Tests & School

[nmap]

Originally Posted by pheepster

I've decided not to teach next semester, so for once I'm going to fail everyone who deserves it. My department will be rather upset, but I'm sure it will be better for everyone in the end. (I hope.)

I suspect you're right. The great students (and there are some) deserve a good class where they learn something. And the weak students may need motivation to either focus on learning or choose another path.

[Sigaba]

Nick--

Thank you for starting this thread. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic with members of this forum.

I believe we have similar definitions of indoctrination and prescriptive training.

I do not think there is anything inherently malignant about indoctrination. There are circumstances where it is beneficial to have something drilled into you so deeply that you react automatically. In our every day lives, we looks both ways before crossing a street, check one's blind spot before changing lanes, and wash all surfaces in a kitchen that have been touched by raw food because we've been indoctrinated.

In an academic setting, I believe that a certain level of indoctrination is also necessary to establish a learning environment. In history classes, students are indoctrinated to read a certain way, to make an argument when they write, to make use of various 'best practices' when writing (the passive voice should be avoided) and speaking (um, don't say, like, you know), and to document their sources. Students in history classes are also taught to analyze historical evidence and existing interpretations a certain way.

But much beyond that, I start to get a bit nervous.* The past makes a practice of proving historians wrong--especially America's role in the Vietnam War. We are at our best when we say to students "this is our collective understanding of this topic...here are the competing points of view...here is the evidence...here's where the debate needs to go. Now, what do you think?"

We are at our worst when we wed our opinions on how things should be today to the teaching of history. This frame of mind too quickly turns into a malignant form of indoctrination in which our appreciation of the complexities of causes becomes focused into polemics.

A polemical approach to history may not result automatically in a misleading presentation of facts, it may result in the selective presentation of facts and differing interpretations by established experts. (A way to test a historian is to ask "what is the best work that disagrees with this interpretation that you're presenting? The answer should be an immediate response or, if the interpretation is well established [such as the root cause of the American Civil War], the historian may need a couple of days.)

Ultimately, a polemical frame of mind is self destructive to the craft of teaching history because it sees us rewarding students who agree with our preferred interpretation and punishing those who disagree. This frame of mind results in students remembering teachers for their points of view "he really hated Reagan" rather than for enabling the students to shape and to articulate their own interpretations of the past.

[*And here I should disclose that I am an antiquarian who believes that history is a humanity, not a social science: you cannon forecast the future as if it were the weather. As senior historian said when CNN called and asked him what he would thought would happen after Iraq invaded Kuwait, this professor thought for half a second, said "I don't know" and hung up the phone.]

Originally Posted by USANick7

Sigba, This is very insightful...

I would like to discuss this a little bit more if your game, but I want to properly define what I understand as "indoctrination" first, so I know we are on the same sheet.

I look at "indoctrination" like I do "prescription" or "prescriptivism". Essentially telling someone what to believe. Or prescribing one system or belief over another.

Would you agree with that definition, or would you say that indoctrination is more malicious, in that it accepts the willful misleading, or manipulation of facts in order to attain its goals?

Thanks...

By the way, the reason I ask, is because I do see a place for prescriptivism in education along with critical thinking.

[Surf n Turf]

----------------------

[Richard]

Originally Posted by stickey

I mentioned this in the other thread...but I don't care how many classes i took on education in college and how to get students motivated, but the mere 6 weeks i have been teaching social studies to 11th and 12th graders, the biggest disappointment are the students that do not want to learn. I have been receiving excellent advice from faculty and have come to realize, as they suggest, that you cannot make a student learn or do well as long as they do not want to learn. I explain my concerns with the teachers, they reassure my methods and attempts are noble and productive, then laugh and chuckle and say "welcome to teaching".


The old horse to the water analogy applies here. I have tried to spoon feed these kids the quiz and test material, throwing blatant hints as to what is going to be on them and what the answers are, and still, because they don't care, they still fail. What my fellow teachers are saying makes sense, the students that show effort are the students that have decent parents that support the idea of a good education. The other students come from families that don't care, therefore, they do not care.

As one who has taught in inner city schools where half my students were Hispanic gangbangers and the other half were black gangbangers; where many of the parents--if known--were gangbangers; where the veteran teachers, administration and district professed an open disdain for the potential of the students and an expectaion of nearly nothing; I will say, "Beware the insidious bog of disillusionment fed by the stagnant stream of those who have surrendered and occupy the perceived sanctuary of the faculty work room."

And I will discuss this topic tomorrow after a good night's sleep.

Richard

[The Reaper]

I want my kids to learn how to think, not what to think.

The public schools are saddled with kids who do not want to learn, parents who do not care, and in many cases, teachers who do not care either.

That is compounded by teachers who have their own agendas, usually liberal ones left over from the heady days of the 60s.

IMHO, our kids who want to learn will succeed regardless of that, so perhaps sometimes, Darwin is right.

TR

[Richard]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I want my kids to learn how to think, not what to think.

The public schools are saddled with kids who do not want to learn, parents who do not care, and in many cases, teachers who do not care either.

That is compounded by teachers who have their own agendas, usually liberal ones left over from the heady days of the 60s.

IMHO, our kids who want t learn succeed regardless of that, perhaps sometimes, Darwin is right.

TR

Guys,

This situation is--as are so many things in life--a situationally or regionally dependent one. Further discussion to follow.

Richard's $.02

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Richard

As one who has taught in inner city schools where half my students were Hispanic gandbangers and the other half were black gang bangers; where many of the parents--if known--were gangbangers; where the veteran teachers, administration and district professed an open disdain for the potential of the students and an expectaion of nearly nothing; I will say, "Beware the insidious bog of disillusionment fed by the stagnant stream of those who have surrendered and occupy the perceived sanctuary of the faculty work room."

And I will discuss this topic tomorrow after a good night's sleep.

Richard

This is an excellent point! I was warned by a college professor to "stay out of the faculty lounge" for that reason. However, had I followed that advice, I would never have made it past my third year. It is best to "listen" to the burned-out, but let it go in one ear and out the other - at least until you are a "continuing" teacher.

My first year of teaching, one of the "burn-outs" would bring a stack of one page essays into the lounge, slap them on the table, say "these kids can't write at all", and never give another. I kept the first week essays I assigned until the end of the semester (or year) in order to show the kids just how far they had actually progressed.

The key thing to remember is best expressed in a cheesy 1980's movie with Nick Nolte entitled "Teachers". During a fire drill, Nick (the teacher) tells his principal that the "school is for the kids," to which the principal replies, "Half of them aren't coming back from the fire drill." Nick replies, "Yeah, but half of them are." Teach the half.

[stickey]

Originally Posted by pheepster

nmap:

stickey: Just out of curiosity, what subject are you teaching?

Government and US History.

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Nick--

Thank you for starting this thread. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic with members of this forum.

I believe we have similar definitions of indoctrination and prescriptive training.

I do not think there is anything inherently malignant about indoctrination. There are circumstances where it is beneficial to have something drilled into you so deeply that you react automatically. In our every day lives, we looks both ways before crossing a street, check one's blind spot before changing lanes, and wash all surfaces in a kitchen that have been touched by raw food because we've been indoctrinated.

In an academic setting, I believe that a certain level of indoctrination is also necessary to establish a learning environment. In history classes, students are indoctrinated to read a certain way, to make an argument when they write, to make use of various 'best practices' when writing (the passive voice should be avoided) and speaking (um, don't say, like, you know), and to document their sources. Students in history classes are also taught to analyze historical evidence and existing interpretations a certain way.

But much beyond that, I start to get a bit nervous.* The past makes a practice of proving historians wrong--especially America's role in the Vietnam War. We are at our best when we say to students "this is our collective understanding of this topic...here are the competing points of view...here is the evidence...here's where the debate needs to go. Now, what do you think?"

We are at our worst when we wed our opinions on how things should be today to the teaching of history. This frame of mind too quickly turns into a malignant form of indoctrination in which our appreciation of the complexities of causes becomes focused into polemics.

A polemical approach to history may not result automatically in a misleading presentation of facts, it may result in the selective presentation of facts and differing interpretations by established experts. (A way to test a historian is to ask "what is the best work that disagrees with this interpretation that you're presenting? The answer should be an immediate response or, if the interpretation is well established [such as the root cause of the American Civil War], the historian may need a couple of days.)

Ultimately, a polemical frame of mind is self destructive to the craft of teaching history because it sees us rewarding students who agree with our preferred interpretation and punishing those who disagree. This frame of mind results in students remembering teachers for their points of view "he really hated Reagan" rather than for enabling the students to shape and to articulate their own interpretations of the past.

[*And here I should disclose that an antiquarian who believes that history is a humanity, not a social science: you cannon forecast the future as if it were the weather. As senior historian said when CNN called and asked him what he would thought would happen after Iraq invaded Kuwait, this professor thought for half a second, said "I don't know" and hung up the phone.]

