here our my main interests:
discipline and self-discipline
the exercise of power and charismatic authority in schools
didactic teacher-led instruction and the failures of constructivist theory in practice
culture, spirit, environment and getting smart as fuck in a world of shit
the interplay between strict discipline and heartfelt care
the pedagogy of science and the especial failures of constructivist informed "think like a scientist" in science education specifically.
the art of the science demo
neo-traditionalism, memorisation, call and response, drill, copying texts, handwriting practice, tests, all the good shit
bad lessons, and unedited and illicitly recorded footage of shitty lessons
here is a space for some interesting books of relevance:
The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Teachers: The Michaela Way (2016) - Katharine Birbalsingh
Michaela: The Power of Culture: The Michaela Way (2020) - Katharine Birbalsingh
Seven Myths About Education (2014) - Daisy Christodoulou
Teach Like a Champion - Doug Lemov
Teaching secondary science - Adam Boxer
State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (1998) - Anton Bordieu
Problems of Soviet Education - Anton Makarenko
A Book for parents - Anton Makarenko
The Road to Life - Anton Makarenko
---
Man must have something joyful ahead of him to live for. The true stimulus in human life is the morrow's joy - Makarenko
cars posted:how much of "grade inflation" do you think is just teachers trying not to condemn students to poverty
in england we have no course work or grade averages - everything depends on contracted out standardised testing carried out by authorised exam boards under the aegis of the department for education and the office of qualifications and examinations regulation. therefor GCSE grades are really out of the hands of teachers (beyond the teaching of course!). however, during covid school closures teachers awarded "predicted grades" which became GCSEs, and so i know teachers who gave everyone in their classes an A* (a "9" these days) because why not. also exam grades are moderated so the overall level of education could be terrible and you would still see A*s and As and Bs coming out - this raises some interesting ideas about what i would describe as clown college world if the online right and their liberal enablers hadn't stolen my favourite expression in circa 2020
so i am going to be bold and say...: sorry, its not something i know much about.
semi-raw footage from inside lesson, phones innit. watch from 13 min.
so watching that video, what a shit education. only one lesson out of five (the english one) where any real learning even appeared to be taking place.
teachers just ploughing on over high noise, students using their phones, even vlogging in class, personal conversations going on constantly, research lessons, collaborative lessons, noisy lessons, what the fuck do we do lessons, powerpoint lessons, pointless lessons, time wasting lessons - but listen to what the girl is actually saying when she tries to engage "we have to find countries which speak spanish but we dont know any... how are we supposed to know", "we're researching in spanish but my laptop doesnt work so i have to use my phone" "we're researching some spanish cities but i dont know what to...*gets distracted*" "were doing line graphs about the temperature in japan *shows bar chart*" "I don't know, I don't get it, *to the phone* we'll come back to you when we understand what to do *jump cut* quick update: still confused" "i have to share a ruler because i lost mine in drama" "it's like a piss take lesson no one cares" "how am i ment to know this" "i dont get this biology is like my worst subject" "i got 1 out of 10" etc. fuck knows what is happening in that biology class, some sort of quiz revision test on powerpoint. fucking hell.
this is a good example of why i am obsessed with discipline, with order, with direct instruction, with modelling, with silent practice.
Edited by tears ()
i mean seriously what the fuck is going on here
tears posted:failures of constructivist theory in practice
I'm interested in learning more about this. I don't know how popular it is but are you familiar with the Montessori method/Montessori education? Apparently it is based on constructivist theory (I don't know what that means).
Montessori education in practice, if I remember, was little to no direct instruction by the teacher - almost always you do group activities - working on puzzles, posters, worksheets - either by yourself or with others. There's a huge emphasis on tactile sensations, learning through doing. Sometimes you'll be paired with an higher year student to teach you a concept they just learnt. You would have a list of things you have to accomplish for the day, and then you would just go do it within the hours you set for yourself. The teacher would just be there to facilitate, provide verbal or written feedback. It could be very different depending on how it's applied. I'm not sure whether it's good or bad, if it's a failure - how so and why?
begin words: i will divide constructivism into two strands a) hard constructivism and b) soft constructivism.
the montessori method you mention abbove i will put in the hard constructivism paradigm.
