Professor Nicholas Tampio: On Gates’ Micromanagement of Education   4 comments

Reposted from a School Book op-ed with permission from Professor Nicholas Tampio

May 17, 2013

Bill Gates Should Not Micro-Manage Our Schools

By Prof. Nicholas Tampio

The multinational software giant, Microsoft, once bundled its Explorer search engine with Windows, and refused, for a time, to have Windows run WordPerfect, a competitor to Microsoft Word. As head of Microsoft, Bill Gates wanted everyone to use the same program. As funder of the Common Core, I believe he wants to do the same with our children.

The Common Core is one of the most effective educational reform movements in United States history. Gates is a financial backer of this movement. Looking at this connection enables us to see why the United States should be wary of letting any one person or group acquire too much control over education policy.

Launched in 2009 and now adopted by 45 states, the Common Core articulates a single set of educational standards in language arts and mathematics. Although the Common Core claims not to tell teachers what or how to teach, school districts must prove to state legislatures or the federal government (via the Race to the Top program) that they are complying with the Common Core. The simplest and most cost-effective way for a school district to do that is to purchase an approved reading or math program.

The Common Core transfers bread-and-butter curriculum decisions from the local to the state and national level.

On the Common Core website, Gates applauds this development, stating that the initiative brings the nation closer to “supporting effective teaching in every classroom.” Here, I believe, one sees a link between Gates’s business and advocacy sides.

The Common Core may raise standards in some school districts, but one ought to read the literature with a critical eye. The Common Core has not been field-tested anywhere. The Common Core does not address many root causes of underperforming schools, such as hungry students or dangerous neighborhoods. And the Common Core has an opportunity cost, namely, that it forces thriving school districts to adopt programs that may be a worse fit for the student body.

We can learn a lesson from the recent history of the computing industry. Apple and Microsoft have pressed each other to make better applications, phones, notepads, and cameras. Though Gates may have wanted to vanquish Apple, Steve Jobs prompted him to improve his products, which in turn benefited every computer user. Competition brings out the best in people and institutions. The Common Core standardizes curricula and thereby hinders competition among educational philosophies.

Surely, one could say, certain standards are self-evidently good. A Common Core principle of first grade math is that students should “attend to precision” and “look for and make use of structure.” Just as a computer program requires each number, space, and function to be in its right spot to operate, so too the standards emphasize thinking in an orderly fashion and showing each step of the work.

In a new book, Letters to a Young Scientist, the Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson argues that the demand for precision can hurt the scientific imagination. Wilson celebrates the fanciful nature of innovation by reflecting on how Darwin formulated the idea of descent with modification while sailing on the H.M.S. Beagle and Newton discovered that white light is a mix of colored lights while playing with a prism. Though teachers sometimes need to write orderly equations on a blackboard, real progress comes “amid a litter of doodled paper.” Doodling is a prelude to a eureka moment, the fuel of scientific research.

Would it be wise to nationalize an educational policy that frowns on doodling?

One could argue about the details of the Common Core standards: how to strike the right balance, say, between fiction and non-fiction, humanities and sciences, doodling and straight lines, and so forth. And yet this approach concedes that America ought to have the same approach in every classroom.

America needs many kinds of excellent programs and schools: International Baccalaureate programs, science and technology schools, Montessori schools, religious schools, vocational schools, bilingual schools, outdoor schools, and good public schools. Even within programs and schools, teachers should be encouraged to teach their passions and areas of expertise. Teachers inspire life-long learning by bringing a class to a nature center, replicating an experiment from Popular Science, taking a field trip to the state or national capital, or assigning a favorite novel. A human being is not a computer, and a good education is not formatted in a linear code.

As a result of the Common Core, teachers in our school district must now open boxes filled with reading materials, workbooks, and tests from a “learning company.” How depressing and unnecessary. As Apple and Google have shown, great work can be done when talented employees are granted power and encouraged to innovate.

In regards to education policy, I’d prefer Bill Gates to have a loud voice in his school district, but a quieter one in mine.

        Prof. Nicholas Tampio teaches Critical Theory at Fordham University.

http://www.schoolbook.org/2013/05/17/bill-gates-should-not-micro-manage-our-schools/

Postscript from Professor Nicholas Tampio on why he began to study the Common Core:

Last spring, my son’s kindergarten education went from outstanding to mediocre in a blink. The teacher is a wonderful woman who lives and breathes her craft. For years, she developed innovative curricula and inspired children to love school. The year before my son started kindergarten, the high school valedictorian spoke at length about how this teacher sparked his curiosity in physics and space. He is at Stanford now.

In February, the teacher had to use a program designed to satisfy the Common Core criteria. She was required to open big boxes and follow a script. My son’s curriculum went from fresh to canned and, as could be anticipated, the classroom mood suffered. My son’s problem at the start of kindergarten was that he was too excited to learn (he would answer every question she asked, etc.). That “problem” disappeared.
I met with administrators and they were nice and helpful. But their hands are tied. The state signed up for the Common Core. The state wants proof that our school district is complying and the way to do that is to use a program.
My motivation, then, is simple: I want my kids to have a great education. When the rubber hit the road, the Common Core damaged our school district. I am confident that Americans, when presented with good arguments and evidence, will realize that the Common Core is a misguided initiative. The sooner the better.
I present some of these points in my Huffington Post piece: Do We Need a Common Core?
About these ads

4 responses to “Professor Nicholas Tampio: On Gates’ Micromanagement of Education

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You hit the nail on the head. Parents, schools, and teachers need to have the freedom to decide what is best for their students.

  2. I wonder why no one talks about health effect for young children from constant use of computers. Think about their eyes, how strained they will be, think about the radiation from the computer screen. We used to have “screen free” weeks at school. Not anymore with common core coming? Just recently all the health professionals were alarming us about the bad effects of the prolonged use of computers.
    Why all silent now? What about the dangers of stress that was such a popular topic to talk about? How does it go along with high stress expectations of common core? High stress high-stakes testing?
    I wonder how many kids will fall very sick very soon… Diabetes, leikemia, and eyesight problems are just few diseases that will spread right away among the kids with common core.

    • I appreciate your comments. I agree that computers, stress, high stakes testing all pose serious health problems. There is wisdom in the Waldorf approach that has kids living and experimenting before learning to read. Leonardo’s notebooks are filled with pictures of running water. There are many ways to think, not just words and on computers. Much of the drive to test kids reflects adult anxiety rather than what is in the best interest of the child.

      Human beings have not solved the dilemma of how to educate children. Furthermore, there are legitimately vexing questions about how to prepare kids for the twenty-first century. The Common Core literature exudes hubris: “The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world” and have students “fully prepared for the future” (http://www.corestandards.org/). First: who designed the standards? The passive voice hides that it is fallible human beings. Second: how do you have kids fully prepared for the next forty years? Computer technology is constantly changing. It is more important to develop intellectual skills than technical ones, the ability to think mathematically than to use a calculator.

      From a political perspective, the Founders had the right idea: let communities decide about how to structure their schools. Parents will move to school districts that reflect their values. Citizens will try convince their fellow citizens about the merits or demerits of different approaches. The federal government may need to intervene–but this should be an exception, with an awareness of the dangers of breeding conformity.

      America should have a wide range of excellent options.

Comments are welcome here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,110 other followers

%d bloggers like this: