After the Factory

Over the past few weeks I have been working with a group of thoughtful intrapreneurs who are planning to open the last new school in our school district. We have K-5, Middle, and High Schools and this new school is going to be a K-8. Our superintendant has given us the charge to "Change the way we do school."

So from the start we knew that we wanted to dismantle the factory model. What this means, of course, is we have to find a new model to base schooling on rather than the linear assembly line. In the words of Sir Ken Robinson it has to be more "agrarian." Paul Kim at Stanford calls it an "ecosystem."

So the first question we asked was, "What structure can we put in place that will prevent the new school from backsliding into the factory model?" This is a very challenging question. Teachers, parents, and students have all been indoctrinated into the factory system and to see outside of it is hard. Much like Plato's cave allegory, most people are strapped down staring at the cave wall and can't conceive of a different world.

This journey has a lot of questions and few answers. We keep looking for solutions that don't feel good because that is a sure sign you are pushing out of the box. At the same time, we are looking at models all over the world, scouring YouTube, the internet, gurus in education, people in the business world, etc. for perspective.

Our first take on one system is to develop an Adaptive Learning Platform (ALP). A computerized system that allows us to group and regroup kids based on need and challenge independent of grade. Student preferences, interests, passions, etc. will be included in the ALP as well has hard testing data.

This will also shuffle teachers around into learning spaces as needed for the lessons. Building in impermanence. It isn't an overt goal to make teachers uncomfortable, but it isn't an afterthought either. When teachers become comfortable they begin to ritualize learning. "My classroom" has a meaning. Almost like a workstation on an assembly line. "My kids" has another meaning. Lack of caring for other children because only this finite group matters to me.

While relationship is vital to learning, the idea of one teacher one classroom is a fossil of the factory. The school day needs to be more fluid. We don't want a teacher to open a file cabinet and pull out the same canned lesson as last year or last semester. Like real meals prepared from scratch, there are always variations depending on the ingredients and tastes of the guests. So that is what one goal of the ALP is shooting for regularly...variety.

As we explore this more we are looking for partnerships with technology companies and several have shown an interest. They all tell us the full version of our ALP is not out there yet. Pieces here and there, but nothing like we are describing. The next few months will be fascinating!

Dead pedagogy

As I have mentioned previously, teacher education programs are woefully inadequate at preparing teachers for the reality of the classroom. Writing is an area that is just left up to chance too often. And yet teachers are charged with teaching writing so they figure it out the best they can. Teachers are amazing at surviving. And this survival instinct is what helps us achieve and it can also be the root of poor practices.

Enter Jane Schaffer. Her method of teaching writing can best be described as formulaic. Taking the art and craft of writing and turning it into a mathematical construct. No thinking needed. No craft. No analysis of great writer's as models. Just learn her special vocabulary, insert banal information and tell us why, and presto change-o, you're a writer.

Schaffer's method can best be described as a life raft approach. When all else fails, follow the formula and you will pass the test. So from a practical standpoint, that is a nice tool to have. A parachute if you will. But preparing learners to communicate in the real world should not rest on emergency planning.

Often times teachers extol the virtues of the Schaffer method as a good scaffold for future adventures in writing. And those future adventures are where? They don't materialize because every teacher on the next step up assumes the children can't write so they reteach the Schaffer method again and again.  Students have learned to be compliant in our factory schools so they just go along with whatever they need to do to get an "A."

The writing curriculum doesn't improve in high school either. My sophomore still comes home talking about "concrete details" and "commentary" years after Schaffer should have been abandoned. A group of writing teachers from Cal State San Marcos came to our district over a decade ago and point blank told our high school teachers the Schaffer method should NOT be used in high school except for struggling writers. They scoffed and continued the drone of CD's and CM's.

The Schaffer method is mechanistic, factory thinking and it needs to be relegated to the survival strategy methodology it was designed for years ago. Sophistication can't be nurtured in writing that is prevented from being daring and experimental. When children are more concerned with counting the number of comments they make about "concrete details" we have really entered a world of cogs and levers. Stop the factory thinking! And quit reserving any quality writing for the elite children in honors and AP English. All students deserve the best!

Teachers, learn how to embrace writing. Write yourselves. Make mistakes. Be daring! Writer's workshop is a far better pedagogy and it asks learners to ask, "What do real writer's do?" And the more we do that, the sooner we will stop telling lies to kids like:

• a paragraph is five to seven sentences
• you can't start sentences with AND
• you can't end a sentence with a preposition
• you must have two commentary sentences for every concrete detail

We need to embrace the nebulous and realize writing is far messier than a factory can streamline. Writing is an art and all writer's have a style. It is our job to help these young writer's find their voice and become engaging authors.

