I
found the readings this week to be very interesting, but was having a difficult
time finding a connection among the readings. As I got to the end of the third article what I took out of
the three reading was that it is important to teach the whole child and that a common
curriculum doesn’t account for the diversity and individuality of all
learners. My first true teaching
experience was in 2007 when I student taught in a 4th grade
classroom at a very high-needs, highly at-risk elementary school. The social worker at the school at the
time is now the social worker at the high school in our district. I always ask her about the students we
shared at the elementary school and am often disappointed to hear that many of
them are struggling. I often
question how to break this cycle of parents who do not value education who are
raising students to not value education.
The traditional ways of teaching we have come to know don’t work for all
children. Addams and Montessori, as Kyle pointed out, went to the
kids- “Kids, today, go to school. Montessori and Addams--it is worth pointing
out--went to the kids. They came to understand their homes and their
neighborhoods in ways that the educators of today would be wise to understand.” I do feel we miss the boat sometimes
when so much pressure is put on us for data, data, data and student achievement that we miss the
bigger picture. Montessori and
Addams went to the kids, and also in ways the parents. I think educating
parents, especially for students in at-risk environments, is very important to potentially break the cycle of at-risk youth. The the introduction to cycle three post Kyle also states that in the settlement house people "worked by having middle class professionals live together in the settlement house and put their professional and cultural knowledge to the services of the urban poor around them. They treated the people around them as neighbors, not clients." I think we need to take these ideals and apply it to many families in our country. We need to work together for the greater good all of children. In
the Martin article, The
schoolhome: Rethinking schools for changing families, he states, “I think it is fair
to say that the curriculum of the Schoolhome does not have a common core. It is equally important to note that
that core is composed mainly of attitudes, skills, and values, not bits or
bodies of knowledge” (Martin 84). A
new approach to learning that these readings reminded me of is inquiry-based
teaching and learning in an International Baccalaureate school. International Baccalaureate schools use
an inquiry-based approach to learning, which includes teaching
methods, built on students' individual knowledge and interests. It also emphasizes learning how to
learn and how to find out. In the district I teach in we will have two
elementary Baccalaureate schools next year. I like how this approach allows kids to take their own
personal life experiences into their learning. Traditional education settings do not work for all children, and I believe this inquiry-based approach is similar to what Addams and Montessori did in their teaching approaches.
References:
Addams, J. (1912). Twenty years at Hull House,
with autobiographical notes. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Martin, J. R. (1995). The schoolhome: Rethinking
schools for changing families. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Montessori, M. (1986). The discovery of the child. New York: Ballantine.
Lisa Ann,
ReplyDeleteI think you summed up the link between the three articles pretty well. As I was reading the articles I also was struggling to make a connection between each article. Especially with the third essay by Jane Roland Martin. I think that not only should we change how the curriculum is set up but also how it is taught. Both Addams and Montessori detail techniques and methods that make sense to me and while neither may be “perfect” they both have methods that can be used to create a successful teaching environment. I think it was brilliant to teach as it was done in Hull House. Professionals educated others in a comfortable and safe setting where anyone was free to come and go to the lectures as they pleased. Some men were able to learn a trade and start working much sooner than if they went through the traditional apprenticeships of the time and others could learn about many other things on their own time. I also think Hull House provided a sense of community in the middle of a large city. People living at Hull House had to work together to coexist and those who lectured and taught didn’t do it as if they were speaking down to their audience but rather it was more of an open forum with discussion as well.
Montessori had some strong ideas about creating an environment for students to learn for themselves and gain independence which I find to be an essential concept of education. I would like nothing more than for all my students to be able to think critically for themselves and not need to hold their hands. While I have a few that are independent, the vast majority want their hands held and I struggle to balance teaching content and weaning them off the hand holding.
An inquiry based approach is a great way to get students to think for themselves but is that something that we can do across all our schools? Should we? Our kids have been force fed information for so long that many don’t know how to think for themselves. A good teacher can/should be more of a facilitator, right? Give the kids a concept or task, put them in groups and have them teach themselves? I like that approach because now with technology, students can access basic information. Do we really need to teach them multiplication tables if they can look it up on their smartphones? I like the idea of the Schoolhome and maybe kids should be learning about life and how to ask questions and think for themselves, not how to solve an algebraic equation.
Hi Lisa,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post!
I think you do an admirable job of finding some linkage between the articles when you point out the connection between schools and families. As you say, we might even think about shifting some of our focus away from kids--sounds crazy, I know--and towards their parents. If parents are the first educators, I think we can continue to build off of that in ways that both Addams and Montessori would recognize. Both were into having kids learn things at their institutions that would improve life in the home. Addams even talks about her hopes that children who learn about better hygiene and home safety issues will directly impart that knowledge to their parents. There are many ways to think about home-school links.
As we go back to cycle 1, we can see that the primary way parents currently interact with schools is by helicoptering, helping with homework, bake sales, etc. But really, what I see these authors arguing for is a role that empowers parents more. That helps them become better educators of their children. I also see them saying that schools need to be active in that relationship, by shaping schools that feel more like homes and that can teach domestic arts as part of the curriculum of socialization. Sewing and cooking are not really about future careers--they are learning ways to be useful to other people and to show you care about them. That is why so many good preschools really stress the communal aspects of good--cooking, eating and cleaning. Real life skills are taught there that augment family life.
It's a chicken and egg situation when we know the home life is not empowering. But I think the clear message is that the school must step in and provide the home environment and socialization skills. That is a real challenge to the current academic focus we have. But it is hard to imagine the US thriving in the future without a strengthening of its families and family structures!
Great post, take care!
Kyle