Educational Ideals--An Afterword

Seth Godin sums up many of the issues I have addressed on education in recent posts. Since he is more eloquent than I, I have included his TedTalk here.

Of course, the system he addresses is that of the United States, but here in Canada, and also in other parts of the world, there are many features that are similar and need to be addressed.

One thing he speaks about is the "Flipped Classroom". The backlash against this concept is astounding to me, but I think that there are some other things going on here that have contributed. 

For one thing, it assumes internet access. While most people have this, there are still many who do not, and this can put those students at a further disadvantage. 

I have seen so-called "flipped classrooms" where the teacher watches the students all watch the same lecture. For this, I'm not even sure where to start! Certainly this is a huge waste of time and resources. The lectures and resources are supposed to happen away from the teacher; the discussion and application are what the teacher and class are there for during the classroom time.

I also wonder how this can be used in classrooms that are deemed "inclusive" and in which the abilities and needs of the students are extremely diverse. I would argue that both interest and ability groupings may be the most effective way to encourage all students to reach their potential. 

People have criticized Sal Khan for not being a complete resource unto himself. That is as ridiculous as saying that a research paper with only a single source is complete. Life doesn't work that way. Students need to learn to consult varied resources and to consider biases and limitations within those sources as part of learning critical thinking. Khan Academy, TedTalks, MIT Courseware, PI Lectures, and a multitude of other online lectures are now available, as are websites, internet chats, email, and yes, even textbooks. There is no need for a teacher to present this at a single speed to a classroom of students. Where the value of a teacher lies is in generating discussion, and encouraging students to delve deeply and ask questions, to think of things in different ways, make connections and apply these concepts in new ways. Round-robin reading of a textbook is no more than a way to fill in time. Wasting the time of our students is quite possibly the most disrespectful thing we can do as teachers.

I do disagree though that there is no place for textbooks in exciting students to learn. I do think though that they should be treated as reference materials rather than the main or sole source of information, just as we might consult a dictionary on occasion but are unlikely to sit down and read it cover-to-cover.

What are your thoughts on flipped classrooms, and education in general?

Letting Go

I wrote this last Wednesday after dropping off my son at his math program. It's funny how as a parent, you never know when these moments are going to come, when your child suddenly moves beyond your sights and you find yourself not wanting to let go, but knowing that is what you must do. Sometimes it happens when you least expect it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

The little boy with the round face and red-blonde hair broke into a sprint alongside the family car in a race with his dad. My husband was turning the car around to continue with errands after dropping us off at the local university campus.
We walked along through the familiar surroundings and entered the math building, climbing all the way up to the fifth floor, with him waiting patiently for me at the landing. We were early, so we wandered the hallways, delighting at some of the cartoons and signs on the office doors, signs that read "IQC" and promising of cutting-edge research that will no doubt lead to places as yet unimagined.  Bulletin boards advertising seminars on quantum physics, nano particles and various other topics we only barely understood tickled our imaginations.
This was not Squirt's first time coming to the department; last year he attended the grade 7/8 session, which he did not enjoy. He already knew the material, and even with the clever presentations and hands-on games the teachers devised, it failed to challenge him. This year we were back, but under his terms, which is what brought us all the way up to the fifth floor where the high school students were taught.
The professor (the high school groups are taught by university professors) welcomed him warmly and invited him to choose a seat where he'd be able to see the projection screen.
Squirt pulled out his binder and I saw his paper was in upside-down. Normally I would have let it go, but in a rare fit of protectiveness I fussed and fixed it. His eyes told me "enough", so I left.
Eleven years old and he is already forging his own path through life, and I am a spectator on the sidelines who can only begin to comprehend his world.
This isn't the first time I've walked away and left him to fulfill his dreams. He swims competitively and has traveled to other cities with his team and without me; he has attended residential summer camp. But this is different. Tonight felt like a turning point, one where I begin to hand over the reigns of his education to those better equipped to mentor him and meet his needs.
In two hours he will return to me, a happy little boy who will want a snack and another chapter of our novel read aloud to him before bed. I will cuddle with him and we will read together and I will watch him drift off to sleep. But I know these days are numbered, and I am reminded of the words of Kahlil Gibran:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you. 
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. 

