Upward mobility?

August 12, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

Part of the bedrock of “American exceptionalism” is the belief that America is the land of opportunity. Whether you’re pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps (and defying the laws of physics!) or picking yourself up from the ditch, you can accomplish anything you want in America. You’re only limited by your levels of effort and determination.*

Unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t support such optimism. Indeed, according to one researcher, “the rags-to-riches story is especially unlikely in the U.S.”. Compared to most other Western countries, social mobility is extremely limited in the United States. If you’re born into a poor family, chances are that you’ll stay poor. Below is an interesting graph from the OECD that compares “the extent to which sons’ earnings levels reflect those of their fathers”.

Can anyone offer any thoughts?

ScreenHunter_01 Aug. 07 22.47

*Of course, if you fail, it’s your own fault, but let’s not dwell on that…

Posted in American Politics, Economic Issues, Modern Culture | Leave a Comment

America’s Education Politics: A Crass and Explicit Example

August 9, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

As if we didn’t have enough examples of the highly politicized nature of American educational reform, along comes another illustration that reaches new lows for crassness and audacity. Jonah Edelman is a leader of Stand for Children, a well-known and influential educational reform movement based in Oregon. The “grassroots child advocacy organization” is said to be “non-partisan”, but it’s clear that the organization is stridently anti-union. In fact, it appears that busting teacher unions is its central mission, something that is sure to please corporate benefactors like Bill Gates and the Walton family. In a recent panel discussion caught on YouTube, Edelman brags about his union-busting strategy in Illinois. It’s really quite breath-taking if you listen closely: he’s explaining the steps for the almost complete emasculation of the teacher’s union in that state. Also infuriating is the anti-union stance by Democratic politicians, and the weakness of teacher union leadership.

The YouTube post caused a great sensation amongst commentators, and even Edelman felt compelled to send an apology to the blogger who originally posted the video, but the damage was done – and reality was made clear(er). Thankfully, some Stand for Children volunteers are taking note of the corporate agenda that now dominates the “reform” movement, though it’s unclear what positive effects will follow from their awakening.

I find the American hysteria over teachers and their unions to be almost unintelligible. America teacher unions are some of the weakest in that country, and teacher pay is relatively poor compared to the rest of the Western world. It’s also well established that children in countries with strong teacher unions and strong pay do much better on standardized international tests. So is this about education, or is it merely the latest phase in the drive to destroy America’s unions? Do the kids really come first, or are teachers the next air traffic controllers?

Posted in American Politics, Education, In A Philosophical Mood | Leave a Comment

Aspects of Effective Teaching

August 2, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

I recently read an analysis of education practice entitled Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong? from the American Fordham Institute. In Chapter 5, Professor Mark C. Shug discusses the qualities of a good teacher. It’s an interesting analysis because Shug points out something that I have observed since the days of my own teacher training: we don’t teach teachers about direct instruction, so if  teachers find “student centered instruction” to be insufficient, they then have little to fall back on. Teachers end up, as Shug says, training “themselves – often by relying on trial and error – to find methods that truly work. Many will discover the benefits of teacher-centered instruction on their own.”

If you are left to your own devices, here are some good things to remember:

……………..

On what direct instruction looks like…

… teachers on their feet in the front of the room with eyes open, asking questions, making points, gesturing, writing key ideas on the board, encouraging, correcting, demonstrating, and so forth.

 

On what the research says is effective practice…

1. Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) distilled the research down to a set of behaviors that characterize well-structured lessons. Effective teachers, they said:

  • Open lessons by reviewing prerequisite learning.
  • Provide a short statement of goals.
  • Present new material in small steps, with student practice after each step.
  • Give clear and detailed instructions and explanations.
  • Provide a high level of active practice for all students.
  • Ask a large number of questions, check for understanding, and obtain responses from all students.
  • Guide students during initial practice.
  • Provide systematic feedback and corrections.
  • Provide explicit instruction and practice for seatwork exercises and, where necessary, monitor students during seatwork.

2. Brophy and his colleagues also found that the most effective teachers were likely to:

  • Maintain a sustained focus on content.
  • Involve all students.
  • Maintain a brisk pace.
  • Teach skills to the point of overlearning.
  • Provide immediate feedback.

