The interesting question for me in psychology and education is "what is the degree to which particular techniques influence success?". The flipside of this question is "what makes up the rest of the influence?".
Of course biology is a factor, but I tend to think that biology can't actually be disentangled from social and mental life. What remains is relationships. In therapy, study after study indicates that, for the most part, the subjective experience of the client correlates highly with symptom relief. This is true in medicine as well, but very much so in psychology. There is something in just having a genuine, mutual, helping relationship that helps.
There are some techniques that work for some troubles. There are some medications that relieve some symptoms. But none of seems very clear.
But to my mind this muddle is nothing like the one we have in our schools. You would think that education would have improved after all these years. But is it true that the problem is that we shift our emphasis constantly, one faddish technique to the next?
In our school, the basis of all success is the relationship between teacher and student. Not techniques, not content, not theory. Not zen. Just the relationship. Over this school year and the last, Stephanie Kenney, our Assistant Principal, our Dean, our Academic Whip, has pushed all of our teaching onto firmer pedagogical ground. There is more accountability and more clarity.
Still, the fundamental unit of TAS experience is that teacher-student relationship. Perhaps, what seems to be true in psychology is also true in education: without the relationship, the technique does not matter. "Back to basics" means organizing a school in such a way that relationships are cultivated. More teachers. Less teaching and meeting time. More time with small groups. Less time spent with adults. And identify those kids who don't have much adult presence in their life and get them some.
This was a late starting post today...my apologies. Big day yesterday.
Of course biology is a factor, but I tend to think that biology can't actually be disentangled from social and mental life. What remains is relationships. In therapy, study after study indicates that, for the most part, the subjective experience of the client correlates highly with symptom relief. This is true in medicine as well, but very much so in psychology. There is something in just having a genuine, mutual, helping relationship that helps.
There are some techniques that work for some troubles. There are some medications that relieve some symptoms. But none of seems very clear.
But to my mind this muddle is nothing like the one we have in our schools. You would think that education would have improved after all these years. But is it true that the problem is that we shift our emphasis constantly, one faddish technique to the next?
In our school, the basis of all success is the relationship between teacher and student. Not techniques, not content, not theory. Not zen. Just the relationship. Over this school year and the last, Stephanie Kenney, our Assistant Principal, our Dean, our Academic Whip, has pushed all of our teaching onto firmer pedagogical ground. There is more accountability and more clarity.
Still, the fundamental unit of TAS experience is that teacher-student relationship. Perhaps, what seems to be true in psychology is also true in education: without the relationship, the technique does not matter. "Back to basics" means organizing a school in such a way that relationships are cultivated. More teachers. Less teaching and meeting time. More time with small groups. Less time spent with adults. And identify those kids who don't have much adult presence in their life and get them some.
This was a late starting post today...my apologies. Big day yesterday.
No comments:
Post a Comment