Courtney Langton
Courtney is an aspiring high school teacher.
Her teachables are History and English, but she's happy to teach anything that doesn't involve numbers or formulas.
Her particular interest is in promoting gender equity and anti-oppression both in and outside the classroom.
She writes a detailed To-Do list every morning, and enjoys nothing more than a good book and a plate of bacon on a rainy Saturday.
Jonathan Wong
LINKS: Blogger
Canadian Chalkboard
Coffee, Calculations and Colombia!
Mewlings
Progressively Unnecessary
TeacHer Finance
It's Not All Flowers and Sausages
So You Want To Teach?
Classroom Confessions
Teach Hub
Web English Teacher
Blogging the Renaissance
ARCHIVES: June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 March 2010
It's been awhile since we've posted. I know, that's sorta how we preface every post. We're really sorry. But the good news is that we haven't posted because there's been such a comical amount of stuff happening that's kept us constantly busy and bewildered as we enter the "Job Hunt" phase of our year. Labels: anxiety, big questions, job hunt, teaching abroad
You see, for the first semester of Education, we were all told to focus on doing well on prac and to leave the worrying about the future until second semester. Well, second semester has officially arrived and with it, said worrying. We had a special day last week that involved a slew of school boards coming to Queen's and telling us that there were no jobs. Basically. From what I was able to absorb, the day was primarily centered around 4 things:
1. Applying to the Ontario College of Teachers
Basically, this involves paying hundreds (yes, hundreds) of dollars after we graduate in order to be granted a certificate by the OCT just to be allowed to apply for teaching jobs that don't exist.
2. There are no jobs in Ontario
See Above. Every school board presentation I went to informed me that my chances of getting a job in that particular school board were bad to even worse. Some boards like York Region tried to make us feel better about the fact that only 30% of us will get hired. Other boards tried to make us feel worse.
3. There are plenty of jobs if you're willing to work overseas
Ontario seems to have a mysterious abundance of teachers - especially those that apparently like marking English essays (we are a masochistic bunch). Teachers in other countries seem to understand that there is an improper workload-to-money ratio in this profession. This is usually offset by the understanding that the job is intrinsically rewarding and that we are making a difference in the lives of our future generation. Apparently, we are a youth-loving nation. We're also Canadian.
4. There was something else here I forgot
In its place, I'd also just like to mention that none of the above really came as surprise to any of us. But at the same time, I try not to worry too much about it. I probably should (be worrying) but I figured it's hard to predict the future and all I have control over is what I do at the faculty of Ed. and how I do while I'm on prac. So far, both ventures have proven to be fairly successful. Does that success necessarily translate into the future? Of course not. But I figured it can't hurt to hope.
Being an education is one of those careers where getting yourself to the starting line is almost as hard as the actual race itself. First, you gotta decide that you want to become a teacher and then apply to get into the program (easier if you do it through Con-Ed, though it means you have to decide early). Then you have to make it through the program without losing your desire to teach (no small matter in itself). And then in the end, if you do decide that teaching is the right profession for you, you have to get a job in an incredibly thin market.
Mom wanted a doctor in the family. But would I listen? Nooooooooooooo
Last month, I began my placement using reasoning that I believed would motivate kids outside of what they had to do for marks. I told them that e.e. cummings’ “i carry your heart with me” could win them any love interest; I told them that their Twitter musings were poetic and that their Facebook profiles were really character profiles of themselves. What I learned in my practicum was that while the above would win over some of the most skeptical of Canadian students, these particular ESL students just didn’t care about those abstractions—they cared about getting marks. To them, a Facebook page would never get them into university, and they had a very difficult time connecting to material that wouldn’t help them get 95%. The fact that I modified the motivation I gave them does not mean that I believe they are correct in being disdainful or what they see as abstractions; far from it. I will still mention the importance and relevance of the material in English classes to the outside world. However, after all of my careful crafting of interesting, creative activities to test comprehension, to my chagrin, the kids reveled in being given a quiz. So I decided that instead of fighting them, I would continue to give them activities that tested more than their skills at memorization, but remind them that learning and practicing the (to them) less traditional ways of showing their knowledge and understanding of a book would still get them marks and help them in university. I suppose over the course of my practica in undergrad I got the idea that every lesson had to be wildly creative and fascinating to my students; that everything the students learned had to connect to them on a completely personal level. In that process, I forgot what it felt to be in grade 12, panicking about being accepted into my program and university of choice. These students do look to the teacher to tell them what skills and knowledge will help as they enter the world of academia, so I have begun to give them concrete, detailed reasons as to why they should learn what I teach instead of why they would want to learn it. In reality, the students were motivated to learn the specific expectations I was teaching them(in one particular case, how to debate) because they knew that they would have to actually use those skills in a summative assignment the week after, and because they knew that in university, they would often be called upon to substantiate their answers in class and come up with rebuttals to their classmates' points. The kids really responded to that and worked very hard on the assignments I gave them. I did still mention, however, that my friends and I enjoyed many hours spent debating and discussing issues that had come up in class or in the reading of a newspaper article, and that with these skills, they might do the same (and perhaps already did). So in the end I integrated some parts of my former teaching philosophy with my newfound method of motivation. Labels: big questions, getting them motivated, lesson planning, practicum
My friend Christian once wrote this: Labels: big questions, English, getting them motivated, poetry
"I truly think that learning to write at least half-decent poetry is a major step toward writing excellent prose. You can write good prose without being able to write poetry, and you can likely get toward excellent without it, but I can assure you that being able to write poetry hugely improves your ability in prose."
