Are you ready to take a deep dive into the world of educational reform? Ever wondered about the journey of Doug Lemov, the educational entrepreneur who revolutionized teaching methods? Curious about the innovative approaches of educators like Deborah Ball and Magdalene Lampert? Join us as we explore the fascinating landscape of American education, highlighting transformative teaching techniques, rigorous accountability, and the pressing need for supportive professional development.

Building a Better Teacher: How Teaching Works

Nate Gage's journey to becoming a leading figure in educational psychology was anything but ordinary. From helping the army train radar observers in World War II to developing the SAT with the College Board, Gage had already made significant contributions before landing his first academic job at the University of Illinois in 1948. 

Despite his impressive credentials, he struggled to engage students in the classroom, leading him to discover a glaring gap in educational research: there were no concrete findings on what made an effective teacher.

Gage's predecessors, like William James and Edward Thorndike, had largely avoided studying teaching, focusing instead on broader psychological principles and measurement techniques. This oversight left Gage with a monumental task—to develop a true science of teaching. He introduced the "process-product" paradigm, which compared teaching methods (process) to student learning outcomes (product). His research, though innovative, faced criticism as behaviorism fell out of favor.

Enter Lee Shulman, a cognitive psychologist who challenged Gage's behaviorist approach. Shulman argued that understanding teachers' minds, not just their actions, was crucial. His work on medical problem-solving provided insights that he applied to teaching, revealing that teachers, like doctors, navigate complex decision-making processes.

Meanwhile, economist Eric Hanushek stumbled upon James Coleman's controversial findings that school resources did not significantly impact student achievement. Hanushek's research in California revealed that individual teachers had a substantial effect on student learning, leading him to propose "Teacher Accountability" and later develop the concept of "value-added" measures of teacher effectiveness.

Both Shulman and Hanushek reshaped the landscape of educational research, albeit from different angles. Shulman delved into the intricacies of teaching, while Hanushek focused on measuring teacher impact. Their work underscored the importance of studying teaching practices and the profound influence teachers have on student outcomes, paving the way for future advancements in educational policy and research.

How Did Nate Gage, Lee Shulman, and Eric Hanushek Revolutionize Educational Psychology?

Deborah Ball arrived at Spartan Village school in East Lansing, Michigan, in 1975, a college student eager to teach. Her colleague, Mindy Emerson, quickly recognized Deborah's innate gift for teaching. Unlike most new teachers who struggled with classroom management and discipline, Deborah had a natural ability to connect with students, even those who couldn't speak English.

Deborah's enthusiasm and innovative teaching methods soon caught the attention of the strict principal, Jessie Fry, who, despite her rigorous standards, found nothing to criticize in Deborah's performance. Deborah's creativity led to the establishment of a unique first-, second-, and third-grade combination class, complete with a working refrigerator and stove for cooking lessons, which she used to teach math and raise funds for educational trips.

Despite her success, Deborah faced significant challenges, particularly with teaching math. Her students struggled with basic concepts like long division and subtraction, prompting her to seek help from other teachers and professors. She discovered a new experimental math curriculum that used scripted discussions and stories, which helped her students understand complex ideas like negative numbers.

Deborah's quest for better teaching methods led her to take university-level math courses, including a transformative class in Number Theory taught by Joseph Adney. Adney's approach, which involved students discovering mathematical concepts through discussion and proof, inspired Deborah to apply similar methods in her own classroom.

In the mid-1980s, Deborah collaborated with Magdalene Lampert, a new professor at Michigan State who also taught at Spartan Village. Together, they turned the school into a teaching laboratory, with lessons videotaped and studied by graduate students. Their work revealed the importance of "Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching" (MKT), a blend of math expertise and pedagogical skill.

Deborah's innovative teaching methods gained national attention, leading to appearances in Life magazine and inspiring a PBS children's math program, Square One TV. Her work demonstrated that effective math teaching is possible and prompted educators to re-evaluate their approaches, striving to emulate her success.

