Sep 17 2006
Diversity Destroys Education
Some eight years ago, I attended a series of presentations (not by choice) given by the ed school diversity police. At one, we got the party line on “learning styles/modalities,” presented with no evidence to back it up because like contrastive rhetoric, there is no evidence to back it up.
A particularly grumpy faculty member — who also happened to be a Dean at the time — asked the presenter what I, and no doubt many others, were thinking. He said, “Other than the fact that you have no evidence to support this, so what? We have material to cover. We barely have enough time as it is. We certainly don’t have time to present the material in each style just to make it easier for some of the students. So what do you want us to do with this information?”
Another one of these presentations was given by the feminonsense police, and covered how men are “goal-oriented,” and women are “process-oriented.” She and her co-feminuts, along with a few cooperative feminized males, presented a “role play,” that began with a normal, goal-oriented meeting (of men) where the problem was addressed, a solution was agreed upon, and men were assigned to implement the solution. The next “role play” was feminuts having a meeting with no goal or purpose, other than to make each other feel good, and even though it was ostensibly to address the same problem as the first meeting “role play,” the feminuts ended the meeting without ever addressing a solution. Finally, there was the final, two-part “role play,” in which both sexes took part. In the first of the two-parter, the feminuts chose to shut up and sit there like lumps when the men insisted on having a meeting with a goal and purpose, and tackling the problem. In the second part of the two-parter, the men acquiesced to the “process oriented” meeting and nothing was accomplished (of course). The second of the two-parter was presented as how men could be more “sensitive” to women in meetings. When confronted with the fact that the “sensitive” meeting was unproductive, the feminuts accused the questioner of being patriarchal, and avoided the issue.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
Both of these presentations illustrate why “being sensitive to our differences” (codename: diversity) is destructive to education.
As far as “learning styles” go, the unnamed Dean said it best at the time. Unless you have very little material to cover, in which case you shouldn’t be teaching the class in the first place, you don’t have the time to screw with, or worry about, such nonsense — especially when it is motivated by no evidence at all.
As far as “goal-oriented” v. “process-oriented” goes, education is, by definition, goal-oriented. “Process-oriented” approaches rarely produce a result.
This “diversity” obsession is particularly destructive when it rears its inefficient, navel-gazing, narcissistic head in math education.
As knowledge systems go, math is the prototypical, linear system. Each skill builds upon others, so mastering a skill requires that one has already mastered previous skills. Math is essentially Aristotelian in nature, however patriarchal and serial raping and penis waving that may be.
Fifty percent of the reason for teaching any math skill, then, is because mastery of that skill will be required for the mastery of other skills down the road. While little Johnny may be a macaroni art learner or little Michelle may be a crayon and poster board project learner, allowing (worse, encouraging) little Johnny to solve the math problem by gluing macaroni to a toilet paper tube is counter-productive to fifty percent of the reason for covering the skill in class (and presenting Johnny with the problem). While Michelle’s crayon and poster board project may be very cute and creative, she learns no useful skill from doing it, and her failure to master the skill will handicap her later down the road. Educrats will then point to evil patriarchal traditionalist math teachers, Michelle’s sex, Michelle’s parents, Michelle’s socioeconomic status, the lack of technology in the classroom, or conservatives in general and blame them for “disadvantaging” poor little Michelle — when their own nutty educration methods are responsible. (For the latest example of fuzzy-headed, illogical educrat whining, see here.)
Repeat after me: There is no such thing as “mindless” drilling, or “mindless” rote memorization. Nothing about memorization or drilling is “mindless.” Rote memorization gives us domain knowledge, with which we can build other skills. Drilling is learning. Both teach discipline, both strengthen connections (there’s your neuroscience reference), and both build the skills necessary to solve problems.
When you can point to anyone in the real world solving a real-world problem by creating macaroni art, then by all means, object. I have a hard time trying to think of an example of anyone taking a complex problem and solving it “holistically,” or by sitting around in a matriarchal, vagina monologues-emulating, “process oriented” meeting, much less by making a cute, creative, crayon and poster board project. But please, let me know if you can think of any examples.
Educrats are fond of throwing around the phrase, “problem-solving skills,” yet seem to believe that every problem is unique, and unrelated to every other problem — as, indeed, you must believe if you think that macaroni art is, or ever can be, a problem-solving skill. We can see an example of this in this nonsense from the NEA:
A student well versed in algebra might do the following to set up the problem: p = pigs, c = chickens. p + c = 70 (heads) 4p + 2c = 200 (pigs have 4 legs and chickens have 2 legs). These two equations may be used to solve the problem. Students might solve this problem by “guessing and checking,” or drawing pictures. Some methods of solving problems might be considered more “efficient.” That may be true, but the correct answer can be found using multiple methods. Children think about mathematics in different ways depending on their prior experiences at home and school. By allowing students to think flexibly about numbers, we encourage them to “own” the math forever, instead of “borrowing” until class is over.
Allowing multiple methods encourages failure — because, again, math is wholly linear, and skills build upon other skills. Allowing students to “own” math means not teaching them math at all.
The linearity of math means that there is exacxtly one method, and only one method, for any given skill:
But teaching math has an even more basic function than math itself, and always has: Learning math is learning that step-by-step, logical approach to problem-solving, an approach whose applications far exceed the scope of mathematics. Problem-solving is its own knowledge system, and math is the best way to learn that knowledge system. Math teaches us to take a complex problem and simplify it by dissembling it. Math teaches us to take a complex problem and by writing equivalent statements, clarify it and the path to its solution. Math teaches us the progression of logical steps (remember all those proofs in geometry?) Math is coldly and unforgivingly logical — “close to the right answer” is an abusurdity in math, where there is the right answer and there is every other, equally wrong, answer — and gives us problem-solving skills we will use throughout our lives.
Mathematics has, for this reason, been a cornerstone of education since the Greeks. Crayon and poster board projects accomplish nothing other than allowing Michelle to get an A without having mastered the content.
And doing all those cute projects ensures that little Johnny and little Michelle will go through life devoid of those invaluable problem-solving skills, that Aristotelian logic, and that they will be crippled for the rest of their lives. Is making them feel more comfortable by letting them glue macaroni to cardboard tubes really worth that?
26 responses so far
26 Responses to “Diversity Destroys Education”
I agree with you except for one caveat. Don’t you think that single sex education would provide better math instruction for little Johnny and little Michelle? Thought the method of teaching should be the same, it would allow at least the style of teaching to be directed at the biological differences between boys and girls.
Math instruction is one of the biggest frustrations I have with my kids schooling. My 6th grader struggles in math due to poor teaching of basic multiplication skills in elementary school. My 3rd graders
spendwaste weeks on the diffence between expanded form vs standard forms of numbers (1000 + 50 + 7 = 1057). They are taught the trial and error method of solving word problems. It is so evident that most teachers are “literary” types, because the importence of math is just not stressed. They spend twice as much time studying subjects like the watercycle opposed to mathematics. Critical thinking has been interpreted to mean “there is more than one right answer” instead of looking at things systematically and logically. I shudder to think what their education would be like if we didnt spend the effort to supplement their math skills at home.Perhaps. I’m an agnostic on that issue because I am not familiar with the research. But that’s a wholly different issue from the “goal oriented” v. “process oriented” one to which I referred.
I’m a skeptic on gender differences and math, at least implied inherent gender differences. For one thing, we don’t see the same gender differences in other nations. For another, and this is wholly unscientific, the best teacher I ever had in K-12 was my high school math teacher, a woman. She was phenomenal, and all these decades later, she still figures prominently in who I am. In light of that, it’s very hard for me to seriously consider some kind of biological difference in math skills based on sex.
My 3rd graders spend waste weeks on the diffence between expanded form vs standard forms of numbers (1000 + 50 + 7 = 1057).
I’m doing this with my son now. This is a first grade skill in Connecting Math Concepts. This strand lasts for about 30 lessons and takes up about 1/10 of the lesson. That seems about right to me to introduce place-value
He’s also learning how to derive, in a systematic way, simple math equations from a word problems. He’ll get something like: Joe has 8 pets. He sells 3 of them. How many pets does he end up with? And is expected to write the equation 8-3=x.
I’m from the “new math” generation. Our parents hated it because they had no idea what most of what we were doing was and couldn’t help us. It was flawed, mostly because it spent too much time on process and derivation, but it wasn’t the disaster they’re doing now. I mean, it was math, at least. And some of the things it was most severely criticized for (bases, for example) it turned out would have been extremely useful skills to know, when the computer age got here (imagine my surprise when some years ago while teaching summer HTML bootcamp I found out that schools weren’t teaching bases in math class — and that they had no idea what a hexidecimal number might possibly be).
But it was math. It was procedural, it was logical, and it was linear.
Link!
KDeRosa, if your school system is like mine your son will spend the first two months of every grade relearning everything they learned the previous years. One more cost of not teaching to mastery.
Sorry I am only quoting, we have a birthday party for my 7 year old. The quote is offered as reference, not a hard fact.
Sorry, forgot to add the link for the reference.
Well, that’s a great deal better than, “I have some apples, and I give you a few. How many do I have left?”
Thanks for the link. There’s some interesting stuff, though the brain stuff is pop cogsci.
Yeah, I’m not convinced that girls learn any differently than boys. To the extent that their brains do function differently, no one has ever been able to capitalize on those differences to improve learning.
There are two problems with all this brain stuff. The first is just outdated nonsense (anything having to do with “left brained” and “right brained”). Then there’s the stuff that’s just crap because we don’t know enough yet. All the “look at the brain activating here in his brain and activating there in this other brain!” nonsense in court, for example. Okay, we see activation, but we don’t know what that means other than activity, so we certainly can’t use it to prop up some theory, much less set some murderer free. This “brain development difference between boys and girls” stuff is the same kind of thing. Okay, but we don’t know what that means, so we can’t use it as evidence of anything.
There might be a slight difference between the sexes on this but as my calc prof used to taunt us, all the math up to now was “mere manipulation of numbers.” I wouldn’t expect gender differences to show up until the super-geek level (where I never went of course) and even then there are enough examples of women excelling to debunk the notion of gender differences in learning.
It still comes down to motivation, and whether one was lucky enough to have been taught the multiplication tables.
I was stuck with the horrors of CPL math (I think that’s what it was called), where you were required to figure out math problems intuitively in groups with little to no teacher direction, and absolutely no background on concepts we were supposed to be learning, and no follow-up to clarify said concept after the excercise. They also used GROUP TESTS! If there’s any better way to say “the geek does all the work or gets beat up after class” I don’t know it. All it was was instituionalized cheating.
It was the first “F” I ever received, and I was considered a “nerd” having won several math and physics prizes, and could read at a post (college) graduate level.
New Math was procedural — extremely so. The major focus of New Math was to show you what you were doing (certainly not let you find you own way of doing something), so we did long division eighteen different ways and so forth (though the first time I had a South American student up to the white board, he jolted me because the do it backwards and I couldn’t even follow it for a minute — they put the divisor inside, and the divident outside). New Math also tried to introduce too many advanced concepts — some of which were never revisited in the curriculum — too early. And it didn’t extend to high school math. Our Algebra books were Algebra books, etc.
Sorry about the OT post, as far as gender differences go, I suspect they are probably not as great across genders as across individuals.
In general, there is a bottom line of knowledge that must be internalized, in whatever way possible, before advancement can occur. From this point of view it makes more sese to require the individual learners to adjust to the knowledge requirements. Out in the “Real World” learners will have no options at all, simply a commandment (often only implied) to learn something, right now.