He didn't really explicate this statement at the time but I recently discovered why this was so. It came about partly because I was writing my own poetry and partly because I was teaching a poetry unit to my class. They had just finished learning about short stories in the unit before so I thought I would tie my poetry unit into that one by turning a poem/ballad into a short story. Thus, I took the song, Your Ex-Lover Is Dead by Stars and spent an entire weekend turning the lyrics from that song into a short story and when I finished, I sat back and looked at the short story I produced.
Now, I'm a fairly concise writer. But I looked at the short story I generated from the song lyrics and thought to myself, "It is amazing that the lyrics to Your Ex-Lover Is Dead can encapsulate, in 3 short verses something that took me 3 pages to write out in short-story format." And then it hit me...
This is why poetry is so important to writing good prose. To quote Coleridge, poetry is "the best words in their best order". I realized this when I was writing my own poetry - in order to produce GOOD poetry, you have to work to ensure that every word is perfect and that the order in which they come is perfect as well. It forces you to come up with the best possible combination of the best possible words. And of course, this is a skill that is essential to writing truly excellent prose. In a sense, you have to put yourself in the same mindset of writing poetry in order to write great prose - something that is easy to neglect because there appears to be less pressure to ensure that every word is perfect in prose.
Prose lets you get away with some things that you wouldn't be able to get away with when you write poetry. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But put it this way. When I write prose, sometimes I write about the environment and the atmosphere of whatever setting about which I am writing. I take the time convey to the reader what my characters are feeling and I explain the circumstances that have led up to the event in question before the "action" starts happening. And because I'm writing prose, I have every right to do this. But poetry - poetry is the ability to write in such a way that all the things I mentioned above are implicit and indicated in the way the "action" unfolds. In order to do that, your words and how they appear have to be perfect and nuanced.
This, I believe, is why writing good poetry is essential to writing great prose. See, you never stop learning as a writer.
Psychologically, something has happened in terms of the way I feel about being on prac. And up until today, I was having trouble making sense of it. But I think it makes sense now thanks to some clarifying discussion with a friend. Labels: about us, anxiety, big questions
As an ex-Con-Ed student, prac was always something I did from May to June. I mean, there were many ways you could have gone about getting your prac done but it made the most sense for me to do it after the university school year. And because of this, prac has always felt like... an extra-curricular of sorts. Right? Because I'd go to Queen's, be a student for 8 monthes, and then after the year was done, I'd turn my attention to prac - in a lot of ways, it was just the first part of my summer job (minus the pay). Now, I'm seeing it a little differently.
Now, prac is actually part of my school year. Instead of being something I did "after school," prac IS school (in more ways than one). And leaving aside how much this has made me miss being at Queen's, the experience of being in schools has taken on a radically different meaning. As my friend Pearl succinctly said, in years past, prac was something I did as a step towards completing my program whereas now, while it's still something I'm doing as a step towards completing a program, it's far more of a step towards the real world.
I never realized how true this was until now - that in years past, I was a student, first and foremost, and prac was something I did in preparation for the future. And for some reason, that made it seem like something I was doing because I was choosing to be responsible (i.e. preparing for my future), not because it was something I NEEDED to do in order to cater to the present (which at the time, was simply being a student). Now that teaching is something I NEED to do, because it takes on immediate significance, it's morphed; in my mind at least, it has.
I was never very good at taking a huge amount of pride in something I HAD to do. Some people have disagreed with me on this before. They tell me that even if you HAVE to do something, you can still take pride in doing it well. While I understand why people feel this way, I don't know that I necessarily do. I always felt that if you have to do something, there is an implicit understanding that it meant you had to do it well. I've only ever felt a truly positive reaction from doing something by choice.
What this has all amounted to is me realizing that I might lose my love for teaching once it becomes a necessary component of my life. Now, that doesn't mean I won't be able to be a good teacher. After all, as I said above, I feel that even a necessary component of my life is worth doing well. But that means that I'm being a good teacher on a principle (that if you're going to be a teacher, you have an obligation to be a good one) not on an innate love for the profession itself. That in itself opens up a whole new problem. In some ways, I had always counted on teaching as being a driving force behind why I do what I do. In other words, it gave meaning to my life. What if I find out that teaching can't do that for me? And I end up in some Zach Braff-like state of Garden-State-esq existence? Like he says, at the end of the film,
So what do we do? What do we do?
Due to a very nasty viral fever this weekend and four, yes FOUR big assignments all due on Thursday which I have yet to find time to work on, this will be a pretty intensely hectic week. I do have my lesson plan from "The Drum," which makes a very interesting juxtaposition to Jon's lesson plan from the same short story, but I won't have any time to post it until Thursday afternoon. Same goes for two consecutive Gleecaps (*sob*) and several other interesting discussions I had in mind for this week. Boo! Labels: about us, anxiety, big questions, comments, creative solutions, finding a balance, lesson planning
I'm not sure what the accepted term for learning English as a foreign language is at this very moment, but since my host school calls their courses 'ESL' and I will be teaching some of those courses, I'm just gonna go with ESL for now. Labels: big questions, creative solutions, diversity, English as a Secondary Language, going above and beyond, students, tips
I'm not sure exactly when ESL got its abbreviation changed to ELL (English Language Learners for those of you who, like me, were late to receive this memo). I remember being told something about ESL being politically incorrect because it presupposes that ESL students only have one primary language before English... even though "English as a Secondary Language" actually doesn't presuppose anything of the sort. As far as I know, you can have a whole plethora of languages that are secondary as long as they're not primary. Or maybe it was actually "English as a Second Language" and that presupposition really was there. In which case, we could have just added the "dary" and it would have worked out without changing the abbreviation. Cue obligatory How I Met Your Mother reference. Labels: Alfie Kohn, big questions, diversity, English as a Secondary Language, students
ANYHOW!
