Argument and Belief

What's wrong with this statement?

"Cell phones baffle me. I don't own one. I recognize that they have practical uses, but their ubiquity in the classroom is one thing that almost drove me to quit teaching a few years ago. I wanted them GONE, and pined for the days when the rare student who had one would have been embarrassed if it had rung in public.

"My college has a cell phone policy similar to yours, and the enforcement of it is similarly uneven. What's more, I'm one of the few teachers who refuses to allow laptops unless the student has a certified medical reason for needing one. The laptops are rarely an issue - once they're put away, they're gone - but the cell phones are still a scourge.

"I've also encountered the arguments you mention about how we should really all move into the 21st century and embrace all forms of communication technology in our schools. I have no problem with a teacher who holds these views and applies them in his/her own classroom, but I feel there are many valid reasons not to apply them in mine.

"Some argue that in contemporary society, our students need to learn how to multitask effectively. I would argue just the opposite: that today's young people - and adults, for that matter, myself included - need to learn to STOP multitasking, and to focus on one task, with concentration, for an extended period of time. My classroom may be one of the only places that students have the chance, and the obligation, to do that. By forcing them to put their phones and laptops away, I am giving them the opportunity to stop the random, jittery stimulation and instant information that surrounds them at all times, and instead turn their attention to a deep and slow understanding of one specific text, idea or question."

The author of the above is not some change resistant throwback, but an arguably "left-wing" educator blogging, in this case, at Change.org. She was responding to another teacher's complaint about rude student use of mobile phones in the classroom.

A huge argument broke out - please do read it all - but I realize the cause of the battle was all in these four paragraphs, because they reveal so much about how this educator, and many others, view the roles of schools, of students, and of teachers - and thus reveals why educational success remains elusive for most students.

"Cell phones baffle me. I don't own one. I recognize that they have practical uses, but their ubiquity in the classroom is one thing that almost drove me to quit teaching a few years ago. I wanted them GONE, and pined for the days when the rare student who had one would have been embarrassed if it had rung in public."

Perhaps we know right now that the mobiles-in-education movement is not really going to get a fair hearing. The author refuses to even possess the dominant communication device of the age her students live in. She states at the start how she wants then "GONE." She goes on to suggest that she might consider letting a student use a laptop if he/she could prove some kind of medical necessity, but think about it - knowing this attitude would you approach her about this?

"I've also encountered the arguments you mention about how we should really all move into the 21st century and embrace all forms of communication technology in our schools. I have no problem with a teacher who holds these views and applies them in his/her own classroom, but I feel there are many valid reasons not to apply them in mine."

What exactly should education be about? Is it nothing more than a system of social reproduction recreating the society we knew in the past? Let's look at the author's attitude. She wants the right to determine which century's communication tools will be used in her classroom. OK, can I do the same? Can I require that no students use paper for notes and that no students read paper copies of anything? There are, after all, good environmental reasons to do this. Can I go the other way, insisting that students create papyrus from reeds and make their own ink? And if I could require either - would I have any legitimate educational reason to do so?

But this teacher has determined that her mid-20th Century communications tool set is something which she has a right to enforce on her students. I can surely understand this as "project learning" in a 20th Century History course, otherwise - picking your tool century and enforcing it is simply pre-deciding that those students most like the teacher will do best in the course.

"Some argue that in contemporary society, our students need to learn how to multitask effectively. I would argue just the opposite: that today's young people - and adults, for that matter, myself included - need to learn to STOP multitasking, and to focus on one task, with concentration, for an extended period of time. My classroom may be one of the only places that students have the chance, and the obligation, to do that. By forcing them to put their phones and laptops away, I am giving them the opportunity to stop the random, jittery stimulation and instant information that surrounds them at all times, and instead turn their attention to a deep and slow understanding of one specific text, idea or question."

Now we've turned religious. This is not uncommon. Our education system derives from a church-based (a Luther/Calvin-based) origin, and the "missionary position" (I am here to convert these young heathens) is still a dominant thought pattern among too many teachers.

This teacher is talking about nothing here but her own comfort and belief system. She thinks best when it is quiet. She thinks best when focused on one thing. She believes there is a specific way to study a text. And it is her job to bring these students to her beliefs.

The fact that some of us might function best in other ways, that some of us might need other structures, does not occur to her. If we would only "come to the light" - we would understand.

What's wrong?

My goal here is not to pick on this teacher/blogger. I assume, from much that she has written, that she is a great teacher. Nor is it my goal to re-argue this "case" extensively. My goal is to understand how our belief systems impact our view of education, and how we structure education. If we, for example, firmly believe in capitalism, we will design competitive classroom environments in which failure is as sure for some as success is for others. If we believe in evangelism and religious conversion we are likely to design a classroom environment which attempts to "save" the outliers. If we are sure that our learning system is best, any other will be seen as an invader, unwelcome in our classroom environment. If we perceive ourselves as "masters" of the classroom, we will act like "masters."If we see schools as failing the majority of kids - as I do - we will doubt the value of all traditional practices.

So when we watch a debate like the one at change.org unfold, look for arguments which are logical and those which are not. Always try to make a similar argument from the opposite side, and see if logic holds or disappears, but most importantly, always search for the clues to where people are coming from. No one makes neutral arguments. It isn't possible.

We can only see out of our own eyes.

- Ira Socol