This article brought up a very important point about teaching. The child should be the main focus of education and teachers and faculty members should work together to help each child learn, grow, and develop. Affection, scientific inquiry, and social growth should come together as one. One part of the article that interested me is the fact that a school should look to hire educators that are unique, creative, and have something different to contribute. This means that schools should place emphasis on certain qualities to look for in future candidates before hiring them. This may mean that a school board does not hire the first teacher interviewed just because they have some of the qualifications. In my experiences, the teacher influences what I get out of a class or how much I learn in the end. When teachers are “dull” or “boring” I zone out in class and do not care about the lesson. Teachers that have interactive lessons and care about the students and getting to know them as individuals bring more to the table. This made me think about what standards we may want to rate potential teachers by. Some things that I came up with include: being relatable, passionate about children/students, enthusiastic and wants to learn with the students, rather than just teaching, and full of knowledge or willing to do extra research to learn more about a topic before teaching. But, how do we know ahead of time if a person possesses such qualities? Another point in the article was that each member of the school staff should have a voice because it is a democracy. I completely agree with this. Each person has a role and although some roles may be similar, each person’s experiences cause them to view things differently. So, people may be able to contribute insight to a particular topic/situation.
I thought Teacher as Prophetic Trickster integrated a large portion of the theories we’ve been discussing (Consequentialism, Nonconsequentialism, Care) as well as some acknowledgement to the arguments of Loewen, namely the touch on contraband books and complaints against controversy in the classroom.
One parallel of Garrison’s to the traditional ethics theories was in defining trickster as an archetype, stating they are “unconscious and indifferent to the consequences of their actions”, but that in reality, teachers dependent on this epitome should “be fully conscious of and concerned about such consequences.” (Page 70). Garrison adds to the Consequentialist theme by commenting on the “suppression of teachers’ creative autonomy”, equating it with the endangerment of a “free and open society” (similarly, Consequentialism can pose a threat to liberty). Garrison alludes to both Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism in his comment that trickster reminds us “that we may never be certain of our motives or their consequences.” (Page 71).
Garrison’s inclusion of Care Theory was laconic in comparison, but did draw direct correlations. On page 71, he defines prophetic trickster as admiring the archetype of trickster, but nonetheless wanting to “retain aspects of the personas of nurturing caregiver …” Care Theory could also be referenced in Susan Ohanian’s views on national teaching standards, in which she argues “the best moments in our classrooms come from impulse, not from carefully constructed plans. This is why I am so skeptical about national testing standards. How do you test for a sense of humor? A good heart? A generous spirit? A tolerance for ambiguity … Where’s the test for love?” (Page 78).
As far as an application to reality, I found the background on the NYT article, “Test on Street Language Says It’s Not Grant in That Tomb”, motivating and notable. It spoke to the limitations of a discursive system -which becomes more antiquated each day- not only with the growing population of hyphenated identities, but the increasing percentage of “students defying the logic of noncontradiction.” (Page 82).
Finally, in Garrison’s summation, he questions the problem of distinguishing true from false prophets, which I think is applicable across the board. Addressing critical morality as arising “by intelligently reflecting on the consequences of moral action,” (page 83), he aligns several theories’ more beneficial tenets. Overall, his essay envelopes either side of trickster and presents a logical and thought provoking piece on how to approach the classroom in this era.
Garrison writes that, "Many believe the greatest achievement of teaching is to free young minds to dream their own dreams and to vicariously experience in imagination the consequences of acts both wise and foolish." I am in wholehearted agreement with this statement. It is not only information which I desire to communicate to my students, but also values and the experience of learning. What good does the school system do if we only teach facts? Then we have severely neglected the creative minds that enter the classroom every day. Says Garrison, "Standardized curriculum and tests create a false, one-right-answer-only world. Such a one-size-fits-all world suppresses imagination, emotion, and self expression. Teachers as trickster prophets awaken the infinite spirit of creativity." This is what I (as well as Dewey and Garrison) fear of our educational system. We are creating a system in which creative thinking is neglected, a system which does not truly line up with the reality we find in the world after high school. We are working for better scores on the next test, but how often will students be taking tests after their schooling? Is this the type of atmosphere we wish to create as educators? How can we as educators become as Garrison calls them, 'prophetic tricksters', that respect the bureaucratic pressures while still manipulating their demands in an attempt to reach our students?
After reading both articles and the comments posted above, I have to say I completely agree with everything said. Teachers should be allowed to be creative and think outside of the box. One of my favorite quotes of all time is by Albert Einstein "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and that is coming from on of the smartest men in history. We need to teach children to think outside of the box, attempt the impossible. Thinking outside of the box and being creative is how progress is made in the world. If there is one things I can not stand is a boring/dull teacher. I become very disengaged and lose focus. Students currently live in a fast paced technologically advanced society. They become bored very easily we need to teach in a way that is stimulating to them and that they can relate to. I feel that blogs like this one would be great for students to learn. You not only get to post your own ideas but you can also read and see others perspectives on the subject. Then focusing more on the Dewy article, I feel that it is ridiculous how many schools have one person who decides the curriculum. The teachers are the ones who work with the students they are the ones who know the students the best and they should be the ones who decide what to teach and how to teach it.
After reading the Dewey article there were many sentences or statements that stood out to me. First, "Many reformers are contending against conditions which place the direction of school affairs, including the selection of text-books, etc, in the hands of a body of men who are outside the school system itself, who have not necessarily any expert knowledge of education and who are moved by non-educational motives." I think it's important we recognize this, because I think it's important teachers and school administration have a direct influence or say in the curriculum and textbooks that they are having to use in their classrooms. Obviously they are the ones using it everyday, and they probably know what would best with their students, rather than a group of men who are outside the school system itself. Second, "The remedy is not to have one expert dictating educational methods and subject-matter to a body of passive, recipient teachers, but the adoption of intellectual initiative, discussion, an decision throughout the entire school corps." I think it's really important that a whole school, or district work together to make decisions when it come to curriculum, etc. I know that certain standards have to be met, and today we have to "teach to the standardized tests". However, I think letting everyone have an opinion and a say will have more significance to the teachers and might help them to go above and beyond as teachers, teaching more than just the standards of the tests. But rather going out of their way to teach the students in fun, interesting ways the knowledge for the tests as well as things they can take beyond the school and use in real life situations. Katelyn Chester
Being creative is an important quality for a teacher to have. Students don't want a teacher that is boring and monotone. They want a teacher that is interactive and has a unique style of teaching. It doesn't matter what level of degree a teacher has. Having a PhD doesn't mean that a teacher is interesting and creative. It really depends on how passionate a teacher is towards their subject. There are plenty of ways that teachers can make a subject more interesting. Dramatic inquiry is a perfect example of how a teacher can make reading more interesting. It is a great way for students to become involved in a story and learn how to examine it from different perspectives. This also allows for educators to learn more about their students. There are so many ways that teachers can make curriculum interesting. Even if they aren't given the best curriculum to work with, there are always ways better ways that it can be taught. Power points are unbelievably boring when ever single teacher uses them. There are different ways to “spice” up a power point and yet teachers just don't care enough to try. The power point can be interactive. Instead of having 30 slides, a teacher can have 4 or five. A discussion can be lead to help fill the power point in. I just don't understand why teachers cannot take the time to find alternatives way to teach.
The Elementary School Teacher article was extremely difficult for me to understand. I really liked one portion of it where it talked about experimentation and how trying new things for a child is natural and how the school has in a sense ignored this need and has suppressed their outlet for being inquisitive and trying new things. The Garrison article was much easier for me to follow and thus the one I would like to discuss here. The part that really stood out to me was about how teachers that maintain "creative autonomy" are the ones who last the longest in the profession and enjoy their job. Ones that are not creative reach teacher burnout and I think every student has experienced one of these teachers. I for one know that I had teachers in high school who were probably very fun and creative in years past, however, they had quit using creativity in their planning and reached a point of burnout. This is essential in the teaching profession and something I really thought was interesting to read about in this article. I think my question would have to be about the Democracy in Education article and what it was we are supposed to take away from this article?
The Dewey article brought up several thoughtful points both in criticism of the modern education system and perhaps broad solutions or outlets for consideration. Dewey seemed to summarize his feelings with democracy in education and said that the freedom of intelligence he feared was suppressed and not given its proper place in the system. This then affects both the life of the teachers and the students, naturally. Dewey then points out that the “aim and method” of the educational institution is not based upon the ideals of discovery and freedom of the mind as our values and ideals on democracy profess. This brings up an interesting argument because it continues to put teachers in the crosshairs of judgment and scrutiny due to the contrast of adhering to the autocracy of educational system or formulate their own imaginative exploration of their subject matter which supports the responsibility to freedom of the mind. I fear that as an educator that many other teachers slip through the cracks and prescribe cookie-cutter lesson plans that produce these autocratic teachers submitting to the high administration without consideration for their field. The more Dewey spoke of the “unfitness” of teachers carrying out the orders of the supposed experts in the upper echelon, the more I realized this fear. This is in part due to the system itself without the notion of striving and challenging their educators to provide a rounded, creative and stimulating and catered lesson plans and strategies to teach. More on the subject of secondary education on the college level how can we as beginning teachers gain this “experience” that Dewey speaks of in the real setting? How can master teachers, teach the future of education? Through these modes of learning? Experimentation and creativity on the learners part? -Matt Zabiegala
The main idea I took from both articles is the importance of allowing teachers to be creative in the classroom, as well as giving teachers the opportunities to participate in the process of deciding what is being taught in their classrooms. Kind of going along with the idea of professionalism, teachers are and should be recognized as experts in their field. It does not seem fair to me that teachers are not consulted when it comes to choosing texts and curriculums for the classroom. I do not think that we should allow school board members or superintendents, who might not have experience in an actual classroom, to decide what the teachers must teach in their classrooms. I think it is important to allow teachers to be creative in what they teach because if the teachers are able to be creative they will probably be more willing to allow creativity in their students. We should want there to be creativity in the classroom because creativity will help new ideas grow and make students more interested in what they are learning. Ultimately teachers should have the ability to control what is being taught in their own classrooms because when teachers are happy and excited about what they are teaching their students will be more excited to learn.
What Rocha described as the death of school was an eye opener for me. Everything he said described how the majority of students these days feel about school. How many times in high school, or even now in college, have we either said ourselves or heard someone else say how they cannot wait to graduate and be done with school? I remember back in middle school and the beginning of high school when I actually loved to learn. I have felt that way in college for certain classes that I believe to not be a "waist of my time," but honestly, how often are we asking "what is the point of this class for my life and my career?" Reading what Rocha had to say about this made me realize that this has not always been the case and does not need to be the case. Maybe the reason that a lot of students feel this way is because of the format that our education system is right now. Rocha obviously focused on education AFTER the death of schooling, but rather than focusing on that why do we not focus on reviving school? I believe that it can be done because I believe that everyone loves to learn, especially when it is the right subject and is presented in the correct manner.
This weeks readings, although thought provoking, were a bit disheartening. John Dewey wrote "The Elementary School Teacher" in 1903 to bring to light the problems with the American educational system. Fast Forward 107 years and educators continue to face many of the problems Dewey discusses in his writings. How could a that a system, run by so called intellectuals, seemingly not evolve with the rest of society for an entire century. It is my opinion that if the one's making THE decisions allowed educators more of the freedom's Dewey discusses it would not only decrease the amount of "teacher burnout" but also elevate student performance. Think back to when you were in school. The lessons that seem to be the most memorable were the lessons that were both "hand's on" and applicable to your life. So why do we continue to educate our children in this manner? What will it take to get true reform to occur? If we continue down this familiar path how can we expect our children to compete on a global scale when other countries are willing to adopt instructional methods that produce positive results.
Even though the piece by John Dewey was written in 1903, I believe that part of what Dewey had to stay still remains true. I believe that many teachers today are treated very unfairly. I believe that a lot of times they are stomped on and looked down on. Being a teacher is not the most glorious profession but those of us who are aspiring teachers and who are teachers really truly want to make a difference in someone’s life and in my opinion I plan on doing this by becoming a teacher. Dewey mentions on page 195 that “to be absolutely taken for granted as the normal”. I believe that many teachers teach in a district still to this day that disrespects their teachers and does indeed take them for granted. I believe that a lot of school districts don’t intend to do this but it happens especially in the school districts that have to drastically cut funding. With the funding being cut this means larger class sizes and teachers who are stressed out. So in my opinion it seems like the views of teachers really haven’t changed since 1903. It makes me wonder if there is anyone who actually cares for their children who are students in these classrooms. I understand that there are many other factors such as taxes being raised (yet again so that the school district can fund other things such as a new track or football stadium) but at the same to me it seems like the money isn’t being placed where it should. In order for students to receive the best education possible they need to have a good teacher who loves their job, who has proper credentials, and who is not stressed out. The state of Ohio doesn’t really seem to care about this as of recent and it truly concerns me, because they are a lot of excellent teachers who are being affected. Since these teachers are seeing these negative consequences of the state’s actions it is in turn trickling into how they teach which then reaches the students. It is a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped. -Emily Mink
The Prophetic Trickster provides an interesting view about how teachers try to break out of the mold that bureaucracy and institutions that determine what teachers have to do. If teachers don't become a trickster than they tend to burn out and leave. If they do they run the risk of going outside the norms and going too far. Being a trickster can be both good and bad but it is a fine line to walk but in some cases it can be the best thing for teachers and students if carefully controlled. The question is, is there a better way to run the education system that doesn't force this upon teachers?
Dewey’s chapter on democracy in education was thought provoking. I thought it was interesting when he talked about direct inquiry. That first-hand experience, like in a science class, is “an active and vital participation through the medium of all the bodily organs with the means and materials of building up first-hand experience.” He says that this experience is often at a discount; instead of first-hand discovery, students are getting summaries and formulas of the results of others. I have had to take a few science classes at Ohio State that are inquiry based. We work through a workbook and have to learn all of the concepts on our own. The instructors are there to guide us and observe our progress. This kind of learning is, truthfully annoying, but extremely beneficial in the long run. It is much easier to listen to a lecturer and take notes. However, learning through experimentation made the learning process more meaningful. I found I was retaining the information better and remembering the processes. Dewey said that “acquiring takes the place of inquiring” and we need to reverse the current method.
He also said that the remedy for this issue is “to carry the evolution of the school to a point where it becomes a place for getting and testing experience.” I liked how he envisioned the schools as a place where the students are primarily in charge of their knowledge. He said that the most natural business of a child is to experiment with things to see what will happen. For children to be able to do this in schools would be productive and beneficial. If they cannot, students find other outlets for their curiosity like mischief or destruction. Overall I enjoyed reading of Dewey’s point of view on education and democracy.
My question would be: What percentage of schools have moved towards an inquiry based learning style? Is there a difference in behavioral problems for the schools that allow for the curiosity of students?
The issue of originality in education in interesting. How do we properly balance testing and curriculum requirements with creativity? As a future music educator, this is something that we in particular struggle with, since music is often a relatively subjective subject that is often difficult to assess. Often, we can get hung up on our nine national standards, and use formatted curriculums to accomplish specific goals. Is this really what is most beneficial to the student? One point that the article made stood out to me in particular – “the best minds are drawn to the place where they can work the most effectively.” If we want the best minds teaching our students (which we should), wouldn’t it make sense to give these teachers as much creative license as we can? Of course there must be standards in place. Measurements of student progress are necessary to ensure that students are learning what is necessary to move up through the schooling system. But should that be our only concern? Steps need to be taken by those higher up in the education system to ensure that teaching always remains fresh. Teachers cannot be allowed to teach their subjects with the same materials and in the same ways year after year. -Katie Kuvin
Im going to have to agree with Katie. I'm sure that it gets hard to be and stay creative when year after year teachers are teaching the same material/ lessons. Teachers have certain things they have to teach and test on, such as progression throughout the year. And the older your students are the more you have to teach for tests so creativity is hard. But even though it ishard,being creative is not impossible. There are ways to keep your lessons interesting for both your students and yourself. I always hated having the teachers who had been teaching for what seemed like 500 years because they had the worlds oldest ideas and did nothing fun and taught like they were beyond bored which inturn did nothing but put me to sleep!
In regards to the Garrison article, I agree that a certain amount of "Trickster" tactics must be used to keep the educational process of the highest quality. With the government becoming more and more involved in how education is evaluated, it is taking the educating out of teaching. Teachers control less and less of the content that is supposed to be taught, because they have to teach students for a standardized test which are created by people who don't understand your students.
One of the roles of a teacher is to identify how their students learn, and formulate a method on how to present material in a way which they will comprehend. Teachers are being limited in the methods in which they use because the aren't the ones setting the goals for their students, governments are doing that job for them. Creativity is needed from the teachers so they can adequately prepare students for such standardized tests, while also giving them a quality education that enhances their mind and allows the students to think for themselves.
Teachers find themselves losing their individuality when it comes to teaching, because the students are ultimately critiqued based on their standardized testing scores, and not their class scores. Teachers must use some interesting strategies in order to be successful with preparing students for both the standardized tests and the normal classwork. How does a teacher go about such a task? Are all teachers becoming clones of one another because of standardized testing? How can "trickster" methods be balanced properly in the classroom?
This issue of democracy in a school district is not one that I have often thought of, but is very important. I think Dewey makes a great point that the present school system is not democratic in the sense that teachers who are in the classroom everyday do not have much or any say on the curriculum, the kind of books, and methods of discipline that are implemented in into their schools. This does not make sense to me, How can we cater to the needs of the kids in our classrooms if we do not have say in what they will be taught? To get the best school system possible we need to move to a more democratic system where the teachers give their input, plan, and implement the curriculum because they are the ones who know their students on a personal level. They know what they need so that we can have well-rounded and educated children when they enter middle school, high school, and beyond. -Megan Conway
The topic that I would like to focus on is Dewey’s article with teachers not having the freedom to decide what they could teach in their classrooms. He states, “It is said that the average teacher is incompetent to take any part in laying out the course of study or in initiating methods of instruction or discipline” (Dewey pg. 6). This is actually frustrating because many people think of teachers as caregivers for example, and not professionals who know what they are doing. When the students are not doing well in schools, teachers are blamed. When people get upset about their children being bored and not learning in class because of the topics, teachers are to blame. Although not all teachers are perfect, many of them know what they are doing when it comes to being a good teacher. Many people do not understand that teachers do not have many options and are told what to do and how to do different things. The only thing that the teacher could do is teach what she/he is told to teach, and since they cannot bring in a lot of their own information for the sake of time, it is important that they make those lessons fun and interesting for the students in order for the students to participate and understand the lesson. It’s actually upsetting that many people do not look at teaching as a profession. This reason is the main reason why people put teachers down and think that teachers are incapable of making decisions. Many people today are saying that the education system today is worsening every year. If people are saying that education is worsening, then why aren’t they doing anything to improve the education system? I think that there should be major changes, and one of those changes should be trusting the teacher to make more choices in his/her classroom and to add more of their own information to the curriculum that would be beneficial to the students.
I had some difficulty getting through the Dewey article and I don’t think I totally understood it. However, it did make me think about something and brought about some questions. I agree that schools are not a democracy. I think they are better nowadays but teachers and students do not have enough of a say in what is taught or policies to call it a democracy. In my opinion, schools would be a better place and more learning would occur if the teachers and even students had more say in what is learned and how it is learned. Some power, such as a superintendent, should not have the overall say of what books are used in classes and how things should be taught. Nor should a school board without input from teachers. Many people on a school board don’t have any experience teaching and therefore don’t have any expertise on what works best for students. A teacher should have the ability to be creative and do what is best for the class depending on how they learn and what interests the students. If the teachers have more autonomy then the students will as well. I think that this would only help the learning going on in schools. I know when I was given more options on how to learn about something I tended to do better on the assignment and I put forth more effort because I could choose something that I enjoyed doing. I think most will agree that teachers and students need to be allowed to be more creative in the classroom, but how do we make this happen? And how do we do this and make sure the students are learning what they need to be learning? I hope to be a teacher who can be creative and let my students make some of their own decisions and get them to think outside the box and more creatively themselves.
Dewey makes me want to change the systems running education. He makes a compelling argument about how the education is set up as an autocracy and not a democracy. This makes me think of politics today. Unions for teachers, as well as other public workers, allow for people to stand together and let their voices be heard. A shared interest is decided upon, and the union stands together in opposition to something considered unjust, threatening, or in the best interest of something other than students. If the school system were set-up as a democracy, then perhaps unions wouldn't be necessary. However, this is not the case. Individuals who are removed from the teaching profession are in charge of the curriculum. Teachers are to force feed students information for a specific set of tests. Creativity on the student's part is unnecessary. Teaching, as a profession, has limited use for great minds, and this is why great minds are often repelled by the field. The united states does not have an optimal, high ranking education system for a reason. It's not the fault of teachers and their greedy unions for a struggling education system; it's how the system is set up and run.
Democracy in Education (Dewey) When I first started reading the article I was really struggling with what it was saying. I could pick out the main point at the beginning about education needing to be a democracy instead of a few people outside of the system controlling it, but I just wasn’t sure how this affected the teacher and the student. When Dewey started talking about the learner and the importance of inquiry and first-hand experience then I finally was able to understand. I found these points very interesting because I could relate it to how the Physics class I took here at OSU is inquiry based. It helped me understand why we take a class that is so different in structure. It’s not only a way for us to learn the concepts but more importantly it’s a way for us to learn how we should be teaching our students. However, this concept of inquiry does make me question, how we are suppose to allow for this intellectual freedom in students? It seems like a lot more pressure will be put on the teacher because there are only certain ways that allow for inquiry. First-hand experience is a big part of it but what exactly does that mean, how do you know the way you have the activity set up allows the student to figure it out on their? I feel like for teachers it is easiest to just tell the students the answers but then that puts great restriction on their intellectual freedom and gives them no room to grow.
Another point that stood out to me in this article is the difference between individual freedom and intellectual freedom. I never really thought of them as two separate things. Dewey mentions, “In our schools we have freed individuality in many modes of outer expression without freeing intelligence, which is the vital spring and guarantee of all these expressions”. I believe that schools can change and can free intelligence by unifying and working together.
I really feel that teachers should be allowed to teach what they think should be taught. I remember when i was in elementary school and teachers were so focused on what they need to teach us for the big state tests. I understand that teachers need to meet certain standards and somehow people need to know those standards are being met, such as state tests. I feel as though there is a much better way to go about it then having the school board tell a teacher what he or she should be teaching in the classroom. I know when i am a teacher someday i would be a lot happier doing what i feel should be done rather than being told by someone who may never have experience in the classroom. Students are much more excited about learning when the teacher is, and teacher is excited to teach when they are doing it the way they want to do it. This is why i disagree the new Teach for America Bill that was just signed saying they can teach in our school distracts after the 2 year agreement they had. I feel as though they dont have the passion a real teacher does, but i do believe they had good experience. I feel like its taking an opportunity away from someone who went to school to be a teacher and has their own ideas of how they want to help students learn.
Usually I have a pretty difficult time with Dewey readings, but I didn't think that this one was too bad. I also agreed with most of what he was saying. I agree that the people doing the actual teaching on a daily basis should have a say in what is being taught. However, I can also see the need for curriculum to be somewhat centralized in order for children to be competitive on universal standards like the SAT. That is why I think a balance should be found between community, government, and teacher control. The government should set some guidelines to ensure that children are going to be able to function in society. However, the government does not need to micromanage what is happening in every classroom with overly strict regulations. Basic guidelines would give teachers the freedom to meet their individual needs in their classrooms based on feedback from the students and effectiveness of methods. The community’s job is then to monitor what is happening in their local classrooms and step in if something is wrong or inappropriate. Most of these ideas are Dewey (although not necessarily this reading) and I agree with them, however, how do we arrive at this situation?
I found the Garrison article to be very interesting. I never thought of teachers as "Tricksters", but more as caregivers, and shapers of children.
However, I do believe that in order to be a successful some "Trickster" tactics are needed in order to successful educate the youth of our society. "They break, bend, and remold the structures and identities(including personal identities)that hold a society together," I found this to be interesting. Teachers can do this through educating the truth about social stratification. However, as we have discussed in previous classroom discussions this is not exactly the case. Rather teachers avoid these touchy topics. So I feel that teachers are "Tricksters" in other ways, since the governement has become so involved in the eductaion system. The government has came to control the content and curriculum that is being taught to our youth when they do not completely understand what is important to be taught. The governement leaves out many important concepts and focused on standardized testing insturments to evaluate the students. This backs up the statement in the artcile that was, "Teachers often turn to the trickster archetype to help them deal with rigid,hyperrationalized bureaucratic structures and mindless technocratic management in order to preserve creative autonomy and secure psychic rewards." Teachers have to become "Trickster's in some senses in order to get around the government. Which is very true.
Teachers are now following strict guidelines when it comes to teaching, because of all the requirements that are pushed upon them. It has become harder for teachers to put their own touch into the education systems because of all the demands and power the government has over the education system.
"Often it is the best teachers that are most tempted to avail themselves of the trickster archetype with its difficulties and dangers.' That is another quote found within the Garrison artcile that jumped out to be. But my question is how does a teacher add "trickster' methods to their teaching methodology, curriculum, etc? Especially when they governement has become so strict with the standards that teachers must follow, so closely in order to keep thier job.
The article Democracy in Education written by John Dewey brought up a very good point in our education system. In American schools teachers are not given the opportunity to provide input on matters such as curriculum, text-books, etc. These decisions are left up to people outside of the classroom, such as the school board. One of the reasons for this is that most people running a school do not feel that teachers are capable of making these decisions.
