Grantcoulson's Blog

       Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    Education, being a publically-funded enterprise, goes through periodic fads without empirical validation because of that endless stream of money not contingent upon success. The latest is the “development of critical skills”. This is bold talk from a system that has trouble teaching multiplication. Naturally, reform is imminent and always makes things worse. The latest is the 21st century skills model–isn’t that modern? Always dress nonsense in irrefutable words like 21st century. Who would want the old-fashioned 20th when the 21st is available? The reform is based on the assumption that public servants in charge of public schools could possibly know what skills are necessary in anything but public service–a pretense which is consistent, persistent, and without virtue. If the 21st century skills prevail, and how fads prevail is a study on its own, I can guarantee that not even a small part of will be tested on students.

    In spite of lack of success, education is full of itself. “At its fullest and best, education prepares us to be with others and apart, to enjoy the life of the mind to survive and prosper, to bring up new generations, to act with integrity and conscience, to pursue useful and interesting work, and to participate in civic and cultural action and thought.”  Education, apparently, can do everything.  After that, I’m sure education will rest.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    Sometimes, the world offers unbidden examples. Yesterday, I talked about the accomplishments of Siegfried Engelmann and John Saxon, two “outsiders” of the educational establishment who have done more to advance educational practice than the combined efforts of the hundreds of thousands of government-paid and sponsored workers and the hundreds of schools of education. Here is an example from the DI listserv. The original articles are here,   and also here.     Generally, newspaper articles are not my prime source of educational data, but these articles represent outcomes which are consistent with “harder” data, data I have collected and personal experience. Look for one child’s comment about the frog. Notice that this school turnaround follows the model I presented earlier. It’s not my model and I don’t take credit: Change the curriculum, change the teaching model and set the culture of the school to success.

    These are some excerpts:

     “At the start of this year, a staggering 178 out of 193 Prep to Year 7 students in Aurukun and Coen could not read above the kindergarten level.”

    This is the baseline.

      “The method taught at the trial Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy in Aurukun and Coen is radically different from the one in Education Queensland schools.”

    Naturally, it would have to be radically different from the techniques which didn’t work.

      “Under the method – called direct instruction – students are tested every 10 lessons to see if they have mastered a level.

      Classes are arranged according to achievement level and not age.”

    Notice it’s the teaching which is tested, not the students. Students are placed by skill, not grade level.

    “In Sarah Travers’s kindy class, she wears a microphone around her neck to amplify her voice for children with chronic ear infections. It seems to work, because her 10 five-year-old students sit attentively on the floor, calling out sounds as she points to phonetic symbols in a book. At 1.45 pm at the tail end of a busy school week, their concentration and focus is remarkable.

       In another classroom, children are sounding out words as the teacher clicks her fingers rhythmically to speed up their voices so that the sounds soon join up to become a fluent word.

    Colleen Page, a 24-year-old teacher from the Sunshine Coast, in her third year at Aurukun, says the change DI has had on her pupils is marked. ”They thrive on it. It’s really good to compare the last two years with this year … Previously the kids would be running around your classroom … not listening. Now they’re confident about participation in class.”

     She tells the story of the eight-year-old boy who came to her one morning proudly telling her how he had applied his previous day’s lesson. ”Miss, I saw a frog, and I said, ‘You are an amphibian. You are born in water and raised on land.”’”

   And there you have it. The educational establishment was brought kicking, spitting and screaming to this implementation, inveighing constantly that the resistance was “all about what’s good for kids.”    This was in Australia, but government bureaucracies are about the union members, never the children.  You can have a government job or respect.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    There is a scramble in the U.S. to “save teaching jobs”. Why? Why are government jobs sacred?

    
    Nothing worthwhile will come of this discussion until it is realized that, factually, the Saxon and Direct Instruction (Engelmann) programs produce far better results than the standard programs. As I have said before, one could only do worse by trying really hard. The operative words are far better, as shown earlier in this blog. Without real results, any discussion is like most discussions about governments services, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. City Springs students went from the 9th to the 79th percentile in math and from 14th to 87th in reading. Saxon results, in mathematics have been similarly substantial.

    John Saxon, alas deceased, and Siegfried Engelmann, still going strong, are two gentlemen who exemplify my theory of Individual Striving being superior to the efforts hundreds of government collectives–to wit, government-sponsored schools of education.

    A few of the parallels between these two men.

    The most important, by far, is that they demanded results. Form was not important, function was. This is the guiding light of all doers. Naturally, the only important aspect of government activity is form.

    The second, very important commonality, was that neither had received formal training, or indoctrination, in what passes as educational theory. This changes every decade or so, but the results don’t get better. To get a government job, of course, you have to have the right credentials. Neither of these gentlemen would qualify.

    The third is that they disregarded any notion of political correctness, social justice or any of the constricting brakes on activity to which government agencies adhere. Being constricted by nonsense leads to nonsense and is like running with one shoe off.

    The fourth is they regarded a subjects as a unified activity, not, like government-sponsored education, as a patchwork of things to be covered. While government education talks of critical thinking and big ideas, it neither practices nor teaches, either.

    The fifth is that they actually tested their programs on students in terms of the understandability and usefulness of instruction. The usual number of students tested for textbooks published by a panel of experts working for a big textbook publishing company is zero.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

        Continuing Hayes’s comparison of Saxon (S) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (N) approach to teaching mathematics from: .A Math Warrior’s Almanac, by Nakonia (Niki) Hayes and available at nakonia69@saxonmathwarrior.com

S– Uses weekly, cumulative, objective tests of
computation, word problems; allowed
immediate remediation.

N–Uses chapter tests; remediation on past
concept, if done, required through supplemental
materials as new concept also being
learned.

In standard teaching, remediation is reserved for summer school where passing usually requires staying alive until the end.

S– Uses no pictures in order to give more
space for short, declarative sentence
explanations of how to work problems; uses no
color to distract learners.

N– Uses lots of pictures to show political
correctness of girls, minorities, handicapped
children; uses much color for attention
purposes; requires literary style of writing
with in-depth descriptive explanations of
answers; uses excessive wording.

The fewer the words, the greater the power.

S– Uses integrated mathematics topics in
secondary textbooks (algebra, geometry,
trigonometry); vertically aligned series assures
K-12 knowledge base.

N– Used integrated general studies within
mathematics to show math in the “real
world,” grades K-12; one vertically aligned
series not available (different publishers for
elementary, middle, high school series).

The language of instruction skips around from vague to vague.

S–Uses “differentiated” instruction by
offering peer tutoring and teacher assistance
each day; manipulatives used in grades K-3.

N–Uses differentiated instruction based on
multiple intelligences theory; focuses on
project-based learning, manipulatives;
requires excessive class preparation/time.

Sorting spaghetti elbows and counting them requires a lot of time. Mathematics is a conceptual exercise, not a lame, “real-world” application. After a student can do it, the student gets the extension to measurement and money.

S– Uses child-centered classrooms; teacher directed
through facilitation of his/her individual support of students.

N– Uses child-centered classrooms; teacher
facilitators guided by students’ decisions.

The facilitator function has never worked, but lives in theory.

S– Determined results and effectiveness of
product with teacher-designed and/or
standardized tests in a wide variety of
settings. First field test monitored by
Okla.’s American Federation of Teachers.

N– Determined design of product by using
“meta-analysis” and research literature
reviews which contained no primary
analyses of intervention effectiveness. No
field test(s) offered of product.

Because if effectiveness were measured and used as a real criterion, what passes for teaching in public schools would be rejected forthwith.

S–Developed significant history and pattern
of success stories with product from educators,
parents; both quantitative and qualitative
results available from 1981 to present.

N–Developed no significant history or
pattern of success; parent revolts developed
against products; anecdotal evidence proving
negative results.

Parents are smarter than public educators, but just about everyone is.

S–Has received recognized peer-reviewed,
published results proving efficacy of
product.

N–Has not received recognized peer reviewed
publications on positive results.

That pesky effectiveness thing again.

S–Allows creativity to spring from well
developed minds.

N– Requires supplementation of basic skills
that takes from “creative thinking” time.

Creativity is a red herring. The vast majority of people aren’t creative and don’t need to be.

S–Believes results matter; equity comes
immediately.

N–Believes equity matters; excellence
comes eventually.

Political results, never measured, take precedence over everything which means that INTEND is everything and DOES (results), nothing.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

   From:A Math Warrior’s Almanac, by Nakonia (Niki) Hayes and available at nakonia69@saxonmathwarrior.com

    The first 10  comparison points for Saxon’s math (S) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (N) math.

S– Written and financed ($80,000) by one
author; allows personal responsibility,
accountability for product.

