THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO. I'm a student at College here in Toronto the fab Professor that showed us this video is Kate Klein. SHE IS AMAZING. It took me until I am 41 to realize I'm not the broken one, OUR SYSTEMS ARE THE BROKEN ONES. Solidarity.
Very helpful and very true video, I was one of those kids and now my son struggles with the same thing. But I teach him some teacher are still in the old way of teaching, and to continue to learn your way. Because we learn and teach different. Doesn't mean your lacking she shouldn't.
Where are you now and what is your next step! Stellar! I’m a sped teacher and I loathe the phrase ‘I can’t’. It’s a cuss word in my room. When a students says I can’t I add…I can’t yet but If we discover other ways to do this, I CAN!
Brilliant! We are enjoying a year where we haven't been 'should' on yet, and it's been the best! Letting go of "average, comparison and competition" has freed our team to see unique strengths and opportunities. Sharing with everyone I know :)
00:02 The concept of greenness in education 00:41 Standardization in education dates back to the Industrial Revolution. 01:16 Factory workers were taught to be 'green' 01:45 Challenging the broken educational system 02:18 Education system is outdated 02:51 Removing the word 'should' from education systems 03:20 Letting go of average and embracing children for who they are. 03:52 Don't should on yourself Crafted by Merlin AI.
Decades ago I had an older colleague who "fined" us 25 cents if we used the word "should"...(we were youth employment counsellors)...NOW I get it. And I don't "should" on myself.
Dawn "should" be a size 6, but you certainly aren't going to make me wear one! :-) My goal is to foster conversations that question the word "should". Thanks Shelley!!!!
I can see what you mean...and I agree the question should be "where are you now and what is your next step?" BUT....for that to happen I feel strongly then that unless we have gazillions of teachers to student ratios then what your "next step" is ought to dictate what CLASS you're in. So that one or two teachers can focus on a like-group of students who are at the same level (roughly) and learning in the same way (hence matching up people who are on similar "next steps" with one another until they're ready to move on). Because the concept of a class of 30 kids all at completely different levels being taught in completely different ways specific to their own learning needs is not really practical or doable unless we have tons of teachers to a class to ensure that daily we get to focus on teaching multiple different lessons in multiple different ways. But the perceived problem of doing it the way I suggested above - having children go to the teacher that is best suited for them and their learning style and the move that they need "next" with similar students won't be met kindly, either, in today's world. We want "equality", and have made a fairly big upset already about trying to segregate different kids with different learning needs into groups. In fact there were schools and classes designed to help a certain portion of the kids learn and function in a way/environment that helped them excel and those schools were cancelled and the children integrated because it was unfair separating those kids - even though THOSE kids were in fact getting the education in the way they individually needed. ( I know because all my friends went ot one of those schools and eventually had to go back to our school and they were unhappy and lost having to go back. they never cared about being grouped together or felt upset by it - it was the parents who felt it was unfair. the kids felt empowered where they'd been - learning well in a way that was designed to help them thrive. But when they were dispersed they went bck to not learning well because of the environment and hated it) But to expand on that idea even further making different groups for all kids depending on their "next steps" would upset people just the same. I'm all for the idea of asking the right questions and not pushing kids to be at a level in specific, but we need to find a practical way then to make that work - because when you have some kids who need to be up moving and being loud and coming and going as they please who are at a level 2 in math and reading and still developing their communication and social skills it's not functional to have them learning along side a student who requires a quiet environment, with little distraction and learns best from a more traditional approach to teaching, who is at a level 5 in math and reading and fully developed their social and communication skills. No one classroom can meet the needs of both these students simultaneously because their needs cancel each other out. So recognizing that child #2 needs a quiet traditional environment that focuses on moving forward in the basics but also expands on further education more rapidly and in a stricter environment, while also recognizing that child #1 needs a more fluid environment with activities designed to get them thinking while interacting in groups and applying practical skills to games they play with a lot more one on one focus on them to help them acheive better social and communication skills while nudging them towards their next step to learning to read, and then putting the two in different environments to help them both get the education they need, is what we need to do, without viewing it as unfair or unequal. If we want to suggest that each child is unique and each child needs to ask their own question of "what is my next step" then we have to also stray from the idea that there is a one-size fits all classroom. There is NOT. There can not be an "equal" when we all require different styles of teaching. But that's the thing: we invented the idea of "equal". It's not less "equal", it's just different. We need to embrace difference, not