Revolutionizing Math Education: Deborah's Journey from Spartan Village to National Recognition

In the early 1980s, Judith Lanier, a Michigan native and former teacher, aimed to revolutionize teacher training at Michigan State University. Inspired by her experiences at lab schools in Paw Paw and Milwaukee, Lanier envisioned a modern-day version of these institutions to elevate the craft of teaching. Lab schools were dual-purpose institutions that trained future teachers while serving as K-12 schools where aspiring educators could observe and practice teaching.

Lanier's efforts faced resistance from the entrenched "good old boys" club at MSU, who doubted the feasibility of identifying and cultivating excellent teaching. Despite skepticism, Lanier persisted, cutting budgets and recruiting educators committed to transforming teacher training. She rallied support from influential figures, including business leaders and politicians, emphasizing the economic importance of better education.

At the heart of Lanier's reforms were professional development schools, modeled after the lab school concept. Spartan Village became a hub for these initiatives, where educators like Magdalene Lampert and Deborah Ball demonstrated innovative teaching methods. Graduate students and veteran teachers, such as Ruth Heaton and Sylvia Rundquist, learned to engage students in meaningful discussions and problem-solving, moving beyond rote memorization.

However, the ambitious plans faced logistical and cultural challenges. Teachers needed more time and space for professional development, and the traditional structures of schools and universities resisted change. Despite initial successes, the strain on resources and the clash between visionary goals and practical limitations led to friction within MSU.

Ultimately, the ambitious reforms at Spartan Village and MSU faced insurmountable obstacles. Lanier's departure marked the end of an era of bold experimentation in teacher training. While the efforts at Spartan Village showcased the potential of professional development schools, sustaining such transformative initiatives proved challenging in the face of institutional resistance and resource constraints.

Can Judith Lanier's Vision for Transformative Teacher Training Be Revived at MSU?

In 1985, Magdalene Lampert's innovative math teaching methods caught the attention of James Stigler at the University of Chicago. Stigler, who had studied Japanese education, realized that Magdalene's approach was similar to the teaching style in Japan, where students excelled in math compared to their American peers. His observations led to a deeper investigation into teaching methods across cultures.

A pivotal moment came with the TIMSS study in the 1990s, which recorded classroom teaching in the US, Japan, and Germany. The study revealed stark differences in teaching styles. American teachers followed a structured "I, We, You" approach, while Japanese teachers employed a "You, Y’all, We" method that fostered deeper understanding and student participation. Unlike the US, Japanese lessons were uninterrupted, and students were encouraged to explore solutions, leading to a higher engagement and comprehension.

The Japanese success was attributed to a practice called jugyokenkyu, or "lesson study," where teachers collaboratively refined their methods through observation and feedback. This continuous improvement culture was akin to the practices in Japanese companies inspired by W. Edwards Deming's management teachings.

Akihiko Takahashi, a Japanese teacher who studied American methods, was shocked to find US classrooms lacked this collaborative culture. His experiences highlighted the disconnect between American educational theory and practice.

Stigler and Hiebert's book, "The Teaching Gap," argued that American education reform focused too narrowly on standards without addressing the core of teaching practices. They suggested learning from Japan's collaborative approach to truly enhance teaching quality.

Deborah Ball, another American educator, discovered firsthand the rich vocabulary Japanese teachers had developed to describe their teaching practices, such as neriage and bansho. This linguistic precision facilitated clearer communication and understanding among teachers, something largely absent in American education.

The TIMSS study and subsequent findings underscored the importance of not just setting educational goals but fostering environments where teachers could collaboratively refine their craft, much like the Japanese had successfully done.

Lessons from Japan: How Magdalene Lampert and James Stigler Revolutionized Math Teaching

Doug Lemov, an educational entrepreneur, never planned on revolutionizing teaching methods. His journey began in grad school when he met Alphonso, a talented athlete at Indiana University who struggled with literacy. Doug was appalled to discover Alphonso's high school had passed him without the skills he needed for college, igniting Doug's passion to address educational inequity.

