(For new teachers and anyone who is interested.)

We are over a decade into the NCLB testing experiment now with precious little or nothing to show for those efforts. I believe that part of the reason has been a shift towards “student-focused” classrooms — not that there is anything wrong with focusing on students. But what ought to be a thought-out approach to classroom education sometimes now becomes the equivalent of a faith-based approach. Teachers are told to avoid whole-group instruction in favor of small groups. Often, this approach will work best, but NOT always. When no one in the class can add fractions, whole group instruction is wholly appropriate, and whole group instruction saves time. Teachers are told to create groups with the goal of having stronger students help weaker students. Mostly, this idea has merit, but sometimes those stronger students don’t exist — or they are not strong enough. Teachers may be discouraged from giving homework because “the latest research does not favor regular homework.” Whose research? In what subject area? Does that really apply to mathematics? Does that even make sense?
Teachers are told to give 50% credit for assignments that were never turned in. The research suggests this prevents students from becoming discouraged, we are told. Well, yes, students almost can’t lose under that system. Of course, you can’t win either, unless you actually do the work. The work is a prerequisite for learning.

Eduhonesty: This post is especially for new teachers. I want to suggest you treat the various techniques you were taught in education school with skepticism. I am not saying those techniques are wrong. I am saying that they almost never fit all situations or student groups. Each class has its own character. Regular, small group work may work well in one class and hardly at all in another. If students in your classroom can’t wander the room on a gallery walk without losing focus, then you need to lose the gallery walk. Or reformat your approach so that fewer students are up at one time.

Too many studies conducted in education have led to sweeping pedagogical declarations without enough scrutiny being given to whether the conditions of the study can be duplicated. If you are teaching a different population than the study population and if you do not have a teacher’s aide and cooperating special education teacher, unlike that teacher in the study, don’t be surprised when a recommended technique does not work. If I study bird watching behavior in cats, I can’t automatically apply my results to dogs or snakes. The real world will intervene often in our lives. If our “cooperating” teacher does not cooperate, the fact that he or she technically exists is irrelevant.

I’d like to suggest a radical approach: Do it your way. If the computer program you were handed is above everybody’s head, find another, more appropriate program online. Or do one problem at a time from your assigned program and then create a worksheet to review different versions of that one problem until students understand what they are doing. Watch out for current educational theory. That theory is too often misunderstood and misapplied by administrators who view children as interchangeable parts.