The Education Rule I Fiercely Defended (And Why I Was Dead Wrong)
For years, my classroom walls practically vibrated with the conviction of a single, unshakeable rule: “Fair means treating every student exactly the same.” It was my shield, my sword, my absolute bedrock principle. If I gave Tim extra time on a test, I had to offer it to Sarah, even if she clearly didn’t need it. If I allowed Maria to submit a project as a video instead of an essay, then by golly, Jason had to have that option too, regardless of his preference or the project’s core goals. This rigid equality felt like the pinnacle of professional integrity. Anything else, I believed, was bias, favoritism, a slippery slope to chaos.
I swore by this rule with the fervor of a new convert. It felt clean, defensible, and above all, fair. Parents couldn’t accuse me of playing favorites. Administrators would see a teacher adhering to clear, consistent procedures. Students, I naively thought, would appreciate the level playing field. I policed this rule meticulously, often to the point of absurdity, convinced I was upholding the highest standards of educational justice.
The Cracks Begin to Show
The disillusionment started subtly, like hairline fractures in my once-impenetrable shield. It began with Jamal.
Jamal was a bright kid, full of insightful contributions during class discussions. His verbal understanding was exceptional. But when it came to written exams, particularly those demanding rapid recall and essay writing under tight time constraints, he froze. Panic would set in, his mind blanking despite knowing the material cold. Under my “same for all” rule, he consistently underperformed on traditional tests, his grade not reflecting his understanding. Giving everyone extra time felt excessive and didn’t address his specific anxiety. My rule was failing him.
Then there was Elena. She struggled fiercely with decoding text. Reading dense paragraphs was a slow, laborious process that drained her energy and comprehension. Yet, when information was presented auditorily or through well-structured visuals, she grasped complex concepts with impressive speed and depth. My insistence that assessments must be primarily text-based, because that’s what everyone else did, meant her brilliance was consistently obscured by her reading challenge. My rule was failing her too.
I started noticing the students doodling intensely in the margins – not zoning out, but processing. I saw the kinetic learners practically vibrating in their seats during long lectures, desperate to do something. I witnessed the quiet thinker who needed an extra minute to formulate a response before being called on, overshadowed by quicker, more vocal peers under my “equal participation” enforcement.
The Paradigm Shift: Equity Over Equality
The turning point wasn’t a single moment, but a cascade of realizations fueled by professional development, research, and the undeniable evidence in my own classroom:
1. Students Are Not Widgets: My rule assumed all students arrived with identical backgrounds, prior knowledge, learning speeds, strengths, weaknesses, and neurological wiring. This is fundamentally untrue. Treating vastly different learners identically isn’t fair; it’s ignoring their reality.
2. The Myth of the “Level Playing Field”: A student with dyslexia, ADHD, emerging English skills, significant trauma, or simply a different cognitive style is not starting from the same place as a neurotypical, language-proficient peer with a stable home life when handed the same test under the same conditions. Insisting on identical treatment perpetuates existing disadvantages.
3. Fairness is About Needs, Not Identical Treatment: True fairness – equity – means giving each student what they need to access the learning and demonstrate their understanding. It means recognizing that Jamal needs alternative assessment formats or extended time because of his anxiety, not in spite of it. It means providing Elena with audiobooks or visual summaries because that’s how she accesses complex information effectively. It means allowing the doodler to sketch concepts and the kinesthetic learner to build a model.
4. Learning Styles & Universal Design for Learning (UDL): While the strict categorization of “learning styles” is debated, the core principle of UDL resonated deeply: design instruction and assessment from the outset with variability in mind. Offer multiple means of engagement (sparking interest), representation (presenting information in different ways), and action & expression (allowing different ways for students to demonstrate learning). This proactive approach benefits all learners, not just those with identified needs, by providing flexibility and choice.
Embracing the Messy, Beautiful Complexity
Letting go of my rigid “same for all” rule was uncomfortable. It felt messy. It required more thought, more planning, more individual conversations. Fears surfaced:
“Won’t students take advantage?” Some might try, but clear boundaries and expectations around why certain accommodations or choices are offered mitigate this. It’s about need, not convenience.
“Isn’t it unfair to the ‘high achievers’?” No. Providing Elena with an audiobook doesn’t make the text easier; it makes it accessible. Giving Jamal extra time doesn’t give him more knowledge; it allows him to show what he knows without debilitating panic. High achievers benefit from challenge extensions and deeper explorations suited to their level.
“Is it sustainable?” It requires a shift from standardization to flexible frameworks. Start small. Build a toolbox of options. Use technology. Focus on clear learning objectives – if the goal is understanding the causes of the Civil War, does it fundamentally matter if a student writes an essay, creates a timeline, records a podcast, or builds a diorama, as long as the objective is met rigorously?
The Liberating Power of “It Depends”
My core belief now? “Fair means ensuring every student has what they need to succeed and demonstrate their genuine understanding and ability.” It means embracing the mantra “It depends.” Depends on the student. Depends on the task. Depends on the context.
This isn’t about lowering standards; it’s about ensuring standards are genuinely achievable and measurable for all. It’s about rigor coupled with relevance and accessibility. It’s about celebrating diverse pathways to mastery.
The energy in my classroom shifted. The relief on Jamal’s face when offered a presentation option instead of a timed essay. The confidence in Elena’s voice when discussing concepts she accessed auditorily. The engagement of the kinesthetic learner building a model. The depth of insight from the quiet thinker given time to reflect before sharing. Their successes weren’t a result of easier work; they were the result of finally being able to fully engage with the work in a way that honored their unique brains.
I used to swear by rigid equality, mistaking it for fairness. Now I understand that true educational justice lies in embracing thoughtful, needs-based equity. It’s more complex, demanding, and nuanced. It asks us to see the individual behind the student desk. And it’s infinitely more effective and, ultimately, far fairer than my old, inflexible rule ever was. Changed minds aren’t failures; they’re the mark of a learning professional. And this is one change I’m profoundly grateful for.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Education Rule I Fiercely Defended (And Why I Was Dead Wrong)