« Keeping Company With Kids, Not Lecturing at Them | Main | Schools Are a Place to Learn to Reason »

Descending Into the Pits of Rote Learning

| 22 Comments

Dear Deborah,

You and I have advocated for different approaches over the years, though they are not contradictory. I have stressed the importance of content in the curriculum (history, literature, the arts, science, foreign languages, etc.), and you have stressed the importance of “habits of mind” (“How do we know what we know? What causes what? How might things have been different? Who cares?”). A dynamite school would do both, I expect. Why would anyone teach history or literature or science without asking the questions you raise? Yet the puzzle that neither of us has figured out is why most schools do neither.

As we descend ever deeper into the pits of the lowest-level rote learning, a condition affecting many, many schools, it has become apparent that a high-quality curriculum and critical perspectives are luxuries that few schools can afford. In the age of NCLB, it seems that the only goal worth pursuing is higher test scores, no matter how they are obtained.

I recently received the following email from one of our regular readers. This person teaches in an urban public elementary school and must remain anonymous for obvious reasons. I have the teacher's permission to quote the email. The author refers to an “obsession with data” in the school system where he/she works. Then follows this description of a professional development session at a local university:

"It was actually a sales pitch for a program called ‘Achieve 3000,’ which many schools are currently using. It is a proprietary, secure, Internet-based program designed to move students from one Lexile reading level to the next. They take articles from AP [the Associated Press] and rewrite them for each reading level from grades 2-12. Students receive articles in their inboxes each day and complete a series of tasks, including multiple-choice questions and a writing exercise. Teachers receive lesson plans and preparation tips.

It is vile. The watered-down articles have nothing interesting or memorable in the language. Children are supposed to read about 40 articles at one level before they progress to the next (their progression is determined by tests and by teachers' decisions). The lesson plans focus on strategies. A teacher is supposed to give a short lesson on a strategy and then put the students to work on the computer. It is basically more standardized testing in the classroom—all "scientific," all "measurable." It reminds me of Bobbitt and Charters and their emphasis on utility and measurability.

Once a school subscribes to Achieve 3000 ($15,000 for 100 students, or $20,500 for 250 students), it must make it a substantial part of the curriculum. If the school's usage falls below a certain level, the company takes "action steps." Each "activity" (article plus tasks) takes about [40 minutes].

Schools buy this stuff because it provides such easy access to 'data.' They don't step back to think about what they are giving up in the process. I don't think my school will buy this program; it already has a computer-based reading program called Read 180. And even there, the school had the sense to buy only a limited version of the program, as Read 180 is weak on content.

Is this where we are headed? To computer-based instructional programs that generate all our data for us? It seems that way, and a lot of people seem to think this is great. (I wonder, though, how much of that is just appearance.)”

I was glad to see that the author’s school did not buy this program. It is entirely skill-based with no content and no critical perspectives. Yet I sense that such programs are becoming ubiquitous as schools become beholden to the demand for “data-driven instruction” and “data-based decision-making.” After all, they enable schools to nail down their scores and their gains. And I am reminded once again that the ideas for which we have contended over our professional lives are becoming increasingly irrelevant to what happens in today’s classrooms. Sad, isn’t it?

Diane

22 Comments

Diane, and Reader, thank you for this concrete example. For far, far, too long, discussion in the eduforums has been so generic, so anti-reform, that one cannot make sense.

This, however, is a fine portrayal of business-as-usual schooling disguised as reform, just because a computer and data are involved.

Rote learning has its place; we shouldn't underestimate that. This type of educratically-induced pablum doesn't.

Diana:

I dont' know anything about the quality of Achieve 3000, or Read 180--or even the old SRA Reading Laboratory, which was the cats pajamas when I was a student, and I suspect was a levelled reading program with a focus on strategies, and simplified record keeping.

But the discussion of data reminded me of a tour of the Cuban health care system a couple of decades ago (prior to the collapse of the Russian federation--so I anticipate many things are very different now). There were many obvious learnings from this trip. One was that Cuba was very intent on being comparable to the rest of the world (benchmarking the US, frequently) and was using data as a part of their quest. We visited primary care/family physicians in cities, rural areas, workplaces, etc. As Americans we asked about what problems they saw. Their answers were striking to me because they always answered in medical terms--the diseases with highest incidence in their area and progress that they were making. If you ask that question to American health care providers, some will answer in societal terms (poverty, addictions and the like), or in terms of access, or in terms of the difficulties of wrangling with insurance--and some may answer in health care terms regarding incidence of diseases or morbidity and mortality. What was unique in the Cuban system (among many things) was that each physician (actually they were always a doctor/nurse team) was required to maintain certain key data points. In rural offices we could see the month's data on a black board--recording incidence of the top five diagnoses.

The point I am making here is that compiling and using data doesn't have to be a miracle of technological wizardly--although I can certainly be seduced by the multiplicity of data available from some systems, and I love sorting through it looking for meaning. And the need for/ability to collect and use data ought not to drive what is taught or how.

I believe that one of the feature's of New Zealand's early reading intervention is that students use levelled reading books and teachers make monthly assessments of each student--which determine a student's need for particular kinds of intervention. This is very low tech, but also very effective.

The fact that programs such as Achieve 3000 and Read 180 (and old SRA) exist and are sold, is less indicative to me of the need for data than they are of the reality that under capitalism someone is likely to come up with a product designed to meet (or convince the prospective customer than it can meet) almost any need under the sun. Take a gander at late night paid programming for further examples.

My guess is that these particular programs do some things that administrators find difficult in their job--such as requiring all teachers to use a consistent set of data points and evaluate on the same schedule, and coordinate their teaching. Of course the tough question is always whether they empirically, in fact, have any impact on not only student reading ability, but on student test scores. These are tough questions--and seldom get the best answers--check out some of the results on What Works. Many commercial programs can point to a multiplicity of studies, but these get weaned down to only a couple that have reliable designs, and generally they are very small.

Again and again I see, not that accountability forces poor teaching, or drill and kill, but that we fall so easily into these kinds of defaults. We talk about some vague other things that "the tests cannot measure," but I hear very little suggestion (let alone consensus on) what these other things are (or why they cannot be measured). And we leap so blindly to the conclusion that good test scores are not the result of sound teaching methodology, but rather of some mind numbing exercise in sameness. I think it is no coincidence that in my state the short answer and essay-type questions are among the least answered on the tests. The reality is that amongst a widely distributed coterie of good teachers capable of good teaching with measureable impact, we have a field increasingly filled with mediocrity: read the chapter, answer the questions, quiz on Thursday and movie on Friday. Rarely are schools organized around scholarly teachers teasing out questions and collaboratively arriving at projects/problems or activities that have been developed and proven over time to teach.

As various state level programs seek out and recognize schools that are succeeding "against the odds" with low-income minority populations, these are the things that tend to be present--not just the data, but the collaborative meetings to examine the data and formulate solutions. My suggestion would be not to move to some slick commercial program to integrate data collection into teaching until you have already moved pretty significantly in that direction using the Cuban chalkboard, or exhausted the possibilities of spreadsheets and off the shelf products. If you are not already half-way there, and eager for more, I suggest that the software will be a waste of money. If all the teachers in a school have already been working with levelled reading and find that news articles are really good vehicle for them--then maybe this program will simplify their lives. But if half the school has bought into the last low-tech solution and the rest of the teachers are closing the door to bring out whatever materials they are most comfortable with, and the data from the state and district testing programs is disseminated to glazed eyes, then it doesn't really matter what you buy and how much you spend--you are not ready--for technology, for a different reading program, or for analyzing data to improve practice.

Ed Jones,

Glad to see that you did not follow through on your threat to abandon reading us! Fortunately, reading our blog is voluntary, not compulsory!

Diane

In my former school a handful of reading programs were tried out: Read 180 as well as a new program rolled out by McGraw Hill that I piloted briefly with one class of students (I can't even remember it's name). The program I piloted was more exciting then the one described but it basically focused on reading skills. I am sure we could have an entire conversation on the value or lack of value in teaching reading skills. But I found that while my students liked the idea of being on the computer, the program took away from time that could be spent focusing on more rigorous content. I hope that most schools that use these programs still teach English (or ELA as it is often called). In my opinion, the most powerful data collected at my school was through one-on-one reading assessments (DRA, WRAP, etc) and the cyclical writing assessments we designed as a school to measure specific skills. While these activities are much more time consuming, they provide a teacher with much more information. But, at my school there was such an emphasis on having completed these assessments (4 times a year) by a certain time period that most teachers didn't view it as a powerful experience.

