h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Alright. Now, as some of you know, I teach math and English at a Saturday school (all adolescent boys in my class). In the past, we've had problems with students playing games they've downloaded on their graphing calculators during class when they think I'm not looking.

Now, I'm not incredibly offended by the concept of this, per se. After all, I was the kid was was always hiding a book in my lap to read while the teacher was talking -- a low tech version of the same thing, more or less, right? It's all about not getting caught, pretending like you're paying attention, and at least pretending to be properly pentitent when you are caught. And I remember back in middle school when there were boys in my class who were idiotic enough to try and look at porn during class, their efforts at not being caught were all the more strident. And when they were caught (which they usually were, because after all, who can remember that you're supposed to be paying attention to Mr. Kroger if you're staring at pictures of nudie ladies?) they were usually willing to do just about anything to talk the teacher out of "taking the problem up the line" -- i.e., to the principal's office, or to their parents.

Anyway, kids today have these fancy graphing calculators that you can download games onto. And when I catch them playing games in class, I confiscate the calculator until the end of the class. And when I catch them playing 'naughty' games, I delete the game before giving the calculator back -- I do it without saying anything, because so often these kids are wanting the attention of causing a disruption.

So anways, this weekend one of the kids threw a fit because I had deleted his "PimpQuest" game off of his calculator (and it's a free game to download off the web, BTW), and what right did I have....

The whole affair ended up not calming down until the I had the principal's husband come in and talk to the boys.

What bothered me wasn't that the kids had the game, or even that they had tried to get away with playing it in class. What bothered me was that expected me to pretend like I didn't notice, or maybe even pretend like I thought it was funny. I asked some of the other teachers who have these kids -- one said that he had played it with the kids, the other said that he hadn't said anything, because he didn't want the kids to think he wasn't cool.

Am I the only one who thinks that defined boundaries can be a good thing in the classroom? As in, I'm not here to be your best buddy and friend, I'm here to be the adult and the teacher? Am I just being hopelessly outdated and old-fashioned?

Back in highschool a teacher took away a folder of all my drawings, she didn't give them back at the end of class either. I thought of it as basic theft, they were my property and she had no right to keep them from me at the end of the hour. I was really upset and gave her a piece of my mind and was suspended for a few days.

I would have been much more agreable if she had simply returned my drawings after class. I think you handle the matter very nicely, they are there to pay attention after all, not play games. I always respected a teacher who knew how to teach well and I ended up paying attention(while I was doodling

You can't let the kids have their way or they won't respect you.
Compromise is an option but so is getting an F

There are, quite obviously, a minimum of four levels of schooling involved.

At the elementary level, the student quite naturally resents being forced to do anything besides recess activities. "Who needs to learn to read anyway, I'm just going to be a kid."

At the secondary level, the student resents having to be taught. Teaching is for kids. Shi has more important things to do, like maintaining hir place in the pecking order. "I know all that stuff! How many times do you need to repeat it? I doesn't matter anyway. Stop treating me like a kid."

At the high school level, the student knows that the most important things are socialization and these new sexual feelings. Nature wants them to be busy reproducing in their prime and why should a teacher be interfering with Nature? "Yeah, I'm gonna be somebody important. I'll decide who in college."

At the college or trade school level, the student finally figures out that hir parents are getting old and more and more stingy and selfish. "It's time to pick a career -- next week -- meanwhile let's party while we still have some freedom."

What is missing are the twin concepts of responsibility and discipline. The last is a foul thing best left in the dungeon with the whips, chains, racks, and iron maidens. It is the cause of all the warped things in the world because, since the start of the 20th century, less and less limitation has been built into our societies and training children to behave is training them to adhere to outmoded self-limiting values. The former is unnecessary because we have made it plain that one only needs to face responsibility if shi is too stupid to avoid getting caught and being forced to accept fault.

Even if our societies refuse to admit that these are their teachings, there are few of us so simple that we cannot detect these essential hypocrisies of modern life.

Students don't need to study because if they are graded at their actual skill level the teacher is castigated for crippling their students with records that will forever mark them as incompetent. It doesn't matter that they are, all that matters is that they move along to the next stage of factory education smoothly. After all, children are only children, each essentially the same. a blank slate for the educational system to stamp into model citizens through the application of scientific methods of inculcation and programming. They don't need to learn, they need to be taught. Far better that they should be taught without having to flex their growing mentalities which should remain virginal at least till the college level where they presumably will suddenly *want* to learn what they need to know to improve their lives and, perhaps, the world.

Our students are taught through the philosophy of the system that the person who answers the question is doing the work for everyone else and thus is clearly the worker. Those who do not answer the question are clearly the ones destined to tell the worker to do the work while they do their best to get away with whatever they can, however they can.

You can't take away the child's toy, because the child is 'entitled' to hir childhood. If they aren't participating the way you think they should then you are failing to motivate them. Perhaps you ought to be using these games to help teach your lessons. Make the programs mandatory, give them assignments inside the games. After all, playing the game is teaching them the position of the keys on their calculators which is fine practice for the executive musing yet to come.

Don't forget that eye-hand co-ordination is all that is really required for a member of our society. See the party name, pull the lever or mark the box. (No punching of holes, that's too difficult and smacks of manual labor in any case.)

After all, why would anyone want to know anything? They would just be expected to answer questions and be marked down for not having them right. Clearly, the simplest strategy, is to avoid answering questions. And, knowing the answer is clearly not what any wise person would choose to do.

We haven't the right to deprive them of their calculators or their games because they are innocent till proven guilty. Being proven guilty requires a trial and witnesses, lawyers, clerks, and lots and lots of time and expensive education directed toward a crowd of peers who will gloat at you if you can't show that you were simply caught through improperly conceived subterfuges. or find a way to pay them not to care. Learning better subterfuge, can only be achieved through hard work, observation, and an unfailing desire to 'have it all' while remaining fully responsible for hir own desires independently of any special social/group needs that are attempted to be placed upon hir.

So, you see, you must not take their games away just because they don't want you to and you don't have the time or energy to prove that you have the right. It isn't your job to educate these monkeys. All you can do is make it possible for them to educate themselves. And, whether you do that or not, they will educate themselves to precisely the degree that they wish to be educated. They will grant that you have the power to force them to be in their seats and to force them to be present (after some effort) but you cannot make them learn what you offer. You are not permitted to force them to perform the actions that would force them to learn. You are not permitted to do the job you have been given to do. You must face that fact. You must, like your colleagues, learn to play along, in hopes that they will accidentally learn something of use to them and that it will actually help them to live better lives and not merely to be frustrated for lack of application of their knowledge. Or ... you must simply learn not to care. I've been told some folks have, though I've never found it possible for more than a few moments.

Consider the normal curve as if it were the return for any decision based on public awareness. Whether you accept the mean, the median, the medium, or the most probable, you are going to end up with a result that is never going to cover all the needs of all the people and will only satisfy those who are willing to be satisfied. So long as we are willing to be satisfied with 'most', however small 'most' might be and so long as 'most' is enough to get by with, there is no need for excellence; it is time and effort wasted. An 'A' grade is merely a teacher's way of saying, "Boy! Did I trick you into doing more than you had to!"

Efficiency used to mean the process of achieving the most for the least effort. Now, it merely means the process of putting out the least effort to meet minimal acceptance standards -- and those standards really don't matter anyway.

Or, maybe there's somethimg else wrong with the system? Hmmmm?

Barton

My parents always took the approach that you should only do education when you wanted to do education, you can always get a job to live off until the time comes when you want education. I started making an effort at school, when I was 13 when I realised what I wanted - so jumped to stage 4 early I supposed.

Of course, you have to remember here that I don't teach at a public school.

I teach at a Korean school. Classes are segregated not only by gender, but by ability and skills. The parental expectation here is that the children are there to work until they succeed, and then move up to a higher level and work some more. Theoretically, I suppose I have permission to hit my students, although I think other methods are more effective. But not only is coddling not expected, it's not allowed -- teachers who coddle students are dismissed. Teachers who let students whine and weasel their way out of homework are dismissed. Teachers who spend class time playing only vaguely educational games, or spend too much effort trying to make classes "fun" rather than "work", also risk the sack.

All students are also expected to participate in classes, and those who don't are dropped from the class -- in the past, we've had waiting lists to get into my classes, and I'd rather spend my time on an active learner.

If word gets back to the principal that teachers are repeatedly letting students get away with disrespectful behavior in the classroom, there will also be a problem. (And, interestingly enough, there are always students who will tell their parents if another kid is keeping them from learning, especially when the parents are keeping close track on exactly how quickly the kids are learning how much material).

