Sunday, June 9, 2019

Learning is not a competition. But what is it really?

Ms. Sackstein has a point and you'll learn more about her thinking in her article "How Can We Move Education Forward When So Many Educators Can't See Past the Way We've Always Done It?" The upshot of her article is this:
Once we jump down the grading rabbit hole, for example, we aren't just changing the way we label learning on a report card, we have to look deeper (italics mine). What are we calling learning? How will it be assessed and by whom? Which standards are we using? Are they universal? How do we agree on what mastery looks like at every age level in different content areas?"
All of these are complex questions and yes, answering them, agreeing on the answers, and norming those answers would be great. But my oh my will be it difficult, if not impossible.

I love the universal standards questions. We've tried Common Core for Math and ELA and, it still exists in many forms, some slightly modified and renamed by states and yet essentially Common Core.

In October 2018, Singapore announced it was doing away with ranking systems in its report cards. The Education Minister announced that, "Learning is not a competition." The Education department and, apparently, the teachers of Singapore realize there is no point in encouraging students to compare themselves to their classmates.

The reality is that our world and the future world of our students is and will be radically different. We have to make radical changes, and we have to make them now.

As I thought about Sackstein's writing and what we think we might be looking for, I realized that I already know a number of teachers who are just doing what they need to do and not just because we've been saying that one-size-fits-all doesn't work for anyone: not the student and not the teacher. I remember having a long conversation with a social studies teacher who noted that success for one of her students was different from success for another student. Which leads me to think that defining mastery at every age level in any content area is not a good use of anyone's time.

I've long been a proponent of the one-room schoolhouse concept: that kids work through their learning at their own pace, achieve proficiency or mastery or whatever they need, and then move on to the next thing. That teachers facilitate that learning to help them discover what they're really interested in and guide them accordingly. Oh yea, I know that's hard to do for about a zillion reasons though the "modern" one-room schoolhouse isn't a new idea.

I've given a lot of thought to how I would design a school system if I were starting from scratch. There are a lot of conditions and requirements, of course, and would require that unions completely rethink the role of a classroom teacher and the expectations of a teacher. And it would require that colleges and universities approach teacher preparation completely differently.

Whether it's a redesigned school system or a one-room schoolhouse, or what we have now, the key element is the student and what and how the student is learning. It's about the learning, the learning, the learning.

We've been toying with differentiation and personalization for a long time now. We have adopted tools and software programs that claim to assist in both or either, but the structure of how we do school hasn't changed radically. We adopt new programs and initiatives and hope for change, even as we try to cling to old ways of doing. We are reluctant to change in case it doesn't work which is exactly the wrong reason not to change. But if we don't have a vision or an idea of the kinds of outcomes we want before we change, we'll be setting ourselves for failure because we have to be thinking about students and their learning.

I think the most important question Ms. Sackstein asks ends up getting buried: "What are we calling learning?"

Don't crowd learning with how its going to be assessed because then you've already predetermined what learning is. Don't weight learning with the need for data, with trying to determine the socioeconomic challenges or privileges of a student. Don't confuse it with curriculum or pacing guides or even content areas.

Strip it to its bare minimum: what is learning? It's the process of acquiring new skills and knowledge through experience, study, or being taught.

Now we can reimagine how learning could be accomplished by students, for students and with the help, guidance, coaching, facilitation of classroom teachers. Especially if we stop thinking that learning is a competition and that every student has to learn everything to the same level of competency.

Maybe some day this will be more than a dream. Maybe.

No comments:

Post a Comment