It’s a word used often and typically embraced without question. I mean, how can you argue against “responsibility?” For some reason, I often get a bit uncomfortable when I encounter the word “responsibility.” For example, The Washington Post recently ran a piece by Daniel Willingham entitled “Teacher accountability schemes let teens off the hook.”
The author suggests that we aren’t teaching students to be responsible. He may be right but the sentence that caught my attention was this: “But if you believe that students should become more responsible for their learning as they age, shouldn’t teachers become less responsible?” Now I don’t pretend to know exactly what Willingham meant when he wrote that sentence, but what I got from it was that “responsibility” is this quantifiable entity that can be divided into percentages. If I am 75% “responsible,” then you only need to be 25% “responsible.” Or we can each be 50% “responsible.” We just need to make sure our percentages add up to 100%. As students become “more responsible,” Winningham suggests teachers logically are “less responsible.” I don’t think so.

…

One of the major main points of emphasis for educators applying the principles of Choice Theory in the classroom is helping students learn how to self-evaluate consciously and effectively. If we want students to take greater responsibility for their learning, it’s essential that they routinely evaluate their own work rather than simply handing it to the teacher to be graded. Simply turning in work with little thought does nothing to build responsibility. Plus, it’s unnecessarily burdensome for the teacher. Teaching students to self-evaluate will save educators precious time while equipping their students with a valuable tool.

…

As someone who provides staff development workshops to educators, I figured it was important to see Waiting for Superman, a film that harshly criticizes traditional public schools and champions charter schools. Although I was employed for 34 years in a traditional public school system, I often work in charter schools and very much appreciate the freedom they have to implement change.

Waiting for Superman is an important film. It’s rare that education is the subject of a major movie that attracts a large audience and is featured on Oprah. Make no mistake. The movie is brilliantly crafted and it’s hard not to be drawn in by the emotional storyline it creates. But I found the film unsettling because it manipulates information to create perceptions that support its agenda. Let me offer an example:

…

I wrote a piece last week about Waiting for Superman, the movie that harshly criticizes traditional public schools and argues that charter schools provide the best chance to create a quality educational experience for students. I found the movie disturbing because it distorts information and relies on emotionalism to prove its point.

As audience members follow the fortunes of several youngsters who have applied to some exemplary charter schools, it’s hard not to root for the kids to win the lottery and have a chance for a great educational experience. When several of those students “win,” we are excited and happy for them and their parents. When some “lose,” it is truly heart wrenching because the creators of Waiting for Superman have set up a world that depicts traditional public schools as abysmal and charter schools as saviors. (More on that in a minute.)

…