Good Teaching: Does your child’s classroom have all three?

Good teaching has three different components: (a) content, (b) classroom management, and (c) implementation of content. I think that all three are absolutely necessary for a young child (or even a high school student for that matter) to gain the most from their year’s experience.  First, the content is the ‘what’ of teaching. It is information that has been agreed upon, usually by the school, the district, and sometimes the state. Each subsequent year builds upon the previous year’s content. It is the information that is to be conquered throughout the school year in order to prepare the child for the next. Second, children need to be pay attention and be involved with the content in order to learn. (Somersaulting on the carpet not allowed unless it’s P.E. or recess). When working in groups are children paying attention to the task at hand or are they talking about other things that do not apply to the lesson, playing with small objects, or kicking each other under the table (I’ve seen both happening in classrooms.)?

Finally, how a teacher teaches the information is based upon different theories and philosophies of instruction. This is where different methods come into play (I’m approaching ThirstForKnowledge’s question here. So, I haven’t forgotten you. Just takes a little time to provide a framework.). For instance, in reading, there are two primary methods of instruction. Now I’m going to reduce two philosophies of teaching to their simplest denominators.  One method focuses upon the teacher providing a model and the child doing what the teacher did (direct instruction). The other method is a teacher provides opportunities for children to discover and figure it out for themselves (constructivism).  Now that is really, really simplified. We’ll come back to these ideas at a later time.

The important thing to think about is that none of these features alone is a hallmark of a good classroom. It is the interplay of all three that makes a GREAT learning environment. How well the teacher keeps children on task allows opportunities for the children to learn the content. But conversely, if the content is irrelevant, no matter how well-behaved the children are, they won’t learn anything of significance.  Now, your challenge is to see if your child’s class has all three of these components in place? When you visit, take a look around. 

Good Teaching: Academic Engagement

Years ago, I walked into my son’s first grade class and found all the little first graders sitting passively on the rug staring up at the TV.  They were totally mesmerized by Bert and Ernie. The morning schedule was 9:00 a.m. Sesame Street, 10:00 a.m. Electric Company. (It is true. This really happened! This is NOT academic engagement.) I guess, the most startling realization for me was that parents were not indignant that 2 hours of precious learning time was devoted to the Big Bird.  And I’m not against Sesame Street or the Electric Company. I just feel that children can be engaged in more productive activities when at school, especially on a regular basis. Please note that this was only one school and one class in my entire career as a parent and a teacher. But it brings up questions of what are the hallmarks of  ‘good teaching.’ One of the things I look for is academic engagement. 

Simply put, academic engagement means kids are actively involved in doing something productive that is directed towards an objective. Here’s an example, 20 little guys cross-legged on a rug, eyes on the teacher while the teacher poses questions related to a story. Here’s an example of not academic engagement, 5 little guys sitting cross-legged on the rug whispering to each other, 5 little guys doing summersaults on the outskirts of the rug, 5 little guys gazing at the ceiling, and 5 little guys answering questions posed by the teacher. So, in this case only 5 little guys are academically engaged. I’ve seen many examples of both scenarios. Academic engagement is measured by what the teacher is doing and what the children are doing in relation to what the teacher is doing. The objective may be important, the teacher may be doing something important, but some or most of the children are not actively engaged in a meaningful learning activity.  So, one of the characteristics of good teaching is academic engagement. And as every teacher knows, this is not as easy as it sounds.  

Amanda's Question: What do you think about Montessori (2)

A few years ago, I had a neighbor who loved her children very, very much (Doesn’t this sound like a once upon a time? Well it’s not a fairytale.) She loved her children so much that she and her husband wanted to share their love. So they adopted a tiny infant, a little girl so sweet (in pink dresses). This little girl, however, did not develop the same as their other children. This little girl was very, very active and did not take instruction well.

The parents decided to enroll her in a Montessori school, thinking that the Montessori methods would do well for their dear little girl. Well, two weeks later, the little girl was withdrawn from school. (That’s not the end of the story. But the end isn’t really illustrative of the main point). It was not by any means the school’s fault, and it wasn’t the child’s fault. There are very many different types of schools and very many different kinds of children and families. The thing is to find the best fit. The Montessori school was not a good fit for this child. This particular child needed much more than what most schools could do.

Now, the Montessori system is a very good fit for other children. I’ve seen children do wonders who were educated in Montessori schools. I’ve seen children do wonders from other schools also. So, when you ask what I think of a method of instruction, or a school, or a whatever. I’m enough of a special educator and pragmatic enough, and have had the idealism routed out of me, to think: for whom and for what purpose. I would consider our family’s background and culture. I would recognize the strengths and needs of my child. I would think about our family’s philosophies about school and the world. I would consider the possible interactions between home and school. Furthermore, I would think about what was taught. I would also think about how our values, objectives, and approaches aligned with the school.  

I would look for a good fit. That’s what will give your child the best opportunities. So, if you choose a Montessori school or the public school down the street, that’s fine. If your child is making progress and you and your child are comfortable and happy, I think that’s great! But if your child is not making progress and you have concerns, then that’s when parents pick up the phone and call me.

So this really isn’t about Montessori schools at all. It’s really about the choices that parents make for their children’s education, whether it is private or public school. Sometimes parents don’t have options. Sometimes they do. If they do, then they need to research very thoughtfully, making the best decision for the best fit possible. And still there is no guarantee.  (By the way, this was a true story.)

Amanda’s Question: What do you think about Montessori?

First let’s talk a little bit about the Montessori method. Now, please remember that I am no expert and do not claim to be. Maybe others can briefly fill in some of the philosophy or details, or even correct me gently, if I am wrong. Very briefly, the Montessori system of education began in the late 1800s by Maria Montessori. She was a scientist who learned from observation. She based her system upon observing children and experimenting with the environment. She opened her first school in 1907, but her system of education did not become popular in the U.S. until about 1960.

The Montessori system is based upon human development as an educational model. The programs are set up to address the developmental needs of children across their age spans from birth through about 24, focusing mostly upon about age 3 - 18. Many classrooms encompass a three-year age span and children interact and learn from each other as well as from their teacher. 


The classrooms arrange the environment to fit the needs of children. For instance, they have table and chairs that are size appropriate, and the room is arranged to maintain flow of movement from learning center to learning center, there are few decorations on the walls.  The curriculum is based upon the idea of loose-structure, meaning that children have freedom of movement and activity to a certain extent. It is considered to be child-centered, and children are encouraged to construct their own meaning and own learning, making sense out of their world. Within reason, children are given freedom to follow their interests. Several small lessons may be prepared, but then children can choose to investigate on their own. Homework is not encouraged in a Montessori system.

The Montessori system encourages families to enroll their children about the age of three. The schools like to see children attend five days a week. They also have around 2/3s of the children enrolled return from year to year, which offers stability. Finally, a Montessori school can be expensive.

There is so much more about this system that is worth mentioning. But we don’t have the time here. I encourage you to Google Montessori and find out more if you are interested. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Tomorrow, I will tell you what I think about this system. But now at least we are speaking a little bit of the same language.