One of my favorite quotes is Samuel Beckett’s “Ever tired. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” The line comes from Beckett’s send up on westward expansion—Worstward Ho. It is one of those bits of pragmatic wisdom that arises out of cynicism and sarcasm. The narrator meditates on endurance and strips away the idealism of manifest destiny by describing one version of existence though this series of declarations.
We are always tired. We constantly fail. Big picture—it doesn’t matter. Give it another go. We constantly fail. See what you can improve. This has been adopted by everyone from artists to Silicon Valley as a mantra for risk taking, but I don’t think, at its core, it is about taking risks. Beckett meant it as raw, elemental description of what it feels like to live. I admire the humility it inspires and in the face of the impossible task of teaching it often feels apt in its combination of desperation and hope.
Beckett’s quote has cropped up in my mind lately as I’ve had many, many discussions about 9th grade failure. OSPI has decided to focus on this statewide problem, (rightly) and thus failure has been a continual topic among educators across districts. One thing that has been troubling me is there seems to be a tension between 9th grade failure as a systemic problem and said failure as a curricular problem.
As OSPI’s website indicates, they are focusing on freshman because “9th grade course failure is a primary early warning indicator for dropping out of high school. Failure is a sign that the student is facing challenges that may be related to absenteeism, transportation, health issues, mental health or drug abuse, lack of parent support or supervision as well as in school issues such as bullying, lack of perceived relevance or not feeling connected or valued.”
As a classroom teacher, and as a department lead asked to help improve this situation in my department’s classes, I’m struck that only three of the nine indicators are items a classroom teacher can really attend to with any regularity. And I don’t work with anyone who does not strive to prevent bullying, make curriculum relevant, and help students feel valued. So, how do we go on?
One proposal in my district and in neighboring districts is to postpone failure for 9th grade students. For example, if a freshman does not pass their English class first semester, they get a “NC” (or some such placeholder) on their transcript and remain in the class until they demonstrate competency and pass.
To be honest, I really don’t understand this. I thought it was supposed to be hard. I thought the struggle was part of learning. I thought that failure is an opportunity for learning (or part of life a la Beckett). Brene Brown famously called the TED conference a failure conference because everyone she met had failed at something or other that led them to the interesting thing they ended up doing, which brought them to the TED conference.
Shouldn’t we allow students the same opportunity? I get where the folks proposing this are coming from. 9th grade failure rates are at an all-time high and the state has demanded change. But how does delaying failure or offering two, three, four chances to avoid failure better serve students? Shouldn’t they fail and learn to process said failure and learn how to develop inner resources and respond to such a situation. To fail better? Based on OSPI’s own assessment we need better social support services for these students, primarily, and academic supports for them secondarily.
As someone who has influence on the latter and not the former I find myself asking: how can we create systemic situations where students can fail and pull themselves back into the fray? Can we un-stigmatize a failing grade? I don’t really have answers, but it seems to me more important to find ways for students to fail and fail better within the class structure. Then, if they fail the class a support system needs to be put in place, but it needs to be what happens after failure. How else can we simultaneously support students and maintain the academic integrity of our classrooms?
Because this post got lengthy, I’ve decided to end with this question and will post next month about an assignment I created this year designed to allow students to fail and to get them focusing on their learning rather than their grade.
Pingback: Failure and Its Uses Part Two | Stories From School
Jeremy, wow! There are so many intertwined issues here! All of them really stem from the underlying assumption of our system that all students born during the same year should learn the same things at the same rate. Is there anyone reading this post who believes that humans work that way? If we are going to insist that in order to graduate “on time,” everyone needs to learn the same things at the same pace, then how could failure – in the sense of not passing a course – be anything but negative? Of course a mature, well-grounded person will learn from all experiences, but is it necessary to punish them in order for them to learn? A grade of NC or NY (not yet) comes with the same consequence (you’re behind in credits), but at least sends the message that we have growth mindsets about our students and that learning isn’t a one time thing.
Hi Jesse,
I appreciate your comment. Although I would disagree that I don’t think all of it stems simply from the idea that all students need to learn at the same rate and at the same age, though, of course, this is part of it. I do agree that batching students by birth date is problematic, and has systemic implications in regards to failure, but I don’t think that changing the grade of an F to a “not yet” does a student of any age at any point in their career all that much good. It is just a new label. Graduating “on time” as you point out is somewhat arbitrary, but such arbitrary structures are also necessary for any large institution to accomplish anything. When we set deadlines and dates and processes on anything they have to be somewhat arbitrary. And again the arbitrary nature of it going by birth date is problematic. But any other system that we applied to it could be equally or even more problematic. There is, perhaps, a reason that every other first world school system uses a similar process.
I don’t think avoiding a score of “F” is a growth mindset. Growth mindset simply means that one doesn’t believe that an “F” labels you as something fixed, as someone unable to develop. I don’t think the score of an “F” automatically says that, unless we give it the power to say that, which is part of the point of my post. I also don’t think anyone in education who seriously cares about students would actually believe that. I don’t know any teachers that think that an “F” means a student can never develop and or be successful. All the Educators that I know and work with and respect believe that an “F” simply means a student needs supports and another opportunity or an alternative route. Changing an “F” to a not yet gives an “F” a negative connotation and power that it doesn’t have to carry. Which is part of my point, by changing and “F” to “not yet” or any other score simply gives “F” that power. It seems to me only a matter of time before “not yet” has that same power. If we simply change the way we approach an “F,” approach failure, then I think we can get somewhere. Which might be the very thing you’re saying, because what I just described is also known as growth mindset. But I will argue it has to be beyond labels. And if that does involve changing what age students start school or how they progressed through school, that definitely could be part of the conversation, but I am not convinced it is the sole problem.
I hope my second post that’s coming this month ads to this conversation, because my hope is to open up the idea that if we can address failure within the class differently, within the process of one assignment that the the “F” at the end can have new and or different meaning for a student.
Thank you for this honest post. Failure is indeed part of life, not just school. We are indeed striving for perfection, and I agree with Mandy on this account. However, when the state gets involved and there’s a request to “do something” about a high rate of failure or drop out at a certain grade level, the answer more often than not is to lower the standards and make everyone a winner, rather than help them to be the best they could. And yes, that includes the fails too.
Thank you so much for writing about this. We have a problem in our society with perfection. We strive to never make mistakes and to ensure our children never face the disappointment involved with making a mistake. That said, if we do fail or our children fail, we punish ourselves and them. When really, failure and making mistakes are valuable ways to learn. The first policy that comes to my mind that punishes failure, instead of using it as an opportunity for growth is Core24. Core 24 requires students to achieve 6 credits per semester and leaves little to no room for making up credits should a student fail. Failure is an opportunity for growth – we should create space for it and room to learn.