"Empowering Education" written by Ira Shore discusses the idea that the classroom is a place where students learn many of the social cues or responsibilities that will be expected of them as a successful member of society in the future. Shore points out how many of the people that are in positions to make decisions for the masses are people that are not directly related to that field. For example, how "hospitals are governed by appointed bureaucrats, not by delegates accountable for the clientele." The people making decisions are not the people that are in the "trenches" and who see the actual people that their decisions affect. This idea directly relates to a conversation that we had in class last week about the commissioner of education. The people that are devising all of these evaluations and tests for our students are not the same people that are in the classroom with them everyday, dealing with all of their issues, either emotional, academic, or anything else and still trying to teach them and get them to perform up to a certain standard.
I love so much of what Shore writes regarding empowering a classroom. "Empowerment as I describe it here is not individualistic. The empowering class does not teach students to seek self-centered gain while ignoring public welfare." The 'me, me, me' attitude is everywhere in our classrooms. This is because a lot of students feel the need to compete with their classmates and be the 'best at school', at least that is my experience at my school. I think encouraging students to examine how their experiences relates to academic knowledge is so key to true education. When information is relatable to everyday life and experiences that students have already had, then they do not have to form new connections in their minds, they can use things that are already there. This is very important in my classroom because not everyone believes the same thing. When I am teaching something based in the Catholic faith specifically I ask students to give me similar examples in their own faiths, or something that they can relate to.
I thought it was fascinating when Shore spoke about how students can become 'enslaved' in education. How when they stop asking questions, and participating and just taking everything as it is presented that they become slaves to their own education. Ken Robinson talks about how education can be like a Death Valley, killing our kids creativity and the things that it takes for them to flourish.
Shore's explanation of student participation and positive affects rang so true to me this past week. It has become more and more apparent lately that the commitment level of teachers affects the commitment level of students. If a teacher is only there for a paycheck it rings through loud and clear in their teaching and interaction with students. We had an assembly Friday and many teachers thought that it would be ok not to show up at the assembly. While this may not seem like a big deal, it shows the kids that these all school activities are not important to them, and can just be blown off. This bad example to the kids can translate into them not taking things seriously either. I feel like it is a slippery slope.
Yes.... I would agree about teacher commitment having a direct affect on student commitment. Students draw from the energy of teachers and if teachers are not enthusiastic about the subject they teach then how could the students be. The concept of participation is not new. I find that education cycles and when someone brings something new to the table it is usually an old concept with a new name.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. Kids will know right away if teachers are there just for the paycheck. If we are not excited about teaching, and learning how can we expect our students to be?
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a sense of academic competition that seems to stifle the process. Students don't seem to understand that helping others in turn helps themselves. Maybe education can have a come to Jesus moment.
ReplyDelete