~synthesis~

mastering apprenticeship

I did my undergraduate degree at the University of Waterloo in Canada. It is a fantastic school (I might be biased), and it contributed greatly to preparing me for what awaited me in the years that followed.

In addition to the academics and the social, thanks to their Co-op Program, I graduated with excellent work experience, zero debt, and a firm job offer. Combining the practical with the learning is a critical success factor for any educational system.

I can’t count the number of candidates I’ve interviewed over the years with a solid academic pedigree, but no sense of the working world, how to navigate it, get things done, add value in a team setting, and even to be self-motivated and driven. We’d take a chance on some, but there’s no substitute for someone who can hit the ground running with both school and street smarts.

Many colleges and universities are embracing co-op or similar approaches to better prepare their graduates for employment (I’d like to think Waterloo is a pioneer!), as now are some forward-thinking high schools.

I was invited to speak to the faculty of such a high school a couple of weeks ago - Saint Martin de Porres in Cleveland. It was an eye-opening experience.

Saint Martin teaches low-income students and is noteworthy for many reasons, the greatest of which is that EVERY student graduates (vs. ~50% for the rest of Cleveland); and every graduate in the school’s history has been accepted to at least one college or university, all with a >30% higher college persistence rate than the national average. ...Wow!

From the founder to the school head to the faculty, everyone is committed to (in my words) the ideal that every child matters; that they must embrace and nurture each student; imbue drive, resourcefulness and perseverance; and teach them to embody integrity, respect, and grace.

Powerful stuff.

But there’s more - every student is required to work for a local company in a four-student job-sharing team, where together they cover a full work-week throughout the school year (1.25 days/week/student).

Over 100 companies in the Cleveland area are Corporate Work-Study Program partners, and this year alone, will invest more than $2.5 million towards funding the school! ...Wow!

Saint Martin takes this program very seriously - in fact, a teacher told me that they have a (very real world) zero-tolerance policy if students fail to take their job seriously; they are a bit more tolerant of in-school lapses, but work is work.

So... not only does every student receive an excellent education, they also graduate with work experience; are savvy about the workplace and how to thrive there; and they benefit from their very generous employers who provide mentorship and career guidance.

Blending theory and practice (master/apprentice) is at the heart of true learning and life-preparation, and has never been more critical than in this day and time, when students (and especially minorities) are disproportionately unemployed.

This alone is noteworthy, but there's also this:

The students’ academic proficiency is undisputed (100% acceptance of graduates to college/university), but they accomplish that with 25% less class time than other schools! Recall that each student spends five (5) school days every four weeks (ave 1.25 days/week) at work.

That’s “lost” teaching time -- or is it?? When you personally experience the application of learning outside school, your desire and capacity to learn in school grows, as does your engagement in class. In other words, they have improved the efficiency of teaching and learning by removing the kids from the classroom and putting them to work! How cool is that!

While almost every teacher I’ve ever met is worried about the volume of content that must be taught in a very limited time window, the faculty at Saint Martin has been able to literally teach more in less time ‘cause their students are steeped in context.

An important lesson for all school leaders and teachers.

Inner city students are the most disadvantaged among us, and it is important to learn from schools like Saint Martin de Porres, who are changing this by caring for their students, being innovative and creative in how they prepare their students to be kick-butt graduates, and by ensuring the sustainability of the school.

Bravo

tech in ed - epic failure

Education today is designed to meet the needs of 19th century Industrial Revolution employer - “We need millions of assembly line workers, who are all similarly-skilled, and able to work for a simple wage.”

But children today want more, they have broader needs and expectations from their school - not the least of which is to be treated as individuals and to be engaged based on their unique aspirations and abilities. This is not possible if the least interactive and differentiated part of learning in today’s schools is the lecture, and the most interactive part is the homework. We are not only wasting the most valuable asset in the room - the teacher - but also flaunting the idea that you can create creative, critical thinkers in a one-way, generic teaching system. Real learning is a curated experience; humans - teachers - must be involved, but in an interactive and personalized way.

Technology’s role is NOT to mechanize, but to humanize. The most humane technology interventions in history are characterized by a simple truth - the target audience naturally consumed them. The telephone, television and browser are examples of this.

Sadly, a generation of school leaders, administrators, teachers and parents are now conditioned to view technology in the blandest way; from the slate to the blackboard to the whiteboard to PowerPoint to the SmartBoard, the ONLY improvement is mechanization. Teaching and learning NEVER changed. To-date the use of technology in learning has been a waste.

Successful teaching can’t be an act of oppression, it can’t be “pushed,” it needs to be “pulled” - the student must want. Talk to any teacher and they will say that student engagement is fundamental to success. Combine the best teacher with the smartest but disengaged student, and learning will NOT occur. But if the students are engaged, and if the teacher can meet them where they each are and work with them, any student can be successful.

This is our challenge, but in a system this complex (USA: 50 million students, 3 million teachers, 15,000 school districts, $600B/year), it must be done correctly.

