The 'Matthew effect' of professional learning

If you're not familiar with the Matthew effect, it's a phenomenon named for the Biblical parable of talents, a story illustrating how the "rich get richer and poor get poorer"--for lack of a better description short of rehashing the whole story.

The theory of the Matthew effect has been applied to education and the classroom in many ways. Those students who struggle to read will typically read less, and thus fall even further behind. Teachers tend to call on students who raise their hands or who they believe will have right answers, thus allowing these students greater opportunities for active engagement and learning versus their introverted classmates who are only passive participants.

But how might this theory be applied to professional learning for educators? Teachers who are leaders in their buildings tend to have more opportunities to attend conferences and trainings. These inspiring and thought provoking experiences lead to more self-directed learning. These opportunities help them become even better learners.

Some teachers don't seem to pursue any extra professional learning opportunities. These chances may not even come their way as often. Therefore, they feel less competent with the current conversation in education and are less likely to engage. In fact, I would suggest they often withdraw even further out of self-protection. The cycle continues. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

How can all teachers be empowered to take full responsibility for their own professional learning? How can we help everyone feel safe to engage in the learning process, students and teachers?

Digital learning that doesn't measure up

We have an online curriculum delivery system like nearly every high school I know. It allows students to take courses online by completing modules and progressing through the material at a pace that works for them. We don't typically allow students to take these courses for first attempt credit. Usually, students are in these courses because they have failed a course, or have fallen behind on the path to graduation and need to catch up. In a sense, these programs allow for second chances and for the curriculum to be delivered in a different way than the first go round.

But while these courses serve a purpose as noted, I remain very concerned about this method of learning. When our students take these courses, there is very little interaction with other students in the learning process. For the most part, it's an isolated and passive experience. Students read the material, do some practice activities, and then take quizzes and tests to demonstrate what they've learned. When students take these course during summer school, they spend an entire school day sitting in front of a computer.

For administrative purposes, this type of learning is very neat and tidy and is a convenient way to provide a safety net for students who might be at risk of dropping out of school. But is this really what these students, or any students, need? I don't think this learning experience is going to serve much lasting value for the students, except for the fact that it provides a pathway for completing high school, a worthy goal that will serve them well. That accomplishment alone, even apart from the amount of actual learning, will result in better opportunities for them in their future.

Anyone have a better way at your high school?

Why don't we teach every child like they are gifted?

The curriculum in any quality gifted program emphasizes creativity, critical thinking, and social/emotional skills. These skills are believed to be very important in helping gifted students reach their potential.

Our youngest son is gifted. Actually, all of our kids are gifted in a variety of ways, but he met the criteria established to qualify for the gifted program at school. As a result of his designation in this program, he has had opportunities to do amazing projects, perform plays, attend space camp, and get extra support with social and emotional aspects of life. In his gifted classes, it always seemed content knowledge was secondary to creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving. Learning was designed to be an experience and not just a standard or objective to check off the list.

So why don't we teach every child like they are gifted? The question is especially relevant if you believe that every student is gifted, even if they are not identified as a gifted student by a test. All students have unique needs, but all have in common the need to develop creativity, critical thinking, and social/emotional skills.