I have been fortunate to act as a note-taker at several of the Inspiring Education community conversations last spring. I was struck by the parallels between the ideas of Albertans and the themes that are developing lately in educational literature.
Discussions of late in the world of education are mixing two important but different notions: improvement and transformation. When focusing on the former, writers and thinkers seem to load advice on schools about how to improve student performance. A good portion of this discourse is focused on “closing the achievement gap” recognizing that for far too long schools seem to be missing the boat with certain portions of our their clientele. The intent is genuine and the outcome is valuable. It can easily be argued that much of what we are learning about student assessment emerges from this focus on improvement. But, will it lead to transformation?
A growing collection of commentators (both educators and non-educators) have raised deeper questions about the schooling experience. An article in the April 2010 Educational Leadership entitled High Schools at a Crossroads written by Ed Coughlin of the Metiri Group does a good job of summarizing some of these questions. Coughlin introduces the notion of a “metacurriculum” in his article – a set of competencies that transcends our traditional understanding of a standardized set of outcomes acting as the engine of our schooling. He also asks a critical question that cuts to the core our perceived purpose for schools: “…will high schools become mere certification mills? Or will they redefine themselves as collaborative environments for developing 21st century skills?” Coughlin paints a picture of schools as centers of inquiry, collaboration and creativity based on the passions and interests of individual students. In short, he argues for transforming the fundamental practice of schools. But, are we ready for this?
I believe the majority of our efforts in the field of education are focused on improvement but we are looking upon the outcomes of these efforts as transformation. Until we make a clear distinction between these two notions and understand how we can improve learning through transforming student and teacher experience we will never reach the world that Coughlin paints for us. We can continue to improve the acquisition of standardized content but this will not necessarily lead to a transformation of the fundamental experience of students and teachers in school. The problem is agreeing upon what our purpose in school is to be if not to master standardized content. It appears to me that entering into a dialogue that will help us draw the distinction between improvement and transformation will ultimately lead to a debate about the purpose of schools.
My current work with the High School Flexibility Enhancement Project with Alberta Education is giving me the opportunity to see how high schools throughout the province engage in the process of transformation. It would be of great interest to hear from others in terms of their perceptions of the purpose of schools. What would transformation look like from your perspective?
*We strongly encourage discussion so please feel free to continue the dialogue on the discussion forum in this topic.