Burnouts and Boys

I had an interesting conversation this morning while playing at the park with my three year old. We were enjoying a school playground and just before heading home for lunch a massive crew of parents started arriving to collect their kids. One dad's opinion of summer school for his son provided a great juxtaposition of ideologies, and highlighted the education system's self and public deceit about learning.

After seeing my reaction to the news he was waiting for an 8 year old in two weeks of Math and English assistance summer school, this father was quick to decree he was glad summer school wasn't just for high school anymore. He believed his son would benefit form the extra help of two more weeks of school and hoped it would keep him from falling further behind.

No doubt this is a logical and positive outlook on "extra help", and surely most teachers would agree that extra time and attention for a struggling learner would indeed help them close the gaps in their education. However, the father's other comment, along with our understanding of how the brain works, shines a light on just why summer school remains so ineffective.

Shortly after supporting his son's extra two weeks of fundamentals focus, this father suggested schools don't spend nearly enough time teaching social skills. Is it possible that both of these statements, seemingly opposed, can be true?

There are many reasons a young student might fall behind in reading, writing, and math, not the least of which seems to be gender. Without going into the vast research about boys brain development as opposed to girls, studies and stories from primary teachers suggest boys language develops more slowly or at least at a later stage than girls. Much of this has to do with behavioral issues as much as brain function, with boys (on average) demonstrating a much greater need for movement and changing of activities. We also know that learning for all students and ages happens best in context, rather than the "drill and kill" method used for the last century, and that "play" is not only a great break from traditional learning, but vital to development of social skills and context for book learning.

To extend this father's thinking into practice, one could imagine a thoughtful and holistically selected section of kids, who for a variety of recognized reasons, would benefit specifically from time with a teacher rather than a parent. This group, being of higher perceived need than their peers, and by definition not being as successful in the standard setup, would be provided a smaller teacher to student ratio, full of alternative environments and lessons, derived from professional consideration of each child's unique needs. With new approaches to their issues around learning, and a huge increase in personal attention, two weeks of extra class time might indeed give a kid a small boost for the next year.

In reality, we take 27 primary aged students (5 more than the maximum during the year), all of whom are in need of extra attention not less, most of whom are boys in need of massive amounts of movement with smaller and quieter amounts of seat time, and we jam them into a room for two hours a day, for ten days, with a fairly inexperienced teacher who is quickly forced to do the worst but repeatable part of teaching, and a great deal of behavior intervention.

Do we really believe that 20 extra hours of frustrated seat time, practicing the same problems they have already failed, with even less personal attention from adults will make kids MORE successful? Practice does not make perfect. In fact, if not purposeful and thoughtful, practice most often reinforces already poor habits and skills.

Summer school could be what we sell to ourselves and our parents, but in its current implementation it is simply reaffirming negative fixed mindsets about (and for) our kids and setting them up for continued failures. At least they will have lots of practice at it.

This isn't fair!

As educators we are often confronted with the idea of "fair". We struggle to obtain a sense of objectivity we will never reach, with the premise that removing the human fallibility of a teacher will make marking of assignments honest and justified, and the learning for all students equal. It's ironic that our desire for doing what's right for kids has driven us so far down this path of self delusion.

Anyone who has marked exams on a mass scale for their employer can share with you first hand stories of just how different two teachers, sitting side by side, freshly trained for using the same rubric, actively engaged in the evaluation process conversation, can score an actual exam. On a six point scale, I have witnessed a section of markers give a graduation exam essay a 4, while their colleagues all scored it a 6. I'll let @TeachAtwal do the math for you on that, but rest assured the entrance into any number of post secondary institutions will be grossly affected by both of those scores. 

Anyone who has selected a team of 15 kids from 60 trying out knows that while experience and strategy help organize and simplify the process, no amount of fretting will guarantee making the "right" choice about who to keep.

Clear cut evidence of our subjectivity and unique perception of reality surrounds us each school day and yet we stand behind our PLO's, our rubrics, our standardization, our marks books, and our systems, with arms crossed and chin lifted in defiance. What are we so afraid of? Do we value ourselves so little? Have we really lost touch with anything that can't be counted? 

If we want to empower students we need to lead by example, starting with the admission of our own weaknesses and imperfections. There is no "best practice" for all kids, there is no objective robotic way to instruct or evaluate that will create a "fair" playing field for all students. The best any of us can hope to do is just that, our best. Within our own "reality" and our growing skill and knowledge set, in interaction with the complexity that is another human being's reality, set into an ever growing community of learners with both individual and collective needs... all we can do is what we think is best for those involved in that moment. If we remove the human element, we remove the most powerful part of what we do.

quote via @gcouros

P.S. For those who think numbers come before people, regardless if they are customers or employees, I hope you never have to check your child into a hospital run by someone who agrees with you.