I recently came across some information about a documentary film with the title,
"Two Million Minutes". It refers to the approximate amount of time in the last four years of a person's high school education. It compares what happens with that time in the USA, India, and China. It probably wouldn't surprise you to know that, from an American perspective, the news is not very good.
Here is a link to the home page of the documentary. On that site you can also click on "BLOG" and you will see a couple of articles from the Wall Street Journal that I think you would find valuable to read. One of the articles is, "Study Finds Sharp Math, Science Skills Help Expand Economy" (from 3-3-08) and the other is "Education Panel Lays Out Truce in Math Wars" (from 3-5-08).
To me, it is a little like global warming. Will we take action before it is too late?
Math (and Science) teachers cannot do this by themselves but they can certainly be in on the beginning of finding solutions.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Forward to the Past?
One of the controversial methods of attempting to increase achievement in schools is to have single-sex classrooms. This is something that does not get much attention in this area. There was an article on the New York Times website recently that explained the origins of this movement, the studies associated with it, and some of the outcomes so far for students in those type of classes. After reading the article I'm not sure how I feel about it but I do think it is worthy of discussion.
Here is the link.
Here is the link.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Exercise to Achieve
I saw an article in USA Today recently that had a lot to say about the value of regular exercise for helping students learn to their maximum ability. If school administrators think that athletics and/or Physical Education are not important to the academic success, then they have not seen this research. I think it also implies that educators themselves can benefit from their own workouts. For physical and emotional well being as well as mental facility, exercise is very important.
Here is the link:
Here is the link:
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Evil or Ignorant or Santa Claus?
EVIL OR IGNORANT OR SANTA CLAUS?
Over my years on this earth I have had occasion to hear or read statements by people which I knew, or later found out, to be untrue. I have said or written things that were untrue. It is unlikely that any human being is 100% truthful.
When people make statements that are untrue, it is my contention that those statements usually come from evil or ignorance. The exceptions to that will be discussed later. For now, let's confine our discussion to statements of fact. Let's say that someone makes the statement that 2+2 = 5. That is obviously not a true statement. Depending on the situation of the person who made that statement, it could have been done with evil intent or out of ignorance. A small child who is just starting to learn the basic facts may make that statement out of ignorance – we are not born knowing basic mathematical facts. However an older student, perhaps looking to cause trouble for a younger sibling, might have evil intentions in trying to convince the young person of this incorrect fact.
This brings up the interesting point of when a false statement is a lie. It seems to me that it is a lie when the statement comes from evil intent, but not when it comes from ignorance. By evil intent, I mean that the person knows that the statement is not true but for whatever reason they choose to portray it as a true statement. Let's use a very politically charged statement from 2003. “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” Almost everyone now agrees that was false. Did the people who made that statement know that it was false but, because they wanted to start a war with Iraq, felt they needed to convince the people of the USA that action had to be taken? That could be seen as evil and the statement would be classified as a lie, making whoever said it a liar.
If, however, the statement was honestly believed to be true by whoever said it, then it was made out of ignorance or from erroneous information and therefore not a lie. If the people who said this had “cherry-picked” the evidence, had ignored the counter evidence or established an atmosphere in which counter evidence would not be sought out or presented, then that becomes evil again.
Where does Santa Claus come into this discussion? During the raising of a child, the story of Santa Claus is usually told by parents to their children. I think it is basically harmless and is a good tradition to maintain. Parents are knowingly telling their children a lie, but it is because the myth is a wonderful tradition and fun for everyone. In other words, parents justify the lie on the basis that much more good than bad will occur and it will not do damage to the child.
So maybe, the people who said in 2003, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” were using Santa Claus reasoning. They knew it was a lie, but they calculated that the war in Iraq would do America and the rest of the world much more good than harm and so it was justified in their mind. It makes the statement a lie, but a “benevolent” lie. One of the problems with benevolent liars is that they can't always calculate the damage of their lies, especially in the long run. Also if they employ that tactic often, they risk not being believed when they do tell the truth. The benevolent liar is tacitly saying that the audience for those lies cannot be persuaded to do the right thing if they are told the truth. That could be evil, or at least disrespectful, to those in the audience to which the lies are directed. (Many people will remember Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” telling Tom Cruise, “You can't handle the truth!”)
Benevolent lies may give birth to other lies that are not so benevolent but are necessary to “cover” the original lie. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” has always been true. Thank you Sir Walter Scott.
I also believe that those who regularly use Santa Claus reasoning (except when it is actually about Santa Claus!) may start to believe that what they are saying is actually true. Those people can sometimes be dangerous. I think this is where cult leaders are born. Jim Jones (“Jonestown”, in Guyana, was where his followers drank the Kool-Aid that caused them to die) might have been an example of this, but I don't have all of the facts in that situation to say that is more than just my opinion.
Of course opinions are different from facts. Opinions can be considered true or false only to the extent that the opinion is or is not what the person stating the opinion actually believes. I might say that my favorite professional football team was going to win the next Super Bowl. It could be that I truly believe it or it could be simply wishful thinking and not my true belief.
What does this all mean? If I said I knew for sure that would be evil, ignorant, or Santa Claus type of thinking. I think it's best that you decide for yourself what it all means. Let me know what you (truly) think.
Over my years on this earth I have had occasion to hear or read statements by people which I knew, or later found out, to be untrue. I have said or written things that were untrue. It is unlikely that any human being is 100% truthful.
When people make statements that are untrue, it is my contention that those statements usually come from evil or ignorance. The exceptions to that will be discussed later. For now, let's confine our discussion to statements of fact. Let's say that someone makes the statement that 2+2 = 5. That is obviously not a true statement. Depending on the situation of the person who made that statement, it could have been done with evil intent or out of ignorance. A small child who is just starting to learn the basic facts may make that statement out of ignorance – we are not born knowing basic mathematical facts. However an older student, perhaps looking to cause trouble for a younger sibling, might have evil intentions in trying to convince the young person of this incorrect fact.
This brings up the interesting point of when a false statement is a lie. It seems to me that it is a lie when the statement comes from evil intent, but not when it comes from ignorance. By evil intent, I mean that the person knows that the statement is not true but for whatever reason they choose to portray it as a true statement. Let's use a very politically charged statement from 2003. “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” Almost everyone now agrees that was false. Did the people who made that statement know that it was false but, because they wanted to start a war with Iraq, felt they needed to convince the people of the USA that action had to be taken? That could be seen as evil and the statement would be classified as a lie, making whoever said it a liar.
If, however, the statement was honestly believed to be true by whoever said it, then it was made out of ignorance or from erroneous information and therefore not a lie. If the people who said this had “cherry-picked” the evidence, had ignored the counter evidence or established an atmosphere in which counter evidence would not be sought out or presented, then that becomes evil again.
Where does Santa Claus come into this discussion? During the raising of a child, the story of Santa Claus is usually told by parents to their children. I think it is basically harmless and is a good tradition to maintain. Parents are knowingly telling their children a lie, but it is because the myth is a wonderful tradition and fun for everyone. In other words, parents justify the lie on the basis that much more good than bad will occur and it will not do damage to the child.
So maybe, the people who said in 2003, “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” were using Santa Claus reasoning. They knew it was a lie, but they calculated that the war in Iraq would do America and the rest of the world much more good than harm and so it was justified in their mind. It makes the statement a lie, but a “benevolent” lie. One of the problems with benevolent liars is that they can't always calculate the damage of their lies, especially in the long run. Also if they employ that tactic often, they risk not being believed when they do tell the truth. The benevolent liar is tacitly saying that the audience for those lies cannot be persuaded to do the right thing if they are told the truth. That could be evil, or at least disrespectful, to those in the audience to which the lies are directed. (Many people will remember Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” telling Tom Cruise, “You can't handle the truth!”)
Benevolent lies may give birth to other lies that are not so benevolent but are necessary to “cover” the original lie. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” has always been true. Thank you Sir Walter Scott.
I also believe that those who regularly use Santa Claus reasoning (except when it is actually about Santa Claus!) may start to believe that what they are saying is actually true. Those people can sometimes be dangerous. I think this is where cult leaders are born. Jim Jones (“Jonestown”, in Guyana, was where his followers drank the Kool-Aid that caused them to die) might have been an example of this, but I don't have all of the facts in that situation to say that is more than just my opinion.
Of course opinions are different from facts. Opinions can be considered true or false only to the extent that the opinion is or is not what the person stating the opinion actually believes. I might say that my favorite professional football team was going to win the next Super Bowl. It could be that I truly believe it or it could be simply wishful thinking and not my true belief.
What does this all mean? If I said I knew for sure that would be evil, ignorant, or Santa Claus type of thinking. I think it's best that you decide for yourself what it all means. Let me know what you (truly) think.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Changing the teaching environment
Yesterday I read an article in USA Today which talked about the positive impact on teaching and learning from the way a new school was built. It was not done "on the cheap" but rather money was spent to do it right with the idea that it would more than payoff in the long run. Schools and teachers are constantly looking for things that help them better educate their kids. The good news is that there are things that work. The bad news is that they are often expensive.
Education has always been underfunded - especially in teaching salaries - but when more funds are spent on the wrong things it leaves the impression that spending more money isn't the answer. Spending more money on things that don't work isn't the answer.
School districts can't build new schools very often. What this article suggests is that when a new school is built it should be done in a way that invests money in a smart way and that it will more than pay off in the long run.
It also suggests to me that teachers can pay more attention to the space they have to work with and find ways to make it safer and more inviting for their students. Research what works and be creative in using limited resources to produce the best environment for you and your students.
Here is the link.
Education has always been underfunded - especially in teaching salaries - but when more funds are spent on the wrong things it leaves the impression that spending more money isn't the answer. Spending more money on things that don't work isn't the answer.
School districts can't build new schools very often. What this article suggests is that when a new school is built it should be done in a way that invests money in a smart way and that it will more than pay off in the long run.
It also suggests to me that teachers can pay more attention to the space they have to work with and find ways to make it safer and more inviting for their students. Research what works and be creative in using limited resources to produce the best environment for you and your students.
Here is the link.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Why are the "MAD ANTS" mad?
I suppose they have a good reason but, really, why are they mad? I have never thought about the lives of ants and what might disappoint them or discourage them or disgust them, let alone make them mad. Before I go any farther I better explain what has caused me to contemplate this question.
The National Basketball Association (NBA) has their own minor league group of teams. Fourteen teams across the USA play in something called the NBA Development League, commonly abbreviated as the NBA D-League. This league is designed to give basketball players, who are not quite able to make an NBA roster, a chance to develop their skills and to mature into professional basketball players. Since this league does not have a long history, the teams tend to have fairly original nicknames. Often there is a contest in which members of the community are asked to submit their suggestions for what the team nickname should be. One of the new teams in the league this year is located in Des Moines and plays home games at Wells Fargo Arena. They are called the Iowa Energy. That's a nickname designed to take advantage of Iowa's role in ethanol and other alternative sources of energy (I think). The other nicknames in the league are “Thunderbirds”, “Arsenal”, “Toros”, “Jam”, “14ers”, “Wizards”, “Stampede”, “D-Fenders”, “Vipers”, “Skyforce”, “66ers”, and “Flash”,
Recently on Mediacom (cable television) I saw part of an Iowa Energy game in which they played the Ft. Wayne Mad Ants. That nickname caught my attention right away. The logo they have is probably supposed to represent a “Mad Ant” but it wasn't real clear to me. Anyway, this nickname prompted some questions in my mind: Why are those ants mad? Do they live in a state of perpetual madness? Are all ants mad or just some of them? Are there happy ants? Does “mad” mean crazy insane or is it the type of “mad” that means bitterly upset? Is this madness directed to other ants, to human beings or anybody or anything else? Are there ant psychologists available to help these ants recover from their madness?
I have to admit that about the only contact I have with ants is when I crush them with my foot. They might be crawling over a picnic lunch or just meandering down a sidewalk and I admit that my taking of their life is pretty thoughtless on my part. Come to think of it, that might be one of the reasons why they are so mad. If your life could suddenly and unexpectedly be ended by some thoughtless being, thousands of times larger than you, you might be pretty disillusioned too. How many times might you have had one of your family or friends leave home one day and never come back? Why make any plans for the future? Why have children you might not be able to care for? Why even leave your home “hill” when you might never come back? In fact, why even build that hill when some snotty little human being may come along and gleefully destroy it? Can anybody blame ants for having to attend human picnics to get some food for themselves and their families? It really seems that ants might very well consider themselves, not second class world citizens, but maybe fifty-second class. As far as I can tell, they are the Rodney Dangerfield of the world's living beings. They get no respect.
Well, all frivolity (using the term loosely) aside, I did my homework. I wanted to find out how this basketball team from Ft. Wayne Indiana had decided on this particular nickname. As I mentioned before, the officials of the team had conducted a community contest. The name, “Mad Ants” was an easy winner (“Fire”, “Coyotes”, and “Lightning” were the next three in the voting). It was in reference to General “Mad” Anthony Wayne (1745-1796), a US Army General and statesman whose Revolutionary War triumphs and fiery personality had earned him the title, “Mad Anthony”. The town of Fort Wayne Indiana is named after him, as well as many, many other places across the USA including Wayne State College in Nebraska. So, all in all, I have to say that the team did pick a very creative nickname that does reference its community's past as well as reference triumph in battle. However that last part might be not taking hold right now – the Mad Ants are currently in last place in their division in the D-League (something else to be mad at ?).
One final thing that some people might find maddening. All of these teams have their cheerleader dance teams. In Ft. Wayne it is called the “Madame Ants Dance Team.” Ouch.
The National Basketball Association (NBA) has their own minor league group of teams. Fourteen teams across the USA play in something called the NBA Development League, commonly abbreviated as the NBA D-League. This league is designed to give basketball players, who are not quite able to make an NBA roster, a chance to develop their skills and to mature into professional basketball players. Since this league does not have a long history, the teams tend to have fairly original nicknames. Often there is a contest in which members of the community are asked to submit their suggestions for what the team nickname should be. One of the new teams in the league this year is located in Des Moines and plays home games at Wells Fargo Arena. They are called the Iowa Energy. That's a nickname designed to take advantage of Iowa's role in ethanol and other alternative sources of energy (I think). The other nicknames in the league are “Thunderbirds”, “Arsenal”, “Toros”, “Jam”, “14ers”, “Wizards”, “Stampede”, “D-Fenders”, “Vipers”, “Skyforce”, “66ers”, and “Flash”,
Recently on Mediacom (cable television) I saw part of an Iowa Energy game in which they played the Ft. Wayne Mad Ants. That nickname caught my attention right away. The logo they have is probably supposed to represent a “Mad Ant” but it wasn't real clear to me. Anyway, this nickname prompted some questions in my mind: Why are those ants mad? Do they live in a state of perpetual madness? Are all ants mad or just some of them? Are there happy ants? Does “mad” mean crazy insane or is it the type of “mad” that means bitterly upset? Is this madness directed to other ants, to human beings or anybody or anything else? Are there ant psychologists available to help these ants recover from their madness?
I have to admit that about the only contact I have with ants is when I crush them with my foot. They might be crawling over a picnic lunch or just meandering down a sidewalk and I admit that my taking of their life is pretty thoughtless on my part. Come to think of it, that might be one of the reasons why they are so mad. If your life could suddenly and unexpectedly be ended by some thoughtless being, thousands of times larger than you, you might be pretty disillusioned too. How many times might you have had one of your family or friends leave home one day and never come back? Why make any plans for the future? Why have children you might not be able to care for? Why even leave your home “hill” when you might never come back? In fact, why even build that hill when some snotty little human being may come along and gleefully destroy it? Can anybody blame ants for having to attend human picnics to get some food for themselves and their families? It really seems that ants might very well consider themselves, not second class world citizens, but maybe fifty-second class. As far as I can tell, they are the Rodney Dangerfield of the world's living beings. They get no respect.
Well, all frivolity (using the term loosely) aside, I did my homework. I wanted to find out how this basketball team from Ft. Wayne Indiana had decided on this particular nickname. As I mentioned before, the officials of the team had conducted a community contest. The name, “Mad Ants” was an easy winner (“Fire”, “Coyotes”, and “Lightning” were the next three in the voting). It was in reference to General “Mad” Anthony Wayne (1745-1796), a US Army General and statesman whose Revolutionary War triumphs and fiery personality had earned him the title, “Mad Anthony”. The town of Fort Wayne Indiana is named after him, as well as many, many other places across the USA including Wayne State College in Nebraska. So, all in all, I have to say that the team did pick a very creative nickname that does reference its community's past as well as reference triumph in battle. However that last part might be not taking hold right now – the Mad Ants are currently in last place in their division in the D-League (something else to be mad at ?).
One final thing that some people might find maddening. All of these teams have their cheerleader dance teams. In Ft. Wayne it is called the “Madame Ants Dance Team.” Ouch.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Struggle is Good
STRUGGLE IS GOOD
The above statement might seem a little surprising but allow me to explain. If you know me, you know the explanation will be pretty long! In the January 21, 2008 edition of Sports Illustrated (Brett Favre, in the snow, on the cover), there is an article on basketball coach Rick Majerus. He has been a highly successful college basketball coach over the years, known primarily for taking the University of Utah to the national championship game in 1998 against Kentucky and his great sense of humor. Because of his health and other reasons, Majerus was out of coaching (doing analysis on TV instead) for the past few years. He got back into coaching this season with the Saint Louis University basketball team. The article is an interesting one even if you aren't a sports fan. Here is a link to it.
I don't agree or advocate all of the things that Coach Majerus does with his teams (which doesn't mean that those things are wrong for him) but he made an interesting statement in the magazine article. He said, “Parents today want to take all the pain, all the heartache and sadness, out of their kids' lives. All the things that make you a better person.” That particular statement reminded me of one of the philosophical underpinnings of my teaching career. This was something that developed over several years of teaching and seeing how kids react to certain situations and also having former students come back to talk to me after moving on to high school, college, or adulthood. In essence, one of the things they most appreciated about my class was that it was demanding and it caused them to develop better study habits and to have a greater sense of accomplishment when they succeeded. In other words, the students felt more pride in getting a good grade in a demanding course than getting an excellent grade in a less demanding course.
Actually this can be a little more complicated. All kids like to get good grades, and like even more to get excellent grades. Of course part of that happiness is that the good or excellent grade also makes their parents happy. However that is temporary for the student if they conclude that the excellent grade had required little, if any, effort on their part and that almost everyone else in the class – perhaps some who had worked even less than they had – had received the same excellent grade.
As I developed my classes and my expectations I felt it was important to do things the right way, to have my students understand things in ways that would best enable them to learn more in the future, and to encourage them to be detailed and careful with their work. If a student wasn't used to that or couldn't rise to that level of expectation, they would not do well in my class. I would count things wrong, or partially wrong, if they made a slight error. In some cases approximate answers are correct, but in most situations in math, precision in thinking and in answers is necessary. I eventually became much more concerned about how they were thinking about something (being well aware that there wasn't necessarily just one correct way of thinking about something), rather than the answer they eventually got. Sometimes the most trouble I had was with the parents who wanted their kids to do well and didn't always see the value of that attention to detail and precision.
It wasn't unusual that a student in my class would get an average grade (which is a “C”, believe it or not) when they had previously received good or excellent grades. That was not my intention. My intention was to do things the right way, which wasn't always the easiest way. Fortunately I had the backing of the administration who had confidence in me, and eventually I got the backing of my former students who could testify to the effectiveness of what had happened in my class. I did have to fight this battle throughout my teaching career but I felt strongly that I was doing the right thing and enough people agreed with me that it did work out well.
As any teacher knows, middle school students can be pretty simple and direct in how they explain things, Their most frequent explanation of me to their younger siblings who were about to start my class was something to the effect, “He is strict but you will learn a lot.”
Many years ago, I watched the movie, “Wall Street” and the character played by Michael Douglas famously said, “Greed is good.” A few days after that I realized that I had been using a similar philosophy in my teaching - “Struggle is good.” Beyond the learning of mathematical skills and concepts, there was value in requiring students to work to their maximum, or at least to work very hard in order to get the grade they desired. It would bring out the best in them and it would not deceive them (or their parents) into thinking that they really knew more than they did. At first they would resist or be uncomfortable, but I really left them no choice. They had to meet my standards, not the other way around.
Now I need to add something to this philosophy. If the instructor cannot “deliver the goods”, in terms of effective teaching, then the students will not continue to work. They will either conclude that the teacher doesn't know what they are doing or that they themselves don't have the ability to be successful. The teacher has the same responsibility as the student – to work very hard and do their best. I want to stress that setting high expectations for kids requires that we set high expectations for ourselves, whether we be parents or teachers.
What I advocate for teachers and parents is to carefully put struggle into their children's experiences. Don't make the struggle artificial - make it true to the value and importance of what they are doing. Teach them. Don't train them. Set high standards, but not impossible ones. If you are teaching a twelve year old how to pitch and your standard is that they never throw a wild pitch then I would submit that an expectation like that is impossible to reach. If you expect a child (or an adult) to reach an impossible level, they will soon quit and may never be willing to trust your judgment again. The wise teacher or parent can also model the value of struggle by working at something difficult in their own life. Therefore it can be “do as I do” and not just “do as I say.”
Find ways to motivate the kids to want to do what you require because they understand the value of what you want them to learn, but also because you want them to understand the value of struggle and the importance of overcoming the obstacles in their life. Motivation of students was always something that I considered to be a weakness of mine, but I always recognized its importance and I tried to constantly get better at it.
Any adult knows that adversity is a regular part of life and someone who has never had to deal with adversity before, may not be able to overcome it. Effective teaching should not just result in the learning of specific concepts and skills but also result in confidence gained from being required to meet high standards and overcome obstacles and difficulties in their experience. This is done for two reasons – it is the right thing to do (which many would say is enough by itself) and it promotes in kids the confidence and ability in themselves that they can overcome the adversity that will take place in their future.
So I say, “Struggle is good.” Now you know why I think that is true. Do you agree?
The above statement might seem a little surprising but allow me to explain. If you know me, you know the explanation will be pretty long! In the January 21, 2008 edition of Sports Illustrated (Brett Favre, in the snow, on the cover), there is an article on basketball coach Rick Majerus. He has been a highly successful college basketball coach over the years, known primarily for taking the University of Utah to the national championship game in 1998 against Kentucky and his great sense of humor. Because of his health and other reasons, Majerus was out of coaching (doing analysis on TV instead) for the past few years. He got back into coaching this season with the Saint Louis University basketball team. The article is an interesting one even if you aren't a sports fan. Here is a link to it.
I don't agree or advocate all of the things that Coach Majerus does with his teams (which doesn't mean that those things are wrong for him) but he made an interesting statement in the magazine article. He said, “Parents today want to take all the pain, all the heartache and sadness, out of their kids' lives. All the things that make you a better person.” That particular statement reminded me of one of the philosophical underpinnings of my teaching career. This was something that developed over several years of teaching and seeing how kids react to certain situations and also having former students come back to talk to me after moving on to high school, college, or adulthood. In essence, one of the things they most appreciated about my class was that it was demanding and it caused them to develop better study habits and to have a greater sense of accomplishment when they succeeded. In other words, the students felt more pride in getting a good grade in a demanding course than getting an excellent grade in a less demanding course.
Actually this can be a little more complicated. All kids like to get good grades, and like even more to get excellent grades. Of course part of that happiness is that the good or excellent grade also makes their parents happy. However that is temporary for the student if they conclude that the excellent grade had required little, if any, effort on their part and that almost everyone else in the class – perhaps some who had worked even less than they had – had received the same excellent grade.
As I developed my classes and my expectations I felt it was important to do things the right way, to have my students understand things in ways that would best enable them to learn more in the future, and to encourage them to be detailed and careful with their work. If a student wasn't used to that or couldn't rise to that level of expectation, they would not do well in my class. I would count things wrong, or partially wrong, if they made a slight error. In some cases approximate answers are correct, but in most situations in math, precision in thinking and in answers is necessary. I eventually became much more concerned about how they were thinking about something (being well aware that there wasn't necessarily just one correct way of thinking about something), rather than the answer they eventually got. Sometimes the most trouble I had was with the parents who wanted their kids to do well and didn't always see the value of that attention to detail and precision.
It wasn't unusual that a student in my class would get an average grade (which is a “C”, believe it or not) when they had previously received good or excellent grades. That was not my intention. My intention was to do things the right way, which wasn't always the easiest way. Fortunately I had the backing of the administration who had confidence in me, and eventually I got the backing of my former students who could testify to the effectiveness of what had happened in my class. I did have to fight this battle throughout my teaching career but I felt strongly that I was doing the right thing and enough people agreed with me that it did work out well.
As any teacher knows, middle school students can be pretty simple and direct in how they explain things, Their most frequent explanation of me to their younger siblings who were about to start my class was something to the effect, “He is strict but you will learn a lot.”
Many years ago, I watched the movie, “Wall Street” and the character played by Michael Douglas famously said, “Greed is good.” A few days after that I realized that I had been using a similar philosophy in my teaching - “Struggle is good.” Beyond the learning of mathematical skills and concepts, there was value in requiring students to work to their maximum, or at least to work very hard in order to get the grade they desired. It would bring out the best in them and it would not deceive them (or their parents) into thinking that they really knew more than they did. At first they would resist or be uncomfortable, but I really left them no choice. They had to meet my standards, not the other way around.
Now I need to add something to this philosophy. If the instructor cannot “deliver the goods”, in terms of effective teaching, then the students will not continue to work. They will either conclude that the teacher doesn't know what they are doing or that they themselves don't have the ability to be successful. The teacher has the same responsibility as the student – to work very hard and do their best. I want to stress that setting high expectations for kids requires that we set high expectations for ourselves, whether we be parents or teachers.
What I advocate for teachers and parents is to carefully put struggle into their children's experiences. Don't make the struggle artificial - make it true to the value and importance of what they are doing. Teach them. Don't train them. Set high standards, but not impossible ones. If you are teaching a twelve year old how to pitch and your standard is that they never throw a wild pitch then I would submit that an expectation like that is impossible to reach. If you expect a child (or an adult) to reach an impossible level, they will soon quit and may never be willing to trust your judgment again. The wise teacher or parent can also model the value of struggle by working at something difficult in their own life. Therefore it can be “do as I do” and not just “do as I say.”
Find ways to motivate the kids to want to do what you require because they understand the value of what you want them to learn, but also because you want them to understand the value of struggle and the importance of overcoming the obstacles in their life. Motivation of students was always something that I considered to be a weakness of mine, but I always recognized its importance and I tried to constantly get better at it.
Any adult knows that adversity is a regular part of life and someone who has never had to deal with adversity before, may not be able to overcome it. Effective teaching should not just result in the learning of specific concepts and skills but also result in confidence gained from being required to meet high standards and overcome obstacles and difficulties in their experience. This is done for two reasons – it is the right thing to do (which many would say is enough by itself) and it promotes in kids the confidence and ability in themselves that they can overcome the adversity that will take place in their future.
So I say, “Struggle is good.” Now you know why I think that is true. Do you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)