My son has spent his first week in a conventional middle school. It is a new experience for him, since he spent 6th grade at Carolina School for Inquiry, a K thru 6th grade child-centered, multi-age, inquiry based public school & last year at a virtual school. Now he is caring a 20 lb book bag, changing classes, eating school lunch, spending time with people he didn't know before Monday. For an introvert and a thirteen year old, this is hard. But he's a trooper, and I'm cautiously optimistic.
What does this have to do with peace? Well, middle school isn't really a peaceful place, is it? The theory is great. Take kids whose hormones are exploding like popped pimples, whose intellectual development is leapfrogging over the factory-model teaching formula of traditional public schools, and whose social awareness is limited to their hair and their latest crushes; throw them together with a bunch of other kids like them and feed them junk food.
Oh, no, wait, that's not Best Practices...
Middle school has a great deal of potential. Kids ARE developing quickly, but they are still kids and haven't lost their enthusiasm and joy (unless it was already beaten out of them in third grade.) There are lessons in social responsibility, personal responsibility, and personal development. There are lessons in meta-cognition --- how do I learn best? what do I want to learn? how can I organize myself to be the best I can be?
But we don't want to "throw money at the problem" of inadequate education. We want to continue to do the same thing over and over again, to see if the same things get different results. (Which is the definition of insanity.) Then we test and test and test. As someone once said, that's like "treating" an illness by taking the patient's temperature over and over again without any change in treatment. (Which is the definition of malpractice.)
But we are willing to throw money and people at war machines. I mean, look at Afghanistan. Again, we are doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. (See definitions above.)
So, let's quit throwing money and good people at war machines & toss some money and good people toward authentic education of EVERYONE.
Just a thought....
Showing posts with label public charter schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public charter schools. Show all posts
Friday, August 19, 2011
Monday, February 15, 2010
Is multi-age inquiry-based education too hard on teachers?
Carolina School for Inquiry made AYP this year, its fourth year of existence. WOO-HOO!!!
Many new schools aren't judged for AYP (adequate yearly progress) until their fourth year because it takes at least that long for the effects of the new school to overcome the old schools. In the case of CSI, a charter school, Richland School District One chose to be cautious and use AYP to keep track even in the first three years.
Not only did CSI make AYP, it is leading the district in many areas of testing on the statewide PASS test.
This is important not only to CSI parents, teachers, and students, but to all advocates of excellent public education for all people.
This is what we heard from detractors, mostly in Columbia, but even from some blogger in Alaska:
Carolina School for Inquiry has a diverse population of students. It reflects the urban/rural, social, cultural, and ethnic makeup of Richland School District One.
As a charter school, every child has a parent who decided to give multi-age, inquiry-based education a try, although not every parent is able to be in the school as often as they'd like (including me.) Parents do make a difference in their child's education, but we can't blame the parent and move on. As Victoria Dixon-Mokeba says, each child brings the best parents they have and if that's not such a great parent, that child still needs to learn.
Carolina School for Inquiry has some excellent, committed, professional teachers. These teachers work longer and harder than many of their counterparts in traditional public or private schools. They attend professional development courses to improve their knowledge and skills in both subject matter and in inquiry, multi-age, and differentiated education theory and practice. They grade not with simple formulas and ABCs, but with a combination of kidwatching and written and oral evaluation.
My son's report cards are always at least four pages long, and in them I can see that his teachers really know him as a learner. We have been lucky to have teachers committed to multi-age inquiry since he began here in third grade. I understand that not all teachers at the school have been willing to put this kind of time into the narrative report cards, and I feel sorry that their parents and students haven't experienced a well-honed narrative report card.
In order for Inquiry to be done right, the teachers have to be committed. They need to understand differentiated education and know how to implement it. They need to have a carefully crafted plan. Although Inquiry teachers are flexible, they can't fly by the seat of their pants. Each child needs to have what is in effect an IEP, an individual education plan. The teachers can't use pre-fab lesson plans, even if they have "worked" in traditional classrooms for 25 years. At CSI, there are no children left behind. The teachers can't say, "I've done all I can with that one, he's a lost cause." Each child must learn to be the best learner he or she can be. No excuses. No "try" only "do."