Great points...

I think I'm on the same sheet as you are...

When I speak of "indoctrination" or "prescriptivism" I'm referring more to logic, and to some degree moral philosophy.

For instance, I absolutely believe that students should be taught that the "Law of Non-contradiction" is accurate and the foundation of logic. This is not to say that we should conceal other forms of "logic" such as dialectic reasoning, but to teach both without suggesting a preference for one or the other is counter productive in my opinion.

When it comes to topics such as moral philosophy, I do believe that we should teach our children from position which supports objective morale values. Which, I understand, is an inherently Theistic world view.

But this all goes back to my original position...

Schools should not be administered by government. Because where as I would not want a post modernist agnostic to teach my children, I also understand that they might not want a conservative theist to teach theirs...

So we are at an impasse...

The only solution to which is a voucher system where by we still publicly subsidize education to some degree, while privatizing the administration of education, thereby giving parents the greatest amount of control concerning school and there by curriculum choice.

So really there are 2 debates taking place...

1. How should education be financed and administered?

My Answer: Vouchers to subsidize education, and privatization in order to allow for the greatest amount of choice and competition.

2. What is the best way to impart knowledge to developing minds in such a fashion as to make them productive members of society?

My Answer: There is no completely comprehensive answer to such a question. While I do subscribe to fundamental principles like the teaching of logic, math, science, reading, history, etc. The methods whereby one learns can be varied. And so school choice is incredibly important.

very broad I know...but I'm playing around with the what i see as the broader principles rather than the details (which I hear is where the devil resides)

Either way I would enjoy hearing various thoughts on the 2 questions I have posed...

Thanks

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by stickey

but I don't care how many classes i took on education in college and how to get students motivated, but the mere 6 weeks i have been teaching social studies to 11th and 12th graders, the biggest disappointment are the students that do not want to learn. .

Now don't take this the wrong way or as a criticism, but you seem to have hit on thread about preping future teachers as being part of the problem. No one motivates anyone to do anything. Motivation comes from within. You do something because you want to or have to. You strive to excell because it helps you realize a goal. The key to teaching/leading students starts with finding out what makes them tick and how to tap into that to enable them to succeed. I realize that this is no easy task and student load and course constraints make this difficult, I mean who the hell wants to learn about something in which they have no subject interest.

[Richard]

Background:

I am a non-traditionally trained educator who went through an alternative certification program with a large urban school district and local university. I have a BS (History), an MA (Int'l Rels), and post-grad studies in Pol Econ from a German Uni and Ed from a local Uni. I am a certified teacher who taught World History and World Geography in "The Grove"--an impoverished area with a predominantly large, migrant immigrant and black population which allowed 95% of our students to have free breakfast and lunch. My classes were 32-37 students per class, with 6 class periods per day, 1 plan period and a 30 minute lunch period. I gave up my plan period 2 days per week to work with struggling students. It was not an unusual sight to find the local community picketing our school because we were adamant about "having their children learn" or to come to school and find a few bullet holes in the front of the building because somebody was upset with us. I came to work early for my students and remained late, I ate lunch with them because the lunchroom atmosphere was more positive and I engaged them in completing classwork for me while we ate and discussed it. I also chaired the faculty advisory committee. Teachers would quit or, in one case, 'go off the deep end' and be removed throughout the school year. I had one student tell me that I should be "capped"--I told him others had tried so he should give it his best shot--and he was sent away. Meetings with parents often meant confrontation. We worked as teams to provide a cross-curricular program which taught skills, reasoning, and general test-taking strategies...and were investigated because our students raised their state mandated standardized test scores so high. FWIW, I truly enjoyed my time there but left when offered a principal's position at a private, non-profit school because (1) it doubled my salary the first year and (2) did not have to abide by the state or federal govt's reg's. I left that position at the end of my contract in August of this year because I was tired after 13 years in "command"--and am looking to attain a PhD in History to pursue my dream job of teaching Miitary History at a small, private college.
*********

Originally Posted by stickey

I mentioned this in the other thread...but I don't care how many classes i took on education in college and how to get students motivated, but the mere 6 weeks i have been teaching social studies to 11th and 12th graders, the biggest disappointment are the students that do not want to learn.

Guys, over the years, I've watched teachers collapse, falling hard into the seats of the faculty work room, heard them muttering from the experience of working with students who just wouldn't learn. I've listened to the long sighs of frustration and then the discussion of the "fact" that students are largely unmotivated, unwilling slugs taking up our time and best performances as teachers--that it just isn't like it was back when.

