What's Wrong With Our Schools? Part II

How We Teach

If (as was the contention in Part I of this series) the content of the high school curriculum is becoming obsolete, the methods we use to teach it are near fossils.

What was high school like when you were there? How were your classes taught? Thirty-two years ago, I sat in a chair attached to the desk with a shiny silver tube. The trouble with these chairs is that you could not lean back in them, although some boys tried. There was a wire basket attached to the back to put our books in, but nobody ever used it for that. Some kids threw paper balls at the baskets, trying to score points. The desks were set up in rows, or sometimes, if the teacher was cool, in a semicircle. Most classes used a fat textbook that
weighed between two and three pounds. I had between four and six classes a day, and each one of them assigned some kind of homework, usually an end-of-chapter series of problems that we were supposed to solve and turn in the next day. My classmates and I knew that the teacher never read the homework problems; she just walked up and down the aisle scratching a check next to our names in her grade book if she saw that we completed the work sheet. Some kids didn't really complete the homework; they just wrote some answers on the page so it looked as if they did. The teachers never really looked closely, so the kids got away with it. I thought this was awful until I became a teacher and learned that some teachers don't really keep track of the homework; they just pretend to mark a check in the book so students think they have to do the homework.

Thirty years later, classrooms look pretty much the same as they did then, except instead of green chalkboards, many classrooms now have white dry erase boards. The basic configuration of the room is still the same -- desks in rows or semicircles. Some classrooms have everyone sit-
ting at a seminar table. Fat textbooks still abound, at least for math and science . . . and history . . . and literature . . . and foreign languages.

I always thought textbooks for literature were such a shame. How often do people pop a textbook in their bag and head off to the beach? How many people do you see reading textbooks on the train on the way to work? Reading habits begin early, and books can seem luscious and inviting to children, arousing their interest in reading. Textbooks? Not so much.

The schedules in today's schools are similar to the ones we had thirty years ago: discrete courses divided into separate time blocks. And the homework routine is pretty much the same: complete the problems at the end of the chapter; turn in to the teacher the next day.

Most elementary schools have a variety of hands-on, creative, and group activities. Students are encouraged to explore the classroom and the work actively with other students. By the time students get to middle school, these methods are used more infrequently, and by the time kids are in high school, it is rare to find a class in which the teacher is not standing in front of the room directing all the learning. If class discussions occur, the teacher is usually the one in total control of the questions and answers rather than students conversing with one another.

The majority of high school classrooms require that students absorb rather than interact with
the information provided by the teacher. Learning is assessed with small quizzes that are followed by tests. Most questions on the quizzes and tests are recall questions, which test students' short-term memory rather than their knowledge or understanding of how to work with a subject. This is why a television show like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? can become successful. Most Americans cannot recall the simple facts they learned back in fifth grade, not because they are stupid but because our minds are not programmed to retain and instantly recall information we do not need to know in order to work or survive.

These methods do not engage children in true learning. And they certainly don't help them discover their potential or point them in the direction of their talents. When the focus is on whether a child can regurgitate content, it is off the child's thoughts or his or her true opportunities for learning.

Most teachers instruct in the style in which they learned best and teach the subjects they enjoyed learning. Few teachers were not naturally passionate about and talented in the subject they teach. Counterintuitively, this often makes them the worst teachers, for they cannot imagine what it must be like to struggle with a subject that came naturally to them and they therefore learned with ease. In their classes, they praise and reward students who learn in the same manner as they do.

As a society, we accept and perpetuate a hierarchy of learning styles. We consider the methods used in today's traditional classrooms to be the pinnacle of the hierarchy. We have concluded, without any scientific evidence, that the right way, the best way, for the majority of learners to learn is the traditional method. How are we so certain that is so?

In some respects, what we label as weakness in children is not a weakness at all -- it is simply that the child doesn't come into the classroom sharing the talent, passion, and learning style of the teacher. The teacher's job is certainly made easier if the student comes in already loving the subject and is able to learn it as easily as the teacher did. This, however, does not make a great teacher.

I once heard an educational consultant talk about independent school classrooms as the easiest teaching jobs around. He claimed that the children are preselected for success in the traditional system. He was fond of saying, "If you are going to sit on eagles' eggs, you better darn well hatch eagles."

There are as many teaching styles as there are learning styles, and this presents exciting adventure -- rather than a complicated burden -- for teachers and parents. True teaching talent reveals itself when the teacher struggles to engage students in the process, not giving up until he finds a way to bring about understanding and competence in the student. I think everyone should read that last sentence a few times.

It says every child can and wants to learn and that it is the teacher's and the parents' responsibility to discover how to make that happen. Too often, we place the entire responsibility for learning on the child. When learning is difficult, we assume the child, rather than the teacher or the parent, has the problem. Parents are also important teachers in every child's life, and they are often unaware of the ways in which their own style prejudices the way they view their child's approach to tasks and to learning.

