Thanks for a graceful and even-handed consideration of this year’s hot new concept. I agree that it holds some water, if not quite as much as advertised. But I have seen some examples in schools up close. As a mentor teacher I watched a young teacher’s students give short presentations about a common assigned topic. The proceedings came off smoothly and without a hitch. It was clear the teacher had done a very good job of setting up the activity, clarifying expectations and keeping the ball rolling. The student work did share a notable amount of similarity, though, and I had suspicions that the reports they gave reflected thin sourcing and more of the teacher’s perspective than their own. A bit of casual conversation with one of the kids a few days later confirmed my hunch. He’d learned about as much as he needed to know about a 15-year-old controversy in Berkeley over whether an elementary school should retain its name: Thomas Jefferson. The problem was that the student, an apparently normal 11th grader, didn’t actually know who Jefferson was. So, the full appreciation of the controversy itself, and the attendant irony and tragedy touching it that reaches back to the founding of the US, was skipped - and thus the considerable juice of the situation denied to the students. Of course, it would likely have proven truly stimulating and memorable to get the background over before fast-forwarding to the presentations. The young teacher struck me as talented and promising, but also, as was common in our inner-city school, struggling to calibrate her game. She had been tasked with ginning-up a from-scratch new class without a text or much else. She was apparently keeping her head above water under difficult circumstances, but should have been dealt a better hand. As a result her students were short-changed.
Tim, thanks for sharing such a thoughtful reflection. It's clear that the young teacher did a great job setting up the presentations and managing the class. It's also a shame the students missed out on the deeper understanding of the controversy.
May I ask how do you think teachers can better balance covering the background information while keeping students engaged?
Thank you Sol. That’s an important question. It’s critical that teachers not mistake empty gestures for productive learning experiences, and grasping the difference isn’t automatic or easy. (Administrators evaluating them should also make it clear that a well-oiled ‘dog-&-pony-show’ isn’t their fondest expectation.) Then it’s a matter of allowing time to communicate the backstory info. effectively. In this case, the teacher had made a questionable decision to spend time and energy on an incident of anecdotal significance with little evident connection to the course she was teaching - ethnic studies for 9th graders. But it shouldn’t have ever been her task anyway. It was a new class with no text, no curriculum, no supporting materials. It was the principal’s decision to assign her the course, and though there were three others of us teaching social studies classes there wasn’t much we could do to help her.
Quite interested in the mention of “executive function” (and other AU/ADHD traits). Could the rise of difficulties and diagnoses be in part attributable to a less systematic, structured and explicit education/environment??? I suspect yes…
Maybe to some extent, but this less systematic/structured/explicit approach has been going on for quite a while now, so I'm not sure I would attribute any RECENT rise in diagnoses to it. And certainly there are some kids who would need additional support even in a structured environment with lots of explicit teaching. But I do think there would be far fewer. I think we really don't know at this point to what extent learning differences or challenges are due to actual individual needs vs. systemic problems.
I will also say that years ago I visited a school in London, called Michaela, that takes a highly explicit and structured approach. When I asked about their special ed population, the head of the school told me they didn't think in terms of that category. All the school's students seemed to be doing quite well without it.
Oh, culturally responsive pedagogy is a big deal here, south of the Gadsden Treaty Line. It’s wonderful to be passionate about literature. Reading enables us to experience different cultures. That was my experience as a white person anyway. Is there an anti-white agenda behind this shift? What is the motive behind culturally responsive pedagogy? I’m biting my tongue.
I appreciate how you connect these beliefs to broader systemic issues while emphasising the importance of rethinking educational approaches to serve all students better. This thoughtful and timely analysis encourages educators and policymakers to reflect on the real-world impact of their decisions.
"Too few of us know or have personal experience walking in the shoes of the families and students we claim to serve. Instead, we opine about what’s best for other people’s children from the safety of our respective bubbles, indulging our own set of luxury beliefs."
I grew up with the triple threat--single parent, low income, immigrant household--and have never taken this perspective for granted. As a reading specialist--coupled with my own experiences to draw upon--I know what my students need, which makes their time with me that much more urgent. I wrote my instructional guide to reading, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense, with Anita Archer whispering in my ear: "Teach the stuff and cut the fluff."
Thanks for this great article. It brings to mind Robert Pondiscio's book How the Other Half Learns, which about his year embedded in a Success Academy charter school in New York. There is so much in the book that challenges luxury beliefs in education. And I'm glad this phenomenon has a name (which I just learned from this article!) even if we now have to wrestle with what is a "luxury belief" and what isn't!
Hi Natalie, I really enjoy your articles and find that they resonate strongly with my own beliefs. I also follow the work of Rebecca Birch and similarly I resonate strongly with her thoughts and ideas. Therefore I find it really hard to reconcile that Rebecca would actually advocate that reading and writing are learned naturally through exposure, as this does not align with much of what she what she generally promotes through her blog. I think this is worth double checking.
Very interesting. How do you think people can identify whether a belief they have is a “luxury belief”? Do you have to ask whether the belief is related to your status, or is it something else?
As I say in the piece, my own working definition of "luxury belief" doesn't focus on status per se but rather on not being aware of the consequences of the belief for others. I think that can happen with people at any socioeconomic level, but it's more likely to happen if you have the money and resources to insulate yourself from the consequences.
As an educated (I keep learning and researching) and retired teacher I find articles like this frustrating but on-point. My frustration comes from wondering how can we change the system. I have experience teaching at every level K-collegiate and still volunteer and substitute teach. I have seen well meaning and talented teachers fail to meet the needs of learners due to an inability to provide the structure and systematic teaching they need due to behavior issues. The lack of respect I have seen in “average” schools is frightening. If we want to eliminate the disparities, we must find a way to take back control of classrooms and schools. I firmly believe our scariest luxury beliefs relate to behavioral expectations.
They’re too easy to hold up as excuses to not be challenged intellectually. I’m in the middle of writing a new essay on the value of being triggered. This one will link in well there.
I wonder if some of the 'decolonize' talk, like the view that standardized tests are racist etc., stems in part from the bias in the curriculum toward narrowly academic skills. Kendi has some remarks in "How to be an Anti-Racist" that gesture in this direction. I wonder if a sketch of a knowledge-building curriculum that was explicitly preparing students for a range of possible life-paths, including skilled labor, would be both interesting and head off some of these objections.
All children can benefit from a knowledge-building curriculum, whether they're headed for college or or not. It's not just textbooks that assume familiarity with sophisticated vocabulary and syntax -- job training manuals often do that as well, not to mention news reports. And the best way to build that kind of vocabulary and syntax is through building knowledge.
I certainly don't think all kids need to go to college, but we need to build their general knowledge to equip them for all sorts of jobs and careers, as well as citizenship in a democratic society.
Plus, especially at the elementary level, I wouldn't want to try to distinguish between kids who are headed for college and those who are not. Who knows at that point which students will develop academic interests and talents if they're exposed to academic knowledge and vocabulary in an engaging way? I think there's an enormous amount of academic potential out there that is dying on the vine because of inadequate curriculum and instruction.
Thank you for a great article. I think it correctly summarized some of the teaching practices that are short on evidence but align with the values people hold.
I reposted!
Finally, I'd love to hear your take on SEL curriculum as I suspect that whole field is ripe with quackery and outcomes that are difficult or impossible to measure. There was a great piece in the Economist recently about it.
Thanks! I haven't dug deeply into SEL curricula, but my sense is that it's the kind of thing that should be woven into regular curriculum and instruction rather than being the focus of a separate curriculum that teachers have to juggle.
But basically, my take is that if you adopt a curriculum and instructional methods that are more likely to make all students feel successful (i.e., a content-rich curriculum plus explicit teaching), students' social and emotional well-being will improve. Conversely, if you're using a curriculum and methods that make many students feel like failures, it's probably going to be harmful for them socially and emotionally -- and perhaps undercut whatever gains you're getting from an SEL curriculum.