Doug, along with like-minded friends like Stacey Boyd, sought to disrupt traditional education. They embraced accountability and data-driven decision-making, founding the Academy of the Pacific Rim (APR) in Boston. Their school prioritized discipline and measurable outcomes, rejecting the progressive pedagogies that often led to chaos in underperforming schools.

APR's strict discipline, inspired by the broken-windows theory, resonated with parents seeking safe, structured environments for their children. Despite skepticism, the results were evident—APR's students excelled academically, surpassing expectations.

Doug's journey didn't stop at APR. He pursued education reform on a broader scale, focusing on accountability and data. However, he realized that high expectations alone weren't enough. Great teaching required clear, actionable strategies, like those in sports, not vague aspirations.

Doug's experiences culminated in a realization: effective teaching needed a new language, one that could articulate the techniques behind successful classrooms. Inspired by his journey and the collaborative spirit of his peers, Doug set out to define and share these insights, aiming to elevate teaching practices nationwide.

Could Doug Lemov's Data-Driven Approach Revolutionize Education?

Doug Lemov was on a mission to refine teaching methods. Driving home from Syracuse with his colleague, Karen Cichon, an idea struck him – teachers needed a common vocabulary to describe effective teaching practices. Doug recounted a visit to Roxbury Prep where a teacher moved on from redundant student questions, a practice encapsulated by the school's philosophy: “how we do it here.” Armed with this insight, Doug and Karen brainstormed terms that could help teachers improve. 

One key term, “What to Do,” addressed the importance of clear instructions over ambiguous reprimands. Instead of saying, “Daniel! I’m going to glue that pencil to your fingers!” a teacher should calmly instruct, “Daniel, put the pencil in the holder and look at me.” This specific guidance redirected behavior without highlighting missteps.

They also recognized the need for higher standards, leading to terms like “100 Percent,” ensuring full engagement, and “Right Is Right,” demanding precise answers. “Stretch It” challenged students to deepen their understanding when they got an answer right.

Doug’s project evolved into a comprehensive taxonomy of forty-nine techniques, capturing the essence of effective teaching. He traveled to schools, filming and studying top teachers. Techniques like “least invasive intervention” emerged, inspired by teachers like Colleen Driggs and Patrick Pastore who corrected behavior subtly, avoiding public confrontations.

Doug’s taxonomy wasn’t just theoretical; it was transformative. Teachers across the country adopted and refined the techniques, spreading them through video clips and workshops. Doug, once a self-identified weak teacher, found himself excelling in training others, embodying the very principles he documented.

His taxonomy became a tool for turning ordinary teachers into extraordinary educators, proving that with the right words and strategies, effective teaching could be learned and shared.

Doug Lemov's Quest: Transforming Teaching with a Common Language

Rousseau Mieze, a passionate advocate for education reform, experienced firsthand how transformative a good school can be. His parents, Haitian immigrants, worked tirelessly, leaving Rousseau's teachers to fill the gaps—teaching him to appreciate sushi, engage in deep conversations, and build confidence. Rousseau's intellect thrived at Williams College, and he wanted to extend the same opportunities to other kids.

He immersed himself in the charter school movement, inspired by educators like Patrick Pastore and Colleen Driggs. Yet, he soon faced criticism about the "no excuses" approach, which some equated with "brainwashing" due to its strict rules and chants. By his second year teaching in Harlem, Rousseau questioned what students were truly learning. The school's rigid adherence to the Lemov taxonomy seemed to stifle rather than inspire.

A chilling report from a KIPP charter school in Fresno highlighted extreme disciplinary measures, prompting educators to reflect on what good discipline actually looks like. Rousseau recalled his own tough experiences at the Academy of the Pacific Rim (APR) charter school. Though filled with strict rules, APR also fostered moments of reflection and growth, with teachers deeply committed to student success.

