Education and the ‘Pirate’s Code’

Mike Schmoker writes a concise and high-pitched opinion on the need to avoid curricular chaos. Both he and Robert Marzano, author of “What Works in Schools,” believe that a clear, concise focus on learning outcomes is what, in the end, produces high-quality student learning.

Grant Wiggins, Jay McTighe, Jim Collins, Richard DuFour and Michael Fullan agree, for about $20 a book. I agree as well — but for a lot less, in terms of the pirate’s code.

I consider what Jack Sparrow might say at a time like this — the only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man, or you can’t. For myself, I can let you drown, but I can’t bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesies, savvy?

The way I see it, Jack likes standards. They state what a man can do and what a man can’t do — and the man can’t do it alone.

Standards in education act like the pirate’s code: guidelines to parlay with conduct and learning. For one thing, they demonstrate how organizations have more in common than they do differences. Standards also keep a system’s bow straight to navigate through rough waters. If educators are not careful, standards could become a curse of their own, their own addictive rum that keeps them from progressing.

At the instructional level, it is time to look beyond the standards and the state grade level expectations (GLE). Learning outcomes must be thoughtfully considered to demonstrate each of the standards and/or GLEs. By doing so I can almost hear Jack moan, “But, the rum, why the rum?”

Because, handsome Jack, moving beyond the standards and GLEs to learning outcomes is a change of course that keeps you off your own private island.

The Mat-Su Borough School District follows a six-year curriculum review cycle. The writing and alignment of learning outcomes to the state standards and GLEs began last year with middle school science. This year teams of teachers will write learning outcomes for kindergarten through 12th-grade math and elementary and high school science. The documents will concentrate not on the form of instruction; rather, on the function of learning objectives. The process involves three levels of work before the adoption of final materials.

The writing of learning outcomes is heady, hard work. These learning objectives do not focus on overdosed textbooks. Instead, they prioritize what a student needs to be capable of with the new knowledge. Objectives go beyond simply knowing what they can and cannot do; they help students prove it.

The age of information evaporates into the age of innovation when the amount of information exceeds the capacity to absorb. The English language contains three times the amount of words than when Shakespeare penned, “To be or not to be: that is the question.” A week’s worth of The New York Times contains more information than a person in the 18th century could know in a lifetime. Teachers cannot possibly teach it all while also taking the lunch count.

Thus, objectives, alongside the standards and GLEs, show teachers what they can and cannot do. The learning objectives specify what must be taught. A time analysis process ensures that 100 percent of the scope and sequence is taught during a school year by all teachers for all students, with enough time left to play pirates, grab gold medallions and explore uncharted waters. They help to row the boat ashore with everyone on board.

We need to admit what we can do and what we cannot do, and then be vigilant to work together to accomplish what’s realistic, because teachers can’t bring the ship into Tortuga all by their onesies, savvy?

Emily Forstner is the professional development coordinator for Mat-Su Borough School District.