A plea to creative/holistic teachers and principals - is there anyone out there listening? Kelvin Smythe speaks out.

A brief personal statement on the holistic

By Kelvin Smythe

The holistic begins with a conception of the curriculum: a conception of it being a combination of the cognitive and affective; a conception of it being a combination of knowledges – teacher and academic; and a conception of the teaching and learning within it being organised by broad aims.

This conception of the curriculum has fundamental implications for school leadership and the education system – as well as the nature of teaching. The holistic curriculum requires for its well-being an extension to holistic leadership within schools and a holistic education system.

There is an urgent need for a holistic curriculum-driven leadership theory to be developed and advanced to challenge the control-driven leadership theory. Holistic curriculum-driven leadership theory leads to a democratic participatory education system; control-driven theory to a control curriculum.

Kelvin Smythe

Holistic curriculum-driven leadership starts with a conception of a holistic child-centred curriculum with the implications of that working upward through to the leadership; control-driven leadership starts with a particular concept of an adult-centred education philosophy with the implications of that working downward through to the curriculum.

Just as the current objective-based curriculum and control education system are different expressions of the same philosophy – a control one; so are the holistic curriculum and a democratic and participatory education system – a holistic one.

Time to focus on the NZC

 The holistic used to be the default position because the value base of the education system was the holistic – now it isn’t. The holistic, to be restored, must now be understood and committed to, not just taken for granted. The value base of the education system is now about control not the holistic, characterised by measurable knowledge organised linearly, using objectives; holistic knowledge is expansive knowledge organised by main aims and freely available for exploration within that.

Control knowledge in being measurable knowledge spurns the affective; holistic knowledge in being expansive knowledge embraces it. Control knowledge is instrumental; holistic knowledge is democratic and participatory. Control knowledge implies certainty and someone who knows; holistic knowledge implies openness and continuing collective exploration about what is known. Control knowledge because it implies certainty and someone who knows requires a hermetic system based on fear and dependence; holistic knowledge because it is about openness and continuing exploration requires trust and independence. Control knowledge is exclusivist and standardising; holistic knowledge is democratic and characterised by variety.

Because the holistic is about valuing variety; about democratic, participatory relationships – the holistic means the freedom to be holistic not the requirement to be so.

Student centred learning

Since the 1970s those who support the education of control, mainly the political right, have had the initiative in education, the political left, except when it implemented the education agenda of the right in the late 1980s, has been bereft of policy, mainly resorting to implementing a somewhat watered down version of control education. Complementing this lack of challenge to control education has been the ineffective opposition of teachers and principals and their organisations.

The organisations have occasionally been outspoken in opposing control education but, in the long term, ineffective, because a changed education system is not the absence of something but the presence of something better to replace it. The teacher organisations have been dependent, unsure, and lacking in philosophical depth, curriculum knowledge, and unity.

To answer the challenge of the dominance of control education, the holistic is required, only the holistic will challenge it, but knowledge of the holistic, confidence in the holistic, has been fragmented, cast in a bad light, and made forgotten.

Time to fight for holistic teaching!

Teachers have become bewildered participants in their own philosophical demise. Orwell wrote: ‘Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.’ Teachers have become bewildered participants in their own past being made forgotten. To affirm their knowledge and experience teachers need to agree on and reclaim their past. It is a prime source of holistic knowledge the proponents of control do not have access to. The past is not something ephemeral, it is something real that teachers can use as a way to avoid becoming overcome by the present and, in avoiding that, be better placed for the future.

My intention in writing this brief statement was to set out the situation as I see it, mainly leaving any implications to readers as they see it. If the situation as set out is close to the truth, for remedy, it calls for some extraordinary leadership.

Perhaps, I could conclude with a story from my own past when, in 1999, I spoke to a group of principals. My main message was that given the morally and ethically complex times ahead, principals, in doing what they had to do, needed to do that, but on the understanding that they retained, as part of their thinking, the idea that much of what they had to do was not in the best interests of children. They needed to make that distinction for their own integrity, and to be able to challenge that which was not in the best interests of children when opportunities arose. I looked into the principals’ eyes and saw incomprehension, diversion, and a glaze.

Time to see past National Standards

 With the Labour government set to take power (along with some other contributory factors), I decided, after ten years, to end publication of Developmental Network Magazine and campaigning for the holistic curriculum, and take a break.

If you want more to think about education as control read this brilliant blog by Alan Allach!

(Kelvin still intends to posts his thoughts as required – let’s hope he does so. Few voices speak out so loudly against the destruction of what was once was central in primary education.)

Seymour Papert : The obsolete 'Three Rs' - blocking real change in education

Seymour Papert

'Schools are still identified by the old turn of phrase ‘the three Rs’- reading ‘riting and ‘rithmetic', Seymour Papert

The 'three Rs' still reign supreme – more than ever in New Zealand  particularly since the introduction of governments National Standards in literacy and numeracy.

As one English educational commentator has written ‘the evil twins of literacy and numeracy have all but eaten up the entire curriculum. As National Standards are reported back to the Ministry of Education and then interpreted in a form of published school league tables it will be natural for schools to focus on doing well for their own survival and reputation. Forget for the moment that the standards are more ideological/political than educational. If you are interested in this issue read what Nigel Latta has written about them, or Lester Flockton’s comments on attempts to develop consistency between schools  

In countries that have taken reporting on student and school progress further by introducing high stakes national testing (the UK, Australia and the US) schools narrow their curriculums, teachers teach to the tests and there is a greater use of ability grouping. This is beginning to be seen in New Zealand. All this is ironic considering New Zealand scores higher in international tests than such countries!

The testing agenda, as long as the current government is in power, will continue to be extended and will become ‘the tail that wags the dog’; the default curriculum.

All this  Victorian emphasis on the ‘three Rs’  according to people like Professor Seymour Papert, a highly respected MIT expert in learning and computers, ‘expresses the most obstinate block to change in education’.’ The role of the basics’, he writes, ‘is never discussed; it is considered obvious’. As a result other important educational developments are being ignored.

Papert is not questioning the importance of ‘the Rs’- children cannot learn effectively in all curriculum areas without them but they need too be 'reframed' to be seen as foundation skills to allow students to learn rather than ends in themselves.  The 2007 New Zealand Curriculum, itself being side-lined by the emphasis on National Standards, states that students should be ‘active seekers, users and creators of their own knowledge’. It is developing the strategies and attitudes to be such seekers, users and creators that should be seen as the new basics; literacy and numeracy are important foundation skills to achieve such twenty first century skills.  The over emphasis on National Standards, (literacy and numeracy for their own sakes rather than a means to an end) become blocks to such future orientated lifelong learning skills.

This emphasis further hardwiring the use of ability grouping in these learning areas; grouping that has more to do with industrial age sorting and grading than developing positive attitudes for all students.  Future orientated educationalists are encouraging mixed ability, or inclusive, group work where students work to ‘seek, use and create their own knowledge’ by working with others.  Interestingly there is no mention of the need for ability grouping, setting across classes or streaming in the

2007 New Zealand Curriculum. Such divisive approaches have their genesis in industrial age schools and, I believe, contribute to the growing ‘tail’ of underachievement in our schools. Students in the lower groups are not lacking in ability but in experience. The biggest ‘tails’ are to be seen in lower socio-economic schools – schools with large number of Maori and Pacifica children. What we really have is an ‘opportunity gap’; these children need a rich experience based curriculum, one that recognises and values their personal needs and gifts. Creative teachers, past and present, know about the power of an experienced based related arts programme.

Back to Papert, he writes, ‘by looking forward we can formulate new arguments beyond the imagination of 19^th century thinking, who could hardly have conjured images of images of media that would provide modes of accessing and manipulating knowledge radically different than those offered by the Rs. Nor could they have formulated by what I see as the deep difference between education past and future; in the past educational adapted the mind to a very restricted set of available media; in the future, it will adapt media to serve the needs and tastes of each individual mind’.

So an obsessive focus on National Standards looks back to the past while Papert (and the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum) look to the future.

Papert's latest book

Papert writes that he is not implying ‘that people will no longer need to read. But reading will no longer be the unique primary access road to knowledge and learning, and it should therefore no longer be the dominant consideration in the design of School’.

Demoting reading, and mathematics, from their privileged positions is one consequence of the new media. Papert writes, ‘a child who has grown up with the freedom to explore provided by such machines will not sit quietly through the standard curriculum dished out in most schools today. Already, children are made increasingly restive by the contrast between the slowness of school and the more exciting pace they experience in videogames and television. But this restiveness is only a pale precursor to what will come….’ Schools he believes will either change radically or collapse. Currently he believes schools are using new media to prop up what they have always done in the past and that media will change the concept of education by demoting its current core elements and he goes further to it will ‘call into question the very idea of an administered curriculum’.

In the past knowledge was handed out to children by teachers in subjects, by grade levels and tested for retention. In contrast young children learn through experience to talk (and to use computers) and this ought to continue at school as students are challenged by inter- connected learning experiences. This is resulting in a rethinking of the nature of knowledge – knowledge as means to do something. In this Papert is echoing the writings of Jane Gilbert,in her book ‘Catching the Knowledge Wave’, who sees knowledge as ‘a verb – a doing word’, and relates to the 07 NZC statement for students to be’ seekers, users and creators’. Knowledge is no longer ‘stuff’   known by expert adults or in book but a pattern of connections achieved in a non – linear fashioned by each learner in mode similar to young children exploring.

Papert writes that due to a lack of interactive exploring in schools many children ‘lose the taste for immediate exploring’.  The real tragedy of formal schooling is that after the ‘requisite number of years in the classroom is that many (or even most) children emerge without the intellectual spark with which all are born’. One quote of Papert’s I have always liked is ‘that all maths and science should be applied’ – all too often maths is anything but. Children need to be seen as active scientists, mathematicians, artists always extending their own knowledge – not following or complying with teacher requirements.

Papert sees a pattern of education cast in three phases.

Why is there water here?

The first phase is universally successful  pre-school learning based on interaction exploration of their immediate world with the diversity of activities great enough for different individuals to find their own styles – I would add the beginning of identify their own set of talents. Children as young scientists!

The second phase is the narrow and dangerous patterns offormal schooling where many factors conspire to undermine the continuation of phase one. School is often blamed for imposing on children a uniformity that suffocates them; much as it used to suffocate left handed people by forcing them to write properly.’ Most of the blame’, Papert writes, ‘is well founded.’ ‘As long as writing is the only medium in town, schools did not have many choices’.

‘The early and massive imposition on children of what I call “letteracy” supresses the earlier diversity of styles.’  New media offers new ways to be literate. ‘Literacy should not mean the ability to decode a string of alphabetical letters’ – there  are now a wide range of literacies available to explore and express learning experiences. ‘Students need to be able to choose their own routes to literacy’. This is in direct contrast with the current emphasis on standardisation through the imposition of National Standards.  Although the truly literate person of the future will be expected to know how to read it does not follow ‘that learning letters should be the cornerstone of elementary education’.

‘The third phase is seen in intellectually awake adults. Here we see a diversity of styles’ (and once again I would add talents).’But not everyone gets there’ due to failings of the formal school second phase.

Papert is arguing that modern information technology/media ‘demands serious thinking now’ even though what is currently available ‘gives only an inkling of what is to come, it should be seen in the light of the first flight of the Wright Brothers machine: its importance was not measured by its performance in feet of flight, but in its ability to fuel the well-informed imagination.’

So far there are very few school environments which are tapping such possibilities. Those who determine the educational establishment have ‘failed to provide leadership’

‘We need people who can see further into the future’ rather than politicians (in New Zealand) who want to take us back to the standardised straightjackets of the ‘three Rs’.

Educational Readings - alternative points of view!

By Allan Alach

I welcome suggested articles, so if you come across a gem, email it to me at allan.alach@ihug.co.nz.
 

This week’s homework!

 

 

Do Green Classrooms Lead to Artistic Teaching?

This is a superb antidote to GERM.

‘Cord Ivanyi’s idea about a fabric of connections moves us to consider the whole of teaching and not trying to break teaching and learning down into components, especially components that can measured.’

http://bit.ly/145WdQo
 

Bloom’s Taxonomy

This has been used for over half a century, in spite of some very valid criticisms made by many educational experts. The present emphasis on standardised learning, sequential achievement objectives, etc, is a descendant of Bloom. While Bloom has been adapted to guide thinking and questioning processes, this wasn’t his original intention.

‘If Bloom’s taxonomy were used just as a taxonomy—in other words a description of different types of thinking, I can see them as interesting and possibly useful. But generally they are used in the former way as developmental steps to be gone through, as Bloom designed them to be used.’

http://nicholasmeier.com/2013/08/05/blooms-taxonomy/
 

Put the Awe Back in "Awesome" -- Helping Students Develop Purpose (via Tony Gurr)

Awe inspiring

‘Here's how awe works: when we experience an inspiring work of art or a grand vista in nature, or when we learn a new mind-expanding theory, we often feel a sense of vastness that gives us a new perspective on the world and our place in it. These two steps make up the emotion of awe.’

