We need schools where "everybody knows your name."

Making your way in the world today takes everything you've got.

Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot.

Wouldn't you like to get away?

Sometimes you want to go

Where everybody knows your name,

and they're always glad you came.

You wanna be where you can see,

our troubles are all the same

You wanna be where everybody knows

Your name.

You wanna go where people know,

people are all the same,

You wanna go where everybody knows

your name. 

…Original and full length lyrics for “Where Everybody Knows Your Name,” the theme song from the 1980s television sitcom “Cheers,” was written by Gary Portnoy and Judy Hart Angelo.

My colleague, Dan McDonald, master teacher and kid-magnet extraordinaire, came up with a darn good concept one day. He said we need "Norm schools..." the kind where "everybody knows your name," and not just during regular school hours. Dan is the kind of teacher who knows the value of making meaningful connections with students over time by first getting to know their personal learning stories. Some kids' stories read more happily than others, and he knew that without that connection, scholastic success was but a dream, especially for the kids from at-risk environments that he typically supported in his role as an alternative teacher.

Dan wondered out loud what our educational environment would look, sound and feel like if every person that worked in a school, metaphorically speaking, knew the name of every kid who attended that school... and of course he didn't mean that they should memorize the yearbook. He meant knowing their names in the sense that the characters from 'Cheers' knew Norm's name, and everyone else's in the bar... that 'Cheers' was like home for many of them, and the patrons like family. The names were associated with each character's deeper being; their identities and perspectives toward the daily challenges that formed the story-lines of the show. The bar was a place for them to feel accepted- a sense of belonging, and perhaps a place where they were comfortable being vulnerable as they shared their troubles and flaws with each other. He thought that schools should be this type of environment.

He wondered further how schools could become more welcoming and open to students who are vulnerable, flawed and dealing with problems... environments where they feel that sense of belonging allowing them to share their challenges with significant, supportive others knowing that they won't be judged or categorized. To nurture this sense of belonging, he pondered why schools shut their doors for all intent and purposes at 4:00 PM, and don't effectively open up again until 7:00 AM the next day. There are many reasons to leave school buildings open after regular school hours, but Dan was interested really in just one. He figured that one way to facilitate a deep, meaningful and positive connection to school would be to leave the doors open into the evenings each day. He had brilliant ideas about school partnerships with social service and helping agencies whereby programming and services for youth would be carried on right where school left off every day. He understood that for some, school is the only safe and nurturing environment kids know... why not allow them the privilege of being in that safe place as much as possible? Why not source agencies and people who would be willing to collaborate with educators to support kids in the evenings in this way? I think Dan was on to something with these questions.

Take some time to think about what kind of school you work at, or what kind of school your kids attend. Is it the kind where kids feel a sense of belonging, safety and care... like family, or is it some other kind of school? If it is some other kind of school, perhaps ask yourself what you can do to change that feeling.

Beware Behaviorism!

 flickr photo via Kevan

I'm admittedly confused regarding the controversy in education surrounding behaviorism. It is highly arguable that most behavior is rewarded or punished. These punishments or rewards are often referred to as "carrots or sticks." In the context of the oft-used metaphor, (someone must dangle a carrot or threaten with a stick to get the proverbial mule to do what is desired,) there seems to be a suggestion that the reward or punishment must come from an extrinsic source. I don't think this is an accurate description of behaviorism.

All behavior elicits a response, and it seems to me, this response will be a naturally occurring one relative to the subjective, or perhaps unknown purpose of the behavior, (assuming that all behavior is purposeful.)

I'm not an operant behaviorist by any stretch... I just don't think that operant conditioning is natural or effective in nurturing positive behavior. Let's face it, engaging classrooms lead to engaged students... in the context of behaviorism, can we not call the engaging classroom the unconditioned stimulus, and the authentic, positive teaching and learning that takes place there the unconditioned response?  If so, behaviorism is alive and well in North American schools, and thank heaven it is so.

Externally applied operant conditioning, (of which the effectiveness in schools is suspect,) is using positive and negative reinforcement to 'do to' in the effort to solicit a desired response, but there is so much more to a behaviorist approach than the cliche 'carrots and sticks' that opponents of what they refer to as 'behaviorism' allude to. I would assert that there is so much more to positive and negative reinforcement in general than many people realize, (positive and negative reinforcement can be unconditioned as well- e.g. if a teacher yells at a student to stop doing something he/she isn't supposed to do, and the student stops, the unconditioned cessation of the student's undesirable behavior has negatively reinforced the teacher's yelling.)

Educators need to explore the scope and context of behaviorism within a new and collaborative mindset if we are to be considered students of our own craft, which boiled down, is really just a very pure study of human behavior; is it not?

Morphic Resonance

-Christine Mason Miller

morphic resonance [ˈmɔːfɪk]

n

(Life Sciences; Allied Applications / Biology) the idea that, through a telepathic effect or sympathetic vibration, an event or act can lead to similar events or acts in the future or an idea conceived in one mind can then arise in another...

Good, effective leaders don't exude power, they exude character, morality, humanity and collaboration... the sort of stuff that rubs-off on folk without them even realizing it. Understanding morphic resonance makes leading people exponentially more efficient and effective because it moves leadership from transactional control to transformational collaboration... leaders working among their people as opposed to above them.

When educational leaders attempt to move schools toward desired futures, it's so important that their followers are on board. In my opinion, a vast majority of people appreciate leaders who lead by example; those that show they are willing to step out and be a tangible part of the effort toward that desired future as opposed to the one dictating it.

Nurturing morphic resonance is the ultimate version of leading by example. The function of leaders is to lead, but people need to follow if leadership is going to resonate. Of course, different forms of leadership are effective in addressing different situations, and we all have our preferred ways to be led; morphic resonance, however is a concept that applies to all forms of leadership... it's what happens when effective leaders tip their leadership so others are inclined to follow. Morphic resonance is what you feel when leadership has evolved from a form of control to a form of influence; the element that you tacitly feel when you enter a school displaying an authentic and positive school culture where every member of the organization is attuned to the same philosophical and systematic principles.

Morphic means having a specified shape or form. Resonance means having a lasting presence or effect; an enduring entity.The kind of educational leaders we need are those who know how to shape and form schools that work, and even more importantly, how to make that shape and form emerge and endure in the practice of others.

Purposeful Anger...

flickr CC image via Ivan Walsh.com

"Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not easy." Aristotle

Much anger abounds in the world of teaching and learning these days. Emotions are running high and everyone claims to have the answer to our educational problems. All of the politicized rambling and sensationalism does nothing to advance education reform. Education reform needs rationale ideas, not emotionally driven diatribes. Aristotle's wisdom rings true after all these years... we often only need to look to the past to gain perspective about the future.

Be angry if you want with your chosen educational issue. Don't, however, get caught in the trap that many are wallowing in already- the trap of dysfunctional anger. Anger that is purposeful will sound like teachers, parents and students lobbying effectively for their cause in civil and professional ways... it will look like really excellent teachers demonstrating their cause by producing results within their classrooms... and it will feel like an ever-growing and evolving synergistic movement of people who are united in their rally to perpetually improve the teaching and learning process.

"There are two things a person should never be angry at, what they can help, and what they cannot." Plato

I think Plato was just saying that action trumps anger, and perhaps more importantly, so does restraint.

Teachers- use your anger to change what you can control, influence what you can't and prove to detractors that your teaching will be successful despite the negative slant on issues surrounding you.

Systems-Centered Standards

flickr CC image via PinkMoose

The problem with education standards in North America is they are system centered. My friend Gord Atkinson (via Twitter @Principal20) came up with a sadly accurate definition of a system-centered education system- he characterizes it as budget crossed with social engineering. Brilliant, and tragically a massive reason why we're not moving education reform forward toward what it should be; a child development centered system.

It sounds crazy that a system centered approach to education would ever be good- like restaurants serving food without asking the customers what they want. Gord's assessment that budget and social engineering are at play makes the issue easier to understand, if not to accept.

To state the obvious, there is a cost to education. Of course fiscal responsibility is critical if government is to continue to provide any sort of education system; this isn't at question, but how much really is our system dependent on the almighty dollar? In "Why Is It Always About the Funding?" I stated that,

...obviously funds are required to support many elements of the education system. Teachers need to get paid, resources need to be supplied and schools need to be built and maintained, however, when it comes to ideas supporting better practise, I would submit that perhaps the best education reforms require no financial support whatsoever...  As intelligent professionals who know tacitly what works and what doesn't in their classrooms and schools, teachers typically integrate and synthesize their philosophical thoughts in an effort to reform their personal practise and refine their craft. I've had enough professional conversations with my teaching colleagues to know that collectively, we also have a lot to say about how these efforts can be extrapolated to a broader education reform context.

We need to accept that politics are politics, (party agendas, personal political aspirations, fiscal realities and the never-ending quest for power are obvious factors that affect not just the funding of education, but every publicly funded institution,) and if we're going to tip education reform so that it reflects a child development-centered philosophy we need to get past our obsession with blaming government for our system inadequacies. Government is what it is; it will always require that education answers to a set of standards that reflect the relative success of the system. Understanding this, and also being pedagogical experts, it's incumbent upon teachers to show government that we too aren't interested in removing standards, but that we are interested in defining better ways to reach them. Let's let the government define the standards, while we define the path to get there.

As opposed to what we seem to approach as an absolute process with end goals, education reform should be a ubiquitous, constant, never-ending process. If we intend to move toward a child development-centered education system, teachers need to take the lead role in showing government that we know better ways to teach and evaluate kids so learning is evident, and that in many cases will cost less. The obvious example is weaning the system from high-stakes, standardized testing routines. We have come to accept these tests as just something we do, but this hasn't always been the case.This interesting article from the New York Times highlights the arbitrary and inconclusive nature of these tests. Amidst this controversy and considering the massive cost to administer these tests, why not instead let teachers decide to what degree learning standards have been met by individual students? After all, teachers spend two hundred days with their students every year; can we not trust their insight into how well curriculum goals have been met in each student's case?

Another cost-saving measure could be to move away from unsustainable forms of teaching and learning resources; paper textbooks being the obvious example. As soon as a textbook is published, contemporary access to digital information has made it yesterday's information. There is also an argument that textbook learning perhaps isn't the most effective way to learn anyway. Teachers know that authentic learning is displayed when it's relevant, current and applicable to a student's future, and they also know that a textbook isn't required as part of the process. Let's increase access to the digital universe, and allow teachers unfettered access to assist in creating relevant, current and applicable learning environments.

High-stakes standardized test routines and textbook style learning resources are not necessarily the only ways to measure and apply teaching and learning. They are multimillion dollar enterprises though, and the cost to education is unimaginable. All of a sudden, teachers start to look like a bargain at twice the price when compared to the cost of standardized tests and textbooks considering we can provide better, more authentic, child development-centered learning and assessment environments without either of these influences.