And though I, too, sometimes fell into this occasional form of educators "locker room talk" about students, I long ago found myself regretting my prior opinion. Over the years, I have gone out of my way to take time to get to know students, to talk honestly with them about who they are and what they want...from me, the school, themselves, and their education. Listening to them, they have taught me a great deal and I no longer believe that the real issue regarding the ways many of them often perform -- or fail to perform -- in the classroom is as simply defined as motivation.

Students I have known have made it clear that they embodied many sources of frustration regarding the learning process before I ever encountered them, frustrations that were difficult to set aside for the 50 minutes at a time they were in a classroom. And they carried in many problematic attitudes about the nature of learning. They came from diverse backgrounds. Some arrived immediately after junior high, but many others came to the Upper School after years of academic and social struggling in the "mainstream" high school educational system where the majority of teachers teach in the way the teacher learns instead of teaching in a multi-sensory style that best meets the variety of learning styles found in a class of students.

In general, most students are likely to be apprehensive about traditional classrooms -- paper and pencil work and "book learning" of the 'another day-another worksheet' variety or a shadow of a teacher reciting what is being projected from a PPT presentation -- and to perceive themselves as being outsiders when they consider the teacher's world. They are often uncomfortable with formality. They are often lacking study skills. And they are often struggling to work jobs, deal with financial responsibilities and limited funds, sometimes even having to assume an adult-like role in raising themselves and their siblings, all while trying to complete high school. When I think about all that is going on with them socially, psychologically, developmentally, and economically, it is no surprise that many students often do not see their classes or teachers as the pivotal points of their teenage existence.

Even knowing all the problems they carry with them, we always want to believe that their classes should be something they cherish and to which they would give themselves over completely. We want the best from students. If we could have our way, they would come to us as active learners, seeking assistance and insight at every opportunity. They would thrive on academic challenge, and they would challenge us to teach better than we have ever taught before. They would question every aspect of their education and seek an understanding of the "how's" and "why's" of the factors that touch their naturally curious minds.

Oh, what a wonderful experience that would be ... but, let's face it, that's not what most teens do. What a disappointment! How easy it is to blame them! And how easy it is to get frustrated ... and how easy it is to fall into the belief that they are passive, uninvolved, apolitical airheads. How easy it is to assert that they shun responsibility, that they never question anything that relieves them of responsibility, and that they often drag other students down with them by using their social networks in the classroom to undermine the value of the lessons being presented to the potentially "good" students. How foolish to think we do not have to teach them how they learn and how to learn!

The fact is -- as I have learned -- classrooms don't have to be deadly arenas of mortal combat between teachers and students, and students who seem unmotivated don't have to remain in the unmotivated stage. But making a change often requires a great deal of time, as well as sometimes uncomfortable levels of soul-searching and rethinking on all our parts. And, most difficult to accept, it requires that we all -- students, faculty, families -- accept some of the blame for what we are given in our students' responses to our demands.

Many of them don't know that they have the right to ask for anything other than what they are given. For the most part, they are the products of years of experience in schools where they were essentially told to sit down, shut up, listen, and learn - an experience that taught them that the teacher is the source of all knowledge and that learning is something magically injected into them at some point without their awareness.

When asked for their opinions (often a new experience for many of them), they express that there are instructional areas that they have strong opinions about. They include:

• Individualized instruction. They all want to have their individual needs met. They want to feel like they are more than part of a crowd, that their individual talents and abilities are respected and deemed worthy.
• Teachers who are real people, who recognize them as human beings -- teachers who care about them and not just their test performance.
• Wanting to be challenged and supported, not decimated and abandoned.
• Wanting caretakers who check on them regularly, who support their individual learning, who inform them individually of their progress, and who assign a variety of tasks that give them the opportunity to learn in modes that fit their individual styles and that are designed to meet their level of learning.
• Teachers who talk at their level, who can appropriately joke and take a joke, and who let them talk and learn with other students.
• Receiving clear, complete explanations and concrete examples, thorough (but brief) explanations of difficult concepts, and opportunities to have their questions answered.

When thinking about what students want, classes that deliver the same old message of "sit down, shut up, and listen so that you can memorize facts to dump onto a test sheet" (normally an A-E answer on a scantron versus an authentic assessment of their knowledge) are certainly not going to motivate them. It has been my experience that most students are not necessarily unmotivated or unwilling learners; they are simply uninvolved in the depersonalized environment of the traditional classroom. They are willing to learn; they simply may not be able to endure the way they are taught. We know that if we really want to see motivation in our students, we --teachers and parents -- have to be motivated to continually challenge ourselves as well as to rethink what it is we are doing to and demanding of them.

To paraphrase Dean Smith, the former basketball coach for the University of North Carolina, "We don't motivate anybody. We create the environment for motivation to develop."

The question I always asked myself and my faculty was, "How motivated are you?"

I also suggest reading two books--"Teacher Man" by Frank McCourt and "The Asphalt Jungle" by Evan Hunter.

Richard's $.02

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

Now don't take this the wrong way or as a criticism, but you seem to have hit on thread about preping future teachers as being part of the problem. No one motivates anyone to do anything. Motivation comes from within. You do something because you want to or have to. You strive to excell because it helps you realize a goal. The key to teaching/leading students starts with finding out what makes them tick and how to tap into that to enable them to succeed. I realize that this is no easy task and student load and course constraints make this difficult, I mean who the hell wants to learn about something in which they have no subject interest.

That's always a challenge and, IMO, one of the more subtle yet most important missions of an Upper School to meet that challenge is to develop a connective relationship between students, families, faculty, and school because studies have shown that students are more likely to succeed when they feel connected to the school. School connection is the belief by students that adults in the school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals. The critical requirements for feeling connected include students’ experiencing solid academic expectations and rigor combined with support for learning, positive student/adult relationships, and physical and emotional safety.

Increasing the number of students connected to school influences critical accountability measures such as improved academic performance; lessened incidents of fighting, bullying, or vandalism; lower absenteeism; and greater school completion rates.

Strong scientific evidence demonstrates that increased student connection to school promotes motivation, classroom management, and improved school attendance. These three factors in turn increase academic achievement.

Likewise, there is strong evidence that a student who feels connected to school is less likely to exhibit disruptive behavior, school violence, substance abuse, and emotional distress.

Some strategies for increasing the likelihood that students will feel connected to school include solid academic standards and expectations and providing academic support for all students; applying reasonable and fair disciplinary policies that stress positive reinforcement; creating trusting relationships among students, teachers, staff, administrators and families; supporting capable teachers skilled in content, teaching techniques, and classroom management to meet each learner’s needs; fostering positive parent/family expectations for school performance and completion; and ensuring that every student feels close to at least one adult at school.

Does this guarantee success? Unfortunately, not always…but my experiences have shown that this philosophy does create a comfortably inclusive environment that allows students to connect in whatever way they feel will allow them to most likely achieve success—personally, socially, academically.

And isn't that what schools are for?

Richard's $.02

[Penn]

Richard quote
“Large numbers of private and more non-traditional parochial schools offer a more selective and challenging curriculum; such schools also usually require selective admission testing and application”.

Parental responsibility: My parents moved our family to another state because the schools were inferior. They believed an education was their most important responsibility. Recently, in a discussion with one of my brothers; we marveled how their influence was projected on to our children. Their core belief was based in their faith that Jesuits and Franciscan, as well as the IHM nuns, were the leaders in teaching and organizing a young mind. As a product of the small parochial educational system, it has made a distinct difference in the choices that have been available to me throughout my life.

I distinctly remember a senior theology class taught by a Jesuit, where we were given the final exam the first day of class; one question, “Prove to me there is a God”. We spent nine months on that question, exploring every faith and possibility. The class was legendary. Kids from other classes would skip their lunch period to stand in the back of the room. That investigation of belief and myth systems changed everyone’s life and is with me to this day.
Another remarkable result of that education is that I recently attended my 40th eighth grade reunion. I am looking forward to the 45th in 2010.

Having said that, and whether you advocate a secular or public education, the end result is the combination of parental involvement and quality teachers. For my money, I agreed with my parents, and unless you are willing to spend at least 25K per/yr+ in the non secular private school sector, the best, at least imho, is the above, for a fraction of the cost. Unless of course, you are fortunate enough too lived in a community were the school system is the center of the community. As it is in Summit, Chatham, Madison and Millburn NJ.

[Richard]

We should all be glad our children didn't undergo the 'rigors' of the curriculum of South Carolina's schools like this young woman did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iN...eature=related

I'd like to read some of the persuasive essays she must have written for some of her classes.

Richard's $.02

[pheepster]

Originally Posted by Richard

We should all be glad our children didn't undergo the 'rigors' of the curriculum of South Carolina's schools like this young woman did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iN...eature=related

I'd like to read some of the persuasive essays she must have written for some of her classes.

Richard's $.02

Her school must have suffered from a severe shortage of maps.