3. Finally, in a separate series of process-outcome studies that spanned the period from the 1960s to the 1980s, Gage and his colleagues at Stanford University found that effective teachers:

  • Introduce materials with an overview or analogy.
  • Use review and repetition.
  • Praise and repeat student answers.
  • Give assignments that offer practice and variety.
  • Ensure questions and assignments are new and challenging yet easy enough to allow success with reasonable effort.
Posted in Education | 1 Comment

Summary notes on “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work…”

July 30, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

As I noted in my previous entry, there is considerable disagreement over the efficacy of “student centered learning”, despite its popularity with the Twitterati. For example, in a 2006 article* from the journal Educational Psychologist, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark argue that student centered learning – which includes constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching – is less effective than direct instruction. They argue that “minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning” (Kirschner et al 76).

So what is the basis for this claim? At the center of their thesis is the relationship between learning and long-term memory. If there is no measurable change in the latter, the authors explain, there is no real learning:

[A]t its most basic, the architecture of long-term memory provides us with the ultimate justification for instruction. The aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory. If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned (77).

But Kirschner and his co-authors argue that student-centered learning “makes heavy demands on working memory” (ibid). This kind of thinking is immediate, short-term and procedural, and does not help students commit their efforts to long-term memory. Without guidance, students must exert an enormous amount of mental effort making sense of the information in front of them. Solving the problems of procedure tends to overwhelm any memory and understanding of the relationship between units.

Solving a problem requires problem-solving search and search must occur using our limited working memory. Problem-solving search is an inefficient way of altering long-term memory because its function is to find a problem solution, not alter long-term memory. Indeed, problem-solving search can function perfectly with no learning whatsoever (80).

Thus, students are literally overloaded and unsure where to start, and may not be any further ahead at the end of the exercise.

The authors explain that this cognitive overload is particularly noticeable for “novice learners, who lack proper schemas to integrate the new information with their prior knowledge” (80). In other words, students who do not have a strong background in a given topic cannot draw from prior experiences to make sense of the new tasks in front of them. This is why they are so overloaded dealing with procedural problem-solving. Without schemas, or scaffolding, information becomes a daunting jumble that leads to frustration. When students learn “with pure-discovery methods and minimal feedback, they often become lost and frustrated” (79). Moreover, this frustration can “lead to misconceptions” and missteps that are “inefficient” (ibid).

As a result, students new to a topic need “extensive guidance because they do not have sufficient knowledge in long-term memory to prevent unproductive problem-solving search” (80). Direct instruction is the key. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark examine a number of individual cases where teacher-led instruction is vital. With new math concepts, for example, a teacher ought to work out equations with the students. Numerous studies show that a worked example “both reduces working memory load because search is reduced or eliminated and directs attention (i.e. directs working memory resources) to learning the essential relations between problem- solving moves” (ibid). The authors also point out that students “must construct a mental representation or schema irrespective of whether they are given complete or partial information. Complete information will result in a more accurate representation that is also more easily acquired” (78). They argue that “a growing body of research [is] showing that students learn more deeply from strongly guided learning than from discovery”; moreover, recent “findings were unambiguous. Direct instruction involving considerable guidance, including examples, resulted in vastly more learning than discovery. Those relatively few students who learned via discovery showed no signs of superior quality of learning” (79-80).

The authors do suggest that minimal guidance strategies can work, but only if the students have already acquired extensive knowledge beforehand: “guidance can be relaxed only with increased expertise as knowledge in long-term memory can take over from external guidance” (80). And even in these cases, it works best if the advanced students have undergone “some prior structured experiences” (82).

A final point from Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark is that long-term memory is absolutely important to those who wish to learn on their own. Independent problem-solving, said to epitomize student-centered learning, cannot function without a deep repository of knowledge:

We are skillful in an area because our long-term memory contains huge amounts of information concerning the area. That information permits us to quickly recognize the characteristics of a situation and indicates to us, often unconsciously, what to do and when to do it. Without our huge store of information in long-term memory, we would be largely incapable of everything from simple acts such as crossing a street … to complex activities such as playing chess or solving mathematical problems. Thus, our long-term memory incorporates a massive knowledge base that is central to all of our cognitively based activities (76-77).

…………

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark’s article argues that direct instruction is more efficient and more accurate than student centered learning. Direct instruction allows the student to by-pass unhelpful procedural struggles, and thus move more learning more quickly into long-term memory. Whether this is palatable set of conclusions remains to be seen, but the authors hope it will spur educators forward without prejudice:

It is regrettable that current constructivist views have become ideological and often epistemologically opposed to the presentation and explanation of knowledge… It is also easy to agree with Mayer’s (2004) recommendation that we “move educational reform efforts from the fuzzy and unproductive world of ideology—which sometimes hides under the various banners of constructivism—to the sharp and productive world of theory – based research on how people learn” (84).

………………

*Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and R.E. Clark (2006) “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching”. Educational Psychologist 41 (2) 75-86. Online. Accessed July 3, 2011: (http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf)

Posted in Education, In A Philosophical Mood | 2 Comments

Exploring Direct Instruction

July 25, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

One of the deepest tensions in modern education is between “student centered learning” and “teacher centered learning”. I’m interested in exploring more about this topic, and today I will set the framework for my exploration.

The student centered or “minimally guided” approach is characterized as self-paced and interactive, and aims to replace “lectures with active learning” (Nanney 1). It enables individual students “to address their own learning interests and needs” (ibid) rather than memorize government-mandated “pre-determined content” (PTC 2). Government curricula is always in danger of obsolescence; indeed, the “content relevant to a student’s interests is constantly changing and growing so students will have to continue learning new things throughout their life” (ibid). In such a fluid environment, students will need to seek “solutions to problems without complete dependency upon an instructor” and learn “to reason on [their] own” (Nanney 1). From the student centered point of view, direct instruction by a teacher is – by definition – tedious, subordinating and moribund.

The teacher centered approach has fewer champions these days. In the world of think tanks, government ministries, teacher colleges and education consultants, the days of the “sage from the stage” are apparently over. However, I believe it’s an approach that we ignore at our peril. For one thing, teacher-centered learning (what I prefer to call “direct instruction”) has become, unfairly, the whipping-boy for all things wrong in education. Given the complexity of the learning process and of society in general, as well as the extraordinary persistence of the approach, it’s hard to believe that direct instruction is now the central problem of the education system. It’s also become so mis-characterized that it’s difficult to defend the concept. We seem to have forgotten that its roots are in a liberal arts education: from antiquity forward, the liberal arts ideal has been to train young people in a broad range of arts and science disciplines, emphasizing both a relatively stable body of knowledge and intellectual skills. The pedagogical basis for instruction was and is Socratic: a process of discussion, dialogue and contemplation between a knowledgeable person and his or her students. This sounds much more engaging than a lecturer who merely “transmits” information!

Of course, it remains important that we are guided by evidence rather than our prejudices and preferences. Unfortunately, even here, a conflict is obvious. While the popularity and growing dominance of the student centered approach is without question (see here and here, for example), there remains a great deal of modern scholarship that is critical of the emerging paradigm.

For example, there is a fear that student centered learning, while “reflective of today’s society where choice and democracy are important concepts” (O’Neill and McMahon 33), is actually at the forefront of neo-liberal globalization. According to C.A. Bowers, iconic figures of the student centered movement like John Dewey and Paulo Friere are used to unwittingly reinforce and extend the sway of capitalism around the globe. By assuming that Western knowledge (including “Dewey’s method of experimental inquiry”) is superior to traditional forms of knowledge, Dewey and Friere “undermine other forms of knowledge and intergenerational renewal that are essential to the resisting the spread of the anomic form of individualism that is dependent upon consumerism” (Bowers 4). The emphasis on employable, portable skills rather than collective knowledge is also seen in the Premier’s Technology Council, a British Columbian group dominated by business leaders rather than educators. As such, many local commentators are suspicious that “21st century learning” is simply code for attacking labour contracts and disempowering teachers.

At a more strictly pedagogical level, there are also serious concerns about “minimally guided instruction”. According to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, all forms of this approach – which includes constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching – are much less effective than direct instruction. They argue the following:

The past half-century of empirical research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning (Kirschner et al 76).

This is a significant claim! In my next entry, I’ll have to explore the Kirschner article in more detail.

……………………………………

Here are some of my other education posts that you might find interesting:

Same Coin, Two Sides: Resurrecting the Liberal Arts Ideal

Individualized Learning = Pre-Packaged Learning

“Trades vs. Academics” is Obsolete

A Lament for the Provincial Exams

Questioning Progressive Education’s Sacred Cows

……………………………………

Bowers, C.A. (2005) “Is Transformative Learning the Trojan Horse of Western Globalization?” Journal of Transformative Education 3 (2) 116-125. Online. Accessed July 25, 2011: (http://cabowers.net/pdf/Transformative%20theorist-Commons.pdf)

Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and R.E. Clark (2006) “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching“. Educational Psychologist 41 (2) 75-86. Online. Accessed July 3, 2011: (http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf)

Nanney, B. (2004) “Student-Centered Learning“. Online. Accessed July 25, 2011: (http://jtp.ipgkti.edu.my/ppy/resosbestari/PENDEKATAN/scl/7%20SCL-Nanney.pdf)

O’Neill, G. and T. McMahon (2005) “Student–centred learning: what does it mean for students and lecturers?“ Online. Accessed July 25, 2011: (http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahon-Tues_19th_Oct_SCL.pdf)

Premier’s Technology Council (PTC). A Vision for 21st Century Education. (http://www.gov.bc.ca/premier/attachments/PTC_vision%20for_education.pdf) Dec. 2010. Accessed June 25, 2011.

Posted in BC Politics, Economic Issues, Education, Global Issues, In A Philosophical Mood | 1 Comment

Wisdom at the Movies

July 19, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

I watch too many movies. There… I’ve admitted it. While others are reading books or debating the great issues of life at sophisticated dinner parties – or so I imagine – I’m enraptured by the latest Hollywood epic playing on my Blu-Ray and magnified through a large-screen projector and 5.1 surround sound system. As guilty as I feel, I can’t help but be captivated by these two hour lodestones of modern culture. To be sure, movies are rarely philosophical masterpieces (and I rarely watch art-house films anyway) but I am usually compensated by an art form that is rich in narrative, humour, imagery and/or auditory beauty .

On the other hand, some movies do provide occasional insights that resonate with my own experiences. I’ve always believed that wisdom can be found anywhere if you look hard enough. Even in Hollywood.

Here are a few:

___________

1. Charlie Wilson’s War: On American triumphalism in the aftermath of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan…

We’ll See

2. Breaker Morant: On law and morality during war…

Rule .303

3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: On the meaning of death…

We’re meant to lose the people we love

4. Hannah and Her Sisters: On the meaning of life…

Enjoy Your Life

___________

Is there a line from a movie that you remember well?

Posted in Humour, In A Philosophical Mood, Modern Culture, Movies, Technology | Leave a Comment

Converting PowerPoint to Flash

July 16, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

As more people try to downsize their business paraphernalia,  lugging around a laptop from meeting to meeting is becoming less desirable. However, how do you deliver your PowerPoint presentation with something less than a fully-enabled laptop?

One solution is to turn your PowerPoint  into  an online and interactive Flash video. Online Flash presentations will allow your audience to view the presentations well after your work is over, and render a presenter’s laptop unnecessary. I have found this latter point particularly important since the university where I lecture has a dubious network storage system (where professors store their .ppt/.pptx files at their peril), but an easy and reliable connection to the internet. And I don’t own a laptop!

I now deliver all of my classes with the assistance of an online Flash presentation, a presentation (like this) that can be viewed at a later date by students who need to review the lecture. [To be sure, I only use an outline for my presentations; those who skip classes will not be satisfied.]

As with most technology solutions, this one isn’t perfect. If your delivery venue lacks an internet-enabled computer connected to the projector, you’ll need a Flash-enabled smartphone or tablet, or the laptop you were hoping to leave behind. I’ve actually tried one of my lectures with a Blackberry Playbook, and I was pleased with how it worked. As a result, carrying a small tablet will not be an onerous compromise. You’ll also need an online webhosting solution, but most people who work in a business or a school should have access to a company/school server. Alternatively, most ISP companies like Shaw and Telus offer complimentary online hosting. I suspect most people don’t realize that their ISP email accounts usually have corresponding internet hosting that’s more than sufficient to host their PowerPoint presentations. My personal solution is to run my own website, using a webhosting service from Montreal that offers unlimited storage and access for $50 a year.

