I recently read a number of mission statements from randomly selected schools to see if there was some sort of pattern in what schools view as their mission. One thing that many had in common was a distinction between the learners and the educators. I guess that is fitting in the sense of what each shareholder’s position is, but maybe we would be better served if we thought of ourselves as a community of learners one and all. At least in that perspective when a mission statement refers to helping all learners reaching their potential, we are including the faculty and administration in that goal. Yes, it is all about the kids, but will not a more learned faculty lead to a more learned student population?
Then I thought about IEP’s and how they might apply to educators as well. Most schools reserve the IEP, Individualized Education Program, for students with special needs, since they are also a requirement of the law. In my imaginings I wondered:Would we all not benefit by having some sort of IEP for every learner in the building? As long as we are dreaming here, maybe we could even give each learner a say in their learning to help develop an IEP. Initially it would take up some time to do, but once completed it could be easily updated each year. If it was considered a priority, the time would easily be allotted, just as weeks of test-prep time is alloted for standardized tests which are today’s priority. The IEP idea however might have a more lasting positive effect.
If we consider our educators (Teachers and Administrators) as learners as well as our students, then they would also need to have IEP’s. Maybe we could call their IEP an IGP, an Individual Growth Program? Of course this is a big “what if?”, but as long as we are here let’s look at IGP possibilities. Each educator could help devise an individual plan for growth. It would mean creating a starting point with skills and knowledge already acquired. We would need to consider how much personal time and how much school time could be utilized for each learner. We could spell out the responsibilities and provisions of the district, which will be balanced with the responsibilities and provisions of each educator/learner. We would also need to have a means to assess the growth progress. Certificates are measurements of seat time, so maybe proof of accomplishment from observations might be a better indicator. At least it gives recognition and credence that a brain in action is more important than an ass in a seated position.
Of course the IGP would need to be revisited and updated each year, but that could also be part of a year-end review. Maybe a day of developing, or updating IGP’s could replace the day usually dedicated to an inspirational speaker followed by almost meaningless “sit and get” workshop presentations that educator/learners sit through in so many schools across the country each and every year.
Imagine a school with IEP’s for every kid, and IGP’s for every educator making it a truly learning community. Of course the IEP’s for special needs students will continue to be highly regulated according to the laws, but IEP’s for the general population of students need not be as regulated. Of course the IGP’s will also be tailored to each educator/learner, so that any special needs for specific skills, or adjustments in attitude may be specifically addressed. This will require closer relationships, more collegial collaboration and a great deal of support from all stakeholders.
Of course this is my own mind fantasy and people will come up with hundreds of reasons not to do it. I could only offer one reason to do it. It is better than what we do now. Yet, for many, it will be a bridge too far. The status quo is easier and safer. It may be less effective, but people live with it without complaint. “No need to reinvent the wheel.” I wonder if that would hold true if the invention of the wheel was oval or square-shaped. That might require some reinvention.
Great post! My school is attempting to bring your vision to reality. Each student currently has two overall goals that they are working towards and each subject teacher then designs objectives that are subject specific for that goal. We use a monitoring system to upload data (i.e., portfolio). Goals are designed by the students’ team (and for older kids with the students), and parents. We’re in our first year… it’s a slow process with many kinks, but the results have been very positive thus far. Any suggestions or best practices you can share would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
[…] By tomwhitby […]
This is truly the ‘big picture’ Tom. Like the IGP idea!
Another interesting post Tom. I could not agree more about seeing everyone as a learner and along with getting teachers connected, think that this is one of the big challenges facing education at the moment.
My concern is that if (or as) education moves towards being more individualised with goals and achievements then we risk opening up the pandora’s box of linking such elements with pay. Recently, the Victorian government here in Australia tried to introduce a more rigid ‘Performance and Development Process’ where teachers would set twenty goals and their proposal was that if teachers did not achieve these goals then they would not move up the pay scale. I wrote about it here: http://readingwritingresponding.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/when-assessment-of-performance-is-not.html. A system of goals does not work to promote life-long learning if a culture of fear is created around ‘failing’.
I think that maybe in addition to goals, we should encourage teachers to be tinkerers and to share their passions with others. http://readingwritingresponding.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/tinkering-passion-and-wildfire-that-is.html Maybe this might help to support a ‘community of learners’.
I agree with this idea of creating IGPs. The idea of having them for teachers would allow administration the ability to select teachers as technology ambassadors. (But who is the judge of your skills?) We have five schools in our corporation utilizing two IT to help share the uses of technology in the classroom. The disadvantage is we have too few employees for Information Technology and Computer Coordinators working. It’s not good enough now to have IT doing technology maintenance for the schools. The fact that I can’t update my computer is annoying.
We need more IT or trained teachers helping teachers to learn technology in their own buildings. This is where the lines blur as to certifications. In addition, It’s hard for schools to validate and allot time for teachers to learn on the job. Therefore, I am giving instructions to someone without being certified and not getting paid.
But IEPs are incredibly complex documents that are a bureaucratic nightmare. I co-teach with a special education teacher and have been in many, many IEP meetings in my short teaching career. There is a massive amount of work put into each IEP and a massive amount of work and effort put into complying with the IEPs since not complying with them can result in serious consequences for the teacher and the school.
So IEPs for each of my students? Sorry, it’s not feasible. Plus, saying such things diminishes what the IEP’s function actually is, which is to provide much-needed assistance to those students who need it the most. If you add everyone to that pool, the students who need that assistance get lost in the shuffle.
I’d like an IGP I can set for myself that isn’t connected to an alphabet-soup school acronym.
When I was in graduate school for early childhood special education, our professional development plan for each year was called a Self-IEP. It was a great way not only to practice writing IEP goals, but to set goals for ourselves and track our progress. I would love to see this become more of a trend.