This post refers to events in Vermont in late march 2011:
Politics and Vermont Education
The reasoning behind this proposal is that the position will be more accountable. I understand the reasoning. I understand the political sentiment motivating the proposal. Education is an important public service. Education is an expensive public service.
Let’s recognize that education is not only a political issue, and let’s consider what the implications are for this proposal.
Education is a technology, and like all technologies it is based on natural phenomenon. The natural phenomenon that forms the basis of education is the human brain and the changes that occur in that organ when learning occurs.
Many are surprised to learn that only in the last few decades have scientists really begun to discover how the brain learns. Equally surprising is the realization that the assumptions that have been the basis of schooling for decades are not based on any scientific evidence. (These assumptions go the very foundations of what we believe about education. For example there is no scientific evidence that there is some set of knowledge and skills that should be learned--we call them standards; nor is there evidence that direct instruction is the best way to transfer those skills into students brains or even that testing is the best way to measure learning!) In reality, the science suggests that our schools have been built on very inaccurate ideas about humans and how we learn.
Education, then, has political dimensions but it also has natural dimensions. The challenge for government is to reconcile those dimensions and to ensure that political decisions do not violate the natural dimensions. Just like always, nature will win over politics every time.
Of course, education is not unique in having political and natural dimensions. Agriculture and medicine and human technologies that come immediately to mind that share this characteristic. In the history of agriculture, we can see an example of how nature won over politics in the past.
Now, a word of cautions... in the following paragraphs, I am not suggesting any connection between those who advocate for the new laws in Vermont and the leaders of the former Soviet Union. I seek to make a point about political decisions affecting science and the technologies built on that science.
Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976) was a botanist and plant scientist who lived in worked in the Soviet Union. He was the director of the Institute of Genetics which was part of the Academy of Sciences within the USSR. In that position, he was able to exert political influence and he used that influence to promote a version of genetics that was based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. (You will recall from high school biology class, that is a dis-proven idea.)
Through his political influence, Lysenko was able to suppress science that was contrary to his beliefs. To make a long story short, Soviet agriculture (and the people who depended on it for their food) suffered because that technology was based on his false science and the political system that promoted Lysenko’s falsehoods and repressed dissenting (and scientifically-supported) views.
Again, I am not telling this story to find connections between the advocates for the changes in Vermont government and the Soviet leaders of the 20th century. I am telling this story to point out that what political leaders decide and what nature decides are not always the same, and that those political decisions that are contrary to nature are doomed to failure.
I think Vermont’s leaders are slightly off the mark with this discussion. It does not matter if the people responsible for making decisions about schools are appointed by the governor or by some other process. The concern of our government should be to make sure that those who do make the political decisions affecting our schools have sufficient direction and advice from those who have understanding of the science behind their decisions to be sure those decisions move our schools in a direction that is supported by the best knowledge of human learning that is available.
The knowledge we need comes from experts. The expertise comes not from business leaders or the other citizens who dedicate their time and energy to serving on boards of education or in the legislature, nor even from education leaders (most of whom have built careers building compromises that satisfy different constituencies). The expertise comes from scholars who have built careers studying the factors that lead to learning and the scholars who are sufficiently forward-thinking to envision schools that will prepare students for their future.
(Full disclosure-- The blogger has worked as a professional educator since 1988. He holds a bachelor of science in education, a master of arts in education, and a doctor of philosophy in education.)
Let’s recognize that education is not only a political issue, and let’s consider what the implications are for this proposal.
Education is a technology, and like all technologies it is based on natural phenomenon. The natural phenomenon that forms the basis of education is the human brain and the changes that occur in that organ when learning occurs.
Many are surprised to learn that only in the last few decades have scientists really begun to discover how the brain learns. Equally surprising is the realization that the assumptions that have been the basis of schooling for decades are not based on any scientific evidence. (These assumptions go the very foundations of what we believe about education. For example there is no scientific evidence that there is some set of knowledge and skills that should be learned--we call them standards; nor is there evidence that direct instruction is the best way to transfer those skills into students brains or even that testing is the best way to measure learning!) In reality, the science suggests that our schools have been built on very inaccurate ideas about humans and how we learn.
Education, then, has political dimensions but it also has natural dimensions. The challenge for government is to reconcile those dimensions and to ensure that political decisions do not violate the natural dimensions. Just like always, nature will win over politics every time.
Of course, education is not unique in having political and natural dimensions. Agriculture and medicine and human technologies that come immediately to mind that share this characteristic. In the history of agriculture, we can see an example of how nature won over politics in the past.
Now, a word of cautions... in the following paragraphs, I am not suggesting any connection between those who advocate for the new laws in Vermont and the leaders of the former Soviet Union. I seek to make a point about political decisions affecting science and the technologies built on that science.
Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976) was a botanist and plant scientist who lived in worked in the Soviet Union. He was the director of the Institute of Genetics which was part of the Academy of Sciences within the USSR. In that position, he was able to exert political influence and he used that influence to promote a version of genetics that was based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. (You will recall from high school biology class, that is a dis-proven idea.)
Through his political influence, Lysenko was able to suppress science that was contrary to his beliefs. To make a long story short, Soviet agriculture (and the people who depended on it for their food) suffered because that technology was based on his false science and the political system that promoted Lysenko’s falsehoods and repressed dissenting (and scientifically-supported) views.
Again, I am not telling this story to find connections between the advocates for the changes in Vermont government and the Soviet leaders of the 20th century. I am telling this story to point out that what political leaders decide and what nature decides are not always the same, and that those political decisions that are contrary to nature are doomed to failure.
I think Vermont’s leaders are slightly off the mark with this discussion. It does not matter if the people responsible for making decisions about schools are appointed by the governor or by some other process. The concern of our government should be to make sure that those who do make the political decisions affecting our schools have sufficient direction and advice from those who have understanding of the science behind their decisions to be sure those decisions move our schools in a direction that is supported by the best knowledge of human learning that is available.
The knowledge we need comes from experts. The expertise comes not from business leaders or the other citizens who dedicate their time and energy to serving on boards of education or in the legislature, nor even from education leaders (most of whom have built careers building compromises that satisfy different constituencies). The expertise comes from scholars who have built careers studying the factors that lead to learning and the scholars who are sufficiently forward-thinking to envision schools that will prepare students for their future.
(Full disclosure-- The blogger has worked as a professional educator since 1988. He holds a bachelor of science in education, a master of arts in education, and a doctor of philosophy in education.)
No comments:
Post a Comment