At Rise Academy, educators encountered similar challenges with discipline, leading them to develop new strategies like Choices, which replaced immediate social isolation with detention and required public apologies. This approach aimed to teach students to reflect on their behavior and make better choices. Culture conversations further facilitated these reflections, integrating disciplinary lessons with social and emotional growth.

Rousseau's journey as a teacher was marked by efforts to balance discipline with empathy. He drew on his own experiences and struggles, striving to push students without crushing them. This approach required skill—what Doug Lemov called "unstructured structure"—and a deep understanding of students' developmental needs.

Carol Lee's work exemplified this blend of academic and ethical teaching. In her English class, she addressed students' resistance by engaging them in thoughtful discussions, seamlessly integrating discipline with learning. Similarly, Magdalene Lampert taught values alongside math, showing that behavior and learning are intertwined.

Rousseau and other educators realized that effective discipline isn't just about compliance but about fostering engagement and curiosity. They sought to teach students not just to obey but to invest in their learning and growth. This holistic approach, combining rigorous academics with thoughtful discipline, aimed to create a supportive and inspiring educational environment.

Can Rousseau Mieze's Holistic Approach Transform Charter School Discipline?

Seneca Rosenberg joined Teach For America (TFA) in 2001, and her journey was marked by chaos and randomness. Assigned a new class of fourth-graders repeatedly, she noticed that despite similar training and conditions, her fellow TFA members taught in wildly different ways. Seneca realized that luck played a significant role in shaping teachers' experiences, and this led her to explore deeper issues in education.

Seneca discovered that the inconsistency in instructional guidance was a widespread problem. This randomness stemmed from a lack of coherent infrastructure in American education, a concept researched by David Cohen, who traced the issue back to the founding fathers' debate over centralized power. Essentially, the incoherence in American schools sabotaged quality teaching, leaving teachers to fend for themselves amidst conflicting directives.

Inspired by Cohen, Seneca pursued graduate studies and discovered that Teach For America and charter networks like Achievement First were building a new educational infrastructure. Achievement First, for instance, provided teachers with a structured framework, regular assessments, and professional development, creating a supportive environment that was starkly different from traditional schools.

Seneca's research highlighted the potential of charter networks to offer coherent support to teachers, fostering a new system that could improve teaching at scale. However, challenges remained, such as replicating the model and ensuring rigor in student learning.

Magdalene Lampert, another key figure in the story, faced similar challenges in her work. After a sabbatical in Italy, where she observed high-level teaching at a language school, she realized that creating a detailed set of resources and a structured teacher education program could enable high-quality teaching in American schools.

Lampert's insights resonated with Jesse Solomon, who ran the Boston Teacher Residency (BTR). Despite BTR's efforts, graduates were struggling to improve student test scores. Inspired by Lampert's work, Solomon recognized the need to incorporate her ideas to enhance BTR's teacher training program.

Seneca's and Lampert's journeys underscore the importance of building coherent infrastructure in education, providing teachers with the support and resources they need to succeed, and ultimately improving the quality of education for students.

Revolutionizing Education: Rosenberg and Lampert's Quest for Coherent Teaching Infrastructure

Jesse Solomon was captivated by Magdalene Lampert’s findings on instructional activities (IAs) at Italiaidea’s training school, Dilit. The challenge was to teach rigorously without sacrificing complexity for accessibility. Dilit divided Italian teaching into fourteen core IAs, including “Conversation Rebuilding,” where teachers pantomime conversations and students hypothesize the spoken words. This method not only taught vocabulary and grammar but the art of communication.

Magdalene had been applying similar principles at Ann Arbor’s Summer Learning Institute, focusing on practices and core math knowledge for teaching. The Boston Teacher Residency (BTR) aimed to incorporate these IAs, facing unique challenges in some of the city's most difficult schools. Despite these obstacles, Magdalene believed the problems were solvable and agreed to redesign the BTR program.

