The school year is coming to an end. Research tells us more black, brown, and poor kids will end this year more under-performing schools than white, middle-class youngsters – a lot more. Most of the black, brown, and poor kids, attending these low-achieving campuses are, destined for summer school, a place traditionally reserved for kids who are labeled failures by their teachers and other school leaders.
What if, instead of assigning summer school to these kids, we offered them a chance to participate in a different learning system? Instead of long June and July days of drill and kill, practice testing, and a repetition of already failed instructional strategies, what if these kids and their families were offered the opportunity to build an individualized learning plan with the support of a trained learning coach? Consider it to be action research, to see if a different learning system can be more effective with this type of learner than the traditional school.
Let’s say, in early June, a group of trained learning coaches would meet with these young learners and their families to describe their coaching styles and learn about the kids’ individual learning styles. Families could share hopes and concerns with the coaches. At the end of the day, the young learners and their families could choose their learning coach, the adult learning leader they wanted to work with over the next six to eight weeks.
Once the young learners were matched with their learning coach(es,) they would start work on building a learning plan for the rest of their time together. Every learning plan starts with the same question, “What would you like to learn?” But then other learning goals could be added to the plan. Reading goals, writing assignments, oral communication exercises, problem-solving activities in the areas of math, science, and social studies, and character development goals are all possibilities when it comes to building a robust learning plan. The young learner and their learning coach would have daily check-ins where goals are compared to progress, and adjustments are made based on that difference. At the end of the week, a more formal conference could occur, when family members were invited to listen in and provide input as the young learner and their coach would build next week’s plan.
Based on needs and interests, young learners could use large chunks of time to improve their reading, writing, problem-solving, and character development skills. Learners could work together when they found they were working on similar skills or projects. Learning coaches could respond to individual needs instead of behaving like a teacher and focusing on lesson planning for 25 students.
At the end of the summer, this learning cohort’s achievement could be compared to past summer school success. If the learning plan and learning coach approach worked better, then the action research project met its intended outcome – a successful learning experience for young and old alike. If it was successful over summer, then why wouldn’t you continue with the same relationships and the same plan into the fall and winter?
I don’t know if schools could or would do something like this. Most seem locked into a system that depends on delivery of a common curriculum and a standardized testing approach to determine success or failure. And teachers aren’t learning coaches. Learning coaching requires an entirely different skill set that schools probably won’t be interested in supporting. Plus, there just doesn’t seem to be many risk-takers in the public school system these days. At the exact time schools should be practicing more action research like learning planning, most school leaders seem afraid to step out of line for the benefit of their students.
If schools aren’t the ones to lead this type of action, then who will do it? Other learning organizations could meet this need, learning groups that identify, recruit, and train learning coaches, help identify and recruit young learners and their families, and offer support to the young learner and their coach as they build their learning plans. But these different learning organizations need money to provide these services, and most public money is tied up in our traditional school system.
It’s not clear whether families trapped in these low-performing public schools will receive any relief from their state or local leadership. ReSchool Colorado sponsored Colorado Proposition 119, a ballot item that would have established an out-of-school education program using tax increases from marijuana sales. That ballot item was defeated by nine points in last November’s general election. I’m not a big Betsy DeVos fan, but it seems Michigan is doing more than other states to free up traditional public-school funding to spend it on other educational programming. New funding streams, like those being debated in Michigan right now, could go a long way in supporting new learning organizations black, brown, and poor families seem to need the most.
As a superintendent mentor of mine once advised, “If you prove to me that you can educate young people better than I can, then isn’t it my moral and ethical duty to do whatever I can to help you accomplish that?” Sadly, most traditional school leaders do not agree with and do not practice this type of philosophy. They seem content to keep black, brown, and poor learners in bad schools instead of looking at other options like learning cohorts where young learners own their own learning plans, and are supported by well-trained, well-respected learning coaches.
For once, let’s give some action research a try. What’s the harm?
Friday New Roundup tomorrow. SVB
A Better Path to Learning 
Leave a comment