"What are we teaching our students? And how?"
Apart from the broader context of your last post, this statement places us, you and I (and anyone in a classroom), at the crux of this issue. This question has to be ours.
Besides the given difficulties with feeling able to address this question in an appropriate setting, we have few positive examples of ways of teaching that foster self-discipline (I must say I talk a big game regarding this topic). The points you cited from the Ministry of Education's statement are clear but stated in the negative. They list the things we, as teachers, should not be doing.
The values that are identified as the core values of the Canadian education system are vague. They need to be defined in order to give educators a clear, positive example of ways to proceed. And yet, to say that seems wrong. If we get too explicit with "does and don'ts" the focus is placed on external forces driving our actions. Engagement is not something that can be imposed on people. As you stated, character development (what I referred to above as self-discipline) requires the intrinsic engagement of students. Without having to poke around in the world to understand the terms (of engagement), they become stale. (Buzz words scare me.) Educating and learning are presented as easy processes. All we have to do is connect the dots.
These are not negative things in and of themselves, but these terms, as they are used, are as generalized as the government itself. Those who govern merely dictate what they see fit. It is the people that comply and enforce what has been laid out. They present points of departure that are open for debate. We often forget this fact about our lives. Actions taken by individuals are what create things. Likewise, the terms mentioned in the statement by the Ministry of Education are points of departure. They are there to be taken up through our actions as educators and learners. It is not the explicit definition that we should worry about so much as how these ideas present themselves in our actions. We are the focal point, our classrooms and our students.
I feel so far I have only been discussing the later part of your question: the how.
The what is pretty much prescribed. Our curriculum maps and standards dictate what we have to teach, but the how is up to us. This seems to be the root of inquiry in general. We must figure out how to teach (HAAA!!!). It's that simple. I feel like I am spinning around in circles, or perhaps slowly spiraling toward some understanding of how to teach.
As I think through this problem, I am not concerned with the procedural how of teaching so much as the relational how.
Openness and inquisitiveness.
13 April 2011
I am excited. Our thoughts seem to be converging. Some of the core issues that are causing each of such concern may be nearly identical, though we are preoccupied with different ramifications and implications.
What are the core issues? A lack of critical thinking, creativity, and independent thought in our schools. A lack of agency. A lack of engagement.
And what are the implications? You speak of lack of success in school, lack of options, lack of purpose, and increasing disconnect between so many students and their schools. I used to speak of a lack of respect throughout the school environment, but now I want to be more accurate (I believe). What I mean is a profound lack of character development. And this lack of development in turn leads to social dysfunction, greater violence, and greater intolerance. All of these implications are simultatneous.
In my research, I looked into the Ontario Ministry of Education's character development initiative. I was astounded to see, articulated as official government policy, that " it must be recognized that a quality education Includes the education of the heart as well as the mind." From this basis, a position has been developed, and "respect," "caring," "safety," and "inclusion" are identified as common core values to be explicitly developed and nurtured across the province in the English, French, and Catholic public school systems. Thus Ontario has embarked on an effort to explicitly shape the character of the province's youth.
All this is secondary to what I want to say next. In the document published by the government summarizing this initiative, they devoted a page to what character development is, and what it is not. Look at the list of what it is not:
- it is not about compliance
- it is not about behavior based on fear of punishment
- it is not about behaviors motivated by extrinsic rewards and recognition
- it does not seek to indoctrinate
- it cannot be done to students
- it is not found in a textbook, binder, or manual
- it is not about a government imposing a set of moral standards
Does that list not damn the very basics of our school wide discipline systems? And, even more poignantly, does it not destroy the fundamental principles of our special education behavior modification plans??
I entered this process focused on respect. I am now fascinated by character development inn general. And I am realizing two things. The first is that one's character seems to be as important (if not more?!) than content knowledge or specific academic skills in one's success as a student in school. The second is that this character development seems predicated on the development of the critical thinking, imagination, and creative thought. And that it requires the intrinsic engagement of students. The very same things that you are speaking to!
What are we teaching our students? And how? We had better revisit our priorities for our youth, as a society, and then honestly re-evaluated our pedagogy. We seem to be straying, and the implications are becoming more and more profound.
What are the core issues? A lack of critical thinking, creativity, and independent thought in our schools. A lack of agency. A lack of engagement.
And what are the implications? You speak of lack of success in school, lack of options, lack of purpose, and increasing disconnect between so many students and their schools. I used to speak of a lack of respect throughout the school environment, but now I want to be more accurate (I believe). What I mean is a profound lack of character development. And this lack of development in turn leads to social dysfunction, greater violence, and greater intolerance. All of these implications are simultatneous.
In my research, I looked into the Ontario Ministry of Education's character development initiative. I was astounded to see, articulated as official government policy, that " it must be recognized that a quality education Includes the education of the heart as well as the mind." From this basis, a position has been developed, and "respect," "caring," "safety," and "inclusion" are identified as common core values to be explicitly developed and nurtured across the province in the English, French, and Catholic public school systems. Thus Ontario has embarked on an effort to explicitly shape the character of the province's youth.
All this is secondary to what I want to say next. In the document published by the government summarizing this initiative, they devoted a page to what character development is, and what it is not. Look at the list of what it is not:
- it is not about compliance
- it is not about behavior based on fear of punishment
- it is not about behaviors motivated by extrinsic rewards and recognition
- it does not seek to indoctrinate
- it cannot be done to students
- it is not found in a textbook, binder, or manual
- it is not about a government imposing a set of moral standards
Does that list not damn the very basics of our school wide discipline systems? And, even more poignantly, does it not destroy the fundamental principles of our special education behavior modification plans??
I entered this process focused on respect. I am now fascinated by character development inn general. And I am realizing two things. The first is that one's character seems to be as important (if not more?!) than content knowledge or specific academic skills in one's success as a student in school. The second is that this character development seems predicated on the development of the critical thinking, imagination, and creative thought. And that it requires the intrinsic engagement of students. The very same things that you are speaking to!
What are we teaching our students? And how? We had better revisit our priorities for our youth, as a society, and then honestly re-evaluated our pedagogy. We seem to be straying, and the implications are becoming more and more profound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)