Cycle 5: What Does a Good School Look Like?

I enjoyed reading about Harlem Children's Zone, however,  more things than just education contribute to poverty.  It's a good indicator, but we do have an entire society designed around a very few people making a LOT of money, some making a bit, and quite a few living under the poverty line.  I think schools could help, but I think more will be needed to really address poverty.

Firing teachers because their students don't perform up to "standards"?  Really?  If that were the case with me, I would have very few students indeed!  And it's not my fault - teachers can't be held THAT accountable if their students just are not applying themselves.  Besides, those standards and standardized tests are rather pointless.  Did they look at any data to determine how accurately a "passing" score on a standardized test correlated to success later in life?  They don't.  My sister is brilliant, perhaps genius level.  She probably aced those standardized tests.  She also failed out of a couple of colleges, is 29 and still living with my parents.  She can barely hold down a job, and has yet to have even a boyfriend.  Is she a success?  Not in my opinion.  I probably did just passable on those same exams, but I'm 27, married, own my own home and my own business, have the farm of my dreams, and am moments away from my Master's.  I've never gotten below a C in a class, or below a B in a class that I actually attended.  Personally, I'd consider myself successful, though I'm always working to improve.  It would be more helpful if, instead of analyzing test scores, they tracked their graduates for the next 10-15 years of life, and rated their success in a number of different areas of life, more than just whether or not they could pass a test, or even how much money they made.  Life, after all, is about more than money.

I really enjoyed reading about Central Park East and its founders.  I think they are on the right track, and have written down their "Habits of Mind" to use with my own children.  Those are the sorts of questions that I began pondering in college, but never before then.  When I was thinking about these things, no matter the class, I felt like I was really learning and stretching my brain.  I also agree with them on the issue of depth versus coverage.  It IS important that students have a breadth of knowledge, but when it comes right down to it, I would rather my students know a lot, and be able to do a lot, with a few different topics of interest, then be taught a little about a ton of topics, none of which they remember or can do anything with.  Granted, when I have my kids, and they're really interested in one thing, we'll learn all about that one thing.  But then we'll learn about things that connect to that one thing, and hopefully that way they'll gain more breadth as well as depth.  For example, if a kid is really interested in trains, we'll learn all about trains.  We'll build model trains, we'll take train rides, but then we'll learn about the history of trains: how they developed, and how they influenced the development of different nations, which could lead to an interest in history.  We'll learn about how different trains work, which will lead to physics, which could lead to an interest in other sciences.  All of knowledge is connected, so even starting with only one interest, we could go very far indeed, just following the connections.  However, it is impossible for anyone to know everything - there's just too much knowledge in the world.  It's been developed by millions of people over hundreds of lifetimes, so expecting every child to know it all is asking the impossible.  But if they can start somewhere, and develop and grow that knowledge, understanding, and skill, then they can take it far.

I LOVE the portfolio requirement for graduation!  Exactly what I think every student should be required to present.  I also love that their "senior division" has more independent study, internships, and students stay as long as they need to in order to finish their degree.  They're preparing them for life after school.  The simple, but more flexible schedule, is also great.  A lot of times, science labs take more than 40 minutes to complete, so having the option of 2 hours, all on science, is awesome.  And this allows for discussion about what they learned, questions they have, concerns, issues that develop, how this relates to their lives, and on and on.  This is the valuable discussion that there's never time for in a standard public school, but is so important, and this school has made it possible.

Even making decisions on curriculum and content as an entire school is better, and allows more freedom, than having these decisions handed down from policy makers and politicians.  While I would prefer to see teachers have complete freedom, I recognize that a certain amount of continuity is important, too, so this practice of making decisions as a school would provide that.  However, since it's the teachers themselves making these decisions, they are more meaningful and authentic than the ones that your average public school contends with.

I also like that they call in outside experts so often: to help them deal with issues like racism, as well as to decide if the diploma candidates have what it takes to make it in life.  And yet, they're able to do all of this on the same amount of money, per student, that a normal high school does.  Awesome.  Seems to me, they're eliminating a lot of the management and support staff, having the teachers fill several roles.  With a small school and small class sizes, they're actually able to handle the extra duties.

And they let these faculty discussions be learning experiences for the kids!  That, too, is great.  It teaches them effective conflict resolution skills, which are so important, especially since it sounds like their kids would be more inclined to use more injurious methods.

Eisner, for me, hit it home by saying, "If we are going to use proxies that have predictive validity, we need proxies that predict performances that matter outside the context of school. The function of schooling is not to enable students to do better in school. The function of schooling is to enable students to do better in life." (p 329).  So true.  I feel that the portfolios that students in CPESS are required to present fill this role, of predicting performance outside of school.  It would be very interesting to see a study tracking CPESS's graduates and their success rates in a variety of contexts, too.

It's very true that I still obsess too much over what grade I will be getting.  I should be focusing on what I am learning (though thankfully, I'm doing more of that than I used to), but the bottom line of my grade is still there.  I hope, that by homeschooling my kids, I can help them have a better learning orientation than I have - a focus on the process and learning rather than a focus on a superficial grade.

I really appreciate the list of questions he proposes, that we should be asking about our schools.  He does more than say that our schools have a problem - he suggests part of a solution for it.  I found myself mentally answering his questions about my own teaching, and revising how I go about some of it.

Noddings' writing about the aims of education made me realize just how important aims are.  Not being a traditional school teacher, I've always written off much of the jargon of objectives, aims, and standards.  I never felt like they did anything for me as a student, and have never used them in my teaching.  However, after reading Nel's work, I realized that not only have aims not been discussed in decades, but that I really am continually thinking about my own aims in my teaching.  My aim is to help my students become competent violinists (or violists or cellists) who know how to analyze pieces and their own playing, so they no longer need a teacher, but are effective practicers and performers.  Not only that, but I also want to help them enjoy their music, and learn to live life as worthwhile human beings.  Having articulated that, now I can evaluate how my teaching helps me accomplish this or not.

So, what should a good school look like?  To me, a good school should resemble CPESS and Dewey's Laboratory Schools, in that it is individualized and flexible, seeks always to bridge the gap between society and the child, and has authentic learning and assessment.  How we go about creating this kind of school is a different matter.  Schools like CPESS seem to work well, but there are likely many more models that would also work just as well.  One example is a Montessori school, which was developed separately but seems to incorporate the same ideas.  This Huffington Post article highlights a lot of what we have been talking about, while bringing Montessori into the picture.  I know that I will be taking this knowledge with me as I begin the adventure of homeschooling my children, in effect, creating our own little school.