Inhoud blog
  • Five ways to damage a good school
  • curriculum voor het jonge kind - met meer aandacht voor pre-academische vaardigheden
  • Tobe Young: The fall of meritocracy (onderwijs)
  • Prof. onderwijsgeschiedenis Larry Cuban: de jaarklassenschool heeft moeiteloos de vele kritiek vanaf eind 19de eeuw doorstaan
  • Er is geen onderzoek dat aantoont dat een leraar beter wordt door een master te halen
    Zoeken in blog

    Beoordeel dit blog
      Zeer goed
      Nog wat bijwerken
      Nog veel werk aan
    Onderwijskrant Vlaanderen
    Vernieuwen: ja, maar in continuïteit!
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Five ways to damage a good school

    Five ways to damage a good school

    5 Focus on the furniture
    Focusing on furniture and walls is a distraction from the real work that needs to be done. However, the effects are greater than simply those of wasting time and effort. The most efficient physical arrangement is to have individual classrooms with tables that are laid out, or at least can be laid out, in rows, yet you will struggle to find a consultant or architect who will recommend this.

    Instead, the enthusiasm will be for knocking down walls and installing pods and break-out or open-plan spaces. Teachers will have to waste time and energy trying to mitigate the noise and distraction these arrangements cause before, three years down the track, someone finally decides to put up partition walls. Even then, those tables will still be arranged, immovably, in strange patterns that prevent students from seeing the board or the teacher.

    4. Lock yourself into the latest novelty

    It is almost impossible for schools to filter out all of the bad ideas. Often, senior managers will have a pet project or enthusiasm that seems pretty reasonable at the time. And this is where the idea of a pilot project comes in handy. My advice is to initially commit to something that is fully reversible. This way, you can cut your losses when the expected transformative gains fail to materialise.
    About ten years ago, I remember discussing a ‘vertical tutoring’ notion that was all the rage at the time. This would have meant rearranging all of our students’ tutor groups so that they were a mix of ages. The idea was that sensible and mature older students would be a good influence on younger students. I asked what we expected the effect of silly and immature older students to be on younger students but this was never really answered. In the end, we dodged that one and it was probably for the best.

    In a different school, we went all out for something called ‘Building Learning Power’. We had training and placed it on all of our materials, lesson plan templates and schemes of work. We wrote it into the criteria for performance management reviews. After a couple of years, nobody except for one assistant principal still believed in it but we all had to keep going through the motions.

    3. Listen to the GOGS

    Here is a fact about the OECD’s PISA programme: PISA define good teaching as having a student-oriented classroom climate and yet, using PISA’s own measures, a greater amount of student-orientation is associated with worse PISA maths results. Similarly, more ‘enquiry-based’ science teaching is associated with lower PISA science scores.

    Yet you won’t hear this from PISA. Instead, they make odd claims about memorisation and seem determined to develop new measures of supposedly generic skills such as creativity or critical thinking or collaborative problem solving. It is as if they think that they might eventually find a measure that correlates positively with the kind of teaching they approve of.

    This is a fool’s errand. These skills are not generic and any measures PISA develop are likely to end up testing cognitive skills very closely related to the academic ones already assessed by PISA. The same countries will dominate except that the tests will be less reliable and more gameable.
    Yet this idea of generic skills is everywhere. Andreas Scheicher and his staff seem to have watched a Ken Robinson TED talk and become True Believers. Their conviction is so strong that no quantity of their own data will dislodge them from it. So with a passing nod to Pasi Sahlberg, let’s call this the Global Orthodoxy on Generic Skills (GOGS).

    Schools that pursue this agenda of focusing on, and attempting to measure, these (non) generic skills will waste a lot of time and money.

    2. Introduce project-based or inquiry learning

    This is a specific case of a fashionable novelty that is highly likely to go wrong. First, there is little evidence that these forms of teaching are effective. Explicit teaching has a much stronger evidence base. Inquiry and project-based learning tend to be justified on the basis of delivering generic skills and yet there is little evidence that they succeed at doing this.
    More importantly, introducing such teaching methods will involved months and years of asking teachers to focus on teaching and learning processes rather than the content of the curriculum. Maths teachers should be thinking about maths and how to make complex abstractions accessible to students. They should not be thinking about how to wring a bit of incidental maths out of a cross-curricular project or how to manufacture a group-based inquiry.

    1. Start blaming teachers for poor behaviour

    In my experience, schools that go downhill often start by gradually losing grip on student behaviour. This may be as a result of a general malaise or the adoption of a specific anti-authoritarian ideology. Whatever the cause, if the view starts to take hold among senior managers that teachers are to blame for poor behaviour then you enter something of a death spiral.
    Yes, there are strategies that teachers can learn to prevent poor behaviour or to close it down quickly and with minimal fuss. And teachers should follow the school policy. However, I have seen teachers criticised for following the school policy. In these schools, poor behaviour is seen as a sign of poor teaching and so it is now in teachers’ interests to hide it away and not report it. From this point, the school will only ever lose.

    As teachers in the northern hemisphere reflect on the past school year and consider the new one to come, it falls to me to channel my inner Cassandra. Imagine you are in charge of a good school; a …

    17-08-2017 om 18:48 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    Tags:kapot maken goede school
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.curriculum voor het jonge kind - met meer aandacht voor pre-academische vaardigheden

    Een nationaal curriculum voor het jonge kind - met meer aandacht voor pre-academische vaardigheden - Kleuterschoolcampagne Onderwijskrant

    Tekst Jo Kloprogge -Gepubliceerd op 25-07-2017 in didactiefonline.

    (Een bijdrage in de context van de Onderwijskrantcampagne voor een meer uitgebalanceerd curriculum voor het kleuteronderwijs -zie Onderwijskrant nr. 176 & nr. 181 op www. We betreuren dat er in de 7 officiële rapporten/adviezen over de toekomst van ons onderwijs en over de nieuwe eindtermen met geen woord gerept wordt over het kleuteronderwijs - o.i. het belangrijkste aangrijpingspunt voor de optimalisering van de onderwijskansen.)

    Citaat vooraf: "Dat komt onder meer naar voren in het Europese onderzoeksproject ‘Care’ waar wordt gesteld dat Nederland terughoudend is bij het vragen van cognitieve inspanning en bij ‘early learning’ en weinig aandacht heeft voor pre-academische vaardigheden.
    (Commentaar: volgens de recente TIMSS-10-jarigen-studie - is dit nog meer het geval in Vlaanderen.)

    Jo Kloprogge - ‘It is the curriculum, stupid’; deze uitdrukking hoor en zie ik de laatste tijd met enige regelmaat. Zelfs in Nederland zijn we bezig met een operatie ‘nieuw curriculum’, via operaties als onderwijs2032 en Daar kun je wel een aantal blogs over spuien, maar dat ga ik hier niet doen. Ik wil hier een pleidooi houden voor een nieuw curriculum voor het jonge kind.

    Een aantal van u hoor ik al roepen dat we dat al hebben; dat we eerst een pedagogisch kader hadden en sinds een paar maanden zelfs een pedagogisch curriculum onder redactie van Ruben Fukkink. Inderdaad, maar het woordje ‘pedagogisch’ geeft hier meteen de beperking aan. Dit curriculum geeft aan hoe je op een goede manier met jonge kinderen kunt omgaan. De vraag wat je hen moet aanbieden komt slechts mondjesmaat aan de orde.

