You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘education’ tag.
If You Disrespect Teachers, You Disrespect Learning
By Shlomo Maital
Once, long ago, becoming a school teacher was a worthy and socially respected goal. Norman Rockwell’s wonderful portrait of “Happy Birthday, Miss Jones” was the cover of the Saturday Evening Post, March 17, 1956 issue. That was almost 60 years ago. The reason Rockwell’s portrait is out-of-date is not the blackboard, now replaced by whiteboards – but the love shown by students for their teacher. It’s largely gone.
A new study by the OECD, known as TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey) questioned over 100,000 lower secondary school teachers and 6,500 principals, from 34 countries. A Google search on “TALIS OECD” will bring you to it.
Here are the main results:
- Society no longer values the work of teachers, in the perception of the teachers themselves. Only about 5 per cent of French and Swedish teachers said “society valued their work”. In the U.S., the proportion was only about one-third. This contrasts with 68 per cent in Singapore. The head of the schools division at OECD, normally understated, said the results were ‘shocking’.
- Why do Singaporean kids score so high on international tests in math, science and literacy? Smaller classes? Better methods? Sure … but also, because in Singapore, teachers are respected and valued, hence bright people choose teaching as a profession. Who wants to pick a profession that nobody values? Teaching then becomes a last-choice default, rather than a first-choice priority.
- For a majority of surveyed countries, “few attract the most experienced teachers to the most challenging schools [more than 30 per cent of the students are from low socioeconomic backgrounds]”, said one of the study’s authors Julie Belanger. In other words, as a teacher gains seniority, he or she uses it to teach in a ‘desired’ school rather than in a tough one. That leaves the younger less experienced teachers to deal with the tougher schools. It should be the opposite.
- Large numbers of teachers face imminent retirement; teachers’ average age is 43. Teachers have an average of 16 years teaching experience.
- 68% of all teachers are women, but 51% of principals are men. Why??? What makes a man qualified to be principal, just because of his gender??? In our capitalist business-model approach to schools, where productivity is measured by test scores, teachers become trainers, rather than educators. No wonder we don’t respect them. According to the TALIS study, 93% of teachers report “students should be allowed to think of solutions to a problem themselves before teachers show them the solution”. Nearly half of all teachers report they frequently have their students work in small groups. Do we truly value how teachers spur creativity in our kids, rather than how they train them to excel in tests? If Norman Rockwell were to draw “Happy Birthday, Miss Jones” today – it would look a whole lot different. And a whole lot worse.
- The TALIS study should ring alarm bells. Quality education is NOT principally about resources, budgets, or even class size. It is about teachers – finding motivated, creative people who choose education as a first choice, and who thrive because they are respected and valued. If society were to highly value teaching, that alone would partly compensate for current low salaries. But low respect, and low salaries, together are lethal.
- Despite the fact that society does not seem to value what they do, most teachers do love their jobs and would choose teaching again as a career, if they had to.
Should We Teach Kids to Break the Rules?
By Shlomo Maital
Library Lion
In Michelle Knudsen’s book for children, “Library Lion”, 2006, illustrated by Kevin Hawkes, the head librarian Miss Merriweather and Mr. McBee kick Library Lion out of the library, because he roared. And in the library, the rule is, you have to keep silent. They come to realize that by sticking to the formal rules, McBee and Merriweather have made a mistake.
Sometimes, to do a good thing, you have to break the rules. An Israeli theater group has now made a musical out of this story.
Here is a short passage: One day a lion came to the library. He walked right past the circulation desk and up into the stacks. Mr. McBee ran down the hall to the head librarian’s office. “Miss Merriweather!” he called. “No running”, said Miss Merriweather, without looking up. “But there’s a lion!” said Mr. McBee. “In the library!” “Is he breaking any rules?” asked Miss Merriweather. She was very particular about rule breaking. “Well, no,” said Mr. McBee. “Not really”. “Then leave him be.”
As parents and teachers, we teach our kids to become ‘socialized’, which means, to learn the rules of civilized behavior in society. Every society socializes its kids. Without that, we would have a crumbling society of sociopaths.
The question is, if creativity and innovation are about breaking the rules, can we teach kids to follow some rules and break others? And can they learn to know the difference? Can we raise good kids, well behaved, who at the same time rebel against rules, unwritten ones, and create wonderful new inventions? Can you be totally socialized, and extremely creative?
Perhaps “Library Lion” is a wonderful start at grappling with these tough questions. It is clear that doing so is long overdue. A lot of parenting, and a great deal of schooling, are one-sidedly focused on teaching the rules, and not on when they might be, and should be, broken.
The Second Machine Age: What It Means for You and Me and Our Kids
By Shlomo Maital
Tom Friedman’s Global New York Times column, Jan. 13, is titled “If I Had a Hammer”. It’s not about the folk singers Peter, Paul & Mary. It’s about the Second Machine Age, and about the chess grandmaster Donner who was asked how to prepare for a chess match against a machine, like IBM’s Deep Blue computer. “I would bring a hammer,” he said.
Friedman reviews a new book by MIT Professors Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age. According to them, in the First Machine Age, 1700-1950, each new invention made human control and human labor more important. In the Second Machine Age, we are automating cognitive tasks. Result: humans, and software-driven machines, may be substitutes (i.e. enemies), not complements. Machines are becoming exponentially smarter. “Our generation will have more power to improve (or destroy) the world than any before, relying on fewer people and more technology”, Friedman concludes.
What does this mean? For one, “we need to reinvent education so more people can ‘race with machines’, not race against them”.
This implies, I believe, that we must totally rethink how we teach kids. The only advantage humans have over smart machines is in their imaginations. So teaching and fostering creativity will be a crucial component of how we educate our children in future. It’s the only competitive advantage we have over machines. The only think smart machines lack, and will always lack, is the human brain’s ability to imagine things that do not exist. No machine yet has a ‘visual cortex’.



