Finland's education system, again

Look, I know Finland doesn't have "the diversity" the US does, but how do economic , social and/or racial differences play into appropriate programs for the developmental age of children. Piaget didn't say, "Oh, only Swiss children benefit from play and social discovery at young ages."

Sure, there have always been shifts in how children and their education should be viewed - from seeing them as stupid or likely to die and therefore ignorable to mini-adults that can be trained to act properly (think Mozart and his sister). In the wake of the birth of psychology and modern democratic societies, the importance of an educated electorate became more clear. John Dewey's beliefs on education, while liberal compared to many education reforms we see being put into place today, also had the practical purposes of preparing people for life on their own, out in society, both in the here and now AND the future. In an almost Zen-like focus on the present day, Dewey sought to make education in the US beneficial the development of children INTO adulthood, not just for adulthood. On the contrary, today's overall goals for education often seem to be focused on the future. Ends-focused reforms that look to expand the eligible workforce in particular areas, such as STEM fields are not bad. In fact, they are also practical when thinking in the long run. What is not good practice are the reforms that use standardization through testing and curricula to ensure that certain goals will be "measurably" reached.

I am not calling for teachers to have no accountability to some higher standard. What I would like is that teachers, if given a certain benchmark to meet before being hired, such as particular educational requirements (Masters degree, classroom experience, etc), should be entrusted to know what is going to work in their classroom for their students. With the additional layer of actual supervisory guidance (and not check the box, standardized observational systems), teachers can grow their practice into an art, rather than be penalized for a random assortment of missed checked boxes on a rubric. All of this reminds me of the scene in "Uncle Buck" where Buck goes to talk about his niece's progress in 1st grade:

The VP's attitude is not uncommon in public education. The desire to mold children into good little citizens from day one seems to be, for people of this mindset, something that is done through having children sit in one place for a long time beginning at a young age. Some children ARE predisposed to sit and listen, others are not. In fact, many are not, especially in early elementary education.It can be argued that sitting and not doing actually impairs their ability TO learn.

Today, we know so much (and still so little) about how the human brain and body function - more so than any other time in human history, and yet, we still continue to stuff everyone into the same sort of boxes that continue to fail percentages of the population. No one is asking the education system to wholly embrace Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligences" model as scientifically tried and true, but by just being in the world, anyone observant enough can see that people approach problems in different ways. What always kills me about many of the administrators that I come across is that they will spout the importance of differentiated instruction and respect for various learners in the classroom while forcing their faculty to act in lock step. The panopticon-style, mass institutionalization of children will lead to the ultimate end of public education in the US in two ways- it will crush children's ability to adapt through being able to explore, try and fail in the safe confines of a classroom and it will eradicate a teacher's capacity to creatively express the importance of sociocultural and content based learning.

For those who see this as another "public school teacher complaining about shit" post, well maybe consider this- it will also contribute to an electorate who votes in an extremist- whether you see that as Trump OR Sanders- due to their 'tiredness' of the establishment.

Selling Our Children's Futures

Personalized Learning, part-time faculty and an end to education

If you're not a teacher or have never worked in a school, you may read this editorial and say, "Eh, so what?" But parents, let's be honest. Think about the amount of time YOU yourself waste when on a computer or a personal device. Or think about how annoyed you get when your child ignores your questions about their day because they're scrolling through Facebook or texting their friends or Snapchatting a pic of the dog instead of making eye contact with you for 30 seconds.

Not to say we're here yet, but imagine that your kid is supposed to "learn" by sitting in front of a computer all day. In this scenario, all tenured teachers were fired, and in their stead, the school district purchased personal devices (laptops, let's say) and an online curriculum for each student. Then part-time assistants were hired to ensure your student stayed on task. How do you think your child's learning experience would change?

Part of the public school experience IS the social experience. As a teacher, I can tell you that more than just learning historical content knowledge happens on a daily basis in my room.Even at a high school level, students learn how to: manage their time, advocate for themselves by asking questions and/or asserting their opinions, listen to the thoughts of others and respond in a constructive way, practice social etiquette by sharing space with other people and of course they also learn the particulars of the content for the day. Sure, my students could go home, read the textbook or article and then do some online exercises that are graded via an online program. From that, I could tell that either they have good reading comprehension skills or that they're adept at cheating off of a classmate. What I cannot tell is how they feel about the information, what questions they have regarding it, and how they'd apply their knowledge in particular scenarios. 

Think about the situation in this sense - would you entrust your neighbor to watch your toddler while you were at work at an unauthorized day care they were running in their home? You might have to if you had no other options. But DO you have other options? Would you feel safe dropping your 2 year old off in a room with 10 other children and one attendant, your neighbor, for 8 hours? Would you feel more comfortable if the daycare had more than one attendant? Or if there was a set schedule for the day? Or if you knew your neighbor had a teacher certification? If s/he had CPR and first aid certification?

Does the human connection have a cost? The answer simply is yes.

Of course, full time faculty cost more in some respects- like in NJ, maybe your property taxes are higher. But what benefits are there to skimping out on the future of America? Cheapest isn't always best.

Democracy's Failings

"I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government." -George Wallace

George Wallace, segregationist governor of Alabama and candidate for president multiple times, while far more elegant than Donald Trump, had the same core principal that "political correctness" and other forms of liberal ideology (like an opposition to segregation) were ruining this country. Reread his quote above to note the similarity in rhetoric to what Trump is saying today. In the recent weeks, Trump's role as a charismatic showman has won him a series of primaries and garnered much national attention in the media. The media spotlight on his campaign has also shone a light on a darker side of those who support him - not just those who love "telling it like it is" or those who are swayed by literal dick-size talk and bravado, but also the people who take what he's saying as a return to a "purer, simpler and greater" America, where there was less diversity and thusly, fewer problems.

Lifting oppressed minorities up does not stamp out another group's rights. Sharing the same basic rights does not demean anyone's existence. As a teacher, I often have to deal with the ignorant and sour grapes commentary of people who insist that I've got it all - that it's not fair I have job security, a benefits package, 10 month contract, etc. As a member of a union, our group stands united against being stripped of labor concessions that help us to succeed as educators, such as tenure status (to protect against unfair and often political firings), workload and manageable administrative duties. This can also be the path employees in other industries take - unionizing to protect their interests against a bottom line of profit. Teachers' or other labor unions have not stripped anyone of their right to collectively bargain. In fact, our continued presence should provide hope. Instead, politicians have repeatedly used union action as a scapegoat for economic ills, blinding the average voter to the fact that the people most in charge of the economy are those NOT most like them- the millionaire living in the neighboring town or the politicians authorizing bad investments of public monies.

The backlash against unions is one thing, but Trump's calling out of people on their personal identifiers - Muslim, Black, Mexican, differently abled - marks a deeper, more visceral discontent than simply political. Whether he intends to or not, he's struck a chord of hatred based on personal and even biological difference. People cannot change their skin tone, birthplace or ethnic identity. To hate someone for any of these unchangeable aspects of their identity will only result in a violent outburst. Trump's continued race toward the GOP nomination shows the failings within our own society to promote inclusivity, openness, and empathy, all qualities needed for an actual democratic society to survive. Without the ability to allow others (not like us) into a democratic process, we have to be willing and open to their experiences. This line of thought can and also should be levied at intolerant liberals who judge and condemn non-liberals without providing opportunity for productive learning, discussion, and growth by either side.

                          So, until then, maybe everyone can just shut up and listen for once.