05 September 2018

The Start Anywhere, Learn Everything Free Home School Curriculum

The most frequent question about home school curriculum is, "What curriculum should I use?" 

This is a great question, except when it really means, "What units of knowledge, skill and information should I be delivering to my child?" 
Reducing education to "units" to be delivered is extremely common and perfectly natural given how the concept of education is mostly used in our society. 
Unfortunately that concept is wrong which you can read about on my definition of education page.
Educational reform would be far more effective and the necessity of home schooling would be avoided for most people if policies could be written from a more accurate conception. 

That misguided assumption that the particular "units" that are presented to children are the basic "elements" of elementary school or the "primary" lesson in primary school leads to problems, the most widespread of which is the problem of fauxchievement
Fauxchievement is when a student goes through the motions without mastering the material. 
You can avoid that problem by switching what you take to be "primary" or the "elements" that are necessary for your children.

The three primary elements that form the most basic foundation upon which all schooling is built are:
  1. How to manage our own and other people's behavior for the common good a.k.a. governance, politics, and/or power, 
  2. What and how we exchange with others to meet our needs (in the classroom that usually includes attention, papers, grades, test scores, etc. while in the "real world" it refers to time, money, attention, goods, services, etc.), and 
  3. The quality of consciousness that results from living within those governance structures and exchange processes. 
Curriculum is not merely the units of knowledge, skill and information, it is the entire way of living that is demanded by the environment in which the student is immersed. For my in-depth exploration of the concept of curriculum click here. 

3R's Free Home School Curriculum

This changes the nature of the question of what home school curriculum to use considerably.
In this way of thinking the essentials of education boil down to the 3R's: Respect, Responsibility, and Resourcefulness.

My assumption about human nature is that we are state of mind optimizers. 
Everything we do is predicated on the assumption that by doing whatever it is that we are choosing to do in each moment it is an attempt to establish and/or maintain optimal states of mind. 


The REAL Home School Curriculum Concern
But there is a very important concern that is behind the original question about what home school curriculum to use. 
That concern is for the future of your child; "How will I know that I have done everything that I could do to ensure that s/he is going to succeed?"


John Dewey addressed this concern very well back in 1938 in his book Experience and Education
"We always live at the time we live and not at some other time, and only by extracting at each present time the full meaning of each present experience are we prepared for doing the same thing in the future. This is the only preparation which in the long run amounts to anything."

Today even more than in Dewey's time we cannot know what the future holds. 
Even though we may think we know what knowledge, skills, and information our kids will need in the future, we will get the details wrong. 
The thing that all life forms, including our children, continue to need and will always need no matter what occurs in the future is access to optimal states of mind. 
The Start Anywhere, Learn Everything Home School Curriculum is a practice of cognitive cartography that has both teachers and students mapping access to optimal states of mind. For a full explanation of why the cognitive cartography definition of education is better than the delivery definition in a home school curriculum click here.
It really doesn't matter what knowledge, skills, and information are used, as long as the basic practices are focused on the 3R's and solving problems and achieving goals.

The 3 Basic Free Home School Curriculum Practices
The three basic practices in the Start Anywhere, Learn Everything Home School Curriculum are; 
  • empathy, 
  • planning, and 
  • decision making.

Each of these practices is required of both teachers and students.
It is presumed that the teachers start off more accomplished at each of these practices than students but that the teachers are committed to a gradual process of relinquishing their role in planning and decision making for the students in order to give the students ever more responsibility for their own activities. 
Teachers are always ultimately responsible for their own behavior and the maintenance of respect and safety within the group. 
This means that teachers are responsible for the context of the relationships between teachers and students, but not necessarily doing "educational" activities in that context.


The practice of empathy is required in order to know your own mind and the minds of others. 
Minds are not truly separated from bodies nor from the world in which they are embedded, despite our illusory perceptions to the contrary. 
Thus the more you know of the minds of others, the more you know about the influences that are affecting your own mind. Empathy is at the heart of both respect and responsibility.

The practice of planning is required in order to develop greater skill at anticipating the long term success of your problem solving and progress towards your goals and aspirations. 
The essence of planning is the anticipation of what will happen as a result of your own actions. 
Planning is also the process of making predictions about the world and then following up on them to find out whether your predictions are effective or not. 
Planning is at the heart of both responsibility and resourcefulness.

The practice of decision making is required in order to balance your needs with the needs of the other people who are being affected by your decisions. 
Decision making is at the heart of both resourcefulness and respect.

The 3 Basic Free Home School Curriculum Principles
You might have noticed that the three practices and the three principles are intimately intertwined. 
Respect is the combination of decision making and empathy. 
Responsibility is the combination of empathy and planning. 
Resourcefulness is the combination of planning and decision making. 
Each of the principles is a delicate balancing act.

Home School Curriculum Principle #1
As the adult you are charged with the ultimate duty to maintain safety and respect.
If you wield your decision making power as the adult without practicing empathy for those over whom you exercise your power, then you will not be respectful. 
If, on the other hand, you are so empathetic about your children's aversion to conflict and difficult feelings that you cannot make hard decisions that will keep them safe from their own inexperience, ignorance, weakness or vulnerability, then you are also being disrespectful. 
Respect is essentially the willingness to look again (re- again, spect- to see) at your judgment of a situation to make sure you have found the right balance between empathy and decision making.

One of the most common mistakes in education is planning without empathy, which results in adults demanding that children jump through meaningless hoops. 
This irresponsibility takes the form of stupid make-work school assignments or can take the form of a child blindly following their parents goals for them without regard for their own intrinsic motivations and personal aspirations. 
Planning without empathy is most often perpetrated by very well meaning adults who have learned hard lessons in life and want to save child(ren) from the hardships they experienced. 
The problem is when they project the details of how they navigated along their path through life onto a child who is living in an entirely different world, along a totally different path. 
Empathy is the key to preventing this problem. 
Empathy helps you; 
  • keep in touch with your child, 
  • develop the kind of relationship in which you respect each other's unique challenges, and, 
  • figure out how to communicate the most valuable lessons of your life in a way that honors both yours and your child's struggles and triumphs.

Home School Curriculum Principle #2
Responsibility is the ability to respond creatively rather than merely reacting impulsively to situations in your life, it calls for both planning for the future and having empathy for those who will be affected.
Children cannot learn responsibility unless the have support for their primary human need for autonomy. 
Cultivating the 3R's in children requires parents to provide more autonomy support and become less controlling.

Home School Curriculum Principle #3
Resourcefulness seems to be generally denied in children's lives today. 
As we have come to perceive the world as being more dangerous we are increasingly protecting our children and cutting them off from the opportunities to make a lot of decisions. In order to become good at a skill you have practice. 
Decision making is one of the most important skills in life and children need all the practice they can get. But once again, there is a balance to maintain. 
Planning is also necessary to achieve anything complex, therefore there is a discrepancy between your more comprehensive adult vision of what is possible in their lives given the right early training and their need for the feedback of making decisions themselves. 
Resourcefulness is about being full of the source again; it's about being the creator of your life. 
The most important key to being resourceful is ensuring that you and your children build on strong foundations of respect and responsibility as you create your lives together. 

Your Free Home School Curriculum Agenda
One of the main differences between me, as a private teacher, and you as a parent, is that you probably have more goals and expectations of your children than I do. 
Do yourself a favor and discuss your goals and expectations with your children. 
If you have an academic agenda then you would be wise to help your child understand the moral foundation of your agenda so that they will understand why they have to do the things that you will make them do. 
Share with them how and why your agenda for them expresses your values. 
And also respect their goals and aspirations, too. 
Make your agenda the start of a conversation, not the basis for imposing control over their behavior. 

I do not have an academic agenda for kids (although I expect excellence if they choose to pursue academic goals), therefore I have no inclination to impose academic instruction. 
Part of the reason I do not bother with an academic agenda is because I know that academics are a huge well of resources for achieving goals and solving problems. 
Therefore, if I keep insisting that the kids pursue goals and solve problems they will inevitably discover that they need academic skills to succeed. There is no avoiding it in the society I live in. 

(It would, of course, be very different if I lived in a different society and was a different kind of person. 
If you expect your kids to learn things that you don't know, then you will have to send them away to people and into communities that know and teach whatever you want them to learn. 
If my students need more than I can give them then my job becomes facilitating their process of finding the right catalysts for their learning and supporting them to be successful.)

My Home School Curriculum Practice
What I did when I was a private teacher home schooling other people's kids was to have a contract with every one of my students. 
The contract spelled out how we were going to be operating as a consensus run small group according to the 3 R's. 
We were each to be responsible for our own behavior while I, as the teacher, would have the power and additional responsibility for maintaining safety and respect.

Once the contract was in place then I asked the kids, "What do you want to do?" 
And then I waited for answers, real answers, not evasions. 
They always evaded at first, "I don't know." Or, "What do you want to do?" 
If I answered at all I would usually answer with something along the lines of, "I want to find out what we can do to have fun instead of sitting around here all day. What are some of the things you like to do?" 
Once they started making suggestions I accepted everything as a possibility, no matter how absurd or uninteresting to me personally.

After we had at least a few potentially interesting ideas that I would be willing to pursue, then I would have them choose the one they think would be the most fun. 
Then I helped them think about what might actually be possible given our limitations of budget, timing, physical reality, our agreement on consensus decision-making, and stuff like that. 
If flying to the moon struck us as the most potential fun, then there are obvious things that will prevent us from accomplishing that right away. 
We would try to figure out the most potential fun until we got to something that we all agreed was both fun and possible. 
If it was something that could be done right then, we did it. 
If not we figured out what needed to happen next and if we could do that right then, we did it. 
If not we continue until we figure out what we could do right then. 

The outcome of this process was often a combination of some goals and some problem solving. 
We also got to know each other based on what we think is fun and the limitations that we shared. 
Often times, since I was working with 6-12 year olds, there were things that they do not know how to do and part of our process together was helping them to develop the skills they needed to accomplish their goals and solve their problems. 
I was not there to entertain them, protect them from the adversity of challenges, nor to provide them with everything they wanted.
My job was to help them discover more and better ways to be fully engaged with living life respectfully, responsibly and resourcefully.
That's all there was to it.

That's ultimately all there is to do in this world, anyway, as far as I am concerned. 
When problems arise we solve them. When goals inspire us we pursue them. 
When there is a lull in our time then we might get bored. 
That' O.K., as long as we meet the expectations of being respectful, responsible and resourceful, too. 
If it becomes a problem, then we solve it. 
If we really hate being bored then we can set a goal to avoid it.

04 September 2018

Is Standardized Testing a Necessary Evil in K-12 Education?


"[T]he reality is, when it comes to our students, it does not matter if we personally believe in the necessity of standards or the benefits of standardized testing. ...[W]e cannot let personal frustrations and opinions hold our students back."
Marisa Adams, in "The Necessary Evil of Standardized Testing" on LumosLearning.com, January, 2015

Ms. Adams' blog post defends compliance with testing policies and practices as the best course for students and, regardless of where anyone stands on the testing issue, there is an important point in this quote. 
Getting an education is the central defining goal of the existence of our schools, so, it would, naturally, be heinous to hold students back from it. 
However, we cannot let potentially misguided standardized testing practices and policies hold our students back, either. 

Be patient for a moment to consider a parallel example: 
What if state and federal building code authorities came into existence and then imposed a requirement that the foundation of your house had to be made of bricks, but also banned mortar and all other means of securing the bricks to each other or anything else? 
I am sure there would be some who would argue that compliance with the legal authority of federal building code should take precedence over "personal frustrations and opinions." 
However, you would be a fool to comply. 
This policy would inevitably lead to the foundation of your house being unstable and occupying the house would put your entire family, all your visitors, and your family's personal property at risk. 
It is for good reason that foundations are not only made of solid material parts, like bricks, but solidly secured into a unified whole and attached to the structures they hold up. 
If the foundation is cobbled together piecemeal, then all that you have invested in making your house into a wonderful home is at risk of being lost to the next big storm or a minor earthquake.