Thanks for a graceful and even-handed consideration of this year’s hot new concept. I agree that it holds some water, if not quite as much as advertised. But I have seen some examples in schools up close. As a mentor teacher I watched a young teacher’s students give short presentations about a common assigned topic. The proceedings came off smoothly and without a hitch. It was clear the teacher had done a very good job of setting up the activity, clarifying expectations and keeping the ball rolling. The student work did share a notable amount of similarity, though, and I had suspicions that the reports they gave reflected thin sourcing and more of the teacher’s perspective than their own. A bit of casual conversation with one of the kids a few days later confirmed my hunch. He’d learned about as much as he needed to know about a 15-year-old controversy in Berkeley over whether an elementary school should retain its name: Thomas Jefferson. The problem was that the student, an apparently normal 11th grader, didn’t actually know who Jefferson was. So, the full appreciation of the controversy itself, and the attendant irony and tragedy touching it that reaches back to the founding of the US, was skipped - and thus the considerable juice of the situation denied to the students. Of course, it would likely have proven truly stimulating and memorable to get the background over before fast-forwarding to the presentations. The young teacher struck me as talented and promising, but also, as was common in our inner-city school, struggling to calibrate her game. She had been tasked with ginning-up a from-scratch new class without a text or much else. She was apparently keeping her head above water under difficult circumstances, but should have been dealt a better hand. As a result her students were short-changed.
Tim, thanks for sharing such a thoughtful reflection. It's clear that the young teacher did a great job setting up the presentations and managing the class. It's also a shame the students missed out on the deeper understanding of the controversy.
May I ask how do you think teachers can better balance covering the background information while keeping students engaged?
Thank you Sol. That’s an important question. It’s critical that teachers not mistake empty gestures for productive learning experiences, and grasping the difference isn’t automatic or easy. (Administrators evaluating them should also make it clear that a well-oiled ‘dog-&-pony-show’ isn’t their fondest expectation.) Then it’s a matter of allowing time to communicate the backstory info. effectively. In this case, the teacher had made a questionable decision to spend time and energy on an incident of anecdotal significance with little evident connection to the course she was teaching - ethnic studies for 9th graders. But it shouldn’t have ever been her task anyway. It was a new class with no text, no curriculum, no supporting materials. It was the principal’s decision to assign her the course, and though there were three others of us teaching social studies classes there wasn’t much we could do to help her.
Quite interested in the mention of “executive function” (and other AU/ADHD traits). Could the rise of difficulties and diagnoses be in part attributable to a less systematic, structured and explicit education/environment??? I suspect yes…
Maybe to some extent, but this less systematic/structured/explicit approach has been going on for quite a while now, so I'm not sure I would attribute any RECENT rise in diagnoses to it. And certainly there are some kids who would need additional support even in a structured environment with lots of explicit teaching. But I do think there would be far fewer. I think we really don't know at this point to what extent learning differences or challenges are due to actual individual needs vs. systemic problems.
I will also say that years ago I visited a school in London, called Michaela, that takes a highly explicit and structured approach. When I asked about their special ed population, the head of the school told me they didn't think in terms of that category. All the school's students seemed to be doing quite well without it.
Yes, that was my thought…
That mild to moderate learning difficulties are mitigated by systematic/structured/explicit methods.
As professors Snow and Juel observed in 2005 (regarding decoding but applicable in all areas):
“Explicit teaching… is helpful for all children, harmful for none and crucial for some.”
Oh, culturally responsive pedagogy is a big deal here, south of the Gadsden Treaty Line. It’s wonderful to be passionate about literature. Reading enables us to experience different cultures. That was my experience as a white person anyway. Is there an anti-white agenda behind this shift? What is the motive behind culturally responsive pedagogy? I’m biting my tongue.
I appreciate how you connect these beliefs to broader systemic issues while emphasising the importance of rethinking educational approaches to serve all students better. This thoughtful and timely analysis encourages educators and policymakers to reflect on the real-world impact of their decisions.
This article was very timely, as a NZ Professor in Education, shared his "luxury beliefs" in this interview on Radio New Zealand: https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018948356/imagining-a-better-school-system-for-new-zealand
Fortunately I was able to send a link to Natalie Wexler's article to a Senior Fellow and Cognitive Psychologist at the NZ Initiative, Dr Michael Johnston, who rebutted this nonsense (and referenced luxury beliefs) here: Debunking education myths: A response to Prof Peter O'Connor's critique of curriculum reforms (https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/podcasts/podcast-debunking-education-myths-a-response-to-prof-peter-oconnors-critique-of-curriculum-reforms/).
Good piece, Natalie, on a subject I've been concerned about for a long time. Here's my piece on the same subject in 2021.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/educations-enduring-love-affair-luxury-beliefs
Thank you for sharing this piece. You write:
"Too few of us know or have personal experience walking in the shoes of the families and students we claim to serve. Instead, we opine about what’s best for other people’s children from the safety of our respective bubbles, indulging our own set of luxury beliefs."
I grew up with the triple threat--single parent, low income, immigrant household--and have never taken this perspective for granted. As a reading specialist--coupled with my own experiences to draw upon--I know what my students need, which makes their time with me that much more urgent. I wrote my instructional guide to reading, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense, with Anita Archer whispering in my ear: "Teach the stuff and cut the fluff."
Thanks for this great article. It brings to mind Robert Pondiscio's book How the Other Half Learns, which about his year embedded in a Success Academy charter school in New York. There is so much in the book that challenges luxury beliefs in education. And I'm glad this phenomenon has a name (which I just learned from this article!) even if we now have to wrestle with what is a "luxury belief" and what isn't!
Hi Natalie, I really enjoy your articles and find that they resonate strongly with my own beliefs. I also follow the work of Rebecca Birch and similarly I resonate strongly with her thoughts and ideas. Therefore I find it really hard to reconcile that Rebecca would actually advocate that reading and writing are learned naturally through exposure, as this does not align with much of what she what she generally promotes through her blog. I think this is worth double checking.
I didn’t say Rebecca believes reading and writing are natural processes! I said she characterized that as a luxury belief.
Very interesting. How do you think people can identify whether a belief they have is a “luxury belief”? Do you have to ask whether the belief is related to your status, or is it something else?
As I say in the piece, my own working definition of "luxury belief" doesn't focus on status per se but rather on not being aware of the consequences of the belief for others. I think that can happen with people at any socioeconomic level, but it's more likely to happen if you have the money and resources to insulate yourself from the consequences.
As an educated (I keep learning and researching) and retired teacher I find articles like this frustrating but on-point. My frustration comes from wondering how can we change the system. I have experience teaching at every level K-collegiate and still volunteer and substitute teach. I have seen well meaning and talented teachers fail to meet the needs of learners due to an inability to provide the structure and systematic teaching they need due to behavior issues. The lack of respect I have seen in “average” schools is frightening. If we want to eliminate the disparities, we must find a way to take back control of classrooms and schools. I firmly believe our scariest luxury beliefs relate to behavioral expectations.
They’re too easy to hold up as excuses to not be challenged intellectually. I’m in the middle of writing a new essay on the value of being triggered. This one will link in well there.
I wonder if some of the 'decolonize' talk, like the view that standardized tests are racist etc., stems in part from the bias in the curriculum toward narrowly academic skills. Kendi has some remarks in "How to be an Anti-Racist" that gesture in this direction. I wonder if a sketch of a knowledge-building curriculum that was explicitly preparing students for a range of possible life-paths, including skilled labor, would be both interesting and head off some of these objections.
All children can benefit from a knowledge-building curriculum, whether they're headed for college or or not. It's not just textbooks that assume familiarity with sophisticated vocabulary and syntax -- job training manuals often do that as well, not to mention news reports. And the best way to build that kind of vocabulary and syntax is through building knowledge.
I certainly don't think all kids need to go to college, but we need to build their general knowledge to equip them for all sorts of jobs and careers, as well as citizenship in a democratic society.
Plus, especially at the elementary level, I wouldn't want to try to distinguish between kids who are headed for college and those who are not. Who knows at that point which students will develop academic interests and talents if they're exposed to academic knowledge and vocabulary in an engaging way? I think there's an enormous amount of academic potential out there that is dying on the vine because of inadequate curriculum and instruction.
Thank you for a great article. I think it correctly summarized some of the teaching practices that are short on evidence but align with the values people hold.
I reposted!
Finally, I'd love to hear your take on SEL curriculum as I suspect that whole field is ripe with quackery and outcomes that are difficult or impossible to measure. There was a great piece in the Economist recently about it.
Thanks! I haven't dug deeply into SEL curricula, but my sense is that it's the kind of thing that should be woven into regular curriculum and instruction rather than being the focus of a separate curriculum that teachers have to juggle.
But basically, my take is that if you adopt a curriculum and instructional methods that are more likely to make all students feel successful (i.e., a content-rich curriculum plus explicit teaching), students' social and emotional well-being will improve. Conversely, if you're using a curriculum and methods that make many students feel like failures, it's probably going to be harmful for them socially and emotionally -- and perhaps undercut whatever gains you're getting from an SEL curriculum.