Currently, school reformers impact schools in such a way that little is done to assist students to be inventors. To teach young people to invent means looking at them as individuals with interests and uniqueness—hopes and dreams.
It means providing experiences that foster those interests–introducing them to new ideas.
Schools need to encourage and trust students to have time to think on their own, and teachers need to have time to assist them to explore how the world works.
There is nothing to encourage invention when students focus mostly on reading and math performance for the high-stakes testing. Students spend much of their time doing classroom drill like they are in the army. Sit still, shape up, and do not break eye contact!
And, of course, obtain a high test score.
Students don’t even learn the beauty of reading and math as subjects!
Where are the other classes to inspire? What happened to learning science, social studies and the arts? Where’s music to make life joyful and worth exploring?
When students are highly controlled, they will act the way they are told, to get what the classroom controller expects. But there is no opportunity to be inventive in such a process.
The New York Times recently asked 13 year olds and older, what they thought were the greatest inventions. They listed electricity, plumbing, the printing press, flight and many other discoveries that some of us take for granted.
But I couldn’t help but wonder.
Can you imagine Thomas Edison in a class taught by a teacher from Relay?
Relay is the new crop of alternative teacher educators started in part by the KIPP guys Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin. They stress strict control when it comes to schooling. Their title for teachers is Learn. Practice. Perform. They don’t use the word “create.”
If teachers are taught without being given the opportunity to be creative themselves, if they follow nothing but scripted directives and programs, how will they encourage students to invent?
There is nothing about invention in such strict class environments.
What if the Wright Brothers both scored lousy on the FCAT in third grade? Students who score poorly in Florida have been retained for years.
Do you think students who don’t do well on one test, and who watch their classmates move on while they stay back, will strive to invent something new in the future?
Will they even care about learning?
Would Jonas Salk have thought outside the box if he attended one of the many strict charter schools? Such schools are regimented and students must do as they are told. Deviate and they will be punished or even expelled.
Students have little control to think anything on their own. It’s one-sided. There is no student innovation.
If all students do is work towards what adults tell them they must learn, they will end up only complying and following rules so they don’t step out of line—not inventing.
Today’s school reforms are the opposite of inventing.
Schools that stress strict standards measured by high-stakes testing give students a narrow road to walk. It is more about keeping students in control on that narrow path than innovation and invention.
When it comes to schools today, I’d say we are in the dark ages. The over-focus on testing and standards is too narrow.
That’s the big problem with standards of any kind.
Today’s reformers will argue that students need to learn basic skills before they can progress…that it is all about getting students to college.
I think helping a student explore on their own and find their passions could lead to a better understanding of what they want to do with their life–what goals for which to strive.
But the current obsession over standards, classroom control and high-stakes test scores ignores students—even squelches their passions. Today’s learning isn’t about the student, it’s about their score.
So, where will that leave America when it comes to future inventions? I worry about it, and you should too.
We have been studying inventors in my son’s homeschool History this year. Edison, as well as many of the greatest inventors in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were homeschooled. They didn’t fit into public school then, and they are even less likely to today. It is one of the many reasons we homeschool. I know my son has the same curiosity and tendency to think outside the box as those famous inventors of history. His way of thinking and learning would never be accepted in public school.
You’re right! I think there have been some excellent public schools in the past though. Jonas Salk apparently attended public schools and we could list many others. Certainly a lot of schools needed to improve, but the message 30 years ago that all of our public schools were failing did much harm.
Thanks, for sharing Monica. It would be nice if we could nurture students today in public schools wouldn’t it? It isn’t an unreasonable request. It is possible.
You are so right Nancy. See
https://rogertitcombelearningmatters.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/the-pleasure-of-finding-things-out/
I really like your post, Roger. It reminded me of a physics class I heard about recently in a school that focused totally on Advanced Placement (AP), our version of teaching to the test in high school.
They didn’t have ONE lab! Not one! As always, thank you for your valuable insight.
The reason for this is because GERM implies the pedagogy of behaviourism.
Deep learning does indeed require creativity and invention. It is the pedagogy of developmentalism.
We are facing the same battles on both sides of the Atlantic. See
https://rogertitcombelearningmatters.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/educational-lysenkoism-is-blighting-the-english-education-system/
Again, thank you! Always learning something new from you, Roger. We are indeed facing the same battle.
Hi Nancy, great piece. There’s some exciting things happening UK side now. Last Saturday I was at an event in Sheffield that might be the start of what’s needed – it was profession initiated, supported and funded. Lots of teachers starting to see beyond the things they’ve been told about how to assess students. If you feel like it, you can get a taste of the atmosphere from this live stream recording (there were also workshops on the day) > from 24 min 50 https://youtu.be/pWKFhftjIFo
However, one conversation with someone at the event stood out for me – I mentioned how as a student my biggest fears were first, global warming and second, getting a ‘B’ (instead of an A) and that I look back now with some regret/frustration/anger that my achieving the top grades was constantly pushed as more urgent than my natural interests in understanding why and how we are damaging this planet, and what to do about it. The response from the teacher I shared this with was that getting an A was “the thing you could do something about.”
So much of my work (I’m starting to do consultations now for high performing students feeling torn between careers) is to say YES, you can do something (even if it’s tiny, at first) about what you care about. To say or imply otherwise is, kind of, cruel. But I also get it, because if I was still working in the career I had ‘earned’ from being a ‘high performer’ I’d be telling others they can’t do anything about their dreams, because I didn’t do anything about mine.
Here’s a video of why I didn’t get into Oxford because I didn’t understand that being courageous enough to pursue what we care about is more important than how disciplined we are doing tasks others set for us: http://leahkstewart.com/university/
Thank you for sharing, Leah, although I had trouble downloading the first video.
The 2nd part is interesting to me and certainly related to this post. I am reminded that in America there is a good bit of talk these days about students having “grit” and not enough talk about helping students find their passions. I think universities want to hear about student interests.
Years ago I heard an admissions rep. from Vanderbilt, a premiere, private university in Tennessee, discuss how they visited public schools in poor locations looking to find talent. He spoke of recruiting a young man who liked to make crossword puzzles! It was so unique.
Schools need to do more to find what students are interested in and to do this they have to quit relying so heavily on standardized tests.
I always enjoy hearing from you and wish the best!
Hi Nancy, you might find this episode of the Psychology podcast interesting – http://thepsychologypodcast.com/angela-duckworth-on-grit-the-power-of-passion-and-perseverance/
It’s with Angela Duckworth, the researcher who’s popularised ‘girt’ in education where she talks about ‘grit’ being different to ‘sticking with tasks others tell you to do’ and actually it being about holding to your own big vision of what’s possible, while being flexible about how to get there.
And THIS is wildly different to how grit is being interpreted as the term becomes more popular. I believe what she is calling for, in terms how how she defines grit, is good.