Grit

It seems that every few years in education there's a buzz about something new and innovative whether it's new research, a new idea, or even an tried and true idea rediscovered.

For the past few years there's been much talk among educators about the importance of a student's attitude towards learning--and life in general--in determining his/her future success.

There was a report on NPR sharing research that of the three most important factors shaping a child's success (IQ, parents' socioeconomic level, and ability to self-discipline and self-regulate), the ability to self-control was the most variable and hence most significant.

There was Carol Dweck's book Mindset that posited that a growth rather than fixed mindset toward learning is crucial in a child's success.

There was the New York Times article "What if the Secret to Success is Failure" where author Paul Tough interviewed the KIPP school president and the head of school at Riverdale Country School in their quest to identify and quantify student study and work habits.

Recently, a close friend of mine, Tom Hoerr (head of school of New City School in St. Louis) wrote an article for ASCD entitled Got Grit? where he proposes that student success is predicated on learning to respond to failure.  He reduces this to one qulaity: grit.

For Tom, grit "entails working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress."

Engineering student failure and frustration is not something parents and teachers come to naturally, especially in a place like Orchard that celebrates the uniqueness of each child.

For most of us, helping a child develop self-confidence and assurance is a step-by-step process. Every child--especially in upper elementary and middle school--often has a fragile ego and more often that not we teachers strive to help every child find success.

While it's important to get to know every child as an individual, we also need to make sure they have opportunities to be frustrated and to learn to persevere. I often say one of Orchard's qualities is that is puts equal emphasis on the process and product of learning. In the case of learning to overcome adversity, the process is paramount.

A number of years ago I was coaching middle school soccer for a school in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We had traveled to Dallas to play an all-boys school that had a long home winning-streak. With just a few minutes left in the game and the score tied at 2, we scored the apparent wining goal, but the referee disallowed it for a reason known only to him. Our parents, who had driven down from Tulsa, were incensed and began yelling and protesting that the referee was clearly a "homer" and only disallowed the goal because he wanted to protect the home team's winning streak. One of our parents even had videotaped the end of the game and offered to show it to the referee.

For me, this was a great teachable moment.

I called my players to the bench, told them how hard they had played, how proud I was of their effort, and that sometimes forces beyond their control could lead to an unfair outcome. I told them to hold their heads up, shake hands with the other team, and not to say anything derogatory to anyone. In other words, exhibit good sportsmanship.

The next week back at school, the Dallas school contacted our head of school and lauded the behavior of our players in a situation that clearly was unfair. He thanked them for being such great sports and for exhibiting such self-control. The head of school later came to a middle school assembly and publicly praised our team for dealing so maturely and calmly in such a difficult situation.

I've coached many teams through the years being elated with exciting victories and crushed by tough tough losses, but this game and how my players dealt with adversity is the game I remember the most.

They displayed grit and grace that day, and I was proud of them not just as athletes but as young men who I knew would be able to face and deal with future disappointment and even failure but had the grit and perseverance to overcome.

Enjoy Spring Break!

Seven Myths about How Students Learn

A recent Washington Post article identified a number enduring educational myths and misperceptions that continue to adversely influence American education.

Myth 1: Basic Facts Come Before Deep Learning

This one is a little tricky because cognitive science has proved that a) new learning does build on what already is in the brain and b) deeper cognitive thought occurs around stored knowledge. However, in schools this myth often translates into "boring stuff that must be memorized" precedes fun, active learning. The truth here is that all learning--even student development of essential knowledge--can and should be presented and learned through active engagement, not static, boring lessons.

Myth 2: Rigorous Education Means a Teacher Talking

In 1997 a University of Texas study showed the following:
     -We remember 10% of what we read
     -We remember 20% of what we hear
     -We remember 30% of what we see
     -We remember 50% of what we see and hear
     -We remember 70% of what we say
     -We remember 90% of what we do and say

While teacher lecture remains a popular form of teaching, it clearly does not lead lead to enhanced student learning or performance. (A future blog will focus on the recent Harvard Magazine article about physics professor Eric Mazur who advocates for peer instruction over teacher lecture.)

Myth 3: Covering It Means Teaching It

This seems to so obviously wrong, yet in this standards-based era of increased content, many teachers have been forced to superficially cover a topic in class in order to fulfill the curriculum. There's an obvious connection to Myth 2 in that just because a teacher covers a topic, it does not mean the students have understood let alone mastered it.

Myth 4: Teaching to Student Interest Means Dumbing It Down

It's important for teachers to understand cognitive development and to teach in an age-appropriate manner. However, if a teacher sets high expectations for students, they typically rise to the challenge. Way back in 1968 there was a study referred to as "Pygmalion in the Classroom" (just Google those words) which supports the idea that students will rise to challenges (as well as plunge in a classroom of low expectations).

Myth 5: Acceleration Means Rigor

This connects with Myth 3 as well as the idea that breadth of content is preferable to depth. All teachers are familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy of thinking skills: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Recently I cam across a revision of Bloom's Taxonomy that explained that greater difficulty operates within each of those thinking skills while greater complexity inlvoves having students think more deeply. Too often today, classroom assessment focus too much on lower level thinking. More homework that only requires lower-level thinking does not help a student learn more.

Myth 6: A Quiet Classroom Means Good Learning

To me this myth grew from expectation of proper student behavior in the classroom. However, the goal of a classroom needs to be student engagement through project-based learning; appropriate student input, voice, and decision-making; appropriate differentiation, i.e., variety in terms of the content, process, and product of what's being learned; and a healthy combination of individual and group collaborative work. A loud classroom does not necessarily equate to poor student behavior or a teacher who has poor classroom management skills.

Myth 7: Traditional Schooling Prepares Student for Life

In many ways the previous 6 myths describe a more traditional way of teaching, and the con of each myth describes the attributes of a more progressive, child-centered way of teaching--the way in which Orchard has approached education since its founding in 1922.

I continue to marvel at the courage of the founding mother of Orchard when these myths were even more deep-seated in the opinion of good teaching.

A Whole Child Education

ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) in a recent op-ed in the Washington Post asked people in the United States to join its We the People initiative and sign a petition to make “a whole child approach” to educational reform a national priority.

In previous blogs I’ve highlighted on core tenets and distinguishing features of progressive schools like Orchard. A whole-child focus is a vital quality of progressive schools, but it has been neglected in many other schools, particularly in the past ten years.

“A whole child approach to education enhances learning by addressing each student’s social, emotional, physical, and academic needs through the shared contributions of schools, families, communities, and policymakers. It is a move away from education policy that far too narrowly focuses on student standardized test scores as the key school accountability measure and that has resulted in the narrowing of curriculum as well as rigid teaching and learning environments.”

Many schools have moved away from programs and pedagogy that don’t help to raise student scores on standardized tests. Recently I read an article describing a new teacher evaluation system in Tennessee that holds all teachers equally accountable to how students perform on reading and math tests regardless of the discipline the taught by the teacher; as a result, PE teachers in some Tennessee schools devote their class to reading lessons rather than physical education.

“The true measure of student success is much more than a test score, and ensuring that young people achieve in and out of school requires support well beyond effective academic instruction. The demands of the 21st century require a new approach to education to fully prepare our nation’s youth for college, career, and citizenship.”

As I mentioned in previous blogs, there seems to be a mounting backlash against the testing emphasis of the past ten years that has not resulted in enhanced student learning and had often led to less student engagement and classroom relevance in student lives. A great read about the missteps of the No Child Left Behind era is Diane Ravitch’s The Death and Life of the Great American School System where Ravitch, who once championed high-stakes testing, now is a strong opponent of these tests.

“No one would argue that we need a relevant, personalized and meaningful education system. But we won’t get there with a short-term focus on proficiency in reading and math. Instead we need to address the broad array of factors influencing long-term success required of students after high school graduation.”

The longer I am at Orchard, the more I value the wisdom of the founding school mothers and their deep belief in the values and tenets of a progressive, child-centered, active learning school environment.