My brother is Vice Provost of the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning for a major university. He thinks you are funny.
Good for your brother. What a shame he's not actually here. I might think he is funny, as well, or I might be able to have a decent conversation with him. Perhaps even both. have him get an ID and join the conversation. In particular, have him explain to me how there is a single education institution. Have him tell me who really imposes the restraints on the classroom. Best of all, have him tell me whether teachers are dogmatic and indoctrinated, or whether they are flexible, interested in doing things better, and innovative. Tell him he's welcome to laugh at me while telling me all this.
But go ahead with the ad hominem attacks, it is a clear signal that you have lost the argument.
In addition to everything else you do badly, we can add identifying logical fallacies.
Wait, how about we consult your sister, who is a fully tenured professor of philosophy, specializing in logic, in on this discussion to decide whether I used an
ad hominem?
You don't honestly believe that all of this innovation has made a dent, do you? My kids are in a highly rated high school and the pedagogy that I see is pretty much the same as when I was in school a billion years ago.
I can't speak for your high school, but if the students are considered of high quality, getting good test scores, and going on to prestigious schools, why would you try to improve their process? If the process is the same at wealthy and poor schools, and works in the wealthy schools, why do you think process improvement is the key to helping poor schools?
Never stated nor implied.
Apparently we can also add reading and writing skills to the area in which you need improvement.
I know, let's consult your mother, who has been teaching reading and writing at the university level for 30+ years, to tell me you didn't make that equivalence.
Still, until your mother comes in, here's a brief lesson in English. I said, "1) ... Teachers that find new ways to approach material (as long as it seems effective) get encouragement as often as correction(I do things in my math classes that no one else does). 2) There is no product to displace nor market to revolutionize. It's the wrong paradigm.", to which item you replied "You assume that innovation is only for products and not services? Why? Mistake #2.".
Since the sentence in #1 indicates to anyone with basic reading skills that I not only recognize that teachers innovate, but that I do so myself, the only sensible way to interpret #2 is as discussing the particular paradigm of innovation we have been considering, which is disruptive innovation. You then equated that to all innovation in your response.
You can keep on believing that only education institutional insiders can address these problems, we just disagree.
You mean, educational institution insiders like your brother, whose word you trust so well? I will say that the problem is unlikely to be solved by people who have never spent a year teaching in classroom at the elementary level.
And the type of victim mentality is regrettable, i.e., everything educators do is not broken, everything else is broken. I'm hugely PRO-EDUCATOR! I love teachers. My family is loaded with teachers. And every educator I know, including my Dad, Sister, Brother, and Brother-in-law, would NEVER say that "what educators do is not broken" Frankly that statement exudes a type of arrogance that I do not see from many teachers.
Ask you Dad, Sister, Brother, and Brother-in-law what they think typically of the ideas put forward by people who have never spent a year teaching a class.
Yeah, you are far too clever and I'm pretty dense in that way.
I'm not especially clever, but I do know not every problem is a nail.
Haha. Yeah, I've make a lot of people a lot of money and they reward me very nicely for it. Sorry you've had to work with losers.
I'm sure you've got a lot of statistics to back that up, like any good workplace revolutionary, including all the "losers" I've worked with before.
