As a middle school teacher, this really struck a chord. I remember in my undergrad courses for elementary education, there was such a stress on play and discovery as what would drive learning. Then when I entered into a real-world classroom, that image was shattered as I was responsible for teaching certain things in my room that would be tested, and if my students didn’t perform well, then I would be held accountable. This environment does not foster a sense of creativity. When Douglas Thomas said that the teachers he spoke to said that this sent a message that teachers can’t be trusted, I nodded my head and almost started to clap at my computer screen because that is something that I have said since I began teaching. A teacher can be truly amazing, but if their students don’t perform well on the test then they will not be treated as if they are a great teachers. Standardized testing is a catch 22. On one hand, you want to ensure that all students are receiving an education that will prepare them as they navigate through school so standardized tests are created to see if that is happening. On the other hand, this does not give the freedom for teachers to allow actual learning to take place in their classrooms because they end up teaching to a test and students are then being prepared to score high on a test, but not for the workforce that will be waiting for them when they graduate. Sure, some kids thrive in this environment, but others do not. This does not mean they are incapable of learning, it just means that this is not the way they learn. But, more times than not, they will deem themselves as dumb or not good at school before they ever experience something that sparks their love for learning.
In the last week of school, I showed my students the National Geographic documentary called Science Fair (on Disney+ if you want to watch). In this documentary, there is a student named Robbie. As you listen to him speak, you can tell that he is very intelligent and it goes on to talk to a former teacher and his parents and you can tell that school really wasn’t his thing. It even went on to say that he failed his math class. Did he not have enough knowledge to complete the work? That is not the case! He was well above what he needed to be successful in that class, but he was more interested in machines and what makes them work, programming, and research. The traditional classroom was not a learning environment that he thrived in, and because of this he was rejected from all of the colleges he applied to. (Spoiler Alert: Skip this last part if you want to watch the movie) But through his passion for research and science, he was noticed by a startup company and hired. He moved to Silicon Valley and is successfully working straight out of high school.
This leads me to the other point that Thomas made. It took us 200 years to get really good at creating students for the 19th century. But now we are in the 21st century. It is overwhelming to think about what it would take to turn education on its head and make these learning environments possible across schools. But is it going to take us another 200 years? Because if it does, will it be what our students need in the 23rd century? I’m going to lean towards, no. So what can we do to prevent us from repeating the same pattern?
Comments