The answer is not rocket-science. In fact, it's right in front of our noses. Look at children at play - watch them engage and interact in mediums of their own choosing - they have already know how they see, learn, play, and enjoy. My favorite example is Pokemon. Excerpt from student teaching?:

Most Pokemon aficionados that I know mastered the game in about six months. Mastery implies a full understanding of the Pokemon vocabulary, ecosystem, evolutionary paths, strengths and weaknesses of each character and appropriate strategies with which to select the right Pokemon and win battles, etc.

Moreover, each child also learns to interact with their peers, learn tricks and techniques from each other, and of course battling to achieve supremacy in the game.

Finally, for particularly tough battles, students need to also do research online to uncover cheats that they can use to achieve status.

How often do you see average students achieve this level of skill this quickly in Algebra, Grammar or even simple Fractions, forget Organic Chemistry, Biology, or a foreign language? Animated cartoons, simple re-playable simulations, pervasive, easy-to-use, child-friendly, long-battery-life devices are the basis for Pokemon's success.

This can be translated into mainstream learning. Technology can inspire children to want to learn.

We can't ignore the role of the teacher - they are essential to connecting with students based on their specific interests, abilities, and learning needs; and to being the human connection that all Brain Science tells us is crucial to effective learning.

Technology should liberate teachers from the burden of generic lectures and enable them do what they're best at, what they came to do in the first place - engage students. But we have to do this practically, knowing that they have 30 students and 50 minutes per class.

What if we took the current education standards in a given school system and created short (< 10 mins), animated lectures of each concept(s) with a simple assignment to test comprehension? The teacher could assign these lectures to students as homework, have them "play" their homework and complete their assignments, and automatically receive "reports" on how each student did, and what they understood before class started. In class, the teacher would group the students based on their comprehension, and work directly to inspire, and bridge their learning gaps.

Of course there is much more to this approach; but in the end, it helps accomplish three things:

1. Recognizing and accommodating the way children naturally think, learn and play.
2. Empowering the teacher to directly engage students and help them learn.
3. Eliminating the child abuse of forcing young children to shoulder 20lb (10kg) backpacks filled with dated textbooks.

It can be done at a substantially lower cost - American public schools spend more than $5 billion/year on text books - this approach would cost much less, if for no other reason than most kids already have the devices (smartphones, MP3 and game players), and that all learning content should be open-source.

He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. ~Confucius. Bold school districts and teachers unions need to step up and lead our children into safety.

why?

How often do you ask this? More importantly, how often did you ask this? Wondering and asking "why" is a powerful determinant of creativity. Ironically, it's something we "breed" out of our children when they're young. I think it's mostly because adults get tired of being asked it at home, and when they're in school, it's because teachers (also adults I suppose) are also tired of being asked.

Sir Ken Robinson (if you haven't seen him speak, click on the image to the right; if you have seen it, click anyway - I've watched it at least 4-5 times) defines creativity as "the process of having original ideas that have value." He argues that creativity should be as important in schools as literacy.

Sir Ken further argues (I couldn't agree more) that our schools in their ever-mechanical approach actually extract creativity from our children because of the way they measure "achievement," how they "enforce" discipline and adherence to structure, and worst how the "wrong" answer or approach is so actively discouraged as to impede the emergence of anything but a bland, conformist child. "If you are not prepared to be wrong, you will never come up with anything original."

Newsweek published The Creativity Crisis this month, where among other things, they talk about the correlation between a student's score on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and their "success" in life (entrepreneurs, inventors, college presidents, authors, doctors, diplomats, and software developers).

I've written here and here about how the values and needs of the industrial revolution have polluted the idea of a public education being about helping every child achieve their greatest self. As I stated during a recent interview on edReformer: "It feels like Education America has become an end unto itself – i.e. the system is less about whether children graduate prepared for the world vs. whether they went through the process of going to the school. The former is righteous, the latter smacks of too many administrators and mid-level bureaucrats getting in the way of people with a legitimate desire to help our children be the best they can be."

Voices like that of Sir Ken, and Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman (authors of the Newsweek article) are important, but not enough if the goal is to reshape Education America or any other country's system.

The most critical voices are parents and employers. The former because they are (or are supposed to be) their children's advocates, and because they are voters and hence valuable to elected officials. The latter because they are the "reason" that education exists in the mind of most people/parents (to prepare kids to earn money). In effect, the employer has the real power, and the parent is one of the strongest advocates of their needs.

If employers don't want creativity, parents won't demand it in the classroom. If employers stopped hiring graduates of school factories, parents would take action. I had dinner this weekend with two very cool people who work for an education foundation, and we were talking about how difficult it is to affect real change.

What if instead of trying to change teachers or drive common standards or curriculum, etc., these foundations went straight to employers to "help" them become stronger advocates for better job candidates? What if they were able to get these employers eliminate the requirement for an accreditation to get a job? What if they were willing to put a bit more energy into the recruitment and filtering process, but focus on the person and their ability vs. what some piece of paper said they could do?

What if the foundation in question invested in a service that helped candidates better represent their true capabilities and not just what the transcript said? Imagine how by building a whole new way of marrying candidates to employers, a foundation with a relatively small investment could create fundamental change in the education system without ever touching it. Now imagine how parents would glom on to this and push their children, and their children's schools to make sure they were prepared for this new world.

