We are all wrapping up the semester and thinking about how to improve next time. I’ve now taught statistics almost as long as I taught English, and I still have plenty of things I’ll change up next semester. I don’t think anything I do in class is *obviously* terrible, but I do try to think about it every semester.
As I’ve been thinking about what, exactly, to change, I also had the chance to review a book for the Journal of School Choice recently, on the book Duck and Cover: Confronting and Correcting Dubious Practices in Education.
You know the phrase “duck and cover.” From my review:
“Most readers will remember (or have heard stories about) “duck and cover” drills students in the 1950s had to endure in schools. In order to protect themselves from an incoming nuclear missile, students were instructed to “duck and cover” under their desks. This policy lingered for a time, even though it seems somewhat unlikely to have worked. Authors Rick Ginsberg and Yong Zhao of 2023’s Duck and Cover: Confronting and Correcting Dubious Practices in Education criticize similar education policies that seem to be helpful but have either lost their purpose or never had one to begin with.”
Here is a related video the Federal Civil Defense Administration put out to schools in the 50s (with the help of the NEA). It is actually just a little bit terrifying. It feels both a little bit more and a little bit less crazy than my initial impression of the phrase “duck and cover”:
The book covers a whole list of current ideas in education that we should probably consider to be outdated, not working, or bad ideas from the start. I liked the challenges to the overselling of ed tech and social-emotional learning. I also like the fact that the authors offer practical suggestions on each topic (although your mileage may vary on their solutions).
Obviously no book can cover everything, and the way this one is set up, it was bound to leave some potential issues out. That’s not really a criticism; just a constraint. There are a few that I noted should have made the cut though:
“Learning styles,” for example, have been debunked for years, and yet many educators still function as if they had not been to this day. Given the arguments over learning styles, the idea’s massive popularity, and its relationship to the science of reading debates of the past several years, this is a topic that probably deserved attention in a book that ranges so widely over so many topics.”
School funding is another, although there’s so much disagreement there that it probably wouldn’t have worked as an “obvious” duck and cover issue. COVID is another that should have probably made it though. There is some revisionist history popping up about COVID school closures that really needs to keep getting exposed.
I would like to close out by making a point about why hybrid schools and microschools are so necessary, related to Duck and Cover. In many cases – particular fads in ed tech, learning styles, COVID, etc. – we can eventually come to a consensus on which policies or approaches are misguided or outdated, and move on from them. But in lots of cases, there are just unbridgeable (but legitimate) differences of opinion.
For example: Is rote memorization good for students or not? Probably people have visceral reactions one way or the other on this. Some will say: “Of course not. Memorizing is not learning. It steps on creativity and takes time away from other things kids could be doing. And it’s forcing information on them, but that’s not learning. Learning happens through discovery.” But other people will say: “Well, sure, sometimes memorization is good and even necessary. We memorize multiplication tables to make our understanding more automatic and natural. Classroom catechisms, even if they’re not immediately useful, probably have some long-term value. Lots of choral music is taught through rote memorization.” There is no “best practice” to be found about memorization that we could force on every school and say it was obviously the correct method.
Or, to step in it even deeper: How student-driven should a school be in its approach to curriculum? Some will argue that all learning should be student-driven, and consistently aligned with their interests. Others that there is some coherent body of knowledge that every student should learn, regardless of their eventual path in life. There’s not really a compromise to be had on that. But we could open multiple schools and let families choose which one they like.
There is room for both of those schools. Lots of questions in education are prudential, not moral. Hybrid and microschools give us the space and freedom to make the calls that are right for our local school communities.
University classes offer a lot of room for reflection and change too. So now, back to grading and revising my syllabus for next time, hopefully for the better….