OK, after looking at Sally's web site there is absolutely no information
about research which shows the effectiveness of her program. All I saw were
the usual "celebrity endorsements". The endorsers were not real
celebrities, but people you would expect to talk to about curriculum. None
of them cited any evidence, just their opinions. So how do we know her
program is really doing anything without any independent evaluation?
Her talk is mainly about science and math motivation. But that will not
work if the thinking skills are not developed. And the schools are not
doing this. For example the schools could be using Feuerstein's
Instrumental Enrichment and Thinking Science to raise the thinking. They
are known to work, but the reaction is they aren't any good because nobody
uses them. But look at the research for the people who have used them.
Then there is the "expectations" argument. Already the schools are teaching
students things that are beyond their ability to understand. Algebra is
opaque without proportional reasoning. When you teach beyond students'
ability to understand, they just memorize and their motivation goes down.
She does say that science needs to be taught as inquiry. And she does
mention that teachers are not adequately prepared, but again this is not
being done as part of the national priorities. She did not mention the fact
that when teachers are taught didactically they will not use inquiry
methods. When the majority of the elementary teacher think at the concrete
operational level, how can you really improve elementary education? You
have to bring up the thinking level of the teachers. Incidentally the money
is drying up for much of the research based teacher training. Why dry up
the money for the programs which really work??????
She makes a big deal about hands on, which is not what needs to be added to
the schools. It is minds on that is important. Again look at the TIMMS
report.
I did not see on either her website, or in her talk a deep understanding of
what needs to be done besides motivation. US students have much higher self
esteem than most foreign students and score lower on the tests. Motivation
improves when the students actually begin to achieve better understanding.
They get excited then. External factors are the poorest motivators
according to the psychologists.
So her programs may work, but she has not shown any evidence that they do
work. I see it as just more of the same stuff that hasn't worked up to this
point. I may be wrong, but I need to see evidence, and not testimonials.
Leeches and blood letting had plenty of testimonials, but they didn't work.