Date: Feb 11, 2014 8:44 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: AP Calculus AB & AP Statistics & Math 2 Honors & Math 2 Standard?
Greg Goodknight posted Feb 11, 2014 11:59 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9383293) - GSC's remarks interspersed:
> On 02/10/2014 08:40 PM, GS Chandy wrote:
> > Indeed? So do explain to us just how, in your
> > opinion, "drowning the Harvard Graduate School of
> > Education like a kitten" might contribute to
> > improving the US educational system.
> Since you can't ask the long dead Harvard president
> why he said that,
> read E.D. Hirsch's "The Schools We Need...".
I have read it. In fact, I've *studied* enough of it to 'get the message' quite clearly. I dare even claim that I've 'got the message' rather better than have you.
There are certainly some good ideas (and some VERY good ideas) in there about getting yourselves the "schools you need in the USA". (This is despite the claim of Grant Wiggins that "It's time to retire E D Hirsch's tired refrains" - http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/its-time-to-retire-e-d-hirschs-tired-refrains/)
I observe that Hirsch observes correctly that US universities are generally much better than US schools - but his reasons *why* are not quite 'there'.
He also has some interesting things to say about 'US Exceptionalism' (though, interestingly, he calls it "American Exceptionalism"). You might like to imbibe some of these ideas.
I note: if you in the USA were actually to DO something (ANYTHING!) effective about "getting yourselves the schools you need", much of the rest of world would do that too, such is the 'soft power' of the USA today.
Alas, you obviously aren't doing any of that effectively at all!
As you probably know, the complete title of the book is: "The Schools We Need: And Why We Don't Have Them".
Question: Why - despite the book and the implied promise(s) in its title - don't you have the "schools you need" even now, 18 years or more after it was published?
Either (A): you are not listening (quite possible: in fact, US citizens DO NOT listen very effectively, in general [IMHO]); or
(B): the advice Hirsch tendered is not sound (in my opinion, much of the advice he tendered is entirely sound); or
(C):it's not practical (in fact, much of what he suggested is, indeed, quite practical - though he's not demonstrated any practical means whereby you can actually act on that advice)- or
(D): something (this is true enough. Probably the 'something' is mainly 'A' above).
(To the best of my understanding, Hirsch did not suggest that "BLOWING UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!" or "DROWNING THEM LIKE KITTENS" were appropriate ways to go. He DID suggest that the schools of education did need to 'change their ways' very significantly. I agree with him on this).
Anyway, you STILL quite clearly do not yet have "the schools you need".
Suggestion: See if you can work to create an *effective* Action Plan so that you'll get yourselves the schools you need. Effectively *integrate* the good ideas that a host of stakeholders in education (including experts, such as E.D. Hirsch) have put forth to improve your schools.
That is quite possible to do, and need not take very long at all: in fact, it is not even difficult to do, assuming that you haven't shut your minds to the ingress of new knowledge and understanding about how to handle the problems and issues confronting you in your various systems, including your 'educational systems'. (Check out, in particular, 'A' above).
> > Given that the training of teachers is a crucially
> > important part of the 'education system', blowing up
> > the schools of education (or "drowning the Harvard
> > Graduate School of Education like a kitten") is
> > surely not the way to go.
> > That kind of thinking is precisely what I'd
> classify as naive.
> I'd call your reply ignorant; by and large, Ed grad
> schools aren't
> training teachers, that's mostly done in second or
> third tier colleges
> at the undergraduate level.
Oh? Pardon my ignorance. Consider it rectified by 'application' of the 'wisdom' you've provided. So why don't you work on ensuring that those "second or
third tier colleges at the undergraduate level" function more effectively?
Is that impossible for you to do?
Wikipedia: "In the United States and Canada, a school of education (or college of education; ed school) is a division within a university that is devoted to scholarship in the field of education, which is an interdisciplinary branch of the social sciences encompassing sociology, psychology, linguistics, economics, political science, public policy, history, and others, all applied to the topic of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education".
I guess Wikipedia is ignorant. And so, apparently, are the following schools of education at various prestigious universities, entirely ignorant about what they are supposed to be/should be doing:
1. Vanderbilt University (Peabody College)
2. Johns Hopkins University
3. Harvard University
4. University of Texas at Austin
5. Stanford University
6. Teachers College, Columbia University
7. University of Pennsylvania
8. University of California at Los Angeles
9. University of Oregon
10. University of Wisconsin-Madison
11. University of Michigan
12. University of California at Berkeley
13. University of Washington
14. Northwestern University
15. Michigan State University
16. Ohio State University
17. Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University
18. University of Southern California
19. Boston College, School of Education
20. Indiana University, Bloomington, , School of Education
(I have glanced at their websites, and they do, indeed, appear to be in the 'business of educating teachers', including the 'training of teachers').
It is unfortunate, indeed, that all these 'schools of education' are apparently ignorant about what they are/should be doing.
Perhaps, Mr Goodknight, you would like to tender them your valuable expert advice and 'rectify' them?
("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")
Message was edited by: GS Chandy