Business   573557

« earlier    

Progressive Labels for Regressive Practices: How Key Terms in Education Have Been Co-opted - Alfie Kohn
[via: https://twitter.com/cblack__/status/1052629222089359361

"So here's the cycle:

1. Educators create valid term for needed reform.
2. Corporate/political forces co-opt term to sell bullshit to schools.
3. Regressive educators equate needed reform with bullshit "reform."
4. Needed reform is defeated & forgotten.

Example:

1. Educators advocate for differentiated/personalized learning as humane, relationship-based alternative to standardization.
2. Corporations co-opt term to sell algorithm-based-ed-tech bullshit.
3. Popular bloggers equate 'personalized learning' with edtech bullshit.
4. Public impression is created that 'personalized learning' is a negative, corporate-driven, bullshit concept.
5. Standardization prevails."

[my reply]

"“a dark commentary on how capitalism absorbs its critiques”" (quoting https://twitter.com/amandahess/status/1052689514039250945 ) ]

"“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

— Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass

“Whole language” (WL), a collaborative, meaning-based approach to helping children learn to read and write, emerged a few decades ago as a grassroots movement. Until it was brought down by furious attacks from social conservatives, academic behaviorists, and others, many teachers were intrigued by this alternative to the phonics fetish and basal boom that defined the field. More than just an instructional technique, WL amounted to a declaration of independence from packaged reading programs. So how did the publishers of those programs respond? Some “absorbed the surface [features] of WL and sold them back to teachers.” Others just claimed that whatever was already in their commercial materials — bite-size chunks of literature and prefabricated lesson plans — was whole language.[1]

Until you can beat them, pretend to join them: WL is literally a textbook illustration of that strategy. But it’s hardly the only one. For example, experts talk about the importance of having kids do science rather than just learning about it, so many companies now sell kits for easy experimenting. It’s branded as “discovery learning,” except that much of the discovery has been done ahead of time.

A teacher-educator friend of mine, a leading student of constructivism, was once treated to dinner by a textbook publisher who sought his counsel about how kids can play an active role in the classroom and create meaning around scientific ideas. The publisher listened avidly, taking careful notes, which my friend found enormously gratifying until he suddenly realized that the publisher’s objective was just to appropriate key phrases that could be used in the company’s marketing materials and as chapter headings in its existing textbook.

Or consider cooperative learning. Having students spend much of their classroom time in pairs or small groups is a radical notion: Learning becomes a process of exchanging and reflecting on ideas with peers and planning projects together. When we learn with and from one another, schooling is about us, not just about me. But no sooner had the idea begun to catch on (in the 1980s) than it was diluted, reduced to a gimmick for enlivening a comfortably traditional curriculum. Teachers were told, in effect, that they didn’t have to question their underlying model of learning; students would memorize facts and practice skills more efficiently if they did it in groups. Some writers even recommended using grades, certificates, and elaborate point systems to reinforce students for cooperating appropriately.[2]

In short, the practice of “co-opting” potentially transformative movements in education[3] is nothing new. Neither, however, is it just a historical artifact. A number of labels that originally signified progressive ideas continue to be (mis)appropriated, their radical potential drained away, with the result that they’re now invoked by supporters of “bunch o’ facts” teaching or a corporate-styled, standards-and-testing model of school reform.[4]

A sample:

* Engaging doesn’t denote a specific pedagogical approach; it’s used as a general honorific, signifying a curriculum that the students themselves experience as worthwhile. But these days the word is often applied to tasks that may not be particularly interesting to most kids and that they had no role in choosing. In fact, the value of the tasks may simply be ignored, so we hear about student “engagement,” which seems to mean nothing more than prompt or sustained compliance. Such children have internalized the adults’ agenda and are (extrinsically) motivated to complete the assignment, whatever it is. If the point is to get them to stay “on task,” we’re spared having to think about what the task is — or who gets to decide — even as we talk earnestly about the value of having engaged students.[5]

* Developmental originally meant taking our cue from what children of a given age are capable of doing. But for some time now, the word has come to imply something rather different: letting children move at their own pace . . . up an adult-constructed ladder. Kids may have nothing to say about what, whether, or why — only about when. (This is similar to the idea of “mastery learning” — a phrase that hasn’t really been co-opted because it was never particularly progressive to begin with. Oddly, though, it’s still brandished proudly by people who seem to think it represents a forward-thinking approach to education.[6])

* Differentiated, individualized, or personalized learning all emerge from what would seem a perfectly reasonable premise: Kids have very different needs and interests, so we should think twice about making all of them do the same thing, let alone do it in the same way. But there’s a big difference between working with each student to create projects that reflect his or her preferences and strengths, on the one hand, and merely adjusting the difficulty level of skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores, on the other. The latter version has become more popular in recent years, driven in part by troubling programs such as “mass customized learning”[7] and by technology companies that peddle “individualized digital learning” products. (I have more to say about the differences between authentic personal learning and what might be called Personalized Learning, Inc. in this blog post.)

* Formative assessment was supposed to be the good kind — gauging students’ success while they’re still learning rather than evaluating them for the purpose of rating or ranking when it’s too late to make changes. But the concept “has been taken over — hijacked — by commercial test publishers and is used instead to refer to formal testing systems,” says assessment expert Lorrie Shepard.[8] Basically, an endless succession of crappy “benchmark” standardized tests — intended to refine preparation for the high-stakes tests that follow — are euphemistically described as “formative assessment.” Too often, in other words, the goal is just to see how well students will do on another test, not to provide feedback that will help them think deeply about questions that intrigue them. (The same is true of the phrase “assessment for learning,” which sounds nice but means little until we’ve asked “Learning what?”) The odds of an intellectually valuable outcome are slim to begin with if we’re relying on a test rather than on authentic forms of assessment.[9]

* A reminder to focus on the learning, not just the teaching seems refreshing and enlightened. After all, our actions as educators don’t matter nearly as much as how kids experience those actions. The best teachers (and parents) continually try to see what they do through the eyes of those to whom it’s done. But at some point I had the queasy realization that lots of consultants and administrators who insist that learning is more important than teaching actually have adopted a behaviorist version of learning, with an emphasis on discrete skills measured by test scores.

You see the pattern here. We need to ask what kids are being given to do, and to what end, and within what broader model of learning, and as decided by whom. If we allow ourselves to be distracted from those questions, then even labels with a proud progressive history can be co-opted to the point that they no longer provide reassurance about the practice to which the label refers."
alfiekohn  2015  progressive  education  schools  schooling  schooliness  lesicarroll  humptydumpty  wholelanguage  cooption  language  words  buzzwords  pedagogy  differentiation  teaching  business  capitalism  formativeassessment  assessment  learning  howweetach  howwelearn  development  engagement  grassroots 
19 minutes ago by robertogreco
The Org Chart Test – Rands in Repose
Management types take this artifact for granted because we live it. Our day is full of travels across the org chart. It’s our mental map for the humans the and technology within our teams which means we both understand it and take it for granted. The vast majority of the humans in the organization do not have a daily need for org chart understanding, but when they do, your goal is instant maximum legibility.
business 
2 hours ago by sandykoe
The Titanic’s Legacy Is Likely to Belong to Hedge Funds Soon - The New York Times
Salvaged artifacts have been the focus of a tussle over who gets to own a part of the ocean liner’s history. They’re worth $19.5 million, at least. Some of the richest people in the world lost everything when the Titanic sank.
Archive  business  day  ifttt  nyt 
5 hours ago by satoyuta
Lakers were smart to lock in contract options for Lonzo Ball, Josh Hart, Brandon Ingram and Kyle Kuzma - Silver Screen and Roll
The Lakers secured their young core of Lonzo Ball, Josh Hart, Brandon Ingram and Kyle Kuzma for at least two more years, and they’ve set themselves up for a bright, not-so-distant future.
The Los Angeles Lakers announced they have picked up team options on the contracts for Lonzo Ball, Josh Hart, Brandon Ingram and Kyle Kuzma for the 2019-20 season on Thursday. The move might have been a no-brainer for the Lakers, but that doesn’t change how significant it was for the team’s future.
On almost any other team in the NBA, picking up the contracts for second and third-year players wouldn’t be such a huge deal, especially with late first-rounders like Hart and Kuzma, but the front office did such a sensational job of drafting players that are ready to contribute now that their contracts are already bargains.
Next season, Ball, Hart, Ingram and Kuzma will make a combined $19.8 million. That’s four quality NBA players for the price of one Tyler Johnson.
basketball  lakers  business  ingram  lonzo  kuzma 
6 hours ago by rgl7194
With Change Bubbling, San Francisco’s Chinatown Strives to Stay Authentic - The New York Times
In San Francisco’s Chinatown, where tradition is sharing space with modernity — think duck fat-infused cocktails alongside oolong tea — the community finds itself at a crossroads: trying to fend off gentrification while welcoming change.
Archive  business  day  ifttt  nyt 
7 hours ago by satoyuta

« earlier    

related tags

11  2015  2017  2018  academia  acquihires  addiction  advice  advocacy  akquise  alfiekohn  all  america  analytics  app  appengine  apps  april  arabia  architecture  archive  armstrade  article  assessment  austin  awslambda  baesystems  banks  barrons  basketball  bias  biz  blogs  bookmarks_bar  books  browser  bullshit  business  business_research  buzzwords  c-bus  cambodia  capitalism  chain  change_management  cheap  cloud  collaboration  columbuscrew  computers  condoms  consolidation  consultancy  consulting  conway  cooperatives  cooption  corporations  cpa  data  day  dependency  design  desktop  development  differentiation  disclose  donaldtrump  drupal  economics  education  employee  employees  encryption  engagement  engineering  enterprise  evc  event-planning  extensions  facebook  favorites  feedback  feeds  finance  financialstatements  floss  formativeassessment  fossilfuels  founders  free_themes  funding  funny  getrichslowly  google  gpl  grassroots  great_themes  healthcare  hiring  history  howto  howweetach  howwelearn  hr  humptydumpty  iftt  ifttt  impact  ingram  inspiration  international-development  internet  internets  investing  investors  issue  jitneys  jobs  khashoggijamal  knowlaboratories  knowledgeatm  kuzma  lakers  language  law  learn  learning  lesicarroll  life  lifestylebiz  lonzo  lovefirst  machine  management  manufacturing  marketing  measure  media  mls  mobile  money  mongodb  motivation  mt  need  negotiation  newyorkmagazine  nps  numbers  nursery-rhyme  nyt  oil  opensource  operations  organisation  organizing  parks  passwords  patents  pedagogy  people  personal  phnom-penh  pocket  politics  positioning  predictions  privacy  process  progressive  promotion  proposals  racism  reference  request  retail  risk  saas  saudi  saudiarabia  scale  schooliness  schooling  schools  science  security  self  senators  served  server  serverless  service  sex  small  smartphone  soccer  somedaymaybe  sons  sportsindustry  star  startup  startups  strategy  studio  subscription  tariff  tax  teaching  team  tech  technology  their  themes  these  things  three  ties  tips  to  to_read  tool  tooled  tools  top  trade  trump  uk  usa  use  uselist  vpn  web  wholelanguage  why  with  words  writing  yarn  youinc  フリーランス 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: