The New York Times’ Anna North recently asked me if I was a believer in learning styles, and I’m like, “No.” That’s not my fault, really. As a younger teacher, many of the veteran teachers told me the long list of initiatives that they’d seen come and go in education research, where “education research” is a pejorative, not a compliment. Multiple intelligences. Learning styles. Workshop model. Differentiation. The new math / everyday math. Now? Systems in place. Common Core. Data-driven instruction.
Every time an initiative comes out, we’re subjected to another professional development session where the person in front of us, administrator or book-hustler, stands in front of us, lauding the latest and greatest. We shift in our seats, prepared to get another set of gobbledygook splayed across our already bloodshot eyes. PowerPoint presentations with tiny letters and business clip art help make convincing arguments for why this specific pedagogical trick will work for our students this time for real, for real. Unconvinced of its efficacy, teachers hope this goes away, and, when it doesn’t the first few times, start to implement the language without trying it to fidelity.
Here, it’s easy to blame educators for not having the courage to try something that a random stranger came in with, akin to salesmen trying to develop a monorail in small towns. But teachers with experiences like this might not be so easily swayed, thus the resistance to anything new. Some might call it part of the anti-intellectual movement, but I believe it’s just a general resistance to the oscillating quality in professional development and the haphazard policies our districts espouse. Like, how many of these “movements” go by the wayside when a politician moves, foundation money dries up, or another non-profit comes up with a bigger and even better idea that’s totally researched-based?
You’d be right to say that, because policymakers don’t actually take education research seriously, it’s harder for us to take education research on the whole seriously (except those who confirm our biases), the education research that actually might make our students learn better gets lost in the shuffle. The words “sustainability,” “quality,” and “systems” come up so often in edu-jargon, but many education firms are in the business of moving statistics for their specific bias, and not for the benefit of schools writ large.
That’s a scary prospect for an educator who’s just trying to make sense of it all. Of course, the clash between researchers and practitioners is nothing new, but, like most of these boondoggles, it’s worth re-examining so we can get to some real work. The more years I accumulate in this profession, the more techniques I find useful from colleagues who aren’t in the education research field. If we want to see real movement on education-related research, maybe researchers and practitioners should sit at the same tables.
It’s pedagogy over everything. How do we have better conversations on what works?
Next time you are faced with an edu-salesperson ask them at lest one of these two questions:
1: Can you give me some academic references to the research backing up your claims?
2: What about the Hawthorne Effect?
Have some fun with these people.
Yes to all of this. As the veteran teachers in my building always tell me, something to this effect- “This too shall pass. Every five to seven years this district comes up with something new, and we nod our heads and wait for it to pass. And then, slowly, surely, finally, it does.” They say the same about Common Core, the PARCC test, many of the special education measures now. Which is why I’ve been reading books trying to find solid research as of late. It’s frustrating as a new teacher to know all this just passes.
This is where I habitually think about “This We Believe” by the Association for Middle Level Education (formerly National Middle School Association), which is a book delineating the 16 characteristics of successful middle schools. As it was first written in 1983 and is now in its fourth edition, it would be hard to call it a passing fad. Backed up with research, the book has an editorial team that has typically comprised a range of middle level educators, including classroom practitioners. It’s the foundation of my school’s middle school program, something I know works from our practical experience and that of other educators willing and able to implement the model holistically.
What drives me beyond crazy here is that this is an example of what you’re talking about – pedagogy that brings together researchers, consultants, administrators, and classroom practitioners. Pedagogy that has been shown to work in schools that have dared to try it. I’ve been trying for over 11 years to spread the word, ever since our middle school opened its doors, and I’ve seen AMLE people and others of the faithful trying to do the same. Yet, it’s as if no one has ever heard of it. Just today, someone referred to our middle school as “different from all the others” – while in my mind, we’re simply doing “This We Believe” the way it was meant to be.
You mention difficulties stemming from policy makers who refuse to take education research seriously, and given the skeptical attitude we frequently see among politicians toward any science that challenges views they want to continue holding, I’m willing to believe that’s a huge part of the problem. I also think the media are chasing power and money, which doesn’t lead to getting nuanced examinations of what actually works out there if the people with power and money don’t promote them.
But I don’t get why a grassroots movement of teachers shouldn’t take off. Are we so skeptical of constant bogus reforms that we refuse to look at proven models like “This We Believe”? Are we so caught up in our own classroom worlds that we are unable to form the necessary networks for that kind of rising up? Are enough of *us* skeptical of research that “research-based” makes us roll our eyes before we even hear what comes next? Are we scared of being perceived as activist teachers, perhaps for fear of losing our jobs? Whatever it is, I see pockets here and there of really positive conversations about what actually works, but I don’t see them coalescing into any sort of movement. I so want this to happen. But I don’t see how to make it happen. And it frustrates the hell out of me.
There are some really amazing minds here because of José’s own amazing mind. What do you all think?
Author
I think you’re on point. “Grassroots” movements on pedagogy don’t generally exist because, at this point, we have too many schools of belief about what works best for students. Still.
Learning styles and multiple intelligences are a popular and frustrating charade. Do students learn best in different ways? Sure. Did Gardner’s work get sufficient peer review? No. Carry on, sir. When you see a Power Point, just nod and carry on.
Spray and pray. Since there are so many programs, resources & methods, it we ever get to the point where we “fix” what’s wrong with education how will we know who to crown victor?
Whatever happened to the idea of teacher/ practitioner as researcher? In other countries teachers try different methods, evaluate their results and are reviewed by their peers at their campus. If the idea had merit then it would go to the district and so forth on up the ladder. Lesson planning in Japan, for instance, has a different connotation than in the U.S. This idea of teacher/ researcher would require a cultural change in the district. Instead we are always on the lookout for packaged solutions. For example, I once worked for a small high school. There were four math teachers. We had a combined 100+ years experience and two of us had a masters degree in math curriculum. Our administration wanted us to have the latest and greatest on math teaching methods so, an “expert” was paid to give us the latest info. This young man was only about 25. Yes, still wet behind the ears. We took him seriously, and explained to him what we were doing. Basically, with all due respect, we taught him. And he thanked us. When questioned, our supervisor hoped that we learned a lot from the expert.
Allowing teachers to do research and then providing a meaningful peer review process at the campus level requires a certain level of trust and professionalism from all parties. It requires a view point that teachers are, among other things, professionals who know their subject well and with sufficient depth to answer most student questions within contexts that allow for student understanding. With local peer reviewed research, we can develop methods specific to the needs of our kids on our campus.
Author
“Peer review” should also be under the umbrella of what expert teachers can do, too, because “peer” sounds like other teachers. This is me agreeing with you. Expertise is so valuable.
Better conversations?
“It’s 5’clock somewhere”: my favorite spot out here is Father’s Office in Culver City, or Post & Beam at the Crenshaw Mall (free advertising).
Dinner in folks’ home.
Away from edu-bureaucrats.
That’s how we can chop it up so much better on what works.
Author
Let’s see how that goes. Sometimes that works and sometimes, well … it can be placating at best.
When the idea that everything is a fad and foisted upon us as part of a sales pitch we lose sight of reality. That is that if we aren’t continually reexamining our own practices we are getting better.
It is frustrating as a district person to bring in solid research only to be met with, that is a bunk, what we do is best. Or worse, all this common care leaves me no time to do anything but present and practice.
Teachers do research, we should do research, we should also read current research.
Most of the fad stuff is actually based on someone research, but perhaps not taken in the correct context. Like most legends, if we look deeply and find the kernel of truth we might find something useful.
My point is simple, to discount anything out of hand, is more likely our hubris talking and not our education.
I should spend more time spell checking, my apologies.