunding |
| LogDate: | 200608031528 |