Singin songs and a carryin’ signs.
Mostly say “hooray for our side”
Stop. Hey, what’s that sound?
It’s the sound of –
- Most bloggers and tweeters speaking only to their allies in a bubble.
- Not of “argument” but “cherrypicking facts” to support immovable strong opinions
- attempts to persuade not discuss
- endless ad hominem and snarky remarks
- heat not light.
Ah, but stubbornness masquerading as reasoned conviction – and its cousin, “confirmation bias” – is an old song. Here is Francis Bacon, from 400 years ago:
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate…
And such is the way of all superstition… wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happen much oftener, neglect and pass them by. But with far more subtlety does this mischief insinuate itself into philosophy and the sciences; in which the first conclusion colors and brings into conformity with itself all that come after, though far sounder and better.
Besides… it is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human intellect to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives; whereas it ought properly to hold itself indifferently disposed toward both alike.
Here is Lichtenberg, succinctly, over 200 years ago: We accumulate our opinions at an age when our understanding is at its weakest.
Here is Nietzsche over 100 years ago:
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.
Where am I going with this? The Common Core, and educational discourse (or lack of it) in the blogosphere.
The Common Core on argument. Let’s remind ourselves of Appendix A of the Common Core ELA Standards, in which the nature of argument – as contrasted with persuasion – is described:
… the Standards put particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical to college and career readiness… When teachers ask students to consider two or more perspectives on a topic or issue, something far beyond surface knowledge is required: students must think critically and deeply, assess the validity of their own thinking, and anticipate counterclaims in opposition to their own assertions.
As part of their attempt to explain to new college students the major differences between good high school and college writing, Williams and McEnerney define argument not as “wrangling” but as “a serious and focused conversation among people who are intensely interested in getting to the bottom of things cooperatively.”
As Richard Fulkerson (1996) puts it in Teaching the Argument in Writing, the proper context for thinking about argument is one “in which the goal is not victory but a good decision, one in which all arguers are at risk of needing to alter their views, one in which a participant takes seriously and fairly the views different from his or her own” (pp. 16–17).
Intensely interested in getting to the bottom of things cooperatively… At risk of needing to alter their views… takes seriously and fairly the views different from his or her own – these are phrases that not only every student and teacher ought to ponder daily: every blogger, commenter, and tweeter should ponder each time they start to hit the POST button. It is the essential achievement of a reasonable person – to question what they assert; to listen and consider intently views that differ from their own; to respond to the strengths in the other’s argument.
Here is a lovely description of this educational goal – from an Eton teacher 150 years ago:
You go to a great school. Not for knowledge as much as for arts and habits; for the habit of attention, for the art of expression, for the art of assuming at a moment’s notice a new intellectual posture, for the art of entering quickly into another person’s thoughts.
I was in an elementary classroom just this week in which the kids were writing “opinion” pieces (that were meant to be “arguments” of this rational kind, as opposed to “persuasive” writing.) As much as I love this teacher, I thought calling it an “opinion” piece was an error. [Oops: a commenter reminded me that this is indeed the language of grade 5 in the Standards, so she was doing precisely what the Standards call for. My bad. But now I think the Standard is wimpy…] This is the very error that David Coleman famously described with “No one gives a shit about your opinion or feelings” in higher-level academics or workplaces.
Ironically, Coleman himself has taken a lot of shit for saying this, but to my mind the reaction is a beautiful illustration of unthinking reaction: if you cannot acknowledge the element of truth in his crude but clear statement then you are allowing your feelings about him, his language, or your views about the Standards to over-rule reason. Because in a very obvious way his claim is true: people do not get paid for personal opinions. They get paid for real solutions.
Put differently, this distinction between argument and persuasion, while subtle, is as old as Socrates vs. the Sophists, as implied in what the Standards say in a sidebar comparing persuasive with argumentative writing:
When writing to persuade, writers employ a variety of persuasive strategies. One common strategy is an appeal to the credibility, character, or authority of the writer (or speaker). Another is an appeal to the audience’s self-interest, sense of identity, or emotions, any of which can sway an audience. A logical argument, on the other hand, convinces the audience because of the perceived merit and reasonableness of the claims and proofs offered rather than either the emotions the writing evokes in the audience or the character or credentials of the writer.
Do our students really understand this distinction? Do we as educators? (Being the only teacher in the room is a problem since students rarely hear opinions that differ from ours).