What do you think about the style in which teachers teach classes today? What do you remember about your own teachers-- the content they taught or their personality quirks? What is good teaching and how can we ensure it in our schools?

 

 

Follow Jenifer Fox on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeniferfox

Comments

[SoccerBopper]

Ms. Fox sounds like she has been in the trenches and not from an Ivory Tower. Much wisdom here and it helps to explain why good teachers often feel frustrated with their lessons: they are trying to make them better!

[komanners]

I agree with Jennifer when she says that all students want to learn. Students do want to learn, and we need to teach material that is relevant for them. Not all students will attend traditional 4-year universities, and we need to develop learning programs so that students can continue their education in other settings.

[pdipanni]

I agree with Jenifer's analysis of the lack of change in the structure of our high schools. Curriculum is too broad. We need to adopt the "less is more" understanding of the scopre of curriculum. Classroom management is key in low income schools whose students need a highly structured environment. Often this aspect of teaching is ignored bt the administrators who need to offer help until an effective learning is established. I also agree with the emphasis on teachers needing to figure out how to teach all students and all types of learning. Learning really is the teacher's responsibility.

[KimberlyMarleyFarr]

Jenifer has helped my school see a new vision for itself and what it can be and who we can be as educators. She and her program have energized in so many ways.

[missouriwatcher]

Part II: The 2 main obstacles they face going into a teaching career are 1) inadequate funding since most funding derives from local available resources, and 2) antiquated ideas held by their bosses--usually school board and community leaders. There are, of course, many other factors which play into the equation such as student family life and the local culture. By far, most of these factors are beyond meaningful control of the teacher, who must make the best of the situation at hand.

One of the biggest "arguments" I had with my supervisors as a high school teacher was over curriculum. Stating to my principal that we should be putting more emphasis and funding into "blue collar" vocational types of educational training because I recognized that many--most (?)--of my students would either not have the money or the apptitude to succeed in college; and I knew that they would need to be able to be successful, happy and contributing members of society. His response was that "we must be preparing ALL students to attend college." So, instead of preparing young people for well-paid vocations in which they would be successful, we were instead setting many of these precious kids up for a life of discontent and failure. We need to educate students in needed skills (especially critical thinking), and we should prepare those headed to college for just that; but we should quit deceiving ourselves into thinking that everyone can or even should attend university.

[missouriwatcher]

Part I: Since a good part of my job is helping prepare future foreign language teachers, I can honestly say that most young teachers--at least at my institution--are extremely well-trained. They are well-versed in the most recent pedagogic theory, show they have mastery of their subject area, and receive ample practical experience within the classroom environment before certification. Most, if not all, of the young teachers coming out of college today are aware of the different learning styles (multiple intelligences) and try their best to provide variety in their classrooms, although it is a natural tendency to gravitate to the learning style with which one is most comfortable. No sane person would go into teaching for money or social advancement; it is the love of young people and a sincere desire to help them that motivates a person to choose a career in education.

[teach2learn]

I would like to first say that I agree with most of what JFox has said, except this statement: "It says every child can and wants to learn and that it is the teacher's and the parents' responsibility to discover how to make that happen. Too often, we place the entire responsibility for learning on the child."

I would like to posit that the responsibility is SHARED between parents, students and teachers. Good teaching happens when the teachers engage their students and when the students are motivated to learn. That motivation most likely is nurtured (or not) from within the home.

[Mark Setton - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for going straight to the heart of the problem afflicting our schools. I hope the decision makers in the field print your series and post it up on their walls.

I have to deal with the effects of this one-sided inculcation on a daily basis as I teach university freshmen...they have forgotten ninety percent or more or what they learnt...so what's left? If they had been taught a little bit about the arts of loving, living, and thinking clearly, instead of the art of memorization, those twelve years would have been much more fruitful.

[jjoster]

I've been a public high school teacher for 13 years in 3 states at both low and high income schools. I completely agree with the comment on project based learning - this engages the students and allows them to gain experience in skills that will be necessary in post-secondary education and the workplace.

While there are some not-so-great teachers out there, most are really good and have creative ideas when it comes to learning styles. The problem is the structure of our educational system. State course curriculum has too much information and doesn't focus on the skills that employers need/want. It is antiquated curriculum that is killing education and teachers' creativity. Teachers and administrators are judged on the tests associated with the curriculum, here is the conundrum. Teachers have become so concerned with covering the curriculum for the standardized test that true learning and engagement is often lost.

Much of what is included in curriculum is at the tip of our fingers with the Internet and smart phones. We need to teach students how to find information and to discern reputable sources from those that are not. Technology is the future and most of it is banned in public schools. Students need to know where to find information, how to organize it, and what to do with the results. This is not part of most standard curriculum. Project-based and work-based learning are both very successful, but rarely used. Our educational system needs an overhaul.

