The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Education for the Future?
What are the negative aspects of incorporating the SEM in to your school?
A criticism of many enrichment models is that their focus is solely enrichment. They allow little, if any, room for acceleration. This is a valid criticism of the original enrichment triad model but Renzulli and Reis' SEM encompasses both enrichment and some acceleration through curriculum compacting and other curriculum provisions (Ministry of Education, 2000). There are however, still some negative aspects surrounding the SEM.
The extra demand on both student and teacher time is a perceived negative aspect of implementing the SEM (Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989). It is a concern that teachers will spend a great amount of time, which is already scarce, planning enrichment activities and clusters. The timetable and curriculum is already full and workloads are so high that many teachers feel stressed and uptight about schoolwide enrichment. "A concern is the issue of teacher planning time in general, enrichment clusters are viewed as one more thing added to an already overloaded curriculum" (Gentry, Moran & Reis, 1999, p. 38). The scheduling of the programme is a huge problem also. There is often no common time slots available to the school and teachers and parents are concerned that the same group of students will miss a given period for weeks in a row (Gentry, Moran & Reis, 1999).
The limited amount of resources, space and specialists is a huge problem regarding implementation of the SEM. It is necessary for each school to have an enrichment resource teacher (Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989). Many schools clearly lack the funding to provide this. The model relies on mentors, community volunteers and specialists to meet the needs of all students and not have to rely on textbook teaching (Gentry, Moran & Reis, 1999). Many educational institutions will struggle to find this kind of support and expertise and therefore will not be able to fully adhere to the model's desires. Limited resources and space within the school are a problem as the model requires a spacious resource room for presenting enrichment to meet the unique needs of students (Clark, 1997).
The model is a schoolwide one. It therefore needs co-operation and support from the whole staff to make it successful. Renzulli (1998) notes that teachers have become accustomed to the rigidity of the traditional practices and are often reluctant to change. The SEM requires energy and participation from all staff in activities that differ from the status quo. This can be a negative aspect of the model as it will not work without full participation. Schools are expected to participate in inservice training related to the implementation of the model (Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989). This can cause problems in schools that lack the financial support or drive to undertake such training.
A final negative aspect of the model is the inability of many goals and outcomes to be formally assessed and measured. "Learning outcomes in the SEM often relate to the development of interests, the acquisition of independence and the joy of learning developed through self-selected studies" (Renzulli & Reis, 1994, p. 18). These skills and values are not easily assessed and it is difficult to find evaluation instruments that would measure them. This has caused many educators to focus on the finished product as it can be easily assessed while really the model aims to enhance learning skills, creativity, a variety of interests and understand real life problems (Riley, 2000). It is the values and skills gained through the enriched experiences that is of true value. These are difficult to evaluate and in an education system that must show accountability for learning, assessment is a vital component.