No, what I really wanted to talk about was the question of ESL (as I shall continue to refer to it, having proved that it's not really politically incorrect). Or at least, some of the thoughts I've been having about it.
You see, I've been reading one of the books for prof 191. "A Letter to Teachers," not to be confused with "Letters to a Young Teacher" (I think they deliberately did this to test our literacy). The author, Vito Peronne, sounds like he'd get along with Alfie Kohn. They're both ultra-progressive educators who are proponents of grand ideals regarding how education should be. But he mentioned something about other cultures that ties into the whole ESL question.
"There is an enormous shortage of bilingual teachers able to meet constructively the growing numbers of non-English-speaking children in the schools. 'English only' is not an acceptable answer. Support for diverse languages is absolutely essential. Otherwise, we place severe limits on more generations of young men and women."
I haven't yet actually had the experience of being an ESL teacher. And when I do, I don't know how I will feel about the whole issue. On the way hand, it's not like I want to stifle diversity. And I do have a great deal of respect for people who are fluent in more than one language. I often wish I myself were fluent in more than one language (no, I am not deluded enough to consider my Mandarin "fluent"). So to that effect, I do understand where Peronne is going with it.
At the same time, I remember sitting in on an ESL class back in high school during my spare. And I could not help thinking to myself how terrible it must be to be Ms. Brooke, who was also my own grade 12 English teacher (and a great one at that). I don't know if I'd still feel that way now, but that is definitely how I felt back then. Because I realized what was happening was that most of the students were making extremely slow progress; and the REASON for this was because ESL class (and other classes taught in English) was the ONLY time they would ever use English. They wouldn't use it at home, they don't watch English television, all their friends speak the same first language as them. There were 1 or 2 exceptions who had friends that spoke English; their proficiency with the language got so much better simply based on that fact alone. And to me, that has always demonstrated that in order to learn any language, you have to use it, not just in the context of a classroom, but in your daily life as well.
Here's the thing. As an ESL teacher in Canada, your job is to help your students become proficient in English. You can talk all you want about diversity but in the end, this is an English speaking country. And there are students who are simply not proficient enough at English to pass a basic, grade 10 literacy test. When I say "English Only," even if I were teaching a History class or a Civics class, it won't be because I want to stifle their culture, it'll be because they don't need practice with their native language. But they need to practice their English if they are going to live in an English-speaking country. And yes Peronne, the ministry of education sometimes has some crazy, militant policies about what students should or should not know, but basic literacy in English is not unreasonable.
Celebrating diversity is good. But I think there is a risk of forgetting that there's a reason why students are not celebrating their own culture in the country from which their culture originates. If they're here in Canada, part of the education system requires them to be proficient in English (and French to an extent!). It is, as they say, part of the deal when you choose to study here. And as an English teacher, I have already accepted the fact that many of my ESL students will make no effort to improve their English outside the classroom. The least they can do is make the effort within it.
Ok, full disclosure: I hate gym. I hate gym now, I hated gym in high school, and I feel confident that I will always hate gym on principle even though I'll never have to take it again. I'm bad at every sport imaginable, I was never one of those kids who went off to the park on the weekends (when my mom kicked me outside on nice days, I would sit on the front lawn and read), and I don't really see the point of running around in circles chasing a ball. I played rec soccer for most of my young life, and I have a solid, fairly intense fitness routine in my adult life, but Phys. Ed. classes were always the bane of my existence. Labels: big questions, creative solutions, curriculum, debate, list, Phys Ed
Though I still (clearly) have some pretty strong feelings about the class, now that I'm several years past the mandatory Phys. Ed. age, I can boil that hatred down to three causes:
1. The teachers' attitudes
2. The class content
3. The student hierarchy
Obviously my opinions are based on my own experiences, and I do know that there are many, many exceptions to the negative aspects of gym class. I certainly agree that Phys. Ed should be mandatory, at least in grade 9, because the point of grade 9 is to get a good foundation in as many subjects as possible so students can make an informed choice about what elective subjects to pursue in the future. However, the experience of Phys. Ed. would be much less painful, and the students far more likely to continue to take these classes, if a few changes were made.
1. The teachers' attitudes. I've had a couple of great gym teachers, but the majority have just been grown-up versions of those annoying jocks in high school (to clarify, not all jocks are annoying, but the annoying ones are. I'm sure you know which ones I'm referring to). In an English or Science class, when a student doesn't have an aptitude for the subject, the teacher works with them to help them improve and guides them through activities and assignments that will make the class more enjoyable and relatable. This isn't always the case, but I've never encountered a classroom teacher that showed actual contempt for the students who struggled with their material. Most of my gym teachers, on the other hand, either acted openly disdainful of non-athletic students, or gave up altogether and just ignored the weaker kids. Perhaps this is because Phys. Ed. is not considered to be a class where at least some degree of success is imperative, since half the kids are going to stop taking it as soon as they can. But let me tell you, I wouldn't have stopped taking it so early if I hadn't heard audible sighs of disappointment from my gym teacher every time I attempted the high jump. Really, kids are not stupid. They can tell when you think they're a failure.
2. The class content. You know what I hate more than gym class? Dodge ball. Dodge ball must have been invented by some sadistic, power tripping former bully, because it is one of the most torturous academic experiences for anyone ever labeled as a 'geek.' Seriously, dodge ball? Who in their right mind would ever think that allowing 14-year-olds, with all their teenaged issues and drama, to throw balls at each other as hard as they possibly can is a good or even appropriate idea?? And football? Volleyball? Track? To me, they're all either hopelessly boring or completely impossible.
3. The student hierarchy. I did take gym as an elective in grade 10, to get another French credit, and by that time it wasn't so bad. By grade 10, the bullies had learned that their middle school tactics just didn't fly in this new environment, the awkwardness of puberty was starting to balance out, and we had all had plenty of time to see that our fellow classmates were actually sort of interesting, nuanced human beings. I still didn't love sports, but going to Phys. Ed. was dreaded slightly less than in previous years. On a few occasions, I even had fun. But in grades 6-9, everything is the opposite. Kids are cruel, and in gym class they're given far too much power. There are few things more crushing than having to stand against the wall, stared at by all of your peers, praying that you get picked even second last. Ugh, that horrible pause as the team captain du jour decides which of 3 nerds would be less disastrous to have on their team-- you felt so ashamed you could vomit. I appreciated it when the teacher allowed me or some of my fellow gym-failures to pick teams, but everyone knew he or she was only doing that because we were always picked last. That humiliation, bad enough on its own, was always picked up by the bullies, who made life even worse afterwards. The very nature of Phys. Ed., with it's competitiveness and clear indication of who is skilled and who is not, takes all the awful pre-teen teasing that happens surreptitiously at desks and lockers and brings it out into the open-- even encourages it in some situations.
Alright, that little rant probably told you all as much about my own insecurities and neuroses as it did about the state of Phys. Ed., but if this is still my reaction years afterwards, that's a problem. That being said, I'm just one little nerd with my own nerd opinions, so I'd welcome the perspective of anyone who thinks I'm whiny or lazy or bitter that I'm not perfect at everything. Because yeah, I am all of those things, to a certain degree.
But here's what I think-- to really improve Phys. Ed., give the kids:
1. A supportive, encouraging teacher with a positive attitude toward all students;
2. A curriculum that teaches teamwork and healthy exercise not only through traditional Phys. Ed. sports like football and baseball, but other activities like yoga, pilates, archery, cycling, cricket, rowing, dance, weight-lifting, etc etc etc; and
3. A zero-tolerance policy with regards to bullying or student hierarchy. Pick the teams at random, for heaven's sake!
That's all they really need to make Phys. Ed. not only tolerable, but actually fun-- whether you're a jock or a nerd or somewhere in between.
Since I took a very subjective, personal approach to this topic, I would love to hear dissenting opinions. Or, you know, if you agree that dodge ball is the worst sport imaginable, or if you happen to have anecdotes about how hilariously awful you were in gym class (remember the 20 different times I hit myself on the head with the volleyball? Those were some good times), let me know in the comments.
Ah, the age old Phys. Ed. question. First, a story! Labels: big questions, curriculum, debate, Phys Ed
When I was in high school, I was twice involved in a debate over the question of whether or not Phys. Ed. should be a mandatory subject past the 9th grade. The first attempt was a complete and utter disaster. Why? Because it involved a bunch of 15 year olds sitting around in an English class, who preferred debating over curricular academia. You can probably guess what happened but I'll say it anyway: the entire thing devolved into a giant shouting match between the athletes vs. the non-athletes.
So much for that attempt. The second one was better. It occurred during a Model (Mock) UN practice session. It was an exercise (<-- ha!) designed to force us into defending views we don't necessarily agree with. The theory being that we're assigned countries at random for the Model UN conferences and although we might not agree with said country's foreign policies, we had to be able to defend them or else face penalization for not being consistent with reality. For example, I was assigned Zimbabwe once. You know that Mugabe character? The one whose policies have been condemned by, oh, THE WORLD? Yeah well, I had to, essentially, be him. So it was a good exercise. Even then, it was an interesting debate. So I thought I'd take today to write about it a bit. I'm sure many of you have already formed your opinions about Phys. Ed. way back in high school. But I thought I'd put forth the essential positions (as I remember them). For and Against Phys. Ed. to be mandatory past the grade of 9 (grade 10 or 11, say).
For:
Exercise is good. There isn't really any debate as to whether or not it's beneficial for people. It improves circulation, concentration and health.
Against:
Exercise may be good. But shouldn't that be our choice to make? After all, there are lots of things that are good for us that we aren't forced to do. There aren't very many subjects that are mandatory past grade 9. Why should Phys. Ed. be any more mandatory than French or Geography?
For:
Instead of comparing Phys. Ed. with subjects that are not mandatory, let's look at some that are. English, Math, and Science are the three subjects that are mandatory, to some extent or another, past grade 9. Without getting into a debate as to why these subjects are mandatory, it's fairly safe to say that they're mandatory because they're regarded as "universally" important and thus require further studies beyond grade 9. Is good health and exercise not universally important? Aside from English - mandatory because we acknowledge that being able to communicate is universally important - you would be hard pressed to build a case that says that Physical Education is less universally important than, say, knowing how to factor a quadratic equation. And we stress "universally important" because one of the reasons why certain subjects are no longer mandatory past grade 9 is because we recognize that at that point, students should not be forced to study subjects that they aren't interested in; that certain subjects are useful only to those who are interested in studying it further. But this is not the case for Phys. Ed. No matter who you are, exercise is beneficial to you.
Against:
That doesn't change the fact that that should be a choice that is left up to the students. These are decisions about their own lives that they should have a right to make.
