I think that sometimes when we read things that are given to us by school, we read them thinking that it's the way that the teacher wants us to think. Like when I was reading the Kohn, I kept arguing with myself because I truly didn't believe a lot of what he was saying, but I felt that the restrictions of the class really wanted me to. When I read the article, I understood most of where Kohn was coming from, and I wanted to believe that he was right. That if we really engage students in our lessons, then there won't be any problems i nthe classroom. However, a voice in my head kept asking, "has this man taught at all?" You can engage, engage, engage all you want, but the truth is you will almost never reach every single student in your classroom. And why do we have to? The part that I had trouble understanding in the reading was Kohn's belief that praise is a form of reward for students, and therefore should never be given. I guess I can see where he's coming from with the way he defended his comments, but I still cannot, and I don't think I ever will, agree with this. There are some students who simply like praise, and why should we take that away from them? We get so wrapped up with what we "can" and "can't" do, that we totally lose our sense of flexibility. What about those students who never get praise in any aspect of their lives, home or school? Should we not praise them because we're afraid that they'll never do anything again if we don't?
My opinion of these articles that we read, is not that they are full of...you know what, but that we should always take them with a grain of salt. This is just one person's opinion, and of course they will exploit that opinion as much as they can to get it across to the thicker minded. However, I always find myself being reminded that I can't see the classroom as an either/or situation. When that happens, all logic and individuality goes out the door, and then we're left with a whole new situation that another philosopher will write about in his/her next article.