The High Bar

by Bernie DeKoven on December 31, 2012

So, if, by chance, you’re in to making resolutions, given the oldness of the year that is leaving and the newness of the year that is coming, here’s my wish for you: may whatever goals you set for yourself be slanty.

But wait. I explain:

There’s an elegant model, called the “Slanty Line” principle, developed by physical educator Muska Mosston that puts the concept of individually negotiable challenge very clearly into practice.

If you’re a Phys Ed teacher, one of the things you do with kids is help them develop their high-jumping skills. In “non-adaptive” Phys Ed, the way you did this was to hold jumping contests. You’d hang a high bar horizontal to a certain height and everybody would have to take a turn jumping over the high bar. If they succeeded, they’d get to the next round, and the high bar would be raised. The contest would continue until only one person was left, and that person would be lavishly praised as the one who established the high jump record for the class.

The problem with this kind of competitive incentive structure is that the kids who need the most practice are the kids who get to jump the least often. The worse they are at jumping, the sooner they’re out of the game.

Make the high bar diagonal instead of parallel to the ground. And let everybody jump over any part of the high bar, and take as many turns as they want. And what do you get?

Instead of the teacher, each kid sets his/her own challenge. The jumpers who are not so good at jumping can still jump across the high bar as many times as anyone else they just cross at a lower point. And, when they feel the need to increase the challenge, they can just station themselves at a higher part of the high bar.

No one is eliminated. No one is given prizes. Everyone wins. Repeatedly.

graphics by Steve Childs <mailto:childsplay@excite.com>Slant the high bar and the authority rolls right out of the hands of the teacher, out of, actually, any one body’s hands, into everybody’s. The challenge (jump as high as you can, and then jump higher) remains the same, but the challenger has changed. It’s not the Phys Ed instructor who increases the challenge, it’s the kids, themselves: the kids as a group, and the kids, individually.

A challenge that is determined by the individual player is more complex, because it requires “reflective action.” The player must evaluate not only his or her own success, but also the success of the challenge. And even though they can get very competitive, the challenge is ultimately self-selected, ultimately guided by sheer fun.

Without an external evaluator, each kid can devise and revise the challenge. Of course, evaluation is going on, and whether the competition is inner-directed or outer-directed, the fact is that the teacher, your fellow jumpers (both higher and lower), your inner referee; somebody is evaluating your performance, challenging you to challenge yourself.

Ideally, each kid should be seeking out his/her personal level of flow, driven by the natural desire for complexity into a deeper and healthier engagement with the relationships between the human body and gravity. But, in fact, there’s still something about the way the task is framed that draws the kids apart.

Even though nobody’s eliminated, even though everyone’s free to increase or decrease the challenge, even though you don’t even have to take turns, the fact is that the challenge is directed towards theindividual. With the focus on individual performance, on how high who jumps; the relationship is fundamentally the same.

And what’s worse (or more complex), someone might be attaching meaning to your performance, as if how high you can jump says something bout your character!

So, what if we completely redirected the challenge, away from the individual and towards the group? What if the entire class tried to jump holding hands? Or with their arms around each other’s shoulders? Or each other’s waist?

Shifting the focus of the game away what they can do individually (ME), we focus, also, on what the kids can do together (WE) – on collective as well as individual performance.

To jump the Slanted Bar together, we need to make sure that each individual kid is going to make it. Even though the challenge is to the group, there are still plenty of challenges to the individual player. Each has to be stationed at the right part of the high bar: too high and you might not get over, too low, you might make it harder for someone else. Each has to be able to ask for help, and provide help. Preparing for the big jump, synchronizing the preparatory, simultaneous squat, each individual is doubly challenged. And yet, not competing. Same slant, same task, but fundamentally shifted experience.

Raising the high bar, you intensify the competitive relationship between the diminishing few. The game, internally and externally, becomes one of increasingly isolated MEs (the “winners”) against an increasingly disempowered WE. Slant the High Bar, and the relationship relaxes, becomes supportive, empowering, healthy, ME/WE.


The above appears in my post on Fun and Flow. I’ve added this as its own post because I find myself referring to it so frequently. For your further reference, I also wanted to direct you to The Spectrum of Teaching Styles, a site devoted to Mosston’s teaching, in particular, to the part about the inclusion style:

In the Inclusion style, the role of the teacher is to make all subject matter decisions, including the possible levels in the task, and the logistical decisions. The role of the learners is to survey the available levels in the task, select an entry point, practice the task, if necessary make an adjustment in the task level, and check performance against the criteria. This style is also called the “slanty rope” style. Students of all abilities can jump over a slanty rope at whatever height is challenging. No one is excluded from continued participation.

Inclusion style allows the following subject matter objectives to be reached:

  • To accommodate individual performance differences
  • To design a range of options that provide varying content entry points for all learners in the same task
  • To increase content acquisition by providing opportunities for continued participation
  • To offer opportunities for content adjustment decisions
  • To increase the quality of active time-on-task
  • To reinforce the assessment sequence process
See. Slanty bar, slanty line, slanty rope, it’s all about having the right slant – the slant that brings you closest to yourself. Wherever you may be, whatever year this may be, you are always new to now.

A Playful Path photoA playful path is the shortest road to happiness.
Visit aplayfulpath.com. Free ebook!

{ 1 comment }

Lily January 1, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Such a tough concept for teachers, so well demonstrated. Not only does this allow for individual differences, but for each individual’s differences (such as if a student is feeling under the weather, they may want to jump at a lower level than the day before).

Also, some may want to start at the bottom each time and work their way up to see how much higher each day they can go, and some might want to start right where they left off. Like you said, the individual decides where their entry point is.

Jumping together, hmmm… quite a challenge.

Love and laughter,
Lily

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: