Comments on: Authentic education is always experimental http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/04/08/authentic-education-is-always-experimental/ Weblog of Wesley Fryer Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:55:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Borderland » Blog Archive » Routing Racism http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/04/08/authentic-education-is-always-experimental/comment-page-1/#comment-972 Borderland » Blog Archive » Routing Racism Wed, 12 Apr 2006 04:58:31 +0000 http://www.speedofcreativity.org/?p=900#comment-972 [...] The book was on my mind this morning, still, when I opened my Bloglines and found a discussion on Wesley Fryer’s Moving at the Speed of Creativity that was initiated by Doug Johnson, who challenged the notion that teaching is an art, and wondered about the ethics of using progressive educational methods to “experiment” on students. Doug, your take on testing is provocative, and I thank you for raising the issue because it needs to be aired. As to whether “experimentation is ethical”, I say there has never been a bigger more misguided experiment than NCLB, which uses Skinnerian operant conditioning methodologies to coerce students and teachers into a mindless charade of learning in the name of efficiency and accountability. This devastatingly costly experiment may have NO research, other than the Texas Miracle to support it. Like the War in Iraq, it depends on one of the most destructive, ill-advised, immoral, racist government propaganda efforts that I have ever witnessed. [...] [...] The book was on my mind this morning, still, when I opened my Bloglines and found a discussion on Wesley Fryer’s Moving at the Speed of Creativity that was initiated by Doug Johnson, who challenged the notion that teaching is an art, and wondered about the ethics of using progressive educational methods to “experiment” on students. Doug, your take on testing is provocative, and I thank you for raising the issue because it needs to be aired. As to whether “experimentation is ethical”, I say there has never been a bigger more misguided experiment than NCLB, which uses Skinnerian operant conditioning methodologies to coerce students and teachers into a mindless charade of learning in the name of efficiency and accountability. This devastatingly costly experiment may have NO research, other than the Texas Miracle to support it. Like the War in Iraq, it depends on one of the most destructive, ill-advised, immoral, racist government propaganda efforts that I have ever witnessed. [...]

]]> By: Doug Johnson http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/04/08/authentic-education-is-always-experimental/comment-page-1/#comment-930 Doug Johnson Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:39:40 +0000 http://www.speedofcreativity.org/?p=900#comment-930 Hi Wes, Yikes, I didn't know my little blog entry would engender such comments from you and others. Yeah, I like to be provocative, but only by asking questions that I can hear my old hard-headed grandfather, our most conservative school board members, or my community's most demanding parents asking. These are questions that ought to asked, whether they are comfortable or not. So what good are the easy questions? A couple responses to your posting... I would disagree that teaching is primarily an art, not a science. If so, why mess about with educational research? Why do we place our faith in folks like Madeline Hunter who taught many, many teachers to be more effective (and I believe this). I know lots of teachers who see themselves as using best practices born out by research (increasingly brain-based), that don't necessarily see the purpose of education as the transmission of content, but teaching and application of applied skills (process). I think you are mixing up methodology and learning objectives. Using best practices rather than being experimental does not rule out a constructivist approach to education. Even the most chaotic classrooms are governed by some basic patterns, much as what looks like a chaotic weather system will show consistent patterns. I would argue that a good teacher need not be creative, but must be adaptive, flexible, and have a large repertoire of responses (which can be learned) for a variety of student learning and behavioral needs. I certainly agree that "teacher-proofing" a curriculum is not the answer and that taking a person off the street and handing him a manual will result in quality education. I also agree that to the extent practical, all students should be treated as though they have an IEP. But it still make me nervous as a parent to think teachers are "experimenting" with MY children, every bit as much as if a doctor were trying an "experimental" drug on them. I would prefer my teachers were competent, always learning, practitioners - not researchers. What is the failure rate of a truly "creative" person? I am guessing it is higher than many of us would like to admit. All the very best, Doug Hi Wes,

Yikes, I didn’t know my little blog entry would engender such comments from you and others. Yeah, I like to be provocative, but only by asking questions that I can hear my old hard-headed grandfather, our most conservative school board members, or my community’s most demanding parents asking. These are questions that ought to asked, whether they are comfortable or not. So what good are the easy questions?

A couple responses to your posting…

I would disagree that teaching is primarily an art, not a science. If so, why mess about with educational research? Why do we place our faith in folks like Madeline Hunter who taught many, many teachers to be more effective (and I believe this). I know lots of teachers who see themselves as using best practices born out by research (increasingly brain-based), that don’t necessarily see the purpose of education as the transmission of content, but teaching and application of applied skills (process). I think you are mixing up methodology and learning objectives. Using best practices rather than being experimental does not rule out a constructivist approach to education.

Even the most chaotic classrooms are governed by some basic patterns, much as what looks like a chaotic weather system will show consistent patterns. I would argue that a good teacher need not be creative, but must be adaptive, flexible, and have a large repertoire of responses (which can be learned) for a variety of student learning and behavioral needs.

I certainly agree that “teacher-proofing” a curriculum is not the answer and that taking a person off the street and handing him a manual will result in quality education. I also agree that to the extent practical, all students should be treated as though they have an IEP.

But it still make me nervous as a parent to think teachers are “experimenting” with MY children, every bit as much as if a doctor were trying an “experimental” drug on them. I would prefer my teachers were competent, always learning, practitioners – not researchers. What is the failure rate of a truly “creative” person? I am guessing it is higher than many of us would like to admit.

All the very best,

Doug

]]>