This is a wonderful post! I wanted to mention that I contacted Mr. Kohn a few weeks ago about his anti-CLT piece, and he and I had a very respectful back-and-forth over a few emails. He didn't seem convinced by anything I said, and I wasn't very convinced of his ideas, but it was a pleasant exchange. One thing that most surprised me was his insistence that the revision of CLT over time is unreasonable. He cited the addition of the concept of "germane load" as particularly egregious. He was very skeptical of my claim that many CLT researchers (including John Sweller and Greg Ashman), upon further analysis, have now largely rejected the idea that "germane load" is independent from "intrinsic load."
Mr. Kohn, as far as I can tell, is very reticent to define "learning," instead viewing the entire concept of "learning" and the entire "education system" as things that should be defined on a school-by-school, teacher-by-teacher, student-by-student, and family-by-family basis. Due to this, he rejects any attempts to define and/or measure learning. I can see where he is coming from, but I think he is misguided, as learning measured objectively appears to predict quite well future success in life across a very wide variety of measures (income, likelihood of being incarcerated, likelihood of being chronically employed...and the list goes on, as I'm sure you know).
Mr. Kohn's general goals and worldview seem to be idealistic rather than practical. The entire concept that I (and, as I can gather, you as well -- though please correct me if I am wrong) believe is that education should prepare students to be functional and successful members of society. Mr. Kohn appears to view education as an entirely personal endeavor with no shared goal.
At this point, I'm just rambling, but I suppose what I want to express is that Alfie Kohn seems to approach the field of education from a perspective that is entirely incompatible with that held by you, me, and many others. I'm not sure what to do about that.
I do try to avoid seeing "future success" in life as the point of education. I think education is worthwhile in its own right, regardless of what we do with it. If we have to give it a purpose, it would be something along the lines of making children cleverer. But I do find it hard to penetrate ideologies that seem not to value education, or substitute it with something like indoctrination, therapy or entertainment. Often though, I think it is because it is done implicitly rather than explicitly. It's not that progressives don't discuss the purpose of education, but if they do they tend to generate long lists of aims and make no mention of how one is meant to prioritise between them.
Mr. Old:
This is a wonderful post! I wanted to mention that I contacted Mr. Kohn a few weeks ago about his anti-CLT piece, and he and I had a very respectful back-and-forth over a few emails. He didn't seem convinced by anything I said, and I wasn't very convinced of his ideas, but it was a pleasant exchange. One thing that most surprised me was his insistence that the revision of CLT over time is unreasonable. He cited the addition of the concept of "germane load" as particularly egregious. He was very skeptical of my claim that many CLT researchers (including John Sweller and Greg Ashman), upon further analysis, have now largely rejected the idea that "germane load" is independent from "intrinsic load."
Mr. Kohn, as far as I can tell, is very reticent to define "learning," instead viewing the entire concept of "learning" and the entire "education system" as things that should be defined on a school-by-school, teacher-by-teacher, student-by-student, and family-by-family basis. Due to this, he rejects any attempts to define and/or measure learning. I can see where he is coming from, but I think he is misguided, as learning measured objectively appears to predict quite well future success in life across a very wide variety of measures (income, likelihood of being incarcerated, likelihood of being chronically employed...and the list goes on, as I'm sure you know).
Mr. Kohn's general goals and worldview seem to be idealistic rather than practical. The entire concept that I (and, as I can gather, you as well -- though please correct me if I am wrong) believe is that education should prepare students to be functional and successful members of society. Mr. Kohn appears to view education as an entirely personal endeavor with no shared goal.
At this point, I'm just rambling, but I suppose what I want to express is that Alfie Kohn seems to approach the field of education from a perspective that is entirely incompatible with that held by you, me, and many others. I'm not sure what to do about that.
I do try to avoid seeing "future success" in life as the point of education. I think education is worthwhile in its own right, regardless of what we do with it. If we have to give it a purpose, it would be something along the lines of making children cleverer. But I do find it hard to penetrate ideologies that seem not to value education, or substitute it with something like indoctrination, therapy or entertainment. Often though, I think it is because it is done implicitly rather than explicitly. It's not that progressives don't discuss the purpose of education, but if they do they tend to generate long lists of aims and make no mention of how one is meant to prioritise between them.