N– Written by committees (up to 24 authors for one book*); financed by $83 million (NSF) from 1990-99; prevents personal responsibility, accountability for product.

    Responsibility is a word as constantly used as it is constantly ignored. in public schooling. No consequences equals no responsibility.

S– Designed to develop success among ALL
students; not focused on “learning styles” of
specific “non-performing” subgroups while
ignoring other groups (white males and
Asians).

N– Designed to bring egalitarianism to
mathematics classes by teaching girls and
minority students (excluding Asians) to use
math in everyday settings and to “like” math; thus hoping for more proficient performance.

    The same standards and teaching methods for everyone.

S– Designed to build foundational skills that
allowed success in everyday life plus
preparation for study in higher math and
science classes

N– Designed for general studies; does not
include preparation for the hard sciences.

    Foundational skills versus random presentation.

S– Created as skill level, not grade level, books from 6th – 12th grades; uses homogeneous grouping both in or outside of classroom.

N– Designed for heterogeneous grouping;
different activities for different skill levels
within each grade level; no pullout sections
or classes for low or high students.

    No better way to bore fast students and lose slow students than heterogeneous grouping. No wonder it’s so popular with those who don’t have to care.

S–Developed revolutionary text book for
analytical learning of mathematics concepts
for incremental development, which allows
evaluative activities and immediate
reinforcement of positive skills.

N–Developed documents from reports,
theories, and laboratory research regarding
social science and cognitive science beliefs
about “learning styles” to bring social equity
in math instruction for girls and minorities.

    The NTCM approach is so bizarre that I cannot find a place to start criticizing it.

S–Uses internationally-accepted algorithms;
required carefully planned repetition (practice), some memorization; paper-and-pencil tasks; did not use calculators in elementary grades.

N–Based on constructivism, discovery-based learning, inventive algorithms not usable in advanced high school or in college math; promoted use of calculator in elementary grades rather than repetition (drill) or memorization.

    If you don’t have to produce results, one kind of nonsense is just as good as another.

S–Develops single, daily lessons in continual
review format; 85% homework of review, 15% of new topic; no “hunks” (chapters) that teach one concept and leave it until test time, which creates “learning dips” as new material must stop for reviews of past learning.

N–Uses chapter format with extended review times that stalls new learning; requires supplemental materials on basic skills and more expense for school in teachers’ time and building funds.

    Cumulative review is one of the best ways to teach mastery. Naturally, this powerful method is ignored by public schoolers.

S–Requires specific, daily homework.

N–Requires no specific homework.

S–Requires limited teacher training; saves on school expense.

N–Requires extensive teacher training;
more expense for school.

S–Requires no parent training.

N–Requires extensive parent training;
more expense for teacher/school.

    Lots of reasons here for Saxon to be superior. Not much wonder that it is.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    John Saxon was a retired fighter pilot who became interested in mathematics K-!2 education. His programs were universally successful when compared to those of the costly, and lavishly funded programs adhering to the usual, dismal, politically correct, social justice-supporting principles of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Tomorrow, I will use the following book on Saxon’s life and work to compare and contrast these two approaches. They are the polar opposites of one another. Today, I will look at some of Hayes’s “Saxonisms” gleaned from his writing.

        The book is .A Math Warrior’s Almanac, by Nakonia (Niki) Hayes and available at nakonia69@saxonmathwarrior.com. You can get this book in pdf form. Not as sexy as Kindle, but just as useful.

Saxonisms

     “Results, not methodology, should be the basis of curriculum decisions.”

      You’d think, but remember public education is, by its nature, political and politics universally supports nonsense.   

“Creativity springs unsolicited from a well prepared mind.
Fundamental knowledge is the basis of creativity.
Creativity can be discouraged or encouraged, but creativity cannot be taught.”

     In spite of its constant yammering about creativity, public education equates it with random, “cute” nonsense.

“Problem solving is a process of concept recognition and concept application.
Problem solving is merely the application of previously learned concepts.
The “art” of problem solving cannot be taught.
The use of productive thought patterns can be taught,
but the act of “critical thinking” cannot be taught.”
.
      Again, critical thinking is worshiped as an INTEND goal, not an IS result.

Mathematics is an individual sport and is not a team sport.

      No comment–self-evident.

Students do not detest work; they detest effort without purpose.

      Try working at something at which you rarely succeed and you’ll understand.

