Preventing an Educational Train Wreck

We’ve all heard the definition of insanity: doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. That’s where we are at with education in New Zealand right now. The latest TIMSS (Trends In International Mathematics And Science Study) results are in, and once again, Kiwi kids are tracking downwards.

Look at the list of countries and read them to yourself. Look at where NZ sits in this list for fourth graders. We are fortieth behind countries like Kazakhstan, Croatia, Serbia, Armenia and Albania. So enough with the “NZ has the best education system in the world” nonsense. We don’t. Our children are being deprived of a decent education because of the hubris and stupidity of successive governments, our ideologically driven and self-interested teacher unions, and a much-vaunted but vacuous national curriculum.

What do you do with this impending train-wreck? For a start, you stop listening to the ‘experts’ who have been encouraging the driver to speed up! The leftist teacher unions have had a stranglehold on education for years, and what do they have to show for it? Continued and accelerating decline. Few governments have had the balls to stand up to them and do anything truly transformational. And when we see a glimmer of hope like Partnership Schools which were doing so much good for our Pacific and Maori students, they fight tooth and nail to shut them down.

A year or so back, I became acquainted with a TIMSS field trial in NZ in a small independent school. The school entered all its Year 10 students into the trial, and I happen to know that this particular cohort was not the most mathematically capable cohort the school had produced. Of great interest to me were the results that came back. The students were split into five small groups which sat slightly different tests. Despite this particular cohort struggling at times with the Mathematics that they were learning in the Cambridge curriculum, they aced these tests. The mean (of 2-3 students) from each of the five different test versions was significantly above the upper quartile (75th percentile) of the NZ wide results.

What is special about this school? Are the fees ridiculously high? No. Do they draw from an affluent neighbourhood? No, in fact they are in South Auckland. Do they have modern technology and all the bells and whistles in all their classes? No, they are very traditional in their approach to education, and some visitors have commented that they have the look of a deprived school. A more charitable observation would be that the facilities are basic but functional. Nevertheless, they have high expectations in terms of academic success and moral character, teachers who teach rather than ‘facilitate’, and a knowledge rich curriculum. The results speak for themselves.

So what needs to happen in education in NZ for improvement to be made? How can we get more schools performing like this little independent school? What is the solution? Here are seven things I think could help our education system.

1. The government needs to level the playing field in education

If I ran a business and paid someone to manage it for me, and if my business continued to lose revenue, I would fire that manager and get someone new to take over. Well, what do we have in our education system? Successive governments have shown that whatever they do in education does not help. Things get worse. So they should move aside. They clearly have no skill in this area. They need to stop running a hopelessly inefficient system of education and encourage more independent schools into the market place. Hence the current government created monopoly needs to be crushed. They can begin to do this by giving a tax break to all families who opt to send their children to independent schools or homeschool. These families are saving the government money and producing better-educated citizens.

Ultimately they need to get out of education altogether and allow a free market. Free up education. Charter schools were a step in the right direction. But we must be more radical. We need a market where parents can choose the school they want their children to attend. A voucher system might help provided there were very few government strings attached and a true diversity of school approaches was allowed. The removal of zoning certainly would help. These innovations would have the benefit of forcing schools to up their game. Most parents are far more invested in their children’s education than anyone else, including paper-pushing education bureaucrats. They know their children and their needs and are more than capable of selecting a school that suits their child. Schools that are not meeting the needs of children will not have many students. How sad. Maybe they will have to provide a service parents actually want. It’s called the real world. Teachers and schools do not deserve charity. They actually need to provide a worthwhile service. In a free market, schools will be forced to truly care about the education of children or they will cease to exist.

2. Ignore the teacher unions and break their power

Secondly, the government will also need to stand up to the self-interested teacher unions. They care nothing about decent education. Any true reforms that have been likely to lead to educational improvements for our poorest children they have opposed – charter schools being the case in point. They have no moral legitimacy and should be made to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on!

3. Abolish the Teaching Council and Strip Down Teacher Registration Requirements

Next we need to scrap the leftist Teaching Council; a truly inept and bloated bureaucracy that rips off teachers with a now annual fee of $157 in order to spout leftist propaganda. Quite simply, the Teaching Council is about gate-keeping. Much of their code and standards have little to do with teaching, and more to do with forcing compliance and uniformity of thinking with regards to the Treaty of Waitangi and woke issues du jour. Teacher registration, which they control, has become a joke. It supposedly protects children against incompetent and unprofessional teachers. Clearly, to anyone who reads the news, this is not the case. The truth of the matter is registration has become a political system of ensuring leftist domination of education.

With the Teaching Council removed, we would be able to reduce registration requirements to attract a more diverse range of competent people into the teaching workforce. A simpler system of registration would ensure teachers are police vetted, can pass certain cognitive tests and have satisfactory general knowledge and teaching competency. Of course, this would have the downside (or should we say upside) of weeding out a significant proportion of the current teaching population.

I am only half-joking in that last sentence. When I completed my primary teacher training some years ago I was shocked by the ability of some of the prospective teachers. One aspect of the course required us to pass an Intermediate Maths test. Many of the prospective (and I will add here women, because that is the truth) teachers struggled with this and a couple of the young men helped tutor these women in preparation for the test. Not ideal to have these sorts teaching our precious children!

4. Allow Principals to Determine Pay

This is controversial but necessary. It’s not hard to determine a good teacher from a mediocre one. Principals are educational leaders and if they can’t tell the difference, they shouldn’t be in positions of leadership. More flexibility in pay scales and an ability to pay better teachers more as a reward for their expertise will help encourage the right type of hard-working and driven people into the profession. Some say this will destroy collegiality. Nonsense. I’ve worked in business environments where some sales people earned a lot more than others. But they were always willing to advise newer or less able workmates on how they could improve.

5. Scrap the New Zealand Curriculum and NCEA as Requirements

The New Zealand Curriculum is a truly vacuous document. It gives teachers very little assistance regarding what children actually need to know. Briar Lipson has written extensively on this. New Zealand would be far better off introducing a truly International Curriculum like CAIE (Cambridge) with its external benchmarks. In the meantime, it should no longer be compulsory for New Zealand schools to use the New Zealand curriculum or to offer NCEA.

6. Introduce externally measured benchmarks

Related to the previous point is the need for externally measured benchmarks. Parents need snapshots of where their children are at. The teacher unions, of course, hated National Standards, and they would hate externally assessed benchmarks even more. These would leave little wriggle room for fudging the results, which schools did with National Standards. They have the added benefit of parents being able to determine which schools are performing well and provide an environment conducive to academic success. CAIE of course offers external examinations that are a true test of a student’s capabilities. The content of examinations is a tightly kept secret, and the only way teachers can prepare their students is by ensuring they have covered the extensive syllabus requirements.

7. Stop Seeing Schools as the Fix-Alls of Society

An unfortunate trend I have seen in education is that schools have been viewed as a panacea for all social ills. If there is a problem, schools need to deal with it. This in my opinion is also an unfortunate result of the femininisation of education.

Teaching has become feminised and more focused on caring and less on academic rigour. We need a more masculine and results orientated approach. We need to get back to the concept that schools exist to provide an academic education. They do not exist to give hugs, provide lunches, and ensure every child gets a certificate. We need to get back to the main thing being the main thing. Providing incentives to encourage more men back into primary teaching could help.

So there are my 7 tips for improving education in New Zealand. However, I’m not holding my breath with this government!

Monopoly Education is Poor Education

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Truth Education may be looking at introducing or amending 135 school enrolment zones in Auckland. The plan is designed to save the Ministry millions of dollars by forcing parents to send their children to undersubscribed schools rather than oversubscribed ones which would require expensive expansion projects to keep up with demand. Having more enrolment zones gives the MOE more ability to manage this demand.

Obviously this is going to rub many parents up the wrong way. There is a reason parents try at all costs to avoid a local school and instead elect to send their child to a school further away. Why would parents make their lives more difficult? Quite simply, parents are closer to understanding their child’s needs, and have more skin in the game than faceless bureaucrats drawing lines on a map. Perhaps it would be better to consider why some schools are unpopular and why others are full. Perhaps instead of continuing to restrict choice we could increase choice and make schools more responsible for attracting students to their area by providing a service that parents actually want. Maybe, just maybe, leaders in unpopular schools could consider what it is that makes them unpopular and figure out how to turn the ship around.

Monopolies do not tend to provide excellent customer service, and we have a near-monopoly situation with education in New Zealand. Being in education, I am aware of independent schools in areas of Auckland that offer a basic no-frills education. These schools charge fees and still are bursting at the seams. You have to ask yourself why. Seriously. If these schools can attract people away from free schools charging thousands of dollars per year while simultaneously offering no optional extras – just a basic traditional education – how bad must the local schools be?

Could it be possible that most parents might know more about what good education looks like than the MOE and government bureaucracy? Yes. Would we be better off if the government retreated from its overly controlling approach to all things education and allowed parents more choice? Without a doubt. Would more choice lead to healthy competition? Certainly. Would educational standards rise? Of course. Would the unions and many teachers complain? Naturally, why would the turkey vote for Christmas? Should we do it anyway? Imagine the fun! Will this government do anything that will increase educational outcomes? Can the blind lead the blind?

Conservative Parents, Liberal Teachers

As a conservative Christian parent, I’ve always known that schools, in general, are not places that will support me as I attempt to impart my values and worldview to my children. Teaching tends to attract liberals and leftists who understand the power of moulding the minds of the next generation. This is why we as a family have chosen to homeschool our children. We believe this to be our job and we don’t want someone whose values are an antithesis to ours having anything to do with shaping our children.

Nevertheless, as a teacher, I do keep an eye on things educational, and I have friends who have children in a variety of different schools. I love to hear stories of what goes on. It is very interesting to see the double standards. The slightest whiff of conservative bias in a school and all hell breaks loose. But liberal bias is the norm and is ignored. Let me give you a few examples.

The Marijuana Debate

Recently, St Paul’s College, A Catholic school in Ponsonby Auckland had the message ‘To legalise is to normalise – Say No’ displayed on its electronic school sign. The sign referred to the upcoming referendum on liberalising cannabis law.

There were a number of complaints regarding this sign, as in New Zealand, people working in State services are required to act in the course of their duties in a politically neutral manner. This sign, according to some, contravenes this.

Questioning BLM out of School

Another particularly egregious example of the hounding of conservatives involved a teacher friend of mine who happened to wear a famous red hat to a BLM protest in order to provoke discussion about the Marixst origins of the movement. Despite doing this in his own time, his private details including where he worked were posted online, his school came under attack, complaints were made to the teacher’s council asking for his registration to be revoked, and on top of this he received death threats and threats that his wife would be raped.

Promoting BLM in School

What I find interesting is that this incident which occurred outside of school has lead to complaints, but far more insidious political bias is shown in schools day to day. For instance, one of my friend’s children, unbeknownst to him participated in a Black Lives Matter march around the school during school hours. Apparently this was ‘organised by the students‘. This was in a primary school (Years 0-6). Now let me assure you, dear reader, that having taught Year 5 & 6 students, I find it unlikely in the extreme that they would organise something like this unless they were prompted and supported in doing it.

In addition, this same state school, on its public Facebook page, posted A Parent’s Guide to Black Lives Matter, which contained sections such as How do I explain White Privilege? and The danger of saying “My child isn’t racist”. The booklet suggests further resources for parents to investigate. Let’s just say the list is hardly apolitical.

To give you an idea of the quality of the resources, let me highlight two. Parents were encouraged to get hold of Innosanto Nagara’s: A is for Activist, for age 1 and up. It’s an ABC book packed with definitions and eye-catching pictures that help children engage in and understand activism. Seriously! Activism for children age 1 up. How about education before we get to activism. Or for those with older kids, Reni Eddo-Lodge’s Why I’m no longer talking to White people about race is another recommendation. Doesn’t that sound like a wonderful book to help unite people!

So how did this go down in the media? What’s that sound you hear? Yes. Crickets.

The Reality

The reality out there in our public schools is that teachers are not unbiased. Teacher training was eye-opening in this regard. Teachers in NZ, are drawn mostly from the left side of the political spectrum. Many who go into teaching intend to push certain social agendas. I can recall teachers who wanted to ensure their students were forced to read more literature showing different kinds of family structures to counter the heteronormative ‘bias’. One teacher I know when being trained on sexuality education asked, “What if you think that it is the parents job to teach this sort of thing?” The reply of the lecturer? “Don’t be a teacher.”

Other parents have told me of their child’s teacher promoting veganism ‘for the good of the environment’, and telling their students why a particular left-wing party is the one they support.

A Call to Action

So do we just take this? Is this just the way it is? Should we give up and move on. No! Here are three things conservative parents should be doing.

1. Choose an option that fits with your family values

Conservative parents, realise that many schools are not places which support your life philosophy. Recognise that many teachers are hostile to your viewpoint and would consider you a bigot.

Recently I have heard some really tragic stories of grown children turning against parents. In one case, a father posted “all lives matter” on his Facebook profile only to be savagely attacked by his children’s friends as a bigot. Worst of all his children berated him publicly. These children have grown up and imbibed the liberal ethos of the day through the slow but steady brainwashing of school. The parents have not passed on their values to the next generation; someone else has.

If you have the opportunity and financial wherewithal, I certainly recommend looking at independent or special character schooling. Find a school that shares your values. Talk to the principal. Ask to meet a few teachers and see if you can chat with some parents who have children at the school. Perhaps consider homeschooling. While this is a financial sacrifice, it ensures that you are the ones who pass your values on to your children. If you can’t afford either of these options, get involved in the school as much as you can. Perhaps try to get elected to the board. Be seen and known.

2. Complain when your values are denigrated

What I have noticed is that conservatives tend to be less concerned with their values being threatened than more liberal folk. This is why there were complaints about a Catholic school promoting a ‘no’ vote for the cannabis referendum, but not a dicky bird regarding schools supporting the BLM protests.

Conservatives, you are tax-payers too. Your hard-earned money is spent lavishly on education. Your children are forced to attend these monopolistic schools unless you pay twice – once for the public schools in your taxes, and twice for the school of your choice. If you are paying for state schooling, then you have every right to complain about bias and brainwashing that goes against your family values. Do it! At the slightest whiff of political bias, arrange a meeting with the principal and lay a complaint.

If you get push-back, point your principal in this direction. State servants are meant to be politically neutral:

Persons working in the State services (State servants) are required to act in the course of their duties in a politically neutral manner.  This includes the requirement to act impartially and to implement the Government’s policies.

3. Push for true school choice

As I have suggested previously, it is parents who are responsible for the education of their children. As a Christian, I would go so far as to say, the government has no right to determine the education of children. They have stepped outside their God-given role when they dabble in education.

Unfortunately we live in times when the state has become the idol of the people, and people look to their god for everything, including education.

While we cannot help living in these times, we can push against the prevailing and faulty view of government. Vote for parties that push for school choice and options such as charter schools. Vote for parties that want to abolish zoning which has the tragic effect of forcing children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to attend schools that are often performing poorly. Vote for parties that want to increase diversity of educational options for parents. Vote for parties that want education to be less centralized and more influenced by parents. Talk to other parents and sell the benefits of independent education. Get together other concerned parents and write to your MP or ask to meet with him or her.

You as a parent need to be able to ensure that your values are the ones that teachers are passing on to your children. Why should you have to pay for an education that runs counter to what you hold dear? Why should a conservative family have to pay tax for a school run by social liberals who are doing their best to undermine the values that your family has? They are our children. We brought them into the world, it’s up to us to train them and send them out into it.

The Endgame

So what’s the endgame? If we could get to the stage where the government backed right out of school education and left it up to parents to choose how their children were educated, that would be wonderful. Our taxes would be reduced significantly, education would be more efficient and no doubt cheaper, and we would have the freedom to choose an education that suits our children and families.

Levi and Mike: Round 2

In a previous post, Levi, a first-century Jewish convert to Christianity, who had somehow been miraculously transported to the modern West, argued with his host Mike about Christian education. Today the conversation continues.

Levi: So have you thought more about the discussion we had the other day on Christian education?

Mike: Not really, no. I guess I’m pretty busy at work at the moment….besides, I’m not convinced by your argument.

Levi: Did you know there’s a new school opening down the road next month?

Mike: And you think I should send my kids there?

Levi: Well it’s an Islamic school. So…would you?

Mike: Of course not! Why would you imagine I would do that?

Levi: Well, what if it was free?

Mike: What are you getting at! Of course I wouldn’t. We’re a Christian family. I don’t want my children taught from an Islamic perspective. They deny the Trinity and don’t believe Jesus actually died. But I get the feeling you’re trying to score a point here.

Levi: Yes, I am. If you wouldn’t send your child to an Islamic school, why do you send your child to a government school?

Mike: Seriously? They’re totally different. An Islamic school is religious. They are training children in the Islamic faith.

Levi: So do you believe that a government school is not religious?

Mike: No. State schools are set up to be secular. That means they are non-religious. The reason for this is so that no one faith is privileged.

Levi: Are you so naïve? Can you seriously believe that there is such a thing as a non-religious position? Neutrality is impossible in this area. Jesus said, “”Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” There are no neutral hearts. We are either in rebellion against Christ, or we acknowledge his lordship. Do you think God would consider ignoring him non-religious? Or would that be considered rebellious idolatry?

Mike: Ok, say I grant your point that there is no such thing as a neutrality. But still, I think the danger posed by a government school is significantly less than an Islamic school.

Levi: Do you? Given the impact secularism has had in undermining your civilization do you think you have perhaps miscalculated and underestimated the danger from the government schools? The West’s societies seem to be heading for rapid civilizational collapse as a result of their rebellion against God. Can you not see the connection between this and the training of its children?

Discussion Paper – Coronavirus Implications

A discussion paper, released some weeks ago by think-tank Koi Tū: Centre for Informed Futures was highlighted in an article on the Stuff website. Of particular interest to me was the section on education.

The report muses about implications for education:-

Does the pandemic change thinking around primary and secondary education? Will this experience irreversibly change the nature of learning – changes that were likely inevitable in future decades? There are opportunities here to shift more to teaching skills such as critical thinking and emotional self-regulation, move towards precision education and create leadership and export opportunities. Schools need to focus on transportable and generic skills so that pupils can later navigate a more fluid labour market. Is there a place for technology teaching streams as in Germany and Switzerland? Could this be a circuit breaker that allows for a substantial change in pedagogy?

A couple of comments.

Firstly, we should always be wary of the impulse to assume that an event will irreversibly change anything. Yes, events do have an impact on history and can cause change. But there are a number of fundamental things that never change. The nature of humans for instance. And because the nature of humans is immutable, the nature of learning is not likely to be something that changes. If our brains function in much the same way as they always have, any one event is not going to significantly alter the way humans learn.

This criticism applies to the common misconception that the 21st century changes everything. It doesn’t.

Secondly, the report suggests that we should focus on teaching skills that enable students to navigate a more fluid labour market. In recent posts, we have shown that this is a myth based on a misunderstanding of what skill is. What schools need to do, is provide students with a knowledge-rich education. This is a fundamental building block for skill.

Unfortunately, these two myths, that one event or time period changes learning completely, and that our modern world requires the teaching of skills are widely believed and foisted upon the educational landscape. But they are having an unfortunate effect on our young people. If you are a parent, I encourage you to look for a school that does not buy into these myths. Give your children the gift of a content-rich education. Skill and ability to navigate an ever-changing world will follow.

Tell the Coming Generations

It’s an odd thing that those who should be most concerned with education place so little emphasis on it. For the Christian parent, next to ensuring the salvation of their own soul, their next greatest priority is the spiritual welfare of their children. And yet the Western Christian, by and large, has not connected the dots.

Asaph in Psalm 78 does. He writes, “things….that our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord and his might, and the wonders that he has done.” In fact ‘telling’ the next generation is not just something for super-spiritual Christian parents. No, it is the command of God for us all. Asaph continues, “He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children.” It’s not a small thing to fail to pass on our faith to our children. It is disobedience against the Almighty.

What is the expected result of following God’s commands in this aspect of life? It is a passing on of the faith. Asaph writes “that the next generation might know them [the laws of God], the children yet unborn and arise and tell them to their children.” We see a passing on of the knowledge of God’s law from one generation to the next to the next. But the ultimate result of all this is “so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.” The command is designed to produce a people faithful to God.

It seems to me that Asaph’s general expectation is that as we teach the next generation the law of God, then that generation should set its hope in God and avoid the sin of willful rebellion against him.

What do we see today in God’s church in the West? We see successive generations of the church being smaller. Many leave the faith as they hit adulthood, and never come back. The church seems weak. Congregations are often ageing, and even those churches which are youthful are often filled with people who could be accused of being more in love with the social norms of the day than the law of God. A generalization to be sure but accurate.

Could it be that families are failing in their duty to teach their children? Could it be that Sunday school once a week, prayers before meals, the odd short devotional after dinner combined with the fun party atmosphere of youth group on Fridays cannot withstand the daily assault they are suffering from the secularists who run our education system? Might we be suffering the just rebuke of God for our idolatrous worship of the state and the handing over to Caesar what rightly belongs to God?

Seven Myths About Education – Part 7

Over the last month or so we have been slowly reviewing Daisy Christodoulou’s Seven Myths About Education. A note that has sounded time and again is the importance of knowledge. We see this again today as we investigate the final myth she highlights: that teaching knowledge is indoctrination.

Teaching Knowledge is Indoctrination?

This myth seems to arise from postmodernism. In the 1960s and 1970s, a number  of theorists claimed that what we often think of as objective facts cannot be agreed to exist. Rather, they argued, we construct reality as societies and cultures. These ‘realities’ are buttressed by institutional power, which preserves these facts. Thus, according to these theorists, teaching knowledge is not neutral, but can be a form of oppression by those who hold societal power, and therefore undemocratic. These theorists argue that the traditional curriculum “reproduces hegemonic values and therefore reproduces social and class inequalities.” Therefore, this approach should be abandoned.

So the response of some educational theorists is to avoid the imposition of external content on pupils, and instead work with the knowledge and experiences that they already have. We see this all over the educational landscape today. One example from recent times is a New Zealand educational leader suggesting a boy in the deep south of our country is better off knowing about muttonbirds than how many continents we have. Indeed, our New Zealand Curriculum is deliberately broad and eschews set knowledge so local communities can ensure their particular needs are addressed and themes relevant to students’ experience can be explored.

Why is this a myth?

So what is wrong with this? Surely Christodoulou is not supporting inequality and oppression? Of course not, but she points out that if we are concerned about democracy and equality, we should be concerned about the teaching of knowledge in schools. If we do not provide a knowledge-rich education in schools we will further exacerbate the undemocratic and unequal features of our society. Why? By only teaching pupils using the knowledge they bring to the classroom, and focussing on their experiences, we automatically disadvantage those who bring less to the classroom. These are the children of those who are not highly educated themselves.

In fact, a good democracy requires that every citizen “have knowledge and understanding of the world beyond their immediate experience, equality requires that there should be no great gaps in the understanding between people or social classes.” Teaching knowledge is not elitist. It’s not classist, and it’s not racist. As Robert Tressel (a trade unionist) said, “What we call civilisation – the accumulation of knowledge…is the fruit of thousands of years of human thought and toil…not the result of the labour of the ancestors of any separate class of people…and therefore it is by right the common heritage of all.” So let’s not leave any child to their own limited local knowledge and experience. Let’s give them the gift of this heritage.

Seven Myths About Education – Part 6

This is my penultimate post on Daisy Christodoulou’s book, Seven Myths About Education. In the previous post, we highlighted the myth that teachers should be teaching transferable skills. Today Christodoulou slaughters another sacred cow in myth 6.

Myth 6: Projects and Activities are the Best Way to Learn

There is a movement in education which frowns upon the compartmentalization of knowledge into subjects and a consequent push for more project-based learning. This has lead to what is called enquiry pedagogy. The goal is to produce more autonomous learners, and the means is project-based learning where ‘real-life’ type projects are given to students. Sounds great. Students are given opportunities to play experts in role play.

Why is this a myth?

First of all, there is a huge difference between experts and novices. Experts have a huge body of background knowledge that is stored in long-term memory. This is available to be called upon when necessary as we have discussed in earlier posts. This body of knowledge in an expert leads to a qualitative difference in thinking between experts and novices. Children do not have this extensive background knowledge, so functioning as an expert in a ‘real-life’ project is an unattainable goal. Christodoulou strongly argues that it is not even a realistic or legitimate aim for secondary school to produce experts, and it is a mistake to look at what experts do and think that is how we produce experts.

So does this mean we don’t believe education is about producing problem-solvers? Of course not. We do want to produce children who are able to solve real-world problems. But how we go about doing this is the key question. Does project-based learning or activities facilitate or hinder our goal? Again, for Christodoulou, the answer is rich knowledge-based instruction. We don’t produce experts by getting them to act as problem-solving experts by doing real-world projects. We set children on the way to being experts by giving them the gift of knowledge.

Christodoulou uses the analogy of training in football to help the reader understand her point. One does not chuck children into 11 a side games. Yes, children play soccer games, but in training, the whole game is broken down into smaller activities like dribbling and tackling, which are practised. This transfers over to the realm of say English. More practice controlling sentences leads to better writing.

An example of what not to do is given in the chapter. Christodoulou mentions the vital importance of getting pupils thinking about the right things. So, for instance, if a teacher were to teach a unit on the Underground Railroad, an activity of backing cookies (perhaps a type of food eaten on the Underground Railroad) would be a failure as a lesson, as it is not an effective way of getting deeper thinking about the Underground Railroad.

The Poison in this Myth

The most iniquitous aspect of this myth is the way it further disadvantages the already disadvantaged. Projects require background knowledge. “Pupils who will do the least badly at such projects are those who have gained background knowledge elsewhere.” This will typically be children from wealthier backgrounds. If we care about aiding students from ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’, the best action we can take, is to give them the requisite knowledge they need.

Seven Myths About Education – Part 4

We have been working our way through Daisy Christodoulou’s Seven Myths About Education. The previous myth we investigated was that the 21st century fundamentally changes everything. Today we are investigating the fourth myth.

Myth 4: You Can Always Just Look it Up

Who hasn’t heard this one? Someone displays an unusual depth of knowledge and another scornfully says, “If I wanted to know that, I could just google it.” We’ve seen hints of this in the other myths. Procedural knowledge, or knowing how is rated about declarative knowledge or knowing what.

This myth has certainly infected the classroom. Apparently teachers shouldn’t worry about their students learning facts. Given our internet age, knowledge is redundant. Rather we need to focus on teaching research skills.

How is this a myth? What is wrong with this thinking?

the first issue is that it denies what research on memory tells us. Knowledge in our long term memory is extremely important. In fact, the more knowledge we have, the greater range of problems we are able to solve. If we memorise frequently used bits of information, these will not clog-up our short term memory when we are trying to solve complex problems.

A classic case in the classroom is teaching fractions with children who do not know their multiplication tables. First times tables must be in the long term memory, then you can teach fractions. Or what about your doctor? Nobody would want their doctor googling how to do a procedure five minutes before they are due to go into surgery. They are going to need a lot of knowledge stored in their long term memory so they can be effective.

Secondly, ‘looking something up’ actually requires a certain amount of knowledge. First of all, one needs to know what one needs to find out. In addition, knowledge of what makes for a good source could be important. And these are just starting points. As Christodoulou points out, “..research skills are, on closer inspection, the function of large bodies of knowledge.” In fact, often when we describe students has having good research skills, we are actually making more of a comment on their general knowledge. Because of their good general knowledge, they are enabled to interpret research questions and approach the whole process of research in a competent manner.

