[etni] Response to Avi Tzur and More Comments about HOTS
- From: "David R. Herz" <drh16@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:07:24 +0300
First, I really do want to acknowledge the commitment of the people who have
taken on and are promoting the HOTS program. It is rare to see people
taking to a ministry directive with such passion. As many have said, and I
am sure I agree, there is a lot that is good about it. I am all for the use
and inclusion of HOTS. Though it may be a new acronym, its underlying
tenets have been advocated for centuries. And as Mr. Tzur and others have
indicated, literature has always been a part of the curriculum.
That said, I really wonder if the method of bringing this work into the
classroom is the most enrolling, least anxiety raising and least intrusive
way to bring this work to fruition. The teachers in the pilot program were
for the most part master teachers. For many of them, and probably even for
most of the people who take enough of an interest to be on this list, a lot
of this work IS already familiar. However, one can easily imagine the
teacher who will be overwhelmed by this.
What would be wrong with spending more time giving the kind of continuing
education that Fran and Penny and Avi have given at ETAI conferences about
tweaking one's lessons to using higher order skills? Or instead of funding
a whole new program, including the money for implementation and writing and
evaluating more tests and giving more required education, using that money
to actually provide enough "inspectors" to get out in the field and support
and work with teachers to make sure they are teaching at the highest
possible level.
First, do no harm. I agree with the concept, but not Mr. Tzur's conclusion.
While I have no reason to question that students are doing better, and even
becoming better people, under the new program than the old, I must question
why he uses the old program, or the status quo, as the starting point of his
analysis, and then I must question whether the allocation of resources in
support of this program is the best way to achieve the results we want.
Research may show - I have yet to see the committee cite us to valid
peer-reviewed research (though I haven't looked too hard either) - that
explicit teaching of HOTS does have a positive effect on some result we want
to measure. But depending on the measure - pro-social orientation,
motivation to continue learning on one's own, capacity to synthesize and
analyze - there is also a lot of research that shows that the underlying
system's design works against those same values. Some of you are familiar
with my positions on the bagrut, grades and homework, but we need not go to
that level to question the allocation of resources to this program.
Let's look at what we want to encourage - yesterday Ms. Steiner mentioned
citizenship - and then look at various ways and their costs to achieve the
results. It might be that training teachers to more effectively use groups
correlates positively. It might be that explicit teaching of HOTS does. It
might be that grading the explicit teaching of HOTS or putting it on a test
has a positive effect, or it might actually reduce the positive effects of
the explicit teaching.
Heck, it might be sufficient if we could encourage teachers to teach English
for its own sake and trust that an appropriate and maximized Bagrut result
will follow. My point is that an improvement from one program to the next
is not necessarily a sufficient reason to change to that program, and is
certainly not an indication that no harm is being done. If a diabetic stops
eating a lot of sweets but continues smoking, does that mean that no harm is
being done? The programmatic change should occur after the review of all,
or at least a number, of reasonable options have been investigated. These
should then be vetted for their cost effectiveness and the opportunity costs
should be taken into account. This analysis should extend to include
questions of whether having a national curriculum or requiring teachers to
teach in a certain way correlates positively or negatively with the outcomes
we are seeking.
This didn't happen here. Anat Zohar had some bright idea and Judy Steiner
jumped on it. It is not that there is anything wrong with the idea itself,
but rather that we have yet to actually look at our practices, weed out
those that do wrong or are inconsistent with our goals and then do a
rigorous analysis of the best means to accomplish our goals, which we must
also define.
One of our problems in education is that we are not willing to question our
underlying assumptions about students, about education and about teachers
and teaching. Instead we make incremental changes on the back of a broken
system. While we will certainly see some improvements, it is possible that
we could get far better results with far less cost if we made some changes
to the fundamental structure of the system.
Yours truly,
David R. Herz
drherz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.educatingisrael.com
Bet Rimon
052-579-1859
----- Original Message -----
From: avi tsur - tsuravi@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Response to recent posts
I am part of what you call the "Ministry" and at times do reply to some of
the notes pasted here, always STATING my name and my opinion. I admit that I
also answer some of my teachers to their emails especially when it is in the
best of their interest to receive a direct answer from the pikuach and not
answers that may or may not be correct (official answers especially relating
to Bagrut). At no time have I reprimanded any of my teachers and if they
wish to write to ETNI, so be it. I answer for myself in particular but also
for my colleagues - we are a PROFESSIONAL group of educators whose main
interest is Education in Israel. We work closely with the field, with those
of you who voice your feelings about the HOTS, some of you still not ready
to forge ahead and many of you who are. We listen, enquire, debate and
decide. The final decisions are made together with the advisory committee
who have representatives of Akademia and the field (teachers like you).
and one final word about the HOTS. I have listened to many pupils who have
gone through the process of the new program. What I have learnt from them is
a lesson that we should all consider - It has done no-one harm. For most of
the pupils it has helped them to improve their language and writing skills.
Isn't this exciting. To be able to make a difference, to make progress, to
start being professionals and getting on with the work. This has nothing to
do with more or less pay. We have been expected to teach Literature all
along and those of us who have abided by this have also enjoyed the work and
results. Now we are taking it a step further and according to most of the
evidence - teaching and learning has become more interesting and motivating.
And as I have written "more or less" pay and know that someone out there
will want to answer this - YES, English teachers work the hardest and YES,
they should be reimbursed for some of the extra work that they are expected
to do (making recordings for the Students with Special needs, etc.) -
demands should be made for these issues.
Wishing us all the best for the Moed Bet exam on Wednesday. Wishing you all
a restful summer vacation
Avi Tsur
Inspector for the Rural Sector (REED)
-----------------------------------------------
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
or - http://www.etni.org.il **
** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx **
** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
- » [etni] Response to Avi Tzur and More Comments about HOTS - David R. Herz