In 2015 (and update more recently in 2024), I wrote an article on Help students learn more of “others” than they do with you (the teacher).
The general premise is that modern learning is, largely, on access, networks, spaces and personalization – and there is simply no way for a single teacher to “do” this. In fact, it is important to note that teaching, as it is, has never been durable. Public education promises too much and places too much burden for teachers who do their best to keep these “promises” while protecting and nourishing children and it simply does not really work GOOD For anyone.
I guess it could be stated that it works well, but we just have to agree to disagree at this stage – which is correct. It takes a mosaic of perspectives to advance the world.
Recently, I updated this post and shared it on social networks and I was surprised to immediately obtain an urgent and spicy decline.
Carl Marks (alias? He is a history teacher, after all if his username can be decoded) used emojis to transmit his disagreement.
Liane went directly to the point with a complete dismissal of the idea and teaching as an organization – and ended with a drop of sarcasm at the exit.
That of Anthony Jones was not mean but concisely refutes the post.
This response from York Sunne was less impartial:
Below, Brendan asked for research and evidence to support ideas in the post:
Fairly fair. I cannot support each element with recent research, evaluated by peers and credible. It’s true. But the general premise according to which teachers are overvalued and that children (generally) have incredible access to more information than ever and that the second could help improve the first, hopefully, research must be supported.
The idea here is to connect students to an information ecosystem, inspiration, people and ideas. And that these ideas and opportunities and places and people and people and ideas should be more “impactful” and “convincing” than one teacher.
It can’t be controversial, right?
Are teachers’ bottlenecks or are they “overloaded” and what is the difference?
In the introduction, I defined the context:
“Who or what is the most persistent catalyst in the learning process?” Frequently, you are probably (the teacher). You are the expert in content and pedagogy. You know what is learned, and how it could be learned. How much they try to show empathy.
But this is where I get closer to my “point”: “The big idea here is sustainability by creating an learning ecosystem which is based on creativity, the interest and the possibility that students are presented on subjects, problems and opportunities that are close to their hearts.”
Are teachers important?
Of course, they are.
I suppose that some have not really read the post, or they focused on the involvement that teachers should not be the center of the learning universe and that it is not ideal if, day after day, the most convincing and energetic and dynamic of learning for 35 children is an adult (often for five classes or more per day).
I guess it is tempting to twist this declaration a little and I believe that I say that teachers are not as effective as other sources of learning, perhaps? Or that they are not absolutely crucial for the learning process? Or that manuals and applications are more effective than teachers?
Whatever the source of the misunderstanding (whose responsibility I will accept), I think that a teacher would be happy to have the best: the best learning environments with the best opportunities to become their best.
Why be upset by who helps to facilitate this or who attributes what percentage in all the pieces of all this?
And even if the idea was the criticism of teachers, as professionals are not due and deserved criticism – ideally self -criticism?
The education we have and the education they need
Although emotionally, I am more interested in the nature of digital interactions – how horrible people become towards each other when the agreement is on social networks of a kind – I will respond more widely to clarify my position.
I am more than ready to have big segments of all audiences in disagreement with the things I say. I fundamentally believe that the way we (including me) do things is not our best thought, which implies that what we do and which is responsible for these actions, and how we could improve them are all intrinsically defective.
This means that each of us is, to a certain extent, responsible and because I am interested in doing everything I can to improve these systems, sometimes I will criticize the organizational systems and the principles and policies that are activated by people and some of these people could take it personally. And become upset. I understand.
I also understand that if the teaching was not difficult enough, the last 12 months have removed the challenge. The work of “teaching” is academic and psychological and scientific at the same time and each of these areas has been exposed by global events (that is to say Covid and its countless socio-cultural undulations). Teachers are stressed, pushed to their limits in many cases and lacking in support, respect, gratitude, financing and countless other fields.
But that only strengthens a key point: teaching, as it is, is neither sustainable nor in the best interest of the majority of children. No matter how hard we work, what we have and do is not the education they deserve and need.
How teachers think of themselves and their role in class (see here, for example). As a teacher, I to want help. I would like human automation and networks and live learning and adaptive learning algorithms. To facilitate learning in any form.
Although I hope to have an impact on students’ lives, I hope it happens by proxy.
After having helped my students to discover the syntax and Faulkner and Tone and Toni Morrison and Emily Dickinson and thematic development and Shakespeare, I would be more than a little disappointed if the most sustainable impression of their time in my class – among all the authors and concepts and projects and words and questions and conversations – was one.
