(a) object to cross-posting as a way to tunnel through intra- and
inter-disciplinary barriers, or
(b) have zero or less interest in the question "Will Evidence and
Logic Reform Education?"
And if you respond to this long (13 kB) post, please don't hit the
reply button unless you prune the original message normally contained
in your reply down to a few lines, otherwise you may inflict this
entire post yet again on suffering list subscribers.
In his Phys-L post of 2 Feb 2005 titled "Re: California standards
test in physics," Larry Smith (2005) wrote [bracketed by lines
"SSSSSS. . . ."; insertions within square brackets are mine]:
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
[Responses from district administrators to my questions on school
district results on the Iowa Skills Test] worry me for the following
reasons:
1) I never got a good response to the question about the downward
trend [in nationally-normed percentile scores as a function of grade
level from 3rd to 5th to 8th to 11th];
2) The administrators don't understand percentiles [they said the
downward trend in nationally-normed percentile scores was observed
nationally !};
3) Because they don't understand what the results are saying, they
don't see a problem;
4) When an area of concern is highlighted, they explain it away rather than
concoct a plan to fix it.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
John Denker (2005), responded [bracketed by lines "DDDD. . . "]:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Bureaucrats. . . [such as district administrators] . . . respond to
political and bureaucratic pressure. Most people on this list are
heavily armed with logic, but that does not automatically translate
into political and bureaucratic clout.
As I've said before:
Part of politics involves sizing up your opponents and rallying your allies.
One thing that might help is an indirect approach through the
business community. These folks have a vested interest in a
no-nonsense education system. They don't want to hire graduates who
require spoon-feeding; they want to hire people who can deliver a
message to Garcia.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
A case in point is given in my post "Re: The Hidden Curriculum,"
[Hake (2004a)] of 25 November 2004. I wrote [see that post for
references other than Hake (2004b) and Levinson et al. (2004)]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
But a "Hidden Curriculum" to socialize students (in the words of
Bowles and Gintis) "to function well, and without complaint, in the
hierarchical structure of the modern corporation," may not be ALL
bad, considering the professed objective of leading institutions of
higher education and industries in the State of California [Levinson
et al. (2004)]. These have decried direct science instruction,
stating that "businesses and industry seek from today's high school
graduates a high capacity for abstract, conceptual thinking and the
ability to apply that capacity to complex real-world problems."
As indicated in Hake (2004b), Levinson et al. (2004) expressed their
disapproval of Sacramento's direct-instruction science education
policies in a letter to Reed Hastings of the California Board of
Education. Their letter reads in part [bracketed by lines "LLLLLLLL.
. . ."; my **emphasis**]:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
We write on behalf of the leading institutions of higher education
and industries in the State of California to convey our deep concern
about the January 16, 2004 Draft Criteria for Evaluating K-8 Science
Instructional Materials, and the limits and restrictions they would
place on local school districts, schools, and teachers as they strive
to improve the teaching
and learning of science for all of our students.
The California Curriculum Commission's (CCC) Science Subcommittee has
developed Draft Criteria for use in grades K-8, subject to approval
by the State Board of Education on March 10, 2004. Currently, the
only approved materials for science are textbooks. If the Draft
Criteria are approved, with their even tighter constraints, the
present "textbook only" situation is almost certain to continue for
the next adoption cycle: 2006-2012.
**U.S. businesses and industry seek from today's high school
graduates a high capacity for abstract, conceptual thinking, and the
ability to apply that capacity to complex real-world problems.**
The Draft Criteria would greatly restrict access to nationally
produced, widely acclaimed instructional materials for grades K-8
that promote these
skills and habits of mind. While acquisition of knowledge is
essential, it is well known that students do not easily acquire
scientific knowledge without, at the same time, learning to
understand the facts by engaging in active experimentation. Thus, the
Draft Criteria are counterproductive to the hope of expanding
California's economy, and they will severely limit the opportunities
for California's children to learn science and scientific methods.
In addition, all school districts will soon be required to
demonstrate increased student achievement, as measured by new
high-stakes assessments in science. Despite these new output
measures, required by the "No Child Left
Behind" federal education act, California would persist in tightly
constraining the inputs that each district can purchase with state
funds to help students learn. Our poorer districts especially will
have no choices other than textbooks, making the present large
disparity between them and more affluent districts even greater.
**Our school districts will be largely forced to use a one-size-fits-all
approach to science teaching and learning, known as "direct instruction."**
This dogmatic approach is reminiscent of the unfortunate State
dictate that phonics not be used for the teaching of reading in a
previous decade.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We urge the board of education to develop a new set of criteria that
would allow each school district a much broader set of options for
purchasing materials (both textbooks and hands-on inquiry-based
instructional materials), and request an independent evaluation of
the draft criteria that includes the rationale and research based
evidence upon which they are based.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The above letter from Levinson et al. [**not* the evidence-based
arguments of teachers, education researchers, and various
professional organizations that inundated the California State Board
of Education (CSBE) <http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/> prior to their 10
March 2004 meeting] was probably the leading factor in prompting the
CSBE, at that meeting, to amend the California Curriculum
Commission's <http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/> demand that
"instructional materials must include NO MORE than 20 to 25 percent
of hands-on materials" to read "instructional materials must include
AT LEAST 20 to 25 percent of hands-on materials."
Unfortunately, that **apparent** [Hake (2004b)] setback for direct
instruction may do little to alter the domination of direct
instructionists in setting K-12 curricula and pedagogy, both in
California and in the nation [Hake (2004c)].
Man is not logical and his intellectual history is a record of mental
reserves and compromises. He hangs on to what he can in his old
beliefs even when he is compelled to surrender their logical basis.
John Dewey
Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Re: The Hidden Curriculum," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=pod&P=R13190>. Post
of 25 Nov 2004 15:28:04-0800 to AERA-C, AERA-G, AERA-H, AERA-J,
AERA-K, AERA-L,AP-Physics, ASSESS, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Physhare, &
PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2004c. "Will the NCLB Tend to Propagate California's
Direct Science Instruction Throughout the Entire Nation?" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501&L=pod&O=D&P=12783>.
Post of 14 Jan 2005 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-G, AERA-H, AERA-J,
AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, Edstat-L,
EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Math-Teach, Phys-L, Physhare, PhysLrnR, POD, &
STLHE-L.
Levinson, A.D. 2004. Levinson is CEO of Genentech. He is joined in
this letter by leaders of Intel, Bechtel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Adobe
Systems and higher education, including the Presidents of the
University of California (UC), Stanford, and the California Institute
of Technology, and all 10 UC Chancellors. Letter of 5 March to Reed
Hastings of the Board of Education. Online at the George Lucas
Educational Foundation <http://www.glef.org/> as a 112 kB pdf
<http://www.glef.org/pdfs/Letter_from_GLEF_board.pdf>.