BP3_2009101_Antiteaching

Michael Wesch had to say in Anti ?Teaching: Confronting the Crisis of Significance. He sees students who lack thinking skills, who ask weak surface questions, and who in general seem unable to think for themselves. I too, have seen this and know well what he says about people thinking some students are not cut out for school, though personally I have never believed that. I too get frustrated about the competition for grades rather than learning.

Politicians and policy writers are starting to realize that there needs to be a better way to teach all students, but they are going about it the wrong way. We as teachers are so very limited on time trying to teach the content and teach it well enough for the state tests that determine whether or not our school gets funded, that it becomes a rat race that many who are too tired just teach to the test. It is hard not to get burned out when instead of changing the scope and direction of how/what we teach, things like Individualized Education Programs (IEPS), 504s, Student Support teams (SST) and in my district Response to Intervention (RTI, where all students start on it, and we move them on up the tiers if they are not successful) are tacked on to an already demanding job. Though it is a step towards teaching all students, the system is fundamentally flawed. What results is burn out, we have all seen it, the teacher who, instead of guiding their charges towards the right answer, just gives out the correct response. Many are so tired from paperwork, that they have no energy to try teaching the whole brain, or even adding some other intelligences into the classroom. So many students have not learned the skills to think because they have not needed to, if they complain they don?t get it enough someone will cave and give it to them. They have not been learning strategies towards learning on their own, they are learning how to sit back and let others do the work. The truly sad thing is that they are remarkably unabashed about being ?lazy? and hating to think.

Though the Idea of a virtual world sounds clever and fascinating, I do not see that as the answer. From my experiences with FSO, I have seen some of the flaws of a virtual world, especially if I think about a middle schooler trying to be that independent. The benefit of working at your own pace is great, if you are organized and have self-discipline. Unfortunately, assignments get misread, technology issues can get in the way, and that whole need for human voice gets lost. The average middleschooler needs guidance on how to think for themselves, how to stay focused, and how to behave in the world around them. It is this age where they test for boundaries, and search for their roles. They need that human interaction, if it is the right kind, to be successful.

An ideal school, the learning would still report daily to a building, they would spend part of their day doing real hands on exploratory learning with their teacher. For another part of the day, they would work on Personal Learning environments (PLE) that are structured around a life specific learning problem. Students would be proving their knowledge with a more usable and useful platform than a simple electronic portfolio. The teacher would have a Course Management System that would outline basic guidelines and expectations for their proof of learning. Instead of A-F, it would be base on learning skills and personal achievement. Students would be able to use their strengths to prove their learning. They would have minor projects and activities, as well as one major graduation project that would be life interest specific. This way when they do graduate they have already been working towards their goal and do not have to wonder, ?what will I be when I grow up??

Unfortunately that is a dream right now, since for many of us, our hands are bound by state standards, tests that determine funding, and policies that, for the moment, cannot be ?left behind.?