What thoughts come to mind when you see this picture? Mine were: assembly line, redundant, instructions, batches
What does this have to do with education? Well, our current system of education comes from the same design as the factories from the industrial revolution. Think for a second: groups of students, blocks of time, "bells" for transitions, set instructions to follow. As educators, we have learned to question some things, like a teacher standing and delivering instructions and content. Yet, other parts as so ingrained in our view of education that we never think to question them.
One of these is how we group students. Currently, we "batch" kids by birthdate. We are all completely aware that having a child with an August 15th birthday and another with a September 1st birthday does make them significantly different in readiness or mastery. We know that every 8-year-old is not demonstrating greater mastery of math content than every 7-year-old. Yet, we herd 5-year-olds into school based on that date, then (for the most part) move them on to the next grade level as a group. Despite the fact that some of those kindergartners are reading on a 2nd grade level while others are at a pre-primer level. Even among subject areas, we see great differences. Does a struggling reader in 6th grade automatically need lower math content?
These are big issues with solutions that are not well-defined. Should students be moved from one "shift" to the next as a group like factory workers in the industrial age? Is our goal to produce students who meet milestones in all areas at the same time in their education? Is that a realistic expectation?
Sometimes, the problem with questioning is that the answers are obvious but the path to making them a reality seems impossible. This post will probably have very few readers who disagree with the idea that students should be met at their readiness and mastery levels and challenged in different areas no matter their shortcomings in another area. However, what does this really mean?
Should we allow students to learn at their pace and move on BEFORE the end of the semester or year? Should we have classes with 6- and 8-year-olds learning together for part of the day? Why do we have a set schedule with subjects each getting a certain period of time? Is all learning divided?
Congratulations! If you have considered any of these questions for just a second, you are beginning to QuestionEd. The post is to initiate thought. I have some thoughts of my own and may write about them in the future. For now, just start considering our school design and the why behind our methodology.
-Brittany
What does this have to do with education? Well, our current system of education comes from the same design as the factories from the industrial revolution. Think for a second: groups of students, blocks of time, "bells" for transitions, set instructions to follow. As educators, we have learned to question some things, like a teacher standing and delivering instructions and content. Yet, other parts as so ingrained in our view of education that we never think to question them.
One of these is how we group students. Currently, we "batch" kids by birthdate. We are all completely aware that having a child with an August 15th birthday and another with a September 1st birthday does make them significantly different in readiness or mastery. We know that every 8-year-old is not demonstrating greater mastery of math content than every 7-year-old. Yet, we herd 5-year-olds into school based on that date, then (for the most part) move them on to the next grade level as a group. Despite the fact that some of those kindergartners are reading on a 2nd grade level while others are at a pre-primer level. Even among subject areas, we see great differences. Does a struggling reader in 6th grade automatically need lower math content?
These are big issues with solutions that are not well-defined. Should students be moved from one "shift" to the next as a group like factory workers in the industrial age? Is our goal to produce students who meet milestones in all areas at the same time in their education? Is that a realistic expectation?
Sometimes, the problem with questioning is that the answers are obvious but the path to making them a reality seems impossible. This post will probably have very few readers who disagree with the idea that students should be met at their readiness and mastery levels and challenged in different areas no matter their shortcomings in another area. However, what does this really mean?
Should we allow students to learn at their pace and move on BEFORE the end of the semester or year? Should we have classes with 6- and 8-year-olds learning together for part of the day? Why do we have a set schedule with subjects each getting a certain period of time? Is all learning divided?
Congratulations! If you have considered any of these questions for just a second, you are beginning to QuestionEd. The post is to initiate thought. I have some thoughts of my own and may write about them in the future. For now, just start considering our school design and the why behind our methodology.
-Brittany