Why do people change or not change their minds? I have wondered a lot about this issue over my professional and personal lifetime: under what conditions DO we entertain and ponder the thoughts of others? Under what conditions do we go further and change our minds? How can education be better at causing this?
I well recall the student, a bright girl who went to an Ivy League college, who threw a book at me in deep frustration over this issue. I had asked students to write an editorial on a subject. But then, the next day I asked them to write two letters to the editor, taking up contrary positions in terms of the editorial. She flatly said: no, I can’t do that. When I asked why, she replied: because I have already fully considered the issue in writing my editorial. When I persisted, she threw the book.
I always thought Karl Popper’s argument about falsifiability was a beautiful one to illustrate the problem with so-called arguments. What differentiates scientific conclusion from other conclusions, he says, is that the scientist can imagine the answer being wrong – i.e. the disconfirming evidence/experiment is intelligible, even plausible. He describes this as the inherent falsifiability of a scientific statement.
However, as Popper pointed out, when arguing with Freudians, religious people or Marxists, – and, if I may say so, educators in far too many cases – there is apparently NO evidence that can ever refute their views: they have an explanation for every conceivable event, opinion, policy or practice – that just supports their existing opinions. It is just one long confirmation bias, not argument.
And isn’t that what most educational discourse and blogging these days often is?
I have changed my mind about a number of educational issues over the years. I used to think all standardized tests were nonsense. Now I think that the best ones are quite revealing and very carefully crafted – even though they do not tell us all we need to know and even though we over-use and over-value them. I used to think that good teachers were born not made. Now I think that great improvement can occur in any teacher willing to change and learn from best practice. Why did I change my mind in each case? I am not 100% sure but one key reason is that I actually studied both tests and teacher coaching directly which forced me out of my head.
There are a few famous people who have fundamentally changed their minds in public in recent decades. Interestingly, for educators, one is Diane Ravitch. She has actually spoken and written a fair amount about her changing views, as have others, including jilted former allies. But is she closer to the truth now? How would we know (especially if she is as adamant now as she was then)?
I am no different, of course. I have both changed my mind and I have views about the world that are probably unalterable in spite of facts to the contrary. For example, I have been motivated for 50 years – first as a student, then as a teacher, then as a reformer – by the view that school is needlessly boring in a big way. Is that a rational stance, amenable to being altered? Or is it simply my bias, destined to be my view regardless of the facts on the ground which I cherry pick? And about what are you unyielding? And might you be conflating “principled” with “stubborn”? How would you or we know?
Can you imagine yourself being wrong? Here is a simple test: can you state the argument of the “other” side with clarity and depth? Can you empathize with your opponents’ views enough to present the strongest case for them? (Recall that empathy as opposed to sympathy means deliberately putting yourself in their place mentally.) In other words, do you understand the views of those whom you think wrong?
This is why I think debate, role-play, and Socratic Seminar are essential pedagogies in any rigorous classroom. In fact, the best lesson I ever taught was to design a FAIR trial of Socrates while we were reading the Apology, ensuring that those on the side of putting him to death had a lot of compelling evidence (courtesy of I. F. Stone and Aristophanes). It was truly dramatic; it was unclear until the vote who would win. Indeed, Socrates was put to death, again. And the uproar continued in and out of class for days, with the losing defense attorneys pleading for a re-trial.
This is also why reading non-fiction is an essential activity, as the Common Core stresses. In private reading you can without harm to ego question your own views and safely explore new ideas that you might not wish to do publicly.
Some wise words, again, from Francis Bacon:
Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
What writings have done this for you?
So, readers, let’s discuss this prompt and model such thinking: I used to think…Now I think… and try to openly and honestly explain why we changed our minds about some important educational issue. And for those of you who blog and comment in an unendingly rigid and closed-minded way – you know who you are – how about a little intellectual empathy and less cherry-picking of the evidence?
36 Responses
When are standardized tests revealing? I’ve felt myself getting more and more frustrated at them lately, because although the tests are well-crafted and the grading is thorough and the students put a lot of effort into taking them… after months of waiting, I get a number for each kid. The number doesn’t tell me anything actionable or prescriptive, and I wait four months to receive it.
You may have seen standardized testing done better, and I was wondering what that looks like. I sort of prefer the NWEA MAP test which takes an hour, is multiple-choice, and gives me instant results – but I wouldn’t call it deep or revealing. It does seem that it gives me more bang for the buck as far as the time and effort go.
