When I first decided to become a teacher, I never considered it to be a position wherein one could become a “political instrument”, especially when the subject in which I was planning to specialize was High School Mathematics; man, I’ve never been so “wrong” in my life.
Please don’t misinterpret that statement to be me suggesting I’m “apolitical”; one half of my family background is Ukrainian, which makes such a claim preposterous. My background as a union representative who worked as a freelancer to get himself through university is also a serious “tell”, not to mention my all-too-eager tendency to on “occasion” to simply speak my mind, even if that urge ends up sounding like fingernails scratching a chalkboard and grinding normal conversation to a complete halt.
No, what I’m referring to is the fact that in a classroom setting, I’m trying to teach to a curriculum because in my view that knowledge should be the very minimum of materials covered in a year or semester’s instructional time – and yet our so-called school “administrators” are increasingly doing absolutely nothing in holding teachers to account for not even reaching that level of learning need.
That last statement in itself would under normal circumstances have a bevy of my former colleagues challenging its contention, in turn providing me with arguments as to the “approach” to subject understanding doesn’t necessarily manifest itself as objectives within the curriculum. Unfortunately, that’s true, especially those whose topics are gleaned from the research of social science or historical interpretation; however, this same group of teachers will when asked as to the desirability of having so-called “standardized exams” maintain that such instruments require an advanced level of “critical thinking”, for which the school timetable does not allow to develop.
Fortunately, there are teachers who have been well mentored and see the benefits of developing or encouraging critical thought as opening the gateway to what Piaget considered essential for the expansion of existing knowledge. What we all seem to miss, however, is that even should expression of new ideas result in controversy or social turmoil, their very utterances provide an opportunity to expand the parameters required to placate the antagonism that originally followed the creation of that idea, thus avoiding further controversy.
Additional research into applying Piaget’s theories has demonstrated that teachers have seriously “underestimated the cognitive capabilities of infants, preschoolers, and elementary schoolchildren”, while overestimating those of adolescents and young adults. Ironically, it is this “fast learning” process in the young that results in their becoming “bad reasoners” and potential victims of unrefined logic and biased thought processes, conditions that can only be corrected through the continuing introduction of critical thought that now challenges the biases we’ve allowed ourselves to bury in the original formation our own ideas.
Were we then capable of understanding how Piaget’s methodologies could be utilized to “measure” our learning standards, AND getting teachers to rigidly follow such practice, we could simply tell our students to “don’t sweat the tests”, because all they’re doing is confirm what one’s teacher should have already told you, namely, that you DO understand at this level. However, that’s when the political processes start to collect in self-protecting dust bunnies in encouraging children to NOT learn, or to show contempt for such learning through the creation of havoc and mayhem in class.
Principle sources requiring the continuous cleaning of a student’s learning vents is the ongoing presence of Mr. and Mrs. Helicopter attempting to influence the teacher’s ability to do his job by claiming such a skill does not exist. Equally contributing to your child’s potential never being attained is the still ominous presence of administrators who believe that “new” teachers, whether those straight out of university or having years of experience but new to a school should be beaten into conformity with so-called “community standards” through constant “observation” and classroom teaching evaluation at the slightest murmur of dissent coming from within the student body.
I’ve had experiences with both forms of negativity, and as a teacher over a 35 year period I’d be surprised if such “exposure” is not only the teaching equivalent of getting the measles before being properly vaccinated, but the life story of someone else actually believing in the capacity of kids to be kids, but still learn.
In my first year teaching in Quebec I was given a Grade 11 class of 14 students with an average IQ of 119, ALL of whom were enrolled in Mickey Mouse Math. After switching their programs to the academic stream that required their having to write provincial exams at year end, I was “evaluated” for six days in a row, threatened with termination and criticized for explaining a math concept in a different fashion because the student didn’t fully comprehend the first approach that I’d used to demonstrate the principle in the first place.
The students “killed” the provincial exams, the Principal was eventually fired, and parents suddenly became interested in what their children were learning in my class, attending parent-teacher nights, and even coming to school with their children to help in class. In the end, it was a privilege to go through these experiences with the students – and only a teacher can understand what I mean in saying just that.
I know that there are many things wrong with our schools, but most of them are NOT the fault of students. The problem starts – and ends – with there being a lack of qualified subject trained teachers, especially in STEM programs. If your own teaching credentials are weak, how can you expect your students to become “critical thinkers” so as to be able to answer Question 37 on the Level C section of selected problems that become your homework?
Which in turn brings up another question – are we even learning “enough” to survive in the next post-educational level?
We’ll discuss that factor in next week’s column…