For:
Then why have mandatory courses at all? Why not just let them take whatever they want to take? Don't want to learn French? Fine, don't take it. Don't want to learn English? Math? Science? That doesn't work. The reason why we have mandatory courses is because we recognize that certain subjects are important, regardless of whether or not the students are "interested" in learning about them. Just because Phys. Ed. emphasizes physical well-being rather than mental well-being doesn't make it any less important.
Against:
And what about the competitiveness in the Phys. Ed. program? It's easy for an athlete to say "Oh, physical health is important so we should have Phys. Ed. past grade 9". They're not the students who are forced to feel self-conscious when they can't keep up with the rest of their classmates.
For:
You're going to have strong students and weak students in every class. Phys. Ed. is not an exception.
Against:
It's an exception insofar as it's a class where these differences are most visible to others. There's a reason why we don't publicize everyone's mark in our class. Unless a student chooses to share his/her mark, their achievement in class is strictly confidential. Phys. Ed. is different. You essentially publicize every student's mark every class.
For:
You're honestly convinced that the students in your class don't know where they rank on the academic ladder?
Against:
It's not so much that as much as it's not openly publicized. Furthermore, it's less of a social stigma to be weak academically than it is to be the last one in a race or the one who can't score any points in basketball.
For:
That isn't something we can ever know for sure. And even if that were true, then the argument really should be that the faculty of Physical Education needs to undergo reform in order to meet the needs of all students while helping them maintain a healthy, active, lifestyle; that it should be less competitive and stigmatizing, but mandatory nonetheless.
END
That is the gist of what I seem to recall from high school, diffused among the yelling, screaming, and name-calling (Jock! Nerd! Lazy ass! Muscled-megalomaniac!). That was simply a demonstration, not my own opinion on the matter. For those of you who are dying to hear my opinion, I am secretly of the opinion that Phys. Ed. should be mandatory (not a secret any longer I guess). I recognize that I'm biased, being of the athletic variety, so I'm not a heated proponent of it either way. But if I was forced to choose a side, I do think exercise is important to our general well being and I do think, sometimes, that we need to be forced into doing it until we develop the good habits to do it on our own (<-- this is a sign of a good gym teacher). As usual, I think it's a question of principle. If Phys. Ed. were mandatory and if I were a Phys. Ed. teacher, I think I would try and inspire students into making exercise a part of their life. It's the same thing with English. It might be a mandatory subject but I will be doing my darndest to make my students feel like they would elect to take it anyway if it were optional.
Labels: Alfie Kohn, big questions, homework
Read this link: "Breaking the Homework Habit" Labels: Alfie Kohn, big questions, homework
I've read Alfie Kohn before I think in one of my previous prof classes. He's one of the big names in ultra-progressive education. So it really came as no surprise to me that he's a proponent of the "homework is largely unnecessary" school of pedagogy. Rather than write a long post about "homework" as a general idea, I think it'll be easier if I take some of his points one by one.
1.
"There’s no evidence that homework causes higher achievement. Nor are there any data to support the claims that homework builds character, promotes self-discipline, teaches good study habits, and so on."
This, I think, is mostly true. I don't know that there is any intrinsic, non-academic benefit to doing homework. I don't think homework builds character OR teaches good study habits. Good study habits are a unique brand of skills that don't come simply from the fact that you are doing homework. It's also true that it doesn't promote self-discipline since really, self-discipline is the art of doing something because it's good for you, not because it's bad for you NOT to do it (we call that "fear") and for the most part, I seem to recall homework being a product of the fear of failing, not because I, with some sense of heightened grandeur, was getting satisfaction out of "doing the right thing". The higher achievement part, we'll get to.
2.
(On addressing the question, "Doesn’t homework reinforce what students learned in school?")
"The kind of homework that’s supposed to “reinforce” can’t do anything more than make a behavior occur automatically. So, for example, after finishing umpteen worksheets, the stimulus of being asked to divide one fraction by another triggers the response of flipping the second fraction upside-down and multiplying the two fractions together. At best, this does nothing to help kids think, to grasp the mathematical principle involved. At worst, it actually discourages thinking."
This, I'm not so sure about. The first part is true: that rote memory - the kind of memory you practice from doing worksheets - does generate a trigger reaction to being asked certain kinds of question. But I think there's a failure here to distinguish between grasping the mathematical principle involved and actually performing the mathematical procedure. Because once you RECOGNIZE the kind of mathematical procedure you need to apply, who wants to spend 10 minutes trying to figure out what to do about it? No, worksheets might not help kids think. But isn't that kinda the point? That's like saying that performing drills during baseball practice is bad because then the kids don't have to think about what they're doing during the game. The whole point is to get them to a point where, when they're given their bill at a restaurant, they don't have to be like "Hmm... so I'm supposed to give 15%... now how do I do this? Well, I know that 10% means I move the decimal point to the left... and then 5% is half of that... so..."
Also, it isn't true that all homework we assign can only help kids do something automatically. Even if I were to stick to "math" that seems to be the subject most suited to this kind of attack, the math textbooks I've seen have always had word problems that required you to think about how to apply the mathematical concept you've just learned. By assigning these problems, you "reinforce" the concept that you're taught in class by applying it correctly to certain hypothetical scenarios. Hardly seems like rote memory to me.
3.
"Most of all, we should be discussing the idea of regular homework, which is a bizarre idea when you stop to think about it [...] The premise here is that the very idea of homework -- regardless of its content -- is valuable. [...] My view is that we shouldn’t just have less homework or even better homework. Rather, we should change the default to 'no homework except on those occasions when it’s really necessary.'"
This is true. I think the idea of having homework for the sake of homework is silly. But I'm not so sure of how many teachers subscribe to this idea. I once had the same teacher teach me both math and computer science. We got homework everyday for math class and practically none for computer science. I really think that when he says we should change the default to "no homework except on those occasions when it's really necessary," that that is already more true than he thinks. It's just that these occasions are more common than he thinks. I mean, take English class as another example. Is he proposing that I give my students time in class to read The Lord of the Flies? Is he proposing that there should be enough class time dedicated to getting the books read in their entirety without having to assign the readings for homework? We're barely given enough time as it is to cover what we need to. In English, it will always be necessary for students to read books for homework. With science? Is he proposing that we give them enough time in class to type up their lab reports? With math? Is he proposing that we give them enough time in class to practice the mathematical concepts until they understand how to apply them? Is he going to amend the curriculum requirements to allow us the TIME to do this?
4.
"Even if you thought that practicing skills was more important than helping kids to understand ideas from the inside out, and even if you thought that this had to happen after school, the reality is that one size doesn’t fit all."
There is a sarcastic tone in this statement. As if practicing skills that require the application of a certain idea doesn't help kids understand the ideas from the inside out. As if we were given enough time to do this IN school.
5.
"Any educational practice or policy should be judged according to the effect it’s likely to have on kids’ desire to learn."
This is a rather unjustifiable statement to be putting forth as a maxim. Of course, it would be nice if everything we taught increased our students' desire to learn. I would hardly go as far as to say that we can only judge any education practice or policy based upon whether or not our students take kindly to it. Just because one of my students loves science and isn't driven to learn more about Shakespeare after I've taught Hamlet doesn't mean he didn't learn anything while studying it. Rather than saying "Any educational practice or policy should be judged according to the effect it’s likely to have on kids’ desire to learn," maybe it should read more like "Any educational practice or policy should be judged according to the effect it’s likely to have on kids’ ability to learn." This seems to me to be a much more noble and attainable pursuit.
So you see, homework might be a little more necessary than progressive educators, like Alfie Kohn, think. Now, keep in mind he's not saying that there should be no homework at all. He's merely trying to point out that we shouldn't assign homework just for the sake of it. And I know this and I really do respect this notion of only assigning necessary homework. I'm just of the opinion that homework is actually more necessary than he seems to indicate.
Say the AMOUNT of homework our kids got remained the same but it all suddenly became meaningful. Would that be a justifiable compromise? Or is the very idea of having to do work at home somehow intrinsically bad? That we should be getting all the educating we need during school hours? Something to think about.
Apologies for my lack of posting this past week. Jon has been very patient and accommodating while I sorted out my personal life a bit. All is well, so now I must get down to responding to his brilliant musings. And post at least one of my own! So stay tuned. Labels: big questions, classroom management, discipline, students
So I recently read this article: "Yes, these children can" Labels: big questions, classroom management, discipline, students
Followed by this rebuttal: "KIPP Schools and What Can We Do For Urban Poor Kids?"
I've always thought the authoritarian method of teaching a class to be an interesting line. And I mean that insofar as the question of how discipline contributes and affects our ability to teach.
There's no question that an attentive class makes it easier for you to teach and for them to learn. And there's no question that it can be supremely frustrating to teach a class when you're constantly interrupted by a few students. We just posted about "keeners" and how it's important to make your class as relevant and interesting as possible so that, at least, you as a teacher have nothing to reproach yourself about as far as effort, patience, and aptitude...
But as all teachers know, sometimes, there are students who simply don't care. I've heard some teachers tell me that it happens more in Applied classes. I myself have seen it enough times in Academic classes to know that it's a little more universal than that. Every so often, you'll have students that, try as you might, just don't care to be in your class and refuse to see any value in anything you teach. When that happens, the issue is no longer a question you "dealing with a problem kid" to quote a popular catchphrase. The question becomes, is it fair for the rest of the students that their teacher's attention is constantly being diverted towards a particular student?
I have never been able to come up with a good answer for this. On the one hand, I have 1 or 2 students that I can't seem to hook into my class. We talk a lot about "classroom management" in our own education classes but I have yet to hear one good solution for dealing with 1 particular student who just seems like he/she couldn't care less about you, your class, or their peers. And on the other hand, I have 20 other students in my class that deserve better than what I am able to deliver when I have to constantly attend to a troublemaker (or two).
I know people are against the KIPP method of teaching/private schools because they find that authoritarian style of classroom management stifling. And to an extent, it's true. But at the same time, you have to strike a balance somehow don't you? If you have a school where a student that's sent down to the principal's office simply gets a slap on the wrist and sent back up to your class... I can't see how this is very good for you, the student, or his/her peers. As parents, we enforce a set of rules regardless of what our children think because it's for their own good. Should the same principle not apply, to some extent, to a class as well? I constantly worry that, in an effort to get away from control and stunted creativity and all the negative things about a harsh disciplinary system, we might have moved too far into student-driven learning where a teacher is only there to teach/guide the students that *want* to be taught/guided. Is there a point where our lack of disciplinary measures results in an actual inability to curb students who are literally unresponsive to everything else?
Being able to teach is one thing. Being able to teach despite students who don't want to learn is something else entirely. It's the reason why I've always thought that university professors don't really have any excuse not to be good teachers. I mean, think of how many elementary/high school teachers there must be who would LOVE to teach in a class where their students either pay close attention, or at least keep quiet if they don't?
I recently came across some old journals my mom kept from when I was a baby until I was about 4. She originally used them when I had a nanny and my parents weren't around to see everything I did all day, but she kept at it even when she started to stay home with us. At one point, in 1990 (I was 3), she spends numerous entries chronicling the challenge to get me to vent my frustration "in words, not screams." Labels: big questions, creative solutions, curriculum, English, whining
We're going to use today's post to indulge our egos a little bit. And by "indulge," I mean we're going to post on something that is perhaps not relevant to every teacher. But Courtney and I are both English teachers. And this is a question that we come across time and time again, whether it was when we were high school students ourselves, university students trying to figure out why exactly we're studying English, or when we had students ask us during prac. Labels: big questions, curriculum, English, getting them motivated, list
It's interesting. Because nobody ever questions the value of mathematics or science or economics when talking about academia. Tell people that you're a chemistry major or studying linear algebra or business management and people rarely give you the "So what are you going to do with that?" look. Of course, on the other side, English isn't the only subject that falls into the category of "subjects that the majority of grownups question in regards to practicality". As someone who took a good slew of electives in philosophy and sociology, I know that these subjects come under the brunt of scrutiny as well. And we do sympathize with our friends in these subjects, who have to constantly defend their choice of study.
But English is different. And I am almost positive it has something to do with the fact that English is a mandatory subject throughout all of high school. If you're an English student/teacher, not only do you have to constantly defend your choice of study from colleagues and grown-ups, but you have to defend your subject in school too! Unlike every other subject, which stops being mandatory at some point in high school, you must take ENG4U (that's grade 12 English) to graduate. The next closest subject (in terms of being mandatory) is mathematics, which you need to take up until grade 11. In grade 12, people only take subjects they WANT to take so they obviously don't question the classes that they themselves choose. But everyone - from aspiring doctors to lawyers to mathematicians - needs to take ENG4U.
So why is this? What is it about English that the government deems important enough to force everyone to take it, even in grade 12, regardless of their chosen path? What would YOU, fellow English teacher, say to a colleague/friend/parent/student, when questioned upon what could possibly possess you to study the language you speak everyday?
1. Verbal Communication. English students express themselves well. Studying English (if done properly) teaches you that when you say something, inflection, intonation, and clarity go a long way towards being convincing. Ever hear someone give a presentation in which every sentence ends with an upward inflection? Or listen to people who keep repeating themselves when they try to explain something? It tends to be difficult. Some people have natural knack for speaking. For those who don't, understanding what makes a natural speaker, a natural, goes a long way towards improving your own ability to communicate your ideas.
2. Written Communication. Think you'll never need to write an essay after grade 12 English? Well, maybe you're right. What about a cover letter? A love letter? An email? See, the thing about writing essays is that practicing formal writing improves informal writing. This has a lot to do with clarity. Writing essays forces you to write clearly. And when you can communicate clearly in the written word, this can be a powerful tool no matter what you do. This is particularly true because...
3. You realize that every word has a specific meaning. Still on the communication strand, this is one of the greatest things I learned when I studied English. There are a lot of words in the English language. But they're not just there to replace each other. Word choice is important to communicating clearly. Many of the problems we encounter and generate are due to a lack of communication or misunderstanding. Just because you don't need this kind of communication in your job doesn't mean you don't need to communicate clearly when you're interacting with everyone else outside of it.
4. You learn that things aren't black and white. A lot of criticism I get from people who are "forced" to study English in high school, against their will, is that we spend all our time interpreting and reinterpreting things that we can never full understand entirely. And my response to that is, "Isn't that what LIFE is all about?" English teaches you why you should always be careful when you read a newspaper. It teaches you how "Call me sometime" can have a hundred different meanings. And how real life is never as objective as a mathematical equation.
5. You learn to think outside the box. I was discussing a question once with my engineering housemate. And the question was "If an object were to be dropped into a lake, would the lateral (sideways) current affect the rate at which it descended." The answer, to him, was "No." I said, "That depends on the object. If it's an airfoil, then yes." This is not to say that there's no value in looking at problems strictly from a mathematical/scientific viewpoint. I'm just saying that English does encourage you to examine problems more holistically.
These are the 5 main reasons I'm glad I studied English in university. The big one is communication. You'll find that almost everything you study in English is geared towards thinking critically and being able to present your critical thoughts in a way that people will understand and respect. I once told an English class that writing an essay is like baking a cake. You take everything you've learned, throw it into the oven that is your brain, turn ON said oven (this is key), and turn out something that's both clear (looks good) and interesting (tastes good). English is how we relate to one another. It's how we share our ideas. It's the way we ensure that we're understood and that we've communicated. It's why we're able to put these ideas we have into a format that you, as readers, can understand when you read this blog. And it's why we will continue to teach English, all the way up through grade 12, for the benefit of our students.
Judging by the large number of articles I've found on this topic, we're clearly not the first ones to tackle it. All you have to do is type "teacher protocol breaking up fights," or something similar, into Google and you get a whole slew of results that address this same question - except for the page titled "Breaking up with facebook is hard to do" which locked onto the "protocol" for making up after a "Facebook fight". Labels: big questions, going above and beyond, list, violence
There isn't a blanket protocol for teachers to follow in the event of a fight. I've been fortunate enough to have never had to break up a fight that involved weapons, but something tells me that, like Courtney, my first instinct would be to try and stop a fight regardless (at least, at the moment) of personal safety.
This is where it gets tricky. Teachers are not legally obliged to do anything that puts their personal safety at risk. However, teachers are legally obliged to do their best to resolve the conflict and ensure the safety of their students. You can see how there might be a... conflict of interest here. Examining this from a purely "personal choice" point of view (we'll get into legal/political ramifications in a minute), this is the part where idealism clashes with reality. SHOULD teachers have to endanger their safety for the sake of their students... on the whole, I would say no. WOULD we endanger ourselves for the sake of our students, well, it seems like Courtney and I would.