[peapod-mom]

Jennifer, well said !!

Education seems to be built to have a child fail. I have done much tutoring, used to teach preschool and now I am educating my children from home. All that to say, I have seen a lot of educational situations that seem to lack in helping a child succeed. More often than not, it is geared toward finding their weaknesses and setting them to fail. The system needs some reworking in order to see future success.

I love when I encounter a tremendous teacher that is working along with the parents for the child's success, but it seems to be a rare thing these days. Rather than squelch the child's love of learning right off the bat, let's aim toward creating a lifelong process of learning.

I hope and pray your wisdom is used to make some great changes in our society.

[zombie fairy]

It's built for modern children to fail. It worked very we;; in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s when most graduates were going to get a job in a factory.

Now, more kids than ever are going to college and even the kids that don't still get jobs that are totally different than what their mid-20th century couterparts got. I have the fairly radical idea that our educational system should reflect the working environment. Work is project based, so schools should be, too.

[missouriwatcher]

Yes.

[mystery815]

Already left a post, but forgot to address teaching methods (which is what this article is all about)....

You are dead on about antiquated curricula and methods being used to deliver said curricula. However, it is absolutely true that "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana) As a high school Art and Journalism teacher, I am already seeing the negative fallout of the poor teaching (or entire lack thereof) of history--many of my students have no grasp whatsoever on the major historical events of the world, and therefor don't understand at all the significance of modern political movements, and seem to think that everything happens in a vacuum.

But if we teach things like history in a specific relevant context, the students understand why it's important and they "get" it. I do this in my art class all the time. I teach art criticism with every art class, so we recently critiqued Jacques-Louis David's "Death of Marat," and in the process learned about the French Revolution and made direct connections to the civil rights movement in America, and then a further connection to the historical importance of Barack Obama's election as the first African American President. The kids got excited about history, and got excited about the Presidential election!

If teaching is engaging and relevant to the lives of the students, you can't go wrong.

[Baumgart]

Having performed poorly in school (by their metrics and assessments) I made the assumption I was not cut out for academics. My interests were directed at more creative pursuits. I since discovered that I have a voracious appetite for learning, but context is critical. I'm a curious learner and love to see how facts and events are interconnected. For some reason those connections escaped me while in school through textbooks and traditional teaching methods. Soon after graduation in 1978 there was a BBC program that aired in the US called "Connections". It showed how seemingly random and disparate events were in fact interconnected. The lightbulb went on and it forever changed my perspective on subjects that I previously found uninteresting. Suddenly it was all visual and alive.

[mystery815]

I had to become a teacher in order to learn that our schools are factories, churning out students (the product) who meet the minimum standards at regularly scheduled intervals. Meeting the minimum standards should not be the goal, but that is what the state tests required for graduation measure. For kids that want to go on to college, that goal is WAY too low—it’s the minimum! The system doesn't need to be fixed--it needs to be REPLACED.

Everyone involved in the discussion about education needs to admit that what we are really doing is colonizing these kids--we are setting goals for them that seem, to many of them, to be arbitrary and not consistent with the goals they have for themselves and their children. As much as I want to see every single one of my students go to college, not all of them want to go--they come from communities and cultures that value blue-collar work, and that is what makes them happy. Why are we ignoring this? If the community is a blue-collar community, and the people in that community value blue-collar work, why are we, "The Man," making them do it "our" way?

The education system needs to give schools back to the local communities and let them decide what's best for their kids, and the federal government needs to stay out of it and fund whatever the local communities decide they need.

[Tegan Dowling]

It's just discouraging, in an era of ever-greater constraints, to see so many schools without the resources -- equipment, space, instructors, all of it -- To do justice to students and teachers alike. I hate to think how frustrating it must be for a good, well-trained, passionate teacher to do battle with a lousy school system, indifferent public, hostile kids, absent or harried parents, etc, etc, etc. I worry that some teachers are just bludgeoned into approaching the job as a mere job.

Thank you for your efforts to raise the bar and keep the issue alive.

[Colterradio1]

Great questions Jenifer. The problem I have personally encountered is with teachers who were not engaged in the subject(s) they were responsible for. Teaching merely became a job for them. I have a feeling this problem is a 'from the top down' type quandary, where administrators are only too happy in some cases to tow the line, in order to keep from rocking the boat with district and state administrators, and losing money.
I was a member of a college-level seminar on the 'Dumbing of America', with several professors and speakers from across the country. One teacher from a well known university was amazed at the poor evaluations he was receiving at the end of semesters. He blamed it on his students lack of drive. The fact of the matter was, he simply wasn't engaging. He had no passion for the subject he was teaching, and treated his position like a job in a factory. Granted, this was in college, but it doesn't just exist at that level. The few teachers I had that made me want to learn understood that they were teaching individuals, and not a room of disinterested kids.