Here is a scale.
We can use it to illustrate both where kids are and where we want them to get to. Obviously, the desired movement is up, to the right. The faster the better.
Here is a stone.
It is made of minerals. For it to move there must be an external force applied to it. The stone has no choice, no ability to choose.
We can tell a story of the stone’s journey, but it will have no impact on the stone. The story does not make it any more likely that the stone will move; it will not make the stone motivated.
Here is a child.
She is made of minerals, just like the stone is. But unlike the stone, she can move independently of any external force. She has a choice, a will: she can yield or resist.
We can tell a story of this child’s journey, and that story will have an impact on her. We can ground that story in many facts. Those facts will tell her what we deem to be important about her and her engagement with her world.
Those stories will bind her more strongly to her world or isolate her from it. Stories are connection devices.
Why does this happen? She is, after all, made of minerals just as the stone is. Where does this independence come from? Why is the nature of her independence different from another child’s? Why can her independence be influenced so strongly by stories?
Why is she not the same as the stone?
To say that everyone’s wired differently doesn’t get to why. This reduces her to a collection of wires. Wires can’t adapt as her independence, her will, does in response to the stories we can tell about her.
She is alive. Let’s not reduce that to a wiring diagram or a chemical reaction. If it was, we’d be able to create the life force that stirs within her.
We can’t create life. But we can diminish its force, or extinguish it.
Too many schools seek to diminish the life force that exists in all kids. Instead, they view them as stones in an effort to move them efficiently through the learning.
One by one.
I can move a stone at will. It doesn’t care. It does as I will it to, assuming I can exert enough force on it. Does that mean I should also do that to a child?
No. I have a greater responsibility than that. She is not something to be picked up and hurled. How far she gets when hurled is not the only thing that matters, not the only story to be told.
No. Our responsibility is more aligned with Schumacher’s levels of being. We should be aiming to grow her consciousness and develop her self-awareness.
To do this we have to tell the right stories.
The prevailing story we tell is where she is at on the scale of learning and how quickly she is progressing. We don’t call this a story. We call it data. We act like this data is the objective truth. And so we put it in reports. We talk about it in learning conferences. We celebrate it in prizegiving ceremonies. We act like it tells us all that we need to know about her.
But it is a story, one part of a larger one. And it’s just as subjective as all the other stories we can tell about her. Trouble is, because this is the dominant story she hears at school, it’s likely to be a story of diminishment that leads to compliance or defiance. This is what will begin to define her.
We need to tell the other stories.
Stories about engagement. Stories about wonder. Stories about caring. Stories about connection. Stories about endeavour. Stories about attention. Stories about curiosity. Stories about confidence. Stories about expression. Stories about imagination. Stories about interest. Stories about effort. Stories about contribution. Stories about self-awareness. Stories about her.
If we tell these stories we connect with the life within her, the force that moves her. Tell them enough, and that life force will grow strong. She will move with confidence and self-awareness.
But these stories can’t be told if she is sitting at a desk all day, working under instruction. They can’t be told if the teacher doesn’t take the time to pay attention to her and what she does.
And no, a photo snapped on the fly is not paying attention. Sure, it’s the first step - it’s a noticing - but it’s not attention.
It’s great that some schools are curious about these other stories. But we need to move away from seeing them as another way to assess and report. Yes, they can serve that function, but it’s a reductive one that misses the point of them.
These other stories have the potential to shape the self-awareness of the learner. Used well, they are connecting devices that are identity-forming. That’s where their power lies, and it’s a power that must be used for good.
If we want education to be an experience that is more connected with the higher levels of Schumacher’s levels of being, telling these stories is a crucial piece of the puzzle.
Things of interest
Guy Claxton is coming to NZ. He’s running two workshops with Kath Murdoch in early November, looking at ‘how Inquiry Learning could, should, but doesn't always, promote the development of "learning character", and how to infuse the spirit of inquiry not just into set-piece projects but into all lessons.’
You can find more information and book here: Auckland | Queenstown.
I’m loving this education podcast. I highly recommend you check it out.
Kia Ora Bevan
Really insightful article.
Deb
Kia ora Bevan, really enjoyed this article. Powerful and simple.