Gladwell on Teaching

Disclaimer: I think it’s important to take Malcolm Gladwell’s writing with a grain of salt. At times, it seems like he uses small sample sizes or cherry-picks stories in order to support his thesis. It’s important to not take his writing as the absolute authority on his chosen subjects. That said, I like that his writing makes psychological/sociological ideas accessible and understandable.

Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book, What the Dog Saw, is a collection of his pieces from The New Yorker. In this volume, he writes about everything from condiments, to Ron Popeil, to the Enron scandal. Tucked neatly in these pages, in an article about former Missouri quarterbacks Chase Daniel and Chase Patton, are some interesting ideas about teaching that Gladwell relates to the trials of transitioning from college to pro football.

Now, I’ve written about The Tipping Point in this space before and how a professor of mine used that to make some important points about music education. That was a case of Gladwell’s ideas being brilliant when given a new context. Unfortunately, when he is writing explicitly about education, his ideas become more puzzling and create more questions than they answer.

This article, entitled Most Likely to Succeed, is certainly a puzzler. In it, Gladwell proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that even good people can have bad ideas. This seems to be a major problem in the field of education—people with good intentions but no prior educational experience are put in a position to make decisions, and often make poor ones. No Child Left Behind is a shining example.

In this article, Gladwell attempts to make a connection between drafting an NFL quarterback and hiring a teacher. As an educator and a sports fan, I was quite interested to see what connections he would make. His main point is that football scouts can not effectively evaluate college quarterbacks until they’ve been given the chance to perform in a pro-style offense, because there is such a big difference between college and professional playbooks. Then, Gladwell claims that it is equally difficult to evaluate teachers until after they’ve had the chance to work in the field for a couple of years because there is such a difference between college and “the pros”.

The whole premise of his article is based on this analogy, and I find a great deal of fault with it.

First of all, comparing the NFL draft to attempts to improve our education system trivializes teaching as a profession. Luckily for Joey Harrington and Ryan Leaf, change in society has never hinged on the play of a quarterback. Educators, on the other hand, can facilitate sweeping changes (albeit very gradually) by virtue of being good at their job.

That might be nitpicking on my part, but the issues don’t end there. At one point, Gladwell states:

Teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse and a college degree—and teachers should be judged after they have started their jobs, not before. That means that the profession needs to start the equivalent of Ed Deutschlander’s training camp. It needs an apprenticeship system that allows candidates to be rigorously evaluated.

I’m sure that Gladwell means well here. He would no doubt like to improve the US education system, but those few sentences show a lot of ignorance about the nuts and bolts of the profession. His plan to open up teaching to those without education degrees sounds eerily similar to John McCain’s “Troops to Teachers” plan.

For those of you unfamiliar with Troops to Teachers, here’s a brief summary taken from an LA Times transcript of a McCain speech:

MCCAIN: We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations which — or have the certification that some are required in some states.

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and McCain’s plan would have certainly sent the US education system to hell in a handbasket. The certification tests that he dismisses so easily are all about content mastery. I don’t care how inspirational or heroic a teacher is, we can’t have teachers in the classroom if they don’t have a good grasp on what it is they are supposed to be teaching.

McCain and Gladwell also seem to casually dismiss the importance of teacher training programs in college. While you can achieve content mastery outside of a traditional teacher certification program, you don’t get the valuable classroom practice or observations that you do in a traditional program.

During my time in the Music Education program at Michigan State, I spent time in at least five different classrooms—observing the teacher and teaching small lessons—before I even began student teaching. Those experiences plus student teaching is where teachers learn how to interact with their students and deliver content. Under the Gladwell/McCain plans, we’d lose that part of the training.

What makes this even more puzzling is that earlier in the article, Gladwell cites a calculation done by Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford. Hanushek says that by replacing the bottom six to ten percent of teachers in the US pool with merely average teachers, the US education system could close the gap with higher-performing countries like Belgium and Canada. Why, then, would we want to take the risk of adding more bad teachers to the pool?

The last issue I’ll bring up here is perhaps the one that bothers me the most. While it’s refreshing to see somebody thinking outside of the box in an effort to help the education system, it’s upsetting to see that they don’t understand how it works. Gladwell calls for a rigorous apprenticeship system, apparently ignorant of student teaching, the rigorous apprenticeship system we already have in place. There are already constant observations, lesson planning, classroom management, administrative tasks, etc. as part of the student teaching internship. Aspiring teachers must already prove themselves over the course of six months or a year before they can be accepted into the profession.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Gladwell on Teaching

  1. Completely agree with you here. I wouldn’t want Ryan Leaf teaching my kids science in the classroom, and I appreciate the experiences of men and women in service, but heroism isn’t algebra.