For a far more scholarly critique of the Jane Schaffer method, please visit:

http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Composition/Form/wiley%20resisting%20formulaic%20writing.pdf

Human Connections

"We can’t outsource the human connections at the heart of the learning experience. Transforming the lives and learning of our children will take more than machines. It will take the best of our human resources." --  Wendy Kopp  CNN

Question All Assumptions

In the flurry of blog posts, videos, tweets, and conversations about 21st Century schools, there is a tendency to look forward and charge into the unknown. While I am usually one to do just that, I have found it vital to stop and look back at the foundations we are using for our new construction.

Much of the work today is based on the rejection of the mechanistic, factory model. And thank goodness! Yet as I meet with teachers, parents, and students, I detect a core of beliefs that have become entrenched in the education mind that are really just as misguided but are embraced as our hope for the future. I am speaking directly about Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence.

I need to clarify an important point before starting. Like many terms in common use today in daily conversation, "theory" has  taken on a meaning that is not accurate. In science, people come up with an idea about how something works based on observation. That is a hypothesis. After a good deal of evidence the idea is formalized so it can be tested. Once it is tested, repeatedly, and remains, we can say it is supported and it moves on to support a larger collection of related, supported hypothesis: a theory. A theory is not a random guess! It represents the current understanding based on tested ideas. And therein lies the problem with Multiple Intelligence.

People refer to Howard Gardner's idea as theory, but it isn't. At best it is an unsupported hypothesis. There are no double blind, placebo controlled studies on any of it! Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence! Howard Gardner's hypothesis has not been tested to show efficacy. It only has anecdotal evidence at best and has become a part of factory schooling which seeks to homogenize children and lower expectations for struggling learners. 

In fact, studies to test his hypothesis have shown no connection between "learning styles" and ability to learn. "These results challenge the hypothesis that individuals learn best with material presented in a particular sensory modality." Study Link

Often apologists for MI Theory say it doesn't hurt, kids like it, it changes classroom teaching for the better, etc. There are several big problems being overlooked:

1. This hypothesis reinforces the factory model educational philosophy of the 1900's with the wishful thinking of the self-esteem movement of the late 1900's. Factory schools produce compliant, obedient workers. Individuals who stand out because of extraordinary talent are a threat to the system which prides itself on homogenized product. And because some students look bad when others look good, MI nullifies those who are truly gifted by saying everyone is "gifted."
2. MI masks real learning issues and has appeared in printed legal forms for special education in which teachers are asked to list learning style preferences as if all teachers have a way to assess this. Without thought, the acceptance of this hypothesis has created a false reality for parents of children with learning disabilities. In some cases severe learning issues are just called "kinesthetic learners." This dangerous practice sets a student up for failure in the future by not addressing his/her learning disability.
3. Children with self-regulatory issues are not getting the help they need to change behavior and learn strategies to help them focus because they are told they are just "kinesthetic learners" and it is the teacher's fault they can't pay attention or complete a task. And what happens to these students when they enter the world of work? Whose fault is it when they can't hold down a job? We are putting students at risk with MI theory.

So what you ask? We have an education industry built on a false foundation! "Visual learners" or "kinesthetic learners" etc. are illusions created by a well-intentioned reformer...and they are the wrong way to help children.

Biologists will tell you to look at the anatomy of humans and you will see how we have adapted to survive on this planet. We are all visually dominant. We all need to touch things to understand them more. And neurologists have discovered that neural connections are reinforced with muscle activity. In other words, all kids need an enriching environment that stimulates all the senses. We have to resist the seductive lure of labeling which is all about factory thinking. To foster creativity and learning in all students we have to continually challenge our assumptions about students and ourselves and to stop making excuses for anyone because it isn't "their style."

_________________________________________________________________________________

More links to studies debunking MI:

• Not Every Child Is Secretly a Genius
• Education: Learning Styles Debunked "Nearly all of the studies that purport to provide evidence for learning styles fail to satisfy key criteria for scientific validity."
• Student “Learning Styles” Theory Is Bunk "Some lessons click with one child and not with another, but not because of an enduring bias or predisposition in the way the child learns. The lesson clicks or doesn’t because of the knowledge the child brought to the lesson, his interests, or other factors."
• Learning Style, Concepts and Evidence from Psychological Science in the Public Interest

INTRApreneurs Don't Wait to be Anointed

INTRApreneur- "A person within a large corporation who takes direct responsibility for turning an idea into a profitable finished product through assertive risk-taking and innovation" The American Heritage Dictionary

The term intrapreneur was coined in the late 70's and became part of corporate discussions in the 90's. The big idea is people can work within organizations to make changes rather than having to strike out on their own to create something new to compete with the former organization. 

