Chicken…Egg…Chicken…
There is a chicken and egg controversy over at HunBlog about IQ, socioeconomic status, and achievement. Brad Hoge kicked it off with a riff about my post on the likelihood of significant climate change in Hades, and the response he got in his comments confirmed my observation that it won’t happen anytime soon.
Brad made an interesting ecological argument for local rather than broad and sweeping interventions as we work toward making classrooms better places for kids to learn. I wanted to comment when I first read it, but I got sidetracked by the beginning of school. I checked the comments on the first of the two posts yesterday and found a lively exchange going on there about race and class in educational processes.
Brad’s analysis of the limitations of social science research reminded me of an article by James Paul Gee in which he discussed patterns in language and literacy research. Gee argued that
the patterns most important to human thinking and action follow a sort of “Goldilocks principle”: they are not too general and not too specific; they are midlevel generalizations between these two extremes.
He called these midlevel generalizations “situated meanings,” which sounded a little bit like Brad’s thesis that overgeneralizing leads us to erroneous conclusions.
Brad’s post was engaged by KDeRosa, who began the infinite regression down the search for lost causes, talking about whether “external factors” cause student failure and claiming that “improving the curriculum and/or school has raised achievement….while attempts at changing the external factors have largely, if not wholey, failed.” He goes on and on breaking down the causes and correlations between low socioeconomic status and low academic achievement.
I wanted to say something, but I hardly knew where to begin.
Now I’ve decided that it doesn’t matter.
Whenever I present the question to my students about which came first, the chicken or the egg, they tackle the problem with relish. They take sides and argue passionately for chickens or eggs. For pure entertainment value, asking this chicken and egg riddle to a group of kids is like dropping a cat into a yard full of huskies. Everyone goes home either mad or hungry, because there’s no satisfaction in an answer.
To get back to a first cause ignores the fact that in the here and now, chickens cause eggs and eggs cause chickens, and if we are going to do anything about one of them, we have to consider the other.
The reason to ask about chickens and eggs is presumably to intervene somehow on behalf of a chicken or an egg. Consequently we now hear a lot of people talking about schools as a monolithic concept, which is what pluralizing a regular noun allows you to do. They argue that by fixing schools they will improve our society, or by fixing society, we can improve our schools.
I challenge the notion that there is anything like a “school system” to be fixed. A system is organized and integrated, and schools are not, and never have been. What we have is a culture of schooling, not a system, and culture is not readily directed or intervened upon.
I denounce as racist, any advocacy for educational reform that discounts the relevance of equity in educational processes. My position is not practical. It is a moral stance. We don’t need to be concerned with causes whatsoever. They are a distraction from the real work of healing and nurturing that teachers are called to.
Education is not merely a path to material success. It is also a journey of self-discovery and communion. Social equity is also not simply a path to material well-being, but represents a birthright for every human according to our highest principles. The success criteria for education is neither test-passing, nor material gain. Success has more to do with satisfying deeply personal values which are not definable across diverse contexts. There can be no true education without justice, because the worth of each individual is the central teaching in a democracy, and the absence of that condition exposes all other teaching as hypocrisy and deceit.

Miguel Guhlin wrote,
Well-said! I really liked your last paragraph, esp:
It is also a journey of self-discovery and communion. Social equity is also not simply a path to material well-being, but represents a birthright for every human according to our highest principles. The success criteria for education is neither test-passing, nor material gain. Success has more to do with satisfying deeply personal values which are not definable across diverse contexts.
How do you get others to accept your definition of education? Everything seems to hinge on agreement with that perspective–that education is NOT MERELY a path to material success.
In fact, that’s WHY my father sent me to school…to achieve material success. A nice by-product is satisfying deeply personal values that wouldn’t have had a chance to develop if we were working from dawn ’til dusk making ends meet–subsistence living.
Success is measured by the size of your pay check….
Someone who has long engaged in chicken/egg first debates and appreciate your meta-debate blog entry,
Miguel
Link | August 23rd, 2006 at 5:28 am
Brad Hoge wrote,
Man, how I wish I had your wisdom. I got myself into this debacle and now I’m having a hard time getting out. You are of course right about all of this, but alas, most of the ideologues fighting for NCLB are about as likely to listen to your enlightened stance as they are to give up their SUVs and drive hybrids. Part of the reason I argue for dealing with problems locally rather than nationally is to try to avoid having to make arguments like those in my posts and stay on task. Distracting us from the real issues at hand is one of the most insidious accomplishments of NCLB.
Link | August 23rd, 2006 at 7:12 am
Artichoke wrote,
Go Doug go ….Education is not merely a path to material success [for a country]. It is also a journey of self-discovery and communion.
For New Zealand, the development of a prosperous and confident knowledge society means the development of new skills and knowledge. It will require a culture of continuous enquiry, innovation and improvement, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. This can only come from the education system. NZ Draft Curriculum 2006
Is only when we understand this Doug that we can see why “school/s” so often/ will always disappoint.
Mikkus has left an interesting comment at Artichoke: It is the past not the dizzy present that might just show us the way forward from egg and chicken exchanges.
Link | August 23rd, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Doug wrote,
Brad, don’t mistake wisdom for what is likely only me, pissed off. I’ve had it with tests and interventions, and meddling with what might be otherwise be accomplished with simple caring and compassion.