In order to become a teacher there is a large amount of education and certification required. All teachers must have a college degree and are certified to to teach in there state, and a large number have masters degrees as well. Which makes the opinion that teachers are incompetent, very insulting.
This brings up the question why are teachers given the responsibility to teache children if they are considered incompetent?
The articles of this week’s readings presented and important point about the nature of teaching in schools. As mentioned in the articles and as we know, in general, teachers and students are the main focus of teaching. To have a strong and productive community, we have to have a strong base, in other words, creative individuals that help improve and build their community.
Democracy in teaching is essential to help build strong and creative individuals. What I understood from the articles is that democracy is not very well implemented in the school system. Instead, teachers are told and given what they should teach, they are also given the way they should teach the material they have. And according to Dewey and Garrison, the minds of students are shaped and affected by how the teachers present the material, whether they give the students enough room for thinking or is it just plain memorization of facts and theories. More importantly, who puts these materials together and gives it to the teachers? Individuals who are not involved in the teaching profession, and who do not know the needs of students and how to fulfill it, and teachers and students are told to shut down their minds and go with the flow.
That is not how education should be, and that is the argument of Dewey and Garrison. Educators and teachers should be as creative as possible. They are the only ones that come in direct contact with the students. They are the most influential force in their students’ life. The creativity of the teacher will improve the course of teaching in general; will help the teacher, as well as the student, to meet each student’s needs of teaching and learning. Democracy in education, gives the teacher enough space to be creative and apply new techniques of teaching as s/he sees fit for the students level of learning.
The important question here is: how should we implement democracy in teaching? How can we fix the system of teaching now? Who is going to accept the change, teachers, students or both? And after all, are we allowed to change our teaching system?
I found the Dewey article to be very interesting. Never had I ever thought of the education system as being anything other than democratic until I read this article, which really opened my eyes. Obviously I am familiar with what a curriculum is but I never even thought about who gets the right to determine what goes into that curriculum, and that teachers are the ones who don’t get a say. I think this is very undemocratic, as Dewey argues, because the teachers are the ones in the classroom with the kids everyday – their opinions should be most valued out of everyone! Year after year of teaching, a teacher will know whether the material in the curriculum was too much/too little and whether his/her students learned everything they need to know. There is a difference between a teacher getting through the material to satisfy the requirements of the curriculum and the students getting everything possible out of that school year. More often than not, students pass the current grade they are in, and move onto the next one. Only the teacher really knows whether those students who are now moving on are truly ready. If year after year a teacher is noticing that there is too much material in the curriculum, or the curriculum is not structured to allow the students to gain the most from their education, that needs to be fixed. This is done by all teachers being a part of the “team” who determines the curriculum. Until this happens, I do not believe students will get the most from their education, which only hurts us as a race in the long run. Additionally, I agree with Dewey’s comment on page 6 of the article: “If the body is so unfit, how can it be trusted to carry out the recommendations or dictations of the wisest body of experts. “ He is basically implying here that if teachers are apparently too unfit to participate in the construction of the curriculum, how is it they can be trusted to do the more complicated task of actually teaching the information and getting through to students? It doesn’t make sense. If teachers are expected to relay and teach the information in the curriculum to their students, they should be a part of the construction of the curriculum, and their input should be valued above anyone’s.
It was really intrigued to realize that the Dewey article was written in 1903. Obviously the idea of teaching with a more authentic and inquiry based curriculum is not a new idea. It is amazing to me that people have been writing about how our school system is flawed for over a century and not a lot has come from it. People are still making the exact same argument today. Even when I was in school , for the most part, I felt that I was not actually deeply learning about a topic or even understanding it, rather I was memorizing the facts that someone else had discovered (just as Dewey points out). This was especially true of math. I could learn formulas and memorize how to work through a problem but had no idea why I was doing it. If someone were to have asked me why it is done that way or explain the deeper concept behind the math problem I would have no idea. I have reflected on that and math a lot because I realized that just learning those formulas (which I have forgotten most of now) did not actually benefit me at all. They are now forgotten because I never learned for myself how to navigate through math is a way that made sense to me. I fully agree with Dewey's argument and feel children must be able to learn deeply about topics and not just superficially. I think school needs to focus more on teaching kids to be problem solvers and investigators. This is the way to make sure that learning continues to take place throughout ones' life and that society continues to evolve. Once a child learns to be a problem solver and to discover through the scientific method, they can find out all of the facts we learn in school on their own and gain a much deeper understanding of the topic. My question is: Can inquiry based learning exist when we have standardized tests that regulate what kids need to learn and how long they have to learn it? How can teachers encourage this kind of learning while making sure their students can succeed in the mandated tests?
We need a John Dewey Renaissance. We need someone like Dewey who can capture the nation’s attention and reform our education system. We need an educational advocate who is as articulate and as impassioned about reform as John Dewey was. He advocated for democracy and freedom within the educational system and he was successful on many levels in achieving it. Dewey’s influence came to the forefront at the beginning of the Progressive era. An era, according to Tom’s first lecture, that has passed us by in favor of a Jacksonian rebirth. If teachers are going to maintain any form of creative autonomy and individuality in the face of a Jacksonian resurgence, they need to fight for it, because otherwise it is going to slip through the cracks.
Both of the articles this week brought up several points that I feel need to be addressed in our current education system, however, the Dewey article I felt was the most significant. In this article Dewey says that in out current education system students are not given the freedom of intelligence. This is mostly due to the fact that there are so many restrictions placed on teachers and how the teach that it limits what they are able to do. I found this interesting as it relates back to the class discussion on charter schools and their "scripted" lesson plans and the Lowery article on how textbooks are biased in their information. I do feel that these points are sadly true and today, more than ever, we are reaching the point where teachers are being required to recite canned information rather than teach what they know. It is also ruining the idea of being a responsible professional by creating accountable transmitters of information.Dewey also states that students need social nurturing as well as intellectual stimulation which cannot happen if curriculums are scripted. In this the idea of educating the "whole person" is quickly diminishing. He also states that this form of education suppresses the students intellectually and this, in turn, leads to poor behavior as an outlet for this suppression. Overall I agreed with this article much more than the Garrison, which I felt was a very negative take on how teachers are viewed. He did bring up some good points about how teachers must resort to trickery when faced with administrative demands that are placed upon students, but overall I felt this article did not propose that many solutions to this current article. It is very interesting to note that two articles written almost 100 years apart have so much to talk about on the same topic.
A guest speaker that spoke to the Middle Childhood Education M.Ed program in the fall said "Teaching is only as good as the learning that takes place." I believe in this statement which is tied can be tied to being innovative, culturally responsive, and enthusiastic teachers. Garrison writes that, "Many believe the greatest achievement of teaching is to free young minds to dream their own dreams and to vicariously experience in imagination the consequences of acts both wise and foolish." I agree with this statement and believe that as a teacher I need to facilitate helping my students become productive and active members in society. This is done not only by teaching them facts and information, but by helping them to learn to respect other perceptions, cultural backgrounds, beliefs, values, etc. Our country is becoming more diverse and we need teachers to help our students function in the ever-changing world.
I found Garrison’s “Teacher as a Prophetic Trickster” a very interesting and compelling essay. Garrison says that teachers turn to the trickster type and ways because they are trying to escape from dealing with rigid bureaucratic structures. These bureaucratic structures make teacher’s job very difficult. After the “No Child Left Behind” act, not much flexibility has been left for teachers and their classrooms. With standardized tests becoming state standards, many teachers are becoming frustrated. Their flexibility and creativity is taken away from them. Garrison says that more teachers need to strive to become tricksters. Teachers need to find ways of dealing with the rigid bureaucrats and still being creative teachers. Garrison mentions standardized tests and that they are a “one size fits all”. Obviously no one is a one size fits all. Why would the government assume that everyone is a “one size fits all”. Maybe they think that it’s the easiest answer for them, but it’s certainly not the case. I know a very intelligent student that received average grades but almost did not graduate high school because he could not pass a section of the OGT. Perhaps this student did not excel in the test format. Everyone wheres different size clothes, so why shouldn’t everyone take different tests that FIT them?
This article does a very good job in explaining what teaching should be about, the child. Teachers and adminitrators sometimes get caught up in pleasing parents or higher up individuals that they work for. Instead, teaching should remain focused on the child. As I read this article, it came very clear to me that a teacher needs to be well-rounded to be a valuable asset to the classroom. Wanting to be an administrator someday, I found it very interesting to see individuals that ae being hired. Most individuals provide a uniqueness or creativeness that sets them above others. I think this article really shos the significance on this, and teachers need to be aware of this. Finally, the teasting section of the article seems to not make sense to me. I don't see how one test can measure how smart an inidividual is. It is not fair to those students who do poorly with any test. How can you let a child not graduate from high school if he doesn't pass the OGT? I don't understand the logic behind this. Testing is a great tool to measure the intelligence of an individual. However, it should not be the only one. A childs worth ethic alone will tell you a lot about how successful he/she will be in life. The test doesn't take that into consideration.
Garrison calls the teachers that he is discussing tricksters, but I do not think the inspirational teachers that he is referring to deserve a title that sometimes comes with a bad reputation. When I think of the word trickster, I think of someone who deceives simply for their own pleasure or advancement, when these teachers are “deceiving” the rules and other faculty in order to benefit their students. The teachers or tricksters should be given the title of “creative” or “role models”. The teachers that go out of their way to get their students interested in what they are learning deserve recognition and praise for their efforts and progress made with the students and not a slap on the wrist from supervisors because they deviated from the state mandated curriculum. The goal of education that Garrison outlines is “to free the young mind” and I agree with that statement. The purpose of school is not to simply learn the correct answers so that one can pass a test and the job of a teacher is not to simply spew out information. The purpose of a school and teacher is to open up the child to a world never imagined before with endless possibilities through learning and exploration with materials and people. If school was all about learning facts, computers would have taken over by now and all of the teachers would be out of a job, but the teachers are still employed because school also deals with learning about society and oneself. Granted none of these things not tested on the OGT or SAT. I loved the story about Ohanian who had a time machine reading space in her classroom for children to read in but also as a sort out office space for a special child. Thinking back on my own grade school experience, one of the things that sticks out most in my memories is in second grade my teacher made a reading igloo out of milk jugs and put books in it and after we were done with our work we could go and sit in there. This made reading fun and learning new things and ideas through our books fun because we were in our own little world inside the igloo. As a teacher it is important to understand that learning does not always occur through memorization of facts and test taking, but also through reading independently, playing, and experimenting. With standardized tests, all learning and teaching efforts are focused on the memorization of facts which, facts which the children will forget once the lesson is over. Through this article, Garrison gives teachers the go ahead to break from the curriculum in order to educate the students and open their minds and not focus on the standardized tests Katie O'Connell
I wish there was a way to convert the Dewey article into language that a first-grader could understand without dilution, and require that it be read within the first years of public education - rather than the last few. It is my belief that building an intellectually free mind requires not only the presentation of facts, but the transference of a constant sense of skepticism that exists from the very beginning. I find the cycle of conditioning cruel in that many young children DO have a constant sense of wonder - of scientific thought. It is after years of merely memorizing and regurgitating facts that they are conditioned to accept these practices - just in time for them to become teachers themselves. I believe that this creates a type of "chicken or egg" situation in which no one knows which should come first - a new type of teacher or a new type of student. Teachers that can access and preserve the natural curiosities already present in children will help to bring about a type of rebirth in both teaching and learning simultaneously.
I might tend to agree with Rocha that schooling to a large degree is created citizens to be cast into a specific mold that often times fails to reproduce lovers of knowledge whose goal some greater philosophical enlightenment of the purpose of life. However, I think that because of the value placed on “education” in modern society that such is a consequence of attempting to apply “education” to a broad range of people. The flourishing fruit of the world of education in contemporary society of course flourished because of their own accord and not because of some compulsory institution, but can we all say that we would have made the same pursuit? I would pose this question to Rocha. Can we say that more lives are better or worse, even despite the ignorance of what you believe to be true education?
"Many reformers are contending against the conditions which place the direction of school affairs, including the selection of texbooks, etc., in the hands of a body of men who are outside the school system itself, and who have not necesairly any expert knowledge of education and who are moved by non-educational motives"
This section of Deweys artile piqued my interest. I think that teachers need to have more of a say when it comes to their students education, this includes the selction of which textbooks to use. At the same time I can understand both sides of the argument. Teachers must maintain a nationwide curriculum so every student has an equal opportunity to perform well on standarized tests that are required for higher education.
A quote from the Rocha article really caught my attention. Referring to the dying school, "A telling sign might be when teachers hate to be students-and, consequently, hate to be teachers- yet are equally committed to make their own students be and do that which they themselves hate." Teaching is one of the only professions in which you MUST care about your job. If you hate children, you're going to be a pretty lousy teacher. We are essentially raising the population to one day govern this country. This sounds like a pretty important job, right? You would never know it from the way teachers are being treated. Rocha writes about the death of school and questions "education." The educators, the teachers, are the life of education, not the government and public school system. However, the very people who claim to care about the schools and their best interest (those who working for the system) are the ones killing the life of it. How can we stop the self destruction of the schools?
When it comes to the creativity of teachers I believe there are positive aspects and as well there can be negatives as well. I feel that a teacher should have the freedom to bring creativity and a unique aspect to the classroom however I think that there are some teachers now who try and bring these aspects to the classroom and they are not always effective. I feel that as educators we need to strive to motivate our students to do well in all aspects of their education. On the other side not everything can be creative and unique in the classroom due that there are only certain ways to teach certain subjects. I have seen many times in classrooms that teachers try and bring something new and different to the classroom however students do not get the most out of the content that they could. There are specific ways that a teacher can bring creativity to the classroom and as well ensure that students are still learning to their full potential. Therefore I would have to say that there can be proper and improper ways to bring new aspects to the classroom. We need to be careful as educators with how we do teach certain subjects because if we change the way teach and the students are not fully benefiting from this change then I would suggest that it is best to keep some traditions within the classroom to ensure students are recieving the most out of their education.
The Dewey reading did criticize many issues dealing with today's system of education. The fact that many of these criticisms are still valid today speaks volumes as to how few changes have occurred to this country's schooling system since this text was written by Dewey more than a century ago. Although many technological innovations have been introduced to schools over the years, the basic system has remained practically unchanged. This issue of a school district working democratically is a new way of thinking about how political systems outside of government work. I agree with the idea that teachers should have the power to discuss and set the core curriculum that is taught to their students on a daily basis. The system is flawed in my opinion if teachers do not have a say regarding curriculum taught in their classroom.
I agree with Dewey's argument in his article. I think that freedom of mind and intelligence really needs to be included and allowed in schools. The fact that schools are run by external authority is sad. And what is even worse is that teachers are "unfit to have voice in the settlement of important educational matters" (Pg 197). Teachers are professionals who have committed many years to learn how to teach, and I think they should be trusted to do so, instead of being told how and what to do. I really think that change needs to happen.....fast. Students need the hands-on learning experiences that Dewey shared. Taking students out into nature and teaching them about plants and animals is not only more educational and beneficial to the students than just reading about nature in textbooks, but it is also so much more interesting for the students and will encourage them to love learning instead of hating it. School officials need to trust teachers and give some authority back to them so that they can teach in the efficient ways in which they were professionally taught. Teachers are hard workers and need to be given the credit and freedom they deserve.
In his writing, Garrison mentions that when teachers can't connect to students can't connect to students or don't feel as if they are helping their student's grow, then it is likely that they will look elsewhere to obtain this "psychic reward". He writes that "empirical studies have shown that teachers enter teaching to obtain "creative autonomy" and the "psychic rewards" of teaching, and the best teachers leave if they cannot secure these desired goods. This is quite true with myself also. My reasoning behind choosing teaching as a career path has a lot to do with these "psychic rewards" and "creative autonomy" as well. I think that if individuals are going to enter the teaching field, in order to be effective and get the most out of their students, there needs to be some sort of concern vested in these children on their performance and individual growth. Should one continue teaching if they are fulfilling one of these needs (creative autonomy, psychic rewards), if the other isn't being met? Is there a way to ensure teacher's keep their student's best interest in mind first and foremost?
The main understanding that I got from both articles was the importance of teachers having some say in different aspects of the school, be it in their creativity or in choosing the curriculum or textbooks. I believe that teachers should be allowed to be creative, because a teacher’s creativity is what makes a topic really come alive to students. Teachers need to be allowed to think outside the box in terms of how things are taught. Students respond more to creativity and differentiated teaching styles than almost anything else, and I think it is important for teachers to have the option and ability to do this.
In the Dewey article on idea that stuck out to me was the point that sometimes there is just one person who decided the entire curriculum for a school. I totally disagree with this, because they cannot know enough about each subject at each grade level to make these kinds of decisions. Teachers are the ones who best understand the subject area as well as the students and their pace of learning, so they should be able to have some say in setting the curriculum. Also, the Dewey article noted that sometimes it is not the teachers or even administrators who choose textbooks, but a group of people outside of the school who do so. This is another bureaucratic aspect of schools that I think is detrimental to the teachers and students. It does not make sense for people who are not involved in teaching or understanding the students to be choosing which textbooks to use, especially if it is in a school system that relies heavily on these books.
I found the Dewey article to be very interesting. He brings up a lot of good points regarding the lack of democracy within the education system. Teachers are often instructed what to teach, and how to teach it by the school board. Although it is good to try and ensure that all students are learning the same information in the same way, and therefore have an equal opportunity to succeed, it is probably not the best way for children to learn. I believe that a system such as this one fails to recognize that all students are unique. While the method put in place by the school board may work for some students, it will more than likely not work for all students, which should be the goal of education. It is impossible for a district to take into account the differences and needs of individual students when instructing teachers exactly what to teach and how to teach it. I agree that there should be standards, but teachers need to be allowed more freedom to make decisions regarding their own classrooms. Teachers know their students better than the school board, and therefore teachers, as professionals, should not only be allowed but expected to meet the needs of every student. Instead of giving specific instructions to teachers, districts should ensure that they are hiring the best possible teachers who are able to make creative lesson plans while still teaching the required material.
This article really got me thinking about the reasons why some people do not consider teachers to be professionals. Often, teachers are not allowed to make decisions on their own such as executives or medical professionals. Do you think that if teachers were not only allowed but also expected to make greater decisions regarding their students learning that they would be seen more often as professionals in everyone's eyes?
I found the article to be extremely interesting and brought up numerous good points about teaching. As teachers it is our duty to hold our children in the highest regard and to help them get off to the best start possible. We as teachers must work together to help make sure that our students receive the best education possible, enabling them to explore their fullest potential. I strongly believe in the notion that each member in the faculty of a school should have a voice in what goes on around them, helping to make sure that decisions are made democratically. This ensures that change takes place to help suit the children’s needs, limiting the chance that they will not be able to relate or concentrate on the information. I have personally seen the effects of such change as I have had certain teachers who have seemed to be out of touch with reality and led more of an authoritarian classroom compared to the more open atmosphere of a teacher who stresses individuality. Learning was much easier in the more open classroom, resulting in students feeling more free to express their ideas and learn the material. The one problem that arises is how as teachers do we find an equal balance between the two extremes, allowing our children the freedom to express themselves without getting too out of control? In order to help spur such change, it is the job of the schools to hire teachers with unique and creative voices that will help to expand the children’s’ education. These types of traits can help the children see the material from a whole new perspective, potentially allowing them an easier or even better way to learn the material. Teachers and the administration must bond together in hiring teachers and planning a curriculum in order to make sure that our children are best prepared for the future.
The Dewey article brought up many personal points of interest for me, and I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with most of his arguments about modern education. Modern education and the stifling of students' freedom of intelligence seems to be a main focus in schools today as the 'system' has transformed the content that is taught and the methods used to teach. This 'system' that is far too often an autocratic one is bogging teachers down and limiting if not stripping them of their creativity and independence as teachers. I strongly agree with Dewey's point on this topic of autocracy. How can one person, who generally is unfamiliar with teaching in a classroom to begin with, make all of the decisions regarding how teachers should instruct their classes, while making sure that only a specific predetermined curriculum is followed. Nothing about this seems fair. So often today in schools, this 'system' seems to only be making things worse for teachers. Teachers are becoming frustrated with the administrators who lack understanding, and this frustration affects they teach their classroom, often leading to teacher burn out. This 'system' also tends to keep low quality teachers that don't care if their creativity is stifled or if the students are being challenged to be intellectually free. Unfortunately, this teacher that doesn't put up a fight to retain creativity and freedom is often favored by the administration.
As Dewey states, the modern education greatly affects the teachers and the students. I think parents should be a target audience for this article because often times parents are not at all aware of the details that greatly effect their own children's educational lives. If they knew more about the administration, decisions effecting teachers, and the teacher's effect on students as a result, they may be more inclined to step up and question the authority and decisions made by the administration, and can greatly effect the way the school runs. These issues are extremely important to parents and students and should be made known.
I have honestly been trying to wrap my head around these articles, and I must say that I cannot. No matter how many times I try to read them, they make no sense to me.
I was really drawn to the article about the prophetic trickster. I thought the author did an excellent job tying long standing understandings of trenscendental education through theology into the mirco effect of the education we obtain from those around us. What is interesting is the conflict presented in both articles, democracy and trickster, between the act of standardization and the issue of flux in the modern mind. Both articles recognize the barriers between student and teacher and both register the need for creative and brain wise thinking to bridge the gap. The strict regimented teacher may do well for a long time but after the slow churning of change reaches its peak they are left behind as those teachers who are flexible and imaginiitive lead the fore front. This issue creates an argument against NCLB and asks how can we even begin to define a standard of education in a society when the times and what is being learned out runs the standard as soon as it's thought, let alone put into practice.
The Dewey article was slightly depressing to me. I found it sad that the faults that Dewey exposed in 1903 are the same flaws that plague our current educational system. It seems that I constantly hear about the horrors of the system, but yet, there have been no changes. There are outcries about the institution of the school board and the politicization of education, the “failing” schools, remedial students and dropouts. Yet, it all continues. Various methods have been tried, like “No child left behind,” but still our students lag. So what is the answer? To Dewey, it’s allowing teachers to have the flexibility to expand from the confines of rote lesson plans and standard curriculum, and emphasis inquiry and experimentation: to move learning from the classroom to the real world. This seems like a great answer – give teachers authority and treat them as professionals so they can lead our students – but, alas, it ain’t happening! So I like Garrison’s solution in response : take authority back! I agree that while there should be a certain general standard or level of education, the methods, the lesson plans, and the teaching should be left up to the teacher. Since this is not the case, teachers do have to be creative. How can the student learn to think critically, to use the full capability of their minds if their teachers don’t teach them to and they (the teachers) don’t have to do it themselves? Throughout my education, I learned the most from my teachers who challenged me, who made learning interesting, who themselves were creative. I want to be that teacher, the one who opens up the world of reading and the potential of the imagination. The one who sees the possibility in students and teaches them that life holds possibility. So I guess if I have to be a “trickster,” then it sounds good to me!
"Many believe the greatest achievement of teaching is to free young minds to dream their own dreams and to vicariously experience in imagination the consequences of acts both wise and foolish." While this I agree with, I have to wonder, how good are teachers if we've gone through the same school and we've been fed a false history? I love the idea of being creative and challenging. I know that I've learned the most from classes where the teacher challenges me to change the way I look at something and how I see it. This is just like Math 105, 106, and 107. That taught me exactly what this article was talking about. I learned how to think critically and how to look at things from a new perspective as well as experience the success that students feel when they have positive reinforcement and many successful encounters with learning. Yes, I agree with Garrison, teaching should be left up to the teacher. However, we are forced to teach to the test with very guided curriculums that leave little room for re-teaching (if needed) which then correlates with Dewey's article in a sense that politics are a major reason why we have standardized tests and inflexibility.
I actually love the Valedictorian article. I thought the point of it was excellent. I feel the problem with schools though is not necessarily the teachers, but the school board guidelines that have to be followed so the students can learn whats "on the test". I know from when i loved in New York that we had the New York Regents and we had to learn "stuff for the test." I remember my teachers always saying we need to do this because its on the test. So i dont feel the problem is the teachers, i feel as though there is too much pressure on them because of State tests. Although there are so many ways they can be a lot more creative in teaching what has to be done. I totally agree with studying really hard you will just continue to learn and that you can never get it done any quicker. I used to think that a lot of the HDFS classes at Ohio State all teach basically the same thing so i wondered why they are all necessary to take, but there are so many different aspects of different things that you can learn and with kids there is always something new to learn. Children would really enjoy school so much more if teachers were hired based on how unique they are and creative and fun. I know teachers love their job, and they would love it so much more if they have more of a chance to show their own creativity without pressure of just getting stuff in the kids heads for their tests. Children would also have more of an understanding for things rather than just learning it to forget it after the test. So my question would be, is it ever going to change because the children in school now are the future and someday will be teaching others?
This article brought up a very important point about teaching. The child should be the main focus of education and teachers and faculty members should work together to help each child learn, grow, and develop. Affection, scientific inquiry, and social growth should come together as one.
