What’s Wrong With Our Schools and How We Can Fix Them, by Michael C. Zwaagstra, Rodney A. Clifton, & John C. Long
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I most often approach books offering "fixes" with a certain measure of caution.I base this on the fact that, from my experience such books often address the complex topic(s) raised by the author(s) from a relatively limited or superficial perspective.Sadly, my sense of caution was validated as I engaged with What's Wrong With Our Schools and How We Can Fix Them.To position myself in relation to the topics the book examines, I should say that I have been a public school teacher and administrator for the past 23 years.I have taught all grades from K-12, and adults in vocational, college, and university streams in a variety of settings.My post-graduate research examined the principalship and schools in northern Canadian and Indigenous contexts.It is from this multiplicity of perspectives that I offer the following observations on this book. About the bookThe philosophical approach of the book is as follows: (a) traditional methods in public education are good, and (b) efforts to stray from them are misguided."Romantic progressive" approaches to education are unwise and should be avoided or abandoned if already subscribed to.In presenting their perspective, the authors rely heavily on E. D. Hirsch, Jr., founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation, and Professor Emeritus of Education at the University of Virginia, and author of such works as The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them (1996) to support their arguments.The perspectives of progressive educators including Paolo Friere, Maxine Green, Michael Apple, Peter McLaren, and William Ayers are called into question early on, with the authors challenging the view of schools as vehicles for social change.In particular, Alfie Kohn is identified as ill-informed, misguided, and incorrect in relation to such topics as discipline, student-centred instruction, rote learning, or schools as democratic places.His practice is considered inconsistent with his student-centered philosophy, based on the authors' indication that Kohn has employed the lecture method when presenting to adults.The book is divided into three parts, all sub-divided into 14 short, topical chapters, and followed by a concluding chapter.The chapters follow a set structure: A vignette is presented in the Prologue, followed by an Introduction summarising the episode.A situation in which some form of discomfort or dissatisfaction is experienced by a teacher, parent(s), a student, or
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".