Download The Profiles of Learning: Friend or Foe

The Profiles of Learning: Friend or Foe? Stay or
Go?
The Conservative Case for Constructivism
By Ron Newell, EdVisions Learning Program Director
A debate has been raging for quite some time in Minnesota pertaining to the
adopted statewide curriculum, called the Profiles of Learning. The Profiles have
always been controversial in the legislature, in schools, in homes, coffee shops
and hairdressing salons for the past ten years or more. Yet, they have
persisted through many a political battle and through many a trial and error in
the classrooms in the state.
The question must be asked: just what is it that is so offensive that there are
committed persons and moneys arrayed against them, and what is so good
about them that there are still adherents to them? Generally speaking, the
anti-Profiles group has been labeled the conservative group, and the proProfiles group has been branded the liberals. In this past legislative and
gubernatorial race in Minnesota, it appears as if the more conservative side has
won. The anti-Profile groups appear to have been a winner. Yet, the Republican
winners (who, presumably are the most conservative and therefore more likely
to oppose the Profiles) did not win their majority simply on this one issue. The
Senate is not likely to bend entirely to the will of those wishing to throw out
the Profiles, either. The point is, proceed cautiously - and not for political
reasons alone. Let me explain further.
What conservatives presumably want from a public education:
• From a reading of a variety of conservative materials and websites, it
appears conservatives support the following:
• Individual freedom
• Representative government
• Free enterprise
• Educational freedom
• Parent control of education for their children
that middle aged and older conservatives learned when they were in school )
• Broad, knowledge-based education (Liberal Arts)
• An apparent return to grading curves based upon memorization of material,
more than likely the
Core Knowledge curriculum of the past.
Also defined, and to a greater degree, is what the conservatives do not
want:
• Federal or state control of educational curriculum that forces “politically
correct” agendas
(i.e., homosexuality, fuzzy self-esteem curricula, globalism, America the
oppressor, etc.)
• Centrally state-planned economies
• Global-Socialist world government
• School-to-work curricula and life work plans that train students merely for
the work force
• Out of the classroom activities
• Systemic change
• Accountability to state or federal government
• Performance outcomes
• Service learning
• Group work in school
• Parents treated like the enemy
Many of the conservatives who have taken upon themselves to espouse the
above do nots have come to those conclusions due to their particular personal
experiences with school, with situations involving their students in school, and
with some literature that seemingly backs up their conclusions. Most of that
literature speaks in terms of “social engineering” of the “behavior modification”
theorists that have been thrust upon we unsuspecting public when our backs
were turned. The conservative writers generally insist that the emphasis upon
emotional well-being and group work is a behavior modification program
intending to subvert children into mindless worker bees for industry and to
have them act like the hive and go along unthinkingly with the socialist
centralist, globalist mind-set.
Instead, they insist, schools and teachers ought to be imparting knowledge
that will allow for all children to see the possibilities of the freedoms they enjoy
in this great land, knowledge that will stand them in good stead for the rest of
their lives. It is not clear, however, whether or not these conservatives believe
that all children will partake or understand this knowledge equally as well, or
that this education of core knowledge will create an elite who will then be able
to control those who do not “get it.”
It does appear as if conservatives believe that all children can learn the core
knowledge of our culture equally as well, if there were simply some aspects of
good schools in place. Alan Caruba (2002) says that if “high demands on
students, strict discipline, a strong and unapologetic moral component,
including a respect for religion, an emphasis on teaching intellectual basics, a
preference for time-tested books and curricula, clear standards of dress,
grooming, and deportment, and an insistence on politeness, respect and
courtesy were in place, everything would be great.” That is more than likely a
correct assumption. The problem is that not all children come to school in a
position to immediately fall into such patterns. There are many children whose
parents have already failed them in respect to the above standards for good
schools, so the schools would have to end up “socially engineering” children
into someone’s agenda anyway (just so long as it is the conservative’s agenda
and not the liberal’s).
If only the schools could get good children, well parented, then all would be
well. But, as Howard Fuller, former superintendent of schools in Milwaukee and
now at Marquette University says: “The schools are receiving the best children
the parents have. They aren’t keeping the good ones home locked up
someplace.” Schools have to do with what they get, and what they get is
difficult to deal with.
The conservative rationale for the problems
Thoughtful and intellectual works in conservative journals and books have for
years now made much of the fact that our children have fallen by the wayside
in relationship to the other children of the world. Charles J. Sykes in Dumbing
Down our Kids (1995) proposes that there are a large number of ideas and
practices utilized in the American public schools in the past 30 years that have
created conditions causing American children to fall far behind others in the
developed world. And, presumably, far behind where American children had
been in the past. The political conservatives in this nation appear to believe
these presumptions to be true. The following are some of those ideas and
practices:
• American children no longer are asked to store essential intellectual tools or
reliable information
upon which to draw in order to practice systematic ways of thinking developed
within the various fields
of scholarly and scientific investigation, because American schools fail to
provide those qualities in
lieu of higher order thinking skills;
• American children of today (late 1990’s) have declined in the ability to read
and write and lack the
proper knowledge of the basic facts in history, geography, and science because
schools no longer are
interested in teaching them;
• New and conflicting theories of math and reading have had disastrous
consequences, and increased
emphasis upon feelings and amateur psychology, practiced by teachers
unqualified to do so, take time
from learning the basic skills;
• Theories such as “Outcome Based Education” have emphasized cooperative
learning, alternative
measurements of immeasurable goals such as well being, adaptability and
flexibility, and positive
growth in self-concept through doing tasks and projects that undo basic
learning;
• As standards and achievement have fallen, American schools simply inflate
grades, adjust test
scores, dumb down the tests, and/or change the definition of success;
• The resultant ethical illiteracy has contributed to a moral dumbing down of
America’s children
every bit as grave as the academic loss.
As a conservative educator, I believe that some of this is true - to a point.
Constructivist approaches to learning are not the reason for the ills. There are
many mitigating circumstances. Therefore, there are some distinctions that
must be made before we as citizens, educators and policy makers throw out
the Profiles of Learning as the culprit in all of these educational and cultural
problems.
First, many of the statements made about the state and federal centrally
mandated programs that appear to conservatives as “dumbing down” our
schools are not as mandated as they appear. There is a sense of paranoia in
the conservative literature about social engineering and “brainwashing”
children. (Interestingly, it is exactly the Liberal’s views as to why they do not
want the Conservatives to have control of the agenda). The case of the Profiles
and its journey from research to implementation is a case in point. The Profiles
of Learning were never intended to mandate a particular set of thoughts or a
cultural mindset. In the first place, the Profiles are a general set of core
concepts and knowledge-based ideals that everyone, if they are to be a wellrounded citizen, ought to have an awareness of and/or understand. The
problem with the Profiles is not the theory, but the implementation and
practice.
Many conservatives began the fight against state curriculum developers
because the state developers were espousing something called “Outcome
Based Education,” a term that has become anathema to parents, students and
educators alike. The theory behind the concept, however, is sound, scientific
and actually works for learning of all types. Again, it wasn’t the theory that was
wrong - it was the implementation. There are two basic psychological theories
that have impacted education in the past century: behaviorism and
constructivism. The education most of we baby boomers received was based
upon behaviorism. So is 80-90% of what happens in schools yet today. The
Profiles are based upon constructivist theories. I am suggesting that perhaps
the primary problem with them is not the theory, but that they were attempted
to be implemented into a system that is so entrenched in behaviorism, they
could not be implemented as they were intended.
Behaviorism
Behaviorism is characterized by the idea that humans can learn and unlearn
behaviors via conditioning. What people do, not what they think or feel, is the
object of study and the objective of education. Pavlov, one of the early
behaviorists, said that behaviors are the result of what was called “classical
conditioning.” Properly motivated, animals (and presumably humans, as Pavlov
did not experiment with humans) will do what is right if rewarded or punished
in proper amounts.
John Watson followed up on the work of Pavlov and related it to human
behavior. To Watson, all things were mechanical and thusly in the nervous
system and the brain. He felt that the better we understood how the nervous
system and brain functioned under certain “conditions,” then we would
eventually be able to get people to do whatever we wanted them to do (i.e.,
learn). His work influenced educators in the early part of the 20th century. It is
the basis of using either the rod or the smiley stickers to get kids to do what
you want them to.
B. F. Skinner took this a step further by creating the concept of “operant
conditioning.” Operant conditioning says, in effect, that certain stimuli caused
an organism to repeat an act more frequently. These stimuli, called
“reinforcers,” if applied in a systematic way could shape the behavior in desired
directions. Teachers, having learned various behaviorist methods in teacherpreparation institutions, learned techniques to control and motivate student
behavior. Most of what I see in schools today is still a series of operant
conditioning behaviors based upon control of students, ostensibly in the name
of learning.
These theories have existed in some form in schools throughout the 20th
century. Schoolsp are built around the basic “control” factors of appropriate
conditions to elicit the appropriate respon[ punishments applied when
necessary, movement through an appropriate set of skill sets at appropriate
times (i.e., a standard curriculum), and then a properly “trained” child emerges
a fully functioning adult.
I liken this whole operation as being similar to baking cookies. If you have the
right ingredients (curriculum), the right people (the teachers), the right oven
(the school building), the right temperature (curriculum applied in proper
ways), and the right amount of time (K-12), then you will have a perfectly
edible product at the end. When defective “cookies” come out of the oven,
then behaviorists search for the problem in the curriculum (recipe), the people
(the teachers), the oven (the building), the time or temperature (timeliness).
Sound familiar? (See above).
The problem is simply this: human children are neither cookies nor are they
animals in a laboratory. When children rebel against the operant conditioning,
as any normal freedom-loving human would do, they are labeled defective, or
the school is defective, or the teachers are defective.
The problem is that behaviorism is the wrong assumption. Therefore, the
whole set-up is the problem. Thoughtful persons, however, have developed
another theory and came up with other ideas (and some not so new, as they
had been around for generations; i.e., John Dewey) and considered treating
children as human beings rather than animals in a behaviorist laboratory.
Constructivism
Constructivism is a theory based upon the research of Jean Piaget, Lev
Vygotsky and to some extent Jerome Bruner. It differs from the behaviorist
view that the human child is a blank slate upon which knowledge can be
“imprinted.” Rather, knowledge is “constructed” via assimilating and absorbing
new information based upon already understood concepts and ideas developed
by the child via self-discovery and experimentation with the world around
them. As a child is confronted with new phenomena, she/he learns to
assimilate it in regard to the old. As ideas are presented, as new skills are
tried, the child’s mind grows in complexity and power. With appropriate
support, children develop critical insights into how they think and learn, and
their understanding increases in depth and detail
Constructivism has four epistemological assumptions:
• Knowledge is physically constructed by learners who are involved in active
learning;
• Knowledge is symbolically constructed by learners who are making their own
representations of action;
• Knowledge is socially constructed by learners who convey their meaning
making to others;
• Knowledge is theoretically constructed by learners who try to explain things
they don’t completely
understand.
In other words, humans learn by doing, by creating representations and
patterns out of what they observe, by reflection, and by wondering and
questioning. Behaviorism attempts to set before children the actions (behavior
modification, I believe it is called), gives them the patterns they are supposed
to be able to understand (after all, the teacher does), allows no time for
reflection (indeed, does not even believe in it), and allows for no questioning
and wondering (they don’t have time because they have to “cover” the
curriculum).
As brain-based scientific research has come more and more to light,
constructivist methods have been developed, tried, tested, and proven. When
referring to learning, constructivists use phrases like learning “facts,”
“concepts,” “skills,” and “attitudes.” Knowledge has different aspects. We know
a fact, like the first president was George Washington; we conceptualize what
he accomplished as the first president; we acquire skills of reading, analyzing
and synthesizing while learning about George Washington, and then, through
reflection, we acquire an attitude or a disposition about our country’s history
and our place in it as a result. I certainly understand that teachers can lead
children to the wrong conclusions about Washington (revisionist history), but
that is not the fault of the methodology.
It is true that fundamental skills, such as reading and writing, have to be in
play for this to happen. Certain amounts of drill and practice are necessary to
accomplish this. But, it is also true that children do learn to read and write
better by actually doing research, that there is really no hierarchy of skills. A
child can analyze as their vocabulary grows, synthesis takes place as a person
learns to write better, etc. But that does not preclude that a constructivist
learning environment cannot teach reading, writing and basic math. Just take a
look at the track record of Montessori schools.
A constructivist learning environment must be different than in the behaviorist
model. The old model is based upon the teacher delivering the information
about George Washington and testing to see if the students remembered it.
Not much chance for conceptualizing, skill building and attitudinal development
in that. The behaviorist model delivers a product, using operant conditioning to
ensure compliance. Systems and processes are put into place to ensure
compliance, so education has become education was developed primarily to
place emphasis upon outputs, not on inputs). Classroom-based teaching
systems cannot support the constructivist model, where students must do
research on their own, don’t all take the same amount of time to think or
write, and rarely have their opinions considered in a time-based curricula.
A constructivist learning atmosphere gives students time to explore, determine
goals and learning activities they are interested in, has adequate resources
(i.e., books, computer applications, videos, community experts, etc.) for
research, and has teachers available as facilitators and guides in determining if
student’s knowledge is indeed made up of correct assumptions and facts. The
Profiles of Learning are those basic assumptions and concepts and facts. Under
these conditions, constructivists refer less to “instructional environments”
where each child must do a something designed by some textbook developer,
but more to “learning environments,” where the child designs a performance of
their own that fits the general concept or skill set asked for by the Profiles. In
short, the learning environment is about the individual, an education that can
be personalized for each child. It is not about mind-controlled statism, but
quite the opposite. It is about freedom to pursue knowledge in the way and in
the time frame that fits the individual.
Why we ought to keep the Profiles of Learning
The first objection that a conservative may have with constructivism is that
presumably the child constructs their own knowledge. It sounds so like the
humanistic concept that truth is what we make it, that there are no absolutes,
that teachers can’t “tell” children the truth about things, but rather they have
to come to their own set of truths. My response is simple: if there is a set of
core truths (what the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer called an absolute
Truth with a capital "T"), a child exploring the world, being placed in
environments where Truth confronts them and is not hidden, and with proper
guidance from parents and teachers, then the Truth will win out. Keeping a
child from exposure to someone’s lies does not ensure they will adhere to an
indoctrinated Truth. Good parenting, religious convictions and good modeling
do more here than wiping out the Profiles of Learning.
This is one of the areas that caused an implementation problem with the
Profiles of Learning, which is constructivist based. What is one person’s truth
may not be another person’s truth. When educators created “performance
packages” to give behaviorist teachers a sense of what it may mean for
students to do constructivist learning, they developed some activities that did
have some liberal ideas. The problem is that teachers, who did not know how
to activate constructivist methods into their behaviorist classrooms, took the
performance packages developed by educators, some of whom had liberal
mind-sets, as something they absolutely had to do. The state, repeatedly, said
to teachers that they did not have to use the performance packages. What was
said is that they would have to develop a set of activities and environments
that led to constructivist learning by their students.
Constructivist learning environments, because they are process-oriented and
can be personalized, are all about parent involvement in the curricula. Very few
behaviorist systems-based schools can allow parents to become involved in
helping the child set the curricula. It is possible to do so with a constructivist
model, such as the one developed by the Minnesota New Country School in
Henderson, MN. I would urge you to investigate the school further (web
address: www.mncs.k12.mn.us). A project-based approach, very
constructivist, has been developed that allows parental control of content while
at the same time can meet the Profiles of Learning.
