I'm really struggling with this example. I recognize that it is intending to highlight the importance of supportive relationships, which are critical to internalized engagement and motivation in learning. But the external pressure to perform or cross an arbitrary (educational system-imposed) line for graduation, even if someone has to drag you across, feels at odds with the idea of individualized learning processes, in which different people might progress differently. It's like we want those who are disadvantaged to succeed in the same ways within the same system that we recognize is poorly designed for holistic learning. The problem framing seems to put too much pressure on students, and not enough on the systemic structures that need to change. It seems to prioritize "grit" or persistence over other attributes or variables.

This ending quote as well as the discussion in the paper introduction make me think of frameworks for the goals of public education, which often identify primary goals of “good people,” “good citizens,” and “good workers.” There’s a strong urging in this manuscript to shift emphasis away from “good workers” and toward the personal growth and community health goals learning. There’s also a historical perspective that may be worth considering here, as the way society views the primary goals of education has shifted back and forth over time. As Cohen and Malin (2010) note, “People have been worrying about the purposes of education for at least 2,500 years, from the times of the Buddha, Confucius, and Plato until today.”

Interesting potential tension between “community rituals and rites of passage” and being “recognized for their accomplishments,” with the concepts of individual strengths, interests, and needs. What if an individual’s interests and needs are not aligned with the “rites of passage” or structure of recognition? What if an individual developed an internalized sense of motivation and confidence in ways that don’t map to the “high expectations” or established definitions of skills and knowledge?

Sadly, students in affluent schools or upper tracks are often highly trained to respond to external rewards and punishments, so they develop more extrinsic goal orientations and motivations. When it comes to motivation, it’s less about the quantity and more about the quality/type.

I see a lot of emphasis here on demonstration of learning to/for others or performing (a task?), but I wonder about the internal reference point, e.g., self-appraisal of growth and development, based on one’s own goals, interests, values.

This simple phrase feels so externalized/extrinsic without elaboration. Expectations for what – growth, performance, effort, something else?

Perhaps this is not intended, but I sense a prioritization of learning domains here, with cognitive still sitting at the top. We want to make the other things (like movement) automatic so we can allow our brain to do the stuff that really matters. What if the movement is what matters, and not the spelling?

It is fascinating how we have created this cognitive-physical dichotomy, as if these two modes are necessarily opposed.

This sounds lovely. But I can’t help but wonder about how it might disadvantage another group of students – those with physical challenges. I suppose every pedagogical approach and environment has to make some trade-offs. Every approach will disadvantage someone.

What a refreshing approach that lies in stark contrast to the “no excuses” schools that choose to ignore all of the out-of-class personal and environmental factors, and the deep structural injustices and inequities of schools.

Yes. I refer to this approach as the “motivations and emotions as means” (to some more important ends like performance or a good job, in contrast to viewing motivational and emotional development as valuable ends, in and of themselves. Maslow had some helpful perspectives on this.

We see this playing out in industry right now, with corporations (especially edgy new tech companies) trying to create social-emotional-motivational settings that address well-being, but also amplify the productivity of workers and increase profit margins. A recent Gallup poll/study (the Gallup Purdue Index) provides an eye-opening and rather disturbing take on this (with data and analyses being sold to both colleges and companies).

I very much appreciate this attention to creating a system at the teacher level that mirrors what we say we want at the student level. I believe we frequently identify aspirations for students (e.g., joy, creativity, self-determination, collaboration, compassion) without recognizing that systems in which teachers or administrator operate do not value or support these goals.

Interesting! I wonder how this interacts with the concept of “disruptive” in the previous paragraph.

Several things going on here: communicative style or tone, communicative intent or posture (e.g., evaluation, support, social cohesion), and the temporal component of learning or development. Are these necessarily tied up in the same interactive bundle, or can they be considered separately?

Does this imply that equity concerns may be addressed by providing different spaces or access points to the traditional curriculum, as opposed to fundamentally changing the traditional curriculum? To me, this does not feel like a satisfying solution.

I question the notion that art is the place for “judgment-free” expression, as if art is somehow the learning zone of “just do it” (but we certainly wouldn’t want reading or math or writing to fall into this zone). Why aren’t technology or social science or humanities places for judgment-free engagement? I am not sure this perspective on art would sit well with artists, who engage in critical thinking and evaluation and judgment and critique in the same ways those in other fields do. I’ve never heard an artist say that she “just did it” when describing process, in the same way I don’t hear psychologists say they “just did it” when describing how they developed a new theory or unearthed a new finding. Perhaps we’re talking “art” versus “Art” here, but the framing of art as an escape or a playground feels problematic. I can imagine that if historically our schools focused on the arts in addition to reading, writing, and math, we might now view art in a very different way… and we might be talking about anthropology or computing or medicine as the “judgment free” zone where students can engage freely. Is there a way to present and interpret this quote in a manner that isn’t potentially highly offensive to artists? One option might be to focus on the cross-disciplinary modes of engagement here (generating, creating, expressing) as opposed to the disciplinary domain.

Interesting utilitarian framing (problem solving) for the value of creative thinking… What about other desirable connections or outcomes for creative thinking? I also wonder about the implication here that creativity is a means to a more important ends, in contrast with creative thinking as the ends.

This strikes me as strange. Why isn’t every grade viewed as a time of imagination, as well as a time for many other modes of thinking, feeling, interacting, and doing?

Nice question. I was hoping the “efficiency” value would appear in this article. Callahan’s “Education and the Cult of Efficiency” provides a helpful overview of how the efficiency concept emerged in public schools in response to social forces.

This makes me think of the identity and self-concept literature, especially studies of professional identities and imagined futures, and the lack of literacy in futures other than those specified, endorsed, or sanctioned by the school system or national rhetoric. How might we bolster literacy in a more diverse array of imagined futures, both personal and professional?

Interesting focus on humans here… I wonder about what else (besides our humanity) we are not feeding, or if all the other things (e.g., the natural environment, other biological systems, etc.) fall under this broad goal of feeding humanity versus feeding economy.

An economy and work-centered education with a focus on skills is an old idea (I'm thinking about Marx and labor power and capital, but I suspect we could go much farther back to find links between learning skills in high profit sectors. But perhaps this paper is drawing attention to the explicit incorporation of these high-profit skills in formal schooling.

The equity angle on the coding example is interesting. Again, I think of Marx, and use of children and women in factories, once technology made it possible for people with different physical abilities to operate machinery. I think in the industrial revolution era, England made a push for compulsory education of children, en route to becoming productive factory workers.

I wonder how today's focus on tech and health care specifically is playing out. Despite the national rhetoric around technology and pushing students toward high-profit jobs, we have about the same percentage of students going into STEM disciplines right now as we’ve had for decades. But, more people today are linked in some way to tech and health care industries, compare to years past. Does this mean we are rejecting the concept of high-profit sectors in spirits (not choosing a formal education in these areas), but not in practice (winding up in these jobs, regardless of our educational path).

These comments on limited pathways resonate with my experience at an elite technical school.

Nice question here. But is it a "fact" that coders will be the next generation's version of factory workers? I would call this a perspective on the future an interesting and important topic for discussion, but perhaps not a fact.

Interesting choice of "schooling" here, versus "education" or "learning." It brings to mind the formal structures of our educational systems. This early section of the paper makes me think of frameworks for the goals of public education, which often identify three primary goals that translate roughly to “good people,” “good citizens,” and “good workers.” There’s a strong urging in this manuscript to shift emphasis away from “good workers” and toward the personal growth and community health goals learning. There’s also a historical perspective implied here, a recognition that the ways society views the primary goals of education has shifted over time. I am reminded of an article by Cohen and Malin (2010) in which they note, “People have been worrying about the purposes of education for at least 2,500 years, from the times of the Buddha, Confucius, and Plato until today.”