For a PC user like myself, I’ve tried many different products to convert PowerPoint into Flash. I’d recommend two Microsoft partners that have created free products that integrate directly into PowerPoint: authorPOINT Lite and iSpring Free. They both create tabs within the PowerPoint ribbon, like below:

springtab

The former is my personal favourite, as it seems to render all of the effects and transitions flawlessly. Unfortunately, it no longer appears to be supported, and only converts PowerPoint 2007 and earlier. I now use iSpring Free, since it supports PowerPoint 2010 and allows me to click directly on the presentation. The only flaws with iSpring are that some of the transitions are a bit wonky when “Flashified”, and the resulting Shockwave video is too small to be properly projected onto a screen (like below). My solution for the latter issue is simple. With the help of Dreamweaver or Notepad, I just go into the html file that iSpring Free generates, and change the size to 1024x 768 (plus whatever’s needed for the skin you choose). So much for paying $199 for the Pro version!

ScreenHunter_02 Jul. 16 12.42

Anyway, I hope this helps. Please let me know about your experiences!

Posted in Education, Technology | Leave a Comment

Proliferation?

July 11, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

Though I’m certainly not equating Canada with North Korea, there is more than a slight odour coming from Canada when – on the same day that a major study ranks Canada as the world’s 12th largest arms exporter – the country decides to boycott the U.N. Conference on Disarmament because it is chaired by North Korea.

Is the boycott a case of moral righteousness, or a matter of freezing out a competitor?

Food for thought.

Posted in Canadian Politics, Economic Issues, Global Issues | Leave a Comment

Ramping up the Rage: You know it’s contract time when

July 9, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

… BC’s corporate media sector starts ramping up the rage against teachers. Yesterday, the two BC dailies – both owned by the PostMedia group – headlined two separate anti-teacher stories. The Province featured an article about certain BCTF bargaining demands, based upon the employer’s utterly compromised interpretation. The Sun then offered a College of Teachers story from 2008. [When Canwest owned the papers, they did the same thing before the last teachers’ strike.] The stories followed a hatchet job from Keith Baldrey on Global News from the previous night. In a short piece devoid of actual statements from the BCTF, Baldrey was clearly bothered by the union demands. He later stated on Twitter (@keithbaldrey) that the demands were the “moon, stars, and all the planets”. He was also shocked by the 20% raise that the BCTF purportedly wants, but neglected to add the length of the term and, most importantly, if this was merely BCPSEA speculation. Not surprisingly, he didn’t list the concessions being sought by the employer group, or ask if the union demands were part of the BCTF’s final position. [They aren’t, Keith.]

I wondered why a reporter would allow himself to be sucked in by a side that wants to bargain through the media. But then I realized it was a rhetorical question.

Perhaps Keith and the PostMedia reporters will be next in line to join Mike and Pamela in the Senate. Or join Christy’s team alongside Pamela Martin and Chris Olsen. Or become Kash Heed’s new communication director.

……………

Update: Below is the The Province’s July 5 editorial cartoon. It doesn’t really need commentary, but here’s some if you want it:

 

 

Posted in BC Politics, Education, Media | 1 Comment

More ruminations on 21st century learning and the concept of change

July 8, 2011 | Author: C. Welch

As usual in the distributed learning (DL) world, the month of June is absurdly hectic. Students who’ve enjoyed the right to create their own learning schedules realize, at the end, that no right exists without a corresponding responsibility. And now – as their asynchronous bliss meets the realities of graduation, post-secondary timetables and the rigours of employment – their panic must become my panic!

In any case, I am returning to my blog with a multitude of ideas for the summer. The one topic that continues to dominate my thoughts is “21st century learning”. In my last blog entry, I discussed the bait and switch nature of this latest educational bandwagon. The Minister of Education and his underlings are baiting us with golden visions of individualized learning, where students can follow their own pursuits and passions and be forever unshackled from the factory-like uniformity that supposedly characterizes (and impedes) our modern education system.

