Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
August 28, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Mike Rose
Mike Rose is on the faculty of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies and author of a number of books, including "The Mind at Work: Valuing the Intelligence of the American Worker." His latest book is "Back to School: Why Everyone Deserves a Second Chance at Education"...



The Questions Education Reformers Aren’t Asking

Education is moving to domestic policy center stage. The first round of competition for federal “Race to the Top” funds is over, and that competition generated a flurry of school reform activity across the nation. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia were selected and are now preparing for a winnowing round two.

In addition, the Department of Education just released its proposal to revamp the important Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is up for reauthorization. (Its last incarnation brought us No Child Left Behind.) This proposal is already fueling local and national debate about the particulars of school reform: how to assess teacher quality, for example, or the promulgation of charter schools, or how to remedy failing schools.

So far, our discussions and debates about education have been focused on these particulars, frequently sparking more heat than light. But there seems to be little alternative thinking in the approach to school reform itself. And both elite and mainstream media have pretty much fallen in line with the reigning policy talk about the problems with our schools and how to fix them. As well, no one in power is asking the more fundamental questions like: What is the purpose of education in a democracy, and are our reforms enhancing—or possibly restricting—that purpose?

I wrote the following essays over the last year to address some of these broader questions.



Part One: Education ‘Miracles’ Don’t Survive Scrutiny

Despite a childhood of incantations and incense, of holy cards and stories of crutches being tossed, I don’t believe in miracles. So it is with less than wonderment that I watch as a language of miracles—along with a search for academic cure-alls and magic bullets—infuses our educational discourse and policy.

We started off the new century with the Texas Miracle, the phenomenal closing of the achievement gap and reduction of dropout rates through a program of high-stakes standardized tests. (The Texas Miracle would then spawn the federal No Child Left Behind Act.) Politicians and media-savvy administrators have also found the miraculous; the governor of my state, Arnold Schwarzenegger, referred to an Oakland charter school as an “education miracle.” And the pundits have appropriated the lingo. A recent New York Times column by David Brooks on the charter school of the Harlem Children’s Zone was titled “The Harlem Miracle.” And so it goes. 

Upon closer examination, some of these miracles turn out to be suspect, the result of questionable assessments and manipulated numbers. The Texas Miracle didn’t hold up under scrutiny. And some, like the Harlem Children’s Zone—which is a commendable place—gain their excellence through hard work along multiple dimensions, from teaching and mentoring to utilizing outside resources and fundraising. There’s nothing miraculous about their successes.

Along with talk of miracles, we have the belief in educational wonder drugs and magic bullets—single-shot solutions to complicated problems: high-stakes testing, standards, charter schools, small schools, alternative teacher recruitment, slash-and-burn CEO management and so on. Each of these solutions has potential merit. Standards can bring coherence to a curriculum; small schools can result in increased student contact; alternative recruitment and credentialing bring new blood into the teaching force; some districts need the serious administrative shake-up that managerial housecleaning can provide. All good. But for these efforts to work, to increase the quality of education, other factors have to be present as well.

The structural change that leads to the small school needs to be accompanied by a robust philosophy of education, a set of beliefs about ability, learning, knowledge and the purpose of education. As well, you’ll need a decent teaching force with opportunity built in for ongoing development. And what about curriculum? Or a set of ideas on how to connect school with community? The structural move of creating the small school may be central in all this—truly important—but, at its best, it will be a necessary but not sufficient condition for educational renewal. As small-schools pioneer Deborah Meier once said, you can have crappy small schools, too.

Research on charter schools—most recently a comprehensive study from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes—demonstrates the kind of variability you would expect if you didn’t believe in miracle cures: Some charters are terrific, some are average, and some are awful. The same set of issues I raise for small schools applies here: What you do within the new school structure matters immensely.

The kick-ass-and-take-names managerial cleanup that we’ve seen in places like Washington, D.C., and New Orleans has indeed disrupted the status quo, and I’ll leave it to those who know those districts well to judge the legitimacy of the shakeup. But what interests me is what happens once the new broom sweeps clean. Then the same weighty questions emerge, questions involving curriculum, teacher quality and development, remediation, school-community connections and the like. To address these crucial issues, the school manager will need knowledge of human development, of teaching and learning, of the wisdom of the classroom. Because few of the new CEO types possess such knowledge, you have the rush to the magic bullet.

Let me consider one more magic bullet, since recently it has been making its way through opinion pages and commentaries: alternative teacher recruitment, most notably Teach for America. (See, for example, Thomas Friedman’s April 21 New York Times column or the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” for July 7.)

I admire Teach for America and the public service spirit that drives its recruits. In the early ’90s, I met with founder Wendy Kopp and participated in TFA summer training in Los Angeles, and I’ve taught students who have gone into the program or came out of it. Furthermore, my own introduction to education came via an earlier alternative program, Teacher Corps. So my concern is not with Teach for America itself but with the way it has been defined as yet another wonder drug, the ingredients of which are the idealistic energy of youth and an elite education. Sadly, Teach for America has become a weapon in the education wars, rather than a laudable vehicle through which young people can contribute to the education of a nation.

I’m all for idealistic, hardworking enthusiasm, and I welcome into the nation’s classrooms these graduates of fine schools. But most of them teach for two years (and possibly a third) and then move on to the careers they went to college to pursue.

I’m troubled by two more issues related to the magic-bullet discourse here. First, many who champion TFA seem to affirm an idiosyncratic model of professional development: that these young people’s elite undergraduate educations and their energy trump extended training and experience. There is no other kind of work, from styling hair to surgery to the pro football defensive backfield, where experience is so discounted. No TFA booster, I’d wager, would choose a med student fresh out of a cardiology rotation over a cardiologist who had been in practice for 15 years.

I also want to consider the assumptions about knowledge and teaching here—or more precisely the use of the status of one’s undergraduate institution as a proxy for being able to teach what one knows. Knowing history or chemistry or literature is essential to teach these subjects, but—again this is common sense—knowing something does not mean you are able to teach it, as countless undergraduates who have sat through bad lectures can verify.

Let’s consider this elite-school proxy for pedagogical expertise from one more perspective. I went through two books that profile first-rate teaching: my “Possible Lives” and Karin Chenoweth’s new “How It’s Being Done.” I also looked at the Council of Chief State School Officers’ National Teacher of the Year program. Only a handful of these top-flight teachers got their bachelor’s degrees from institutions typically defined as elite. A number hail from state universities. And a considerable number come from small local colleges with teacher education programs. Expertise in teaching is more than a function of one’s undergraduate pedigree.

What miracle talk and magic-bullet solutions share is the reduction of complexity, of the many levels of hard, creative work necessary to make schooling successful in the United States.

More so than many other domains of public policy, education is bedeviled by a binary polemics, a tendency to define an issue in either/or terms and then wage a pitched battle over the (exaggerated) differences. So we have the math wars, the whole-language versus phonics explosion, the knowledge versus process clash, and so on. These are fierce battles in which each side reduces the other’s argument—often to the point of caricature—and then assails it.

The miracle/magic-bullet discourse plays right into this state of affairs, and both emerges from and contributes to it. Part of believing in this single-shot causality requires a simplification of difficult issues and a dismissal of other possible variables and remedies. If you have the single truth, then everything else is a target.

There’s one more concern, and that has to do with failure. What happens when the miracle fades, when the magic bullet doesn’t cure the disease? For some who are ideologically inclined, there is despair, a throwing up of the hands and retreat to the dismissal of public education that we’ve witnessed over the past two or three decades.

I propose that we leave the holy cards at the schoolhouse door, that we admit that educational excellence is achieved through dedicated effort along multiple dimensions—structural, curricular and pedagogical—and that we call a moratorium on the demonizing either/or polemics that create more heat than light. Unfortunately, that moratorium would probably require a miracle—but it’s one I’m ready to pray for. 

Continued: Business Goes to School
Dig last updated on Mar. 19, 2010

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By doublestandards/glasshouses, March 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t know why the link to the book by Ivan Illich does not work.  The book was much discussed in the early 70’s and is still considered radical.  Education in America has always been in a state of crisis, it is hardly anything new.  “The crisis in education” is a phrase often used in DESCHOOLING SOCIETY, which was published 40 years ago.  Politicians and professional educators would have us believe that there was a golden age in public education and we somehow messed it up in the last few years, but the truth is that warehousing children in the name of education has always been a problem.  John Gatto refers to public schools as “factory schools” which are substitutes for education in the same way that factory farms are for agriculture.
Both Illich and Gatto draw a sharp distinction between “schooling” and “education” whereas most politicians, professional educators, and parents use these words interchangably.  For Illich and Gatto one of the main functions of schooling is to maintain social class distinctions and to provide our capitalist economic system with a docile, patriotic, unambitious, incurious, materialistic work force dedicated to the American ideals of shopping and consuming.
Gatto has written extensively on the history of schooling, exposing many of the myths that we have come to believe.  He is a former teacher in the Manhattan school system.  Illich was a philosopher, a catholic priest, and a marxist.
Most people when encountering their ideas about schooling for the first time want to know what they intend to replace schooling with and I suppose the best answer is that they would replace it with life.  Gatto likes to bring out his list of high school and college dropouts who have made major contributions to American life throughout our history - in art, science, music, literature, business, athletics… some of the names are surprising.  Most people probably believe that Bill Gates has an MBA but the fact is that he never attended college.  Abraham Lincoln recieved a total of one year of formal schooling in his life.  How did he learn to write so well? 

Gatto believes that there was a golden age in American life from the time of the founding of the nation up until the post civil war years before compulsory education was universally estabilished.  He explains this in WEAPONS OF MASS INSTRUCTION.

When he visited the US in the early 1800’s Tocqueville said that even in the then frontier regions of Kentucky and Tennesee Americans always had at least two books in thier homes - the King James Bible and the complete works of Shakespeare - and that they could quote at length from both.  How did they learn to read Shakespeare without schooling?  Today Shakespeare is being dumbed down for college students.

Gatto tells of a student teacher in the Minniapolis school system who learned recently that in 1882 fifth grades students in that city were required to read such major writers as Shakespeare, Dickens, Emerson, Thereau, Twain, and others.  Today fifth graders can’t handle the Harry Potter books without help.  Doesn’t this tell us that compulsory schooling has been in crisis for quite some time, that it is getting progressively worse, and that there must be a better way?  How much do you suppose Americans have collectively spent on schooling since 1882?

Report this
ThaddeusStevens's avatar

By ThaddeusStevens, March 20, 2010 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

AS one who did not supposedly do too well in the public education system I’d like to comment on the scenario. At age 60 I’m probably very well informed on a lot of subjects because I’ve always kept some of the early flames of childhood alive. This, despite the fact that financial ruin and industrialized farming have destroyed the small community where I drew most of my inspiration for learning from.

1. Learning is not all about books, writing reports and classroom processing. In a book that I have only seen on, ‘Handbook of Public Pedagogy: Education and Learning Beyond Schooling’, the authors explore that which happens in the public spaces where ideas are formed, processes put in place, procedures laid down, and events take place that shape our minds, bodies and lives; these phenomena also count as education. If the public discourse is heavily shaped by the dollar grubbing, prestige seeking, self centered minions of the top 500 corporations; that public discourse is still not owned by them. Try as they might to dominate it, we can still contribute and significantly shape the public mind via spaces like

2. For education to happen, for a mind to grow and remain open to new ideas, for children to successfully face the challenges of mastering increasing amounts of information, there must first be the formation of a team. Parents and their children, communities and their school boards, teachers and administrators must sit down together and agree that education matters. They must do more. They must agree that the love of scholastic things is important. I loved the smell of a newly sharpened pencil as a kid. I yearned to look into the new books the small public library had just purchased. I fell in love with calligraphy and drawing and music and art and philosophy and science and astronomy and history. As long we who are concerned about education can rekindle the love of scholarship in the minds of those around us, as long as we keep alive the faith that discussion of mind matters, then there is hope.

