I'm back, I'm back, I'm back. Funny story, there are no seminar nights during spring break, so also no posts. I probably should have mentioned that before disappearing for a fortnight, but better late than never, right? Moving on.
The more time I spend experiencing the education institution -- especially public schools, but others are guilty as well -- the more I decide I need to be a teacher. Why? Because as far as I can tell, right now, the vast majority of them SUCK.
Is that a great reason? No. I do have good ones, this just isn't among them. It's a conclusion I've reached, guided by enormous hubris. It comes from the feeling that I can do a much better job than those currently employed as educators. Perhaps this isn't as true as I think. However, given some of the things I've seen and heard from teachers recently, I don't have a right not to try.
Why do we learn? That's a question that everyone sort of has to answer for themselves, but there are some answers that are clearly inferior to others. I'm in college. I've heard my fair share of "you need to get educated so you can get a well-paying job" and even (much more convincing, I confess) "nobody you want to marry will want you if you don't". Getting a job and marrying worthily are pretty good goals in life, but they're not really good reasons to learn. Still, as of this afternoon, they are no longer the worst I've ever heard.
Today, I heard a teacher say the following to a young girl: "You need to learn to read. It's not cute. If you don't learn to read, you can't go to first grade with all your friends."
Now, let's break that down. One: "You need to learn to read." TRUE. Reading is pretty necessary for functioning as an adult these days. You can't drive if you can't read signs. You'll have a devil of a time shopping if you can't read labels. And given how most people communicate these days, the ability to read an email or text will be pretty crucial to many parts of your life. This is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of critical activities that have "the ability to read" as a prerequisite.
Two: "It's not cute" I don't know what the student in question was doing just at that moment; my back was turned. But I will say this: she's five years old, and pretty incapable of being not cute. Insofar as I am doing my utmost to give the educator in question some benefit of the doubt, let's assume the student was somehow expressing satisfaction in her failures. Maybe that's not the best reaction, but I feel like the part I can't stress enough is this: she's five.
Now, on to the part that is actually upsetting simply in its words. Three: "If you don't learn to read, you can't go to first grade with all your friends." This may be a factual statement. If we take it to its logical conclusion, we arrive at something like "and you'll be in kindergarten forever." I never went to kindergarten, so I don't know exactly how much of a threat this is, but let's assume kindergarten is a terrible place nobody could ever want to be in longer than absolutely necessary. Still, of all the myriad motivations someone could have for learning to read, is this a good one to reinforce in a kid's head?
For one thing, it strengthens this bizarre mindset most of us have about our lives, that it's all about getting to the next step, the next level. From kindergarten to first grade, from elementary school to middle, to high, to college, to grad school...to a job...to the next promotion...to what? You can level up all you like, but the closest thing real life has to beating the final boss and "winning"...is death. Think about it: what do the characters in a video game do when you beat it? Nothing. That's the end of the game. That's a pretty terrible goal in real life. (And that is coming from someone who is in no way afraid of death, has been known to welcome it, but still thinks it's not, in and of itself, something to strive for. It'll happen no matter what, you can let it do so in its own time.)
For another thing, why do adults constantly gripe about peer pressure and how much it'll ruin kids' lives if they succumb to it on issues such as drug use, but still use social appearances to try to convince kids to do things that the adults want them to do? I posed this in the tone of a rhetorical question, but I am going to answer it anyway. Peer pressure is remarkably powerful. Like all powers, it can be used for good or for evil and must therefore be used cautiously. In this respect, promoting a desire to learn to read is probably one of the better uses out there. Still, it is important to be careful about the exact method used to reach even a good end with peer pressure. The teacher this afternoon didn't say a word to this little girl about all the stories her friends couldn't share with her if she couldn't read or the fact that she couldn't get letters from them. The teacher skipped straight to the "level up" mentality. This little girl wouldn't be able to "go to first grade with all her friends", as if first grade were something worthy in itself or a necessary part of having friends.
Now, these are the reasons I have for thinking that this scenario was very poorly handled by the teacher in question this afternoon. If you're the kind of person who follows debates a lot, though, you'll know that after someone is done complaining, the next logical question is "well, how are you going to fix it?" This is especially important in this case because I opened my post saying that it is partly the shortcomings of the teachers I see now that encourages me to become one. What, I think I can do better? Yes, and here's how.
I know literally hundreds of children. The number of children I know is some three- or more digit number. (I did the math to check.) That only covers the ones I know professionally, that is, have been paid to care for. On top of that number, I know what is probably a high two-digit number of children who are my family members and friends. Of these hundreds of children, the number that have never asked a question in my presence is -- or is very close to -- zero. Children are naturally desirous to learn. They don't want to learn so they can get to the next grade, they don't want to learn so they can get a good job, they want to learn because knowing stuff is cool. The more we cram them with the notion that learning is for the sake of employment or status, though, the more they'll believe us, and the less they'll want to do it for its own sake.
You want a kid to learn something? That kid has to want to learn it. When I was in second grade, I wanted nothing to do with learning to write cursive. I could print perfectly acceptably (I thought), and I didn't see what was the point. My mother told me a story in which I was at a lecture by one of my favourite authors at the time, and I wanted to take notes. She said I would want to know cursive then because I would be able to write faster than I could print, and I wouldn't miss as much. To this day, I prefer cursive.
So, if a child needs to learn to read, do you know what I'd try first? I'd read to him. He would quickly discover that books contain all kinds of other awesome stuff that he wants to learn. If he were a stubborn study still, I'd start sometimes reading him only most of a book, leaving off just at the good parts, so that in order to find out what happens, he must learn to read it for himself. Would this work for every child ever, get them reading overnight? No, of course not. But the interest generated by this method would probably go a long way toward motivating those who are having more difficulty learning to read to want to get more out of exercises in rote phonics.
Is it a perfect idea? No, of course not, none are. Still, (perhaps) I flatter myself it's an infinitely better strategy than using the threat of being unable to advance through an artificial ranking system.
No comments:
Post a Comment