Comments on: Nag Schools http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/11/21/nag-schools/ Closing the Achievement Gap: Teaching Content Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0600 hourly 1 By: john thompson http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/11/21/nag-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-4900 john thompson Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:08:06 +0000 http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/?p=1498#comment-4900 Diane, Well said. Diane,

Well said.

]]> By: Diana Senechal http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/11/21/nag-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-4899 Diana Senechal Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:08:40 +0000 http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/?p=1498#comment-4899 I am curious to read <i>Sweating the Small Stuff</i>. The question of "maternal" and "paternal" influences takes me back to my experience as a counselor in San Francisco. One of my clients, a young man in his twenties, had been on the streets for most of his life and had an overwhelming array of problems. I found out that he loved toy cars and poetry, and so we began building a car model and reciting poems during our counseling sessions. He had a case manager who seemed very gruff to me at first. "These young people need limits and boundaries," he told me. Limits and boundaries! They need understanding! But it didn't take me long to realize that young people on the streets needed both, and that one should not cancel the other. I ended up working with this case manager to help the young man on our mutual "caseload." I learned from the case manager's strictness, and I think he appreciated my patience and compassion. Over time, the strictness became mine as well. I learned that the "limits and boundaries" were indeed essential; without strict rules, schedules, structures, our client and many others would fall prey to the chaos of the streets. I consider this case manager one of my true mentors. When it comes to teaching, we must teach children how to behave. But we must also teach them why. Rules can become absurd when they lose their reason. For example, under Accountable Talk (now a trademarked product--yikes) students learn to speak in full sentences, to address the listener, to nod and make eye contact when listening, etc. Secondary rules often usurp the throne: "Always restate the question in your answer." Such rules often turn sentences into heaps of words. We forget our primary purpose: to learn about a topic, to locate the questions within it, and to speak and write about those questions with clarity, specificity, and energy. Thus the "specifics" (rules) and the "essence" (reasons) of what we do should always go hand in hand. Nagging about the rules makes the greater education possible. Which one is "paternal," and which is "maternal”: rules or reasons? One could argue either way. In many cultures, "nagging" is the province of the mother; relaxed acceptance, of the father. But whatever we deem masculine and feminine, we need a measure of each, in varying proportions according to the situation at hand. I am curious to read Sweating the Small Stuff. The question of “maternal” and “paternal” influences takes me back to my experience as a counselor in San Francisco. One of my clients, a young man in his twenties, had been on the streets for most of his life and had an overwhelming array of problems. I found out that he loved toy cars and poetry, and so we began building a car model and reciting poems during our counseling sessions.
He had a case manager who seemed very gruff to me at first. “These young people need limits and boundaries,” he told me. Limits and boundaries! They need understanding! But it didn’t take me long to realize that young people on the streets needed both, and that one should not cancel the other.

I ended up working with this case manager to help the young man on our mutual “caseload.” I learned from the case manager’s strictness, and I think he appreciated my patience and compassion. Over time, the strictness became mine as well. I learned that the “limits and boundaries” were indeed essential; without strict rules, schedules, structures, our client and many others would fall prey to the chaos of the streets. I consider this case manager one of my true mentors.

When it comes to teaching, we must teach children how to behave. But we must also teach them why. Rules can become absurd when they lose their reason. For example, under Accountable Talk (now a trademarked product–yikes) students learn to speak in full sentences, to address the listener, to nod and make eye contact when listening, etc. Secondary rules often usurp the throne: “Always restate the question in your answer.” Such rules often turn sentences into heaps of words. We forget our primary purpose: to learn about a topic, to locate the questions within it, and to speak and write about those questions with clarity, specificity, and energy.

Thus the “specifics” (rules) and the “essence” (reasons) of what we do should always go hand in hand. Nagging about the rules makes the greater education possible. Which one is “paternal,” and which is “maternal”: rules or reasons? One could argue either way. In many cultures, “nagging” is the province of the mother; relaxed acceptance, of the father. But whatever we deem masculine and feminine, we need a measure of each, in varying proportions according to the situation at hand.

]]>