Smrt Lernins

The Institute for Democratic Education in America (IDEA) posted a great article today, “The Teacher as Soldier,” addressing statements by public figures about recruiting an “army of teachers” and questioning what war, exactly, these teachers are fighting. The author presents the troubling paradigm of, “Generals and leaders – Administration and the government; Privates/Soldiers – teachers; Civilians/those to be “aided” – students ([...]the group that needs to be fought for – to have things done for them because we don’t see them fit to achieve for themselves) [...] = The War for Education.”

Teachers as low ranked soldiers in a battle (against whom?) to educate passive, helpless student learners; administrators and politicians as detached leaders of a battle in which they aren’t even getting their hands dirty. Not a pretty picture. Not a picture the author enjoys. Is it really that far from the truth, though?

I think public education has become a combat scenario, to some extent, but it’s not a war for education. I’m not sure it’s a war for anything. It’s a skirmish between players with little vested interest, like politicians with children in private school. It’s a battle between Republican tax cuts and the systems that are now so underfunded that they can’t let staff into the building until the day school starts, leaving schedules unfinished, classrooms not set up, curriculum not set in stone. It’s a conflict between the few teachers who are genuinely invested in the success of their students and the administrative status quo that is focused solely on test scores. In this scenario, students are not the citizens being helped, but the friendly fire casualties of a large system floundering and firing randomly, hoping to hit a target they can’t even agree upon.

This is a pretty bleak picture of public education. It’s not an accurate portrayal of every teacher, school, administration, or system. There’s no denying that there’s a strong element of this in public education as a whole, however. Our own experiences in public education certainly point to that. No one was fighting on Captain Science’s behalf but us, and it was a fight we were well aware we shouldn’t have to fight: a fight for him to not be bullied by a teacher who felt threatened by gifted students, a fight for him to spend his days doing something other than worksheets, a fight to have any expression of creativity not squashed out of hand.

Parents have to fight with teachers and administrators to have their children’s most basic educational needs met, and while we’re doing that fighting, more and more funds are diverted away from the children who need them most. It’s obvious who the administration values — not the gifted students and not the special needs students. For the parents of those children, public education can be a constant battle.

The author of the IDEA piece writes, “Learning is not a war, it is an adventure. While it can be used as a tool to equip oneself with the awareness necessary to achieve justice, learning overall is discovery and an intriguing challenge.”

She’s right. Learning is not a war. Education, however, is most certainly a battlefield.

Do public schools kill creativity?

Yes, I think they do. I watched Captain Science’s ability to think outside the box be slowly crushed during the course of his 3rd grade year, until he was afraid to think creatively (at least within the context of education) out of concern of chastisement by a disapproving authority figure. I saw the traits that made him unique treated as character flaws or manifestations of a disorder. I even went along with it at first, worried that I had simply been misinterpreting aberrant behavior as creativity.

Our story isn’t that unusual. It should be unusual. It should be completely off the wall, but it isn’t.

A friend recently shared some examples of class rules sent home by her daughter’s third grade teacher. The packet contained fifty rules that the children must follow. Not simple, two or three word rules, either, but fifty rules that meticulously spell out the exact behavior students were to exhibit under nearly every imaginable circumstance. Some examples:

Rule #3 of 50 — If someone in the class wins a game or does something well, we will congratulate that person. Claps should be at least three seconds in length with the full part of both hands meeting in a manner that will give the appropriate clap volume.

Rule #17 of 50 — We should be consistently be able to turn from one book to another, complete with all homework and necessary materials, as quickly as possible. The opportune amount of time to spend in transition should be less than ten seconds, and we will work toward a goal of seven seconds.

Rule #23 of 50 — Quickly learn the names of other teachers in the school and greet them by saying things like, “Good morning, Mrs. Graham,” or “Good afternoon, Ms. Ortiz. That is a very pretty dress.” Note: If you are in line with the rest of the class, you are not allowed to speak to the teachers at that time because the no talking rule is in effect.

Imagine your eight-year-old children receiving a list of fifty such rules. Do you see a lot of room for expressions of individuality within those rules? Would your child come out of that classroom more creative or less? Is this classroom, and the others like it, helping mold a generation of independent and abstract thinkers?

Sir Ken Robinson thinks public schools are killing, rather than nurturing, creativity, and speaks eloquently about it: