I've not written a post in sometime, because I've been working hard dealing with the "realities" of the public school system as it exists today. I see lots of people talking about how an overhaul of the public school systems is urgently required; I see yet others claiming that the system needs to be torn down and completely rebuilt from the ground up. Yet I also thought about some possible ways to solve the problems in the current system; here's one that's been pushed around for a while, so I'm going to add my voice to this, apparently relatively easy fix.
Why do we insist on grouping children by age. The chronological approach to teaching is inflexible, dogmatic, and archaic. It serves no purpose other than to enforce bright kids to study with kids that aren't as bright or maybe have difficulties in certain areas. If child gets held back a year because he hasn't learned the content sufficiently (and when I say content, of course I actually mean "to pass the test"), it's a source of humiliation to the child (you just made him look dumb in front of all the other kids that managed just fine) and to his parents ("Hey how's Johnny doing? He's in 5th grade now right?". If the kid was acting out because he realised he wasn't at the same level as the rest of the class, then by holding him back a year, we've just entrenched his resent for the school system even more deeply. Do we expect him to come back from this and do great things with his life? I think not, all the positive reinforcement and sticker charts in the world are unlikely to make these kids a cheerleader of the school system. Also we only get to advance the bright kids once a year, doesn't matter how much smarter you are, you get advanced with the rest of your class, no matter how stellar your performance (with the exception of very very rare instances, where the parents and school both agree and push for this, I can count the number of times I've heard about this happening on the fingers of one hand)
Isn't it much smarter to advance these according to ability, as needed? Let's look at this for one moment. There would be no need for a "No Child Left Behind" program since each child would be taught according to ability rather than age. The kids that are naturally smart would get advanced once they outgrow the capabilities of the class they are currently in. There would be less stress on the teachers to feel like they were neglecting the kids that need extra help because everyone would be at a similar level in the classroom. The stress on the students that were unable to advance as fast as the other kids would be reduced, since they would always be surrounded by intellectually similar peers.
And if you take a look at vocational education and qualifications this is exactly how it works, and works very successfully I might add. Can you imagine the absurdity of wanting to train a project manager as a natural progression of your career and being told I'm sorry, you can't take that course/learn that material until you're <N> years old. No, it simply doesn't happen except in our broken education system. If I'm capable of taking a course and can meet the prerequisites of attending that course and/or exam, then I do so. I might have 18 year olds on the course, I might have 58 year old students on the course with me, and no one cares, no one cares in the slightest about any age difference since we're all there to learn the same information.
I'll admit I'm biased, because it's an idea I think would work. I'd love to hear the reasons why this wouldn't work.
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
The Church of Education
The Teacher Wars: A History of America's Most Embattled Profession
I'm sure this book has been around for sometime now. I've not managed to get around to it yet, but it is on my list of books to read; however it does raise some interesting points.
If you're not familiar with it (and again I have not yet read it) it deals with the attitude towards the teachers of the education system, how and why they're maligned, or revered.
To me, and as is probably quite evident from this blog, I don't really blame (or praise) the teachers one way or another. It's not that the teachers are good or bad, caring or uncaring, the problem is with the education religion; that is to say that the teachers themselves are probably a great bunch of guys, but I beleive that they buy into the education dogma, and the education religion. Putting blind faith in a system that rarely gets objectively evaluated.
Now I know there are a ton of people out there saying to themselves "I know a teacher..." or "I'm a teacher...", "who reads about new educational methods from cutting edge educational leaders all the time; I'm always trying to further my understanding and abilities". Anyone should be admired for trying to better their knowledge, and expand on their abilities, self-improvement is at the root of personal progress. The difference is whether your self-improvement reinforces what you already beleive with a fresh angle, or whether you are pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone into areas that really make you think differently. For example, if I want a fresh perspective on the church, should I go and speak to a pastor? Or would that give me a slightly different perspective on what I already think I know?
I beleive many teachers are the same way and for the most part and I think a public that maligns teachers for doing the best job they can in a system that is so deeply flawed is a little naive and short-sighted. The teachers at a grass roots level buy into this stuff, they go to University, and learn education from professional educators that assisted in building the system as it exists today; or to put it another way, they're going to the Church of Education, to learn from the Pastors, and Priests, and in some cases Prophets (or should that read profits?). They are taught how to contribute to the post-war revolution of building lots of new little cogs for the post-industrial machine; this is where the system is flawed. You can't blame the congregation for the flaw of the church (cult?), all you can do is wonder why no one else is seeing past the dogma and making their own minds up about things, how many truly think critically about it?
I'm not going to make my mind up about the book until I've read it, I beleive that there are good able members of the congregation and less able ones. I think the answer to why Johnny can't read, may be easy to attribute to potential teacher failings (as the public so often does), but I think the problem runs far deeper in a system that values test results over ability and strength.
I look forward to reading this book with interest.
I'm sure this book has been around for sometime now. I've not managed to get around to it yet, but it is on my list of books to read; however it does raise some interesting points.
If you're not familiar with it (and again I have not yet read it) it deals with the attitude towards the teachers of the education system, how and why they're maligned, or revered.
To me, and as is probably quite evident from this blog, I don't really blame (or praise) the teachers one way or another. It's not that the teachers are good or bad, caring or uncaring, the problem is with the education religion; that is to say that the teachers themselves are probably a great bunch of guys, but I beleive that they buy into the education dogma, and the education religion. Putting blind faith in a system that rarely gets objectively evaluated.
Now I know there are a ton of people out there saying to themselves "I know a teacher..." or "I'm a teacher...", "who reads about new educational methods from cutting edge educational leaders all the time; I'm always trying to further my understanding and abilities". Anyone should be admired for trying to better their knowledge, and expand on their abilities, self-improvement is at the root of personal progress. The difference is whether your self-improvement reinforces what you already beleive with a fresh angle, or whether you are pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone into areas that really make you think differently. For example, if I want a fresh perspective on the church, should I go and speak to a pastor? Or would that give me a slightly different perspective on what I already think I know?
I beleive many teachers are the same way and for the most part and I think a public that maligns teachers for doing the best job they can in a system that is so deeply flawed is a little naive and short-sighted. The teachers at a grass roots level buy into this stuff, they go to University, and learn education from professional educators that assisted in building the system as it exists today; or to put it another way, they're going to the Church of Education, to learn from the Pastors, and Priests, and in some cases Prophets (or should that read profits?). They are taught how to contribute to the post-war revolution of building lots of new little cogs for the post-industrial machine; this is where the system is flawed. You can't blame the congregation for the flaw of the church (cult?), all you can do is wonder why no one else is seeing past the dogma and making their own minds up about things, how many truly think critically about it?
I'm not going to make my mind up about the book until I've read it, I beleive that there are good able members of the congregation and less able ones. I think the answer to why Johnny can't read, may be easy to attribute to potential teacher failings (as the public so often does), but I think the problem runs far deeper in a system that values test results over ability and strength.
I look forward to reading this book with interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)