I am currently contributing to our school’s R&D team to work through the ideas underpinning some radical changes coming to our new school. Here we have some of ASB’s greatest teachers and thinkers, K through 12, synthesizing some of the most profound educational ideas of our time. We are on the verge of redefining the learning for some 700+ students with initiatives such as multi-age classrooms, project-based learning, and personalized learning. The leaders of these teams share passionate, thought-provoking ideas that support our school’s mission and yet we sometimes fail to see eye-to-eye, to reach consensus, and to fully grasp the magnitude of what these changes might mean to our school.
Of Two Minds About Learning
December 6, 2011 | Author: Kevin Crouch
It would be easy to blame these differences on school division, age, or education background, but after reading The Best Schools (Armstrong, 2006) the reason for these bouts of confusion and misunderstanding become plainly obvious. Armstrong lays out two very clear discourses used to define our educational goals that have polarized over the years to spawn radically differing educational ideologies. These are regularly portrayed as being opposing or incompatible in certain contexts. These two discourses are known as the Academic Achievement Discourse and Human Development Discourse.
Academic Achievement Discourse has been the dominant discourse in our education systems for over a hundred years and ultimately describes the goal of education as “the pursuit of supporting, encouraging, and facilitating a student’s ability to obtain high grades and standardized test scores in school courses, especially in courses that are part of the core academic curriculum.” Though it certainly amounts to much more than this simple definition, Armstrong argues that far too much of what we lend importance to in schools originates from this discourse.
In the other corner is the Human Development Discourse, which despite support from most of our highly revered educational thinkers, including Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Gardner to name a few, has consistently been pushed aside in the mainstream dialog about education. Human Development Discourse is defined as “the totality of speech, acts, and written communication that view the purpose of education primarily in terms of supporting, encouraging, and facilitating a student’s growth as a whole human being, including his or her cognitive, emotional, social, ethical, creative, and spiritual unfoldment.”
As a teacher, how many of you reading this post got into education primarily to “help students get good grades”. As a parent, how many of you feel that the greatest attribute your child can acquire in school is his or her GPA? Though its an important question, it is not the main point of this post.
What I hope to get across is this: when listening to the many task forces and initiatives being prototyped, it is fascinating and revealing to listen to the discourse that is used to describe the initiatives, and watch the presenter struggle with the notion that the words they use are, in fact, not compatible with the Academic Achievement discourse that they have been trained to use day in and day out. We cannot use one discourse to define success in our school and use another to define how we get there.
Ultimately, for any of these initiatives to be successful, we must recognize which of the discourses each of our R&D initiatives are most attributable to, which ones we are most bound to at each division or developmental level, and then cross-reference these with our school’s mission and core values. Only then will we recognize the conflicts before they become a nightmare in the classroom, the report card, the campfire space, the watering hole, or the online course.
Which of the discourses do you find to be most inspiring and important in the education of your students or children? Is it compatible with ASB’s school mission statement?