    Een volwaardig curriculum gaat over zowel het wat als het hoe en het waarom, zoals wordt opgemerkt in de recente notitie ‘Working Toward a Definition of Infant/Toddler Curricula’ van het Amerikaanse Netwerk of Infant/Toddler researchers.
    Het ‘wat’ betreft de geplande ervaringen en activiteiten om het leren te ondersteunen en uit te breiden en om een daarbij passende omgeving. In Nederland wordt er tot nu toe weinig aandacht besteed aan de vraag ‘wat’ we jonge kinderen kunnen aanbieden.

    Dat komt onder meer naar voren in het Europese onderzoeksproject ‘Care’ waar wordt gesteld dat Nederland terughoudend is bij het vragen van cognitieve inspanning en bij ‘early learning’ en weinig aandacht heeft voor pre-academische vaardigheden. (Commentaar: volgens het recente TIMSS-10-jarigen is dit nog meer het geval in Vlaanderen.)

    Men denkt dat dit ligt aan de Nederlandse angst voor verschoolsing van de ontwikkeling van jonge kinderen. Alle woorden waar ‘school’ in voorkomt bezorgen sommige pedagogen nu eenmaal een leven lang nachtmerries. Maar mocht die verschoolsing nou echt een risico zijn, dan zorgt het nieuwe pedagogisch curriculum wel voor immuniteit daartegen.

    Ik heb vooral drie argumenten om een nationaal curriculum voor het jonge kind te vragen. Het eerste is dat het erg belangrijk is dat alle kinderen kennis maken met noodzakelijke basisvaardigheden en met onze cultuur in brede zin. Vooral voor kinderen die opgroeien zonder veel educatieve impulsen thuis, is dit de eerste en misschien enige kans om de basis te leggen voor een stevige schoolloopbaan en straks een maatschappelijke positie. We hebben daar ook als samenleving belang bij. Als kinderen in ons land zich in grotere mate een communale kennis van de wereld eigen maken, kan dat de sociale samenhang alleen maar bevorderen. Het is een zwaktebod om de auteurs van educatieve programma’s of de instellingen zelf de inhoud van de educatie van jonge kinderen te laten bepalen.

    Een tweede argument is dat veel leidsters en leerkrachten behoefte hebben aan meer curriculaire ondersteuning. Ik heb daar geen cijfers over, maar merk wel dat er bij de steeds meer geprofessionaliseerde staf van de instellingen onzekerheid is over wat de kinderen concreet aan te bieden. Zelfs wat betreft de aan te bieden woordjes en het relateren van die woordjes aan concepten, is er nog veel te verduidelijken en te verbeteren.

    Het derde argument is dat we met de enorme groei van kinderopvang en voor- en vroegschoolse educatie al op jonge leeftijd bij kinderen een fundament leggen voor het latere leren. Wat kinderen hier ervaren en opdoen, nemen ze mee naar de basisschool en in hun verdere levensloop. Wat we hun willen meegeven aan ervaringen en kennis, moet goed worden doordacht en uitgewerkt. Dat is een nationaal belang.
    Mochten we gaan werken aan de ontwikkeling van zo’n nationaal curriculum, zoals overigens ook de OESO in 2016 aan ons adviseerde, dan blijven er nog veel vragen open. Zo is er de vraag hoe verplicht zo’n curriculum moet zijn. Ik zou wel tevreden zijn met een goed uitgewerkt breed aanbod, waar leidsters en leerkrachten keuzes uit kunnen maken. Ze hebben dan in ieder geval iets zinnigs te kiezen. Ook is er de vraag hoe algemeen of specifiek het curriculum moet zijn. In de recente publicatie ‘The Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Pre-Kindergarten Effects’ van de Pre-Kindergarten Task Force(2017) is een interessante maar ook voor velen schokkende grafiek opgenomen.

    De grafiek bevat een duidelijke indicatie dat we voor specifiek aanbod moeten zorgen als we specifieke resultaten willen bereiken.
    Tenslotte is er de vraag of we het eens kunnen worden over de wenselijke inhoud van een nationaal curriculum voor het jonge kind. Ik geeft meteen toe dat dit wel eens een moeizame discussie zou kunnen worden. Maar wel een discussie die ergens over gaat.

    IJsbrand Jepma
    Wordt tijd voor een commissie van wijze vrouwen en mannen die een route uitstippelen voor de komende 20 jaar, met daarin de centrale vraag: wat willen we met jonge kinderen bereiken en welk stelsel past daarbij?

    Een pedagogisch curriculum maakt onderdeel uit van een landelijk kwaliteitskader voor…

    17-08-2017 om 18:44 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Tobe Young: The fall of meritocracy (onderwijs)
    The Fall of the Meritocracy Toby Young - zoon van Michael Young, auteur van The Rise of the Meritocracy

    The left loathes the concept of IQ -- especially the claim that it helps to determine socio-economic status, rather than vice versa -- because of a near-religious attachment to the idea that man is a piece of clay that can be moulded into any shape by society In 1958, my father, Michael Young, published a short book called The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870–2023: An Essay on Education and Equality. It purported to be a paper written by a sociologist in 2034 about the transformation of Britain from a feudal society in which people’s social position and level of income were largely determined by the socio-economic status of their parents into a modern Shangri-La in which status is based solely on merit. He invented the word meritocracy to describe this principle for allocating wealth and prestige and the new society it gave rise to. The essay begins with the introduction of open examinations for entry into the civil service in the 1870s—hailed as “the beginning of the modern era”—and continues to discuss real events up until the late 1950s, at which point it veers off into fantasy, describing the emergence of a fully-fledged meritocracy in Britain in the second half of the twentieth century. In spite of being semi-fictional, the book is clearly intended to be prophetic—or, rather, a warning. Like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), The Rise of the Meritocracy is a dystopian satire that identifies various aspects of the contemporary world and describes a future they might lead to if left unchallenged. Michael was particularly concerned about the introduction of the 11+ by Britain’s wartime coalition government in 1944, an intelligence test that was used to determine which children should go to grammar schools (the top 15 per cent) and which to secondary moderns and technical schools (the remaining 85 per cent). It wasn’t just the sorting of children into sheep and goats at the age of eleven that my father objected to. As a socialist, he disapproved of equality of opportunity on the grounds that it gave the appearance of fairness to the massive inequalities created by capitalism. He feared that the meritocratic principle would help to legitimise the pyramid-like structure of British society.

    In the short term, the book achieved its political aim. It was widely read by Michael’s colleagues in the Labour Party (he ran the party’s research department from 1945 to 1951) and helped persuade his friend Anthony Crosland, who became Labour Education Secretary in 1965, that the 11+ should be phased out and the different types of school created by the 1944 Education Act should be replaced by non-selective, one-size-fits-all comprehensives. Crosland famously declared: “If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to destroy every f***ing grammar school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.” Today, there are only 164 grammar schools in England and sixty-eight in Northern Ireland. There are none in Wales. But even though my father’s book helped to win the battle over selective education, he lost the war.