We send home report cards every month -- not reports of effort, or improvement, but what % they achieved on each quiz or test covering each skill, plus questions reviewing previous skills. Parents are alerted to problem areas so that they can encourage the child to study that area specifically in advance of the next test. If there's a mild behavior problem (i.e., I had one child last year who kept using the words "gay" and "fag" to describe everything, despite my explanations of why that was inappropriate), it's usually noted on the report card as well. And not only does the problem in question disappear quite quickly at that point, but so do problems across the class -- they realize that you are calling their bluff, and are completely willing to be frank with their parents.

I think most of what you said might apply to some public school environments, Barton, but not really to this environment. These are all kids who grew up in this environment, and had to know, without a doubt, that any parent would back up the teacher. (Note: the other teachers who had "gone along" with the game were all from outside the culture, btw).

So again, I wasn't surprised that the kids were trying to get away with this. When I don't see *some* degree of struggle for independence at this age, I worry. What shocked me most was that he had clearly learned elsewhere that he should be able to push adults around over something like this, and that he expected it to be able to carry over into this environment. And that the other teachers still weren't able to maintain what I'd consider normal adult/youth boundaries, even when they *weren't* in a public school setting where such blurring is sometimes encouraged.

And frankly, even in a public school setting he would have been in deep shit for getting caught with a game like this -- if, for example, the school had reason to believe he had shown it to an unwilling/unsuspecting classmate, he probably would have been suspended for sexual harassment.

So, your reaction was not so much to the student trying to get away with not paying attention as to the nature of the game?

This school sounds like a good model. I will support any learning environment that does not insist on conveyor belts and statistical success reports.

Education is too important to permit it to laud itself on the percentage of its success.

Every failure is the failure to provide what was needed for that particular student and that is a complete failure of the commitment to educate.

On the other hand, attempts to set standards for success of schools like the currently mamdated tests only support the statistical apporach to education with the implied sacrifice of those who 'can't keep up'

Of course, raising the expectations is good but insisting on the accuracy of "standardised" tests only leads to teaching to the test rather than to educating the students.

Having graded some of these tests, I have severe doubts on whether they should be used to grade schools rather than as diagnostics for both the teacher and the students.

The issue that is never broached in consideration of public education is that it takes skill, concern, and individual attention to teach children. The problem is not the system so much as the belief in the system -- whatever that system might be. It's time to once more train and believe in the teachers and to make teaching a respected, honored, and rewarded profession.

The current failing all have to do with making do with as few trained teachers as possible to push as many students through the process in a fixed amount of time as possible. Thinking of educational systems rather than educationa methods is treating students as products of particular factories. There are your Chevy children and you BMW children and so forth.

The way to teach children is to insure that they get the information and attention they need to learn what they are required to know. They must 'advance' only when they are ready to learn the next batch of information and skills. If we must include aspects of competition rather than using grades as diagnostics forced on a teacher with too many students who must answer to some authority on the current state of the class rather than the individual levels of hir students, then let them compete for something other than how they stand versus norms of expectation.

The government assumes responsiblity for education, up to a point, but only dictates content and never concerns itself with individual students all meeting necessary standards. That is left to the teachers who are not permitted to work with their students at the expense of their class. Opportunity to learn is defeated by insistance on meeting the time standards of factory education.

Where is the problem if the student requires longer to learn something except that that student must have learned it by the end of the class. The class lasts from this date to that date and failure to learn in that time, whether because of the student's issues or the teacher's is failure of the class. This is institutionalized stupidity. The teacher is encouraged to form a partnership with each of hir students and then is denied the chance to bring that partnership to fruition due to concerns of time.

Class time slots are the digitization of the learning process. They are the point where the decision is made that the student should have learned and if shi has met the minimum expectation then shi is thrust forward to try again. Excellence is accidental amd that is justified by the clock and not by the need to provide the student with a full individualized education.

The system the Korean school is using seems to be well suited to being concerned with the education of the student such that it is providing a service and not a product.

I'll gladly vote for that. Unfortunately, voting is precisely what gives us the public educational system we products somehow manage to survive.

Barton

(Have you ever noticed that the exceptional as well as the sub-standard are equally objectional when product consistency is the prime concern.)