The final quarter of the 2012-2013 school year means AP exams, final exams, spring weather and thoughts of summer lingering in students’ minds. When presented with the task of studying for finals and working on a project or going out in sunny weather for some ice cream, the choice is obvious and not always the most productive. The task of keeping students engaged and interested becomes an even greater challenge for teachers, who need their students to focus on completing their academic year successfully.

Superintendent Joshua Starr has recognized that students will not absorb or learn the material being taught to them in seven different subjects if the instruction is monotonous or rushed. As this realization came about, Starr made “student engagement” his first priority and instructed schools across MCPS that it is their ultimate goal. While the superintendent’s efforts are commendable, the most pressing issues become defining “student engagement” in the classroom and transitioning from theory to practice.

Sherwood’s own Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) has been working for months on developing a standard definition of the term, though their efforts at times have been stymied. The reality of it is that “student engagement” cannot be given one definition simply because there is no one type of student. Yes, overall students seem to agree that active participation (contributing to discussion), back and forth dialogue, and interactive teaching are a part of engagement; however, that only scratches the surface. Even if “student engagement” is ever given a concrete definition, teachers cannot be expected to teach a specific way; they each have their unique style and methods, which students can appreciate because at the very least it breaks routine a bit. As teachers start incorporating (or not) newer methods to engage students, there will not be an accurate or efficient way to determine that the level of engagement in the classroom has increased or even improved because it is all subjective. Not to mention how the teachers would, or even could, adapt the changes to separate grade levels and skill levels, most of which teachers experience all in one day.

It seems that the most straightforward approach would be to ask the students, the ones who will benefit from student engagement. Though the county or even the ILT may ask for students’ opinions later, students currently are not being directly involved in coming up with some sort of definition, or at least characteristics, for student engagement. In determining whether or not this whole initiative will work or fizzle out, students are the most important factor. The attitude that students have towards new methods put in place to engage them will dictate whether or not these approaches succeed. This is why it is so critical that students are not excluded from the school’s ongoing discussions about effective and engaging instruction in the classroom.