What Makes a Good Teacher?

Posted on March 17, 2011 by Thomas Armstrong

Teachers have been taking it on the chin a lot lately with calls for the abolishment of tenure, and its replacement with what have been called “value-added models” of teaching evaluation.  Basically, what this means is that teachers are going to be increasingly assessed in terms of their ability to raise the standardized test scores of their students.  This strikes me as a very ominous development.  What it suggests is that we’re likely to see a different kind of teacher in the future – one who is a cold-blooded technician who will do virtually anything to get their students to achieve higher test scores.  Gone will be the humanistic teacher who believed that everything worth teaching isn’t on a standardized test, and that sometimes you have to wander away from the standard curriculum to take a look at some of the fascinating extraneous things that happen in the course of investigating this amazing world of ours.  I remember a number of outstanding teachers who did this from my own schooling.  Teachers who would read to us simply for the pleasure of listening to beautiful literature being read.  Teachers who would share with us artifacts and customs from their travels – even though these weren’t to be found anywhere in the syllabus.  Teachers who had us dancing to the music of Saint-Saens, singing medieval music, looking at an eclipse through a pin-hole, and doing many other things that weren’t in those textbooks that pin-headed educators had created in their dusty dry ivory tower universities. 

The teacher of the future won’t be caught dead being “off task” in such ways with their students.  Instead, all sorts of glitzy state of-the-art tricks and tools will be used to efficiently deliver instruction that produces RESULTS (i.e. satisfactory test scores).  Is that how we are to remember our teachers thirty years later?  “Yes, I remember you, you were the teacher who took me from the 26th percentile to the 81st percentile in 3rd grade!”  These aren’t the teachers that we remember from our own school experiences.  We remember the teacher who told us stories, who had us doing plays, who sang to us, who took us outside to experience the wonders of nature, who had us questioning life’s imponderables. 

I was just reading an essay on education by the early twentieth-century American journalist H.L. Mencken, and I really liked what he had to say about what makes for good teaching (please make allowances for his gender-blindness): 

“It consists, first, of a natural talent for dealing with children, for getting into their minds, for putting things in a way that they can comprehend. And it consists, secondly, of a deep belief in the interest and importance of the thing taught, a concern about it amounting to a kind of passion.  A man who knows a subject thoroughly, a man so soaked in it that he eats it, sleeps it, and dreams it — this man can almost always teach it, with success, no matter how little he knows of technical pedagogy.  This is because there is enthusiasm in him, and because enthusiasm is as contagious as fear or the barber’s itch.  An enthusiast is willing to go to any trouble to impart the glad news bubbling within.  He thinks that it is important and valuable for to know; given the slightest glow of interest in a pupil to start with, he will fan that glow to a flame.” (from H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy, New York: Vintage, 1916, p. 303). 

These are the criteria that should be utilized when evaluating whether a teacher is any good or not.  What this means is that the people who are assessing the teachers should themselves be passionate individuals who have enlivened the worlds of students.  It takes one to know one.  And the way you do this is by observing the teacher in the course of teaching her students.  You can’t get at teacher excellence by gathering objective data.  This is the big error that is being made by former chancellor of the D.C. public schools,  Michele Rhee and her coterie of adherents – the idea that teachers are accountable to the test scores of their students.  Instead, we should be looking at how teachers inspire their students to make breakthroughs in their own learning – having “aha!” experiences during science experiments, writing powerfully affecting stories in writing class, asking interesting and unlikely questions in the literature classroom, and having wonderful ideas during history lessons.  These sorts of events occur spontaneously throughout a school day – you cannot sit a child down in a desk with a stop watch and expect these miracles to happen. 

Standardized tests are laughably inadequate in probing the inner depths of a child’s brain.  We shouldn’t even be using them, let alone evaluating teachers by their data.  Instead, we should be thinking about the great teachers of humanity – Socrates, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi - and how they inspired others to break through the bonds of narrowmindedness into a broader vision of life.  Can you imagine any of these teachers being evaluated according to how well they improved the test scores of their students?  (“Sorry, James, son of Zebedee, you missed item number two having to do with the kingdom of God,” “Wrong Sanjiv!  When are you ever going to master the concept of satyagraha?”)  If we’re not going to hold these great figures accountable to objective data, then let’s not expect this of our own school teachers either.   Let’s look for that inner passion and love of children that cannot be encapsulated within the domain of some cold, dead test scores.  Let’s look, instead, for inspiration, empathy, and compassion in our teachers!

Posted in Education | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dehumanization of Learning in Today’s Educational Climate

Posted on February 17, 2011 by Thomas Armstrong

There’s a whole new climate of opinion that’s been sweeping over the educational scene in America these days.  It’s all about accepting as perfectly normal the creation of a monstrous monolithic “learning” enterprise from preschool to post-college that consists of uniform standards, standardized testing, the collection of “data”, and the evaluation of teachers based on test scores (a practice incongruously called “value-added”).  I find this development very troubling.  Perhaps even more troubling is that so few educators are seriously questioning it.  There’s a very corporate feel to this movement (and many of the terms used now in education such as “value-added” and “data” come directly from the corporate sphere).  I hardly know where to start in critiquing this brave new world in education.  Perhaps I can begin by quoting what one superintendent of schools declared was his optimal moment in learning:  “I want to see all the kids on the same page at the same time.”  There’s a uniformity to this movement that’s reminiscent of the dehumanizing machinery in Fritz Lang’s classic movie “Metropolis” (see photo).  Yes, I think that’s what’s at the core of this standardization of learning – it’s dehumanizing impact.  We’re no longer concerned with educating whole human beings – instead we’re focused on collecting “data.”  We’re no longer interested in the very different developmental worlds that preschoolers inhabit compared with elementary schoolers, middle-schoolers, or high-schoolers.  Instead, preschoolers are now cramming for standardized tests that will determine which kindergartens they enter (see an article on this practice in the Chicago Tribune this week), and high school students are abusing stimulant drugs to keep them focused on their ever more “rigorous” Advanced Placement courses and exams.  Everything these days in the classroom seems to be about “harder” “tougher” and “faster.”  Where are the voices that are saying “let’s slow things down, teach fewer things, chill out in the classroom, and take time to ponder the wonders of nature and culture.”  The world is an incredible place.  There are galaxies, and DNA, and Beethoven, and Moebius strips, and Impressionism, and Bali, and a million other things to be fascinated by.  Why can’t classrooms become places where students are slowly and gently introduced to these things?  Why can’t we allow children more time to play, more time to engage in “reverie” (those times of wandering off into mental space and considering life’s imponderables)?  Why can’t we spend time in the classroom inspiring teenagers to question the way things are, to challenge authority in the way that Robin Williams did in Dead Poet’s Society?  Instead, everything these days is about getting ready for a four-year college, where there will be more pressure, more grades and test scores, more cramming, and less time to wonder about life and one’s possibilities.  Will there never, then, be a time for students to learn about who they really are?

Posted in Education, human development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Title I Conference in Tampa to Feature Presentation on Neurodiversity

Posted on January 27, 2011 by Thomas Armstrong

I’m leaving on Monday to present a lecture on neurodiversity at the Title I Conference in Tampa, Florida.  My presentation will be February 1, 2011 at 12:45 in Ballroom C of the Tampa Convention Center.  In the presentation, I’ll be emphasizing how neurodiversity represents an opportunity to reframe our understanding of children with disability labels like “autism” “ADHD” and “dyslexia” to emphasize what they do right, rather than focusing all the attention on the negative.  As it turns out, individuals with autism possess enhanced perceptual functioning, those with ADHD have a strong propensity for novelty-seeking (a key component of creativity), and dyslexics often possess superior three-dimensional spatial thinking processes.  It’s important for educators to understand these positive qualities when they consider how best to structure appropriate interventions for these kids.  I use the term “niche construction” to suggest how we can craft environments that are in synch with the positive qualities of neurodiverse children.  Instead of regarding ADHD symptoms like hyperactivity or distractibility, for example, as negative behaviors to be suppressed with psychoactive medications such as Ritalin, niche construction suggests that we accept the high energy state of the child and provide a suitable environment, which might include giant bouncy rubber balls for them to sit on (to work out the wiggles), activities like role play and hands-on learning to promote academics, and plenty of physical education to provide an appropriate channel for their energies.  For kids with autism, niche construction might include sensory filters like ear muffs to shield them from loud noises, academic activities that cater to their strong interests, and opportunities to work alone in quiet spaces.  The dyslexic child, on the other hand, might benefit from colored plastic sheets to put in front of their reading material, speech-to-text software to be used in writing activities, and three-dimensional “pop-up” reading materials.   This new “diversity” approach promises to celebrate the gifts of each and every child, regardless of disability label, and hopefully over time will supplant the “deficit” orientation that seems to rule special education and the education of “at risk” students (who should be considered “at promise”).  At any rate, I hope those of you who will be attending the Title I conference will stop by Ballroom C on February 1 to catch my presentation.  See you there!

Posted in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism, dyslexia, Neurodiversity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cambridge University Researcher Endorses Neurodiversity

Posted on January 3, 2011 by Thomas Armstrong

I was happy to see recently a post on the Encyclopedia Brittanica blog that featured an interview with Cambridge University researcher Simon Baron-Cohen on the topic of neurodiversity.  When asked about the movement, Baron-Cohen replied:  “The neurodiversity movement has been a very positive influence in reminding us that there is no single pathway in neurological development, but there are many ways to reach similar end-points.” 

Baron-Cohen is most well known for his research in the field of autism and gender differences.  His book The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain (Basic Books, 2003), presents a fascinating look at two dimensions of human behavior that exist along a broad continuum:  empathizing and systematizing.  Empathizing, of course, refers to the ability of an individual to get under the skin, so to speak, of another person and to know what they are thinking, feeling, or intending.  Systematizing, on the other hand, involves relating more to systems than to people.  Examples of systems include:  a computer program, a football game, a mathematical system, an automobile’s hydraulic system, or a poker game.  It may not surprise people to know that systematizers are more frequently male, and empathizers are more often female.  Women get together to talk about feelings, relationships, gossip, and other interpersonal behaviors. Men typically talk about what’s under the hood of a car, last night’s basketball scores, the latest software program, or what’s on TV tonight (and, of course, they control the TV clicker with greater speed and aplomb than women). 

Baron-Cohen emphasizes that these behaviors exist along a continuum, and that most people are in the middle of the spectrum, combining aspects of both empathy and systematizing.  On the extreme end of the systematizing side, however, one is likely to find individuals with autistic spectrum disorders.  A look, for example, at the savants of autism (estimated to account for about 10% of all autistic people), reveals their incredible abilities at manipulating various systems:  rapid calculation of mathematical information, incredible fluency with musical structures, extraordinary attention to visual-spatial features of the external environment, and the like.  Even those autistic individuals with low I.Q. scores are often found to be obsessed with systems such as the snow on a television screen or the workings of an electric fan.  What is significant in Baron-Cohen’s “system” (remember, he is a male!), is that we are all on the spectrum, so to speak, between empathizing and systematizing.  As he points out later in the Britannica interview, “The impact of dimensionalizing autism has been very positive, in terms of recognizing that we all have some autistic traits and that the difference between someone who needs a diagnosis and someone who does not is simply one of degree (they have more autistic traits) and their “fit” in society.” 

I’ve similarly pointed out in my book Neurodiversity:  Discovering the Extraordinary Gifts of Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and Other Brain Differences, that we all exist along “continuums of competence” with regard to basic human processes, including:  sociability, attention, literacy, intelligence, and mood.  In addition, I’ve focused a great deal of attention in my book on what I call “niche construction,” which essentially involves modifying the environment to provide a better “fit” between an individual’s uniqueness and the surrounding culture.  It’s really my hope that the neurodiversity movement will continue to grow and will begin to provide mental health professionals with the ecological tools they need to help all individuals, regardless of their labels, find their unique positive “fit” in society.  These tools include assistive technologies, universal design for learning strategies, human relationships, career planning, and other environmental modifications that can turn an individual’s pathologies into positive attributes. 

A good example of a “positive fit” would be the Danish software company Specialisterne, which hires people on the autistic spectrum to test software programs for “bugs”.  As it turns out, these individuals have superb “systematizing” abilities with computer software, enjoy working alone on tasks that others would consider boring, and thus are in a place which makes maximum use of their capabilities.  This sort of approach to job placement should be attempted with other individuals on the autistic spectrum, as well as those with other disability labels. It also should be a key component of the inclusion model in classrooms around the world. The use of a diversity model to replace the “deficit” model that we’ve been using promises to help neurodiverse people realize more of their potential in life.

Posted in autism, Neurodiversity, Special Education, Workplace Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Historical Perspectives on What is “Developmentally Appropriate”

Posted on December 1, 2010 by Thomas Armstrong

Thirty-five years ago, when I was at the beginning of my teaching career, Piaget was all the rage.  We read his books, and puzzled over how observation of children interacting with real life situations could enable us to understand the development of their minds.  We also were able to catch the tail end of interest in the work of Freud and saw how childrens’ early struggles with issues like autonomy, jealousy, and initiative, could affect their ability to emotionally manage the ups and downs of life later on in development.  These days, it seems that Piaget and Freud are hardly ever mentioned in educational discourse, let alone read.  Instead, the buzz words of the day are accountability, standards, data, and academic achievement.  If we’re interested in the child’s development at all, it’s usually to help us understand how to get the child to achieve academically. This explains why we are now expecting children to master academic material at younger and younger ages.  Again, back in my early days of teaching, early childhood education was seen primarily in terms of play experiences that children created out of their own imagination.  Today we have preK-16 programs that attempt to foist the atmosphere of later academic learning on children as young as three or four.  And the sad thing is that the child development experts of our day are busy researching a child’s ability to master academic learning in the early years, rather than questioning whether or not this is such a good thing in the first place.  Twenty years ago, I wrote a column on learning for Parenting Magazine, and when I did the research for an article on computers in education, it was difficult to find anyone in the field who would come out and say that children below the age of four should have access to computers.  Now, if I suggest that children under four not be exposed to computers, I’m considered out of touch with the times.  Thirty years ago, the National Association for the Education of Young Children wrote a position paper which stated that young children should not be subjected to standardized tests.  Today, they have abandoned this position and talk instead about the different sorts of tests that young children appear now to need.  Is there anyone with a historical sensibility that can see how vastly we’ve shifted over two or three decades in our understanding of what children need?  I believe we need to keep a historical perspective in order to see more clearly how the concept of “developmentally appropriate” has been perverted into a mandate to teach things that were clearly developmentally inappropriate thirty years ago.  And those of us with the experience to see the broad view of education over thirty or forty years, ought to raise our voices and let it be known that what is going on with young children and academic learning is not okay, and can only serve to harm their deeper sensibilities and interfere with their full development as whole human beings.

Posted in human development | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments