>>Valley Patriot>>
|
N. Andovers
poor education choices
shouldnt be repeated in other communities
Ralph Wilbur
In the late 1960s,
North Andover was one of the first communities to
wholeheartedly adopt the then current fad for open
classroom teaching. A new high school was
constructed without internal partitioning walls and the
result was noise, constant distractions and educational
bedlam.
Generations of North Andover students and teachers
suffered under this handicap. Finally and
rightfully, the building was torn down. Its demise was
long before its time, had it been more functionally
designed.
Approximately ten years ago, North Andover purchased a
constructivist math program called TERC. Its
guiding philosophy was that students should discover
basic arithmetic operations on their own. It not
only didnt teach the traditional methods of
arithmetic, it actively discouraged their use by students
despite the fact that these methods are
demonstrably the most efficient techniques for manual
computation.
This math program was finally acknowledged to be a
disaster in 2003 but not replaced until 2005. The use of
TERC during this period deprived thousands of students of
a solid math curriculum.
North Andover seems to have a flair for adopting the
latest untried and untested educational innovations. Now,
their students are confronted again with the same kind of
educational tinkering this time in science.
The North Andover School Department has committed to
spending close to three-quarters of a million dollars
over the next five years on a new-fangled inquiry-based
science program for elementary grades K-5. Inquiry-based
instruction, using kits instead of textbooks, is the
latest in pedagogical gimmickry promoted by the major
education publishers and our colleges of education.
In stark contrast, St. Michaels Catholic School,
also in North Andover, recently purchased a conventional
MacMillan-McGraw 2008 Science Series program for grades
K-5. It included hands-on materials in each grade,
leveled readers in grades K-1, and textbooks in grades
2-5. The cost per student was $128, compared to
$386 per student for the inquiry-based program in the
North Andover public schools. There was no economy of
scale in the North Andover purchase, serving about 1,800
students, compared to 312 students at St. Michaels.
In addition to an initial teachers workshop
training session, MacMillan-McGraw agreed to work with
St. Michaels teaching staff throughout the year, as
the need arises.
The North Andover inquiry-based strategy was chosen by a
select committee of teachers and staff over a more
traditional textbook-oriented program offered by Houghton
Mifflin.
The School Committee unfortunately went along with this
recommendation, with only one of the five board members
making an effort to examine the two programs
materials. Dr. Charles Ormsby, the one member who did
make a hands-on comparison, strongly endorsed the
Houg-hton Mifflin textbook-based program over the FOSS
(Full Option Science System) inquiry-based program,
saying that it is the more rigorous of the two and, by
providing a textbook, it allows parents to follow the
progress of their childrens interest and
development in science.
For example, Dr. Ormsby drew a comparison between how the
two programs explained the operation of an electric
motor. The FOSS booklet noted that rotating magnets
mounted on the motors axle are repelled by magnets
fixed to the base of the motor, but FOSS never explained
why this same force would not stop the rotation after the
motors axle turned by half a full rotation. Key to
the basic functioning of an electric motor is that the
polarity of the rotating magnets are reversed every half
rotation to keep the rotation going.
The Houghton Mifflin text explained that this is
necessary (in fact, it is the function of the motors
commutator and brushes) and therefore provided a full
explanation of how a motor functions. The FOSS booklets
routinely gloss over important facts or key physical
mechanisms such as this, while the Houghton Mifflin
text-books routinely provide more complete explanations;
albeit ones that are tailored to the elementary school
level.
Publishing school textbooks and educational materials is
big business. Those with Ph.D. degrees from our
colleges of education periodically come up with plans to
revolutionize teaching and learning. As paid
consultants, they join with the publishers, assisting
them in developing something new and innovative
to increase profits and market share for the publishers
and add to the list of published works for the
educators.
As with most consumer product industries, styles are
changed and new features are added as a matter of course,
needed or not. In the educational publishing industry, we
are not just talking millions, but billions of dollars.
Past pedagogical failures have been, for the most part,
strongly endorsed at their inception by major education
professional associations and college of education gurus.
Inquiry-based instruction is no exception. Like the now
defunct open classroom theory, the whole
word method of learning to read, and new math
(now labeled fuzzy math) all were
total failures, to the detriment of millions of American
students, and all were once warmly endorsed at the outset
by the education professors in their ivory towers. [Note:
I am not referring to professors who are actually experts
in some subject area and teach that subject area.
Instead, Im referring specifically to professors in
our education colleges that are experts at
nothing more than inventing new teaching methods.]
Alan Cromer, Professor of Physics a real
professor! at Northeastern University, in his
paper Science Standards: An Update, described
the trend to inquiry-based instruction as a
redefinition of science that borders on antiscience.
He remarked that the trend is about science for the
least engaged students, not the most engaged.
A document published by the National Academy of Sciences,
entitled National Science Education Standards (NSES), has
probably had the most direct influence and has taken a
bold, if not insistent, stand for mass adoption of the
inquiry-based approach.
In 1998 however, the California Academic Standards
Commission released a draft report of its own three-day
standards writing conference. According to
Professor Cromer, The California Draft breaks with
NSES in a number of important ways. First, the
Draft doesnt confuse methods and goals. It
doesnt say how science is to be taught, but only
what is to be learned. Inquiry is not touted as the
the central strategy for teaching science.
Second, it doesnt confound the teaching of science
with the burden of teaching sociology, history,
philosophy, and technology as well... Third, the
Physical Science part of the Draft is organized into
teachable units, with detailed descriptions of the
expectations of each unit. This is very helpful for
designing curricula and allocating time. He
reports that defenders of NSES are actively
campaigning against the [California] Draft precisely
because student-initiated inquiry is not central to it.
Cromer concludes that the NSES proposal is a
radical postmodern document that replaces focused
investigation with student-initiated inquiry in order to
define a finger-painting version of science that is
accessible to all. This movement has been met
head-on by the movement to make schools accountable
through statewide testing. The logic of testing
requires standards that are far more specific than NSES
supporters find acceptable. [They complain] that
the California draft standards have too much
detailed content and too much technical jargon at all
grade spans. Yet details and specific
vocabulary are absolutely necessary if the standards are
to be the basis for statewide testing.
The new and fashionable inquiry-based method is the
latest buzz. By the time these programs hit the
classrooms, the media and the educational blogs have been
saturated with publicity and rave re-views. Those with an
interest in serious evaluation hardly have a chance to
critically assess a new programs effectiveness
before wholesale introduction into classrooms across the
nation begins.
All the while, publishers pour millions of dollars into
marketing materials, pamphlets, videos, and sales pitches
to school districts. The promotion video on the
inquiry-based program shown in North Andover was strictly
Hollywood. The child actors knew their lines and
followed the script as they demonstrated how the program
is supposed to work (in theory). But there can be a
serious disconnect between theory and practice.
Parents and school administrators should not be misled or
fooled by hypothetical, make-believe scenarios on video
used to promote education programs or products for their
children.
What is Inquiry-Based Science, and how may it impact
students test scores? See Part 2 in next
months Valley Patriot.
Ralph Wilbur is the vice-president of The
Valley Patriot, a member of the North Andover Taxpayers
Association and the owner of Graphic Litho on Glen Street
in Lawrence. You can email your comments to sales@graphic
litho.com
*Send your questions comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com
The December 2007
Edition of the Valley Patriot
The Valley Patriot is a Monthly
Publication.
All Contents (C) 2007, Valley Patriot, Inc.
We publish 16,000 newspapers and distribute in Andover,
North Andover,
Methuen, Haverhill, Chelmsford, Georgetown, Groveland,
Boxford, Amesbury, Newburyport
Lawrence, Dracut, Tewksbury, Merrimack, Newburyport,
Westford, Acton, and Lowell.
Hampton & Salisbury Beach, (summers
only)
|
Valley Patriot Archive
Valley Patriot Story
ARCHIVES
Prior Lead
Stories
Prior
Valley Patriot Editorials
Prior Columns by ...
Tom Duggan
Dr. Chuck
Ormsby
Paula
Porten
Ralph
Wilbur
Hanna
Ted Tripp
Valley
Patriot of the Month
Griselsilva.com
Patrick
Blanchette
D.J.
Beauregard
Jim
Cassidy
D.J. Deeb
Marcos
Devers
Bob
Desmarais
Regina
Faticanti
Jim
Fiorentini
Bill Kelly
Wilfredo
Laboy
Peter
Larocque
Vilma Lora
Ed Maguire
Billy
Manzi
Paul
Murano
Mark
Palermo
Hartley
Pleshaw
Debbie
Quinn
Raise Em
Right
Dr. Peary
Kathleen
Corey Rahme
Barney
Reilly
Angel
Rivera
Jim Rurak
Grisel
Silva
Mike
Sullivan
Sandra
Stotsky
Mike
Sweeney
Ken Willette
Scott Wood
Jim
Xenakis
|