Reactie op 2 bijdragen in DS 9 september over Vlaams onderwijs als kampioen sociale discriminatie!????
Reactie op 2 bijdragen in DS 9 september over Vlaams onderwijs als kampioen sociale discriminatie!????
Sociologen Dirk Jacobs & Marc Swyngedouw: Vlaams onderwijs versterkt de sociale ongelijkheid (in: Een goede school mag geen gok zijn).
Pol Goossens: Vlaams onderwijs bestendigt de breuklijnen van generatie op generatie (in: Ongelijke kansen, verspild talent).
...
Onze reactie:
Prof. socioloog Jaap Dronkers: Vlaams secundair onderwijs is uniek: combineert grote mate sociale gelijkheid met hoge effectiviteit dankzij unieke & gedifferentieerde structuur (o.a. 70% 12-jarigen die starten in sterke optie.)
In een reactie op studie Jacobs wees prof. Wim van den Broeck daarnet Jacobs en Swyngedouw op een grote fout: Hij twitterde: "Enorm grote verschillen"? +- 10% groter dan OESO-gem. Beschrijving verschil is nog geen verklaring (fout 1ste orde). Reactie Wouter Ducyk Het heeft ook geen enkele zin te speculeren over die 15% tot er een deftige cognitie-vrije maat is. Krijgen teveel krediet Reactie Wim vd Broecck Zeker is alleszins dat die 15% niet volledig omgevingsfactoren zijn vanwege overlap met intelligentie (wellicht voor ong. 1/3).(1)
Kritiek op egalitaire sociologen als Jacobs & Co vanwege Franse sociologe Nathalie Bulle: egalitaire onderwijsvisie sociologen -als Jacobs -holde de schoolopdracht uit .(Skhole.fr 26/05/2016)
Prof. Jan Van Damme, Bieke Defraine, Ides Nicaise: relatief weinig schooluitval in Vlaanderen dankzij differentiatie in lagere cyclus s.o. en technische opties (De sociale staat van Vlaanderen, 2013). Schooluitval in Vlaanderen (7 à 7, 5 % is zelfs stuk lager dan in Finland - een land met weinig kansarmen en allochtone leerlinge
. In een andere tweet vandaag stelt Van den Broeck: "Echt wel probleem dat regelmatig studies in kranten verschijnen met allerlei maatschappelijke implicaties, die methodologisch niet deugen." Dit is o.I. zeker van toepassing op studie van Jacobs.
Er valt veel aan te merken met betrekking tot modieuze uitdrukkingen als wiskunde, taal .... 'doen werken', minder vanuit vakdisciplines werken en dus vakoverschrijdende aanpak, competentiegerichte aanpak, open leerplannen ... die nu ook de OVSG-onderwijskoepel lijkt te propageren.
Deze uitspraken sluiten perfect aan bij de tekst 'Uitgangspunten' eindtermen -1996 die de DVO van Roger Standaert achteraf toevoegde bij de eindtermen. Het zijn dergelijke uitgangspunten die mede geleid hebben tot een gevoelige niveaudaling, tot een uitholling van het taalonderwijs, e.d.
Het is overigens precies de aanbeden propagandist van de 'doen werken'-slogan, prof. Kris Van den Branden, die met zijn taakgerichte & constructivistische whole-language-aanpak mede verantwoordelijk was voor de uitholling van het taalonderwijs. Het is overigens ook Van den Branden die met zijn Steunpunt NT2 er voor gezorgd heeft dat er nog steeds geen intensief NT2-taalonderwijs is vanaf de eerste daq van het kleuteronderwijs. Ook Jan Saveyn, destijds leerplanverantwoordelijke van het katholiek lager onderwijs, poneerde in 2007 dat uitgerekend Van den Branden en zijn Leuvens taalcentrum, verantwoordelijk waren voor de niveaudaling & verwarring in het taalonderwijs.
Moeten leerplannen niet langer zorgen voor de nodige gemeenschappelijkheid in het leeraanbod?
Volgens de OVSG-directeur is het ook niet meer zo belangrijk dat de leerplannen borg staan voor de nodige gemeenschappelijkheid in het onderwijs. 'Standaardisering' is volgens hem niet zo belangrijk meer.
De bedoeling van de leerplannen (en eindtermen) is ook het realiseren van de broodnodige gemeenschappelijkheid van het leeraanbod voor alle leerlingen en in alle scholen - en dit in functie van:
(1) een aansluitend/doorlopend leeraanbod - bij verandering van leerjaar, van school en/of onderwijsnet, bij overgang naar s.o. of hoger onderwijs ... (Zo moet b.v. een leerkracht 2de leerjaar, een opsteller van een wiskundemethode... precies weten wat de leerlingen al geleerd hebben in het eerste leerjaar en wat volgt in de verdere leerjaren. )
(2) het bieden van volwaardige en gelijke onderwijskansen
(3) van het voorkomen van te grote concurrentie tussen scholen en onderwijsnetten.
(4) van het kunnen ontwerpen van leerboeken/methodes die in de verschillende onderwijsnetten gebruikt kunnen worden
(5) van het kunnen bewaken van het onderwijsniveau via evaluatie van de eindtermen, via centrale toetsen, via inspectie
Als mede-opsteller van het leerplan wiskunde lager onderwijs (katholiek onderwijs) heb ik ook niet de indruk dat veel leerstofpunten uit het leerplan geschrapt kunnen worden. Precies de duidelijke opsomming van de leerstofpunten per leeftijdsgroep leidde tot een grote tevredenheid bij de leerkrachten, opstellers van wiskundemethodes, ... In de inspectierapporten kwam ook duidelijk tot uiting dat er met dit duidelijk leerplan geen problemen waren. In dit leerplan vindt men ook geen modieuze uitdrukkingen als 'wiskunde doen', leerlingen moeten hun kennis zelf construeren, competentiegerichte aanpak, contextuele aanpak ...
De Vlaamse leerlingen 4de leerjaar scoorden overigens vrij goed voor TIMSS-2015.
We voegen er nog een toepasselijke waarschuwing uit Schotland aan toe:
The curriculum, introduced in Scottish schools in 2010,aims to give learners a "holistic understanding" of what it means to be a young Scot and sets out to equip pupils with four key "capacities", namely to be - successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, and effective contributors.
Prof Paterson told BBC Scotland that it could be disastrous for two reasons, one of which is the lack of academic rigour and structure.
