Public School, Rural America; 12:30 pm
One by one, we file past the teacher-turned-prison-guard. As each of us passed, she engages us in a confirmation ritual. “Work?” “Check.” “Book?” “Check.” That is the last word uttered for one and a half hours. For this period, we must sit silently with heads in books and work, where our mouths are conveniently positioned to be incapable of questioning. We cannot leave—even to seek the help of a teacher. In the only time during the day when most students actually work, we are treated like convicts. We must work (not learn) in the most efficient way possible. We are widgets in the machine of school. We are unwillingly being conscripted into a hostile intervention.
Interventions also happen behind other closed doors—in the justice system:
Intervention: Programs or services that are intended to disrupt the delinquency process and prevent a youth from penetrating further into the juvenile justice system. ~Kentucky Juvenile Justice Advisory Board
For me, this represents the epitome of what it is wrong in public school education—learning is seen as a laborious activity which students must literally be locked into doing. When one intervenes in something, one alters the direction it is heading in. Therefore, the assumption when students are put into intervention is that their learning direction must be altered. This would be fine (many of my peers do need to have intervention in their life/learning direction), except the course is required. No matter the direction of your learning or how well you are doing, you are forced into a silent study period. See where I am going with this? Before I even start school, I am scheduled for an intervention in my learning. The equivalent would be signing up your baby girl for drug rehab 16 years in advance.
Step back and consider the way education is approached in the majority of classrooms: as a dreaded task. Complicated assessment patterns are devised to be carrots for students to do their work.
Meanwhile, sticks of punishment are given to those who do not do their job.
Forced study halls are created in order to ensure we all keep our noses in books, where our voices are conveniently stifled. Of course, this is all done under the principal that students need to be forced to learn.
Wait. There is something wrong with the picture here. Frankly, I think schools are becoming far too business-like. Many of my peers often think of school as unpaid work. Of course, professionalism is continually emphasized as the highest principle for which students must strive. Schools even use the same reward/punishment system as the workplace: good grades = good job = $$$ and failing school = unemployment ≠ $$$. I think this is the core of what is wrong with schools: all students are expected to be professional students. That is, it is expected that we will only learn if we are forced to do so either because we desire the reward (grades) or fear the punishment (failing). In fact, this is setting up students to hate learning.
That might be a dangerous accusation, but I think it is an ultimately true one. After all, students are treated as if they already do hate learning. Grades, forced study times, detentions, and graduation requirements are all safeguards built to force students into learning. My philosophy is that if you treat a problem, there will soon be a problem; this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By treating students as if we hate and will avoid learning at all costs, we will hate and avoid learning at all costs.
Naturally, the alternative is to encourage amateur learning: learning which is done for the love of it rather than for some distant paycheck. The argument against this is that students will not learn the skills they need to be successful citizens. I vastly disagree for the simple reason that every young child wants to grow up to be a successful citizen. Nobody is born hating learning—they grow to hate it through successively being treated as if they should hate it. No child is born thinking I am bad at math
—they think that after being told it many times (in different words). Think of it like this: there is only so much education which can be packed into 12 years of school. What if instead of trying to build students the perfect toolbox, schools taught students to make their own tools? If students are never taught to hate/fear learning, they will not shy away from learning opportunities. The teachers and resources are available for life-long, anytime learning; students must simply have their original love of learning preserved.
Imagine: Peter is a student in a self-directed learning environment. In the primary grades, he takes a wide mix of classes, primarily due to peer pressure and recommendations from friends/family. In these classes, he learns the basics: reading, mathematics fundamentals, grammar, and how to research. As he moves up in the grades, he narrows his focus upon writing, eventually phasing out mathematics classes. Throughout the process, no class or work is forced upon him: he is given the options and selects the choices for himself. Consequently, since learning is never treated as a hated activity, he never learns to hate learning but instead preserves the innate love of it. Down the line, Peter has written a best-selling novel and is trying to invest the money he earned. As any intelligent person would, he is trying to figure out the best option from the choices banks have presented him with. To be clear, Peter never learned about exponential equations or compound interest in school. However, because he still loves to learn he simply taps into Google and finds the resources necessary for him to evaluate the choices. Due to Peter being an amateur learner, he actively seeks out opportunities to learn, even though nobody is forcing him to.
