Wow, what is happening here? I know Dr. Griffith said it wasn't just about the students but I will disagree for just a moment. Please bare with me.
First - a question: What is the purpose of the public school system? I can tell you what the purpose it should be serving - the scapegoat to all of the nation's problems. Too many times the school system is called on to serve as an intervention to other social ills such as childhood diabetes, date-rape, social skills, character education, etc. Instead, the main focus of the public school system should be the individual students. How do we best serve students to empower them with the skills to create their own productive future whatever that may be. I do not believe that every child has the desire or for that matter the potential to attend a four year post-secondary institution. BUT, I do believe that every child has the potential to be great in the context of their God-given gifts and abilities. The public school system, I believe, has the responsibility of empowering that child with the confidence and skills of pursuing their dream and fulfilling their potential.
So, what does this have to do with students and individualization? Perhaps nothing - maybe everything. I believe the current system operates too much as a business in terms of input/output. The accountability system seems to force educators to see numbers/percentages rather than students. For example, I have worked in several different districts. Each and every time, I witnessed educators playing the numbers game in regards to TAKS. Students who came in after the October PEIMS submission were not "counting against us." Somehow, it wasn't as critical if their educational needs were being met or not. So much for the individual student. What about "those" other students as well, LEP, special education,etc.? Again, I feel like "lip service" is paid only to these populations. For example, in one district that I was at, teachers were responsible for addressing these special populations on their lesson plans and how they were going to differentiate instruction for them. The "documentation" was there but when you look at the classroom instruction it was all the same. So far, I have painted a very grim picture. I must qualify some of these statements. First of all, I believe and see many educators addressing individual student needs through countless hours of preparation, parent conferences, and hours of after-school tutoring and activities. My point is that if one child isn't being serviced justly than there is a problem.
So, what does this have to do with learning communities? I believe the system relies too heavily on the teacher to do it all alone! The saying - "It takes a village to raise a child" - comes to mind. With such a diverse population, it is critical to engage as many stakeholders as possible in public school system. We must be willing to develop those relationships that will ensure the success of the individual student. The one-size-fits-all mentality is futile. In a discourse of collaboration through learning communities, our efforts will lead to the results that everyone longs for - the success of every child.
My perspective on student individualism in regards to curriculum can be addressed using Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory. It seems in education we are taught the MI at the university however, it is seldom put into practice in the classrooms. Most teachers merely want to get the job done by planning and presenting the information; what you see is what you get (from the diaries of the teacher’s lounge). However, we must be adaptable to our students needs.
Just think about your last staff development where you just sat there for two hours listening to a lecture. After the first 10 minutes you were probably starting to write out your grocery list or doodle puppies. At the same time think about those one or two staff development days where you had a speaker that was excited about their message, integrated movement, or music into the class, which one did you like better? Some teachers may say they prefer one over the other or neither one makes a difference because it was your duty to be there. Fine, that is because we all have different learning styles as our students and we must have a variety of experiences for our students to reach the masses.
These experiences should not be limited to text books and handouts; but should include a sensory approach to education, getting your hands dirty in a science experiment. When I taught in an Elementary class in Japan, I didn’t have a desk in the classroom because the expectation was full engagement, movement, tactile input to reinforce learning. I know handouts keep our rooms neater, but let’s have fun with what we are learning. Kids get excited when we are excited and filled with wonder when we present academic materials.
Wow, what is happening here? I know Dr. Griffith said it wasn't just about the students but I will disagree for just a moment. Please bare with me.
ReplyDeleteFirst - a question: What is the purpose of the public school system? I can tell you what the purpose it should be serving - the scapegoat to all of the nation's problems. Too many times the school system is called on to serve as an intervention to other social ills such as childhood diabetes, date-rape, social skills, character education, etc. Instead, the main focus of the public school system should be the individual students. How do we best serve students to empower them with the skills to create their own productive future whatever that may be. I do not believe that every child has the desire or for that matter the potential to attend a four year post-secondary institution. BUT, I do believe that every child has the potential to be great in the context of their God-given gifts and abilities. The public school system, I believe, has the responsibility of empowering that child with the confidence and skills of pursuing their dream and fulfilling their potential.
So, what does this have to do with students and individualization? Perhaps nothing - maybe everything. I believe the current system operates too much as a business in terms of input/output. The accountability system seems to force educators to see numbers/percentages rather than students. For example, I have worked in several different districts. Each and every time, I witnessed educators playing the numbers game in regards to TAKS. Students who came in after the October PEIMS submission were not "counting against us." Somehow, it wasn't as critical if their educational needs were being met or not. So much for the individual student. What about "those" other students as well, LEP, special education,etc.? Again, I feel like "lip service" is paid only to these populations. For example, in one district that I was at, teachers were responsible for addressing these special populations on their lesson plans and how they were going to differentiate instruction for them. The "documentation" was there but when you look at the classroom instruction it was all the same. So far, I have painted a very grim picture. I must qualify some of these statements. First of all, I believe and see many educators addressing individual student needs through countless hours of preparation, parent conferences, and hours of after-school tutoring and activities. My point is that if one child isn't being serviced justly than there is a problem.
So, what does this have to do with learning communities? I believe the system relies too heavily on the teacher to do it all alone! The saying - "It takes a village to raise a child" - comes to mind. With such a diverse population, it is critical to engage as many stakeholders as possible in public school system. We must be willing to develop those relationships that will ensure the success of the individual student. The one-size-fits-all mentality is futile. In a discourse of collaboration through learning communities, our efforts will lead to the results that everyone longs for - the success of every child.
My perspective on student individualism in regards to curriculum can be addressed using Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory. It seems in education we are taught the MI at the university however, it is seldom put into practice in the classrooms. Most teachers merely want to get the job done by planning and presenting the information; what you see is what you get (from the diaries of the teacher’s lounge). However, we must be adaptable to our students needs.
ReplyDeleteJust think about your last staff development where you just sat there for two hours listening to a lecture. After the first 10 minutes you were probably starting to write out your grocery list or doodle puppies. At the same time think about those one or two staff development days where you had a speaker that was excited about their message, integrated movement, or music into the class, which one did you like better? Some teachers may say they prefer one over the other or neither one makes a difference because it was your duty to be there. Fine, that is because we all have different learning styles as our students and we must have a variety of experiences for our students to reach the masses.
These experiences should not be limited to text books and handouts; but should include a sensory approach to education, getting your hands dirty in a science experiment. When I taught in an Elementary class in Japan, I didn’t have a desk in the classroom because the expectation was full engagement, movement, tactile input to reinforce learning. I know handouts keep our rooms neater, but let’s have fun with what we are learning. Kids get excited when we are excited and filled with wonder when we present academic materials.