Our mission, to equip children for a life of becoming, requires individualized and personalized teaching and learning. The mission implies intellectual and character growth. Hence, all school, classroom, and organizational arrangements should be aligned with individual growth. Individual growth is the plumb line for measuring our success.

The master/apprentice model of education, a description of the natural learning model, provides guidance for this effort. The practical implementation of the master/apprentice model within a school setting is strengthened and clarified by our version of the Talent Development Model designed to usher children’s potential toward fruition. The Talent Development Model as we define it at Birchwood helps us create a practical application of the master/apprentice model in the classroom. It delineates and articulates practical implications for individualized and personalized teaching and learning. It includes curriculum, pedagogy, classroom practices, material support, strategies for knowing children, and direction for professional development. 

This document addresses the main features of this approach, including:

             

The Talent Development Model of Education summarizes several classroom practices that guide our pedagogy at Birchwood School of Hawken. Historically, it is derived from the Master/Apprentice educational model.    

Prior to the schooling of children in classrooms, knowledge and skills were conveyed through a relationship between a Master, somehow who knew their trade well, and an Apprentice, someone who knew little of the trade, but had an interest and reason for learning. The master could be a baker, a metal worker, a farmer, or a university scholar. The master would take an eager and industrious student under his skilled “wings” and create a comprehensive learning environment which not only taught the craft to the student, but took into consideration the student’s aptitude, his pace of learning, the sequencing of skills, and even the apprentice’s individuality.  Furthermore, the master would teach his apprentice the psychological tools embedded in the trade, things like, commitment, perseverance, hard work, self-discipline, or how to manage success and failures.  

The great masters produced students who could exceed their own prowess and achievement. In fact, for many great artists, inventors, mathematicians, or writers, this was their goal.

The learning environment in schools is different. It cannot be one-on-one. By their economic and social design, schools are organized around classrooms of children. This does not mean that the Master/Apprentice model is irrelevant, but it is aspirational. It is an ideal. But being an ideal does not mean that it should not inform how we teach children. The ideal should enlighten classroom practices, and each teacher in every classroom should do his or her best to approximate the ideal. In this way, the Master/Apprentice Model of education provides a framework from which to organize, adjust and improve teaching strategies that are most effective in every classroom, in every subject. 

A good example of this teaching model occurs in the training of young musicians or young athletes. For instance, a good piano teacher will begin instruction based upon the child’s initial aptitude and interest - a point from which a student can experience success. Subsequently, pacing continues according to progress. If the teacher recognizes her student has significant aptitude, she will accelerate learning. If the student lacks aptitude or drive, she will slow the process making sure instruction was commensurate with ability and effort. Instruction would not be limited to the content and pace of a piano textbook. Her student will be permitted to progress according to his or her talent. In fact, if it appeared to the music teacher that her student’s ability far exceeded the teacher’s ability to meet the student’s need, the music teacher might recommend a more talented teacher or a more accomplished musician.

The training of young athletes is similar. A good tennis coach, for example, trains her pupil according to the athlete’s aptitude, attitude, and commitment. Although the tennis “curriculum” will be similar for any aspiring tennis player, the good coach exercises a keen eye toward the needs of the individual player. The coach asks herself, “What should be taught? When should I teach it? How should I teach?” Each player is different. One needs more practice on her serve, another focus on her backhand. The best coaching occurs at the intersection of the coach’s knowledge of the sport and the student’s readiness, ability, and desire. Good coaches place no limits on how far a child can develop her talents, nor do they ignore inferior players who, despite ability, still love the game and hope to improve.

In these two examples, imagine how unfair it would be to tell either a young pianist or tennis player to limit the development of their talents to the “average” performance level of other children their age.  We would not tolerate holding these children back from advancement. At the same time, however, it would not be fair to limit the training and education of the mediocre athlete or pianist simply because they will not excel.  This completely misses the point of education. Music and athletics are valuable and enjoyable lifelong activities in and of themselves. They enrich our lives no matter our level of competency. 

In the Talent Development Model at Birchwood, we reason similarly about academic education regardless of the subject. If each child is given the opportunity to develop his or her talents to the highest level of ability, some will reach extraordinary levels of achievement. We have seen some of Birchwood students matriculate to America’s greatest universities. But others will, at the very least, find that reading, writing, mathematics, history, geography, and science can provide meaningful leisure activities lifelong.   

A school setting, by design, does not and cannot exclusively provide a one-on-one relationship between a teacher and his or her students. Nevertheless, a school can approximate the ideal through institutional structures and practices. By firmly holding to the principles of the most effective educational model, a school can continually strive to make classroom and school-wide accommodations that allow it to approach the ideal. 

 

At Birchwood, this journey toward the ideal begins with an institutional structure that frames the role of our teachers and defines their own development as a mentor-teacher. 

This structure organizes the school around academic subjects and academic specialists – not grade level classrooms. The academic specialist is our version of the master teacher. In this model, teachers teach only one subject, not four or five as is typical in many elementary schools. In their subject they are specialists, relative experts in the field. The subject specialist is not encumbered by teaching subjects in which he or she is either uninterested or has scant background knowledge. At Birchwood, this arrangement begins in the first grade. 

There are several reasons for this arrangement. Foremost, it places passionate and knowledgeable adults in front of eager, young learners. Subject passion is important because the passion of a teacher for her subject inspires love and interest among her students. For mentor-teachers, education is not merely about handing down bodies of information to children. Rather it is about ushering children into exciting intellectual worlds, realms of learning that frame life-long growth. The mentor-teacher introduces children to humankind’s enduring, historical conversations - in literature, mathematics, science, and social studies. In so doing, she is equipping her students to be life-long learners.

In addition, because mentor-teachers are subject specialists who have an extensive knowledge of their subject, they can instruct children at multiple levels of ability and interest. Knowing a subject well, the mentor-teacher can better discern and meet the intellectual needs of different children.  

For example, consider the mentor-teacher in the subject of reading. She loves good literature and is an avid reader herself. She is familiar with children’s literature, literature for young-adults, and great literature in general. Her subject knowledge equips her to match children with books. She is not merely a teacher of reading, she is a window or doorway for children to enter the intellectual world of good literature. 

At the same time, she understands that a good reader accumulates good reading skills. These range from how to decode words in kindergarten or first grade, to how to read classic literature as an adult. Simultaneously she can teach her students phonics and comprehension skills, while immersing them in the joys of beautiful prose and poetry. 

The math specialist in the elementary school functions similarly. She does not merely follow the content of a commercial textbook, limiting learners to scope of skills at one grade level and defining math instruction as the accumulation of one algorithm after another. Instead, the math specialist understands that the joy and intrigue of mathematics is in solving interesting, important, or elegant problems. She does not ignore the necessity of memorizing facts, becoming fluent in computation skills, or being facile with the application of theorems and formulas. But, like a mathematician, she sees these skills as tools which a child can use to enter the wondrous world of mathematical problem solving. 

Simultaneously, due to her content knowledge, she can accommodate a wide range of abilities within one classroom. Some children may study mathematics at grade level or even below, while others are given the opportunity to study one, two, or sometimes three grade levels ahead. Because she is a mentor-teacher she knows mathematics well enough to accommodate a wide range of abilities.

One can easily project this mentor-teacher model to education in social studies, science, or language arts. The mentor-teacher inspires love and enthusiasm for learning while accommodating a wide range of student abilities. 

 

In the Talent Development Model, it is self-evident that classes must be small. On the one hand, no school can afford a one-on-one teacher-student ratio. It is financially unworkable. But at the same time a school can approximate the ideal by having fewer students in the classroom. Our experience suggest 13-15 students works.  

This low student-teacher ratio is important because teachers need to be keenly aware of each child’s progress - daily if possible. They need to find the “sweet spot” of a child’s learning. What is the appropriate content? What is optimum pacing? What is the instructional level that keeps the child engaged and progressing? This ideal instructional level is designed for growth. If a teacher can identify this level through assessments, he or she will create a learning path for children in which they develop competencies and enjoy learning. The appropriate instructional level is neither too easy whereby children become bored and uninterested. Nor is it too difficult, leading to student frustration and aversion to learning. 

Therefore, classes must be small. The arrangement gives teachers more opportunity to make timely assessments of student progress. The more frequently a teacher assesses student progress, the timelier will be instruction that addresses the child’s level of learning. 

The objective in the Talent Development Model is to minimize the time between instruction, pupil performance, assessment, and re-teaching. Small classes facilitate the teacher’s ability to observe student performance. The shorter the time lapse in this cycle, the greater will be student learning.

The cycle is similar in each subject. First, a teacher creates a learning experience. It might be a teacher centered lesson, or a student-centered experience. She expects that the result of her lesson or activity will be student learning. The learning objective might be skill related, like learning how to add fractions with unlike denominators, or it might be related to a conceptual understanding like comparing the experience of pioneers and Native Americans during western expansion.  In either case, the teacher is attuned to the performance objective she hopes to see demonstrated by her students. 

If she is going to enable her students to reach the performance objective, her instructional plan must be followed by assessment, and to be effective, this assessment should occur as soon as possible. In the assessment the teacher asks herself, “Does this student understand? Has the student mastered the performance objective? What kind of measurement is necessary so that the student and I both know that mastery has been achieved? Does the student display enough understanding so that we can proceed to the next level of learning? Should we repeat the lesson?

Granted the immediacy of the assessment will vary by subject or lesson. Nevertheless, the principle remains the same. All knowledge is based upon previous knowledge. The sooner a teacher-mentor identifies a child’s needs in relation to the material being studied, the sooner she can adjust her lesson for further student learning. It is obvious that if a teacher has a large class of students, this timely interaction is difficult. 

In fact, when classes are too large, learning assessments will need to be conducted through tests or quizzes. These are sometimes administered long after the learning experience – even a week or more after the lesson. This does not imply that tests or quizzes are not effective measurements. They can be a part of a teacher’s overall assessment. But if this is the sole means by which student progress is assessed it limits or slows student learning.  

For example, imagine that a child fails a quiz or test. From the time the student took the test to the time it was graded and handed back may take up to one week. There are two problems here. Not only does it become clear that the child did not master the materials, but neither the student nor the teacher discovered the failure until a week later! Time has been wasted! This teacher has lost effective instructional time. If the assessment had been done in a timelier manner, through any number of assessment techniques, then the teacher would have understood the problem immediately and could have taken steps to remedy the problem. She could have greatly reduced the cycle of time for teaching-assessment-reteaching. More learning and greater mastery would have been achieved.  

A small class size minimizes reliance on tests and quizzes and allows for more timely assessment practices that accelerate student learning.  

At Birchwood, it is imperative to keep our classes small, revolving around the practice of the success cycle.

As students enter the sixth grade, they are offered more opportunities to explore content more deeply or more broadly according to interest and aptitude. We provide opportunities within each subject area. 

In our social studies History Day program, students pursue topics of interest through primary and secondary research, and after a five-month process of study, present their work in one of six different mediums.

In science, students select research projects in early fall and follow a scientific research process that mirrors that of the professional scientist. Upon completion of our in-school science night, students enter advanced science competitions sponsored locally and statewide.

In mathematics, according to ability, interest, and agency students may select their pacing for middle school mathematics. They also have the option of participating in our after school and weekend math clubs which hones their problem solving skills prepares them for math competitions.

In writing, students may choose to prepare and submit their creative and expository essays to a variety of writing forums through which they gain real-world practice in the writing process and can have their work recognized by domain experts. 

In the quest for individualized instruction, special attention must be given to high-ability students. We recognized two strategies that are supported by research in the field of gifted education. 

The first is acceleration. Academic acceleration allows high-ability students to progress through the scope and sequence of subject matter according to their aptitude. This requires classroom teachers to remove grade-level, content “ceilings.” If students are able to do advanced work, they need to be given opportunities to develop their talent. 

The second is to differentiate the regular classroom content by 1) the level of content – adjusting breadth and depth, 2) the process – thinking analytically, critically, or creatively, and 3) the product - opportunities to create meaningful products for real-world audiences.  

 

The more teachers know and understand each child, the better they can personalize instruction and learning. In addition to their individual effort to create a productive relationship with each student, teachers at respective grade levels gather bi-weekly to discuss each student. Collaboratively, they identify academic and character needs. They share perspectives and experiences providing one another with a fuller, more accurate picture of the student. This collaborative oversight helps teachers further individualize instruction.  

Also, because our subject specialists instruct the same students over a four-year period, they gain even further perspective observing the child’s development over time. Once again, these insights help teachers individualize their work. 

Since individual growth is the plumb line for our success, pedagogy and the selection of learning materials is eclectic. In the process of identifying learning pathways for each child, teachers have the freedom to select the materials that support that pathway. Though mastery objectives may be similar for each child, the means by which a child learns best is an important aspect of how a teacher will select pedagogy and materials. (This is not a reference to teaching according to learning styles, a pedagogical approach which has been consistently debunked). 

For example, some learners grasp concepts quickly and they need to spend more time wrestling with content through analysis and synthesis. These learners may need more open-ended assignments which require a strong knowledge base and individual agency which can explore complex tasks.  In mathematics, they may need experience solving challenging problems which assume a thorough mastery of basic skills. For vocabulary, these students may require more practice using advanced vocabulary to enrich their essays.

Other learners require a more methodical approach to mastering content and thinking skills. These children may need more direct instruction including a tight feedback loop which provides timely assessment and reassignment while offering the teacher opportunity to encourage and inspire. 

The selection of materials and/or technology should also be eclectic. If we are interested in the growth of all children, the school cannot lock teachers into a generalized, commercial program for math or writing or reading. The materials and technology must match how children learn. For some children, working methodically through a math textbook, or a vocabulary workbook becomes an excellent way for students to grasp content. For the same student, technology that guides children through a tight scope and sequence of content might be the best way to lead a student toward mastery.  

           

Obviously, such an eclectic approach to the selection of pedagogical strategies and materials/technology speaks directly to one strand of our professional development program. At Birchwood, teachers begin their professional journey embracing our mission and the broad implications of how we grow children’s intellect and character through individualized instruction and learning. Professional development lives within the framework of our mission. Therefore, alignment is the operative word for professional development. 

This alignment is not a top-down effort. Alignment implies an understanding of growth according to individual needs and development. Therefore, at the heart of our professional development program, is the growth and development of the individual teacher. This emphasis has two sides. First, it is important that each teacher begin his/her own journey toward understanding themselves as an educator at Birchwood School of Hawken. This means our professional development program should introduce teachers to a variety of teaching strategies ranging from real-world, project-based learning lessons, to the effective use of direct instruction. It should introduce them to the meaning of experiential education and to the many strategies that enhance a child’s accumulation of knowledge. 

Within this framework, teachers explore their strengths and weaknesses. In collaboration with their peers and administration, teachers create pathways for their own growth that both meet the needs of our educational program yet align with their own talents and personalities. We place a high priority on teacher autonomy. 

The second emphasis encourages teachers to live a life that mirrors our mission. It is growth based on personal reflection about one’s own intellectual and character growth. The school cannot define what this means for each teacher, but the school does know if each teacher is engaged in a pathway of growth – personal or professional – they will bring the energy of growth into the school and into their classrooms. They will become a source of energy and light in the general culture and ethos of “becoming.”