So yes, we do want to teach good research skills. But it should never be an either-or thing. We want to complement this with providing children with a good body of knowledge.

Levi and Mike Discuss Education

In a previous post we looked at cultural blind spots and chronological snobbery. One cultural blindspot Christians often have is in the area of education. Imagine for a moment, a first-century Jew, a recent convert to Christianity was suddenly and miraculously transported into the 21st century West. Trapped in our time, unable to get back he finds a Christian home to stay in. He would no doubt be impressed by our technology, the abundance and variety of food we enjoy and our ability to travel easily and relatively cheaply. I imagine he’d marvel at the ready access we have to the apostles’ words. He might be disappointed by our zeal. There would also no doubt be many cultural differences that might make understanding difficult.

But I put it to you, that he would be absolutely shocked by our take on education.

Imagine no longer. How I managed to record the following conversation, and by what method Levi, our first century Christian Jew managed to be transported to Auckland New Zealand in the year 2020 must remain a secret.  The key thing is I have the conversation. He’s chatting with his host Mike, father of a 21st century Western Christian family. Can I apologise for Levi in advance? He did not grow up in our pluralistic tolerant age. Consider that your trigger-warning.

Levi: Brother, why do your children leave the house every day and stay at school for so long?

Mike: Well, they’re going to school. It’s important. They need a good education.

Levi: What do you mean by that?

Mike: Well, our world is a complex place. To get a good job, they are going to need to understand it properly.

Levi: Well yes, I entirely agree that children need to understand God’s world. But my question is: why do you send your children to pagans to educate? Your daughter informed me yesterday, that her teacher claimed that Darwin’s theory of evolution means there is no God, and your son said his teacher was explaining the importance of accepting people’s choice of gender. I had to question him to find out what that meant!

Mike: Yes, I have to admit, we are not happy about that, but children have to go to school. It’s compulsory.

Levi: That’s incredible. I didn’t imagine that in the future people would be so fettered by the ruling authorities that they could no longer make decisions about discipling their children.

Mike: Well, there are different types of schools. There are Christian schools – but they cost money, and you can try to get an exemption to homeschool, but that would mean Mandy would have to stay at home to teach the children, and she loves her career.

Levi: But didn’t the apostle Paul say in his epistle to the Ephesians, that fathers, that’s you Mike, are to  not provoke your children to anger, but to instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Mike: How is that relevant Levi? I read the Bible to my children after dinner. I pray for them. I take them to church with me and they have a good Sunday school programme there.

Levi: Well do you think a 10 minute chat once a day and an hour on Sundays in Kids Church fulfils your obligations?

Mike: I guess I could do more. But school’s really just about learning Maths and English you know. How to write and stuff like that.

Levi: But don’t you believe what Paul says of Christ in his epistle to the Colossians? He says, “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Mike: How is that relevant? I don’t understand. What do you mean?

Levi: Well Paul is reflecting on how the Son is the creator of all things and they were created for him, and they hold together in him. What do you mean by saying “They’re just learning Maths and English …how to write and stuff like that?” Are these things part of the created order that exist for the Son? Are they separate to it? And if not, why are you letting pagans who supress the truth about God train your young and impressionable children to do these things in a setting where the trainers deny the Lordship of Christ and his relevance to the universe he brought into being?

Mike: Hold on a minute. Yes I believe what Colossians says. But what’s the harm in getting unbelievers to teach my children how to do Maths, write a sentence…you know, that sort of thing. Isn’t that just part of the common grace that God gives to people?

Levi: Let’s grant you that point for the moment. Although I think you’ll find that what people believe necessarily taints everything. But do you really think that’s all your children learn? What about all of the incidental learning that goes on in the classroom every day? The teacher’s attitude to life, their understanding of the purpose of all learning, their approach to the issues of the day. Do you think that all of this is not going to come out in a classroom? Why, your daughter said yesterday at the dinner table that Ms Halcombe had told the class that her entire job could be summed up as enabling the students to be who they want to be?! You’d think she was the very serpent in the garden himself with words like that!

Photo by Daria Shevtsova

Mike: But Levi, Christ called us to be in the world. We can’t abandon the world. This way our children get to understand the world’s perspective on life, and we can show them how it is wrong. They can also be salt and light, just as Jesus wanted us to be.

Levi: Mike! Let me share you the wisdom that comes from history. We Jews have a sorry history that can teach you a lot. Do you know the story of the Judges? Do you know what led to that terrible period in our history?

Mike: Well, surely you can’t be arguing that it was because your people sent their children to non-Jewish schools?

Levi: No of course not. The story begins in Joshua. As our people crossed into the Promised Land, we set up a stone monument with stones taken from the middle of the River Jordan, which God made dry. The monument was to be a teaching tool. When our children asked what the stones meant, we were to tell them the story of God’s faithfulness in our history. Well of course, the memory of what happened lasted for a generation, but as the book of Judges says, after Joshua’s generation died out, a new generation grew up who neither knew the Lord or what he had done for Israel.

Mike: Yeah. I understand that it’s important that we pass on what God has done to our children. But I’m doing that. School’s a separate issue.

Levi: No it isn’t. Training up young minds is the single most important role you have as a parent. In the Law, we were taught the following. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Clearly the training of a child is not a five minute a day role. It’s a process that encompasses all your life with them, day and night.

Mike: Oh, but that’s the Old Testament. That applies to Israel. We are New Covenant believers.

Levi: Do you think that being under the New Covenant places a lesser requirement of love and concern for the spiritual wellbeing of our children than it did for the children of believers in the Old Covenant? You know Jesus warned people against leading his little ones astray. He said those responsible for this would be better off having a millstone attached to their necks and being tossed into the sea. Do you think this suggests that we New Covenant believers should be less concerned about the training of our covenant children now? Do you think Jesus’ requirement to let the little children come to him is compatible with sending them away from him to be trained by those who hate him and are walking away from him?

Mike: Well like I say, I keep an eye on what they are learning, and Jesus calls us to be salt and light. My children can be salt and light!

Levi: But Mike…if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? Look at your children. They dress like unbelieving children. They talk like them. They watch the same television shows, and their role models are the same…what do you call it…’social media celebrities’. Are they salt? As far as I read Scripture, I nowhere see a command for parents to outsource the training of their children to unbelievers in the hope that those unbelievers will be brought to faith. We send missionaries to the cannibals, but we don’t serve them up our children. Besides, when your church sends missionaries to overseas countries, they have to train substantially to be prepared to bring the gospel to this context. How much more children?! Shouldn’t we spend their impressionable years developing in them a Christ-centred approach to the world around them in preparation for a life of being salt and light?

Mike: But Levi, look at the results. Hannah’s friend is now going to youth group!

Levi: Would this still be a victory if Hannah ended up going to hell? Surely you can imagine a world where you are obedient to the commands of Scripture concerning both how you disciple your children, and how you reach out to unbelievers? Surely disobedience in one realm can’t be justified pragmatically by seeming success in another?

Mike: Well I don’t think I’m being disobedient. Besides, like I said, we can’t afford a Christian education. We’d prefer it, but it’s just not doable.

Levi: What do you mean? Is obedience to Christ in this matter impossible? What do you mean you can’t afford it? I know travel is not incredibly expensive, but wouldn’t you be able to cut back on overseas travel? Couldn’t you live in a smaller house? Can’t you figure out a way of making it work?

Mike: Well I suppose we could make it work if we really cut back. But Mandy wouldn’t want to move to another part of town. This is a nice area – it’s close to the city. Our friends are nearby. Plus our house is a great size for us. It’s good for entertaining. We can have Bible study here.

Levi: So it’s not actually about the cost? It’s more about the priority you place on it. You’d rather be comfortably well off than obedient to Christ? Maybe avoiding poverty for the sake of Christ has become an idol for you?

Mike: Well, I’m not sure I’d put it that way. You are pretty blunt you know.

Levi: Well I’ll be blunter still. Paul was pretty blunt too you know. Maybe you live in an age where caring about truth isn’t as important as avoiding offending people. Why doesn’t Mandy disciple your children at home? Surely much of her income is spent on having Matthew at the inappropriately named ‘Best Start Day Care’ each day. Didn’t the apostle Paul say in his epistle to Titus that he was to train the young women to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Mike: Oh, don’t go there. We’ve come a long way since your day. Women are just as important as men, and we no longer believe they should just stay at home looking after the household. We’ve emancipated women.

Levi: May I remind you that in my day, the apostle Paul wrote that male and female were one in Christ. that does not mean we are all the same part of the body. We all have different roles to play. And I object to your use of the word just. What do you mean just stay at home looking after the household. How is training your children and preparing them for a life of service to Christ “just”. What is it she does anyway? Isn’t she a paralegal? Emancipated woman? What nonsense! You’ve exchanged submission to her cherished husband who loves her deeply and service of the ones she loves more than any others in the world for submission to a man she hardly knows and service of people she neither knows nor cares for.

Mike: I don’t see it that way.

Levi: Perhaps it’s inconvenient for you to see it this way. Perhaps you see the sacrifice another way might require, and you’re not willing to count the cost.

Mike: I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. You have your opinion which is good for you, and I have mine, which works for our family.