,
13 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
This is not a surprise. At it’s core, Didau's anti-LS position rests on a narrow IQ-based view of intelligence that is structurally racist.
Here’s Dr. Yana Weinstein on Didau's Learning Spy blog: bit.ly/1Oha3ri 
I ask Didau whether he believes the kids who learn better through hands-on methods are just dumber than other kids.
He refers me to a book that defends an IQ-based definition of intelligence: “Intelligence: All That Matters.” amzn.to/2xNLUaW
Here’s Dr. Ibram X. Kendi on the historical roots of this view of intelligence in eugenics and white supremacy: bit.ly/2erbDfI
Dr. Marie Battiste ’s word for this is “cognitive imperialism.” The idea that one’s own cultural cognitive preferences are superior to all.
What “works?” Direct instruction. How do we know? Tests. Who designs the tests? The same people who have always designed the tests.
What do the tests correlate with? Success in school. What does success in school correlate with?
(Hint: it’s not creativity, compassion, sustainability, social justice, sense of humor, or even entrepreneurial success.)
Success in school correlates with more school success. Oh, and with family income.
Are Didau and the other direct instruction/anti-learning styles advocates consciously racist? Who knows. Most of them probably aren’t.
Have they unconsciously imbibed an intrinsically racist view of human intelligence? Absolutely.
Update: David Didau discovered the existence of structural racism. Day before yesterday.