    That’s enough for today. More day after tomorrow.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

      The quote below is from: A Math Warrior’s Almanac, by Nakonia (Niki) Hayes and available at  nakonia69@saxonmathwarrior.com.

“A startling claim against the fad of “learning styles”

    Not too startling because learning styles, like all widely-held education theory, is nonsense. The reason that it’s nonsense is that no one has ever designed a curriculum based on learning styles which is superior to one not so based. Never mind, when your flow of money is independent on performance, you can do whatever you want.

      “• A truly profound new argument was offered in September 2009 that can crack the whole foundation of the NCTM philosophy that centers on “learning styles” of girls and minorities (except Asians). It is of major significance for those who oppose the reformists’ ideas about how to teach all students, including those in mathematics.

     The NCTM followers have clearly worried more about satisfying politically correct ideological beliefs than about teaching an internationally-based discipline of mathematics. The NCTM 1989 Standards therefore had built its entire publication on the  idea that students had to be taught according to their learning styles. They denigrated  mathematics education as having, historically, written curriculum that met white males’ learning styles and who learned differently than girls or minorities (especially African Americans). Asians, they concluded, learned like the white males.

      This in turn produced a major cottage industry in teacher-training materials for “differentiated instruction.” Only by teaching to students’ different intelligences and “natural” abilities would egalitarianism ever be achieved for girls and minorities in math classrooms, they said. They claimed that girls and minorities learned through inductive reasoning, hands-on projects, looking at the “bigger picture” of concepts, and using lots of verbalization. White boys and Asians, however, learned deductively and analytically by looking at the parts of concepts; they were more interested in results that processes.

    They, as a result, weren’t of much interest to the NCTM as they published their national standards for American schools. John called their beliefs and actions racist and sexist. University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham has now announced this embedded dogma of “learning styles” in schools of education and among most teachers is not provable. Researchers have been conducting experiments on learning  styles for 50 years, he said, and, “There just doesn’t seem to be much evidence that kids learn in fundamentally different ways.” He agreed that it is true that some lessons click with one child and not another, but that is not because of an enduring bias or predisposition in the way a child learns.

      Then he gives a powerful explanation about children’s learning, in general: “The lesson clicks or doesn’t because of the knowledge the child brought to the lesson, his interests, or other factors.”

     Rather than “celebrating the differences” among children, Dr. Willingham also says the learning styles theory is used to categorize students, which in itself is a waste of time because the categorizations are useless for teachers who are planning lessons for them. For one thing, it is hard to know if the categorizations are correct, he said. For another, it takes up a tremendous amount of teacher time to design different lesson activities just to satisfy an idea that Dr. Willingham says has “an utter lack of evidence to support it.” “

   Aside from that pesky “lack of evidence” thing, all the assumptions of mainstream education are just fine.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

      Do not think about, write about or deal with human behavior without determining the effects of incentives

     More from:

A Math Warrior’s Almanac, by Nakonia (Niki) Hayes and available at nakonia69@saxonmathwarrior.com

     “John warned against teachers falling into the trap of giving multiple problems—even 100—on one concept when trying to get students to learn that concept. He was frustrated that teachers had been led to confuse the words drill and practice, which he explained are not the same thing. His two favorite analogies to clarify the differences ofdrill and practice were music and sports. He said, for example, that sports and music require both drill and practice. “Van Cliburn practices the piano scales every day. He practices a piece he’s been playing for 10 years. Surely he knows which note follows which note by now. He will say, ‘I’m practicing shadings, tonings, the nuances, and the interpretations.’

      “You have to have the notes automated,” explained John, “so you can focus on the higher uses of the notes.” Then he would ask, “Can you imagine how long a football coach would last who taught blocking the first week and then never brought it up again for several weeks, or tackling the second week and never brought it up again for several weeks? How well could his team play the game at the end of the year?”

     To John, this was a basic flaw in American education programs: “In fundamentals, we haven’t helped kids automate their skills.”14 Then, thinking out loud about his opponents, John would say he wasn’t sure they even knew what the fundamental skills are.

    “A firm footing in the fundamentals prepares them to handle the theoretical for all disciplines,” John insisted. “A similar principle applies not only to other sciences, but to the humanities as well. Students who practice diagramming sentences and who write numerous essays, book reports, and stories are better equipped to debate literature. Students who memorize names and dates and speeches and documents are better equipped to debate history.””

Comments are unnecessary except I agree

Cheerio and ttfn,

Grant Coulson

Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies