Link goes to You Tube video of a woman talking about how great it is to call on students at her own whim to answer questions.
This is an exceedingly authoritarian classroom, and based on the teacher's excessive restrictions on the students, I would guess that this is a drop-out prevention school. Generally in such a school, students have been expelled (typically just until the end of the school year or some other predefined goal is met), though sometimes they just have "ADHD" or live in a neighborhood that has been identified as unhealthy for students and serves as an attempt to turn the tables. I've taught as a substitute for a few of these kinds of schools. Typically the class sizes are kept much smaller than a traditional classroom (though this varies), students are restricted in what they may wear, and they are not allowed to take any items to or from school.
I wanted to show this video I just found of a regular instructor for such a class and the sort of restrictions in place. The students must "track" her. She is attempting to teach attention skills. The students are wearing uniforms. The students are forbidden from speaking out.
Something about this video just screamed out to me that this is wrong. It's not just the obvious racial background distinction between the teacher and the students, either.
Consider what secondary lessons students learn from such a change: You are being punished for some crime you may or may not have committed. This crime may be merely that your opinion of my importance is low in this world or that the information I demand you learn is immaterial to you. You are someone over whom I have legal power and authority. You must obey me or you will face consequences that are highly unappealing to you (which may include staying longer at this school). My ideas, thoughts, and perspectives are superior to yours, and unless you conform to them, you will continue to be subjugated.
The most common thread amongst drop-out prevention students that I have seen, after spending considerable time teaching them and tutoring and mentoring them, is that they are interested in bucking the system. They want to be independent. They may want to see changes made that they are, ultimately, powerless to make. Often they have other, more mentally pressing, issues at home which override their concerns for education for the time being.
These students are identified after skipping school, stealing, using drugs, acting out in class, getting in trouble with the law, or other similar activities. Maybe they made the mistake of voicing their true opinion of an instructor at an inopportune time. Maybe they are too egocentric to care whether anyone else in the classroom is capable of learning. Or maybe it's just easier for them to be somewhere else. And then this is how they are treated. With more force, more emphasis on conformity.
I have to wonder in what way anyone is expected to benefit from that. Is the intention to show some of the more ethically flexible individuals how to take advantage of a position of authority?
Two of the most common pieces of parenting advice that I hear from people (and immediately eschew as ignorant and insensible) are: "Well, he's just going to have to deal with it." and "Just tell him no." Sure, that sort of domineering is functional for certain personalities types. And it's great for helping generate a population of sheeple. But it doesn't teach anything other than fear of the Leviathan. It doesn't help to train a person to find the reasoning behind a particular action. It doesn't communicate the concept of goodwill and sharing and kindness. Instead, it teaches children that they cannot trust adults with their thoughts and feelings. Children learn that they must keep their ideas of rebellion at bay, in a kind of perpetual state of fear.
To a certain extent, children do need to have a level of fear of their elders. When they are toddlers, they have learned to grasp the concept of the "food chain" and can easily identify who is weaker and who is stronger. My own son (nigh 3 years old) demonstrates this in playdates: any younger or smaller or weaker child (even if they are up to 4 or 5 years older) is treated by him as an inferior; anyone his size or larger, as a sort of idol. But if we are truly to become human beings, we must learn to grow out of this toddler phase, this hind-brain-fueled mentality. While largely emotionally charged at a young age, children are gradually capable of more and more complex reasoning skills and should be afforded opportunities of using such.
I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that it seems insensible to punish those who are frustrated by a lack of power or control in their lives by taking away any of the small amount of such they possessed before. Wouldn't it be better, instead, to give them an outlet for expressing themselves, some means of exercising control in their lives? I fully believe the educational system is capable of making such a change. It's just a question of whether or not they will.
"It doesn't help to train a person to find the reasoning behind a particular action. It doesn't communicate the concept of goodwill and sharing and kindness. Instead, it teaches children that they cannot trust adults with their thoughts and feelings. Children learn that they must keep their ideas of rebellion at bay, in a kind of perpetual state of fear."
ReplyDeleteJess, you nailed it. THIS.
Yay terror training. Followed swiftly by this:
"I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that it seems insensible to punish those who are frustrated by a lack of power or control in their lives by taking away any of the small amount of such they possessed before."
My sense is that it IS sensible to those administrators and educators who have decided that the kids in question are somehow outside the usual human development arc -- a dehumanization leads to military-slash-animal training approaches to containment. But if the goal was human development and engagement with education, then yeah. Not going to happen. (As you pointed out in your recent comments on the goal of education.)
With your experience in working with at-risk teenagers, have you seen or heard of any education approach that seems to be setting kids up for development, engagement, and educational success? What gets in the way?
Kiran Bir Sethi presenting a wildly different approach: http://www.ted.com/talks/kiran_bir_sethi_teaches_kids_to_take_charge.html
ReplyDeleteI had goosebumps reading this. I can't agree any more with your assessment. Authoritarian class management (as you said) is little more than learned fear of the Leviathan (I'd throw in Leviticus as well); it is designed to get the pupil to fear and obey authority ... not the ideal autonomous citizen we want to mold, eh? (from my anecdotal experience in primary and secondary classrooms, I am led to believe our teachers largely do not want autonomous citizens)
ReplyDeleteRachel, that video was GREAT! I teared up when the little girl was on stage hosting the auction. She really was infectious!
ReplyDeleteAs far as the at-risk teens and tweens go, one thing I have noticed is that pushing hard on them only causes them to push harder back--or to leave altogether. They want power in their lives: It's a fair request. Finding a way to give it to them in a constructive manner is what needs to be done. This varies, of course, by student, so it is not "easily" managed. But should it be done? By all means. And the students could even be involved in managing the "how" aspect.
One of the things I liked about that video on empowering children in India is that they allowed the children to make decisions about how they were going to effect change. No one likes to feel impotent. Rather than having a classroom in which a student is punished for, say, putting hearts at the tops of her lowercase "i"s, teachers could allow students to come up with new handwriting fonts to use and share.
The concept of what constitutes a classroom would need to change. Rather than teachers being the lecturers beaming information into the willing (or attempting to do so to the unwilling) minds of the information receptacles (a.k.a. students), a more democratic approach is preferable. Rather than telling a student how to solve a problem or the motivations of a particular historical figure, an instructor could frame the situation and use the Socratic method to help the child to consider the logical train of thought in each case.
If we want children to develop to be skilled citizens, we should allow them opportunities to make mistakes. Wood shop and construction, mechanics, sewing, pottery, painting, sculpture, cooking, etc. are all skills that are capable of being taught in a classroom setting where students could have a say of what to create or repair. These are courses that could help prepare children for the "real world" and the job market. But rather than encourage and develop these skills, which can be the basis for learning about Ancient Greece or Rome, mathematics and measuring, chemistry, etc. we typically stick students in a lecturing environment that is distanced from application. The connection just isn't there.
I've no issue with the idea of having state standards for what a student ought to be learning (perhaps a certain percentage thereof), but the HOW and the assessment thereof are currently not well considered in most schools, public or private.