Creativity requires that you be prepared to be wrong; if we're not willing to try new approaches, we will forever live up to Einstein's definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

aVOIDance

Lao Tzu was a brilliant, brilliant man - in Tao Te Ching, he wrote this:

We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.

We turn clay to make a vessel;

But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.

We pierce doors and windows to make a house;

And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.

Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.

This should be tattooed on the foreheads of every leader and politician so that they can read it every time they look in the mirror (I presume mirror-looking is a frequent act). Governing (or leading in that rare case) is as much about what you do as what you don't do; it is as much (more) about the things you help happen as it is about the things you prevent from happening. It is indeed as much about the usefulness of what is not as it is about the structure we create. But most critically, governing is about creating a space in which the people it serves are allowed to be great, and to be happy.

I do believe the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence were aware of Lao Tzu and others, and were themselves brilliant and well-thinking men. Here's a bit of their work:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read this a couple of times to see how in a mere 202 words so many powerful ideas were collected; how so much power and possibility were granted to both the citizenry and its government. Knowing that this was written to set up the throwing off of one "such Government" is powerful. This document is one of the most eloquent demonstrations of creating a container; knowing full well that the value lies not in the shape or structure of the container, but the power of what it holds, and the potential that creates.

When you read of today's political machinations, you can't help but wonder why our politicians (I can't call them leaders) are bent on creating ever more walls. It's like saying that everything that could possibly happen needs a law to "manage" it.

But we fail to realize that humans are innately skilled at finding the 11th door out of a 10-door room. Every new wall we create invites (nay, demands) loophole seekers, makes it harder to find "miscreants" because the very walls obscure things, and forces us to waste energy policing existing walls.

We also ignore the very purpose of government - to secure their citizens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. Today the purpose seems to be to enumerate and prevent misdeeds.

How sad that we're defined by what we mustn't do.

We are voidphobes. Whether it is a lull in conversation, or a lull in behavior, or a lull in regulation - we are much more comfortable when cocooned (straitjacketed?) in structure and "no."

Consider our schools and what we impose on children from the first moment of "institutionalization" - rules, constraints, expectations, examinations. I wonder if this is one reason we have so many more "atypical" children in schools today than ever before? Our definition of "normal" is compliance, living within walls, and accommodating adult expectations. We resist, as Seth put it, exposing ourselves. This might be the worst thing adults can do in service of human evolution, and caring for our young.

A free society, a free people, a free nation are powerful, powerful ideas. They live only when what is celebrated is not the walls around us, but the vast, possibility-filled spaces we inhabit.

Our future may well hinge on our ability to resist avoiding voids.

head games

There are about 3 million teachers and about 65 million students in America, or roughly 22 students per teacher. Since we know that only 75% of students graduate, there are probably more younger students than older students - so instead of an even distribution of 5 million students per grade (65/13, 13=#of grades from K-12), it's more likely that there are 3.5-4 million students in upper grades and 5.5-6m students in lower grades

So what?

Well, I attended a fascinating presentation as a follow-on to a conversation I had with Bob Watt almost a year and a half ago at I-LABS - the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of Washington. If you're ever in the area, and interested at all in early childhood learning and brain development - you need to know Pat Kuhl and Andrew Meltzoff the co-directors. These guys are something else - the work they're doing is world-renowned, and kicks butt.

I was there with a small group, and they were gracious enough to give us two hours, and patiently respond to all our questions. What I learned from I-LABS is how much proven science flies in the face of education convention in America.

For example - there is pretty much universal agreement backed by data that conclusively states that the brain is most receptive to learning new languages in its first two or three years of life. As the brain ages this ability diminishes rapidly - by the time you hit puberty it's really difficult, and by the time you've left your teens, it's just about over.

And yet, our schools start teaching a second language around grade 8 (age 14)!! Why bother? Why not make it easier and teach a second language when the child's brain can do it without any effort?

As you will read from my conversation with Bob, one of the most critical I-LABS insights is the extent to which personal interaction matters in early childhood learning. In a discussion with Pat and Andrew, there was conceptual agreement with the idea that the ratio of teachers to students should be much, much higher for younger students, and can be much lower for older students.

Going back to the data in the first paragraph, the incumbents and nay-sayers will argue that this is impractical, we can't afford the teachers we have, much less lowering the student-to-teacher ratio further!

What if we implemented something like the table to the right? By dramatically shifting the bias towards younger grades, we can keep the number of teachers constant, and explore "inhuman" (computer-based learning, games - 1:1 and massively multi-player games, etc.) approaches to learning support for older students.

If brain science tells us that this is a sensible approach, just as brain science tells us that we should learn languages sooner than later, then we should listen and change our approach to education to reflect the reality of how children learn.