soft constructivism is the dominant paradigm in state provided education in the uk. it is almost certainly the dominant paradigm in state provided education in other western imperialist countries too
more and more i have come to realise that soft constructivism is educational neglect (child abuse) masquerading as education. consider this: everyone in england and wales takes the same qualifications: GCSEs (age 16) and A-Levels (age 18). the children of the rich and the children of the poor. everyone takes the same exams. everyone knows they take these exams. from the age of 11 children know. we tell them. GCSEs are a large part of their environment. this system is superficially a level playing field: meritocratic. therefore one way to game the system is in the quality of the education provided. enter the soft constructivist paradigm.
the soft constructivist paradigm at its heart says that it is wrong to tell children the answer because they will remember it better if they figure it out for themselves. this can be traced back to rousseau and dewey. in modern times is often backed up by artefacts like Dale's Cone of Experience and pseudo-facts like "you only remember 10% of what you hear". in practice this results in science lessons which are nigh incomprehensible to students. they are asked to infer things without having the core knowledge in order to do so. this is in short: idealism. the prioritisation of thought over reality.
the best way i can think to explain this is three examples. You are teaching the uses and parts of a microscope:
Example 1: the didactic method ("Just tell them")
"Look at this. This is called a microscope. we use it to enable us to magnify very small things. Magnify means to make something look bigger than it is."
"i say you say: microscopes are used to magnify very small things one two three" all: "microscopes are used to magnify very small things"
"i say you say: magnify means to make something look bigger than it is one two three" all: "magnify means to make something look bigger than it is"
"This is called the eyepiece lens. this is where we look through. everyone point to the eyepiece lens on the microscope in front of you." all point.
"on three, all together: what this is called one two three." all: "eyepiece lens!"
"What does a microscope do?" *pause, picks student X* "Makes something bigger" "Wrong, what is the correct answer, Student Y" "makes something look bigger than it is" "Good!, student X, tell me what a microscope does." "makes something look bigger than it is." "Good! Everyone, on three, what does a microscope do one two three" "makes something look bigger than it actually is!"
Example 2: the soft constructivist method ("guide them to figure it out for themselves")
Points to microscope: "Does anyone know what this is" one hand up "Yes?" "A telescope" "not quite, anyone else? no? its called a microscope"
now, does anyone know what we use this for? no? we use it to look at small things. now why might that be useful? yes?" "to make them bigger?" "great answer" (note the actual misconception being embedded here)
"ok, so at the top we have a lens, this is where we look, any ideas what we might call this?" "look lens?" "not quite but good idea, anyone else?" "eye lens?" "almost there, you've almost got it, anyone else" "eyelooking lens?" "not quite, ok, i will tell you, its the eyepiece lens. now any idea what this is called: points to stage, ill give you a clue, think about what were looking at as an actor giving a performance, where do they preform. no? like actors on a.... yes?" "a set?" "not quite but you're on the right lines, anyone? no? ok, its called a stage.
Example 3: the hard constructivist method ("give them the freedom to figure it out for themselves")
"Here you are children, see if you can work out what you do with this and what they are for. i want to see you thinking like a scientist" - points to microscopes and glass slides
---
obviously there are some exaggeration in the above examples. however, the ones who can succeed in the 2nd example are not demonstrating "great scientific thinking" no, what they are demonstrating is that when they go home they talk about things round the dinner table, they're demonstrating that their parents read to them and make them read, their houses are full of books, that their parents have taken them on trips, made them watch educational documentaries, taken them to museums and sent them to summer camps. so what about all the other children? well, "they just couldn't figure it out", "they had a poor attitude to learning", "they were stupid", "they didn't belong in mainstream education", "better if they were on a vocational course", "they were never going to get it", "they were just lazy" oh, you did badly on a test where i didn't actually teach you most of the stuff you actually needed to know? guess you just fucking suck!
in the first example everyone is told the answer, everyone is given the knowledge because for many students school is the only place that knowledge is available. if i don't tell them no one else will.
in short that is why i think the middle method, the dominant paradigm in uk education, is child abuse.