This is the real job facing teachers - creating a sense of awe, or as another has put it, creating learning experiences of children that enable ‘mini-love affairs’ with something they have learned. You’ll all know the story - a child whose learning experiences develops into a life long passion and career. All in all, a long way from any notion of standardised learning.

http://bit.ly/13J85Ze

 

 

What Are the Risks in Using Data to Predict Student Outcome?

A thoughtful post by Annie Murphy Paul:

‘“Is it good to tell a first-grader, ‘You might be a dropout?’”

The obvious answer would seem to be: Uh, no. But when Thomas C. West posed this question recently to Education Week reporter Sarah D. Sparks, he had a genuine dilemma in mind. West, who is an evaluation specialist at Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, has devised a tracking formula that can predict, with startling accuracy, which students will drop out of high school—as early as their second semester of first grade.’

http://bit.ly/13ivNf8
 

Schools that Practice Learning-Literacy

David Warlick is yet another ‘must follow’ educator.

‘Teachers, who teach solely from their university experience do a disservice to their learners.  Teachers should model themselves as habitual and resourceful learners, and skilled artisans of what they’ve learned.  We must walk into our classrooms out of today, not from the day that they graduated.’

http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=4326

 

Book Review: Visible Learning

A much needed critique of John Hattie.

He’s not necessarily wrong, but if we cannot trust the average effect sizes he gives as evidence, and cannot sensibly compare them, we cannot make that conclusion from this data’

http://bit.ly/16sT5Rq
 

Can we trust educational research? ("Visible Learning": Problems with the evidence)

Staying with the ‘Hattie’ theme, here’s another critique. Convinced yet?

‘John Hattie seems to be a leading figure in the field, and while he seems to be a decent fellow, and while most of his recommendations seem somewhat reasonable, his magnum opus, Visible Learning, has such significant issues that my one friend who's a professional statistician believes, after reading my copy of the book, that Hattie is incompetent.’

And:

‘He essentially blames teachers for the fact that teaching is not more evidence-based, implying that if we hidebound practitioners would only do what the data-gurus like him suggest, then schools could educate all students to a very high standard.’

Music to GERMer’s ears!

http://bit.ly/17w9KCJ
 

 

Bruce Hammonds is an indefatigable reader of educational articles.  Here’s a couple of links from Bruce.
 

The Differences Between Projects And Project-Based Learning

‘There’s a big difference between using projects in the classroom versus project-based learning in the classroom. What are those differences, you ask?’

This article includes a very comprehensive table.

http://bit.ly/15P5nEJ

 

 

Project-Based Learning Research: Evidence-Based Components of Success

‘What boosts PBL from a fun and engaging exercise to a rigorous and powerful real-world learning experience? Researchers have identified four key components that are critical to teaching successfully with PBL.’

http://bit.ly/14lE3hI

Hekia may be right about students’ failing but her solutions are madness (and schools have a lot to learn as well)


( Hekia Parata is New Zealand's Minister of Education)



Listens to the wrong people

For a number of years the current National Government has been spreading the thought that one in five students are failing. The Prime Minister, prior to the last election, even went as far as to say that teachers are letting our children down.

Sends his kids to private schools

The answer to this problem, the government believes, is sorting out teachers, by defining National Standards, and holding schools accountable to achieving them – by grading students into ‘above’, ‘at’ or ‘below’ the standards at the appropriate level. Assessing students against these standards however is problematic. Schools select a range of tests, including teacher objective judgements (OTJs), to ascertain levels of achievement. This is difficult particularly if used to compare schools from different socio-economic areas (called deciles) to demonstrate which schools are failing Even the Prime Minister has said that the standards are, to use his word, ‘shonky’.

Now the Minister is trying to impose an even more ‘shonky’ sets of tests called a Progress and Consistency Tool (PaCT). Intended to be made compulsory (enabling school comparison) it thankfully, for the meantime, is to be optional.

Real educationalist

It all seems sensible to a public who haven’t had the information to consider the implications of such standards and testing. Recent statements by Nigel Latta and Lester Flockton and would be worth sharing with parents.  Also failing experiences of other countries using similar approaches – England, Australia and the US would be worth considering. In such countries schools have narrowed their curriculums to focus on the tested subjects (literacy and numeracy), in the process side-lining  other areas of the curriculum that many so called ‘failing’ students find success in. Probably the worst thing is that schools all but  ignore  developing the attitudes and dispositions required to thrive in an unpredictable and fast evolving future.

So Hekia is right to worry about the one In five failing but her methods are madness. Instead New Zealand needs to develop the gifts and talents of all students. As important as literacy and numeracy are they need to be seen as ‘foundation skills’ to enable students to develop their areas of personal interests. In this respect we need a personalised education system customising learning the needs of each learner not one that sorts, grades and standardises students.  Hekia's answer faces the past; schools, in contrast, need to face the demands of the future. Ironically the standards agenda is having the effect of side-lining the enlightened future oriented approach of the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum.

And Hekia (and neo –liberal politicians worldwide) is wrong to discount the effect of poverty on the achievements of her standards, believing that good teaching can make up any differences.  Evidently a breed of super teachers/schools can solve this problem – something no other country has achieved. And remember it is achievement measured only in literacy and numeracy – this brings us back to teaching to the tests. And also remember that New Zealand has traditionally scored well on international tests. And on top of this one of the highest scoring counties, Finland, achieves success without this obsession with testing and measuring!

The sad thing about all this is that primary schools are being forced into defensive mode ( this is where Hekia’s standards approach digs deepest) when the real area of disengagement of students is to be found in the13 to 15 year olds.

Primary schools need to see past the standards and believe that, if they were to present to their students opportunities to be creative, to identify and amplify the individual gifts students bring with them to their classes (or in some cases to set about helping their students rediscover talents ignored by previous teachers), their students would do well on any standards.

 ‘Failing’ students suffer more from an ‘opportunity gap’ than an ‘achievement gap’.

Pioneer creative teacher

 New Zealand has always had creative teachers to gain inspiration and courage from. It is to these people, past and present, that provide the real solution to Hekia’s one in five failing. The real experts in  developing such a creative system are innovative teachers. Such teachers  need to be identified and their expertise shared between schools.

Unfortunately most schools  are pressurized to implement practices that favour Hekia’s solution. Literacy and numeracy take up a lions share of available time, all too often detached from class and group inquiry topics. Pre-planned formulaic ‘best practices’ such as assessment criteria develop student conformity. In contrast creative classrooms integrate such areas in the service of achieving in depth inquiry studies focusing on individual children’s skills and understandings.

Jo Boaler

Along with this formulaic 'best practice'  emphasis the use of ability grouping (even setting across classes) in such areas  creates endemic school failure.  Ability grouping is an approach that suits teachers rather than learners (except those students in the higher groups). There are a number of research references describing the counterproductive effects of such grouping. Mathematician Jo Boaler is highly critical of ability grouping which has the power to turn students off maths for life. Three groups, it seems, do not fit all - once a weka ( a flightless bird) always a weka!

This is not to discount the idea that students come to any learning with a range of abilities – but that differences are more about lack of opportunity  rather than something innate. In any learning experience there will always be students (even small groups) in need of special help to learn the 'hard bits' but once this help is given then students should return to game of real learning. This approach is well described by David Perkins in his book ‘Making Learning Whole’. Successful countries like Japan, Korea and Finland also  manage to succeed without recourse to ability grouping.

 The key to success without crude ability grouping is to develop in all students a ‘can do mind-set’; a belief that with effort and practice  all can achieve. 'Learning power', according to Guy Claxton in his book ‘What’s the Point of School’, is what is required.

The importance of perseverance (often called grit) is the key to any successful creative individual. Such ideas are well described by Daniel Pink and Carol Dweck.

Any if anyone needs information on how to develop students’ gifts and talents then Sir Ken Robinson’s ideas are worth exploring. Check this list of books for further ideas.

So Hekia is right about too many students failing but wrong in her solution – and wrong in discounting the demeaning effects of poverty.

And schools are equally wrong to follow  her advice.

And primary schools are wrong if they continue with the status quo to implement ability grouping, streaming, or setting.

 And most secondary schools, with their antiquated, authoritarian, hierarchical  and industrial age settings are simply wrong – too academic, too fragmented, too streamed, to cater but for what they see as successful learners. Jane Gilbert in her book ‘The Knowledge Wave’ makes this very clear as does David Hood in his book ‘Our Secondary Schools Don’t Work Anymore’. 

 So Hekia is wrong – but so  it seems are schools.

New thinkingrequired.

 Business philosopher Peter Drucker has written that the first country to develop a 21stC education system will win the future. It won’t be with Hekia in charge and with schools too concerned with the present to notice the damage they are doing implementing the wrong solutions.

Tomorrow is a moving target we need new minds to ride the knowledge wave.

We need some real Tomorrows Schools!

Educational Readings - new thinking

By Allan Alach

THUNKS…for Teachers (this time)!

All teachers should reflect on these ‘thunking’ points that are raised by Tony Gurr….

I welcome suggested articles, so if you come across a gem, email it to me at allan.alach@ihug.co.nz.

 

This week’s homework!

How to Create Nonreaders: Reflections on Motivation, Learning, and Sharing Power

Another gem from Alfie Kohn.

“But if we're serious about helping students to fall in love with literature, to get a kick out of making words fall together in just the right order, then we have to be attentive to what makes these things more, and less, likely to happen.  It may take us awhile, but ultimately our classrooms should turn the usual default setting on its head so the motto becomes:  Let the students decide except when there's a good reason why we have to decide for them.”

http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/how-to-create-nonreaders-439.php

 

A Glimpse into the future of learning.

Here’s an interesting infographic.

http://bit.ly/18Cj8HY

Theories for the digital age: Connectivism

Steve Wheeler, discussing a 21st century learning theory. Do you agree? Is constructivism  dead, or is it part of connectivism? Behaviourism? Cognitivism?

http://bit.ly/1bsfpS2

Jo Boaler



Helping Children Love Mathematics  – Jo Boaler; and the need to question ability grouping in our schools. (via Bruce Hammonds)

Dan Murphy, the very competent principal of Winchester School (Palmerston North), made the decision a couple of years back, to break away from the Ministry of Education’s Numeracy Project, and for the school to develop its own mathematics programme. A major resource for this was the book ‘The Elephant in the Classroom: Helping Children Learn and Love Maths’. Dan lent this to Bruce Hammonds, who wrote this article. (NB Dan has contributed to Kelvin Smythe’s excellent booklets “The Primary School Diaries - Curriculum.”  ksmythe@wave.co.nz )

http://bit.ly/16bXcmN

Give Them a Hand: Gesturing Children Perform Well On Cognitive Tasks

‘Studies have shown that gesturing can help older children learn new math concepts, for example. "Really, though, there is evidence that gesturing helps with difficult cognitive tasks at any age.."’

Nah, politicians, economists, business experts and media moguls know the answer lies in didactic instruction and lots of testing.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130726191735.htm

11 things missing (via David Kinane)

“What follows are the first eleven things that leapt to my mind while sitting in a mainstream classroom that were utterly absent, and which I believe to be absolutely essential to any useful practice of education ….”

http://coopcatalyst.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/11-things-missing/

 

Pedagogy v Education

Australian educator Greg Whitby with some thought provoking observations. I may never use ‘pedagogy’ again!

‘Pedagogues are enthusiasts for measurement and precision and look for certain outcomes.  Educators assume that the most important elements in human life are uncertain and speculative, defying precise calibration.’

http://bluyonder.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/pedagogy-v-education/

Curriculum - Could a stitch in time save Finland's international rank?

‘Its education system has been hailed as the best in the world, but Finland is facing increasing competition in international league tables that compare performance in reading, mathematics and science. So how does the country respond? By voting for more time in the curriculum for non-academic subjects, including physical education, music, and arts and crafts.’

American 'bubble tests' - high tech!!!!!

Nah, they’ve got it wrong. Testing, testing and more testing is the answer…

What about this bit?

‘Ultimately, however, Finland is not concerned about being overtaken in international comparisons and it remains confident that its methods are right for students, she said.”

Right on!

http://bit.ly/1aY7PLc

Is Pisa fundamentally flawed?

The smoking gun, that destroys the basis for GERM!

‘They are the world’s most trusted education league tables. But academics say the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings are based on a ‘profound conceptual error’. So should countries be basing reforms on them?’

http://bit.ly/19yM8n0

 

Why We Need To Value Students’ Spatial Creativity

‘Not everyone is going to be an Einstein, Tesla, or Edison, but if we identify the many spatially talented students who have been neglected in our school systems we might discover many brilliant kids who are just waiting to develop their creative potential.  We need to help them.  After all, we will ultimately depend on their visions to help create our future.’

http://bit.ly/1aXLeyf

 

How Thinking in 3D Can Improve Math and Science Skills (via Jedd Barlett)

‘All of us, children included, live in a three-dimensional universe—but too often parents and teachers act as if the physical world is as flat as a worksheet or the page of a book. We call kids’ attention to numbers and letters, but we neglect to remark upon the spatial properties of the objects around us: how tall or short they are, how round or pointy, how close or far. Growing evidence suggests that a focus on these characteristics of the material world can help children hone their spatial thinking skills—and that such skills, in turn, support achievement in subjects like science and math.’

http://bit.ly/1cj4zx4