Legal Quandary

When I Was Your Age, I Walked to School Barefoot. In the Snow. Uphill. Both Ways.

So here it is. I'm turning into my parents.

EC's school puts out a 8-10 page newsletter every week. It contains information on the school dances, the fundraisers, the PTA activities, and what the kids have been learning. Let me start by saying that I think it's great that they do this, although I wish they'd just email it out and save the paper.

The front of this week's newsletter has an article written by the principal. In it, she tries to give parents a snapshot of a day-in-the-life-of-a-teacher. She talks about what time teachers get to school in the morning, how many kids they teach, and the many duties teachers perform that everyone seems to forget (hall patrol, lesson planning, meetings with parents, etc.) And that's cool - with few exceptions, I believe teachers to be very dedicated professionals who do a job that I couldn't do. I mean, can you imagine me in a room with 30 11-year-olds? I can't even handle ONE some days...

Here's where I take issue with the principal's article:

The teacher must also be sensitive to each child's self-esteem taking care not to make any child feel singled out. Remembering that childing need auditory, visual and kinesthetic reinforcement and that young adolescents can only sit still for about twenty minutes, pre-planning is crucial. Remembering that we live in a world where everyone wants to be entertained and instant gratification is an expectation, the teacher needs to exhibit extra-ordinary showmanship no matter how he or she is feeling.

It's actually just that last part that bothers me. I appreciate that the teachers really try to engage the kids, but I have a hard time believing kids "can't" sit still for more than 20 minutes at a time unless someone is putting on a show for them. Is it "can't" or "won't"? And is it "won't" because no one actually expects them to? It seems to me that we're feeding into the problem if we just let kids cruise through life and never actually challenge the kids because we're afraid some kid will feel bad if we tell him to "sit down, shut up, and listen to what the teacher has to say."

I think this does a huge disservice to our children because someday these kids are going to go off to high school and college and be expected to sit still and absorb what teachers have to say - without the benefit of either a dog & pony show to entertain them, or a break every 15 minutes. And the last time I checked, there weren't many employees who gave recess.

I recognize that kids need time to be kids, and I don't begrudge them that. However, I think part of growing up is also learning how to behave in situations that are "boring" or "stressful". Life is not TV. I learned long ago that if I expected to be entertained all the time, I was going to be bitterly disappointed.

I seem to remember sitting still for a full hour at EC's age, and being fully capable of learning something during that time. I didn't have a choice. Maybe it wasn't always effective learning, but I tend to think it was - my 6th grade teacher did a damned good job of keeping us excited about learning and engaged. (Thanks Mr. Wiechelman!)

So when an educator tells me that my child can't be expected to focus on a single task for more than 20 mintues, I begin to wonder if our kids are just living up to our (low) expectations.

Brian and Mrs. Gorilla - you both spend far more time in a (non-law school) classroom than I do. I'd be interested in your impressions. Or anyone else's for that matter. Especially you parents.

posted by Legal Quandary at 06:57