Capitalist Lawyer
17th June 2006, 23:10
Here's a really great article that I read and couldn't help reviewing. I'd like to know what you all think about it?
An Article I Critiqued (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200410/ai_n9463860/print)
After reading this piece through a couple of times I’d like to make some comments…
I agree with the author’s general theme, which is that the current public school system is sorely lacking in its methods today. I also agree with him on the liberal goals he has/had as an educator, specifically facilitating learning by his students. Beyond that I think his proposed methodology is fairly one dimensional.
The first thing that tips off the reader to the author’s agenda (or lack thereof) is this statement:
I was assessed on my progress as a teacher based not on my effectiveness in the running of a classroom according to my own philosophy of education, which requires a good teacher to be flexible, responsive to student interest (or lack thereof), and reflective in their own practice, but rather on how closely I adhered to my written plan. Therefore in order to be successful by the standards of the program and the state in which I was teaching, I had to contradict my own beliefs and act not as a facilitator of student learning, but instead as a purveyor of academic content.
While the teacher’s goals of ‘facilitating student learning’ are admirable and also, I believe, appropriate, there simply has to be more. To seem annoyed and offended that he might ask to also act as a ‘purveyor of academic content’ demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how children learn. Students expect a degree of knowledge from their teachers beyond the ability to point them towards the appropriate encyclopedias or websites to find answers to their questions. Like a good parent, teachers should sometimes help their students find the answers to life’s questions, but there are also times when a good parent says, “It’s this way because I said so.” Children appreciate a certain amount of dependability from their parents and/or their teachers. If a parent always re-directed the children to another source for their knowledge, in short time the child would realize the parent served little purpose. The same goes for a teacher. The author’s approach would be to let the child find out a stove is hot by allowing them to burn their hand, when the appropriate action in that case would be to tell them the fact and expect them to accept it.
The author himself demonstrates, through ancedotal evidence, that students will re-active negatively to a total lack of traditional learning.
Yet when I attempted to let students learn independently or from working with their peers, I was met with apathy, resistance, and was accused by my students of putting the work on them so that I had to do less work myself.
The author’s methods also fail to provide a baseline of fact for the students to use as a jumping off point. His methods of independent learning guided by him as teacher will only lead the students to question EVERYTHING which is not adequate preparation for a world in which some things are actually beyond question.
He discusses the Sudburry Valley School, an institution with, “…no grades, report cards, required courses, or curriculum,” with a certain degree of admiration. What he neglects to mention are other midigating realities: These schools, while effective for select groups of students, usually from upper middle class homes, do not have a program which translates well to a larger population. These schools require an extraordinary degree of parental involvement as well as a very engaged and motivated student population. This is something that is not available in many public school districts. Often times when it IS available, the students either attend private schools or stand-out ‘model’ public schools.
The author minimalizes the importance of traditional academics:
“Her experiences stand up strongly against the argument that there are basic academic standards that all students need in order to succeed. In fact her experiences support those assertions of Carl Rogers and Jerome Freiberg that the most vital skills a student needs are internal motivation, and the ability to investigate the questions that arise in the world around them, think critically, and learn independently.”
This attitude again, does not reflect the realities of the world. Yes, I agree 100% that the ability to ‘think critically and learn independently’ are vital skills that one must develop to succeed as an adult. But man does not survive on these things alone. The traditional academic programs of reading, writing and arithmetic are the foundation all students must have.
The present problem we have in today’s schools is a direct result of liberal teaching methods implemented in the 1970s and 1980s that de-emphasized core content in favor of 'alternative' subjects as well as teaching methods. What we find now is that industries are practically begging for employees better prepared than what they are currently seeing. It is they who are driving the return to traditional core curriculum and that has lead to the emphasis on standardized tests which seek to chart progress towards that goal. The converse argument, probably from Freshington, will be that schools should not be factories churning out workers for industry. But this is short-sighted as well because it does not address the economic reality that people must eat and usually must work to do so.
So where does this leave us? Searching for a happy medium I susspect. My personal opinion is that we need diversification. We need less emphasis on standardized testing, enabling teachers to stop ‘teaching for the test' but we also need to continue to emphasize core subjects (including civics which is the most sorely neglected subject in today’s schools).
Another subject I am passionate about is non-traditional teaching opportunities outside of the classroom. This is accomplished around the country today in successful parternships between professionals and teachers. I have worked for several public education programs based out of historic sites and also through our archaeological work in and around Lancaster. As a result I consider myself an educator, though I have never held a teaching certification or worked in a classroom. What we have accomplished through these programs is to provide teachers with curriculum-specific experiences for their students in a setting away from their schools. Their students are engaged to not only think about history, science, math and anthropology, but they also see professionals in action, at work in their chosen fields. I can tell you from personal experience that when a child receives a quick, traditional lesson from someone other than their teacher, followed by a hands on opportunity to do something like excavate a historic site and find real artifacts, you have a winning formula for learning. This can be applied to a number of professional-educator relationships, involving any multitude of fields. Frankly, the more the better.
In summary – while the author’s goals are excellent, they are short-sighted. The better approach is to merge his desire for guided, independent learning with traditional classroom lecture with whatever else they can think of. It is only through this diverse process that a quality education is achieved.
An Article I Critiqued (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200410/ai_n9463860/print)
After reading this piece through a couple of times I’d like to make some comments…
I agree with the author’s general theme, which is that the current public school system is sorely lacking in its methods today. I also agree with him on the liberal goals he has/had as an educator, specifically facilitating learning by his students. Beyond that I think his proposed methodology is fairly one dimensional.
The first thing that tips off the reader to the author’s agenda (or lack thereof) is this statement:
I was assessed on my progress as a teacher based not on my effectiveness in the running of a classroom according to my own philosophy of education, which requires a good teacher to be flexible, responsive to student interest (or lack thereof), and reflective in their own practice, but rather on how closely I adhered to my written plan. Therefore in order to be successful by the standards of the program and the state in which I was teaching, I had to contradict my own beliefs and act not as a facilitator of student learning, but instead as a purveyor of academic content.
While the teacher’s goals of ‘facilitating student learning’ are admirable and also, I believe, appropriate, there simply has to be more. To seem annoyed and offended that he might ask to also act as a ‘purveyor of academic content’ demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how children learn. Students expect a degree of knowledge from their teachers beyond the ability to point them towards the appropriate encyclopedias or websites to find answers to their questions. Like a good parent, teachers should sometimes help their students find the answers to life’s questions, but there are also times when a good parent says, “It’s this way because I said so.” Children appreciate a certain amount of dependability from their parents and/or their teachers. If a parent always re-directed the children to another source for their knowledge, in short time the child would realize the parent served little purpose. The same goes for a teacher. The author’s approach would be to let the child find out a stove is hot by allowing them to burn their hand, when the appropriate action in that case would be to tell them the fact and expect them to accept it.
The author himself demonstrates, through ancedotal evidence, that students will re-active negatively to a total lack of traditional learning.
Yet when I attempted to let students learn independently or from working with their peers, I was met with apathy, resistance, and was accused by my students of putting the work on them so that I had to do less work myself.
The author’s methods also fail to provide a baseline of fact for the students to use as a jumping off point. His methods of independent learning guided by him as teacher will only lead the students to question EVERYTHING which is not adequate preparation for a world in which some things are actually beyond question.
He discusses the Sudburry Valley School, an institution with, “…no grades, report cards, required courses, or curriculum,” with a certain degree of admiration. What he neglects to mention are other midigating realities: These schools, while effective for select groups of students, usually from upper middle class homes, do not have a program which translates well to a larger population. These schools require an extraordinary degree of parental involvement as well as a very engaged and motivated student population. This is something that is not available in many public school districts. Often times when it IS available, the students either attend private schools or stand-out ‘model’ public schools.
The author minimalizes the importance of traditional academics:
“Her experiences stand up strongly against the argument that there are basic academic standards that all students need in order to succeed. In fact her experiences support those assertions of Carl Rogers and Jerome Freiberg that the most vital skills a student needs are internal motivation, and the ability to investigate the questions that arise in the world around them, think critically, and learn independently.”
This attitude again, does not reflect the realities of the world. Yes, I agree 100% that the ability to ‘think critically and learn independently’ are vital skills that one must develop to succeed as an adult. But man does not survive on these things alone. The traditional academic programs of reading, writing and arithmetic are the foundation all students must have.
The present problem we have in today’s schools is a direct result of liberal teaching methods implemented in the 1970s and 1980s that de-emphasized core content in favor of 'alternative' subjects as well as teaching methods. What we find now is that industries are practically begging for employees better prepared than what they are currently seeing. It is they who are driving the return to traditional core curriculum and that has lead to the emphasis on standardized tests which seek to chart progress towards that goal. The converse argument, probably from Freshington, will be that schools should not be factories churning out workers for industry. But this is short-sighted as well because it does not address the economic reality that people must eat and usually must work to do so.
So where does this leave us? Searching for a happy medium I susspect. My personal opinion is that we need diversification. We need less emphasis on standardized testing, enabling teachers to stop ‘teaching for the test' but we also need to continue to emphasize core subjects (including civics which is the most sorely neglected subject in today’s schools).
Another subject I am passionate about is non-traditional teaching opportunities outside of the classroom. This is accomplished around the country today in successful parternships between professionals and teachers. I have worked for several public education programs based out of historic sites and also through our archaeological work in and around Lancaster. As a result I consider myself an educator, though I have never held a teaching certification or worked in a classroom. What we have accomplished through these programs is to provide teachers with curriculum-specific experiences for their students in a setting away from their schools. Their students are engaged to not only think about history, science, math and anthropology, but they also see professionals in action, at work in their chosen fields. I can tell you from personal experience that when a child receives a quick, traditional lesson from someone other than their teacher, followed by a hands on opportunity to do something like excavate a historic site and find real artifacts, you have a winning formula for learning. This can be applied to a number of professional-educator relationships, involving any multitude of fields. Frankly, the more the better.
In summary – while the author’s goals are excellent, they are short-sighted. The better approach is to merge his desire for guided, independent learning with traditional classroom lecture with whatever else they can think of. It is only through this diverse process that a quality education is achieved.