Like Courtney said, part of what makes a good teacher, a good teacher, is an instinctive inclination towards the good of our students. There isn't very much time to think when a fight breaks out. It's a judgment call a lot of the times. I mean, I would prefer not to... die, but it's something that I think we simply have to leave to the discretion of each individual teacher. A teacher who doesn't get physically involved shouldn't be blamed for looking out for personal safety; especially if weapons are involved (right? Because seriously, if two 9-year olds are going at it with their fists... just break them up... you'll live).
Personally, I think the most important thing/the thing we should try to do (or not to do, in this case)... I think we should be careful about assigning blame. The issue becomes infinitely more complex (needlessly so) if we try to establish whether or not teachers "should" get physically involved. Because as it stands, there isn't an answer; or rather, there are points to be made for both sides. I would be very hesitant to pronounce, in any case, whether or not a teacher "should" or "should not" have gotten physically involved. As long as they are using their discretion to act in the best interests and safety of everyone - including themselves - let them do what they think is right or necessary and instead of debating about what they ought to have done, as if there was 1 correct response, find ways to ensure that they don't have to make that same call again.
By the by, self-defense/disarming classes are probably not the worst idea for teachers. Also not the worst ideas:
1. Sending for help (ideally, you want more than 1 adult helping you).
2. Sonorously commanding them to cease and desist (recommended first step).
3. NOT getting between a fight - break it up from one end or the other (this, so I read, is important for ensuring personal safety).
And all this without the legal/political aspect to teachers being physically involved in fights! We are, after all, part of a community so it's not just our own beliefs we have to deal with, but the beliefs of everyone else involved.
First issue: being charged for injuring a student during the process of break up. This will, no doubt, vary from school board to school board (so check your protocol) but as a general rule, we are allowed to use force but... uh... no more than the minimal necessary force to ensure peace, safety, and order. In other words, I think we are protected from injuries (to the students) that may incur during the break-up process. But you probably want to double-check with your board policy on this.
Second issue: being charged for NOT breaking up a fight. Yeah, this is why breaking up fights can get complicated. Because while we are not legally obliged to put ourselves in harm's way in order to break up a fight, that doesn't mean we can ignore a fight. We are required (quite rightfully I think) to do everything in our power to stop the fight. So if we are perceived to not put in the required effort, we would be... I think "negligent" is the term used.
I, too, have probably generated more questions than answers. Such is life. Tell us your thoughts!
Read This First: "5 Hurt In School Stabbing" Labels: big questions, blog format, going above and beyond, violence
(This will be a good indication of how we plan to structure the blog. If we're discussing the issue as a result of an article we've read, a picture we've seen, or a video we've watched, we'll link to it at the outset of our post.)
Full disclosure- my best friend, who is also a friend of Jon's, and another close friend of ours are alumni of St. Joseph's. We do know a bit about the school itself and the fairly affluent suburban neighbourhood in which it is located. However, since we know next to nothing about the incident today, we won't be going into much detail about the stabbings in Mississauga. Instead, we will be using it as a jumping-off point to a broader discussion on the issue of the safety of teachers in particular.
This is something I've considered a lot in theory, but don't actually know much about. I've never worked with high-risk students; my own high school did not need metal detectors or a frequent police presence. I've been through two bomb threats in school, but both turned out to be pranks and I was only aware of the situation in the second instance. In short, I'm not qualified to do anything more than speculate about this issue, and I hope that Jon or our commenters will be able to provide a more informed opinion.
The vast majority of teachers (I hope) go into this profession to make a difference with kids. Even when they're strict, they're acting in the best interest of their students. Yes, there are bad apples, but let's assume for the sake of argument that when I say "teachers," I mean "dedicated teachers." A teacher in a circumstance like the one at St. Joseph's is just trying to look out for the safety of her students, and she gets stabbed in the hand for her trouble.
So what I want to ask is, how far should a teacher go to protect his or her students? What kind of precautions can a teacher take to prevent something like this happening in his or her classroom? And at what point has a situation gone too far for a teacher to intervene?
I think, at least in my case, if there were students in danger I probably wouldn't be thinking about myself. But in that moment, as you're lunging to prevent the stabbing of a child under your watch, shouldn't you think about yourself? Many teachers go above and beyond, sacrificing their evenings to coach sports, their lunch hour to supervising debate teams, their weekends to grading essays-- sacrificing their safety seems like too much.
And yet I still think I would step in, just like the teacher did today. Luckily for her, there were other teachers around to help break up the fight. Sadly, a lot of teachers haven't been so fortunate, and have been seriously injured or killed by their students. If only these kids (and I do speak of a small minority here) would see their teachers as more than just people who stand in the way of their freedom, and recognize how hard they work to support their students.
It just doesn't seem fair.
So what do we do? Do we train teachers in self-defense and conflict resolution? Do we install metal detectors in an otherwise peaceful school? Do we sit the kids down in a dreaded assembly and explain why violence is wrong? Does any of that even work?
It's pretty obvious that I'm all questions and no answers right now. That's exactly why we created this blog-- to start a dialogue, whether it's an issue we're experts on or something that utterly baffles us. We want to know what you think.
(Another note on our blog's format: When Jon reads this post, he'll reply above with a response to what I've written. You can comment on one or both of our posts, and we may very well post again in response to your comment. We want Class Dismissed to reflect as many opinions and voices as possible, as well as to capture our own growth and evolution as teachers)