A recent New York Times piece by Margaret Renkl reminded us that 鈥渟chool is the only place in the world where you鈥檙e expected to excel at everything, and all at the same time.鈥�
In some ways, that is a paean to the problem facing the 鈥渁verage鈥� student who finds themselves in the middle of academic achievement rankings, trying to succeed at everything in the same way and at the same rate as classmates.
Renkl went on to support her statement, saying: 鈥淚n real life, you鈥檒l excel at what you do best and let others excel at what they do best.鈥�
It brings to mind satirist Garrison Keillor鈥檚 mischievous description of his fictional town of Lake Wobegon where 鈥渁ll the children are above average.鈥�
Of course, by mathematical definition, it is not possible for every child to be above average or, for that matter, even average.
Yet the basic tenets underpinning the organization of public education, from building design to the curriculum itself, is devised to meet the requirements of the 鈥渁verage鈥� student.
It was that realization that motivated Todd Rose, director of the Mind, Brain and Education program at the Harvard School of Education, to write his bestseller The End of Average, decrying what he describes as the myth of average students, average curriculum and average results.
Rose writes: 鈥淗istorically, education has been about batch processing: Standardizing everything against the average.鈥�
To support his anti-average thesis, Rose instances the situation that faced the U.S. Air Force which, in 1952, had designed fighter-plane cockpits using measurements thought to accommodate the average-sized pilot.
However, upon measuring more than 4,000 pilots, it was found no such person as the average pilot actually existed. Cockpits designed for the average fit no one.
That resonates with educators frustrated by the knowledge that public education in 2019, despite the best efforts of individual educators, follows a basic 1952 design. It was established to meet the needs of the average student who finds themselves, despite individual differences which separate them from other students, in a instructional construct which assumes that they are learning in the same way, at the same rate, as their classmates 鈥� average unless some one time test score says otherwise.
The irony is that some teachers in 2019 already have discovered and are using tools that differentiate between students, thus providing the opportunity for customized digital instruction that respects the individuality of each kid.
In the same way as checking into your favourite hotel brings up a list of your personal preferences, even though it has been months since you stayed there, a Google shopping expedition now results in weeks of similar items, configured for you individually, showing up on your social media.
We know, like it or not, that technology exists that can track each individual student鈥檚 learning pathway 鈥� precisely what is needed to keep tabs on individual learners.
In his book, Rose writes: 鈥淚f there is no such thing as the average learner, we shouldn鈥檛 be using curriculum designed for the average. How can we possibly teach to the very wide variability of students within each classroom, not to mention the variability of learning within each student?鈥�
That question demands that curriculum be individualized. It also demands that, when the opportunity arises in 2019, school design should also take a big step forward from 1952 assumptions about how instructional organization be housed and that what we know now about individual learning differences should drive 2019 architectural design for new schools.
Derived from architectural thinking comes a process called Universal Design Learning.
Just as architects consider the broadest spectrum of uses by the greatest variety of users for any building design before committing concepts to pencil and paper, UDL is a set of guiding principles for curriculum design along with lessons from the earliest stages so that the greatest number of students will be able to learn most effectively and deeply.
The UDL design process lends itself to flexible materials and lessons that can be used by all students. Fewer changes need to be made at the time of instruction to accommodate individual learning needs.
It is timely, because as educational researcher Phillip Schlechty put it: 鈥淲hen we decided to go to the moon, we knew that the internal combustion engine would not get us there. We would need an entirely new system of propulsion.鈥�
Geoff Johnson is a former superintendent of schools.
