EducationNews.org

1. George, over the past few years, teacher training has changed from teacher centered to learner centered. Some people indicate that it is more important for the student to be "multiculturally aware and ethnically sensitive" rather than proficient in math or science. Where do you stand and how did this shift come about?

Actually, this is not a recent change, but a problem that has plagued education schools for a long time.David Larrabee has an interesting explanation for the ineffectiveness of education schools.He attributes their problems to the fact that education schools are late comers to the university and college communities. Teacher training started out in normal schools, which were little more than community colleges. When teacher training programs became part of universities, they were looked down upon by the university community. As a result education school professors had, and in many cases still have, an inferiority complex. They realized that if they devoted their efforts to training prospective teachers in the concrete skills needed to make teachers effective in the classroom; they would be written off by fellow professors as mere technicians. This is why they welcomed the abstract ideas of John Dewey.It is also why the conceptual frameworks, which are submitted for NCATE accreditation, are so replete with abstract and abstruse concepts. For example, nearly every conceptual framework rhapsodizes about the importance of teachers being reflective and being critical thinkers. This is intended to show that the training of prospective teachers requires far more that instruction in concrete teaching skills.It also means that prospective teachers never learn some of the most important skills they will need when they become teachers.

2. There seems to be a gross " disconnect " between the " profs " who are training teachers and what parents, principals and the public wants. How did this come about?

There are two distinct educational cultures, each with a different belief about the most appropriate purposes for schools. The first culture believes that the most important thing that our schools can do is ensure the academic achievement of their students.Based on this philosophy, an education system is effective to the extent that students are able to perform satisfactorily on academic achievement tests. The public, governors, and legislatures support this culture. A manifestation of this perspective can be seen in the existence of standards-based educational reform (SBER) in 49 of the 50 states. These states have defined what students are supposed to learn in the form of content standards, adopted assessment procedures to determine whether students have learned the content, established performance standards that define how well students are expected to perform, and implemented an accountability system to assign rewards and punishments to students, teachers, and schools.

The second culture is made up of education school faculties, NCATE, teacher education organizations, and most of the education staff at the state and district level. They reject academic achievement as the most important purpose for schools.They believe that goals other than performance on academic achievement tests should take precedence. Members of this second culture are committed to the achievement of a set of non-academic goals such as diversity, technology, critical thinking skills, and social justice.

3. Some theorists focus on the dissemination of knowledge, skills and information. Others focus on what is called a "constructivist" view of learning, where the student miraculously discovers for themselves important knowledge or concepts or data. Any proof as to which method is superior?

The determination of which of these two approaches is better depends on one's beliefs about the purpose of schools. If you think that a major purpose of our schools is increasing academic achievement, it is likely that you would favor the dissemination of knowledge, skills, and information. Constructivists do not believe that there is much value in academic achievement. They are much more concerned about non-academic skills such as diversity, the promotion of social justice and ensuring that students work well in groups. If you want the schools to emphasize non-academic skills, you are likely to find that the implementation of progressive/constructivist methods to be more effective.

4. The "Reading Wars" have been going on for some time now. What role do they play in this morass?

The most effective methods for teaching reading are well established.These methods were identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP) and include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. As convincing as the evidence is that these are the methods that should be used to teach reading, there are many who disagree. This is one of the most contentious issues in all of education. At one time, opposition to the methods advocated by the NRP was labeled whole language.That term has so many negative connotations that almost no one wants to be identified with it.

It has been replaced by other terms such "literacy," or the "balanced approach to reading. "Whole language is not actually an alternative method of teaching reading.It is instead the philosophical positions that children do not need to be taught to read. It is based on the romantic and incorrect belief that learning to read is a natural process like learning to speak and that attempts to teach it only interfere with what should be a natural process.

When students arrive in first grade already able to read, this approach seems to work okay. For the substantial percentage of children who either have low aptitude for reading and/or come from families where they have not had much experience with books before coming to school, this approach can be disastrous. They stumble along for a couple years until they are diagnosed as having a learning disability. The well established methods recommended by the National Reading Panel, systematically applied from the time a child arrives in school can work wonders.For the most part, these are techniques either ignored in education schools or they are openly reviled.

5. Now, let's talk about the "Math Wars". What are the two (or more) sides and what does each side seem to propose?

The math wars are similar to the reading wars.There are educators on one side who believe that math performance can be measured by standardized tests and that the goal of schools should be to increase academic achievement in this subject. Just as was true in reading, those on the other side are not concerned much with academic achievement. They believe that other nonacademic issues are more important.

During the eighties, there was considerable concern about the need to improve the nation's educational performance. National standards and a national exam were proposed as strategies for addressing this problem. These proposals never got far because of the vast diversity in educational programs across the country. The concreteness and hierarchical structure of math make it a subject that seems appropriate for national standards.It is possible to define a hierarchy of math skills from recognition of numbers, counting, adding two digits, all the way through long division, fractions, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. When the National Council of teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) first proposed the creation of national math standards, the news was received with optimism. National standards in math seemed to be a feasible and useful idea. Unfortunately, ideology intruded and the setting of math standards was distorted by the commitment of the standard's authors to multiculturalism and radical constructivism.

A major purpose of the NCTM standards was the redefinition mathematics as a way to correct social inequities. The authors of these standard asserted that traditional mathematics instruction was a vehicle for the perpetuation of privilege.

They pointed out that math performance often functions as a gatekeeper, preventing students with poor math ability from advancing academically. Acceptance into college programs and jobs often depends on a student's success in acquiring high level functioning in math. Socio-economic level and ethnicity seem to play a large part in determining the level of mathematical proficiency a student can reach.

The authors of the NCTM standards were determined to develop a standard-setting process that did not overly favor students who had mastered math fundamentals. The standards specifically state, "…no student will be denied access to the study of mathematics because of a lack of computational facility (p.124). "To its authors, it seemed unfair that some students, too often those from white middle-class backgrounds, were able to advance into higher levels of math and then reap the opportunities this provided while other students never got that opportunity.Besides, some of the most important and fundamental math skills are not even acquired in the classroom. For example, students often learn their multiplication facts at their kitchen table with their mother drilling them with flash cards until they have them mastered.From a multicultural perspective, this is unacceptable because of the large number of children who do not have a mother at home available to do this drilling. Unless all children have the opportunity to learn these fundamentals at home, no students should be required or even allowed to do so. Besides, with the widespread availability of calculators, there is no need for any student to go through the arduous process of memorization.

The authors of the NCTM standards wanted a math instruction curriculum that would allow all students to do high-level math without mastering "low level" problem solving skills.To achieve this goal, the 1989 NCTM math standards decoupled advanced math performance from the mastery of math fundamentals. They did this by adopting a radical a constructivist instructional philosophy, which eliminated traditional algorithms for performing such mathematical operations as long division, multiplication, and dividing fractions. Instead of requiring students to learn these algorithms, they gave students the opportunity to "discover" creative ways of finding the answers. Supposedly, they could acquire fundamental math skills along the way to discovering how to solve higher level problems.

6. Now, let's define some terms. What do you understand the words "critical pedagogy" to mean. Please give us your definition, rather than having our readership "construct" an understanding of the term themselves.

Critical pedagogy is an educational policy based on the belief that we live in a deeply flawed society rife with racism, sexism, homophobia, and social injustice. Capitalism is identified as the main culprit.Educationally, critical pedagogy asserts that educational efforts should focus on social justice and emphasize the collective rather than the individual.

A policy recommendation congenial with critical pedagogy would be the demand that school counselors not address the problems of individual students because to do so only puts a band-aid on the problem.It is considered far better for the counselor to work for social justice in the community.

Critical pedagogy is a favorite topic of a small but influential group of educators in education schools. The lack of wider dissemination is the result of its elitist and obscure tenets.Critical pedagogy literature tends to be nearly unreadable. The authors of articles on this topic write in ways that make it extremely difficult to understand. They seem to believe that if the reader can't understand it, they are likely to conclude that the writing is brilliant rather than nonsensical.This is usually the wrong conclusion.

7. As a former teacher, I certainly wanted my students to become good citizens, good member of the community, law abiding citizens, and productive workers. Yet, I also wanted them to be able to read, think, do math, know some history and geography, perhaps appreciate music and art and be physically fit. Can these two goal areas be simultaneously worked on in the schools or are we expecting too much?

We want so much from our schools. They can do a lot, but they are often hampered by ineffective instructional methods.NCTM math and whole-language are just two of these. Furthermore, if schools are supposed to solve all of our society's problems before they teach anything else, students are likely to graduate without acquiring the knowledge and skills that we expect schools to provide.

8. What role do you think NCATE (National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education) plays in our current quagmire and what role in your mind should it play?

The success of our schools is a function of the quality of teachers and education schools play an important role in determining that quality. NCATE has a negative effect on the functioning of education schools. The NCATE standards make it clear that academic achievement is not important. While it is difficult to find a sentence in the NCATE standards that does not include the word "diversity," the term "academic achievement" is not to be found.

Only about half of all education schools are NCATE accredited and in states where accreditation is not mandated, it is the more highly rated and flagship schools that are not accredited. Every state has accrediting procedures and even if they do not mandate NCATE accreditation, they use those standards. Across most disciplines, accreditation is an indicator of quality, but this is not the case for NCATE because it encourages inappropriate educational philosophies and ineffective instructional methods.

Universities and colleges need to be accredited by regional accrediting bodies.Because it is so difficult to evaluate the quality of different academic disciplines, the regional accrediting agencies rely on using the percentage of programs that are accredited as one means of evaluating universities and this in turn forces the universities to pressure education schools into becoming NCATE accredited. As a result, you have one set of state agencies sending the message that there should be a focus on academic achievement. They enforce this by implementing an accountability system based on performance on standardized academic achievement tests. At the same time other agencies mandate accreditation by an organization that disdains a commitment to academic achievement.

9. Now, let's talk about your state - North Carolina and what is happening there. Are the colleges and universities really doing a good job of preparing teachers and what do they need to change or refocus on?

In the paper I wrote for the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy (http://popecenter.org/inquiry_papers/article.html?id=1949), I assert that the educational problems found in North Carolina are the same as those to be found in most other states.Like most states, education policy in North Carolina is schizophrenic. On one hand, the General Assembly in response to concern about the slow pace of educational improvements, directed the State Board of Education to develop the ABCs of Public Education, a plan centered on school accountability, which focuses on the basics of reading, writing and mathematics. At the same time, they require that the state's education schools be NCATE accredited.An examination of course syllabi and documentation of school policies indicates that about the only attention paid to North Carolina's accountability system is criticism. Teachers are taught in their education schools that academic achievement is not important and end up teaching in schools where they quickly find out that the most important thing they have to do is ensure their students have high performance on the state's accountability tests.

10. We have an election coming up. Do you think that a change in educational policy will be forthcoming or do you see "business as usual "?

It is a little difficult to figure out what is going to happen.Both candidates, of course, are trying to say what they believe will garner the most votes. Neither candidate seems to be saying what will make advocates on either side of the major educational issues happy.

One way to gain a little insight into what may be going to happen is to look at the principal education advisor for each candidate. While each has many education advisors, they each have one that seems to stand out from the others. For McCain, it is Lisa Graham Keegan, the former Arizona Superintendent of public education.

She is a strong supporter of education accountability and the need for schools to focus on academic achievement. Obama's primary advisor seems to be Linda Darling Hammond.She is a very strong supporter of NCATE and education schools as presently constituted. Interestingly, some of the more extreme believers in critical pedagogy and opponents of NCLB are unhappy with Obama's reliance on Linda Darling Hammond, asserting that she is not sufficiently radical.

Published August 25, 2008