Just to start

I walked into this quarter not really knowing what to expect. Last quarter was a nice introduction to the program, but admittedly it was not challenging by any means. I learned a lot about myself, my cohort and all of the cute things that kids do when they are learning, but learning about teacher seemed to fall in the backseat of every lesson. And now I understand.

When I started reading through the syllabus and text for this quarter, I finally realized what Jean had been preparing us for. We needed to understand ourselves and each other, the way others learn and the how each of us are truly unique before we could even begin to comprehend how the current education system is so unjust. I am a chapter into "Tested" by Pearlstein and I love it. I like the novelistic approach to the authors writing. I feel like I am reading a George Orwell tale of a horrid education system in some cold, impersonal future society that judges all progress on test scores. And then I have to remind myself that this is not some far away land in the cold future, but in fact our reality (although one could argue many of Orwell's "tales" have an eerie way of becoming quite factual as time progresses).

I guess my personal opinion on judging progress by test scores is obvious. It seems insane to me that even an entire educational career can be summed up with one number. From the WASL to the SAT, our students spend years learning, growing and advancing in countless ways. They do community service and become the editor of the school paper, president of the chess club or get highly competitive unpaid internships in at Harrison. But in the end, it is that single composite of 3 SAT test scores that determines which college they can even consider applying too. I remember when I got my SAT scores back; I nervously checked my dream school's website (UC Berkeley) to see if my SAT scores were good enough to even be allowed to apply. I cleared their minimum SAT scores by mere points. They ended up accepting me with a nice (but not grand) scholarship. Just think-- if my scores had been 20 or so points less, they wouldn't have even known I existed.

I can't be entirely biased though. I do understand that we need an easy way of making sure our schools are "on track". There is nothing more saddening than a school that students don't show up to simply because they know the high school graduation rate is only 50%. But testing really isn't the answer. Bremerton High School is an excellent example. Graduation rate is less than half, and those who do graduate just barely make the passing grade. I would assume that their test score are very poor and that the state has probably told the school to add after school tutors and increase their focus on math, reading and writing. However, the kids attending BHS are not interested in math, reading or writing. They are raised by blue collar families and live in a bubble of society that expects them to be nothing more than Navy sailors or shipyard workers (neither of which requires a high school diploma). If anything is going to break that cycle and help the students aspire to be more, they must be interested in school. It will take dedicated teachers who are willing to teach outside the dull norm of math worksheets and assigned reading. They are not unintelligent students, they just need to find their niche in education and excel from their.

A few of my friends have gone through BHS and of the ones I know, many either never graduated, graduated after a 5th year course or summer classes, or just barely graduated with C's (not because it was hard, but because they didn't care to do any better). Two found a spark of interest in education. One young man is now at UW, the other is an aspiring journalist. It shouldn't be a Cinderella story to find an interest in education, but if the answer to low test scores is more redundant and impersonal teaching styles to "up test scores" then the hopes of interesting students in an education they feel they "don't need" is nearly impossible.

I think that Ayers's "To Teach" will have a very similar tone to it. Judging by the first chapter, it is quite apparent that he believes that teachers should not teach by any set of "rules" or regulations, other than to truly love the children you work with and to genuinely want to better them, and in turn better the world. I agree with Ayers in his beliefs about teaching and thought his method of dismissing the "myths of teaching" was an effective and interesting way to portray his opinions. His method gives concrete examples of how "teaching by the book" can be harmful and much less effective than teaching out of desire and commitment to the individual students. I also very much appreciate his acknowledgment that teachers cannot be unknowledgeable, yet they shouldn't read ahead in the lesson book to know the material. It is a very interesting concept that the teacher should learn along with the student. I never specifically thought of this idea, but after reading Ayers describe it, knowing the concept, yet not knowing every answer really does make one's teaching much more engaging. It reminded me of my 5th grade teacher/mentor I worked with last year. Our fifth graders were doing science projects, admittedly not one of her strong subjects. She of course knew how to set up and run the experiment (looking at algae and pond water under a microscope), yet she was just as amazed as the kids were when the tiny microorganisms were discovered-- either that, or she is a tremendously good actor when it comes to acting excited (also a good trait in an elementary teacher in my humble opinion).

I look forward to what else Ayers will speak of. I like his simple, yet descriptive way of writing. It is one of the few "text book" style readings that I have felt engaged with simply because I don't feel I am being talked down to by some academic self-indulgent superior. He seems to come across more like, "Hey, I've been where you are and this is what I've learned over the years." It's refreshing, and dare I say even a little bit fun :)