Indoctrination versus education: “Time that we remind teachers of their job descriptions.”
Last week, I ran a piece sent to me by a Clayton State education professor describing schools as pressure cookers. Professor Mari Ann Roberts questioned the value of standardized tests and cited the growing demands on teachers. Now, another academic responds, with strong criticism.
English professor Mary Grabar, who has taught at Clayton State, Georgia Perimeter and Emory, offers a much different take.
By Mary Grabar
In the wake of revelations of testing fraud in Georgia, professors of education blame the tests. Both Shannon Howrey of North Georgia College and Mari Ann Roberts, at Clayton State University, opined in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that less testing is needed. They echoed the dominant view of education schools, where mastery of the subject is relegated to the position of an onerous task to be circumvented.
While they train in new techniques of emotionally coercing students to adopt their own ideological views, teachers share strategies for keeping within mandates—officially. I learned this by attending the National Council for the Social Studies conference, where workshop leaders openly admitted to teaching for “social justice.” Knowledge of the subject matter and academic skills were never mentioned in workshops that teachers attended to earn continuing education or graduate credit.
Professor Roberts, in fact, questions the value of knowing the material on tests and asks, “Does spitting out the date of the Civil War on cue help a child negotiate a contract, hold a conversation, keep a job or determine right from wrong?” She continues, “Do we want our children to be critical, conscious thinkers or rote memorization machines? Do we want them to recognize the value of knowledge or, instead, to believe that the purpose of learning is to regurgitate what’s been crammed in their heads for the CRCT or the Georgia High School Graduation Test?”
“Critical thinking” is critical only toward the United States and Western values, and is usually conducted under the cover of exploring feelings in groups. It is “facilitated” by teachers who themselves don’t know the material, but have an ideological agenda.
If cramming is necessary it’s because teachers spend so much time on such rap sessions. At Roberts’ school, Clayton State University, future middle school teachers spend only 24 credit hours out of a total of 122 in their subject areas. The field requirements for the five social studies classes do not even include one in U.S. history; in fact, only three are from the history department, with two of dubious value (Georgia History and Government, Selected Topics in World History, and History of World Religions). The other two are in social science: Themes in World Geography and Research Methods in the Social Sciences.
But in required education classes, like Roberts’ EDUC 2130 class, future teachers learn about “linguistic diversity,” eliminating “gender bias in the classroom,” and running “performance-focused” rather than “mastery-focused” classrooms. Her own students, following the future assignments they are expected to give their students, “co-construct” their own exam questions and make “culture quilts.”
It is a sad commentary on the degeneration of education schools that so much time is wasted on counterproductive activities and that an education professor even thinks to question the need to know the dates of the Civil War.
But it is time that we remind teachers of their job descriptions. After all, two-thirds of my DeKalb county property taxes go to supporting schools that educate 89 percent of our citizens.
As Roberts disparages the “regurgitation” of dates, we should ask her whether she feels it important that her students know the dates of the Civil Rights Movement, such as the year Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.
If she does, would she not want students to know about those who came before King, like Frederick Douglass? Would the dates of the Civil War not be relevant to an understanding of his experiences as a slave?
Contrary to Roberts’ claims, learning the dates of the Civil War in a classroom that focuses on subject mastery, maintains boundaries between students and teachers, and students and students, and honors the privacy of students’ “feelings,” would help in all the goals she lists.
Were students expected to read well-written books about the Civil War and asked to memorize facts, they would have developed their powers of concentration. Reading skills are abysmal in large part due to the fact that classrooms increasingly rely on computer games, audio-visual aids and projects, and peer discussions. Even textbooks are laden with illustrations interspersed amid snippets of politically correct and deathly boring prose.
Such focused concentration and discipline would prepare the student for the grind of analyzing data, memorizing sales pitches, writing reports, and reading those contracts Roberts mentions. A common complaint by employers about Generation Y is that their undisciplined habits and solipsism carry over into the workplace.