If someone learns a certian restrictive way, it should be their responsibility (or their parents in the case of the very young) to supplement what teachers are presenting whatever works for their personal style. It’s insane to try to teach to each individuals’ style in an institutional setting.
I do think classrooms should be segregated by sex, however, so that any real difference in learning style can actually be identified, and if in existance can be approached concisely, without dragging down the other half of the class. (Distraction abatement is a major bonus, of course.)
Here’s a good article on sex differences and mathematics aptitide. The variance is the primary cause of the differences we see. Men acount for more dummies and more more nerds.
Once the problems become more difficult there are ususally several ways to solve them. The example you state is pretty basic. I’m being really picky here and should stop. I agree with your larger point.
I would agree that the main difference in performance is at the extremes and not at the averages of performance. I would also concede that the type of instruction would be the same. I still think that the general behavioral differences between boys and girls justifies seperate sex education. Nothing will convince me that boys and girls don’t naturally act differently.
Duh rory… what Jetgirl said:
Jetgirl, I truly sympathize with you in the group learning setting. In the military we have to attend leadership courses that require group speeches. I always ended up writing the whole speech and coaching the other members of my team, ditto for math courses. Teach kids teamwork in sports… not in education.
This post reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa is thrilled when the boys and girls are divided into two different schools, but when she takes part in the feelgood, learn-nothing math class, she ends up pretending to be a boy so she can take math at the boys’ school and be challenged.
As for gender differences, I am on the fence. I was a terrible math student, but my oldest daughter (a high school freshman) does very well, and her younger sister also shows much promise. I do know I would rather see goal-oriented instruction than feelgood crap.
That’s another article all by itself …
[…] I was prompted to write this by a comment Rory made on another post, on how the “diversity agenda” destroys education. He said: […]
Right Wing Prof, I don’t know if you are married, but you can ask your wife about this. Process-oriented approches do produce an incredibly important result — they make all the women “feel heard”. Process orientation is a survival skill for women. A woman who runs a meeting of any kind has to “get in touch” with all the other women and their stated or unstated feelings, or she risks being attacked by these same women whose stated or unstated feelings were hurt. And this goes for running a math workshop for other teachers or a school staff meeting, or leading a PTA meeting or a school board working group.
As a woman, you have to figure out ahead of time if something you plan to say might hurt somebody’s feelings. Or you are toast. You can “get in touch” ahead of time, or you can “get in touch” during the meeting, but you can’t wait for the other women to simply state their concerns if they have any. That’s illegal.
Process orientation is a survival skill for a woman among other women. A process-oriented approach keeps a woman from getting kicked out of the club. When you are kicked out of the club, you can’t solve any problems for the club, can you?
Process orientation solves a major social problem. Being goal-oriented — placing the attainment of an extrinsic goal above your respect for the feelings of your fellow female travelers — renders all those “logical” women ineffective and… unproductive.
I think goal-oriented women have to learn how to manipulate other women to maintain the appearance of process while achieving the goal.
That may very well be, but it doesn’t get the job done. It doesn’t address the problem, much less map out a solution. And that is the problem.
Since I run meetings weekly on various goal-oriented subjects that are populated entirely by women (and one poor guy) I say hogwash.
I’m there to divy up information, they’re there to receive information, and “feelings” about it really don’t come into play, stated or otherwise. We have a bottom line to meet, and said bottom line really doesn’t care about whether or not a female employee feels she “has been heard.” I suggest that if a workplace is really that troubled by attacking females there’s some serious mismanagement going on.
Same principle applies to school and learning: teachers are there to give information, students are there to receive it. Nothing in that arrangement should be particularly bent by “feelings.”
But I’ve been accused many times of “thinking like a man,” whatever that means.
Carnival of Education - 85th Edition
Welcome to the 85th edition of the Carnival of Education. It’s my first time to host the carnival, and I’ve had a blast reading all the submissions. Education bloggers are a diverse group! Thanks to all the wonderful bloggers who are so …