Report this

By TheHaplessCapitalist, March 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

I gained a sense from Rose’s piece that he paints a monolithic image of charter schools.  A charter school is in and of itself nothing more than a public entity which holds a contractual agreement with either the local, county or state school board of a particular place.  Using this increased autonomy, Charter schools tend to work along ‘multiple dimensions’ in order to increase academic excellence.  Each and every charter school is different in some way or another.  Many charter schools serve this country’s most underprivileged students.  Frankly, public education is doing just fine in predominately white, affluent communities—so let’s narrow the discussion here.  Many charters are in areas such as South Central and Harlem—where generation after generation of people have been cheated of an education—and they make important adjustments.  I think that quite often we lose sight of how fundamentally messed-up the educational environment is in some places.  For example, at a school in South Central, Los Angeles—where by 85% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch—the charter agency hired a catering company to begin providing more nutritious food.  Almost as a knee-jerk reaction, progressives immediately denounced this move as a form of privatization and a gross violation of public funds.  Sure, theoretically speaking, private catering companies should not be profiting from public funds.  However, when you have kids living in straight destitution—often coming to school with an empty stomach and then eating soda and chips from he vending machine—how can anyone expect them to focus and learn?  Needless to say, the traditional cafeteria food was anything but nutritious.  Another adjustment, which is an extremely important factor for many parents in South Central, is increased safety on campus.  In response, the charter school hired a private security team.  Needless to say, this too caused a knee-jerk reaction from many progressives—particularly those speaking from the other side of town.
You know, innovating the school system is the right thing.  Traditional district schools have grossly neglected many communities across the nation for too long.  All this lofty talk about bringing in a diverse and well-balanced curriculum is nice and all—but it doesn’t help the situation of little Joe, who has been pushed through the factory-like system all the way to high school, while still reading at a 3 grade level.  If focusing strictly on reading and math for a year will bring him up to par—and maybe even get him into college—then so be it!

Report this

By Myronh, March 20, 2010 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

I was educated grades 1-8 in a rural one-room school-house. I graduated from a small High-school in 1952; the mix of country kids and town kids being about 50-50. Ironically, every year when another senior class graduated the honor students were predominately from the country schools. One could suggest that the work environment of the farm culture had much to do with this disparity; however, I believe it had more to do with the 8-grades in one-room environment. I was one of those honor students. I was reading library books that the 7th and 8th grade students were encouraged to read when I was in the 4th grade. I could hear and absorb all the information that was being taught to the upper class. This phenomena started in 1st grade and I am certain it was the same for all the other eventual honor students.

Today kids are herded into a classroom where it is a case of either absorb it or get moved to the next class where the chance of failure is almost certain. There is a better way, but it is not socially acceptable. The student is provided a workbook(s) that encompass all that grade is supposed to cover. That student is moved to the next workbook/class when they have learned a minimum of 90% of the information in that workbook. Some kids will move to the next class in 6-months, others may take 2-years. The end goal is to learn. We presently waste $millions on graduating kids that can’t even read, but were just passed on so they could be with there peers of the same age. They would be far better served to learn at a very young age that we are not all created equal and some will just have to work longer and harder to reach their goals.

This system would also provide the slower learners with good skills of the basic needs (reading, writing, arithmetic, and hard work). Those students can become the carpenters, machinists, masons, equipment operators, etc. that we so badly need, but are now often times hampered by a lack of the basic skills.

Report this

By gerard, March 20, 2010 at 10:51 am Link to this comment


Suggest that along with reference citations you give brief summary of main substance in a sentence or two. Many who read this site will not go to citations, so you have lost the moment to catch their attention and get the gist of your references across.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, March 20, 2010 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich:

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, March 20, 2010 at 1:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Off the table:

Report this

By Mestizo Warrior, March 19, 2010 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

A very wise, very successful and respected teacher once told a group of parents that ‘Learning should be fun, it should be interesting and above all it should be relevant to the needs of the child.” Unfortunatley our public school system is more concerned about the students passing standardized tests than in learning. Learning cannot be predetermined. Learning cannot be put into a one size fits all. Learning must be done in an atmosphere of respect. Children must feel comfortable with their teachers, not afraid of them.

Our inner city schools are in chaos for a variety of reasons: 1) Underfunded by intent. 2)Overcrowded by intent. Teachers cannot teach when they feel exploited, overworked and certainly not appreciated. Overcrowded classrooms are NOT conducive to learning for the children!
3) Public school systems must take into account that massive layoffs promote poverty, which in turn promotes crime, chaos and very unstable situations for children. Where these factors prevail, learning becomes very difficult for a child. 4) Scapegoating parents and/or teachers is NOT a solution. Public school systems, our state and federal leaders must respect the teaching profession as well as the students and parents! 5) Today’s youth is NOT stupid! They see where hundreds of thousands of American workers are on unemployment because our government fails to enact national policy to stop outsourcing of our jobs. With that in mind, what is the incentive to learn and get a diploma? 6) Privatization of our public schools has never been a solution, nor will it ever be such! The corporatists want to control our education system just as they control our healthcare, our government, etc.

President Obama and the Democratic Party had better wake up. Bashing teacher unions who helped get him into office will only erode much needed support for 2012. At this point in his administration Obama and the Democrats need support whereever they can get it, upon EARNING IT!

Report this

By Elizabeth Cummings, March 19, 2010 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you for your essay.  After 40 years in education in Texas, it is time someone asked the appropriate questions.

Report this

By Taoseno, March 19, 2010 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

About once a decade I will read an essay or book that hits the nail on the head about education. This is certainly one. Having spent about the same amount of time in the profession as Mike Rose, I have experienced all the fads and quick-fixes he outlines here. (I even heard of a new charter school in my city that is going to experiment with “team teaching”!) Let’s see…. 1963? I’ve been at the cutting edge of “smaller schools” since it became a fad and have found, as Dr. Rose did, that it is often mediocre teaching in a more intimate setting. One of the problems many charters are having is administrators thinking that the school is their personal business and drawing 2-3 times the salary of their counterparts in the school down the road.

The real question is… “What is the purpose of schooling in a democratic society”? If we believe, as most of our society does, that it is to generate more “thinking, feeling, productive workers”, then we have limited our possibilities for the future.

As one of my education mentors said in the 60’s, “the schools are the state’s and they do the state’s work”. If we leave decisions about education and schooling to businessmen, governors, and corporations-as we seem to have done- we will continue in the slide to irrelevance and mediocrity that we seem to be in.

Mike Rose has told us how it is and how it can be. Read it and weep.

Report this

By uncadon, March 19, 2010 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Insightful articles with prescient commentaries.  But, they all overlook a serious consideration when one is thinking about the reasons for undertaking reform.
Ken Saltman books address the softly spoken dynamic of converting $600 billion a year spend on education in the U.S. into revenue for profit centers.
The 12.5% profit (off of every $1 of school revenue) that Mosaica charges to run a school is a telling motive.
The churning of charter operators to evade the test-based accountability outcomes pushes the public access to the truth ever-further into the future, and allows continuation of an experiement gone terribly wrong. 
Unless one understands that many of the billionaires who push “reform” do so for not so obvious economic motives.  When one looks at “All Children Matter”, a national PAC, one finds famous names that represent ultra-rich families like Walton, Devry, Huizenga, and Bush advocate charters and vouchers because they see education as a last frontier for developing a new profit center.
The Naomi Klein Shock Doctrine underscores the strategy for destruction of public education as we know it and replacing it with the two tier eudcational system that provides a thinking-man’s education to the kids of the elite, and shapes interests of the lower class for lesser occupations.

Report this

By gerard, March 19, 2010 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Thanks, all!  Including thatgal99 and Rose.  From my experience, Rose’s detailed analysis is accurate and bears keeping in the front of the discussion.
  Thatgal99 hits directly on an important part of the curethe—broad, consistent and deeply sensitive parent participation at the community level to support local schols, not blame them. 
  I could go on and on because I am deeply concerned about the way education is being used as a political “football” and people expect some magic “fix”.  In such a situation, any ideological faction can come in and take over if parents are not watching or are too busy to care.
  I can’t relax on this subject because schools are vitally important to democracy. Most of us know what to do, but we don’t participate—just criticize from the sidelines and hope for the best.  That ain’t gonna get it this time.
  Public education is an endanered species in today’s corporate America and you’d better believe it. The opportunity to change schools for the better may not last much longer.
  Do you want your kids to grow up to be corporate proles?  That’s the present meaning of “excellence” and “race to the top” and “no child left behind” and “merit pay” and all the rest of the notions coming out of corporatocracy.
  Read Rose.  Read Jonathan Kozol. Observe for yourself what’s going on.

Report this

By HereGoes, March 19, 2010 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

It is refreshing to read the ideas espoused here.  Having just returned from my local school/parent meeting, I am very disturbed by the immediate repercussions of the budget cuts and their affect on my Los Angeles community.  Teachers, administrators and parents are demoralized in this climate.  Classroom instruction of any value is threatened.  Please, if you read this article, you care - attend your local school meetings and find out how bad things really are.  Then, locate your community spirit - you know it exists - show up for our children.  Make your mark for change.  Our children are being educated to become worker drones and soldiers.  That’s obvious - the question is, what are we going to do about it?  (Hint: the answer does not reside in the Obama administration and their desire to carry out the mind-numbing testing paradigm.)

Report this

By Harvey Solomon, March 19, 2010 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Public education is being destroyed because the elites have decided that, in the future, there will be no need for the vast majority of the unneeded to be able to read or write.
There will come a time when we will be bound to the corporations just as the serfs were bound to the land during the Middle Ages. We will not be educated because eduction is a threat to the coming New Order. 
The only “commoners” who will have access to books or their equivalent will be cooks. This will be necessary because the plutocrats will only want the best of meals.
We have already entered an era where ignorance is power. The future is a place where democracy is sure to wither and die.

Report this

By Linda/RetiredTeacher, March 19, 2010 at 7:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Last month I read the book Loving Frank, a fictionalized biography of the mistress of Frank Lloyd Wright. I found this book so fascinating that I went on to read several other books about the famous architect. I learned a great deal about him and this learning took place almost totally independent of any other person, except perhaps the friends in my book club. No “teacher” was involved.

Of course, almost everyone participates in this type of learning, which is usually characterized as “informal” or “self-directed.”  Children spend much of their time doing it naturally, but for some reason this type of learning is almost totally ignored in our discussions of education.

My own sons learned much at home while engaged in activities that interested them. My older son, now a scientist, spent much of his free time “making stuff” and “playing” with his computer. My younger son, now an attorney, was always reading or debating with family and friends. My guess is that they learned just as much, maybe more, out of school than they did in school, especially in regard to critical factors such as discovery and finding pleasure in learning.

There is a mountain of research to show that this type of learning is modeled in the home. For this reason, the children of highly educated, bookish people will probably engage in activities that they see their parents doing, while the offspring of poorly educated people might spend most of their free time watching TV. This results in a huge loss of critical learning time.

This is the reason for the “achievement gap” and yet we keep focusing on schools alone. I wonder why.

Report this

By progwoman, March 19, 2010 at 4:45 am Link to this comment

Wonderful ideas here. Rose is correct that we pay far too little respect to the hard-won experience of journeyman teachers.

Taxpayers ought to be enraged that we’ve wasted so much time on NCLB. As long as we judge students and their teachers by such arbitrary standards, we are kidding ourselves about “progress.”

I just spent several weeks inside a public school on the edge of an Indian reservation. Great principal. Small classes. Teachers with more patience and caring than I could previously have imagined. Yet many kids are struggling.

One teacher said to me that it’s all about poverty and that she knows many of the parents and some of the students see her as just some white woman spouting a lot of nonsense. It was humbling, but I think that as long as we look to schools to overcome all the inequity that our society creates, we’re bound to fail.

Report this

By Ann Callaghan, March 19, 2010 at 4:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I work in public schools right outside Philadelphia. Children don’t learn when the curriculum is adult centered, and by that I mean you are not thinking about how children learn, you only create resistance because you are trying to shove adult ideas down children’s throats. I don’t understand why education is such a penal institution. I am in and out of classrooms all day, and teachers have to constantly force children to do what they don’t know how to do, sit in a desk all day and hold a pencil. There are no field trips, no enlightened talk about various topics, and rarely do they play games, and this is how they learn. If I ask them what their favorite things are they mention science experiments and field trips and spelling bees. Fun things that they rarely experience. Catch phrases and high level dictators will never open children’s minds to the information they WANT and NEED. Its not about teachers. It will never work because you are building resistence and creating education systems that are opposed to the ways children learn. What adult can learn when forced to sit for hours and listen to discussions about standards??? You expect children to??

Report this

Page 4 of 4 pages « First  <  2 3 4

Flickr / eschipul

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share



Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook