Luxury beliefs leave some kids in the dark
Many controversies in education exist because people aren’t considering things from the student’s point of view.
Originally published in the Moultrie News.
Does it seem to you that a lot of the controversies in education (homework, grading, punishment, curricula) exist because people aren’t considering things from the student’s point of view and what they might need?
There is truth to this because many of the controversies can be categorized as “luxury beliefs.” That term refers to ideas or opinions that elevate the status of the upper class at no cost to them while exacting a large price on the lower classes.
In education, luxury beliefs have more to do with the beholder’s achievement than bank account. Education is owned and operated by people who enjoyed school and succeeded at a high level. It’s harder for them to see how an opinion that sounds terrific at cocktail parties might hurt the neediest students.
It’s fair to say that most teachers come from this background, too, but unlike education’s ruling class, teachers are in the foxholes with actual students every day. Thus, it’s a lot easier for us to see why eliminating homework decreases the likelihood that a child will break the bonds of ignorance and poverty. That’s why rank-and-file teachers (at least those who aren’t at high-achieving schools) are often at odds with educational luxury beliefs.
The originator of the term “luxury beliefs” is Rob Henderson, author of the national bestseller Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. Henderson grew up in poverty before joining the Air Force at 17 and earning his Ph.D. from Cambridge.
Henderson compares luxury beliefs to the “stotting” behavior of gazelles. When these animals spot a predator, they may “stot,” or jump up and down, as a signal to the predator that they would be difficult to catch. For obvious reasons, only healthy adult gazelles can afford this behavior. Likewise, luxury beliefs may signal one’s intellectual superiority to whoever may be listening, but they are more difficult to espouse when the espouser can’t pay their cost — that is, when the stotter could be eaten by the consequences of his display.
A good example from the past (though it keeps cropping up) is phonics instruction. While phonics effectively taught kids to read, the educational aristocracy decided that “whole language” techniques would better suit the “natural” way children develop literacy.
It was fine for the nobility to believe this because 1) for them, it was true, and 2) it was likely true for their children, who weren’t going to be endangered by their experimentation. Rank-and-file teachers, however, pushed back. They knew that learning to read didn’t come “naturally” at all for a slew of kids, and they understood phonics’ strengths. Working-class parents who learned to read with phonics responded the same way; they recognized that using their kids as guinea pigs to test the luxury beliefs of elites could be costly. This is why some blame luxury beliefs for education’s failure to close the achievement gap, yet history repeats itself with the ongoing push for common core math.
Many of today’s controversies can similarly be classified as educational luxury beliefs. Restorative Practices, for example, which claim that the best place for disruptive or violent students is inside the classroom, are preached primarily by those who do not teach in those classrooms, have no children in those classrooms, and aren’t students in those classrooms.
Charter schools seem to find more vocal opposition from parents and educators whose children are zoned for crime-free, higher-achieving schools. Eliminating homework is more touted by those whose kids learn quickly and have strong test scores than those who need study and practice to understand. The heavy lifting on minimum grade requirements of 50 is done by those whose kids will probably never fail a grade in their lives, not by teachers who see firsthand the way cheap success can destroy children’s resilience and work ethic.
This is not an ad hominem attack. There are plenty of reasons to oppose these “reforms” regardless of who holds them, but the reasons become clearer when we stop looking at things from the ivory tower and start seeing them from the perspective of those who actually have to live with their consequences.
Read the original column here.
Spot on!