And with education being historically slow to innovate, this idea is only now catching on. The constraints around education are designed to squash and kill any ideas that result in a radical transformation of what we do. Thankfully, there are places where intrapreneurship have been nurtured in education. These are the schools where teachers are encouraged to innovate and take the lead to help transform education. This has been happening in small pockets for a very long time. 

We have survived over a decade of micromanaged, creativity killing, lists of trivia disconnected from anything relavant to students in the form of state standards. We are now at a critical point where a new set of standards, the common core, are poised to replace the old list and we have the potential to change schooling for the better. Of course the factory mindset is already trying to craft canned lessons based on the new standards in order to ensure "coverage" and "mastery" forgetting there are children who need to create! People are making the mistake of "standardizing" curriculum again rather than raising the standard as Ken Robinson is fond of pointing out.

In this time of instability, education intrapreneurs must push forward and disturb the status quo. We have to do just as Tina Seelig says, "Don't wait to be anointed!" Now is the time to run away from the factory model to one that brings creativity and problem solving back to the core of what students do. Thinking. Questioning. We have to stop forcing kids to collect the dots. It is time to help them CONNECT the dots. They have to engage deeply and care about what they are learning. 

There is a secret all education intrapreneurs know. Our world is about to be disrupted by technology in a way that will threaten the existence of the profession. Information is literally everywhere. No longer do kids need a teacher to give them information. No longer is memorization the key to future success. Most secondary teaching and university teaching still consists of a teacher telling while classes sit the required time copying information only to tell it back to the teacher on exams. This methodology is dead! Information age technology is the asteroid that is causing its extinction of this dinosaur. And all around the traditional education system people are creating alternatives that provide parents an option to the local school. Parents are lining up to be part of lotteries for these schools and this is only going to continue. Unions will be powerless to help save jobs as the number of teachers needed continues to fall. The shift is happening faster than most people realize. If what you do as a teacher can be replaced by a machine, you will be replaced!

Teachers have to shift to a model of education where they help students find understandings and connections. We have to create lessons where students encounter real issues and ideas. Where the exploration of Renaissance becomes about how ideas shape history and reality rather than matching the people to their accomplishments. Studying plants has to become how nature survives and thrives in environments rather than naming plant parts and functions. And in this new process, students must GENERATE content. They must be able to CREATE and EXPRESS their thinking and ideas. Teachers have to learn how to listen. Students must learn how to actively listen to each other and respond to the ideas of others. Not just through text, but through video, speeches, songs, etc. Our children are growing up in a media-centric world where navigating the resources to gain understanding is the new skill set needed. To learn, unlearn, adapt, and see the world from another perspective. INNOVATION is the goal.

Education intrapreneurs, now is the time to speak up. Parents, now is the time to demand more from your child's school than a copy of what happened to you. 

Want another perspective? Try The Future of Education Eliminates the Classroom. The shift is real folks. It is time to lead! If you ruffle some feathers, good! It's about time.

Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative

“Our job is not to teach subjects, but to teach students.” -- Sir Ken Robinson

The highlight of the CUE conference in Palm Springs for me was the keynote address delivered by Sir Ken Robinson on the morning of March 15, 2013. If you don’t know who he use, just look him up on YouTube and you will find many presentations.

Growing up in Los Angeles I always felt indifferent to movie stars. I saw them, but never had that crazy feeling you see in fans who flail wildly in the stands next to red carpet premieres and awards shows...until Sir Ken stepped out on stage. I felt like I was in the presence of someone very special. So hero worship aside, he delivered a keynote that was funny and poignant.

Sir Ken began with some perspective on humanity and then got to the heart of what he wanted all of us to think about. Schools have to bring back creativity and learn how to let kids be creative again. “Human talents are very much like natural resources in the ground…and they don’t always manifest themselves without the right conditions.”  And the right conditions are not an obsessive focus on standards. For over a decade we have been ticking down those blasted checklists of stuff to teach and have rushed past opportunities for great conversations and creativity. With the new Common Core, we are about to make the same mistake again if we don’t change our thinking. We should be raising the standard of teaching and the pedagogy that will support thinking and creating, not rushing to make everything the same in all grades. Sir Ken points out, “People confuse raising standards with standardization, and they tend to focus on certain standards while neglecting others.”

In an attempt to address the hole created in the obsessive focus on language arts and math test scores, thanks to NCLB, reformers are glomming onto STEM curriculum. To which Sir Ken says, “STEM is not enough!” Once again a complex problem is trying to be solved by a ready-made package of curriculum. As I have mentioned before, the factory mindset is insidious. Too many people are just trying to switch out conveyer belts or looping them through different doors before kids leave the factory. The factory is the problem!

Laying out his three principles for our species, Sir Ken makes the points 1) Humans are diverse, 2) Human beings are inherently creative, 3) Human lives aren’t linear; they are organic.  He goes on to explain that we need schools to embrace these principles because we need innovators. People who can create and adapt. Businesses are saying “adaptability is needed at the core of corporate America – but going through our schools closes that skill.” That’s because we are trapped in the compliance model. Come to class on time, shut up, sit down, absorb, and regurgitate. Not exactly the environment for divergent thinking.

Creativity is the opposite of standardization. Sir Ken went on to explain what he means by creativity. “...by creative we mean contributions that can’t be predicted by standards, but can yet be untapped by some modicum of freedom to create our own standards. Nothing seemed less probable…when I was a child…that I would have the life I have…it wasn’t a plan.  It was an evolution.” So the question becomes are we going to permit and encourage students to evolve or are we going to continue answering their questions for them by tracking kids into ability groups, preventing them from moving out of a label, containing their interests by forcing compliance to a set of standards? In essence, everything education does right now is the opposite of creativity. For heaven’s sake, we have schools that assign letter grades to student art! Really? We are allowing inspector 32 on the educational assembly line to assign a ranking to a work of creativity? I would assume Picasso would have failed his art class in today's school.

“Every life is a conversation between your talents and your experiences,” says Sir Ken. Learning is organic. It doesn’t proceed in a smooth pattern from point A to point B. It is more like a tide. It ebbs and flows. Our experience tells us that. And yet schools are stuck in the factory model. “The educational system is based on our compliance.”  We look for “what they can’t do, not on what they can do.”  Sir Ken asks, “How would it transform teaching if we flipped this philosophy?”

Sir Ken offered some recommendations for how to change education. “We have to get away from standardizing to personalizing. We have to get away from narrowing to embracing the diversity.” Individualize schedules.  Facilitate learning, don’t direct it. Recognize that kids learn at different rates. Find ways to embrace and nurture the unlimited variety of diverse talents. Broaden student experiences. Leverage the power of technology to help make this happen.

He closed with this idea. “George Orwell said, ‘Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe.’ Who will win if education cannot evolve?” We can’t sit around waiting for bureaucracies to figure this out. We have to change what we do right now. Every teacher in America can start changing and be part of the revolution tomorrow. There is no need to wait for permission.

Neuroscience and Creativity

"In order to think creatively, you must develop new neural pathways and break out of the cycle of experience-dependent categorization. As Mark Twain said, 'Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned.' For most people, this does not come naturally. Often, the harder you try to think differently, the more rigid the categories become." -- GREGORY BERNS

I am currently enrolled in another MOOC which is exploring Innovation. After discussing Individual constraints to innovation, the professor included a link to an article from the Fast Company on what neuroscience reveals about creativity. (http://www.fastcompany.com/1007044/neuroscience-sheds-new-light-creativity)

The take away from the article is people will always see the familiar and always solve a problem the same way unless their brains are put into a situation that is novel. Our brains are lazy. Once they solve a problem the same way a few times, they soon make a routine that short cuts any new thinking and simply inserts the same answer. They stop seeing the differences in new situations and reduce the world to iconography.

Welcome to the world of the Common Core standards! Teachers are flipping out about the change that is coming. We can't possibly think about changing how we do school because the common core is coming! And the hilarious thing is people are all saying, "I used to do this years ago. We're just going back to what we did before." Really? Reach back into our brains and find the same solutions we had in the past and presto! No thinking required.

While I don't personally find the Common Core to be all that revolutionary, the shift is creating space in which to have conversations and change the way we do school. If we are smart about this, we will use this opportunity to challenge what we have been doing in education and radically change to meet the needs of 21st century children. Which will require more change than the Common Core calls for.

It will require us to get uncomfortable and put our brains in novel situations in order to generate new ideas. We have to get out of the herding mentality and quit using old solutions over and over again.

We have to pay attention to what is happening. Be present. Be aware. This is a very difficult thing for us to do because our brains have a tendency to be lazy. The following video illustrates just how inattentive our brains can be!

And an even longer example of change blindness from Dateline NBC.