“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland / Through the Looking-Glass
The Looking Glass, as it were, is a curious metaphor to explain a young child's perception of the realities of school. Traditionally, the school has been a tool of social engineering, a place to stratify kids according to ability and how well they fit the construct of school, an institution that varied little from one to another. The school was a place that attempted to homogenize its subjects according to a rigid set of educational and social norms that suited many, but not all. Have schools changed much in this regard? One would surely hope, but I'm saddened to say that I do still occasionally observe the opposite.
There are few, if any, topics in education that impact our ability to serve students in optimized, effective, and appropriate ways than that of ableism.Ableism is the intentional or unintentional discrimination or oppression of individuals with disabilities.(Ableism - NCCJ, n.d.)
Reading the definition of ableism above elicits thoughts of "why would anyone involved teaching discriminate or oppress already marginalized students?" It's a harsh definition describing an illogical occurrence, but nonetheless, one that happens quite routinely if we're being honest with ourselves.
I don't believe in failure, only relative degrees of success.
Despite what some may say, learning is defined in more than one context. The lessonswe learn come in many shapes and forms, and I'm not sure I understand failing them. I suppose in a quantitative context, if we establish a benchmark standard, then technically everything that falls below this is a failure. Let's explore failure in the context of how it's typically defined in education...
failure. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved January 04, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/failure
In education, failure is often defined by number seven above... The fact of not reaching the required standard in an examination, test, course, etc... So we set standards for students to aspire to, and everything below that is a failure... but what if we defined failure in a system's context...
From Wikipedia-
Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things, regarded as systems, influence one another within a whole... systems thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by
viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting
to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to
further development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system
can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other
and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking
focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect.
I am so intrigued by this concept. What if we were to think of students as systems unto themselves with many components (variables) who could best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation? What if we just thought of failure in a system's context astheactoraninstanceoffailing; the first definition above? Could we then accept that failure doesn't have to have a negative connotation, nor does it have to be defended through some sort of rationalization... it would be just what it is- the act or instance of failing.
If we were to think of failure in this regard when a student fails it would be perceived as a breakdown somewhere in the system (student) that affected the students' overall ability to perform as expected. It would be assumed that some part of a relationship within the system (student) or in the way the student relates to another system (person, concept, teacher, content, schedule, organization, etc.) is malfunctioning, and as a result, support is required. Reflective analysis of how the system broke down would be the default reaction, then action could be taken to restore the system's interactions to purposeful and functional states designed to mitigate the failure.
A Chinese hanzi is often made up of multiple characters to create a unique meaning. The hanzi above is constructed of different characters that individually represent ears, eyes, undivided attention and heart. A beautiful alternative definition of the verb to listen is created... to listen means to hear with your heart; to be totally engaged and focused on understanding deeper meanings behind what we hear.
Every day I am reminded of how important it is to listen to student`s stories. I am fortunate to have time during the school day to hear with my heart as I listen to the real reasons why kids end up in the office talking to me. Like the young man in this clip, sometimes kids just need an opportunity to be honest and real so we can understand their struggle better.
In my school, we don`t think of a trip to the office as a punitive thing. We think of it as a resiliency building thing. An office referral is one of four resiliency pathways (as we call them) within our school that kids travel down depending on the nature of their challenge on any given day. An office visit more often than not means some adverse behavior would have been displayed.
I was involved in a conversation about learning disorders recently, (I actually prefer to call them learning challenges.) I myself am a challenged learner... learning disabled in the traditional sense. I am dyslexic. The problem is I didn't know I was dyslexic until I was in my second year of university. I was taking an educational psychology course and we were talking about learning disabilities. As the professor described dyslexia, I began to remember the sorts of problems I had in school, and then I began to wonder if perhaps I was dyslexic. I spoke to him after class, and we decided to assess my problem. Sure enough; I was dyslexic. So how come it took until I was 21 years old to figure that out?
There isn't a teacher in the universe that would deny learning disorders can be terribly detrimental to a child's learning progress. I am certain that I have dealt with dozens of learning disabled kids during my teaching career. I am also certain that the vast majority of these kids are surviving in school, as I did, undiagnosed, or perhaps misdiagnosed... an equally or perhaps even more serious concern for teachers trying to do the right thing for all students.
Here's the problem... teachers aren't qualified to diagnose learning disorders, (unless of course they are also trained psychologists,) however, they are expected to effectively support kids who suffer from one or more of them even if they don't know exactly what the potential disabilities are. Teachers are confronted with the reality that they must teach kids who may very well present with a legitimate learning disorder, but also that they will seldom be working with really good data to support the effective mitigation of the problem. We are not practicing in an informed way when it comes to learning disorders. We need to know what a child is challenged by, and we need to know that early enough in the game to curb any added anxiety and stress a child will inevitably feel when he knows he is struggling.
I submit that we need to invest in a process that assesses every child early enough in primary school to know what learning path we should be travelling. We need to ask every child what works best for them, and investigate ways to make that a reality. We can't continue playing guessing games long after a child is deemed to be struggling... we shouldn't let them get to the point of struggle. We should be responsibly assessing them at the beginning of their learning story in order to support them all the way through their kindergarten to grade twelve journey. A cognitive test for every child early enough in the school experience would eliminate the ineffective trial and error game we play later on when we notice a child isn't "getting it."
Assessment costs money... of course it does. Pay now, or pay later? How many teacher, counselor, learning assistant and educational consultant hours are spent guessing and checking what challenges may be present for kids? I will guess when compared to the cost of early and comprehensive assessment for all kids so we can fly with instruments right from the start, that the total cost in person hours trying to deal with the problem is very high, and may end up being more expensive than just doing the assessment in the beginning.
I recently viewed this TED talk by Dr. Aditi Shankardass... A second opinion on learning disorders:
I can't imagine there would be more compelling evidence supporting the effort we should be making to be informed about every learner before they begin to experience stress and anxiety as a result of potential learning disorders. It appears Dr. Shankardass has proven that these "disorders" need not be terribly detrimental if we can become aware of them early enough to establish good action plans mitigating the challenge and maximizing learning opportunities for kids. Knowledge is power. We need to empower kids by helping them understand themselves within their own learning contexts.
I sure would have liked to know about my dyslexia when I was a kid.
