Here, radio and talk show host Adam Carolla discusses his “free-range” non-structured elementary school. | |
File Size: | 5199 kb |
File Type: | mp3 |
The Chaotic Classroom
The greater school culture, as well as the individual classroom culture, can have a significant impact on student learning. In a chaotic environment, teacher-control is lax and students generally direct the focus of their own attention. In this kind of environment, students have little external impetus to propel their lessons forward. Although students can motivate themselves to explore areas that particularly interest them, the broad scope of K-12 education dictates mastery of a breadth of subjects, many of which students find personally uninteresting. Classroom chaos allows a wide margin of off-topic activities and idleness, as well as harmful behavior. Given the ability to choose their own pursuits, students may or may not push themselves to reach their potential. In today’s standards-driven curriculum, it may be difficult to imagine a school environment where teacher-control is diminished to the point where students manage their own education, but it is not without historical precedent. (See Corolla podcast above)
A practical concern in this environment is student safety, as it may be difficult to ensure when a single responsible person is not directing activity. Diffusion of classroom direction may also limit students’ zone of proximal development as students and teachers are not necessarily focused on the same goals or course paths. Students may be encouraged to think more innovatively, but the overall course of their education may be less focused and useful in future pursuits.
Tension
Clearly, it is necessary for a teacher to have a measure of primary control over the classroom in order to keep it safe and facilitate the direction of the course. By nature of the school paradigm, the role of student is not equal to the role of teacher. However, both often want control in the classroom. This pull for control can be manifested through classroom tension. Teachers desire to control the students and their activities. Michael Apple and Nancy King discuss the “hidden curriculum” of schools in “What Do Schools Teach?" (1977). The once-overt mission of schools was to teach students “social control,” that is, to “eliminate or ‘socialize’ unwanted racial or ethnic groups or their characteristics, or to produce an economically efficient group of citizens, in order to… reduce the maladjustment of workers to their job” (344-345). In other words, teachers have historically needed control in the classroom in order to homogenize students into social roles. Part of the function of school has been to teach young people societal obedience – their place in the organized, non-anarchist institutional order.
Tension occurs when students also vie for control of the classroom. Control in this sense does not necessarily mean that they wish to take over the role of the teacher and instruct themselves or each other. Control, in the broad sense, denotes self-agency, power, and freedom of choice. When students are disenfranchised from the educational process by means of having to submit to a subservient role, they may push back by acting out or refusing to participate. Exercising their power to disrupt or derail classroom curriculum is a form of taking control, as is choosing not to fulfill their student role through inactivity. In each of these cases, students rebel against the teacher’s presumed authority, rejecting the traditional school structure and their submissive role. This tension often results in teachers’ redoubled efforts to control the classroom through any means necessary, which further incites many students’ rebellion. Noguera thoughtfully describes students’ acting out and the resulting conflict. “When children are presumed to be wild, uncontrollable, and potentially dangerous, it is not surprising that antagonistic relations with the adults who are assigned to control them develop,” (345).
The greater school culture, as well as the individual classroom culture, can have a significant impact on student learning. In a chaotic environment, teacher-control is lax and students generally direct the focus of their own attention. In this kind of environment, students have little external impetus to propel their lessons forward. Although students can motivate themselves to explore areas that particularly interest them, the broad scope of K-12 education dictates mastery of a breadth of subjects, many of which students find personally uninteresting. Classroom chaos allows a wide margin of off-topic activities and idleness, as well as harmful behavior. Given the ability to choose their own pursuits, students may or may not push themselves to reach their potential. In today’s standards-driven curriculum, it may be difficult to imagine a school environment where teacher-control is diminished to the point where students manage their own education, but it is not without historical precedent. (See Corolla podcast above)
A practical concern in this environment is student safety, as it may be difficult to ensure when a single responsible person is not directing activity. Diffusion of classroom direction may also limit students’ zone of proximal development as students and teachers are not necessarily focused on the same goals or course paths. Students may be encouraged to think more innovatively, but the overall course of their education may be less focused and useful in future pursuits.
Tension
Clearly, it is necessary for a teacher to have a measure of primary control over the classroom in order to keep it safe and facilitate the direction of the course. By nature of the school paradigm, the role of student is not equal to the role of teacher. However, both often want control in the classroom. This pull for control can be manifested through classroom tension. Teachers desire to control the students and their activities. Michael Apple and Nancy King discuss the “hidden curriculum” of schools in “What Do Schools Teach?" (1977). The once-overt mission of schools was to teach students “social control,” that is, to “eliminate or ‘socialize’ unwanted racial or ethnic groups or their characteristics, or to produce an economically efficient group of citizens, in order to… reduce the maladjustment of workers to their job” (344-345). In other words, teachers have historically needed control in the classroom in order to homogenize students into social roles. Part of the function of school has been to teach young people societal obedience – their place in the organized, non-anarchist institutional order.
Tension occurs when students also vie for control of the classroom. Control in this sense does not necessarily mean that they wish to take over the role of the teacher and instruct themselves or each other. Control, in the broad sense, denotes self-agency, power, and freedom of choice. When students are disenfranchised from the educational process by means of having to submit to a subservient role, they may push back by acting out or refusing to participate. Exercising their power to disrupt or derail classroom curriculum is a form of taking control, as is choosing not to fulfill their student role through inactivity. In each of these cases, students rebel against the teacher’s presumed authority, rejecting the traditional school structure and their submissive role. This tension often results in teachers’ redoubled efforts to control the classroom through any means necessary, which further incites many students’ rebellion. Noguera thoughtfully describes students’ acting out and the resulting conflict. “When children are presumed to be wild, uncontrollable, and potentially dangerous, it is not surprising that antagonistic relations with the adults who are assigned to control them develop,” (345).