“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
–George Orwell, Animal Farm
I think of Animal Farm when I hear the terms “conservative,” “progressive,” “reformer,” and “establishment” tossed back and forth between one group and another. Lo and behold, they mean everything and nothing. Between David Brooks’ recent column in the New York Times and Alfie Kohn’s commentary in The Nation, we’ve got quite a bit of muck to filter. Brooks crudely contrasts “reformers” with “establishment”; Kohn, supposedly questioning such categories, uses false categories of his own. He argues that the “reformers” are allied with “conservatives,” then, instead of defining either term, proceeds to defend his argument in language that is equally imprecise.
Each of Kohn’s statements is internally confused and based on muddy language and reasoning. I’ll take his statements one by one.
1. There is no evidence that alternative forms of assessment are more “authentic.” To the contrary, they can be every bit as contrived as standardized tests, if not more so. While I recognize the need for a combination of assessments, I dispute the assertion that one is more “authentic” than another.
2. “Top-down” mandates are not inherently bad. It all depends on what is being mandated. A mandated curriculum such as Core Knowledge, which specifies what should be taught but not how, can help ensure a solid education for students without limiting the teachers’ craft or the students’ creativity. By contrast, a mandated pedagogical model like Balanced Literacy can cramp both the process and the content. Yet any policy needs to be implemented thoughtfully in order to work. It should allow for the intelligence of teachers and students.
3. What is “rote” learning? I learn a poem’s meaning as I memorize it; I start to understand its structure, meaning, rhythm, and tones. My mind plays with it. It comes to me in different parts, from different angles. Memorization (of poems, language, and math facts) allows for deep learning. Yet I rarely see schools requiring students to memorize anything (except perhaps their “learning goals”). This is a shame.
4. About the “behaviorist” model: much of education is based on behaviorist assumptions. Kohn needs to distinguish between behaviorism (which has some degree of truth) and a “model” that places it at the center. Also, the use of cash rewards has problems beyond “behaviorism” itself; it sends children the message that they need not do anything for which they are not paid.
5. “a corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling”–too vague and lumpy. I recommend that he separate “corporate sensibility” from “economic rationale.” They are not one and the same. And there is a world of difference between employing some degree of “economic rationale” and adopting a “business model.”
6. Charter schools–again, there’s a world of difference between having a few charter schools (or alternative public schools) and moving toward a charter school “model.” He should acknowledge the difference. Also, he needs to explain the difference between nonprofit and for-profit charters. The question of profit in education is troubling and complex and goes far beyond charters themselves (to test-making, textbooks, pedagogical programs, etc.).
With muddy language in each of his points, it’s no wonder that he makes the equally muddy association between these principles and conservatism. But what is conservatism? There are different strands. As Diane Ravitch points out on Politico,
“There is an enduring message of conservatism that makes sense for our times: fiscal conservatism, respect for the Constitution, preservation of our values and our culture, protection of individual rights and freedoms, concern for national security. This version of conservatism has enduring appeal for a large swath of the population It is not the same as the cramped, narrow, biased expression of contempt for people who are different (e.g., homosexuals); it is not the same as me-first economic policies; nor is it the same as being hard-hearted towards those with less.”
Such conservatism has much in common with certain kinds of progressivism. Instead of using jargon and false logic to pit “conservatives” against “progressives” (or “reformers” against “establishment”), we could use careful language and logic to find common ground and draw up a good policy or two.
Diana Senechal teaches theatre and ESL at P.S. 108, an official Core Knowledge school in New York City. She has a Ph.D. in Slavic Languages and Literatures from Yale. Her translations of the Lithuanian poetry of Tomas Venclova appeared this fall in a new volume, The Junction.
Diana:
I felt that I had to respond to point number 4 regarding behaviorism–particularly when it is re-defined as giving rewards for good behavior. I don’t know that this is where you are coming from, but it is something that I see a lot of. Special Education has some legal incentives to create behavior plans based on “positive behavior support.” On the ground floor there are plans that do nothing more than spell out escalating “consequences” (another poorly defined word we use when we really mean “punishment” but are afraid to say it out loud), for something as vague as “following school rules.” Some schools actually understand that there is some difference between “punishment,” and “positive support.” They lay out plans to offer “rewards” for “good” behavior. If a student goes X days without falling apart in class, they get some kind of goody (the rewards are never really very motivating, because then you get into issues of fairness and why everyone doesn’t get a trip to Disney for not falling apart in class). This is where we arrive at things like handing out money for good grades (and if it were effective, I might be willing to look at my aversion to this).
But we don’t ever really arrive at anything that approaches behaviorism in a very systematic way. A wise and experienced teacher has generally picked up a good bit of applied behaviorism–things like lining up and getting quiet before walking down the hallway–as opposed to announcing that now we are going to go to the cafeteria. Others remain elusive, such as decisions regarding lunch before or after recess (the pattern is often lunch first–which leads to racing through lunch and returning to the classroom in the midst of play–flipping it results in a more relaxed lunchroom and a quieter return to classes).
George Sugai and colleagues have done a good bit of research into ways that behavior can be altered through paying attention to what is going on in the environment (all all students engaged in the lesson, and what can do to ensure higher levels of engagement). This is overall an area that merits deeper understanding.
Margo/Mom,
Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comment. I see a place for well-conceived behaviorist approaches in schools. I object to a philosophy–and practices stemming from it–that all human behavior can be explained in terms of reflexes (instinctive and cultivated responses to rewards and punishments). Even Pavlov was cautious about applying his findings to humans. Some educational approaches minimize the importance of mind and spirit, and in that they go astray.
On the other end, there are those who would deny the importance of rewards and punishments altogether. Some disparage the use of grades or other external motivators, and write off such incentives as “behaviorist.” We cannot afford to be so silly. Children do need rewards and punishments of certain kinds. It still befuddles me how the behavior in a classroom will change if the students see that I am passing out stickers to the “good” children. What do they want with those stickers? They’re more or less useless except as tangible, colorful symbols. Likewise, as you point out, children often need a general directive to be broken down into smaller steps (like lining up and quieting down), so that at each stage they know if they have done what they are supposed to do.
Cash rewards are problematic, but not simply because they are based on “behaviorism.” Cash rewards introduce the element of pay, which is different from other kinds of rewards. Wherever one stands regarding cash for grades or test scores, one must look at the particulars of this type of reward. Otherwise we are caught in the trap of embracing or denying all rewards on the basis of “behaviorism,” and that will only limit us.
Now, some schools employ reward systems much more extensively than others, and their approaches could legitimately be called “behaviorist.” Is behaviorism their guiding philosophy? If so, I am wary of them. If they have developed their methods in response to the situation at hand, and if they recognize other aspects of education and life, then I would want to know more.
Diana:
I think that behaviorism goes far beyond the concept of rewards and punishments and that is the problem that I see in superficial application of behaviorist theory. I would probably go so far as to suggest that all behavior has “meaning,” if we had the time or inclination to figure it all out. Fortunately we don’t generally need to do so. But this is much more sophisticate than reflex reactions to pleasureable or unpleasureable stimuli.
You are right that the stickers are just symbolic representations of teacher approval, or a crude reminder of parental all is right with the world feelings developed in early bonding experiences. But the things that we fail to see on an ongoing basis are the ways in which we shape children’s behavior through all kinds of environmental factors. What do we say to children of the inner city when we believe that our job is to give them the tools to get away from all this? What do we say to children about the value of their peers when teachers close the door on the chaos in the hallway day after day?
One of the PBIS materials gives an example of a 2 kids who create a disruption by shoving their books off of the desk day after day just as the class has settled down. Yet the two have very different motivations for their behavior. One student cannot read the books. The other finds the books trivial and boring, beneath his challenge level. You could develop some version of sticker charts for each one, but unless the underlying cause (the meaning of the behavior) is addressed, odds are, neither one will be successful. Step one MAY be to reward some more helpful and less disruptive response to the situation at hand (raising your hand when you don’t understand a word, going to the back of the room to listen to the book on tape, submitting a project idea to explore the class topic in greater depth, transfer to an AP class–etc. etc.).
But the arena in which I see behaviorism most seriously overlooked is in its broadest and possibly most democratic applications. Many schools broadly, and presumably without intent, publish “anything goes” behavioral messages to students. Each teacher makes their own classroom rules (some better, some worse), all other building areas are left to the inadequate (can’t be everywhere) discretion of the principal or assistant principal. There are ongoing battles between teachers and administration regarding such things as suspendable offenses, returning offenders to classrooms, etc. Parents are totally excluded from any decision making but expected to “act” in some way to support any disciplinary decisions and generally bad-mouthed overall.
This is a recipe for chaos and disaster, but seldom gets much attention–particularly as behavior is seen as individual “choices” that are good and bad. Some of the things that are helpful are for the adults to find some common ground. This may look like standardizing classroom expectations (this one is pretty tough, but powerful, nonetheless). It should also include some dialogue and clarity about responsibility for behavior that occurs outside of classrooms. Not only ought there be common expectations–but there also needs to be a shared sense of responsibility. This is an arena in which it is possible, desireable and very helpful to engage students. Formulating the basic rules is an exercise that brings students into the the mix (and meets their need to understand what is going on, to gradually accept greater levels of responsibility, to feel accepted as having a valuable contribution). Setting an environmental “tone” that communicates behavioral expectations (stopping to get quiet before coming in from the playground, limiting loudspeaker announcements during classtime, paying attention to the cleanliness and ambiance of cafeteria and restrooms) is an important means of communicating–and is one that students can frequently provide helpful input into.
To my mind, this is all a part of understanding behaviorism. So much “bad” behavior that I see in schools appears to me to mean that the adults are communicating an expectation of chaos, an inability to work with one another, fear of their students and hopelessness that their students can improve (or deserve anything better). The behavior means that they perceive that the leadership is up for grabs. It means that they have no reason to trust that the adults (as a group–not as individuals) have their best interests at heart. It means that they are stuck in a bad place and want someone to wake up and pay attention.
This isn’t a sticker chart arena.
Margo/Mom,
I think we may be referring to different definitions of behaviorism. (Muddy language again–and I’m partly at fault here!) I am referring to the “scientific” behaviorism of Pavlov, Thorndike, Skinner, and others. Your definition seems more humanistic: instead of controlling children’s behavior through carefully engineered methods, you advocate looking closely at what is going on with them and in their environment. You see behavior as a response not only to immediate physical stimuli, but to less tangible factors such as chaos, discord, hopelessness, etc. In that sense, your behaviorism has emotional and intellectual aspects.
How do you define behaviorism?
Diana
Diana:
That’s a valid and interesting question and one that I don’t have a real non-muddy and concrete answer to. I would refer to the work of Sugai on Positive Behavior Support, and I think that the Applied Behavior Analysis folks are on the same page. It’s possible that if you follow their threads back far enough you will end up with Pavlov and Skinner–in much the same way that you can’t get very deeply into any trends in modern psychology without tracing something back to Freud.
I really come from an experience of community/social action in which we focused conscientiously on social rather than individual causes for problems–and social rather than individual solutions. For this, one would trace back to Jane Addams and a whole lot of folks who hung out around Hull House (and other Settlement houses) inventing the field of social work (and public health).
But having worked at applying those ideas in work with groups of children (and sometimes adults) I stumbled onto the Positive Behavior Support folks in trying to convince schools that kicking kids out of school (specifically my son, but in a generic sense as well) wasn’t effective at either improving behavior or solving any problems. PBS is actually written into IDEA regs–which means that it is frequently viewed as a “special ed” thing. One of the interesting things that Sugai points out is that you cannot “solve” the “behavior problems” of individuals without some attention to the overall behavior supports that are available to ALL the kids.
I am not much at dichotomies–I don’t necessarily see the environmental vs behavior schools as a split–but more like two groups of folks examining different aspects of the elephant.