Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
The Gaffer's Philosophy:
Part 55: Child Welfare:
Education Daily Logistics 2:
June 16, 2003:
Before I go on with the details of this plan I must speak a bit
more about the teacher-guide qualifications. I said the teacher-guide
must be emotionally equipped for this task. What do I mean be
that? I mean the guide must care about the child's development
toward becoming a superior person. To do that, the guide must
care about the person. That's all!
Now, in case it is not clear, let me make it very clear that what I am saying here comes out of a great deal of personal experience. It comes from some very bitter and some very sweet and beautiful experience. I know what the difference is and I'm telling you. The key difference is simply one of caring. If you do not love children, you should not be teaching. Please go into politics, engineering, or bookkeeping. This is not about lip service. "Oh yes," she gushed, "I love little children, except ..." For full progress to occur there must be an unconditional positive relationship between the child and the guide.
I did not invent these notions. I am not the first person to make these points. In fact Carl Rogers made them many years ago in the sixties. It is he who coined the phrase "Unconditional Positive Regard" with respect to how we should treat other people. He also discussed education. The problem is, no one seems to have heard him. So I must make this point once again. We are poised on the brink of total disaster. To avoid it, we must change our entire attitude toward education.
The concepts on which to base this change come directly out of the humanist psychologies of people like Rogers and Maslow. Carl Rogers in particular writes about how children respond to positive regard and challenge. We believe, each person has intrinsic worth as a result of being human. Humanist psychology suggests, if we really believe that why not treat our kids that way? When we do it will eventually lead to liberated humans. They will be the first generation of a truly superior people.
Currently, we do therapy at the wrong time. We treat adults after the damage has been done. Humanist psychology suggests that we can and should act early to prevent the damage. Let's not wait until we have dysfunctional adults to attempt these proven actualizing techniques. The techniques are not age specific. We can apply them any time. Let's do it before the damage is done. Then we won't need therapists.
Previously I looked at what we can do with kids who have already been messed over in our current educational system. Here Rogers' research tends to support my view. He shows that this educational model can also apply to these kids. It seems they can respond to a new approach. After a period of frustration they really can redirect themselves toward a freedom of being.
About the titles, in these essays I have used the words teach and teacher, but these are inappropriate. No one needs a teacher and no one needs to be taught. What we need, all of us, is the space and support to seek our own truth. The true teacher is not a teacher but a supporting guide. Guide is the most appropriate term because education is and should be seen as an adventure. As guides we create the space and show the direction for our student to seek and come upon the truth.
In the same way, I have used the word class for the educational setting. Again, this is inappropriate. I would much prefer the term study-group. These are simply groups of students with a guide who is qualified in some area of specialization. The guides must be grounded in what they are offering rather than just having a general teaching certificate. If you are a math guide, you should have a background in math. To repeat a point, these study-groups should be small, not more than twenty students. Fifteen would be better. Each child must have ample opportunities for self-expression, guidance, and support. As I have said this will require a lot of teachers, especially in the beginning levels of learning.
We must have enough people and space in each school to make all of the basics of k-12 education available. We can cover math, history, geography, and all the others now taught. The big difference is, the child's interest will be the guide, not an arbitrary catch-all curriculum. The child will be scheduled to an study group by his main guide when he shows an interest. Later on, of course, the kids who have learned to read with comprehension will teach themselves. The guide will become more and more just a guide. This is about sharing information, not lecturing.
Now let's look at testing. One of the major problems teachers have now is they are locked into a rigid system which is based on passing tests and changing levels rather than learning. We have tests, not to demonstrate that the students have learned anything, but that they have memorized the test. We have levels of achievement which must be met and satisfied willy-nilly. Never mind the interests or aptitudes of the students. We have this mold, you see. Everyone must fit.
This is one big thing which is wrong with public schools. This is especially true for the way it is done in Michigan. The tests go on for hours and days. The kids are exposed to levels of stress that most of them will never again experience in real life. That is unconscionable on the face of it. We must stop the teachers from teaching kids how to pass tests and teach them instead to think. I think most teachers would like to do that. However, our current methods of testing and funding do not allow that.
Funding is currently based on a system of blackmail wherein the students must pass standardized test for the funds to be provided. Standardized tests are patent nonsense. I believe that there has never been a generalized test devised which could really demonstrate understanding I don't think it is possible to create one. At best they can only show memorized knowledge. You can demonstrate understanding with projects, but not with tests. So let's not be to hard on the teachers. They are working under a government controlled parody of an educational system.
Under my plan, the tests are not tests, they are projects.
Each kid gets to create something and demonstrate it or present
it. It could be a short book, poem, or song. It could be a bean
plant she grew. It could be a report on something observed. For
an advanced student it could be a robot. The idea is instead of
tests we should have projects which challenge the kids to excel.
They should have adequate time to do the project. They should
not be under extreme pressure for a few days. They should have
time to plan, design, build, and test. Creativity should count
big. Again, however, this is not possible under our current structured
system.
Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
|
|
|
|