Written by John Meyer
In an earlier blog article, I wrote about a gap that exists between the culture of WELS schools and that of society (see Is It Too Late for WELS Schools?). I propose that one aspect of that gap is the difference between the educational paradigms of 21st-century parents and that of many teachers. A paradigm is a perception of reality based upon one’s experiences and beliefs about a given topic, and it serves as an orienting framework to interpret the world (Kuhn, 1962; Mezirow, 1991).
Throughout much of the last half of the 20th century, educators and parents held a common educational paradigm about the teacher’s role. I like to call it the equal opportunity paradigm. Because this former paradigm was shared, both parties were generally on the same page when communicating. For the past 15-20 years, a competing educational paradigm about the teacher’s role has been held by most parents, society, and an increasing number of teachers. I call this the equal outcomes paradigm.
The Former Paradigm
Within the equal opportunity paradigm, schools and teachers are morally responsible to provide an environment in which each child has an equal opportunity to succeed, while recognizing that results will vary by individuals. This paradigm operates under the assumption that the Bell Curve describes any given student population. Two-thirds are found clustered near the average and the remaining are dispersed to the edges as high or low achievers.
Working within this paradigm, schools enact policies to provide equal opportunities for student success like desegregation, bussing, and equal funding models. The teacher’s role is to provide a learning environment in which every child has the same opportunity to succeed. People operating within this paradigm recognize that student achievement will vary depending upon individual ability and effort. The equal opportunity teacher teaches to the middle of the class. Students who excel or fail do so mostly because of extraordinary or below-ordinary ability or effort. Since all students are provided an equal opportunity to succeed, the students, parents, or society shoulder the blame when they don’t.
The New Paradigm
The new educational paradigm is an expectation of equal outcomes. Schools are responsible to ensure that each child succeeds regardless of ability or societal factors. When students fail, the school and teacher are to blame. The idea of a Bell Curve to define a student population is morally unacceptable—there should be no lower tail. This paradigm is embodied in policies like No Child Left Behind.
Within the equal outcomes paradigm, the teacher’s role is to provide a learning environment tailored to each child’s needs. The teacher must know where the student is socially, emotionally, and academically, and provide the necessary support to ensure success regardless of student ability, effort, or family circumstance. Educational literature within this paradigm proclaims that all children can succeed, and it is the teacher’s job to get them there.
Implications for Lutheran Teachers
Many teachers in Lutheran schools are uncomfortable with or do not understand the equal outcomes paradigm. First, it seems to conflict with the historical Lutheran view that parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s education and that the Lutheran school is only to assist them (Isch, 1992; Kasten, 1992; Kremer, 2013). Second, the thought of trying to meet all the varied needs of students is daunting, and not teaching to the middle requires new and unfamiliar teaching approaches (Subban, 2006).
Whether teachers agree with or understand the paradigm shift, most of today’s parents have made the transition. They interpret what they see and hear at their child’s school from an equal outcomes perspective. The result can be a gap between the parents’ and teachers’ understanding of the teacher’s role. What seems logical within one paradigm seems illogical in the other.
When the teacher and parent paradigms clash, misunderstanding and frustration result for both parties. Such miscommunication may sound like the following:
Teacher: “Your child is struggling. This is what you or your child can do to help him achieve.”
Parent: “It’s your job to teach my child, not mine. You need to provide more for my child.”
Today’s parents are uncomfortable when they hear teachers use language associated with the equal opportunity paradigm because they sense that it doesn’t match their values about schooling. As they exit the Lutheran school, they offer, “WELS schools are great. They just don’t work for my child.”
Lutheran teachers can narrow the education paradigm gap by moving toward an equal outcome paradigm. Helping all students succeed does not usurp the parent’s primary educational role, and new teaching approaches, like differentiation and the formative assessment process, can help the teacher reach all students. Importantly, understanding the equal outcome paradigm helps both parties be on the same page. Improved communication may sound like this.
Teacher: “Your child is struggling. This is what I will do to help him achieve.”
Parent: “Thank you for your help. You really care about my child.”
Dr. John Meyer is the director of graduate studies and continuing education at Martin Luther College in New Ulm MN. He served 21 years in WELS elementary schools as a principal and teacher.
References
Isch, J. (1992, October). Attitudes toward lutheran schools: A 1992 survey. The lutheran educator, pp. 18-23.
Kasten, G. F. (1992, January). A changing world, . . . an unchanging challenge: God’s plan for rearing children. Manitowoc WI: Joint Metro-North Pastoral Conference and Dodge-Washington Pastoral Conference. Retrieved from http://www.wlsessays.net/files/KastensChildren.rtf
Kremer, K. (2013, May). Christian education: Whose responsibility is it? Retrieved from Issues in lutheran education: http://blogs.mlc-wels.edu/wels-educator/2013/05/29/christian-education-whose-responsibility-is-it/
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International education journal, 7(7), 935-947.
You have given a clear, concise definition to a change that we need to recognize whether or not we personally believe it is a positive change. To stick to the old paradigm puts Lutheran teachers at a disadvantage and may very well alienate families.
If we every student to use his or her God given abilities, isn’t it more effective to meet each individual student’s learning needs than to offer a one-size-fits-all, teacher-driven experience?
I meant to say, “If we want every student…”
This article is rather fascinating seeing as two things
1) I am considering WELS ministry in teaching (currently a senior in high school)
2) I am presenting an Original Oratory (persuasive) on the failed education system in America and a possible solution.
No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top focus on student testing – not the curriculum itself. Neither sets required curriculum in place.
You guys are very right in the mindset of the current educational atmosphere in America – we’ll teach to the middle, or, smart kids in smart classes, average kids in average classes, and stupid kids in stupid classes.
This thinking is terribly flawed and sets up stereotypes for students to live under and be bullied by.
Thus this concept of equal outcomes is much better than equal opportunity.
In my Original Oratory I talk of the Finnish model – which is around the same concept as equal opportunity.
Their system is based on student equity, regardless of socioeconomic status.
All students in their base of education, peruskoulu, (grades 1-9), complete exactly the same material. There is no differentiation between “smart, average, and stupid.” Rather, they set the goal of everyone learning the exact same things by the time they leave. This may seem impossible, but they believe very strongly in personalized learning and differentiation. In fact, about half of all students who complete compulsory education receive special education at some point.
Another thing, that’s more of a national level issues but also to be considered within WELS schools, is standardized testing. Students feel so much more stress – American students are tested very frequently from the time they are little. This sort of attitude can encourage curriculum to be narrowed.
A great book I recommend on the subject is Pasi Sahlberg’s “Finnish Lessons: What can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?”.
Please wish me well in Speech – I would love to take it to state this year.
God’s blessings,
Elizabeth
I meant equal outcomes/ the concept of equity when talking about the Finnish system.
Pasi Sahlberg’s book sounds fascinating. Thanks for recommending it and a very thought provoking comment.
Dr. Meyer
If what you say is true in any form for our WELS’s schools then we have missed the most obvious problem. Our teachers do not understand “Servant Leadership”. “Servant Leadership” is the foundation of our WELS called servant system. In “Servant Leadership” the teacher or pastor is concerned first and foremost with serving as Christ serves all of us. I would conclude that this does extend to the classroom and that our teachers do regularly follow the model of “Equal Outcomes”. If we have not served in such a fashion then we really are not serving God’s people as we ought. Therefore I do appreciate your focus on this issue but I draw a different conclusion. The conclusion I draw is that we, as teachers in WELS Schools, must daily focus back on the fundamental role as a servant to our children and parents. In the servant model we respect the scriptural principles of family and children being the foremost responsibility of the parents – which is contrary to society’s view of “it takes a village”. That being said, within the church, our mission is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the world and while doing that we must take up our cross as outlined in the scriptures and expounded upon by Pastor Deutschlander in his book “The Theology of the Cross”. Our life is one of service to God first and then to our fellow man which includes the children brought to us by their parents. I would pray that all of our WELS teachers understand this and fulfill their role to “even” the field for every child so that they first know Jesus and then use their talents to serve their Lord in their daily lives. I assume from my experiences with WELS teachers that this is true – WELS teachers do even the field for their children and do all in their power to help every child succeed to the level of their God-given abilities. That is why I stated from the beginning by saying if we are not leveling the playing field for our children to succeed then we do not understand our role as servants. I pray that all of us reflect on our “servant” role as we teach our children and work with our parents.
Fred Uttech – School Administrator St. Mark’s Watertown WI – MS Educational Leadership
Nicely done John.
WELS schools need to define their paradigms with some parameters given their strengths and resources. WELS schools can not be all things to all people. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that fact. Given that a WELS schools uses its resources to best advantage for its students and that is communicated to the parents, the responsibility falls on the student to some extent as well. Especially in high school, we see a degradation in student responsibility in some cases.
Again, a clearly written blog on a topic that needs much discussion.
Thanks for your explanation of the two paradigms. You wrote clearly what the general attitude seems to be toward the teacher’s role today. I wonder if we can move toward a third paradigm that takes the best of both the equal opportunities and equal outcomes models. Is there a way to meet in the middle, with teachers doing everything they can to help each individual student achieve and parents doing the same at home?
I like your idea of a third paradigm. The new paradigm seems to place all responsibility for success on teachers and schools and none on students and parents. How can teachers succeed if students are not working to the best of their abilities? Or if parents don’t encourage and foster that?
Thank you, John. You have put into clear words what many people have been discussing in a fuzzy way.