Summary: Up to this point in the series of entries on measuring potential I have been, perhaps, unduly technical. Unduly because my concern with my children, my grandchildren, your children , all children and all people, is that they have some opportunities and support to develop a best version of themselves. "Best", I know, can be defined in many ways, mine is moderate.
If you, as a social planner, use people to achieve large-scale purposes, you might define 'best' in terms that have a collective purpose efficiently realized. In so doing, i.e.,using the individual as tool for societal betterment, you will probably neglect, in a very important sense, the needs and wishes of the individual herself. (In this context by "very important sense" I mean specifically the individual's "greatest or highest or broadest" potential capabilities . If you, as an educator or parent or social-planner, do not energetically pursue the realization of these capabilities for each child you are demonstrating negligence, a negligence we cannot afford to accept .)
After providing a child with survival skills for the environment in which present life takes place,one's next obligation (as parent, teacher, mentor) is to help each child to pursue and realize their greatest or highest or broadest potential. After survival has been taken care of, the discovery of that greatest/highest/broadest potential is a matter of negotiation and deep thought; probably, too, it will involve focused and intense effort not only on the part of the individual but on the part of those who intend to nurture that becoming, that development.
Skeptical you! You ask why we should do this? Is it simply a nice (and ultimately empty and child indulgent) way to look at the societal up-bringing of children? I say "No!" because these higher strivings, including the realization of some of them, express the dignity we have by, some would say Divine, right and realize the dignity that it is for each of us to pursue. Also, and separately, I would argue that to use this strategy may well surface talents and skills that have a much higher social benefit than were we to render a "one size fits all" education!
I finish this entry by saying teachers and parents would get a big start on this higher goal if they joined to think intensely about, and investigate, just which areas of life most distinguish and dignify each child. These findings would then be placed be at the center of "deep schooling". (Deep schooling is the schooling that enables the education of the "higher" version of each child.)
One system for carrying out this process was developed originally for children with disabilities. It's called the McGill Action Planning System or MAPS, for short. It is carried out by those that deeply know the child for whom [educational] actions are being planned, parents, friends, neighbors. Their findings are to inform the future education of that child. (Go to the link for a deeper understanding of the process)
When you read the questions that drive this process you will see why I maintain that those questions should drive the efforts at schooling every child.
To use the MAPS process, key people in the student's life gather and talk in one, two, or three sessions. In total, the sessions may take about three hours, and it is preferable to split that time up if the planning is for a very young child. Among the people participating are the student, the student's parents, the classroom teachers (both regular and special education), and other school professionals such as counselors, therapists, or the school principal. Another person acts as the group's leader or facilitator, and keeps the group on task. The group is completed with a couple of the student's peers, who are, perhaps, the most important component in the student's full participation at school, and other members of the student's family, such as siblings or grandparents.
- First, the family members present answer the question "What is the individual's history?" Then, each of the people present at the MAPS session will focus on the remaining six questionsthat are included in the MAPS process.
- "What is your dream for the child?"
As they answer this question, the people are encouraged to think about what they want for the student and what they think the student wants. This is a question of "vision," and, therefore, the people answering it shouldn't be bogged down with present-day realities. The team members should dream some here and verbalize those dreams. If enough people share their dreams, they can work toward those dreams becoming a reality.
- "What is your nightmare?"
Parents sometimes find this particularly hard to answer, for no parent likes to think of their child facing difficulties. But if the members of the group can verbalize their nightmares and fears, they will have taken an important step in becoming committed to making sure this nightmare never occurs.
- "Who is the student?"
Everyone talks about what comes to their mind when they think of the student, and they express this in a few words. Everyone takes a turn at the description; then, the people continue taking this idea around the circle until no one has anything else to add. People in the group can pass on their turn if they can't think of anything, but they are encouraged to try when it is their turn again. Then, when the list is completed, particular people in the group, such as family members, are asked to identify what they believe are three especially important descriptors.
- "What are the student's gifts?"
The people in the circle might look back on the ways they have described the student in answering the previous question. The MAPS group members are asked to focus on what they believe the student can do, instead of, as happens so often, what the student cannot do.
- "What are the student's needs?"
The parents' answers to this question might vary considerably from those of the student's peers or teachers. When the list has been completed, the group then decides which of the needs are "top priority," or demand immediate attention.
- "What would an ideal day at school be like for the student?"
Some MAPS groups find it helpful to answer this question by outlining a typical school day for other children the student's age, who do not have disabilities. The team might think about how the needs outlined before could be met at school. After that, the team would think about the kinds of help a student would need to truly achieve inclusion at school.
I believe that the MAPS process--the careful and detailed answering of these questions --would be likely to give material that would allow the inference of gifts and future dignities just as much as it would allow the understanding of disabilities. This material, rendered by caring and intimately involved nurturers, would be extremely supportive to any efforts to design instructional environments and processes that would be likely to enable an education (deep schooling) that effectively pursues individual potential.I'll leave it to another entry to add some thoughts on the "testology" of deep schooling.
