Stop Lights or Roundabouts

Stop lights or Roundabouts

One of the things that I love about Kingsport City Schools is the opportunity we have for professional learning. I want to share with you a learning that I recently experienced that was a real paradigm shift for me and caused me to reflect. So much so, that I am going to try and share it with you and hopefully it will have the same impact on you. So stick with me as we go through this exercise!

Question: How might we prevent cars from hitting each other in an intersection, while maintaining the maximum flow of traffic? Both of the scenarios pictured above are viable solutions. So, how are they different?

The stop light solution is based on a set of assumptions. #1 People need to be told what to do. #2 Problems need to be managed with rules and complex technology. #3 One must have a plan for every possible scenario.

The roundabout solution is also based on several assumptions. #1 People can be trusted and will use their judgement to do the right thing. #2 Problems can be managed with simple rules and agreements. #3 Many scenarios will occur, but protocols will be sufficient to handle them.

In the United States, there are 311,000 intersections with stop lights and 1118 intersections with roundabouts. If you think of Kingsport, that ratio is probably about right. So this begs the question: Which one is better? Think about this and we will come back for the answer.

I would classify the two scenarios into two buckets. Stop lights as traditional and roundabouts as responsive. Think about the assumptions of each and ask yourself the questions:  Do our classrooms, our schools, our educational practices look and act more like stop lights or roundabouts? 

Authors Jal Mehta and Sarah Fine of Harvard did a study of schools that were deemed to be innovative and spent five years traveling the country to study what made them great. They wrote a book called In Search of Deeper Learning. To summarize, what they found were three key  takeaways. Classrooms with students that demonstrated the deepest learning had these characteristics. They had an element of mastery that required a student to have the ability to draw on their knowledge and apply it in a real life situation. (Traditional?)

The second characteristic was identity development. Students in these classes gradually see themselves as producers in the areas that they are working. Instead of doing science, they begin to see themselves as scientists. Instead of playing music, they are musicians.  (Responsive?)

The last piece is creativity. This is not to mean that students are just doing something interesting. What was meant here is that students are actually trying to use what they are learning in ways that allow them to create something new. They have choice and have a product to demonstrate their learning. (Responsive?)

What they shared was that these characteristics were more commonly found in classes that were deemed peripheral. They were quick to say that when students had teachers in their core classes that demonstrated these characteristics, the learning was off the charts!

As I reflect on these three things, I think I see a mix of traditional and responsive systems in place. So let's go back to the question from earlier. Which system is better? I think the answer is both! Our city would not work if all of our intersections were roundabouts. It also would not work as efficiently if everything had a stop light. 

The same is true in our schools. A balance is needed.  I wonder if students would say that our practices in school represent mostly stop lights? If so, is there a way that we could incorporate more roundabouts in our students educational journey? The answers to these questions, I hope stir your mind. The answers to these questions are at the root of what it means to Inspire Passion, Cultivate Purpose and Impact Possibilities!!!! 

Blessings to All and an early Happy Valentines Day! Thank you for your heart for kids!