Some Thoughts on Some Reading
May 4th, 2009Over at NYC Educator, there was an interesting post about authority in the classroom.
I’ve spent a good chunk of time in the kind of classroom where there are clear rules and they’re followed. I can say that the mood, the atmosphere of safety, of certainty that behavioral expectations will be met is wonderful—and I say that as both a teacher and a student.
As a student, any day school was miserable it was made that way because of the behavior of other students. Nothing made me angrier than someone “getting away with something” and I recognized—even when quite young—that it makes sense when the group suffers because of an individual. We don’t get to pick our communities, and when one person lets others down, everyone suffers.
When that behavior was removed as a problem, then class was infinitely better. It was always up to the teacher to make it happen.
The classes I remember best (Bob Soucy, Doug Smith, Marlene Baldwin, Sue Scuito) were the ones where authority was unquestioned. Those teachers had presence, and it was known as soon as anyone walked into the room. It was instantly clear certain behaviors would not occur—that it was an insult to the class, to the people in it, and to the discipline we were learning to behave in any way not respectful.
I also understand that not every teacher is going to be that teacher in their first year—or even ten—in the classroom. There’s too much to learn, and it’s a process to become that kind of teacher. But we don’t sabotage the educator’s job by denying them the tools they need to do it.
I firmly believed then, and do now, that if an individual cannot behave him or herself, then he r she should be removed. The teacher, as NYC Educator so clearly expresses, needs to have that ability. ¹
There are many issues with that. We guarantee every child an education—even those who don’t want one. But the less an individual chooses to make good decisions, the fewer options they get. The moment we made education compulsory we locked ourselves into that cycle, and though we can—and should—do everything we can to engage a student, that comes with the understanding that sometimes what must happen and what someone wants to happen will conflict, and some sort of force will be required.
At the same time, there’s this post over at From the Trenches of Public Ed., comparing teaching to coaching. I was struck by the following:
In 1933 Isaac Kandel said this: [There is] “one part of our educational system, secondary and higher, in which there is no compromise with standards, in which there is rigid selection both of instructors and students, in which there is no soft pedagogy, and in which training and sacrifice of the individual for common ends are accepted without question. I refer, of course, to the organization of athletics.”
I do work in a place where the dominant metaphor is “teacher-as-coach.” The only reason why a student would be present at MC2 is because they want to be—and the idea of the program is that the education it delivers is sufficiently tailored and interesting to the student that they will pursue it. In other words, we’re trying to design curriculum that more closely mimics the kind of enthusiasm that we find in students when they’re part of a sports game.
There are definite advantages—but it’s still closer to school than sports.
The lack, I firmly believe, is always in the authority of the teacher—I’ve rarely seen a kid behave the same way in front of his or her parent or in front of the principal as they might in class. It becomes very clear that what is missing is not the ability of the child² to act appropriately, but the sense they must.
There are those that argue firmer discipline in the school would help—but really, having sat through a score or more of Saturday Morning Detentions, seen kids suspended, and just about every other discipline approach there is, none of it really matters. The consequence is time wasted, and that really only works if the child really has something they would rather be doing.
The real consequence should be not getting the education—but that’s rather ethereal for most students. The idea of American exceptionality—that anyone can be rich—is deeply ingrained. Education is not viewed as necessary for success, and in some cases is viewed as a detriment to it. If the ultimate consequence is not getting the education, then it’s nothing that really sticks—and the teacher is left without any leg to stand on.
I’m not sure where the solution is. On one hand, I’m opposed to the idea of voluntary education only: I think we need people to be educated, whether they like it or not. On the other hand, I’m not sure how to convert someone by the sword in an educational setting—and that’s really the dilemma we’re facing.
Of course, I’m open to suggestions… *sigh*
1 That’s not to say that this particular point—keeping the student after—is not without concerns. I’m not sure I would do so. But I would—and do—say that the teacher needs to be able to do so in order to work, and I’m also not going to pretend for a moment that I can second guess. I don’t know this class, I don’t know this student, and I don’t know the mood in the classroom. I’m going to trust that the professional in the room has the best idea of how to deal with the situation—and trust in the integrity of the teacher. ↺
2 In most cases. There are some who are terribly impulsive, who truly have issues with management to the point where its outside the “ordinary.” But most know just how much they can get away with, and proceed immediately to do so. ↺
