Skip to main content

Kids are More Complicated than . . .

I keep seeing this statement on Twitter - "We have to Maslow before they can Bloom."  While I understand the hearts of people who are posting this, I find it bothersome for a number of reasons.

For those who weren't education majors, let me explain what these two men's names mean.  Abraham Maslow was a psychological researcher, best known for his proposal of the human hierarchy of needs.  Because book publishers just can't help themselves, it was published as a pyramid (Maslow never portrayed it that way), implying that you had to work your way up the scale.  This has been taught to every education major since the '70s, without regard or even thought to whether it lines up with your worldview.  It's just accepted as a given, like gravity.

The second name in the platitude is Bloom.  Benjamin Bloom was also a psychologist, and he's also known for a pyramid.  His was changed for the digital age, but some version of it has also been taught to education majors for several decades.  Many teachers write exams based on this model, using the assumption that the ideal test will have as much from the top levels of the pyramid as possible.

While there is much good to be gleaned from the work of both men, you might want to ask yourself first if their conclusions align with your worldview before adopting them.  If you are a Christian, you might take issue with the idea of self-actualization.  Maslow was a secular humanist, which is at odds with your world view.  Near the end of his life, even he wrote (never published) that "self-actualization is not enough" and discussed why it was important to seek the good of others.  He also asked, "Why do we leave mystery and awe to the churches?" when he realized that his work never took into account anything outside of the individual.  A more in-depth look at his work will also show that he cared about a balance of the needs.  He never implied that the ones on the bottom had to be met before the ones above them could be, which is what most of us were taught.  His late work included words like transcendence and reverence, but what we accept as his teachings from the pyramid ignores those things.  Bloom is less problematic because it is merely about thought processes and not about your life as a whole (You wouldn't be recommended for therapy for not reaching high levels of Bloom's taxonomy like you might for not reaching high levels on the Maslow pyramid).  It's handy for lesson planning, but I have to ask again about whether it aligns with your philosophy.  Are these the thought process you look for in your students, or do you want something above the "create" level (again, the words awe and reverence come to mind)?  Do you want them to then be able to connect these thoughts to their creator?  If so, there need to be a few more steps on the pyramid.

What is most upsetting to me that their years of intensive research have been boiled down to two oversimplified pyramids and then ranked in comparison to each other.  Human beings are complex.  They are far more interesting than can be summed up by any theory.  They are individuals who resist generalization, whether that is "learning styles" or personality types or enneagram scores.  God has created each child to respond to the world individually,  given each of them a different relationship with each of their teachers, and made them care differently about each of their needs.  Boiling down your educational philosophy to a tweetable phrase ("They don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." or "They don't give you what you expect, only what you inspect." or "Our learning is blended, personalized, student-centered, individualized, competency-based, data-driven (pick your favorite buzzword)."  I left public education because I didn't like the expectation to fit in a box, no matter how good the teacher in that box was.  Your students don't fit in a box either.

Just because we can tweet a catchy phrase doesn't mean we should.


Popular posts from this blog

Güten Pränken

Güten Pränken is the term coined by Jim Halpert in the series finale of The Office to describe the good pranks that he was going to play on Dwight as his bestest mench.  I am extending the definition to any prank played with joy on someone you love to show your affection.  Today, we played such a prank on our beloved IT director, Sean, who is leaving for another field at the end of the week.

The idea of this prank started in a Latin class five years ago.  At that time, Sean's room was our computer lab (because we had not yet instituted our one to one MacBook program).  The Latin teacher and a small group of students decided it would be really fun to put so many balloons in the lab that he would have to wade through them to get to his desk.  They came to me about the math.  After some initial calculations, we realized we could not afford this prank.  It was too many balloons.

Our school size has inflated since then.  Pun intended.  We had to do some restructuring of our space.  Sin…

What Inspires Me

Last week I mentioned Danny Steele, an administrator with a Twitter account of educational encouragement.  Occasionally, he does a few posts called "What Inspires Me?"  Since I don't do New Year's resolutions, I thought I would use the typical end of year reflective time to think about the things that have inspired me in 20 years of teaching.  Here are some things that inspire me (and just a few of the people who display them).

- Teachers who challenge their students and then spend their time helping students meet that challenge. (Zane and Meagan)
- Students who give their best to meet challenges. (They're minors, so I won't use their names, but they know who they are.)
- The energy and enthusiasm of first and second year teachers. (Hannah and Emily) - Veteran teachers who still spend time reading and learning from the latest research. (Kristin)
- Teachers who keep using techniques they know to be effective, not being swayed by fads. (Kellie)
- Teachers who c…

Let Your Students Teach You

Fifteen years ago, I had an idea.  Fortunately, I had a chemistry class that year that was game for me trying things out with them.  Together, we formulated what became the "Free Choice Project," so named because students could make a number of choices.  They can decide if they want to work alone or in a group.  If they wish to work in a group, they can choose their partners.  They can choose their topic, and they can choose just how deeply to delve into that topic (i.e. go deeply into a small aspect or cover a lot of the surface).   With the exception of the end date, they set their own timeline based on their own schedule and work preferences.  During the three months, they update me once per week on the progress of their work and whether or not they are keeping to their own timeline.  They are required to have a demonstration, but that it is mostly up to them how they do it (within the bounds of reason, legality, and safety). 

As a result of this project, I was asked ques…