Hmmmm about schools and learning stuff...

[avevale_intelligencer]

eleri provided a link to this piece, which is an ironic depiction of the way in which American school, in the poster's opinion, "is such a spirit-crushing experience." (Note: the poster is not the original writer.) The poster advises us before reading to "set our irony detectors to the on position."

Disclaimer: I am against spirits being crushed. I have heard the Harry Chapin song "Flowers Are Red," which covers some of the same ground as this piece, and been horrified by it. The Countess has told me about a teacher she had in her early schooldays who, for various reasons, made it her business to keep Jan "in her place," and that was horrifying too. So I am generally in agreement that if the things described in this piece are indeed conducive to the crushing of spirits, then they are bad.

With that firmly in mind, let's look at the six "lessons" with which this teacher crushes the spirits of his students.

1. "Stay in the class where you belong." As the writer sees this, it leads to regimentation and discrimination. Okay, but what's the alternative? The purpose of a school, if it has one at all, is to teach, to impart information in one form or another. The first prerequisite for imparting information to anyone is to have their physical body in the place where the information is being imparted, for as long as it takes to impart it. I know it's an intolerable infraction of one's basic human rights to demand that one sits still for an hour, but if one does not sit still for an hour, one does not learn what is being taught. Not regimentation, but discipline. And "the class where you belong"--I think the writer is doing a sneaky here, equating "class" in the school sense with "class" in the social sense. And yes, there has been some confusion between the two. But again, what's the alternative? The ideal form of education is one teacher, one student, with the lessons individually tailored to the student's interests and abilities, because we are all different. The worst possible form of education is all the students in one ginormous classroom with one teacher trying to teach them all the same things. "The class where you belong" is a desperate attempt to compromise between the unattainable and the intolerable. Not discrimination, but adaptation.

2. "To turn on and off like a light switch"; in other words, to be totally focussed on the lesson in progress till the bell rings and then to go to the next lesson and be totally focussed on that. The writer sees this as cultivating indifference, because "no work is worth finishing, so why care too deeply about anything?" I see it as cultivating mental agility. If the lesson is not finished when the bell rings, then the lesson was badly planned. It is the goal of schools to teach lots of different things. At some point this is going to involve ceasing to teach one thing and starting to teach another. If this happens at set times, it is (a) easier to plan lessons around those time slots and allocate teachers and rooms, and (b) good training for adult working life which is similarly regimented. Indifference is indeed a problem, but it grows just fine without need of cultivation. On the other hand, I learned in a system run by bells, and I've never had any trouble caring too deeply about lots of things.

3. "Surrender your will to a predestined chain of command." This is fundamental to 1 and 2 above, and if I had been writing the piece I would have put it first. Again, the writer makes it sound like a bad thing, ignoring the fact that this is precisely what will be required of the student in adult life, whatever employment he or she ends up in, and is therefore a valuable and necessary lesson to learn. Whether that is a bad thing I leave to the conscience of the individual churchgoer. Individuality is a fine and wondrous quality, and we are all individuals ("I'm not" "Ssssh"), but if the postman, or the guy who repairs your boiler, or the accountant who works out your taxes, or the civil servant who pays your benefit, decides to express his or her individuality rather than doing the job he or she is supposed to do, you may feel justified in registering some form of complaint. Again, it's teaching mental agility, the ability to be an individual and still follow a chain of command.

4. "Only I determine what curriculum you will study. (Rather, I enforce decisions transmitted by the people who pay me)." This is later rephrased as "Good people wait for a teacher to tell them what to do." The writer here indulges in a complete flight of fantasy, imagining that people who have been through the school system emerge unable to entertain themselves, cook for themselves, and so on. This is a palpable straw man, and all the worse because it conceals a genuine problem, the first unqualified problem I've found in this piece, which is that the stuff being taught is not determined in the best interests of the student, but rather in the best interests of the government in power.

I completely agree that this is a bad thing, though allowing the student to determine what he or she wants to learn is I think a fast downhill road to chaos. Most learning is accomplished against the steadfast and determined resistance of the student, who has five hundred and seventy-four more pleasant things he or she could be doing. That's why we have schools, and lessons 1 to 3 above. If we didn't, kids would either goof off all day or be sent down t'pit or up t'chimney to earn their keep. The educational value of these alternatives is I think dubious at best.

So who should decide what's taught? I don't know. Ideally, again, every student should be given a solid grounding in everything, and go on to be taught more about things they are good at and/or interested in. Education is, or should be, about creating fully rounded human beings, "Bildung" as the Germans say, completing the picture. It's a sad fact, though, that no body of people (government, teachers, parents) can be relied upon to ensure that this happens.

5. "Your self-respect should depend on an observer's measure of your worth." This is the one eleri jibbed at in particular, and again there's more to think about here, because self-respect is a tricky thing, and "worth" is even trickier. I'm surprised that an American school doesn't teach that "all [men] are created equal," but there you go. The fact is that a difference in "worth" between someone who has learned what is being taught and someone who has not is implicit in the act of teaching, but only in the context of the subject being taught. Someone who has learned how to drive a car is "worth" more as a driver than someone who has not. Someone who has learned how to speak French (or a French person who has learned how to speak English) is "worth" more when you're stuck in Montmartre and looking for the American Embassy than someone who has not. Self-respect is, or at least I think it should be, independent of these contexts. In any case it is not something that can be taught. If it were, I'd have it.

The writer goes on to say that "self-evaluation -- the staple of every major philosophical system that ever appeared on the planet -- is never a factor in these things." I can't actually see how self-evaluation would be helpful in this situation. One can evaluate oneself as a brilliant driver, and many do. One can evaluate oneself as having an adequate knowledge of French, but the only reliable test is to go among French people and speak it.

Sidebar: G K Chesterton (it's been a while since I mentioned him) wrote in Chapter 2 of his Orthodoxy of a publisher acquaintance who said to him of a third party, "that man will get on: he believes in himself." Chesterton replied, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums." There's more. It's a fascinating book, whether you agree with it or not.

6. "I teach children that they are being watched." I don't see what the problem is here. Everyone is being watched, and it's going to get worse. To teach otherwise would be to teach a lie. And I'm not only talking about official surveillance, or even "sousveillance." The fact is that we live in society, and in society we watch each other. Privacy is a fairly recent invention, and if some things I've read lately are right it may go the way of the Spinning Jenny any day now. It will become more and more important to teach children that they are being watched. It might stop the little buggers expressing their individuality by throwing stones at our car.

So. Crushing spirits? I'm not so sure. Or, if it is, it's only in the same sense that making a statue involves chopping bits off the lump of living stone. There are problems with our educational systems, no-one with any sense denies that. I'm just not convinced that this piece has nailed them.

Comments

[jahura.livejournal.com]

I agree. If you put it another way, the fundamentals these same lessons prepare a child for adult life are:

1. Adapting to a singular workspace for extended periods of time
2. Executing simultaneous multiple projects
3. Dealing with authority
4. Task mastery
5. Job evaluation and review
6. Self discipline

Hopefully I will get into that a little later, but for the moment I don't want a tardy slip from my boss. ;)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I hope you didn't get one. And thank you. It's nice to know that other people whose opinions I respect see it the same way.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

The writer goes on to say that "self-evaluation -- the staple of every major philosophical system that ever appeared on the planet -- is never a factor in these things." I can't actually see how self-evaluation would be helpful in this situation.

Part of it is, in the American School System, everything is tied to those letter grades, and they are inadequate.

For example, even though Pookie has been having significant challenges in school and at home, she's generally been trying to overcome them. But because her grades are poor, she isn't allowed to attend some of the end of the year festivities. Despite our and her observation that she's vastly improved...to the school she isn't good enough, and our opinion doesn't matter.

And Blade, Blade was a straight A student, aced every test, got told college would be a breeze...and choked miserably in college, partially because those grades never showed that he had poor self-motivational and study skills.

In the private middle school I went to, self-evaluation was a large part of the process. When I was done with a project, part of the grading process was for me to sit down with the teachers and talk about what I thought about the work I'd done; what I felt I did well on, what I struggled with. It gave me a HUGE sense of taking pride in my work, because my input about what I was doing, mattered. When I got into highschool, no one cared.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

But because her grades are poor, she isn't allowed to attend some of the end of the year festivities. Despite our and her observation that she's vastly improved...to the school she isn't good enough, and our opinion doesn't matter.

That is unequivocally bad. There are many and various things a child might do for which some sort of disciplinary action (which is, essentially, what this is, no matter what they call it) might be appropriate. Under-performing academically is absolutely not one of them.

What happened to Blade sounds somewhat like what happened to me in college, though I still think a big part of my problem was being in the wrong subject.

[dickgloucester.livejournal.com]

That was very interesting, and I agree, on first reading, with everything. I'll come back and read again when I'm less distracted.

But for the moment a word of thanks: you used "adaptation". Bless your little, medium-sized, or big cotton socks. I get so tired of hearing and seeing "adaption".

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Latin is such a help sometimes... :)

[eleri.livejournal.com]

as an utter aside, have you had a chance to look over the Asylum forum since I got your permissions in place? There's much good discussion.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Erp. Not yet, but I will.

[siderea]

I gave up reading your post about 3/4th of the way through; of what I read, I cannot disagree more, and am too cross with you to engage in reasonable dicussion. There are a century of thoughtful and well researched discussions of exactly these issues, and I would be happy to give you a short bibkiography to start you on your way to no longer recoursing to appeals to popular wisdom.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry I made you cross. That wasn't my intention. Please bear in mind that these are the opinions of someone who has never been and please gods will never be involved in the education of anyone, in any capacity.

So then, do you feel that the writer of the piece to which eleri linked was correct in his negative assessment of American education, and in his reasons for that assessment?

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Well said. I believe there are many problems with our school, and many problems with how the various pieces of them are implemented. However, this strikes me as someone extremely burned out by the system who is, hmm, perhaps not providing the most balanced look at things. (Which I understand - it's easy to let my problem students take things over and forget all the good ones.)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That's the impression I got.

[lexin.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on this, but that should be no surprise.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It's good to know anyway. :)

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Yes. And also no, 'cos nothing's ever that simple(*), but essentially... Yes. [NODS]

*The caveat: I had a right old whinge at one of my bosses, about 20 years ago, about how I'd had no preparation for this lark of having to keep on slogging away at the same problem day after day after day until I crack it, with no variety, no certainty that there even *was* an answer let alone a *right* answer, and no one ever saying "OK, time's up, hand in what you've done" (and thus at least relieving me of the misery, even if I did get awarded an F).

He said "Well, we can't expect the whole of life to be like school", which of course completely missed the point: My complaint was that school wasn't sufficiently like *the whole of life*. Specifically, in this instance, I'd been trained to tackle problems in a particular context, where failure led to a particular outcome that was completely artificial. I'd had no training in how to deal with "failure that actually, objectively matters", or with "problems that simply *have* to be solved however long it takes you."

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

So your problem was that school wasn't boring, stressful or miserable enough?

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Pretty much, yeah! =:o>

Or at least not at the right times, and about the right things.

Another thing it didn't prepare me for: Working on brain-taxing tasks in a room full of people all working on *different* things, some of them discussing those things out loud, some of whom could potentially help me with the thing I was working on if only (a) it would occur to me to ask them, and (b) I could get a word in edgeways!

20 years have taught me that I will never be able to thrive in such a situation... But at least some test experience at school would have revealed that I didn't perform well under those conditions, and that might have fed into the careers advice I was given and the options I considered.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It would probably have done me some good as well. At least I would have known not to bother trying to have a day job, and lowered my expectations from life accordingly.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Erm... I'm not sure that would have been a positive outcome. =:o\

You have *had* day jobs, and managed to hold them for a while, and the resultant money has been useful, even if the means of getting it has been gruelling and/or the people you've had to deal with have been appalling... I get the impression the main problem you're having is that - because of age, health, past employment history, etc. - you're locked into a position where the only jobs you are likely to be considered for are ones that aren't suitable for you.

What you need, of course, is an unlikely kind of employer who's trying to fill an unlikely kind of job, and advertises it in one of the places you happen to be looking, on the same day you happen to be looking for one. (Which, if you're not out looking very often, is unlikely.)

Wretched, innit? =:o\

Seriously, what would your ideal job look like? What would your ideal *employer* look like? And how much of what's ideal would you be willing to compromise on?

[EXITS HUMMING "DESKBOUND"]

[COMES BACK, RUMMAGES AROUND, FINDS THE "WASSALIENS" TAPE, STICKS IT IN THE PLAYER]

[EXITS BOOGYING TO "DESKBOUND" (BUT STAYS WITHIN EARSHOT)]

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

My ideal job? Would involve using both my intelligence and my creativity, with a solid substrate of ordinary doable office work and no heavy lifting, in a small company composed of congenial people where I would be allowed to work on my own. In other words, the sort of job that would by its nature pay well enough to support both of us, but for which I would need scads of qualifications and prior experience which in my case I have not got. The fact that I could do such a job perfectly well is irrelevant. I wouldn't even be considered.

As for compromise...I've been compromising on all of what's ideal since I left my father's house, and I expect to have to go on doing it till I die. The goal at the moment is to get a job that I can actually hold down that pays *some*thing. I'm not even ruling out Mole Valley again, if they'd have me.