A Response to Justin's Response

I just read a good perspective from Justin Bathon over at "The Edjurist" that got my attention and maybe even a bit of ire. Some of the point is well taken, but some appears to be more of a "slight of hand type of move to focus on someone else, not me" thing. Please note that Justin is a respected blogger by many, including me. This time, though, I think he just has missed his normally high bar of expectation. Hey, that happens.

In his response was this excerpt:

How flippant, that combo of teachers' unions and ed schools. Are we to be demonized the same way as teachers' unions historically have been? Are we now officially part of the "problem" narrative in the media and amongst politicians? I have been noticing an uptick in the blame associated with ed. schools lately and this seems to be just the latest evidence in our eroding respect.

Justin, are you saying that the unions are "rightfully" demonized then? Politicians too, I would guess. I'm in administration, and frequently there are disagreements in philosophy. That doesn't mean they are clearly “the bad guys” it means they have their priorities and I have mine. At the same time, I have hired teachers that have been poorly prepared by higher education institutions for the current need. This basically means that in these three groups I have found a level of difference between their core beliefs and mine. None of these groups do I consider villains, but neither do I consider the masses of these groups representative of knights in shining armor. Sure there are some that are exceptions on both extremes. That's life. I always laugh, for example, at every movie that depicts the principal of a HS as a tyrannical moron, which is a vast majority of the movies I have ever found. Yep, those personalities are there, and maybe I'm one, but I don't really think to the degree that is depicted. I think on this one, Justin, tougher skin may be the answer for you.

Also, Justin, if you did check this out, I'd invite you to join in on a few of the conversations we're having here. We clearly don't have all of the answers, but I think you'll find honesty and daring in the conversations. We don't always make people happy, but I think we are pretty realistic and listen to other perspectives than our own. Love to have your perspectives on some of our topics as well, and thanks for your post.

Read more »

What Really is Important?

Currently there is a lot of good discussion about assessment of learning in our schools, and I would think it is with very good cause.  One part of this discussion is based on determining what information is truly valuable to assess - that educators should assess what is critical for long term retention and not worry about assessing that information that is more supportive and/or readily available.  It's a conversation that I've had many times and in many different ways, but copied below is one of the most recent I've had regarding the concept of whether a teacher should assess students on remembering the parts of a neuron as was originally posted on Dangerously Irrelevant.  The time and date are noted from Skype, and this is posted with the permission of my colleague.

[1/16/2010 3:30:48 PM] Marshall: I've been thinking on that Neurons one too. I have long said that we attend school through HS for the purpose of learning how we learn much more than the exact information.


[1/16/2010 3:33:29 PM] Colleague: I agree and disagree. I have lots of useless information that I can retain but for some reason labeling neurons and remembering exact dates and stuff were not my thing, but I do get the big picture most of the time and think that is the most important thing. But I do remember a discussion you had with me about calculators versus retained knowledge and see that side also.


[1/16/2010 3:35:36 PM] Marshall: We obviously do learn some things, and that is important. We'll keep what we use and the facts will fade when not used. Once leaving HS, though, the training becomes more geared toward what you will be doing every day and therefore re-enforcing in your own mind. That information will be necessary and applicable over time, unlike neurons will be to the majority of us.
 
The calculator discussion that was referenced above is basically an application of knowledge vs. technology supported application.  Essentially the question asked is:  Given a set of directions and outcomes necessary, would the individual with much knowledge retention be more or less effective and efficient (better employee, producer, worker, etc.) than a counterpart with less retention but strong technology skills?  I've not personally tried it, but I wonder what the outcome could be...hmmm...but I have digressed from the key questions which are being asked.

So ultimately are we able to say today (as we have said in the past) that knowledge is power?  Does that phrase need to be modified to reflect the fact that so much of what we consider knowledge is available with relative ease and speed?  Does having that knowledge (whether in memory or accessible through a computer) provide "power" for us?  Is knowledge now something that is simply expected to be provided to us for use in whatever manner we see fit?  Is there a minimum level of knowledge needed for all of us to know?  For some of us to know?  Does it depend on our specific culture, our political society, and/or our employment?

So, once again:  What really is important?

Read more »