Strength-Based VS. Deficit-Based

I have worked as an elementary teacher for 19 years in a diverse school district with a large percentage of students living below the poverty line.  As a new teacher I felt very stressed by how much I was supposed to teach my students and the minutes in the day just didn’t seem to add up to the district’s mandates or guidelines.  As they continued to increase the amount of time they wanted spent on literacy skills subjects like science and social studies became edged out until they weren’t being done at all.  I remember as a young teacher believing that this was okay because if children didn’t learn to read they couldn’t do anything else.  I failed to realize how many natural learners were being turned off forever by this system.

Our administration never explicitly told us not to teach science or social studies.  They would deny that however, they told us that in our 320 -minute school day we needed to spend:

• 40 minutes for a lunch/ recess period,

• 40 minutes for the kids’ special which is P.E., art, music etc.

• 120 minutes on literacy which included reading, writing, and guided reading

• 20 minutes on word work (aka more literacy)

• 20 minutes on reading aloud to the class (aka more literacy)

• 60 minutes on math

  That leaves 20 minutes per day to also include the following (topics we were told we should be teaching)

• Science

• Social studies

• Health

• Extra PE since we weren’t meeting the state requirement for minutes with our allotted gym time

• Social Emotional Learning

• S.T.E.A.M

• Computer Lab

• Handwriting (which although no one has yet to come out and say forget doing this it has not been taught for many years and no one is pretending it is)

• And don’t forget kids need to have a snack every day and that the 20 minutes of recess they get is not even close to enough play time!

So here I am, a new teacher thinking “Yes this formula is correct! We do need to fill their days with nothing but reading and math because it is what they need most and many of them seem to be so far behind.” I thought, how could we focus on something like science if they cannot read? Once they read they can learn science later.  Our administrators did come out and say things like “You can teach science at literacy time by having them read a science book.”

            There is so much wrong with that.  Now I realize that what school should be for children is a place to get a well-balanced education.  Exposure to so many different topics so they can find what speaks to them.  It is okay if every child does not love reading.  Yes, we must make all children literate in both reading and math.  The reality is literacy is what is being taught from K-3rd grade.  Beyond 3rd grade is already beyond being literate.  For the students who do not shine in one or both of these areas why do we need to rush them?  Why can’t they work on that literacy more slowly and who cares if they gain it by 6th grade or 8th grade instead of 3rd? 

I read recently that you should work on your strengths 80% of the time and your weaknesses 20% of the time.  Well guess what, for those poor kids who are weak readers not only does their day include the 160 minutes of literacy mentioned above but they get an additional 40 minutes a day with a special reading teacher to work on those weaknesses.  Every year! The same goes for math although it is not placed as high in priority as reading so the service is typically a few times a week instead of every day.  I always think about being forced to play a sport I’m terrible at for 3 ½ hours a day.   

How miserable that would be for me.

How I would, most likely, get better at it after so much practice but I still would never be great at it.  Also, the things I am naturally great at and inclined to do would suffer because I would have no time or energy left for them.  That is what it is like for these kids who do not neatly fit into the reading and or math box. 

            Imagine, if we allowed the kids to spend the bulk of their day exploring tons of topics.  There are so many types of sciences, social studies, arts, entrepreneurial endeavors, trades.  If the kids were given opportunities to spend the bulk of their time trying out these various subjects, topics, mediums, technologies and they stumbled on the things that ignited passion in them don’t you think they could dive deeper and develop real worthwhile skills?  Maybe even, their literacy in both reading and math would improve as needed to support their passion projects.  It is typically required of many other subjects that you read or work with numbers to learn more or complete tasks.  Topics are generally more interrelated than isolated but school treats subjects in such an isolated manner.

We should be spending the 17, 000 hours they are in our hands helping them learn how to be a happy, well-adjusted citizen who can capitalize on their talents and skills.  I wish schools were strength-based rather than deficit-based.   

            Policy makers and schools act as if they know what is best for children. What they will all need in order to be “successful adults”.  In reality, no one can predict what skills are needed for the future world and although we can have some loose definitions of success there is certainly not one qualifier. We try to marginalize the elementary education until it’s twiddled down to two subject areas.  On the contrary, in the upper grades we try to teach them everything spreading all the content so thin and just trying to get everyone to pass the subjects. Schools do not need to fill children’s brains with all the knowledge.  It is impossible and should not be our purpose.  We should be spending the 17, 000 hours they are in our hands helping them learn how to be a happy, well-adjusted citizen who can capitalize on their talents and skills.  I wish schools were strength-based rather than deficit-based.