In a first-grade classroom, BTR resident Sabine Ferdinand led an IA called “Quick Images,” helping students describe shapes and understand fundamental geometric concepts. This approach pushed students to grapple with significant mathematical ideas, moving beyond simple memorization to deeper understanding. Even when students struggled, Sabine guided them patiently, fostering their intellectual growth.

Heather Kirkpatrick at Aspire charter network sought to cultivate “academic discourse” across subjects, emphasizing student engagement, academic vocabulary, and evidence-based reasoning. Pam Grossman’s work on English teaching broke down practices into teachable parts, showing that great discussions required deliberate preparation and modeling.

The connection between teaching and learning, long studied by academics like Lee Shulman, revealed that teaching was not merely natural work but a skill that could be cultivated. Research showed that concepts and facts were enmeshed, and effective teaching required understanding this relationship. Instructional activities like “Choral Counting” and methods of encouraging classroom discourse demonstrated how teachers could help students build deeper connections with the material.

Doug Lemov’s taxonomy initially emphasized correcting mistakes but evolved to use errors as learning opportunities. This shift mirrored the practice-based approach to teacher education advocated by Deborah Ball, who aimed to transform teacher training with high-leverage practices and a coherent infrastructure.

Deborah’s Teacher Education Initiative at Michigan faced the challenge of scaling without sacrificing quality. The rise of teacher evaluations, spurred by value-added measures, brought attention to teacher effectiveness but also highlighted the need for supportive professional development. Pam Grossman’s PLATO project showed that targeted feedback and practice could significantly improve teaching quality.

Despite the momentum for evaluations, Deborah argued that teaching required rigorous preparation, likening it to training pilots or surgeons. TeachingWorks aimed to build a national teacher education curriculum, emphasizing practice-based learning and high-leverage practices.

Deborah’s optimism, rooted in hope and the belief that teaching could be taught, underscored the need for patience and sustained effort. Her vision of transforming teacher education offered a path toward coherent and effective teaching practices, ensuring that every teacher could help students learn at high levels.

Can Deborah Ball's Vision Transform Teacher Education Like Training Pilots and Surgeons?

Nate Gage's journey in educational psychology led him to identify a gap in understanding what made an effective teacher. His process-product paradigm laid the groundwork for future research, but it faced criticism. 

Lee Shulman shifted focus to understanding teachers' cognitive processes, revealing the complexity of decision-making in teaching. Eric Hanushek's work highlighted the significant impact individual teachers have on student achievement, emphasizing accountability and value-added measures.

Deborah Loewenberg Ball's innovative methods demonstrated the importance of blending math expertise with pedagogical skill, gaining national recognition and influencing teaching practices. Judith Lanier's reforms at Michigan State University aimed to revive lab schools for practical teacher training, though faced institutional resistance. The TIMSS study by James Stigler compared teaching methods internationally, advocating collaborative approaches seen in Japan to improve teaching quality.

Doug Lemov developed a taxonomy of teaching techniques, providing actionable strategies for teachers to enhance their effectiveness. Rousseau Mieze balanced discipline with empathy, fostering engagement and curiosity. Seneca Rosenberg and Magdalene Lampert highlighted the need for coherent infrastructure in education to support teachers and improve student outcomes.

Jesse Solomon incorporated Lampert’s instructional activities into the Boston Teacher Residency program, emphasizing rigorous yet accessible teaching methods. Heather Kirkpatrick and Pam Grossman focused on academic discourse and breaking down teaching practices into teachable parts. Deborah Ball's Teacher Education Initiative aimed to transform teacher training with practice-based learning and high-leverage practices, advocating rigorous preparation akin to training pilots or surgeons.

The insights from these educators underscore the importance of coherent support systems, innovative teaching methods, and collaborative approaches to enhance teaching quality and ultimately improve student learning.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

Key Ideas

#1