External vs Internal Motivation and the Theory of Knowledge

More and school states and school districts are developing programs designed to 'motivate' students to improve on standardized tests. Combine that with incentive programs for teachers to improve test scores and we have a train wreck in the making.

I still marvel at the fact that good, well meaning people, have a limited understanding of how people (and the brain) actually work. Unless of course these aren't well meaning people (which I refuse to think about). 

Everyone acts from theory - whether they are aware of it or not. The brain develops 'models' of the world and how it works and we behave consistent with those models (even abhorrent behavior is consistent with some mental model in the brain). 

So what are the theories in use by the people that develop policies for the public schooling system? It appears, from where I sit, the theory employed in school policy and practice includes:

• people need extrinsic motivation
  
• incentives motivate people
• memory is learning
  
• control and compliance are highly valued
  
• learning is teacher and testing centric
• memory and tests demonstrate 'knowledge' 
  
• order and discipline are requirements for learning
• school can be disconnected from life
• curriculum determines what is learned
• schooling develops good people
• emotions have no place at school
• people aren't people when they are at school
• school is disconnected from the rest of life

The public schooling system is the one institution that touches just about every single person in the country. There is tremendous 'potential' there. But what happens when we use extrinsic motivation and incentives to 'produce' an outcome?

Extrinsic motivation slowly destroys self esteem, dignity, cooperation and a yearning for learning - all of which are innate and high early in life. They are diminished throughout our life by what Dr. Deming calls the forces of destruction - of which extrinsic motivation is one of these destructive forces.

To paraphrase Mary Walton's presentation on Dr. Deming's teaching on performance appraisals, such an approach will "encourage short-term performance...discourage risk-taking, build fear, undermine teamwork, and pit people working against each other for the same rewards." ("The Deming Management Method," chapter 19, page 91). As Dr. Deming noted in "The New Economics," Ch. 4, p. 113, "When children are given rewards, such as toys and money, for doing well in school...they learn to expect rewards for good performance." This leaves the child, and then the adult, extrinsically motivated, relying on "things to make them feel good." And that destroys essential self-esteem. Dr. Deming expanded on this in pages 147-153.

So what should schools do? Here's a quote from a review of Dr. Deming's book, The New Economics.

To achieve notable improvement, the education system should abolish grades, merit ratings for teachers, comparison of schools on the basis of scores, and gold stars for athletics. Joy in learning comes more from learning than from what is learned. A grade is a permanent label for opening doors or closing doors, a way to achieve quality by inspection, rather than building in quality, a way to produce competition between people, rather than cooperation, a way to label people as winners or losers, a way to humiliate those at the bottom, rather than to promote their desire to learn and future achievement.

The California legislature has passed a law (awaiting the governor's signature) authorizing and encouraging school districts to provide non monetary "incentives to middle ad and high school students for achievement or improvement on standardized tests."

Here's an article about this.

Someone is thinking different about schools

At least someone in this world appears to be thinking different about schools and schooling. Here's a great short video that might give some traditional educators something to think about (I would imagine there are some educators that would be quite scared by seeing something like this):

Teachers Have NO Constitutional Right to Free Speech

In several previous posts I have been exploring this idea that public schools are a tool for the Federal Government to 'school' the public in the 'basics' in order to produce a disciplined society (and reduce crime). In one of the articles I read about the origins of the 'free' public school system the author was suggesting the aim of the education is to indoctrinate the public. I have just finished reading an article (link below) that says a teacher has NO constitutional right to express personal opinions (free speech) in the classroom.

Here's a quote from the article:

A teacher's speech is "the commodity she sells to an employer in exchange for her salary," the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in January. "The Constitution does not enable teachers to present personal views to captive audiences against the instructions of elected officials."

I wonder how many professional teachers working today would know this? I wonder, if they did know this, if they would say they comply with the law and DO NOT express personal opinions in the classroom?

If I interpret this properly this 'law' says that a teacher must ONLY say what they are approved to say by the local School Board. I presume the local School Board takes their mandates from the State School Board, which in turn takes their cues from the Federal Board of Education.

What does this mean to the anyone that is interested in changing education (or transforming education)?

Here's the article:

Supreme Court denies hearing for fired 'honk for peace' teacher
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer • Tuesday, October 2, 2007
An elementary-school teacher who was dismissed after telling her class on the eve of the Iraq war that "I honk for peace" lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to Deborah Mayer, who had appealed lower-court decisions upholding an Indiana school district's refusal to renew her contract in June 2003. The most-recent ruling, by a federal appeals court in Chicago, said teachers in public schools have no constitutional right to express personal opinions in the classroom.

And, if one is involved in education something like this would again make it seem like the only people that know what is good for young people are the people in charge - not the teacher in the classroom.

Taking this to the extreme, as I have suggested in previous posts, the education system is not set up to teach people to think. It also appears that the system isn't designed for people in the system to think either.

Schools Fail to Engage Students

A recent study followed 1000 students starting when they were three years old and finished when they were 17 years old (which is now). The study, by a University of Virginia education professor, found little evidence of education that engages students or helps them learn to think and solve problems. Here's a quote from an article about the study:

“We don’t see much opportunity for kids to be actively engaged in projects, or teachers interacting with kids individually or in small groups, in ways that could stimulate learning,” he said. “Students learn more math and become more literate when the instruction is focused not just on whether the kids know the right or wrong answer but encouraging understanding on a deeper conceptual level.”

I am an advocate for engaged, project based, collaborative learning - focused on real-world problems. I believe this is one of the only ways to break the bonds that have isolated school and education from the rest of life. We know far too much about the brain and how people actually learn to continue to have 90% of classrooms providing passive learning (lectures).

Access the rest of the article here.