So is Maslow a good framework for us to look at for thinking about the whole child? Are there other well known ones out there...beside Choice Theory?

You mention self-acutalizing... I see risk taking as part of your text. Are they the same thing or different? How do we get students to take risks? Are they naturally inclinded and we throw up role blocks in traditional practice... or do they need to be coaxed to take risk. If so, why?

Risk taking requires some level of trust. If one takes personal risks, one must trust that they can personally control themselves. If one takes risks in a relationship with another person, they must trust the other person. If one takes risks within a system, there must be some level of trust that the system won't discard them.

There is also something about confidence in one's self in order to take risks. But maybe that's the same thing as trusting one's self. This is all somehow connected to self-worth. If kids feel a sense of self-worth, and also trusts that the teacher will not harm their self-worth, they are more inclined to take risks in learning.

Does higher level learning require a strong self-concept and sense of trust? When making personal breakthroughs (admitting that you should work on something about yourself, instead of denying), does that require a strong self-concept and trust in the person who is teaching us? Does this all tie back to relationships between teachers and students? A mutual trust and regard for self-worth?

Regarding risk-taking vs. self-actualizing. I see risk-taking as a form of self-actualization. Self-actualization is a desire for fulfilment and the act of becoming what you have the potential to be. Maybe they feed off of each other. Isn't it a risk to actively realize your potential?
At any rate, I think it's something that people want to do when all those other needs are met.

About trust: I meant to talk more about that. You're absolutely right that kids won't risk without a great deal of trust in the teacher and the system. It all goes back to creating a safe environment. As a student's needs are met, it seems logical that his trust in his teacher and the system would grow deeper. That's why we as educators should be looking first and foremost at how we relate to kids.

On choice: I have questions about this, but I'm nearing 1000 characters.

I do like that connection. Risk taking as a sign or indicator that a student is pursuing a path of self-actualization. I agree on the safe environment... but safe in what ways... isn't there a very small component to putting students in threshold experiences (right at the boundary of where they know/and are familiar with how to suceed, to just one small notch beyond that. Do you agree or can you help me better describe this?

I added a quote often used related to maslow and risk taking... what do you think?

Just as we model everything else, we should model risk-taking. I try to give the kids a lot of those 'one to grow on' stories--stories about my own [appropriate] awkward moments, the nervous feelings I have before I try new things, the times I've failed and how I moved on, etc.

I also try not to let my kids ultimately fail tests. If they get a D or an F, I make them retake similar tests until they get a passing grade. They don't get the new grade (like an A), but they get a C. My students helped me refine that policy. (If they get a C on the original test, I also encourage them to retake it to show how much better they could do, but their grade stays the same.)

This idea of retaking tests is an excellent one. Do we call that a "mastery learning" approach? It makes me realize that another important bearing will be assessment. Who might be interested in starting that one? I know we have some very unjust assessment models in different classrooms in the building currently

Retaking tests - in college I was required to take a class in "logic". I was an utter failure at it, had to drop and retake it, and then finally "got it" and EXCELLED at it (begging my teacher for logic puzzles to take home to solve). So, my individual point of mastering the material came at a different rate than my classmates. I needed more time, and a professor who was able to "click it" for me in a different way. I needed time and a different approach in order to master the material.

Exactly. I remember the day in 10th grade that geometric proofs made sense to me. For months before, I didn't understand them. A tremendous feeling of freedom and empowerment came with that "Aha" moment.

We're supposed to be teaching kids to keep trying, to continually improve, to learn compensatory skills where necessary. Failure is only an early step in those processes; it's not supposed to be the final step.

There are so many areas in which I wish we as a school shared a common language and goals (discipline, assessment, even within various subject areas...) I know that's what were builing here, but I get so impatient. Keep reminding me: Change takes time, change takes time, change takes...

NI, I am also an eager participant, and want change to happen sooner than later. When I "got" the logic stuff, there WAS such a feeling of empowerment, of ownership. My professor didn't "get it" for me. I got it myself. I believe that our students have the capability to get it. Some might need more time, or a different way, which leads to the idea of playing with things, with ideas.

I vividly remember--because it occasionally still happens--the frustration that here I am, delivering a really great product, and these foolish kids aren't taking me up on it.
I think most of us are so overprivileged in this country that we really don't value our educational opportunities like we should, especially when we're eleven years old.

That's why the whole child is very important. Let's face it: a kid might not bloom on our watch. My class may never be a priority in a student's life. I think people like to succeed and like to learn, and it's our job as teachers to find ways to enable them to learn, but there's also a lot more we can give them that's valuable aside from academic content and skills.

A colleague made a very interesting point: You can't decide what a person's needs are. She told the story of an aid worker who went into a village that had no sanitation or clean water. She was all set to help the people get those systems up and running, but instead the people asked for a soccer field. Every one of them wanted the soccer field. She put aside her own agenda, worked with them to get their field and uniforms and a playing schedule, and after that they were ready to address the water issues. If she had pushed her own agenda first--despite the fact that it was definitely a more basic need--the water systems probably wouldn't have lasted, nor would her relationship with them have lasted.

...and part of that story seems related to leadership. Leaders service other peoples needs and then and only then after building a relationship and waiting for the right teachable moment, move in with a piece of their own agenda.

I'm glad I'm finally catching up on some very interesting discussion...boy, it is quite amazing how "on the same page" we all seem to be on this.
Even though that is the case, I don't think I often work this into my classroom when I really think about it. I really only offer this (retakes/redos) when a student ASKS, because then it's evident to me that the student cares. I think this may be taking the "easy way out," as having lots of kids do and redo adds to my workload. I think I may have to gather more info on this one...brown bag topic?
This also brings up an entirely new topic...GRADING. Just what do/should the students' grades mean? Mastery? Effort? Improvement? Will discussion of these ideas go into the assessment bearing?

Yes, I struggle with what a student's grade means all the time, especially when I have to put one on her report card. Does it mean she has actually mastered the topic if she gets an "A"? Sometimes I re-introduce a topic we covered earlier, coming around to it again so to speak, a month or two down the line, and the kids have totally forgotten what they seemed to have known one or two months earlier. Even if they got a decent passing grade. So, does a grade mean effort, improvement, mastery? I really struggle with a reading grade. Our reading series introduces all these strategies (fact and opinion, making judgments, generalization, compare and contrast, etc.) that I think are fairly sophisticated for a third grader and then gives them minimal opportunities to practice these skills before taking a unit theme test that in effect could be their entire reading grade. I'm not opposed to following the series/curriculum (duh!) but I want my kids to be as enthusiastic, eager readers as possible so that when they get to middle school and high school a love of reading will support their abilities to better apply reading strategies like those mentioned above.

NI had a good point that a kid might not bloom on our watch. I rarely am able to see my kids bloom on my watch. That's okay, though. I want to work to making sure that I do all the watering, weed pulling, fertlizing, etc. that I am capable of. One of my (new/renewed) goals as a teacher is to share with my students how much I believe they are capable of achieving. Few, if any, teachers did that with me. What would that have been like if a teacher said to me, " You have X, Y and Z just brewing below the surface. Cultivate those things. Tend to them. Discipline yourself to tend to them."? I think it would have meant a great deal.

MD, are you referring to personal interest/preference here? I have so many topics to cover in any given area of the curriculum that I don't understand completely EO's advice to pick one thing at a time. For instance, there are many grammar skills to cover in each reading unit. I feel it is my responsibility to cover these skills since they are part of the spiralling scope and sequence that reaches across all grade levels. I don't hesitate to spend more time on, offer more activities/practice with, certain skills that I see many kids need more time with and/or a skill that is something I personally want them to know really well. I guess my question still remains, what is mastery. Can a child be said to have mastered a skill if she gets C's on the work? And since our curriculum does spiral, when can I give myself permission to move on, leave a skill since they'll get it again next year.

There are lots of interesting issues this bearing is generating. I too feel many of us are on the same philosophically, but struggle (I do) with actually (if ever) finding a way to reconcile that with what I implement. Especially with the grading and mastery issue.

EO's thinking on one thing at a time maybe changing though on curriculum and instruction. Connected math has caused him (he claims) to change his thinking about one thing a time as the most effective method of instruction as he has see students bloom as critical thinkers in a curriculum that is designed to allow students to build small additional connections in multiple different representation, but through very rich and complex problems and situations. There is even a growing body of research that says students learn more in complex task environments than in simple ones... complex being dynamic, multi-modal, multi-variable situations... not just "confusing" situations.

Interesting...I'd like to talk to you and EO more about this topic. I have mixed feelings on the "one thing at a time" vs "complex task" curricular activities. Is there a time for each or is one clearly better than the other in all situations? I think this is another brown bag brewing. How would these ideas (in MN's comments above) apply to language arts and social studies?

That would be an incredibly interesting brown bag... I am leaning these days toward something like this (which includes part of what we heard in our workshop for our staff): learning complex information or concepts in simple singular tasks is very difficult to retain or make deep connections to without repetition (for example: training a pilot is often done in this manner, break down the tasks into simple sub tasks and repeat again and again)... unfortunately for very complex tasks this might often be the only way currently understood on how to acquire the knowledge/skills. But for simpler concepts or skills, it seems that "richer" and more complex situations tend to activate more of the leaner's brain and creative thinking... and are incredibly effectie as the launch point for further thinking and for revisitng to pick out smaller skills or sub-problems withink... For example, to have students find a mode, mean, and median, it might be more powerful to give them a relative rich data set to mine the data from (e.g. 50 brands of peanut butter, with multiple classifications (chunky vs. creamy), cost information, size information, sugar content, etc... instead a small set of "naked" numbers with no or simple context. And then use the same data set to go back and learn about quartiles and make comparisons and go back to the same data again and make visual models (box & wisker plots, etc...).

Another example would be in science, engage students in a complex simulation (e.g. the simulated spread of disease) and have them try to make sense of how the infection is spreading and propose ways to investigate it. Then after this complex synthesis is first tackled, break out the small pieces to study (how the virus is transmited, a smaller experiment to study, analyzing a graph of infection data over time, etc...).

There is something about trying to sort out a complex situation for simple bits of knowlege that is very empowering. It is important, however, that the small parts are very attainable, revisited in many different perspectives and at different times, and that ample time for all students to build powerful represetations of what is going on is given. In the end the complex task was just a motivating context for relatively simple concepts/skills.

I've typed an excerpt from a book onto the Curriculum bearing. The text is part of a four page section. Might we consider reading this and discussing it, as it relates to what we've been discussing on this page, at our next Friday brown bag after school? If not, we can put it on the table for the future.

Last year on this page I wrote something about how I rarely try to change a child. I meant something to the effect that it's so important to know and accept the kid in front of you before anything else of great consequence will happen in your class. I'm not sure I ever added on that once that relationship is begun, I try to change a lot about kids. I hope to make them more self-aware, more confident, more capable, more accepting of some things and less accepting of others. Once a kid lets you into his or her life, it's really an immense position of influence we hold. That's why, to borrow a phrase, the content of a teacher's character really does matter. They have to be people that will keep kids safe on the most fundamental level, and yet challenge them to grow (which doesn't always feel safe).

Thoughts?