Feeling Left Out

Feeling Left Out

Let’s set a scene too many of us are familiar with.

A group of promising college students sit around a table, assigned to these groups by their college professor, for a group project of some nature. The first big assumption we’ll make is that somewhere along the way, some people will do their part, and some won’t. In many of these settings, one or two people are left to do the work while the other 3-4 don’t do jack.

There’s a dynamic, though, that barely gets discussed in these settings, and where I consider our roles in the dynamic too crucial. Oftentimes, a person whose characteristics are different from the others in the group (and in this sense, it’s usually someone of another gender, sex, or even perceived disability) gets his or her opinion ostracized. For many of us who consider ourselves part of the ostracized group, the stages look like the following:

  1. We state an opinion enthusiastically and it’s immediately shut down.
  2. We try to contribute to another’s idea, in compromise, and it’s given a shrug.
  3. We look for an entryway into the conversation, but the frustration with the perceived (or intentional) ostracization has already started to settle in.
  4. We’ll sit there silent and defiant, unwilling now to contribute much of anything, a reverse placement of value (”They don’t deserve what I have to say anyway.”)
  5. We try to discuss this with someone who we think may have a smidgen of objectivity, and either the person tries to play peacemaker, or, as is often the case, patronizes us by saying, “That’s just in your head. Try again.”
  6. He or she may either walk out, or do something abrupt and poignant, even when the group has shifted to another topic.

Here’s where it gets a little strange, but where huge misunderstandings (and sometimes, latent discrimination) occurs. The older our students are, the more we should give them space to resolve issues within themselves without the micromanaging of a powerful moderator. However, we have to develop a barometer for when things go from simple misunderstandings to blatant pushing-out. As a teacher, I have learned to trust my instincts about the group dynamics within the groups I make, continually monitoring the temperature of chemistries, hoping they all work.

And no matter how well the professor / teacher / moderator means, if he or she lets that occur, then he or she is complicit in the lack of chemistry, particularly if the offended party is acting in the appropriate code of conduct.

For instance, let’s a group of mostly conservative male professors is having a conversation about women’s health, and they decide to ignore the woman’s take in it, then they’re being latently discriminatory, especially as it pertains to a woman’s body. If the woman in the group follows those 6 steps outlined above, then the group will most likely treat her as the problem since she is not considered “the norm” in the group.

Now, if there are one or two male professors in that group who would like to hear the woman’s take on the matter see this happening and silent during this, then they are complicit in this perpetuation of ignorance.

That is to say, the future of education depends highly on how we treat all learners, whether adults or children. True diversity comes from having many opinions and many voices included and vested within the discussion. Even if there are disagreements, at least the conversations are had and the opinions are validated.As long as the participants understand the rules of engagement and bring a sense of value to the discussion, then they should be a part of what we’re doing. And if those of us who see value in another opinion don’t speak up, then we in effect agree that they shouldn’t be at the table.

Every person deserves a seat at the table, lest those who we serve get their own table.

We as humans (of any subgroup, educators included) are not a monolith. Why should our discussions be?

Jose, who thought of this while writing a post about Arne Duncan’s lame assertion (and eventual apology) in my regular blog …

{ 0 comments }

Educational Insantity and National Standards

by John Holland on February 1, 2010

Jon Becker recently skewered several arguments about the direction education “needs” to go in. He did it so well, I couldn’t help but respond in a comment to another false assumption about the direction of schools.

On Educational Insanity Kevin commented,

I think the point Mr. Becker is trying to make is that we need to first decide what we want a graduating senior to know and be able to do, before we can talk about the “how” or “why” of school change. If my analysis of his post is correct then I would agree with him. Too often I find in schools that we try to make decisions in a vacuum without ever deciding what it is we are aiming for. As educational leaders we should be asking ourselves first “Where are we headed?” It is the basic concept of backwards by design. Figure out your endpoint and then decide how to get there.

The idea of backwards design, when it comes to the purposes of education is one of those ideas that sounds good on the surface but, I believe would fly apart upon implementation. Backwards design assumes that we are able to know where we want to go based on the information we have now.

Most of the jobs young students will have in the future haven’t been invented yet.

Jmonk-riding-backwardsust watch, as we try to come up with national standards, how narrow we get with the purposes of school. If you try to make everybody (including the USED) happy all the time, it is hard to say anything meaningful beyond common sense ideas like, everybody should be able to read, everybody should have some ideas about probability. These ideas have already been put forward by various national organizations. The national standards will be nothing new, they will only make what we need to teach kids more specific, and less meaningful.

Kevin, I don’t think we need to incorporate backwards design at this point. When we throw the purposes of education up for delineation it actually makes the purposes of school less democratic in our current society. There are so many “influencers” out there that do not have students’ success and welfare at the center of their arguments that by clarifying the goals of schooling we would defacto narrow those goals. The loudest voices in a backwards design would the ones with the most to gain in the process, industry. At least the way it is now, teachers have the opportunity to squeeze in some Plato, or Joyce, Jack Kerouac, or Abbot and Costello into a discussion on language and meaning. In a backwards designed classroom we will always be chasing the lion’s tail, trying to catch up with a changing society. Students will be doing this because of what some policy maker or eduwonk has deemed important instead of what they have decided for themselves. The more specific we make our goals, the less meaningful they will be. The less specific we make our goals, the more opportunities there will be for students to find meaning. Maybe we should start thinking about the shape of the pegs, when we design the holes, instead of the other way around.

Image: http://www.josephnolen.com/images/monk-riding-backwards.jpg

{ 0 comments }

TeacherSolutions 2030: Creating a Student Centered Profession (the video)

January 18, 2010

Hope you enjoy this video about our work and share it with your various networks and communities. The future is now.

Read the full article →

Rethinking the future of learning institutions – 10 principles

October 21, 2009

The 10 principles reproduced here are from a 2009 report sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, “The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age.” Emily Vickery suggested this report to the TS2030 team a few months ago. Here’s a quote:
We argue that the single most important characteristic of the Internet is its capacity to allow [...]

Read the full article →

J-Mac — An Example of the Child Centered Education of the Future

October 4, 2009

This is a response to Jose’s post about dis-”Abilities”. It really informs what he was getting at.
“part of our job as educators is to look at the word “disability” as a description for only a part of any human being we seek to teach, whereas “unable” denotes that they’ve been incapacitated from any meaningful task [...]

Read the full article →

Raising the Bar or Building Thier Own Course

October 2, 2009

A former state superintendent will be coming to my Politics of Education class next week. I feel like I have gotten to know her well enough to know that she will ask more than one tough question. I think I know one she will ask.
Virginia was a leader early in the standards based education reform [...]

Read the full article →

Highlight the Ability in Disability

September 28, 2009

Last week, during my usual Facebook perusals, I came across an interesting article by Wired about 12 rather shocking / radical ideas that may shape the future. While I didn’t agree with every piece there, I found myself enamored with an article entitled, “Recruit Autistics” by Drake Bennett. In this article, Thorkil Sonne proposes that [...]

Read the full article →

Leading Roles

September 17, 2009

In its recent newsletter, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) highlights the Springfield (Mass.) school district which has implemented a new teacher compensation system that rewards teachers for assuming leadership roles without their having to leave the classroom.
When our Teacher Solutions team looked at the potential and challenges of performance-based teacher compensation systems, we determined [...]

Read the full article →

Medicine and Education

September 14, 2009

At a recent trip to my primary care physician I am struck by how much his world and my care has changed in 10 years. Only a decade ago my Dr. had a manageable number of patients and spent about 30 to 45 minutes with me every time I came to her office. She retired. [...]

Read the full article →

Do You See What I See?

September 8, 2009

From a teacher’s perspective, the future could be a very exhilarating place and time in which our work is bound by neither of those factors..
Poor rural and urban students would no longer have to receive their education locked (literally) inside unhealthy, unappealing, outdated buildings. They could access me and I could reach them from anywhere. [...]

Read the full article →