Graduation 2009: from, to where?

The return of late-night drag-racing on my street and broken alcohol bottles on beaches tells me it’s that time of year again: graduation. Another orbit of the sun, another group of kids spilling out of local schools, many near-delirious with their new-found freedom and a view of the open-road called summer or life, with nary a teacher or assignment in sight.

My teen-age daughter and many friends are among those bolting from a local high school and steering straight-on to sweet summer. She and her peer group achieved top grades but I am left to wonder - what does her graduation from grade 10 signify? Has her time and effort resulted in her being 'much better educated’ than, say, last September.

From my perspective as an observing (and little-interfering) parent my answer is no, I sure don’t think so. Though I do know my daughter to be intelligent and clever, for the most part, her schooling experiences since last September have been characterized by tedium and mediocre teaching and generally banal leadership that I trace to the school district office.

Part of my conclusion arises by noting what was excluded from my daughter’s education this past 9 and a half months:

- she had a total of one teacher using internet-asssisted technology, albeit very simplistically, to assist course delivery. This is not unique to her school, in fact, it’s quite clear that many (most?) teachers continue to eschew technology to assist in their respective teaching responsibilities. What world are they living in?

- by and large course delivery relied on ‘traditional’ teaching methodologies; if this ‘horse and buggy’ method of teaching were so effective I wouldn’t criticize it, but it’s not. It defaults to a methodology driven by ponderous text-books, rote memorization, a skewed emphasis favouring linguistic, rational and mathematical intelligence, and is capped by simplistic, time-wasting multiple choice exams. This did NOT prepare my daughter to be a more effective, mindful and flexible self-directed learner, where, according to author and “e-learning” guru Jay Cross, the future of effective human learning begins and ends.

- this was an extraordinary year of political activity in this region, featuring 3 elections and the historic US election last fall; almost no mention was made of any of these experiences in her classes, by her teachers or school leaders. Is it any wonder young people feel disenfranchised from civic and larger political processes? Not to me. This is where the pump is primed or the well runs dry.

As when I was a student and observed when working as a conventional school teacher, the educational environment as determined by individual teachers was of paramount importance in the overall result for my daughter this past year. She says there were times when her teachers created the environment in which much inspired learning resulted for her and her friends. But tedium definitely beat out ‘Ah-Hah!’ by a long shot.

This needs to change.

Educating for Social Responsibility

• Below is my post to Educational Leadership journal in response to three questions posed about 'Educating for Social Responsibility', the theme of its May issue. - MM 

Educational Leadership journal

EL: What role should schools play in helping students develop a sense of social responsibility?

My response: Schools, and teachers in particular, need to disavow themselves from the notion that Social Responsibility (SR) is somehow 'teachable'. It is not, and it should not be considered as such, IMO. However, people of all ages learn SR throughout their/our lives, and, in my experience, they are most likely to experiment with new forms of SR in their lives when it has been modeled for them, or when they have been exposed to a new form of SR and its intrinsic value is axiomatic. Ergo, Schools and all other learning organizations, from daycares to 12-step programs to seniors centers, should strive to expose people to opportunities to see new models and forms of SR, which will provide their own unique insights and learning for any observer with a pulse.

How can educators fulfill this role while also helping students meet curricular requirements?

Me: By guiding educators to model SR and expose students/learners/members to new examples of it in action, and NOT dictating that SR is to be 'taught' with the aid of lesson plans, overheads and assignments. That notion is offensive to the human psyche, no matter how young and crudely formed, and it will succeed mainly in alienating students/learners/members from ever engaging in their own form of SR. SR is, of course, a kind of morality that is influenced by a constellation of factors; encouraging it requires sensitivity and, above all, skillful artistry. Accordingly, assigning grades and homework in SR will inversely affect the outcome: the more you impose this as a hard-coded learning objective the less likely an educational institution or teacher will actually foster SR.

Describe your experiences in inculcating SR as a teacher

Me:  I am a 20+year K-12 innovative educator in British Columbia Canada; I don't refer to myself as a teacher because I generally do very little teaching. I prefer, instead, to be considered as a learning consultant or learning coach because that is what I deliberately spend most of my time doing, when working. It is challenging, joyful and ever-engaging, and I consistently expose my learners and parents to instances of Social Responsibility, and I strive to model it myself in my own life, and share that with them. Engaging in acts of SR in one's own life brings rewards far greater than school grades, gold stars or financial, and I truly believe that learners young and old understand this best when it is NOT taught but absorbed. I find abundant examples of SR in my community, online and from the learners with whom I engage.
- Sincerely,  Michael Maser

Society communicates poorly on educational values

I listened raptly to CBC’s ‘Cross Country Checkup’ yesterday afternoon, a 2-hour phone-in show discussing a report released last week in Ontario in which University and College faculty opine that a majority of first-year students are poorly prepared. Specifically, the students are thought to be showing (widespread) declining writing, researching and numeracy skills, and generally lacking in the sensibility to ‘knuckle down’ and embrace the rigors of coursework. Much reference was made to students’ “increasing sense of entitlement” and their eager, hyper-active proclivity to flit from distraction to distraction, from ipod to Facebook to 'Survivor Man' re-runs, sometimes in the course of a single class lecture. Evidently, particularly grating is the widespread use of, and citation of Wikipedia as a research ‘source’.

I thought the show was riveting with much interesting and probing commentary from guests and callers, which included a number of students phoning in their opinions. (I recommend listening to it if you’re inclined, and it can be found here:  www.cbc.ca/checkup  in the archives, when it’s posted.)

FYI, here is the letter I have written to Rex Murphy in response to the show:

Dear Rex, I listened to the show today that reflected the report showing declining skills and dispositions among first year college and university students. While I valued the wide-ranging commentary, I thought one important perspective was omitted. This is a perspective I have honed over my 20+ year career as an (award-winning and innovative) educator, and it is as follows: Our society, and governments in general, does a lousy job at communicating to young people clear beliefs and values about learning and education (which, by the way, are most certainly NOT the same thing).

For example, if you were to pose a simple survey to Canadians of all ages, and ask them to identify Don Cherry vs, say, Michael Ignatieff or Roberta Bondar, you and I know that Don Cherry would win hands down. This reflects cross-generational, cultural messaging that is very effectively transmitted and absorbed. Popular, sustained messages are that all sports and entertainment celebrities (and their hyper-inflated salaries) are more important than any other professional or trades-person, and that winning a lottery will surely free one of any need to toil or endure life’s vicissitudes; it can all be bought and paid for.

These sensibilities are not new but, for crying out loud, why can’t we as a society (and in this case led by government or university faculties) create an effective social messaging campaign focused on amplifying those ‘things’ in our society that we really, really value and wish to conserve. This would illuminate both the stories of people who have done remarkable things (always characterized by sacrifice and diligence IMO), and and sensibilities like integrity, flexibility, creativity and compassion.

I think younger generations would value such messaging and we would see its positive effects as these young people merge into adulthood and choose their differing paths, whether that be post-secondary learning or something else. Like nature, our laissez-faire society abhors a vacuum. If we don’t like what’s rushed in in the edu-tainment age, then we CAN do something about it besides whine.

- Sincerely, Michael Maser