"Why" Do We Have Schools Anyway?
Earlier this week, I was a participant in a meeting with high school and central office administrators to discuss the new guidance around the RI High School Diploma System for the class of 2021 and beyond. More specifically, the meeting was about how we, as a school, can best address those requirements and guidelines - while also providing our students with more personalized pathways towards graduation than are currently available.
Talking through this process, while working in a new school environment, in a new district, with its own culture, climate and set of beliefs, I began thinking about the Ted Talk below as I was trying to frame my own contributions. It's a presentation that I first watched several years ago at an administrative retreat and later referenced many times in my tenure at East Greenwich High School.
In the presentation, Simon Sinek describes what separates great leaders and companies from less successful ones. His examples are brilliant, and the historical content and context is fascinating. It is well worth the time that you will invest in watching it for so many reasons.
In the presentation, Simon Sinek describes what separates great leaders and companies from less successful ones. His examples are brilliant, and the historical content and context is fascinating. It is well worth the time that you will invest in watching it for so many reasons.
In Sinek's model of leadership and success, everything comes down to the "Why" leading to "How" leading to "What" leading to action, purpose and success- which is typically the opposite of how most people and companies do things.
It's fascinating stuff.
It's fascinating stuff.
This of course makes me think about the "Why" in my school.
As well as your school...
...or any school for that matter.
As well as your school...
...or any school for that matter.
Why do we even have schools?
Is school a place to memorize a bunch of facts and figures that someone, somewhere, at some time decided that every student must learn if they are to have any hope of success in a globally competitive "21st Century" world...
...in a world where information now changes so rapidly and emerging technology creates new opportunities that previously did not exist- every single day. Did you know that on average, the totality of all existing human knowledge is doubling every 13 months? According to IBM, the expansion of the “internet of things” will soon lead to the doubling of knowledge every 12 hours in the very near future.
So, if the "why" of your school is that you need to have students know a bunch of existing content knowledge, then what are the mandatory subjects going to be when we can't identify "what" our students will need to know or be able to do to be successful between 8th grade and graduation, when all of the accumulated knowledge of the human race and the pace of new and emerging technologies that drive economies have expanded exponentially?
How do we even know what we need to know right now, much less moving forward in an uncertain and rapidly changing future?
...in a world where information now changes so rapidly and emerging technology creates new opportunities that previously did not exist- every single day. Did you know that on average, the totality of all existing human knowledge is doubling every 13 months? According to IBM, the expansion of the “internet of things” will soon lead to the doubling of knowledge every 12 hours in the very near future.
So, if the "why" of your school is that you need to have students know a bunch of existing content knowledge, then what are the mandatory subjects going to be when we can't identify "what" our students will need to know or be able to do to be successful between 8th grade and graduation, when all of the accumulated knowledge of the human race and the pace of new and emerging technologies that drive economies have expanded exponentially?
How do we even know what we need to know right now, much less moving forward in an uncertain and rapidly changing future?
And while we are on the "subject" of this 21st Century, content driven curriculum: do you know why English, Algebra, Geometry, Algebra 2, Biology, Physics, Chemistry and U.S. History are considered necessary for the "21st Century" learner?
Because back in 1892, the president of Harvard University designed curriculum and said that those subjects should be the basis for high school classes. If you happen to be a student now who's interested in learning about something else – psychology, art, computer science, architecture, international business? Sorry. Those subjects weren’t very popular at Harvard in 1892, so you will have to find a way to work those things in around those mandatory subjects (if they are available at all) in your schedule.
Wouldn't 21st century students be better served by schools that have a focus on skills and traits that all successful people utilize every day, regardless of their profession? Critical thinking, problem solving, communication (verbal, written and presentation), acquiring and evaluating information, working with others, empathy, teamwork, kindness, etc.
Isn't that knowledge and skill set more likely to produce more flexible, globally competitive 21st Century citizens than what was being suggested in 1892? What was considered mandatory in the late 19th century may not necessarily be a curriculum that empowers kids to become adults with the ability to learn and be successful in the time that they will be living, working and contributing to society. But are we organized that way in schools? Does the Department of Education facilitate or make that more difficult with mandated certifications, Common Core, standardized testing for all students, etc?
Because back in 1892, the president of Harvard University designed curriculum and said that those subjects should be the basis for high school classes. If you happen to be a student now who's interested in learning about something else – psychology, art, computer science, architecture, international business? Sorry. Those subjects weren’t very popular at Harvard in 1892, so you will have to find a way to work those things in around those mandatory subjects (if they are available at all) in your schedule.
Wouldn't 21st century students be better served by schools that have a focus on skills and traits that all successful people utilize every day, regardless of their profession? Critical thinking, problem solving, communication (verbal, written and presentation), acquiring and evaluating information, working with others, empathy, teamwork, kindness, etc.
Isn't that knowledge and skill set more likely to produce more flexible, globally competitive 21st Century citizens than what was being suggested in 1892? What was considered mandatory in the late 19th century may not necessarily be a curriculum that empowers kids to become adults with the ability to learn and be successful in the time that they will be living, working and contributing to society. But are we organized that way in schools? Does the Department of Education facilitate or make that more difficult with mandated certifications, Common Core, standardized testing for all students, etc?
Maybe the "why" in your school is about teaching kids to be competitive. If you reflexively say "no,"I might ask why your school has grades, class ranks and other traditional institutions that make school a highly stressful, competitive event every day for so many kids.
Learning outside of school is not a competitive event. In the "real world" that we are (allegedly) preparing our kids for, we learn what we choose to, or need to learn- when we need to learn it. We also learn collaboratively, conferencing, researching, using other people's expertise and knowledge- not competitively to get the best score. There is also no arbitrary timeline for all people to have to learn anything that they need based on their age or "ability" level. People don't learn in isolation. We don't compete to learn things, we cooperate to get things done.
So, why are we forcing kids to compete and try to game a system of learning?
Learning outside of school is not a competitive event. In the "real world" that we are (allegedly) preparing our kids for, we learn what we choose to, or need to learn- when we need to learn it. We also learn collaboratively, conferencing, researching, using other people's expertise and knowledge- not competitively to get the best score. There is also no arbitrary timeline for all people to have to learn anything that they need based on their age or "ability" level. People don't learn in isolation. We don't compete to learn things, we cooperate to get things done.
So, why are we forcing kids to compete and try to game a system of learning?
Finally, are our schools designed to expose students to many different opportunities and ideas? Are they designed to help unearth what a student's passions are and apply those things to intrinsically bolster their learning? Should schools schools be designed to chart an individual course to a place where our students can be successful learning the things they need through doing the things that they love?
This particular idea seemed to be the frame of our particular discussion...
Does your school do that? Wouldn't you want to go there? Wouldn't you want to work there?
How much choice and freedom do kids have to explore, create, collaborate with others like them and focus on a specific area of interest for prolonged periods of time? If you tried to build a school that did that, would you be able to also cover everything in the expansive Common Core Curriculum and whatever will be on this year's iteration of mandated standardized tests? Which matters to you and your students more? Which will make them more successful in life?
But which will determine if your students graduate? Which will rank and potentially censure your school, teachers and administrators? Which keeps the other from happening?
Until Departments of Education stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, it will be more difficult for us, as leaders to create pathways to pathways. Content specific certifications, mandated courses, mandated curricula and standardized state testing with penalties for students and schools are all barriers to what most Departments of Education, including Rhode Island's would espouse as best practice: student choice, multiple pathways to graduation and schedule flexibility.
This particular idea seemed to be the frame of our particular discussion...
Does your school do that? Wouldn't you want to go there? Wouldn't you want to work there?
How much choice and freedom do kids have to explore, create, collaborate with others like them and focus on a specific area of interest for prolonged periods of time? If you tried to build a school that did that, would you be able to also cover everything in the expansive Common Core Curriculum and whatever will be on this year's iteration of mandated standardized tests? Which matters to you and your students more? Which will make them more successful in life?
But which will determine if your students graduate? Which will rank and potentially censure your school, teachers and administrators? Which keeps the other from happening?
Until Departments of Education stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, it will be more difficult for us, as leaders to create pathways to pathways. Content specific certifications, mandated courses, mandated curricula and standardized state testing with penalties for students and schools are all barriers to what most Departments of Education, including Rhode Island's would espouse as best practice: student choice, multiple pathways to graduation and schedule flexibility.
So why do we have school?
Why does your school do the things that it does?
Does your "why" make sense when held up to the lens of your "How" and your "What"?
If we don't know the answer to that question, or we don't agree, how can we design a system that determines an exit strategy?
Why does your school do the things that it does?
Does your "why" make sense when held up to the lens of your "How" and your "What"?
If we don't know the answer to that question, or we don't agree, how can we design a system that determines an exit strategy?
If you don't know your why, how can you do anything else?
"Why" don't we all work on that together first?
"Why" don't we all work on that together first?
Comments
Post a Comment