I didn’t quite follow the instructions. BUT! I felt a little bit of magic in the air, followed it, and am pretty excited to see where it leads.
GUT—with school size and sphere of influence in mind, I took a broader approach to identifying areas of need at our school. We’re small (~110 students), open to innovation, and—as a member of the Leadership Team—I’ve got a seat at the table from which larger program initiatives need to be explored. My gut initially went to some kind of integrated approach to learning: perhaps in terms of ecological perspectives, skills-based assessment, or balance and holistic development. However, these are all things that we are already trying to focus on at RLC. So, I shifted focus to how we might make change at a program level that supports the great things we are already doing, and opens the door to additional possibilities. I am currently exploring the potential for vertical integration/multi-age programming as a means to enhance our academic program offerings, student learning, and teacher development.
(Fun fact: 3 is a commonly used year spread for vertically integrated/mixed-age learning communities.)
HUNCH—in order to collect info from stakeholders to inform this idea, I created an open-ended Google form for faculty, and a multiple-choice form for students. I am not confident I asked good questions; I wanted to get some general perspectives about the topic, without making my own position clear, and found I struggled to decide how to do so. I think this is a good first step regardless, and one that I can build upon as I speak to individuals in more detail.
LEARNING—so far, it is clear that there is existing experience and interest in vertical integration among RLC faculty, but that there is also some confusion around what it entails. Moving forward, I need to ensure that the community understands that what we are looking at is more than a split-grade or combined class, and is not based on a “stronger young kids with weaker older ones” model, but rather a true mix. It’s also evident that students of all ages are fairly stuck in the mindset that younger teens don’t have anything to teach older ones, which is something I’m hoping this kind of action plan could debunk. Framing and frontloading will be important as I continue to explore options. Finally, I am optimistic that this could be a platform through which some other cool ideas, such as cross-curricular learning, leadership development, movement towards a skills-based mindset from a grades-based one, etc, could be developed. With a little help from my friends, I’ve begun to talk through this idea with my action plan in mind, and I am excited to dig deeper. Rather than go into too much detail on that front, here is what the inside of my brain looks like when it thinks about breaking and rebuilding the system:
(I promise that this is my “thinking writing” and I am more legible when necessary!)
i. I will have more specific conversations with individuals or groups of faculty/students to garner more of an understanding of how vertically integrated programming could be implemented in a way that meets their needs, and the goals that I am striving for.
ii. I will explore the systemic limitations that might exist on this sort of model. For instance, when and how can students “reach ahead” in a vertically integrated course? Are there time requirements and ways around them? How much of role can prior learning assessment play?
iii. I will explore the factors within RLC as an institution that may govern how, and to what extent, something like this could be done. How will it be scheduled? What integration of options will be presented? For what grade ranges?
I don’t know what this will look like—yet—but it is exciting to think about the possibilities!
Ah. And as proof that I can sometimes write legibly, and because it makes sense to include it, here is my “placemat” in its current form: