Author: Alan Jones

I will devote a number of forthcoming blogs to charts I developed for books I have published that compare various conceptual understandings of teaching, learning, and organizational behavior. The chart below pictures the two dominant paradigms of schooling that educators have written countless books in support of or critical of the schools structures described below. It should be noted that the old paradigm of schooling, one developed at the turn of the century, still maintains a hold on both how schools are organized and the pedagogy employed in most of our nation’s classrooms.

SCHOOL STRUCTURES	OLD PARADIGM	NEW PARADIGM
GROUPING	>Grouping by ability >Standardized tests	>Grouping by topic/interest >Student choice >Frequent reformation of groups
COMPETITION	>Zero sum game >Weighted grades >Ranking	>Teaming >Collaboration >Authentic
ASSESSMENT	>Using test data as a basis for competition >Grades >Bell shaped curves	>Using test data for diagnosis >Mastery >Authentic products
GRADING	>Normative grading >Deficit Based >Curving	>Criteria based >Strength based >Mastery
RECOGNITION	>Honor Rolls >Ranking >Weighted Grades	>Recognition of diverse talents, abilities and interest
STUDENT INPUT	>Decision made exclusively by administrators and teachers	>Opportunities for choice >Electives
CURRICULUM	>Subjects >Departments >Curriculum Guides >Textbooks	>Thematic >Interdisciplinary >Problem based
ACADEMIC TASKS	>Memorization >Recitation >Academic products (book reports, research papers)	>Real world products and tasks
REMEDIATION	>Pull-out programs >Retention	>Tutoring >Coaching

One of the themes that runs through all of my blogs is the question that is often posed in graduate administrative courses, but, is rarely asked in main or central offices. The question being: what are the aims of schooling. The aims that are typically presented in introductory educational philosophy course courses fall into four categories: vocational, civic, creative, and cultivating humanity—what is true, good, and beautiful.

      Although all four aims are written into school mission statements, the aim that school administrators announce at school open houses and the aim parents assume schools are pursuing is “preparation, “meaning, training for a job. As I suggest in the title of this blog, one which John Dewey spent his career elaborating on, is preparation is treacherous idea.

      From a Deweyan perspective, the treachery involved in preparing young people for an occupation that stunts the intellectual growth of the child. The aim of schooling, for Dewey, was growth, meaning access to as many different meaning systems or human activities as possible. Vocational pursuits will always limit or narrow an individual’s ability to make meaning of the world they live in.

      In the case of schooling or the last century, the curriculum and pedagogy has been designed to prepare generations of students for college and vague references that some of what is learned in these academic courses will be necessary to succeed in the world of work. Of course, what generations of students discover in the world of work is academic discourse patterns are non-existent. In place a static world of facts, figures, reports, PowerPoints, are methods of inquiry and habits of thought that value collaboration, disruption, performance, social networks, and most of all—inventiveness.

      Returning to Dewey’s definition of “growth,” the emphasis on a singular discourse pattern leaves students without the intellectual tools to grow their civic function, to grow their creative talents, to grow their understanding of the human condition. The other phrase Dewey coined for his distaste for the preparation function of schooling was his often-repeated comment that our schools should not be preparing students, but, rather, should be inviting them into a marketplace of ideas. That marketplace should fill their intellectual shelves with theories, concepts, and ideas from the humanities, the social sciences, the natural sciences that provide students with the intellectual tools and vocabularies to view the world from many different perspectives.

     This does not mean that Dewey was opposed to vocational pursuits. Any field of inquiry can be “vocationalized.” When a student decides that he or she wants to work in a particular field of inquiry the field is transformed from studying ends (meaning) into a means (how to), which is a different orientation and different approach to vocabularies and conceptual understandings.

      The danger, however, with vocationalizing fields of inquiry, are discourse communities that will work at building firewalls between ends and means of the particular occupational pursuit. The treachery of these firewalls for workers is draining the nature of their of work of the values that make a particular job function meaningful and worthwhile for both workers and society at large.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

      I have dedicated a number of blogs to discussing the goals of schooling and what types of instructional methodologies would best promote those goals. In this short YouTube video below, Neil deGrasse Tyson, best summarizes in his commencement speech what I have attempted to describe in a number of postings.

            The most overlooked component of an effective professional development program is the audience involved—there are adults in the room. An underlying assumption of all school based professional development programs are faculties that enter the process as virtual tabula rasas to be inscribed with new theories, ideas, and practices. The reality however, is that all teachers enter staff development programs from somewhere. That somewhere are families, neighborhoods, schools, jobs, that have developed, over time, an instructional worldview on how children learn; what knowledge is of most worth; how knowledge should be organized; how students should be assessed; and how to teach. No matter how well designed a staff development program maybe, the failure to consider where teachers come from will doom the implementation of any new learning paradigm.

            The principles of adult learning fall into three categories: experiences; professionalism; engagement. Before any training takes place, the leaders of the program must first pay attention to and respect for where teachers are coming from. Yes, these backgrounds maybe serving as obstacles to achieving programs goals, but, program leaders must not only acknowledge they exist, but, more importantly, develop connections between the instructional worldviews in front of them and the worldviews of the programs they are presenting. Establishing these connections demonstrates to a teaching staff that the trainers respect the professional standing of the teachers entering their program.

      Once this professional standing has been established, trainers would orchestrate the components of a training regime outlined in prior blog. The training components, however, must be conducted in an environment where the content of the program—theories and concepts—are embedded in activities that allow teachers to socially make collective sense out of foreign theories and practices, and, most importantly, practice these theories in a risk-free environment.

      As a footnote to the elements of an effective staff development program, a theme that runs throughout all of these blogs is the vital role school leaders play in the process of implementation. From selecting theories, ideas, and concepts to be considered to the design of organizational structures that incorporate theories, ideas, and concepts into real world classrooms are all dependent on leaders who have that rare skill of embedding the why of schooling into the what and how of daily practice.  

      In Part I of Effective Professional Development Programs, I described the organizational components—instructional systems, administrative commitment, organizational commitment—that must be in place to fully realize the goals, theories, and practices of a newly adopted instructional methodology.

      As stated in the prior blog, most districts focus professional development on the implementation of a training regime. Although this component of effective staff development program becomes the center of program implementation, the adopted training regime will fall short on two essential elements of an effective adult educational program:1) most training regimes violate the principles of adult learning; 2) most training regimes fail to fully implement the educational components of learning and practicing foreign theories, ideas, and practices.

      In Part III of this blog, I will describe the principles of adult learning. In this blog, I present the substantive differences between two training regimes that districts consider when implementing new teaching metrologies. Most districts will adopt an institutional training regime to implement mandated changes to curriculum and instruction. Institutional training regimes are designed for efficiency: cost-effective, fast, and certifiable. To achieve these institutional goals the regime consists primarily of selling, telling, and complying (see Table Below). Nowhere in these institutional training regimes is there time or expertise dedicated to assisting teachers with developing a deep understanding of foreign theories of learning or to practice those theories in the classroom.

      Teachers respond to institutional training regimes by either adopting surface features of the new pedagogy (those that are readily observable) or by ignoring the pedagogy all together (depending upon supervisory vigilance). In some cases, teachers will actively sabotage a newly adopted instructional regime that is opposed to a school’s prevailing instructional worldview. The end game to all institutional training regimes is a compliance mentality where administrators comply with the managerial mechanics of implementation and teachers comply with the managerial mechanics of documentation.

      Educative learning regimes on the other hand position teachers in a process designed to transform theories into classroom practice (see Table Below). That learning process provides teachers with the time, the expertise, and the support, to develop deep understandings of the theories and vocabularies of a new pedagogy and, most importantly, to work closely with trainers who provide continual feedback on transforming theoretical understandings into classroom practices. The end game to all educative learning regimes is a continuing learning process in which administrators and teachers commit to jointly make collective sense out of theories and practices of a new instructional regime.

INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING REGIME

COMPONENT	WHAT TEACHERS ARE ASKED TO DO
Goals	Implement mandated teaching methodologies.
Distribute	Allocate materials associated with newly adopted teaching methodology
Present	Explain and demonstrate theories and practices associated with a new teaching methodology.
Standardize	Adopt curricular materials and accountability instruments that align with a new teaching methodology.
Document	Employing various accountability instruments (e.g. observation protocols, testing instruments) document the implementation of new teaching practices.

EDUCATIVE LEARNING REGIME

COMPONENT	WHAT TEACHERS ARE ASKED TO DO
Goals/Purposes	Identify gaps between agreed upon goals and purposes and actual student performance.
Theories & Practices	Identify a model of teaching that would best close the gap between goals/purposes and actual student performance.
Model	Observe expert performance of agreed model of teaching.
Adapt	Under the supervision of a mentor/consultant, identify elements of a model of teaching that conform to a personal teaching depositions and styles.
Coach	Participate in ongoing conversations with mentor/consultant on gaps between the intentions of agreed upon model of teaching and actual performance of those methods in classrooms.
Practice	Under the supervision of a mentor/consultant, continue to employ feedback from coaching sessions to close gaps between the intentions of a agreed upon model of teaching and actual performance of those methods in classrooms.
Author	Construct pedagogical approaches and plans of action that agree with a school’s instructional framework, the social context of the school, and pre-existing experiences of teachers.
Standardize	Normalize a set of teaching methods that make sense to teachers, are working for teachers, and accurately reflect the application of a agreed-upon model of teaching.