Language Development - Journal II

     In Teach Knowledge, Not « Mental Skills », E.D Hirsh points at the lack of consistency in schools guidelines: « Because there’s no consistency in what children were taught in previous grades teachers have to […] either progress excruciatingly slow, or [...] leav(e) others behind. » They have to choose between content and skills. But there should be no hesitation. Content is something schools and teachers really have to work on for what to have skills for if you cannot use them. It would be like knowing how to write without having anything to say.

   Thus mental skills and core-knowledge depend on one another. One needs skills to use knowledge: « problem-solving are necessary. But they depend on a wealth of relevant knowledge. » No true development can emerge from competition and management of skills only. Empathy, tolerance, understanding and all human qualities come from awakening and awakening comes from knowledge (experience or learning).

   Furthermore, children need to have knowledge in order to be inspired. They cannot, and neither can grownups, create out of the blue. No master piece comes from nothing. To evolve one has to know about what already exists and then has to learn and integrate these things so that he can use them and develop them to a higher level.

   Accordingly, though education today does work a lot on the appearances such as results, strategies, structures and technologies, we must bear in mind the fundamental knowledge any child needs to build his own vision of things. Who would want a child to become a mere computer anyway?

Teaching In America - Critical Pedagogy

     In my own « tiny » experience in education I realized that what made the difference in a classroom is the hidden curriculum. Last year, I worked simultaneously for two male teachers during the last month of school and had the chance to enter their world, analyze and eventually compare the two ways of teaching.

   They both had a class of ten year-old. The first teacher had what we would call a « standardized way to teach ». He had his schedule extremely organized, knew the lessons he was to give and the homework he would ask for. He had much responsibility as two children in his class had important health issues and had tangibly conveyed the important value of respect. Everyone had to be quiet and had to listen to one another.

  The students did not really like their teacher and were mostly bored since their attention and enthusiasm were not stimulated enough. Yet what was interesting to me is that this feeling generated a sense of solidarity and friendship among the students. They overlooked their differences and worked together because they felt in the same boat.

   Now, the other teacher had an « informal way to teach ». He had created his own rules, though based on numerous theories, and tried new things all the time. The students worked most of the time in groups and they almost never sat. The atmosphere in the classroom was very lively and joyful. The bound between the teacher and the children was much stronger but maybe was it too familiar…

   Indeed, at the end of the year those children were too confident and relaxed to properly pay attention to what was said and ended considering the classroom as a playground. A great number of them, therefore, lost the benefit of what they had learned and regressed in their behavior. They lacked of responsibility, tolerance, concentration, and understanding. Though the teachers' ideas may have been good and worth trying, he did not anticipate the consequences of his decisions and actions. However, in the other classroom, the less enjoyable atmosphere did not prevent the students from improving in every field and not only did it bring them self-esteem but the relationship they built was so strong, to me, it was worth anything in the world.

Frankly, I don't think either teachers reflected on the consequences of their choices and I do regret that the success and failure of these children were determined so randomly.

Language - Journal I

     Sydney J. Harris in an extract from What True Education Should Do reminded me of how equal people are. His idea that one might have a great amount of knowledge deep inside without being aware of it sounds very comforting, especially if we look at some teachers today who take it for granted that some students will never get to be what they aspire to be regarding of their results and/or behavior.

    

     We may compare this to a baby who comes into the world in a swimming pool. All babies can swim and yet they lose it as they grow older. The role of a swimming teacher is then to bring out by all means the instinctive capacity of a child or an adult to do it all over again.

     Therefore, if teaching as stated on line 6 is really: « the drawing out of what is in the mind. » it requires the teacher a certain humility as well as a genuine faith in his students to tackle the incredible and yet very difficult task of revealing them to their own self. He or she has to convince they can do anything and create an atmosphere of trust so that they can better realize about their potential or else they will never swim.

     In the end, teachers should guide and inspire to promote creation and evolution rather than force into one’s mind the knowledge they think they have.