Edited by tears ()
How is the soft constructivist approach different from the Socratic method? Maybe this is a testament to how pervasive this approach has become - but whenever I find myself trying to teach someone a idea or getting them to follow my point of view I always ask them questions based on their existing knowledge, or make analogies based on something I know they are familiar with. Is it not possible for that microscope teacher to make analogies or references to knowledge that all students already have? I don't think students are blank slates without other input outside the classroom. But I can see how this approach does waste alot of time, or greatly advantage students who are already familiar with the material. But even in your example, the teacher does get around to telling them the correct answer - it's just more circuitous, no?
Also, how can we make a distinction between the soft-constructinism - "it is wrong to tell children the answer because they will remember it better if they figure it out for themselves", and just ordinary scientific experimentation? For example, you do a chemistry experiment in a lab. The experiment ought to deepen your knowledge of the theoretical concepts taught in class, by actually using that information. Or, you use the experiment to demonstrate how a theoretical concept is obtained. Sometimes if you get a unexpected result or even the expected result - by seeing the process through physically this can help you remember. I think the difference here is that the correct answer is told in advance or clarified after the experiment, right?
E: I realize that even questioning my teachers would require education from outside the classroom, which most people are not allowed. I see
marknat posted:whenever I find myself trying to teach someone a idea or getting them to follow my point of view I always ask them questions based on their existing knowledge, or make analogies based on something I know they are familiar with
i suspect "more is different" factors in, here -- i.e., one-on-one conversation is a very different beast than a classroom lecture within a narrow envelope of time
marknat posted:Thank you for your reply tears.
How is the soft constructivist approach different from the Socratic method? Maybe this is a testament to how pervasive this approach has become - but whenever I find myself trying to teach someone a idea or getting them to follow my point of view I always ask them questions based on their existing knowledge, or make analogies based on something I know they are familiar with. Is it not possible for that microscope teacher to make analogies or references to knowledge that all students already have? I don't think students are blank slates without other input outside the classroom. But I can see how this approach does waste alot of time, or greatly advantage students who are already familiar with the material. But even in your example, the teacher does get around to telling them the correct answer - it's just more circuitous, no?
its a matter of ratio. ratio is the concept of what is every student doing in your class at time x. if yuu are engaging in a great socratic session with joe biden at the front, what is donald trump and rishi sunak and all the other 29 students in your class doing? are they early hanging on your every word as you tease out some really good answers, or do they tune out because clearly "this isn't for them"?
if that took 5 minutes, was that 5 minutes where the first student was thinking really hard and the other twenty nine were doing nothing at all? was that 5 minutes well spent, or could it have been better spend using direct instruction followed by independent practice? and with analogies - they are good, but, and it is a big but, if you find out that a the children know what a telescope is, is it helpful to tell them that a "microscope is like a telescope?" does that build misconceptions? of course you want to go concrete -> abstract, but could that be better done by just showing a short video clip of zooming in on something rather than bandying around lots of analogies?
marknat posted:Thank you for your reply tears.
Also, how can we make a distinction between the soft-constructinism - "it is wrong to tell children the answer because they will remember it better if they figure it out for themselves", and just ordinary scientific experimentation? For example, you do a chemistry experiment in a lab. The experiment ought to deepen your knowledge of the theoretical concepts taught in class, by actually using that information. Or, you use the experiment to demonstrate how a theoretical concept is obtained. Sometimes if you get a unexpected result or even the expected result - by seeing the process through physically this can help you remember. I think the difference here is that the correct answer is told in advance or clarified after the experiment, right?
let me pose you a scenario.
your students are to do a simple investigation into the effect of surface area of marble pieces on the rate of reaction with hydrochloric acid.
heres what they need to know in order to carry out this activity:
how to read
how to read a method
how to safely work with chemicals including hazard symbols in a lab
the names, appearances and uses of measuring cylinder, balance, conical flask, hydrochloric acid, marble chips, marble powder
how to use a measuring cylinder to measure ml
how to turn on a balance
what tare means and how to tare a balance
how to use a plastic boat to assist in measuring mass
how to operate a stopwatch correctly
signs that a reaction is taking place
vocabulary such as effervescence
how long to record for
how to draw a table
how to record data in a table
what data to record, and to what degree of accuracy
where to dispose of their chemicals
what a scatter plot is
that this experiment requires a scatter plot
what to put on the x and y axis
how to choose a suitable scale
how to plot points on a scatter plot
types of lines of best fit
how to identify what type of line is best
how to draw a curved line of best fit
how to work at pace within a time limit
things that would be helpful
why the mass decreases
law of conservation of mass
the chemical symbols for HCL, CaCO3, CO2, CaCl
how to balance a symbol equation
theory of rates of reaction in relation to surface area and ability to use that to form a hypothesis
what different gradients on a rates curve tell you
what the independent and dependant variables are
how to identify their anomalous results
now imagine instead you want to collect the volume of gas in a gas syringe, on top of the above:
what a gas syringe is and what it is for
how to identify a delivery tube and bung
how to set up a clamp, boss and clamp stand to clamp a syringe
how to set up the whole apparatus to collect gas
common sources of error which might arise if their method is sloppy
that they need to put the bung in place the instant the rection begins
how to read off the side of a syringe
---
i do lots of demonstrations in class. i find them useful. practical activities are very high cognitive demand on the students and very high mental load on me. i do them, but they need to be so tightly controlled, so well planned if they are going to have any educational value. ask many people about school science and they will say "i remember the practicals" but probe deeper and 9/10 you will find they don't actually remember anything of value about the practicals, just "we mixed this and it changed colour" "it fizzed", "it dissolved"
ribaraca posted:I think its improper framing to look at soft constructivism just from the perspective of memorizing, ie. which way of arriving at information increases retention. The point of the approach (talking in a purely ideal sense here, not in terms of how its actually implemented in liberal education) is an emphasis on developing the judgment/reason which make use of information rather than anything pertaning to information directly. My knee-jerk reaction in favor of the method would be that the development of a self-reflexive critical reasoning, or even a properly driven orientation toward learning as self-motivated, is more important than any particular content that might be imparted. I have significantly less theoretical familiarity here so the first thing that comes to mind is Freire's criticism and approach. I'm curious how you feel this relates to your actual practice both in pragmatic everyday terms and more generally in a theoretical sense
the issue in practice with "skills not knowledge" is that i have never in my life seen anyone able to critically reason to any degree of competency if they didn't have a large quantity of concepts to draw on from long term memory. "what do you think is going on here" is never going to draw out any interesting critical reasoning if there is nothing to draw on. Example: a chemical reaction where the solid reactant reacts with an aqueous solution to produce two aqueous solutions: Me: "what do we think is going on here" Student: "it dissolved miss". They know dissolving, but they don't know reacting, so their reasoning is bounded by what they already know. without knowledge critical reasoning is weak.
as for this "a properly driven orientation toward learning as self-motivated" - good, great, but think: how? what are you actually going to do to achieve this? my soft constructivist practice, and the theory i have read in order to try and make sense of the failures of this practice have led me to these conclusions that freire is wrong. just like rousseau, just like dewey. and that western fixation on their theory of learning excuses the state from the need to educate the majority of its population. la historia me absolverá.
Edited by tears ()
my conclusion: critical pedagogy is not marxist and consistently erases class.
ribaraca posted:but is the idea of having to address the ideological dimension a) irrelevant, b) not a meaningful goal for education, c) not possible under the present system or d) compatible with the direct model of education?
now this is where my referral to (good) teachers as being like a public defendant comes in. i operate bound within the structures of the "education" system as a public defender operates within the "justice" system. but to an even greater extent i am shackled. to truly address the ideological dimension is to detonate my suicide vest. to address the ideological dimension is to put oneself in direct contradiction with already known "truth", rather than teaching unknown truth. i hope by imparting scientific knowledge that i am helping in my own way.
conclusion: revolution not reform
Previously, the pupils at least acquired a certain “baggage” or “equipment” (according to taste) of concrete facts. Now that the teacher must be specifically a philosopher and aesthete, the pupil does not bother with concrete facts and fills his head with formulae and words which usually mean nothing to him, and which are forgotten at once. It was right to struggle against the old school but reforming it was not so simple as it seemed. The problem was not one of model curricula but of men, and not just of the men who are actually teachers themselves but of the entire social complex which they express. In reality a mediocre teacher may manage to see to it that his pupils become more informed, although he will not succeed in making them better educated; he can devote a scrupulous and bureaucratic conscientiousness to the mechanical part of teaching – and the pupil, if he has an active intelligence, will give an order of his own, with the aid of his social background, to the “baggage” he accumulates. With the new curricula, which coincide with a general lowering of the level of the teaching profession, there will no longer be any “baggage” to put in order.
[education] must be formative, while being “instructive” – in other words rich in concrete facts. In the present school, the profound crisis in the traditional culture and its conception of life and of man has resulted in a progressive degeneration. Schools of the vocational type, i.e. those designed to satisfy immediate, practical interests, are beginning to predominate over the formative school, which is not immediately “interested”. The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new type of school appears and is advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences but to crystallise them in Chinese complexities.
In education one is dealing with children in whom one has to inculcate certain habits of diligence, precision, poise (even physical poise), ability to concentrate on specific subjects, which cannot be acquired without the mechanical repetition of disciplined and methodical acts. Would a scholar at the age of forty be able to sit for sixteen hours on end at his work-table if he had not, as a child, compulsorily, through mechanical coercion, acquired the appropriate psycho-physical habits? If one wishes to produce great scholars, one still has to start at this point and apply pressure throughout the educational system in order to succeed in creating those thousands or hundreds or even only dozens of scholars of the highest quality which are necessary to every civilisation.
-Gramsci
Comrades, we Communists are people of a special mould. We are made of a special stuff.
-Stalin
Complacency is the enemy of study. We cannot really learn anything until we rid ourselves of complacency. Our attitude towards ourselves should be "to be insatiable in learning" and towards others "to be tireless in teaching".
- Mao
In 1920, Lenin said to the youth that it was necessary "to take the whole sum of human knowledge and to take it in such a way that Communism will not be something learned by heart but something which you have thought out yourselves, something which forms the inevitable conclusion from the point of view of modern education…If a Communist were to boast of Communism on the basis of ready-made conclusions, without doing serious, big and difficult work, without thoroughly understanding the facts towards which he must take a critical attitude, such a Communist would be a very poor one.”
-N. Krupskaya
https://www.marxists.org/archive/krupskaya/works/howleninstudiedmarx.htm
But Understanding is as indispensable in practice as it is in theory. Character is an essential in conduct, and a man of character is an understanding man, who in that capacity has definite ends in view and undeviatingly pursues them. The man who will do something great must learn, as Goethe says, to limit himself. The man who, on the contrary, would do everything, really would do nothing, and fails. There is a host of interesting things in the world: Spanish poetry, chemistry, politics, and music are all very interesting, and if any one takes an interest in them we need not find fault. But for a person in a given situation to accomplish anything, he must stick to one definite point, and not dissipate his forces in many directions. In every calling, too, the great thing is to pursue it with understanding. Thus the judge must stick to the law, and give his verdict in accordance with it, undeterred by one motive or another, allowing no excuses, and looking neither left nor right. Understanding, too, is always an element in thorough training. The trained intellect is not satisfied with cloudy and indefinite impressions, but grasps the objects in their fixed character: whereas the uncultivated man wavers unsettled, and it often costs a deal of trouble to come to an understanding with him on the matter under discussion, and to bring him to fix his eye on the definite point in question.
- Hegel, § 80 The Shorter Logic
The demand for such explanations, as also the attempts to satisfy this demand, very easily pass for the essential business philosophy has to undertake. Where could the inmost truth of a philosophical work be found better expressed than in its purposes and results? and in what way could these be more definitely known than through their distinction from what is produced during the same period by others working in the same field? If, however, such procedure is to pass for more than the beginning of knowledge, if it is to pass for actually knowing, then we must, in point of fact, look on it as a device for avoiding the real business at issue, an attempt to combine the appearance of being in earnest and taking trouble about the subject with an actual neglect of the subject altogether. For the real subject-matter is not exhausted in its purpose, but in working the matter out; nor is the mere result attained the concrete whole itself, but the result along with the process of arriving at it. The purpose of itself is a lifeless universal, just as the general drift is a mere activity in a certain direction, which is still without its concrete realisation; and the naked result is the corpse of the system which has left its guiding tendency behind it. Similarly, the distinctive difference of anything is rather the boundary, the limit, of the subject; it is found at that point where the subject-matter stops, or it is what this subject-matter is not. To trouble oneself in this fashion with the purpose and results, and again with the differences, the positions taken up and judgments passed by one thinker and another, is therefore an easier task than perhaps it seems. For instead of laying hold of the matter in hand, a procedure of that kind is all the while away from the subject altogether. Instead of dwelling within it and becoming absorbed by it, knowledge of that sort is always grasping at something else; such knowledge, instead keeping to the subject-matter and giving itself up to it, never gets away from itself. The easiest thing of all is to pass judgments on what has a solid substantial content; it is more difficult to grasp it, and most of all difficult to do both together and produce the systematic exposition of it.
