Know Power, Know Responsibility: How to unleash the potential of every child in America

Part 1 — Chapter 2: Premised on Teaching, Not on Learning

Author’s Note: I will publish additional sections of this book each week. You can find previously posted sections at the following links: Note to Parents of School Age Children and Note to Teachers, School Administrators, and Other School Staff here; Introduction here; Prologues Part 1 and 2 here; Prologues Part 3 and 4 here; and Part 1-Chapters 0 and 1 here.

CHAPTER 2 — Premised on Teaching, Not on Learning

Just because someone is “teaching” us doesn’t mean we will learn. Even when students appear to be engaged and on task, there is no certainty they are learning the most important or intended knowledge and skills from a given lesson. Learning assessments rarely assess long-term retention and deep conceptual understanding. Over the past few decades, increased attention has been paid to whether or not students are learning — that is the point of standardized testing — yet the entire current structure is premised on and built for the delivery of instruction. A new system is needed that is premised on and built for learning.

As noted in the prologue, the Committee of Ten made instructional recommendations. Their report supports and advocates for teaching that goes beyond an instructor lecturing and students retaining what was taught. Unfortunately, their recommendations were viewed and implemented in the context of teaching rather than learning.

This is an important distinction, though probably not one that was given much consideration 126 years ago. Even today, few discussions about improving schools and education seem to give deep thought or credence to the difference between teaching and learning. And when we do have these conversations, we run into the seemingly immovable object of our institutionalized, factory model of education, so the effort is compromised, thus limiting any gains that may result.

The compromise is rarely conscious. The structure and its limitations are so ingrained that when ideas arise which everyone agrees have incredible potential but that would be impossible within the existing model, they are filtered out or quickly dismissed. Occasionally, an innovative, paradigm-shifting idea is proposed and may even lead to a small-scale or temporary pilot, such as a charter school. But in the end, ideas requiring real, systemic change are passed over or compromised in ways that severely limit their effect and keep them from fulfilling their potential.

Despite genuine good intentions, trying to improve all students’ learning in a system designed to deliver instruction can actually lead to unintended negative outcomes for many students. Consider how efforts to create equity in education have played out over the past few decades.

Equal student readiness

Educators strive to ensure all students are at a similar state of readiness for a given course. A course taught by one teacher to a group of equally ready students should mean they all have an equal opportunity to learn the material. This leads to a slippery slope.

For all students to start a course (or school grade) equally prepared, logic dictates they must leave the previous course at an equal readiness level. This means they must have entered that previous course or grade at an equal readiness level. And so on.

This has led to growing calls for universal preschool and four-year-old kindergarten. The theory is that if we can get all students to a comparable readiness level when they enter formal education in kindergarten or first grade, it will be more easily maintained through high school. And the reverse argument is made that, if students begin formal schooling behind their peers, they may never catch up.

If students are not showing the necessary levels of progress in a course or subject, an intervention is used. This is done to try to maintain all students at an equal state of readiness at all times. Once again, this is premised on the educational model that says all students must be receiving the same instruction at the same time and generally in the same way.

This rationale is used in larger school districts to offer essentially the same timeline, courses, course outcomes, and curriculum in every elementary, middle, and high school, with the potential exception of some elective courses for upperclassmen.

This entire readiness progression is necessitated by the instruction-centric school model and, as noted, it leads to a number of negative outcomes while delivering the limited benefit of instruction being efficiently delivered to all students. Unfortunately, the actual amount being learned is only a fraction of what is being taught.

The worst outcome of the focus on instruction is probably the reinforcement of the paradigm that each person has control over what he or she learns and that everyone is capable of learning a given concept or skill at the same chronological age. Students and their parents receive the message that it is their fault, in some way, when students are not learning or performing at the expected level for their age cohort. They may be led to believe that the student is not smart enough, not working hard enough, has a learning disability, or is not being provided sufficient parental support or a conducive home environment.

All these create negative self-images that can hinder future learning and create a vicious cycle. Further, we force students and families to adapt to this situation rather than striving to accommodate them where they are, because every student must be ready to receive the instruction when the school has decided it must be delivered.

Most students and parents also tend to accept that students can only learn as much and perform as well as the instruction allows. While some parents will take advantage of gifted and talented programs, the vast majority of students will settle for what is being offered and will be praised if they get top grades and scores — even if they are capable of significantly more.

A century ago — and maybe even fifty years ago — this approach made sense based on the workforce’s needs, the available technology, and the world in which we lived. In 2019, it no longer makes sense. If our real goal is for students to learn, then it makes a lot more sense to figure out how we can ensure each and every student is able to learn to the greatest possible extent.

Of course, that would mean adapting the schools to the students rather than the student adapting to the schools. Many would argue that the current model teaches students how to be adaptable. I would counter that students need to learn how to adapt themselves as well as how to adapt the world around them.

THE STUDENT’S JOB IS SCHOOL

It’s often said the student’s responsibility is to learn — it is his or her job — and that schools and teachers should not be catering to the vagaries of students. While that seems reasonable and fair to us who had to endure such an approach in our childhoods, it has serious flaws, especially if we want all children to have an equitable opportunity to pursue their personal potential.

Throughout much of the twentieth century, work was viewed as just that — work. It was a means of earning a living and not meant to be rewarding beyond a paycheck and, hopefully, some benefits. In such a job market, there was a need to know the importance of showing up on time, complying with the rules, and not challenging authority. Schools taught knowledge needed for many jobs, but this was less important than simply teaching students to tolerate work.

As technology advanced and workplace needs changed, shortcomings in students’ readiness began to emerge. Numerous reports such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 2018) and the SCANS Report (The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 2018) identified knowledge and skills future generations would need for our country to remain an international economic power. That trend continues as states and countless organizations try to define what constitutes “college and career ready.”

Unfortunately, our school structure was built to mimic the preparation needed for jobs of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. If a new, twenty-first-century business tried to use the structure and approaches of a nineteenth or twentieth-century business, it would almost certainly fail in our free market economy. The same is true of arguing that schools can prepare students for twenty-first-century jobs by telling them their current “job” is to learn in nineteenth-century schools. Would we as adults accept nineteenth-century working conditions in our job? We shouldn’t expect our children to thrive in an out-of-date school structure. That they haven’t revolted in mass against this model is a testament to how effectively we have convinced them to be compliant. Unfortunately, that will not prepare future generations for the world that is coming.

Who should adopt, the student or the school?

Consider the grade-based timeline that drives education from kindergarten through high school graduation. Even if all students were ready for learning a given concept at the same chronological age, there would still be challenges because student ages regularly vary by two years or more at a given grade based on choices made by the parents and educators in the local school district.

One reason for this large range is that students demonstrate different levels of readiness for school when they are three to five years old. While a four-year-old may be assessed as ready to start kindergarten on the early side, another child at age five might be kept out for an additional year. This is, of course, an attempt to start all students at a comparable readiness level. Unfortunately, this readiness does not progress in a linear fashion. Within years or even months, the student who started early may be struggling while the older student is not being challenged.

Neither of these has anything to do with the student’s ability to adapt. They have to do with brain development and other factors not under the control of the child or anyone else. From a strictly biological standpoint, no two students are at the same learning readiness at the same chronological age. Even five-year-olds born on the same day will be at different cognitive, social, and developmental levels. Readiness to learn and understand various concepts, as well as coordination and ability to develop certain skills, varies with each person the same way physical growth does; some students will grow tall early and then not grow much at all, while others will not gain much height until later in life. For neither of these can we expect students to adapt on demand?

DIFFERENTIATION

The concept of differentiation is to adapt instruction and activities to account for varying student abilities, readiness, and learning styles. While largely driven by efforts to meet the needs of students with disabilities, the concept is valid in trying to meet the unique needs of all students. However, in a traditional classroom — one teacher with a large group of students — the ability to meet all students’ needs via differentiation is nearly impossible. So this concept is typically employed to address those students furthest from the expected level of skill and knowledge development.

Done effectively, differentiation will help students meet a given course, subject, or grade-level expectation, but it cannot help every student achieve or even approach his or her potential. The limiting factor is not the teachers or the desire of administrators to meet all their students’ needs; the limiting factor is the factory model of schools.

Beyond this biological element of readiness, there are thousands of external variables that affect a student’s readiness to learn. In some communities, the population may be rather homogeneous, with most students having similar life experiences. (Chapter 5 explores this in greater depth.) In other communities, there is a vast diversity in the life experiences of students. Regardless, the range of student readiness and the experiences they bring to school are incredibly varied. Is it reasonable, then, to expect each student to adapt to the educational system and then to expect those students to all perform to a comparable standard on the same timeline?

Further, schools only have direct influence over students a portion of each day (up to a third, typically, or about half of a child’s waking hours) and only about 180 days each year. Schools may make heroic efforts to get and maintain all students at comparable levels of readiness, but there are thousands of factors outside of their control during the majority of each student’s waking hours. Most of these factors are in some way affecting the school’s efforts for good and bad.

In addition, students are exposed to multiple teachers, many of whom are out of sync with one another. The students may see as few as two to four teachers in a day (in elementary school and in high schools on a block schedule) or as many as seven or eight; and of course, they are also exposed to multiple subjects each with its own learning readiness expectations.

As it is, every student must adapt in dozens — maybe hundreds — of ways every day in order to learn. It’s an incredible testament to our students’ adaptability and capability that they learn as much as they do. The real question is, are they learning anywhere near as much as they could? I argue they are not learning even close to their potential.

GIFTED STUDENTS

For nearly all the reasons discussed in this chapter, the focus on instruction limits high-achieving students. The current model typically uses an “intervention” approach for gifted students just as it does for students who are struggling. That is, schools offer talented and gifted programs that provide additional opportunities for select students.

While these are helpful, many students must still do their regular classes and fulfill all those requirements, even if they are not challenging or benefitting the students. When higher level courses are available, they tend to be in limited subject areas (typically only math through middle school), and then the students must make a choice between the regular course and the advanced option, though they may be at a readiness level somewhere between the two or even beyond both.

These limitations stem from the focus on teaching. Within this model, fully meeting the needs of gifted students is cost prohibitive, so compromises must be made. Adopting a model built on ensuring each student approaches his or her full potential — in all subjects and on each student’s unique timeline — will ensure the needs of gifted students are met, as well as the needs of all other students.

Teacher preparation

Another systemic challenge coming from the focus on teaching rather than learning is that teacher preparation programs are based on what the teachers-to-be will need to teach. These programs essentially fall into one of two tracks: preparing generalist elementary teachers or specialized secondary teachers. In both cases, the programs are predominantly built around what the future teachers will be expected to teach.

While they may include research on learning and discuss this in various classes, at their core they are focused on what the program graduates will be teaching, along with courses on classroom management, administration, and data collection, among other topics. A new school model could prompt teacher preparation programs to focus more on future teachers’ ability to help students learn.

Our current model and structure of schools are built specifically for the delivery of instruction. No matter how much we talk about student learning, the factory model of schools will limit how much we can accomplish. The focus — and the principal purpose — of our schools and teachers must be on all students learning to their potential. Once that overrides other considerations, then we begin to fully see the limitations of the factory model and can begin to work toward replacing it with a model and structure that will actually enhance student learning.

Continue with the next section of Know Power, Know Responsibility (Part 1 — Chapter 3), here:

You may also enjoy reading:

Kevin Miller is a Boomer who joined the Army during the Cold War and continues to serve. He has spent 30-plus years working in K-12 education as a teacher, administrator, and consultant and is now on a mission to reinvent our school model. His book Know Power, Know Responsibility provides the imperatives for a complete redesign of schools and the way to get there. See his website knowresponsibility.com to learn more.