IrishOboe

I have all sorts of comments running around in my brain, but Li'l Writer Guy dosen't have time to organize them at the moment, so I'll start by giving a link to Gatto's book: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm.

I like your point. I don't follow it to the conclusion "In the interests of metaphysical consistency, I should simply request that students obey, then stand back while they either do or don't, without interfering," though, perhaps because this gets into one of those we're-not-God issues. What God's doing is the very best pedagogical method possible, letting people "teach" themselves the lesson you want them to learn. Being sovereign, though, makes the whole thing much easier to administer; you don't run the risk of the "students" seriously damaging their own interests or, worse, the experiences and educations of others through their disobedience, since you control all variables. For me, the only rationale that gives me the authority to regulate a given student's behavior is knowledge that his or her disruption is detrimental or directly damaging to fellow students. (That's a lot of "d" words!) If I *can't* say that, I don't feel I have a right to tell a student what to do. But most cases of what is often referred to by the loathsome term "classroom management" do, in fact, boil down to that; I can tell you to sit down 'n' shut up not because there's any inherent virtue in sitting down or (especially) shutting up, but because by impeding instruction you're directly downgrading your education and, possibly, putting your future and the futures of others in the class in jeopardy. I want, though, to make it clear to my students that *that* is my motivation, and to repeat it often, since frequent "sit down 'n' shut up" interactions simply send a message that standing up and speaking out, if you will, are bad.

(Comments may be delayed by moderation.)

Your name:


E-mail (optional):
(it won't be published)


Webpage (optional):

Text: