Why do we study what we don't value?

We recently surveyed 104 teachers representing 12 US states, 4 provinces of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Brittan and Japan, teachers from birth through university, with degrees from 92 colleges and universities ranging from none to AA, BA, MA, M.Ed, PhD, in 49 fields of study, with teaching credentials from none to state licensed, province licensed, specialty licensed, endorsed, credentialed, and certified, and teaching experience ranging from 0 to 44 years. What they had in common was access to the internet, and 90% self-identified as white/Caucasian.

Teachers evaluated the various teacher programs they participated in, and how they feel they were prepared in terms of various relationship development factors. 

Teachers then evaluated how supported they felt during the first three years of their teaching.  This is generally a time when mentorship, if available, is provided.  It is also the time that licensed teachers are in a probationary period in many states, and when continuing training and development is required to ensure that teachers have the skills determined key by different states or districts.

Teachers also shared which of these factors they valued most in their teaching.

 In analyzing this data, we decided to compare pre-service preparation and support in the first three years to what was valued most.  The results were striking.  There is an inverse relationship between what we value in education, and what we feel we are prepared for.

In an effort to determine the best methods for educating teachers after the first three years of teaching, teachers were asked where they learned the most about each of these areas.  Experience was selected as the foremost learning tool for all areas overwhelmingly.  The results seem to support the idea that self-initiated training (professional reading, workshops and conferences) and experience are the primary ways that these relationship building skills are learned.

 Questions that arose from this analysis are those surrounding the causes for our values and experiences.  It is possible that we are not well prepared for relationship building despite how we value it.  It is also possible that we grow to value those things we learn on our own over those things we are directly instructed on.

What do you see?

Why can't I use Time Out any more?

Ms. Dorothy,
I've heard some stuff lately about not using "time out" with kids. I was told that I should use a "thinking chair" or an "observation chair" but not a "time out chair."  Is this just the latest in PC terms, or is there really something different about these? 
- Home Child Care Provider

Generally, when a term becomes taboo in education, it means that the thinking has changed. It isn't just a new term, it is a new approach, and the name change is designed to make you think differently about it.

"Time out" is thought of as a way to punish or reprimand a child for wrong-doing.

"Observation" or "Thinking" or "Cool Down" or "Quiet Space" or "Peace Table" are all ways to shift the thinking from correction to learning.

When you remove a child from the group to observe what others are doing, to think about choices, to cool down, or to find a peaceful or quiet moment to re-group and become ready to return, it shouldn't be about punishment. 

Adding a "time out" consequence to a "quiet think time" when the child is calm, is a great way to satisfy the adult's need to humble and punish a child, but isn't at all about learning. 

Learning happens when the adult takes the time to talk with the child who is ready to calmly rejoin the group.  That conversation should be the point of removing a child.

If the adult is not able to talk calmly about; how the child could have handled the situation differently, and what s/he will do next time, then it is the adult who needs a "time out."

Let's move our thinking from making children comply and conform and defer to the adults, to helping children to understand how their actions and reactions impact others, and how they have the power to make different choices.