Educating Special Education, Part One

A BrianClardy.Com continuing series discussing the education of special needs children.  In today’s political climate, it is unfortunate but true that special needs children are used as political pawns on both the right and the left to accomplish whatever budgetary needs they may have.  What is necessary, but infrequently occurs, is common sense applied to this particular dilemma even while frequent studies are performed and innumerable millions of dollars wasted in pointless research that accomplishes little except to confirm the common sense methodology which should be used to confront and deal with these problems.

At the very beginning, Jensen asks his reader to question the validity of what they know, noting that people “who explore the link between brain science and teaching and learning must be cautious and prudent in how they interpret, and ultimately use, research.”  It is a common trait that is found in education: a new way of teaching is uncovered, a few scientific papers questionably support the new methodology, and it spreads like wildfire through the educational community.  Jensen questions this approach, especially when it comes to brain-based learning.

Certainly, he doesn’t discount this learning strategy outright, noting that there are many valid arguments to be made about its success, but he points out several flaws in the acceptance of brain-based learning.  Among them, that “some people often misrepresent the findings…, there is nothing new in this approach…, brain research changes too rapidly to be of value…, consultants are trying to capitalize on the brain-based learning movement…, [and] brain-based learning is confusing: one person says one thing, and another says the opposite.”  All of these points are valid, and Jensen supports them with a lot of data mixed with circumstantial evidence.

This article makes the excellent and important point that I think too many new educators overlook: that just because it is taught in the teaching schools and treated as “the” teaching method, it does not necessarily mean that it is the best.  As Jensen wisely points out, for decades the educational community believed that “good teaching was defined by all-lecture, content-laden classes and quiet students sitting still at their desks.”  There may be something to this time-honored strategy.  Thirty-five years ago, when this methodology was commonly accepted as the only true way to teach and learn, the United States was coming into some of the best years of its young life – people were prosperous, people were educated, and people were trying to openly make a difference in the world.  The same cannot be said as openly today, where we are trying to educate kids in methods that no longer have the same impact.  Given the excessive freedoms that their parents did not have, kids today lack the respect and the self-discipline.

One point that Jensen makes is particularly critical in today’s world, and that is the simple fact that the research changes so rapidly.  One would think that this would make educators take pause and consider the ramifications of whatever new ideology they intend to follow through on, but it does not seem to be that way.  I remember in college, during the educational courses I took, that there was always some brand new teaching strategy that we had to use, yet there were no books with copyright dates before 1999 on any of the methods.  With this sort of minimal research, how can we expect there to be any change in the quality of the education?  The Food and Drug Administration requires years of testing, research, and long-term studies before they give any green light to any sort of medication for public consumption, yet the educational community does not seem to have this same high standard, instead proffering any new strategy as effective years before its long term efficacy has been proven or unproven.  This creates a terrible burden on the students who are required to learn and the teachers who are required to teach by a new method every other year.

There has been an observable drop in the overall testing scores of America’s children, and one must wonder whether or not the “new and improved” learning strategies that are constantly offered are part of the solution or part of the problem.

For his part, Jensen makes the effort to provide a common sense approach to the question, allowing the reader to come to whatever conclusion they believe the facts lead them to.

This commentary discusses the article “Brain-Based Learning: A Reality Check” by Eric Jensen, originally published in Educational Leadership, April 2000; pages 76 to 80.

---

| Main Page | Column Archive | Who Is Brian Clardy? | Files and Links | Feedback |

All written material on this website not attributed to another author is © 2001-2004 by Brian Clardy.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any way without the explicit consent of Brian Clardy.
All rights reserved.