I feel compelled to allow myself to fall into a bit of a trap. I teach 100 6th graders, 100 7th graders, around 60 8th graders, and top that off with about 90 - 100 high school students. I see each of them for one contact period a week. Naturally, I quickly simplify things for myself, out of both necessity and a realization that all of the students, regardless of age, are in about the same place with their technology skills. Few have experienced using technology creatively. As much as in "core" subjects - or possibly more - they learn passively.
I resist spoon feeding them information. I use multiple teaching strategies, including previewing material, providing step by step examples, whole class demonstration, and individual and small group work. I tell the students that I understand they won't all like every lesson, but also know that the next project will be different.
Still, I feel as though I am prevented from applying the lesson I learned and took to heart teaching for three years in a therapeutic school: Allow student interests and abilities to not only influence my teaching but also shape what and how they learn. Compound teaching over 300 students with the fact that our students lack experience in decision making, and I feel that I am trapped into teaching a consistent curriculum to all students and modifying my instruction to support the diverse needs of a large student population.
As an education system, we need to break away from this model - that all students need to learn the same things. Perhaps that is the way it need be in elementary school. But shouldn't secondary school be more like college or university? Don't students begin to demonstrate aptitude and interest by the time they enter their teen years? Doesn't the material begin to become complex and resistant to broad mastery? Shouldn't students and parents be given the option to enroll in small academies that teach to student interests while ensuring that society benefits from a constant stream of people who are passionate and excited about their field of study?
At the same time, wouldn't this draw thinkers and dreamers to the profession of teaching?
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Crazy Idea #1: Student and Teacher, Partners in Education
Why is it that students, parents, and politicians expect teachers to be nearly mystical and certainly mythical forces? Today, I felt ambushed by a parent who showed up at the end of the day without a confirmed appointment, and then suggesting that I had somehow not communicated expectations clearly.
With all the forms of communication we teachers use today, whether it's verbal communication, photo copies, e-mail, or classroom web pages, how is it possible for students or parents to be in the dark when a report card arrives reporting a grade suggesting that the student accomplished little or nothing for weeks on end? I'm not talking about a difference between 90 and 80 or even 80 and 70. We give students agenda books and they refuse to write assignments down. Within a few weeks, a large percentage of those assignment books have been discarded, left aside.
Sometimes, however, students learn from these experiences and grow. I have a 10th grade student who failed my class in the fall. He took it upon himself to redo the class, to check in with me on his own, to accept feedback, to be responsible for his learning.
Did he have set backs during this project? Did he require frequent prompts to make consistent progress? Did it take him longer than expected to complete the project? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Still, here is his response to the project:
"This project forced me out of my comfort zone several times...It was very uncomfortable learning about something I had never experimented with or even used before...I have to say, this project was a lot to put together and involved a lot of research and subjective thought. I enjoyed it thoroughly and while it was tough and somewhat tedious in parts, overall I liked the experience."
When students and teachers work together and communicate, a different kind of learning is possible: Roots of Rock
With all the forms of communication we teachers use today, whether it's verbal communication, photo copies, e-mail, or classroom web pages, how is it possible for students or parents to be in the dark when a report card arrives reporting a grade suggesting that the student accomplished little or nothing for weeks on end? I'm not talking about a difference between 90 and 80 or even 80 and 70. We give students agenda books and they refuse to write assignments down. Within a few weeks, a large percentage of those assignment books have been discarded, left aside.
Sometimes, however, students learn from these experiences and grow. I have a 10th grade student who failed my class in the fall. He took it upon himself to redo the class, to check in with me on his own, to accept feedback, to be responsible for his learning.
Did he have set backs during this project? Did he require frequent prompts to make consistent progress? Did it take him longer than expected to complete the project? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Still, here is his response to the project:
"This project forced me out of my comfort zone several times...It was very uncomfortable learning about something I had never experimented with or even used before...I have to say, this project was a lot to put together and involved a lot of research and subjective thought. I enjoyed it thoroughly and while it was tough and somewhat tedious in parts, overall I liked the experience."
When students and teachers work together and communicate, a different kind of learning is possible: Roots of Rock
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Mandated Mediocrity
Recently, I have settled on a term that I feel describes what schools are expected to produce. Insisting that all children, if only provided with all the right supports, all the right tests, and all the patience we can manage will make it to college, will become doctors, diplomats, or astronauts.
However, I can't help thinking that there is an inherent bias and judgmentality in this line of thinking. What's wrong with becoming a trade person? What if a young person would excel at learning a craft that requires great skill? Some of these very trades pay far more than being a teacher, artist, or therapist. There will always be a place in our economy for master masons, plumbers, electricians, and carpenters.
Some of these students, indeed, can succeed as students. Yet, are they, or will the ever be, happy pegged into the demands of academia?
In the end, what does our education system do well? Who does it serve? How many students achieve less than they might because we demand that all students prepare for college, even if they have no intention to do so? I speak not only of the students who will pursue higher education, but also those who would prefer to spend the time learning a craft.
No Child Left Behind is an insidious failure. Not only does it fail to achieve its stated goals, it mandates mediocrity. Everyone is not the same. Why should we educate all of our students as if they are the same? Why should our goals for our students fit into a single package?
However, I can't help thinking that there is an inherent bias and judgmentality in this line of thinking. What's wrong with becoming a trade person? What if a young person would excel at learning a craft that requires great skill? Some of these very trades pay far more than being a teacher, artist, or therapist. There will always be a place in our economy for master masons, plumbers, electricians, and carpenters.
Some of these students, indeed, can succeed as students. Yet, are they, or will the ever be, happy pegged into the demands of academia?
In the end, what does our education system do well? Who does it serve? How many students achieve less than they might because we demand that all students prepare for college, even if they have no intention to do so? I speak not only of the students who will pursue higher education, but also those who would prefer to spend the time learning a craft.
No Child Left Behind is an insidious failure. Not only does it fail to achieve its stated goals, it mandates mediocrity. Everyone is not the same. Why should we educate all of our students as if they are the same? Why should our goals for our students fit into a single package?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)