Miguel, I feel no need for anyone else to accept my definition of education. I realize that there is a material gain to be had from it, or I wouldn’t have got so much of it myself. But I see in it the promise of much more. And for vast numbers of people, education will gain them little if all they see in it is money and security because both of those are easily lost.
Artichoke, thanks for your encouragement. Today someone I work with used the word “hubris,” with me as the operative example. I suppose I should be glad that people who talk with me in the teachers room can recognize it. Even if they think I’m “off,” maybe they’ll have something to think about besides whatever they thought they were doing.
Link | August 23rd, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Artichoke wrote,
Ahh Doug,
In my recent experience of undermining comments shared “hubris” is more thoughtful critique than “distasteful”.
I am playing Think Different as a bloggers tribute to your insight shared.
Link | August 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Bill Kerr wrote,
hi doug,
“We don’t need to be concerned with causes whatsoever. They are a distraction from the real work of healing and nurturing that teachers are called to.”
Are you saying that in rejecting crappy political interventions into meaningful class / local interactions, that we should in principle reject all such interventions? I think I disagree.
eg. Fraser Mustard (Ontario, Canada) suggested that we massively increase funding for pre-schoolers, esp. those from disadvantaged homes, as the best long term intervention
eg. in my state (South Australia) the politicians put up the school leaving age, to solve their youth unemployment problem, whilst providing very little in more resources for teachers to cope with this this situation
eg. a lot of young students have just stopped coming to class
The fact that many individual teachers make heroic efforts to make a difference doesn’t mean that School (capital S) is not a system. It is a system in which great teachers can often find a niche and make a difference. But still as a whole it does certain things that can be categorised,
eg. at certain times there is lesson change with or without bells
eg. students are supervised at all times, no privacy
eg. there are rules about surfing the internet for pornography
Maybe I am misunderstanding something here?
Link | August 24th, 2006 at 3:18 am
Doug wrote,
It’s either a large can of worms, or a can of large worms we’ve opened here, I can’t tell yet. It might also be a large can of large worms. You’re probably not misunderstanding, but thinking harder than I did about what I said
Come to think of it, Worms in a Can might be a good name for the next cult Education thriller.
There is, as you point out, a case - or several cases - for interventions. But those that are imposed without invitation or consultation, from people outside (the system?), have messed things up so bad now that we are stumbling over all the fixes.
I don’t believe that there ever was a “system” operating, but that now we have something resembling one due to years of interference and attempts to congeal professional practice around a shared set of assumptions. Curriculum, for example, has served to standardize our profession and set us apart from ordinary people. It gives us a way of talking and thinking about what we do that is alien to non-practioners. Laws and policies regulate educational practice into what appears to be a coordinated institution, but it operates inconsistently, which, to me, indicates a chaotic environment that defies organization, not a system that is out of order. Brad Hoge’s original post talked about this idea. I suppose, according to his analysis, we could call it a system, but I’m using the word, culture. Environment works also.
In any case, looking for causes and attempting to apply a final fix to make things run smoothly in all cases is useless because of the dynamic nature of the work. In my experience it is the moment-to-moment insights, the discussions and interventions, the ideas noted as worthwhile, and those that are rejected, among my colleagues that are significant and worthy of emulation.
I’ve been taken to task before by administration-minded people who see the value in what they do, and think I’m not sufficiently appreciative of their role. I don’t mean to say that we don’t need them, but only that their leadership is best applied in service of the needs identified by practitioners who have a more detailed view. Coordination of resources and people is useful in any large-scale undertaking, and compromise is a given. Regimentation, however, stifles creativity and discourages innovation, both of which have value in human endeavors. I don’t want to take anything away from well-meaning dedicated people. A culture of inquiry and critique would be far more valuable that one of conformity and compliance.
Thanks, Bill. You’ve given me something else to think about today.
Link | August 24th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Bill Kerr wrote,
I visited Brad’s original post, very interesting
What if we look at the interface of system (top down, non dynamic, controlling) and culture / environment (bottom up, local, built by teachers)?
Despite talk of decentralisation Government will not give up on curriculum control or “duty of care” provisions
Good teachers will not give up on genuine interventions / building real learning environments in support of their students
It breaks down where these two forces meet. There are 2 cultures. (more than two, I’m sure but two for purposes of discussion at least)
I wrote about this some year ago, invitation to immersion
I like the irony of us discussing situatedness and localness, you in Alaska, me in South Australia
Link | August 24th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Doug wrote,
Bill, from your paper…Teachers can be supervised by curriculum coordinators and department heads, these by principals, and these in turn by superintendents. (Papert, 1993, p. 62)…Real knowledge is personal knowledge. Any learning regime that neglects the motivational aspect will end in disappointment.
I was thinking today about the power of curriculum and it’s ability to control the Discourse of Education (capitalized as per James Gee), which both shapes and reflects our perceptions. It puts an almost hypnotic spell over everyone who comes in contact with it, and seems to not even be there itself, which is its insidious taken-for-granted cold-blooded snakiness.
The beauty of the edu-blog connections is that we can talk around and outside of the government and media wall that is propped up by school curricula.
Yes, local and situated interventions are the ones that we can emulate. It’s subversion in the open. It isn’t what we do that makes a difference, as much as why we do what we do, because the spirit we bring to the work is what kids understand first and last.
Link | August 24th, 2006 at 9:47 pm