This reflection was written for Educational Technology, first semester of my senior year. This is the only full class where I received an "F", but at the time, it really did not affect me, which signaled to myself I had finally overcome the emotional attachment to grades I had developed growing up. (Although it did not affect my attitude at the time, the fact that my graduating GPA ended up being below 2.50, 2.44 to be exact, would prove to significantly impact my teaching career.)
Tom Burwell
Reflection about Education
Think
about the difference between volunteer work and having a job within a
corporate system. If you’re the cashier at Walmart, the more
machine-like you are, the better. The important thing is to check
items out quickly and accurately, to “complete your duties
efficiently.” Your attitude toward customers is not the primary
priority. But if you’re volunteering at, say, feeding the homeless,
interaction with people is the important thing. (Unless, they
are starving are something, which is very rare in America.) A
machine-like volunteer would bring no joy to the lives of those you
are serving, and thus misses the entire point of volunteer work, of
public service. Corporate work benefits from a machine-like
approach; public service benefits from a human-like approach.
In
his book How to Survive in Your Native Land, recounting his
experiences teaching in a public middle school, James Herndon
provides a powerful illustration of the difference between truly
internally motivated student activities, and what teachers assume to
be internally motivated participation. He describes how kids in his
regular class enjoyed the creative tasks he came up for them to do:
the “uproar when twenty kids rushed to the board to put up their
symbols” when the class was creating a Hieroglyphics-like language,
getting information about how the Peace Corps operates and then
writing “imaginary journals of stays in Africa and South America.”
Then, once, he and a colleague started a new class, without grades,
and in which students were issued “permanent hall passes,” making
attendance completely optional. They soon found that students didn’t
want to participate in these creative tasks. “We had to
face the fact that all the stuff we thought the kids were dying to do
(if they only had time away from the stupefying lessons of other
teachers) was in fact stuff that we wanted them to do, that we
invented. … And not only things to be doing—it was things for
them, the kids, to be doing. … We wanted to see what
symbols the kids would invent for English words; we didn’t have
much curiosity about the symbols we ourselves would invent. We
didn’t write fake Peace Corps journals ourselves; we only told the
kids to do it.”
Herndon
then describes the successful activity of that class. He and his
colleague decided to make a film, but one that they wanted to
make. “We didn’t want to find out what the kids’ notions of
films were. We didn’t want to see what they would do with the
film. We didn’t want to inspect their creativity.”
“If
… the role of teacher as giver of orders didn’t work out, it was
also true that the other role (the one Frank and I had imagined)—the
teacher as Provider Of Things To Do, the teacher as
Entertainer—didn’t work our either. For wasn’t that just what
the kids had been telling us all year in their oblique, exasperating
way? What did all that Nothing To Do In Here mean, if not that the
kids didn’t want entertainers, wouldn’t accept them if they
didn't have to, wanted the teachers to be something else entirely?
“Wanted them to be
what? What was the difference between all the grand things we’d
thought up for the kids to do and The Hawk? Why, merely that we
didn’t want to do any of the former ourselves and we did want to
do the latter.”…
“Wanted them to be
human.”
Later,
Herndon spells out his central message to teachers:
“Resist
every day all the apparatus of the school which was created in order
to enable you to manage and evaluate a group, since it
is just that management which destroyed the kids you have in your
class.
“You must examine your authority for what it is, and abandon that
part of it which is official, board-appointed, credentialed and dead.
Then you must accept the natural authority you have as an adult,
belonging to a community of adults which includes the kid’s parents
and relatives.”
So
Herndon tells us to resist “all the apparatus of the school which
was created in order to enable you to manage and evaluate
a group.” But be aware that the apparatus serves a useful
function. For bad teachers, and we should admit there are bad
teachers, the apparatus is a necessary “safety net” that gives at
least some sort of direction to the class. But that’s all it is: a
safety net! If we’re trying to teach students to do more than
crawl, we must “resist the apparatus”, rise above the safety net,
and use only the “natural authority you have as an adult.” So
don’t use grades to get behavior out of students, (but I do believe
grades have a useful function of allocating scholarship opportunities
to those who most want them), and don’t give out praise to students
just for doing what’s expected of them (how weird would it be if we
treated our friends that way? “Good job coming to dinner with me
tonight, Steve!”). Resist that artificial authority; only use it
as a safety net when you feel overwhelmed from being the only adult
in a class full of kids.
This
is such an important idea for teachers to understand: Authority
from being a teacher is a good safety net, but should be
resisted. Our authority from being an adult is in fact
much more real, and much more powerful.
So
which approach should a teacher take? Should teaching be approached
like any other corporate job? Or should it be approached more like a
public service? From what I can tell, the education department here
favors the corporate model of teaching. We’re encouraged to use
rubrics, “behavioral objectives”, and grades to get students to
efficiently carry out the assignments we give them.
I
love the idea of teaching; I want to teach, at least on and off, many
years down the road from now. But I’m not satisfied with the
experience I have had in this department. This is now my senior
year, and it’s not at all been what I hoped it would be. To me,
teaching is about more than getting students to understand the
content of a subject. To me, teaching is about impacting the lives
of students, about initiating them into society, about teaching them
to be good members of a community. When I think of a good teacher, I
have always thought of Socrates, Jesus or the Buddha. It seems to me, though, in this department we’re not learning how
to be teachers. We’re learning how to train corporate workers.
…to get students to carry out their tasks accurately and
efficiently. I believe in public education. If I teach, I want to
teach in public schools. I
understand the value of everything we have covered in this class, and
appreciate being made aware about all of it, but I don’t agree with
being required to fill out all these lesson plans and content
assessment projects. Don’t all the physics classes I have taken
test whether I know the content or not? To properly teach physics in
high school isn’t so much about getting students to understand
specific concepts; most of them won’t become physicists anyway.
Rather it’s about explaining the role physics has in our society,
and about initiating them somewhat into that culture of physics, so
that students will be able to decide whether or not they are
interested in pursuing the subject as a possible career.
I
don’t think being able to fill out a unit plan reflects my ability
to be a high school physics teacher. Being a high school teacher
should focus primarily on building a strong sense of classroom
community, initiating students into the cultures of different career
paths, and only then, on having successful lesson plans that give
students every opportunity to succeed on that path if their
interest leads them there. For me at least, putting the primary
focus on producing excellent lesson plans for all students, whether
they are really interested in the subject or not, deadens what the
idea of teaching is all about. Rather than impacting the lives and
choices of students, teaching is reduced to either giving students
orders or an entertaining them--either training corporate workers or
simply providing students with things to do.
