Skip to main content

What Really Is The "Real World"?

The Real World was a much loved MTV reality show before reality TV all but took over television. But it is also a phrase adults and educators love to use with teenagers, typically in a punitive sense. We tell them that "in the real world" somebody is not going to tolerate their lack of punctuality, or their bad attitude, or their lack of writing skills, or their excuses...and so on.

And we have a point, excuses for those behaviors, choices, and lack of skills are not likely to be tolerated in the workplace, or in higher education. But what if we treated school like it was the real world? What if school actually IS the real world? I would contend that it is. Every day, in every school district in this country, there are students who walk through school doors with far more real world experience than some of the staff and students in those buildings. Access to social media means that the very real world is incredibly present and vivid to our children on a daily basis. We will say that we are trying to preserve their childhood or their innocence or trying to teach them age appropriate skills, or that we make real world connections instead, but then where do we draw the line between what we expect them to know and what we expect them to learn? More importantly, how do we teach it?



Instead of telling them that their professor or boss won't tolerate something, what if we tried teaching them how to do that, provided opportunities to practice it, and didn't scold, berate, or punish them when they have yet to perform it. Part of this question lies with the pervasive idea that punishment in the only way to address behavior. Some schools have adopted Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. Some have used Restorative Justice, or mindfulness practices. These are all wonderful research backed tools tools, but they are beside the point if we use them to teach students skills but then turn around and tell them they will need a different set of skills to use in the workplace or in higher ed. or in"real life."

What if we just told students what skills they needed in high school and beyond, then taught the students those skills?  Then what if we embedded those skills in our classrooms, and in our content areas, and empowered students to acquire them by providing grade appropriate opportunities to practice them, feedback, and support? That doesn't mean we don't have consequences, positive or negative, or that we avoid accountability, but it does mean that we at least have been clear about the expectation, and have provided support and context for how to use the skill whether that is timeliness, effective communication, presenting and so on. It also means we separate skills from behaviors. It  means making school and the real world one and the same.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When Time Is the Variable and Learning Is the Constant

It is time to rethink time, in schools in particular. So many uses of time are ingrained in our educational traditions that we seldom question their validity or purpose. We start at the same times even when report after report demonstrates it is not best for our kids. We require a certain length of seat time, in a day, and in a school year, even when it takes many students shorter or longer than that to learn. We assign (or are assigned by higher authorities) testing windows that take away from instructional time, and often cause high stress levels in students, despite serving no learning purpose. (We can argue about whether they serve other purposes another time, no pun intended.) So let's break some of these down. Many people incorrectly assume the reason for summer breaks is based on farming, check here for an explanation from PBS about the more accurate origins of that decision. Part of the issue was the lack of air conditioning in cities and affluent families leaving those

How Do You Elevate Process Skills While Not Watering Down Content?

This is not an easy question to answer, or a simple topic to tackle. As educators, we often find our hands tied by the number and sequence of courses are students are required to take. Sometimes educators are limited even further by what programs or texts they must use. It is virtually ingrained in most adults that the way to do things is a K-12 education with high school being comprised of 22 (give or take) credits, often referred to as  Carnegie Units , which are aimed at one target - being translatable to colleges and universities. So we see students taking the same required courses in high schools all over the country. This should be great for consistency right? It should mean that all high school graduates are prepared for the world that awaits them right? I would love to trace the question of WHY that is the case back to it's source and then convince that person or persons that surely after 150 years it must be time to revisit that system. It in no way ensures that students

Why Shouldn't Education Be Fun?

Recently, I have seen some examples of what I will call "fun-shaming" in education. While there is certainly a case to be made for the idea that education shouldn't be engaging alone, looking down on a lesson because it teaches physics AND is fun (hi, almost all experiments involving baking soda), makes zero sense. You can't just play and have fun all day instead  of learning, but why on earth not in addition to learning? If we would rather work at jobs where our skills are valued, we are compensated adequately, and we enjoy our colleagues and workspace and our work itself, why wouldn't we espouse the same theory in classrooms and schools? It starts with a culture of people who love their jobs, and love kids. Most educators start out this way! You know the saying, teachers don't join for the million dollar paychecks. Principals and other admin are under a lot of pressure, students are coming from a range of backgrounds, skills, and needs. Finding a way to