My response is one of deep suspicion. In my opinion, the vision they propose is extremely unrealistic. The amount of time and resources it would require is almost immeasurable, and will certainly not be available to a branch of government that the Minister has said will only receive “incremental funding” in the near future.1 Instead of personalized learning, I fear we will instead be switched to something less savoury: correspondence courses within brick and mortar institutions.

There are others (like here and here) who see an even more insidious game afoot. For them, this 21st century bait and switch is actually a Trojan Horse. Hidden inside the promises of “creativity and innovation”, “[t]ailored learning” and “[a]daptability”2 are the banal realities of 19th century power politics: the breaking of unions; the end of work-hour, seniority and autonomy provisions; and the centralized control of professional development. Recent talks between BCPSEA and the ministry have focused upon the apparently inflexible nature of the current teachers’ contract, and how it’s an obstacle to 21st century learning. Indeed, in a recent government presentation to the BCTF, the rather cryptic nature of government objectives has led to a real fear by teachers that 21st century learning is simply code for breaking the BCTF and imposing a Wisconsin-style work environment. Nobody really knows what the government objectives mean in concrete, policy-manual terms, but here are a few objectives that can spark your imagination:

  • We want the right teachers placed in the right positions. Qualified and suitable teachers – in best “fit” placements – lead to better learning
  • We want to ensure that school districts are able to make human resource decisions that are effective and efficient
  • We want to align professional development with teacher performance evaluations and school district policy requirements.

In the end, I am not entirely sure if the worst-case scenario is any different from the bargaining objectives of past Socred, NDP and Liberal governments. Perhaps the BCTF is ramping up the concern in anticipation of the upcoming strike vote. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the old adage and “hope for the best, prepare for the worst”. My apprehension about 21st century learning, not surprisingly, remains strong.

……………….

Another curious development related to the 21st century learning bandwagon is the colonization of the word “change”. As a person trained in political philosophy and the politics of language, I’m fascinated by the politicization of the word. Perhaps “change” is destined to become politicized any time there are great struggles between groups seeking to preserve and those seeking to change the status quo, or between groups who have competing visions of the future. In the context of BC’s education system, “change” has become weaponized. In other words, it has become a unit of rhetorical armament that is deployed at the first sign of dissent. What do you mean you oppose these policies? Why are you scared of change? Clearly you are an obstacle to 21st century realities! If you’re a skeptic like me, you’ve doubtlessly encountered this threat response many times. Those who ask tough questions about policy shifts (such as the underlying assumptions, the actual costs, and the positive policies that may be discarded) are often cast as “resistors” to change. We are dinosaurs who care only for ourselves, and not “the kids”. In other words, “traditionalists” are anti-improvement and anti-student; only the progressives care for the improvement of education and our children.

But notice what’s happening. “Change” does not actually imply that the intended alterations are positive. Change is simply a difference or an adjustment of position. It’s not a straight line of progress from the Dark Ages to Enlightenment. It could be meandering. It could ultimately bring us back to the starting point. It could send us backwards. It says nothing of the merit of that adjustment. In short, “change” means nothing.

Yet, to the “change agents” who view dissenters as obstacles rather than valued interlocutors, their change is necessarily good. They’ve captured a neutral term and armed it with a more powerful meaning – goodness – that no one can easily oppose.

But this is nonsense. If I oppose your “change”, it’s because I believe your proposal is flawed. Just because you’ve invoked “change” does not mean I must concede its superiority. I believe my own position, which may or may not be the status quo, is better than yours. Amongst other things, I believe my position is better because it more accurately aligns itself with human nature, actual financing and/or the nature of institutions. And it offers less BS.

In the end, teachers ought to be very wary of “change”, whether it’s change for the sake of change, change that advances a person’s career, or – in the worst case situation – change that masks a partisan, non-consensual agenda. Above all else, don’t let others define their change as necessarily good change. If you do, and the BCTF is right about the government’s desire for less union protection, then those who demand honesty and clarity will be the first to go.

____________________________

1. Abbott, George. “Opening Remarks”, Digital Learning Spring Conference: Personalized Learning for the 21st Century. April 18, 2011.

2. Premier’s Technology Council. A Vision for 21st Century Education. (http://www.gov.bc.ca/premier/attachments/PTC_vision%20for_education.pdf) Dec. 2010. Accessed 25 June 2011.

 

Posted in BC Politics, Education, Language | 2 Comments