After reading the June 1 Student Voices essay by Corlie Zhuang, “Advanced Learning program: Safe space or gilded cage?”, I realize that Bellevue School District’s Advanced Learning Program and those like it are only an extension of the one-size-fits-all educational model, not a solution.
Instead, we must accommodate differences in learning and explicitly address the assumptions of what defines success.
We all know that not everyone thinks the same, but Harvard professor Howard Gardner identified at least nine different types of intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic and existential. In our current climate, linguistic (literacy) and logical-mathematical (numeracy) are so valued above all others that virtually everyone in modern societies can read and do arithmetic by age 6. Values change with needs. Two hundred years ago, when most of the world’s population was illiterate, these skills were held in less esteem. Most of today’s tech billionaires would have fared poorly back when manhood wasn’t measured in dollars and cents.
Our current education system defines success narrowly. All kinds of work require all kinds of skills. What’s more, if your work suits you, you tend to like your work and be good at it. Why doesn’t our education system identify multiple kinds of successful graduates based on different intelligences? Ideally, middle school and high school would offer a spectrum of coursework in all fields, and students could take advanced classes in some subjects but not necessarily all.
I realize that such an approach is a lot of work, but it’s exactly what John Stanford, retired general and author of “Victory in Our Schools,” strove to achieve during his tenure as superintendent of Seattle Public Schools. He wanted all students to achieve a measure of progress in something each year. The adult John Stanford was successful by just about any measure, but almost flunked the sixth grade. He became engaged in band (musical) and sports (bodily-kinesthetic) and thrived.
Modern schools were founded on an agricultural model that shifted to a factory model that moved students through the system as if they were products at various stages of completion. I worked briefly as an educational assistant in the Bellevue schools 20 years ago. At that time, every class teaching the same subject throughout the district had to have all students on the same page on the same day. Many students were left behind by this approach.
We need to redefine success. Corlie Zhuang wrote in her essay that she and her friends felt constantly in competition with each other. These academically capable students often felt like frauds in a toxic culture that undermined their self-worth and ultimately undermined their ability to succeed, not just economically but as people.
I worked in tech, first as a software developer then as a manager and a corporate liaison for a Japanese semiconductor company. High-tech products have become so complicated that they are created by teams of companies. No one individual is going to create today’s or tomorrow’s high-value products.
An example of redefined success is Israel’s Talpiot program, which combines education and cooperation to produce stunning results. Individual egos are minimized because they are barriers. Learning together and providing service are core values. One of the most visible successes of the Talpiot program is the Iron Dome, which has intercepted countless missiles over Israel.
Today’s students will provide the ideas and energy that will carry us forward. We can’t afford to discard people who don’t fit an outdated model. We need to maximize our shared future by valuing all our learners.