The rational for not encouraging self directed learning is that simply packing students with as much knowledge possible (no matter the cost) is most efficient. However, the problem arises with the information that students do not get into their memory: since most of them will end up fearing/despising learning they will not add anything to it after school. Meanwhile, students who pursue learning on their own terms may well know less information on their exit from formal schooling. However, that information is not static: they are readily adding to it through additional learning. The traditional model has been to treat students like hard drives: packing them with 12 TB of knowledge before all cables are cut. I’d rather get out of school with only 1 GB of knowledge and a connection to the internet—at least then I can continually add to that store. Schools must make a choice: do they want to try to stuff as much learning as possible down students’ throats or do they want to give students a hunger for learning?
I don’t want to be a professional student; I want to be an amateur learner.
- Photo by Still Burning on Flickr
- Photo by smallestbones on Flickr
- Photo by Marcus Vegas on Flickr
Well, since ‘we’ are learning the new thang, education wouldn’t be revolutionized until the next or the after generations.
I read a book written by Korean, and the author criticized that if America had given up whole lot of budget for military, most schools in US of A could have been like milton, philps exeter and thatcher
But yes, only like 5% of the military budget would significantly improve education in America... unfortunately, “security” is still one of the biggest issues, with education being on a back burner. After all, we are at “war.”
I read every item that’s posted here and usually will agree whole heartedly. I also agree with this post. Now my question, how do you want to learn? I think it’s fine to criticize the system as it stands, however I also think you young folks need to offer some “fixes” to the problem. Many veteran educators would welcome your suggestions.
I recently inquired why our staff members couldn’t have more PD time allocated to exploring educational topics and technology applications of their own choosing. I was told (by a principal) that teachers would waste the day “putting up bulletin boards or correcting papers.” This lack of trust and assumption of irresponsibility astounds me, even though it probably contains at least some elements of truth.
Independent learning is not encouraged on any level in our system, it would appear.
As a school administrator I hate the classic concept of the silent study hall. Because you are right it is like a prison. We are working on setting up our school with various study lounges during these periods where students can collaboratively work on projects, self-reflect, and actually learn.
Your comments on being shoved full of knowledge as well are a great observation. Technology changes everything. The WWW makes a large part of forced book knowledge obsolete.
Great post!
Now what can schools do to produce a better model?
1. What about the loud, overbearing, usually middle school student that distracts others from working?
2. What about the teacher who must watch them while getting their own work done?
I agree in concept, but in practice it just isn’t working. I at least insist they whisper. Still prison like, but isn’t that the current model? Who will supervise these lounges of which you talk? In education we must provide adult supervision or we open ourselves up to suit.
Your learning theory rings true enough for me. I remember almost nothing from high school, but certainly benefit from the basic skills training in elementary and middle.
It took me a few years of drift after high school to decide I wanted to learn, and that made university studies a pleasure for me. (When they weren’t, and when I felt I could learn better outside of college, I dropped out to be that “amateur learner” you describe. I always dropped back in when I was ready for college again. I don’t regret it a bit.)
And even today, I learn as an amateur. I learned auto mechanics by buying an old broken down car and rebuilding its engine with a friend to guide me. Recently a desire to learn graphics to enhance my blog posts has driven me to learn (without classes) Adobe programs.
So yeah, I’m with you. I’m glad you articulated it.
But I really wonder if high school isn’t an obsolete idea now. You seem to assume that it’s still necessary, if I read you right. Do you think it is?