I suppose the more productive question Pat and Andrew need to answer is how the brains of the adults in charge of education work, and what we need to do to make them see straight.

shibumi

Shibumi is one of my favorite books - it was written by Trevanian, a brilliant author of among other things, spy stories. "Shibumi" is described on P74 of the book:

"Shibumi is understanding, rather than knowledge. Eloquent silence. In demeanor, it is modesty without prudency. In art, where the spirit of shibumi takes the form of sabi, it is elegant simplicity, it is articulate brevity. In philosophy, where shibumi emerges as wabi, it is spiritual tranquility that is not passive; it is being without the angst of becoming. And in the personality of a man, it is... how does one say it? Authority without domination."

I was in my teens when I first read this book, and like the protagonist, was immediately captivated:

"How does one achieve this shibumi, sir?"
"One does not achieve it, one ...discovers it. And only a few men of infinite refinement ever do that. Men like my friend Otake-san."
"Meaning that one must learn a great deal to arrive at shibumi?"
"Meaning, rather, that one must pass through knowledge to arrive at simplicity."

I've never been able to let go of this idea, or more appropriately, this ideal. I'm rereading the book for the nth time on a flight to Washington DC, where I will have the honor of meeting some amazing people in the world of education. As I contemplated that, I recalled a post by Scott McLeod entitled Never going to happen?:

True statement by a teacher (said with all sincerity) in one of my workshops this semester:

We’re so far behind our students. How do we catch up and move past them so that we can then teach them things they don’t know?

I don't know this for a fact, but think many teachers feel this way - implicitly behind the curve because their students have the ADD to grab at seemingly infinite sources, and empty enough minds to hold on to much of what they've found.

Great teachers, dare I say senseis, have attained shibumi. Their wisdom is not founded on the ability to store ...data. It is founded on a depth of essential understanding and a capacity for humbleness (read: open-minded acceptance) that allows them to grasp, interpret and illuminate.

I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment of Scott's post. Any teacher that views their sole ...asset as data is hopeless. Worse, they're harming their students by valuing rote over understanding, regurgitation over insight. These teachers (hopefully just victims of NCLB-mentality) must be redirected or re-schooled to properly serve their students.

The Scott McLeods (respected and visible educators) of the world need to aggressively advocate teaching proficiency - there are no other voices for this.

Teachers should not be paid based on student outcomes, instead they should be paid based on their own attainment of core and advanced teaching skills. I wrote about meeting Deborah Ball a while back, she taught me that like any profession, there are objective, clear, and assessable gradations of attainment in teaching proficiency.

While I don't expect every teacher to attain shibumi, I sure as hell expect each to understand the difference between information and learning, the difference between a capacity to spout data and the ability to find, discern, interpret, create, and communicate insight (or as my friend Larry would put it: observation, reflection, documentation, exhibition).

inversions

 

There was an article in the NY Times recently about a research study that found that students who study online outperform those that study in the classroom. But according to an email Prof. Kathy Gill at U Washington sent to a listserv, the causative factor was not on/off line, but time on task

So it wasn't the medium, it wasn't the message, it was the participation level that made the difference. It makes sense doesn't it? You could be in the most beautiful place with the most beautiful people looking at the most beautiful things, but if you weren't engaged, it was all for naught.

One thing this study does show is that listening to lectures online does work - students can and do pay attention; insight is conveyed, and gained.

Have you heard of Professor Glenn Platt at Miami University? He along with Prof. Maureen Lage invented the concept of "The Inverted Classroom." This is Einstein-like (so simple and yet no-one's ever thought of it before) brilliance.

From the students' point of view (and let's face it, they're the customers!), the lecture is the least interactive part of a learning experience; the assignments/homework are the most interactive.

So why not flip things around and make the lectures homework, and the assignments class work? The teachers should actively facilitate the interactive experience, and expect the students to "attend" the static part out of class.

The lecture is information with some insight (students sit, listen, take notes). The homework and assignments are where you're meant to internalize the concepts, be able to extend them to related areas, and demonstrate your knowledge by submitting solutions to problems you've been assigned (student reviews, infers, works, and documents understanding).

Think back to when you were doing homework - did you collaborate with your peers to solve a particularly difficult problem? If so, you had to arrange for an "out of class" meeting, to connect and then brainstorm, argue, share, and hopefully solve. There are many studies that show that the best way to know is to teach - getting together with your mates was the first step in teaching (or co-teaching), and understanding.

Platt/Lage published this idea nine years ago (in 2000) - shocking that this hasn't been more broadly explored.

Why hasn't it taken hold? IMO - there are three reasons for this:

1. Ability to record and disseminate lectures - requires video recording tools, a portal with video streaming services, the disk space and bandwidth to assure a good experience. This is being done in many places today - my traditional favorite is MIT Open Courseware, but Curtis Wong at Microsoft Research has created a rather ground-breaking project called Tuva - well worth a visit, especially if you share my appreciation for Richard Feynman. I don't think this is as expensive as everyone makes it out to be. Plus there are many organizations that would happily lend assistance to school systems that wished to implement this.
2. Capacity for all students to receive and consume lectures at home - this is more contentious. Throwing out the trust issue (kids won't do the work), which I believe is spurious and can be overcome, this is also the expensive part. Every student will require their own device to access lectures (could be as simple as a mobile phone), and the bandwidth to download them. Again - this is not a complex problem, but merely a costly one. I've talked about an adult equivalent of this here, I think the opportunity and impact is even greater for children.
3. Incumbents' willingness to change - there are four players involved (besides the students) and each is a big hairy issue. Are teachers and administrators willing to change? Are their unions open to encouraging this type of approach? Will parents (voters) agree to this idea? Does anyone have the cojones to pilot this for a whole school system?

Does it affect pedagogy? Yes. Does it require a new set of teaching skills? Hopefully not - my presumption is that teachers sought this scenario when they chose the profession. Does curriculum need to change? It could - for example, rather than streaming full 50-minute lectures, try ~10 minute "lecturelets" that are aggregated into lessons. One advantage of the inverted model is that the teacher and the lecturer don't have to be the same person. If your state had a standard curriculum, you could record the 4-5 best lecturers in your state, and then have that "best of the best" set of lectures be your streaming library; this library could be updated every two or three years to keep it fresh. The in-class teachers' role becomes more guide on the side.

The other advantage of this lecture/lecturelet model is that students can replay them to clarify understanding and review prior to exams. It allows them to learn in a much more self-directed way.

The issue with this model - will all students actually watch the lectures? No. But how is this different from today? I have observed a number of primary and secondary school classes, and can say with certainty that despite physically being in the room, not every student was really in the room. Moreover, not every student actually did their homework. Bet you're surprised to read that!

One other thing - when surveyed most teachers say that keeping students engaged while in the class is difficult. That doesn't surprise me given that most of the time is spent lecturing. This approach changes that - it puts the teacher in the role of actually working with the students to together internalize, understand and demonstrate the material. And I bet engaged students are more likely to watch lectures at home too.

I would change the approach to assignments - it's not about kids being head's down, answering questions, but rather about a discussion with problem solving, team exercises, lab work, etc. I'm not sure if assessments would need to change (they might), but I think the grading breakdown should - class participation and activity must now be at least 50% of the student's grade.

The data shows that time-on-task helps performance, that it is possible to learn from steaming lectures, and that keeping students engaged is a challenge for teachers. Inverted classrooms could be an answer.

I would really like to see a sizable school district or maybe a whole State give inverted classrooms a try. I think it has incredible potential, and might actually transform learning in a way we've never seen before. Perhaps this is what President Obama and Secretary Duncan should provoke with their Race to the Top program.

 

standards-schmandards

A great friend and brilliant educator recently shared this frame for learning with me - it is about observation, reflection, documentation, and exhibition. This is powerful. It fits well with the beginnings of learning, where each master taught their student according to that child’s unique shape, ability and needs. He or she realized that their pupil would eventually replace them as master, and acted and taught accordingly. Each apprentice paid attention, was engaged and focused, because this was the real world, and they easily saw themselves as adults doing this work. Learning happened.

In time, the shape of learning "evolved" to the point where “schools” were built. They may have begun teaching religion or language, but they soon expanded to contain many masters, each tasked with creating proficiency in their particular subject. As schools grew, overseers defined “a complete education,” and students were required to complete a rigorous and structured process, accomplish a specified result, and then “credentialed” to move forward – either to further education, or the workplace.

This new shape of learning was deemed “better” because it allowed teachers to reach many students at once, and it freed the “value creators” (the original masters) to focus on their work without the "distraction" of apprentices. In time, the politically-anointed “overseers” of the these schools identified “core” skills that could be "extracted" from original subjects, and taught independently of any craft or discipline (carpentry, medicine, farming, etc.). These core skills, literacy and numeracy (which in a bizarre fit of illiteracy are referred to as the "3 Rs"), were deemed of greater importance to educational success (both institutional and personal) than proficiency in a given craft.

The present day education system has "progressed" to the point where teaching is highly specialized, a big part of curriculum is focused on these "core" skills, and in the spirit of scale and mass production, school systems also have an objective and common way of assessing proficiency. Relative performance is deemed to matter more than individual need, ability, or potential; and schools, teachers and students alike are measured on the basis of student performance. "They" have found a "fair" way to do this - it is called Standardized Testing.

Standardized Failure

Each State in America for example has its own standardized tests to judge aggregated student performance. This then translates to how schools get funded, and how teachers and administrators get paid. As anyone would, teachers are forced to make sure students are taught exactly how to do well on the tests. Moreover, the State overseers, knowing that Federal funding depends on performance, have lowered the bar to raise pass rates. The result is embarrassing; students have "passed" these standardized tests, but not learned anything. More than a third require remediation if they are even able to get accepted into college or university in the first place. Worse, despite lowering standards, student achievement has not improved, class participation and attendance are declining, and most of the students and even some of the parents no longer respect the institution.

In effect, teachers are required to treat students on a "micro" basis, so that they have the specific tools to pass their test. There is very little scope or latitude for the teachers in the mainstream school system to create a complete, integrated learning experience with project-based outcomes, like High Tech High for example where students actually publish books, owning all aspects (writing, photography, editing, layout, production, etc.), or Seattle Girls' School, where the students conduct a full simulation of a mission to Mars (from the press conferences to space station docking to landing on Mars), and what many other charter and choice schools do around the country. This "macro" idea of treating a student as a complete person, building an integrated curriculum that develops core skills but also does so much more (create a broader, real world context and deeply engage the student) is simply not possible in the micro-brained-standardized-testing public school system.

But it's actually worse than this - the process of teaching (again a reaction to the tests) is also an issue. Because each teacher is measured on the performance of the student in their class, they in effect compete for the students' attention against other teachers in the school, making the student the victim of this mess. The teacher does this against their better judgment because they understand that rote/memorization/etc. is not true learning, but it is the way their curriculum is developed, and what they're told is the way to create students that pass tests.

Standardized tests are arbitrary judgments that move based on political and economic will and not academic efficacy or the best interests of the student. They force a micro-mentality that is not dissimilar to worst of the commercial world.

Shape of Things to Come?

Is the American education system unique? How about the American automobile industry? Their equivalent of standardized testing is the EPA and trade protection. Knowing that the Big Three couldn't compete directly with foreign companies given their manufacturing (in)ability and the burden of their union contracts, they changed the nature of environmental protection (ostensibly safeguarding best interests of their citizenry) to deem "light trucks" (which are the most profitable segment of the Big Three's portfolio) exempt from emission standards! By allowing the Big Three to blithely continue to produce badly-engineered products and marry them to incentives to make them even more attractive, they solved a problem in the short term, but as the last months have shown, the lasting effect is bankruptcy, job loss, and a massive increase in the nation's carbon footprint.

This cutting your nose off to spite your face approach is a mirror to standardized testing. Combine recent studies that show how uncompetitive American students are vs. their counterparts abroad; the relative power of the union bases; the ease with which politicians "game" the system by altering standards for convenience; and worst of all, the de-funding of schools due to the economic downturn, and you have a perfect storm that is portentous of a dire and ominous fate for Edu Americana...

"I'm not dead yet!"

Want more proof? Can you think of the most pervasive implementation of standardized testing in America? I say it's drivers' licensing. Theirs includes both a written exam and a practical street driving test. Almost every American over the age of sixteen has taken this particular test.

How successful do you think it's been? Do you think Americans are good drivers? Are they safe drivers? Are you TOTALLY confident as a pedestrian, passenger or driver that all the other drivers on the street are completely safe, trustworthy and predictable because they successfully completed their standardized test?

Life and Death is NOT Standard

Now think of your police or fire department, the military, and even your physician. What does their training look like? Are randomly-created and arbitrarily judged standardized tests their approach to creating successful graduates? Emphatically no! They are all required to observe both theory and practice, reflect and understand how things actually work, document their understanding and insight, and then extensively exhibit their proficiency in simulated or real-world settings that provide their masters with the ability to not only judge success, but also fine tune to create proficiency.

When it really matters, we do have a pretty good way of educating people for certain disciplines. There are schools that work this way in this country. Two that I've had the pleasure of visiting are High Tech High in San Diego and Seattle Girls' School; there are others (though not enough others). If you are nearby do visit them - you will be blown away.

Why then are all our children not educated this way? Why then do we resort to standardized tests that are proven failures? We must all rise together to emphatically decry this approach to education "oversight" and implore our politicians to finally do the right thing.

Are there better ways, I think so. This, this and this are where I would start.

Advanced Student Learning

Joel Klein and Al Sharpton published an open letter on education to President-elect Obama in Monday's Wall Street Journal. In it they spoke about the disparity between white and non-white academic performance, the generally poor performance of schools that are "racing to the bottom" in efforts to teach students to pass increasingly dumbed-down assessments.

Klein and Sharpton are co-chairs of EEP (Education Equality Project), whose mission is to bring equality to education and ensure that only measures that help advance student learning are passed. They support charter school options as well as a rethinking of the teacher union tenure and compensation plans.

In the letter, they ask President-elect Obama to develop national standards and assessments for student achievement, and re-purpose the $30-billion spent federally in K-12 education to support the recruitment and retention of the best teachers in under served urban schools.

I disagree.

First the money. The one (and only) carrot the Federal Government has with education is their $30 billion. It must be used to guarantee student learning advancement. If it is used to fund teacher salaries, then it doesn't assure the outcome they want. Putting their $ into payroll turns it into an entitlement, not possible to move it, ever. That doesn't make any sense. 

I absolutely believe that teachers should be paid like doctors and lawyers, and more importantly get the respect they've earned, but this proposal sounds like a totally unmanaged activity and I don't think we should spend anything much less $30 billion that way! How do you control where the funds go and whether a given teacher's work merits an increase in pay? Finally, it's the job of the States to cover payroll not the Feds.

Second, the assessments. Their own letter says that assessments are a huge problem, and have always failed. Why go back to the same place over and over again? I believe we should not spend time and energy trying the same failed approaches to solving this. We know that every child is different, so standardized assessments are implicitly unfair. We also know that bureaucracies are not agile. Why then make assessments, which take years to put together and even longer to adapt to changed times the cornerstone of improving student learning? It doesn't make any sense to me.

