I agree. I’ve definitely thought about this. The problem isn’t just the cramming itself, though that is a large part. The information is easy to absorb if it’s being carried by interest. Don’t you think schools instill disinterest? I rarely saw evidence to the contrary. Students should be allowed to pursue intellectually whatever they want to. That’s the only thing I feel qualified to recommend.
Okay, on the one hand, that sucks, and I’ve definitely known sucky admins like that. On the other hand, I’ve also known people who put all the blame for the bad things that happened to them on everyone around them. At some point the common factor is you.
I had a terrible principal in high school, the kind who responded to kids smoking in the bathrooms by locking most of the bathrooms at the school so nobody could pee. I didn’t suck up to him; I hung out with punks and skinheads; I organized walk-outs at our school and military protest tables and pagan study groups. I was fairly vocal in my disdain for all authority. And I also didn’t get in much trouble at all, because I paid attention to the system and navigated it instead of crashing against it, because what would be the point of crashing against it? Of course you were a good kid, but you may not have been very wise about your surroundings. If your administration is an angry doberman, don’t stick your fingers into his kennel.
Some day I’ll read it, I’m sure, but it’s also possible he’s seeing it from a rare point of view because it genuinely doesn’t match the experience of a lot of teachers. Do you agree that’s possible, that there are a lot of really passionate, intelligent, dedicated teachers who genuinely see our public schools as a tremendous force for good?
Can you describe these alternatives? I’d like you to do so in the light of three case studies:
-Meredith. She comes from old money, is a brilliant student, has dedicated, wealthy parents who do a lot to support their local school. She always adds to class discussion, is unfailingly polite, loves her teacher. She also, when I ask her to, helps other students out (I do this rarely, because I don’t want her to get stuck in the role of tutor, but because when done rarely it can help her learn to articulate her thoughts more fully, and frankly because although I try to have enrichment material at my fingertips, sometimes I don’t have anything ready for her, and I don’t want her to be bored or disengaged).
-Shane. He’s a big kid who needs a lot of attention. He struggles with reading and excels at math, but he loves the idea of being smart more than he loves working. When given challenges, he’s likely to turn them down if he doesn’t think he can be immediately successful–but if you’re willing to stand up to him and even reduce him to tears, he’ll come out the other side of the breakdown working hard, and be immensely proud of himself for his accomplishments. He needs specific work on phonemic concepts.
-Daniel. His mother is an on-again, off-again crack addict who loathes school and white people. She rarely has a working phone number; she communicates to Daniel that school is unimportant; she pays no attention to making sure he gets enough sleep on school nights or does his homework; she badmouths white people to him and tells him that if he gets in trouble, it’s because his teacher is racist. He’s an excellent reader but has a great deal of trouble focusing and struggles to visualize math problems; consequently, while he loves to sit with a book and read, it’s very difficult to get him to go along with any math lesson.
Through public education, I can serve all of these students. And Meredith gets to learn about people who don’t live in mansions, and Daniel gets to learn about people who don’t live in public housing. And Meredith gets a place where she can let her hair down a little, and Daniel gets a place that’s quiet and calm, and Shane gets pushed to learn things when he’d probably rather be playing Plants vs. Zombies.
What’s your proposal that will serve these three kids?
On the contrary: when you played Plants vs. Zombies, didn’t you learn a lot? I mean, you started off easy, learning that zombies would come from the right and be killed by peas. You learned that the currency was sun, and that you could get it both from the sky and from sunflowers. As the game continued, you continued to learn (Wallnuts are key when there are jumping zombies, you’ll need the free plants on the night levels, certain 'shrooms are upgradable, snails love chocolate, etc.). Part of the game’s delight is its very steady learning curve. No wonder it was so popular with my second-graders, who love to learn!
And it couples the learning with lots of positive feedback and a sense of accomplishment, along with a sense of risk and beautiful graphics and music. All things that feed directly into what kids and adults alike want. The only problem with it is that the things the game teaches so effectively and efficiently and pleasurably are completely useless.
Again, in Jefferson’s day there weren’t really penny dreadfuls, much less Penny Arcade. The most efficient learning available was a book, and books at the time were (to the best of my knowledge–I’m no historian) on average more informative than Capcom’s latest offering. Of course people who wanted to learn came away with more useful information.
As I’ve said before, we educators are in competition with digital entertainment, and those entertainments are finely honed vectors of learning (close your eyes and watch the Tetris blocks spin. How long since you’ve played Tetris?) If we want students to learn real things, we need to figure out how to make it seem to be worth their while. There are approaches for doing this, but they’re not especially easy.
I’ve heard this idea a fair amount, but not from anyone who spends much time around a diverse group of kids. It is, in my opinion, a terrible freakin’ idea, because most kids want to learn about Pokemon and Plants vs. Zombies (to keep picking on that game which I loved). Discipline, in the sense of delaying immediate gratification in order to obtain some goal in the future, is not something most children inherently have; it’s taught, not innate, in my experience.
Absolutely educators should work to make the learning interesting, relevant, and (to a degree) student-directed. But kids also should learn about animal life cycles, about how to use the base-ten number system and why it works, about how to compose a piece of beautiful writing, about how to analyze advertisements, about the earthquake in Japan, etc., even if they’d, given their druthers, be off killing zombies.
Druthers? Congratulations Teach, a word I never heard before.
I’ve used the in-Jefferson’s-day argument too. It’s fair and unimpeachable. Abe Lincoln had only a couple years of formal schooling, but his spare time he spent reading. If he had Plants vs. Zombies, there’s a good chance he would have played that. There’s also a good chance he wouldn’t.
I remember the story of Alexander the Great being raised by his father Philip (II? I think). Alex wanted to play violin, or whatever their version of it was. His dad said absolutely not, that wasn’t fit for him. That was a waste of time. It’s fine to listen to and enjoy that,
but do play an instrument was a waste of time.
A lot of things would strike us today in regards to this story. The obvious, playing an instrument is a wonderful use of time. It’s a great thing to learn! Why was his dad such a prick? Wouldn’t let him do anything he wanted to do?
(This story may very well have been invented to contrast to the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, for all I know)
What strikes me today, in regards to this conversation: Alexander had all the time in the world. He didn’t have to work for a thing. He was born with all the silver spoons in the world in his hand! He didn’t have time to play? Well, we know how this story ends - he dies a couple decades after a drunkard, but having done amazing things in between.
Do you think the only reason kids can’t comprehend a certain endeavor is a waste of time is because of this new, magical word, “adolescence”? Nobody [worth listening to] today thinks playing violin is a waste of time. The majority of adults think playing Plants vs. Zombies is a waste of time, regardless of whether they play it or not. Wisdom fails to be imparted onto children. I think that’s the fault of parents far more so than teachers.
I don’t know how to make the school system better. You know, I don’t think I had a significant thought until I was 20. I feel like I have the intellectual development that a 12-year-old should. You know, as I said, the only thing I feel qualified to recommend… you consider a terrible idea. Your response to that implies that set on their own, people will naturally “educate” themselves solely on video games, tv; the flashier, easier stuff. How can I say that’s wrong? Well, I know that’s not entirely true, but it’s mostly true for many people.
I don’t like thinking that way, though. It sounds pessimistic. Churchill had the great joke, “For myself, I am an optimist — it does not seem to be much use being anything else.” It’s honest, though. Where does it lead if set on their own, people only pursue video games? It’s another path leading towards that “Idiocracy Effect”, and if it’s the case, it seems inevitable, and would eventually lead to our demise.
No, it’s useless to think that. It’s stupid to think that kids can’t learn wise use of time on their own. They must! Yes, maybe it was easier before video games. It doesn’t mean it’s hopeless!
What I do know, though, is that our school system absolutely is teaching kids to have short attention spans, through its system of 40 minute classes, 4 minute breaks, bells, etc; it’s teaching children to never think on their own, with its system of teachers, security guards and administrators, with schedules telling them what classes they take, the bells, the periods, the people telling them to get up, sit down, no you can’t go to the bathroom, now you can; it’s teaching children to be (tinfoil hat time!) robot laborers, unquestioning sheep; good laborers at decent jobs with decent conditions, never asking for more; our school system teaches mediocracy.
Remember my anecdote about principals, police? Usual Suspects? You missed my main point:
I was labeled. School systems today tell us what we are. They label us from the start. I was told that it was fine that I was bullied, because it meant that I would be their boss someday. I was grade A meat. We were cattle in a pen; some were content, I had no way out. I knew some people who were developmentally challenged (I think is what they called it). I was Gifted and Talented. I was treated like crap, but that’s cool,
I was Gifted,
and I was Talented.
You know, it’s cool - maybe that’s why I never entirely gave up! I just mostly gave up.
How do you think this helps students? Don’t you think labels like that are harmful? Are they beneficial? You were talking with someone about about Group/Level 1, 2, 3, 4 people, probably in regards to testing or something I never heard of. How does this help? I guess it helps grouping people. Does it really not strike you as fascinatingly fascist that the government demands parents give up their kids (under penalty of law if they refuse); send them off to brick buildings to be taught whatever the government decides, by teachers who the parents almost certainly won’t know, choose, or elect; teach kids in a subtly authoritarian manner, leaving little room for free thought; saying a pledge of allegiance, learning from books the state/administration decides; telling children what and when they can eat, where and when they can use a toilet; telling them they can’t have this sort of backpack, because that would be dangerous; fire drills, bomb drills, etc (fear, fear! It’s all important.
Yes free thought exists, but only facilitated by good teachers like you. I never had a doubt you guys existed. I didn’t have terrible teachers. I just didn’t have special ones. I had mediocre teachers, in a well-funded school. I was trained in mediocrity. It’s not a conspiracy today. I think virtually everyone in education today is well-meaning. It doesn’t mean that we aren’t stunting our kids’ intellectual growth. I really can’t see how you can think this isn’t happening. It may not seem useful, but I can point out a problem without knowing how to fix it. There’s millions of people smarter than me, and many of them in this country, too! There’s power enough to fix it, that I’m sure of. And it will involve children being able to pursue intellectually what they want to, when they want to, at least most of the time. I really think it must be possible to make children understand that education is far more rewarding than games in the long run. Both have their time and place, but education should receive far more of their time.
And they shouldn’t be taught that the reason they should be educated is so that they can get a good job. Materialism is fine in a capitalist society, but that sort of mental materialist manipulation is terrible. That is explicitly teaching mediocrity!
It reminds me of a “Health” teacher I had, who taught us that we should always put ourselves first. It simply is not healthy to think any other way. That is exactly the way she described it, and the words she used. Do you not find that to be despicable? How does that not corrupt young minds? Seriously?
Schools have entirely abandoned instilling logic, reasoning, questioning attitudes, inquisitiveness, philosophic discussion… the capability of selfless thought… The school system is creating terrible people!
Time to digress.
In regards to your case studies, this is something I guess I never made clear: education should be available to everyone. Without a doubt. Not just high school, but beyond. It definitely shouldn’t be mandated for as long as it is.
In the case of Daniel, I honestly don’t know what to say. The fact that he shows up makes me think he must still live in a fine neighborhood, and his mother must not have convinced him that school is unnecessary. I can pretend that if law didn’t require him to be there, he would still be there. The truth? Who knows. The other two, Meredith especially, sound like they’d be fine learning on their own. One day, when his time comes, Shane would start asking those around him for help on math. Once his mind has progressed in other ways, and his mind more fully comprehends the abstract, and can understand how math correlates to the world around him, it will become vastly easier for him to learn. He’ll find it easy. He’ll be ecstatic!
Or, all 3 of them could continue in the public school system. All 3 would be served well. Your case studies involved no individuals whatsoever who are not currently being served well by the school system. A problem? I think so. I know I wasn’t the only one.
Look, I’m sorry I seem so hard-headed. Perhaps ignorant. I agree with you more than you could imagine. You seem, simply, an entirely agreeable person. You sound like what a teacher should be. I really don’t think you’re part of the problem. The problems aren’t getting better though, they’re getting worse. Because teachers have to concentrate on students who are performing the worst, I don’t think you notice the students who are being served the worst. I’m not [just] saying in terms of intellectual stimulation. I also mean in terms of stifling surroundings and mental captivity. There is nothing free about our free schools. If they weren’t so mandatory, then they could be free. Now they are fascist and socialist, and that’s not just tin-hat speak. That’s literal truth.
It sounds strange to you, it sounds wrong; after all, you organized protests and walk-outs! I read stories in my textbooks of walk-outs and sit-ins, protests and demonstrations. They never, ever once seemed real to me. Textbooks are storybooks! I spent two decades of my life, supposed to be an intelligent kid, but I never understood things things were actually possible, that these things were actually done! How can that be justified!?
Lord have mercy, that’s not just tin-hat speak, that’s insulting and despicable hyperbole, spoken as if all you know of fascism is that some of your friends toss the word around to describe any system they dislike. It’s not fascism to require children to learn.
As for the rest of your post, while I’m sure you have the best of intentions, it’s kind of all over the place. I’ve read it, but I’m having a hard time teasing out its thesis.
Socialist fits perfectly; and no, I don’t think everything socialist is enherently bad.
True, the word fascism is thrown about too often, and it definitely doesn’t fit perfectly.
In the sense that it’s government-run, propagandist, authoritarian, dogmatic, done by force (of law), regimenting, un-democratic, etc… I think fascist fits. Very loosely, but it fits.
I mean really, what does fascist mean? There’s been too few fascist leaders to ever get a good definition. Sorry for my poor application of it here. I think you should see that the aspects that I am pointing at, really are there, and really are wrong.
And the kicker to all that is, it teaches mediocrity. Do you disagree?
I absolutely disagree. Maybe you had mediocre schools, and mediocre teachers, but I did not. At age 49 I’m still using things I learned in high school, and knowledge built on top of that in college, every single day. I could never have had the career I do without the knowledge I gained in school.
I realize something is missing: you say there’s surely significant problems with our system today, so what changes do you propose in our education system?
Socialist fits. Fascist absolutely does not fit. Fascism tends to represent a system of government that does not give a vote, suppresses all dissent violently, merges corporate and government powers, and often bends the aim of society toward conquest. Sure, schools limit democracy to all adults in society who can vote on educational policy. They suppress speech that gets in the way of their mission, much like courtrooms, legislative halls, and virtually all government buildings. They mandate attendance, unless your parents arrange alternate means of obtaining the services they provide. They provide structure to the lives of children at a time when children most crave structure. Children say the pledge every morning, except for children who would prefer not to say it, who can sit quietly during the pledge. They’re pro-America, unless a particular teacher wants to teach accurate lessons that cast the country in a bad light.
“Fascist” doesn’t come close to fitting. Not remotely. This is a classic example of bandying the word about in an inappropriate setting.
And no, schools don’t teach mediocrity. I will grant that NCLB encourages mediocrity by requiring that all students are on grade level but not requiring that all students perform to their potential.
In thinking about your long post from yesterday, I think your points can be boiled down as follows:
- Schools ought to let students learn about whatever they want to learn about.
- This would be a good idea because, given this freedom, most students would want to learn about important things instead of wanting to learn about how to best kill zombies.
- I believe point #2 to be true because it’s too depressing to believe it’s not, and I, like Churchill, am an optimist.
The thing is, optimism is not evidence, and if Churchill had been the kind of optimist you’re being, modern Brits would be speaking German. Optimism does not preclude realism; rather, it means you should, eyes open and confronting the facts, act toward a better world.
That’s what I try to do as a teacher, sometimes with more enthusiasm and energy than other times. I learn what my kids are like. My Merediths (to use my previous case studies) get a lot of attention from me in areas their parents may not be able to help them with: I help them with some of my tech skills, I teach them how to get along with people from different backgrounds, I show them how to push themselves into areas beyond their comfort zone. My Shanes get some similar stuff, but they also get relieved of some of their excess and unrealistic self-esteem: I make it clear to them that desiring and pretending to be brilliant won’t get you to the same place that working to be brilliant will, and if necessary I make that lesson very stark. My Daniels are in some ways the easiest, even if they’re the hardest to work with: any education at all is going to be a lot better than what they’re going to get if left in their malfunctioning home (example: one Daniel, suspended for throwing a chair at my assistant, ran up to our school’s social worker in his apartment complex parking lot during the day. He was completely unattended by any adult for the day, but he offered her the bag of Oreos he had. WHen she demurred, he assured her it was okay, since he had another bag back home. Imagine his life without school all the time!)
If we didn’t live in an environment saturated with products designed to tap into our love of learning, maybe this wouldn’t be such a problem. But we live in the world we live in, and frankly, I love those products. What we have to do, at home and at school, is to teach children the discipline to learn the things that are useful, the discipline to learn the things that are joyful, and the discipline to consume the junky learning stuff (when I sign off here, I’m gonna watch Season 1 finale of Breaking Bad, eager to learn what happens) in moderation.
Denying that children need to learn that discipline, pretending that it’s inherent, does nobody, least of all children, any good.
I guess there’s no point in talking about the rest. Half I agree, half disagree; all of it we’ve went over.
Churchill: First of all, that quote was post-war. The quote is also a joke. “It does not seem to be much use being anything else” is a pretty pessimistic statement. He’s joking that he’s optimistic for a pessimistic reason. A witty guy, he was.
In the context I used it, that there wasn’t much purpose thinking another way…
It reminds me of the philosophical idea of solipsism. That’s the only reasonable argument against it. What’s the purpose in being a solipsist? A solipsist should rather not be correct. It would suck if he were! There’s just no use thinking that way.
That’s how I view the idea that people don’t choose to educate themselves by default. I gave a reason. It seems hopeless if they really are that way.
Educators shouldn’t have to be teaching this to students. I think a kid will show up at 4-5 thinking that way, unless his parents sat him in front of Dora his whole life. In his early years the school should be making him understand why education is important. By the time he’s 10 he’ll be voraciously devouring all knowledge he can get. Ideally. Of course there’s competing forces: tv, video games, etc.
I don’t agree that discipline should be ignored. I can understand how my reasoning before could seem to imply that, but that’s really the polar opposite of how I feel. I think children today receive more of their education from the media - tv, video games, etc - and less from their parents and teachers. They lose the understanding of the wonderful value of education. They don’t get to the point to understand that they themselves need to take charge of their own education.
Ideas won’t stick if the learner doesn’t understand why. This goes for discipline, too. I don’t think schools do much at all adequately. Meh. I dunno what else to say.
You know, perusing your post a second time, I realize I’m a bit removed from reality. Yeah. Doesn’t come as a shock to you, does it?
That is, I’ve been living alone for pretty much the last decade. Haven’t owned a tv in that time. Don’t really listen to radio. Never really been addicted to any particular product. Heck, I rarely even eat out or go to a bar. I’ve spent years sleeping on a floor, and even more years having all my belongings fit into one (extremely large) backpack. So I’m quite certain my views on how easy it should be for kids to think this way/think that way are slanted.
I got this way after having a mental breakdown, the blame of which I’ll still lay solely on the shoulders of our school system. It almost killed me, many times over. I’m so glad it’s not like that for other people. 
Thanks for the conversation. I’m mostly done here, but I’ll still peruse anything else you have to add. (Don’t think you’ve been talking to a wall; conversation actually frequently influences my opinions. I don’t think anything significant has changed here though). =/
I’m still curious as to what changes you recommend to the school system, beyond extending the school year. You did say you see many problems in it.
One of my first teaching jobs involved tutoring “at risk” students at a Virginia public school. “At risk” invariably meant that the kid in question was the child of immigrants from Latin America or Africa. Books and magazines were not kept around the house, and getting good grades was not a priority among these kids’ social peers. My observations are entirely anecdotal, but I saw them happening over and over in that metropolitan area and elsewhere in the country. Whatever books I gave these kids were the only books they owned at the time. Sorry so many of them were comics-related, but those and “The Dangerous Book for Boys” were the only books I owned that didn’t put these kids to sleep.
The purpose of education is indoctrination:
Common language
Common grammar
Common alphabet
Common numeric symbols and base
Common national icons
Common national history (perhaps mythical)
The brain is not logical. It is a self organizing system that will process any information given to it. It is an advantage to the society to establish a common frame of reference for it’s members.
The idea that childless individuals can opt out of paying for the process is absurd. It’s a necessary social process.
Crane
That is the interesting point.
The kids taking SAT tests in the early 60s would have been the first kids taking the tests who had been bombarded with television early in their childhoods. Now we get to wonder what these cheap computers can do to or for the culture. But now the users can have far more control.
What will adults encourage kids to do with them and what social pressure will kids put on each other.
The Fourth R by George Oliver Smith
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/875/the-fourth-r
Solve Elec - draw and analyze electrical circuits
psik
Two significant points:
- It’s nothing like solipsism, because there’s no possible evidence that can count for against solipsism: it’s an entirely philosophical point. How and why people learn, on the other hand, is entirely within the realm of empirical evidence. Rejecting solipsism is nearly a matter of opinion; rejecting how people learn is blinding oneself to evidence.
- If I’m right, things are far from hopeless. If I’m right, in fact, there’s a great deal of good we can do in the world.
You said earlier that you like the sound of me but you think I’m part of the problem. Allow me to turn that around on you. I’ve known and befriended many people who have lived out of backpacks. That was, essentially, me until the age of 24, when I finally could no longer fit all my possessions into a subcompact. For a long time I worked for political nonprofits, out of a desire to do good in the world; but my desire to do good eventually led me to teaching, the place where I think that my personal skillset can make the greatest difference.
I’m in the trenches. I don’t always succeed, but I’m doing my damnedest to change the future of the world, one kid at a time. I research, I evaluate, I plan, I engage kids. It’s exhausting, and then I turn around to yet another year of frozen wages and politicians belittling us and increased work hours without compensation and further totally unrealistic NCLB goals that set us up for failure. But I continue, because what else is there to do?
You, on the other hand? I like you, and I like the sound of your life, but your theorizing from a distance is a huge part of the problem. You, like so many politicians that evaluate public education, base it on what you wish were true rather than on what is true.
We’ll never solve the problems of public education through fantasizing about it. We can only solve the problems by confronting the reality, be it beautiful or hideous or simultaneously both.
Lefthand:
Solipsism. You’re right about evidence concerning it. You also may be right about the evidence of children favoring quick, flashy, and useless learning over the beneficial sort. My experience disagrees, but I admit you must have collected more evidence on that matter than I. I still say one only needs to understand the benefits of real education to be overcome with a desire to pursue it. I really don’t know the veracity of your side.
But…
your recommendations for improving the school system involve… dropping NCLB, making school years longer while lowering teachers’ hours and increasing their pay, and…
and…
?
(I think that’s all plausible through taking funding away from defense. You know how I feel about longer school years)
This is what I’m curious about. You’re the man in the trenches. I said I don’t feel qualified to propose much. I’ve only had the point of view of the patient. You’re the doctor. Is that all you propose for improvement?
When I said I considered you part of the problem it was in the same manner that I was a part of the problem when I was in the military. The military (as you well know) is way-overfunded. You may not realize to what extent private contractors control how much the military is charged for just-about everything. I pointed out a fair number of things in my time; the response (say, from my CO) was almost always “Yeah, I know, but there’s not really anything that can be done about it. It’s just the way it goes.” It makes me think of how Rickover got forced out of his job in the Reagan days. There’s no need to question. That’s just the way it goes!
My point? I definitely mean to say that you aren’t causing any problems. I also think you’re pretending problems aren’t there when they really are. I can see problems clear as day from where I stand, anyway. I’m not sure how much you question what’s around you! I’ve heard little from you excepting your discussion of my own ideas. I want to know your ideas.
For your last statement: everything I’ve described is the reality that I’ve seen. What I’ve described is definitely not what I wish to see. Some of what I’ve proposed is the ideal place where reality should be guided to. The reality is here, the ideal is over there, and we’ll end up somewhere in between. We should be pushing for the ideal, though. That’s not fantasizing. That’s doing the best we can.
This first: when I talk about fantasizing instead of addressing reality as it is, I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t make the system better. Rather, I’m suggesting that we should work with human nature as it is, not say, “We’re going to enact education policy that assumes children will be self-motivated to learn useful things, not because the evidence suggests this is true, but because it’s depressing to think it’s not true.”
It starts early: a kid who’s used to diapers doesn’t necessarily want to learn to use the toilet, because toileting is a boring chore, whereas using a diaper offloads the mess on the parents. It’s the job of a parent to convince the child (gently, of course) that toileting is worth the bother.
And this holds true throughout. Learning to spell words accurately is not very fun, and young children tend to regard writing as expression, not communication. It’s the job of the educator to help a child see that writing can function as communication, and that this communication is enhanced by conventional spelling. And so on.
Now, I’ve not addressed your repeated question about how to improve education, because that’s not what this thread is about: I’ve tried to focus on the overall point, that mandatory public education is vital to a functioning democracy. Of course the education must be of a certain sort to help democracy. So here are my thoughts, disorganized but gathered over my short (so far) career:
-Treat teachers well. Countries like Finland and South Korea pay teachers far, far more than we do relative to others in the society and relative to the amount of hours worked. Their teachers experience far less turnover, and the profession is able to attract many applicants from the top third, rather than the bottom third, of college classes.
-Rigorous standards for teaching. Ideally becoming a teacher should be about as hard as, and pay about as well as, becoming an attorney. I’d much rather live in a country with top-notch teachers than a country with top-notch attorneys.
-Eliminate tenure. I just got mine–and I won’t lie, yay!–but I don’t need it. At all jobs you run the risk of a tweaker boss firing you on a whim; teachers don’t face this risk to a greater degree than everyone else, and everyone else doesn’t need tenure. It’s only a real job benefit to shitty teachers who want to coast. For good, passionate teachers, it’s the opposite of a job benefit, since it means they’re likely to be picking up the slack of shitty teachers.
-Minimize political interference in the profession. The CDC occasionally has to deal with assholes like Jesse Helms telling them how to do their jobs, but for the most part they’re professionals, and we trust and expect them to do their jobs. Education, on the other hand, is a cross between a volleyball and a punching bag. Appoint excellent, rigorous people to head up education in the country, and then back the fuck off, same as you do with the CDC.
Those are the big-picture things.
Medium-picture:
-Stagger breaks throughout the year, rather than having one giant summer break. I won’t lie, I love the summer break (although I’ll be working for some chunks of it and childrearing for the rest). But it’s not good for our kids. Give short breaks that minimize learning loss.
-Small class sizes. These enable teachers to give more individual attention. Most important at younger grades, when students need a lot of one-on-one care.
-Educate parents on how to help children learn.
-Spread school funding out more equitably. Read Jonathon Kozol for more information on why this is necessary.
Now for the in-the-classroom stuff:
-Teachers should make every effort to connect learning to the real world. I gave examples earlier of how I try to do this; it can be done in any subject. Students love learning how to play the Zerg, because there’s an immediate application for their learning: they can kick some Protoss ass. If they can’t see the point of learning fractions, however, they won’t learn them.
-Teachers should give students real choices. Which animal to research for a diorama is a choice, sure, but you can go deeper than that. For example, when my students raised money for Heifer International, they researched the different animals that could be given and then engaged in several different formats of discussions during which they considered the advantages of each possible gift and discussed them with other students before voting on a final decision.
-Any decision that can be made by students may as well be made by them. I don’t really care whether there’s soft music playing during reading workshop, so I take a quick vote. If we need a new classroom management strategy, I’ll gather students and take suggestions. The more students get to shape their environment, the more responsibility they’ll feel for it. This is early education on how to be a good citizen.
-I freakin’ love projects, and while I think there are conflicting studies on the efficacy of project-based learning, I would hate to teach at a school where I couldn’t do big projects. Units that extend logically over many days or even weeks, that have a clear structure involving research, choices, discussions, and products to explain learning, are so much more engaging for students than daily exercises from a workbook. Not to mention more engaging for me.
-Notice the positive. This is really hard to do, again human nature at work: if ten people say, “Good to see you this morning!” and one says, “Out of my way, asshole,” which one will you remember? If ten students are walking down the hall quietly and one is poking his head in other classrooms and hooting, which one are you likely to respond to? Sure, you gotta say something to Mr. Hootie, but also thank Shaniqua up front for walking so nicely. If Lenny turns in a terrible mess of a story about police fighting robbers and chopping their heads off and the heads breaking out of jail and then there’s a bakery and you can’t figure out what the hell’s going on, be sure to compliment him on the coolness of jailbreaking heads before you delve into the problems.
-Figure out what we as educators can learn from World of Warcraft. The best games are things of beauty in how they dole out information at a steady, smooth pace and give the “student” immediate opportunities to use their new information and plenty of feedback on how they used it. We can’t ever make learning acute angles as fun as killing the lich king, but we can still take some lessons.
A lot of the small-picture stuff is obvious stuff, stuff that’s already being done in classrooms with good teachers (which, I maintain, is a helluva lot of classrooms: if you never experienced a single good teacher, I suspect the fault wasn’t with them). Anda lot of the big-picture stuff is unlikely to be enacted any time soon
Left,
Amen!
Crane