The School Whisperer
What if . . . ?
“The School Whisperer”
Dan M. "Buck" Brannaman is a horse trainer and a leading practitioner within the field of Natural horsemanship, which is a philosophy of working with horses based on the idea of working with the horse's nature, using an understanding of how horses think and communicate to train the horse to accept humans and work confidently and responsively with them. One of Brannaman's stated goals is to make the animal feel safe and secure around humans so that the horse and rider can achieve a true union.[1] (From Wikipedia -- Brannaman was one of the models for Robt. Redford's "The Horse Whisperer")
"exercise, discipline, and then affection” - Cesar Millan’s key to “Dog Whispering”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
So, I got to thinking about these “Dog Whisperer” shows I’ve been watching on the National Geographic Channel recently and, while I know there is some controversy around Millan’s techniques, they are very similar to what I’ve always done with my dogs. Therefore, I like the show and his style. Now, you need to understand my dogs are always universally loved. I’m always told “that’s the best dog” and I actually think it’s pretty true. Hence, my affection for “The Dog Whisperer.”
Well, what’s that got to do with schools and school reform?
Quite a bit, actually (stay with me on this one). The beauty, as I see it, of Millan’s work with dogs is that it is simple (“exercise, discipline, and then affection”) and it is applied from (what I perceive as) a common-sense perspective --- you have to be the Alpha Dog in your own household. Here’s the connection I see to effective School Reform: keep it simple. It has to make sense to the students (and teachers). It requires exercise (mental & physical), discipline (not authoritarianism), and affection (you have to love kids and love what school can be when done right).
And, once you do it, as with Millan & his canines, you have to continue to do it. There isn’t an end point, there isn’t a place where the “patient is cured.” These (dogs and schools) are Living Organisms which will grow, change, evolve over time. Room must be made for that growth and change, but in accordance with solid habits.
Just as I’ve been able to raise the “best” dogs, I’ve also been involved in helping create some excellent schools (Francis W Parker Charter Essential School, Blackstone Academy) and here’s where the Dog Whisperer transforms into The School Whisperer.
The basic elements for making schools great, from my perspective, are contained in the Common Principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools. I subscribe to those principles but not with fanatical adherence. Like a good chef, you always have to play with the basic ingredients to create a superb dish. The Common Principles are intentionally broad because no two kids are alike, no two teachers are alike, no two schools are alike. Given our history and experience with school reform, though, I do believe there are some ideas which the Principles only hint at that need to be better defined and more clearly delineated. When I work with teachers they always want a concrete model of whatever it is we’re working on (assessment, differentiation, etc.).
So, while I’ll stick to some simple School Whisperer ideas, I’ll also define them as clearly as I can and provide as much in the way of concrete examples as possible.
What you’ll find in the following, then, are the Coalition’s Common Principles (straight from their website, www.essentialschools.org) with my ideas on how to make them practical and applicable interspersed.
The Coalition of Essential Schools Common Principles -- School Whispered
The Coalition of Essential Schools’ Common Principles, based on decades of research and practice, reflect the wisdom of thousands of educators successfully engaged in creating personalized, equitable, and academically challenging schools for all young people. The highlighting here is mine, because I think these are the simple ideas (like “exercise, discipline, then affection”) which are at the core of creating good schools.
Learning to use one’s mind well
The school should focus on helping young people learn to use their minds well. Schools should not be "comprehensive" if such a claim is made at the expense of the school's central intellectual purpose.
This, of course, is the bane for most schools – secondary schools in particular --and it has been hideously exacerbated by No Child Left Behind. “Comprehensive” schools are designed to follow what I refer to as the “disease” model of education --- that is, a curriculum intended on “exposing” students to a little bit of everything, with the hope that they’ll “catch it.” On the secondary level this often means the 45 to 50 minute, 6 to 8 classes a day schedule. Think about that. Does any University run a schedule that way? Does any BUSINESS? We know the answer to those questions but fail to make the connection. Efficient Learning Organizations and Businesses know that TIME is always needed to actually Learn and genuinely Understand anything--- and then be able to apply it. Consequently, this makes Principle Number Two essential.
Less is more, depth over coverage
The school's goals should be simple: that each student master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge. While these skills and areas will, to varying degrees, reflect the traditional academic disciplines, the program's design should be shaped by the intellectual and imaginative powers and competencies that the students need, rather than by "subjects" as conventionally defined. The aphorism "less is more" should dominate: curricular decisions should be guided by the aim of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by an effort to merely cover content. (Highlighting mine)
I will point out something that is so obvious that it too often goes unmentioned: LIFE IS INTERDISCIPLINARY! Imagine this. You go to the MultiPlex to see Titanic. The person you buy the ticket from gives you THREE tickets and explains, “For the first hour, go to Cinema One, and just watch the film for plot, theme, and character. They’ll stop it so you can then go to Cinema Two for the second hour and try to focus on the politics and social commentary of the movie. Finally, for the third hour, you’ll go to Cinema Three and really try to analyze the Light Refraction and Mechanics required to project that film on to the screen.” Of course this sounds absurd but it’s exactly what we ask students to do (often starting in 5th or 6th grade) throughout their school career ---- and we don’t even give them the connecting thread of seeing the same movie! Would it have been possible to have learned the basic skills of math, science, history, and English if you had attended Interdisciplinary classes (Arts/Humanities, Math/Science/Technology, for example)? How much does one actually LEARN in a 45 minute block of time (when researchers have shown that 45 minute classes, at best, result in 29 minutes of instructional time)? Is it essential that ALL of US History be taught, from 1492 until the present day? Are all those facts, dates, names, places ESSENTIAL knowledge in an age where two keystrokes on your laptop can generate ALL that information and more? So, what’s the School Whisperer’s advice here? Quite simply, focus on what the ESSENTIAL SKILLS you think students are going to need to “Know and Be Able To Do” are and START from there. “Plan Backwards” from the results you want (just as most efficient and productive businesses do!). Less can be More, when designed thoughtfully.
Goals apply to all students
The school's goals should apply to all students, while the means to these goals will vary as those students themselves vary. School practice should be tailor-made to meet the needs of every group or class of students.
“Differentiation” has become a Hot Topic in the past year or two --- and rightly so. This principle is all about differentiating the delivery of instruction so that every student will learn. To do this, though, schools will have to look at a number of factors they usually don’t like to examine. Class Size is a big one. You can only differentiate effectively if you can get your classes down to a workable size. This may mean we have to look at reconfiguring how we Staff a school. It may mean fewer administrators and counselors and more “boots on the ground” in our classrooms. Think about how many teaching staff might be added if we did this.Doing this while creating a more Interdisciplinary Curriculum could make it possible to not only differentiate but also keep our Standards high and help EVERY student attain them!
Personalization
Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than 80 students in the high school and middle school and no more than 20 in the elementary school. To capitalize on this personalization, decisions about the details of the course of study, the use of students' and teachers' time and the choice of teaching materials and specific pedagogies must be unreservedly placed in the hands of the principal and staff.
Contemporary schools --- and particularly urban schools --- are too often Warehouses for young people. Students are “numbers” and too many students can say they are not known well by ANY adult in the building. The creation of Advisories (rather than mechanical “homerooms”) is one of the best ways to begin personalizing a school (see Advisories & School Change on this website ---which also dovetails nicely with creating interdisciplinary curriculum). Making sure teachers have “workable” class sizes – no more than 60 students a day for secondary and no more than 20 a day for primary school – will also help insure that your school will be able to personalize , will be able to know its students well and serve them better as a result. It’s too easy to say “We can’t do that here.” In fact, Dennis Gray, who was part of the original Paideia Group started by Mortimer Adler, shared the following list with me many years ago. The sad part, for me, is that it still applies to too many schools.
If you don’t want to change, there’s always a (good?) reason
1. We tried that before
2. Our school is different
3. We don’t want to be different
4. It costs too much
5. That’s not my responsibility
6. We con’t have the time
7. We don’t have enough help
8. Our school is too large (or small) for it.
9. The union will scream
10. We’ve never done it before
11. It’s against district (state) policy
12. We don’t have the authority
13. That’s too ivory tower
14. Let’s get back to reality
15. That’s not our problem
16. Why change it; it’s still working O.K.
17. I don’t like the idea
18. You’re right, but . . . .
19. You’re 2(or 5, or 10) years ahead of your time
20. We’re not ready for that
21. We don’t have the money, equipment, room, or staff
22. It isn’t in the budget
23. Good thought, but impractical
24. Let’s give it more thought
25. Let’s put it in writing
26. Not that again
27. Where did you come up with that one?
28. We did alright without it
29. Let’s form a committee
30. Has anyone else ever tried it? (and were they JUST LIKE US?)
31. I don’t see the connection
32. Maybe that will work in your situation, but not in mine
33. The Board will never go for it
34. It’s too much trouble to change
35. I know a fellow who tried it, and it didn’t work
36. It’s impossible
37. We’ve always done it this way
38. We’re doing it already
If you try to introduce ways to better personalize school, there’s a good chance you’ll hear one of these remarks. (The list is not exhaustive, of course, so if you hear something else, please send it along!) I’m a firm believer that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission, so I think doing whatever you can to get your school moving in the direction of personalization is a good thing.
Student-as-worker, teacher-as-coach
The governing practical metaphor of the school should be student-as-worker, rather than the more familiar metaphor of teacher-as-deliverer-of-instructional-services. Accordingly, a prominent pedagogy will be coaching, to provoke students to learn how to learn and thus to teach themselves.
In keeping with Sir Ken Robinson’s talk about Education and Creativity (there’s a tab for it on the home page of this site), too often the pinnacle of academia is seen as the “Full Professor.” While I believe it is important to have professors and researchers who expand our knowledge, it is equally important to remember that Professors evolved during the Medieval period. They were the ones who could read best, had the books, and, basically, stood there and TOLD people what the books were about. Many professors still do this in some form or another. This should not be confused with TEACHING. Teachers, of course, help you learn how to fish, they don’t give you the fish, as the old aphorism tells us. And this Principle is a very important one to remember at all times. Teaching is NOT “telling.” Teaching is NOT "professing." Teaching is sparking the creativity and imagination in individuals and coaching them to learn how to do it themselves.
Demonstration of mastery
Teaching and learning should be documented and assessed with tools based on student performance of real tasks. Students not yet at appropriate levels of competence should be provided intensive support and resources to assist them quickly to meet those standards. Multiple forms of evidence, ranging from ongoing observation of the learner to completion of specific projects, should be used to better understand the learner's strengths and needs, and to plan for further assistance. Students should have opportunities to exhibit their expertise before family and community. The diploma should be awarded upon a successful final demonstration of mastery for graduation - an "Exhibition." As the diploma is awarded when earned, the school's program proceeds with no strict age grading and with no system of credits earned" by "time spent" in class. The emphasis is on the students' demonstration that they can do important things.
One of the big changes this Principle requires is that we lose our age-old insistence on Age-Grading students. Imagine if a group of adults entering a room for a meeting were asked their birth date—birth Year especially – so they could be “grouped appropriately” with those born the same year. The concept is absurd, of course, and with what we know about developmental growth among humans, sorting students by their birth Year is simply a convenience for administration and, like so much else in schools, has nothing to do with actual LEARNING. Looking for evidence of learning that is far more than a No Child Left Behind Test Score is what this Principle is also about and, in creating Performance Assessments and Exhibitions, teachers are given a wonderful chance to exhibit their own Creativity!
A tone of decency and trust
The tone of the school should explicitly and self-consciously stress values of unanxious expectation ("I won't threaten you but I expect much of you"), of trust (until abused) and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity and tolerance). Incentives appropriate to the school's particular students and teachers should be emphasized. Parents should be key collaborators and vital members of the school community.
This would be the “discipline” part of Millan’s mantra. What you see here, though, is not the threatening, authoritarian approach too often exhibited in schools (particularly in secondary schools) but a humanistic and adult approach to working with students. I believe this is inherently linked to creating a genuinely democratic school site and is, therefore, linked to the last principle listed here.
Commitment to the entire school
The principal and teachers should perceive themselves as generalists first (teachers and scholars in general education) and specialists second (experts in but one particular discipline). Staff should expect multiple obligations (teacher-counselor-manager) and a sense of commitment to the entire school.
This simply reinforces the earlier changes recommending interdisciplinary curriculum, smaller class size, and common goals for all students.
Democracy and equity
The school should demonstrate non-discriminatory and inclusive policies, practices, and pedagogies. It should model democratic practices that involve all who are directly affected by the school. The school should honor diversity and build on the strength of its communities, deliberately and explicitly challenging all forms of inequity.
I’d recommend reading the tab “Creating Democratic Schools” on this website to see the elaborated view of this idea, along with the tab on Advisories (showing how Advisories can be plenary groups for a schoolwide, democratic government). We cannot expect to produce active, engaged Democratic Citizens if our schools are not the breeding grounds for them. The “how-to” is only as difficult as it is for the adults in a school to relinquish Authoritarian control and learn to model true democracy.
So, those are the basic tenets behind The School Whisperer’s vision for Reforming Schools.
In a nutshell:
Small, respectful places focused on their students’ success by defining clear academic goals pursued in a truly democratic environment where students will show what they know in a welcoming community environment.
