Smart vs. Wise in the Pre-K Classroom by J.M. Holland

A great deal of research is being done in pre-k classrooms thanks to the Early Reading First, one of the truly important and successful reforms of the past 10 years. It is changing what high quality pre-k looks like. Much of the Early Reading First reforms are based on current research as well as the ground breaking early childhood research that has been done over the past twenty years. Researchers like Kagan, Pianta, Bredekamp, and others have created a foundation for effective preschool practice. These are smart people and they have said some smart things. Thankfully, more and more, policymakers are turning to these smart folks to help craft policy. But, research is intended to generate knowledge, not wisdom.

Wisdom only comes with experience. Often, when research is quoted these days it is with the intention of changing what a teacher is doing in their classroom. As in, research says, "You should be doing _X_ in your classroom." What the teacher is doing may not be bad, but, it is not what the research says should be done. That is why there's a gap. Many of the best researchers are not implementing their findings into real classrooms. Some are, especially, those focused on practice like Pianta and Bredekamp, but most just provide the knowledge and reformers, grantees, and other researchers implement this new knowledge creating a notable disconnect.

I am going to tell you a story. Please forgive me if it is a little long.

Imagine you are a researcher and you have just made a discovery. Let's say you discovered how to teach kids to know the color blue by watching 1000 teachers teach the color blue. These teachers all do this in somewhat different ways, but everyone has discovered a way to teach the color blue. Some teachers were really great and these are the ones you really study. You synthesize all of the ways these great teachers teach blue into a framework. This framework is brilliant, it sheds new light on teaching the color blue. It works, guaranteed, because you have seen it.

Now, you call your friend, another researcher and say, "Hey I made this great discovery. I know exactly how to teach kids the color blue." Then you describe your framework for teaching kids blue. Well, your researcher friend has this great idea, she wants to get a grant to research how  teachers can teach the color blue more effectively. They may already have been teaching the color blue, but how they taught the color blue has not been researched to be reliable or valid. Besides, some teachers didn't teach blue as well as others.

So she develops a professional development program to teach teachers how to teach blue. Then she implements it. She tells teachers all about the definition of blue, the foundational research around blue, and the most reliable ways to teach blue. The teachers then practice how to teach blue and go to their classrooms to teach all about it. Some like being told how to teach blue, some resent being told how to teach blue, some collect their paycheck either way. Those who already knew how to teach blue their way, decide to leave. Or, they keep teaching blue their way but make it look like they are doing what the researcher says. New teachers are hired that know nothing of teaching blue and they are thankful for the help. Well, this proves that anyone can teach blue if you just follow the program.

For some reason though, the blue framework and method of teaching blue is never as effective as it was when you first saw how great teachers were teaching blue.

The question for me is one of discovery. The teachers that were studied had discovered their way of teaching blue through a process that made them wise. The second group was made smarter but, because they didn't discover why that method worked for them in their classroom with their kids, their was no wisdom gained. The method was handed to them, it was not discovered.

There is an arc here that does not translate to real life. Even though you can learn something from watching others and synthesizing what you see, that doesn't necessarily mean that what you see and what is happening are necessarily the same thing. And the reason that you figure out that teaching blue in certain ways works may not be the actual "reason" for what you see working.

I believe that the reason that what some teachers do works is because they have made a choice: a choice to improve their practice and to teach kids better every year. Making that choice, changing what they did in their classroom, and seeing it work has made them wise. That is why sometimes a really smart researcher can tell a really wise teacher something "new" and the teacher will say, "Yes, but we have been doing that for years."

Comments

[Nancy Flanagan]

Brilliant. And the principle applies to many, many activities-- including things that are often considered settled technical knowledge. You can never truly remove human judgment from professional decision-making. Even Chesley Sullenberger had to make a choice (in less than two minutes)--and he works in the most prescribed and "trained" field in the world.

[Fran Sokol Simon]

So many ECE educators have always intuitively resisted scripted curriculum, but could not so articulately capture their reasons for resistance. This powerful article captures the argument perfectly.

[John Holland]

Nancy, Thank you so much for your comment. I always appreciate your comments because you always share something. This time it is Chesley, whom I had never heard of, (is that right?). I can't wait to look him up. (Conductor? Doctor?)

Fran, thank you for your comment. I was so happy to see your comment because, you captured the essence of my post and I didn't even know it.
Thanks.
John

[J.M. Holland]

I finally had a chance to look up Chesley Sullenburger. He is a hero for saving the lives of 155 people by safely crash landing an airplane. Thanks for pointing out his story Nancy.