    The term “meritocracy” has now entered the language, and while its meaning hasn’t changed—it is still used to describe the organising principle Michael identified in his book—it has come to be seen as something good rather than bad. [1] The debate about grammar schools rumbles on in Britain, but their opponents no longer argue that a society in which status is determined by merit is undesirable. Rather, they embrace this principle and claim that a universal comprehensive system will lead to higher levels of social mobility than a system that allows some schools to “cream skim” the most intelligent children at the age of eleven.[2] We are all meritocrats now Not only do pundits and politicians on all sides claim to be meritocrats—and this is true of most developed countries, not just Britain—they also agree that the principle remains stillborn. In Britain and America there is a continuing debate about whether the rate of inter-generational social mobility has remained stagnant or declined in the past fifty years, but few think it has increased.[3] The absence of opportunities for socio-economic advancement is now seen as one of the key political problems facing Western democracies, leading to the moral collapse of the indigenous white working class, the alienation of economically unsuccessful migrant groups, and unsustainable levels of welfare dependency. This cluster of issues is the subject of several recent books by prominent political scientists, most notably Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (2015) by Robert Putnam. Unlike my father, I’m not an egalitarian. As Friedrich Hayek and others have pointed out, the difficulty with end-state equality is that it can only be achieved at too great a human cost. Left to their own devices, some men will inevitably accumulate more wealth than others, whether through ability or luck, and the only way to “correct” this is through the state’s use of coercive power. If the history of the twentieth century teaches us anything, it is that the dream of creating a socialist utopia often leads to the suppression of free speech, the imprisonment of a significant percentage of the population and, in some extreme cases, state-organised mass murder. Having said that, I recognise that a lack of social mobility poses a threat to the sustainability of liberal democracies and, in common with many others, believe the solution lies in improving our education systems.

    There is a consensus among most participants in the debate about education reform that the ideal schools are those that manage to eliminate the attainment gap between the children of the rich and the poor. That is, an education system in which children’s exam results don’t vary according to the neighbourhood they’ve grown up in, the income or education of their parents, or the number of books in the family home. Interestingly, there is a reluctance on the part of many liberal educationalists to accept the corollary of this, which is that attainment in these ideal schools would correspond much more strongly with children’s natural abilities. [4] This is partly because it doesn’t sit well with their egalitarian instincts and partly because they reject the idea that intelligence has a genetic basis. But I’m less troubled by this. I want the clever, hard-working children of those in the bottom half of income distribution to move up, and the less able children of those in the top half to move down. In other words, I think the answer is more meritocracy.

    I approve of the principle for the same reason my father disapproved of it, because it helps to secure people’s consent to the inequalities that are the inevitable consequence of limited government. It does this by (a) allocating wealth and prestige in a way that appears to be fair; and (b) creating opportunities for those born on the wrong side of the tracks, so if you start with very little that doesn’t mean you’ll end up with very little, or that your children will. If you think a free society is preferable to one dominated by the state, and the unequal distribution of wealth is an inevitable consequence of reining in state power, then you should embrace the principle of meritocracy for making limited government sustainable. The challenge posed by behavioural genetics However, there’s a problem here—let’s call it the challenge posed by behavioural genetics—which is that cognitive ability and other characteristics that lead to success, such as conscientiousness, impulse control and a willingness to defer gratification, are between 40 per cent and 80 per cent heritable.[5] I know that many people will be reluctant to accept that, but the evidence from numerous studies of identical twins separated at birth, as well as non-biological siblings raised in the same household, is pretty overwhelming. And it’s probable that in the next few years genetic research scientists will produce even more evidence that important aspects of people’s personalities—including those that determine whether they succeed or fail—are linked to their genes, with the relevant variants being physically identified.

    The implication is that a society in which status is allocated according to merit isn’t much fairer than one in which it’s inherited—or, rather, it is partly inherited, but via parental DNA rather than tax-efficient trusts. This is an argument against meritocracy made by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971): You’ve done nothing to deserve the talents you’re born with—they’re distributed according to a “natural lottery”—so you don’t deserve what flows from them.[6] It’s worth pausing here to note that Rawls accepts that not all men are born equal, genetically speaking. Some do better out of the “natural lottery” than others and that, in turn, has an impact on their life chances. This is far from universally accepted by liberal commentators and policy-makers, most of whom prefer to think of man as a tabula rasa, forged by society rather than nature. Indeed, this is the thinking behind government programs like Home Start, which aim to transform the life chances of disadvantaged young children by improving their environments. The fact that so much left-wing political thought rests on this assumption is the main reason the Left has reacted with such hostility to all attempts by geneticists and psychologists to link differences in intelligence to genetic differences. Now, Rawls’s argument isn’t a knock-down objection to meritocracy. For one thing, it’s too deterministic. Great wealth doesn’t simply “flow” from an abundance of natural gifts. A considerable amount of effort is also involved, and rewarding that effort does seem fair, even if some people are born with stronger willpower and a greater aptitude for hard work than others. Nevertheless, there’s a “gearing” difficulty—because some people are more gifted than others, the same amount of effort will reap different rewards, depending on their natural endowments.

    There’s another, more fundamental problem with Rawls’s argument, which is that it conflates desert with entitlement. A person may not deserve his or her wealth in a meritocratic society, but that doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to it. That’s a separate question that turns on how it was accumulated. As Robert Nozick points out in Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), provided a person’s acquisition of wealth hasn’t involved violating anyone else’s rights, they’re entitled to keep it and bequeath it to their children. The standard that Rawls judges meritocracy by is unrealistically high. Throughout history, people’s status has rarely, if ever, been deserved. Even supposing it was possible to reach agreement about how to measure desert, it would require an all-powerful state to ensure that wealth and prestige were distributed according to that metric and, as with end-state equality, we’d end up paying too high a price in terms of liberty.[7] Putting aside the issue about whether a meritocratic society is any fairer than the one we live in at present—or fairer than an aristocratic society—it’s hard to argue that it isn’t more efficient.

    All things being equal, a country’s economy will grow faster, its public services will be run better, its politicians will make smarter decisions, diseases are more likely to be eradicated, if the people at the top possess the most cognitive ability.[8] The ossification problem However, there’s a practical difficulty with meritocracy that I think is harder to deal with than any of the philosophical points made by Rawls, and that is the low probability that meritocracy will produce a continual flow of opportunities over the long term. On the contrary, it may eventually lead to them drying up.

    Suppose we do manage to create the meritocratic education system referred to above. It would produce a good deal of upward and downward social mobility to begin with, but over the long term, as the link between status and merit grows stronger, you’d expect to see less and less inter-generational movement. Why? Because the children of the meritocratic elite would, in all likelihood, inherit the natural gifts enjoyed by their parents. In time, a meritocratic society would become as rigid and class-bound as a feudal society. Let’s call this the ossification problem. This is precisely what happens in the dystopian future described in my father’s book. The sociologist narrator writes: "By 1990 or thereabouts, all adults with IQs of more than 125 belonged to the meritocracy. A high proportion of the children with IQs over 125 were the children of these same adults. The top of today are breeding the top of tomorrow to a greater extent than at any time in the past. The elite is on the way to becoming hereditary; the principles of heredity and merit are coming together. The vital transformation which has taken more than two centuries to accomplish is almost complete. Most people think of this as a wholly theoretical danger that won’t arise until some distant point in the future, if then.

    The conventional wisdom among social commentators in Britain and America is that their societies can’t possibly be meritocratic because of the low levels of social mobility. But a lack of movement between classes is only evidence of this if you assume that natural abilities are distributed more or less randomly across society. What if that’s not true? It could be that two things have been happening in the advanced societies of the West that have been obscured by the intense focus among policy-makers on the impact of environmental factors on children’s life chances. First, our societies could be more meritocratic than they’re generally given credit for; and, second, the “vital transformation” described by my father, whereby the meritocratic elite is becoming a hereditary elite, could already be under way.[9]

    Let’s examine the two parts of this hypothesis in turn. How high is the correlation between IQ and socio-economic status? The view of most liberals is that the correlation between IQ and socio-economic status in the West isn’t very high. “Once you get past some pretty obvious correlations (smart people make better mathematicians), there is a very loose relationship between IQ and life outcomes,” writes the New York Times columnist David Brooks in The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (2011). Daniel Goleman, the author of Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ (1995), thinks that IQ accounts for no more than between 4 and 10 per cent of career success. However, this is at odds with the scientific research. As the social scientist Tarmo Strenze says in the introduction to his 2006 meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on the topic, summing up decades of research: Although it is sometimes claimed in popular press and textbooks that intelligence has no relationship to important real-life outcomes, the scientific research on the topic leaves little doubt that people with higher scores on IQ tests are better educated, hold more prestigious occupations, and earn higher incomes than people with lower scores.[10] In The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994), Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray argue—pretty convincingly—that the correlation between intelligence and socio-economic status has become stronger in America since the 1950s as access to higher education has become more competitive and the economy has become more knowledge-based, particularly at each end of the IQ distribution curve. They don’t claim that a person’s IQ is the sole determinant of whether they succeed or fail, only that it’s an increasingly important factor. Using a variety of evidence, they show that cognitive ability is a better predictor of achievement in school and occupational status than the standard environmental factors singled out by liberal policy-makers.[11] At the bottom of American society, according to Herrnstein and Murray, is a class of people they describe as “very dull”. Members of this group possess IQs of 80 or below, often struggle to complete high school, and are either unemployed or working in low-paying jobs. They analyse the data thrown up by the National Longitudinal Survey of Labour Market Experience of Youth (NLSY), a study of 12,686 people, 94 per cent of whom were given an intelligence test, and conclude that IQ is a better predictor of low socio-economic status—and the associated problems of poverty, teenage pregnancy, welfare dependency, criminality and drug abuse—than any competing variable, including parental socio-economic status. According to their analysis, someone with an IQ of 130 has a less than 2 per cent chance of living in poverty, whereas someone with an IQ of 70 has a 26 per cent chance. At the pinnacle of American society, by contrast, there is a “cognitive elite”. Typically, members of this group possess IQs of 125 and above, have postgraduate degrees from good universities and belong to a handful of “high-IQ professions”, such as accountants, lawyers, architects, chemists, college teachers, dentists, doctors, engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, natural scientists, social scientists and senior business executives. According to Herrnstein and Murray: Even as recently as midcentury, America was still a society in which most bright people were scattered throughout the wide range of jobs. As the century draws to a close, a very high proportion of that same group is now concentrated within a few occupations that are highly screened for IQ.[12] A British sociologist called Peter Saunders—who, like the fictional sociologist in my father’s book, is a celebrant of meritocracy—echoes many of the findings of The Bell Curve. Saunders argues that in Britain cognitive ability is over twice as important as class origins in influencing class destinations. He bases this, in part, on an analysis of a 1972 study of social mobility carried out by the sociologist John Goldthorpe and his colleagues at Nuffield College, Oxford, which involved a nationally representative sample of 10,000 men.

    The fact that there’s a strong correlation between the socio-economic status of fathers and sons within this cohort doesn’t mean Britain is un-meritocratic, according to Saunders. He shows that if you factor in the men’s IQs, the level of mobility is almost exactly what you’d expect in a perfectly meritocratic society. In Social Mobility Myths (2010), he writes: The social mobility histories of the 10,000 men interviewed for Goldthorpe’s study in 1972 are almost precisely what we would have expected to find had they and their fathers been recruited to their class positions purely on the basis of their intelligence. Since Herrnstein and Murray published The Bell Curve, more evidence has emerged that there’s a strong correlation between IQ and socio-economic status in America. Tino Sanandaji, a research fellow at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics, has drilled down into a dataset tracking a representative sample of the US population and discovered that those with IQs above 120 typically earn twice as much as those with average IQs.[13] Christopher F. Chabris, a professor of psychology at Union College, estimates that a random person with above-average intelligence has a two-thirds chance of earning an above-average income, while a random person of below average intelligence has only a one third chance.[14] Many people will recoil from this hypothesis because they’ll read it as a justification of inequality—a form of social Darwinism.[15] After all, if our society is on the way to becoming a fully-fledged meritocracy, doesn’t that mean the resulting distribution of wealth and power is justified? The answer is: not when you factor in the heritability of the traits that are linked with socio-economic status. As Rawls points out, no one deserves their natural abilities—and, for that reason, the closer the link between IQ and socio-economic status, the less defensible inequality becomes. I happen to think there are other, pragmatic justifications of inequality—namely, the terrible human cost of trying to bring about end-state equality—but that’s not contingent on this particular hypothesis or the more general claim that many of the differences in people’s personalities are linked to genetic differences. Even if all men were tabulae rasae and they all started out on a level playing field, they would still end up in different places, if only because some would be luckier than others. Any attempt to correct that would inevitably involve unacceptable levels of state coercion.

    The truth is, there’s nothing inherently right-wing—or anti-egalitarian—about the conclusions of Herrnstein, Murray, Saunders and others. If anything, the claim that there’s now a strong link between IQ and status in the advanced societies of the West, seen against the background of behavioural genetics, is an argument for more redistributive taxation, not less. Has the meritocratic elite become a hereditary elite? What about the second part of the hypothesis—that the principles of meritocracy and heredity are coming together? Even if you accept that the developed world is more meritocratic than it’s generally given credit for, it doesn’t follow that “the top of today are breeding the top of tomorrow”, to use my father’s phrase. Is there any evidence that the children of today’s cognitive elite will become the cognitive elite of tomorrow? Yes, according to Herrnstein and Murray.

    Herrnstein first put forward this idea—that the cognitive elite was becoming a hereditary elite—in a 1971 essay for the Atlantic called “IQ”, later expanded into a book called IQ in the Meritocracy (1973). His argument can be summed up in a syllogism: If differences in mental abilities are inherited, and if success requires those abilities, and if earnings and prestige depend on success, then social standing will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people: "Greater wealth, health, freedom, fairness, and educational opportunity are not going to give us the egalitarian society of our philosophical heritage. It will instead give us a society sharply graduated, with ever greater innate separation between the top and the bottom, and ever more uniformity within families as far as inherited abilities are concerned. Naturally, we find this vista appalling, for we have been raised to think of social equality as our goal. The vista reminds us of the world we had hoped to leave behind—aristocracies, privileged classes, unfair advantages and disadvantages of birth … By removing arbitrary barriers between classes, society has encouraged the creation of biological barriers. [My emphasis.]" Herrnstein and Murray make the same point in The Bell Curve when discussing falling social mobility: Most people at present are stuck near where their parents were on the income distribution in part because IQ, which has become a major predictor of income, passes on sufficiently from one generation to the next to constrain economic mobility. And Murray returns to this theme in Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010 (2012). “The reason that upper-middle-class children dominate the population of elite schools,” he writes, “is that the parents of the upper-middle class now produce a disproportionate number of the smartest children.” By way of evidence, he points out that 87 per cent of college-bound seniors who scored above 700 in their SATs in 2010 had at least one parent with a college degree, with 56 per cent of them having a parent with a graduate degree. He concludes: “Highly disproportionate numbers of exceptionally able children in the next generation will come from parents in the upper-middle class, and more specifically from parents who are already part of the broad elite.”[16] Why should this be happening, given that IQ, like many other heritable characteristics such as height, regresses to the mean? Herrnstein and Murray think a large part of the explanation is the increasing tendency of people to select their partners according to similar levels of intelligence, thanks to assortative mating or homogamy. This is a well-documented phenomenon whereby humans are more likely to mate with those who have the same characteristics as them, particularly IQ.

    Up until the 1950s, the impact of assortative mating on the stratification of society was kept in check by the limited opportunities for highly intelligent men and women to meet each other. However, as the best universities have become more and more selective, and as women have begun to be admitted in equal numbers, these opportunities have increased. If male and female members of the cognitive elite don’t pair up in college, they pair up afterwards in the high-paying firms and rarefied social environments that they gravitate towards. The result is that those on the far right-hand side of the IQ distribution curve have become much more likely to mate with each other and produce highly intelligent children. Admittedly, not quite as intelligent as their parents, on average, but intelligent enough to make them more likely to gain admittance to this exclusive club than the children of parents who aren’t members of the cognitive elite. Regression to the mean still takes place, but it happens more slowly because both parents are highly intelligent—slowly enough to create an ossification problem.[17]

    Herrnstein and Murray confine their discussion to America, but there’s reason to think the same thing is happening in the UK. David Willetts, the former Conservative universities minister, believes the rise in assortative mating among university graduates helps explain the apparent fall in inter-generational mobility in Britain since the mid-twentieth century. As he puts it in The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future—and Why They Should Give It Back (2010): If advantage marries advantage then we must not be surprised if social mobility suffers … increasing equality between the sexes has meant increasing inequality between social classes. Feminism has trumped egalitarianism. Can meritocracy survive? Now, don’t misunderstand me. However meritocratic most liberal-democracies are, they’re far from being fully-fledged meritocracies. The evidence suggests that at present the correlation between IQ and educational outcomes is weaker for children from disadvantaged backgrounds than for their peers, with environmental factors playing a bigger part.[18] Consequently, if schools become more meritocratic, disadvantaged children with above-average IQs will benefit—and there are still plenty of them who are underachieving at present.[19] There’s also no reason to think social mobility will grind to a halt if the correlation between IQ and socio-economic status ever approaches 100 per cent, even allowing for assortative mating. In Coming Apart, Charles Murray estimates that there will always be 14 per cent of children in the top 5 per cent of the IQ distribution curve who are the offspring of parents with below-average IQs. Admittedly, that’s not much when you consider that the remaining 86 per cent will have parents with above-average IQs, but it’s still sufficient to prevent complete ossification—and many more people on the left-hand side of the curve will produce children with IQs that place them on the right-hand side, even if they’re not in the top 5 per cent. So there would still be some upward social mobility in my father’s meritocratic dystopia, albeit not a great deal of bottom-to-top.

    The problem is, it might not be enough. In a post-script to The Rise of the Meritocracy, we learn that the sociologist narrator has been killed in a riot at Peterloo in 2034. In the end, the new social order he describes isn’t sustainable because there’s too little mobility in a mature meritocracy. Those at the bottom of the pyramid don’t simply resent having to eke out a living in menial, low-paying jobs, while the elite live in luxury; they resent being told that they deserve their inferior status. They also dislike the fact that their children have very little chance of rising to the top. The upshot is that they join forces with a dissident element in the ruling class and revolt, overthrowing the meritocratic elite in a bloody coup. Could this happen in the advanced societies of the West? Is it fanciful to detect traces of this beginning to happen already in the “Occupy” movements, with their rhetoric against “the one per cent” and the popularity of insurgent, left-wing political parties in Greece and Spain? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it could and it would lead to all the unspeakable horrors that most other egalitarian revolutions have resulted in. What can we do to prevent it? How can this shortcoming of meritocratic societies be corrected without straying too far from the principle of limited government?[20]

    One solution is a guaranteed basic income.

    This was an idea first floated at the beginning of the sixteenth century which is currently gaining some traction in various forms on the Left and Right of American politics. It has the merit of addressing the problem posed by the falling value of unskilled labour, as well as the disappearance of blue-collar jobs caused by increasing mechanisation, not to mention the replacement of some white-collar workers by intelligent machines, which the soothsayers of Silicon Valley tell us is imminent.[21] True, it would probably involve increasing taxes for higher-rate taxpayers, and that’s unlikely to appeal to conservative-minded voters, but perhaps some of them might become more relaxed about redistributive taxation once they realise how closely a person’s success is linked to the hand they’re dealt at birth that they’ve done nothing to deserve. It also has the virtue of replacing the patchwork quilt of means-tested government welfare programs, thereby reducing bureaucracy. A basic income would combine higher taxes with less government, a compromise that some conservatives might be prepared to make. A modified version of it, guaranteeing a basic income to those unable to support themselves, was endorsed by Hayek in Law, Legislation and Liberty (1973): So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law.

    Progressive eugenics ???

    17-08-2017 om 18:29 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    Tags:meritocratie, GOK
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Prof. onderwijsgeschiedenis Larry Cuban: de jaarklassenschool heeft moeiteloos de vele kritiek vanaf eind 19de eeuw doorstaan
    1. Prof. onderwijsgeschiedenis Larry Cuban: de jaarklassenschool heeft moeiteloos de vele kritiek vanaf eind 19de eeuw doorstaan
    2. (Uit: Zombie Reforms and Personalized Learning (Part 2)

    3. The age-graded school (jaarklassenschool: e.g., K-5, K-8, 6-8, 9-12), a 19th century innovation, solved the problem of how to provide an efficient schooling to masses of children entering urban schools in the 20th century. Today, the age-graded school is everywhere. Most Americans have gone to k...indergarten at age 5, studied Egyptian mummies in the 6th grade, took algebra in the 8th or 9th grade and then left 12th grade with a diploma.
    4. As an organization, the age-graded school allocates children and youth by age to school “grades”; it houses teachers in separate classrooms and prescribes a curriculum carved up into weekly chunks for each grade. Teachers and students cover each chunk assuming that all children will move uniformly through a school year of 36-weeks, and, after passing tests would be promoted.
    5. These structures and the culture that have grown within age-graded schools over the past century, however, say nothing about which of the multiple purposes tax-supported public schools should pursue (e.g., civic engagement, preparation for the workplace, strengthening individual character, cultivating problem-solving and critical thinking, and making society more just). Taxpayers, voters, policy elites, and donors decide.
    6. Late-19th and early 20th century critics of age-graded schools saw these structures as crippling the intellectual and psychological growth of individual children who learn at different rates hence causing school dropouts as students of different ages piled up in lower grades because teachers flunked them repeatedly.*
    7. The development of twice yearly promotions and ability groups smoothed out some of the inherent problems of age-graded schools. But left untouched the overall structure of the age-graded school that required teachers to cover the content and skills specific to a 3rd or 6th grade class where every student had to learn that content and skills by the end of the school year or be held back. These regularities became the “grammar of schooling” and have persisted decade after decade. The notion that children differ in how fast they learn knowledge and skills was out-of-sync with the age-graded school.
    8. Nonetheless, reformers launched repeated efforts to “individualize” instruction. The Winnetka Plan and the Dalton Plan appeared in the 1920s and 1930s, teaching machines in the 1950s, computer-assisted instruction in the 1970s and 1980s, and now “personalized learning”.
    9. In each instance, a flurry of hyperbole accompanied the innovation, programs spread proclaiming the end of the graded school, but as time went by, these efforts to individualize teaching and learning lost their mojo. The age-graded school won again and again.

    17-08-2017 om 18:19 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    Tags:jaarklassen, jaarklassensysteem
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Er is geen onderzoek dat aantoont dat een leraar beter wordt door een master te halen
    1. ‘Er is geen onderzoek dat aantoont dat een leraar beter wordt door een master te halen,’ beaamt Klaas van Veen, hoogleraar onderwijskunde in Groningen. In opdracht van het ministerie van Onderwijs analyseerde hij het internationale wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar de relatie tussen het opleidingsniveau van de leraar en de onderwijskwaliteit. Uitkomst: die relatie is er niet.

    2. Ook heem merkwaardig: de academische lerarenopleiding voor onderwijzer/regent werd in Frankrijk ingevoerd in 1989. De voorbije jaren daalden de leerresultaten er spectaculair - ook voor TIMSS-10-jaringen en PISA-15-jarigen. Dit wordt mede toegeschreven aan de praktijk-vreemdheid van de opleiding en aan het feit dat in academische lerarenopleidingen veel pedagogische hypes verkondigd werden/worden.
    1. Het titelmisverstand: masters zijn geen betere meesters

    17-08-2017 om 17:49 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    Tags:universitaire lerarenopleiding, master,
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.vermeende verband tussen studentevaluaties en effectiviteit van docenten bestaat niet
    1. Het vermeende verband tussen studentevaluaties en effectiviteit van docenten bestaat niet, schrijven onderzoekers van de Mount Royal University in Canada. Zij analyseerden bijna honderd eerdere studies naar dat verband.
    2. Commentaar: vanaf de jaren negentig werden we in de lerarenopleidig verplicht hier veel IKZ-tijd aan te besteden - ook al geloofden we er zelf niet in.
    3. Idem voor het gebruik van het PROZA-IKZ-boek waarmee we jaarlijks 2000 categorieën moesten quoteren. Gelukkig hebben we hieraan in onze lerarenopleiding lippendienst bewezen; en dus weinig aandacht aan besteed.

    17-08-2017 om 17:06 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    Tags:evaluatie leerkrachten
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen. autistische leerlingen kunnen vanaf 1 september één dag per week thuisblijven !???
    M-decreet: autistische leerlingen kunnen vanaf 1 september één dag per week thuisblijven : "5 dagen per week les volgen in het gewoon onderwijs is te veel van het 'goede en zo voorkomt men dat ze verwezen worden naar het buitengewoon onderwijs" = teveel van het slechte? Kathleen Helsen (CD&V) overtuigde minister van Onderwijs Hilde Crevits (CD&V) om autistische kinderen die daaraan behoefte hebben vanaf 1 september de kans te geven op een break in hun schoolweek. “Het gaat om kinderen die in het gewone onderwijs schoollopen, maar voor wie vijf dagen per week les volgen te veel van het goede is”, legt Helsen uit. “Ze krijgen er te veel prikkels en dat leidt er vaak toe dat ze het schooljaar moeten overdoen of naar het buitengewoon onderwijs worden verwezen.” "De regeling is volgens Crevits perfect mogelijk binnen de huidige wetgeving. Helsen ontdekte dat kinderen met autisme een dag per week thuis kunnen studeren door hen als chronisch zieken te beschouwen. 'Dat zijn autisten niet, maar door ze onder die paraplu onder te brengen, konden we snel schakelen', aldus Helsen" !??? Reactie van Johan Van Holderbeke Met m'n simpel leerkrachtenverstand kan ik daar niet onmiddellijk bij... Trouwens... ik dacht dat een directie dat al kon toestaan indien het nodig was. Moest daar een extra maatregel voor komen... En inderdaad... weer eens een trek-uw-plan-operatie voor de ouders. Lang leve de vermaatschappelijking van de zorg... Annemie Pupe heeft een link gedeeld met de groep InclusiefBuitengewoon. 8 uur · Vreemde maatregel... Waarom krijg ik het gevoel dat er meer en meer op de ouders afgeschoven wordt? Worden ouders nu niet gevoelsmatig gedwongen om een dag per ... Meer weergeven Autistische leerlingen kunnen vanaf 1 september één dag per week thuisblijven Jongeren met een autismespectrumstoornis die een attest van een arts voorleggen, kunnen vanaf 1 september gebruikmaken van een regeling die…

    17-08-2017 om 16:55 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Blijven zitten in eerste jaar secundair heeft positief effect op attitude leerlingen
    1. Blijven zitten in eerste jaar secundair heeft positief effect op attitude leerlingen
      14-08-17, 14.56u - HC - Bron: Belga

      ...Het eerste jaar in het secundair onderwijs overdoen voor wie slecht heeft gepresteerd, heeft een positief effect op de attitudes van de leerling. Dit vertaalt zich in het 'goed voelen op school' en 'het positief ingesteld zijn over de instelling'. "Leerlingen met een lagere academische bekwaamheid zijn dus gebaat bij een klassamenstelling waarbij deze in de bisjaar niet meer tot de leerlingengroep met de laagste academische prestaties behoren, maar nu deel uitmaken van de groep met hogere academische prestaties. " (Geen pleidooi dus voor sterk heterogene klassen.)

      Dat blijkt uit de masterproef waarmee Loulou Detienne aan de KU Leuven promoveerde tot Master of Science in de pedagogische wetenschappen.

      Detienne baseerde zich op de resultaten van een bevraging tijdens de schooljaren 2014-15 en 2015-16 in het kader van het onderzoek 'Loopbanen in het Secundair Onderwijs' (LISO) bij 62 zittenblijvers en een vergelijkbare groep van 2.767 scholieren die wel naar het volgende jaar doorstroomden. "Leerlingen die blijven zitten in het eerste middelbaar hebben een significant hoger schoolwelbevinden of positieve attitude dan vergelijkbare leerlingen die niet bleven zitten en dit zowel in het bisjaar als in het daaropvolgende schooljaar", aldus Detienne. Dit welbevinden wordt noch door het geslacht of sociaaleconomische status significant beïnvloed.

      'Leerlingen die blijven zitten in het eerste middelbaar hebben een significant positieve attitude dan vergelijkbare leerlingen die niet bleven zitten en dit zowel in het bisjaar als in het daaropvolgende schooljaar'
      Loulou Detienne

      Lagere verwachtingen
      De resultaten bevestigen de theorie van het 'Big-fish-little-pond-effect' volgens dewelke het academisch concept van zittenblijvers in het bisjaar stijgt doordat ze nu niet meer tot de leerlingengroep met de laagste academische prestaties behoren, maar deel uitmaken van de groep met hogere academische prestaties. Volgens de 'labeling theory' daarentegen kan zittenblijven omwille van het stigma aanleiding geven tot lagere verwachtingen, zowel door de omgeving als de leerling zelf en de academische prestaties als schoolwelbevinden negatief beïnvloeden.

      Dit onderzoeksresultaat bewijst volgens de onderzoekster het belang van de klassamenstelling. "Leerlingen met een lagere academische bekwaamheid zijn dus gebaat bij een klassamenstelling waarbij deze in de bisjaar niet meer tot de leerlingengroep met de laagste academische prestaties behoren, maar nu deel uitmaken van de groep met hogere academische prestaties. In de praktijk dient men daarom meer algemeen aandacht te hebben voor de klassamenstelling en dit bij iedere leerling met een lagere academische bekwaamheid", aldus Detienne.

      Meer weergeven
    1. Het eerste jaar in het secundair onderwijs overdoen voor wie slecht heeft gepresteerd, heeft een positief effect op de attitudes van de leerling. Dit vertaalt…

    17-08-2017 om 16:53 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Waarom haken onderwijsdirecteurs veel vlugger af dan vroeger?
    Waarom haken onderwijsdirecteurs veel vlugger af dan vroeger het geval was - toen ze veel minder ondersteund werden?

    Citaat: 'Het verloop bij schooldirecties is al jaren te hoog’, zegt N-VA-parlementslid Ingeborg De Meulemeester, die de gegevens opvroeg bij Crevits. ‘Echt zorgwekkend is dat de cijfers de jongste jaren nog toenemen. Het leidt tot een verlies van expertise en brengt de continuïteit van het beleid in gevaar.’

    Commentaar. Men vraagt zich bij deze thematiek nooit af hoe het komt dat de functie van directeur vroeger wel best haalbaar was - zelfs in een tijd met weinig of geen secretariaat. Mijn gebuur- een directeur l.o. op rust - leidde een school met 600 leerlingen met nauwelijks een halftime-secretaresse en kon nog veel tijd stoppen in het pedagogisch leiding geven. In Nederland gaven de directeurs voortgezet onderwijs destijds ook nog les. Directeurs haakten vroeger veel minder vlug af dan op vandaag;  en dat niettegenstaande ze veel minder administratief e.d. ondersteund werden.

    Men heeft het beheer van een school steeds en nodeloos complexer gemaakt en tegelijk de autonomie van de afzonderlijke directeur beperkt. De invoering van schoolgemeenschappen ging destijds gepaard met de belofte dat daardoor de directeur de handen vrij zou krijgen voor pedagogische (bege)leiding. Maar directies besteden vandaag minder tijd aan pedagogische leiding dan weleer. Het tekort aan ondersteuning is dus niet de belangrijkste oorzaak van het afhaken van directeurs.

    Ook het permanent hervormings- en aankondigheidsbeleid leidt tot veel onzekerheid, chaos en permanent vergaderen. Zo werd de voorbije jaren enorm veel energie besteed aan de hervorming(splannen) voor het s.o., aan het M-decreet, aan de opeenvolgende plannen voor de schaalvergroting, ...

    We vrezen dat in de toekomst de functie van directeur nog minder aantrekkelijk zal worden en dat hij zich nog minder zal kunnen inlaten met de pedagogische leiding.

    P.S. In de grootschalige hogescholen is de directiefunctie door de grootschaligheid nog meer uitgehold. Vroeger beschikte mijn normaalschool over een fulltime-directeur die voor alles verantwoordelijkheid droeg. Momenteel is de directeur nog 1 dag per week aanwezig en werden de directietaken verkaveld. Men voorspelde dat de invoering van grote hogescholen het bestuur en de administratie zou vergemakkelijken. Het tegengestelde was het geval, en zo nam de overhead fenomenaal toe - zowel op het niveau van de koepel met zijn vele vrijgestelden als op het niveau van de afzonderlijke scholen.

    In vier op de tien scholen start het schooljaar met een nieuwe directie. Het grote verloop is volgens het onderwijsveld te wijten aan de toenemende werkdru...

    07-08-2017 om 11:27 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Bevorderen self-esteem & 3 van 9 ZILL-leerplandomeinen over persoonsgebonden ontwikkeling!???

    The language of self-esteem (zelfwaardering) in schools

    & ZILL-leerplanproject katholiek onderwijs dat niet minder dan 3 van de 9 leerplandomeinen aan persoonsgebonden ontwikkeling besteedt: socio-emotionele ontwikkeling, ontwikkeling van een intern kompas en ontwikkeling van autonomie

    This language of self-esteem, of emotional intelligence, is still all-pervasive in many of our schools. I am not saying it is bad. It isn’t, and has done many good things. But I am reminding you to be wary.

    Many schools plead with their children to ‘Believe and you’ll achieve’, ‘You’re the best’, ‘You’re special’, and other such mawkish mottos. Of course every child is special. Of course they should believe in their ability. But the irksome thing about these highly individualised sayings and approaches is that they can lead to mad, bad ideas. Like red pen marking being banned in schools (‘Pink is far less damaging to self-esteem’ – say what?); like children being told the X-Factor approach in assemblies: if you want it enough, you’ll get it (not without hard graft, you won’t); ...

    As Jean Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University and the author of Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable Than Ever Before, states about mottos and phrases like the above, “They’re all very individualistic, they’re all very self-focused, they’re also all delusional. ‘Believe in yourself and anything is possible’? Nope, it’s just not true.” (quoted by Jesse Singal in ‘How the self-esteem craze took over America’).

    Language like the above became embedded into many a day-to-day school vernacular as an Incontrovertible Truth. Believe and you’ll achieve. But this all-pervasive language of the ‘poor’ self-esteem of our pupils also hints at a worrying undertone: our kids are broken, and need fixing, “…the real point of the message was you’re not okay, you’re all broken inside and need to be fixed,” (Steve Salerno, as referenced by Jesse Singal in ‘How the self-esteem craze took over America’).

    Self-esteem is important, but I’d rather we improve it through kids feeling safe and happy in a calm, orderly environment where they can learn and teachers can teach without fear of poor behaviour or disruption, through feeling good about learning stuff and making connections, through them having a rich and lustrous treasure chest of vocabulary. Not empty messages embossed on a pretty picture; not X-Factor maxims as a surrogate for good teaching.


    We merken dat de katholieke koepel in het ZILL-leerplanproject niet minder dan 3 van de 9 leerdomeinen aan persoonsgebonden ontwikkeling besteedt: socio-emotionele ontwikkeling, ontwikkeling van een intern kompas.

    Zaken als self-esteem, zelfcontrole en ontwikkelen van intern kompas, doorzettingsvermogen, gemeenschapszin, empathie, verdiend welbevinden (dat het gevolg is van inspanningen waarbij obstakels overwonnen worden na het met succes uitgevoerd hebben van een taak) ... zijn o.i. allemaal zaken die wel belangrijk zijn, maar die vooral impliciet via de gewone leeractiviteiten en het ‘verborgen leerplan’ gestimuleerd (kunnen) worden.

    In 2000 verscheen het boek The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing down of America's Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem. Prof. Maureen Stouts stelt in deze publicatie dat veel oude vanzelfsprekendheden het moesten afleggen door het centraal stellen van het self-esteem (de zelfwaardering) en het welbevinden van het kind. Self-esteem en welbevinden zijn volgens Stouts de nieuwe mantra geworden van veel opvoeders en leerkrachten en van een aantal ouders. Ze willen vooral voorkomen dat de leerlingen zich minder goed zouden voelen als ze minder presteren of zich te veel moeten inspannen. Een 'dumbed-down' curriculum is volgens haar het gevolg van het vooropstellen van het welbevinden en het self-esteem als belangrijkste doel en het willen vermijden van alle frustratie. In de 'knuffelschool' worden minder eisen gesteld om frustratie en minder momentaan welbevinden te voorkomen en de kinderen worden verwend.

    Vanaf de jaren zestig deed de psychotherapeutiserende beweging volgens haar ook haar intrede in het onderwijs, waarbij de interacties met de leerlingen steeds meer in psychotherapeutische termen gesteld werden en het rechtstreeks stimuleren van het zelfvertrouwen centraal staat. Dit alles samen betekende een radicale breuk met de meest typische kenmerken van de onderwijsgrammatica. Stouts concludeerde: "The teacher is no longer respected for the unique skills and talents she brings to the classroom, and becomes nothing more than a caretaker, baby sitter, or counselor for kids who spend their time learning about their feelings and experiencing encounter groups".