-Hegel, Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit
here is the reverse of the medal: the method of analysis which I have employed, and which had not previously been applied to economic subjects, makes the reading of the first chapters rather arduous, and it is to be feared that the French public, always impatient to come to a conclusion, eager to know the connexion between general principles and the immediate questions that have aroused their passions, may be disheartened because they will be unable to move on at once. This is a disadvantage I am powerless to overcome, unless it be by forewarning and forearming those readers who zealously seek the truth. There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.
-Marx, Preface to the French Edition of Capital vol 1
tears posted:this raises some interesting ideas about what i would describe as clown college world if the online right and their liberal enablers hadn't stolen my favourite expression in circa 2020
if you have the time i want to read your thoughts on this!
i have read your posts about education with interest and, if i am honest, with a great deal of puzzlement regarding your optimism and ability to actualize your ethos in a cruel system. i did not until now realize that you teach in britain, which explains everything. if you were trying to teach in america, i suspect that a person with your character and genuine love for pedagogy would have died a death of despair long ago.
best of luck in your efforts and regards,
winebaby
winebaby posted:dear tears,
i have read your posts about education with interest and, if i am honest, with a great deal of puzzlement regarding your optimism and ability to actualize your ethos in a cruel system. i did not until now realize that you teach in britain, which explains everything. if you were trying to teach in america, i suspect that a person with your character and genuine love for pedagogy would have died a death of despair long ago.
best of luck in your efforts and regards,
winebaby
yes, what little i have seen of the us system seems to be a big "experiment" on "what would happen if no actual teaching took place in schools" except obviously its not an experiment, its a program of mass de-education under the guise of constructivism. here in the uk i could say something apropos of my ass like: the conservative nationalist bourgioisie have an interest in an educated population to pursue their national interests, hence michael goves knowledge+rigour focused 2014 curriculum reforms which were actually good because even a stopped clock is right twice a day and give me the space to actually teach
tears posted:cOnTeNt
cars posted:
hush and take your d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w o r k s h e e t
i was surprised at the uk lesson video. between the uniforms and the sir and miss and the fact that you have "headmasters" and very big walls around your schools i noticed when i lived there temporarily i assumed that discipline was at least vaguely similar to what i experienced at a zero-budget public elementary school in rural canada. for that much total disorder i think we would have been subject to nuclear levels of retailation, the entire class held together for detention kind of thing. i am "kids these days" years old.
drwhat posted:i finally remembered what email address i used on my account so i could reset the password. i just wanted to drop in to say basically the only reason i check the forum anymore is to read more tears posts
i am touched that you would go to such efforts to promote the release of dopamine across my synapses
what i will do with this knowledge i do not know
tears posted:having spent the past few hours trawling through tiktok it is very obvious that there is a correlation between my older disruptive students who do not want to apply themselves to hard work in school and the lumpen behaviour of moving drugs into the community
what i will do with this knowledge i do not know
sounds like a good excuse to read more stuff about the cia distributing drugs, to me
Authority is something that has fascinated me ever since I realised not only that I could "wield it" but that to do so is not only essential in a school, but essential for the development of the child. you will have to excuse my use of the term wield, because that sounds either "hanwei xxl katana" or an andrew tate montage depending on whoever poison you are currently drinking, but bear with me as I struggle to articulate this nebulous and near ineffable notion.
Let me pose you a scenario.
I stand watching the lunch queue. held in my left hand is my lanyard, the physical badge of my legal-authority. I twirl it, I play with it, I draw attention to it while never looking at it myself. It does not hang passively around me neck. I deliberately let the keys and badge at one end drop, catching it by the lanyard itself, keys jingling. I spin it round, each circulation of my finger shortening the lanyard, the keys circumscribing smaller and smaller circles.