make it criminal, in order to move forward. Equal simply means the same opportunity or expectation across all people. Which it still would be - everyone can be taught by Mrs. Brown, the teacher who specializes in a quiet class for kids taking advanced math. If the kid is ready, no kid will be turned away. But if the child doesn't excel in that environment then it makes more sense instead go to Mr. White's class for children who want to focus more heavily on online social media, gaming and arts, with a focus on more basic math. It's not a contest. it's not the "dumb kids" and the "smart kids". It's the kids who need one type of education and environment in which to learn at their top rate, versus the other type of kids who need a different type of environment to learn at their top rate. Both with have equal opportunity to learn to their full potential, in their own way, and come out the other end with the skills they need to thrive in this world we live in. And nobody will be denied the opportunity to take any class, but like all things it makes sense to do what works best. It won't be a "you're not ready" for a class. It will be a "what is your next step and next goal?" if it doesn't make sense to take a particular class or be with a articular teacher, then so be it. There should be no shame in that. But there is such a stigma that we not split kids up, and that we keep everyone together, that kids who need silence and structure can't concentrate if the kids who need hands-on group learning and a more free environment are helped to also do it their way. How do we make that structure work? How do we have a single classroom that meets the needs of both kids who need silence and kids who need to be able to move and talk and interact freely? Do we put a partition down the middle of the class? make cubicles to put the kids who need silence in? And if not then they're just in the middle of a class that's unsuited to them as much as the other kids were in a class unsuited to their learning style. And if you agree we need those cubicals or that divider, the why not just a different teacher/room? When each child has a different answer to the question "how do you learn best?" and "what is best for you?" then if we are serious about those questions and about giving each child the best we can give, then we need to recognize that like all those different answers we need different environments to suit the needs of the different children. I 100% agree with the point of this video - but how it is supposed to work (like REALLY work for ALL kids) is beyond me. My daughter is autistic and needs a quiet, structured, work environment. She's been in classes with a different approach to teaching and it's stressing for her. She's often bored with the more hands-on real-life approach to learning, uncomfortable with group activities and a free-range environment, and then lacks the ability to get her work done to the best of her ability when she's trying to do it but other kids are free to wander and explore and be loud and do their own thing around her. I'm not expecting the other kids to fit into a mold and sit nicely and be quiet and learn from a teacher preaching at the front of a room...not all kids can do that and thrive. But for those who need to do that I wonder what is to become of them unless we yank them out into their own space and allow them to keep having their old-school methods? We want to cater to the idea not all kids can benefit from the old-school learning environment and structure, and we want to make strides towards different methods of teaching and evaluating to accommodate those other learning styles. Which makes sense, and is both correct, and great. And needed. But while doing it we can't accidentally prioritize the idea of making sure the kids who can't fit the mold get their ideal way of learning OVER the kids who need the old way. Because as soon as several kids come into a class and the class accepts that they need to move, and talk, and be hands-on and come and go as they please, the needs of the kids who require more structure are being jeopardized. I know it's been generations of those kids having the upper-hand, but it shouldn't be about "you and your way now we get ours", - it's not an eye for an eye - ( it's unfortunate things didn't change sooner), but if we believe all kids are equal (which we do) and we really care about children, then we need to equally find a way to prioritize both types of student-learning. If you don't want to force the kids who need to move and be loud to sit quietly and listen to a teacher, then we can't force the kids who need to sit quietly and listen to a teacher to adapt to classrooms of noise and hands-on/group learning. It may mean splitting kids up.
i think "should" is a word tied to destructive communication. i think "Should" is tied to types of economics practiced today all across the world and behind closed doors. #peaceNotwar
Be careful not to through the baby out with the bath water. It appears the message is advocating that society is an individualistic thing and that that the world must revolve around everyone. Can you think of the chaos of a system where everyone set their own schedule and went about things in their own way, all the time. Systems and rules and standardization exist for a reason. Efficiency is one. Order is another. Quality is another (although this can be debated). I am not suggesting the status quo is ideal, as it is not. Human and social beings (I don't just mean in the simplistic language sense, but in the interdependence and relationship sense, too) and the requirement is that we will adhere to certain societal expectations. I do want to know what my child should be able to do at this developmental stage. How else would we understand development? I am not a child expert, so I rely on the expertise of others to advise me in my decision making and parenting. I do the same in my teach.
Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself. This video promotes the idea that stchools should change from being places where creativity is stifled to places where discipline and process thinking is stifled. The world is not in need of an army of self-centered artists anymore than it is in need of an army of automatons. Bad messaging.
The idea is nice but reality is that there are still factories, still workplaces where you can't "have a window of arrival". The school system is a disaster because of people who think that there children can do whatever they want, when they want, how they want. Creativity is awesome and should be a part of education, but not all the time.
it's funny you should say this because I owned and ran a manufacturing plant for 15 years where we did exactly this and shockingly things ran fine and we had excellent employee retention. The world is changing.
Letting go of competition would be a recipe for disaster. Why? Because naturally, species of every kind (including humans) compete in an environment. Compete for food, shelter, etc. It's a scientific fact. Competition was the reason homo sapiens evolved into what we are now. Competition, Adaptation, and Survival. Although I understand her POV on the difficulty of school (as with most of the people) and how she disliked the word "SHOULD", but she was also using SHOULD in her message. That curriculum SHOULD adjust to her. 😹 Should that be the case?
Have you been Should On? It's the worst!
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO. I'm a student at College here in Toronto the fab Professor that showed us this video is Kate Klein. SHE IS AMAZING. It took me until I am 41 to realize I'm not the broken one, OUR SYSTEMS ARE THE BROKEN ONES. Solidarity.
Very helpful and very true video, I was one of those kids and now my son struggles with the same thing. But I teach him some teacher are still in the old way of teaching, and to continue to learn your way. Because we learn and teach different. Doesn't mean your lacking she shouldn't.
Where are you now and what is your next step! Stellar! I’m a sped teacher and I loathe the phrase ‘I can’t’. It’s a cuss word in my room. When a students says I can’t I add…I can’t yet but If we discover other ways to do this, I CAN!
Your video is amazing !!!! Thank you for sharing this ! I will no longer should on myself 👍
Brilliant! We are enjoying a year where we haven't been 'should' on yet, and it's been the best! Letting go of "average, comparison and competition" has freed our team to see unique strengths and opportunities. Sharing with everyone I know :)
"Windows of arrival time" LOL . Can't wait to share this new video. Keep them coming!
Fantastic! Thank you
00:02 The concept of greenness in education
00:41 Standardization in education dates back to the Industrial Revolution.
01:16 Factory workers were taught to be 'green'
01:45 Challenging the broken educational system
02:18 Education system is outdated
02:51 Removing the word 'should' from education systems
03:20 Letting go of average and embracing children for who they are.
03:52 Don't should on yourself
Crafted by Merlin AI.
This is so succinctly and well done!! I am a teacher and believe this deep in my heart. It's hard to constantly fight a broken system.
Oh my how I needed this TODAY. "Hooray for these thoughts and words of awareness & acceptance." Oh yes, I've been Should On!!
You are my magical unicorn of color hero. Every video you post I am shouting, "YES!! YES!! YAASSS!!!!"
So great! Thank you for putting this into words!
Decades ago I had an older colleague who "fined" us 25 cents if we used the word "should"...(we were youth employment counsellors)...NOW I get it. And I don't "should" on myself.
What a great show, and I love the message.
"windows of arrival time" is who I am!
Dawn "should" be a size 6, but you certainly aren't going to make me wear one! :-) My goal is to foster conversations that question the word "should". Thanks Shelley!!!!
Thank you for this! It's the first video of yours I am watching and I am sure I'll see more!
I LOVE this! thanks so much
I love, love your strategies.
LOVE THIS!!!!
loved it !
I can see what you mean...and I agree the question should be "where are you now and what is your next step?" BUT....for that to happen I feel strongly then that unless we have gazillions of teachers to student ratios then what your "next step" is ought to dictate what CLASS you're in. So that one or two teachers can focus on a like-group of students who are at the same level (roughly) and learning in the same way (hence matching up people who are on similar "next steps" with one another until they're ready to move on). Because the concept of a class of 30 kids all at completely different levels being taught in completely different ways specific to their own learning needs is not really practical or doable unless we have tons of teachers to a class to ensure that daily we get to focus on teaching multiple different lessons in multiple different ways. But the perceived problem of doing it the way I suggested above - having children go to the teacher that is best suited for them and their learning style and the move that they need "next" with similar students won't be met kindly, either, in today's world. We want "equality", and have made a fairly big upset already about trying to segregate different kids with different learning needs into groups. In fact there were schools and classes designed to help a certain portion of the kids learn and function in a way/environment that helped them excel and those schools were cancelled and the children integrated because it was unfair separating those kids - even though THOSE kids were in fact getting the education in the way they individually needed. ( I know because all my friends went ot one of those schools and eventually had to go back to our school and they were unhappy and lost having to go back. they never cared about being grouped together or felt upset by it - it was the parents who felt it was unfair. the kids felt empowered where they'd been - learning well in a way that was designed to help them thrive. But when they were dispersed they went bck to not learning well because of the environment and hated it) But to expand on that idea even further making different groups for all kids depending on their "next steps" would upset people just the same. I'm all for the idea of asking the right questions and not pushing kids to be at a level in specific, but we need to find a practical way then to make that work - because when you have some kids who need to be up moving and being loud and coming and going as they please who are at a level 2 in math and reading and still developing their communication and social skills it's not functional to have them learning along side a student who requires a quiet environment, with little distraction and learns best from a more traditional approach to teaching, who is at a level 5 in math and reading and fully developed their social and communication skills. No one classroom can meet the needs of both these students simultaneously because their needs cancel each other out. So recognizing that child #2 needs a quiet traditional environment that focuses on moving forward in the basics but also expands on further education more rapidly and in a stricter environment, while also recognizing that child #1 needs a more fluid environment with activities designed to get them thinking while interacting in groups and applying practical skills to games they play with a lot more one on one focus on them to help them acheive better social and communication skills while nudging them towards their next step to learning to read, and then putting the two in different environments to help them both get the education they need, is what we need to do, without viewing it as unfair or unequal. If we want to suggest that each child is unique and each child needs to ask their own question of "what is my next step" then we have to also stray from the idea that there is a one-size fits all classroom. There is NOT. There can not be an "equal" when we all require different styles of teaching. But that's the thing: we invented the idea of "equal". It's not less "equal", it's just different. We need to embrace difference, not make it criminal, in order to move forward. Equal simply means the same opportunity or expectation across all people. Which it still would be - everyone can be taught by Mrs. Brown, the teacher who specializes in a quiet class for kids taking advanced math. If the kid is ready, no kid will be turned away. But if the child doesn't excel in that environment then it makes more sense instead go to Mr. White's class for children who want to focus more heavily on online social media, gaming and arts, with a focus on more basic math. It's not a contest. it's not the "dumb kids" and the "smart kids". It's the kids who need one type of education and environment in which to learn at their top rate, versus the other type of kids who need a different type of environment to learn at their top rate. Both with have equal opportunity to learn to their full potential, in their own way, and come out the other end with the skills they need to thrive in this world we live in. And nobody will be denied the opportunity to take any class, but like all things it makes sense to do what works best. It won't be a "you're not ready" for a class. It will be a "what is your next step and next goal?" if it doesn't make sense to take a particular class or be with a articular teacher, then so be it. There should be no shame in that. But there is such a stigma that we not split kids up, and that we keep everyone together, that kids who need silence and structure can't concentrate if the kids who need hands-on group learning and a more free environment are helped to also do it their way. How do we make that structure work? How do we have a single classroom that meets the needs of both kids who need silence and kids who need to be able to move and talk and interact freely? Do we put a partition down the middle of the class? make cubicles to put the kids who need silence in? And if not then they're just in the middle of a class that's unsuited to them as much as the other kids were in a class unsuited to their learning style. And if you agree we need those cubicals or that divider, the why not just a different teacher/room? When each child has a different answer to the question "how do you learn best?" and "what is best for you?" then if we are serious about those questions and about giving each child the best we can give, then we need to recognize that like all those different answers we need different environments to suit the needs of the different children. I 100% agree with the point of this video - but how it is supposed to work (like REALLY work for ALL kids) is beyond me. My daughter is autistic and needs a quiet, structured, work environment. She's been in classes with a different approach to teaching and it's stressing for her. She's often bored with the more hands-on real-life approach to learning, uncomfortable with group activities and a free-range environment, and then lacks the ability to get her work done to the best of her ability when she's trying to do it but other kids are free to wander and explore and be loud and do their own thing around her. I'm not expecting the other kids to fit into a mold and sit nicely and be quiet and learn from a teacher preaching at the front of a room...not all kids can do that and thrive. But for those who need to do that I wonder what is to become of them unless we yank them out into their own space and allow them to keep having their old-school methods? We want to cater to the idea not all kids can benefit from the old-school learning environment and structure, and we want to make strides towards different methods of teaching and evaluating to accommodate those other learning styles. Which makes sense, and is both correct, and great. And needed. But while doing it we can't accidentally prioritize the idea of making sure the kids who can't fit the mold get their ideal way of learning OVER the kids who need the old way. Because as soon as several kids come into a class and the class accepts that they need to move, and talk, and be hands-on and come and go as they please, the needs of the kids who require more structure are being jeopardized. I know it's been generations of those kids having the upper-hand, but it shouldn't be about "you and your way now we get ours", - it's not an eye for an eye - ( it's unfortunate things didn't change sooner), but if we believe all kids are equal (which we do) and we really care about children, then we need to equally find a way to prioritize both types of student-learning. If you don't want to force the kids who need to move and be loud to sit quietly and listen to a teacher, then we can't force the kids who need to sit quietly and listen to a teacher to adapt to classrooms of noise and hands-on/group learning. It may mean splitting kids up.
i think "should" is a word tied to destructive communication. i think "Should" is tied to types of economics practiced today all across the world and behind closed doors. #peaceNotwar
I used to have a bumper sticker that said, "don't should on yourself, it leads to must-erbation." Love this Shelley!
Be careful not to through the baby out with the bath water. It appears the message is advocating that society is an individualistic thing and that that the world must revolve around everyone. Can you think of the chaos of a system where everyone set their own schedule and went about things in their own way, all the time. Systems and rules and standardization exist for a reason. Efficiency is one. Order is another. Quality is another (although this can be debated). I am not suggesting the status quo is ideal, as it is not. Human and social beings (I don't just mean in the simplistic language sense, but in the interdependence and relationship sense, too) and the requirement is that we will adhere to certain societal expectations. I do want to know what my child should be able to do at this developmental stage. How else would we understand development? I am not a child expert, so I rely on the expertise of others to advise me in my decision making and parenting. I do the same in my teach.
Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself. This video promotes the idea that stchools should change from being places where creativity is stifled to places where discipline and process thinking is stifled. The world is not in need of an army of self-centered artists anymore than it is in need of an army of automatons. Bad messaging.
The idea is nice but reality is that there are still factories, still workplaces where you can't "have a window of arrival". The school system is a disaster because of people who think that there children can do whatever they want, when they want, how they want. Creativity is awesome and should be a part of education, but not all the time.
it's funny you should say this because I owned and ran a manufacturing plant for 15 years where we did exactly this and shockingly things ran fine and we had excellent employee retention. The world is changing.
@@justaddspice9672 What did you manufacture and what happened to the factory?
Green makes green, that's the system's fault.
Letting go of competition would be a recipe for disaster. Why? Because naturally, species of every kind (including humans) compete in an environment. Compete for food, shelter, etc. It's a scientific fact.
Competition was the reason homo sapiens evolved into what we are now. Competition, Adaptation, and Survival.
Although I understand her POV on the difficulty of school (as with most of the people) and how she disliked the word "SHOULD", but she was also using SHOULD in her message. That curriculum SHOULD adjust to her. 😹
Should that be the case?