The Battle of City Springs

I am emotionally torn in my understanding of “The Battle of City Springs”. Even the rhetoric of the title foreshadows something aggressive and militaristic in the working of the school. Within the first five minutes of the movie, we learn that “expectations mean rules”, and this is spoken to the children by a variety of the teachers with force and authority. The principal tells us immediately that many of the students are two to three years behind in math and reading, but then follows this statement immediately with “structure sets the tone for learning”(6^th min). The whole documentary constantly parallels the idea that correct discipline and punishment is the only way to give kids a “necessary focus” so that they can learn. Learning cannot be present without a strict code of conduct. However, if this is the philosophy the principal held before, then why with a strict code of conduct that I am assuming to be present before, were children not able to learn to their full capacities?

Direct Instruction is in and of itself, militaristic, and seems to erase the individual identity of the child. The hundreds of responses in unison a day seem rigid and uncreative, but the teachers believe it “saves time in taking turns”. The principal states that free and easy styles of teaching will work in surburbia, but not in an inner city. Apparently “if the children can’t focus, then teachers cannot teach.” (14^th min). However, what is the value of an approach that constrains every action of the individuals involved, including the teacher? I don’t believe that direct instruction works because of the implementation of authority, but because of its pacing. It seems that pacing is everything. About an hour into the movie when the teachers returned from Texas to observe another DI school, this is what seemed to be the most noticeable difference. It seemed as though when the City Springs teachers moved through their lessons quicker, the children were more likely to be attentive. Focus means that children will not become bored, therefore they will not become restless. In minute 31 the principal states that “academic success depends on maintaining a culture of order”. However, I don’t think that the end goals of academic success can only be achieved in an environment that is strict and orderly and that it even justifies the use of such a dehumanizing atmosphere.

We must examine the purpose of the education at City Springs to understand why the principal believes that DI must be implemented. The goal is to have more students pass the MSPAP, and this is done through increasing their reading and writing skills. The goal is not to develop more capable individual with a greater sense of humanity and functionality in a society, instead it is to be able to fit better into the predetermined box of success and live up to standardized measures of intelligence. It is very important that this idea is always present when examining the case of City Springs. In contrast with Montessori schools, children are forced to learn at a pace decided by the teacher, not when they have “voluntary explosions” of spontaneity. However, this is because the purpose of education is different. In Montessori schools it was to be able to develop the capacities of a human being. They were taught dressing, cleaning, etc., while at City Springs, the sole purpose is to raise test scores to keep the schools open. With this traditional notion of schooling in place, it makes sense then that other things such as clear delineations of authority (even between the teachers and principals) are intact. There is a power dynamic present on all levels- between the teachers and students, principals and teachers, and even the school system and principals. Therefore the fact that the whole system within the school is in place to support the status quo, does not make DI a revolutionary pedagogy, but instead one that works to give children the opportunity to read and write without developing their greater capacities. I guess this is where I am torn emotionally. DI does seem to have some level of success, but it depends on what you want success in. I do believe that reading is one of the most important things a child can learn, but only if they can do it in an engaged environment where they are developing their capacities as an individual. DI seems to erase these capacities. Jacotot/ Ranciere believed that individuals can learn on their own if they want and DI sees no such capacity in children! There is no presence of a compassionate or empathetic teacher in the classroom as Roger’s suggests is necessary. Does my partiality towards compassion erase my acceptance of DI as a credible form of instruction? Or should I focus on the end results as a way to justify the means? I just don’t believe I can do that.