Education

So, you think that the NEA – the premier union for teachers here in America –  is simply all about teaching Johnny and Jane how to read, write, and ‘rithmatic?  Ha!  Just as the curriculum has changed and the emphasis has changed since the 50s through the 80s, so has what the NEA is concentrating on:

The NEA’s Legislative Program, which was adopted at the 2010 Convention in New Orleans, sets forth the marching orders for NEA lobbyists and the authority for political donations. Here are some of the NEA’s major objectives:

• Mandatory full-day kindergarten attendance for all children, with federal money if the state can’t afford it.
• Substantial increases in federal education funding.
• Repeal of the right-to-work provision of federal labor law.
• A tax-supported, single-payer health care plan for all residents of the U.S., its territories and Puerto Rico.
• Federal funding for the education of illegal aliens.
• Federal programs to teach schoolchildren about different sexual orientations.
• Legislation to prohibit religious organizations that accept federal funding from basing hiring decisions on religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or HIV/AIDS status.
• Affirmative action to redress historical patterns of discrimination.
• Legislation to study possible reparations to African-Americans to address residual effects of slavery.

Gotta love that last one, teachers want to spend more of other peoples’ money on something that pertains to education….how?

More of the list after the jump. 

Read more

Guest post by Mary Grabar:

Disparagement of knowledge  was evident at the National Council for the Social Studies conference I attended last November in Atlanta. There, 3,200 teachers were continuing their studies in pedagogy, and gaining continuing and graduate credit to bump them into higher salaries. Most worked for public schools, so taxpayers footed the bill: the $267 registration fee, plus membership dues, travel and lodging, and the hiring of substitute teachers.

I estimate that about a third of the presenters at these workshops were affiliated with universities, mostly education schools; others included high school teachers, government officials, curriculum producers, or the staff of left-wing non-profits engaged in education. At such workshops, taxpayers are helping teachers learn new techniques for advancing the cause of "social justice" in classrooms from kindergarten to college.

The idea of social justice is opposed to traditional American notions of justice based on individual rights, without regard for group membership. Social justice is Marxist in conception and typically adopts a far left agenda: acceptance of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles, radical feminism and abortion rights, illegal immigration, cultural relativism, equality of outcomes in education and work, and a redistribution of wealth.

"Social justice" is often promoted through student-directed learning, most recently called "constructivism," because students are supposed to "construct" their own knowledge. This kind of constructivism, however, fails to improve student learning. Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark say it all in the title of their 2006 Educational Psychologist article, "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching."

All of those names are used by education theorists to put a new spin on what Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark accurately call unguided learning or minimal guidance learning. They conclude, "After a half-century associated with instruction using minimal guidance, it appears that there is no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather than constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners."

One of the studies they cited found that medical students who used problem-based learning (PBL) made more…

Read more

This is the Letter to the Editor to the Laconia Daily Sun (page 6) that I wrote after seeing an article there that the New Hampton School (a private school) announced that they had gone "IB":

To the Editor,

After reading about New Hampton School adopting the International Baccalaureate Program, I thought I’d write to let you know how it’s working in Bedford.

There is much more to the IB program than what is being sold to the community. It surprises me that those selling a program that is supposed to help students think “critically” fail to provide “critical” information to the community.

The IB uses a constructivist methodology in the classroom. Studies show students fall behind those taught in a “direct instruction” setting.

For a better idea on what constructivism is all about visit (Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching) and (Structure More Effective in High School Science Classes Study Reveals).

A great deal of time is spent “discovering” knowledge in a constructivist classroom. While IB students are re-inventing the wheel, students in a similar AP Physics class, would be learning more material in the same time.

In an constructivist classroom, the teacher becomes a “facilitator” or “coach”. Parents and students need to read the studies above to critically analyze how this puts students behind their peers. Who is able to think critically? Those with the most knowledge? Or those with only a fraction of that knowledge?

This might be why a Santa Ynez former IB teacher wrote an op-ed piece praising the school for abandoning the IB program. He writes about the teachers never supporting the program and after about a decade, due to budget constraints, praised the Board for discontinuing IB. He continues by addressing the “myths” surrounding the IB program as being a ticket to elite institutions of higher learning. He says that’s certifiably false and that AP has an edge over IB.

Bedford recently turned down every tax proposal on the ballot. Teachers will be going without raises but they will be hiring an IB Coordinator and sending our tax dollars to the IBO in Switzerland.

In a community that must live within a budget, the administration must prioritize how they will spend our money. The message seems to be that they are going to continue to siphon money from the budget to sustain the IB program at the expense of: teacher salaries and classrooms that need heat.

This program, due to it’s affiliation with the United Nations has caused deep divisions in our community. Taxpayers are not going to approve of a school’s proposed tax hikes when a program aligns with an organization that’s known to undermine national sovereignty.

The portions of the article can be found after the jump:

Read more