us, we truly had a student-centered classroom. tous cell phone or equivalent thereof. Often, too, that’s substituting for actual conversation or involvement. Although we didn’t have all the equipment that’s available today, we did have active involvement, group work, and much deny students opportunities to be both physically and mentally involved in their learning? with diversity became more visible, partly because of numbers, partly because we didn’t seem to have enough time, perhaps because we didn’t yet know enough about how children learn, partly because as adults we were sure we were in a better position to determine what was best. Sometimes, bright students maneuvered their way into “slower” classes and were allowed to get by with less effort. Occasionally there were discipline problems, often because they were not
was the English department, and the curriculum was what me to have a student-centered classroom and to develop a vertical program. Student-centered and vertically articulated curriculum were not then in my vocabulary, but they were real. The literature anthologies helped because each level was different; the grammar books were sold as sequenhave always believed that students should be at the center of the learning process, that our task is to help them learn how to learn and how to take charge of their own education. Materials had to match knowledge, interest, abilities, and
Neither was it then nor is it now possible for a single instance of evaluation to determine the overall effectiveness of teaching or learning.
that some of those problem kids were among the brightest. The profession has come a long way both in knowledge about young people and ever increasing awareness of the individuals in our classrooms.
to have varied approaches to challenge and interest my students and have a number of ways to evaluate because grading written work for seven classes as the sole determinant was simply not cussion, presentations, observations – all were tools
enough for students to be in my English class for six years. ther was it then nor is it now possible for a single instance of evaluation to determine the overall effectiveness of teaching or learning. to learn more and better ways to work with students and to
always when) the parents learned that their son or daughter was in trouble at school, punishment at home would frequently be greater than the punishment at school. That wasn’t a perfect system, of course, but we weren’t constantly second-guessed or forced to allow the students to have the upper hand. The overall attitude in school and in the community was that people in authority were treated respectfully; and, if questions arose, protocols were in place. Courtesy to others in the classroom and on the street was a given. As a society, we’ve lost much of that; and it was the publication of differences in education. Teachers became the scapegoat for much of what was wrong in the country; and the loss of respect remains a problem.
spent three of their high school years in my English language sponsor. We have remained close, and today some of them remember some pretty lively discussions in literature and say that they became lifelong readers and learners because of classroom experiences. Others say that they remember nothing except that school was relatively painless and that ing spring, two of them were there. Was that a result of my teaching all those decades before or of their learning? Teaching and learning are far too complex to be held to simformer students who have done really well in their careers
journalism teacher, the speech teacher, sponsor of the paper and the yearbook, coach of the debate squad, director of the
to know, wherein any effectiveness lay. The concept for this issue of Statement is what effecStatement Vol. 50, Number 2
7