POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

Nothing wrong with facts. Facts are a foundation but facts ONLY is a BIG problem.

Having read the book, they only one I basically disagree with is # 6 Projects are the best way to learn.

I would be happy to call it “projects are a critical or very important way to learn.” it doesn’t have to be ‘best way’.

Again, projects are important. Projects alone or projects overwhelmingly is a mistake.

There is some yin and yang to this whole thing you know.

There has been a lot of criticism and debate within the education establishment on the Seven Myths About Education and the author Christodoulou, herself gets a fair share.

On her blog, Christodoulou states - ” First, I try to explain clearly the theoretical evidence behind this myth. Second, I show the practical implications of the myth, and I show that such practice is prevalent in English schools today. Third, I explain why it is a myth. In the days before publication I will be giving a short summary of each chapter. Here are all seven.” - See more at: http://www.thecurriculumcentre.org/blog/2013/06/10/seven-myths-about-education-introduction/#sthash.svJYHaT0.dpuf

Now onward to the education and teacher blogs - My my, all this to avoid the discussion of the actual content of the book, the myths (to which the education establishment disputes) and the missing ingredient - the cognitive science and education research that completely disproves much of the educational theories on the go.

“There has been a lot said in support of Daisy Christodoulou’s book Seven Myths about Education, which has recently rekindled the old traditionalist/knowledge vs progressive/skills debate and has led to, depending on whose blog you read, many pointless or productive discussions (here’s what I think). I just don’t think the premise upon which she establishes her myths holds any water. I should better attempt to explain myself.”
http://www.josepicardo.com/2013/07/seven-more-myths/

The next one is using the old trick of - one must consider the time era of the education philosophies, the inequities of the historical period in question, while quietly dismissing the cognitive sciences and education research of the 21st century that disproves the 19th century education philosophies, to reinsert and reinforced the pedagogy and current education philosophies rooted in the 19th century in order to dismissed the Seven Myths about Education.

http://debrakidd.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/7-myths-about-education-an-alternative-view/

The comments are of interest, that attest to either the blindness of the classroom educators that they have seen no evidence of Christodoulou’s seven myths in the classroom, or the intolerance of the education establishment of being critical when looking within the education system on education theories, practices and pedagogy.

Dear Nancy,

Thank you for including my post alongside Debra’s in your comment. Debra’s is by the way much better informed, cogent and persuasive. Mine is more rushed and only questions the existence of the myths prior to reading the book that justifies them.

I have no doubt that Daisy’s book is indeed a valuable read. My post (I cannot speak for Debra) simply aimed to draw attention to the fact that one could make up any myth and then find find arguably anecdotal evidence (Daisy is indeed a sharp educationalist with an incisive eye for all matters educational, but she only taught for three years prior to moving on to policy advising) and expert opinion to back them up.

She also appears to contradict herself sometimes. For example, her myth seven says “Teaching knowledge is indoctrination” and she then writes in support of teaching knowledge and facts, yet she then regrets the fact that when at university “ideas that had absolutely no evidence backing them up had been presented to me as unquestionable axioms”. So I suppose it depends whose knowledge is passed on then. You can see how incredibly political and polarising this debate can become. 

We must also remember that Daisy is a former University Challenge champion. Memorising facts works for her. She’s really, really good at it. It works for her. She’s an astonishingly successful learner and person on many levels. But that doesn’t mean that it would work for everyone or that educational policy ought to be based on it. I think the short time she spent in the classroom before moving on to policy making and having found expert support (almost patronage) in Hirsch may have led her to believe that the seven myths she expounds actually exist. I disagree, as you noted in your comment.

My own teaching style - which works very well and produces not only very good exam/academic results but also learners who develop a life-long interest in languages (my subject) - is more constructivist-influenced, although I don’t really like such labels. I also learn best this way, which probably isn’t surprising. Because it works for me. I find hands-on, collaborative, project-based, and task-based learning produce the most successful outcomes. Because it works fin my classroom. But that doesn’t mean I think it would work best in everyone’s classroom.

Therefore I’m sure I will take away many valuable insights from reading Daisy’s book but I have reasons to believe I will not have a road to Damascus moment. In the meantime I’ll work on trying to be less blind and intolerant. And I will not - not for one moment - make any assumptions as to what your own shortcomings might be.

Best wishes

José

Dear Nancy, you misquote and misunderstand me. Your myopic interpretation did amuse though.

Dear Debra and Jose,  I chose your blog articles for the reason for the content, which was not filled with over the top rhetoric on Christodoulou and her new work on The Seven Myths of Education.

Both Debra and Jose, clearly defines themselves as progressive educators, that stand on the side its all about the SES variables of students. Jose, in one of his blog posting, he concludes - “.Optional languages in the state sector are not the cause of a relatively poorer education, but rather a symptom of a wider malaise. If the wealthier pupils are perpetuating their own cycle, the state sector is also perpetuating a self-fulfiling prophecy in which pupils from less fortunate backgrounds are denied the opportunity to improve their socio-economic standing.”
http://www.josepicardo.com/2010/08/the-languages-class-divide/

Debra Kidd, I let the Channel 4 newscast do the talking - “Debra Kidd on Channel 4 News while Michael Gove is “…behaving like a child…”
http://www.natd.eu/debra-kidd-on-newsnight-while-michael-gove-is-behaving-like-a-child/

Its obvious, both Debra and Jose have presuppositions of how children learn,  that represents the truth of the progressives.  Its really about rekindling the old wars of the progressives and the traditionalists based on the 19th century knowledge matrix by implying the 21st century knowledge and research in the learning and cognitive sciences has no place in the 21st century schools. Ergo,  Daisy Christodoulou. joins the legions of all shapes, sizes and of wanting the progressive public education system to join the 21st century matrix of knowledge, and where all children will reached their full academic potential.

On another blog called Critical Reader - “Christodoulou makes the point that when students do nothing but project-based group work, they are effectively restricted to topics already familiar to them because they have not actually been taught anything new. Moreover, when they attempt to research new topics without having the necessary background knowledge or the vocabulary to filter what information is relevant, accurate, etc., they end up either confused and frustrated or flat-out misinformed. (Christodoulou cites one student who, assigned to write a report on the life of Dickens, confused the author’s life with that of Pip, the protagonist of Great Expectations—I realize that sounds impossible for anyone who hasn’t worked with with weak readers, but trust me, I’ve seen kids fall prey to similar types of confusion. After the first five or six times, I stopped getting surprised.) “
http://thecriticalreader.com/blog/itemlist/tag/Daisy Christodoulou.html

Myopic interpretation?  I tend to get hard-headed when the overly political and progressive education system embedded in the 19th century knowledge matrix, are declaring using authoritative expressions, that simply dismisses the 21st century cognitive and learning sciences, its research and the development of education practices outright. The authoritative expressions rooted in the 19th century education knowledge matrix are reinforced by the practitioners of the progressive school of thought, that are offering the old education practices and solutions with new window dressing of the 21st century, without the 21st century knowledge matrix.

Debra Kidd on the Channel 4 newscast, dismisses outright the assessment of children regarding phonemic awareness. Will Debra Kidd dismissed the outcome data streams regarding low literacy levels and the vast majority of the dyslexic students that sit at the bottom of the achievement charts? It would appeared she would, since she is obviously against assessing for phonemic awareness based on nonsense words. Pray tell, how else would one test for phonemic awareness without using the learning and science research of the 21st century that was absent in the 19th century knowledge matrix? 

If Daisy Christodoulou is so wrong, why haven’t the progressives advanced their arguments based on the students who have not been well-served by the progressive education system rooted in the 19th century knowledge matrix of pedagogy practices and education philosophies. I leave off with an example, that illustrates the 7 myths and their existence in the classrooms. If the 21st cognitive and learning sciences were present in the classroom, we would not be having this conversation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224101/James-Middleton-How-I-battled-crucifying-dyslexia-read-Kate-Williams-wedding.html

Note: James Middleton had some advantages that are not afforded to students in the progressive public education system. Also note, in the typical education model,  immersed in progressive education policies and pedagogy practices rooted in the 19th century knowledge matrix, the learning struggles of students are rarely identified using the 21st century methods based on the cognitive and learning sciences.

Ah Nancy, you were doing so well, and then you go and quote the Daily Fail. Dear oh dear. Such is the quality of your “evidence”.

Watch this TED video which highlights in the opening seconds just how reliable the Mail is http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

If you like comedy (I’m not sure whether you do just from reading your rather dogmatic comments….) you might enjoy this one too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPEzM2oV-PY

By the way, Daisy is not so wrong, she’s just not that right either.

And also, did you just try to insult me by calling me progressive? How very dare you?

Oh, Nancy. I dismissed the practice of testing phonemic knowledge through nonsense words when children actually from deprived backgrounds sorely need to boost real vocabulary. I support phonics as part of a reading strategy - particularly synthetic phonics. Could you also please point to any article either by me or about me that says I am a progressive? Unless of course, you mean that I believe that children have the right to high quality education which is structured to suit their needs? You really need to read more closely before writing. I’d also point it that using the Daily Mail as evidence is somewhat akin to quoting the National Enquirer!