Who else does it well?
Open-mindedly asking,
Dawn
I have long complained about test security and the long time lag on results – that wasn’t my point. Have a look at the article I wrote in Educational Leadership a few years ago and my blog post entitled Time to Stop Test Bashing. You’ll see many revealing items from MCAS, FCAT, and NAEP. Any question related to student inference and misconception is typically revealing. And most IB and AP teachers I know highly value the results.
Your reply and your blog post have me thinking about a thread I’d love to explore more.
I wrote a blog post called Blood Pressure here: http://oohguesswhat.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/blood-pressure/
What I struggle with most when it comes to testing is that the time, secrecy, stress, and decision-making associated with the data is way out of proportion to the actual usefulness of the data.
My students take our state assessments (it will be PARCC next year) for over a dozen hours and get two numbers: a score for math and a score for ELA.
They also take NWEA MAP for two hours and get two numbers: math and ELA.
We find the results correlate strongly with each other most of the time. So I ask myself what is the purpose of the additional hours of testing? I can get a basic snapshot of my students’ progress in an hour.
I like the interesting and revealing test items on the state assessment, but after the tests are scored, I don’t have any information on my students’ misconceptions; I get just a number. Sometimes the number makes sense, and sometimes it’s a mystery to me why a student scored how she did.
Could we give a “snapshot” assessment for a subject that takes one hour and gives us a score for making group comparisons, and then a detailed assessment (also one hour) that is designed to reveal student understanding of the power standards for the year – where teachers get access to their student work, can compare student work schoolwide, and can get recommendations on how to improve learning?
I also get frustrated with peers that hate on standardized tests or the Common Core standards for what I perceive are silly reasons. But I wonder if at the core of the bashing, there are some really valid concerns that need to be developed and heard.
Coming back to your original point, you’re echoing a theme I’ve noticed a lot on the blogosphere, about the stubbornness of held views and how to instill open-minded discussion in this crazy interconnected world. I haven’t seen any good research about how to turn stubbornness into open-mindedness – have you? Most of what I read indicates what you said, that putting contrary evidence in front of someone with strong beliefs does the opposite of what you’d intend – makes the held belief stronger and not weaker. So what works?
I’m with you on the snapshot approach. I always thought that the DRP was a good quick n dirty snapshot of reading comprehension. The irony, as I noted in my blog on Validity, is that the backlash against quick n dirty indirect testing, no matter how valid, led to the more time-consuming tests of today. I agree with you: not likely worth the bang for the buck. (If we could only matrix sample, like NAEP… but people want valid data on each kid, alas.)
As for your deeper question, the only things I know to do is to bring people who disagree together in a seminar-like situation – genuine dialogue; and to insist on a culture of question-asking instead of pontificating, whether it be in class or in staff meetings. peter Elbow said it beautifully thirty years ago. Too often in academia we play the “doubting” game; sometimes we need to play the “believing” game. Indeed, the power of Design Thinking is in the question “What if…?” instead of “Well, that won’t work because…” In sum, it requires a carefully designed culture committed to learning instead of merely opining.
This would have hit the right notes with me at any point, but now, in the day and age of fisticuffs news, star struck editorials and a polarized profession, I love it even more. The issue of the Common Core is especially pulling people into their corners. I know that I’ve opted to walk away from a number of discussions over the past few weeks – and I’ve seen others do the same – because people were less interested in adding something interesting to the discussion than in bashing me for my questions and opinions.
I’ve recently started to write a post about the CC, one in which I say: “I understand why there’s so much displeasure about RTTT and where the CC’s standards could be considered imperfect, but here’s some great reasons to keep the CC’s foundations in place.” I stopped writing it because I didn’t want to deal with backlash, but you’ve prompted me to get back it. Thank you.
You’re welcome! But you have to accept the fact that there will be pains-in-the-ass who simply must try to score points. That is the cost of doing business on social media and in snarky staff lounges. As you may have noticed sometimes I refuse to respond to the worst comments. But at least there is dialogue on this site. That can’t be said for far too many. And I have almost never refused to post a comment, even ones that attack me viciously. I think in total over 3 years I have rejected 3 comments because they were just nasty and juvenile, contributing nothing.
