Rethinking educational infrastructure…
Below is an edited version of a discussion I posted in an online course I’m taking:
What infrastructural changes would be needed to generate a change from letter grades or ranked grades to “S” for satisfactory or “blank” (indicating not yet achieved) for specific skills and targets?
Consider that the federal government is in the process of generating standardized breakdowns of mastery levels per grade, as are most states.
Why not use those as ‘report cards’ – cards available online for access anytime by teacher or parent or learner – with feedback, query and response options built-in?
Why must there be “superior” or “failure” grades? Why not admit that everyone is on a continuum, that progress is anticipated, and track when satisfactory is achieved — and at periodic intervals thereafter to determine retention and maintain the ‘S’?
Infrastructural changes would have to include discussions about “grade levels” – most likely abolish ‘first, second, third, etc.’ and simply have disciplines. All students would be required to attend (some? all? options?) disciplines – and might move from one group to another based on their progress.
“Gifted and Talented” classes would not have to be so labeled. Learners, in their various areas, would simply accumulate ‘S’s and then move on to the next group or be encouraged by teachers to continue their climb, to follow their passions.
For example, a student might excel (and have a passion for) biology but might not be as strong in (or have as high a passion for) literature. So, in biology, he/she might progress from one level to more ‘advanced’ levels, accumulating a string of ‘S’s – but in literature settle for only ‘basic’ S levels. The expectations for all would be to find where their natural talents and interests are – and to learn, learn, learn.
In such a system, teachers, too, would be encouraged to follow their passions and talents. Co-teaching would be encouraged, group collaboration and celebration of individual strengths and interests would be encouraged. Planning would naturally be peer-involved because there are no “this is for fourth grade, I can’t teach that” concepts, merely ongoing enriching, enriching, enriching of curriculum. Online opportunities would enable this collaboration beyond the physical boundaries of any particular district — students with fine-tuned interests could be and would be encouraged to link up with others anywhere in the world sharing that same interest and linked up with a teacher somewhere else in the world to enrich their experiences. Everywhere would be the same (expanding/evolving) list of possible standards to meet and surpass. This portfolio of sorts could be embellished with audio, video, scanned documents, etc., to create an ever-building portfolio that could be shared at individual’s discretion — with future employers, for example.
As learners achieved proficiency up to college level courses, they could be encouraged to attend courses in those specific areas only.
This is the beginning of my ramblings… please share your reactions, comments, questions!
