Should teachers be 'partners' or 'leaders' in learning

[rioted]

The kids who have lots of TA input are kids with problems requiring TA input. It's to be expected that those kids would, on average, have lower grades academically.

Of course it would. The research was a bit more serious than that! Compared kids in different schools/Local Authorities: kids with the same problems achieved less with intensive TA involvement.

 

[spanglechick]

Apart from reading, writing and basic maths...what do you learn under-16 thats of any practical use?

good question. ideally there's room to teach researching and initative skills, communication, cooperation, evaluation and critical thinking. plus literacy and numeracy.

personally i'd prioritise subjects that deliver these skills on the pre-16 curriculum, at the expense of science for one, - which enjoys status identical to maths and english for no clear reason.

 

[rioted]

I agree a more gentle, partnership approach is good with very young children. I don't think it's great with secondary necessarily, perhaps especially if you have poorly motivated kids.

You think "poorly motivated" kids benefit from the non-gentle approach? How odd, I find they're more likely to respond to the hippy-dippy side of me rather than the "do this, do that, get this result" that the more motivated can deal with.

 

[spanglechick]

good question. ideally there's room to teach researching and initative skills, communication, cooperation, evaluation and critical thinking. plus literacy and numeracy.

personally i'd prioritise subjects that deliver these skills on the pre-16 curriculum, at the expense of science for one, - which enjoys status identical to maths and english for no clear reason.

although it's also worth saying that we shouldn't be relying exclusively onschools to equip people with practically useful skills. Parents surely have to take responsibility for this.

 

[rover07]

good question. ideally there's room to teach researching and initative skills, communication, cooperation, evaluation and critical thinking. plus literacy and numeracy.

personally i'd prioritise subjects that deliver these skills on the pre-16 curriculum, at the expense of science for one, - which enjoys status identical to maths and english for no clear reason.

But dont kids learn that anyway when engaged in group activity.

It doesnt need a school.

 

[quimcunx]

although it's also worth saying that we shouldn't be relying exclusively onschools to equip people with practically useful skills. Parents surely have to take responsibility for this.

Problem is they sometimes don't for whatever reason, and if this is not to be perpetuated, then they have to get it somewhere. School is the obvious place.

 

[rioted]

which enjoys status identical to maths and english for no clear reason.

Oh dear.

 

[rover07]

Problem is they sometimes don't for whatever reason, and if this is not to be perpetuated, then they have to get it somewhere. School is the obvious place.

Useful skills can be learnt at any time...why ruin kids lives with endless lessons and tests...forced to sit in rows for hours ...wearing shirt and tie.

In preparation for a life behind a desk...thats why

 

[rioted]

Useful skills can be learnt at any time...why ruin kids lives with endless lessons and tests...forced to sit in rows for hours ...wearing shirt and tie.

In preparation for a life behind a desk...thats why

It's to give parents a break! When it comes down to it modern "teachers" are a cross between childminders and trainers. There's very little room for education in the New Labour school.

 

[spanglechick]

But dont kids learn that anyway when engaged in group activity.

It doesnt need a school.

you say that, but in the 13 years i've been in teaching there's actually been a marked decline in those skills, despite the fact that just about all lessons now have a groupwork element. It's being undone by the spoonfeeding and teaching to the exam, imo.

It's to give parents a break! When it comes down to it modern "teachers" are a cross between childminders and trainers. There's very little room for education in the New Labour school.

god that's arse. you are really talking out of your arse about a group the overwhelming majority of whom are intelligent and dedicated professionals. we teach - not implement government policies - and while those policies might hinder us and the kids, to claim that teachers have stopped educating is just utter rubbish.

 

[catinthehat]

Useful skills can be learnt at any time...why ruin kids lives with endless lessons and tests...forced to sit in rows for hours ...wearing shirt and tie.

In preparation for a life behind a desk...thats why

I agree that a lot of what our education system is about is obedience and conformity, preparing for alienation in the workplace and being socialised into knowing 'ones place' there is a gap between the theory. underlying ideology and actual practice. I have not been in a classroom where people are sitting in rows for hours wearing shirts and ties for about 15 years.