“No one gives a shit about your opinion or feelings”
To understand the failure of the actual intent and meaning of this message to be received, McLuhan’s “The medium is the message.” serves us well. In this case, the medium was a dismissive insult given in the voice of confrontation rather than a calm explanation leading to an understanding of an idea, of Coleman’s intended meaning. Coleman created fertile ground for sharp pushback where the first thing to sprout was a knee jerk reaction nourished by the righteous indignation to his insulting tone. The resulting weed grew fast and tall, blocking out the sunlight that might have grown his intended crop. He has only himself to blame for this, and it is not the only example of such behavior on his part, both personal and political. He is far from an ideal spokesman. The construction of the Common Core suffered from a similar failure, having been done with too little input from too few stakeholders who could not even observe the process and then insulting the stakeholders by handing them a copyrighted product that they had no right to participate in the ongoing improvement of without jumping through many hoops with no guarantee of being listened to. The difficulties of working with large numbers of people aside, the Common Core was not brought into existence the way a proper set of standards should have been done. Someone brought a comparison of the CCSS birth to ANSI protocols to Diane Ravitch’s attention and it spread from there. It’s a convincing argument. I suspect you know this, but ANSI protocols are to setting standards what Roberts Rules of Order are to holding a meeting. Both deal with procedure, not content. The CCSs would have been a far better document if it had been done that way. The extra time it would have required to do it properly would have been well worth it and would have in all probability pre-empted all the pushback and resulted in a more timely and rational deployment overall, a net gain. Thanks for your great essay here.
Both points well taken. Coleman’s remark was understandably a hot-button one. But he said it orally in a workshop. If I had every unfortunate comment i have ever made taken out of context in a workshop I would have been run out on a rail numerous times. But, for sure, he made his bed; he lies in it. My point was: there is truth in what he said that few of his critics acknowledge.
As for your 2nd point, i thought the ANSI vs CCSS comparison was a fascinating one as well. But – call ME naive – I didn’t think the CCSS process was any more ‘secret’ than the 48 such processes done by the states over the last 20 years. Having personally been a part of two state standards projects I would say that they were no more transparent. What they DID have was the advantage of many teacher voices. Yet, the down side was that the groups had far too few voices from colleges and the professions. As a result, many batches of state standards were just laundry lists of typical content – hardly brilliant stuff. When all is said and done, the CCSS ELA standards are far better than what most states produced since they stress performance and rigor.
That said, the rollout in NY – which had NOTHING to do with CCSS – was probably the killer and demonstrated that the process should have been thought through more carefully because going national means much higher stakes and much greater likelihood of pushback – not unlike Hilary getting slammed in the first healthcare effort. But you’ll note that practically no one thought the CCSS process or result was flawed 2 years ago. it’s only when it got linked to testing and ‘corporatism’ that it became an issue.
Grant, though Anchor Standard 1 for Writing is “Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant
and sufficient evidence,” if you look at the grade-level manifestations of the anchor standard, you’ll notice that if is only in grade 6 when the term “argument” appears. From kindergarten to grade 5, the term “opinion pieces” is what appears in the standards.
Right you are! My bad. I think what misled me was just looking at the Anchor Standard which refers to argument. Thanks for calling that to my attention.
but then I would turn my criticism to the standards. I have seen kids debate and do socratic seminar at this age. Indeed, the teacher in question has done a brilliant job of getting kids to do student-led discussion of questions. So, i would hope that we could move beyond mere self-focused opinions by grades 4 and 5 – it is certainly developmentally appropriate.
Grant,
Reading your piece I was reminded of the work of Jurgen Habermas and specifically his work around communicative action. He, and I believe you, both rely on the inevitability of rationality as it exists within discourse, a discourse “in which actors in society seek to reach common understanding and to coordinate actions by reasoned argument, consensus, and cooperation rather than strategic action strictly in pursuit of their own goals.” Thanks for the post and the opportunity for me to make a connection.
Thanks. Gadamer had great influence on me, too – Truth & Method has some great lines on dialog and questioning.
You are a constant breath of fresh air. I do think that society as a whole cannot critically look at an argument, nor can they see the other side of anything (other than to say it is horrible and ruining everything). I think that is because we feel we have to demonize the other side in order to win. Look at the Apple vs Microsoft vs Google debate, or Republican vs Democrat debate. Each side is totally incapable of seeing that the other side may have some good points and some major drawbacks.
I think the negative feedback about testing revolves around 2 issues that people have in general.
1. The tests seem to change a lot and there are lots of them (sort of valid).
2. You have to practice for tests, and since those tests are important, a lot of practice must be devoted to that test. This point totally misses the big picture (like constantly scrimmaging instead of practicing skills, thinking, with the occasional scrimmage thrown-in to test).
About the writing issue. I honestly think that people have lost the purpose of why we write. Writing can be thought of as speech (communication), but written down and not spoken. Ask a student to orally debate something and they are generally pretty good. Have them write it down – forget about it. I also think that teachers in general do a horrible job of modeling the process and remembering what it’s like to be a student. How many writing teachers stress content over form? I’ll bet it’s not many. If you have nothing to say, it doesn’t matter how pretty it is. Have something brilliant, and people will fight through it. I’m not saying form is unimportant, but is it more important than content? I’d say it’s not even close.
Do these sound familiar?
2 and 1/2 pages
500 words
Double-Spaced
APA/MLA
Typed
Fronts only – no backs
5 paragraphs
What do these have to do with the standards? Sure these all help with form, but many teachers are more concerned with the above list than they are with what is actually written.
No one has forgotten why we write, in my view. They have never thought about it. You can’t forget purpose, desired impact, communication with another. At a deeper level, any serious writer is as aware of the shortcomings of their ideas as the strengths. Otherwise, why edit something 20 times? Nor is it all blameable on tests. There have always been tests. And good writers have no problems with them. Indeed, many teachers lose empathy for students. I have written about this a lot because I see it and hear it a lot. I think it ironic and revealing, in fact, that teachers didn’t care much about tests when they were not held accountable for the results. Well, students are always accountable for tests, especially the ones teachers design as finals. Why are they any better (or worse)?
A line I use in workshops on rubrics and goals: who goes to Barnes & Noble or Amazon to buy a book for “organization” and “mechanics”? Who wants to read formulaic boring prose that gets a decent score on state rubrics? That’s why my favorite teacher command to peer editors has always been: mark the places where you lost interest and tell the writer why. his kids outscore most kids in the state, in a middle-class school.
All of teaching is about remaining focused on intrinsic learning in the face of countless distractions. All the teachers that ever made a difference in our lives remained true to the value of learning something of value and making us care, too, by their modeling. That’s what I fear has gone missing in the current climate.
I love the part where you said, “…mark the places where you lost interest and tell the writer why.” How many teachers do that? How powerful would that be for a student to get that feedback and try again. Wow!
All I see are marks concerning form and mechanics. I wonder why.
Timidity on the part of many. I have had this conversation many times: “So, what is poor writing that good writing isn’t?” “When it is boring and has nothing to say.” “Right, so why aren’t you using a Fascinating-Boring rubric?” “Oh, we couldn’t do that, that’s so subjective…” “No, it’s LESS subjective than ‘organization’ and it is the purpose of writing.” “Oh, well, you just can’t.…”
Because we are so often (mostly) asking students to write things (5 paragraph) that don’t exist outside of school, we have few exemplars and too few discussions on what makes writing good (often reserved for rhetoric lessons in AP comp). It’s for this reason that I feel we don’t talk about interesting or not. It feels like we’re chastising the student since we haven’t studied it in class. This, by the way, is another reason I live the CC writing: varied audience and purpose is a must.
Not only a very smart post (so nice for a change), but it also has Buffalo Springfield playing in my head, always a good thing. Thanks, Grant!
You’re welcome! Can’t go wrong with BS. One of my favorites from HS.
You know what’s odd though? They are probably the only major band – if we also include CSN&Y in which almost no one can name the drummer and bass player.
Reblogged this on Simkins Says and commented:
This is the first time I have “re-blogged” (can that be an intransitive verb?) but the thoughts Grant Wiggins shared strike a major chord with me. I love the bit about argument being “a serious and focused conversation among people who are intensely interested in getting to the bottom of things cooperatively”:
Thanks! Appreciated.
I think a lot of the backlash against the CC is precisely that many people’s arguments were not taken into account. You’re talking about everyone in a country of 300 million agreeing on a set of educational standards. There was never any large consensus, it was simply pushed through.
Argument and debates about national standards should properly take years, perhaps decades. This is not what happened.
This is simply not true. All but 2 states signed off on it and for 2 years there was no backlash at all until the testing started. Nor are the standards so “new”. They reflected what was happening in most top states. We had 20 years of standards-based work, and there still remains little to argue about in the standards per se. What happened was that the rollout of accountability suddenly got everyone understandably angry since the tests hadn’t even been piloted yet. But it was hardly the effect of there being standards. Blame NY, NJ and a few other heavy-handed states; don’t blame the standards per se.
“there was no backlash at all until the testing started” – that’s because those that developed it said it was not for testing!
I think there is still much to argue about standards. I understand that your viewpoint is pro-standards. But it is amazing that in a post about being open-minded you simply dismiss the other side in your comment.
I have cited papers and research numerous times yet you say I continue to “harp” on the subject of how ability influences performance. I’m willing to be proven wrong, are you?
Again, here is a widely cited paper from last year:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24349000
“The significance of these findings is that individual differences in educational achievement at the end of compulsory education are not primarily an index of the quality of teachers or schools: much more of the variance of GCSE scores can be attributed to genetics than to school or family environment”
Jeesh, methinks you doth protest too much. Nothing you said back relates to what I argued, does it? If you think there is much to argue about concerning the standards per se, then make the argument! (You’ll recall that I have not once but twice argued against the math standards – and I even sent them feedback. I am hardly a shill for the Standards: read every post in this blog one them, please.) And then for no clear reason, you bring up an argument that we had months ago for reasons that are unclear. I don’t have any quarrel with the paper you cited, anyway. And I have no idea what your comment about “said it was not for testing” even means. In short, I am not even sure what you are arguing.
Fine, I’ll make an argument then.
In general, human performance on various tasks resembles a bell curve due to underlying differences in ability. Why then, would you use ONE STANDARD as the measure for performance?
Think about it in major league baseball, maybe you said if someone hits above .300, they are a “good” hitter. Fine. You could tell hitters if they don’t hit .300 they will be fired. And plenty will get fired because they can’t meet the standard. Not due to lack of trying but due to lack of hitting ability.
Same applies to education. Here is a CC standard: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/1/
“CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.10
With prompting and support, read prose and poetry of appropriate complexity for grade 1.”
Now if you dig in the CC Appendix to see what is appropriate for Grade 1, there is no clear answer. But they mention the Lexile framework. Go to the Lexile website and see how they measure grade level: https://www.lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/
“Grade equivalent scores are often misinterpreted as being a grade level standard. A grade equivalent of 5.9, for example, does not represent the desired level of achievement for all grade 5 students. It simply represents the norming group’s median score, or projected score,”
My point: there is no “grade 1 reading level”. All you can do is take 1st graders and see what they do on average. If you use the median as being “grade 1 reading level”, then (surprise!) roughly half will be below.
To recap: performance in sports, academics, etc., results in a bell curve due to differences in underlying ability. If you put a standard in the middle of the bell curve, then roughly half cannot meet the standard. The bottom half of the bell curve cannot simply pull themselves up.
Or to say it much simpler, it is impossible for everyone to be at or above the 50th percentile.
I agree that whenever we are dealing with the world of Large Numbers, there is a Bell Curve – whether it be baseball batting averages or worker salaries. But I’m describing Quality Control systems that get everyone to a ‘decent’ Standard, e.g. military training, blood pressure, and 9th grade reading level, if you like. The fact that there is no defined performance standard in the ELA Standards is lamentable but understandable: there do not exist large samples of student work done against the standards that would enable us to set “meaningful” levels.
Benjamin Bloom said it well many decades ago: the bell curve reflects norms and randomness, but education reflects deliberate attempts to reach goals. That’s why mastery learning was eventide – to ensure that kids reach goals in numbers larger than just via chance. That’s my view, consistently. And while I understand your examples I don’t think they address the point of deliberate intervention and quality control to high levels that is routine practice in high-functioning organizations. Not that I love it as a stat, but the point of the SAT recall is supposedly its predictive power – and that’s what standards should be about: a high-degree-of-confidence predictive power that the kid is likely to be fine in college.
Or am I missing something in your response?
I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, but we are still on different wavelengths. I will try again.
If you are trying to get ALL students to certain performance levels, this CANNOT happen unless you set the standard at the absolute bottom level. Some students do not have the ABILITY to reach a mid-level standard. Hence, you can put the standard out there but some students do not have the ability to reach it.
Again, if you defined “grade 1 reading level” by either a test or by different performance samples, then not all students will be able to reach a mid-level of performance. The barrier is ability, not feedback or teaching.
Just as a career .270 cannot hit .300 consistently. If he could, then he would. Ability drives performance.
