The MLE strategy was about more than new classrooms though. MLEs come with a whole new approach to education called ‘self-directed learning’. Instead of teachers imparting knowledge to children, it is expected that children will discover it for themselves.
This week, the New Zealand Initiative has released a report on the MLE strategy. Among other things, the report examines the assumption that self-directed learning is effective. (Spoiler: It isn’t.)
Obtaining accurate information about MLEs for the report was challenging. I asked the Ministry of Education how many schools have MLEs, how much it cost to build them and whether the Ministry has conducted any evaluation of how well children learn in them.
The Ministry responded that it does not hold information on how many MLEs there are or how much they cost to establish. Neither has there been any systematic evaluation of their effects on students’ learning.
I also asked the Ministry what research informed the MLE strategy. They provided two web links. One was to an infographic by Australian architect Kenn Fisher. The other was to a TEDx talk by American architect Prakash Nair.
So, the decision to establish MLEs appears to have been taken on the advice of architects. Coincidentally, architects have done very well out of the project.
Poor evidence bases for major educational initiatives is, regrettably, nothing new. In fact, our education agencies have a history of flying in the face of evidence.
NCEA was introduced in 2002 against the advice of prominent professors of education. They warned that the standards-based assessment system would result in egregious variability in assessment results. In 2005, the Board Chair and Chief Executive of NZQA both resigned amidst a political storm caused by … egregious variability in assessment results.
I could go on: The literacy teaching methods promoted by the Ministry, their failed ‘numeracy project’ and the knowledge-poor New Zealand Curriculum are all examples of educational initiatives implemented against a preponderance of evidence. All have had disastrous results.
Perhaps the true inspiration for MLEs was the open plan offices in which public servants work. If so, the Ministry’s record of failure might be all the evidence we need that MLEs were a bad idea.
The Ministry responded that it does not hold information on how many MLEs there are or how much they cost to establish. Neither has there been any systematic evaluation of their effects on students’ learning.
I also asked the Ministry what research informed the MLE strategy. They provided two web links. One was to an infographic by Australian architect Kenn Fisher. The other was to a TEDx talk by American architect Prakash Nair.
So, the decision to establish MLEs appears to have been taken on the advice of architects. Coincidentally, architects have done very well out of the project.
Poor evidence bases for major educational initiatives is, regrettably, nothing new. In fact, our education agencies have a history of flying in the face of evidence.
NCEA was introduced in 2002 against the advice of prominent professors of education. They warned that the standards-based assessment system would result in egregious variability in assessment results. In 2005, the Board Chair and Chief Executive of NZQA both resigned amidst a political storm caused by … egregious variability in assessment results.
I could go on: The literacy teaching methods promoted by the Ministry, their failed ‘numeracy project’ and the knowledge-poor New Zealand Curriculum are all examples of educational initiatives implemented against a preponderance of evidence. All have had disastrous results.
Perhaps the true inspiration for MLEs was the open plan offices in which public servants work. If so, the Ministry’s record of failure might be all the evidence we need that MLEs were a bad idea.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was originally published HERE
2 comments:
Seems simple enough.
Do your research. Look at all the academic studies and any actual similar learning techniques being used in practice.
Evaluate actual outcomes and then decide primarily whether this is better or worse than your existing system as far as educational standards and achievement are concerned, and secondly how it rates to other new potential systems you are looking at.
But time and again, our public servants and government ministers seem hopelessly inept when asked to perform simple analytical tasks.
If government departments were private companies they'd go bust and most of the staff would be fired. And yet we persist trying to run a country with them!
Well you can't have a well educated population with people taught to think for themselves, as they will not put up with authoritarian regimes.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.