Yes, They Can

Coming out of a long bout of illness, I recently felt well enough (I thought) to scan the educational news horizon, and came across the second part of the MetLife Survey of the American Teacher. What I saw was not only sobering, but infuriating.

"Only 36% of teachers and 51% of principals believe that all of their students have

the ability to succeed academically."

Not only do a lower percentage of secondary teachers believe setting high expectations for all students would help improve their performance, but distressingly few (62%) believed that addressing individual needs of diverse learners would help; and even fewer (57%) saw the value of collaboration among teachers and school leaders. These figures are not unrelated.

For many years now, I have argued with secondary colleagues who hated the mantra "All children can learn." I've heard high school teachers (some openly, some under-their-breath) attack the notion that every student presented to them could learn (the corollary of that obviously being - "Every child should be taught"). If we accept as an article of faith that every student has the ability not only to learn, but to be academically successful, then we can't really justify not doing everything we can to help each student achieve that goal.

However, if fully 64% of us think at least some (maybe quite a few) of the students for whom we are responsible don't even have the ability to succeed, then we have just excused ourselves from anything close to our best efforts on their behalf. Sadly, I've had more than a few conversations with teachers who feel exactly that way. Some go quickly on the defensive pointing to the lack of responsibility on the part of many students and parents to hold up their end of the educational contract. Ironically, the same survey indicates that the students are more aware of their responsibilities in this process than teachers or administrators may want to believe. But even if student and parent weren't holding up their end, what does that have to do with my belief in the ability, and more important the opportunity, for this young person to succeed in my class or at my school?

The inconsistency in the thinking is revealed by the other two figures. There has been a persistent and decided reluctance on the part of secondary and post-secondary teachers to adjust what we do for the benefit of the students as compared to our elementary or middle school colleagues. We have been slow to even attempt ideas like teacher collaboration, notwithstanding that the antiquated structure of most high schools discourages such collaboration. Similarly, the student loads faced by most high school teachers (100-150 students/day), makes addressing the needs of diverse learners physically daunting, especially if we don't collaborate to get it done. Which is why I don't understand why more of us haven't joined a coordinated charge to change these structures for the benefit of our sanity and the success of our students.

I know the conditions under which we are working; know them 20 years too well. But this lack of belief in students' ability to succeed has an even more insidious undertone. I'm thinking now of an earlier post I wrote on the revival of lower expectations for poor students and students of color as educators bristle under the deeply flawed provisions and implementations of NCLB. NCLB, poverty, economic recession, corrupt or inept policymakers, and a dozen other problems are all real, formidable obstacles facing education in America today. And all the more reason we, educators, should be unshakable in our resolve to be part of the solution.

Bottom line: There is no excuse for a professional educator not believing in the ability and the right of every student to achieve academic success. Period.

Update: For another interesting point of view on this, see my colleage, Bill Ferriter, over at The Tempered Radical.

Comments

[Claus]

Renee, does it make sense to distinguish between the phrase "all children can learn" and the phrase "all children will learn?"

I sometimes wonder whether the 100% proficiency targets by 2014 may have done more harm than good to teacher expectations for their students. Did people get more defensive? Did their belief that total success was impossible help them justify damaging beliefs that some students can't learn to high levels?

I would like to see a future where many, many more students achieve high levels of academic success, and where a child's chance of success has nothing to do with family income, race or zip code.

[ted nellen]

When I first heard this Ron Edmonds quote, "All children can learn," it was a no brainer for me. I agreed. Now the rub may be they may not learn what we want them to learn or how we want them to learn, but they do learn.

This is so in our face as we examine technology. Who is doing the learning in this area and who needs to be taught or is unwilling to learn? Children learn technology and it's the adults who can't seem to learn or even be taught.

So if we start on the premise, as we should, "that all students can learn," we would be wise to help them learn on their terms and in their own way if we hope for them to become good citizens. Otherwise if we continue on this notion that they should be taught we will continue to see our educational policy and results to repeat the past.

[TeachMoore]

Thank you both for your thoughtful comments. Claus, I do agree that the demands of misguided NCLB implementation may have had a negative affect on the expectations of some teachers, it also flushed out the racism and classism of others. Sometimes these low expectations are cloaked in a well-meaning paternalism, but that doesn't make them any less destructive.

I think Ted has it right: we, educators, have to be willing to meet students where they really are and help them learn in ways that are meaningful to them, not just those that we value. Particularly when dealing with students of color or poverty, what we sometimes label as an inability to learn is more accurately a resistance to a hypocritical educational system. We say all students are important, but our methods and allocation of resources shout something very different.

[Clix]

Ms. Moore, I got here from a link from Bill Ferriter's blog. I think my issue with the statement "all students have the ability to succeed academically" is that it is soooo vague.

Teachers who are ... let's say less optimistic about that statement probably see social and cultural situations as an obstacle, rather than an aid, to academic success. Maybe if it were stated that "all students have the ability to succeed academically if given the support they need," more teachers would agree.

Also? How are we defining academic success? If a student in tenth grade progresses from a third-grade reading level to a sixth-grade reading level, is that academic success? Teachers who feel the pressure of AYP test scores (and there are more of those than ever) are probably more likely to say no, that academic success is measured by whether or not a student passes The Test. And in those cases, when students enter a course woefully underprepared, it is unreasonable simply to tell them that they are expected to do well on The Test. I think this is part of why secondary teachers are more likely to say no - as students are "passed" along from teacher to teacher, fewer of them are truly prepared.

[TeachMoore]

Clix,
I like your suggested revision of the phrase; particularly, in light of what Bill has pointed out on his blog.

How we define academic success has everything to do with this discussion. Not just in reference to standardized testing, but the last point you mention about students being "passed along" references our archaic system of grade levels and the notion that students must know certain things by certain ages or deadlines. I reject the concept of dividing curriculum objectives into grade/age levels. This is the source of much unnecessary frustration for teachers and students. Curriculum should be divided (if it must be for practical purposes) into academically valid and coherent units, through which students should progress as they are ready. Teachers could (but not necessarily) specialize in various aspects or units in the curriculum, and those students who are ready for those portions are the ones I would teach. Does that make sense to anybody?