But the major worry perhaps is even deeper than that, which is that it will widen inequality. The old academic knowledge - the best that has been thought and said by human beings - will still be given to the children of the well-educated middle class by their parents, he said.
"But the other children - who can't get it from their parents - are completely dependent on schools for it. And if they're not getting the best that has been thought and said from schools, they will get it from nowhere, and that will make inequality of learning and of culture wider than it has ever been."
Zodra de einddoelen er zijn moeten we onze leerlijnen en leerplannen herdenken. Ook de hoeveelheid en de mate waarin ze competentiegericht zijn. Niet te veel
My crusade  against New Math (1970-1982) & Constructivist Math (1988-.)
My crusade against
New Math (1970-1982) & Constructivist Math (1988-.) in Belgium-Flemish
Introduction: Math-wars: New Math & Constructivist -contextual
Math
1+1=2 you would think, but curiously enough, the approach to
mathematics and arithmetic education has been regularly debated over the past
50 years - also for primary education. Until about 1970, there was little
discussion about arithmetic and mathematics education in primary school. There
was a broad consensus, both among practitioners and among the professional
didacticians. The mathematics curricula in the different countries were very
similar. The vision of the practitioners has always remained more or less the
same.
Since about 1970,mathematics wars have been fought. From 1970 onwards, we ourselves spent
an enormous amount of time fighting two extreme visions that threaten classical
arithmetic - and skills: from 1970 onwards the formalisticNew Mathematics; and from 1988 the'
constructivist & contextual mathematics' of the Dutch Freudenthal Institute
(Utrecht) and the US Standards (1989).In this contribution, we limit ourselves to the fight against
formalisticNew Mathematics (NW) . In
the next article we show that constructivist mathematics unfortunately
penetrated the learningcurricula for
the first grade secondary education.
1. Breaking the taboo on criticism of theNew Mathematics in Belgium-Flemish in 1982
Exactly 35 years ago, we succeeded in breaking the taboo on
criticism of New Mathematics. In April 1982, we launched our campaign against
the' New Mathematics' with the publication of a theme issue by Onderwijskrant
with the challenging title: New Mathematics: een vlag op een modderschuit ( A
flag on a mud boat, Onderwijskrant nr. 24). Partly because of the wide
attention in the press, this publication provoked a huge number of positive
reactions from teachers and ordinary citizens. A year later, a busy colloquium
followed in the Congress Palace (Brussels) on' What Mathematics for 5- to
15-year-olds', where we took up the New Math supporters as prof. Roger
Holvoet.
In May 1982, it became clear that mathematics was turned
around. Since then, no more contributions have appeared about the many
blessings of' new mathematics' (NM) .The taboo on criticism of the NM was'
almost' broken through. In 1982, the inspector-general of technical education
G. Smets wrote to us:"People at the top were bribed at the time to say
nothing about New Mathematics" (see point 2). However, in 1982 we were not
allowed to publicly mention his name.After the publication of' Moderne wiskunde: een vlag op een
modderschuit in April 1982, however, we were subjected to much criticism from
the corner of the propagandists of modern mathematics, from Papy sympathisants,
from the Leuven professors Roger Holvoet and Alfred Warrinnier, from inspectors
who had participated in modern mathematics methods, from the chief leader of
the Catholic Education,
2. Breaking down taboo on New Math- religion:' Top people
were bribed to keep silent'.
With our mathematics campaign of 1982, we wanted to break
the taboo around the NM. As a result of the campaign, a number of people dared
to express their thoughts about the NM for the first time. Since 1968, there
has been a taboo on the New Math. Liège professors Pirard and Godfrind
expressed similar criticism in La Libre Belgique, 11.03. 1980, as ours. And
they also protested against the taboo on theNM. This was exactly what we ourselves have experienced since 1970 in
Flanders.In their publication the
Liège professors also showed that the NM was a formalistic theory that no
longer referred to reality, was born from the brain of a few mathematicians,
but was not interesting for primary and secondary school.
The reaction of prof. em. Karel Cuypers on our New Math-
campaign was quite revelatory. Let us quote from his letter, which was later
also included in' Person & Gemeenschap, September 1984. Cuypers:"Since
my initial sympathy for the New Math Renewal, which came to me as' miraculous',
I have felt that the Papysts (the group around Brussels prof. Georges Papy
supported by the Brussels education minister Vermeylen) as hypnotists have led
the school world. Rarely has an educational innovation happened in such a
climate of pervasive ideological engagement as the' new-math' phenomenon.All over the world, a force majeure was
given to some prophets who could organize a spectacular show of persuasion with
a hypnotic overthrow. Because of the enchantment that surrounds them, the
secondary school teachers sat on the school benches to attend further training
courses, which turned out to be remarkably theoretical and of little didactical
help.. The situation had evolved so much that those who did not stand strong in
the theory of sets did not even dare to
take the floor, for fear of being placed ignorant or stupid against the wall
". The many disgruntled teachers did not dare react openly either: congresses
who did not agree were classed as conservative.
The inspector-general of technical education, G. Smets,
wrote to us in a letter in response to the' Mud boat-publication' of
1982:"Prof. Georges Papy had strong political relationships (including
education minister Vermeylen) and ambitions. His lectures in Brussels and
elsewhere were political meetings rather than scientific communications. His
wife Frédérique also received large contributions from the then minister to
experiment with new mathematics from nursery school. And then there were the
many publishers who saw bread in a revolution of mathematics books. At the top
a lot of people were literally bribed.
Also former
inspector-mathematics E. H. Joniaux testified in a letterthat the introduction of the NM thanks to the
Ministry's nepotism. He wrote:"Dear Mr Feys, at last, someone dared
to rise up openly. New mathematics - and I have already said this since her
first appearance - is the' philosophy' of mathematics, but not mathematics. And
anyone who wants to teach this to children from 6 to 15 years old must have a
lot of twists and turns in their brains. They wanted to fill the children with
that - and this from kindergarten onwards.
Joniaux also caused
me the critical contribution of the Liège professors Pirard and Godfrind, who
had already been mentioned. They wrote:"Many scientists, including noble
prizewinners in physics, point out that their science is of no benefit at all
with the collection theory, but with applicable mathematics. The scientists
protest because they still have to teach their students many important aspects
of the ABC of applicable mathematics:" We had already read ourselves in
1973 that the German noble prize winner Carl Von Weizsäcker, too, opposed the
introduction of NM in education. Dutch prof. Hans Freudenthal succeeded in
keeping the NM outside primary education in the Netherlands.
Pirard and Godfrind
wrote:"Prof. Georges Papy, was not an inventor but rather an importer of
the mathematics manuals of Revuez in France. Papy liked to describe mathematics
as a poetic dream and said:' Mathematics is not science, but art and a dream.
The mathematician is a child or a poet who makes his dream a reality'
(Berkeley, VVW-Lcongress). According to Pirard and Godfrind,"Many pupils
experienced these mathematical dreams rather as a nightmare.
The supersonic rise
of modern mathematics was thus only possible thanks to influence, sponsorship
and reform pressure from Minister Vermeylen and a few senior officials, which
gave Papy the monopoly on mathematics education and imposed the
introduction.Policy makers also invested
a huge amount of money in TV programmes, retraining, mathematics conferences
and seminars of the Papy Group in luxury hotels in Knokke, etc. Prof. Papy presented
the New Math as the mathematics of the
third industrial revolution'.
In debates on
mathematics education, not only professors, but also we were very frankly
silenced with such little choruses. We did not, so to speak, pay any attention
to the future, to the mathematics of the third industrial revolution, the
mathematics which, according to the new lighters in Japan, Russia... had already
led to many economic successes. We stated in 1973 that in many countries the
New Math was already on the retreat and that the MW would probably not even
reach the 21st century. We did not find a hearing, and the New Math curriculum
was also introduced in primary education in 1976 and presented as an enormous
step forward, as a salvation from the misery of classical mathematics
education.
3 Crusade against New Math (1970-1982)
3.1 Our resistance during the period 1970-1981
In the years 1968-1969, we were very much captivated by the
barnum advertising for new mathematics presented by the propagandists as the
mathematics of the third industrial revolution. As a student, we followed
several lectures at the KU-Leuven and some lessons from Alfred Vermandel.Our sympathy did not last long. From 1971 we
distanced ourselves from formalistic & abstract NM
In the early
seventies we did ourbest to convince
those responsible for the educational umbrella organisations to not introduce
new mathematics' into primary education. We did this also on the VLO Start
Colloquium of 1 September 1973 in the Congress Palace Brussels. In October 1974 we published a contribution on
the New Math in' Person and Community'. We wrote that the new draft curriculum
from the first year of study onwards wanted to use a formalistic mathematics
language, an unpalatable heap of new terms and notations; in short: superfluous
thickdoing. We also mentioned that in countries such as the USA, Japan,
Germany, the Netherlands, Germany, etc., there was already a lot of criticism
of' new mathematics. In the US: Davis, Beberman, Rosenbloom, Page, Scott.... In
Germany, Nobel Prize winner Carl von Weizsäcker took the lead, in the
Netherlands prof. Mathematics Hans Freudenthal. In Flanders, we took the lead
in this.
We also warned in
1974 that if we chose the wrong path of New Mathematics in primary education,
it would be very difficult to leave it again in the short term. (It took 22
years before a new curriculum came into being in 1998 without Modern
Mathematics.Unfortunately, the New Math
was introduced into primary education in 1976, contrary to the views of the
teachers. Our criticisms were haughtily swept away by the Papy Society, by
academics, by curriculum designers, by mentors of mathematics.... We also
noticed that not only teachers, but also inspectors, professors.... did not
even dare to express their opinion; contradiction was not tolerated (see point
2).
Some of our
criticisms of' Modern Mathematics'.To
too formalistic,' heavenly' (floating) mathematics * to early abstraction * to
much verbal bullying and verbal ballast * to the detriment of the application
aspect of mathematics (calculating, memorizing, automatistion...) *to the
detriment of the application aspect of mathematics (classical issues, metering
arithmetic, etc.)
Little respect for the classical discipline of mathematics
as a cultural product.Achievable for
many students: Too many pupils have to switch to special needs education after
the third year of study.Many parents
are no longer able to accompany children. In point 5, we illustrate in detail
how geometry was placed in the straitjacket of the NM and thus became totally
formalistic.As an alternative we chose
in 1982 to update and dust off the many good elements and approaches from the
mathematics tradition in our primary education, supplemented by a number of
recent events such as three-dimensional geometric representations. We later
implemented this in the 1998 curriculum.
3.2 Mathematics campaign 1982: NM: a flag on a mud boat
breaks through taboo
In the years 1978-1982, a number of contributions appeared
in which the supporters of' New Mathematics' broadly displayed the many
blessings of this kind of mathematics. At the beginning of 1982, T. De Groote
wrote triumphantly:"Where calculation for most children used to be a whip
blow, it can now become a fantastic experience for them in a fascinating world,
and" And the great one further fantasized:"that the less gifted
students now have a better place for themselves" (Person and Community,
jg). 28, p. 35-36). In my contacts with the practice, however, I did not see a
fascinating world show up, but false results in false realities and weaker
pupils who gave up.
These contributions
about the many blessings of the New Math for primary education were the
incentive for me to launch a campaign against the' Modern Mathematics' with a
publication of' New Mathematics: a flag on a mud (muddle)boat' (Education paper
no. 24) and the associated mathematics campaign, we were able to turn the maths
time in 1982. Since then, no more contributions have appeared about the many
blessings. However, a new curriculum was drawn up until 1998, in which the
categories of modern mathematics were removed.
As a first step in
the campaign, two thousand copies of the report' New Mathematics: a flag on a mud
(muddle) boat' were distributed in April 1982. The campaign received a lot of
reactions in the newspapers: De Morgen, Het Volk, Het Nieuwsblad, Libelle.....
The articles about our campaign in four newspapers and two weeklies were very
important for spreading the ideas and breaking the taboo. A number of people
dared to express their opinions for the first time - also on paper. We received
many enthusiastic reactions.
3.3 Subsequent support from mathematics professors:
Conversion Al Alfred Warrinnier (1987) et al.
In 1982 we still met with a lot of resistance because of a
number of mathematics professors (Holvoet, Warrinnier, etc.), mathematics
counsellors... Some of them converted afterwards.
The Leuven prof. Alfred Warrinnier sent his wife back in
1983 to the mathematical colloquium to lure me into the trap of asking whether
the teacher wanted to define Feys exactly what mathematics meant in his
opinion. A teacher may/cannot express a (critical) opinion on mathematics
education. But in 1987 Warrinnier himself admitted that the introduction of
modern mathematics was a bad thing - also in s. o. He wrote in De Standaard of
25 July 1987:"The 11,12 and 13 year olds were not ready to deal with the
very abstract undertone of the collections- relation-function building up, the
algebraic structures, etc. The reform of mathematics education has de facto
failed. Five years after our mathematics campaign, our university opponent of
yesteryear was right. In 1982 we concentrated on primary education, but a few
years later our criticism was also passed on to s. o. and a few mathematics
professors took part (see point 4).
4 New Math: a child of structuralism of the 1930s - 40s.
4.1 Mathematics teachers later endorsed our criticism of
1982
In the' Modderschuit', we extensively illustrated "that
the New Math of the Bourbaki Group could not be separated from the
structuralist and logical-formalistic trend in scientific thinking from the
1930s onwards and thus led to a formalistic approach. In section 4.2, we will
elaborate on this in detail. But first we dwell for a moment on the (future)
criticism of mathematics teachers who confirmed our earlier criticism.
In the weekly' Intermediair' of 8 March 1994, the Leuven
mathematics teachers Dirk Janssens and Dirk De Bock sit up the rise of the New
Math. The movement for' modern mathematics' was typical of people who only
believe in a theoretical approach: one would use a single starting point from
which all parts of mathematics could be neatly constructed. This turned out to
be an illusion afterwards. The NM was created from the most advanced positions
of the discipline itself and only afterwards did it become part of the
education system.
In the 1930s, a more or less revolutionary development took
place. The so-called Bourbaki Group had ambitious plans to describe the full
range of mathematics in a very systematic way, starting from axioms and
theset-doctrine. They wanted to deliver
a beautiful system, which there was no need to get a pin in between. It was not
until later that this model of mathematics construction was chosen as a model
for the structure of mathematics education.
It was rather shocking that this modern mathematics was
never pedagogically substantiated. The failure of the whole experiment was
ingrained in advance. This search for (formal) foundations is only useful for
people who have already mastered a certain mathematical culture, but is
therefore not yet suitable for teaching mathematics to those who do not know
anything about it. That turned out to be an educational illusion. But this kind
of pedagogical discussion was not held at the time, modern mathematics became
absolutely compulsory for all secondary school pupils from 1968 onwards. In the
1970s, primary education also followed. ......
The urge for more and
more abstraction (read: formalism) gradually made mathematics incomprehensible
to the uninitiated. The fact that, for example, through a point outside a
straight line, there is exactly one line that goes parallel to the given line,
for example:' a line is a partition of a plane' and a term as length was
introduced as a class of congruent lines:"This criticism from 1994
confirmed that our analysis of 1982 was also applicable to the New Math in the
first degree secondary school.
Later in the magazine' Uitwiskeling' of 13 November 1994 we
recorded analogous criticisms. One of the participants, Guido Roels (director
of mathematics in the diocese of Ghent) answered the next day in' Voor de dag',
the question why it took so long before the mathematicians realised that New
Mathematics was a mistake. According to Roels, this was because the
mathematicians were fascinated by the fact that' New Mathematics' so nicely put
together' and did not see that this structure did not work in classroom. It was
remarkable, however, that it took so long to realise this and that criticism
abroad and our criticism were not heard since 1971.
4.2 Structuralist and logical-formalistic approach
In our publication of 1982 we also showed that
"Bourbaki-mathematics could not be separated from the structuralist and
logical-formalistic trend in scientific thinking from the 1930s onwards.
Structuralism as a scientific method attempted to discover the same patterns,
patterns, patterns, structures, etc. in the most diverse phenomena. It
developed' grammatical',' comprehensive' concepts and a formal logical language
to name them. From the formalistic/grammatical approach, for example, one saw
in the concepts' is parallel with' and' is multiple of' the same grammatical
structure; both concepts followed this approach, for example, a case of'
reflexive relations': a number is multiple of itself a parallel is parallel
with itself - and a reflexive relationship was suggested with a' loop'.
The things known from reality (e. g. parallel, angle,
multiples of numbers....) are deployed in artificially created relationships
almost independently of their meaning; they are especially interesting as
elements of a set, as cross-section, as a couple, reflexive relationship.... Pragmatically
seen e. g. the notions' parallel' and' is multiple of have nothing in
common.
They tried to approach and organize all concepts with the
help of a formal logic and some sort of' grammatical' concepts. The
structuralist approach used the deductive approach and the formal logic as
scientific instruments. A reform of a structural and formalistic nature was
therefore chosen.This leads to an
erosion of the reality value of mathematics education.
The 'new mathematics' thus shifted to a new way of learning,
in which the use of mathematics no longer takes place, but rather the learning
of a structuralist grammar, which is central to the project. From our thesis on
psychologist Jean Piaget, who was presented as the figurehead of modern
mathematics at the time, we also referred in the' Modderschuit -1982 to the
connection with structuralism within psychology. Piaget also used/misuse of the
formal logic as a language to formulate his findings. In the philosophical work
of prof.Wiener-Kreis on. Prof. Apostel
sought for formal-logical systems (languages) to describe the laws and
regulations in the most diverse scientific disciplines (linguistics, psychology,
economics, etc.). The older Apostel postle took distance from this. Apostle
became an ally in the fight against constructivist mathematics of the Dutch
Freudenthal Institute around 1990.
We refer to a similar
analysis of Eddy Daniëls in Intermediair, 8 March 1994. Daniëls:"The
inter-war was the phase in which they tried to forget the trenches of the first
war. They wanted to focus all philosophical efforts on a completely deductive
language that would eliminate all misunderstandings. "The
logical-positivists of the Vienna County and the young Wittgenstein were also
sick in this bed, according to him. According to Daniëls, the Bourbaki Group
developed a formal mathematics theory that was fundamentally alienated from
reality, which rather became oppressive instead of a liberating character.
Because she designed a line of thought that literally suppressed the
spontaneous urge to learn among children and young people.
5. Geometrics in a
straightjacket of sets, relations = formalism & rubricitis
On the introduction of' New Math) in addition to the
preservation of a number of classical subjects, we also receive a radical break
with the traditional visual and functional approach: - a strictly
logical-deductive structure; - the geometric concepts (flat, straight,
rectangular, angle, triangle, rectangle, etc.) are put into the formal and
abstract language of relations and collections; - abstract and hierarchical
classification
Based on the option for a logical-deductive build-up
responsible inspector R. Barbry, the reason why the design theory could only be
started in the fourth year of study. He wrote:"We only start in the fourth
year of primary school with the
formation of the plane pi, which is an infinite collection of points.
Gradually, the main characteristics and richness of the pi plane are discovered
by boundaries (subsets: rights, figures, etc.). We frequently refer to the
language of sets and relationships. Only in the fourth year of study is the
basis to start with the design theory, in order to be able to apply the
collection and relational language" (Barbry, 1978). New mathematics'
overlooked the fact that children orientate themselves from birth and that the
toddlers can and must learn to explore all kinds of figures in a visual way.
Terms in straitjacketof set theory, relations
Traditional notions were put into the straitjacket of the
doctrine collections. Teachers had to explain that a (limited) segment is also
an infinite set of points, because one can always make these points smaller.
The parallelists were presented in a set with an empty cross-set (they have no
points in common), and as a reflexive relationship with a loop arrow: after
all, every line is parallel with itself.
An angle was defined and represented as the set of points of
two half lines (belts of the angle) with the same starting point (angle). These
points were presented with a set and the children had to learn that the points
belonging to the classical corner sector do not belong to the angle (set).A triangle was often represented as' a closed
broken line, consisting of three segments; the points within the perimeter of
the triangle no longer belonged to the triangle, represented by a venndiagram.
Geometrics = classification
A considerable part of the formal education was taken up by
the logical-hierarchical classification and deductive development of the
network of flat and spatial figures. People always started from the more
general (=empt) concepts. This means e. g. that the rectangle and the square
(the more specific or filled up terms) were listed at the very end of the list.
The curriculum of state education already stated as the objective for the
second year of study:"In the collection of polygons, classify with the
criterion: parallelism-evenness of sides or corners; and can present in a venn
diagram". From the new formalistic definitions (e. g. a square is a
rectangle with four equal sides, a parallelogram with....) one could think of a
virtually unlimited number of classification assignments.
A system of definitions and logical hierarchical
classifications, choosing the order of the most general figures (= large size,
poor content) to the most special (rich content, small size). Where the more
specific, rich and everyday figures were treated first (e. g., for example, the
more specific, rich and everyday figures). square and rectangle with their
visual characteristics, they now started from trapezium and parallelogram.
The children were taught to describe the square and
recognize it as a special kind of rectangle, rhombus, parallelogram,.... The
square was last mentioned and was described as a subset of a rectangle, a
pane.... A rectangle thus became a trapezium with all angles straight, but at
the same time a parallelogram with 4 (or at least one) right angles, etc. Such
hierarchical (evident) descriptions were quite abstract and variable, much more
complex than the previously based enumeration of the various intuitive concepts.
We could no longer connect with the intuitive concepts that the children had
already formed and that mainly relate to the richer and beautiful figures. It
went so far that some curriculum designers recommended that the square logiots
should no longer be called square blocks, but rather' tile', because according
to modern mathematics, a square logi block was just as much a kind of
rectangle, rhombus, parallelogram... A mathematics supervisor made the teachers
even point out that toddlers were not talking about square, rectangle, triangle
but respectively over tile, door and roof. And it was not until the fourth
year of study that the geometric terms were allowed. However, the square was
not allowed to be presented until last in the row and as a subset of the
collection of quadrangles, trapezia, parallel icons, rectangles and
windows.
6. What does New Math, as an untouchable religion, teach us about fads?
In this article we referred extensively to our mathematics
campaign of 1982, the NM background and the New Math as a kind of religion that
should not be criticised. Rages always display characteristics of religions.
Those who do not participate are considered as renegades. New Math is one of
the many rages in our education of the past 50 years. We can learn a lot from
it.
The New Math- propagandists initially hanged a caricature of
classical mathematics and the multi-faced methodical approaches. They wrongly
gave the impression that it used to be just memory work. The new lighters
grabbed the NM as the mathematics of the future, the mathematics of the third
industrial revolution - just like many new lighters in recent years with the
so-called "Math of the 21st century .
The supersonic rise
of new mathematics was only possible thanks to the influence and pressure from
the ministry (Minister Vermeylen and top officials) which led to the creation
of prof. Papy & Co got the monopoly; and thanks to the many propaganda from
all kinds of policymakers.Critics of the New Math, professors and even
Directors-General and inspectors, were
silenced from above.The
Director-General for Technical Education, Smets, expressed his full support for
our New Math campaign in 1982, but did not want his name to be mentioned.
Today, censorship and self-censorship are greater than ever. We have also noted
this recently in connection with the M decree.
The New Math--new
lighters did not only deal with ailments over our hopelessly outdated
mathematics education, but also with myths about the excellent economic results
of countries such as Japan, Russia, etc. which introduced modern mathematics.
Once the fad of new mathematics had passed, it wasn't easy
to get back on track again. In primary education, many tried and tested
approaches had been thrown into the dust and a break with the experience wisdom
had emerged. We did manage to put the
tried and tested values and approaches back at the heart of the 1998 curriculum
as a curriculum author.
In the first degree
secondary school unfortunately, they opted for the extreme of the heavenly,
formalistic New Math the other extreme:
the earthly, contextual and constructivist mathematics approach of the Dutch
Freudenthal Institute (Utrecht) and the US Standards of 1989 (see next
contribution). And so over the past 25 years, a new mathematics war has emerged
in the Netherlands, the USA, Canada, and so on: constructivist mathematics, which shows
little appreciation for mathematics as a cultural discipline.
M-decreet: Hasselt / Zonhoven - Mijn zoon van acht jaar moet na één week buitengewoon onderwijs weer naar een gewone school, zegt Tamara Peumans. Hij is er zeer gelukkig en maakt met plezier zijn huiswerk. Helemaal anders dan vorig schooljaar, toen hij op een apart bankje zat. Maar nu heeft hij geen attest van het CLB en moet hij alweer weg uit de school.
Mijn zoon zat vorig jaar in een gewone school in Zonhoven. Maar daar lukte het echt niet. Ook niet als hij zijn tweede leerjaar zou dubbelen. We hebben in mei al een gesprek gehad met school en CLB. Toen was er ook al sprake van het buitengewoon onderwijs. Dat vonden we een hele stap, dus hebben we toen beslist om hem nog even op die school te houden. Intussen zijn we alweer vijf maanden verder en merken we dat hij nog altijd met concentratieproblemen kampt. Dus hebben we hem ingeschreven in De Berk in Hasselt, in het buitengewoon onderwijs.
Deze week horen we dat hij er niet kan blijven omdat we geen attest hebben van het CLB. Maar nu zit hij er al en hij is er zo gelukkig. Hij maakt met plezier zijn huiswerk, zijn faalangst is weg. In zijn vorige school zat hij op een apart bankje omdat hij concentratieproblemen heeft. Hij had ook last van bedplassen. Nu hij gehoord heeft dat hij niet in De Berk kan blijven, is hij opnieuw beginnen bedplassen. Hij kan echt niet terug naar zijn vorige school. Alweer een nieuwe school zoeken, wil ik hem ook niet aandoen. Drie scholen in een half jaar tijd? Waar zijn we dan mee bezig. Waarom hebben ze hem dan ingeschreven? Ik had hem ook niet gezegd dat hij er weg moet, maar hij heeft het van de buschauffeur gehoord. Vandaag de laatste dag?, vroeg die hem.
School
We zeggen altijd tegen de ouders dat hun kind pas definitief ingeschreven is, als ze daarvoor ook een zogenaamd verslag van het M-decreet voor hebben, reageert Luc Piccard, directeur van De Berk. Zonder dat attest kunnen wij kinderen niet inschrijven. Bij ons zat de jongen in het basisaanbod, dat is de klas voor normaal begaafden met leerproblemen. We hebben ook zelf contact opgenomen met het CLB, maar daar zeggen ze dat het zorgtraject nog niet afgerond is. Hij kan hier dus niet blijven. Vroeger waren de regels voor het buitengewoon onderwijs minder streng. Nu zijn die heel duidelijk. Je kan een CLB ook niet onder druk zetten om toch maar een attest te geven.
CLB
Het M-decreet betekent dat onderwijs zo veel mogelijk inclusief moet zijn, zegt Christine Tielemans, algemeen directeur van Vrij CLB Limburg. We bekijken dus per kind welke hulp dit kan krijgen in het gewone onderwijs, want je moet kinderen alle kansen geven. Buitengewoon onderwijs is pas de allerlaatste fase. We doorlopen met kinderen een volledig zorgtraject. Wat we zeker niet doen, is zomaar een papiertje schrijven.
Vlaams minister van Onderwijs Hilde Crevits vindt het vooral belangrijk dat elk kind het meest gepaste onderwijs kan krijgen. Ouders, school en CLB moeten samen zoeken naar de beste oplossing in het belang van de leerling, zegt Crevits. Als een leerling in het gewoon onderwijs zorg nodig heeft, wordt er een zorgtraject uitgestippeld. Daarna wordt in dialoog bekeken wat het beste is voor het kind en of er een attest wordt toegekend om naar het buitengewoon onderwijs te kunnen. Maar de leerling mag hoe dan ook nooit de dupe zijn.
Mijn zoon van acht jaar moet na één week buitengewoon onderwijs weer naar een gewone school, zegt Tamara Peumans. Hij is er zeer gelukkig en maakt met p...
Mollenhauer in '83: Nieulichters stellen essentie 'cultureel leren' in negatief daglicht
Mollenhauer betreurde in 1983 dat veel 'moderne' pedagogen de meest essentiële kenmerken (samenhangen) van het opvoedings- en onderwijsgebeuren 'vergeten' waren en deze zelfs in een negatief daglicht stelden.
Klaus Mollenhauer (1928 - 1998) geldt als een van de belangrijkste Duitse pedagogen uit de vorige eeuw. De oorspronkelijke Nederlandse versie van Vergeten Samenhang verscheen in 1983. Het boek is inmiddels een pedagogische klassieker. Het wordt als een van de belangrijkste Duitse bijdragen beschouwd aan de twintigste-eeuwse opvoedings- en vormingstheorie. Het boek werd, naar het Nederlands, ook in andere talen vertaald, waaronder het Japans en het Engels.
De Duitse emancipatorische pedagoog 'Klaus Mollenhauer' schreef in 1983 een boek over met als titel 'Vergeten samenhangen. Over cultuur en opvoeding' (Meppel, Boom, 1983). Hierin betreurde Mollenhauer dat veel 'moderne' pedagogen de meest essentiële kenmerken (samenhangen) van het opvoedings- en onderwijsgebeuren 'vergeten' waren en deze zelfs in een negatief daglicht stelden. Bij het leren op school gaat het volgens Mollenhauer vooral om cultureel leren. Mollenhauer nam expliciet afstand van "een pedagogische benadering die zich overwegend baseert op het innerlijke van de leerling, op zijn emotionele ervaring van zichzelf en van een ander, op zijn persoonlijke communicatie, op zijn esthetische creativiteit, kortom op de irrationele componenten van de romantische traditie."
Mollenhauer betreurt dat opvoeding en onderwijs vaak verschrompelen tot leren vanuit de eigen ervaring en tot 'menslievende omgang met kinderen': aardig zijn en emotionele betrokkenheid tonen, aandacht hebben voor de gevoelens en leervragen van het kind en voor ogenblikkelijk succes en welbevinden.
Opvoeding en onderwijs hebben volgens hem alles te maken met cultuuroverdracht die vooral belichaamd wordt in de persoon van de leerkracht. In de ogen van velen betekent cultuuroverdracht en aandacht voor leerprestaties echter niets minder dan nefaste beïnvloeding en onderwerping van de leerlingen aan de leerkrachten en aan de leerinhouden. Opvoeding en onderwijs blijven volgens Mollenhauer "in de eerste plaats overlevering, overdracht van datgene wat voor ons belangrijk is. En hoe complexer de sociale wereld wordt, des te minder zal een kind in zijn primaire leefwereld kunnen vinden wat het voor zijn toekomst nodig heeft. Leren op school is als het ware ook steeds 'anticiperend leren': de leerling komt in aanraking met die gedeelten van de maatschappelijk-historische cultuur die voor de kinderlijke ervaring ontoegankelijk zijn."
Traditioneel gaat men er volgens Mollenhauer ook vanuit dat het kind vormbaar is en ook actief aan die vorming moet meewerken. Maar 'vormbaarheid' en 'actieve en zelfstandige inbreng' worden dan wel niet opgevat als zelfontplooiing en zelfconstructie, als zaken die in een mild klimaat of in een 'rijk milieu' a.h.w. vanzelf gedijen zoals in de kindvolgende visie van prof. Ferre Laevers en CEGO. Het gaat meer om geleide constructie van kennis, om geleid probleemoplossend leren waaraan de leerling actief participeert.
Mollenhauer stelt dat het begrip cultuuroverdracht steeds gekoppeld werd aan het geloof in de vormbaarheid van de leerling en aan het bevorderen van zijn toekomstige zelfstandigheid, autonomie. We respecteren de waarde van het kind en we stimuleren zijn actieve en zelfstandige inbreng door eisen aan het kind te stellen en door het actief te begeleiden. We begeleiden het kind tot op een bepaald punt waarop het zelf verder het probleem kan oplossen of aanpakken. ... De leraar heeft de verantwoordelijkheid de verstandelijke vermogens uit te dagen door mobiliteit en inspanning van het abstractievermogen te eisen. De vaardigheden die het kind zich op deze manier 'eigen maakt' zijn dan tegelijkertijd eigen vermogens, productiekrachten van de eigen vorming. En op het moment dat een jonge mens geen uitdagingen meer nodig heeft, is hij in staat zichzelf te vormen en eindigt ook de taak van het onderwijs.
De ervaringsgerichte en kindvolgende EGO-visie van Laevers en het Leuvens CEGO waarbij leerlingen worden gezien als creatieve wezens die slechts ruimte of een 'rijk milieu' nodig hebben om tot de meest persoonlijke van alle persoonlijke ontplooiingen te kunnen komen, is niet aan Mollenhauer besteed. Dit geldt ook voor het gezelligheids-en ontplooiingsdenken, de anti-autoritaire scholen, de antipedagogiek, het ontscholingsdenken met zijn ontintellectualisering en ont-systematisering.
Klaus Mollenhauer & Forgotten Connections
This video is about author and activist Klaus Mollenhauer and about his book, forgotten connections, which is recently published in English by Routledge as translated
vimeo.com
Lessen over financiën/ vak economie: belangrijk? Ipv lessen ...
Lessen over financiën
Reacties:
*Minister Crevits: Groot draagvlak voor lessen financiën & burgerschap op school.
*Michel Mausþ
Veel moed aan de leraars die pakweg woonfiscaliteit of notionele interestaftrek aan scholieren moeten uitleggen...
Belastingontwijking in eindtermen? Top.
*Raf Feys:
Terugdringen van uitholling taalonderwijs lijkt me veel belangrijker.
Volgens PISA scoren Vlaamse 15 j overigens vrij goed voor financiële geletterdheid
Moeilijk om hiervoor concrete eindtermen op te stellen en deze in de verschillende leerplannen onder te brengen. En a.u.b. geen nieuw vak economie & financiële geletterdheid in eerste graad s.o.
Welke eindtermen taal, wiskunde, geschiedenis ... moeten plaats ruimen voor eindtermen financiële geletterdheid?
Leerlingen krijgen les over financiën en ondernemen
Alle leerlingen zullen een basis economische en financiële vaardigheden aanleren op school. Dat blijkt uit de voorlopige tekst over de nieuwe eindtermen die De Tijd kon inkijken. Ook ondernemingszin moet op school worden gestimuleerd.
tijd.be
Michael Young -1958 : intellectuele aanleg bepaalt grotendeels SES : haaks op Jacobs, Agiradag, Nicaise
Did my father - Michael Young ) predict the populist revolts of the last year? He thought that in time a meritocracy would always be replaced by a hereditary elite
Citaat : Toby Young, de zoon van Michael Young, stelt dat zijn vader in 'The Rise of meritocracy' -1956 - beklemtoonde dat de intellectuele aanleg grotendeels de sociaal-economische status bepaalde.
Vlaamse sociologen als Jacobs, Agirdag, Nicaise ... beroepen zich vaak op Michael Young, maar verzwijgen/negeren dat volgens Young de SES grotendeels bepaald wordt door de intellectuele aanlag. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
It often surprises people to learn that my fathers critique of meritocracy was underpinned by his belief that human differences are rooted in genetics, a view many on the left associate with neo-liberal economics and the libertarian right.
How could the man who wrote the 1945 Labour manifesto and played an important part in creating the welfare state be a hereditarian? Surely the creed of socialism depends on believing that all men are born with the same innate capacities, and the reason some succeed and others fail is because of environmental differences?
Before trying to solve this puzzle, let me summarise the reason Michael thought meritocracy was doomed to fail. The problem, according to him, is that the abilities rewarded in a meritocratic society, namely, exceptional intelligence and drive, are natural gifts rather than learned characteristics.
So you get plenty of social mobility when the principle first takes hold but, as a meritocratic society matures, this begins to tail off because the offspring of those at the top are more likely to have these traits than the children of those at the bottom.
Of course there are exceptions. Genetic variation means highly able children are born to parents of lower intelligence and vice-versa. But the children of the cognitive elite still have the dice loaded in their favour, and that remains true even if you eliminate environmental advantages. Over time, my father believed, the fluidity and dynamism unleashed by meritocracy would be replaced by a rigid caste system underpinned by biology, leading to widespread discontent.
Was that the cause of the electoral revolts of last year? The conventional wisdom is that it cant possibly have been, because Britain and America arent genuine meritocracies. However, when you ask people why they think that, they automatically point to low levels of social mobility, and, by itself, that doesnt disprove my fathers hypothesis. On the contrary, it could be evidence that both countries are on their way to becoming mature meritocracies.
You have to look at other things, such as the extent to which IQ predicts socioeconomic status, and whether it is indeed genetically based.
I interviewed several leading authorities on these subjects for my radio programme, including Peter Saunders, a former sociology professor at Sussex University, and Professor Robert Plomin, a behavioural geneticist at Kings College, London. It turns out my father may have been on to something, although I should say that neither Saunders nor Plomin share his pessimism about meritocracy degenerating into a genetically based class system. Of all the people I interviewed, only Charles Murray, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, endorses this prognosis.
Murray himself has been the target of left-wing student protests ever since he co-authored The Bell Curve in 1994, a book that documented the emergence of Americas meritocratic ruling class and warned of the potentially harmful consequences of segregating society according to IQ. He happens to be a conservative, but often points out that theres nothing inherently right-wing about believing variations in human personal characteristics, such as intelligence, are based on genetic differences. It doesnt automatically lead to social Darwinism or eugenics, as some on the left seem to think. After all, if the exceptional abilities of the meritocratic elite are characteristics they were born with and have done nothing to deserve, then they dont deserve the rewards that flow from them.
Seen in this light, the hereditarian critique of meritocracy could be the basis of an argument for more redistributive taxation.
My father thought social status should be based on how decent and kind people are, not whether they happen to have the right genes. Idealistic, perhaps, but the left would be wise to try to incorporate the findings of behaviour geneticists into their political philosophy rather than continue to deny them. Why? Because theyre almost certainly right.
The Rise and Fall of the Meritocracy is on Radio 4 at 8 P.M. on 10 April.
Bijlage 1
However, my father also identified another problem with meritocracy one thats harder to dismiss. Thats the tendency within meritocracies for the cognitive elite to become a self-perpetuating oligarchy. This isnt a criticism youll often hear of grammar schools, because it involves accepting that intelligence, or lack of intelligence, has a genetic basis and, as such, is at least partly passed on from parents to their children. Thats a live rail in the education debate, because once you accept it then various unpopular conclusions follow. For one thing, it means that a more meritocratic education policy wont necessarily lead to greater social mobility. Perhaps in the past, when intelligence was more equally distributed between classes, it would have done. But in todays Britain, where IQ is the single greatest predictor of socioeconomic status, the children of the better off are more likely to pass the 11-plus, and that would remain true might even become more true if you could design a tutor-proof test.
Admittedly, if you compare childrens IQ to that of their parents, theres a reversion to the norm, but the decline isnt steep enough to offset the built-in advantage that children of high-IQ parents have. Its also true that people of below-average intelligence can have bright children, but, again, it doesnt happen often enough to solve the problem of social ossification. The unwelcome truth is that the underlying rate of social mobility in meritocratic societies is bound to be quite low probably a big part of the reason its so low in contemporary Britain. Not that the UK is wholly meritocratic, but its meritocratic enough that any expansion of grammar schools would probably mean less social mobility rather than more.
In The Rise of the Meritocracy, the absence of opportunities for the vast majority to better themselves leads to a bloody revolution in 2033. Were some way off that, but its still a big problem that successive governments have
Bijlage 2: Toy Young over zijn vader Michael Young
Michael Young was born in 1915, the son of an Irish bohemian painter and a Daily Express journalist. He had a miserable childhood, being packed off to the sort of prep schools that George Orwell wrote about in Such, Such Were the Joys, but was saved at the age of 13 by a fairy godmother in the form of Dorothy Elmhirst, an eccentric American millionaire. She had started a school in South Devon called Dartington Hall that was the only school in England that taught fruit farming. As luck would have it, my father had a rich Australian uncle with a fruit farm who offered to pay the fees.
Dorothy and her husband Leonard, a Yorkshireman, more or less adopted Michael. Instead of sending him home in the summer holidays, they took him with them on their annual jaunt to America and treated him like one of their own. He travelled in a first-class berth on RMS Aquitania, learned how to sail on Marthas Vineyard and, on one memorable night, dined at the White House with Franklin D. Roosevelt.
When he left Dartington at the age of 18, Dorothy set him up with a small trust fund, as well as a lifetimes supply of Sobranie cigarettes.
Michaels first notable achievement was writing a pamphlet for a pressure group called Political and Economic Planning at the age of 22, in which he argued that if war broke out the government mustnt delay introducing conscription.
Churchill read it and was so impressed that he immediately offered my father a job as his private secretary. He accepted, but the offer was withdrawn when Churchill discovered he was a member of the Holborn branch of the Communist party.
Michael went on to run the Labour partys research department and, in that capacity, wrote the 1945 Labour manifesto. He spent the next six years at the heart of the Attlee government, laying the foundations of the welfare state, then left in 1951 to do a PhD at the LSE. His doctorate formed the basis of a book called Family and Kinship in East London which, to this day, is referred to by sociology students as Fakinel.
But it was his next book that really made his name The Rise of the Meritocracy. A dystopian satire in the same mould as Brave New World, it purported to be an historical essay written by an academic in the mid-21st century about the emergence of a new ruling class whose claim to power was based on their superior intellect.
The book was intended as a satirical critique of what my father regarded as a pernicious way of justifying inequality and it irritated him for the rest of his life that the word hed coined to describe this ghastly new phenomenon meritocracy was generally used by politicians to describe something wholly desirable.
At this point, Michaels place in the history of post-war Britain was guaranteed, but he was just getting started. He set up a research institute in Bethnal Green that, for the next 50 years, became a kind of organisational supernova, pumping out an endless stream of new institutions: the Consumers Association, Which? magazine, the Social Science Research Council, the University of the Third Age, the School for Social Entrepreneurs, Grandparents Plus it goes on and on. The historian Noel Annan compared him to Cadmus, the founder of Thebes in Greek mythology: Whatever field he tilled, he sowed dragons teeth and armed men seemed to spring from the soil to form an organisation.
And if you think all of that is impressive, he also co-founded the Open University. Whenever Im at risk of feeling a little too pleased with myself because Ive helped set up a handful of schools, I remind myself that Michael helped establish the single largest educational institution in the world. At any one time, the Open University has a quarter of a million students, an astonishing figure.
I was the product of Michaels second marriage and shared a home with him for the first 18 years of my life. At the time, I thought he was a great dad, a figure of towering authority, but now that Im a father myself I realise how little time he spent with his children. I can clearly remember playing football with him in Waterlow Park on my ninth birthday. A lovely memory, to be sure, but the reason I can recall it is because it was one of the very few occasions he took me to the park. My children, by contrast, will have no specific memories of playing football with their dad, because we do it every weekend.
For Michael, the work always came first. Hed been given a great gift by Dorothy Elmhirst, whod saved him from neglect, and that left him with an overwhelming sense of obligation to do the same for others. If Im going to achieve anything else in the next 30 years, it must be driven by the same philanthropic impulse.
Great Lives: Michael Young will be broadcast on Radio 4 on 23 December at 4.30 p.m. and repeated on Boxing Day at 11 p.m. Toby Young is associate editor of The Spectator.
Ive just made a programme for Radio 4 about the populist revolts that swept Britain and America last year. Were they predicted in a book written by my father,