Why?
(posted by request and edited slightly...from my post to the moretprs listserve)
After more than a decade of documented success in classrooms across the country, TPRS is still a surprise, an unfamiliar entity, an insult, even a threat to many educators.
Why? Because TPRS is not just a new "method". It is a dangerous threat to the great and powerful status quo. It has the potential, as Ben often reminds us, to turn the language-instruction community upside-down.
Why? It's dangerous.
Why? It upsets the control model that is so prevalent in our profession.
A text-driven program provides great POWER to districts. How?
1) It allows administrators to control the content in each classroom. No principal will be bothered by phone calls about why we are teaching Day of the Dead or about the Virgin of Guadalupe.
2) It allows department members with seniority to divide coursework and assign sections at their discretion, by using the rationale that experience trumps skill. This hierarchy is very important and allows districts to have control over who is in control.
3) It allows new teachers to schedule lessons rather than to create them. Since new hires are subject to so many other responsibilities that creating their own lessons is a hardship. Besides without experience, how can districts trust that any individually created lesson has merit and will align with the present program?
4) It prevents any one teacher from being "better" than his/her colleagues. If one teacher is considered better, students will crowd the guidance office looking to be in that class and wreaking havoc on the schedule.
5) It weeds out students who are not "scholars", thereby keeping numbers low and enabling districts to hire fewer teachers. (in our little high school of 500 students we have 4 language teachers and 7 football coaches)
6) It provides an observation-free, knowledge-free way to evaluate teachers. It provides data to read instead.
7) It allows teachers to teach for decades without need for professional development from within the field, thereby allowing the district to require language teachers to find a way to adjust district-wide mandates on essential questions, writing (in English) across the curriculum, etc. to their classrooms.
8) The existence of supplemental materials can be used as a tic on the checklist of "differentiation opportunities".
9) Teachers do not need to get to know their students, therefore class sizes of 30+ are not a problem.
10) Textbook companies are also providing software so that districts can demonstrate that they are using technology in the classroom. And it really doesn't matter if the teacher is techno-savvy or not. Or if the programs are worthwhile.
This may sound critical, tongue-in-cheek, maybe even a little bitter, but I assure you that it is not. The folks in charge absolutely believe, without a doubt, that these are good things. They are overjoyed at the opportunities available to language students these days and relieved to not have to understand the language in order to evaluate the teachers. It's a win-win for them.
But not for our students. And many teachers are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.
So we are attracted to this rebel movement that can align its success with brain research but is keenly aware of the moment-to-moment research that takes place in the classroom.
This movement puts the power directly in the hands (minds, hearts and souls) of the students and the teachers.
And that is dangerous.
It REQUIRES students to be involved and to interact and to achieve.
It REQUIRES teachers to be vitally aware of their students personalities, interests, needs and abilities.
It REQUIRES the teacher to CRAFT moments in the classroom.
It REQUIRES that each class be unique, individual, different.
It REQUIRES that teachers communicate with each other so that their students make a smooth transition from one level to another.
It REQUIRES ongoing professional development.
It REQUIRES teachers to become smarter and more skilled every day.
It REQUIRES the creation of new materials every day.
It REQUIRES administrators to understand what good teaching looks like, what acquisition means, and how students think, work and develop as human beings.
It REQUIRES a district to allow all students to be successful in a language classroom, that there be enough classrooms and teachers for those students and enough upper level offerings for students who are progressing to take.
Most important...
It REQUIRES a district to trust that its teachers are intelligent, intuitive, evolving, creative and ABLE to do their job well.
And to communicate that to the public by maintaining these programs and these teachers.
Very, very dangerous.
One of many things I like about it.
with love,
Laurie
After more than a decade of documented success in classrooms across the country, TPRS is still a surprise, an unfamiliar entity, an insult, even a threat to many educators.
Why? Because TPRS is not just a new "method". It is a dangerous threat to the great and powerful status quo. It has the potential, as Ben often reminds us, to turn the language-instruction community upside-down.
Why? It's dangerous.
Why? It upsets the control model that is so prevalent in our profession.
A text-driven program provides great POWER to districts. How?
1) It allows administrators to control the content in each classroom. No principal will be bothered by phone calls about why we are teaching Day of the Dead or about the Virgin of Guadalupe.
2) It allows department members with seniority to divide coursework and assign sections at their discretion, by using the rationale that experience trumps skill. This hierarchy is very important and allows districts to have control over who is in control.
3) It allows new teachers to schedule lessons rather than to create them. Since new hires are subject to so many other responsibilities that creating their own lessons is a hardship. Besides without experience, how can districts trust that any individually created lesson has merit and will align with the present program?
4) It prevents any one teacher from being "better" than his/her colleagues. If one teacher is considered better, students will crowd the guidance office looking to be in that class and wreaking havoc on the schedule.
5) It weeds out students who are not "scholars", thereby keeping numbers low and enabling districts to hire fewer teachers. (in our little high school of 500 students we have 4 language teachers and 7 football coaches)
6) It provides an observation-free, knowledge-free way to evaluate teachers. It provides data to read instead.
7) It allows teachers to teach for decades without need for professional development from within the field, thereby allowing the district to require language teachers to find a way to adjust district-wide mandates on essential questions, writing (in English) across the curriculum, etc. to their classrooms.
8) The existence of supplemental materials can be used as a tic on the checklist of "differentiation opportunities".
9) Teachers do not need to get to know their students, therefore class sizes of 30+ are not a problem.
10) Textbook companies are also providing software so that districts can demonstrate that they are using technology in the classroom. And it really doesn't matter if the teacher is techno-savvy or not. Or if the programs are worthwhile.
This may sound critical, tongue-in-cheek, maybe even a little bitter, but I assure you that it is not. The folks in charge absolutely believe, without a doubt, that these are good things. They are overjoyed at the opportunities available to language students these days and relieved to not have to understand the language in order to evaluate the teachers. It's a win-win for them.
But not for our students. And many teachers are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.
So we are attracted to this rebel movement that can align its success with brain research but is keenly aware of the moment-to-moment research that takes place in the classroom.
This movement puts the power directly in the hands (minds, hearts and souls) of the students and the teachers.
And that is dangerous.
It REQUIRES students to be involved and to interact and to achieve.
It REQUIRES teachers to be vitally aware of their students personalities, interests, needs and abilities.
It REQUIRES the teacher to CRAFT moments in the classroom.
It REQUIRES that each class be unique, individual, different.
It REQUIRES that teachers communicate with each other so that their students make a smooth transition from one level to another.
It REQUIRES ongoing professional development.
It REQUIRES teachers to become smarter and more skilled every day.
It REQUIRES the creation of new materials every day.
It REQUIRES administrators to understand what good teaching looks like, what acquisition means, and how students think, work and develop as human beings.
It REQUIRES a district to allow all students to be successful in a language classroom, that there be enough classrooms and teachers for those students and enough upper level offerings for students who are progressing to take.
Most important...
It REQUIRES a district to trust that its teachers are intelligent, intuitive, evolving, creative and ABLE to do their job well.
And to communicate that to the public by maintaining these programs and these teachers.
Very, very dangerous.
One of many things I like about it.
with love,
Laurie
Comments