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.