Line up 20 kids and have them run 100 yards. Some will be faster than others. If you give them a few months with the same access to practice, feedback, coaching, etc., then they will all get a little faster. But the faster kids will still be faster. If you stick a standard in the middle of this bell curve then half the kids will not meet the standard. Why would ONE standard be the correct way of assessing performance in this case?
The last example shows why we’re arguing different points. If we say ‘fitness’ requires that you run 100 yards in 14 seconds then more and more kids will be able to do it with practice and coaching. The fact that the fast get faster is incidental. The baseball situation is different: there are good pitchers trying to get batters out. However, if there were a home run derby, then more and more hitters, with practice could hit lots of home runs in the derby.
This is really the only way to understand how Jaime Escalante achieved what he did and how the outlier schools with poor children do it.
Many of my posts have been about the Repair Kit for Grading. I was definitely someone stuck thinking a certain way about grades, particularly taking points off for late work, hard and fast deadlines, and did give zeroes for cheating though I wasn’t happy with it. Reading the book and thinking about my experiences as both a teacher and a student, I did begin to see a new side, a new way of doing things, assigning behavioral consequences for behaviors, requiring work to be done even if it’s after the due date, teaching students to respectfully request extensions on some projects. I think keeping an open mind and trying to see both sides of a topic makes me a better teacher.
I choose to be brief in my writing as I like to make a statement, and then allow others to ponder it’s merits. It is important to teach student how to think, and all that is included in that exercise. What I think however is not as important as how I speak about what I think when in discussion with others. Argument rarely causes change, it often cements others deeper into their opinion as truth.
Effective argument requires you as a participant to cause the other to consider their own belief, through the use of open-ended prompts or possibilities. Trying to change their belief is ineffective, allowing them to think, and guiding their thoughts, can open their mind and allow them to find new realities.
One question as I close. You identify yourself as a reformer, have you thought about your approach to reform and whether it is effective? During your post, you criticized a teacher for calling an assignment an opinion paper. I did not see in your article anywhere, you speak to the positives that are taking place in so many classrooms around the world. If you want to help education move forward, maybe you could help to change the beliefs of those who strongly hold that education is failing, by allowing them to revisit their beliefs from a positive perspective.
The American educational system has helped put men on the moon, educated the leaders of the free world, and continues to produce the best and the brightest in business, medicine, and yes, educational reform. Just a thought.
Read through my posts: you’ll see lots of praise, including of this very teacher. Yes, I think I HAVE had some effect. Understanding by Design is used worldwide and many have thanked me. And many people on this blog have thanked me for speaking clearly and sometimes bluntly. Reform simply does not happen by accentuating what is currently working, does it? But your point is well taken: constant negativity is ineffective.
To all…
It’s difficult sometimes to see how much is misunderstood when it comes to education in America. History and historical thinking when developed within students is a powerful thing. The problem is that teachers who do not practice historical thinking cannot teach it. Much of what Grant discusses in this blog is developed through historical literacy, research, and argument.
How could a district Ed Services Department think the question to use for CCSS assessment should be, “Was the Holocaust a Hoax?”
See the article, https://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/california-school-district-under-fire-for-holocaust-denial-assignment-153156708.html
If teachers have only taught persuasive writing, they will not be able to transition to argumentative writing without instruction and a deep understanding of purpose and goals.
It is time for history and the social sciences to be embraced as critical disciplines for developing students with the necessary skills to be productive and informed citizens.
Personally, I don’t think it’s such a bad thing that schools are being given guidance an that all of our work is under the microscope if public scrutiny. It seems to me that when people do a bit of digging, they’ll find that most of what supposedly upsets th about the Common Core has nothing to do with the CC; they are just poorly made, local-level decisions.
Of course, there are rhetoric spinners claiming that CC is pushing teachers to talk about the Holocaust being a fallacy. There will be some who even believe that.
Our work – and our public image – needs to get better. Our students need it. Oversight can help us with this in places where we’ve been unable and / unwilling to do so on our own.
I used to think I was being a progressive, reflective and informed 4th grade teacher when I would read research findings, trade journals and professional subscriptions; then apply new found philosophies, strategies and techniques to my repertoire. Now I think I have to go back and read, reflect upon, and dog-ear the writings of those for whom I had previously dismissed as not in line with my personal beliefs about or style of teaching. Thanks a bunch, Grant, there goes my summer vacation!
Yikes, now I’ve done it. How about just looking at Hattie’s visible learning? He is pretty agnostic about all the findings, and there’s something there for everyone…