It is our duty to make sure the foundation of education is secured into a unified whole and can reliably support the structures that depend on its integrity. 
All the proven teaching techniques, carefully designed curricula, authentic assessments, good teachers, up-to-date facilities, well-funded innovative transparent accountable school models, etc. are at risk of being lost to the next political storm or economic earthquake because in most K-12 schools the foundations of education currently lack integrity. 
We are trying to make school into a wonderful education home, but we are being fools so long as we do not prioritize investing in a solid foundation to support the house. 
This is not an easy task to take on because working on the foundation is a frustrating process. 
It goes against the grain of what is most popular in the media dialogue about schools right now and some popular ideas about what makes for good teaching. 
It also doesn't help that most of the mechanisms that undermine the foundation of good learning occur within the hidden curriculum, not in the arena of things that schools and education policy makers are explicit about.
The evil that is hidden is particularly difficult to fight. 
However, Ms. Adams is correct to point out that we should do what is right for our students independent of our "personal frustrations and opinions."

The question is how to discern the practices and policies that contribute to education from those that hold students back from it. 
What causes students to become educated? 
What are the necessary elements that students must experience in order to move forward into becoming educated? 
Current state and federal policies implicitly suggest that high stakes standardized testing and curriculum standardization cause students to become educated, thus we are admonished by Ms. Adams not to interfere with the operation of these policy-imposed "educational" practices based merely on "personal frustrations and opinions." 
As an education psychologist who has published research on motivation in educational settings, I have to question her assumption about standardized testing practices. 

Discerning Causality in Education


The scientific research community has weighed in on the causal factors for education for decades. 
Discerning causal from correlational factors is the central defining goal of science. 
Psychology is the field within science that takes primary responsibility for identifying the causes of human behavior. 
Education psychology researchers, like myself, do not have clear answers for every practice and there is not a lot of work directly looking at the causal efficacy of education policies. 
But, there is clarity about the necessary foundation upon which all education is built. 
That scientifically established causal foundation for education is support for students to meet their primary human needs. 
There are eight needs that have well-established scientific validation: air, water, food, sleep, shelter, relatedness, competence, and autonomy. 
The first five are probably sensible to most people, but the other three are too often not familiar. 
Here's what is meant by those terms:
  • Relatedness, a.k.a. belonging or attachment, is the perception of being connected to and recognized by other people.*
  • Competence is the perception of being effective at achieving goals in a situation.**
  • Autonomy is the perception of being the causal and volitional source of your own activities.***

Scientific research shows that these three needs are the necessary components of psychological well-being and constitute vitally important parts of the foundation of education along with the other, more generally well-known, primary needs.

Given that the foundation of education is the satisfaction of primary human needs, then it is important to look at the impact of the standardized testing policies on these foundations in order to discern whether they are, in fact, educational. 
If those standardized testing policies undermine one or more of the very foundations of education, then they are not appropriate policies, no matter what history led to their being enacted (another element of Ms. Adams' defense of compliance). 
If, on the other hand, they do nothing to undermine the foundation of education, then it is at least possible that they are appropriate and, as Ms. Adams advises, putting personal issues aside to comply with standardized testing is proper. 

Isn't it ironic that Ms. Adams called standardized testing "evil" in the title of her post promoting compliance with the policies and practices that implement it? 
Her title brought to my mind the following famous lyrics:
"We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall."
"Another Brick In The Wall" by Pink Floyd

Based on what I've learned as an education psychologist, I have a new take on this song. 
Consider the possibility that the song is not challenging us to be, or not to be, bricks. 
We are bricks and there is nothing we can do about that. 
But there are some things we can do. 
First, do not allow yourself to be put into a wall that is based on the neglect and/or thwarting of primary psychological needs. 
"Dark sarcasm in the classroom" is a lament for the past psychological harms that occurred within the school system and the song calls us to ensure that they do not continue into the future. 
The call is to become solidly interconnected parts of a proper foundation for education. 
(I take the use of the term "education" in the line "We don't need no education" to be the use of the songwriter's license to refer to schooling rather than the process of becoming educated. 
The lyric would be absurd otherwise.) 
It is imperative that we each insist that our strength and solidity be part of an integrated system of supporting primary human needs in all K-12 schools. 
Only then can all the proven teaching techniques, carefully designed curricula, authentic assessments, good teachers, up-to-date facilities, well-funded innovative transparent accountable school models, etc. that build on the foundation reliably fulfill the purpose of educating our children. 
We must stand together to ensure that the true foundation of education becomes a unified whole in both policy and practice in K-12 and never allow it to be compromised. 
In education, we are the solid bricks and the policies and practices that enable and encourage us to mutually support each other's human needs are the mortar that binds us into a unified whole that holds up all those other aspects of schooling. 