A couple of teachers are complaining that multi-age, inquiry based education is too hard. They can't say it doesn't work. They don't say the kids don't learn. They say that it is too hard. They focus on multi-age, saying the class levels are too broad, but as we have said, if inquiry is done right, the developmental levels are not so important as in a traditional classroom. We don't need "bluebirds" and "crows."
And as I've said, my son's teachers have all been committed to the best student learning, so I don't really understand what the other teachers' problems are. But I do know that Carolina School for Inquiry is a school of choice and if it doesn't fit the need of a teacher, they should find a more traditional, easier school at which to teach.
There are thousands and thousands of committed, energetic, professional, child-loving teachers out there. CSI only needs seven of them.
Congratulations to Victoria Dixon-Mokeba and the fine staff and faculty, to all of the students, and to all of the families and friends of CSI. We are a success and now almost everyone knows it.
Many new schools aren't judged for AYP (adequate yearly progress) until their fourth year because it takes at least that long for the effects of the new school to overcome the old schools. In the case of CSI, a charter school, Richland School District One chose to be cautious and use AYP to keep track even in the first three years.
Not only did CSI make AYP, it is leading the district in many areas of testing on the statewide PASS test.
This is important not only to CSI parents, teachers, and students, but to all advocates of excellent public education for all people.
This is what we heard from detractors, mostly in Columbia, but even from some blogger in Alaska:
- Inquiry is for white, middle-class children. Other children don't learn because they aren't (fill-in-the-blank) culturally/genetically/mentally able to learn through inquiry. They need tables, worksheets, and yelling teachers. (How's that tably/worksheety/yelly thing workin' for ya?)
- Inquiry lets children do whatever they want and so they won't learn basic skills or achieve the standards or learn the essential boring stuff.
- Teachers aren't willing to work hard enough to properly implement inquiry.
Carolina School for Inquiry has a diverse population of students. It reflects the urban/rural, social, cultural, and ethnic makeup of Richland School District One.
As a charter school, every child has a parent who decided to give multi-age, inquiry-based education a try, although not every parent is able to be in the school as often as they'd like (including me.) Parents do make a difference in their child's education, but we can't blame the parent and move on. As Victoria Dixon-Mokeba says, each child brings the best parents they have and if that's not such a great parent, that child still needs to learn.
Carolina School for Inquiry has some excellent, committed, professional teachers. These teachers work longer and harder than many of their counterparts in traditional public or private schools. They attend professional development courses to improve their knowledge and skills in both subject matter and in inquiry, multi-age, and differentiated education theory and practice. They grade not with simple formulas and ABCs, but with a combination of kidwatching and written and oral evaluation.
My son's report cards are always at least four pages long, and in them I can see that his teachers really know him as a learner. We have been lucky to have teachers committed to multi-age inquiry since he began here in third grade. I understand that not all teachers at the school have been willing to put this kind of time into the narrative report cards, and I feel sorry that their parents and students haven't experienced a well-honed narrative report card.
In order for Inquiry to be done right, the teachers have to be committed. They need to understand differentiated education and know how to implement it. They need to have a carefully crafted plan. Although Inquiry teachers are flexible, they can't fly by the seat of their pants. Each child needs to have what is in effect an IEP, an individual education plan. The teachers can't use pre-fab lesson plans, even if they have "worked" in traditional classrooms for 25 years. At CSI, there are no children left behind. The teachers can't say, "I've done all I can with that one, he's a lost cause." Each child must learn to be the best learner he or she can be. No excuses. No "try" only "do."
A couple of teachers are complaining that multi-age, inquiry based education is too hard. They can't say it doesn't work. They don't say the kids don't learn. They say that it is too hard. They focus on multi-age, saying the class levels are too broad, but as we have said, if inquiry is done right, the developmental levels are not so important as in a traditional classroom. We don't need "bluebirds" and "crows."
And as I've said, my son's teachers have all been committed to the best student learning, so I don't really understand what the other teachers' problems are. But I do know that Carolina School for Inquiry is a school of choice and if it doesn't fit the need of a teacher, they should find a more traditional, easier school at which to teach.
There are thousands and thousands of committed, energetic, professional, child-loving teachers out there. CSI only needs seven of them.
Congratulations to Victoria Dixon-Mokeba and the fine staff and faculty, to all of the students, and to all of the families and friends of CSI. We are a success and now almost everyone knows it.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Random thoughts on Edumakation
South Carolina's constitution calls for a public education system. The courts and the legislature have interpreted that to mean "minimally adequate," & some days I think that's not being met. For years, SC would entice business with the catchy slogan, "our folk don't know jack, but they work cheap." And the school system taught folk to read enough to read their Bible (sort of), to show up someplace on time, and to sit still until a bell rang.
SC wasn't alone with the factory model of education. Children rode in big yellow buses to little red school houses where they learned to sit still and regurgitate information. Their fathers rode on gray buses to gray buildings to sit in cubicles or on factory lines and regurgitate information. The training was minimally adequate. And it was training.
As the nature of the work changed, workers needed to be more technologically and scientifically aware, and so technology and science was emphasized. Nothing creative --- just enough so they don't break the laser.
Have you seen the e-mails people send around about "The good old days" and what a high school student knew in 1880 or whatever? Those things make me nuts.
What we think of as education --- great works, great discourse, great thoughts --- have always been limited to the elite. Whether they thought the masses were incapable of learning or they thought it would be dangerous to teach them, there was no widespread education. In The Good Old Days, 99% of high school graduates may have been able to read Ulysses in Greek, but then, very few people actually went that far.
Now we want to educate all kids. It's hard, but it isn't impossible. Administrators, teachers, politicians, and parents whine about each other. Teachers are greedy, parents are slack. The politicians don't want people to be smarter than they are which really lowers the bar. Administration hires another consultant for half a million dollars, then cries because they can't afford books.
Everyone is invested in the education system. Everyone has an agenda, and far too often, it's not what is best for the kids.
What is the answer? I don't know. But I'm thinking about it. And this I do know: there is not one answer. People learn in different ways. People relate to different things. People want to do different things and need different skill sets.
Good teachers already know this and act on it. How do we expand this so that it is understandable to a larger population? Should we clone good schools and good teachers? How do we encourage innovation with accountability?
I don't know, but I'm thinking about it.
SC wasn't alone with the factory model of education. Children rode in big yellow buses to little red school houses where they learned to sit still and regurgitate information. Their fathers rode on gray buses to gray buildings to sit in cubicles or on factory lines and regurgitate information. The training was minimally adequate. And it was training.
As the nature of the work changed, workers needed to be more technologically and scientifically aware, and so technology and science was emphasized. Nothing creative --- just enough so they don't break the laser.
Have you seen the e-mails people send around about "The good old days" and what a high school student knew in 1880 or whatever? Those things make me nuts.
What we think of as education --- great works, great discourse, great thoughts --- have always been limited to the elite. Whether they thought the masses were incapable of learning or they thought it would be dangerous to teach them, there was no widespread education. In The Good Old Days, 99% of high school graduates may have been able to read Ulysses in Greek, but then, very few people actually went that far.
Now we want to educate all kids. It's hard, but it isn't impossible. Administrators, teachers, politicians, and parents whine about each other. Teachers are greedy, parents are slack. The politicians don't want people to be smarter than they are which really lowers the bar. Administration hires another consultant for half a million dollars, then cries because they can't afford books.
Everyone is invested in the education system. Everyone has an agenda, and far too often, it's not what is best for the kids.
What is the answer? I don't know. But I'm thinking about it. And this I do know: there is not one answer. People learn in different ways. People relate to different things. People want to do different things and need different skill sets.
Good teachers already know this and act on it. How do we expand this so that it is understandable to a larger population? Should we clone good schools and good teachers? How do we encourage innovation with accountability?
I don't know, but I'm thinking about it.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Brave New World
CSI has elected a new board. This is the third board elected by parents, faculty, and staff. The first board was elected by the charter committee.
Charter schools, like new nations, require great leadership, and the nature of that leadership is different at each stage.
Stage 1 is the inception, the revolution. A group of people, in our case parents and educators, decide they want a better place for their children to learn. They decide that this better way is so good, they want to share it with all children. They want to help improve not just the education of their own children, but all public education.
Once the idea is defined, it has to be nurtured into a plan. Someone must write the charter, which will describe the brilliant idea in a way that can be implemented and evaluated. The charter also includes the boring business part of education that most people in public schools don't have to think about. Buildings, food for children, insurance, access, funding.
The leaders have to sell this great idea to the Department of Education, to the local school district, and to parents who will be willing to send their kids to this new place.
And so a great charter school needs leaders who are visionary, charismatic, business-minded, persuasive, and trustworthy.
Stage 2: the first few years.
The school is new, but it is a school. Some new ideas will shine, others will fail. Because it is a charter school, ideas can be easily monitored, evaluated, and adjusted (within the bounds of the charter). Students & their parents will come. Some will love it. Some will hate it. New people will come and they will need to be acclimated. Teachers will have to learn a new way of teaching, an new way of thinking of themselves as teachers. They will have to see themselves as active decision makers in the class and in the school and not as employees who follow rules and fill out forms. (They will still have to follow rules and fill out forms, this isn't Utopia.) The teachers are leaders in a charter school.
The Leader, who is the principal or lead teacher or director, has to wear a lot of hats. She is the educational leader & curriculum leader as in any public school. She is also a business manager, a marketer, a personnel director, a lobbyist, and many many more things.
The Board of Directors is adjusting to governance over management. They have hired a manager, and it is to be hoped, she is managing. The board has to anticipate situations & set goals in order to determine what policies should be established. Policies are guidelines that help you deal with difficult situations. They are like the rules of death and a funeral --- it's already there so you can know what to do without thinking about it at a time when it's hard to think. This job is tedious, not nearly as much fun as building the actual school. Even though there are other policy manuals to crib from, it's still like reinventing a very boring wheel.
The Board leaders move out of the spotlight, but are still extremely important. They are watchdogs, cheerleaders, visionaries, business leaders, marketers, fundraisers, and policy makers. They make sure that the charter is followed, that finances are sound, that the future is solid, and most importantly: that children are learning.
I think that board members are acrobats balancing on a line of over-involvement in the management of the school by interfering with the manager, and under-involvement by trusting the manager too much and not overseeing the business of the school. Others don't agree.
Stage 2, the first few years of the school's operation, is a time of testing boundaries, trying on roles and figuring out what works and what doesn't work. The leaders need to be flexible, resolved, and ego-less. This is not an easy time.
Stage 3, which I believe Carolina School for Inquiry is entering, is more settled, although not stagnant. I have not been there yet, but I am hoping it is a time where we can concentrate on sharing our strength with other public schools. I'd like for us to show the state that an inquiry curriculum, an atmosphere of respect, & nurturing of family involvement can benefit all children. The children, the teachers, and the families at CSI are special, but they are not different. I'd like to spread the word.
So I see the board leadership continuing to oversee the sound fiscal policies & strong curriculum, while branching out into marketing & fundraising, so that we can let others know the good things that are happening at CSI. Stable, but not stagnant.
Since the beginning, CSI has had great leaders with the skills needed at each stage. The visionaries and the business minded have come forward. Some are still here and some have moved on. Everyone has left CSI a little stronger, a little wiser, and a little better. And for that and all of the great people who have converged in this time and space, I am grateful.
Charter schools, like new nations, require great leadership, and the nature of that leadership is different at each stage.
Stage 1 is the inception, the revolution. A group of people, in our case parents and educators, decide they want a better place for their children to learn. They decide that this better way is so good, they want to share it with all children. They want to help improve not just the education of their own children, but all public education.
Once the idea is defined, it has to be nurtured into a plan. Someone must write the charter, which will describe the brilliant idea in a way that can be implemented and evaluated. The charter also includes the boring business part of education that most people in public schools don't have to think about. Buildings, food for children, insurance, access, funding.
The leaders have to sell this great idea to the Department of Education, to the local school district, and to parents who will be willing to send their kids to this new place.
And so a great charter school needs leaders who are visionary, charismatic, business-minded, persuasive, and trustworthy.
Stage 2: the first few years.
The school is new, but it is a school. Some new ideas will shine, others will fail. Because it is a charter school, ideas can be easily monitored, evaluated, and adjusted (within the bounds of the charter). Students & their parents will come. Some will love it. Some will hate it. New people will come and they will need to be acclimated. Teachers will have to learn a new way of teaching, an new way of thinking of themselves as teachers. They will have to see themselves as active decision makers in the class and in the school and not as employees who follow rules and fill out forms. (They will still have to follow rules and fill out forms, this isn't Utopia.) The teachers are leaders in a charter school.
The Leader, who is the principal or lead teacher or director, has to wear a lot of hats. She is the educational leader & curriculum leader as in any public school. She is also a business manager, a marketer, a personnel director, a lobbyist, and many many more things.
The Board of Directors is adjusting to governance over management. They have hired a manager, and it is to be hoped, she is managing. The board has to anticipate situations & set goals in order to determine what policies should be established. Policies are guidelines that help you deal with difficult situations. They are like the rules of death and a funeral --- it's already there so you can know what to do without thinking about it at a time when it's hard to think. This job is tedious, not nearly as much fun as building the actual school. Even though there are other policy manuals to crib from, it's still like reinventing a very boring wheel.
The Board leaders move out of the spotlight, but are still extremely important. They are watchdogs, cheerleaders, visionaries, business leaders, marketers, fundraisers, and policy makers. They make sure that the charter is followed, that finances are sound, that the future is solid, and most importantly: that children are learning.
I think that board members are acrobats balancing on a line of over-involvement in the management of the school by interfering with the manager, and under-involvement by trusting the manager too much and not overseeing the business of the school. Others don't agree.
Stage 2, the first few years of the school's operation, is a time of testing boundaries, trying on roles and figuring out what works and what doesn't work. The leaders need to be flexible, resolved, and ego-less. This is not an easy time.
Stage 3, which I believe Carolina School for Inquiry is entering, is more settled, although not stagnant. I have not been there yet, but I am hoping it is a time where we can concentrate on sharing our strength with other public schools. I'd like for us to show the state that an inquiry curriculum, an atmosphere of respect, & nurturing of family involvement can benefit all children. The children, the teachers, and the families at CSI are special, but they are not different. I'd like to spread the word.
So I see the board leadership continuing to oversee the sound fiscal policies & strong curriculum, while branching out into marketing & fundraising, so that we can let others know the good things that are happening at CSI. Stable, but not stagnant.
Since the beginning, CSI has had great leaders with the skills needed at each stage. The visionaries and the business minded have come forward. Some are still here and some have moved on. Everyone has left CSI a little stronger, a little wiser, and a little better. And for that and all of the great people who have converged in this time and space, I am grateful.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Back to School
It is almost time for school to start again and thoughts turn to ... standardized testing. Somehow that doesn't seem right, does it?
Our school is an inquiry-based, child-centered, public charter school. (Note the PUBLIC part, some people whose job it is to tend to the needs of ALL children seem to need reminding.) We started it because we support public schools, but reject the cookie-cutter, silent-lunch, accelerated-reader model that is popular. That works for some kids, but not for all. Not even for most. We wanted children to have a place where their curiosity, ingenuity, and responsibility were honored and nurtured. We wanted the learning to go on long before and long after the TEST.
Ironically, because we are new and untried, the TEST is what people see. And that is not a good thing.
Have I told you my favorite TEST story? I could scroll back and look, but I'm not going to. OK, here it is. When I was in school, I LOVED STANDARDIZED TESTS. Three or four days of silently bubbling in circles. Three or four days in which I did not have to talk to my teachers or other students. Three or four days in my element: me against the TEST. And I always won.
One year, when I was in high school, something happened. I decided I didn't want to take the TEST. I wasn't up for it. On the first day, I took the TEST but I wasn't happy about it. The second day, I was "sick." I stayed home and watched soap operas and game shows. The third day I returned with a better attitude and took the TEST some more. Sometime the next week, I got out of class to make up day two.
In all my years of test taking, the lowest I'd scored was the 97th percentile. On the day I had a bad attitude, I scored in the 86th percentile. Day three I was back up to 98th and on the make up day, I was at 99th percentile. The point is not that I am bright, or I am a good test taker (although thank you for noticing). It is that the scores were affected by a BAD MOOD. If that had been PACT or the SAT, my life could have been changed because I was in a BAD MOOD one day. And that is not a good thing.
Let me go back a bit and say, I understand and support the need for accountability in ALL schools. These are our children here. We can't subject them to the Education Fruit of the Month club and not check to see if it's working.
But who are the geniuses who make these magic tests that can tell us whether a child is learning with one test, delivered to one learning style, on one day? And to be fair to the geniuses, they don't necessarily think their test should be the end all and be all of accountability. This ain't law school.
The SC legislature, with the help of the SC Department of Education, is trying to come up with a new plan for assessing progress of students and insuring accountability of educators. Unfortunately, the legislature wants a single number they can look at and show on a 30 second television ad. They want to be able to compare apples, oranges, and roast beef. They want a definitive, concrete, cheap solution.
Bless their hearts.
But let us remember the children--- the ones today, the ones tomorrow, and the ones we once were.
Our school is an inquiry-based, child-centered, public charter school. (Note the PUBLIC part, some people whose job it is to tend to the needs of ALL children seem to need reminding.) We started it because we support public schools, but reject the cookie-cutter, silent-lunch, accelerated-reader model that is popular. That works for some kids, but not for all. Not even for most. We wanted children to have a place where their curiosity, ingenuity, and responsibility were honored and nurtured. We wanted the learning to go on long before and long after the TEST.
Ironically, because we are new and untried, the TEST is what people see. And that is not a good thing.
Have I told you my favorite TEST story? I could scroll back and look, but I'm not going to. OK, here it is. When I was in school, I LOVED STANDARDIZED TESTS. Three or four days of silently bubbling in circles. Three or four days in which I did not have to talk to my teachers or other students. Three or four days in my element: me against the TEST. And I always won.
One year, when I was in high school, something happened. I decided I didn't want to take the TEST. I wasn't up for it. On the first day, I took the TEST but I wasn't happy about it. The second day, I was "sick." I stayed home and watched soap operas and game shows. The third day I returned with a better attitude and took the TEST some more. Sometime the next week, I got out of class to make up day two.
In all my years of test taking, the lowest I'd scored was the 97th percentile. On the day I had a bad attitude, I scored in the 86th percentile. Day three I was back up to 98th and on the make up day, I was at 99th percentile. The point is not that I am bright, or I am a good test taker (although thank you for noticing). It is that the scores were affected by a BAD MOOD. If that had been PACT or the SAT, my life could have been changed because I was in a BAD MOOD one day. And that is not a good thing.
Let me go back a bit and say, I understand and support the need for accountability in ALL schools. These are our children here. We can't subject them to the Education Fruit of the Month club and not check to see if it's working.
