Growth Mindset, Gap Closures, and Gifts

Beyond Ego and Into Education

One of the biggest issues that educators face (myself included) is their own ego; we tend to think that we know what our children should become. As well, we make judgement calls about what students will be like simply by observing how they are now. However, as every parent knows, the way a child is during their schooling years does not often equate to how they become as adults; I myself am a perfect example of this phenomenon. We can therefore ask ourselves this question: why can we not easily predict how a person will mature based on their schooling experiences? 

As I mentioned myself as being an example of this, I should clarify. My schooling years (elementary and high school) were very embarrassing for me to look back on; I was not engaged, was only there to make people laugh (because I was very insecure about myself), was not "smart", "athletic", "rebellious", "nice", nor anything else that would have put me in an "in" crowd of any sort, and thus I feel I was not successful. The only thing I had going for me was that I was musical; but even then I would not listen to other people's opinions or views about musical styles or trends. I was the class clown who had no self esteem and could not care at all about what I would be after graduation. 

In fact, when one of my previous elementary teachers found out that I had graduated from University with a teaching certificate, she was quite aghast and seemed a bit fearful that I would be influencing the next generation of children. Though I still like to make people laugh, I do believe I have changed, and I would attribute my change to one main thing: I got to know myself and began to want to become something that I felt I could become. My journey to learning about myself began with my faith and the acceptance of peers (in youth group mostly). From there, I simply began to realize that I had potential to become something more than what I was.

I also realized that what I was being told by my schools, though true, was only truthful because of the educational system's filtered viewpoint and assessment benchmarks. To the educational system of the day (1980's), smart meant "listen, memorize, repeat". Though I was quite creative, creativity on its own was not assessed (for the most part). I was always very logical, but I did not find numbers interesting, so math was a chore (and I consequently did not do so well). Because I was asked to compete with others in sports (and I was not very athletic), I would joke around and not do well during PE class (which was all about teams, games, and competition). Thus, in either academic, athletic, or classes where creativity should be allowed, I failed in all of them. 

So are we doomed to carry on this way? I do not believe so. In fact, I believe that the curricular changes and assessment pushes of the new BC Curriculum will make a world of difference. As educators, we can now stop trying to place kids where "we" want them to be in their educational standings, and instead allow them to show us what gifts, talents, and abilities "they" have been given. As teachers, we will need to follow a pattern of education that is less traditional and more adaptable. Granted, this is very scary for some teachers ("How can we begin to teach every kid differently?"), but I believe the issue is in the definition of teaching itself. For many, teaching has meant standing in front of a class of 20-30 kids who are all born in the same year and sharing our knowledge of broken up subjects in the same order and at the same time in as creative or non-creative way as we can imagine. For assessment, then, we simply ask them to reiterate what we have "taught" them. I do need to be clear here, though, as this will sound like I am beating down my own profession: what has been is not the teacher's fault. Instead, it is the by-product of being forced to "teach" students hundreds of facts per grade (for proof, add up the CO's of any old IRP, like grade 4 Social Studies, for example: there are 64 distinct points that students should know, and some of them are so specific that they can be defined as being simply trivia knowledge). 

If we can instead have more of a growth mindset to our educational system and style, I believe we can begin to find out what our students are really like; we can begin to empower them, which in turn will allow them to find their talents and gifts, which will in turn begin to show us (educators and parents even) who they really are.

This will not only radically change our educational system, but will also impact a student's own self-worth, in a positive way. A growth mindset in education will effectively close the gap between students who see themselves and "smart" and those who see themselves as not. In fact, I have personally begun to question the concepts of "smart" and "dumb" - these only exist if we create benchmarks based on preconceived ideas of what it means to be smart (and so far, we have thought smart meant memorization - not so smart actually). If students can discover what they are good at and succeed at those things, they will realize that they are smart - those talents and gifts are the way they were created and we as teachers should in no way be presumptuous enough to label some gifts as good or bad. Students should go to school to "learn" about themselves and what they can contribute to the world. If this happens, then it will lower the ability to compare students against each other because they will be working on concepts and ideas for themselves. 

So what do teachers do? Does this mean we throw away all the benchmarks of learning or testing? Should we just put students in a room and let them do whatever they want, with no direction or purpose other than to make themselves happy? No, that is not what I am suggesting. There are certain things that students need to know and be able to do. But it will become the teacher's job to "help" students to get there in their own way and in their own abilities. Benchmarks have become more adaptable and competency based, and students will need to know these benchmarks and hit them in their own way.  This, I believe, is smart. 

Future Eduction in BC

So, New BCED Plan Means What and How?

Every BC school will be working on creating frameworks and unit plans that incorporate the new BCED Plan in the next few months and my school is no exception. However, how will we do it and how far and fast should we go? As a small school, I do feel that we can move faster than other larger schools in both incorporating and assessing our implementation of the new curriculum, but I also feel the push back and the growing pains. One thing I will say, though, is that there is so much potential for good learning in the new curriculum that it is dizzying. However, there are many teachers who don't like that the new curriculum leaves teachers with many questions as to how to implement it. I will let you in on a little secret about myself here: in my opinion, as the questions are an important part of the curriculum itself (as Erno Rubik said, we have been teaching answers in education for years, but it is questions that are probably more important: See Video), am good with that. In fact, I applaud it.

So what will teachers be needing to do to be ready for this change? First, I don't think they need to completely change everything they do. There is a push for teaching strategies to change so as to be more aligned with the new curriculum and the assessment guidelines given to us by the Ministry of Education (BC), and to this I agree. However, there is a fear amongst teachers, I believe, that suggest that people are saying that we have been doing it all wrong for the past fifty years. Here is the truth: the direction has been wrong and this has been the issue, not the teaching. Some strategies that we have been doing (Socratic Rounds are a good example of this) are still excellent teaching strategies and will fit very well with the new curricular competency focus. However, I believe that there has been a loss in what it means to be an educator, but I won't blame the educators for this either; again, the fault lies with the mandated direction that education was.

In essence, teaching has been about keeping 15-30 kids in line in a classroom while knowledge is shared to them, after which that knowledge is asked to be shown to the teacher (and all of us) via some form of written test (since that was the quickest and easiest way to assess students a the time). This direction existed because of various reasons, including the fact that the teachers and the textbooks were the keeper of the knowledge, and also that the knowledge required to be seen as well-educated was arguably the same for everyone (to prepare students for the jobs of the times). Both of these aspects have now changed. Since the late 1990's, jobs have changed within the span of decades (with newer ones in newer industries being added every few years). This means that you cannot assess preparedness for society or the workplace based on knowing the skills needed for a specific job or industry. Secondly, we live in the digital age where information is easy to find; this means that the teacher and the textbooks are no longer the holders of the knowledge. Thus, to stand in front of a classroom and tell students what they should know about a topic is not a good use of educational time.

Instead, I believe that what teachers will need to do to get ready for the changes is to do what we are asking our students to do: collaborate, think critically, and be socially and personally responsible (for
teachers, this means fulfilling the mandates of a professional educator). Specifically, I believe teachers will now need to learn about how students learn (and understanding that they don't all learn the same way or at the same time), assess skills that are not content based (but instead looking at the skills needed to do any job in any industry), work together to share teaching and assessment strategies (instead of being the "God of the classroom"), and finally take professional development on as a necessity for the job (and not an administratively mandated chore).

This does not take the administrators off the hook by any means, however, as I believe that for teachers to be successful there needs to be an administrative team that is supportive, vibrant, and able to assist in the transition with a plan consisting of focused support. This will take work and a lot of communication (something that is easy to say but harder to do). Also, it will mean risk taking and a critical look at certain framework concepts, such as schedule, staff, course options, and pro-d opportunities. These take time, money, and effort to implement, and also include some hard choices, but I believe it must be done if we are to take our schools into a new direction.

Let me conclude by using  the image of a school bus as a metaphor for the school (thanks Jim Collins): we need to get the right people on the bus, and then get drivers who will drive it in the right direction, keeping an eye out for potholes and detours. This is what education means now, and the what will impact the how (as it has always done).

Brains, Buddies, and Education

Is Neuroscience A Key to Successful Teaching?

In short, I think the answer is yes, but let's take a closer look at things:

1. Neuroscience is "a branch (as neurophysiology) of the life sciences that deals with the anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, or molecular biology of nerves and nervous tissue and especially with their relation to behaviour and learning" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuroscience, March 2016).

Educators are not experts in this field, though our job is to teach; teaching specifically deals with how the brain interacts with knowledge and ideas (or how it learns). Therefore, it is arguable that educators should be looking to neuroscience to develop their practice. The good news here is that educational neuroscience is a growing field of study that many teachers and administrators are beginning to delve into. However, I do think we need to be careful here as neuroscience itself is a complicated, diverse, and emerging area of study (I see simlarities between this and how gene theory has evolved from single genes controlling aspects of life to a more epigenetic view of things).

Though I am new in this area, and definitely not well versed, I am starting to delve into this field of study and what I am finding is incredible.

Non-Uniformity in Learning

For example, one of the findings from recent neuroscience that I believe can directly impact education is the basis for how the brain learns. For example, it has long been thought that all eight year olds should be able to learn the same things at the same time: in fact, this is what our education system is based on (grades directly proportional to age and the pass / fail model associated to each grade or course). However, it is just as well known by anyone who teaches that this belief that all children of a similar age can learn the same things in the same time frame is not the case. Pick any classroom at any grade level and you will probably see a bell curve of learning in any discipline (arithmetic, literature, social skill, etc.). In fact, neuroscientist have long known that learning across disciplines is not uniform (https://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ddl/articlesCopy/FischerDaley_ExecProcesses2006.pdf) and that the view that knowledge can be seen as a step by step process up a ladder is not realistically how our brain works. A more accurate view is that learning is not uniform, but instead dynamic; it is not steps up a ladder, but a intertwined creation of a web. This is true both across disciplines and within them. 

Social Brains

Secondly, as Louis Cozolino writes in his book The Social Neuroscience of Education, our brains "learn in a naturalistic setting in the context of meaningful group and interpersonal interactions". This harkens back to Harlow's Monkey experiments from the mid 1900's; however, Cozolino further argues that social attachment is not important just for our mental well-being or physical health, but also for our learning. In other words, if educators do not make caring connections with their students, the students will not reach their academic potentials. 

Take Away

In essence, even these two simple ideas can radically change the way a school runs and the way education can take place. First, schools must understand that grade specific tasks and knowledge is not realistic. I will admit, however, that the push in education right now does address this issue as more and more schools are working on more student-centred and individualized approaches to assessment, but there is much more work to be done and many more educational walls to tear down; for example, do we need grades at all? Can schools begin to use cross-grade rubrics with more long term projects and accomplishments or benchmarks? I believe they can, but it would radically change the way schools run and what our graduation terms look like. With respect to the second topic, that of the social aspect of learning, schools need to foster teacher-student relationships. This cannot be done in a classroom climate that is lecture based (when would the teacher really get to know the child other than through the hand-in assessments). Instead, administrators and schools must build into the school day the opportunity for teachers to interact with students on a more one-to-one basis. This can easily be done with a more mentor-based system that allows for teachers to move through the student body while they work. Project-based models work well for this, especially if they are cross grade and cross curricular.

Doing this does take planning and a different focus, but if we are going to see education really work for our students, then it is a change in focus that needs to happen.

Designing a 21st Century School

Let's take stock of where many of us are at right now in Canada: new government, new jobs, new immigrants, and for the education system, new curriculum. Right now, every school in BC is looking at this path in front of them, paved with a push for 21st Century learning and innovative teaching practices, and everyone is wondering how best to proceed. In fact, I have already heard various and dichotic views on how to proceed. Some schools are frozen with fear ("What does this mean for us and how can we change our whole curriculum and teaching style?"), some are plowing ahead but without a solid plan ("Let's try and see what happens"), some are thinking that they should go the "other way" and become more traditional ("We can become that school that sticks with the three 'R''s that everyone knows is what education really means"), and some are thinking that this new curriculum is nothing more than a fad ("We've tried this before and it failed"). I am sure there are even more viewpoints than the ones above, but the point is clear: we are at a crossroads.

As a new school administrator, I am faced with the same question; what should we as a school do? The answer, in my eyes anyway, is clear: now is the time to take stock of where we were and plan for where we are wanting to be. In my thinking, this is the opportunity of a lifetime and we should grab it. It is 2016, and it is time that our educational system changes to better equip our students to move into the 21st Century.

Interestingly, working in an independent school system seems to afford me with arguably more freedom in how to implement this new curriculum (this comes from talking to other administrators around the area), but just as interestingly is the fact that, in my experience, private or independent schools tend to stick to themselves and, therefore, do not change a lot (this comes from experience). I need to be clear though, we not only need to be keeping up with the educational trends as other schools are doing, but we must be on the cutting edge - we must be beyond and better than public system schools. Why? Because, at least in BC independent schools, parents are paying tuition and, if I am not mistaken, that means they are expecting to get more (or at least a largely different) educational impact than they would at a public school.

The independent school I work at has made this decision: we are going to work towards becoming a forward thinking, 21st Century focused school that utilizes and creates its curriculum around cutting edge teaching strategies which are based on best practices and research. To do this, however, we need a plan, a framework, to make it happen successfully. For those readers interested in a good look at what 21 Century education is all about, I would encourage you to visit the P21 website.

From the admin perspective, I decided to incorporate a strategy called Appreciative Inquiry. In essence, we are going to follow the four processes of AI, those being Discover, Dream, Design, and Destiny. As a staff, we first got together and discovered what we are (the best of what was and is). This then becomes the core of our school (the centre area that makes us different and that grounds us as we move on from there). The key here is to make this core full of the positive aspects of what we are only - these are the things we want to keep.

AI Core with 4C's

Next, we came together and worked on the Dream stage (what can we become). To do this, we met during our last pro-d day and used the four C's of 21 Century learning as our headers and asked a simple question of each one: what would our school look like if we wanted to become the ultimate school for each of those four C's? The brainstorming was incredible, exciting, and created a new vision of what education at our school could look like. Staff came up with multi-grade, multi-subject teaching based on project based learning concepts, bigger learning areas, more student-driven input into their own curriculum choices, and a need for a global rubric / assessment program that will guide students, parents, and teachers through knowing where they are in their educational goals and achievements.

These are all very large brainstorming ideas to say the least, but they are needed. The next step will be to design a pathway and a framework to make the ideas that we are going to implement happen. My biggest concern right now is building changes: which classrooms and which areas will we need to change to make these dreams a reality? Also, can we get the right pro-d to aid our teachers in implement these changes correctly? As recently stated in a recent podcast with Andreas Schleicher, the Director for Education and Skills in Paris, there is no point putting 21st Century teaching or technology into a classroom run with 20th century teaching practices.