This is why I chose to become a teacher. I was idealistic and naive enough to believe that I would be able to convey this message to students and we would live happily ever after in academic bliss.
My naivety was widespread. I failed to factor in things like: the rigid structure of the public education system, the effect of years and years of failed education practices on student ability, and the apathy of parents, students, and other educators to name a few.
My idealistic optimism quickly turned into devastating hopelessness, and eventually unabated rage and hatred. By the time I left teaching, I felt like my next day would be the one where I was the star of a Breaking News Special Report: Sadistic Teacher causes School Hostage Crisis that interrupts Judge Judy. Much to the chagrin of my students’ parents who were dying to find out if Mary Jo was going to have to pay for Jennifer’s window after Mary Jo threw a rock at her baby’s daddy who Jennifer was having an affair with.
I don’t claim to be the only person on Earth who believes the rest of what I have to say, in fact, most of the teachers I have met believe the exact same thing.
What’s wrong?
There is one problem at the center of all the failings of public education. Students do not want to learn. Every mistake in the design of the public education system leads to this population of apathetic pupils, and every aspect we use to measure success/failure in our assessment of the system is a result of student apathy.When I was teaching history I was constantly asked “Why do I have to learn this?”, there is no answer to this question that will satisfy the person asking it. There is no answer because it is not the correct question. The question should be “Why do I WANT to learn this?” . This question is not one that can be answered by another person; it as to come from within.
Why don’t the students want to learn?
Kids, and especially teens, do not like feeling like they “must” do something. They a constantly being told what they must do. No matter how often they are told that education is one of the most important determinants of success, the feeling that they must participate will create an “us v/s authority” in most when it comes to education.
Not only are the Students infected with this perceived battle between them and the authority of the education system, but the entire design of the system prevents the students from wanting to learn. A fundamental problem is how we have come to define the words “learning” and “teaching”.
The system is based around an assumption that “learning” is created in students as a result of a teacher “teaching”. This is flawed. All learning comes from an internal desire to learn. “Teaching” is nothing more than the dissemination of information when applied through the methods of today’s education system.
No one can be forced to learn anything if they have no desire to do so, anymore than it is possible to prevent someone from learning something that they are determined to learn. This desire cannot be instilled, but it can be inspired.
Unfortunately from the time they are five years old (and often even younger) they are thrown into an institution that values acquisition of information over learning. So kids who know very little of anything other than their home and family are carelessly plopped in a rigidly structured, foreign, and usually chaotic environment. Instead of their comfortably familiar parents there is just one (at most two) strange and overstressed young adult trying to fill the role of mommy to 20 terrified students.
After a few weeks of being conditioned to adhere to the rules and procedures of the system that they will essentially be serfs under for the remainder of their pre-adult (at least) life, they being their “Education”. They are inundated with the repetitive boredom of redundantly repeatedly repeating by teachers hoping to achieve memorization. Through repetition they will memorize words, colors, shapes, time, numbers, and anything else that has been deemed important by the creators of the system.
After years of being “educated” in this manner what are we left with?
Let’s generalize and give examples of what an average 10 year old is expected to have “learned” under this system. Then decide what value will have in a 10 year old.
Arithmetic –counting, division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction of whole numbers (up to 6 digits or so), fractions (probably just addition and subtraction) including conversions, decimals, and value (greater than, less than, equal to).
How much of this does a 10 year old need outside of school? Counting and maybe very basic understanding of computations. Even in these cases it hasn’t been an wise use to time to “teach” it in school. Chances are that if they actually needed to have these skills at age 10, they would acquire them outside of school.
Geometry – identification of shapes, how to calculate area and perimeter of squares, rectangles, and triangles, volume of cubes.
Again, nothing here that is useful to a 10 year old that would not have been learned naturally outside of school.
Reading/Language – ability to read and comprehend on a very basic level, a speaking vocabulary that is far from impressive, and relatively strong ability to use punctuation.
Reading is the only exception here. Reading is a tool that is used for learning. It is the only skill that this 10 year old has acquired from the system that facilitates learning.
Science – Chances are that they have repeated the same general lessons every year covering the most basic parts of each discipline of science.
Other than the Scientific method, which is a tool that facilitates learning, Science has no practical value to a 10 year old.
Social Studies (History, Geography, government, ect..) – Like science they have most likely pretty much went over the same basic topics each year. They probably have went over the geography and early history of the US, and the very basics of the government. But under the US system, this subject is most often the least important so it’s not given much time. An average 10 year old essentially knows nothing of this subject without being refreshed, at least nothing gained from school.
At 10 there is no reason to have spent much if any time on this.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t bother?
I think this knowledge dispensing that we use as our preferred method is wasting valuable time. I believe that as we get older knowledge (or facts) become easier and easier to absorb and retain. On the other hand, I think the opposite is true for development of logic and problem solving. I believe it is a much better use of time to spend the early years intensely focusing on developing problem solving skills.
Whether the system focuses on this area or not, the students will be solving problems and using logic constantly in an out of school. But under the current system, students are not given much guidance in this regard and simply develop their own methods. It’s usually just a combination of what they have observed in those around them and personal experience. By the time they are teenagers, most students have pretty much developed the same basic ability to reason and problem solve that they will have their entire lives.
I know you are thinking “That’s not right, teenagers make ill advised decisions much more often than adults!” . That is accurate, but it’s not really because of the process they use to make the decision. The type of decisions that teenagers do a poor job with, are usually related to their goal and not the process. As they get older their priorities usually change and so do their goals, but the process by which they make decisions is not all that different.
If we spent the first 10 years (arbitrary number) focusing on developing logic and problem solving, with a generous serving of reading, the result would be a student who is much more prepared to “learn” that what we get under the current system. I believe that the lack of knowledge that the “learning ready” has compared to the “data memorization” student would be quickly made up. In one year if not less.
What exactly should we do during those early years?
As I have suggested before, you cannot "teach" logic nor is their much that can be "taught" with regard to problem solving. We can facilitate and guide students through developing their thought processes, and this is what our focus should be for most of the first half of their public education.
We should provide young students with puzzles of all types to solve, stories that finish with an open ended ending that they are asked to propose a conclusion to, practical problems dealing with issues that range from social to scientific and require both concrete and abstract thought, and other activities of that nature. The "teacher" should give little to no assistance to the students in relation to creating the solutions. A discussion of the many possible solutions should follow the activity so the students can be exposed to the wide range of ways to look at something.
The actual accuracy of the solution is not always important. A student could be given a problem that is vaguely scientific in nature, and be asked to solve it even if they do not posses the "knowledge" to do so. It's the process that is most important at this point in their development.
In fact, the less they know, the more effective it will be. They will look at everything with an open mind and attempt to make connections and evaluate the relevance of those connections, and not fear looking "stupid". This is a stark contrast from the humiliation created an 8 year old being asked to tell the class what 7x9 is without even volunteering, and then being giggled at by the half of the class who stayed up all night memorizing their multiplication tables. This group of children possibly were up past their usual bedtime, with their irritable parents who resented the fact that their entire night was being spent helping their child memorize a chart.
The system I am proposing would often create a situiation where none of the students were sure which answer was right or wrong. For all practical purposes all the students would have the correct answer because the goal wasn't the conclusion, but the process of creating the conclusion.
Reading is the only other subject that deserves significant attention during this stage. Since we have discarded so much, we could spend much more time on reading skills than under the current system. Students could be reading on the same level as the 10 year old created by the old system no later than age 8 with this extra time.
By the time these students get to the "knowledge acquiring" phase of their education they will have most likely developed a passion for solving problems. This passion for problem solving is what will drive them to acquire knowledge. They WANT to become better problem solvers, and they will realize that the more knowledge they have to draw from the better their solutions will be.
So the problem that I suggested was at the center of every failing of the public education system has been resolved. The question of why do I HAVE to learn this? is now extinct. The question of: "Why do I WANT to learn this?" will have already been answered in a very large majority of these students.
No comments:
Post a Comment