Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 16:56:34 -0400 To: stevengarlock@cs.com From: Martin Kozloff (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Precision teaching All, I received the following from Prof. Kozloff yesterday. I'm not sure what prompted the message as the only reference I can find recently to his web site is in a message from Terry Olive and she only referenced his web site. In any case I am sending it on in case some of you who are more qualified than I would like to take him up on his offer to discuss the issues he presents. I would also suggest you visit his web site which is referenced at the end below his signature. Separately I am also forwarding a lengthy paper on Direct Instruction from his site. Fred ______________________ Dear Fred, Well, I hope your name is Fred. Sorry if I guessed wrongly. I'm writing to you because you mentioned my website in an email to someone else. I hope that I can suggest to you that you may have a somewhat erroneous take on Precision Teaching (and even applied behavioral analysis). First off, if you knew my politics--which I don't wish to publish at this time--you would know that it's hard to find anyone more opposed to, and who fights harder against, efforts by governmental, professional, or any other groups to brainwash, indoctrinate, socialize, or modify our children, our social institutions, and our cultural heritage without permission you might say. This is clear from the things I've written (at no small risk to my reputation and position at a university) against the controllers (of all sorts) and posted on my website. [See, for example, my piece on constructivism and my rebuttals and rants. http://www.uncwil.edu/people/kozloffm/Commit.html] But I swear I cannot understand the views of folks who see behavior analysis, precision teaching, and maybe even direct instruction, as being even remotely connected to the control apparatus. B.F. Skinner wrote a lot of stuff. When he wrote about societal matters, he was dead wrong and should have just shut up. All we, in precision teaching and applied behavior analysis use of his is the simple idea that behavior is affected by its consequences. So, if you want to make kids mad, hit them. If you want kids to study hard, praise them. Big deal. Of course, the controllers use rewards and punishments in Stalin-like fashion, to control individuals, groups, and nations. But just because a behavior analyst suggests that teachers be sure to praise certain behavors of kids, does not mean they are being Stalinist. What sane parents DON'T praise behavior they want to see more often? The whole bit about rewards (which, as I just said, is simply common sense) is used in behavior analysis and in precision teaching as a sort of REMINDER--not as a blue print for control. For example, if a behavior analyst were in a school and a teacher has a kid who's disrupting the class all the time, the behavior analyst would ask, "I wonder if that kid has learned that he can get out of hard taks by throwing a tantrum (called negative reinforcement), or if he gets attention for acting up (positive reinforcement)." Well if observation shows that that is exactly what is happening, the recommendation is obvious--make tasks simple enough at first that he succeeds, praise him for trying hard, and pay attention to another kid when he acts up. Again, it's almost common sense. Skinner merely formalized what everyone knows. But as to any political agenda of the folks you are writing about, all I can say is, look at their actual materials. All you'll find is stuff generally to help kids having trouble learning. For example, the largest set of precision teaching materials is published by Sopris West (www.sopriswest.com). The materials are called "Basic Skill Builders." Here's what it is--and all it is. [I'm looking at the stuff right now.] A workbook telling teachers how to use the rest of the materials; 1500 worksheets with problems in spelling, math, reading, and science; and some graph paper that kids can use to chart how many problems they solve per minute (pretty much--no exactly as--a runner charts how fast he runs each lap). If you already distrust me, or what I'm saying, then you will no doubt think I'm trying to fool you now. Well, just get the materials. You'll see. In fact, I'll send you some of the stuff. I'll even xerox articles on precision teaching. It's nothing but a sort of fancy way by which you can figure out where a person's skills (say in reading) are weak (for example, a person has trouble going from seeing a word to writing it), and then you come up with a set of practice problems that strengthen the skill. And the person sets a goal for accuracy and rate (say, 30 problems solved per minute), and charts his progress. That's no more Stalinist than charting your weight when you're on a diet. In fact, when people chart their own behavior, seeing improvement is the only "reward" they need. Instead of trying to SHAPE kids' attitudes, or values, or morals, precision teaching is doing nothing more than trying to give kids with learning difficulties really precise instruction on the weak spots in the skills, and the charting is just a kind of feedback. It's exactly the opposite of trying to control kids. It's teaching them to control themselves. Here's something you won't believe. Most folks in precision teaching, applied behavior analysis, and direct instruction (which have in common teaching kids well) are conservatives. [Hard to believe?] Absolute fact. Our common enemy are the liberals (in schools of education, in certifying agencies such as The National Association for Teachers of Mathematics), and in governments, who--under the banner of "self-esteem," "celebrate diversity," "postmodernism," and "drill and kill"--have turned our schools into a gigantic form of group therapy; who teach children that truth is relative (and therefore our way of life and our political documents, such as the Constitution) carry no more weight than the opinions of a moron; who have tried to marginalize the role of families in schooling; and who have so watered down teaching that children end up culturally illiterate, bereft of serious job skills, and therefore, as adults, are easy to manipulate. If anything, the objective of folks in applied behavioral analysis, precision teaching, and direct instruction is twofold: (1) to wake our fellow Americans up to the fact that the educrats are transforming us into a nation of sheep without the wit to see it (and therefore, as Jefferson pointed out, unfit to govern themselves); and (2) to restore serious instruction to our schools. If you are on the precision teaching and direct instruction listservs then you know that at least half of the discussions have to do with what I just said, above. That would be pretty clear evidence of our values and politics. One final bit of info. I receive requests all the time from conservative foundations and think tanks to help them write position papers criticizing the culture-subverting activities of the educrats and supporting direct instruction as a way to rapidly return our schools to a condition where education means teach, not indoctrinate. At first, folks in these organizations thought that B.F. Skinner was the basis of what we do. In fact, LOGIC is the basis of what we do. I look forward to discussing these issues if you wish. With best regards, Martin Kozloff Martin A. Kozloff Watson School of Education University of North Carolina at Wilmington 601 South College Road Wilmington, NC 28403 910-962-7286 http://www.uncwil.edu/people/kozloffm .