This year I've been taking a course from
HarvardX: GSE2x called Leaders of Learning. One of my favourite professors from the Instructional Rounds program I did at HGES was Dr. Richard Elmore. He is the main facilitator of Leaders of Learning, along with teachers' and principals' voices from the field, and guest speakers such as Prakash Nair, a renowned architect of schools for the 21st century. My final project is to design a learning space based on my theory of learning, and my experiences over the past 27 years in public education.
Interestingly, in our designs we are tasked with considering aspects of being human that are similar to the domains that Stuart Shanker uses to organize his ways of describing factors that can influence a persons ability to self-regulate. These are the biological, social, pro-social, cognitive and emotional domains.
I'll also try to incorporate the OECD Principals of Learning and the First People's Principles of Learning.
To these seven principals have been added three more dimensions for Innovative Learning Environments. Powerful learning environments innovate at the pedagogical core, become "formative organizations with strong learning leadership" and are open to partnerships with community, higher education, businesses and cultural organizations. (Schooling Redesigned: Toward innovative learning systems, p. 24-25.)
The First People Principles of Learning add an important cultural dimension for Canadian learners, not inconsistent with the OECD principles, but adding the recognition of generational, spiritual and place-based knowledge.
Margaret Paxton
Vancouver, BC, Canada
June 12th, 2019
My ideal school would be in a setting that allowed exploration of the natural environment as well as outdoor spaces that could be cultivated as gardens, meeting places, a mediation labyrinth, and places for sitting, reading and writing, conversing.
There would be a school building for shelter, safety, and learning together. It would be seismically sound, energy efficient, and built with sustainable materials. The colours would be neutral, with some soft pastel tones, and textures would vary – smooth surfaces, rougher grains, fabric in places, few hard edges.
Many windows would be strategically placed to maximize natural light. No fluorescent light would be used and most rooms would have doors opening to the outside. Garage doors, sliding doors, awnings for shelter in the sun or rain, would decrease the barriers between inside and out.
The foyer of the building would be welcoming and warm. Off of the foyer would be a comfortable large group meeting area with tiered seating like an amphitheater for presentations of learning, performances, assemblies, and so on.
The rest of the building would have different kinds of spaces for larger and smaller group meetings, to allow for both learning circles and quiet conversations. There would be comfortable furniture for sitting, standing, relaxing or being alert and focused. Resources would be organized, but not subject specific. Many loose parts and supplies for creative representation would be available as well as tools, both electronic and manual. Books would still be relevant and valued and used with all ages.
Teachers would be responsible for building relationships with all students, but directly responsible for a a number that would vary, perhaps fifteen for children under 10 and 25 for children between 11 and 16. They would meet every day, giving themselves an agreed upon mutual name that connected them to place. The Dogwood group, the Salmonberry class.
Students would learn literacy, numeracy, communication, thinking, and social/emotional skills in small groups with peer and teacher support. Part of everyday would involve some students demonstrating mastery by teaching other students – not necessarily older teaching younger. Parents, grandparents and other adult mentors would be welcomed in this community of learning.
Beyond the instruction of core competencies, learners would have the opportunity to participate in authentic and purposeful, cross curricular projects. In fact, there would be little subject specific instruction. Rather, learners would develop and recognize expertise in different areas when needed. Projects would have real-world applications, be subject to critical assessment and feedback, and would be celebrated by the whole learning community.
Arts, culture, physical literacy and ecological impact would be woven into every project. Learners would be allowed time to prototype, fail, persevere and reflect on their learning.
Regular rituals and traditions would be a hallmark of this school, and a strong sense of belonging cultivated and enhanced with displays, photographs, and other multimedia representations.
Teachers would meet daily, weekly and monthly in order to discuss learner development, problem-solve, brainstorm, share samples of student learning, and reestablish relationships, trust, shared purpose and collective efficacy with one another.
Conflicts between learners (including adults) would be resolved with conversation, sometimes mediated, always respectfully and without blame and shame.
My ideal school would be a home away from home, or an extension of home. I cannot imagine a future way of learning for children that does not involve a physical building, adult mentors, and certain structures that demand some compliance. Is that possible or necessary? If one aim of school is to prepare children to be contributing members of a democratic society I am not sure we can without a way to group them and teaching them about human interdependency and our relationship to the whole planet, not just the place we inhabit.
So what does a school staff do when they have a building and want to tear down walls, but cannot. At my current school we began to look at how we couple repurpose rooms and create micro environments within rooms. We wanted to give students choice in how and where they worked, read, learned. We also removed all of the school bells from the day, only keeping those to call students in off the playground after recess and lunch. We ourchased noise-cancelling headphones for students who wished to use them. We bought lamps for classrooms to reduce the need for the overhead fluorescent lights. We got rid of about 200 desks, and bought tables, high and low, with flexible seating, or places to stand and work. We invested money and time in our outdoor classroom to make it a useful learning space.
In conclusion, we have found that giving students options and providing them with more comfortable ways and places to work, increases their ability to self-regulate, their stamina for work and their engagement in the task. In Canada, we do not use standardized tests to measure achievement. However, from teacher observation and students’ own self-reporting, we feel that there is a different kind of thinking and problem-solving going on – more so than before. And we think it is the kind of thinking that could not be measured on a standardized test at all. A sharp decrease in office referrals of the past four years has proven to be another result of our efforts.
In all, we think that we have demonstrated that a total rebuild is not necessary to create a space for teaching and learning that is like a home away from home.
