Duff
In an ideal
world everything works ideally. We do
not live in an ideal world. Our
education system is less than ideal for many yet it serves millions of
children. Is less than ideal for our children good enough?
Dewey is
convinced that in an ideal learning system the facts and truths would align
with the experiences. Educators would be
afforded the trust and freedom to custom design learning that s child centric.
Is this utopia built by Dewey possible?
Nine young
men build a hovercraft from scratch. The
project, the experience they tackle fits with their knowledge their skill
base. They had the latent skill to
achieve. But somewhere within their background
they had acquired the requisite skills. How does this need for skill for
foundation background fit with Dewey?
Where does the learner learn the necessary independence, the technology
acumen to Google it, the math, the aerodynamics and on and on? Experiences can be built of that there is
certainty but what about the skills or are they a part of the opportunity, the
curriculum?
Indeed where
do these boys learn risk; the option of failure in a system that does not and
never has embraced failure. It is
evident that we do not learn that we do not create without failing. In our traditional education system the fear
of failure is endemic. Should struggle and failure be a part of the
curriculum? How does that align with
macro testing designed to achieve 100% success when 100% of anything on-going
is a statistical impossibility. How does
this all get resolved. Dewey is silent in this realm.
But we
digress so back to our nine year old boys.
The hovercraft was a great learning experience. They were
successful. Unfortunately once the
project was done, it was done. No next
experience was planned to build upon the momentum of the first. What would the next experience be, how would
the two link?
No linkage,
no next opportunity existed. The boys
returned to a fact based learning environment.
So, how can we customize move toward experience based learning in our
rudimentary test based culture? We must wonder is it even possible?
The answer
is yes, but it is self evident that we must transform our thinking, we must
trust and that is difficult. The simple
question with a complex answer is how?
In 1984 a
semi young graduate student met his advisor at the University of
Pennsylvania. It was his great fortune
to be assigned to one of the great minds in education, Allan Glatthorn. At the time Dr. Glatthorn was considered a
sage in the world of curriculum. To
suggest he was unique, that he thought different is an understatement.
Dewy
espouses the progressive organization of subject matter. Glatthorn emphasized progressive simplicity. He was a curriculum minimalist teaching who
taught that subject matter was nestled in a clearly defined set of core
objectives, in Dewey’s end outcome. Glatthorn
characterized the end outcome, the diploma as a guarantee. His question was simple,
“What should a child be guaranteed for the time he or she spent with you?”
Once these guarantees
or end outcomes are defined the courses, the grade level curriculum build up, outcome-to-outcome,
experience-to-experience. Simply put K
outcomes, goals, core objectives feed to 1, to to 2 and so on. Mush of this exists in our highly aligned
curriculums today. So, why do we not
listen to Dewey or Glatthorn? Can their
ideas work?
In 1995 a
School District leadership decided to minimalize the curriculum. They followed Glatthorn’s advice and
simplified everything to a set of end objectives. The organization of subject matter became a
simple set of guaranteed outcomes at each level. These leaders took a risk moving toward the
progressive when the world was transitioning to strict traditionalism
The
leadership made a decision to let the teachers teach. They afforded the teachers the freedom to
create the experiences necessary to reach the objective in their classes,
departments or grade levels. Accountability was made clear; the teachers’
performance would be based upon the success of their children achieving the
outcome. The resulting data would then
be peer compared and adjustments made.
This
simplification worked. Every metric in
the district over time improved.
Children achieved well beyond the economic and background expectation of
the community.
This
decision was not without risk. The
organization experienced a lot of failing forward. But, the decision to trust the teachers, to
afford them the freedom to design relevant experiences worked. As trust grew
thinking changed and transformation began.
Dewey is
right true learning comes from experiences built upon experiences. There is logic to it. The experiences can be a simple as a great open-ended
question or as complex as a hovercraft.
An endeavor
of this magnitude requires a shift in leader attitude. This change described was a practice of
patience. It requires re-design of time
blended with courage and communication and an unwavering belief in what you are
doing.
In my
experience with a multitude of teachers like Tiffany and Autumn I have found
they rarely if ever fail the children.
When told what is expected and given the freedom to teach they can and
will go to amazing lengths to help a child succeed. That is their gift and we should give them
every opportunity to use it
After all is
this not what learning is about - helping a child succeed?
No comments:
Post a Comment