  2. I agree, having read this composition by Gladwell, I feel his views on the subject are blurred. However, I agree with the sources he cites about the different kinds of student feedback and student/teacher interaction. An expert in a field of knowledge often makes a lousy teacher because of a very real disconnect he shares with his potential students. For evidence of this, visit any college or university: the majority of professors are hired not for their teaching acumen, but their potential to bring notoriety to the institution based on their research and publications. Many of the top researchers have graduate assistants who teach their classes. To this point, Gladwell seems spot on: regardless of a teacher’s ability to do well in classes and on tests, those assessments are not revealing of one’s ability to teach, specifically at a high level.

    Gladwell’s ideas about teaching reform seem to reflect American capitalist thought: increase competition and stakes, and watch the cream rise to the top. Unfortunately this line of reasoning floods the schools with a potentially large, concentrated number of ‘teacher wannabes’ who could cause greater damage to the educational system during their ‘weeding out process’ than the current situation. If the apprenticeship is to be anything like his comparisons to finance advisers, or quarterbacks, then you must put these people in classrooms with children for a series of years. How much sub par teaching would take place in a system like that?

    I do believe the tenure system has helped less than adequate teachers maintain their positions, and that steps can be taken to provide novice teachers an apprentice like experience. Many schools and districts already have mentor programs underway such that young teachers are paired with an experienced teacher as they continue to grow and develop in the classroom. Administrators provide routine performance reviews of their teachers. Education, unlike professional sports, can’t very well set up a minor league system, or paid apprenticeships like a finance institution. If a finance adviser gets cut, he doesn’t take his accounts with him. They stay with the company and are reassigned to a more competent individual.

    Concerning the idea of Troops to Teachers: I understand that some troops can make the transition to being a teacher. However, the classroom is a far cry from the black and white meritocracy of military structure and control. It should be noted, Gladwell nowhere mentions or makes reference to such a program. However, in his recounts of the preschool classrooms and the ability for students to learn and be engaged with an acceptable amount of wriggling and social interplay, one can easily imagine how much culture shock students and an ex-military teacher would (perhaps painfully) endure. On this point, I defer to one of Jim Fay’s and David Funk’s key beliefs in Love and Logic: As long as the student’s behavior is not disruptive, it can be assumed that some form of learning is taking place. Children are social. It makes sense, since they are human, and humans are social. They use and develop social actions as a tool to help them make sense of their world (including educational curricula). To stifle that, stifles learning. This idea is reinforced by educational research (and commented on by Gladwell).

    As I was reading Gladwell’s composition, I couldn’t get past how contradictory his ideas were compared to his 2005 book: Blink. His basic thesis in Blink is that the Human brain is a remarkable tool, something that can do tens of thousands of computations in an iota of time, to present oneself with particular truths about the item in question . . . all subconsciously. He details research upon research of people’s ability to know an incredible amount about a person from an incredibly small amount of knowledge through thin splicing. Some of the studies he uses in Blink discuss how students can evaluate good and bad professors from a short clip of video with the audio distorted, and how patients can make similar judgments about doctors from similar video clips. How would Gladwell reconcile his ideas in Blink: take a small sample of someone’s teaching, and trust your gut; with this particular essay: put teachers through a training regimen over the course of years, record all of their strengths and weaknesses, then make a very thoughtful decision based on volumes of collected information.

    To solve our educational crisis, teacher training is only a small part of the trials at hand. Considering this particular essay was published in December of 2008, one would think that Gladwell would have drawn on his experiences and knowledge from his three previous books: Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers when considering how to improve education. Perhaps there’s a way to start an epidemic of great teachers, by which inferior teachers would naturally be weeded out of the system. Perhaps we can apply the lessons learned in Outliers from his journaling of the KIPP program and how cultural legacies can affect education. Perhaps we can remove ourselves from the tests and classes and grades and mounds and volumes of prospective teachers’ presumed abilities and look at a limited sample of video clips, identifying a small number of things: how are students engaged, how is the teacher interacting with students, what form of feedback is present. Southern Teachers Agency (a company that helps private and charter schools fill teaching vacancies) highly recommends that the teachers it’s helping find jobs submit a video resume. Many student teachers asked to watch and analyze video of themselves teaching. I consider it a shame that someone who has as many fresh and cutting edge ideas as Gladwell would overlook such plainly obvious (seemingly) concepts. Especially when Gladwell responds to reports of his genius with rebuttal, commenting that he only writes about the seemingly obvious.

