Coming out of a California JC in the 80s, paying only $640 a semester at UC Berkeley, and having valued what I learned at both places before going to IU-Bloomington, I don’t recognize all the complaining about terrible professors. Not all professors in my experience were incredible, but I never had a truly terrible professor. As far as I could tell, they all cared a lot about their work and wanted their students to appreciate their fields. Now, if we are talking about students not always being committed to the ideals of learning, and what effects that can have on the morale and justification for what happens on a campus, e.g., the oft-repeated circumstance of faculty being pressured to lower standards, make classes easier and less demanding, etc., then we are more on the right track. Resentment against professors and academics isn’t going to fix things. Figuring out ways to help students see the value of education, to do other things with their lives until they are ready to study seriously–that’s more constructive.
The Neoliberal corporatization of colleges & universities is a national, global tragedy. The money flowing disproportionately to management and away from the actual missions of instruction, learning, and sustained critical inquiry via a huge and growing reliance on adjunct faculty, paid poverty wages, and denied many of the dignities, like phones and offices, of the worthy work they do, is unethical & immoral. We’re already beginning to pay the price of less democracy and more authoritarianism in our lives.
Having read Elizabeth Green’s NYT March 2 piece (http://nyti.ms/auN8rG), “Building a Better Teacher,” I have to say that while I admire the polish of the teaching from Doug Lemov’s Taxonomy clips (http://uncommonschools.org/usi/aboutUs/taxonomy.php), I was struck by the snap-to, military flavor of the showcased “best teachers'” methods, the utter control of attention they commanded, not from the inherent fascination of the content, but with practiced behavioral techniques.
The desire to operationalize good teaching with 49 approved techniques is very seductive, but I’m probably not the only one who was put in mind of Jonathan Kozol’s “Educational Apartheid” article from Harper’s (2005): http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm. In that article Kozol discusses “SUCCESS FOR ALL, the brand name of a scripted curriculum–better known by its acronym” SFA. Or as fourth-grade teacher “Mr. Endicott,” an exemplary practitioner of this “classroom management” technique describes it: “‘It’s a kind of “Taylorism” in the classroom.'”
Lemov’s findings are based on test scores. He found the best teachers for students to do better at taking tests. The big promise of this emphasis on technique is that it improves students’ test scores. What about teachers who are good at helping students do other things besides taking tests? What do they bring to the table? Does what they bring matter in our era of accountability? We can’t fairly compare the mass schooling that so many students are bound to with the elite schooling that Kozol compares it with, e.g., Philips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire. I take the point that for the majority of especially under-privileged students, these techniques may be the only means of social advancement. I am fascinated that there are marketed and operationalized, pedagogically effective behavioral control mechanisms detailed for one group of students and Harkness table seminars for their future leaders.
We will still have the two educational worlds that Kozol complains about: The world of Harkness table seminars at elite academies and the world of operant conditioning for the rest of us. My hunch is that this sort of dichotomy will drive more middle class folks to home school. So then our social choices are authoritarianism or fragmented privatization.