Thread: Saving the theory

In short: yes.

Longer: IMHO those in power in education who try to fix it are attempting to fix the wrong things. Academic achievement issues will not be corrected by a schedule or change in grade structure of buildings, or teaming or looping or whatever organizational tool happens to be the most popular at the time. The problem which is being ignored is that education hasn't really changed in over 100 years. Educators might know a lot more about children or how children learn and they may teach in different ways than others in the past, but what hasn't happened is the passing on and refinement of lessons which are proven to be most effective in educating the child. I am not speaking of philosphical "best practices" but of specific lessons. When one argues over philosphical best practices (like direct instruction, or inquiry, or the socratic method, or etc...)that is akin to doctors arguing over surgery vs medicine. They are both/all appropriate depending upon the specific desired outcome. The same is true in education, it isn;t eithor/or but which for this specific piece of content I want the kids to learn. Here is where the rubber meets the road, or doesn't in education. Once it is decided which approach is most appropriate for this specific lesson, there is no standard operating procedure to teach that lesson which has been demostrated to be effective in most cases. As professionals we would use our expertise to adapt and adjust when complications arise. But we don't. Instead we still try to reinvent a lesson to teach a specific concept. We may beg borrow and steal ideas from other teachers and this is the problem. We do not have any lessons as a profession which are the standard by which we begin. This is akin to doctors who, once it is decided surgery is the best option, sitting down and designing the surgical procedure based on their knowledge of the human body. This is not done. Yet in education, this is how we operate (pun intended). So my long answer is also yes. The problem isn't so much design of the schools, but of how we as a profession have a system which does not design any methods which are proven effective and used as a standard operating procedure. These are not passed on to teachers entering the profession, they and us have to develop our own. IMHO this is the big elephant which is keeping education in the 19th century.

I know I will offend many by the post and it is easy to pick at individual statements I have made. But the big picture is hard to deny, we have not evolved even with the increased knowledge that science has provided us. We think we individually have, but sytemically we haven;t.

I'm inclined to disagree with some of what you said- I'm not sure there is a uniform method by which all can be instructed. Part of our art as teachers is selecting the one that works in a particular time and place. Physicians and scientists are bound by the physical parameters of the human body, chemicals, and tools. We are bound by both concrete factors (politics and money) and abstract ones (psychology, religion, various other nebulousness associated with humans). As we are flawed, a perfect education system will always lie beyond our grasp. As far as the system being flawed yep, we could do things differently. Where I think the system is gone bad, is that we have been tasked to do things that should not be done by educators- become surrogate parents in many cases, and in various social engineering experiments. The original mission- transmit knowledge- is possible. A lot of other things- attempting to gain equal outcomes with students of disparate abilities- are not.
Of course, here's something else- perhaps the biggest flaw is a lack of consensus on the nature of the problem- look at this thread.

I am not advocated a uniform method for all. But a uniform method which is the starting point. I often retuen to the parallel of doctors since the variables are so similar. We are talking about unique individuals, but the basic physical body and mind operate the same way. We can (but we don't) develop a specific lesson to teach a concept to a student which will work most often (statistically) if it doesn't we have other methods to employ. This is precisely what is done by doctors, except they do not design a brand new procdure as a new doctor, they use what has been shown to be effective. As educators we are expected to reinvent that starting point with each new person entering the profession.

I disagree that the selection of the most appropriate method is an art, I see it a a science. The art comes in in how the science is applied. Just as a doctor has an artistic side. Perhaps the difference is I do see education as more of a science, and perhaps that is why I see most of what happens as needing to be fixed, since it is not a science in the way it is practiced. I agree the nature of the problem must be well defined. I was attempting to state what my belief is as to that problem. I suppose the problem as I see it, is we do not operate from a scientific perspective which expects specific results but from an artistic perspective which appreciates any results.