  3. I agree, having read this composition by Gladwell, I feel his views on the subject are blurred. However, I agree with the sources he cites about the different kinds of student feedback and student/teacher interaction. An expert in a field of knowledge often makes a lousy teacher because of a very real disconnect he shares with his potential students. For evidence of this, visit any college or university: the majority of professors are hired not for their teaching acumen, but their potential to bring notoriety to the institution based on their research and publications. Many of the top researchers have graduate assistants who teach their classes. To this point, Gladwell seems spot on: regardless of a teacher’s ability to do well in classes and on tests, those assessments are not revealing of one’s ability to teach, specifically at a high level.

    Gladwell’s ideas about teaching reform seem to reflect American capitalist thought: increase competition and stakes, and watch the cream rise to the top. Unfortunately this line of reasoning floods the schools with a potentially large, concentrated number of ‘teacher wannabes’ who could cause greater damage to the educational system during their ‘weeding out process’ than the current situation. If the apprenticeship is to be anything like his comparisons to finance advisers, or quarterbacks, then you must put these people in classrooms with children for a series of years. How much sub par teaching would take place in a system like that?

    I do believe the tenure system has helped less than adequate teachers maintain their positions, and that steps can be taken to provide novice teachers an apprentice like experience. Many schools and districts already have mentor programs underway such that young teachers are paired with an experienced teacher as they continue to grow and develop in the classroom. Administrators provide routine performance reviews of their teachers. Education, unlike professional sports, can’t very well set up a minor league system, or paid apprenticeships like a finance institution. If a finance adviser gets cut, he doesn’t take his accounts with him. They stay with the company and are reassigned to a more competent individual.

    Concerning the idea of Troops to Teachers: I understand that some troops can make the transition to being a teacher. However, the classroom is a far cry from the black and white meritocracy of military structure and control. It should be noted, Gladwell nowhere mentions or makes reference to such a program. However, in his recounts of the preschool classrooms and the ability for students to learn and be engaged with an acceptable amount of wriggling and social interplay, one can easily imagine how much culture shock students and an ex-military teacher would (perhaps painfully) endure. On this point, I defer to one of Jim Fay’s and David Funk’s key beliefs in Love and Logic: As long as the student’s behavior is not disruptive, it can be assumed that some form of learning is taking place. Children are social. It makes sense, since they are human, and humans are social. They use and develop social actions as a tool to help them make sense of their world (including educational curricula). To stifle that, stifles learning. This idea is reinforced by educational research (and commented on by Gladwell).

    As I was reading Gladwell’s composition, I couldn’t get past how contradictory his ideas were compared to his 2005 book: Blink. His basic thesis in Blink is that the Human brain is a remarkable tool, something that can do tens of thousands of computations in an iota of time, to present oneself with particular truths about the item in question . . . all subconsciously. He details research upon research of people’s ability to know an incredible amount about a person from an incredibly small amount of knowledge through thin splicing. Some of the studies he uses in Blink discuss how students can evaluate good and bad professors from a short clip of video with the audio distorted, and how patients can make similar judgments about doctors from similar video clips. How would Gladwell reconcile his ideas in Blink: take a small sample of someone’s teaching, and trust your gut; with this particular essay: put teachers through a training regimen over the course of years, record all of their strengths and weaknesses, then make a very thoughtful decision based on volumes of collected information.

    To solve our educational crisis, teacher training is only a small part of the trials at hand. Considering this particular essay was published in December of 2008, one would think that Gladwell would have drawn on his experiences and knowledge from his three previous books: Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers when considering how to improve education. Perhaps there’s a way to start an epidemic of great teachers, by which inferior teachers would naturally be weeded out of the system. Perhaps we can apply the lessons learned in Outliers from his journaling of the KIPP program and how cultural legacies can affect education. Perhaps we can remove ourselves from the tests and classes and grades and mounds and volumes of prospective teachers’ presumed abilities and look at a limited sample of video clips, identifying a small number of things: how are students engaged, how is the teacher interacting with students, what form of feedback is present. Southern Teachers Agency (a company that helps private and charter schools fill teaching vacancies) highly recommends that the teachers it’s helping find jobs submit a video resume. Many student teachers asked to watch and analyze video of themselves teaching. I consider it a shame that someone who has as many fresh and cutting edge ideas as Gladwell would overlook such plainly obvious (seemingly) concepts. Especially when Gladwell responds to reports of his genius with rebuttal, commenting that he only writes about the seemingly obvious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s