"In education, after all, solutions rarely scale effectively or sustainably."
This strikes me as a really important point that gets at a really important question. Teachers figure out a way of doing something; it works. Systems try to replicate that way of doing something; it doesn't work. What gives?
In thinking about this question, I think it may be helpful to unpack the word "scale" a little. When we talk about "scaling educational solutions", we're using terminology that comes from the discourse of management. But more than that, "scaling" is a management imperative: "scaling" is how a practice becomes part of a system of management.
But what does it mean for a practice to "scale"? A lot of the time - all too often, I think - it means that it becomes standardized and generalized, which is to say that it becomes de-personalized and de-contextualized.
The problem, of course, is that effective teaching is highly personal, interpersonal, and contextual. This is why a big part of why effective teaching practices resist being translated into effective and sustainable management procedures. "Scaling" doesn't respect craft, and respecting craft is necessary if we want to build teaching and learning environments that offer purpose, agency, and support.
Agreed! When I was a coordinator, the biggest challenge I faced was taking a learning experience in one classroom, and scaling it to an entire grade level, and then scaling that to multiple grade levels, then to other school buildings, etc. I was most successful when I was personally connected to each teacher, modeling for them the craft of teaching that would make the learning experience successful. Too often, districts think that my spending money on replicating a practice, this will automatically scale it throughout a district. All this does (as you point out) is standardize the experience, losing the craft of teaching.
I think the reason I lean so much into forming connections with my students is because connecting with others has served me best when navigating change (either expected or unexpected). Whenever I feel that my humanity is centered, even if the change is stressful, I know that I will be able to get through it with help from others, both my colleagues and students.
As I read this chapter, I realized how much I create routine structures that help my students navigate the ups and downs of the school year. Soft starts, regular meetings, catch-up days, all communicate to my students that I privilege care and community in my classroom. As to scale? How can we scale humanity, dignity, and belonging? I think it takes time and many individual efforts working one-on-one to slowly build a strong community.
"In education, after all, solutions rarely scale effectively or sustainably."
This strikes me as a really important point that gets at a really important question. Teachers figure out a way of doing something; it works. Systems try to replicate that way of doing something; it doesn't work. What gives?
In thinking about this question, I think it may be helpful to unpack the word "scale" a little. When we talk about "scaling educational solutions", we're using terminology that comes from the discourse of management. But more than that, "scaling" is a management imperative: "scaling" is how a practice becomes part of a system of management.
But what does it mean for a practice to "scale"? A lot of the time - all too often, I think - it means that it becomes standardized and generalized, which is to say that it becomes de-personalized and de-contextualized.
The problem, of course, is that effective teaching is highly personal, interpersonal, and contextual. This is why a big part of why effective teaching practices resist being translated into effective and sustainable management procedures. "Scaling" doesn't respect craft, and respecting craft is necessary if we want to build teaching and learning environments that offer purpose, agency, and support.
“Scaling doesn’t respect craft” resonates with me a lot!
Appreciate this response, and definitely know a lot of examples where the craft of teaching is disregarded by broader implementations.
Not sure what the “answer” is but I do know that this should be a red line of sorts for whatever “better” ends up looking like.
Agreed! When I was a coordinator, the biggest challenge I faced was taking a learning experience in one classroom, and scaling it to an entire grade level, and then scaling that to multiple grade levels, then to other school buildings, etc. I was most successful when I was personally connected to each teacher, modeling for them the craft of teaching that would make the learning experience successful. Too often, districts think that my spending money on replicating a practice, this will automatically scale it throughout a district. All this does (as you point out) is standardize the experience, losing the craft of teaching.
I think the reason I lean so much into forming connections with my students is because connecting with others has served me best when navigating change (either expected or unexpected). Whenever I feel that my humanity is centered, even if the change is stressful, I know that I will be able to get through it with help from others, both my colleagues and students.
As I read this chapter, I realized how much I create routine structures that help my students navigate the ups and downs of the school year. Soft starts, regular meetings, catch-up days, all communicate to my students that I privilege care and community in my classroom. As to scale? How can we scale humanity, dignity, and belonging? I think it takes time and many individual efforts working one-on-one to slowly build a strong community.