Answering the Question of Standardized Testing


The argument for standardized testing as a necessity for educating students is weak, at best. 
Due to historical accidents of misguided bureaucratic imposition by politicians ignorant of the true foundations of education, some teachers may view standardized testing as a necessity because fighting it might put their jobs at risk. 
Standardized testing does deserve the label "evil" exactly to the degree that it compromises the autonomy, competence, and relatedness of teachers and students. 
So my answer to the original question is that standardized testing should not be considered necessary and it can be evil. 
I am open to the possibility that non-evil implementations of standardized testing are possible, but I am skeptical and would want any implementation of it to be carefully monitored for negative impacts on primary psychological needs. 
And also subsequently modified until the negative impacts are eliminated even if that necessitated the elimination of the standardized testing itself.

Click here to read about the Oversimplification of Educational Reform.


Notes

* Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will?. Journal of Personality 74(6), DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x Back to text


** MacIver, D. J., Stipek, D. J., & Daniels, D. H. (1991). Explaining within-semester changes in student effort in junior high school and senior high school courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 201-211. DOI: 10.1037/0022- 0663.83.2.201 Back to text


*** Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self- determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375-392. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375 

To clarify the definition of autonomy: consider the distinction between "causal" and "volitional" sources of behavior. 
Imagine that you are in the doctor's office and s/he brings out the reflex hammer and aims it just below one of your knee caps at your patellar tendon. When the hammer strikes your tendon your lower leg kicks out indicating that your reflex is normal. 
That action by your body is clearly caused by an internal process, the reflex, while the hammer played only a small role by triggering the process that resulted in the movement. 
In that situation you understand that your body was the causal source of your leg's movement, but you also realize that neither you nor your body were the volitional source. 
The doctor was in control of the hammer, not you. 
In this instance you would feel that the movement of your lower leg was not an autonomous decision; it was the doctor's, not your's. 

An interesting nuance in this definition is that personal choice is not strictly necessary. 
This doctor's office scenario holds true only as long as we are assuming the typical professionally distant relationship between you and your doctor. 
If, on the other hand, the person wielding the hammer was an intimate other, then it is possible that you could feel so closely connected to that particular other person (and presuming that their wielding of the tiny reflex hammer is not the least bit threatening), that, even though you did NOT personally make the choice that lead to the movement, you could still feel that it was an autonomous act. 
Personal choice is typically equated with autonomy (especially in the West), but it turns out that it is not strictly necessary. Back to text

03 September 2018

Making The Case for Situationism

Situationism is the view that arises from research in social psychology which discovered that human behavior is more powerfully determined by our situations than it is by our character.

Character counts to some degree, but not nearly as much as most people think.
The following list of articles from various peer-reviewed journals make the strongest arguments I have seen for situationism. 
The fact that the authors were communicating psychological concepts to non-psychologists forced them to write about the research findings in a more accessible manner than is normally done. 
The main drawback and one of the other strengths of these articles is that they are published for lawyers and some are specifically for lawyers who are conversant in economics. 
The strength that the legal audience lends to these articles is that they usually hold to higher standards for the logical construction of the arguments than would be the case for non-lawyerly audiences.
The drawback is that lawyers and economists are fond of jargon. 
The articles are accessible if you can read past the occasional legal and economic jargon. 
The first three are a series that sums up the case well and the rest are provided for those who want more detail or would like to see how it has been applied to specific issues.
Enjoy,
Don Berg

Summarizing Situationism Series


More Situationism For The Curious

#9: The Blame Frame: Justifying (Racial) Injustice in America 
(2006) by Jon Hanson and Kathleen Hanson