The problem with force feeding any form of data collection, is that this frames the way teachers view this tool. Teachers need to embrace and believe in the tools they are using. Sadly this doesn't happen enough in teaching today.

The emphasis on data and data-driven programs, especially the nationalistic kind, are symptoms of a statist system. Nationalized public schools are themselves a product of statist thinking. Until this ideological root cause is stamped out, vitiation of the teacher-student relationship will continue.

The only real answer is to completely depoliticize schooling and education. Freedom, after all, means freedom to choose. This idea, so fundamental to human well-being, has been obfuscated and tortured enough.

Reason:

I wonder if you could offer any examples of "non-statist states," as well as evidence of the benefits of the success of their education systems/non-systems?

I think this tale is an important one and I agree with you that schools that use these types of solutions ought to be reminded of the larger implications behind their choices.

But I also think the solution chosen (I don't need to use specific names, they each have qualities similar to the one you profile here) is but a band-aid on a larger, systemic problem.

Government: You need to raise these scores this year. Do it now!

School: One year? Sheesh...

Vendor: Got cash? I've got something that will raise those scores in a year!

You can't help but blame some folks for using band-aid type solutions to problems they feel too small to fix alone.

Marnie wrote: The problem with force feeding any form of data collection, is that this frames the way teachers view this tool. Teachers need to embrace and believe in the tools they are using. Sadly this doesn't happen enough in teaching today.

This is true, Marnie. WIth so much technology, teachers don't work an environment where good tools are provided AND backed up with significant professional development. As an educator in Virginia, I'm so glad we have the ITRT (instructional technology resource teacher) program that puts dedicated teachers in the schools whose primary focus is improving pedagogy with good tools.

This might be the dangerous side in looking alone at numbers for success. Quality teachers, mentors, and educational professionals need time to work with students, with one another in professional development, and in tandem with parents. These relationships that are required for quality aren't made overnight. But time is ticking. Data can be caressed into line graphs that mimic those used to track stocks.

I'm afraid the quality of education today in some schools is at serious odds with the ticker tapes supplied by data. Don't get me wrong - data is good -but let's look at WHAT data and not forget the person whose life is in so many ways (still) unfinished.

Diane,

Sorry state of affairs. But the schools are only reacting to what they are being judged by: the current state standards and the tests that are being generated from those standards.

The state standards are written as if children (or adults) think without needing something concrete to think about. There is no mention in most state standards of specific texts, knoweldege, ideas or habits that need to be cultivated/encouraged in students.

So when the state writes as a standard:
"Read print-based and electronic literary texts silently, on a daily basis, for enjoyment" [NY,Grade4,ELA], how can we fault schools for taking their guidance and adopting a program like Achieve 3000 that technically fits in well with this standard?

Because the state standards offer only "process" guidance (e.g. compare/contrast text), why is anyone surprised when the tests that are developed follow the standards and only test for either rote or process skills?

But people do not think in a process manner alone. People think about something specific. The ideas and issues associated with educational reform are vastly different than the ideas and issues associated with economic reform. There are commonalities in thinking critically, but without the foundational ideas and content contained within a subject, how can anyone, child or adult, think well about that subject?

Likewise about school. It might be great to compare and contrast something. But what should students compare/contrast? Comparing and contrasting animal appearances is vastly different than comparing/contrasting the novels, Animal Farm vs. Lord of the Flies.

Turning school into a "process" institution without content nor the ideas that Deborah has spoken passionately about is driven in large part by the state standards and the tests that are developed from those standards.

It is not the schools' fault that they are responding to the external pressure being put on them by NCLB and following the guidance set forth by the state educational departments.


There is quite a train of comments on a previous posting (After The Election . . ., two posts down). I have been trying to figure out what Diana Senechal is talking about in several of those comments, and I'm guessing I'm not alone. The email quoted above mentions a level of usage that must be maintained, and the threat of "action steps". The email does not mention a prohibition of criticism, but what else could be the "obvious reasons" for anonymity? This must be what Diana was talking about. This is something brand new to me, and scary. It prompts a few thoughts.

