Editor’s note: This commentary is by Peter Berger, an English teacher at Weathersfield School who writes “Poor Elijah’s Almanack.” The column appears in several publications including the Times Argus, the Rutland Herald and the Stowe Reporter.
Youthful Poor Elijah read big books on the beach, including “On the Beach,” which wasn’t especially big but was about nuclear war, which is a big, weighty topic, especially when you’re 12. His biggest summer book ever was “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” He found its 1,200 pages weighty in every way imaginable.
Then he’d head back to school for some lighter reading, like “Great Expectations.” Hopefully you’ll find the back-to-school reading below sufficiently lighthearted and a little weighty.
Two think tank experts are shining a light on what they’ve identified as “probably the most important input in the education process” – student effort. Apparently, reformers have thus far “ignored” this “promising catalyst for student success.”
You’re probably wondering how anybody – let alone everybody – high up in the education world could have missed the fact that how hard students work has something important to do with how much they learn. If somehow you’re not shaking your head in disbelief at what passes for education wisdom, you should consider a career as an education expert.
The problem goes beyond acknowledging the “simple” principle that “when students work harder, they learn more.” The real problem is that unlike much of the world, “we don’t expect most kids to work very hard, and they don’t.”
That many students aren’t thrilled with schoolwork isn’t a new development. Students back in my schooldays questioned the “real-world relevance of their schoolwork,” too, and while Snapchat and videogames are new distractions for the 21st century, television, “friends, sports, and afterschool jobs” were diversions that competed for our time the same way they lure and distract today’s students.
One difference between then and now might be that the adults in my classmates’ lives, parents and teachers, were more likely to respond, “Tough,” when we complained. Today many experts advise against making learning too hard and unappealing. Advocates for the nationwide Civic Missions of Schools, for example, warn that expecting students to master too much civics content might “alienate” them. In other words, don’t expect them to know too much or they might not want to participate in government and the political process.
Yes, by all means, let’s have as many ignorant participants in government as possible.
Some reformers propose solving the motivation problem by paying students in cash or giving them prizes. This is like expecting a health club to pay me to join just because I sweat there. I benefit from exercising, and students benefit from learning. That’s why neither of us should get paid.
Our think tank experts recommend motivating students by holding them accountable for how well or poorly they score on tests. In short, we need to re-establish the natural consequence for failure by giving students credit only when they succeed. They propose measuring success with innovative “end of course” exams, formerly known as finals, and mandatory pass/fail graduation tests.
Mandatory testing would certainly motivate some students who want to make sure they graduate. It would also encourage others who either enjoy competition or appreciate an explicit marker by which to measure their achievement, an incentive some students miss in this age of standards-based non-grading. At the same time, compulsory tests would doubtless increase the dropout rate among students who either don’t care or haven’t learned enough to earn a diploma.
There’s no perfect answer here. One-time tests are less comprehensive than multiple classroom assessments administered throughout the year. High teacher expectations can help boost achievement but won’t move every student or every class. Enforcing rigorous graduation standards will mean that fewer students graduate.
Our experts conclude with the recommendation that “school leaders should embrace the responsibility of holding students accountable.” It’s appalling that they need to recommend something so obvious. We must recognize, though, that schools’ lax expectations reflect the pressures the rest of us put on schools to guarantee success, and the consequences of that false guaranty.
Apathy isn’t only a problem for students at the lower end of the spectrum. Teachers also need to motivate bright and gifted students. Many specialists even contend there’s a significant difference between “bright” and “gifted.” They’ve compiled a 23 item diagnostic checklist.
For example, a bright child “knows the answers,” while a truly gifted learner “asks the questions.” Of course, if he’s asking questions but doesn’t know the answers, that could be because he wasn’t listening. This is possible because a bright child “listens with interest” while a gifted learner is busy being “mentally and physically involved.” At the same time, while a bright child “learns with ease,” a gifted learner “already knows,” which is problematic because we just identified bright children as the ones who know.
While bright children have “good ideas” and “work hard,” a truly gifted child has “wild, silly ideas” and “plays around.” He nonetheless “tests well,” presumably in part because one mark of a gifted learner is he’s a “good guesser.”
Can you distinguish the objective difference between “interested” and “highly curious,” or “alert” and “keenly observant”? If a student “enjoys learning” more than he “enjoys school,” is it because he’s gifted or because he’s shy? I’ve taught lots of non-gifted students I’d describe as “intense,” and just as many non-bright students who enjoy their peers more than they enjoy the company of adults.
You probably sense by now that I don’t find the checklist a useful diagnostic tool. More to the point, I don’t find the distinction itself between “bright” and “gifted” useful. Like most teachers, I deal with students where I find them, and over the course of the year, I try to move them along as far as I can. I do this with each student in the context of 20 other students. That’s because I’m a classroom teacher, not a private tutor.
Experts devise checklists in part because they attempt to address public education’s problems by pretending teaching is a science. The trouble is teaching is much more a skill and an art. In the same way, learning can be fun, but it’s more often a labor.
Students need sweat, inspiration, and initiative much more than they need gimmicks.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Peter Berger: The secret to success.