    “Who in the world am I? Ah, that’s the great puzzle.” ― Alice, Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll It was back in the early days of my career, in the noughties, when…

    03-08-2017 om 14:06 geschreven door Raf Feys  

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
    Tags:seld-esteem, ZILL
    >> Reageer (0)

    Archief per week
  • 14/08-20/08 2017
  • 07/08-13/08 2017
  • 31/07-06/08 2017
  • 24/07-30/07 2017
  • 17/07-23/07 2017
  • 10/07-16/07 2017
  • 03/07-09/07 2017
  • 26/06-02/07 2017
  • 19/06-25/06 2017
  • 05/06-11/06 2017
  • 29/05-04/06 2017
  • 22/05-28/05 2017
  • 15/05-21/05 2017
  • 08/05-14/05 2017
  • 01/05-07/05 2017
  • 24/04-30/04 2017
  • 17/04-23/04 2017
  • 10/04-16/04 2017
  • 03/04-09/04 2017
  • 27/03-02/04 2017
  • 20/03-26/03 2017
  • 13/03-19/03 2017
  • 06/03-12/03 2017
  • 27/02-05/03 2017
  • 20/02-26/02 2017
  • 13/02-19/02 2017
  • 06/02-12/02 2017
  • 30/01-05/02 2017
  • 23/01-29/01 2017
  • 16/01-22/01 2017
  • 09/01-15/01 2017
  • 02/01-08/01 2017
  • 26/12-01/01 2017
  • 19/12-25/12 2016
  • 12/12-18/12 2016
  • 05/12-11/12 2016
  • 28/11-04/12 2016
  • 21/11-27/11 2016
  • 14/11-20/11 2016
  • 07/11-13/11 2016
  • 31/10-06/11 2016
  • 24/10-30/10 2016
  • 17/10-23/10 2016
  • 10/10-16/10 2016
  • 03/10-09/10 2016
  • 26/09-02/10 2016
  • 19/09-25/09 2016
  • 12/09-18/09 2016
  • 05/09-11/09 2016
  • 29/08-04/09 2016
  • 22/08-28/08 2016
  • 15/08-21/08 2016
  • 25/07-31/07 2016
  • 18/07-24/07 2016
  • 11/07-17/07 2016
  • 04/07-10/07 2016
  • 27/06-03/07 2016
  • 20/06-26/06 2016
  • 13/06-19/06 2016
  • 06/06-12/06 2016
  • 30/05-05/06 2016
  • 23/05-29/05 2016
  • 16/05-22/05 2016
  • 09/05-15/05 2016
  • 02/05-08/05 2016
  • 25/04-01/05 2016
  • 18/04-24/04 2016
  • 11/04-17/04 2016
  • 04/04-10/04 2016
  • 28/03-03/04 2016
  • 21/03-27/03 2016
  • 14/03-20/03 2016
  • 07/03-13/03 2016
  • 29/02-06/03 2016
  • 22/02-28/02 2016
  • 15/02-21/02 2016
  • 08/02-14/02 2016
  • 01/02-07/02 2016
  • 25/01-31/01 2016
  • 18/01-24/01 2016
  • 11/01-17/01 2016
  • 04/01-10/01 2016
  • 28/12-03/01 2016
  • 21/12-27/12 2015
  • 14/12-20/12 2015
  • 07/12-13/12 2015
  • 30/11-06/12 2015
  • 23/11-29/11 2015
  • 16/11-22/11 2015
  • 09/11-15/11 2015
  • 02/11-08/11 2015
  • 26/10-01/11 2015
  • 19/10-25/10 2015
  • 12/10-18/10 2015
  • 05/10-11/10 2015
  • 28/09-04/10 2015
  • 21/09-27/09 2015
  • 14/09-20/09 2015
  • 07/09-13/09 2015
  • 31/08-06/09 2015
  • 24/08-30/08 2015
  • 17/08-23/08 2015
  • 10/08-16/08 2015
  • 03/08-09/08 2015
  • 27/07-02/08 2015
  • 20/07-26/07 2015
  • 13/07-19/07 2015
  • 06/07-12/07 2015
  • 29/06-05/07 2015
  • 22/06-28/06 2015
  • 15/06-21/06 2015
  • 08/06-14/06 2015
  • 01/06-07/06 2015
  • 25/05-31/05 2015
  • 18/05-24/05 2015
  • 11/05-17/05 2015
  • 04/05-10/05 2015
  • 27/04-03/05 2015
  • 20/04-26/04 2015
  • 13/04-19/04 2015
  • 06/04-12/04 2015
  • 30/03-05/04 2015
  • 23/03-29/03 2015
  • 16/03-22/03 2015
  • 09/03-15/03 2015
  • 02/03-08/03 2015
  • 23/02-01/03 2015
  • 16/02-22/02 2015
  • 09/02-15/02 2015
  • 02/02-08/02 2015
  • 26/01-01/02 2015
  • 19/01-25/01 2015
  • 12/01-18/01 2015
  • 05/01-11/01 2015
  • 29/12-04/01 2015
  • 22/12-28/12 2014
  • 15/12-21/12 2014
  • 08/12-14/12 2014
  • 01/12-07/12 2014
  • 24/11-30/11 2014
  • 17/11-23/11 2014
  • 10/11-16/11 2014
  • 03/11-09/11 2014
  • 27/10-02/11 2014
  • 20/10-26/10 2014
  • 13/10-19/10 2014
  • 06/10-12/10 2014
  • 29/09-05/10 2014
  • 22/09-28/09 2014
  • 15/09-21/09 2014
  • 08/09-14/09 2014
  • 01/09-07/09 2014
  • 25/08-31/08 2014
  • 18/08-24/08 2014
  • 11/08-17/08 2014
  • 04/08-10/08 2014
  • 28/07-03/08 2014
  • 21/07-27/07 2014
  • 14/07-20/07 2014
  • 07/07-13/07 2014
  • 30/06-06/07 2014
  • 23/06-29/06 2014
  • 16/06-22/06 2014
  • 09/06-15/06 2014
  • 02/06-08/06 2014
  • 26/05-01/06 2014
  • 19/05-25/05 2014
  • 12/05-18/05 2014
  • 05/05-11/05 2014
  • 28/04-04/05 2014
  • 14/04-20/04 2014
  • 07/04-13/04 2014
  • 31/03-06/04 2014
  • 24/03-30/03 2014
  • 17/03-23/03 2014
  • 10/03-16/03 2014
  • 03/03-09/03 2014
  • 24/02-02/03 2014
  • 17/02-23/02 2014
  • 10/02-16/02 2014
  • 03/02-09/02 2014
  • 27/01-02/02 2014
  • 20/01-26/01 2014
  • 13/01-19/01 2014
  • 06/01-12/01 2014
  • 30/12-05/01 2014
  • 23/12-29/12 2013
  • 16/12-22/12 2013
  • 09/12-15/12 2013
  • 02/12-08/12 2013
  • 25/11-01/12 2013
  • 18/11-24/11 2013
  • 11/11-17/11 2013
  • 04/11-10/11 2013
  • 28/10-03/11 2013
  • 21/10-27/10 2013

    E-mail mij

    Druk op onderstaande knop om mij te e-mailen.


    Druk op onderstaande knop om een berichtje achter te laten in mijn gastenboek

    Blog als favoriet !

    Blog tegen de wet? Klik hier.
    Gratis blog op -, eenvoudig, gratis en snel jouw eigen blog!