When is “Good Enough” Not Enough?

I’d like to start with a thought experiment.

If we all know the environment and culture that is conducive to true learning, why do we choose to so often ignore these essentials and create stale and “do as I say, not as I do” learning opportunities? Why are words like “training”, “remembering”, and “review” consistently the frame we use to portray learning? As a father I’ve started to pay particular attention to how my own kids learn. I’ve noticed the ebb and flow of my own learning. The common element that connects all of these independent factors is curiosity. The ability to ask, ponder, contemplate, hypothesize, question, test, experiment, and then repeat the process, isn’t just confined to the world of science, but it’s also how my sons learn to play new games, how I develop better instructional approaches, and how infants figure out how to get attention when they are alone. Our strong sense of curiosity may be one of our most compelling human qualities.

But, I think we’ve relegated curiosity to the sidelines in most formalized learning situations. Other “priorities” have seemed to take curiosity’s place. The didactic nature of learning, for individuals of all ages, has become by and far the most prevalent transmission of education in our country. Our systems of learning seem much more interested in compliance and standardization as opposed to nurturing curiosity. Our current system of one individual being the conduit of knowledge and skills to another group of individuals seems to reinforce the attributes that we least desire. Or maybe they don’t, but regardless, learning suffers when the “direction of learning” is hierarchical in its pattern of networking.

I get why we think this pattern is best. It ensures a certain level of fidelity. It is a great example of “good enough”. What the evidence would show is that this “good enough” approach ensures standardization and uniformity, but has proven that it doesn’t work for everyone, in all situations, and to it’s fullest ability. The “good enough” approach creates those that “get it” and those that “never will”. The “good enough” approach creates individuals who are “bad at math” or hate to read or leave the “science” to someone else. The “good enough” approach perpetuates a world where someone else is responsible for asking the questions, discovering the solution, and solving our problems.

Again, I don’t think that all of this started out to be malicious. Originally, standardization and uniformity were meant to be good things. But somehow along the way, we’ve lost our way. We’ve allowed this to supersede the pieces of our humanness that make each of us capable of being learners. Don’t mistake my intentions here. I’m not opposed to universal expectations and outcomes for all learners. In fact, I believe in them wholeheartedly, but universal expectations and outcomes are not the same as standardization and uniformity. Universality is the expectation that all learners will develop essential skills and knowledge that will empower them for a life-time.

We as teachers should be focus all our efforts on “un-doing” good enough. We must treat our classrooms as laboratories of action research. We must not allow the cacophony to distract us from the outcomes that truly matter. We are the ones that must never settle for good enough.