If you're interested in what I'd propose, I've written about this here, here, and here.

And if you want read even more, here's my suggestion of what the President-elect's inauguration speech should say about education.

I love what EEP stands for (improved student learning), but don't think this letter and their request of the new administration reflect that ideal.

What's so 21st Century About it?

21st Century Learning/Skills are all the rage. But what's the 21st-centuryness of it all?

It seems that the only 21st century aspect (if you could even call it that) is the recognition that ICT is more present now than in say the 19th century. Well, dah... But so what? How many schools can really claim to educate a young person in this world about ICT? They might be able to teach them computer science (but that's not the same thing).

The most pervasive technology for younger people is mobile devices; but most schools' policies ban these devices! How are they going to claim any 21st centuryness if they ban technology usage in schools??

The skills required to find information and filter it; create insight based on knowledge gathered/gained; and then persuasively communicate these insights and point of view to others is a core set of skills common to any century. I wrote about this a while back, and coined a name that I think has legs - the Edutanic when talking about our current education system.

The late 20th and 21st century have, I think posed a greater challenge to educators and policy-makers. The Internet has taken away one source of power educators had (as historic gatekeepers to information); and modern communications has taken away any shelter the policy-makers had from vested parents. But for the students, its business as usual - why? Because they've grown up with it.

As I wrote in the Edutanic, when asked what made a hockey player great, Wayne Greztky said - "a good player skates to where the puck is, a great player skates to where the puck will be."

Our children should be taught within a system where that six-year-olds are entering, knows where the puck will be when they're 18, and teaches them those things that will be relevant at that time. That's our challenge. But it's very hard to successfully predict that, and building the dynamic teacher professional development machine it would take to teach our teachers appears impossible.  

So why not focus instead on preparing our children for any future and every future? It is these core fundamentals that will prevail in any time.

Let's replace 21st century skills with Timeless Skills. Imagine knowing that your children are going to school to develop themselves into adults that will be able to handle anything that comes their way. How would you feel about the world literally being their oyster?

Redefining Learning

I had coffee with a very interesting person on Wednesday, Bob Watt. He's been a player in the business of Education for many moons here in the Seattle area, across the State of Washington, and beyond.

It was obviously a great learning experience for me (considering I've only been in the education space since February), and I really appreciated Bob's time and willingness to share his insights and help educate me. Our conversation spanned many aspects of education, focused specifically on early childhood.  It was fascinating.

Bob introduced me to the work of I-LABS (Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences) at the University of Washington.  He has graciously arranged for me to tour their facilities - I can't wait!

One insight he shared, based on work at I-LABS: when you observe the brains of two sets of eight-month-old children (one in Taiwan and one in Seattle) as they are being spoken to in Mandarin, both sets of brains react the same way! Implying that both sets have the same capacity to learn a new or current language. Very interesting.

Part two. Same kids in Taipei, and the Seattle group divided in three, one control group, where each month for 12 months the kids and their parents came to I-LABS to play for 25 minutes; the second group had a Taiwanese person sit with them for the same 25 minutes and read stories and engage the children in Mandarin; the third group received the same treatment as the 2nd except that the person appeared before them via a plasma display vs. in person.

12 months later (when these children were 20 months old), they repeated the same brain scans while being spoken to in Mandarin.  The Taiwanese children in Taipei obviously reacted to Mandarin; the control group had zero reaction; the "live" group reacted just like the children in Taipei (wow!); and the "plasma TV" group reacted just like the control group (double wow!!).

Interpretation: in person, 25 minutes a month for 12 months was enough  to help  a young child gain an affinity for a new language! And remotely, it carried no value whatsoever.

Wow!  The conclusion that Bob drew for me is equally interesting and more than a bit provocative: for the first ten or so years, there is tremendous value in increasing the ratio of educators to children. After that, additional data shows that students are able to learn quite well with less touch and even with remote (or computer-based) touch.

So - here's Bob's idea: let us invest in very high student:teacher ratios (10:1 or lower) and 7am to 5pm schooling that provides the most high-touch and greatest educational foundation to our students. Then from age 10-18, let's shift to even as high as a 60:1 ratio with increased computer aided learning.

If the result of this approach is that our education system now creates great students, all of whom graduate from high school with an intellect worthy of the DNA our parents gave us, how can we not do this?

But what is the opportunity cost of doing this? At a national level, could it be less money spent on unemployment insurance, reduction in crime (because more graduates are more employable and able to legally earn a family wage), reduced unwanted pregnancies, a higher GDP, improved quality of life for everyone, happier citizens?

When do we start?

The Worldwide Innovative Teachers' Forum

UPDATE #2:

Here are pointers to video recordings of some of the teachers' showcases.  Here are three that I was inspired by, and finally the link to all of the videos that I found.

1. Sarietjie Musgrave - South Africa
2. Nathan Kerr - New Zealand
3. Tom Fitzsimmons & Ciaran McLaren - Northern Ireland

To see all the videos click on any of the above videos and below the video you will see a link "WWITF" that will take you to the rest.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

UPDATE:

To learn more about the incredible work the teachers did, and to join, click Innovative Teachers Forum.  Once signed in, go to the Communities page, and join the Worldwide Innovative Teachers Forum 2008 - Teacher community.

Enjoy:)

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I'm in Asia this week attending a most fantastic conference - the 4th Annual Worldwide Innovative Teachers' Forum in Hong Kong. 
This evening (in about 45 mins actually) marks the end of an absolutely AWESOME week - we are about to leave the hotel for the gala dinner, where (per the link above) we will celebrate the accomplishments of the wonderful and inspiring educators that participate in the Innovative Teachers' Network, and recognize the winners of the best exemplars of Collaboration, Community and Content.  There's a fourth category, Educators' Choice as well.

We also witnessed the election of the new President of the United States this week (not sure if anyone noticed that:)), and it was so wonderful to see the global interest and heartfelt support for the new President-Elect. Knowing that Education and Educators is one of Barak Obama's top five priorities as he takes over is wonderful news.

My first experience with this amazing community of educators (they number more than 1.5 million (yes, million!) from over 100 countries) was around this time last year in Helsinki, which is where the previous event was held, and I hope I have the opportunity to be wherever the next Forum is held.

These wonderful people are my heroes.  They prove to me in no uncertain terms that the single most critical element to ensuring that present and future generations of students are well cared for and prepared for their destinies is educators.

If every educator in the world (irrespective of wealth, urban, rural, social, political circumstances) is like the 100+ people I had the privilege to meet this week, our children and their children are in the best hands.

It is a crime that our society (with few exceptions around the world) cares so little for the men and women that put their blood, toil, tears and sweat into becoming teachers. We must do more, they deserve recognition, reward, and reassurance of our support and commitment to them and their work.

The business case for learning

Very interesting post from Dangerously Irrelevant. One element that is missing is "why".  What's the business case for 21st century learning?

1. Why should a system (local, regional, federal) invest in such a thing?


2. What are the socio-economic impacts that will be realized - not just cost?


3. When will we see these results, and why should we do this now (vs. investing $ in health care, the homeless, or any other social priority)?

I don't believe the answers can be assumed because they're so obvious to those of us that care about education.  The reasons are equally obvious for a drug addict that would like the state to provide more rehab beds, or a homeless person seeking more shelter spaces, or a community seeking better roads, etc.  <-- And would you pick (for the short-term politician's mind) one of these, or 21st century education?

In addition to Dangerously Irrelevant's work above, we must create a model that demonstrates the net economic value of learning to society, and show that the value to society of investing in education is much higher than that of any other investment in the long run.

1. Evidence that students who have 21st century skills are more valued (and hence receive higher wages) by prospective employers, thus contributing to local economies. 


2. Related to this would be evidence that these individuals are in demand over and above lower-cost alternatives (i.e. lower risk of outsourcing because they are not a commodity asset).


3. Proof that it costs less over time (say 3 years) and across the whole system (schools, content, community centers, parents, etc.) to incorporate ICT (information/communication technology) to educate students than otherwise.


4. Show that with significant percentages of educators in K-12 retiring in the next five years (estimated at 40% of all teachers in Oregon for example), there is an opportunity to bring about change in Teachers' Colleges that will reach students for many years to come (potentially a very economical way to create scaled outcomes).


5. The impact and role of ICT in creating more globally-aware (through both knowledge and e-connections) community by building bridges between institutions, educators, classrooms and students.

These are just some elements that we'd need to incorporate in the business case.  To create a sustainable and defensible rationale for politicians to invest in Education, the numbers must be bulletproof and so profoundly compelling that EVERYONE agrees that the investment is mandatory.

Education growing up...

I recently received my eSchoolNews newsletter and was reading this article about teachers informing publishers of their expectations for content.  In the same email, I also saw an article about how students are more tempted to cheat because of technology.

 

Here's one interpretation:  Better curriculum is not the problem (if it was, then every student would fail or lose interest).  I think there are two priorities.  Foremost is more involved, empowered and better trained teachers.  Second is the recognition that with pervasive access to information (mobile, Internet, computers, etc.), rote memory is IMO passé.  So - what to do?

 

The first priority has an easy answer, but is incredibly difficult to implement - let us recognize that the smarter we are, the safer we are, and shift half of Homeland Security's budget to the Ministry of Education - invest in more teachers, improve professional development and pay, and improve school infrastructure.

 

The second is harder to solve, but easier to implement.  We must better educate students in interpretation, analysis, critical thinking, and effective communication. Wouldn't this be a better way to harness the creativity they showed in the second article?  It appears that most cheating attempts to avoid memorization. Allowing students to have access to information means that testing is now focused on interpreting information, and persuasively articulating a point of view vs. just regurgitating facts.

 

Tomorrow's schools (and let's face it today's teachers as well) will not be able to keep up with the "information retrieval" tools that students will have.  Moreover, in the real world, the students' skill in "retrieval" will actually be valued over memorization.  Moreover moreover (!), assessment systems today are not geared to measure the types of skills and abilities that we discussed above.

 

So - if this makes sense, why aren't we moving this way?