Do you get it?

I continue to be amazed when I read comments to stories like the one in Saturday's New York Times.  While many comments thoughtfully considered the Singapore math program and how it might work in the United States, a number of comments lamented for the good old days--just go back to the 30s and 40s and all will be well.

Lately I have been more explicit when I talk about the structure of public education.  The system we have today is still largely based on the mass production model of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  There is no naturally occurring laws that governed the creation of that educational system.  People interested in education at that time simply made it up based on the what they saw in the world--mostly industrialization, immigration, and urbanization.  Today, immigration is still a big issue, but we are way beyond the post-industrial age.  Today, people expect mass personalization.  The example I like to use:  cell phones.  We all got 'em.  They're all different.  In fact, you can't even use someone else's phone because you need the contacts in YOUR phone.  Today, we need to reinvent public education to meet today's needs.  Harkening back tot he 30s and 40s just won't do it.

Things are starting to change.

Howland and Levin write

The school of the future is better than the school of the past not because its students are digitally savvy or outfitted for the modern economy or Google-facile, but because it prompts, supports, and sustains student learning in traditional (as well as new) disciplines in more varied, intelligent, and effective ways. In this way, it builds upon, expresses, and improves so much of what has been true and rich about education for centuries. 

Here and Now in the School of the Future talks about using technology--not for technology's sake, but to enhance learning.  We are learning to use tech tools in ways that do this.  Today it is less about going to the computer lab to learn how to use the computer.  Instead, students are using these tools to explore math concepts, do history, and discuss literature.

We need to do everything we can to encourage innovation.  In this TED talk, Steve Johnson talks about the role of networking in innovation.  We need to provide time for teachers to talk with each other and encourage them to use social networking tools to create rich networks that will allow innovation to occur.

So what do you make of this?

Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden

Boy, you'd never guess!  With the Tea Party as the media darlings pushing both Republicans and Democrats toward the right, the results of this study do not seem possible.
If policy was implemented that actually ensured that wealth was distributed more evenly, what would that mean for public education?  How does the idea of wealth distribution connect to the interview Matt Lauer did wit Obama?
Obama interview with Matt Lauer


How do you connect these stories?

"Chance favors the connected mind."

In this TED talk, Steven Johnson talks about where great ideas come from. It is not as we think, that people have "Eureka" moments. Instead, they arise from networks. Hence, the quote in the title. If we want to innovate in public education, we have to encourage networks like professional learning communities. We need to connect with the public in engaging dialogue. We need to overcome the social capital-depleting practices we tend to engage in where we square off against each other, debating and defending our positions.

This TED talks is fun to watch if, for no other reason, you learn how a neo-natal incubator is made from parts originally designed for an everyday machine (I will not spoil the surprise).

Another view of assessment

This New York Times editorial, outlines methods of assessing students that evaluate actual learning.  The challenge of these methods is that they are more time consuming and harder to standardize.  The testing industry has become institutionalized and it will be nearly impossible to move off of the bubble tests used in every state to measure learning (thought we may computerize the tests; relegating the Number 2 pencil to history).  They may not be good measures of student learning, but they are cheap (relative to other methods) and the public has come to accept them as legitimate.

How can we move to more affective measures of learning if current standardized testing methods are no longer challenged as legitimate? 

Creativity: Can it be nurtured in public school?

In this TED Talk, Ken Robinson explains how public education kills creativity in students.  And, given the increased focus on standards and testing as the means for determining educational success, it seems unlikely that creativity will be nurtured in public schools any time soon.

Yet, with the incredibly complex problems we face today, it is imperative that we encourage innovation and creativity in our schools.

One way schools might encourage creativity and innovation is by providing students opportunities to engage in collaboration.  In Slate, Joshua Wolf Shenk, writes about the role collaboration plays in creativity.  According to Shenk, the idea of the lone genius is overblown, that in reality, creative RELATIONSHIPS are the source of new ideas.  The first part of this series looks at collaboration and creative pairs.  Part Two examines a famous creative pair, John Lennon and Paul McCartney.  Throughout the series, he will examine how creative partnerships work.

How can this series help us think about creativity and innovation?  How can public schools encourage creativity at a time when standards and accountability continue to focus on individual students?

More on technical change

Last week I posted a number of resources that examine the common core standards, assessments and the teacher accountability.  In the New York Times Room for Debate, several nationally known education experts examine teacher assessment and the role value added testing plays in the process.

On the surface, value added seems like a pretty good solution to the question of how to hold teachers accountable.  Yet, effective evaluation systems, most likely need multiple measures best illuminate both student progress and teacher contribution to that progress.

Complicating the matter, is the question of how to delivery high-quality instruction and the role of teacher in this process.  In this TED talk, Sugata Mitra presents his research where he gave kids self-supervised access to the web and saw results that could revolutionize how we think about teaching.  My favorite quote from the presentation:  "If children have interest, then education happens."  So, why don't we simply let students do interesting things?  

Technical Change and Public Education and the Role of Local School Boards

Once again the United States is focused on the technical components of change, as the country continues to grapple with closing the achievement gap and creating an education system that meets the needs of 21st century learners.  This week, two articles in the New York Times talk about testing and teacher accountability.  U.S. Asks Educators to Reinvent Student Tests, and How They Are Given describes efforts to create a testing system that more accurately assesses student learning and provides feedback in a more timely manner.

When Does Holding Teachers Accountable Go Too Far? looks at a project that analyzed teacher performance, connecting student test scores to teachers using a value added model.  The article presents a balanced view of the practice, laying out strengths and weaknesses of using value added to evaluate teachers.

Finally,  the Common Core State Standards Initiative is linked to the development of the new testing systems and I include it here for reference.

Yet again, we are focusing on the technical aspects of change.  The focus of these initiatives clearly reflect the technical aspects of the Key Work framework--Standards, Assessment, and Accountability.  Once again, little is said of the need to focus on the adaptive, or cultural, aspects of change--Vision, Continuous Improvement, Collaboration and Community Engagement, and Climate.

For decades states and the federal government have focused on the technical aspects of reforming the public education system, eroding the power of local school boards in the process. Where does this leave local school boards as governing entities?  It leaves them with the entire range of adaptive change at their disposal.  And who better to lead the adaptive change process?  Local school board members have the potential to engage with local stakeholders in ways that state and federal policy makers will never be able to do.  The "localness" of their position provides opportunity to engage in conversations about the vision for their communities and their schools.  The can model continuous improvement, celebrating success while continuing to ask "What can we better tomorrow?"  They can lead efforts to create a climate that builds social capital, building trust and creating strong relationships that ultimately leads to better outcomes for students.

The role of the school board is changing.  For all practical purposes, they no longer have much influence over the technical aspects of change.  At the same time, they have tremendous power to lead the adaptive change efforts that are needed to ensure the work of revising standards and creating new accountability systems is not wasted.