Of course learning takes place in many different ways and that which is forced in is least well received whilst that which occurs accidently or naturally is a much more satisfying route.

Teachers are possibly the group who have argued against tests, tests, tests and tables more than any other - but parents have not - until recently joined in that argument. Not all children live in a lovely place where parents provide opportunities or where they have a happy band of peers with which to discover the world. For a significant number of children school is a place of safety, the only place they get constructive interaction with adults. Heck I would love to live in a world where there are Gramscian social centres where one and all turn up and teach one another but if we dont really have the sort of communities or society that is going to produce that - not at the moment anyway.

Without schools some kids would never see a book, have access to resources that help them learn, be creative, mix with other children - have someone notice they have hearing or sight problems or other health problems.

Big picture and joining up the dots is required when it comes to working out whats going on in the state system. Since the Education Reform Act in the mid 80s that introduced the testing/tables regime there has been a steady drip drip drip of 'teachers, what a shower' - from one direction with the assetion they are a bunch of hippie/trots who cant spell and spend their time faffing around not teaching anything but hugging and rainbows, and from the other that they are a bunch of peadonutjobs intent in stiffling the creativity of another generation with their hierarchical dictator ways.

End result of this is that it makes it easy to flog off schools to the likes of Brian 'Keep clause 28' Soutar and his buddies. Easier for central control. Harder to get and keep decent teachers. Harder for teachers versions of what is reqired or going on in schools to be accepted as having any validity. They are giving up the fight in droves.

Schools have plenty of flaws but better to fix them than get rid and teachers cant do that on their own.

Life was not so great for the working classes before the provision of state education. (Teach them to read and all they will do is read seditious pamphlets). You need to make some pretty significant changes elsewhere in society if its going to deliver things like literacy without schools. Its a case of you dont know what you have got til its gone........we have a partner school/college in Malawi and kids that cant afford the fee (there is no state ed as such) try and sneak in to school - reverse skipping off if you like.

People often extrapolate their own bad experience of school and teachers to the whole system - I had teachers who were total gits but I also had teachers who opened my eyes and kick started my brain in a way my parents or peers never could.

There is plenty of critical stuff around health systems - iatrogenisis, social control via meds and mental health acts, power of the big pharmas - but I dont suppose you would advocate a do it yourself healthcare system.

 

[Treacle Toes]

We don't have any students anymore. They are now 'learners'.

We always had 'learners' don't be too precious about the word 'students'.

 

[Treacle Toes]

The 'point' being what, exactly?.

That part of being a teacher has always had a level of 'partnership in learning' and 'leadership' to it...those things come with the job.

I don't think it's useful to get caught up in objecting to 'buzz' words when in practise these things have always been evident in delivery are are part of the job description.

I think it's more interesting to think about how we can adapt teaching methods and approaches to make sure students/learners have access to the best possible education. An education that is relevant and productive. Not a 'drag them through it' system that is dated and does little more than replicate the success of 'pavlovs dogs'.

 

[phildwyer]

In my job, I see quite a lot of material, academic and government-related, that says things like ‘teachers should be partners in the learning process’ or suggesting that teachers should not somehow put themselves above pupils in the classroom pecking order. The words ‘classroom’ and ‘lesson’ are even being dodged around now, lest they seem to restrictive, and when talking about the idea of ‘learning and teaching’, it’s always in that order (not ‘teaching and learning’) – we actually changed the name of some of our publications to reflect this idea that it’s the learning that’s more important than the teaching.

They went through all this crap in America about 25 years ago. You see the results.

 

[Pickman's model]

They went through all this crap in America about 25 years ago. You see the results.

what, you?

 

[rioted]

... I dont suppose you would advocate a do it yourself healthcare system.

I would! Not for the big, serious stuff. Obviously. But the NHS is overburdened with people expecting doctors to address their every minor ache, pain and injury; handing out placebo antibiotics 'cos it's what the customer demands. Too much of the "I can eat what I want, drink what I want, smoke what I want and the state will sort out the mess".

 

[Treacle Toes]

I would! Not for the big, serious stuff. Obviously. But the NHS is overburdened with people expecting doctors to address their every minor ache, pain and injury; handing out placebo antibiotics 'cos it's what the customer demands. Too much of the "I can eat what I want, drink what I want, smoke what I want and the state will sort out the mess".

Personal responsibility is an important thing to take for yourself where possible IMO.... Health, education, diet, relationships etc...all contexts.

 

[sim667]

What makes you think that?

it seems to be a different way of teaching as far as i can tell........... you end up with your students spread out across about 6 rooms all doing different things.

 

[fogbat]

Teachers have spent years studying, so theye have knowledge to pass on to kids.

Kids can basically teach teachers a) the true meaning of christmas, b) the important thing is to be yourself, or c) how to love again.

No contest, really.

 

[kyser_soze]

I agree that a lot of what our education system is about is obedience and conformity, preparing for alienation in the workplace and being socialised into knowing 'ones place' there is a gap between the theory. underlying ideology and actual practice. I have not been in a classroom where people are sitting in rows for hours wearing shirts and ties for about 15 years.

Of course learning takes place in many different ways and that which is forced in is least well received whilst that which occurs accidently or naturally is a much more satisfying route.

Teachers are possibly the group who have argued against tests, tests, tests and tables more than any other - but parents have not - until recently joined in that argument. Not all children live in a lovely place where parents provide opportunities or where they have a happy band of peers with which to discover the world. For a significant number of children school is a place of safety, the only place they get constructive interaction with adults. Heck I would love to live in a world where there are Gramscian social centres where one and all turn up and teach one another but if we dont really have the sort of communities or society that is going to produce that - not at the moment anyway.

Without schools some kids would never see a book, have access to resources that help them learn, be creative, mix with other children - have someone notice they have hearing or sight problems or other health problems.

Big picture and joining up the dots is required when it comes to working out whats going on in the state system. Since the Education Reform Act in the mid 80s that introduced the testing/tables regime there has been a steady drip drip drip of 'teachers, what a shower' - from one direction with the assetion they are a bunch of hippie/trots who cant spell and spend their time faffing around not teaching anything but hugging and rainbows, and from the other that they are a bunch of peadonutjobs intent in stiffling the creativity of another generation with their hierarchical dictator ways.

End result of this is that it makes it easy to flog off schools to the likes of Brian 'Keep clause 28' Soutar and his buddies. Easier for central control. Harder to get and keep decent teachers. Harder for teachers versions of what is reqired or going on in schools to be accepted as having any validity. They are giving up the fight in droves.

Schools have plenty of flaws but better to fix them than get rid and teachers cant do that on their own.

Life was not so great for the working classes before the provision of state education. (Teach them to read and all they will do is read seditious pamphlets). You need to make some pretty significant changes elsewhere in society if its going to deliver things like literacy without schools. Its a case of you dont know what you have got til its gone........we have a partner school/college in Malawi and kids that cant afford the fee (there is no state ed as such) try and sneak in to school - reverse skipping off if you like.

People often extrapolate their own bad experience of school and teachers to the whole system - I had teachers who were total gits but I also had teachers who opened my eyes and kick started my brain in a way my parents or peers never could.

There is plenty of critical stuff around health systems - iatrogenisis, social control via meds and mental health acts, power of the big pharmas - but I dont suppose you would advocate a do it yourself healthcare system.

Top post ^^^

 

[Red Cat]

In my job, I see quite a lot of material, academic and government-related, that says things like ‘teachers should be partners in the learning process’ or suggesting that teachers should not somehow put themselves above pupils in the classroom pecking order. The words ‘classroom’ and ‘lesson’ are even being dodged around now, lest they seem to restrictive, and when talking about the idea of ‘learning and teaching’, it’s always in that order (not ‘teaching and learning’) – we actually changed the name of some of our publications to reflect this idea that it’s the learning that’s more important than the teaching. Though I’d imagine it’s good teaching that makes good learning, but there you go.

This is typical liberal politics isn't it? Lets mess around with notions of authority and power relations and language without addressing the material inequalities that underlie the failures in the UK ed. system. Lets talk lots about birth to three, early intervention and education, education, education, whilst governing over a society that is becoming increasingly unequal. Lets pretend that its teachers technique that needs improving (again) to make way for the cuts that are coming the way of the public sector.

On the other hand I get the impression that a lot of this has come from early years ed. where I think the thinking regarding learning is enlightened. There seems to be a lot of interest in the Reggio Emilia approach, which involves the idea of co-learner - what the teacher or facilitator or co-learner is learning about is the child. I love this - if my daughter could go to a pre-school where this was the approach I'd be chuffed, but it means well trained staff in observation and I don't think that exists, even though there's a lot of well meaning talk about it.

I'm in the middle of a child psychotherapy training in which the pre-clinical course is called psychoanalytic observational studies and the main point is precisely that: that you learn to observe without acting and intervening. That you sit on your hands, so to speak, and its a long, long training - not something you're going to get to grips with on a 2 day course. I'd love to combine what I've learned in this course with early years ed. stuff.

 

[Cloo]

On the other hand I get the impression that a lot of this has come from early years ed. where I think the thinking regarding learning is enlightened. There seems to be a lot of interest in the Reggio Emilia approach, which involves the idea of co-learner - what the teacher or facilitator or co-learner is learning about is the child. I love this - if my daughter could go to a pre-school where this was the approach I'd be chuffed, but it means well trained staff in observation and I don't think that exists, even though there's a lot of well meaning talk about it.

I like the Reggio approach - in the early years it's totally spot on and even reading about it changed for the better how I see and understand babies and small children. I guess they are trying to get some of those aspects into the early years foundation stage, but the heart isn't really there, as it seems to be in Reggio settings.

Article here with quite a good view, if anyone's wondering what we're on about! http://www.brainy-child.com/article/reggioemilia.html

 

[8ball]

That part of being a teacher has always had a level of 'partnership in learning' and 'leadership' to it...those things come with the job.

I can see how leadership is an important part of the required skillset, but not in terms of a 'leader in the learning process'. I think the teacher facilitates the learning process but is not themselves within the learning process. They are not doing the learning (at least not in terms of the 'learning agenda' - they may be learning valuable lessons about teaching but are not learning so much about the subject being taught, at least in most circumstances - despite how the recent Government ads like to play it).

I'm not sure what 'partnership' means within this context.

I think it's more interesting to think about how we can adapt teaching methods and approaches to make sure students/learners have access to the best possible education. An education that is relevant and productive. Not a 'drag them through it' system that is dated and does little more than replicate the success of 'pavlovs dogs'.

I think that's a bit of a strawman, or at least a misreading of what I meant. I think the role of teacher of a very valuable one and one that is difficult to really 'teach' iyswim. But I think that the 'learning process' is something that rightly belongs to the pupils rather than the teachers and that the role of the teacher is to pretty much sit outside that while doing everything possible to allow it to happen unhindered. I'm not saying I believe in some one-sided authoritarian model of education.

I may be explaining myself badly here -I'm not trying to offend any of the teachers on this thread.

 

[Treacle Toes]

8ball: I am not offended in the slightest.

I think this is an interesting discussion.

Regarding teachers not learning: I learn something everytime I teach. Yes it may not be the same as what I am teaching the students but I am learning constantly. Not least how to refine my lessons, tailor to student groups, which methods are effective or not and where my skills are lacking...

 

[Treacle Toes]

For me the partnership bit comes in in terms of how agreements made between teacher and student (spoken/written or otherwise) play out in the learning envirnoment.

These agreements extend to the parents of the students too. I agree to teach them, plan and individualise the syllabus. Identify and cater to their needs etc..They agree to take an active role in their learning and participate....a simplified example.

A lot of this is more apparent in the approaches advocated in adult education and humanist approaches to education like andragogy...I believe these approaches are becoming more and more advocated in the teaching of young people/children.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Teachers should be 'partners in learning' with parents, and 'leaders in learning' for students.

For example, my son was very slovenly about doing his maths homework. I found this out when he got a D for homework in his interim report. Son would tell me that he had no maths homework, he would then get a 20 min detention, which he wouldn't turn up to, then he would get an 1hr detention, which he wouldn't attend.

At parents evening, I asked the maths teacher if she would email me to let me know if he had handed in his homework, and give me the details of the exercise he was supposed to do. She agreed to do this, and unbeknownst to son, maths teacher and I conversed by email.

Son would come home - I would ask - "Have you got any maths homework", he would reply with bare-face lie "No", then I would reply, calm as anything, "I think you might be mistaken, you have Exercise 5c, questions 1, 2, and 5 on p. 35 to complete for Thursday", and he looked at me and said "How did you know?".

It took the maths teacher and myself to 3 months of emails (2-3 per week) to turn the situation around together. She and I were most definitely 'partners in learning', and my son's maths ability improved as a result.

Not every teacher is willing to chase up homework or converse with parents this way - in fact, she was the only teacher who was prepared to do this out of 4 subjects whom my son was then avoiding homework for. She is an absolute star of a teacher, and I wish there were more like her!

 

[Treacle Toes]

Teachers should be 'partners in learning' with parents, and 'leaders in learning' for students.

For example, my son was very slovenly about doing his maths homework. I found this out when he got a D for homework in his interim report. Son would tell me that he had no maths homework, he would then get a 20 min detention, which he wouldn't turn up to, then he would get an 1hr detention, which he wouldn't attend.

At parents evening, I asked the maths teacher if she would email me to let me know if he had handed in his homework, and give me the details of the exercise he was supposed to do. She agreed to do this, and unbeknownst to son, maths teacher and I conversed by email.

Son would come home - I would ask - "Have you got any maths homework", he would reply with bare-face lie "No", then I would reply, calm as anything, "I think you might be mistaken, you have Exercise 5c, questions 1, 2, and 5 on p. 35 to complete for Thursday", and he looked at me and said "How did you know?".

It took the maths teacher and myself to 3 months of emails (2-3 per week) to turn the situation around together. She and I were most definitely 'partners in learning', and my son's maths ability improved as a result.

Not every teacher is willing to chase up homework or converse with parents this way - in fact, she was the only teacher who was prepared to do this out of 4 subjects whom my son was then avoiding homework for. She is an absolute star of a teacher, and I wish there were more like her!

A very real example of what these terms can mean in education contexts and at home.

 

[phildwyer]

I can see how leadership is an important part of the required skillset, but not in terms of a 'leader in the learning process'. I think the teacher facilitates the learning process but is not themselves within the learning process. They are not doing the learning (at least not in terms of the 'learning agenda' - they may be learning valuable lessons about teaching but are not learning so much about the subject being taught, at least in most circumstances - despite how the recent Government ads like to play it).

I don't think this is true.

You really have to master a subject in order to teach it. You can't just rely on what you already know either, you have to keep up to date. Teaching a subject is the best way of learning it.

Not that this has anything to do with whether teachers are "leaders in the classroom" or not.

 

[phildwyer]

This is typical liberal politics isn't it? Lets mess around with notions of authority and power relations and language without addressing the material inequalities that underlie the failures in the UK ed. system. Lets talk lots about birth to three, early intervention and education, education, education, whilst governing over a society that is becoming increasingly unequal. Lets pretend that its teachers technique that needs improving (again) to make way for the cuts that are coming the way of the public sector.

I think I love you.

Everyone involved in education should learn this off by heart and repeat it whenever they are faced with a soi disant teacher of teachers spouting off about "student centered learning" and the like.

 

[8ball]

For me the partnership bit comes in in terms of how agreements made between teacher and student (spoken/written or otherwise) play out in the learning envirnoment.

These agreements extend to the parents of the students too. I agree to teach them, plan and individualise the syllabus. Identify and cater to their needs etc..They agree to take an active role in their learning and participate....a simplified example.

A lot of this is more apparent in the approaches advocated in adult education and humanist approaches to education like andragogy...I believe these approaches are becoming more and more advocated in the teaching of young people/children.

Ah, right, that clarifies a bit. I didn't mean to imply that teachers aren't learning or consolidating their skills as they teach, either, but these phrases like 'partnership in the learning process' or 'leaders in learning' are about as clear and meaningful as phrases like 'brothers in Christ'.