When I was in school getting my M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction, I was struck by a discussion in class of the difference between education and schooling. This discussion of educational philosophy came up somewhat unexpectedly in a class on Psychoeducational Assessment, which you would think would be all about data, not philosophy. We were discussing what the common standardized tests really measure, and so many of the tests dubbed "intelligence" tests actually measured "school skills" that it led to a much deeper discussion. Belated thanks go to Brad Erford, one of the two best Education professors I've had along with Kevin Vinson. Tonight, while grading assignments, this distinction between education and schooling has been on my mind. (The next paragraph is a self-righteous rant of sorts, so feel free to skip it entirely. Having typed it out now I feel like it's not as much a rant as a self-indulgent review of a very good day when I felt useful and important.)
Before I get into that distinction, please indulge me as I give a brief description of my day. This is intended for those who insist that teachers only work short days for part of the year. Today's day involved actively teaching from 8:30 until 3:30. Planning periods? Once students discover that you have a planning period at the same time as they have a study period, you no longer have planning periods. My two planning periods were filled with one-on-one tutoring of students who struggled on the quiz I gave last week. Lunch? Everybody gets a lunch break, no matter what job they do, right? No. At lunch, I supervised a table of students. That time eating with students is invaluable because we get to know each other as people rather than just as teacher-student, and that deeper bond significantly enhances teaching. It's completely worth it, but it is still time that we teachers are "on". My last class ends at 3:30, so the day is over, right? Nope. Now it is time for a meeting of the editors of the school newspaper. We are putting out our first ever April Fool's Day issue in the 175 year history of our school tomorrow and need to plan out distribution so that the surprise is not spoiled early. Around 4:00 I get home, check in with my son and chat for a while before starting to grade assignments. 6:45 and it's time to go supervise a table of students at dinner (still in the coat and tie I put on this morning). After dinner is the math department meeting from 7:30 to 8:30, followed by dorm duty. At 8:30, I head to the dorm, make sure all the students are where they are supposed to be then have a long talk with a student who is struggling this quarter. Next come room inspections and motivating around 80 teenage boys to clean their rooms. I get home around 9:40 because I'm on "short duty" tonight, help my daughter with her homework, then head back up to school at 10:15 PM to distribute the newspaper into all student and faculty mailboxes in the hopes that nobody will spoil the surprise until the morning. Finally around 10:40, the work day is done and I can get back to grading, because quarter grades are due tomorrow. Deep breath.
Okay, self-indulgence is finished, I hope. Now on to the real point of this post. (OK, so the real point is that I just finished grading an assignment and need to clear my head before starting the next.) I just graded an assignment for my Advanced Multivariable and Vector Calculus class. Yep, they actually teach that in high school now. Blows my mind too, and I teach the class! These kids have already taken AP Calculus and cannot get college credit for this class, which gives me some luxurious freedom to conduct the class in the way I believe is best. I have chosen to teach this class in the way many of my grad school classes were taught when I was working on my Master's Degree in Mathematics. We have several days of old-school lecture in which we discuss the very basic ideas and mechanics of each unit, then the students launch into a challenging Problem Set based on that material. Anybody who has read an academic journal article in the past few years can confirm that almost nothing is done individually any more. Every scientific or mathematical paper published has multiple authors. Because of that, I believe it is much more beneficial to the education of these kids, who have already proven themselves to be top math students, to allow the kind of collaboration they will find in a future academic career in math or science. My Multivariable class this year is unquestionably the most exciting class I have ever had. (Any of my former students reading this, please do not take offense. This class has just hit the collaborative sweet spot in a way that other classes haven't.) When the students are working on their problem sets, they have the option of working individually or collaboratively, and can work in the classroom or elsewhere. While many students would see the latter rule as permission to skip class, the room is packed with kids during these problem set days. As they tackle ridiculous problems, they are throwing ideas around the room in a staccato rhythm. Exclamations like, "What if we try this?" or "OMG, I think I'm onto something here!" are music to my ears. As the year has progressed, the question, "How did you do #3?" has transformed into the question, "How did you start #3?" That is the best possible sign of developing confidence. Sometimes the arguments about the best way to solve a problem can get a little heated. Awesome! Last week, a student showed me his answer to a problem and asked if it looked good. I said that it looked like a good approximate solution and I would accept it for full credit, but that he actually knew enough to solve it for the exact solution rather than the approximate if he had the guts to try it. The entire class stopped what they were doing and said, "Wait! Which problem is that? We can do it!"
This is all on my mind because I just finished grading one of their problem sets. In a lot of schools, I might have to answer to the administration about why the grades on the assessment are so clustered and similar. "Schooling" emphasizes assessments in order to differentiate between students. I believe I teach at a school that will support the greater mission of education. Because of the allowed collaboration, the students' grades are similar, although they all put their own style on their solutions (for better or worse) and there is some differentiation in the grades. In a lot of schools, that would be unacceptable, but I firmly believe that these kids, at this very advanced level, have learned much more through this collaborative experience than they would have through assessments focused on the individual. They have learned different ways to approach a problem. They have learned how to stand up for themselves and assert their ideas in a discussion of different possible approaches to a problem. They have learned how to listen to others' ideas and suggestions and either accept them as better than their own, synthesize them with their own ideas to form something better than both, or explain why their approach is better. They are students, teachers, explorers, and communicators. They correct their own mistakes and look out for each other, not just themselves. They have solved problems so complex that, when I hand their papers back tomorrow, they will have trouble figuring out how to even ask questions about what they missed because they haven't thought about the problems in a few days. In my opinion, this is true education. I wish I could take credit for it, but the credit goes to the administration that supports this approach and mostly to the students who buy in to it, get excited about the challenge, and discover that they are far more powerful intellectually as a group than they could ever be individually. Our future is in the hands of today's teenagers, and the time I have spent with Sam, Jack, Justin, John, Grace, Will, Natnael, Ike, Greg, Liz, Suzelle, and Gates have convinced me that we are in good shape. The next generation is much better prepared to work together to solve the problems facing our world, and I am one of the privileged few who get the opportunity to work with them in these critical teenage years. I just hope I do a good enough job of getting out of their way and letting them thrive!
Monday, March 31, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Gettin' all political up in here
I am one of those pseudo-political types. I have very strongly held views, but I am confident enough in those views that I don't feel the need to work very hard to back them up. That probably makes me one of the worst types of cancers on the American political process, but so be it. Tonight I took a couple of quizzes on the internet and their results surprised me a little. (Quick disclaimer - I have studied assessment extensively in graduate school and fully recognize all the flaws that make these internet quizzes completely invalid, but I still consider them to be valid entertainment.) I took a quiz about "What political party do you agree with most?" I was not surprised to find the I agreed 96% with the Green Party and 95% with the Democratic Party. I am pragmatic enough, though, to cast my vote with the Democrats in elections rather than to spend my vote on the Green Party candidate who has no chance of winning.
What surprised me in the quizzes I took tonight was my affinity for the Libertarians. They were not included in the first quiz, which was kind of a slight, since they have easily been around long enough to establish themselves as a voice in national politics. My results in the "How Libertarian are you?" quiz stated that I had strong Libertarian affinities and would become more and more Libertarian as I got older. Ignoring the fact that I am already pretty darned old, this surprised me and got me thinking about why. I think my political views can be summed up as, "It is the responsibility of the government to guarantee all citizens a basic level of health care, lifestyle, services, safety, etc., but nobody is guaranteed any luxuries." I believe that private entities have every right to be discriminating bigots, and I trust in the basic good of humanity to put those bigots out of business through boycotts and negative publicity. I believe in the necessity and power of the welfare system, but I also believe that every able individual should be required to work. Over the years, I have worked with several groups dealing with this exact situation. In high school, I chopped wood every afternoon and then on Fridays we delivered the wood to people who had no other way to heat their homes. In that organization if it was determined that somebody in the home was able-bodied, they either had to put in a certain number of hours chopping wood, or go through the job training and placement program in order to receive a second load of wood. I like that model. We'll rescue you when you're in trouble, but if you want to make it a habit, you need to work. In college I worked in a soup kitchen/homeless shelter where I met many people in situations where they needed external help. I think the place where I diverge from many others is in my Humanist belief that very few people want pure charity. The people that I encountered at the wood lot craved the opportunity to pay back the charity they received. They were the hardest workers on the lot and were very vocal about their desire to help me in any way they could. They and I all recognize that I stood out in their neighborhoods as a middle class white man, and they all encouraged me to seek shelter in their homes if I was ever in trouble in their neighborhoods. Growing up in the South, where neighborhoods were still very segregated, by history more than desire, it was comforting to know that I had a safe haven only a few steps away no matter where I was in the city. These were amazing people, craving the opportunity to work hard for their families, and I trusted them completely. The people I met at the homeless shelter in college were very similar - intelligent, hard-working people at the mercy of their surroundings. Could they have done a little more to pull themselves out of the poverty they were mired in? Maybe yes for some of them, but let's be realistic. If you are in a situation where the basic necessities of food and shelter for your family are in question, you are not going to look very far ahead into the future either. When every ounce of energy you have is spent just getting through today, you have no opportunity to work towards a better tomorrow.
I side with the Libertarians in that I believe all private enterprise should have the right to do business with whomever they choose. If a baker does not believe in gay marriage, then he should not be forced to make the cake for a gay wedding. (At the same time, all people who support the right to marry should boycott that baker and make every attempt to put it out of business, as should proponents of "traditional" marriage boycott bakeries that provide cakes for gay weddings.) The marriage is a right and should be protected, but the cake is a luxury, and the rights of the bakers should be protected. I believe we should draw a sharp line between necessities and luxuries. Anything that is basic to human survival and dignity should be guaranteed by the government, including welfare, public education, Social Security, health care, marriage, and laws governing human interaction. Anything that is a luxury and not part of the basic welfare of our society, should be free of governmental restrictions. The ugly result of that opinion is that private discrimination is a protected right, and I believe it should be. You have the right to be as bigoted as you want to be in your private life, and I have the right to try hard to destroy your business through any legal means. In the end, if the majority supports your business and you survive, then so be it, but it is the job of the government to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. That is why the Judicial Branch of the government exists, because the Founding Fathers recognized that "majority rule" would not always result in the best possible laws.
