(no subject)

[lunadelcorvo]

Just sat in a long meeting about how 'traditional' ways of educating are 'no longer enough.' I have a few things to unpack here.

1. 'No longer enough' implies there was a time when they were, in fact, quite adequate. What's changed? I suggest that what has changed is this very mindset, the bloated pedagogy and jargon soup that has utterly eclipsed actual teaching. The other thing that has changed is the value we, as a society, place on learning things. 'Alternative facts' and 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge,' and 'experts are just arrogant shills' have eroded any value on education or academic success, and this starts long before they get to school. And no, it's not technology. There is no reason students cannot learn technology, but NOT be glued to it every moment.

2. If 'traditional education' is no longer enough, why are traditional schools, whether private or the traditional schools within public school systems, the highest performing academically? Oh, well, they get the brightest students, you say? Hmm, you may be onto something, but all I hear is how we have to create the same opportunities for all students, and there are no 'AP and regular students.' So which is it?

I am so fucking sick of this self-aggrandizing, pseudo-scientific, pedagogical garbage! No, what we need is NOT more 'balloons, tape, and string' 'project learning.' We need kids who are taught early HOW to learn, and then we need to teach them the stuff. OK, yes, I get that learning how to learn is more important than subject content - in first grade! I watched kids come from shirty public schools and flourish under far more demanding standards. The difference was small classes, and teachers who were thoroughly versed in and passionate about their subjects.

This kind of hand-holding, 'everyone gets an A' nonsense is, in my opinion exactly why we are where we are as a nation.

Comments

[cmcmck]

What I taught was children and I always believed that any kid no matter how severe their special needs, could learn.

[lunadelcorvo]

I agree wholeheartedly. But putting kids who read at a grade 2 level with kids who read at grade 7 and expecting teachers to somehow offer meaningful content and instruction to both groups (and all the ones in between) isn't going to serve either group. And all the never-ending flood of buzzwords and busywork makes it just...a thousand times harder than it needs to be. And it is constant. I really cannot adequately express how much time every person in this school system has to spend on this stuff, and literally, none of it is helpful. It is absolutely eating up all the money, all the time, and sucking all the air in the room for teachers who know what we are doing. (Rest assured that every new acronym, and they are legion, represents a huge check written to some consultant or thinktank; money that COULD have been used to pay for more teachers in classrooms so each ability level can have instruction designed FOR them, or maybe I dunno, luxury items like pencils?)

[jehanne1431]

100% agree.

[timeofgrey]

Absolutely agree. I never believed in the "Participation Trophy" mindset most schools encouraged long after I graduated. I worked my ass off and getting that A was a badge of honor and personal accomplishment.

[glowingfish]

The thing about "traditional methods of learning isn't working" is it is a perpetual complaint. And usually based on a stereotype. Traditional teachers just sat in front of a class and repeated things and then the students repeated them back! I don't think classrooms have worked that way for decades, at least.

Of course, I don't really have experience with this! I teach students whatever they want to learn, how they want to learn it. Like, if a student is going on a vacation to Orlando and just needs enough English for that, that is fine. If a student needs to negotiate billion dollar business deals, then I can also do that! The only problem occurs when a student thinks they are going to learn the second with the effort of the first.