INTASC

January, 2005

It's bad enough that think tanks, university colleagues, researchers, federal and state agencies, foundations, and large consumer groups think schools of education are sinecures for nitwits who could easily be replaced by a solid degree in liberal arts, a few CDs on logic, summer courses on classroom management and instructional design, and on-the-job (in-school) training. Apparently, ed schools think it's a good idea to make it perfectly clear that this is so. Consider the following...

Professor Plum recently ran into a document entitled, "INTASC Standards."

Professor Plum is pretty sure that this document is a joke--a weak and altogether squalid joke, to be sure, but nonetheless a joke.

We are NOT supposed to take it seriously as representing the knowledge base of education.

We are NOT to USE this odious document to create and assess education school curricula and to guide and evaluate education students.

No.  It must be that the INTASC document is a quick intelligence test! Any sentient person is supposed to laugh and immediately throw it at someone who is really stupid--someone who might appreciate it.

"What," the Curious and Impatient Reader inquires, "IS INTASC?"

INTASC (Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium) is one of the MANY saprophytic organizations that provide legitimacy to ed schools--because few ed schools have credible data showing that their graduates know how to teach anything. Others include National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE), National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), and Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). Each of these organizations has a set of "standards."

Ed schools are supposed to "align" their curricula (syllabi, field experiences, class papers, student evaluations) with these standards and to display this alignment in the form of huge documents and matrices--each cell of which is filled with "evidences" of how the school meets the standard.

The ed school's documents and hard "products" are then reviewed by the certifying organization—members of which may make site visits. If the organization likes what it sees, all the faculty members then line up and a special representative—entitled High Polyp—strikes each faculty member on the head with a balloon attached to a stick.   

Following are INTASC "standards" along with Professor Plum's reasoned responses. Feel free to join me as we try to figure out what in the name of Reason each "principle" could possibly mean, and why we--who have spent most of our lives trying to be somewhat less dumb than a boot--allow ourselves--sheep-like--to be DEFINED by this assemblage of mind-numbing blather.

INTASC Standards

 

[What exactly is a standard? Why is "standard" changed to "principle"? Are they the same? If so, why use two words?  If not, why switch? Poor writing or merely sloppy thinking? Maybe both!]

 

Principle 1: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning  experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

[What would a "structure" of a discipline" be? Who on earth could follow this principle or be evaluated by it if no one has any idea what INTASC is taking about--assuming INTASC is talking about anything? What does it mean to "make these aspects of subject matter meaningful"? How do you make a "structure" of a discipline meaningful? Can a "concept" or "tool of inquiry" be learned at all if it is NOT meaningful? Isn't that what learning in fact means? And why is there no mention of students actually learning anything? Yep, that's the job of teachers! Don't teach ANYTHING; just make things MEANINGFUL. I'm sure that principle will be REAL useful to poor (Oooop, I mean "disadvantaged") kids. To begin this document with the word "meaningful" suggests strongly that how students FEEL about instruction is more important than what they learn from it--if anything.]

 

Principle 2: The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social, and personal development.

[Note that this principle is almost exactly the same as principle 1. It must be a two-for-one special.  I suspect the INTASC writers ran out of gas already. Note, also, that the statement places intellectual, social, and personal in a series. Is this meant to imply that intellectual and social are NOT personal? Poor writing at best.]

 

Principle 3: The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

[What is an "approach to learning"? Another loose and generally meaningless phrase. Is a "diverse learner" supposed to be the same as a learner who differs in his or her "approach"?  Usually the word "diverse" is used to connote cultural and socioeconomic differences. But this "principle" conflates the two. Is this merely sloppy writing or is it sloppy thinking? Or is it perhaps another two-for-one deal? The phrase "understands how students differ in their "approaches to learning," gives the appearance that this field--education--really knows what these alleged differences in "approaches to learning" might be, how accurately to measure them, what differences if any these differences make in how students learn, and how teachers ought to teach.  In fact, there is NO preponderance of evidence to support any of these claims.  So, the question is whether the INTASC writers believe there IS anything to the phrase "approach to learning" or whether they merely use this phrase because it gives the appearance of openness to and celebration of diversity--i.e., the phrase is to be understood ideologically, as a form of persuasion that users of INTASC "standards" are "good" people doing "good" things.]

 

Principle 4: The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

[What on earth is a "performance skill"? Is there somehow a difference between being skilled at math and being skilled at performing math skills? How, for example, do you yodel math?  Can you use sock puppets to demonstrate how to find the first derivative? The statement is grammatically sensible, but metaphysically nonsense. Do we expect ourselves and our students to be guided by this sort of gibberish?]

 

Principle 5: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages  positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

[Oooookaaayyy. The teacher should know how to get students interested. This actually has to be written?! This is a "principle" of in education?!]

 

Principle 6: The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.

[This merely repeats ALL of the above principles. All it means is, The teacher teaches. Note the phrase "active inquiry."  What might "INactive inquiry" be? What is a "nonverbal" "communication technique"? The teacher points to something? Makes faces? Does a mime routine? Note also that the teacher is supposed to use "effective techniques." This is important. We don't want teachers thinking it's fine to use INeffective techniques.]

 

Principle 7: The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

[It's hard to imagine yet another repetition of the same "principles," but there it is. In other words, the teacher teaches. Note the mind-expanding assertion that the teacher should base instruction on knowledge of subject matter and students!! And all this time teachers have been thinking they should base instruction on knowledge of crop circles and marinara sauce. ]

 

Principle 8: The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner.

[I'd call this a bit broad. It doesn't limit "development" to academic subjects.  Oh, no. The teacher is supposed to "ensure" "continuous" (every single second!) development of something as large as intellectual, social, and physical development. I guess I was laboring under the delusion that only the Deity is that powerful. But when you are in a field that cannot even promise that it graduates new teachers who know how to teach anything, you can claim they perform miracles. I mean, who would know they can't?]

 

Principle 9: The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professional in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.

["...actively seeks out opportunities..." Is there any way PASSIVELY to "seek out opportunities"?  Gee, I wish I knew how? And is there such a thing as an "UNreflective practitioner"? Doesn't "practitioner" imply reflective? What does it even mean? A person thinks about what she does? Wow! No kidding? But, then, what else would you want someone to think about? What they DON'T do? Why not just wear signs that say, "We are SOOO stupid"?]

 

Principle 10: The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students' learning and well-being.

[I love the word "fosters."  In fact, NOTHING is actually accomplished, but things are being fostered like nobody's business.  And let's make it so broad that we have no idea what we're supposed to do--or so that we can do anything and it will satisfy this puffy "principle."]

 

There is not a single word in the INTASC draft standards

**about teachers knowing how to evaluate the logical adequacy of curricula;

 

**about skill at designing logically clear instruction;

 

**about precise formats for teaching verbal associations, concepts, rule relationships, and cognitive strategies;

 

**about knowing the latest research in the field;

 

**about correcting errors and remedying chronic knowledge gaps;

 

**about helping students systematically to strategically integrate elemental knowledge into complex wholes;

 

**about increasing accuracy, fluency, generalization, retention, and independence…

 

Nothing at all in other words about what teachers ought to know how to do to achieve the worthy goal of "ensuring" student "development." 

 

We leave the INTASC document wondering how any group that is guided by it calls itself a profession without using the word in an ironic sense.