@John: I think I started to articulate my vision above. The elevator pitch of my ideal education:
@Diane: You bring up an interesting point: the axis of the problem is trust. At no point in the system, does the higher level trust the lower level. Administrators don’t trust teachers and teachers down trust students. Yet, they expect absolute trust from those below: students are expected to absorb a teacher’s lessons without any doubt or questioning. You’ve got to give trust to get trust.
@Charlie: Indeed, and the industrial model was all about efficiency, which is all very good for producing cars but how does it work for molding minds. Your work with creating “Starbucks-style” study lounges sounds very interesting... I wish you success with it.
It’s the difference between “just in case” learning and “just in time” learning. Give students the ability to find knowledge instead of simply forcing that knowledge down their throat. You can’t possibly know everything a student will need to know in their life.
@Durff Tell me, have you actually tried a free study hall? Even more importantly, I think study halls should never be required. Thus, the loud, overbearing student probably won’t show up until they realize they need the support to learn. You can’t force students to learn, you can just give them the opportunity. I don’t think a teacher having to get work done should ever be an excuse to put students in a prison. I honestly don’t buy that students will learn nothing unless forced to do so... even if they are just chatting, interesting learning conversations just might develop. Still, I’m not even a supporter of having study halls. The library is a fine environment to study in and if students have free periods, they can choose to learn or not.
@Clay: Thanks. Sounds like you are the true amateur learner. I’m not sure that high school is in effect necessary—or, at least, it needs to be entirely revamped to support easy-out-easy-in education: completely voluntary, take as few or as many courses as you want. “Graduate” on a course-by-course basis.
@Charlie: I actually disagree: if study halls/lounges are well designed as productive, collaborative learning environments then they should be the absolute best place for students to be learning. Actually, I think teachers would also benefit from being able to get their behind-the-scenes work done in a fun and collaborative environment like a study lounge. Some educational philosophy conversations might just develop between students and teachers.
At least YOU’VE been paying attention.
Darren
P.S. I wonder how many of your teachers have ever read your blogs? This post would be an excellent place to start.
The strange part about the conversation that I had with my students was that some of them thought that school was preparing for them for the work force because they felt most employers would ask them to merely jump through hoops as well. When I asked whether or not they would enjoy a job like that, one student replied that it didn’t matter because that’s what most jobs were. It was so disheartening. It breaks my heart to hear students so disengaged from learning that they buy into the idea that they need to be “fed” information.
Until there are radical changes in classrooms and public education in general very few if your suggestions will be implemented. Public schools are exactly that, public. The public schools are responsible for all students, even the criminals who are present in most schools. Until someone gives us a place to put these unmotivated students who would do nothing but talk on their cellphones and disturb the equilibrium of the “classes” it’s not going to happen. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all students were eager to learn and would take advantage of the opportunity to learn instead of taking advantage of the freedom to do as they please?
Actually, I don’t think any of my teachers have ever read my blogs. (Goes off to comb through IP records) I have never encouraged them to. Perhaps if they did, some awkward (but needed) conversations would happen.
@msward: Right, it needs to be a collaboration: not dictation. It really makes me sad to hear that your students think that is all the workplace has to offer: perhaps because they are so used to systems like that.
@John: How so? Many schools have optional courses. Many schools also do not have study halls. Honestly, I think the elimination of forced study halls is a relatively easy step to be take which will add a significant benefit. Then we can tackle the “radical changes” needed. Public education should not mean that everyone has to attend, it should simply mean everyone can access it. Those students who would “disturb the equilibrium” are the same students who would very likely decide not to come to school. You can give a horse water, but you can’t make it drink.
Of course teachers would love 20% time! The criticisms that we would use PD time to put up posters and grade papers are valid, but rather than blame the teacher for that the administration ought to consider why the teachers are so pressed for time in doing their jobs. We regularly have “work days” in which we don’t actually get to get any work done because they turn into a mess of meetings. If we actually had enough time to get our work done, we might feel free to use time to experiment.
I fully agree, philosophically, about the importance of free choice in learning (indeed, without active participation, you can’t really call it learning at all). But I also think that acknowledging this is really the first step, and it poses some really hard problems for us.
1. Arthus, I take it that you are one of the students who *would* decide to come to school, even if it were optional. Probably everyone on here would. But aren’t we *privileged* with the knowledge of how much there is to gain? Not to mention being privileged with families and communities that wouldn’t just put us to work if they weren’t required to send us to school?
2. Self-directed, individual learning is absolutely a worthwhile goal, but it can’t be how *all* learning goes. There’s something incredibly valuable in a class full of people giving up a certain degree of free choice in order to exist as a group learning about a common subject. E.g., you agree to do the reading and be part of class discussion even if it’s not that interesting this time, because your perspective will still enhance the discussion for someone who really loved the reading; and sometimes, it might even *become* interesting *because* of the fruitful discussion that ensues.
I struggle with your imaginary scenario with Peter. I think there are definitely certain things that everyone must be exposed to in their education. There are certain things that will handicap you if you cannot do them. However, not everyone is ready for the same concepts at the same age.
Perhaps there could be a checklist of ‘core curriculum’ that all students must be exposed to; when a student is exposed to certain concepts would be decided by the student based upon their desires and skills.
The challenge would be coming up with a core curriculum that all stakeholders could agree on. As a high school science teacher I find the high number of specific learning outcomes that I must teach, coupled with province wide testing, shackles me. There are so many cool projects, experiments and explorations that I would LOVE to do with my science students, but there is no way that I could do them and cover the curriculum. It is FRUSTRATING!!
Clay, I love hearing about your class (can’t remember the name) where they are in small groups pursuing something they are passionate about–basketball, designing a bar, tackling racism. Now that is authentic learning!
Once again, 20% time is a matter of trust. However, the important thing is that 20% time is undesignated—so long as what you are doing is related to your job, it is okay. Therefore, I don’t think there is any problem with teachers using that time to do stuff other than PD. Teachers shouldn’t be asked to use their own time simply to do their job.
@Claire: Thanks. Yes, the Peter scenario was rather weak. (I considered cutting it) As for the “core curriculum” needed, I think 99% of it is covered in elementary school. The rest can be learnt on need. I think the fundamental shift is that we must move away from having a group of “experts” coming together and deciding what everyone needs to learn and instead give everyone a chance to get that knowledge when they want/need it.
NHill
Reflecting on Arthus’ earlier post if teachers were then freed to roam the building and visit these “lounges” this meaningful communication could start to take place.
How can such a necessary change be implemented in our already established institutions? Stubborn ounces?
You’re right in so may ways, but the silent study hall does have its place. We all need time to reflect, think, meditate. In today’s overscheduled, overstimulating world, that is perhaps needed more than ever.
“the traditional model has been to treat students like hard drives: packing them with 12 TB of knowledge before all cables are cut. I’d rather get out of school with only 1 GB of knowledge and a connection to the internet–at least then I can continually add to that store.”
It’s ironic (cause it’s only recently that I realized I don’t want a computer with Windows and all sorts of other programs pre-installed). I want a simple (free) OS and an internet connection. Perhaps this analogy could go even deeper into our society than your post does?
I agree that a lot of education is stuffing information at you. I have a teacher right now, who is really bad. This is her first year teaching this course, but all she talks about is “getting through the information”. She will cut off a good conversation by insisting that she HAS to go over her lame list of review questions (fact based) from SparkNotes (yes, actually from SparkNotes). She is unwilling to admit that she is wrong: “yes that is up for discussion, BUT the answer is ....” and marginalizes it “it was only worth 2 points, let’s get through the information”. The funny part is that every student thinks that she is a bad teacher. They may not be able to point out the reasons (like I did) but they know. I’ve brought this up with the other teacher she teaches with (two teachers for 50 person American Studies class), but he doesn’t seem to care.
Other teachers get it (and happen to be commonly seen as good teachers) but are held back by the system. NCLB leaves principals with little choice. What about the people who are already “advanced”? With all the focus at the bottom - the top is being left behind in relation the smartest in other countries.
I do not agree about selecting classes early - most people don’t know what they want to do even through college - certainly not in middle school. Also I think there is something to be said about hard work and “suffering through” what you don’t enjoy. I think that there still needs to be that perseverance - at least in Elementary and Middle schools. However, I agree with you once students are eligible for “real jobs” (~HS Sophomores).
AP Exams are another problem. Many HS students at the top feel compelled to take them - they are ALL memorization. Not exactly bad - but I agree with the rise of Google memorization is not as important. But in fields like Psychology and Economics, you need to have a firm grasp on the fundamentals. Not necessarily “What was GDP in the US in 1993?” but an understanding of supply and demand.
But then again, I just took Pre-Calc. I will never, never use any of that EVER. Compounding interest maybe; (like you mentioned) but I can use a calculator. Why did I take that?? It looks good for colleges and I wanted to challenge myself. But no one really paid attention in that class because none of that mattered unless you were going to be an engineer. And then I don’t know if many had to foresight to look ahead.
The problem of course is that system works against you. What would a college looking at your transcript say? How would this system scale? - It works for you? For a classroom? School? District? Country? What about people who want an easy way out? It’s been shown that humans capacity to make rational choices doesn’t fully develop until age 25. As a HS junior, I think many people at my age are starting to look beyond school and realize that education matters - and are regretting the choices they made to ignore school.
But this was very nice Arthus. I love reading your work and the new ideas you have.
-Michael Plasmeier (ThePlaz)
HS Junior, Haverford High School, PA
http://theplaz.com
@Carl: You are right, it really is hard to have these important shifts happen on a broad basis—there really does need to be some top-down (and bottom-up) support. However, I do think that study halls are a place that teachers really can start to do shift while still working within the system—there isn’t a curriculum for study halls or generally much oversight. Teachers can start to push the shift in this environment by doing stuff like upending the traditional silent hall to create collaborative, open learning environments. How often do teacher performance evaluations happen in study halls? (I’ve never seen it in )
@Corrie: Darn it, my identity has been revealed. *Gracefully sweeps off cape*
I think there is a place for silent meditation—but by forcing it and saying exactly what you must do in that time you defeat the point of silent meditation. Perhaps in the open lounge model a room is reserved for silent contemplative thought? Free to come and relax as you wish to do, or not. Free to sit and stare off to space without a teacher barking at me to get out some work.
@Joe: Thanks, I think the most important way it can be applied to society is in that not everyone needs the same things—all we really need is the ability to be free.
@Corrie: Geez, off you go crediting Joe with my analogy. From original post:
@ThePlaz: Honestly, I think too much time is spent just sitting around and talking about what needs to change. Be the change.
I can sympathize with your bad teacher situation. One of my friends recently figured out that all of our tests were coming word-for-word off of Cliffnotes. Wave goodbye to half the class actually reading. The sad thing is that a text like The Odyssey has so much potential for both engagement and discussion, yet many teachers chose to ignore it because that makes their jobs easier.
NCLB and a testing culture has permeated out schools which makes it hard but not impossible to make meaningful changes. But remember:
That is what they want you to believe. Fact is: that’s the carrot mentality, that we should always be taking what is going to be the most valuable for our paycheck in the future. BS. Take (and do) what you are passionate about at the time. Good companies don’t hire courses/grades, they hire people. Frankly, I think the whole argument is simply a way to get people to do mundane and pointless tasks. I can’t think of anything worth doing which someone doesn’t want to do.
You are right that Every day I struggle with the dilema of whether I stick it out and just do the mindless work and rebel, go into a lengthly pedagogical argument and show my teacher up in debate. Then I remember I’m 15.
In all seriousness, the problem is that the entire system is broken. If you fix a wrung of a ladder, the next one is still broken.
I think the colleges need to change the ways they look at admissions. (In fact, some of them already are.) However, until then both students and teachers do have to keep their full experimentation in check because they don’t want to close doors for students. If amateur learning were to be enacted system-wide I think it would scale relatively well—100 people can direct themselves just as well as 1 person can.
Seriously, there’s no easy way out on life.
Rational choices are overrated. I prefer passionate choices.
Thanks, I look forward to hearing more from you.
Arthus Erea, in my comment I was not referring specifically to study halls but rather the pedagogical shift that
the author of this blogpost isyou are talking about.I know people who were sure (passionately) all through high school of what they wanted to do. Then in college or as an intern at a company in the field they wanted - they realized this is not what they wanted to do. These were not rational choices (I’m going to be a lawyer and make $$), but actual passionate choices. You and I are both still in the “tunnel”. We might think we have a plan to get out - but it may not work. (Perhaps some of the older readers can chime in?)
Many colleges do look at more than test scores (see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/flanagan and the book mentioned in there “Admissions Confidential” - I read it last year and highly recommend). But that myth is still around that you need high test scores (not even getting into why you need to get into a top college - that is another issue for another day). Test scores in general are an easy way of “measuring” students. As “Admissions Confidential” mentions - they do read the essays and other parts of the app - but scores are easy to use.
We recently had an executive from a large consulting company come in to talk to our grade about what companies look for: passionate, problem-solving, tech-savvy people. Just as you said. I think this should also impact education more - more freedom to work on a project and report back. But today when students in my class get a project, they expect to get exact directions (connect the dots...). When they are told they have some choice they get confused.
-Michael http://theplaz.com
Much like physicians taking the Hippocratic Oath, we educators should agree to an oath along the lines of having the courage and creativity to design learning opportunities that nurture a love of learning by our students.
Clay Burell and Jeff Utecht spoke about this in a recent Shift Our Schools: SOS podcast. It is especially evident as we look at the natural curiosity of elementary students often being extinguished as they move into MS and HS.
Once again thank you.
I like your thinking about encouraging teachers to engage in honest discussions with students. I find it very enlightening as an administrator to sit down with the office runners and find out their opinion on certain issues.
@ThePlaz: Thanks for commenting.
Actually, I don’t have a plan—I realize that I have no idea where I will be 10 years from now. Heck, I don’t even know where I’ll be next week. However, because I understand this I chose what I do based upon what I am passionate about at any single point in time. Without a passion for something, I think it is impossible to do it well; the same is true of learning. Therefore, I do not think that making rational choices for what will be the most valuable in the future is the most appropriate choice: I think making passionate choices about what you are interested in now is the most effective in the long run.
I do understand why test scores are useful: they are an effective way to narrow down the field. However, what I would like colleges to do is toss out the scores after their preliminary use. That is, choose a floor of scores and if students are above that floor, consider them. Otherwise, simply reject the students with a clear-cut reason. However, beyond that floor I think test scores should be ignored. As Stacy wrote, it is ridiculous to obsess over tiny differences in scores. Rather, take the (smaller, after using scores to narrow down) and compare them solely upon other measures.
You’re right about students being confused with free choice. As I wrote before, students are so used to constraints they are confused when given freedom. However, the cycle will have to end eventually (starting with incoming kindergartners).
@David: I like that idea; an “educational oath” to keep students natural love of learning intact. You’re right that students seem to lose their natural curiosity as they move up through the grades.
@Albert: Looks great: glad to see someone making use of our Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.
@Charlie: I think everyone in schools could stand to do a lot more two-way communication. In my school, the only reason you talk to an administrator is if you are
During the k-12 years, students don’t know what they don’t know. The goal of any good teacher is to expose their students to as many ideas as possible. Once the student has a base knowledge (k-12 Education) then they can make an informed decision on what they want to do with their lives ( college education).
What about the idea of the “Renaissance Man?” With your approach would that ideal be a thing of the past?
Shoot me now, I’ve brought up the meme again.
Amateur education is reality. Edupunk is mere aspiration and a smoldering hope for an improved system. Well, either that or an attempt by way too many old farts hoping to re-live their glory days of rebellion.