I think it is a mistake to think in terms of first amendment freedom of speech in many contexts. The first amendment right of free speech is very broad, but often inapplicable. In many situations we voluntary limit what we say for a number of reasons. Normally when we accept employment, for example, we know we owe a certain allegiance to that employer, and we accept certain limitations on the right to disparage that employer. If you accept a volunteer position coaching a little leage baseball team you accept a certain inhibition on disparaging your players, no matter how badly they might play. Sometimes we explicitly agree to limit what we say. Other times we may discover that we have signed away a lot of free speech without thinking. If we enter into a legal contract concerning how we will use a certain product, then indeed we are bound by that legal contract. Courts will enforce legal contracts that are freely entered into. If a school buys a product and signs an agreement concerning its use, and if that contract explicitly says no one connected with the school can publicly criticize it, then indeed you can't criticize it. That has nothing to do with first amendment rights.

It is true, I presume, that in some cases a court will declare some parts of a seemingly legal and consensual contract are unenforceable, but who wants to go to court to find out?

In principle, the idea that we will voluntary limit our freedom to criticize, is fine. But surely we should be very careful before doing that. Could it ever be wise for a school to voluntary agree to limits on how instructional materials may be used? I admit to not having given much thought to it, but I don't think we should.

When I buy a book in a bookstore I know I am accepting certain limitations on what I can do with that book. I can't plagerize it or make a profit that by law and custom should go to the author or publisher. But those are pretty narrow restrictions. I do not have to agree to believe what is in the book. I don't even have to agree to read it. And certainly I can criticize it. I have always assumed that this same legal and cultural framework underlies the purchase of educational materials by schools. But apparently that is no longer always the case.

The lesson to me is very clear. No school should ever buy anything that is outside of customary cultural and legal agreements of use. Every textbook I have ever used had some things to not use, and some things I had to add with worksheets. If you have to sign something in order to buy it - don't buy it! If there is any hint that you can't criticize it, don't buy it! If there is any hint that you have to use it in a certain way, don't buy it! If the seller expects the right to come to the school and manage the use of the product, don't buy it!

The writer of the email quoted says it is "vile". But I would suggest that is not the most important thing here. I would argue that even if it is a very good program, you make a very grave mistake in agreeing to anything other than customary legal and cultural restrictions on how to use it. Even if it's the best program in the world for what it does, don't make a bargain with the devil. Don't sell your teaching soul for a momentary benefit.

Margo/Mom says:
“I wonder if you could offer any examples of ‘non-statist states,’ as well as evidence of the benefits of the success of their education systems/non-systems?”

My reply:

There are no “non-statist states” and that is why states need to go. Government is not only unnecessary for society and civilization, but is anti-social and anti-civilization by nature. Example: How ethical and respecting of equality is taxation? That a person would have a prior claim on another person’s labor or property is another way of describing slavery. Government is parasitical. But that is not all. There is government schooling.

The problem with looking for evidence of the superiority of a particular school system is that the idea ‘liberty is the best form’ is based on deductive logic reducible to axioms that cannot be tested. The axioms are not falsifiable empirically. An example is the statement “All humans act.” One cannot deny this without proving the validity of the statement. This deductive knowledge is essential to understanding humans because, unlike in physical sciences where things can be measured and constants determined, there are no constants in human relationships. Humans react differently to same situations etc. Lab science cannot be applied to human action!

Without the market, the state is economically blind. A monopoly run system cannot trade with itself, cannot generate a means to understand opportunity costs, a way of reviewing the past, of evaluating choosing A verses B. This problem, the economic problem, can only be solved through private property and its product: voluntary exchange using prices, profit and loss, and entrepreneurship. This is how the mass of individuals come together and work out the problems of unlimited wants and scarcity, peacefully and efficiently. Government, in its blindness, does not have the means for allocating scarce resources rationally: the state cannot calculate without prices.

But it has statistics. Since the state commandeered education (schooling) it requires education statistics. (Surprise, surprise- the state just happens to require statistics- lots of ‘em, just in order to manage and control its subjects.) But these statistics, as for their usefulness for scientific management, are fatally flawed. The number results are based on arbitrary designs and are only significant to the internality of the design itself. In other words, the test results cannot be tested to see if they have any social relevance. All further applications of testing within the system are just as useless because the statistics only relate to a past that is irrelevant for future determinations because the subjects are humans.

