If you ever want to get a handle on the lunacy that now manifests itself throughout the American education system, you can find numerous examples online though I do like Heather Mac Donald's excellent investigations and analysis into this subject. She really does root around those educational ideas in the US that on the surface seem stupid but on closer examination reveal themselves to be really, really stupid.
But one idea I have seen in action in this country in my limited time teaching was one she highlighted in an article of hers. One that has popped up over here as well as over there.
It was that any disruptive elements in a class must be allowed to continue in the class.
I am sure in liberal circles the theory looks good on paper: if a student is engaged in learning they have less time to disrupt the learning of others and if they do disrupt others then they should remain so they don't miss out on the learning they so obviously need. After all, they will learn nothing when out of class, right?
In practice this noble theory, like all such theories, falls over with a solid thud when you test it with a little push. No matter what the theory, the truth was the disruptive elements in a class stopped other students achieving. Some of the disruptors even enjoyed the disruption they caused because they were at the centre of attention. As they had better things to do than learn stuff they aren't interested in -- yes, even on a course they signed up for and allegedly wanted to pursue a career in -- they can enjoy the discomfort of other students who may want to learn but can't. People who inevitably find it harder to get on with the task because of the mayhem around them.
There are also some students who might learn in the class but prefer to be easily distracted. Idly sitting staring at a group of young men arguing over the fish names they should adopt as nicknames for themselves is way more interesting than writing things. You think this is a joke on my part? Ha, I wish! I had this in one class where five young males argued noisily over whether Carp was a better nickname than Shark. However when I did point out that they needed to sort out which were freshwater fish and which weren't they did nod in appreciation of my interest in their quest for the best nicknames.
Well, you have to help where you can, and it saved me wasting my breath telling them to do some work.
So why didn't I ask them to leave the class? Because they were there to learn and me sending them packing would have interrupted their learning. Obvious, innit? Keeping the kids in the class, no matter how unruly or bothersome they might be to others trying to learn, was the central platform of the college I was at. If you send one or two out they might go home and, wait for it, not come back ever again.
Gasp!
Retention, retention, retention was the mantra of the management. Keep them there no matter what.
Why? Because for the college to be paid by the state (and with it, the generous wages of all those who could sit in rooms far removed from the kids and not have to teach because they were deciding 'policy') the yoof had to stay on for the full course.
Still, at least I didn't have that trouble with Adrian. A somewhat cheerful if largely witless lad who preened his hair in the reflection from his iPod and then would spend ten minutes each lesson "choosing a track to listen to" as he worked. I did say something one morning to him that it would be a good idea, after twenty minutes "choosing" that he really ought to do some work.
"But I haven't chosen yet," he moaned.
Oh well, silly Adrian was determined to stay on the course and choose the very best tracks even if it took him all year. But here was the problem: no one wanted to confront the problem of kids who wouldn't work.
As a teacher you soon learned that you were effectively powerless. More, the students knew it too. What ya gonna do, huh? Nothing much, as it happens. The management at this college were on the side of the student. No, let me correct that: they were on the side of the student staying.
So if there was nothing much you could do then you had to hope you could persuade them gently or ignore them and concentrate on keeping the workers on task and getting something from the lesson. Though they were students and were reckoned to be there in order to study the truth was if they didn't fancy it that lesson they could put their feet on the desk and talk about the fast cars they would own one day. You could ask them to take their feet off the desk, and some did, so I suppose progress was being made.
If I had the authority to get rid of the non-learners and the disruptors, then the unthinkable would have happened: the ones who wanted to get on could get on without distraction. But they were the unimportant ones. The trouble-makers and the problematic matter most of all, so let us theoretically give them our attention. Concentrate our policy on their needs, and not the ones who would benefit from a more conducive atmosphere for learning.
I do know that throwing half-a dozen spotty, noisy, preening and self-centred but utterly uninteresting and unambitious young people out of a class would have allowed the non-disruptive ones to get on and learn but that would have been too easy. For a start in some classes the ones who wanted to learn would have access to a computer. You see, there was always race to get in first and grab the best chairs and then do nothing. But with say six gone from a class of 28 then the twenty computers available (and the fifteen reasonable chairs) would have been put to better use.
But theory was for those who didn't have to do anything. The practice was for those who had to do it. Quite a shock I suppose to many, but one that really needs to be said.
Sometimes the theorists had to interface with reality, but not often. I can recall the time when members of senior management came round with clipboards to count the number of students in the room through the glass panel in the door (I hope they saw the ones sitting at the back on the floor) but when I went to the door and asked one if I could help they said not at all. They were just checking the rooms were being put to full use.
Well they were, so no worry there. Disruption and squabbling over broken chairs was in full flow, as per the curriculum.
Management didn't have to interrupt the learning at all, for which they were probably eternally grateful.
No comments:
Post a Comment