Cycle Three: Embryonic Communities

I have always had an interest in analyzing the psychological or anthropological components of people and cultures; something about the critical thinking required to break something down in order to gain a deeper understanding is very appealing to me.  When my husband and I moved to Italy last September, I was immediately faced with a wealth of cultural differences, most of which greatly puzzled me; I immediately strived to gain a better understanding.  After being in Italy about a month, my husband's company set us up to meet with a "cultural consultant," someone who was familiar with both American and Italian culture, and could give us some guidance regarding why things were the way they were.

A huge breaking point occurred in my understanding when, during one of our 'breaks,' I asked the consultant about Italian school systems and how they work.  She explained that there were a number of differences between traditional Italian education and American education, resulting in significant differences in the cultures and citizens created.  Evidently, in Italian schools, students are grouped at an early age, and end up staying with the same 25-30 person 'class' for the majority of their education (there are a few times when the groups change, such as between primary and secondary school).  As a result, students form strong relationships at an early age and continually build upon them since they stay with the same group for years and years.  Culturally, this translates to very set social circles who feel a great deal of loyalty for one another, but remain somewhat difficult for any outsider to break in.  In other words, as the consultant explained to us, many individuals in Italy are willing to become acquaintances, but someone who is looking to form an entire new group of friends is rare.  It is even looked upon as very strange (sometimes critically, as it is assumed there must be something wrong with the person since they should already have friends).  In greater society, this appears in a number of ways, among them being the prominence of small family businesses, the willingness to look past weaknesses in friends, even in professional settings, and the fact that storekeepers, servers, etc. are often cold towards new people until they get to know them (which we definitely experienced).  In contrast, American schools focus much more on the ability, effort, and achievements of the individual, which is a direct parallel to our societal and cultural philosophies regarding the payoff of hard work and the achievement ideology. (More basic information about the Italian school system)

Obviously, both of these structures have various strengths and weaknesses.  The outcomes of the Italian model are not, in my opinion, by any means ALL desirable ones, however, the close-knit communities that are a result are desirable, particularly when contrasted with the American objective of "always looking out for #1."  Especially in the technology-driven societies of today, the development of  abilities to connect and work well with others is greatly important.  An individual's ability to productively work with others whom one doesn't necessarily care for is, in my opinion, even more important.  The Italian emphasis on communities in schooling fosters the development of such skills, while our traditional American model often falls short.  The development of small learning communities in schools, however, is a viable solution.

I was fortunate to spend my student teaching year in a middle school that, at the time, used methods of interdisciplinary teaming to teach its students.  This allowed for a number of fascinating cross-curricular units to take place, in addition to providing meeting time for the teachers to discuss student issues, plan together, and collaborate.  Learning experiences were rich, highly involved, and multi-dimensional, all highly important attributes of lasting education.  Students greatly benefited from this type of environment and, to be honest, so did the teachers.  Teaming acted as a sort of small learning community for teachers: responsibilities would be delegated and each team member was crucial to the success of the others.  In my subsequent teaching experiences, I found that a number of teachers are not held accountable for what goes on in their classrooms; while some go above and beyond the curriculum, others isolate themselves professionally, close their doors, pass out worksheets, and skip 'required' units or texts altogether.  Not only does this stall the evolution of teaching practices in the school, it hugely disservices the students.  Vast differences and gaps surface in students' educational backgrounds, with their previous years' teachers being a large component.  A teaming approach eliminates a teacher's ability to remain stuck in their ways or remain below the radar as they are held accountable by teammates, much like students experience in small learning communities.  This translates to more progressive educational experiences for students.  As Felner, Seitsinger, Brand, Burns, and Bolten assert, "when teachers have each other and feel like they are both responsible for and have far greater control over their own teaching and ability to influence students across a more substantial portion of the day (because of the reach of the team), they are more likely to hold far higher expectations for those students, to engage them in positive ways, and to convey those expectations to students through both higher levels of support and richer, more challenging and effective instruction" (219).  The cycle continues as confident teachers who have more faith that their students will learn and progress hold them to higher standards, which students rise to meet.

Unfortunately, I think team-teaching techniques are now hard to find, as they cost more money to implement and districts across the state and country are cutting expenses in every possible way.  It's frustrating that the educational moves our country makes includes a great deal of money spent on standardized testing to measure students, teachers, and schools, but no funding or aide is allocated to implement programs or circumstances (such as a national standard regarding the number of students in a classroom) that are perhaps costly, yet yield considerable results, like other countries do.


Educationally successful countries such as Finland, while vastly different from America in many regards, beg for further consideration when it comes to our own school system.  Finland's commitment to the education of its citizens, its support of and high expectations for teachers, and the intense focus on the well-being and success of each student leave no questions as to why their students thrive.  As Dewey said, "What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children" (19), a mentality Finland takes to heart.  While many American school districts are cutting elective and arts classes to make way for intensive academics and test prep, Finnish schools are focused on ensuring their students get adequate time for play and that they are happy, healthy and successful as students "learn better when they are ready," as teacher Kari Louhivuori stated (Hancock). It makes sense that an approach that cares first for the overall well-being of each student would have positive results, however, in America it often feels as though we are too consumed by measuring our students instead.  


While it is clear that something needs to change in our nation's approach to educating its youth, a lot of these alterations can already begin in our classrooms.  Integrating small group leaning experiences in classrooms not only help students to form important relationships, but it creates a network of people that hold them accountable for their own education.  I like the idea of using a "home group" that students work with throughout a semester, however, I can't shake certain concerns.  For example, at the secondary level, some students has already 'removed' themselves from school, believing that no one cares about them and they don't care about anyone else.  If this student were placed in a small learning group or team and held responsible for a portion of the group's work but did not deliver, would (s)he be chastised by group members, resulting in further removal and demotivation?  When using groups, I typically factor peer evaluations into the final grade of each student, however, I am now wondering if this somewhat removes the responsibility factor both of the struggling student to perform and of group members to motivate and problem-solve.  Has anyone found a better or successful method when it comes to creating a sense of loyalty to group members, especially when it comes to already reluctant students?


There is no denying that it is not enough to just demand our students learn what is put in front of them.  In our classrooms, we must nurture life-long learners, productive citizens, and happy, healthy individuals.  By creating productive embryonic communities in our classrooms and schools, we model success for our students, resulting in a better educational experience overall.  If our students are cared for as people, they will respond positively to their education, rather than feeling isolated, unmotivated, and unimportant.  After all, our students are unique, intelligent and capable individuals, full of potential and should be treated as such, instead of one of the millions we hope will simply fill out the right bubbles on a scantron.