In my trainings on growth mindsets, I often come across the issue of what influences the development of our fixed and developing areas. The unanimous opinion of the participants is that our school system pushes students more towards a fixed mindset. Of course, there are always exceptions, many conscientious and excellent teachers fight against this, but the school norm system itself can often stand in their way. What do I mean?

The five-level grading system often puts children in a box:
If there is not enough attention to change, the child can easily get stuck in an average category, from which, if he does not see the possibility of breaking out, after a while the enthusiasm for learning the subject will be lost. The opposite can also happen: a student who is in the excellent category can get this grade with less energy investment, so he can store in himself the thought “okay, I’m good at this anyway”. Both examples will magnify the idea that fixed approaches are unchangeable.

Overly-tight learning pace:
I often hear that teachers are tasked with delivering a very heavy amount of material and have little freedom to relax this. Why is this a problem? On the one hand, because this serves the development of quantitative rather than qualitative learning. On the other hand, the tight pace makes it much less likely to allow for actual discussion of questions. If we sit in a class without the opportunity to access the parts of the material that interest us or are unclear – that is, we cannot ask questions – then this results in a sense of boredom with the material and the futility of the efforts that come with deeper understanding. So I want to be beyond learning and I do not find joy in discovery, in other words, I move back towards a fixed mindset. Here again, let me emphasize how much I respect those teachers who, despite the circumstances, have an honest dialogue with their students.

Matthew’s Law:
In his excellent book Exceptional, which looks into the depths of successful life paths, Malcolm Gladwell presents this in detail. In the Gospel of Matthew, we find that “For to everyone who has, to him will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” How can this be interpreted in basic education? The author demonstrates with numerous examples how the division into groups in childhood based on date of birth or the results of a survey leads to huge differences in adulthood. Those who end up in the better group are given more opportunities to practice and experiment. They can often develop in better conditions, whether we are talking about sports or traditional school subjects, that is, they are given the opportunity to try their wings, experience the joy of their efforts, and thus strengthen their growth mindset. Meanwhile, what happens to those who end up in the other group? Even the division into groups can make them realize that this is not their path. If we take into account the smaller number of lessons, the number of training sessions, and, in the case of music, access to a free piano, for example, we can easily see that students here are not necessarily limited by their abilities, but also by their opportunities. This situation can intentionally or unintentionally reinforce the idea that “I have no talent for this anyway”, meaning that they move towards a fixed mindset in this area. It is hard to even think about how many highly talented children get lost because they were not placed in a supportive environment that reinforces a developing mindset at the beginning.

Even if we cannot change the framework, as parents, we have a special responsibility to support our children’s natural interests with conversations and feedback. Let’s not let them identify with their grades, their group, or their achievements! If we help them realize that every minute they spend exploring history, chemistry, the three-point shot, the pentatonic scale counts, we can plant the seeds of an adult with a growth mindset.