Just came across an exciting post in Leadertalk, about a school that is working towards developing student learning expectations (SLE’s) – with the intention of encouraging school reform. They have developed 5 key areas:
STUDENT LEARNING EXPECTATIONS - What a student should know and be able to do when they graduate from 8th grade. (based on NETS)
1. St Elisabeth students will apply creativity and innovation to the development of new perspectives as they interpret and remix previous knowledge and pursue new learning.
2. St. Elisabeth students will be effective communicators who practice 21st century literacy skills, model digital citizenship, and global collaboration.
3. St Elisabeth Students will demonstrate effective research and information fluency by developing original conclusions, re-evaluating and interpreting their assumptions, and assessing the reliability and validity of their sources.
4. St. Elisabeth students will apply high level critical thinking skills, effective problem-solving strategies, and content specific methods of data interpretation when exploring curriculum content.
5. St. Elisabeth students will demonstrate behavior reflective of our faith and the Six Pillars of Character in all aspects of their school work and in interactions with their peers, teachers and the global community.
As I read through them, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities to our CELs, which I think should be the driving force of our curriculum. This school seems to be on the right path to creating environments for students to engage in authentic learning experiences, as the author, Barbara Barreda also mentioned how they have been discussing topics like 21st century literacy, moving beyond textbooks, classroom as studio, etc. Some really innovative thinking going on…and I’m anxious to see how things go on for them.
Somewhat disconcerting, though, was the very first comment she received to her post. This individual, who chose to remain anonymous, immediately found fault with their five key areas because of the lack of reference to what kids actually have to “know”. I’ve inserted it here because I think it is indicative of the mindset of many…
“What a student should know and be able to do….” Funny, but I don’t see any evidence of actual required knowledge — in the traditional sense of knowledge — in any of these five expectations. The goals you’ve outlined are excellent habits of mind and personal characteristics, but they ignore the “what a student should know” aspect of school.
School improvement will remain a unattainable goal until administrators and school boards are willing to tackle the curriculum question specifically: What, exactly, do we want our students to learn? Ignoring this important component of education is foolhardy.
Still stuck on the content…how will we ever move beyond it??
March 16, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I’m impressed that you picked up on this Tammy. It’s an important mind block (mindset) and people either can’t get past it, or do not want to get past it. While it is not a new concept, I like how George Siemens phrases it in his theory of connectivism, that “Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known” – http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Thanks for the post!
March 16, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I agree with Alec that it is a mindset that is shared by many. But I also wonder how it might look different if we were able to communicate the intent in the language of the receiver. If some of our teachers are having difficulty wrapping their minds around this change, why would we expect our publics to readily grasp it?
For example, would it make a difference if there were some “so that”’s to go with each stated SLE? So that they can make good life decisions in an information-rich society. So that they will have the ability to learn any skill for which they are capable. So that they can find the answers they need when they need them.
The public, and especially many parents, look to achievement test scores as the measure of success because we haven’t done a good job of giving them a different measure. We know what we want our students to learn. I am ever optimistic that we can move beyond the content, but we need to frame the results and outcomes differently if we want others to believe it too.
And I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Cindy
March 16, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Just for curiosity, where is this school?
March 17, 2008 at 7:53 pm
And here I thought encyclopedia salesman had left the profession after Wikipedia was born…
Seems some are still trying to resurrect the business…
March 17, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The school is in Los Angeles…and yes, I agree Cindy that some “so if’s” would be beneficial…always work to do!!
March 18, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Great post Tammy. I’d like to talk about it if we get a chance at our meeting. Learning is not about covering content but many of our public and educators are to driven by “content”. I’m tired of hearing educators state that “I’m behind schedule”, “I’ll never cover this by June”, or “There is too much to cover”. I keep wondering where the professional discretion has gone and teaching to the abilities of the students not the content.
March 22, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Great find Tammy. I think the attitude commented on in the post speaks of old concepts. They are stuck in the learning of facts. Memorize and reguritate, create robots. The goals listed speak to the creation of thinkers, students who engage in and be responsible for their learning.
Hopefully one negative comment doesn’t distract from value of the goals presented.