So where do I fit into the political system? I don't completely know. I am a Pragmatic Green Democratic Libertarian. The one thing I do know for sure is that my fit with the Republican Party was only 7%, so anybody in that party is going to have to be absolutely incredible to get my vote (and in the most recent local elections, I did vote for a couple of Republicans who were just awesome people.) In the end, I think the most important lesson from these quizzes is the reminder that I need to evaluate each candidate based on his or her views of the issues, rather than on his or her party affiliation. At the same time, though, should I spend a vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning when there is an almost equally agreeable candidate with a chance to win? That right there is the main flaw in our electoral system. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the way in which we vote, but that is a different can of worms!
What surprised me in the quizzes I took tonight was my affinity for the Libertarians. They were not included in the first quiz, which was kind of a slight, since they have easily been around long enough to establish themselves as a voice in national politics. My results in the "How Libertarian are you?" quiz stated that I had strong Libertarian affinities and would become more and more Libertarian as I got older. Ignoring the fact that I am already pretty darned old, this surprised me and got me thinking about why. I think my political views can be summed up as, "It is the responsibility of the government to guarantee all citizens a basic level of health care, lifestyle, services, safety, etc., but nobody is guaranteed any luxuries." I believe that private entities have every right to be discriminating bigots, and I trust in the basic good of humanity to put those bigots out of business through boycotts and negative publicity. I believe in the necessity and power of the welfare system, but I also believe that every able individual should be required to work. Over the years, I have worked with several groups dealing with this exact situation. In high school, I chopped wood every afternoon and then on Fridays we delivered the wood to people who had no other way to heat their homes. In that organization if it was determined that somebody in the home was able-bodied, they either had to put in a certain number of hours chopping wood, or go through the job training and placement program in order to receive a second load of wood. I like that model. We'll rescue you when you're in trouble, but if you want to make it a habit, you need to work. In college I worked in a soup kitchen/homeless shelter where I met many people in situations where they needed external help. I think the place where I diverge from many others is in my Humanist belief that very few people want pure charity. The people that I encountered at the wood lot craved the opportunity to pay back the charity they received. They were the hardest workers on the lot and were very vocal about their desire to help me in any way they could. They and I all recognize that I stood out in their neighborhoods as a middle class white man, and they all encouraged me to seek shelter in their homes if I was ever in trouble in their neighborhoods. Growing up in the South, where neighborhoods were still very segregated, by history more than desire, it was comforting to know that I had a safe haven only a few steps away no matter where I was in the city. These were amazing people, craving the opportunity to work hard for their families, and I trusted them completely. The people I met at the homeless shelter in college were very similar - intelligent, hard-working people at the mercy of their surroundings. Could they have done a little more to pull themselves out of the poverty they were mired in? Maybe yes for some of them, but let's be realistic. If you are in a situation where the basic necessities of food and shelter for your family are in question, you are not going to look very far ahead into the future either. When every ounce of energy you have is spent just getting through today, you have no opportunity to work towards a better tomorrow.
I side with the Libertarians in that I believe all private enterprise should have the right to do business with whomever they choose. If a baker does not believe in gay marriage, then he should not be forced to make the cake for a gay wedding. (At the same time, all people who support the right to marry should boycott that baker and make every attempt to put it out of business, as should proponents of "traditional" marriage boycott bakeries that provide cakes for gay weddings.) The marriage is a right and should be protected, but the cake is a luxury, and the rights of the bakers should be protected. I believe we should draw a sharp line between necessities and luxuries. Anything that is basic to human survival and dignity should be guaranteed by the government, including welfare, public education, Social Security, health care, marriage, and laws governing human interaction. Anything that is a luxury and not part of the basic welfare of our society, should be free of governmental restrictions. The ugly result of that opinion is that private discrimination is a protected right, and I believe it should be. You have the right to be as bigoted as you want to be in your private life, and I have the right to try hard to destroy your business through any legal means. In the end, if the majority supports your business and you survive, then so be it, but it is the job of the government to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. That is why the Judicial Branch of the government exists, because the Founding Fathers recognized that "majority rule" would not always result in the best possible laws.
So where do I fit into the political system? I don't completely know. I am a Pragmatic Green Democratic Libertarian. The one thing I do know for sure is that my fit with the Republican Party was only 7%, so anybody in that party is going to have to be absolutely incredible to get my vote (and in the most recent local elections, I did vote for a couple of Republicans who were just awesome people.) In the end, I think the most important lesson from these quizzes is the reminder that I need to evaluate each candidate based on his or her views of the issues, rather than on his or her party affiliation. At the same time, though, should I spend a vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning when there is an almost equally agreeable candidate with a chance to win? That right there is the main flaw in our electoral system. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the way in which we vote, but that is a different can of worms!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)