Review: Teach Like a Champion

This summer I've made myself a Summer Reading List. It's a mix of historical fiction that I may use in my classroom next year, historical non-fiction to develop my own content knowledge, and books on teaching pedagogy and philosophy. I'll be posting some reviews here, mainly as notes to myself, but also in the hopes it prompts conversation with other teachers.

First up, Doug Lemov's Teach Like A Champion. It seems like this book is everywhere lately, so I thought I'd see what all the fuss was about. In short, the book is a compilation of classroom management strategies Lemov observed in several of his most successful (defined by test scores) classrooms at Uncommon Schools.

The book had me asking some of the same questions I've been wrestling with through my teacher prep year:

- What does learning look like?

- How do we measure it?

- Does it look different for urban vs. suburban kids?

Regarding the last question: in the last year of my M.Ed. program, I've spent a lot of time in a variety of schools for observations and internships. It was interesting to note in which schools I saw these techniques being used - almost exclusively the urban schools. In the demo video that comes with TLAC, the students are almost all African American. While I don't know if they were from urban or suburban neighborhoods, the Uncommon Schools model generally seeks to serve urban youth.

My first reaction to TLAC was to note how teacher-centered the approaches are. In the introduction, Lemov criticizes student-centered approached that ineffectively or inefficiently achieve learning, suggesting inquiry and constructivist approaches are a fad that ignore the "shortest path" to learning. The techniques focus on how to grab and keep student focus on the teacher, and how the teacher can direct the lesson to ensure 100% correct answers and high standards for language and learning. The classrooms are very controlled, with heavy-handed direction from the teacher. Lemov argues that learning is impossible without focused time being devoted to it, and these controlling techniques make time and focus available for learning.

To be more candid, my second reaction was to how bored the students looked in the demo lessons. With a few notable exceptions (Ms. Austin!), I was even bored. One question I have for Lemov is - does it matter if students are bored? I'm genuinely not sure what he would say. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but I would *not* want to be a student in 95% of the classrooms featured in the demo lesson.

What matters most - that students learn? Or that they are engaged? That they get the 100% right answer, or that they construct knowledge themselves in a way that teaches them how to learn?

Given these reactions, I wondered, is it a luxury to learn in a student-centered environment? Do "certain types" of students need to focus and get the Right Answer, while "other types" have the luxury of constructing knowledge and working through misconceptions? By types, of course, I mean urban/suburban, rich/poor, haves/have-nots - not that those dichotomies always parallel each other.

Next year, I'll be teaching at a high-needs suburban middle school with 60% students receiving free meals and 40% learning English as a second language. How will they best learn? How do they deserve to be taught? Is an active, engaged, messy, sometimes unclear or inefficient classroom a luxury they can't afford? A disservice to their needs? My gut tells me no, but I genuinely wrestle with these questions.

In the TLAC videos, I see little conversation, little genuine interaction with students. Does that happen outside of these videos? Does it have a place in this philosophy?

When I see the controlled classrooms of TLAC (10 seconds to pass in papers, pencils picked up and put down as the exact same moments), I think to myself, "This is not real life . . . or if it is, what kind of real-life are we preparing these students for? What type of job or role requires such disciplined automations?" And, in fact, students coming from controlled charter schools are struggling the in less-regimented college environment. It is the next challenge faced by schools who get their underserved students into college using such techniques . . . getting them through college.

I also thought it was interesting that most of the classrooms featured were early-education, ELA and math. There were very few social studies or science classrooms featured. I wonder if many of these teaching strategies are more effective with concrete tasks that require repetition (such as grammar, vocabulary, and formulas) than with less concrete skills or content such as what factors lead to the rise and fall of civilizations.

In summary: There's nothing wrong with the focused, teacher-centered methods emphasized in TLAC, but it makes me uncomfortable when it becomes the entirety of instruction. One of the most difficult skills of teaching that I want to develop in my classroom is the ability to shift in and out of teacher- and student-centered instructional approaches within a single period. It is challenging for both teachers and students to do this, but it more closely mirrors real life, where problems will not be easily practiced or repeated, and where social interactions will not be mechanized and rote. I hope that students in my class will know when it is time for them to drive their learning, and when it is time for me to direct it. I hope they will know what is expected of them in each case, without me having to snap my fingers or count down from 10 as a regular course of action. I know they will need signals, and I know they will need structure. but I also know they need to learn to self-regulate their learning and behavior amid the messiness of life and TLAC did not address that element of student development.