It has occurred to me that the farther away a person is from a classroom, the more critical he or she is about the education that occurs in that classroom. Building-level administrators often find it difficult to get into the classrooms to see what is going on there. So they assume that nothing good is happening. Central office administration is farther away still, so they naturally know that nothing good is happening. Board members avoid setting foot into the buildings, so they are convinced that nothing good is happening in the buildings, which proves that nothing good is happening in the classrooms. State legislators will never lower themselves to be seen in a public school because they hold schools in complete contempt and loathe that schools exist.
Yes, I'm probably being cynical. But it seems that way.
Consider, as an example, the movement to standardize instruction across the state. That is essentially what the universal appraisal project is set to accomplish. Every teacher will be measured by the same standards, meaning that every teacher has to do the same things to be considered effective. That just doesn't hold true.
There have been teachers throughout time that have, in spite of their leadership and the cries of outrage across the country, they have done a fantastic job teaching kids.
When I was in the classroom, before I'd ever heard the word "rubric," I was using a rubric to assess my students' writing. It was organic, in that it changed as the class moved through the year, shifting emphasis to what we studied and what was emphasized in class. The rubric had three main areas (as opposed to six as in the 6+ traits--I guess I was probably failing there): Content, Format, and GUMS--that's Grammar, Usage, Mechanics, and Sentence Structure. (Maybe it should have been GUMSS.) The rubric was working. Later in the year, the content component broke down into organization, voice, and ideas. And my students learned to write. No kidding--I used to get letters from college professors thanking me for teaching my kids how to write.
Then my department chair announced that central office had decided we should all use one rubric to assess writing. There was no listening. My organic rubric was dead. It had to go. There was no way that what I was doing could be equal to what they were bringing to the table. My assistant superintendent did not know what I was doing, but was convinced that I wasn't dong anything of value. My department chair didn't know what I was doing, but had been told that I wasn't doing anything of value. So the insanity ruled, because they were far away from the classroom and in positions of power. And I can tell you my students suffered. It was madness. I did the best I could do with their lock-step rubric, but it was not responsive to students. Their rubric demanded that every student be alike. Then those ladies came back and told me I was to differentiate instruction.
Can you see the insanity?
Listen. If a teacher is doing a good job, leave him or her alone. Reminds me of the Pink Floyd chant, "Hey, Teacher, Leave those kids alone." Let's change it..."Hey, Moron, leave good teachers alone."
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Always Maintain Professional Decorum: The pitfalls of open forums, cell phones, and social networks
Teachers bear a professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to set and maintain appropriate boundaries with students. Although staff members have a sincere interest in students as individuals, partiality and the appearance of impropriety must be avoided. School personnel shall maintain a reasonable standard of care for the supervision, control, and protection of students commensurate with their assigned duties and responsibilities, but may not allow students to regard them as peers. Specifically, three areas of concern are creating open forums during class time, having inappropriate personal relationships with students involving cell phones, and teacher involvement with social networking sites.
Open Forums: The concept of an open forum can be misleading. When it comes to learning, an open forum allows the free exchange of ideas in a civil manner, leading to students becoming aware of alternative perspectives and developing a greater sense of empathy and understanding. However, the classroom is not an open forum in allowing a teacher or a student to disseminate the propaganda of his or her personal beliefs. This is especially true concerning the teacher, for students are not in the habit of challenging the teacher and will often remain respectfully quiet, even when they do not agree. The teacher is to be neutral when discussing topics, thereby allowing students to examine the facts related to an issue and to draw their own conclusions. The teacher is to refrain from announcing personal beliefs regarding the State, the community, the school, or any such topic. As educators are neither to deny nor promote a specific religious belief, neither should they deny nor promote any specific political agenda.
Others consider an open forum as a place where students are free to tell a teacher about personal issues and troubles. Students develop a special trust in teachers; therefore, adults must not take advantage of students’ vulnerability or confidence. A teacher’s impact as a mentor in a student’s life outside of class is important, but a teacher encountering students with personal issues needs to refer the student to a qualified counselor. In fact, teachers who become aware of students in potentially harmful or illegal situations have a legal obligation to report the situation to a counselor, administrator, or the Department of Child Services.
Teachers are cautioned to maintain professional decorum in the classroom and whenever relating to students.
Cell Phone: Cell phones are culturally permeative. The anomaly is the person who does not have a cell phone, the person who does not send text messages. Many teachers and coaches have found the cell phone to be a good tool for contacting students, answering questions about assignments or passing along information about a change in practice. It is reasonable to expect that teachers will communicate with students through the use of cell phones.
However, teachers are not to engage in inappropriate personal relationships, having private conversations, texts, or instant messages with students. Teachers have an obligation to report improper communications with students to their supervisor immediately. Many authorities consider such communication to be “grooming,” a gateway to improper relationships between students and teachers. At the very least, these personal after-hours conversations with students lead to the perception that there is a double standard—every student does not have an equal opportunity to communicate with his or her teacher. This fosters the image that teachers have favorites.
There are times when communicating by cell phone—whether talking or texting—is appropriate and times when it is not. The teacher, as a professional, is to know the difference and not to cross the line.
Social Networking Sites: Social Networks are like cell phones in that they have become a part of the culture. Also as with cell phones, the educator must maintain proper professional boundaries with students. When a teacher uses his personal account to communicate with students, he is inviting the students into a closer relationship, which can be helpful in promoting learning but may also be misinterpreted. Therefore, it is not advisable for teachers to use personal accounts for school purposes. The school provides teachers with e-mail and Moodle accounts for professional correspondence.
If a teacher is enrolled in a social networking site, then the following restrictions should be followed:
- Keep privacy settings high so that only people chosen to relate to can see it.
- Use discretion; do not post comments on a site that would not be said face to face.
- Refrain from communicating with current students.
Currently there are court hearings in other states addressing whether schools may restrict teachers from communicating with students through the use of cell phones and social networks. A judge in St. Louis recently declared that doing so is limiting the freedom of speech of teachers. I tend to agree. But let us not forget that with the freedom we are granted comes responsibility and accountability. The line between what is right and what is wrong is not always clearly marked, but we, as professionals, know when we have crossed that line, and we know that consequences that we would rather avoid may well follow.
Remember to exercise discretion when communicating with students, whether that is in your classroom, on your cell phone, or through a social network, such as Facebook or Twitter. Always maintain professional decorum.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
How Have I Learned about Socratic Seminars
I was introduced to Socratic Seminars in 1996. Two great educators, working for the Indiana DOE--Thompson and Wilkinson, had found a man to conduct workshops. His name was Burt Plumb. He had been trained by a former teacher from the Paideia Schools in Chicago. Burt became my mentor for the next twelve years.
The first trainings began with two days of indoctrination, engaging in seminars and learning how to lead a seminar. Then we were sent back to our classrooms with the assignment to conduct at least one seminar. I recall doing two in every class I taught. We then returned for two more days of training, that began with everyone reporting on their experiences of conducting seminars.
At a later date, Burt came to my school and spent some time coaching me, watching me conduct seminars and talking with me about what I was doing well and how I could improve. Coaching is a very important part of conducting seminars.
Still later, I attended a four day summer workshop where I learned what I needed to know to train other teachers how to conduct Socratic Seminars. Just like summer camp, I made a lot of new friends who were all as interested in the method as was I. We communicated online, through email, and at conferences where we made presentations about seminars. We were disciples, in some ways.
Even later, Burt allowed me to attend trainings he conducted at schools all over Indiana. I was learning from him and I was teaching teachers. Burt and I would stay in a cheap hotel and stay up late at night arguing about the limits of seminars. We always talked about writing a book, but haven't gotten around to it.
The bottom line is that I've been studying Socratic Seminars for at least 15 years. I'm still learning about seminars, but I definitely am on the right path.
The first trainings began with two days of indoctrination, engaging in seminars and learning how to lead a seminar. Then we were sent back to our classrooms with the assignment to conduct at least one seminar. I recall doing two in every class I taught. We then returned for two more days of training, that began with everyone reporting on their experiences of conducting seminars.
At a later date, Burt came to my school and spent some time coaching me, watching me conduct seminars and talking with me about what I was doing well and how I could improve. Coaching is a very important part of conducting seminars.
Still later, I attended a four day summer workshop where I learned what I needed to know to train other teachers how to conduct Socratic Seminars. Just like summer camp, I made a lot of new friends who were all as interested in the method as was I. We communicated online, through email, and at conferences where we made presentations about seminars. We were disciples, in some ways.
Even later, Burt allowed me to attend trainings he conducted at schools all over Indiana. I was learning from him and I was teaching teachers. Burt and I would stay in a cheap hotel and stay up late at night arguing about the limits of seminars. We always talked about writing a book, but haven't gotten around to it.
The bottom line is that I've been studying Socratic Seminars for at least 15 years. I'm still learning about seminars, but I definitely am on the right path.
What is a Socratic Seminar?
A Socratic Seminar is a method of engaging a group of people in a quest for deeper learning and deeper understanding through the use of civil discourse and dialogue.
Some of the characteristics of a Socratic Seminar are that the participants sit in a circle, so that they can see each other and talk to each other. The instructor is less an instructor and more of a facilitator. I will say more about this later. Another characteristic is that the participants do not raise their hands to speak but wait their turn to speak and allow each other a space in which to speak. One last characteristic, although there are more, is that the dialogue centers around a text. A seminar is not a wide open forum or bull session, a place for the free expression of any opinion that pops into anyone's head. The dialogue has to be focused on the text. Comments made are grounded in the text.
The teacher/facilitator does not participate in the dialogue. He keeps his thoughts to himself. Instead he uses questions to stimulate thinking--inviting others into the dialogue by asking them if they agree or disagree, asking questions challenging participants to clarify what they have already said, and directing participants to support their statements with references to the text. The participants may or may not have an objective for engaging in the seminar, but either way, it is the facilitator's duty to help them get where they are going.
A teacher in a workshop once said to me, "But you can't do a seminar every day." I couldn't agree more. In fact, if a teacher has one method that he uses every day, then that teacher is definitely not doing a good job teaching. Period. No, you can't use seminars every day and you should not. But knowing how to do a Socratic Seminar is one excellent tool that every teacher can use once a week or once every two weeks--at any opportunity to get students to engage in deeper learning and higher order thinking.
Some of the characteristics of a Socratic Seminar are that the participants sit in a circle, so that they can see each other and talk to each other. The instructor is less an instructor and more of a facilitator. I will say more about this later. Another characteristic is that the participants do not raise their hands to speak but wait their turn to speak and allow each other a space in which to speak. One last characteristic, although there are more, is that the dialogue centers around a text. A seminar is not a wide open forum or bull session, a place for the free expression of any opinion that pops into anyone's head. The dialogue has to be focused on the text. Comments made are grounded in the text.
The teacher/facilitator does not participate in the dialogue. He keeps his thoughts to himself. Instead he uses questions to stimulate thinking--inviting others into the dialogue by asking them if they agree or disagree, asking questions challenging participants to clarify what they have already said, and directing participants to support their statements with references to the text. The participants may or may not have an objective for engaging in the seminar, but either way, it is the facilitator's duty to help them get where they are going.
A teacher in a workshop once said to me, "But you can't do a seminar every day." I couldn't agree more. In fact, if a teacher has one method that he uses every day, then that teacher is definitely not doing a good job teaching. Period. No, you can't use seminars every day and you should not. But knowing how to do a Socratic Seminar is one excellent tool that every teacher can use once a week or once every two weeks--at any opportunity to get students to engage in deeper learning and higher order thinking.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Choice in Reading Materials
A teacher in my school recently talked with me about choosing a book for her students to read. These students had enjoyed reading Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men and she wanted something like that, something they would enjoy. There were a few of us in the discussion, throwing out titles with the hope that one of them might work.
This evening I was reading a chapter from Alfie Kohn's book Punished by Rewards about constructivism and allowing students choice. An idea struck me that I will pitch to the teacher. It might work.
The idea is to select five titles that the students might like. The teacher would narrow the field of books by choosing five. Without having done that, students would have to choose from millions of titles, some completely inappropriate for a public high school in a conservative community. So, the teacher chooses five titles. She then secures three or four or five copies of each title. The next step is to put the students in groups of three or four.
One student in each group would be designated the task leader or time keeper, making certain that the group completes their project on time. Another student would be the recorder, taking notes on everything that is important to the group's work. Another student would be designated the presenter, the one who will present the findings of the group. If there is a fourth student, he is fortunate to have to do no more than all the others have to do in fulfilling the requirements of the project.
The project is to determine which of the five books the class should read. Each group would be required to create a rubric with the criteria that the group decides is important in choosing a book. During the presentation, the presenter would be required to explain the criteria and to defend it as important and valid.
Then the group would assess each book according to the criteria and rank them according to preference, resulting in one book being that group's choice. During the presentation, the presenter would make a strong case for the group's choice book.
While the presentations were being made, the whole class would take notes as to which book they would like. It could be that the presentation of one group might sway a vote from members of another group.
The end result would come from a whole class, secret ballot vote, and the class would have chosen a book to read.
Through the lesson, students would have learned collaboration, how to create a rubric in making a decision, how to make a persuasive presentation, and how differing perspectives might sway a person's thinking. Oh, and they would also have learned how a representative democracy operates.
Not to mention, they would have decided on a book that most of the class would want to read.
This process could be repeated every time the class reads a book, allowing that the same students would not always get to choose the book and creating a genuine learning community where students have voice and choice.
It couldn't be too bad.
This evening I was reading a chapter from Alfie Kohn's book Punished by Rewards about constructivism and allowing students choice. An idea struck me that I will pitch to the teacher. It might work.
The idea is to select five titles that the students might like. The teacher would narrow the field of books by choosing five. Without having done that, students would have to choose from millions of titles, some completely inappropriate for a public high school in a conservative community. So, the teacher chooses five titles. She then secures three or four or five copies of each title. The next step is to put the students in groups of three or four.
One student in each group would be designated the task leader or time keeper, making certain that the group completes their project on time. Another student would be the recorder, taking notes on everything that is important to the group's work. Another student would be designated the presenter, the one who will present the findings of the group. If there is a fourth student, he is fortunate to have to do no more than all the others have to do in fulfilling the requirements of the project.
The project is to determine which of the five books the class should read. Each group would be required to create a rubric with the criteria that the group decides is important in choosing a book. During the presentation, the presenter would be required to explain the criteria and to defend it as important and valid.
Then the group would assess each book according to the criteria and rank them according to preference, resulting in one book being that group's choice. During the presentation, the presenter would make a strong case for the group's choice book.
While the presentations were being made, the whole class would take notes as to which book they would like. It could be that the presentation of one group might sway a vote from members of another group.
The end result would come from a whole class, secret ballot vote, and the class would have chosen a book to read.
Through the lesson, students would have learned collaboration, how to create a rubric in making a decision, how to make a persuasive presentation, and how differing perspectives might sway a person's thinking. Oh, and they would also have learned how a representative democracy operates.
Not to mention, they would have decided on a book that most of the class would want to read.
This process could be repeated every time the class reads a book, allowing that the same students would not always get to choose the book and creating a genuine learning community where students have voice and choice.
It couldn't be too bad.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Grades, Huh, Yeh...What are they good for?
Okay...The title was my lame attempt at humor, calling on the well recognized phrasing from the song "War." Perhaps I wanted to go on to the next part of that phrasing..."absolutely nothing."
I'm not sure that I would say grades are worth nothing, but the reality is that grades are not a good indicator of what a student has learned. I know most teachers state that students have to earn the grades, like earning an allowance. What some students have learned all too well is that jumping through prescribed hoops in a prescribed manner gets them the grade they want. Taking that grade home and showing it to their parents results in smiles and hugs and dinners at their favorite restaurant and new video games. Grades have become the carrots that get kids to perform as we would have them perform. Grades are what we use to control kids. And they work for some kids and not for others. Those for whom grades do not work are considered failures.
So the purpose of grades is to control kids, to sort kids into categories of those we like and those we don't like, and to delude us into thinking that kids are actually learning what we want them to learn (which sounds like another mind-control objective). So, there are a lot of evils related to using the grading system that has defined education in America for over 100 years, but we seem to be stuck with it for the time being. (I stated that the grading system defines education. I think this is an important statement, for one would think that the grading system is only a part of education and that education defines the grading system. I am suggesting that it has been and is quite the other way around. I hope to address that topic at a later date.)
If we are to use the grading system, how might we use it best?
I will contend that the first step is to establish a clear understanding of the meaning of an A, B, etc. What are we saying about a student's work and learning when we award that student with a grade? After that, we have to consider the impact of giving a student a low grade or a high grade or an average grade. We cannot avoid the fact that awarding a student a grade is labeling that student. A student who earns an A is a star. A student who earns a C is just average, okay, nothing to write home about, but he'll do in a pinch. A student who earns a D is an annoyance. Why can't he work harder? Why doesn't he try to be like the other students? A student who earns an F is a failure--a failure as a child, as a student. We're likely to be paying his way through life forever. How can we avoid labeling students with grades?
The two questions posed here are deeply related, for it is the integrity of the grade that is in question. When a grade has integrity, it relates directly to how well a student was able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts posed to be learned. When a grade has integrity, it is also only an indicator of where the student's learning is at that given moment in time. A grade of integrity provides direction for the student. The student is directed to revisit concepts for which he failed to show proficiency. Therefore, a grade of integrity has the potential to change to show that the student has mastered at this time what he had not mastered earlier. A grade of integrity also relates to the learning of the student relative to where the student began as a learner, rather than relative to his classmates.
We all know that some students come into the classroom far ahead of their classmates. We want them to move to 100 yards of learning and they are starting on the 90 yard line. Other students come in having done all right. They are on the 50 yard line. Still others are on the 10 yard line. At the end of the semester, the stars and those average students have crossed the 100 yard line. But those who started the furthest from the goal only made it to the 80 yard line. They failed.
But let's consider the learning that took place. The stars moved 10 yards, and for that we heap the glory on them. The average kids moved 50 yards, which certainly seems like more of an accomplishment. But those failing kids, they moved 70 yards. They didn't meet the goal set by the teacher for the class, but they showed the greatest improvement. So, why did we give them an F?
There is a lot wrong with our grading system. Maybe we should start with something new.
I'm not sure that I would say grades are worth nothing, but the reality is that grades are not a good indicator of what a student has learned. I know most teachers state that students have to earn the grades, like earning an allowance. What some students have learned all too well is that jumping through prescribed hoops in a prescribed manner gets them the grade they want. Taking that grade home and showing it to their parents results in smiles and hugs and dinners at their favorite restaurant and new video games. Grades have become the carrots that get kids to perform as we would have them perform. Grades are what we use to control kids. And they work for some kids and not for others. Those for whom grades do not work are considered failures.
So the purpose of grades is to control kids, to sort kids into categories of those we like and those we don't like, and to delude us into thinking that kids are actually learning what we want them to learn (which sounds like another mind-control objective). So, there are a lot of evils related to using the grading system that has defined education in America for over 100 years, but we seem to be stuck with it for the time being. (I stated that the grading system defines education. I think this is an important statement, for one would think that the grading system is only a part of education and that education defines the grading system. I am suggesting that it has been and is quite the other way around. I hope to address that topic at a later date.)
If we are to use the grading system, how might we use it best?
I will contend that the first step is to establish a clear understanding of the meaning of an A, B, etc. What are we saying about a student's work and learning when we award that student with a grade? After that, we have to consider the impact of giving a student a low grade or a high grade or an average grade. We cannot avoid the fact that awarding a student a grade is labeling that student. A student who earns an A is a star. A student who earns a C is just average, okay, nothing to write home about, but he'll do in a pinch. A student who earns a D is an annoyance. Why can't he work harder? Why doesn't he try to be like the other students? A student who earns an F is a failure--a failure as a child, as a student. We're likely to be paying his way through life forever. How can we avoid labeling students with grades?
The two questions posed here are deeply related, for it is the integrity of the grade that is in question. When a grade has integrity, it relates directly to how well a student was able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts posed to be learned. When a grade has integrity, it is also only an indicator of where the student's learning is at that given moment in time. A grade of integrity provides direction for the student. The student is directed to revisit concepts for which he failed to show proficiency. Therefore, a grade of integrity has the potential to change to show that the student has mastered at this time what he had not mastered earlier. A grade of integrity also relates to the learning of the student relative to where the student began as a learner, rather than relative to his classmates.
We all know that some students come into the classroom far ahead of their classmates. We want them to move to 100 yards of learning and they are starting on the 90 yard line. Other students come in having done all right. They are on the 50 yard line. Still others are on the 10 yard line. At the end of the semester, the stars and those average students have crossed the 100 yard line. But those who started the furthest from the goal only made it to the 80 yard line. They failed.
But let's consider the learning that took place. The stars moved 10 yards, and for that we heap the glory on them. The average kids moved 50 yards, which certainly seems like more of an accomplishment. But those failing kids, they moved 70 yards. They didn't meet the goal set by the teacher for the class, but they showed the greatest improvement. So, why did we give them an F?
There is a lot wrong with our grading system. Maybe we should start with something new.
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Purpose of the American School System
I'm not and I am speaking of the purpose of education. Today, because of the political focus on education that has charged the American school system with negative energy bent on serving those seeking votes to secure their jobs, we are subjugated to talk of the purpose of the American school system apart from the purpose of education. When we talk of the purpose of the American school system, we are talking of our schools serving the corporate imperative, preparing students to be good citizens--which today varies according to which extreme you are enlisted to defend. When we talk of the purpose of education, we ignore the political structures and the corporate imperative, we ignore the economic status of the United States and the comparisons of state and national standardized, norm-referenced tests designed to classify every child based on a choice between A, B, C, or D. When we talk about the purpose of education, we have to talk about the human factor, the factor of one child, of one future with or without hope, for that is what education gives--HOPE!
Kids come into our schools with their minds bent and twisted by television and Facebook and video games and churches and politicians and moms and dads. I say bent and twisted as opposed to shaped because some of their minds have no discernible shape. Like a garden left unto itself, their minds have grown wild. Their minds have hundreds of bent and twisted branches all gnarled together--largely green, but with scars where one branch rubs against the other in the wind. Largely green, but faded underneath and showing signs of illness and weakness and decay. Suffering from the lack of care. Suffering from freedom that ignores responsibility. The kids come to our schools in this condition and our schools are charged by the corporate imperative to clean up those gardens, to make them all healthy and productive--to produce fruit from acidic soil and the undergrowth.
The best teachers know that they cannot serve the standardized tests. They cannot serve the corporate imperative. They serve their students. And they do this by caring first about the child. These teachers know that what they have to do is give this child the hope that he can grow straight and strong and be fruitful. People only learn when they have hope. I saw a poster that said something to the fact that wonder and awe were the foundation of learning. Yes, but hope is the foundation of wonder and awe. Without hope, one does not care to wonder and one cannot be in awe. To the hopeless, the awesome is one more reminder that he doesn't stand a chance.
The purpose of the American School System is to serve the corporate imperative. But the purpose of education is to give every child enduring hope. If a child has hope, then he will wonder and be in awe. A child with hope will have a reason to learn and want to learn. And we have never been able to stop a child from learning who wanted to learn. A child who wants to learn no longer needs his teacher, and that is the mark of a great teacher--When a child can learn without dependency on his teacher, the teacher has done his or her job well and deserves all the awards. If a child has a reason to learn, we don't have to worry about the corporate imperative, the corporate tests, measuring and comparing the status of the U.S. against any other country. When a child has a reason to learn, she will learn in spite of corporate America. She will learn in spite of No Child Left Behind. She will learn in spite of Democrats and Republicans and Tea Baggers.
Teachers have to give some attention to the expeditiously evil standardized, norm-referenced, corporate-sating tests. But I urge teachers to work first and foremost from the desire to give every child hope. Every child. Especially those who are most bent and twisted and have the least hope. Give every child hope.
Kids come into our schools with their minds bent and twisted by television and Facebook and video games and churches and politicians and moms and dads. I say bent and twisted as opposed to shaped because some of their minds have no discernible shape. Like a garden left unto itself, their minds have grown wild. Their minds have hundreds of bent and twisted branches all gnarled together--largely green, but with scars where one branch rubs against the other in the wind. Largely green, but faded underneath and showing signs of illness and weakness and decay. Suffering from the lack of care. Suffering from freedom that ignores responsibility. The kids come to our schools in this condition and our schools are charged by the corporate imperative to clean up those gardens, to make them all healthy and productive--to produce fruit from acidic soil and the undergrowth.
The best teachers know that they cannot serve the standardized tests. They cannot serve the corporate imperative. They serve their students. And they do this by caring first about the child. These teachers know that what they have to do is give this child the hope that he can grow straight and strong and be fruitful. People only learn when they have hope. I saw a poster that said something to the fact that wonder and awe were the foundation of learning. Yes, but hope is the foundation of wonder and awe. Without hope, one does not care to wonder and one cannot be in awe. To the hopeless, the awesome is one more reminder that he doesn't stand a chance.
The purpose of the American School System is to serve the corporate imperative. But the purpose of education is to give every child enduring hope. If a child has hope, then he will wonder and be in awe. A child with hope will have a reason to learn and want to learn. And we have never been able to stop a child from learning who wanted to learn. A child who wants to learn no longer needs his teacher, and that is the mark of a great teacher--When a child can learn without dependency on his teacher, the teacher has done his or her job well and deserves all the awards. If a child has a reason to learn, we don't have to worry about the corporate imperative, the corporate tests, measuring and comparing the status of the U.S. against any other country. When a child has a reason to learn, she will learn in spite of corporate America. She will learn in spite of No Child Left Behind. She will learn in spite of Democrats and Republicans and Tea Baggers.
Teachers have to give some attention to the expeditiously evil standardized, norm-referenced, corporate-sating tests. But I urge teachers to work first and foremost from the desire to give every child hope. Every child. Especially those who are most bent and twisted and have the least hope. Give every child hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)