Let us re-examine the conservative agenda: there is a belief in freedom, free
enterprise, individual freedom, academics (core knowledge), parent control of
curriculum content, and in a broad knowledge base. Let us hope that part of
that agenda is not keeping memorization of core facts at the forefront of
standards because of the belief in elitism (if my child knows more than those
"other children" do, than we win). Conservatives are also against federally and
state mandated curricula, accountability to government, socialist-globalist
centrally-planned economies, politically-correct agendas, the training of
children to be automatons for businesses, life work plans and school-to-work,
and performance outcomes.
The Profiles of Learning ought not to be a set of state mandated thought
processes that require every child to think alike. Teachers and parents ought to
be very cautious of this. But if a truly constructivist learning environment is
created, where each child has a right to think for themselves (hopefully with
good parental guidance and support from the school), then there is less danger
of statism. A constructivist atmosphere, properly established and supported,
supports the freedom of the individual, free enterprise and academic
achievement.
The one thing that may differ with conservatives in the academic arena is just
what is the core knowledge, just what facts does one have to know, let alone
believe in. I would hope that conservatives, lovers of liberty, would allow for
the fact that there is not only one way to acquire Truth, and that they are not
the only purveyors of Truth. That would smack too much of statism on their
part (fascism, I believe the Liberals call it).
For the life of me, I do not see school-to-work, mentorships, apprenticeships,
out-of-school experiences and community services being something with which
any civic-minded conservative would have a problem. Democracy is a learned
activity via action; not a passive idea leaned via rote memorization.
Memorization is not a thinking activity. Community service, properly handled of
course, can very much be a democratic and civic virtue. I do understand that
these concepts can be misused to advance some liberal agenda, but they can
also, with proper parental and educator oversight, be an excellent way to learn
those civic virtues. And school-to-work programs offer many students
opportunities that the regular curriculum, that is for the most part collegeoriented, does not offer. What can be wrong with that? Many colleges and
universities have a more than 50% dropout rate, so why assume every high
school student should have the same curriculum?
As for performance outcomes, what other reason is there to have a collected
series of facts other than to act upon them? The constructivist knows that
eventually the rationale for any memorization or skill is to allow for the
individual to perform as a fully functional human being. That is all that is
meant by performance objectives; not brainwashing children to act like little
liberals, but to be able to transform their own lives into the best individual they
can become.
Conclusion
The proper way for conservatives to handle their differences with the Profiles of
Learning is not to demand their dismantling, but rather insistence upon
implementing them in the way in which parents and students have an
opportunity to construct the lives they want. The proper way is to insist upon
local control over what the teacher demands of students while implementing
the Profiles. That local control still exists: indeed, never went away. You still do
have say over what the teachers put into their “performance packages.” You
can still demand the school board to look into what may be determined
improper misuse of your freedoms as a parent. And more importantly,
perhaps, you can start a charter school in your community that will address
learning the way that it truly works for you and your child.
The improper thing is to do away with the Profiles, as it is a constructivist
method of implementing personalized education. The only thing you have to
replace it with are content oriented curriculums that are more demanding of
certain factual information being shoved down the throats of unsuspecting
children via an outmoded behaviorist method. And whose knowledge will you
demand they all know? And how will you assure that it is implemented? At the
very least, local districts ought to have the right to determine whether or not
to keep the Profiles.
The point is many conservatives want to throw out some bad stuff. Agreed,
there may be some bad stuff in schools. But throwing out the Profiles of
Learning and allowing Skinnerian operant conditioning to remain the mode of
operation in schools is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
References
The Behavioral approach (2002)
Caruba, A. (2002) The subversion of education in America
Gagnon, G & Collay, M. (2002) Constructivist learning
How new U.S. policy embraces a state-planned economy (2002)
Fuller, H. (November, 2002) Quoted from a speech given at a meeting of the
Wisconsin Charter School
Association meeting: Waukesha, WI.
Learning theories (2002)
Schaeffer, F. (1976) How should we then live? The rise and decline of western
thought and culture
Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co.
Sykes, C. (1995) Dumbing down our kids New York: St. Martin’s Press
Wilson, B. (2002) Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning
environments