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Educational Ideals Part 3: The Educational Setting

In creating an ideal setting, there are three things that need to be considered in order to make this model work in the best manner possible: the teachers, the students and the vision/mission statement.

The Teachers

Teachers need to be well educated in human development. A single course in developmental psychology is not sufficient to accomplish this. Teachers need to understand through research as well as direct observation and discussion how children of different ages naturally learn and grow. They need to understand the basis for language acquisition, numeracy, and abstract thinking. They need to understand what, how and when various milestones are reached. They need to understand cognitive development in order to encourage the student and adapt the environment appropriately.   When a teacher understands human development, that teacher is able to apply this knowledge, recognize the behavior patterns of students, and encourage them at the appropriate level.
This also allows teachers to better identify learners who have unique needs and to help to meet these needs. As it stands now, many teachers in the system have no background in special education whatsoever. This needs to change.

All too often, the developmental aspect of teacher training is neglected and teachers are given courses in subject matter instead. While every teacher should be well-versed in his or her specialty subjects, this should not be done at the expense of a thorough understanding of development. Understanding of the subject matter should be the main focus of the undergraduate degree; the teaching degree should focus on development. We need to teach students, not subjects.

Only once prospective teachers have an understanding of development should they begin to work on practical classroom strategies.

Our society has a bad habit of looking down on the teaching profession. Teachers are not treated as professionals with a great deal of responsibility, but rather as fancy babysitters, at least by some. Teachers are professionals though, with five or more years of post-secondary education. They are responsible for the education of the coming generation, which is something that will carry a lasting effect for decades to come. The effects of a good teacher can be felt through the community. By supporting our teachers, treating them as professionals and expecting professionalism from them, we will help to elevate the image of the profession, attract the best possible teachers to the profession, and provide the best possible future for our children.

Institutions such as the Ontario College of Teachers can help foster this improvement, by holding teachers accountable, supporting professional development, and by fostering communication and sharing of techniques, strategies and visions that work. Gaining and maintaining dialogue among educators is a challenge we must undertake in order to improve our educational system. All too often, teachers, especially newer ones, are left to their own devices and must “reinvent the wheel” when there are many teachers out there who have been there and can share their own valuable experiences. We need to budget time for such dialogue. We also need to maintain a dialogue between educators and the general public. There are many misconceptions regarding teaching that could be easily dispelled through better communication with the general public.

The Students

By emphasizing an understanding of human development in teacher training, students can become the focus of education. It may sound silly to say this, but all too often we are caught up in pedagogy, politics, pre-defined curriculum and policies that we lose sight of the real reason we are here: the students.

There is a tendency to view students in financial terms: as commodities, customers, consumers or investments in the future. Many of us come to education with an agenda of sorts, including social justice, power or control (never a good reason to work with others!), idealism, a quest for a sense of immortality by empowering students for the future, or any number of other reasons. We need to be honest about these, and then let them go. Our own agendas have no business here. I know that even that statement is an agenda of sorts, but once the students arrive on the scene, it is one that is easily transferred to them. If we are to encourage our students to become active, engaged critical thinkers who seek out lifelong learning, we need to empower them and rescind our own control in order to foster their growth.

The Learning Environment

My own ideal for a learning environment would be a mixture of Reggio Emilia and the Sudbury-style schools, with some elements of Waldorf, Montessori (as Maria herself described—not the modern variations), The Teacher Tom’s approach, and even “Maker Sheds” such as KWARTZlab.
There would be indoor and outdoor spaces in which to learn and explore, with spaces created for individual, small group and large group work. 

Play and open exploration would take priority over structure, although there would be a “rhythm” to each day and each season. This would continue through all ages with materials and mentors being available for students based on student interests. Students would have regular counseling sessions with an advisor group to ensure they were on track to meeting their own goals, and these goals would include academics, creative pursuits, physical development (fine and gross motor skill development), spiritual growth (philosophical, social), and general well-being (including physical and mental health). Students would be encouraged to arrange additional mentorships and forge connections with various experts and professionals as they became able to do so. Research would be paramount, from exploring caterpillars to viewing distant galaxies, and everything in between. Students would be encouraged to collaborate and also to share their work with other students of different ages and experiences as a means for fostering in communication skills necessary in most fields of endeavour. Age would be no barrier for learning; all limits would be based on ability, aptitude, physical limitations (ie. if you cannot reach the knobs, you cannot use the stove) and any applicable legal limitations. Students with special needs would have access to the mentors they need in order to work towards their potential. Since all abilities would be mixed, yet each student would determine their own pathway, tolerance would be encouraged through a non-competitive atmosphere. Older students would have an opportunity to mentor younger students without being compelled to do so.

The role of the teacher would become a facilitator. The teacher would provide links to resources and opportunities, be there to bounce ideas off of, ask open-ended questions to encourage students to stretch their limits, and help students create long and short-term personal goals and plan towards them.

The school would be similar to a Sudbury school, except the teachers would take a slightly more hands-on role, and the students would be required to explain their choices and review and update their goals on a regular basis.

The role of the teacher would be more demanding because it would require monitoring of a wide variety of topics and projects, and also a monitoring of available outside opportunities that might be of relevance to the students, such as college/university courses, contests, science fairs, performances, community events, gallery showings, etc.

Since the reporting would be based on portfolios, there would be little testing involved. Anecdotal reports, notes from counseling meetings, goal setting and reviews and physical projects would form the bulk of the assessments.

Some challenges would include the use of space, supervision, communication with community resources including mentors, lab / workshop access, apprenticeships, and co-ordinating with online and college/university programs. Working with less imposed structure demands a great deal of organizational skill on the part of the facilitators, and this would need to be recognized in advance. Excellent and regular communication between the teachers as well as the administration and older students would be imperative.

Some people are bound to balk at the idea of less structure, but after much research as well as some 24 years of experience in education, I believe that this is in fact the best and most effective learning environment possible. It fosters the natural learning patterns of young children, provides a stimulating environment in which to explore ideas, and feedback in order to adapt and learn in an ongoing fashion. Learning to make and set goals, then to follow up with them from an early age will help foster study skills, time management and also enable students to make connections between their goals and the foundation skills needed in order to attain them. Support from teachers who act as facilitators and educational counselors will help students work out their own learning pathways while providing support as needed. When the learning is relevant and comes in an order that is logical to and for the learner, it becomes deeper and better learned. The student values it and understands its relevance, and can be free to embrace it.

A Quick But Sincere Apology Regarding Broken Links

Not being a trained web designer, my website is at times a reflection of this, and when I moved my website to its new domain, I made some mistakes. I realized this about a month later, and fixed them, or so I thought. I recently learned that my "batch processing" method of changing links did not work on a large number of my pages. A quick check failed to find many of them.

I am aware of the Google tools I can use to provide this information, but they too miss things, and I have not been as diligent as I could have been in this regard.

Tonight I went through and manually fixed many, many links. I believe I have caught them all now, but it is still possible that I missed a few.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. I know how frustrating it can be to try and find information and end up with a 404 or 401 error.

If you happen to find any I have missed, please let me know here or by email llamgf @ gmail.com (delete the spaces) and I will fix them ASAP.

Thank you for reading my blog and visiting my website. I hope you are able to find something of value in your Lemonade experience.

Educational Ideals Part 2: The Learners

So many times parents, teachers, administrators, politicians and the general public become so wound up in their own ideas about education that they lose sight of those most important in decision making: the students.

Let’s look at the average young child, say, 3 years of age. Most children at this age have gained the ability not only to understand language, but to communicate their own thoughts, needs and opinions. They are beginning to see themselves as separate and unique human beings. They thirst for independence while still heavily relying on the adults around them to meet their needs. These kids are mobile and have all the skills necessary to explore their world, and indeed, this is what they are incessantly driven to do. Follow your average 3 year old around for a day and you will see a small scientist perform dozens of experiments with seemingly ceaseless energy. Try and stop them and you will often find resistance, sometimes complete meltdowns. The child has work to do here! This work takes many forms, but one thing is common to all of it: it falls into the category we call “play”.

Fast forward a couple of years. Now the child has a more sophisticated level of play. Following a 5 year old around you can see that they are experienced now. Parallel play becomes partner play, causation is understood, comparisons are made and language and motor skills are more developed. A 5 year old may remember the names of other children and use them, remember which kids enjoy which activities, and have a longer attention span for completing an activity. They may find difficult social tasks such as waiting one’s turn, sharing and listening in conversation are now within their reach. They are forming a base on which crucial social constructs including  cooperation and collaboration can grow.

The five year old child is just refining these skills and then what do we do? We sit the child down for rote learning tasks led by an adult in which they are told what to do and how to do it. No more taking turns, no more listening, no more experimenting with “why”, cause and effect, etc.  No more choices to be made by the child; suddenly the adults know best and the children become vessels to fill with the answers to standardized tests. We pit them against each other in this way, comparing results between students, classrooms, schools and boards or districts, guiding them away from any growth toward cooperation and collaboration. We suddenly label these children as “ready to learn” and completely negate the natural learning that has worked so well for them up until this point.

In some places, we impose this agenda even earlier. We degrade children's natural learning in order to make our schools into publicly-funded daycare institutions.

In the name of (take your pick here): politics, funding, equality, opportunity… we “streamline” education by age-segregating children into often packed classrooms and feed them pre-packaged, one-size fits no one curriculum developed with corporate and political interests at heart and parental convenience backing it up.

We deny individualism on every front—from development on through interests, background, natural abilities, culture, aptitudes, and freedom of choice. It is a factory model of education which suits no one well. We stifle creativity, play time and free time by bringing busy work (often called homework) into our children’s lives even in the primary grades sometimes. We do this despite the many studies that show that this is not helpful to children’s learning, and may well be detrimental to them in many ways down the road. Our children are caged by a society that spreads fear through its media, despite falling crime rates, causing parents to place unreasonable restrictions on children’s free outdoor play time. Our kids are able to name more brand names than common native species. They spend hours more on homework and hours less on meaningful learning and growing.

At the same time, we introduce a feeling of alienation by denying them the experience of true collaboration and substituting competitiveness in every aspect of their education.

Why do we allow this?

The truth is that those who can afford to often find alternatives, be they private schools, homeschooling or advocating on their child’s behalf (which can be a full-time endeavour that may lead nowhere in the end).

Some parents buy into the homework myth and/or the standardization myth. Some believe that allowing children to learn naturally and at their own pace leads to certain groups falling behind. They believe in the “political correctness” without realizing that this idea is itself upheld by prejudiced ideas of what these groups are capable of. They ignore other factors that can be addressed but are unpopular, such as poverty and mental and physical illness and problems with the health care system. They also ignore language and cultural barriers. It is easier to generalize, and in generalizing we have created “opportunity” for “all” to “achieve” to “the same” level as each other.

Opportunity = highly structured environment in which all children are treated not only equally but the same

All = those who fit in or conform to the expectations of the “average” or “slightly below average” in all given subjects at the same given time based solely on age

Achieve = obtain acceptable test scores on arbitrary standardized tests written and mandated by someone who has not met the learner

The Same = all expectations of achievement are based on the age of the child and the perceived ability of the teacher and are evaluated solely by standardized test scores written and mandated by someone who has not met the learner

This model is meant to be “objective” in that all children are “treated equal”. Being “treated equal” here though is not the problem; being treated “the same” is.

Being treated equal could allow for more reasonable goals, such as “each student will be challenged at his or her current level of ability in each given subject area”. This allows flexibility for children to move at their own pace without having their time wasted or forcing them ahead before they are ready to move on.

It is not the same as ability grouping because it is constantly up for review. Student A may find place value easy, but have difficulty with long division. She can move quickly through place value and spend a little more time working on long division.

The reality is that no child learns every subject and subtopic at the same rate and at the same pace as the “average” student their age.

One way to be certain to waste the time of every student, ensure that at least once they meet with frustration, and stifle executive function development (time management, organizational skills, study skills), creative problem solving and critical thinking skills is to follow this standardized educational model.

This model will ensure the “success” of compliant employees and middle-management, but it comes at a cost.  That cost includes a rise in health care costs, a continuing disconnection with nature, the loss of the values of science and innovations, and a loss of our souls as creativity and the arts in general are devalued.