The Zone of Proximal Development

20.

I want to figure out how to integrate my current thinking about schools into this narrative, but for now, I will just jump cut.

It is now February 2010. In the past month, I must have interviewed 50 people to work as tutors in the Oakland Parents Together tutoring program, funded by No Child Left Behind. Since we don’t have much of a training budget, I use these interviews to do some training. I talk about the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky). I say, “This is a fancy way of saying, if you give a students work that is too easy, they won’t learn anything new. If you give students work that is too hard, they will become frustrated and won’t learn anything new. The art of teaching is in finding this zone for each student.”

I continue: “Sadly, the schools have stopped utilizing this concept and now teach standards instead of students. Every teacher at every grade level (at least K-5) is required to be on the same page of the reading program” (I know this is true of Oakland; I don’t know about other districts). “Interestingly, this practice does increase test scores by targeting instruction to those mid-level students who score at the 45th percentile or so, and moving them up past 50, which is considered ‘proficient’ – students for whom the standards are actually in their zone of proximal development (ZPD). But it also leaves the vast majority of students in Oakland who are below basic or far below basic way behind, scratching their heads. This is where we (OPT tutoring) comes in.”

After about the 40th time repeating this spiel to my prospective tutors, a light bulb went off. Why do we tolerate this? This is a ridiculous way to teach. It’s essentially triage, sifting through the wreckage of the school system for the few who might have a decent chance of “surviving,” writing off the rest.

When I shared this story, a friend of mine reminded me that the scripted reading programs were introduced for three half-way decent reasons. One, so that the large number of students in Oakland who moved from school to school would not be lost; two, to make sure that flatland (poorer) students were exposed to the same standards as hill (richer) students; and three, to compensate for the fact that students in the flatlands tended to be served by more inexperienced teachers, who would be helped by the script.

I should also add that there are a handful of superteachers who can teach the standards and at the same time differentiate instruction for those who are not yet ready for standards level work. But, from what I understand, the differentiation happens rarely.

One thing I like about the concept of the ZPD is that it can be applied to almost any situation. It implies that in every situation, there is always an optimal way forward based on understanding what we know and what’s the next thing we need to know. In particular it can be applied to the situation in the schools. We know that the 70s and 80s tried many innovations collectively described as “individualized instruction.” Many children were left behind, so the system shifted focusto the point of obsession on the standards. Individualization tended to give too many students work that was too easy; standards obsession gives too many students work that is too hard. The new ZPD would include standards instruction along with a massive effort to reach students where they are. Tutoring can do this, though it often doesn’t. Tutoring programs need to develop best practices and agree to follow them, rather than rely on the haphazard approaches presently operating. Bringing back teacher aides would be another helpful approach with the additional benefit of providing parents with employment in the schools.

The vision we have for schools is that the K-12 program will embrace the most significant reform program that came out of the Civil Rights Movement: namely, Head Start: (1) Small adult-student ratios, (2) Hands-on, constructivist learning, (3) Collegial, friendly relationships between teachers and parents. We will expound further on this vision later.