I think a major difference between teaching standardized curriculum versus a praxis model is the praxis model requires educators to be much more prepared, present and observant. When using standardized curriculum, yes a teacher may run into difficulties relaying information in the banking model of education, but typically the problems will be routine. There will be FAQ's that the teacher will be prepared to handle and probably some behavioral issues as well. Let me just say I am in no way saying teaching is easy. However in the praxis model of education the limits as to what is and isn't curriculum are expanded, the lines of real life and education are blended together making the questions and topics much more personal and relevant and in turn more important to the students and hopefully educators.
In Shultz's case he was able to work with his students, not just as an advocate but along side them towards a common goal. This required him to be more prepared and ready to pick up on 405's desire to make change. I think Shultz's ability to preserve space to go where he never imagined is one of his best qualities as a teacher who is successful in a praxis model. To limit the possibilities of 405's project would smother the classroom energy and desire for change. Shultz picks up on key moments of frustration in the classroom and allows the students to control the direction of their learning. "Most of the problems on that list have to do with our school building bein' messed up. Our school is a dump that's the problem!" In this instance Shultz creates the space for the students to be in charge of their own project and education. Shultz is also present, he is able to identify the strengths of his students in the classroom. Acknowledging his students capabilities and strengths gives Shultz the ability to understand how to assist their education. "..They told me, there was little nurturing of the strengths or abilities learned outside of school, but rather a devaluing of their adaptive abilities and street intelligences.
You made a great point and that is that Shultz was working with the students toward a common goal, I was just thinking that is exactly the way it should be. Instead of dangling a carrot(grade, test scores) in front of the students work with them by giving the students space to develop we the teachers also get space and we now have like 27 people to utilize towards whatever goal we had in mind, I mean it could turn out to be a win win situation the kids get to conquer something they have been wanting to and so does the teacher. It's like each one is giving the other a reason to be I think if we can deal with kids with an attitude where this is a two-way street and we will all be better by the end of our experience together then we will be that much better. And yes I will say it following curriculum is easier then letting the class develop into it's purest form and building it off of them. It's easier, safer, makes one feel more comfortable but I really just don't think it gets the job done. I mean we will encounter thousand of great individual with their very own special mark and it is sad to go into it and deal with each individual the same way and the same way others are that is a silly notion and I don't know why the standards of education have not been reconstructed yet.
ReplyDelete