ReplyDeleteOne part of the article that interested me is the fact that a school should look to hire educators that are unique, creative, and have something different to contribute. This means that schools should place emphasis on certain qualities to look for in future candidates before hiring them. This may mean that a school board does not hire the first teacher interviewed just because they have some of the qualifications. In my experiences, the teacher influences what I get out of a class or how much I learn in the end. When teachers are “dull” or “boring” I zone out in class and do not care about the lesson. Teachers that have interactive lessons and care about the students and getting to know them as individuals bring more to the table. This made me think about what standards we may want to rate potential teachers by. Some things that I came up with include: being relatable, passionate about children/students, enthusiastic and wants to learn with the students, rather than just teaching, and full of knowledge or willing to do extra research to learn more about a topic before teaching. But, how do we know ahead of time if a person possesses such qualities?
Another point in the article was that each member of the school staff should have a voice because it is a democracy. I completely agree with this. Each person has a role and although some roles may be similar, each person’s experiences cause them to view things differently. So, people may be able to contribute insight to a particular topic/situation.
I thought Teacher as Prophetic Trickster integrated a large portion of the theories we’ve been discussing (Consequentialism, Nonconsequentialism, Care) as well as some acknowledgement to the arguments of Loewen, namely the touch on contraband books and complaints against controversy in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteOne parallel of Garrison’s to the traditional ethics theories was in defining trickster as an archetype, stating they are “unconscious and indifferent to the consequences of their actions”, but that in reality, teachers dependent on this epitome should “be fully conscious of and concerned about such consequences.” (Page 70). Garrison adds to the Consequentialist theme by commenting on the “suppression of teachers’ creative autonomy”, equating it with the endangerment of a “free and open society” (similarly, Consequentialism can pose a threat to liberty). Garrison alludes to both Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism in his comment that trickster reminds us “that we may never be certain of our motives or their consequences.” (Page 71).
Garrison’s inclusion of Care Theory was laconic in comparison, but did draw direct correlations. On page 71, he defines prophetic trickster as admiring the archetype of trickster, but nonetheless wanting to “retain aspects of the personas of nurturing caregiver …” Care Theory could also be referenced in Susan Ohanian’s views on national teaching standards, in which she argues “the best moments in our classrooms come from impulse, not from carefully constructed plans. This is why I am so skeptical about national testing standards. How do you test for a sense of humor? A good heart? A generous spirit? A tolerance for ambiguity … Where’s the test for love?” (Page 78).
As far as an application to reality, I found the background on the NYT article, “Test on Street Language Says It’s Not Grant in That Tomb”, motivating and notable. It spoke to the limitations of a discursive system -which becomes more antiquated each day- not only with the growing population of hyphenated identities, but the increasing percentage of “students defying the logic of noncontradiction.” (Page 82).
Finally, in Garrison’s summation, he questions the problem of distinguishing true from false prophets, which I think is applicable across the board. Addressing critical morality as arising “by intelligently reflecting on the consequences of moral action,” (page 83), he aligns several theories’ more beneficial tenets. Overall, his essay envelopes either side of trickster and presents a logical and thought provoking piece on how to approach the classroom in this era.
Garrison writes that, "Many believe the greatest achievement of teaching is to free young minds to dream their own dreams and to vicariously experience in imagination the consequences of acts both wise and foolish." I am in wholehearted agreement with this statement. It is not only information which I desire to communicate to my students, but also values and the experience of learning. What good does the school system do if we only teach facts? Then we have severely neglected the creative minds that enter the classroom every day. Says Garrison, "Standardized curriculum and tests create a false, one-right-answer-only world. Such a one-size-fits-all world suppresses imagination, emotion, and self expression. Teachers as trickster prophets awaken the infinite spirit of creativity." This is what I (as well as Dewey and Garrison) fear of our educational system. We are creating a system in which creative thinking is neglected, a system which does not truly line up with the reality we find in the world after high school. We are working for better scores on the next test, but how often will students be taking tests after their schooling? Is this the type of atmosphere we wish to create as educators? How can we as educators become as Garrison calls them, 'prophetic tricksters', that respect the bureaucratic pressures while still manipulating their demands in an attempt to reach our students?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both articles and the comments posted above, I have to say I completely agree with everything said. Teachers should be allowed to be creative and think outside of the box. One of my favorite quotes of all time is by Albert Einstein "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and that is coming from on of the smartest men in history. We need to teach children to think outside of the box, attempt the impossible. Thinking outside of the box and being creative is how progress is made in the world. If there is one things I can not stand is a boring/dull teacher. I become very disengaged and lose focus. Students currently live in a fast paced technologically advanced society. They become bored very easily we need to teach in a way that is stimulating to them and that they can relate to. I feel that blogs like this one would be great for students to learn. You not only get to post your own ideas but you can also read and see others perspectives on the subject.
ReplyDeleteThen focusing more on the Dewy article, I feel that it is ridiculous how many schools have one person who decides the curriculum. The teachers are the ones who work with the students they are the ones who know the students the best and they should be the ones who decide what to teach and how to teach it.
After reading the Dewey article there were many sentences or statements that stood out to me. First, "Many reformers are contending against conditions which place the direction of school affairs, including the selection of text-books, etc, in the hands of a body of men who are outside the school system itself, who have not necessarily any expert knowledge of education and who are moved by non-educational motives." I think it's important we recognize this, because I think it's important teachers and school administration have a direct influence or say in the curriculum and textbooks that they are having to use in their classrooms. Obviously they are the ones using it everyday, and they probably know what would best with their students, rather than a group of men who are outside the school system itself.
ReplyDeleteSecond, "The remedy is not to have one expert dictating educational methods and subject-matter to a body of passive, recipient teachers, but the adoption of intellectual initiative, discussion, an decision throughout the entire school corps." I think it's really important that a whole school, or district work together to make decisions when it come to curriculum, etc. I know that certain standards have to be met, and today we have to "teach to the standardized tests". However, I think letting everyone have an opinion and a say will have more significance to the teachers and might help them to go above and beyond as teachers, teaching more than just the standards of the tests. But rather going out of their way to teach the students in fun, interesting ways the knowledge for the tests as well as things they can take beyond the school and use in real life situations.
Katelyn Chester
Being creative is an important quality for a teacher to have. Students don't want a teacher that is boring and monotone. They want a teacher that is interactive and has a unique style of teaching. It doesn't matter what level of degree a teacher has. Having a PhD doesn't mean that a teacher is interesting and creative. It really depends on how passionate a teacher is towards their subject. There are plenty of ways that teachers can make a subject more interesting. Dramatic inquiry is a perfect example of how a teacher can make reading more interesting. It is a great way for students to become involved in a story and learn how to examine it from different perspectives. This also allows for educators to learn more about their students. There are so many ways that teachers can make curriculum interesting. Even if they aren't given the best curriculum to work with, there are always ways better ways that it can be taught. Power points are unbelievably boring when ever single teacher uses them. There are different ways to “spice” up a power point and yet teachers just don't care enough to try. The power point can be interactive. Instead of having 30 slides, a teacher can have 4 or five. A discussion can be lead to help fill the power point in. I just don't understand why teachers cannot take the time to find alternatives way to teach.
ReplyDeleteThe Elementary School Teacher article was extremely difficult for me to understand. I really liked one portion of it where it talked about experimentation and how trying new things for a child is natural and how the school has in a sense ignored this need and has suppressed their outlet for being inquisitive and trying new things.
ReplyDeleteThe Garrison article was much easier for me to follow and thus the one I would like to discuss here. The part that really stood out to me was about how teachers that maintain "creative autonomy" are the ones who last the longest in the profession and enjoy their job. Ones that are not creative reach teacher burnout and I think every student has experienced one of these teachers. I for one know that I had teachers in high school who were probably very fun and creative in years past, however, they had quit using creativity in their planning and reached a point of burnout. This is essential in the teaching profession and something I really thought was interesting to read about in this article.
I think my question would have to be about the Democracy in Education article and what it was we are supposed to take away from this article?
The Dewey article brought up several thoughtful points both in criticism of the modern education system and perhaps broad solutions or outlets for consideration. Dewey seemed to summarize his feelings with democracy in education and said that the freedom of intelligence he feared was suppressed and not given its proper place in the system. This then affects both the life of the teachers and the students, naturally. Dewey then points out that the “aim and method” of the educational institution is not based upon the ideals of discovery and freedom of the mind as our values and ideals on democracy profess. This brings up an interesting argument because it continues to put teachers in the crosshairs of judgment and scrutiny due to the contrast of adhering to the autocracy of educational system or formulate their own imaginative exploration of their subject matter which supports the responsibility to freedom of the mind.
ReplyDeleteI fear that as an educator that many other teachers slip through the cracks and prescribe cookie-cutter lesson plans that produce these autocratic teachers submitting to the high administration without consideration for their field. The more Dewey spoke of the “unfitness” of teachers carrying out the orders of the supposed experts in the upper echelon, the more I realized this fear. This is in part due to the system itself without the notion of striving and challenging their educators to provide a rounded, creative and stimulating and catered lesson plans and strategies to teach. More on the subject of secondary education on the college level how can we as beginning teachers gain this “experience” that Dewey speaks of in the real setting? How can master teachers, teach the future of education? Through these modes of learning? Experimentation and creativity on the learners part?
-Matt Zabiegala
The main idea I took from both articles is the importance of allowing teachers to be creative in the classroom, as well as giving teachers the opportunities to participate in the process of deciding what is being taught in their classrooms. Kind of going along with the idea of professionalism, teachers are and should be recognized as experts in their field. It does not seem fair to me that teachers are not consulted when it comes to choosing texts and curriculums for the classroom. I do not think that we should allow school board members or superintendents, who might not have experience in an actual classroom, to decide what the teachers must teach in their classrooms. I think it is important to allow teachers to be creative in what they teach because if the teachers are able to be creative they will probably be more willing to allow creativity in their students. We should want there to be creativity in the classroom because creativity will help new ideas grow and make students more interested in what they are learning. Ultimately teachers should have the ability to control what is being taught in their own classrooms because when teachers are happy and excited about what they are teaching their students will be more excited to learn.
ReplyDelete- Kristen Calaway
Education After the Death of School:
ReplyDeleteWhat Rocha described as the death of school was an eye opener for me. Everything he said described how the majority of students these days feel about school. How many times in high school, or even now in college, have we either said ourselves or heard someone else say how they cannot wait to graduate and be done with school? I remember back in middle school and the beginning of high school when I actually loved to learn. I have felt that way in college for certain classes that I believe to not be a "waist of my time," but honestly, how often are we asking "what is the point of this class for my life and my career?" Reading what Rocha had to say about this made me realize that this has not always been the case and does not need to be the case. Maybe the reason that a lot of students feel this way is because of the format that our education system is right now. Rocha obviously focused on education AFTER the death of schooling, but rather than focusing on that why do we not focus on reviving school? I believe that it can be done because I believe that everyone loves to learn, especially when it is the right subject and is presented in the correct manner.
This weeks readings, although thought provoking, were a bit disheartening. John Dewey wrote "The Elementary School Teacher" in 1903 to bring to light the problems with the American educational system. Fast Forward 107 years and educators continue to face many of the problems Dewey discusses in his writings. How could a that a system, run by so called intellectuals, seemingly not evolve with the rest of society for an entire century.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that if the one's making THE decisions allowed educators more of the freedom's Dewey discusses it would not only decrease the amount of "teacher burnout" but also elevate student performance. Think back to when you were in school. The lessons that seem to be the most memorable were the lessons that were both "hand's on" and applicable to your life.
So why do we continue to educate our children in this manner? What will it take to get true reform to occur? If we continue down this familiar path how can we expect our children to compete on a global scale when other countries are willing to adopt instructional methods that produce positive results.
Even though the piece by John Dewey was written in 1903, I believe that part of what Dewey had to stay still remains true. I believe that many teachers today are treated very unfairly. I believe that a lot of times they are stomped on and looked down on. Being a teacher is not the most glorious profession but those of us who are aspiring teachers and who are teachers really truly want to make a difference in someone’s life and in my opinion I plan on doing this by becoming a teacher. Dewey mentions on page 195 that “to be absolutely taken for granted as the normal”. I believe that many teachers teach in a district still to this day that disrespects their teachers and does indeed take them for granted. I believe that a lot of school districts don’t intend to do this but it happens especially in the school districts that have to drastically cut funding. With the funding being cut this means larger class sizes and teachers who are stressed out. So in my opinion it seems like the views of teachers really haven’t changed since 1903. It makes me wonder if there is anyone who actually cares for their children who are students in these classrooms. I understand that there are many other factors such as taxes being raised (yet again so that the school district can fund other things such as a new track or football stadium) but at the same to me it seems like the money isn’t being placed where it should. In order for students to receive the best education possible they need to have a good teacher who loves their job, who has proper credentials, and who is not stressed out. The state of Ohio doesn’t really seem to care about this as of recent and it truly concerns me, because they are a lot of excellent teachers who are being affected. Since these teachers are seeing these negative consequences of the state’s actions it is in turn trickling into how they teach which then reaches the students. It is a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped.
ReplyDelete-Emily Mink
The Prophetic Trickster provides an interesting view about how teachers try to break out of the mold that bureaucracy and institutions that determine what teachers have to do. If teachers don't become a trickster than they tend to burn out and leave. If they do they run the risk of going outside the norms and going too far. Being a trickster can be both good and bad but it is a fine line to walk but in some cases it can be the best thing for teachers and students if carefully controlled. The question is, is there a better way to run the education system that doesn't force this upon teachers?
ReplyDeleteDewey’s chapter on democracy in education was thought provoking. I thought it was interesting when he talked about direct inquiry. That first-hand experience, like in a science class, is “an active and vital participation through the medium of all the bodily organs with the means and materials of building up first-hand experience.” He says that this experience is often at a discount; instead of first-hand discovery, students are getting summaries and formulas of the results of others. I have had to take a few science classes at Ohio State that are inquiry based. We work through a workbook and have to learn all of the concepts on our own. The instructors are there to guide us and observe our progress. This kind of learning is, truthfully annoying, but extremely beneficial in the long run. It is much easier to listen to a lecturer and take notes. However, learning through experimentation made the learning process more meaningful. I found I was retaining the information better and remembering the processes. Dewey said that “acquiring takes the place of inquiring” and we need to reverse the current method.
ReplyDeleteHe also said that the remedy for this issue is “to carry the evolution of the school to a point where it becomes a place for getting and testing experience.” I liked how he envisioned the schools as a place where the students are primarily in charge of their knowledge. He said that the most natural business of a child is to experiment with things to see what will happen. For children to be able to do this in schools would be productive and beneficial. If they cannot, students find other outlets for their curiosity like mischief or destruction. Overall I enjoyed reading of Dewey’s point of view on education and democracy.
My question would be: What percentage of schools have moved towards an inquiry based learning style? Is there a difference in behavioral problems for the schools that allow for the curiosity of students?
-Sarah Tidwell
The issue of originality in education in interesting. How do we properly balance testing and curriculum requirements with creativity? As a future music educator, this is something that we in particular struggle with, since music is often a relatively subjective subject that is often difficult to assess. Often, we can get hung up on our nine national standards, and use formatted curriculums to accomplish specific goals. Is this really what is most beneficial to the student? One point that the article made stood out to me in particular – “the best minds are drawn to the place where they can work the most effectively.” If we want the best minds teaching our students (which we should), wouldn’t it make sense to give these teachers as much creative license as we can? Of course there must be standards in place. Measurements of student progress are necessary to ensure that students are learning what is necessary to move up through the schooling system. But should that be our only concern? Steps need to be taken by those higher up in the education system to ensure that teaching always remains fresh. Teachers cannot be allowed to teach their subjects with the same materials and in the same ways year after year.
ReplyDelete-Katie Kuvin
Im going to have to agree with Katie. I'm sure that it gets hard to be and stay creative when year after year teachers are teaching the same material/ lessons. Teachers have certain things they have to teach and test on, such as progression throughout the year. And the older your students are the more you have to teach for tests so creativity is hard. But even though it ishard,being creative is not impossible. There are ways to keep your lessons interesting for both your students and yourself. I always hated having the teachers who had been teaching for what seemed like 500 years because they had the worlds oldest ideas and did nothing fun and taught like they were beyond bored which inturn did nothing but put me to sleep!
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Garrison article, I agree that a certain amount of "Trickster" tactics must be used to keep the educational process of the highest quality. With the government becoming more and more involved in how education is evaluated, it is taking the educating out of teaching. Teachers control less and less of the content that is supposed to be taught, because they have to teach students for a standardized test which are created by people who don't understand your students.
ReplyDeleteOne of the roles of a teacher is to identify how their students learn, and formulate a method on how to present material in a way which they will comprehend. Teachers are being limited in the methods in which they use because the aren't the ones setting the goals for their students, governments are doing that job for them. Creativity is needed from the teachers so they can adequately prepare students for such standardized tests, while also giving them a quality education that enhances their mind and allows the students to think for themselves.
Teachers find themselves losing their individuality when it comes to teaching, because the students are ultimately critiqued based on their standardized testing scores, and not their class scores. Teachers must use some interesting strategies in order to be successful with preparing students for both the standardized tests and the normal classwork. How does a teacher go about such a task? Are all teachers becoming clones of one another because of standardized testing? How can "trickster" methods be balanced properly in the classroom?
This issue of democracy in a school district is not one that I have often thought of, but is very important. I think Dewey makes a great point that the present school system is not democratic in the sense that teachers who are in the classroom everyday do not have much or any say on the curriculum, the kind of books, and methods of discipline that are implemented in into their schools. This does not make sense to me, How can we cater to the needs of the kids in our classrooms if we do not have say in what they will be taught? To get the best school system possible we need to move to a more democratic system where the teachers give their input, plan, and implement the curriculum because they are the ones who know their students on a personal level. They know what they need so that we can have well-rounded and educated children when they enter middle school, high school, and beyond.
ReplyDelete-Megan Conway
The topic that I would like to focus on is Dewey’s article with teachers not having the freedom to decide what they could teach in their classrooms. He states, “It is said that the average teacher is incompetent to take any part in laying out the course of study or in initiating methods of instruction or discipline” (Dewey pg. 6). This is actually frustrating because many people think of teachers as caregivers for example, and not professionals who know what they are doing. When the students are not doing well in schools, teachers are blamed. When people get upset about their children being bored and not learning in class because of the topics, teachers are to blame. Although not all teachers are perfect, many of them know what they are doing when it comes to being a good teacher. Many people do not understand that teachers do not have many options and are told what to do and how to do different things. The only thing that the teacher could do is teach what she/he is told to teach, and since they cannot bring in a lot of their own information for the sake of time, it is important that they make those lessons fun and interesting for the students in order for the students to participate and understand the lesson. It’s actually upsetting that many people do not look at teaching as a profession. This reason is the main reason why people put teachers down and think that teachers are incapable of making decisions. Many people today are saying that the education system today is worsening every year. If people are saying that education is worsening, then why aren’t they doing anything to improve the education system? I think that there should be major changes, and one of those changes should be trusting the teacher to make more choices in his/her classroom and to add more of their own information to the curriculum that would be beneficial to the students.
ReplyDeleteI had some difficulty getting through the Dewey article and I don’t think I totally understood it. However, it did make me think about something and brought about some questions. I agree that schools are not a democracy. I think they are better nowadays but teachers and students do not have enough of a say in what is taught or policies to call it a democracy. In my opinion, schools would be a better place and more learning would occur if the teachers and even students had more say in what is learned and how it is learned. Some power, such as a superintendent, should not have the overall say of what books are used in classes and how things should be taught. Nor should a school board without input from teachers. Many people on a school board don’t have any experience teaching and therefore don’t have any expertise on what works best for students. A teacher should have the ability to be creative and do what is best for the class depending on how they learn and what interests the students. If the teachers have more autonomy then the students will as well. I think that this would only help the learning going on in schools. I know when I was given more options on how to learn about something I tended to do better on the assignment and I put forth more effort because I could choose something that I enjoyed doing. I think most will agree that teachers and students need to be allowed to be more creative in the classroom, but how do we make this happen? And how do we do this and make sure the students are learning what they need to be learning? I hope to be a teacher who can be creative and let my students make some of their own decisions and get them to think outside the box and more creatively themselves.
ReplyDeleteDewey makes me want to change the systems running education. He makes a compelling argument about how the education is set up as an autocracy and not a democracy. This makes me think of politics today. Unions for teachers, as well as other public workers, allow for people to stand together and let their voices be heard. A shared interest is decided upon, and the union stands together in opposition to something considered unjust, threatening, or in the best interest of something other than students. If the school system were set-up as a democracy, then perhaps unions wouldn't be necessary. However, this is not the case. Individuals who are removed from the teaching profession are in charge of the curriculum. Teachers are to force feed students information for a specific set of tests. Creativity on the student's part is unnecessary. Teaching, as a profession, has limited use for great minds, and this is why great minds are often repelled by the field. The united states does not have an optimal, high ranking education system for a reason. It's not the fault of teachers and their greedy unions for a struggling education system; it's how the system is set up and run.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy in Education (Dewey)
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started reading the article I was really struggling with what it was saying. I could pick out the main point at the beginning about education needing to be a democracy instead of a few people outside of the system controlling it, but I just wasn’t sure how this affected the teacher and the student. When Dewey started talking about the learner and the importance of inquiry and first-hand experience then I finally was able to understand. I found these points very interesting because I could relate it to how the Physics class I took here at OSU is inquiry based. It helped me understand why we take a class that is so different in structure. It’s not only a way for us to learn the concepts but more importantly it’s a way for us to learn how we should be teaching our students. However, this concept of inquiry does make me question, how we are suppose to allow for this intellectual freedom in students? It seems like a lot more pressure will be put on the teacher because there are only certain ways that allow for inquiry. First-hand experience is a big part of it but what exactly does that mean, how do you know the way you have the activity set up allows the student to figure it out on their? I feel like for teachers it is easiest to just tell the students the answers but then that puts great restriction on their intellectual freedom and gives them no room to grow.
Another point that stood out to me in this article is the difference between individual freedom and intellectual freedom. I never really thought of them as two separate things. Dewey mentions, “In our schools we have freed individuality in many modes of outer expression without freeing intelligence, which is the vital spring and guarantee of all these expressions”. I believe that schools can change and can free intelligence by unifying and working together.
I really feel that teachers should be allowed to teach what they think should be taught. I remember when i was in elementary school and teachers were so focused on what they need to teach us for the big state tests. I understand that teachers need to meet certain standards and somehow people need to know those standards are being met, such as state tests. I feel as though there is a much better way to go about it then having the school board tell a teacher what he or she should be teaching in the classroom. I know when i am a teacher someday i would be a lot happier doing what i feel should be done rather than being told by someone who may never have experience in the classroom. Students are much more excited about learning when the teacher is, and teacher is excited to teach when they are doing it the way they want to do it. This is why i disagree the new Teach for America Bill that was just signed saying they can teach in our school distracts after the 2 year agreement they had. I feel as though they dont have the passion a real teacher does, but i do believe they had good experience. I feel like its taking an opportunity away from someone who went to school to be a teacher and has their own ideas of how they want to help students learn.
ReplyDeleteUsually I have a pretty difficult time with Dewey readings, but I didn't think that this one was too bad. I also agreed with most of what he was saying. I agree that the people doing the actual teaching on a daily basis should have a say in what is being taught. However, I can also see the need for curriculum to be somewhat centralized in order for children to be competitive on universal standards like the SAT. That is why I think a balance should be found between community, government, and teacher control. The government should set some guidelines to ensure that children are going to be able to function in society. However, the government does not need to micromanage what is happening in every classroom with overly strict regulations. Basic guidelines would give teachers the freedom to meet their individual needs in their classrooms based on feedback from the students and effectiveness of methods. The community’s job is then to monitor what is happening in their local classrooms and step in if something is wrong or inappropriate. Most of these ideas are Dewey (although not necessarily this reading) and I agree with them, however, how do we arrive at this situation?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found the Garrison article to be very interesting. I never thought of teachers as "Tricksters", but more as caregivers, and shapers of children.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that in order to be a successful some "Trickster" tactics are needed in order to successful educate the youth of our society. "They break, bend, and remold the structures and identities(including personal identities)that hold a society together," I found this to be interesting. Teachers can do this through educating the truth about social stratification. However, as we have discussed in previous classroom discussions this is not exactly the case. Rather teachers avoid these touchy topics. So I feel that teachers are "Tricksters" in other ways, since the governement has become so involved in the eductaion system. The government has came to control the content and curriculum that is being taught to our youth when they do not completely understand what is important to be taught. The governement leaves out many important concepts and focused on standardized testing insturments to evaluate the students. This backs up the statement in the artcile that was, "Teachers often turn to the trickster archetype to help them deal with rigid,hyperrationalized bureaucratic structures and mindless technocratic management in order to preserve creative autonomy and secure psychic rewards." Teachers have to become "Trickster's in some senses in order to get around the government. Which is very true.
Teachers are now following strict guidelines when it comes to teaching, because of all the requirements that are pushed upon them. It has become harder for teachers to put their own touch into the education systems because of all the demands and power the government has over the education system.
"Often it is the best teachers that are most tempted to avail themselves of the trickster archetype with its difficulties and dangers.' That is another quote found within the Garrison artcile that jumped out to be. But my question is how does a teacher add "trickster' methods to their teaching methodology, curriculum, etc? Especially when they governement has become so strict with the standards that teachers must follow, so closely in order to keep thier job.
The article Democracy in Education written by John Dewey brought up a very good point in our education system. In American schools teachers are not given the opportunity to provide input on matters such as curriculum, text-books, etc. These decisions are left up to people outside of the classroom, such as the school board. One of the reasons for this is that most people running a school do not feel that teachers are capable of making these decisions.
ReplyDeleteIn order to become a teacher there is a large amount of education and certification required. All teachers must have a college degree and are certified to to teach in there state, and a large number have masters degrees as well. Which makes the opinion that teachers are incompetent, very insulting.
This brings up the question why are teachers given the responsibility to teache children if they are considered incompetent?
-John Searfoss
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe articles of this week’s readings presented and important point about the nature of teaching in schools. As mentioned in the articles and as we know, in general, teachers and students are the main focus of teaching. To have a strong and productive community, we have to have a strong base, in other words, creative individuals that help improve and build their community.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy in teaching is essential to help build strong and creative individuals. What I understood from the articles is that democracy is not very well implemented in the school system. Instead, teachers are told and given what they should teach, they are also given the way they should teach the material they have. And according to Dewey and Garrison, the minds of students are shaped and affected by how the teachers present the material, whether they give the students enough room for thinking or is it just plain memorization of facts and theories. More importantly, who puts these materials together and gives it to the teachers? Individuals who are not involved in the teaching profession, and who do not know the needs of students and how to fulfill it, and teachers and students are told to shut down their minds and go with the flow.
That is not how education should be, and that is the argument of Dewey and Garrison. Educators and teachers should be as creative as possible. They are the only ones that come in direct contact with the students. They are the most influential force in their students’ life. The creativity of the teacher will improve the course of teaching in general; will help the teacher, as well as the student, to meet each student’s needs of teaching and learning. Democracy in education, gives the teacher enough space to be creative and apply new techniques of teaching as s/he sees fit for the students level of learning.
The important question here is: how should we implement democracy in teaching? How can we fix the system of teaching now? Who is going to accept the change, teachers, students or both? And after all, are we allowed to change our teaching system?
I found the Dewey article to be very interesting. Never had I ever thought of the education system as being anything other than democratic until I read this article, which really opened my eyes. Obviously I am familiar with what a curriculum is but I never even thought about who gets the right to determine what goes into that curriculum, and that teachers are the ones who don’t get a say. I think this is very undemocratic, as Dewey argues, because the teachers are the ones in the classroom with the kids everyday – their opinions should be most valued out of everyone!
ReplyDeleteYear after year of teaching, a teacher will know whether the material in the curriculum was too much/too little and whether his/her students learned everything they need to know. There is a difference between a teacher getting through the material to satisfy the requirements of the curriculum and the students getting everything possible out of that school year. More often than not, students pass the current grade they are in, and move onto the next one. Only the teacher really knows whether those students who are now moving on are truly ready. If year after year a teacher is noticing that there is too much material in the curriculum, or the curriculum is not structured to allow the students to gain the most from their education, that needs to be fixed. This is done by all teachers being a part of the “team” who determines the curriculum. Until this happens, I do not believe students will get the most from their education, which only hurts us as a race in the long run.
Additionally, I agree with Dewey’s comment on page 6 of the article: “If the body is so unfit, how can it be trusted to carry out the recommendations or dictations of the wisest body of experts. “ He is basically implying here that if teachers are apparently too unfit to participate in the construction of the curriculum, how is it they can be trusted to do the more complicated task of actually teaching the information and getting through to students? It doesn’t make sense. If teachers are expected to relay and teach the information in the curriculum to their students, they should be a part of the construction of the curriculum, and their input should be valued above anyone’s.
-Christina M.
It was really intrigued to realize that the Dewey article was written in 1903. Obviously the idea of teaching with a more authentic and inquiry based curriculum is not a new idea. It is amazing to me that people have been writing about how our school system is flawed for over a century and not a lot has come from it. People are still making the exact same argument today.
ReplyDeleteEven when I was in school , for the most part, I felt that I was not actually deeply learning about a topic or even understanding it, rather I was memorizing the facts that someone else had discovered (just as Dewey points out). This was especially true of math. I could learn formulas and memorize how to work through a problem but had no idea why I was doing it. If someone were to have asked me why it is done that way or explain the deeper concept behind the math problem I would have no idea.
I have reflected on that and math a lot because I realized that just learning those formulas (which I have forgotten most of now) did not actually benefit me at all. They are now forgotten because I never learned for myself how to navigate through math is a way that made sense to me.
I fully agree with Dewey's argument and feel children must be able to learn deeply about topics and not just superficially. I think school needs to focus more on teaching kids to be problem solvers and investigators. This is the way to make sure that learning continues to take place throughout ones' life and that society continues to evolve. Once a child learns to be a problem solver and to discover through the scientific method, they can find out all of the facts we learn in school on their own and gain a much deeper understanding of the topic.
My question is: Can inquiry based learning exist when we have standardized tests that regulate what kids need to learn and how long they have to learn it? How can teachers encourage this kind of learning while making sure their students can succeed in the mandated tests?
We need a John Dewey Renaissance. We need someone like Dewey who can capture the nation’s attention and reform our education system. We need an educational advocate who is as articulate and as impassioned about reform as John Dewey was. He advocated for democracy and freedom within the educational system and he was successful on many levels in achieving it. Dewey’s influence came to the forefront at the beginning of the Progressive era. An era, according to Tom’s first lecture, that has passed us by in favor of a Jacksonian rebirth. If teachers are going to maintain any form of creative autonomy and individuality in the face of a Jacksonian resurgence, they need to fight for it, because otherwise it is going to slip through the cracks.
ReplyDelete-Justin Beattie
Both of the articles this week brought up several points that I feel need to be addressed in our current education system, however, the Dewey article I felt was the most significant. In this article Dewey says that in out current education system students are not given the freedom of intelligence. This is mostly due to the fact that there are so many restrictions placed on teachers and how the teach that it limits what they are able to do. I found this interesting as it relates back to the class discussion on charter schools and their "scripted" lesson plans and the Lowery article on how textbooks are biased in their information. I do feel that these points are sadly true and today, more than ever, we are reaching the point where teachers are being required to recite canned information rather than teach what they know. It is also ruining the idea of being a responsible professional by creating accountable transmitters of information.Dewey also states that students need social nurturing as well as intellectual stimulation which cannot happen if curriculums are scripted. In this the idea of educating the "whole person" is quickly diminishing. He also states that this form of education suppresses the students intellectually and this, in turn, leads to poor behavior as an outlet for this suppression. Overall I agreed with this article much more than the Garrison, which I felt was a very negative take on how teachers are viewed. He did bring up some good points about how teachers must resort to trickery when faced with administrative demands that are placed upon students, but overall I felt this article did not propose that many solutions to this current article. It is very interesting to note that two articles written almost 100 years apart have so much to talk about on the same topic.
ReplyDeleteLarry Taylor.
ReplyDeleteA guest speaker that spoke to the Middle Childhood Education M.Ed program in the fall said "Teaching is only as good as the learning that takes place." I believe in this statement which is tied can be tied to being innovative, culturally responsive, and enthusiastic teachers. Garrison writes that, "Many believe the greatest achievement of teaching is to free young minds to dream their own dreams and to vicariously experience in imagination the consequences of acts both wise and foolish." I agree with this statement and believe that as a teacher I need to facilitate helping my students become productive and active members in society. This is done not only by teaching them facts and information, but by helping them to learn to respect other perceptions, cultural backgrounds, beliefs, values, etc. Our country is becoming more diverse and we need teachers to help our students function in the ever-changing world.
I found Garrison’s “Teacher as a Prophetic Trickster” a very interesting and compelling essay. Garrison says that teachers turn to the trickster type and ways because they are trying to escape from dealing with rigid bureaucratic structures. These bureaucratic structures make teacher’s job very difficult. After the “No Child Left Behind” act, not much flexibility has been left for teachers and their classrooms. With standardized tests becoming state standards, many teachers are becoming frustrated. Their flexibility and creativity is taken away from them. Garrison says that more teachers need to strive to become tricksters. Teachers need to find ways of dealing with the rigid bureaucrats and still being creative teachers.
ReplyDeleteGarrison mentions standardized tests and that they are a “one size fits all”. Obviously no one is a one size fits all. Why would the government assume that everyone is a “one size fits all”. Maybe they think that it’s the easiest answer for them, but it’s certainly not the case. I know a very intelligent student that received average grades but almost did not graduate high school because he could not pass a section of the OGT. Perhaps this student did not excel in the test format. Everyone wheres different size clothes, so why shouldn’t everyone take different tests that FIT them?
This article does a very good job in explaining what teaching should be about, the child. Teachers and adminitrators sometimes get caught up in pleasing parents or higher up individuals that they work for. Instead, teaching should remain focused on the child.
ReplyDeleteAs I read this article, it came very clear to me that a teacher needs to be well-rounded to be a valuable asset to the classroom. Wanting to be an administrator someday, I found it very interesting to see individuals that ae being hired. Most individuals provide a uniqueness or creativeness that sets them above others. I think this article really shos the significance on this, and teachers need to be aware of this.
Finally, the teasting section of the article seems to not make sense to me. I don't see how one test can measure how smart an inidividual is. It is not fair to those students who do poorly with any test. How can you let a child not graduate from high school if he doesn't pass the OGT? I don't understand the logic behind this. Testing is a great tool to measure the intelligence of an individual. However, it should not be the only one. A childs worth ethic alone will tell you a lot about how successful he/she will be in life. The test doesn't take that into consideration.
SCOTT LAMAN
Garrison calls the teachers that he is discussing tricksters, but I do not think the inspirational teachers that he is referring to deserve a title that sometimes comes with a bad reputation. When I think of the word trickster, I think of someone who deceives simply for their own pleasure or advancement, when these teachers are “deceiving” the rules and other faculty in order to benefit their students. The teachers or tricksters should be given the title of “creative” or “role models”. The teachers that go out of their way to get their students interested in what they are learning deserve recognition and praise for their efforts and progress made with the students and not a slap on the wrist from supervisors because they deviated from the state mandated curriculum. The goal of education that Garrison outlines is “to free the young mind” and I agree with that statement. The purpose of school is not to simply learn the correct answers so that one can pass a test and the job of a teacher is not to simply spew out information. The purpose of a school and teacher is to open up the child to a world never imagined before with endless possibilities through learning and exploration with materials and people. If school was all about learning facts, computers would have taken over by now and all of the teachers would be out of a job, but the teachers are still employed because school also deals with learning about society and oneself. Granted none of these things not tested on the OGT or SAT. I loved the story about Ohanian who had a time machine reading space in her classroom for children to read in but also as a sort out office space for a special child. Thinking back on my own grade school experience, one of the things that sticks out most in my memories is in second grade my teacher made a reading igloo out of milk jugs and put books in it and after we were done with our work we could go and sit in there. This made reading fun and learning new things and ideas through our books fun because we were in our own little world inside the igloo. As a teacher it is important to understand that learning does not always occur through memorization of facts and test taking, but also through reading independently, playing, and experimenting. With standardized tests, all learning and teaching efforts are focused on the memorization of facts which, facts which the children will forget once the lesson is over. Through this article, Garrison gives teachers the go ahead to break from the curriculum in order to educate the students and open their minds and not focus on the standardized tests
ReplyDeleteKatie O'Connell
I wish there was a way to convert the Dewey article into language that a first-grader could understand without dilution, and require that it be read within the first years of public education - rather than the last few. It is my belief that building an intellectually free mind requires not only the presentation of facts, but the transference of a constant sense of skepticism that exists from the very beginning. I find the cycle of conditioning cruel in that many young children DO have a constant sense of wonder - of scientific thought. It is after years of merely memorizing and regurgitating facts that they are conditioned to accept these practices - just in time for them to become teachers themselves. I believe that this creates a type of "chicken or egg" situation in which no one knows which should come first - a new type of teacher or a new type of student. Teachers that can access and preserve the natural curiosities already present in children will help to bring about a type of rebirth in both teaching and learning simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteI might tend to agree with Rocha that schooling to a large degree is created citizens to be cast into a specific mold that often times fails to reproduce lovers of knowledge whose goal some greater philosophical enlightenment of the purpose of life. However, I think that because of the value placed on “education” in modern society that such is a consequence of attempting to apply “education” to a broad range of people. The flourishing fruit of the world of education in contemporary society of course flourished because of their own accord and not because of some compulsory institution, but can we all say that we would have made the same pursuit? I would pose this question to Rocha. Can we say that more lives are better or worse, even despite the ignorance of what you believe to be true education?
ReplyDelete"Many reformers are contending against the conditions which place the direction of school affairs, including the selection of texbooks, etc., in the hands of a body of men who are outside the school system itself, and who have not necesairly any expert knowledge of education and who are moved by non-educational motives"
ReplyDeleteThis section of Deweys artile piqued my interest. I think that teachers need to have more of a say when it comes to their students education, this includes the selction of which textbooks to use. At the same time I can understand both sides of the argument. Teachers must maintain a nationwide curriculum so every student has an equal opportunity to perform well on standarized tests that are required for higher education.
A quote from the Rocha article really caught my attention. Referring to the dying school, "A telling sign might be when teachers hate to be students-and, consequently, hate to be teachers- yet are equally committed to make their own students be and do that which they themselves hate." Teaching is one of the only professions in which you MUST care about your job. If you hate children, you're going to be a pretty lousy teacher. We are essentially raising the population to one day govern this country. This sounds like a pretty important job, right? You would never know it from the way teachers are being treated. Rocha writes about the death of school and questions "education." The educators, the teachers, are the life of education, not the government and public school system. However, the very people who claim to care about the schools and their best interest (those who working for the system) are the ones killing the life of it. How can we stop the self destruction of the schools?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the creativity of teachers I believe there are positive aspects and as well there can be negatives as well. I feel that a teacher should have the freedom to bring creativity and a unique aspect to the classroom however I think that there are some teachers now who try and bring these aspects to the classroom and they are not always effective. I feel that as educators we need to strive to motivate our students to do well in all aspects of their education. On the other side not everything can be creative and unique in the classroom due that there are only certain ways to teach certain subjects. I have seen many times in classrooms that teachers try and bring something new and different to the classroom however students do not get the most out of the content that they could. There are specific ways that a teacher can bring creativity to the classroom and as well ensure that students are still learning to their full potential. Therefore I would have to say that there can be proper and improper ways to bring new aspects to the classroom. We need to be careful as educators with how we do teach certain subjects because if we change the way teach and the students are not fully benefiting from this change then I would suggest that it is best to keep some traditions within the classroom to ensure students are recieving the most out of their education.
ReplyDelete- Cortney Hall
The Dewey reading did criticize many issues dealing with today's system of education. The fact that many of these criticisms are still valid today speaks volumes as to how few changes have occurred to this country's schooling system since this text was written by Dewey more than a century ago. Although many technological innovations have been introduced to schools over the years, the basic system has remained practically unchanged. This issue of a school district working democratically is a new way of thinking about how political systems outside of government work. I agree with the idea that teachers should have the power to discuss and set the core curriculum that is taught to their students on a daily basis. The system is flawed in my opinion if teachers do not have a say regarding curriculum taught in their classroom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dewey's argument in his article. I think that freedom of mind and intelligence really needs to be included and allowed in schools. The fact that schools are run by external authority is sad. And what is even worse is that teachers are "unfit to have voice in the settlement of important educational matters" (Pg 197). Teachers are professionals who have committed many years to learn how to teach, and I think they should be trusted to do so, instead of being told how and what to do. I really think that change needs to happen.....fast. Students need the hands-on learning experiences that Dewey shared. Taking students out into nature and teaching them about plants and animals is not only more educational and beneficial to the students than just reading about nature in textbooks, but it is also so much more interesting for the students and will encourage them to love learning instead of hating it.
ReplyDeleteSchool officials need to trust teachers and give some authority back to them so that they can teach in the efficient ways in which they were professionally taught.
Teachers are hard workers and need to be given the credit and freedom they deserve.
In his writing, Garrison mentions that when teachers can't connect to students can't connect to students or don't feel as if they are helping their student's grow, then it is likely that they will look elsewhere to obtain this "psychic reward". He writes that "empirical studies have shown that teachers enter teaching to obtain "creative autonomy" and the "psychic rewards" of teaching, and the best teachers leave if they cannot secure these desired goods. This is quite true with myself also. My reasoning behind choosing teaching as a career path has a lot to do with these "psychic rewards" and "creative autonomy" as well. I think that if individuals are going to enter the teaching field, in order to be effective and get the most out of their students, there needs to be some sort of concern vested in these children on their performance and individual growth. Should one continue teaching if they are fulfilling one of these needs (creative autonomy, psychic rewards), if the other isn't being met? Is there a way to ensure teacher's keep their student's best interest in mind first and foremost?
ReplyDelete--Eric Border
The main understanding that I got from both articles was the importance of teachers having some say in different aspects of the school, be it in their creativity or in choosing the curriculum or textbooks. I believe that teachers should be allowed to be creative, because a teacher’s creativity is what makes a topic really come alive to students. Teachers need to be allowed to think outside the box in terms of how things are taught. Students respond more to creativity and differentiated teaching styles than almost anything else, and I think it is important for teachers to have the option and ability to do this.
ReplyDeleteIn the Dewey article on idea that stuck out to me was the point that sometimes there is just one person who decided the entire curriculum for a school. I totally disagree with this, because they cannot know enough about each subject at each grade level to make these kinds of decisions. Teachers are the ones who best understand the subject area as well as the students and their pace of learning, so they should be able to have some say in setting the curriculum. Also, the Dewey article noted that sometimes it is not the teachers or even administrators who choose textbooks, but a group of people outside of the school who do so. This is another bureaucratic aspect of schools that I think is detrimental to the teachers and students. It does not make sense for people who are not involved in teaching or understanding the students to be choosing which textbooks to use, especially if it is in a school system that relies heavily on these books.
I found the Dewey article to be very interesting. He brings up a lot of good points regarding the lack of democracy within the education system. Teachers are often instructed what to teach, and how to teach it by the school board. Although it is good to try and ensure that all students are learning the same information in the same way, and therefore have an equal opportunity to succeed, it is probably not the best way for children to learn. I believe that a system such as this one fails to recognize that all students are unique. While the method put in place by the school board may work for some students, it will more than likely not work for all students, which should be the goal of education. It is impossible for a district to take into account the differences and needs of individual students when instructing teachers exactly what to teach and how to teach it. I agree that there should be standards, but teachers need to be allowed more freedom to make decisions regarding their own classrooms. Teachers know their students better than the school board, and therefore teachers, as professionals, should not only be allowed but expected to meet the needs of every student. Instead of giving specific instructions to teachers, districts should ensure that they are hiring the best possible teachers who are able to make creative lesson plans while still teaching the required material.
ReplyDeleteThis article really got me thinking about the reasons why some people do not consider teachers to be professionals. Often, teachers are not allowed to make decisions on their own such as executives or medical professionals. Do you think that if teachers were not only allowed but also expected to make greater decisions regarding their students learning that they would be seen more often as professionals in everyone's eyes?
I found the article to be extremely interesting and brought up numerous good points about teaching. As teachers it is our duty to hold our children in the highest regard and to help them get off to the best start possible. We as teachers must work together to help make sure that our students receive the best education possible, enabling them to explore their fullest potential. I strongly believe in the notion that each member in the faculty of a school should have a voice in what goes on around them, helping to make sure that decisions are made democratically. This ensures that change takes place to help suit the children’s needs, limiting the chance that they will not be able to relate or concentrate on the information. I have personally seen the effects of such change as I have had certain teachers who have seemed to be out of touch with reality and led more of an authoritarian classroom compared to the more open atmosphere of a teacher who stresses individuality. Learning was much easier in the more open classroom, resulting in students feeling more free to express their ideas and learn the material. The one problem that arises is how as teachers do we find an equal balance between the two extremes, allowing our children the freedom to express themselves without getting too out of control? In order to help spur such change, it is the job of the schools to hire teachers with unique and creative voices that will help to expand the children’s’ education. These types of traits can help the children see the material from a whole new perspective, potentially allowing them an easier or even better way to learn the material. Teachers and the administration must bond together in hiring teachers and planning a curriculum in order to make sure that our children are best prepared for the future.
ReplyDeleteThe Dewey article brought up many personal points of interest for me, and I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with most of his arguments about modern education. Modern education and the stifling of students' freedom of intelligence seems to be a main focus in schools today as the 'system' has transformed the content that is taught and the methods used to teach. This 'system' that is far too often an autocratic one is bogging teachers down and limiting if not stripping them of their creativity and independence as teachers. I strongly agree with Dewey's point on this topic of autocracy. How can one person, who generally is unfamiliar with teaching in a classroom to begin with, make all of the decisions regarding how teachers should instruct their classes, while making sure that only a specific predetermined curriculum is followed. Nothing about this seems fair. So often today in schools, this 'system' seems to only be making things worse for teachers. Teachers are becoming frustrated with the administrators who lack understanding, and this frustration affects they teach their classroom, often leading to teacher burn out. This 'system' also tends to keep low quality teachers that don't care if their creativity is stifled or if the students are being challenged to be intellectually free. Unfortunately, this teacher that doesn't put up a fight to retain creativity and freedom is often favored by the administration.
ReplyDeleteAs Dewey states, the modern education greatly affects the teachers and the students. I think parents should be a target audience for this article because often times parents are not at all aware of the details that greatly effect their own children's educational lives. If they knew more about the administration, decisions effecting teachers, and the teacher's effect on students as a result, they may be more inclined to step up and question the authority and decisions made by the administration, and can greatly effect the way the school runs. These issues are extremely important to parents and students and should be made known.
I have honestly been trying to wrap my head around these articles, and I must say that I cannot. No matter how many times I try to read them, they make no sense to me.
ReplyDelete-Katie Petrolo
I was really drawn to the article about the prophetic trickster. I thought the author did an excellent job tying long standing understandings of trenscendental education through theology into the mirco effect of the education we obtain from those around us. What is interesting is the conflict presented in both articles, democracy and trickster, between the act of standardization and the issue of flux in the modern mind. Both articles recognize the barriers between student and teacher and both register the need for creative and brain wise thinking to bridge the gap. The strict regimented teacher may do well for a long time but after the slow churning of change reaches its peak they are left behind as those teachers who are flexible and imaginiitive lead the fore front. This issue creates an argument against NCLB and asks how can we even begin to define a standard of education in a society when the times and what is being learned out runs the standard as soon as it's thought, let alone put into practice.
ReplyDeleteThe Dewey article was slightly depressing to me. I found it sad that the faults that Dewey exposed in 1903 are the same flaws that plague our current educational system. It seems that I constantly hear about the horrors of the system, but yet, there have been no changes. There are outcries about the institution of the school board and the politicization of education, the “failing” schools, remedial students and dropouts. Yet, it all continues. Various methods have been tried, like “No child left behind,” but still our students lag. So what is the answer? To Dewey, it’s allowing teachers to have the flexibility to expand from the confines of rote lesson plans and standard curriculum, and emphasis inquiry and experimentation: to move learning from the classroom to the real world. This seems like a great answer – give teachers authority and treat them as professionals so they can lead our students – but, alas, it ain’t happening!
ReplyDeleteSo I like Garrison’s solution in response : take authority back! I agree that while there should be a certain general standard or level of education, the methods, the lesson plans, and the teaching should be left up to the teacher. Since this is not the case, teachers do have to be creative. How can the student learn to think critically, to use the full capability of their minds if their teachers don’t teach them to and they (the teachers) don’t have to do it themselves? Throughout my education, I learned the most from my teachers who challenged me, who made learning interesting, who themselves were creative. I want to be that teacher, the one who opens up the world of reading and the potential of the imagination. The one who sees the possibility in students and teaches them that life holds possibility. So I guess if I have to be a “trickster,” then it sounds good to me!
"Many believe the greatest achievement of teaching is to free young minds to dream their own dreams and to vicariously experience in imagination the consequences of acts both wise and foolish." While this I agree with, I have to wonder, how good are teachers if we've gone through the same school and we've been fed a false history? I love the idea of being creative and challenging. I know that I've learned the most from classes where the teacher challenges me to change the way I look at something and how I see it. This is just like Math 105, 106, and 107. That taught me exactly what this article was talking about. I learned how to think critically and how to look at things from a new perspective as well as experience the success that students feel when they have positive reinforcement and many successful encounters with learning. Yes, I agree with Garrison, teaching should be left up to the teacher. However, we are forced to teach to the test with very guided curriculums that leave little room for re-teaching (if needed) which then correlates with Dewey's article in a sense that politics are a major reason why we have standardized tests and inflexibility.
ReplyDeleteI actually love the Valedictorian article. I thought the point of it was excellent. I feel the problem with schools though is not necessarily the teachers, but the school board guidelines that have to be followed so the students can learn whats "on the test". I know from when i loved in New York that we had the New York Regents and we had to learn "stuff for the test." I remember my teachers always saying we need to do this because its on the test. So i dont feel the problem is the teachers, i feel as though there is too much pressure on them because of State tests. Although there are so many ways they can be a lot more creative in teaching what has to be done. I totally agree with studying really hard you will just continue to learn and that you can never get it done any quicker. I used to think that a lot of the HDFS classes at Ohio State all teach basically the same thing so i wondered why they are all necessary to take, but there are so many different aspects of different things that you can learn and with kids there is always something new to learn. Children would really enjoy school so much more if teachers were hired based on how unique they are and creative and fun. I know teachers love their job, and they would love it so much more if they have more of a chance to show their own creativity without pressure of just getting stuff in the kids heads for their tests. Children would also have more of an understanding for things rather than just learning it to forget it after the test. So my question would be, is it ever going to change because the children in school now are the future and someday will be teaching others?
ReplyDelete