Are the complexities of teaching likely to become greater or less in the future? Why?

It seems to me that the complexities of being a teacher will only increase. Our society is becoming more complex. It’s demands are greater. If the resources for schools continue to decrease, that creates a huge challenge of doing more with less. But when the resources increase again, there will be a great demand for change and improvement. The pressure for results will continue to increase but in a political system pressures to perform are usually accompanied by a host of factors which make improving outcomes harder. Technology will continue to evolve but that merely creates a steeper learning curve for the teacher and a disruption in existing teaching methods. Knowledge will continue to expand exponentially, driving change in both curriculum content and science-based teaching methods.

In my lifetime, not only will technology evolve but new technologies will emerge that will change our world in untold ways. Technologies that exist now will increase in power and impact. Cell phones alone have the power to change everything. Already I can make and practice flash cards on my phone. I can set the program to drill me with smart algorithms which adapt to what I’ve learned. I can be paged, texted or called. I can hear audio and watch audio-video. I can do calculations. I can even create documents, slide presentations, and spreadsheets. I can access the internet and it can access me. Each and every one of these attributes has major opportunities for school and learning.

I’m not sure if this is a saving grace or a tragedy but one other thing I am also confident of with regard to technology is that the actual uptake of the high tech possibilities will be ferociously slower than common sense would suggest. Yes, the technology speeds ahead but the world adapts to those changes at a very slow pace. We have already passed the famous fictional dates of 1984 and 2001 and in each case found ourselves significantly below the overall technology achievements imagined by the authors. That is the normal state of things. What could be done in the classroom and what is being done are very different. It seems like SmartBoards are the cutting edge at the moment and they are both not that high tech and wildly less effective than a proper use of that technology would allow.

So, yes, the world will keep getting more complex and teaching will keep getting more complex. But teaching at least will only move forward at a pace that the average human brain can tolerate. Sometimes I wonder if that’s true of the world as a whole…

Based on your experience and background, what challenges do you foresee in entering the education profession?

One thing I have learned won’t be an issue is stress from the hectic nature of school. I was standing knee deep in chaos a couple of weeks ago and realized that I had just about gotten to the comfortable operating level of noise and activity that I am so familiar with from trading. I’m not sure that’s a good thing in general, but it does give me great comfort knowing that I won’t break down like Ahnold in Kindergarten Cop. 🙂

Back to the question, there is no particular challenge I see as a problem. I do see a number of areas where I will need to feel my way and be very careful, reflective and flexible as I go.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am still working on discipline. I like an orderly classroom and tend to believe a credible threat goes a long way to preventing its use. But I also believe and have seen the power of positive reinforcement. I’d like to mostly work with carrots but have a (metaphorical) stick handy somewhere, I think.

I do well in class with “boy problem energy.” “Johnny kicked me” is pretty easy for me. But I’ve had several “girl problem energy” situations (“Sally hates me”) which defied all of my normal tools. It’s almost hard for me to describe because it is so alien to me, but I know I will need the extra tools of listening and honoring such a conversation while at the same time not indulging it. And I’ll get better with practice. 

I need to have more numbers between zero and ten. I tend to be more zero or ten as in “This is good”, “This is bad”. I’ll need that both for evaluating my students and, particularly, in discussing those students with their parents. I also tend to have more judgement about those analyses than is productive, meaning I need to have more room for little Johnny to be exuberant or easily distracted or slow to read or whatever. I think an ideal teacher honors where each child is in the class in terms of progress. I tend to have that essentialist impulse to want every child to be where I want them to be.

It’ll be interesting to see how I do in the school social setting. I’ve very pleased with my relationships at my daughter’s school but I’m ‘just a parent’ so the rules and expectations are different. However, I intend to be friendly and cooperative with other teachers and administrators and remember my place as ‘newbie.’

I think that’s about it. My main goal in becoming a teacher is to work with children to prepare them and help them as best I can within the grade level slice I’m given. If I remember that’s what it’s all about, the rest will fall into place, I think.

Which philosophy of education do you think is most prevalent now?

I think it’s clear that American educational philosophy is dominantly and increasingly essentialist.  Essentialists believe that “learning should focus on essential basic skills, such as reading, writing, mathematics and, to a certain extent, science and geography” (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005, page 217). It is also characterized by a belief that “there is a critical core of information that all people should possess” (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005, page 218). This aligns completely to the current focus on standards (“the critical core of information”) and standardized testing (“that all people should possess”).

As I’ve said elsewhere in this forum, post-modernism in my experience does have influence on curriculum content but seems to have little power as a consensus philosophy and less over the overall structure or goals of educators at the elementary school level. Likewise, perennialism seems to have little or no influence over curriculum and educational philosophy today. Contemporary educational philosophy has little room for ‘great works’ (other than a very few exceptions like Shakespeare) and less for the concept of eternal ideas and values.

Progressivism is interesting. Labaree’s analysis makes complete sense to me. Progressivism is really two separate philosophies. The romantic, philosophical wing of progressivism derives from Dewey and represents the child-centric, artistic (for want of a better concise description) meme that pervades our society’s discussions of education. While this philosophy remains pervasive and powerful in discussion, it has little and lessening power over actual policy. The ‘administrative’ progressives (centered by Labaree on Edward Thorndike) focus instead on efficiency and social engineering. We still see their influence in IQ testing, tracking and vocational education but even this seems to be losing out to the essentialists. Perhaps the societal economic structures these administrative progressives intended to support are themselves fading away. Certainly, fear over the lack of seemingly fundamental skills in so much of our youth seems to have claimed priority over ‘higher’ concepts like social engineering.

As I reflected elsewhere, I am far from convinced that this essentialist move towards ‘core’ standards and testing can actually accomplish its stated objectives. Like so much of the reductionist modern impulse, it may be that too much is lost in the cold reduction of life to ‘essentials’. Twain is said to have quipped that analyzing comedy is like dissecting a frog, both seem to suffer in the process. Perhaps I am a philosophical progressive at heart (or have sympathies in that direction) but it seems to me that students and their education are similarly at risk from the ‘dissection’ of the body of learning and experience included in their education. 

How do demographics, culture, and politics influence the educational philosophies of school systems?

Each of demographics, culture and politics have major influences on the educational philosophies of school systems. This happens in at least two major ways, the demands they create and the input they have.

Demographics in particular create unique and powerful demands on the school system. SES and its correlated factors strongly influence the situation among students. According to Kauchak & Eggen (2005), low SES students generally score lower on intelligence and achievement tests, get lower grades, and have more attendance and disciplinary problems. These issues would appear to have a significant influence on the philosophical choices of the school district. It is easy to see how low SES school districts might tend towards essentialist philosophy: “Let’s just get the kids the basics at least!”

This may be an incorrect instinct. Perhaps these districts as much or more than middle or high SES districts cannot afford the drudgery inherent in a more standards based, results oriented philosophy. Perhaps there, more than anywhere else, a school philosophy which allows the students to discover themselves (progressivism) or a philosophy which teaches that there are “time honored absolutes” (perennialism) (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005, page 229) or even a system which teaches against the dominant social paradigm (post-modernism) might inspire, influence and serve them better. In some cases, each of these arguments have been made and even tried. But it is too easy to see how the grinding fear of failure drives the districts to try to at least “get the basics right” through essentialism.

I am a CPR instructor and one of the very first things I was taught was that if I am doing CPR, the person is already dead. I can’t hurt them. This is a very freeing idea, allowing CPR practitioners to focus away from their natural fear of a dire situation and onto the putting their best efforts into their craft. Likewise, I wonder if this essentialist instinct as applied to the hardest hit demographic communities isn’t missing the fact that conventional, fear-based approaches have already failed these communities. Perhaps love-based, aspirational philosophies might work better or, anyway, as well but in a more empowering, humanistic fashion. 

Culture and politics also create demands for particular philosophical approaches. Cultural norms may well effect what is acceptable in terms of educational philosophy. As an example, a district supporting an avant garde university community might find itself under pressure to reflect post-modern values and philosophy in its curriculum. Cultural norms certainly effect what is acceptable in terms of educational outcomes, which in turn demands philosophies supporting or expected to support those desired outcomes.

Finally, demographics, culture and politics all influence educational philosophy at the macro, philosophical level as well. As mentioned above, a university community might well demand a post-modern template. Religious conservatives might advocate a perennialist focus on religious values and absolutes. High SES communities might look past test scores to imagine their children in the workplace, demanding a more problem solving, flexible philosophy and curriculum, a la progressivism. Locked in failure and fear of failure, it is natural that low SES communities might simply demand that their kids be “taught to read and write”. Cultural norms might well even influence the degree to which communities feel empowered to advocate for their children.

Looked at this way, it is clear that there is much more to the choice of educational philosophy than simple intellectual appeal. Powerful political constituencies will gravitate to philosophies that address their cultural, political or demographic experiences and concerns. 

Reference

Kauchak, P. & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

What kinds of controversies exist in curriculum?

At the macro-level, curriculum is a highly political discussion.

For people motivated by gender, race or class identities, how often these groups are portrayed and how they are represented is a major focus of attention.

Of course, there is major social controversy over creationism versus evolutionism in school curriculums.

More subtly, the portrayal of American history and patriotism is a subject of conflict between traditionalists and post-modernists.
 
More conventionally, there is constant conflict over educational philosophies. Many philosophical battles have been lost. Perennialism is largely dead in American public schools. Post-modernism is largely in contention as a teaching philosophy (as opposed to a filter on what is acceptably included in curriculum) at the collegiate level and above. But a robust battle exists between essentialists and progressivists. The NCLB movement and other sources of pull towards ‘basics’ and tight compliance to standards represent the essentialist argument. Those forces calling for a diversified curriculum including arts, music, PE and a more general, student centered curriculum are the modern heirs of progressivism.

Unfortunately, controversy exists at a very basic level in curriculum as well. It would seem any academic area are with more than one representative group has competing ‘official’ views on what the standards should be and thus what curriculum should contain.

Last, but hardly least, is the 200-plus year old fight about which political entity should control curriculum. Ceeded in the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate education rests constitutionally with the states. But the federal government (see NCLB), the states and the local governments all are in continual strife over who controls education, especially curriculum.
Reference

Kauchak, P. & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Would your role as a teacher change, based on the socio-economic status of the students and the community?

I think it would be considerably more challenging to work in low SES communities. The statistics in our text are daunting. High absenteeism, high drop out rates, challenging family situations, parents with little time, inclination or resource to support education, major distractions and pitfalls in the community. As I said in a previous post, it feels like teachers in those communities are standing beneath an avalanche.

The first thing a teacher would need is committment. It is no small thing, teaching in that environment. It would necessary to be clear on why the teacher went to work each day. It would have to about the kids. Not the parents. Not the school system. Not the salary. The kids. And even that would be tricky. I think such a teacher would have to be prepared to lose regularly. There’s no way even the best teacher could successfully support each child through the year. So such a teacher would have to be prepared to go beyond their capabilities for each child and still lose often. Very hard. On the other, this is perhaps the noblest fight. Fighting for children who nobody else is fighting for. If such a teacher could endure the challenge and the failures, they’d have every right to sleep soundly, knowing that angels would be on their shoulders each day, cheering.

It is true that there are elements of these challenges in communities of any SES. But the density would be so much higher.

 In which kind of school – elementary, middle/junior high, or high school – do teachers have the most autonomy? The least autonomy? What implications does this have for you as a prospective teacher?

It seems to me that elementary school teachers have the most autonomy. Alone in the classroom, the playground and the lunchroom with their students day after day they are both isolated and autonomous. This suits me fine. When I worked in the corporate world I thrived in branch offices, far from authority, even far from my boss. Typically, I reported to somebody a 12 hour plane flight away and that was about the right distance. I knew that help was available and I was generally wise enough to seek it when necessary but day to day I was quite comfortable setting my own strategy. I can already see that my relationship to the core curriculum will be creative and somewhat unorthodox. But at the same time, I am extremely familiar with the concept that unorthodox only survives if it produces extraordinary orthodox results and remains in full communication.

I also am very excited by the prospect of spending a full school year with the same group of students, getting to know them in detail and helping each one proceed to the full measure of their ability. It seems to me that the relative independence, authority and autonomy of elementary school teachers supports that intention as well.

What pivotal historical influences do you think have most influenced today’s educational system?  How?  Why?

I agree with Sheri that NCLB is a huge influence on education today, but, for the sake of diversity, I’ll cite the common school movement as the foundation of today’s educational system in America. The common school movement established the principal that all children should have a certain kind of formal education and that the government had the responsibility and authority to act in that regard (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005). The nature and structure of our system today still reflects decisions and beliefs established then. Eduction is, by and large, public. It is controlled locally (by the municipalities and states) but with considerable interest and intervention from the federal government. It takes a certain European form, with core subjects, classes, bells and even the layout of classrooms reflecting the ideas of the 19th century.

For better or worse, something the size of the American educational system takes on a life of its own. Teachers have much invested in preserving the usefulness of the skills and experience they possess. Administrators are safest in a static system. Unions protect their own interests and, usually, the interests of the members. For parents, the public school system is the benchmark. The system makes it clear that children must conform to that system and parents seeking alternatives do so at great social risk. Politicians, of course, do what gets them elected and messing with teachers, administrators and parents is rarely a solid electoral strategy. Thus, changes when they happen generally come in the form of more money, more programs, and more demands for output. In the end, the only things that change are things that everybody can agree upon. Everybody will only agree when their individual needs are met. This is frequently not the change that meets the needs of the students.

To be fair, there is more to the current situation than the enormous inertia of a giant human system. There is also the breathtaking uncertainty of what exactly would be a superior system. Would a purely federal system be more efficient or perhaps one managed at the lowest political level, the municipality? Would more art work better, both as subject matter and as an approach to education? Or is more science (again in both meanings) the ticket for superior outcomes? Interestingly, the one thing that seems to have more or less universal agreement are the generalities of what should be taught. ELA, math and science, and a certain amount of civics/history, these are the core that seem beyond dispute. The rest (spirituality, physicality, artistic expression) are largely seen as optional at best, though significant elements of society value them highly. Likewise, there’s no significant pressure to revisit the military-industrial model of the school as established in the 19th century and still dominant today. The organization of students into classes, the rigidity of scheduling, teach/test cycles, classroom structure; all of these seem to be beyond debate in the mainstream.

Given the vast range of alternatives, known and unknown, it is impressive how powerfully the origins of American education echo today. 

Reference

Kauchak, P. & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

What personal attributes do you feel that teachers should possess to integrate both the art and the science of teaching?

Integrating art and science is one of the great challenges of Western Civilization. The world we have made is increasingly lopsided towards science. The guiding principal seems to be “More, better, faster”. Education continues to move towards science over art and is accelerating. The pressure is towards more time on ‘academics’, less time on the expressive arts (including physical activity and play). The pressure is on more time absorbing data, less time learning to creatively problem solve. Education is limiting towards the left-lobed bottleneck of teaching to tests. Thus the first quality a teacher needs to integrate art and science is an appreciation of the wholeness of knowledge.

Our society is reductionist. We don’t eat broccoli, we take pills with the specialized anti-oxidant properties of broccoli. We don’t drink orange juice, we take vitamin C powder to fight colds. We don’t feed our babies mother’s milk, we feed them ‘formula’. There is a strong and completely arrogant belief that everything can be made better by breaking it down into component parts and isolating the ‘important stuff’. Integrating art and science requires moving against this trend, towards wholeness. Thus, teachers seeking to integrate art and science in how they teach (and what they teach) must have or develop the ability to see the ‘whole’. The first whole to be seen is their objective: to fill their students with the love and desire for knowledge. They must start from there and build their days, weeks and year around the skeleton of joyful learning and the core knowledge appropriate for the class or age. The skeleton should be filled out with wholeness containing the essences of the core learning and the excitement and wonder to make that core learning take place in a context of whole knowledge and fun. This is no small thing. It takes the courage to believe children will absorb the core knowledge from the full mass. It takes the knowledge to find whole knowledge that excites the students. And it take skill to present that is such a way as to appeal to all the different kinds of learners and to tease out the core knowledge from the mass. Finally, it takes the energy to go beyond the curriculum, to create a context and world in which the curriculum can become a valuable, instructive element. 

So to summarize, teachers need specific skills regarding teaching and learning, general knowledge of exciting ‘whole’ subjects, specific knowledge of the core curriculum, the energy to weave them together in a way that captivates the learners and transmits the required data, the courage to do this in the face of a reductionist system and the trust that this art of is an equal and essential partner with the science.