We're in the midst of a profound and far-reaching educational revolution that spans two centuries and bridges the industrial and information ages. And, when it's completed sometime over the next decade, I believe that this sweeping transformation will be known as the one that redefined what schools look like in the 21st century.
Obviously, this isn't the first time that change has come to the classroom. Whether it was Noah Webster, who upgraded dumbed-down textbooks; Howard Gardner, who pointed out that children process information in a variety of ways; or Geoffrey Canada, who has shown that less-advantaged youngsters can achieve if they're enveloped in a challenging, supportive environment, the educational truth has consistently spurred significant action and fruitful reforms that have helped enhance learning.
But today, as we look toward 2020, the educational truth is worrisome. All the data -- both quantitative and qualitative -- indicates that legions of American students are just not fulfilling their potential for learning.
There are many conflicting theories about why our children are not expanding and enriching their knowledge horizons -- and lots of finger-pointing about what's holding them back, too.
But there's also a new and growing consensus that could lead to sensitive and fresh educational standards, benchmarks, models and teaching styles designed to help students discover the joys of meaningful and responsible learning.
The developing consensus will take some time to fully take hold in schools and classrooms across the country, and there are still pockets of fierce resistance, but the unmistakable outlines of this new philosophical accord are already emerging. Here are five key elements well worth pondering:
First, an increasing number of people have concluded that we need to add a truly human dimension to our educational benchmarks.
It's no longer enough to simply ask if our children can read and write effectively; that, on its own, is lowering the bar. Obviously, mastering these skills is a critical part of any solid and sound education, but we need to go well beyond this, and we need to ask if students are engaged and connected in the classroom, if they're excited about learning.
We can't afford to bore our children in school, because disinterested students tune-out or drop-out. And we know -- from experience -- that if a lower school subject area like hands-on science is taught in a way that students understand, they go on to high school and college and explore biology, chemistry and physics with greater enthusiasm.
As Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, recently wrote: "Parents, teachers, and lawmakers want a system that measures not just an arbitrary level of proficiency, but student growth and school progress in ways that better reflect the impact of a school and its teachers on student learning."
In other words, the new key metrics must be whether students find school interesting; whether the material challenges them; and whether they actually like school enough to continue their studies. Measuring by testing just doesn't get at these all-important human variables.
Second, there is a growing realization that children are constantly learning. They are naturally curious; eager to master new things; patient -- and even tenacious -- when it comes to grasping knowledge; and able and willing to construct their own understanding through personal investigation. Additionally, we must continue to acknowledge that it is the role of the teacher to ignite this fire under the students.
I believe this realization will deepen over the next decade, and the accepted wisdom will eventually be that there are no limitations on what children can learn. This acknowledgement and celebration will also include a recognition that students from all socioeconomic levels and backgrounds thrive when academically challenged. And, finally, there will be an appreciation of the fact that children are preparing themselves to become lifelong learners when they question, analyze, compare, collaborate and listen in the classroom.
Third, there is awareness in an increasing number of schools that children learn differently and at different rates. As a result, teaching must be individualized and responsive to each student's talents, way of thinking and level of understanding.
This new learning diversity in the classroom has also resonated among many educational policy-makers, who have voiced concerns about one-size-fits-all mandates that get in the way of flexibility and meeting students where they are. That's why a program like No Child Left Behind is undergoing such scrutiny in Washington D.C. today.
Fourth, there is a strong sense that the teacher's role must change in the 21st century. Indeed, we're beginning to see teachers act as coaches who model thinking, planning, risk-taking and reflection for children. We're also starting to understand that teachers -- like their students -- are real learners; and, when these two groups embark on an intellectual exploration together, bountiful knowledge is exchanged.
Unfortunately, standardized testing mania has forced many teachers to become insecure achievers who believe that they must cover all the material in a textbook to succeed on behalf of their students. Over the next decade, however, I'm convinced that this will fade away, and that more and more teachers will feel free to become learners who can safely tell their students, "I don't know; let's find out."
Technology is transforming how we think about education today. The Internet, for instance, has virtually all the information in the world, and it can serve as a real-time reference tool that takes some of the pressure off teachers who feel they have to know and impart everything to their students. Social media and a variety of Web sites are also allowing teachers to connect and share their experiences on virtually every continent.
Fifth, and last, there's broad agreement that we don't have all the answers to unleash a torrent of learning in America's schools today.
But we're getting closer.
One of the reasons is that we now have unprecedented and almost instantaneous access to the very best brain research and instructional practices in the world.
Some of these insights are truly changing the way we think about learning.
Dr. John Medina's "Brain Rules," for example, has shaken up many schools. "If you wanted to create an education environment that was directly opposed to what the brain was good at doing," says Medina, "you probably would design something like a [traditional] classroom."
And some of these insights reinforce the notion that learning really contributes to success in life. Daniel Coyle, who wrote "The Talent Code," for instance, shows that practice over time, plus motivation and mentoring, yields excellence and mastery.
That said, as we contemplate 2020, I'm certain that there won't be one model, one benchmark, one standard, one curriculum, or one teacher training program that ultimately helps us reach our educational goals.
But I strongly believe that a decade from now we'll be able to look back and know that we made learning more interesting for each and every child in our country.
Gary M. Ratner: What's Wrong with NCLB? False Premises and Harmful Effects
dont expect any professor to know the difference between teacher centered and student centered not in america. the american educational paradigm is teacher centered and when they try student centered the students run wild and chaos in the classroom.
we do not know how to teach student centered nor do we know how to create student centered classrooms. american results only culture thing.
visit a student centered classroom in an asian culture then maybe we can learn it but I doubt if we can apply it in america. here is why.
there is a word in japan called kaizen so americans took that word of deep understanding of being process oriented and turned it into a bag of tools and called it an event. ie results only oriented. kaizen is anything but an event. my point even if american professors saw a student centered classroom and taught it then it would be misapplied once we turned it into a bag of tools and a quick fix results only event.
I invite you to read about how we create small class groupings and build in planning time for teachers at UCDS. It is possible. http://issuu.com/ucds/docs/05_spark_fall08
So tired of the notion that, in addition to being educational, math needs to be a real hoot. It is good parenting that keeps students from dropping out, not a teacher who can be entertaining. A great teacher is gravy.
1. high quality pre-k
2. small class sizes
3. community support
4. healthcare/nutrition
5. effective leadership
Education policy these days is data driven. As a result, if you can't measure something and link it to performnce, it doesn't persuade anyone.
The problem with many of the realizations outlined here is that they defy measurement. For example, how do you measure "human dimension" in any meaningful way without distorting the intent of what the human dimension really means?
That's why we are going to be stuck with standardized testing, routinization of curriculum standards and benchmarks...not because the system actually works, but because it's easy to create a regime of measurement and analysis around such things.
That's why it's hard to say give more money to schools because it doesn't go toward revamping the school system.
As an institution, it cannot be all things to all people. Nor can it satisfy the highest learning aspirations of all people. The constant attempts to reshape the public education system into something it can never be do it a disservice. And it makes enough people to notice think that, because it cannot be made to do and be all things, it is somehow 'broken' and must be swept completely aside. It would really make a difference if, just for once, someone in the academic world set their minds to the task of creating learning excellence WITHIN the limitations of our existing public institution. It can be done.
Brilliant.
Btw, am I the only one that thinks the "gotta make it fun and interesting" is an idea that causes far more harm than good?
Recently at our school the fifth graders had to write an essay based upon the famous "I have a dream" speech my Dr. King. About 40% had "a dream " to be millionaires or famous without understanding that money is the tail of the dog. Making a lot of money his a ton of work from most people unless they inherit their wealth. These kiddos want to play pro-basketball, or be discovered on U-TUBE. I don't think being a performing seal should be a requirement for being a teacher. Writing is a good example. Reading and writing use to be reciprocal processes but now they are separate. The majority of teacher hate to teach writing and students hate to learn to write. I am sad to say it, but students are bored because they are boring! Sorry...I said it. They don't have hobbies much, and they sit in front of media too much to be very interesting. They need to live their own experiences after school and at school not plug into someone elses experiences. Then they will have something to write about and school won't be so boring. They will understand what they are reading not just sound out words and develop test-taking skills.They have little perspective on the human condition and are self absorbed. That is why they are bored.
I have taught classes, used public and private schools, but teachers can whine all they want...but like doctors they are going to have to acclimate and change because the crowds are getting tired of paying for poor results (I do not advocate testing..I like portfolios). If teachers complain (like the teacher who is in trouble for her supposed anonymous remarks on her website about her dislike of her students...she was honest.....she has that right), but when faced with the situation all of it means nothing when the current system is failing the students.
and a technique for lowering stress levels systematically
Transcendental meditation is being introduced into public and private schools [ > 250 000 students and teachers currently ] with miraculous results...support the David Lynch foundation for consciousness based education and world peace
for parents who have money for private school :
http://www.maharishischooliowa.org/ www.mum.edu Fairfield Iowa
A-Phonemic awareness--the understanding that learning to read and spell is the result of children being aware of the speech sounds,be able to segment them and be able to represent them with the pictures the sounds make-phonics-the instruction must be systematic and explicit-and we must get them to fluency-the bottleneck for reading comprehension-
Yes,getting main idea and retelling are great reading comp exercises...
The theorists are a real pain!
If kids can read,spell and write in English-guess what would happen-much more success and only a few left behind-
The noise in the ed business is horrific and the truth never gets to the surface-
Do you hear one reformer talking about it no-
Because it`s ALL tied to corporate profits...you all know what I mean-
Recently I needed to teach a child to read, and since I hadn't done it for awhile (since I taught my kids), I decided to check the research to make sure my "methods" were up-to-date. And finally came to the conclusions you state above. Ugh!
As a relative newcomer to the education landscape, maybe I am over estimating the education system we have today....
And we are years away from having that ship turn around,the Universities stick to the myth and that`s who ends up in our classrooms-Teachers who innocently have been sold that bill of goods and have no idea how to teach 90% of kids to read,spell and write-
Expose them-that is the way of our times.
Why do you think there is such deterioration?
Ever tried to educate an illiterate child?
I think we have too many answers! The problem is finding the truth in the noise. That's why there's this focus on "evidence-based" -- education as a "science" is a relatively new notion. What happened to psychology in the last 30 years will happen to education. Dogma and mythology will give way to a better understanding of what's really going on, better treatments, less mystique.
Some will find this an unhappy thing, because they prefer to believe education is "art" not "science."
I remember hearing psychoanalysts claim that they knew they were effective because 1/3 of their patients got better as a result of their treatment. Then someone came along and showed that 1/3 of the patients, if left alone and given no treatment at all, got better. It's such a hard thing to hear. And I have to admit, it's so much more fun to do an "art" than a "science" -- in psych you get to pretty much make up whatever you want, or at least you could, and a good explanation was one that was literate and complex and beautiful (Jung comes to mind). So what if we were fooling (or merely entertaining) ourselves?
Whatever. There is a lot at stake here. We need to be hard-nosed about how we make our choices. "Everyone knows" isn't good enough anymore. We have to be willing to hear that ideas we've held for years aren't true.
Here, I think you may be right about emerging consensus. I think we may be on the brink of a paradigm shift in education. One hundred years ago, most children had access to "learning" through adults -- their teachers, their preachers, their parents. Teachers were our primary "distribution channel," if you will, for learning. Well, along with record stores and now bookstores, travel agents, etc., this distribution channel role may not be as important as it was. "Learning" can occur through other channels as well. I don't have to take a class in Mandarin -- I can just log in to Mango Languages, courtesy of my public library. I don't have to take a class in how to make a fern design on the top of my cappuccino; I can watch a YouTube video. I can watch a lecture on relativity by a professor at CalTech online. For free.
No, I don't think teachers are no longer required. But I think their role has changed and evolved into something, as you say, more like a coach (or Sugata Mitra's "grandmothers") and a role model. It will be very interesting to see what kinds of teacher roles emerge. This should be incredibly exciting for teachers, at least those who are willing to embrace change. Reinvent yourself!
My sister is a great and dedicated teacher, who works with high school kids who have failed at every other school, and end up at hers as a last resort. We have had many long discussions about education (both of us are "learning for its own sake" types, too), interesting all of the time, challenging much of the time, because she has the insider's perspective and I have the outsider's perspective. We were discussing the question of whether high school is too late to make an impact (in the context of the common curriculum standards). She insists it isn't -- that she has many kids who end up having stable marriages, useful lives, and an appreciation for the value of education, something that seemed impossible when they were admitted to her school. More later -- just called to play Chutes and Ladders with my grandson.
Once kids hit puberty, there's plenty of competition for their attention. If they've had a bad school experience, it's too late -- almost always -- then. And college does seem too late, except in the case of bright students with adequate skills, who lost interest in middle school because of the material.
Let's talk about the "Common Core State Standards." My sister is a high school English teacher, and she forwarded the Minnesota version to me (just like the common ones except that they've been improved by adding "including Minnesota American Indians" to various criteria. (Huh??)
I read them once, and said OK ... well, clearly not achievable with all kids, but there's nothing wrong with pushing toward a big goal you know you won't reach. Of course it makes you wonder why they're called "standards" rather than "objectives," but that's a nit. As long as you keep making progress toward them, they've served their purpose. (My sister's issue, of course, is that she is teaching high school kids -- most have never read a book before. How can they be expected to read text carefully and analyze ... blah, blah, blah?)
Then I read it all again, and looked at the "benchmarks" and asked myself whether any two people would be able to agree on whether the benchmark had been met. How reliable is this?
Then I read it all again, and decided the standards were so jargon-laden (cont'd)
#3 - children learn differently and at different rates.
Duh. When did people ever not believe this? The question has always been "What do we do about it?" So we design gifted programs. We track. We create Special Education (with the unfortunate and unintentional consequence of medicalizing poverty). We stop tracking. We mainstream. We integrate classrooms. We de-integrate classrooms. We insist upon the same standards for everyone. Then we create exceptions.
In my mind, the critical issue here is determining what approach or approaches provide the optimal outcomes for as many kids as possible? And then, what adjustments can we make, and at what cost, for the kids whose outcomes are sub-optimal? Not an easy set of questions, because we have hugely competing interests.
Was this ever debatable? Is this really an emergent view? Maybe it's terminology. I suppose that in the public view, among people who are ignorant about learning in general, there's been a view that poor kids (code for "African-American kids") can't learn, the way others can. I think most of us have always known this to be a crock. Some educators have argued that the effects of poverty (or as I recently heard a school principal claim, "nearly universal brain damage due to fetal exposure to alcohol or drugs") make teaching of certain populations impossible. That has always been the minority view, and will continue to be a minority view, I think, because it provides all kinds of excuses and justifications.