Professor Roberts expects schools to prepare students to hold a conversation. I would assume that she means intelligent conversation, for teenagers are seldom at a loss for words among peers. But what happens when one of her students, whose natural curiosity does not lead her to “explore” the Korean War, places it in the 19th century during a conversation at a workplace party? I’ve had students in my college classrooms who could not place Columbus in his century and who had never heard of communism.
Professor Roberts also expresses doubt that knowing historical dates can help the student distinguish between right and wrong. Surely one must understand that a war that produced the greatest casualties in American history, where brother fought brother, largely over the enslavement of a people who are the ancestors of many of the students, is important enough to know its dates. An understanding of what came before 1861— of the division over slavery at the time of our country’s founding in the previous century, of the awakening of consciences through Christian spiritual revivals, of various Supreme Court decisions, of its institutional history, would help a student place this profound moral question.
Roberts’ pedagogical methods ill prepare students to be the well-spoken, independent, moral citizens she envisions. Instead, her and her colleagues’ teaching methods waste classroom time, taxpayers’ money, and violate student boundaries to the point of emotional harm. That her services are not needed is illustrated by the superior achievement of homeschooled children, usually taught by parents without education degrees.
One way to raise test scores is to fire those like Professor Roberts.
To read more about this issue, see Grabar’s report on indoctrination versus education.
In the meantime, there is a lot to talk about in her piece here.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
134 comments Add your comment
catlady
February 25th, 2010
6:00 pm
If you want to talk about indoctrination, you should take a serious look at Direct Instruction. Teachers are required to read the script (don’t worry about individual needs or need for clarification), ask stupid simplistic questions, and CLICK A DOG CLICKER SO THE STUDENTS CAN ANSWER IN UNISON! Can you say “Heil, Hitler”?
a realist
February 25th, 2010
6:01 pm
constructivist,
Japanese teachers may disagree with Attentive Parent, but teachers from Hong Kong, Czech Republic, etc. who are also A+ countries might agree with AP. I think the most important findings from the TIMSS is that there are many different ways to teach mathematics effectively. Perhaps some approaches require master teachers while others may be more accessible for “average” teachers.
Wounded Warrior
February 25th, 2010
9:57 pm
My kids’ 2d grade teacher tried to get my daughter to not to eat a turkey for Thanksgiving feast. She is a tree hugger and wanted her kids to save the world. This lady seemed clueless to just about everything. She took the supplied and made them ‘community supplies’. Students were not allowed to have anything for themselves. Introducing the students to socialism at its finest, along with global warming.
another aps teacher
February 25th, 2010
10:18 pm
Hey Gerald.
Actually mandatory public education is due to the liberal idea that children should not be forced to work in factories. Another left wing societal transformation plot. An educated populace is going to automatically transform society and make it better. An EDUCATED populace, mind you, not one that just attended school.
And for several others:
Rote memorization is necessary. It is necessary to learn how to read and spell. It is necessary to learn grammar. Rote memorization is essential in learning the four basic operations in math. And it is necessary to provide a framework in order to apply those critical thinking skills everyone is harping about. Rote memorization is the basis of education. One of the reasons the American populace is so very undereducated is that the vast majority of adults grew up in a time when rote memorization was getting a very bad rap. Contrary to popular belief, children don’t need to understand why they are required to learn something. It’s not as if their judgement about their education can be trusted. They are children. They don’t know. adults are around to care for children because children can’t care for themselves, and this concept extends to what children need to be taught and how they need to be taught.
Competitive
February 25th, 2010
10:29 pm
Professor Grabar- AMEN!!!
Thank you for writing this argument so well.
Free Market Educator
February 26th, 2010
3:05 am
We love history in our home school. Memorizing certain dates, people, and events in chronological order gives the brain an organized storage framework which will serve the child all his life. As my children master this, more knowledge is added and more in-depth discussions follow. We have also taken the opportunity to travel to ancient historic sites so that they can see history first-hand. My children constantly refer to the globe to locate the places we are studying. Often they use Google Maps for a detailed look. Not only do I have them read literature and poetry related to the historical period we are studying, but also primary source documents. History is a rich subject and requires both memorization and discussion.
no wonder
February 26th, 2010
6:13 am
No wonder APS is having such a difficult time.
ScienceTeacher671
February 26th, 2010
6:27 am
@Free Market Educator = “History is a rich subject and requires both memorization and discussion.”
I would maintain that that is the case with most subjects. The problem in education is the fads that tend to one extreme or the other, without recognizing that the middle ground is usually the best.
Attentive Parent
February 26th, 2010
8:43 am
I have been looking at Japan this morning and my recollection was right. When the results of the 2006 PISA came out and showed a drop, Japan took the unusual step of changing back to the previous instruction methods. It was called the “PISA shock” in Japan. Hard to imagine anything have a similar effect in the US although apparently declining ITBS and PSAT scores did provoke such a reaction recently in Fulton County.
You are right though Constructivist that they do see a different role for problem solving than we do but it is not the NCTM vision either. It is followed up by a well designed teacher lecture on the subject.
Here’s a superb link: http://www.csus.edu/ier/reports/math.pdf . It is from July 1997 and would be describing the methods that brought such good results in 2000 and 2003. The title is “Lessons in Perspective: How Culture Shapes Math Instruction in Japan, Germany and the United States”.
Teachers frustrated by Ga’s rushed implementation of its math GPS will likely get misty eyed at an organized system where the Japanese teachers are always looking at their lesson plans asking “Can you think of a way to make students learn more?” and then sharing these innovations with each other in an organized manner.
Attentive Parent
February 26th, 2010
9:44 am
Anyone curious about what went so wrong in Georgia with its math curriculum and the absurdity of using the Frameworks to teach the math content of the GPS really will enjoy understanding better how the Japanese would have taught this when it originated in their national math standards.
54% of Japanese math lessons involve proofs so that Japanese students grapple extensively with the logic behind the math concepts. That’s the context in which Japanese students are asked to problem solve to be followed up with a lecture to clear up confusion.
Japanese teachers plan their lessons around exploring every step of the problem on the blackboard for students to take into their notes. No step, erase, next step, erase, as the researchers observed in the American classrooms.
Well worth a read for anyone wanting to really understand how excellence in math is fostered internationally and what a big role Japanese teachers get to play in why their system works.
Attentive Parent
February 26th, 2010
11:10 am
A reader forwarded me this great followup to the linked report.
It describes just how different the Japanese techniques and use of the teacher are from the US reform approach illustrated in Georgia in the Math Frameworks and textbooks like Investigations, Everyday Math, and Connected Math for middle school.
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/faculty/siegel/ST11.pdf
Christie S.
February 26th, 2010
12:21 pm
AP, that was a wonderful paper. Thanks very much.
not so fast
February 26th, 2010
2:35 pm
Attentive Parent,
What I heard from my Japanese friend is a bit different from the way you describe it.
The Japanese Ministry of Education released a new national curriculum about a year ago which brought the amount of mathematics content to the 1989 version of their curriculum – which, by the way, is the one that GA used as they were developing the math GPS. In the past few revisions, the amount of content in mathematics was reduced significantly, and many Japanese educators were worried about the possible negative impact. So, the PISA results may have been a factor, but the change was coming anyway. In the meantime, their students continue to do well in the TIMSS.
The Japanese national standards are just the grade-by-grade expectations, and they don’t specify how to teach them. According to my friend, the way Japanese teachers (particularly elementary, but also some at middle school where you see the TIMSS video lessons) have been changing to more problem solving approach since the 1970’s. So, I don’t know where you got the idea that they went back to the old way of teaching math.
What is interesting is that the Japanese Ministry of Education will use the 2-3 years between the release of the new standards and its full implementation as the “transition” time to fill any gaps that might exist when the new standards is implemented. So, if any topic is currently being taught in Grade 5 but is moving to Grade 4, they will suggest teachers to move that topic in Grade 4 at least by the year before the full implementation. That way, the new 5th graders in that year would not miss that topic and ready to tackle any topic for which that topic might be prerequisite. That kind of careful transition plan didn’t exist in GA. Also, there is usually a year or two delay in the full implementation of the elementary and the middle school standards.
“Proofs,” or justifying your ideas, is also emphasized in elementary schools, and using alternative ways of solving problems are often discussed in a lesson. Japanese teachers will often ask a class to solve a problem in many different ways. They will also ask students to think about how to calculate, even for a basic facts, as they study the basic facts. They do want automaticity but they also want students to think, too.
Attentive Parent
February 26th, 2010
3:23 pm
Please look at the siegel paper in the 11:10 post as it describes in detail precisely how the Japanese teachers use problems as an instructional technique and how it differs from the US approach. Look especially at page 24.
So in 2003 the Georgia DOE was using the Japanese standards from almost 15 years before even though Japan historically makes changes on a 10 year cycle?
except the PISA shock made them make changes prior to the end of the cycle.
As you can see, I’m providing links and you’re relying on hearsay from a friend without any backup. You would augment your argument if you can come up with some links.
Your definition of proofs is not really what the videos show or either of the above links describes.
It’s far more rigorous than that. Japanese students and teachers really put a lot of time and effort into understanding the underlying logic.
And yes it’s hard to imagine anyone in Japan allowing a hasty, poorly thought through implementation like what happened here in Georgia. A guinea pig class would be unacceptable.
Attentive Parent
February 26th, 2010
3:52 pm
Japan revised its math standards in 1982, 1992, and 2002. The 2 papers linked above would have been looking at classrooms teaching the 1992 Japanese standards.
In the 2002 revision Japan made some changes similar to the US reform approach. There was a statistically significant 11 point drop in results in Japan on PISA between the 2003 test and the 2006 causing the PISA shock mentioned above.
The 2006 PISA scores were released in late 2007 and the plan was to make a mid-cycle correction and go back to the 1992 standards. They did not want to risk another comparable drop on the 2009 test. Maybe those are the changes your friend is speaking of- the shift back to the 1992 standards?
The drop in Japan’s PISA scores is detailed on some of the blogs involved in the Seattle textbook litigation.
Attentive Parent
February 26th, 2010
4:10 pm
I was typing fast to go to carpool and I just doublechecked the Math Underground site to review all their posts on Japan and PISA.
Japan revised its math standards in 1982, 1992, and 2002. The 2 papers linked above would have been looking at classrooms teaching the 1992 Japanese standards.
In the 2002 revision Japan made some changes similar to the US reform approach. There was a statistically significant 11 point drop in results in Japan on PISA between the 2003 test and the 2006 causing the PISA shock mentioned above.
The 2006 PISA scores were released in late 2007 and the plan was to make a mid-cycle correction and go back to the 1992 standards. They did not want to risk another comparable drop on the 2009 test. Maybe those are the changes your friend is speaking of- the shift back to the 1992 standards?
The drop in Japan’s PISA scores is detailed on some of the blogs involved in the Seattle textbook litigation.
I have also emailed a science prof who has been in Japan recently to see if we can get additional information.
What a foresight!
February 26th, 2010
8:11 pm
So GA decided to use the older standards to which Japan eventually went back?
Attentive Parent
February 27th, 2010
4:54 am
Not So Fast says that Georgia used the 1989 version of Japanese standards.
If that is so, Georgia would have had to disregard the 2002 just adopted and the 1992 version and go to the 1982 version. That seems odd but that would have been what was in effect in 1989.
After its PISA shock, Japanese officials planned to use the 1992 standards.
Not So Fast and I agree that the Japanese use a problem solving approach to great effect but it involves masterful instruction by the teacher who gives support and direction through lectures and modeling and reenforcement exercises to clear up misconceptions..
The Japanese teacher explicitly connects the current task with what students have studied in previous lessons or earlier in the same lesson.
Siegel above calls the Japanese problem solving approach “grappling and telling” and it is the teacher who does the telling. He also refutes directly the misconception that Japanese students learn primarily from each other in collaborative groups or invent theorems.
Uga XII
February 27th, 2010
10:56 am
I have watched both Japanese lessons Siegel discusses in his paper. AP and not so fast are correct that the teaching you see in the video is very different from typical US lessons, traditional or reform. Although AP’s description (maybe borrowed from Siegel) is accurate, the impression you get from reading the description may or may not be what you actually see in the Japanese lessons. Yes, the teachers “lectures,” but “lecturing” tends to be brief and to the point. Siegel points out that n no students “discovered theorems” but that might be due to the fact that the lessons weren’t meant to be for that purpose – the geometry lesson in particular are more about using what students have learned previously in a novel situation.
I think trying to use Japanese teaching in arguing for or against the US reform is meaningless. Japanese teaching, although influenced very heavily by the US ideas historically, is uniquely Japanese. It is something that Japanese teachers’ community developed over the decades. The lable, “grappleing and telling” is reasonable but we need to keep in mind that both teachers and students do “telling” whild “grappling” is for students. In the same way, you can probably label US teaching as “showing and telling,” for both the traditional and reform way. In the traditional teaching, it is the teachers who do showing and telling, while in the reform classrooms it’s students. I think that Japanese teachers seem to have found a nice mix and balance.
By the way, a Japanese friend of mine showed me an 8th grade textbook in which the problems in the geometry lesson can be found (not with students’ names used as the land owners). I think it is nice to have a good textbook with mathematically rich problems.
Oh, one more thing. The dates thrown around by AP and not so fast are a bit confusing. The current standards were released as a document by the Ministry of Education in 2000 but were not fully implemented in 2002. So, the 2000 and 2002 AP and not so fast talk about are the same. The same thing applies to 1989/1992 dates. I think the Ministry of Education have done only about 7 or 8 revisions of their standards since WWII (60+ years). The most recent one released was in 2008, but their full implementation is not until 2011. So, the 2000/2002 standards are still in effect, although the Ministry of Education has provided guidelines for the transition period.
I think GA did not use the 2000/2002 standards because the English version of that standards was not widely available while the 1989/1992 version were included in the TIMSS kit Siegel refers to in his paper.
By the way, 2008/2011 elementary math standards is available from the Ministry of Education page:
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/04/21/1261037_4.pdf
I don’t think they have translated the middle school one yet.
Just browsing too...
February 27th, 2010
11:00 am
I’ve seen very smart people (know all the facts, etc. about their subject area) become teachers and fail miserably in the classroom. With today’s students, if you do not know how to control a classroom or identify with student’s enough to get them to listen to you ( droll out facts, dates, etc.) they will chew you up and spit you out like a piece of day old gum. You have to know how to deal with kids, not just know everything there is about your subject matter. A good teacher has both qualities (knows subject matter AND can actually get the kids to care about learning it!).
Teaching in FL is worse
February 27th, 2010
12:40 pm
I have truly enjoyed reading and learning from this blog. As any good teacher would do, let’s get back to the subject at hand….”Time to remind teachers of their job descriptions.”
Better yet, let’s discuss the inverse, or the things we are expected to do that is NOT in our job descriptions.
Discuss…
Attentive Parent
February 27th, 2010
1:18 pm
The 8:43 link above is to the original TIMSS study by Dr Stigler. He is the one who points out that the reason Japanese students can be asked to solve unforeseen problems or develop new methods is because they spend so much time working with their teacher on the logic of the math.
In the subsequent link Siegal points out that they are not in fact successful in developing new methods or in solving the problems without the teacher’s aid. He also points out that the time given to these grappling activities is “remarkably modest”. The remaining time is interactive and allows student presentations to identify conceptual weaknesses, for teacher managed assistance and summations (some brief as OGA notes; others longer). There are also followup problems designed to solidify understanding.
Siegal points out “in each sample excerpt, the class had already learned the basic method necessary to solve the challenge problems of the day” and that “most students will be unable to apply fundamental principles in new settings until they see step-by-step examples completed by the teacher”.
UGA- Would you agree that no one would describe the Japanese math teacher as merely “a guide on the side”?
If we are trying to learn math content similar to what the Japanese would be learning, why are the Instructional Frameworks and their learning tasks describing such a different format for the teacher and the students to what works in Japan and other A+ countries?
Attentive Parent
February 27th, 2010
1:32 pm
Teaching in FL-
I did not start the discussion on Japan (look at 11:47 on 2/25) and others have repeatedly wished to discuss it since.
I think it has been helpful to understanding why Georgia’s implementation of its new math curriculum has been so rocky. I also respect Dr Stotsky’s work. So must the New York Times, they frequently use her when they need an education expert.
meaningless slogan
February 27th, 2010
6:02 pm
“guide on the side,” “sage on the stage,” etc. are just meaningless slogans. I like Uga’s “showing and telling” as the way to describe US teaching. Of course, all of these are just caricatures of what really happens in classrooms, and policy discussion guided by these slogans are bound to fail.
Attentive Parent
February 27th, 2010
6:05 pm
I know many Georgia teacher ho would be delighted if they felt free to “show and Tell” in a math lesson.
Too many have been told it will cost them their job.
irisheyes
February 27th, 2010
8:59 pm
Teaching in Fl, I completely agree. Or, maybe if teachers were left to do their job descriptions without having to follow the latest “cure du jour”, things might not be at the state they are at. My greatest wish is to be left to teach my kids they way they learn best. If this year’s group learns best through discussion and discovery, then that’s what I want to do. My group last year couldn’t have done that. They needed much more direct teaching. I need the flexibility to adjust to each year’s class. Not every group learns in the same way. But, too many administrators like to meddle. Stay out, and let me teach. I think the public would be amazed by the success of schools, since 99.9% of the teachers I know want their kids to do well.
Teaching in FL is worse
February 28th, 2010
9:16 am
Attentive Parent
I understand. I like looking at how other countries do things as well. As a matter of fact, I taught in Japanese schools for one year as an exchange teacher. I only worked in English classes, but tried to get a feeling for their “way of doing things.”
I can’t contribute to the discussion in specifics about math. What I CAN contribute is generalities I saw:
-students are so “we-centered” as opposed to Americans (”me-centered”) they were afraid to aswwer questions I asked because they would stick out and embarass classmates
-there was no diversity (compare that to our schools!)
-the majority of what I witnessed was rote memorization (I lived with a family who had a middle school student)
-your entry to high school was based upon testing; high schools specialized and were locally ranked
There’s so much more, (uniforms, zoning, tranportation, etc.) I’d love to go back since I was there 10 years ago, and see what has changed.
octex
February 28th, 2010
12:07 pm
Completely different cultures : Georgia children are not Japanese children
isn't it obvious?
February 28th, 2010
1:01 pm
@octex,
the question is can GA students learn the same mathematics as Japanese students do? and can we learn from the way Japanese teach mathematics? Or are we going to say GA students are so different that they just can’t learn the same math no matter how we teach them?
Just browsing too...
February 28th, 2010
5:52 pm
@ isn’t it obvious….in GA, and across the US, if the student chooses to learn the math, he or she will…if he/she chooses not to (and the parents support their child’s decision not to learn or do not have control of their child, so that they can not/ do not force the child to want to learn or at least behave in class so that others can) then he/she won’t. This is the difference between Japanese and the United States educational systems/parenting and cultures. I am curious…do the Japanese teachers teach children with emotional/ behavioral and/or learning disabilties? Are those children placed in the same classrooms as their peers or do they go to a separate school or any school at all? This could be yet another difference between the two educational systems.
Attentive Parent
February 28th, 2010
7:43 pm
Just Browsing-
Are you kidding? I sure hope you are not a teacher.
How dare you put the blame on the child or parent as to whether they learn math?
Do you believe whether a child learns to read is a matter of determination?
If you believe that instructional techniques and curriculum materials are less important than how much a child tries, you have not read the extensive research into what works in math and reading.
I was at a dinner yesterday where a motivated, informed parent was recounting what the use of Investigations in their elementary school had done to the math knowledge, skills, and aspirations of her daughter and her classmates.
We can have a discussion of the inclusive classroom but again in states with a sophisticated IEP program, these plans mandate that certain textbooks Like Investigations or Connected Math cannot be used and that explicit instruction and modeling must be provided.
Is the point of your post that whatever the cause of the failure to learn math, it must be the child, the home, or an overly inclusive classroom?
Is that the extent of the available causes?
Just browsing too...
March 1st, 2010
7:02 am
How dare I??? Really? How dramatic.
The point I was making is-altough I believe that all children (including special education students) have the potential and the right to learn, I do not believe that all students have the desire to learn.
It is these students that our teachers and schools are having to spend so much of their time and resources on, as opposed to the students who do want to learn and that teachers should be focusing on.
All the math/reading strategies in the world will not help a child if he/she is ADD and can not even sit down and focus (perhaps he/she is not on medication-is this the teachers fault?). Or maybe a student wants to learn, but is too hungry to focus (teacher’s fault?).
I am sure that many American teachers would love to have a room full of homogeneous students (as their Japanese couterparts are privy to) all ready and willing to learn. When/if this happens (which is practically never in a public school setting) then we can talk about effective math strategies that work better than others. Perhaps the Japanese math strategies appear more effective due to the type of student the Japanese teachers are teaching?
I do have some teacher friends who actually prefer the challenges and diversity in their classrooms (although I wonder if this preference will change with the adaptation of merit pay).
Attentive Parent…I have a bone to pick with you…
Why are you serving your children tacos in the wake of the childhood obesity epidemic? Oops! There I go again, blaming the parent for something that is negativly effecting our children in America today.
No, I’m not saying that your own personal children are obese…I don’t even know your children. I’m sure you are a smart person and know what to feed your children and you make sure that they get plenty of exercise, etc. What I’m saying is, a lot of parents don’t. A lot of parents would like to blame the school for their child being overweight.
As in..the food that my child is eating (or should I say-throwing?)in the school cafeteria is making my child fat.
I wonder if the Japanese schools have to deal with their students throwing sushi at each other during their lunch period?
Again, my point is, you can’t really compare Japanese schools to American schools.
Attentive Parent
March 1st, 2010
7:35 am
So it sounds like one of your points is that the heterogeneous classroom makes it difficult to teach American children effectively? I agree but that’s not how you started. You started by blaming the child or parent whenever there’s a learning problem.
The fact that you think this discussion is about math or reading “strategies” is deeply troubling. It suggests that you do not appreciate just how foundational it is to teach arithmetic and reading properly. It may also be why truly fluent readers are becoming rare. Strategies are a one time boost. Understanding the phonetic nature of the English language and practicing it to automaticity means that all books are accessible. A profound understanding of arithmetic is not a result of successful math strategies. Successful math strategies are an outcome of that deep understanding.
Bringing my children into the discussion is the proverbial “below the belt” swipe. Very unprofessional.
You cannot use basing the Georgia math content standards on Japan’s as a trophy defense to ward off all discussion of their rigor and then refuse to discuss how much different our recommended instructional practices are.
Now you are asserting that Japanese students are too different from US students to compare schools. So does that difference mean we must reject the instructional methods they use successfully to teach the math content we imported from them? Is there anywhere you can point to where an inquiry, discovery approach as advocated by US reformers is being used successfully to teach a mathematically rigorous curriculum to a diverse group of students?
you are dreaming
March 1st, 2010
12:20 pm
Just browsing…
I think your idea of Japanese classrooms is very much incorrect. It is definitely true that their classrooms are ethnically homogeneous – much more so that typical US schools. However, if you have an upward of 40 students in a room, there is a WIDE range of abilities, interests, motivations, family situations, etc.
Japanese teachers, and I believe/hope most US teachers, feel that motivating students is a part of teaching. If you just want to have perfect students, then you are in a wrong profession. Those students will probably learn fine without you as a teacher – they can read and research the internet.