When the government says that a certain group of kids have X percent proficiency in English it has no meaning outside of the tester’s subjective evaluation. Does “X percent proficiency” have any relation to what the people, meaning parents, potential employers, and the kids themselves desire? What was the real price for attaining this proficiency in relation to the gazillions of other things that could have been done with the resources deployed in achieving this mark? Was the methods and choice of resources optimal from a social standpoint? Only the market provides this kind of answer.

Hence, there are no successful examples of state education. State education is bad science… and bad for human liberty. The relative flourishing of Western education is due to eradicating the effect of government in individual lives, not the other way around. Analogous is the problem of competing faiths. Until the idea of tolerance and freedom of religion was applied to states there was massive bloodshed in Europe and bitter conflicts in the American Colonies. The fact that the 1st Amendment has come to mean a government ban of religion from public institutions is indicative of the problem with states: they make the rules to suit themselves. Government does not like competition. A civic religion serves the current government’s needs better than choosing a particular faith to force on people. This power grab so happens to fit the positivist agenda as well!

Education, deeply personal and as important as faith, should not be managed by a monopoly. Those within the monopoly will want to control education and snuff out any ideas that would threaten their privileged position or sensibilities. Yet, the positivists are in control now. These are the people who believe that market relations are unnecessary and that the government can manage progress via mathematical solutions and statistical analysis. This mix of pseudo-science and government power aimed at bettering society is a recipe for disaster. Arrogance kills, said one reformed eugenicist.

Reason:

As there are no "non-statist states," I wonder if you can point to any examples in nature of asocial or non-governmental state that you desire?

It sounds as if there is an issue with developing meaningful metrics. There is an old adage in the business world, "If you can not measure it, you can not mange it." The difficulty is always in developing meaningful metrics that actually measure what matters while not rewarding undesirable behavior.

I observe this with standardized testing, where the focus becomes teaching the students to take a test, not necessarily to learn.

Have any of the readers developed or observed metrics for the classroom that successfully measure desirable outcomes?

Margo/Mom says:

"As there are no 'non-statist states,' I wonder if you can point to any examples in nature of asocial or non-governmental state that you desire?"

I reply:

I would not call a non-government society "asocial" or a "state". If you need to use the word "government" then "self-government" may work.

The abundance and relative freedom enjoyed by Americans today is for the most part due to non-government action, to voluntary cooperation. A free market is essential in this regard.

Unfortunately, no purely market based anarchism has ever existed. Social cooperation has been severely hampered by the state and its ideology. But with hope in mind one can recall how capitalism was exploited by chattel slavery but still managed to carry on with material progress.

It could be just a matter of time before states go the way of slavery. Of course, slavery still exists but is in no way near what it once was in the Americas.

A market based society offers no utopia, no cure for humanity's dastardly motivations. But it also allows human ingenuity to thrive while managing the bad parts. When there is no official monopoly, no 'one gun in the room' to fight over, and people, in general, are against having one it becomes very hard to create one. There are too many counter-balancing interests. That is the essence of competition, of cooperation, of society.

Greg,

The metric for education--standardized testing--is of some value. When it becomes the main or only metric, it distorts learning and undermines education. Read Richard Rothstein's "Holding Accountability to Account" for a terrific analysis of current practice of accountability.

Diane R

Diane,

I just skimmed Rothstein, so no conclusions here. I do have to say that I laughed out loud at the keen profundity in Campbell's "Law". Too bad it is too big for a bumper sticker:

"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

So not only does government run into calculational problems from an economic standpoint, even its internal logic has a tendency towards chaos.

I will say that I am not sure that Rothstein differentiates between accountability in the market place and that of government bureaucracy. In the market a business that does not conform to consumer and investor wishes goes out of business. Government has no such incentives!

State power does not depend on success in educating or growing an economy. FDR exacerbated the Depression, befriended Stalin, brought economic fascism, pushed for the mass carnage of WWII, and wrought misery on most Americans. But Roosevelt gained unprecented corporatistic power and a god-like status in political folk-lore.

Rothstein's management advice may only make government more efficient at creating power and causing destruction.

Diane et al,

Since you gave me Rothstein, I will give you this- it speaks to the topic of state-run ed via six minutes of brilliant and humorous exchange. Enjoy!:

http://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2008/08/education_comed.php

Diane,

I have not looked at "Holding Accountability to Account." Going with the assumption that there methods and metrics for accurately measuring the effectiveness of teachers and teaching methods, in your view, why is there so much confusion and disagreement (like the issues you posted above)?

Greg,
Right now, the only metric that is advocated is whether students' test scores go up. As Rothstein demonstrates, convincingly, I think, teachers will find ways to game this system (as will anyone who is judged by only one metric). The tests are not designed for this purpose, and they will mislead. Teachers should not be judged by a single score. Even if the tests were considered valid and reliable, they should be given in September and June, and should be narrow enough to judge the work of a single teacher. Otherwise, how can you separate the work of one teacher versus all the other teachers with whom the student interacts? In some states (like mine), the tests are given in January, so it is impossible to know which teacher or teachers should get credit or blame for the learning over the course of a year in which the student had more than one teacher and a summer break.

Read Daniel Koretz "Measuring Up" on the metrics.

Diane R

Diane,

You are right about the system being gamed. This is true in business or education.

As someone who never did well with standardized tests, they did little to reflect the competence of my teachers or what I had learned. When I read your initial posts the first thing that came to mind was the SRA reading labs. I loved the stories, did lousy on the quizzes, and was always judged a poor reader (even though in 4th grade I would read the King James Bible for personal enjoyment).

As a parent, what can i do to make sure the teachers who teach are not judged only on how well they teach kids to take multiple choice tests?

As a member of the management team at Achieve3000 – publishers of KidBiz3000 and TeenBiz3000 – I would like to respond to a number of factual inconsistencies in the communications above.

Achieve3000’s solutions are based on decades of research into how children learn to read. KidBiz and TeenBiz are based on sound pedagogy, and were developed with the input of renowned researchers in the field of literacy. The solutions enable students to develop key reading comprehension strategies and provide best-practice instructional tools for teachers in the areas of reading comprehension, writing, and vocabulary acquisition. For more information about our research and a letter of endorsement from Dr. Michael Kamil (co-author of Reading Next), click here.

Our pricing is significantly lower than what is stated – starting at $12,050 for 250 students. In reference to specific “action steps” when usage goes down, we certainly make every effort to keep clients informed on achievement of implementation objectives. But the only action step Achieve3000 takes is to send an automated monthly progress report and make personal contact with administrators to update them on the status of their implementation.

To learn more or to evaluate our solutions yourself, please contact [email protected]

Rivki Locker
Vice President, Curriculum and Product Design
office: 732-367-5505, ext. 105
fax: 732-367-2313
[email protected]

Diane,

Please forgive me if the above responses already covered this fact, ( I, obviously, didn't read them all. ), but Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld discovered that rote reading methods causes dyslexia somewhere around the early-to-mid 1980's, I believe.

Somewhere around this same time, we also had a Congressional Hearing into what was then being termed "Outcomes Based Education", ( ie: the same thing as Rote Learning Modalities ), where-at numerous memos, leaked by whistle-blowers from The Dept. of Education concerned that this modality was known to cause Autism, ( and is now proven to also cause Dementia, Cancer and Alzheimer's Disease, the latter of which begins in childhood, not adulthood as we were told ). Few today even know this hearing occurred...

Despite these realities, rather than heeding the important and scientifically proven facts, Congress, ( both parties ), ignored them and told the U.S. Public that they were going on with their ROTE Business "as usual" - and so were we and our children.

Rote training/job activities, after all, is the backbone of the corporate world...

Yet, need I remind you that these neurological - and cellular - disorders are now at epidemic proportions since this information was first disclosed - and ignored by our government?

In short, rote thinking processes was shown, within the Dept. of Education's own memos, to put children and adults in a state which equates to the brainwave level called Theta State.

This lowers the Metabolism and there-by also lowers the fuel in our cells. The result is that we are put into REM State - with our eyes wide open, which is also the state in which hypnotists put their subjects for autosuggestion.

Need I also explain that it's the same "passive thinking state" in which watching TV and playing video/computer games puts us.

It's also the state that lowers the level of Mitochondrial Power in our cells...

Without the fullness of that MtPower, no one can reach their highest potential in any way, shape or form. Without the fullness of that MtPower, our cells just shrivel up and wither away and so do the dendrites on the neurons made of the same...

Welcome to the "Brave, New World" of government sponsored Rote deneuralization - without the public's knowledge or concent.

How do I know all about this subject? Because the doctors that dx'ed my sons with Autism had the audacity to admit Rote Processes - in my education - had caused the Rote/Autistic behaviorisms in my twin sons and had also caused the Learning Disabilties in my daughter.

In retaliation, I took my children to a farm, lived in a totally spontaneous way - and they recovered as well as did I from a severe Autoimmune System failure.

The Amish live the same way - and they have no Autism in their communities. Putting 2+2 together on this subject wasn't hard to do.

I'm guessing that the reason most other people won't figure it out is because the answer to our "epidemics", ( which are all caused by one thing: lack of adequate cellular power ), invalidates our entire rote system and their rote lifestyles.

My children's health AND INTELLIGENCE was more important to me than the rote system. That "attitude" will probably put me on The White House enemies list - if I'm not there already.

Faith Dyson
President Oklahoma Art Guild
[email protected]


P.S. You may contact me at this email address for more information. I not only can connect you with the whistle-blowers to prove the above statements, ( and so much more than it will make your head spin ), but also direct you to the research/ers that prove/d it.

Diane,

Please forgive me if the above responses already covered this fact, ( I, obviously, didn't read them all. ), but Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld discovered that rote reading methods causes dyslexia somewhere around the early-to-mid 1980's, I believe.

Somewhere around this same time, we also had a Congressional Hearing into what was then being termed "Outcomes Based Education", ( ie: the same thing as Rote Learning Modalities ), where-at numerous memos, leaked by whistle-blowers from The Dept. of Education concerned that this modality was known to cause Autism, ( and is now proven to also cause Dementia, Cancer and Alzheimer's Disease, the latter of which begins in childhood, not adulthood as we were told ). Few today even know this hearing occurred...

Despite these realities, rather than heeding the important and scientifically proven facts, Congress, ( both parties ), ignored them and told the U.S. Public that they were going on with their ROTE Business "as usual" - and so were we and our children.

Rote training/job activities, after all, is the backbone of the corporate world...

Yet, need I remind you that these neurological - and cellular - disorders are now at epidemic proportions since this information was first disclosed - and ignored by our government?

In short, rote thinking processes was shown, within the Dept. of Education's own memos, to put children and adults in a state which equates to the brainwave level called Theta State.

This lowers the Metabolism and there-by also lowers the fuel in our cells. The result is that we are put into REM State - with our eyes wide open, which is also the state in which hypnotists put their subjects for autosuggestion.

Need I also explain that it's the same "passive thinking state" in which watching TV and playing video/computer games puts us.

It's also the state that lowers the level of Mitochondrial Power in our cells...

Without the fullness of that MtPower, no one can reach their highest potential in any way, shape or form. Without the fullness of that MtPower, our cells just shrivel up and wither away and so do the dendrites on the neurons made of the same...

Welcome to the "Brave, New World" of government sponsored Rote deneuralization - without the public's knowledge or concent.

How do I know all about this subject? Because the doctors that dx'ed my sons with Autism had the audacity to admit Rote Processes - in my education - had caused the Rote/Autistic behaviorisms in my twin sons and had also caused the Learning Disabilties in my daughter.

In retaliation, I took my children to a farm, lived in a totally spontaneous way - and they recovered as well as did I from a severe Autoimmune System failure.

The Amish live the same way - and they have no Autism in their communities. Putting 2+2 together on this subject wasn't hard to do.

I'm guessing that the reason most other people won't figure it out is because the answer to our "epidemics", ( which are all caused by one thing: lack of adequate cellular power ), invalidates our entire rote system and their rote lifestyles.

My children's health AND INTELLIGENCE was more important to me than the rote system. That "attitude" will probably put me on The White House enemies list - if I'm not there already.

Faith Dyson
President Oklahoma Art Guild
[email protected]


P.S. You may contact me at this email address for more information. I not only can connect you with the whistle-blowers to prove the above statements, ( and so much more than it will make your head spin ), but also direct you to the research/ers that prove/d it.

Comments are now closed for this post.

Advertisement

Most Viewed on Education Week

Categories

Archives

Recent Comments