But who are the geniuses who make these magic tests that can tell us whether a child is learning with one test, delivered to one learning style, on one day? And to be fair to the geniuses, they don't necessarily think their test should be the end all and be all of accountability. This ain't law school.
The SC legislature, with the help of the SC Department of Education, is trying to come up with a new plan for assessing progress of students and insuring accountability of educators. Unfortunately, the legislature wants a single number they can look at and show on a 30 second television ad. They want to be able to compare apples, oranges, and roast beef. They want a definitive, concrete, cheap solution.
Bless their hearts.
But let us remember the children--- the ones today, the ones tomorrow, and the ones we once were.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
What Inquiry isn't
It seems that when people --- parents, teachers, community members --- ask what inquiry based education is, they often hear "I can tell you what it isn't." While I think there is an affirmative answer, like inquiry itself, it must be discovered and uncovered rather than put forth as a definition.
One of the founders of our charter school does a wonderful job of showing inquiry. She leads the audience in a mini-lesson which begins with people calling out names of animals and moves through many other steps to illustrate how exploration can be used in all aspects of education. There is the sorting, which can be scientific and mathematical; then the wondering why we picked these animals, which can bring in social studies and self-discovery; then of course, reading about the animals... language arts. My description is clear as mud, I realize. Hmm, maybe we should say, "you have to see it to believe it."
One of the most common misunderstandings of inquiry are that it is dippy "let children do what they want because they are so wonderful who needs manners?" type of method. Some people who believe this actually want this for their children. Fortunately, this isn't what inquiry is. I'm all for conversing with children, listening to their unique view points and watching their little brains work as they are exposed to new ideas. There is something magical about a child carefully explaining some important point to an adult, mimicking his parents' checking strategy: "Do you hear me? What did I say?" But I'm also a big fan of civility. I don't think that a child's creativity or inquisitiveness are stifled by being expected to follow rules, listen to others, not hit other children in the privates.
In fact, inquiry demands a child have self-control (which the teacher helps to develop), independence, and ownership of his/her education process. They have to be responsible. If they are struggling, they need to ask for help. If they are "bored" (a word my children are not allowed to say), they must reach into their inner resources and make their learning experience richer, deeper, and wider. The teachers are there to help, but it is ultimately the child who will be the life-long learner. There will be a learning hum in a classroom, and good noise that means children are interacting and learning. However, respect for self, others, and the world around us are essential elements of our school. Everyone is entitled to a safe place to learn the way he/she learns best. Parents who believe that their child should not be guided to civility, while believing other people's children should bow to their little darlings' needs, are very disappointed. I have two words for them: Home School.
Another misguided view, I believe, is that inquiry is an end all and be all. A teacher of inquiry draws on children's natural curiosity and guides him/her toward discovery. However, the most important thing is that children learn well, and to do that, teachers need to draw on many methods and techniques. As an example, many people are convinced "phonics" is the way to teach reading. At some point, whole word became the darling of educators. The thing is, people learn to read using different methods and strategies. Both phonics and whole word are tools, but not the only tool. Similarly, inquiry is a philosophy, a background for teaching, but the teacher will use many tools to facilitate it. Educators should use what works, not get hung up on labels and fads. Flexibility is expected of children and should be encouraged in teachers.
The third notion of inquiry, that makes me really angry, is that inquiry is only appropriate for upper middle class children (probably white, but the critics won't say that.) All children, no matter what their background, are curious explorers. Some have it beaten (figuratively if not literally) out of them earlier than others, but all have the spark. Children can learn when they are a part of their education, are taught the way they learn, have relevant curriculum, and are respected as learners. And even when the spark has been smothered by years of factory-based education, it can be reignited by caring, patient, and respectful teachers. We have seen it happen.
Our school emphasized a child's role in his/her education. The students see themselves as writers, scientists, readers, social scientists, and citizens of the world. They have the tools to learn no matter where they go. Their strength comes from their rediscovered inner resources and not outside props. We are young and still learners ourselves. There is far to go, and mistakes have been made. But like rational, civilized people, we have learned from our mistakes and seek to improve. And like rational, healthy people, we recognize the strengths and great things that have happened and are continuing to happen.
Public education is extremely important to the health and well-being of our society. I believe it's important to have educated, rational, civilized innovators as our current and future citizens. And I believe inquiry-based education is the way to get that.
One of the founders of our charter school does a wonderful job of showing inquiry. She leads the audience in a mini-lesson which begins with people calling out names of animals and moves through many other steps to illustrate how exploration can be used in all aspects of education. There is the sorting, which can be scientific and mathematical; then the wondering why we picked these animals, which can bring in social studies and self-discovery; then of course, reading about the animals... language arts. My description is clear as mud, I realize. Hmm, maybe we should say, "you have to see it to believe it."
One of the most common misunderstandings of inquiry are that it is dippy "let children do what they want because they are so wonderful who needs manners?" type of method. Some people who believe this actually want this for their children. Fortunately, this isn't what inquiry is. I'm all for conversing with children, listening to their unique view points and watching their little brains work as they are exposed to new ideas. There is something magical about a child carefully explaining some important point to an adult, mimicking his parents' checking strategy: "Do you hear me? What did I say?" But I'm also a big fan of civility. I don't think that a child's creativity or inquisitiveness are stifled by being expected to follow rules, listen to others, not hit other children in the privates.
In fact, inquiry demands a child have self-control (which the teacher helps to develop), independence, and ownership of his/her education process. They have to be responsible. If they are struggling, they need to ask for help. If they are "bored" (a word my children are not allowed to say), they must reach into their inner resources and make their learning experience richer, deeper, and wider. The teachers are there to help, but it is ultimately the child who will be the life-long learner. There will be a learning hum in a classroom, and good noise that means children are interacting and learning. However, respect for self, others, and the world around us are essential elements of our school. Everyone is entitled to a safe place to learn the way he/she learns best. Parents who believe that their child should not be guided to civility, while believing other people's children should bow to their little darlings' needs, are very disappointed. I have two words for them: Home School.
Another misguided view, I believe, is that inquiry is an end all and be all. A teacher of inquiry draws on children's natural curiosity and guides him/her toward discovery. However, the most important thing is that children learn well, and to do that, teachers need to draw on many methods and techniques. As an example, many people are convinced "phonics" is the way to teach reading. At some point, whole word became the darling of educators. The thing is, people learn to read using different methods and strategies. Both phonics and whole word are tools, but not the only tool. Similarly, inquiry is a philosophy, a background for teaching, but the teacher will use many tools to facilitate it. Educators should use what works, not get hung up on labels and fads. Flexibility is expected of children and should be encouraged in teachers.
The third notion of inquiry, that makes me really angry, is that inquiry is only appropriate for upper middle class children (probably white, but the critics won't say that.) All children, no matter what their background, are curious explorers. Some have it beaten (figuratively if not literally) out of them earlier than others, but all have the spark. Children can learn when they are a part of their education, are taught the way they learn, have relevant curriculum, and are respected as learners. And even when the spark has been smothered by years of factory-based education, it can be reignited by caring, patient, and respectful teachers. We have seen it happen.
Our school emphasized a child's role in his/her education. The students see themselves as writers, scientists, readers, social scientists, and citizens of the world. They have the tools to learn no matter where they go. Their strength comes from their rediscovered inner resources and not outside props. We are young and still learners ourselves. There is far to go, and mistakes have been made. But like rational, civilized people, we have learned from our mistakes and seek to improve. And like rational, healthy people, we recognize the strengths and great things that have happened and are continuing to happen.
Public education is extremely important to the health and well-being of our society. I believe it's important to have educated, rational, civilized innovators as our current and future citizens. And I believe inquiry-based education is the way to get that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
