Getting Started

Most teachers know that preparing for a mandated test is not education. If they felt like they were allowed to do things differently they would, or at least they would be willing to try. How, with high stakes testing and evaluations, can a teacher move toward a constructivist approach? Part of the response is it takes a leap of faith, the other part is it takes a different perspective.

The leap of faith is not as big a leap as it may sound. It is probably more accurately a leap of belief. A belief in the students and their ability to adapt, learn and still pass tests. If you have become so jaded that your ability to believe in your students is gone, please get out of teaching. You are not only doing harm to yourself, but to the students and the profession. The leap is a belief that learners can pass tests, not because they have been drilled and memorized all that is needed to pass, but because they can think and analyze and problem solve. It is a belief that even if the students have not been exposed to everything that may be on a test, what they have been exposed to they know well and can use to help identify answers they may not know off hand.

It is also a belief in yourself and your own experience. Like Morpheus in The Matrix, you have to believe what your intuition is telling you, that there is a better way. When you begin experimenting with constructivist approaches there will be resistance. Resistance will come from students, parents and administrators. It will also come from yourself. When everyone is questioning you, it is easy to start thinking, maybe I am the one that’s wrong. In those moments I remind myself of the Gandhi quote, “Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” Those times will definitely happen. Believe in yourself!

The move to constructivism takes a different perspective, on almost everything you do in the classroom. Your perspective already started to change if you are thinking about moving to constructivist approaches. You already know that learning is not the focus of modern education. Your perspective needs to focus on learning. Not learning that is easily measured and recorded, but learning that is lasting and deep. That perspective will start to shift your perspective on many other areas.

The first thing that most likely needs to a change of perspective is curriculum. What are kids learning in your class and why? Most curriculums are far too packed with content to ever really learn it all. Just because it was covered doesn’t mean it was learned. Tough decisions are going to have to be made. In my opinion less is always more. Deeper understanding of some topics is better than shallow understanding of a lot of topics. There are many pressures to cover the curriculum, from state mandated tests to other standardized tests like Advanced Placement. Very few students get perfect scores, yet we act like that is the goal. And those that do most likely would score that high no matter who was teaching the class. Your perspective on tests will influence your approach. I always told my AP classes I would rather have every student get a three and leave loving and wanting to discover more about the topic, than every student get a five and leave hating the topic. If you can’t get there yourself, maybe you shouldn’t teach those classes.

The role of the teacher is another perspective that needs serious examination in a constructivist classroom. As Paul Thomas of Fordham University states education has evolved from a system done to students where, “Learning is reduced to a discrete body of knowledge to be imparted by the teacher and deposited in the student”(Thomas, 2013). While this kind of teaching still exists in many places it evolved into a system done for students, where expected outcomes are pre-planned and teachers guide students down a prepared path with measurable steps and predictable outcomes.

In a constructivist classroom the teacher’s role is very different. The teacher in this environment is a guide, not a judge; a developer of experiences, not strictly prescribed plans. The teacher is a learner with more experience to share, not a distributor of facts they have already mastered. Teachers should more often do the assignments they assign students, or sit down with the students and work on a project. The difference in perspective when sitting with the students instead of standing in front of them is enlightening. I often use the analogy of a personal trainer when explaining the role of the teacher. A trainer finds what the client hopes to accomplish and designs a series of exercises and guides the client through the workouts giving advice, suggestions and encouragement. However, if the plan calls for twenty push-ups, the trainer doesn’t drop to the ground and start doing push-ups. It is up to the client to do the work. This is where modern education has become most misguided. The students aren’t expected to do the majority of the work, and often they are expected to do more work than is possible outside of school.

Class time should not be where students come to watch teachers work hard. It should be where they work hard. Time spent in class working is often seen as a waste of time. Students have been trained to believe if the teacher isn’t doing anything to or for them, then class is over. When a person goes to the gym they don’t sit and watch their trainer work out, nor should students sit and watch their teachers. They need to be actively involved. This is going to require some sacrifice of control on the part of the teacher and much more effort on the part of the student.

This is the first place teachers will experience resistance. Students are not used to actually being responsible for doing work. They know how to fill out worksheets and following clearly planned out projects, but not how to do work that requires skills not often required in class such as asking questions and analyzing information. This kind of work pushes them outside of their comfort zone, and students hate not being comfortable. This is where the teacher as motivator and guide comes in. They don’t like being uncomfortable because they are afraid their grades will suffer. This is a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too. By focusing on the process of learning, students will still get good grades, but they will retain more of what they learn and take away skills that they can use in other classes and their lives outside school.

As mentioned earlier, the role of the teacher will change in a constructivist classroom, but so will the relationship between the teacher and the students. Students have to know that you genuinely care about them and their development. It is very difficult to teach in a constructivist manner if your main focus is compliance.

Constructivism in a high stakes world

Most people would agree that learning for the sheer love of learning is a noble endeavor. They would also quickly agree that, like communism, it is good in theory but not possible in reality. In today’s high stakes, accountability culture it can difficult to advocate for a pure sense of learning, which is exactly why it is needed now more than ever.

In my two plus decades as a teacher I have seen a steady slide in education from learning to test prep. As states continually push policies that are based on a competitive model of ranking and sorting, schools are pressured into conforming to the methods that most effectively increase their rankings. Doing well on the mandated tests is the most prominent approach, but pushing advanced classes that help media created rankings is also big. Either way, the end result is preparing for an exam.

School districts, schools and teachers have spent an inordinate amount of time refining curriculum, engaging in professional development and coordinating teaching practices to maximize performance on tests. Some would argue that doing well on tests demonstrates that students are learning. This is a fallacy that has been perpetuated across the country both in  and out of education. This is a fallacy that can only be fought from the inside. School districts need to at the forefront of explaining how and why this assumption is incorrect, and it is going to have to be the districts that most benefit from the system that lead the charge.

All across the country, accountability measures and high stakes testing have failed to achieve their stated goals. There are a few possible explanations for this. One explanation is that the desired outcomes of raising scores and the quality of education for all students was never the actual goal to begin with. The actual goal was to discredit and demoralize public schools everywhere so it would be easier to privatize and corporatize the system. This theory may be a little too conspiratorial for many, but not completely outlandish.

The real issue, which no one at any level wants to deal with, is poverty. It is no accident that the highest ranked districts in all states are from higher socio-economic areas and those that are ranked at the bottom from lower socio-economic areas. Generally, there are exceptions. There are some magnet, charter and traditional public schools that outperform the other schools in their area. These are usually singular cases that exist because of exceptional leadership or history, or some kind of non-reproducible factor. A school like the Harlem Children’s Zone is consistently successful because it addresses the many factors that lead to poor performance. Students live at the school, parents are given job and parenting lessons. It isn’t just an academic school. Most school districts do not have the resources to replicate this program.

Teachers, Shut the F@#* Up

As a teacher for over twenty years I have come to a conclusion of what needs to be done to improve our schools, but it’s going to be harder than most think. I say this with all due respect, because I know how hard most teachers work and how difficult their situations can be; teachers, shut the f*@# up!

Many teachers think if they aren’t talking, or in some way in control of the room, nothing is getting done. That may be the case, but mostly because students have been trained that if the teacher is not talking, the class is over. Some teachers go out of their way to get students engaged. They find entertaining videos, they design elaborate projects, they put on a show five or six times a day. Engagement is better than not, but the real goal should be student empowerment.

Teachers, by nature, are talkers. Someone who is extremely introverted is not going to put themselves in front of kids every day, all day. Teachers are, by nature, helpers. We want kids to do well and to learn things. If a student is stuck, we want to help. All too often, despite the best of intentions, the class becomes focused on the teacher, not the students. Either the teacher is literally the focus, listen to me talk all period, or the teacher is in control through what is expected to be done. The teacher designs the project, lesson, debate, etc. with specific outcomes in mind and ways to make sure compliance is achieved.

As good as a lesson or lecture or any other teacher controlled thing maybe, it isn’t about us or the curriculum, or for God’s sake, the test. It’s about the kids. So let’s shut up and listen. Listen to the questions students have about the subject. Their questions will matter more to them than yours will. In fact, many of them will be the same and possibly better than what you came up with. They may even expand your own concept of the issue.

The problem is most high school students no longer know how to ask questions. They have been so acculturated to answer other people’s questions, asking your own is perceived as a weakness in ability. Smart kids know things, they don’t ask questions. The concept that questioning leads to deeper and deeper understanding is akin to saying there may be alternative universes. Even if the concept isn’t completely out of the scope of possibility, the knowledge needed to even talk about that issue is not there.

Unlike quantum physics, learning how to ask questions is not that difficult. There are a variety of techniques that can be used to develop the questioning skill, but they have to be used and valued. If the students know they just need to be quiet long enough for the teacher to take over again, that is what will happen. We, the teachers, have to be comfortable in the silence to let the students learn to develop their own voice and understand that education isn’t done to you, but is an active experience.