What is the alternative to the deficit model?
The punishment/submission approach to education seems to be a bad way of applying the deficit model, but not synonymous with it. Similarly, other approaches (perhaps ones that emphasize intellectual creativity, etc.) are harnessing other facts about student psychology to remedy deficits.
Is the worry that thinking about it in terms of deficits tends to make us take a punitive? That we could think of skill / knowledge acquisition techniques in different ways? I'm certainly all for that, but I'm unclear how it differs from the deficit model, rather than being a better way of working within it.
The problems with the "deficit model" have been recognized since Plato and Augustine, as I don't have to tell you, Spaz. Somewhat more recently, there's Dickens's metaphor from Hard Times where the students are little empty pitchers waiting for facts to be poured into them. If they say anything fanciful they are shamed until they learn to parrot exactly what the teacher wants them to say.
I'm reminded of my creative writing classes. You can say something negative (like you shouldn't add -'s to the end of a noun that already ends in s), but should also say something positive (like kudos on the Dickens reference).
We are probably right to critique, correct, etc., the deficits so that the weaknesses can be overcome. However, that only does half the job. We also need to encourage and promote the strengths. Sometimes we do precisely the opposite. Sports players in high school and college know they can get away with half-assing their studies because what's encouraged and promoted is their strength on the field. Encouragement can help them to be better players, but that oversight shortchanges them academically.
I would guess that the answer is some combination of the two. Encourage the child who has a good ear to learn an instrument, and encourage the kid who's good at math to take more advanced math courses. But the weaknesses do need to be addressed as well.
I'm still working on what the "deficit model" is, so bear with me. In my original post, I took Ayers remark "The curriculum is built on a deficit model; it is built on repairing weakness" to mean that the basic goal of education is to fill these gaps in knowledge or skill. I was unclear what the alternative was, as surely alternative pedagogical methods have the same goal in mind. Positive and negative reinforcement both have a crucial role to play because they serve goals in developing those skills and imparting that knowledge to students.
If that is what he means, then I remain in the dark. Another hypothesis though, is that he takes the deficit model to mean treating students in a strictly one-sided fashion (the "empty pitcher" analogy "I" used would fit here). I certainly agree that this is a bad pedagogical model, but from anecdotal experience this seems less controversial than how to rethink approaches the teaching.
Does he mean the latter? His talk of "design" suggested to me the former. Can anyone who has actually read the Ayers book clarify which interpretation of the deficit model is right (or if neither of them are)?
"like you shouldn't add -'s to the end of a noun that already ends in s), but should also say something positive (like kudos on the Dickens reference)."
Yeah, they changed that first one since we all learned composition, now they want you to do it....and on the second one, thanks!
That video was great! It makes me have all sorts of ugly violent thoughts about Sarah Palin, but I'll keep the details to myself.
Yeah, they changed that first one since we all learned composition, now they want you to do it
I actually see it both ways, but I'm physically incapable of complementing you unless I also give you grief at the same time. I think it's like the punctuation inside quotation marks thing, is it in or out? It depends on who is doing the editing ultimately. Sometimes it's a Brit/American preference. Sometimes it depends upon the medium or where it's being published, etc. Stupid grammar. It'd be easier if they'd just stick to one thing.
I do like that Ayers pointed out the ethical/moral concerns. That being the case, it seems to me that a broader more encompassing approach would have to be demanded.
If I might be so bold: what would our teachers (professors) here put on that poster board?
Maria Montessori compares the school desk to a prison cell. We trap all that energy not letting them move, bore the life out of them, and then complain that they are not engaged learners. Does seem a wee bit stupid. I get a lot of work done, but I do a bit, I check a few blogs, chat with the person in the next office (sigh), get more work done, take a walk, get a snack, get more work done,... Active engagement is a dynamic process and we never set them up to maximize success. Our model is deeply flawed and we've known it for at least a century, yet...
SteveG - I'm way out of my league here, but I've got to ask. That last post makes incredible sense to me, and I wonder, what do you think keeps that model from changing?
One reason (among others, including perpetuation of the status quo) that the Montessori model is not more pervasive has to do with overcrowding, especially in inner-city schools. If you have 35-45 students and one teacher (and an assistant *if* you are lucky), you can't have the students running around willy-nilly. It's simply a more efficient industrial model to force them or drug them into sitting still at desks.
This model stands in stark contrast, by the way, to many public schools in wealthy suburbs (with higher property taxes and contributions by more wealthy parents), where there is a much lower student-to-teacher ratio and application of innovative teaching methods, including Montessori.
I wonder also if it is a matter of parents being conservative with education. As educators ourselves, we spend time thinking about it, considering its aims, how it relates to student psychology, etc.
Parents, however, have only their own experience in education to draw on. If they found their own schooling to be at least minimally acceptable, they might be less inclined to risk something as important as their child's education on an alternative proposal.
I'm not sure how many people take this stance, indeed if any do. It does seem to me, however, to be plausible. That's the best I can do for armchair psychology 
I am starting to think that Montessori schools are the way to go. But, it is too "weird." I brought this up in my class yesterday and the students reacted with "oh, those kids are weird."
Kids are so damn cruel.
Montessori schools differ like night and day. Some are great, and others are lousy. If you go that route, be careful and do research.
We were very pleased with the one in Westminster, btw.
Spaz--I went to Montessori school for pre-school for 2 1/2 years. It was awesome. What seems weird about it to you?
I think part of what keeps schools in the standard model is that schools see keeping order on a par with, if not in front of, educating.
The other thing is class insecurity. Parents are so worried today that their children will not have a spot in the middle/upper middle class that they push them and expect schools to load them up with homework. There is the misperception that rigid authority leads to better learning and more money in the end. The neighbor's kids have three hours of homework a might, so our kid won't get into the right college unless s/he does four.
But education is not like moving a pile of rocks. It isn't a matter of starting earlier and doing more. It's about understanding the way the brain works and setting up an environment to maximize what happens when.
Spaz--I went to Montessori school for pre-school for 2 1/2 years. It was awesome. What seems weird about it to you?
I don't think it is weird. My students perceive it as weird.
Got it. Why, do you think?
I dunno. But it seems to me that conformity is such an important value for so young people. Anyone who operates differently in the class or in social interactions is ostracized. Maybe their perception is that Montessori school kids are more socially non-conformist.
Our cultural love of non-conformity is really only abstract, I think.
We're so used to lousy teachers forcing us to do stuff we hate that the idea of taking the boot off of students' throats and expecting them to be self-motivated excited learners on their own who will seize the chance to and have the initiative to do hard work and teach themselves things seems absurd. Cancel class one time and see if the people who pay so much for it are pissed off or happy to be getting less for their money. But if you don't start with the failed model, a different world is possible.
"Our cultural love of non-conformity is really only abstract, I think."
I definitely agree with this one!
We love our own non-conformity. We do not like others.
Commenting by HaloScan
