Resilient, effective people have strong, internal locus of control. They accurately understand the connections between their actions/decisions/words and the resulting circumstances. They recognize when they are wrong, acknowledge and repair any harm done, and make a plan for avoiding the same mistake in the future. There is a certain power inherent in the ability to take appropriate, personal responsibility – a confidence that comes from the knowledge that mistakes will sometimes happen when we take productive risks, that almost anything can be fixed, that a heartfelt apology can build a bridge, and that all challenges bring unexpected gifts.
Punitive disciplinary practices in schools tend to build inaccurate connections for kids. They learn to associate their behavioral mistakes with adult hostility instead of with their own need to learn/grow/improve themselves; they learn to avoid being caught, or to lie, or to externalize the blame … Precious emotional and cognitive energy ends up wasted on cover-up efforts, deflection, finger-pointing, and denial… And worst of all, precious opportunities for growth and learning (that are the inherent gifts hidden within mistakes), are lost in the process.
An apology can be very empowering, when you think about it. It is an act of heroic optimism and unshakable confidence – Yes, I messed up, but I will fix the damage and learn to be better. The fact is, though, that most children hate to apologize; they have been socialized into believing that mistakes are shameful, and that fessing up is somehow a sign of weakness.
At our school, we use a 4-step Restorative Learning Process to help students: 1) take personal responsibility for their actions; 2) acknowledge the impact of their behavior on others; 3) come up with a way to repair any harm that was done; and 4) develop a plan for getting their needs met in a more adaptive and successful way in the future. This practice (in lieu of suspensions, expulsions, or even time-wasting detention practices) keeps students in school – moving forward in their educational processes, and breaking the ineffective cycle of punitive discipline.
One student explained it recently like this: “If we punch a hole in the wall, they give us drywall tape, Spakle, sandpaper, and paint so we can fix it back to as good as it was before – or better. If we punch a hole in the community – through put-downs or disruptions – we have to come up with a plan to repair that and to give something positive back to help the group become stronger.”
To be more competitive globally – in an authentic way – our public education system must abandon the illusion of competitiveness based on academic comparisons among students and their peers. Competition in schools is great when it comes to the debate team, the spelling bee, the soccer field, the jazz band finals … Athletes and mathletes alike should enjoy activities and venues for demonstrating their exceptional skills (and for receiving recognition for their specific superiority).
When it comes to the classroom, however, our goal is to help all students to meet state and national (or even international) standards in academic content and skills. And to do that, we have to let go of our desire to rank, sort, classify, and line students up from best to worst, using peers as benchmarks.
True standards-based education in a competitive, capitalist society is a very uncomfortable concept, when you think about it: A hockey dad learns that his daughter (the center on the school team) meets a standard in Geometry. By how much did she meet it? Who met that standard a little bit less than she did? Would that be considered an “A+”? Or would it be a “D-” because she dragged her achievement across that line between not meeting the standard (an “F”?) and barely making it (a “D”?)??? What do you mean someone else “exceeded” that standard? By how much?? Who gets to be on the Honor Roll? How do we find the Valedictorian? Who will salute her?
We crave that bell curve – a nice normal statistical distribution that lets the world know that some people are great, most are average, and some just don’t measure up. A mother might reasonably feel that her son’s “A” in English Literature only means something because other kids earned B’s and C’s – or lower. Cognitively, we want everyone to achieve the standards – but viscerally, we want to know who’s the best.
Even after decades of school reform aimed at embracing a standards-based approach, many educators and administrators (and MOST community stakeholders, families, parents…) are unable to relinquish that white-knuckled grip on the idea of measuring students against each other rather than against the learning standards. Most schools go so far as to explore and experiment with changes to curriculum and instruction to support standards-based learning (usually taking a diluted form involving “standards-referenced” practices), and then abandon ship entirely when it comes to exploring standards-based assessment and reporting.
“Standardized testing” is an insidious term that creates abundant confusion here – the root word, “standard”, does not refer to “learning standards” at all. The “standard” in “standardized” simply means that the assessment is implemented in a consistent way (same or similar questions, same format, same testing conditions, same time limits, etc). There is no reason to standardize an assessment if the goal is to measure student achievement of the learning standards! Certainly, many “standardized” tests are also criterion-based (meaning that the tests measure the degree to which a student demonstrated knowledge/skill in specific learning standards); however, the only conceivable reason for “standardizing” a test at all is to ensure a norm-referenced comparison among test takers (in order to score student against student, in accordance with The Curve, the results of which guarantee that comfortable illusion of some high achievers, some low achievers, and a whole lot of mediocrity in between).
The entire distribution curve itself is, of course, completely relative. When nobody “meets the standards” on an assessment, the curve simply slides down until there are excellent scorers who don’t meet the standards and average scorers who are well below the standards. And if everyone meets the standards … well … that would squish the bell flat. There would be no hierarchy, no Top Ten, no Honor Roll… Imagine.
People do not demonstrate their knowledge, skills, expertise in standardized ways in this world. We synthesize, modify, extend and express ourselves uniquely; we move at varying paces with inconsistent enthusiasm and aptitude under the very non-standard, organic, fluid conditions of “real life”. True standards-based assessments will take into account the multiple pathways through which students can gain knowledge and skills, and the multiple formats by which they can demonstrate their achievement.
Our purpose is not served in the ranking and sorting of students; we are less competent (and less competitive) when we placate ourselves with the comfortable, familiar bell curve illusion. All of our students need to meet the content-based and skills-based standards we’re serving up in our public schools – and this requires us to knock it off with the competition already when it comes to learning, because everyone has to win.