> I'd be interested in hearing from others who have spent more time in public
> school than I have, but between being a parent and having supervised
> student teachers for a year, I have never been in classroom where having
> fun was the driving force in the organization of the class. Having fun may
> be seen as desirable, but I'd nominate control as much more fundamental.
> Actually, on average the schooling I've seen in the U.S. seems more tense
> and distressing than pleasurable.
>
> And, what I've heard from real whole language teachers--a fairly small
> group as far as I can tell--(as opposed to the basal reader version of
> whole language), the teacherswork very hard indeed to structure
> environments where quite specific kinds of learning would occur. Such
> classes certainly sought to tap students' interests and to work from
> students' capacities, but I wouldn't equate that with fun or fatalism.
Paul, along with you I have never been in a classroom where
having fun was the driving force.
And, again similar to your experience, teachers work very hard to
teach what they believe what should be taught using the methods that they
believe are successful methods.
In an earlier posting, Betty Zan had commented that she had not
seen constructivist teachers enveloped in chaos, as Phil Agre had suggested.
You comment that whole-language teachers are a rather small
group, and work done by Clarke, Davis and Rhodes, when then researched
thirty some odd classrooms in inner-city schools, demonstrated that there
was very little consistency between classrooms in teaching methods or
materials used by teachers who self-designated themselves as
'whole-language'.
Perhaps the teacher in the chaotic classroom that Phil observed
self-designated him/herself as a constructivist, without a real
understanding of constructivism.
I imagine there is very little in common between _constructivist_
teachers, just now.
I have taught for twenty-five years in Colorado, and never have I
experienced an emphasis on having fun within the classroom. There is an
emphasis on _experiential_ activities that the students will enjoy -
i.e., math manipulative or book publishing or readers' theater. But it
is acknowledged that these activies are to smooth the way in challenging
skill and concept formations/acquisitions/transmissions. (I use all
three words, because in my experience teachers move from one to another
without the slightest notion of the theoretical implications.) Because,
they are primarily interested in finding activities in which children
will learn information or behaviors or skills that can easily demonstrate
'learning'.
It's difficult, because so much of school (public) is driven by
standardized tests and what a teacher believes that the next grade 'up'
is going to be demanding that children 'know'. It gets messy.
And, the article by J. E. Stone reminded me of other recent
attacks I have read about education that is developmentally appropriate.
The National Association of Education for Young Children is often
attacked by the religious/political right wing because of its stance on
child abuse (i.e., parents should not spank, etc.) and sexual orientation
(i.e., it believes that civil rights should be extended to all), and
other areas of education that thirty years ago educators commonly did not
discuss, and that are seen by some as 'controversial'.
Stone notes that "Both developmentally appropriate and
educationally appropriate instruction rely on present levels of
demonstrated performance as a starting point for instruction and both
seek to optimize intellectual advancement." In Littleton, CO. an
enormous attack was mounted against the school district that wanted
performance objectives. The parents disliked performance objectives
because it included the affective domain - i.e., the student will
appreciate cultural differences and values of other cultures. The
parents objected that this was for the parents to teach, not schools.
A bit farther on, Stone writes, "In conclusion, developmentalism
appears to discourage teacher and parent intervention while
simultaneously promoting the belief that academic achievement and
responsible behavior will spontaneously emerge if only given time and
facilitating conditions." Parents in Littleton will quickly note that
parent intervention is discouraged and recognize this as another way
teachers are attempting to keep parents out of education.
As always, just like with the Why Can't Johnny Read scenario for
the 1950's, where the schools seen as championing Dewey and his 'pinko'
friends, the best way to attack the schools was to attack the methods
they used to teach reading, when the real attack was on the content that
the schools were using. It always comes down to information control, I
guess. All the present controversies in public schools are really about
what information are the children to be allowed access to. Sex
education, gay and lesbian education, birth control, abortion - all this
stuff under 'alternative lifestyles' as a challenge to, to what? The
good all American way?
Joao, are the schools in Brazil under attack by the
conservatives? You have written eloquently about the clash between the
teachers, students and society in theoretical terms. What about some
life examples?
Phillip
pwhite who-is-at carbon.cudenver.edu