Re-establish the traditional teacher-centered classroom, and soon we won’t need state tests to demonstrate progress. Thus spake Fred Strine, a 36 year veteran public school teacher who pens a guest op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It will be easy to dismiss Strine as a greybeard, but what he has to say will strike a chord with anyone who has dared wonder why what used to be called teaching is now dismissed as “chalk and talk.” We are all “facilitators” now, and Strine has isssues with that.
Education requires discipline, both intellectual and behavioral, and discipline must be imposed before it becomes engrained….To inculcate discipline in others, a leader must model excellence and self-discipline. Traditional teacher-centered classrooms had such leaders. By contrast, student-centered learning allows the inexperienced and the undisciplined to become the standard. Who then is the model for students when today’s teachers merely facilitate as “guides on the side,” leaving students to discover on their own?
Our schools are not producing enough real self-esteem based on genuine achievement measured by a respected, educated adult. Instead, the facilitator system generates phony, Hollywood self-esteem — a cocky, anti-intellectual sense of entitlement that shouts, “Facts and information be damned. My opinion is as valuable as any facilitator’s.”
Strine is just getting warmed up.
Ignorance is intellectual inertia. Most real learning requires real work. No one ever became an expert by being lazy. Since ignorance is the natural condition of uneducated humans, it needs to be overcome by some outside force. Sometimes curiosity and enthusiasm will suffice. Often necessity is the catalyst. Most of the time, however, intellectual inertia needs a genuine push toward knowledge. Facilitators are too wimpy, too passive to push anything or anyone.
“Every person who has ever played sports knows at least one coach who pushed his athletes to accomplish more than they ever thought possible,” Strine concludes. “The process is necessarily confrontational. So is life, and therein lies the lesson. Every literate person ought to be able to point to a teacher, a brain coach, who had the same effect. It shouldn’t be a major leap to understand what works for the body also works for the brain.”
Hearty thanks and kudos to Fred Strine! I would like to read more of his writing. He says it all: “Facilitators are too wimpy, too passive to push anything or anyone.” That, and they simply don’t have the means. When you’re “circulating” and “miniconferencing,” you only see a sliver of what each group is doing. I found this in ed courses: the ed instructor would circulate, pull snippets of conversation from each group, and then give us a skewed summary, often leaving out the challenging points that were raised.
If you saw Hard Times at Fredrick Douglass High, you saw a school where teachers struggled to control their classroom culture. I do not recall a single class, however, where the teacher dared to organize their desks in a traditional manner. They persisted in grouping even when it did no more than facilitate gossip or sleeping.
Had a classroom teacher returned to whole class instruction, I bet the theorists who were overseeing the school turnaround would have had a cow. But nobody would guilt-trip the coach into replacing his chalk talk with “miniconferencing.” The music teachers weren’t derided by the “sage on the stage” slogan. Excellence like was demonstrated by the Douglass choir requires structure that must be passed on by adults.
Having come from JTPA programs for summer enrichment of inner city kids, I believe that group learning is the single best approach – when done properly. Ed Schools, consultants, and the other theorists often show multi-colored photos of brain activity when students are teaching each other as opposed to listening to the teacher. I wish they would also show brain scans of students involved in poorly organized group learning. Moving from a superb summer program (that only employed master teachers and where high behavioral standards were enforced) to a regular high school, I often had the same students. But I quickly realized that it was politically impossible to sustain the same type of excellent cooperative learning. And I do not mean political in a perjorative manner. Teaching involves the politics of students, parents, school educators, central office, and the community. In those real world politics, what happens if every class has a couple of students who are not yet ready for group learning, but who do fine with whole class instruction?
This issue is a cousin to another issue you raised about the sustainability of heroic teaching efforts. The sytem does a disservice to young teachers by pressuring them to sacrifice “the good” for “the perfect,” and to do “whatever it takes.” One thing “it” takes is teachers with the confidence to weigh all of the theories and arguments, and choose the method that works best for them. Most teachers, I believe, would choose an eclectic mix, whole class instruction, and a curriculum like Core Knowledge.
You made two other posts yesterday that also function as cousins. The theorists who disparage whole class instruction (and who clearly favor small group instruction in the National Certification process) also get awfully dogmatic in defending social promotion. Not being an elementary teacher, I don’t really know what to believe – even though I don’t believe that any good comes from political correctness in dealing with complex issues. But when you visited the Grand Canyon, were their a lot of middle and upper class children who were getting a wonderful and holistic education? Too many poor children, however, are stuck in summer school programs that are nothing more than CYA for social promotion and other ways that adults comply with “accountability.” Given the extent of “summer loss” in expanding the achievement gap, why can’t we bring poor kids to national parks and on other trips to enhance their full humanity?
Fianlly, thanks for the plug. I got my gig at Russo’s blog by telling him the traditional Okie joke about the two cowboys and the rattlesnake.
I did enjoy this article. As a classroom teacher I find that for the kids to accomplish anything in groups, teacher-centered instruction must be done first. Even if it is to simply “impose” the procedures for cooperative learning. The same goes for projects. Before students are set loose in a computer lab or the school library to complete a project about a topic the students must be taught the basics of the topic. This is often initiated via teacher-centered instruction. A wonderful concept that is brought up is the fact that students at any level need to be pushed. I do love the way that Fred Strine relates the mind to the body. No progress is made with either unless they are forced to operate outside of their comfort zone. There are times that it is useful for a teacher to be a facilitator, but the procedures and basic knowledge need to be set up by the teacher, teaching to the whole class. As with any teaching style the adult in the room needs to set the parameters in which the task will be carried out. By the way, this is my first time blogging, so I apologize if I have broken any blog etiquette.
No rules of etiquette broken, and glad to have you aboard. Comments and contributions are always welcome and appreciated!
Clay,
you reminded me of a great post on the disruption, presumably creative, that is coming from online tutorials. Over at the Quick and the Dead they gave a basically positive analysis on technology based instruction, and in the long run I know they are right.
But the pointed out that in urban schools, only minority (30 something % as I recall) recieved credit, and 46% (as I recall) don’t know if they recieved credit. They speculated that disproportionately these were students in “credit recovery programs,” and certainly they are right.
Which gets us back to your point, how much teacher-centered instruction is required before turning the kids over to online tutorials, and how much continued instruction and pushing by teachers is required? Technology will be miraculous, but we still need teachers to set the parameters.
I was so happy to see Fred Strine’s article that I typed out my comment rather hurriedly, and it came out unclear. Here’s what I wanted to say:
When “facilitators” circulate from group to group, they can only pick up strands of conversation. In some cases, they pick up what they want to hear.
We had lots of this in ed school. I remember one day when we were put in groups to discuss a short piece by Dewey. I brought up serious reservations about the ideas in the piece; so did the other members of my group. The instructor came by, listened to us for a few minutes, and moved on.
When the instructor summarized the various groups’ findings, she made only passing mention of reservations about the piece. It was as though everyone had liked it and agreed with it.
This has happened more than once. In whole-class discussion, it is harder to ignore ideas that get brought up. There is also more pressure to defend your ideas well, since you are speaking in front of the whole class. I have generally found class discussion richer than group activity.
And nothing in my school experience has been quite so mentally engaging an excellent lecture, followed by a discussion (or not, in some cases).
After reading everyone’s comments and the main article, I felt that the gist is this—no one method of teaching works well unless the instructor is dedicated, knowledgeable and willing to be flexible, i.e. teach the class in a way that the students will learn. This of course involves challenging the students, having a code of behavior that everyone follows and expecting all to learn. Just my two cents worth.
Thank God someone is talking some sense. As a teacher who struggled with these nonsensical reform issues for years, I’m glad someone is seeing the light.
The purpose of education today is not to education but to reshape society. You may not like the result.
The Yahoo group for the United States Public Education Information Network talks about faulty educational methods.
In 1931 the Hadow report said “The curriculum is to be thought of in terms of activity and experience RATHER THAN of knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored.”
This struck at the heart of “education” and with a decline of 75 years education and our culture is now in the gutter. This sentence was repeated over and over, 1959 “Primary Education” and on and on, and never rescinded. It pulled the rug from all academic education.
Was there anything similar in America?
This is all part of the “Progressive” movement.
(ed. note for our readers: The Hadow Reports were the product of a government-appointed consultative committee in the U.K., chaired by Sir William Henry Hadow. They produced six influential reports on education between the 20’s and 30’s.)
Thank you, Robert, for opening the discussion of my article. Much of what passes for “new” in education is just recycled, turn-of-the-century (19th to 20th) John Dewey progressive (socialist) doctrine—fine in theory (utopian) but short on reality given human imperfection. Public education and politics keep hoping to guarantee equal outcomes. It ain’t gonna happen.
Good teaching boils down to teacher-student rapport, a condition not restricted to any method. Simply put, my article is an open rebellion against current rampant restrictions. It’s why I took the year off. Actually, I am NOT retired, just temporarily fed up. Does it show?
F.S.
There is nothing wrong with being a facilitator in the classroom–what’s wrong is when it’s the ONLY role the teacher plays. Same goes for sage on the stage. Good teaching is a combination of many methods and a variety of activites that take into consideration both the teacher’s strengths and the needs and abilities of the students. When there’s a problem with teaching, it’s usually the “how,” not the “what.”
For example, in her post Diana Senechal describes an ed class in which groups were discussing a piece by Dewey. The instructor recapped without mentioning the dissenting comments, and I agree with Senechal–that’s poor teaching. But poor teaching does not a bad method make. Senechal goes on to say, “This has happened more than once. In whole-class discussion, it is harder to ignore ideas that get brought up.” In whole class discussion, it is also harder for some to speak up at all, which is the purpose of small group discussion–at least in my middle school clasroom. Unlike Senechal’s ed instructor, I make sure that small group discussion is followed by whole class discussion, with a little sage on the stage as needed.
When it comes to teaching, I’m hesitant to jump on the “All or None,” bandwagon, and to use an old addage, I’m not one to “throw out the baby with the bath water.” In Senechal’s example, the problem wasn’t the what–small group discussion, but the how–a teacher-centered review of the small group discussions. Ironically, the teacher-centered classroom is exactly what Fred Strine is calling for in his article to the Seattle PI.
Ms. Fletcher,
I think most people (including myself) have been arguing that a teacher should have the ability, freedom, and skill to use a variety of methods. I agree with you on that point.
I do find, however, that when kids (or adults) are broken into little groups, they often treat the subject more superficially than in whole-class discussion. In whole-class discussion, the teacher can draw out students who have been shy to speak; ask challenging questions; encourage students to look at specific passages in the text; provide background information; and more.
I’m not saying small groupwork has no place. Of course it does! But all too often I have seen the discussion in such groups fall far short of anything rich. The teacher in the situation I described was not just practicing “poor teaching.” She may not have heard all the points as she circulated from group to group. There is a lot of hubbub in those activities, and the teacher has to keep moving.
Those activities can be valuable to get everyone talking and involved. As you say, “what’s wrong is when it’s the ONLY role the teacher plays.” Why, then, is it practiced on so many occasions at ed courses and PDs, and why is it presented as superior to other methods when it is not?
Diana Senechal
Sometimes I wonder if teachers ever went to school themselves. When small-group jigsaw discussions came up, we would invariably talk about anything and everything BUT the matter at hand, then quickly veer back on task when the teacher wandered within earshot. And that was in GRAD school. God only knows what 5th graders talk about.
I took an anti-facilitator stance in my essay to form a thesis and grab the reader’s attention. Of course their are good facilitators and occasions when group work is effective, but my experience confirms Robert’s. Most group activities with unmotivated neophytes become wasted teaching moments!
I prefer whole-class instruction precisely for Diana’s reasons. I am an expert at structuring lessons on topics totally new to unstructured kids. I am an expert at keeping an entire class on task. While acknowledging these abilities, my superiors no longer valued my style of teaching. I was not current enough. In fact,I was branded the Neanderthal of my language arts department.
I truly believe I have a moral responsibility to TEACH students what I know so they can ultimately discipline themselves for “lifelong” learning. I choose to do it in a structured setting because that works for me. Reality tells me a 14 year old is not a motivated “Mini-Me” as current education theory pontificates. I never would have written this article if my observations of brainwashed young facilitators and their classroom failures hadn’t confirmed my general disdain for imposed teaching dogma.
My article was a meant as a principled counter punch, partially in self-defense. I didn’t start the brawl, but I won’t take one on the chin without some payback.
Thanks for the return to sanity and excellence! Kids can achieve incredible things when we “teach” and establish an atmosphere of discipline and inquiry. Please! Please! Please! Pass this “revolutionary” idea on to those in NYC who are supposedly on board with Core Knowledge. Thanks!
I feel exactly the same way as Mr. Stine. We all need to keep spreading the word that good teachers actually teach and maintain structure and discipline.
