I was a young teacher once...

I was a young teacher once. I was excited with what I thought were new and innovative ideas. Like what...like open area schools where kids got to move freely, like the school where I observed with the library as the hub in the center of a circular shaped school, like the move to child-centred philosophy, like the recognition of the need for critical and creative thinking. All of these progressive movements seemed new to me at the time. But were they?

I was excited when my own children’s primary school embraced all of this and more. They were led by Selma Wasserman of SFU and others that followed in the same vein. Selma’s “Teaching for Thinking” changed the lives of children and teachers. I knew teachers that literally changed how they taught and never looked back. And those teachers continue to learn to this day. I was sad when my children’s primary school was closed years later. It was an incredible loss and a short-sighted decision.

I was excited by the recommendations coming out of the Sullivan Commission in the late 1980’s and hopeful that they would be embraced by educators. The recommendations were progressive and the Primary Program came out of those recommendations. There was money provided for in-service. I was sad that all ended at the intermediate level due to such things as poor implementation plans, parental concerns about reporting, political competition and no money for in-service. I am glad that young teachers are, perhaps unknowingly, embracing much of the wisdom from the Sullivan Commission that was never allowed to be implemented.

I was excited that the Ministry of Education of the day (NDP) put in writing much of what teachers had always known, namely that students learned at different rates and styles and that learning is dependent upon the participation of the student. I was disappointed when that knowledge was ignored by subsequent Ministers with the emphasis placed on standardized testing and condoning the ranking of schools according to those tests. I am further disappointed due to the threat of de-categorization of special needs students who require special services to accommodate their different styles and rates of learning.

Upon reflection, I wonder how many times before me had teachers advocated for progressive change and I wonder if teachers with long experience were thinking how nothing we were excited about was new.  I think of authors like John Dewey who came long before my career started. I find myself sometimes thinking “is this really new.”

I’m happy that young teachers are enthusiastic about progressive change. However, what I am not happy about is the thinking that those of us who are older and more experienced were somehow living in the dark ages and that we allowed education to go unchanged since the industrial revolution.  I don’t blame young teachers for this. Our government constantly harps on the idea that schools haven’t changed in over a century. Of course that is pure nonsense. Teachers have always been progressive. Obviously there have been individual teachers who didn’t embrace positive change, but for the most part teachers are a progressive lot. No matter what age we are, we want our children to get the best education possible. It is a good thing that young teachers are taking up the torch. And because I know teachers are the most likely to know what is best for kids in regard to education, we will be carrying those torches together whether we be “old” or “young.”

But I must warn you.  Although I hope that progressive change can happen, there will be roadblocks and some of what we as educators know to be best for kids will never happen. There are a myriad of reasons: What’s best for kids may cost more, i.e. smaller class sizes, supports for special needs. What’s best for kids may not be what can be controlled by a controlling government. What’s best for kids may not be what is best for the corporate interests that are making inroads into our education system.  

If there have been roadblocks to progress in education most have been put there by governments and their corporate agendas.

Kids Matter! Teachers Care!

21st Century and Reality in the Classroom

I just watched the video on the C21 Canada site called  “Designing Schools for the 21^st Century” presented by the Pearson Foundation and The Mobile Learning Institute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur7gp6cB-Zo&feature=player_embedded It all seems very visionary which some would characterize as progressive and therefore good.  It makes one feel all fuzzy and warm about educating teenagers.  Everyone is interested in their learning. Everyone is happy. Who could argue with that?  But...what don’t we see in that video?  We don’t see the billions of dollars required to build such a facility in every neighbourhood.  So who would get such an amazing facility? We don’t see the children who struggle with basic subjects. We don’t see the special needs children and the supports they require. 

This is a pie-in-the-sky vision designed to do what the community Christmas Tree was meant to accomplish in the sale of overpriced homes in a recently proposed housing development.  Just think of the community Christmas tree and one can imagine that if he/she moved into the neighbourhood all the neighbours would get along like family and gather around the tree on Christmas Eve and sing carols. What a wonderful vision! No matter that the development was being built on a landfill and no Christmas tree would ever be able to grow in that environment.  As long as the prospective buyers don’t know what’s under the surface and they continue to envision the community Christmas tree.

I have no doubt that many of those who share the 21^st C vision have the best of intentions and question why anyone would be skeptical of this wonderful “new” and enlightened vision.  Why indeed?

Here are some thoughts about that:

Those of us who have been teaching for a long time have seen the cycles.  In the late 60s and in the 70s we saw what I, as a young teacher thought were wonderful innovative changes to education.  My children went to an open area primary school, one that worked very well. The kids were not sitting in rows in most classes. Schools were designed for free movement of students, we had multi-age classes, etc. 

So, many of us are resentful of the Ministry and other management laying claim to what teachers already have been practicing and to further innovations which teachers believed to be progressive but were often held back due to funding shortages, philosophical differences and sometimes parental concerns about changes. That was evident in the Sullivan Commission recommendations in the late 80s. Now, all of a sudden, we see the Ministry laying claim to educational enlightenment with the inference that teachers, especially the older ones, are stale and not capable of recognizing progress or of adapting to the times.  For example, continually telling teachers that having students sit in rows with their eyes forward is from a different era, when teachers have been configuring their classes in many different ways since the 60s, does nothing but breed resentment.

This attitude does not recognize that many experienced teachers are true experts who have been working with and observing children and how they learn for many years. They have seen firsthand through that work, how the child’s brain works.   

And now another important concern:  the question of what is behind the world wide push towards “21^st century learning. We see big corporations making serious inroads into the education “business.” And these actions by multinational corporations are not philanthropic in nature.  They are shrewd business decisions.  We see organizations like GELP pushing agendas that would benefit big businesses like Pearson, Cisco, Dell, Microsoft and big banks.  In the U.S. we see big business, through ALEC, actually crafting legislation with politicians. We see meetings of big business and world political leaders, where discussions take place about education policy around the world. We see the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund with education and other policies that would profit banks, but are not necessarily in the best interests of the citizens.

 

Even those corporations that may appear to be philanthropic are often looking for something in return. Once the system gives in to large charitable funding it is often beholden to the donor’s intent in giving the gift. 

 

We also see teachers being left out of the discussion.  It’s obvious to me why.  Teachers are aware of the realities. They want guaranteed working and learning conditions. They don’t want to be overworked. They don’t want to be expected to perform miracles without adequate resources and supports.  They would actually want the system to work and work well, and that would require coming down from Cloud 9 at the 50,000 foot level to ground level where the action takes place and where realities have to be faced.  For example, how many schools in BC would be replaced with anything close to the school toured in the video?  I would venture none. In short, teachers would get in the way of the dream because they are the ones in the trenches. Don’t get me wrong. Teachers dream of the perfect system too, but they are the ones who have to face the reality of lack of supports and resources and inadequate facilities while at the same time being pressured with the dream of those at the 50,000 ft. level.

 

Going back to the prospective buyers in the proposed housing development, they need to consider the likelihood of the Christmas tree growing at all, the likelihood of 300 happy neighbours gathering around the tree, the reality that it is probably just a shrewd marketing gimmick, etc. So like the prospective buyers in the proposed neighbourhood, where they need to look at the reality of the Christmas tree vision and consider all factors, so do we in the education system have to consider all of the factors involved in 21stC learning and those delivering the most fundamental of the services (teachers) need to play a major role.  Teachers will inject the much needed perspective of reality.  We need that perspective for success.