The Harvard Education Letter has a lengthy and provocative piece called "'Platooning' Instruction" that discusses the benefits and detriments of organizing elementary schools so that teachers specialize in particular subject areas, much as junior and senior high schools presently do.
As Inspiring Education looks at the future of education in Alberta, this is a good example of the kind of bold change that could improve student outcomes without requiring major new spending.
In a recent speech to the Education Society of Edmonton, Minister Hancock noted:
I don't think we're preparing for the future if we simply use this time to do the same things with less money. It's an opportunity to think about what we're trying to achieve and the value of what we do in achieving it.
[In the past year,] I've had the privilege of learning about what other parts of the world do to educate their children. Those experiences have made two things very clear.
One is that money may not be the best way to improve our students' educational experiences. Often, better practices – new ideas, careful research, and professional development – are the source of improvement.
And two, Alberta is widely recognized as a leader in education. That's very affirming. But it may lead some to say, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." And I agree.
I have no desire to stop doing things that work well – we want to remove the things that don't really add value to our education system. I don't think it's enough to say a certain program is beneficial to students, so we should continue it.
The real question is, how beneficial is it? Could we be doing other things with our money and energy that would make a bigger difference? Could we achieve the same or better outcomes in different ways?
Are there other changes that we should consider to ensure Alberta's students have the best possible opportunities for success?
My caution about platooning is two-fold: that it (a) seems to be driven by a desire to achieve higher test scores without looking at the broader impacts on social/emotional needs of children and
(b) doesn't seem to have any strong evidence of achieving those results.
By contrast, other models around the world involve LESS platooning, stronger bond-development between a teacher and student (in some cases, over several years) and as a by-product have achieved higher results. Being driven by test scores, rather than having them as a happy by-product, seems unwise. I would prefer to take direction from "successful education" countries, than "unsuccessful" and therefore I would treat any program originating from the States with some caution.
I certainly agree that successful teaching is more about the relationship than the subject matter expertise. A strong teacher builds the relationship with a student that inspires the student to learn and achieve and draws out each students inner capacity and strength. Test scores should not be drivers, but rather indicators. We should be open to learning from them what they can tell us about whether we have been successful firstly with each student – in moving that student from where he/she is to where he/she can be, and then of course as diagnostic tools to determine if there are areas we need to change or improve as teachers, schools, Boards and as a system. No system is all good or all bad. We have a system that is rated among the best in the world. There is still much we need to improve. Even in those systems that are not rated as well there are gems and best practices which can be learned from.