I stand tall, shoulders back. I am smartly dressed, formal almost. I have positioned myself in the middle of a thoroughfare. I do not stand to one side, I do not stand with my back to a wall. I occupy space. Students must walk around me. I do not move out of the way for them. I am perfectly relaxed in where I am standing. I have no fear. I radiate confidence.
I turn my head slowly, surveying the lunch queue. My expression is harsh - unemotional.
There is a student with their coat hood up. I make eye contact and a tiny but forceful flick of my finger near my right ear makes them push it back.
Another student pushes in. I make eye contact. If they were my peer it would be described as very aggressive. An absolute challenge. I stare at them. I raise my eyebrows slightly, widen my eyes with a tiny upwards roll, and tilt my head a fraction to the right. If you saw it you would know. Miss tears is looking at you like you just did the stupidest thing she has ever seen. I make a gesture with one finger towards the back of the queue. The students slinks to the back.
Two others students push in. I know these two, they will be harder work. I walk towards them slowly. Methodically. Inexorably. My shoes tap on the floor. My lanyard is held firmly in my hand now. They have not seen me but I know others in the queue have. I know they are watching me. This is all a performance. I have an audience. I have a reputation. But it is not an act, this is real. School discipline is public. I am now close to them, face on to their backs, a wide stance. I pitch my voice low and loud. I take a tone of one used to giving orders that are obeyed. "To the back." As they turn round I stretch out my arm, and click my fingers, pointing towards the back of the queue. I do not look where I am pointing, I maintain eye contact. They start to speak. I interrupt. "No. The back." More emphatic. A slight incredulity that they would dare to even attempt to argue. My arm is still outstretched. Single finger pointing. They move. I know exactly what I will do if they argue. "Now you are attempting to argue. Move now." "Stop talking." "If you do not leave this queue I will instruct the lunch staff not to serve you." I know exactly how I will escalate after this. Each and every step in the exercise of school discipline is laid out in my head. I return to my place and continue to survey the queue. All is right in the world.
This is a snippet of a few moments in the life of a teacher. You will notice that no formal instruction is going on here. This is "break duty", which most teachers see as a chore, something that they do not want to do. Most teachers will not act like this. Most teachers lack my confidence. They lack my willingness to wield authority. They fail to see the importance of this. When I suggested that a new teacher use some of their free time to just walk around the school, walk through the lunch hall, walk around the corridors they said "why would I want to do that? I have lessons to plan". They did not understand. I did not get my reputation sat in my classroom hidden away, by avoiding conflict. I have my reputation because I am present. I have my reputation because I act and am seen to act. I meet out justice and instruction almost constantly. I attempt as hard as possible to ignore nothing. I relish opportunity to contribute towards the discipline of the school.
I stare. I frown. I point. I raise my eyebrows. I occupy space. I stand close to students without saying anything. I walk down the middle of a corridor and expect students to move out of my way. I give hand signals. I say good morning and good afternoon as I walk past students. I shout, loudly, deeply, "Stop!" "Come here!", a bark of command. I will even do that thing where I point to my eyes then them "I see you child, and I disapprove."
But why?
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates reproof is stupid
A teacher must never forget that they are in the business of educating children. I genuinely believe that not exercising authority in this manner is immoral and harmful. I have seen what happens when authority is forfeited. The bullying, the abuse, the mental stresses, the lack of development of self-discipline, and lack of any sort of education. I know what is best and my charges know that.
Edited by tears ()
anyways, the visualiser is often > than the white board for 2 reasons, firstly it means you do not have your back to the class which is very mundane but very powerful. the privilege to turn your back on your class relies on an iron will and the absolute confidence to body anyone who abuses your trust, which is why so many teachers are afraid to do it. and more importantly 2) it means you can model exactly how things should look in their books. there is something magical in being a teacher working in a book in front of students who are also working in their books. they compulsively start writing. i model what i expect with my own books so my work has a title, and a date, both underlined, and the relevant text book numbers written in the margin (yeah, text books are back in ancillary-goat form). this way I lay out everything as they should be doing. i try and spend 1/3-1/2 of a lesson writing and explaining shit at the front and leave the other 2/3-1/2 for: recall quizes, independent practice and self marking.
the down side is that i have cut practical work almost entirely out of my general repertoire. However I do a lot of demos. I am interested in others' experiences of practical work in science if they have any. here is my post-hoc rationale: when i was training to be a