Updates: UH Classes

Hey you all (or one, maybe):
I'm sorry I haven't posted anything for a few days now. Things have been pretty busy.

I started taking classes over at UH this week. Two classes I like, the third is perhaps the WORST class I have EVER taken in my life.

First, the worst. It's called "Educational Foundations." Sounds interesting, in a basic sort of way... Well, with this instructor, it's not. I won't mention any names, but he's somewhat of an older gentleman (I gather from his recounting of his life story that he must be roughly 78 or 79). While I respect my elders, and feel sympathetic towards this individual, I sincerely believe that he does not belong at the front of the class, influencing the next generation of teachers. The easiest way to characterize him would be to say he's like- well, like the really opinionated great grandparent who's suffering slightly from, if not active dementia, well, then from a case of malignant irrelevance. When he speaks, there's a pause every two or three words, as he considers how best to navigate through a sentence; more often than not, the pause is negotiated by some sort of tangent that takes us to some other thoroughly unexpected, impossibly boring bit of trivia about him... Don't get me wrong, he'd probably be a likeable old grandfather to someone; it's just that he's got no business being in front of (paying) students...

Also, his opinions... He cites "research" and "studies" in a vague sort of way, as though it gives him some sort of authority or credence to shoot of (his) opinions and prejudices... Example: "According to studies" (left vague) "there is no connection between students liking a subject, and students doing well in a subject." Now, leaving aside whether or not citing some vague studies constitutes anything approaching "truth," even if his statement IS true, where does that leave us, as aspiring teachers? Is he telling us that we as teachers SHOULDn't make the effort to make a subject palatable, interesting, perhaps even inspiring? That, even if we do happen to get students "hooked" on a subject, they will still inevitably fail? That is hardly the message that should be broadcast to the next generation of teachers...

I swear, by about 15 minutes to the class, I was cringing in my shoes. The silence from the other students was heavy; I wondered who among us would venture to say something to break the absurdity of the situation, who would say, "What the hell are you saying? Why the heck are YOU [perhaps the poorest example of an educator] standing up in front of us, telling us how to teach!?" But we were a polite bunch, holding in our outrage like bubbling gas behind our struggling sphincters...

Whew!

Well, the other classes, I liked. One, Media in Education, is really fun. It's all about incorporating technology (media) into the classroom. Topics include creating a blog (ha!), making Powerpoint presentations, incorporating video into the classroom, etc. These are all topics I wanted to pursue, but being severely technologically challenged, couldn't...

The other enjoyable class was in the Special Ed department, and was about teaching exceptional students. Dr. Smith, the instructor, is brilliant! In particular, he (I believe) came up with an excellent metaphor for what Special Education IS. First, he related the perspective of Medicine to a duck; then, the perspective of Law to a reptile (a chameleon); third, the perspective of General Education to a beaver. Combining these disparate perspectives, the bastard mutant child was a Platypus called Special Education... He clearly explained the tensions inherent in Special Education, and how, despite the best efforts to successfully incorporate it into, say, General Education, due to its "mixed" heritage, it remained "exceptional", "special," i.e., a Platypus.

Interestingly, he mentioned that Special Education owes its existence, not to General Education, but to MEDICINE. The Medical perspective, among other things, has a mission to PREVENT illness, and when that fails, to TREAT/HEAL it; also, in certain instances, segregation (Quarantine) is necessary for the greater good, for the health of all. Applied to education, this perspective addressed the abberrant (sp?), the idiotic, the mentally retarded AS DISEASED children who needed to be TREATED/rehabilitated, such that they could approximate the norm... And as in medicine, it was decided that, in some cases, segregation of the diseased was necessary...

The early advocates of Special Education came, not from Education, but from Medicine. Montessory, for example, was a DOCTOR. (My children, Willow and Aiden, currently attend a Montessory school).

Dr. Smith clearly is no fan of the Bush administration or the (tongue in cheek) No Child Left Behind program... Among other things, NCLB imposed a philosophy of inclusion (Special Ed kids incorporated into General Ed classrooms), which was, to him, entirely inappropriate and "naive."

I look forward to Dr. Smith's further lectures...