“…no one method of teaching works well unless the instructor is dedicated, knowledgeable and willing to be flexible, i.e. teach the class in a way that the students will learn.”
“Of course their [sic] are good facilitators and occasions when group work is effective…”
“Good teaching boils down to teacher-student rapport, a condition not restricted to any method.”
“…a teacher should have the ability, freedom, and skill to use a variety of methods…”
Folks seem to be saying teachers should have the freedom and flexibility to choose their methods of instruction, and I agree, even if that means a teacher sticks to just one method, as long as that method gets results. On the other hand, the title of this post is “No More Guide on the Side.” I’m not sure that leaves room for freedom and flexibility…
Dear Ms. Fletcher,
Ouch, you got me. I thought Papa “there” but wrote Mama “their” instead. Must be some Freudian flare-up from a troubled childhood.
Apparently we have different experiences regarding the ubiquitous facilitator. What noteworthy point is made by thoughtfully acknowledging generalizations are never 100% true? And I love apple pie, too.
I’m an accomplished teacher-centered classroom advocate who has been tossed out with traditional ed. bath water. How did I plummet from master teacher to has-been in a decade when all indicators said I was actually improving? Facilitator dogma imposed by absolutist, sophomoric “superiors,” that’s how.
We teach tolerance and diversity, but does the profession practice what it preaches? Try being a linear, structured, conservative, outspoken, male in an English department these days. Good luck. Only the eunuchs survive.
Today teaching success in the classroom is less valued than uniformity, assuming test scores CYA. Oh, superintendents will talk the talk, but the profession wants veteran teachers out. The young and the malleable trump experience every time. When you’ve become the best facilitator possible, and you think you still have much to offer, don’t let your guard down. The profession will move on to a newer silver bullet and expect you to abandon your successes. Remember me. Give me a call. I’ll still be around, ‘cause it won’t be long. We’ll talk.
Excellent points, Fred! I especially liked this one, “We teach tolerance and diversity, but does the profession practice what it preaches? Try being a linear, structured, conservative, outspoken, male in an English department these days. Good luck. Only the eunuchs survive.” I’m afraid this is too true–it riles me and makes me cringe all at the same time. From everything you’ve written, I would love to have you teaching down the hall from me, whether or not we teach by the same methods.
As far as becoming the best facilitator possible–rest assured, that’s not in my plans. I tend to change roles in the classroom, depending on the activity, the student needs, and what I need to get across–facilitator is just one of those roles, right along with being the center of things.
I hope you keep writing editorials, and I think someone had the right idea in the comments that were posted to your article on the Seattle P.I. We need a new Superintendent of Public Instruction in Washington–maybe you weren’t in charge of the best school in the nation, but a top notch teacher has a lot to offer, and if you’re not teaching…
Connie, are you suggesting Fred run to replace TB? If so he has my vote
Tom,
Yes, and he would have my vote over TB, too.
Fred Strine
On July 9th Fred Strine wrote:
Much of what passes for “new” in education is just recycled, turn-of-the-century (19th to 20th) John Dewey progressive (socialist) doctrine—fine in theory (utopian) but short on reality given human imperfection.
But it seemed to me that the “tone” of this whole discussion (giving views with which I fully agree) was that we are dealing with “current” problems, whereas its roots are very deep in time, even further back in time than John Dewey, and further in place than the U.S. In fact, almost all the discussions and published articles I have read make it sound as though the problems are much more “contemporary” than they are in truth. The failures we must deal with are not only 30 or 40 years old, but 100+!
And I do appreciate how Fred Strine pointed out that progressive education, a revolution in education because it threw out all the past, reached its high point during the same time period that saw the Russian Revolution.
Since my last post I’ve discovered the writings of Kieran Egan of Simon Fraser University, and he says EXACTLY what you’re saying, Susan, that the problems with education go back 100+ years, before Dewey, who was heavily influenced by a fellow named Henry(?) Spencer.
Egan pretty much outlines the course of “progressivism” beginning with Spencer, then Dewey and Piaget and others. He says that the progressive movement has some major flaws. Not that he is opposed to progressive ideas, but he says the flaws prevent its successful implementation. If you care to check out his writings, here is his website: http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kegan/. Egan teaches an ed course about this and it concludes with readings by Hirsch and refers to Core Knowledge, which is how I found my way back to this blog. Kismet.