Closer to the Trunk
I said in this post that what I am interested in is the "text" of education itself, however that text presents itself.
And I've been thinking lately that where I need to go first in explaining this orientation toward education is deeper down into my assumptions and my experience—closer to the trunk of the tree, if you will, and further away from the various branches that I have explored.
So let me start with experience. I would characterize the bulk of my experience in education as simply writing and editing math lessons--on specific topics for specific grade levels. And to each writing and editing task, I bring four important resources: (1) my own knowledge about the lesson that I am writing, (2) a list of related lessons that have likely already been presented, (3) a list of related lessons that will likely be presented in the future, and, most importantly, (4) a memory not only for the content of each of the lessons mentioned above, but also a memory of all the different ways those lessons have been presented.
And that's pretty much it.
Now, I say "that's it," but that's a lot. For myself and for the many thousands of people who do the same kind of work that I do, believe me (or us, rather), that's a lot. I say "that's it" because this kind of work does not involve--or, rather, does not have to involve--thinking about students, which is also, to use the same phrase above, a lot.
Yet, and again in my experience, even if intelligent and/or experienced discussants were to restrict themselves to a specific lesson at a specific grade level and bring only those four resources mentioned above into a debate, one could write ahem, a lot, about--and education could gain a lot from--the ensuing conversation. (Try it yourselves. Pick a math topic and a grade level. Follow 1–4 above.)
Well, "believe" is probably the wrong word. These folks, by and large, just want to get paid.
But that's neither here nor there. What's important, I think, to keep in mind is that the Western approach to education is much more concerned with personalities and power centers than it is with getting anything done. Just copy everything in this and the above two paragraphs and post it on an education forum somewhere. The probability that you will encounter a reaction from some idiot who thinks she channels all the education gods and can prescribe a remedy for what ails us is pretty close to 1.
The point I'm trying to make is not that this hypothetical person doesn't have the answers (she doesn't); it's that all the answers that can be got in the West are drawn from one bag. The solutions that we consider in the U.S. all have a certain flavor to them. One would think that after 60-100+ years of comparative education failure, we would wise up and try a different flavor.
And I've been thinking lately that where I need to go first in explaining this orientation toward education is deeper down into my assumptions and my experience—closer to the trunk of the tree, if you will, and further away from the various branches that I have explored.
So let me start with experience. I would characterize the bulk of my experience in education as simply writing and editing math lessons--on specific topics for specific grade levels. And to each writing and editing task, I bring four important resources: (1) my own knowledge about the lesson that I am writing, (2) a list of related lessons that have likely already been presented, (3) a list of related lessons that will likely be presented in the future, and, most importantly, (4) a memory not only for the content of each of the lessons mentioned above, but also a memory of all the different ways those lessons have been presented.
And that's pretty much it.
Now, I say "that's it," but that's a lot. For myself and for the many thousands of people who do the same kind of work that I do, believe me (or us, rather), that's a lot. I say "that's it" because this kind of work does not involve--or, rather, does not have to involve--thinking about students, which is also, to use the same phrase above, a lot.
Yet, and again in my experience, even if intelligent and/or experienced discussants were to restrict themselves to a specific lesson at a specific grade level and bring only those four resources mentioned above into a debate, one could write ahem, a lot, about--and education could gain a lot from--the ensuing conversation. (Try it yourselves. Pick a math topic and a grade level. Follow 1–4 above.)
Bollocks
What capsizes this happy floaty boat more often than not is an attitude from bad apples in all kinds of different groups in the U.S.--constructivists, traditionalists, teachers, non-teachers, administrators, etc.--those who seem to believe that personality and power can rescue and/or improve mathematics education in the United States.Well, "believe" is probably the wrong word. These folks, by and large, just want to get paid.
But that's neither here nor there. What's important, I think, to keep in mind is that the Western approach to education is much more concerned with personalities and power centers than it is with getting anything done. Just copy everything in this and the above two paragraphs and post it on an education forum somewhere. The probability that you will encounter a reaction from some idiot who thinks she channels all the education gods and can prescribe a remedy for what ails us is pretty close to 1.
The point I'm trying to make is not that this hypothetical person doesn't have the answers (she doesn't); it's that all the answers that can be got in the West are drawn from one bag. The solutions that we consider in the U.S. all have a certain flavor to them. One would think that after 60-100+ years of comparative education failure, we would wise up and try a different flavor.
Labels: education