more on education innovation…!

You can’t stop it.  I found more about it. It’s true.  Everyone’s talking about it.  Okay, okay, MORE people are talking about it… but more and more (better?).

So my latest find is a British fellow who went looking for education innovation in Brazil and East Africa.

What’s his take?  Like anyone talking about education reform, education evolution, revolution, innovation… he notes that “our education systems are failing desperately in many ways, they fail to reach the people they most need to serve, they often hit a target that missed the point” etc.

Our present, 19th century model, he goes on to say, while producing reading and some skills, “lays waste to imagination, appetite, social confidence…”.  He speaks of radical reform.

So what’s to be found that is working?  What creative innovation is taking place in the far reaches of the developing world that this fellow is championing?  He talks about how schools need to “pull, not push”: that is, entice, attract… not push curriculum at students.  He talks about question-based learning as opposed to a preset curriculum that is “delivered”… which leads him to more “games” over lessons… more “inquiry-based” learning as opposed to top-down “content delivery”.

These are wonderful ideas.

The point that is most poignant in his message is this: what we have today is not working.  It’s failing.  What we need, he says, is an approach that is “from the learner”, engages them by asking them to be part of the process rather than recipients.

Yes!  Is all I can say.  His ideas aren’t all great, and he misses some important aspects.  But he captures some essential ones and his call is for something that is fundamentally innovative, not window dressing and which doesn’t amount to  “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.  That’s worth our attention.

Now, if only he figured out that this has already been figured out.

You can hear him here: http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_leadbeater_on_education.html

Read Full Post »

Reggio, Really?

So, in the spirit of always considering all the options, all the ideas, I looked more carefully into this alternative to the traditional model.  I knew some fundamentals, but wanted to look more closely at the details.

All I can say is, really?  Maybe it’s clear to me now why Reggio Emelia hasn’t captured the world’s attention.  I’m all for the value of exploration, following a child’s natural interest – letting them BECOME themselves, etc.  But this approach seems to go far astray, as if to suggest that the adult knows nothing, that the teacher ha nothing of value to contribute.

From what I can tell, and if someone feels this is an unfair characterization I;m sure they’ll jump in with a comment, a Reggio teacher doesn’t even begin with an idea about what will be covered… it’s fully “to be revealed” as the child directs.

One peculiarity of the Reggio penchant for avoiding definition, and “pre-determination” of any sort, is the very idea of even defining too carefully just WHAT “The Reggio approach” is. Indeed, they apparently eschew being called a “model” of education because that suggests that they can be defined, and to be defined is to be limited to a something, which in turn means that you can’t be “just whatever you want”.  And this is held up as a model for reform to improve the lives of children?

Until I see something that shows that this has produces marvelous results, I fail to understand why anyone would wish to adopt this “approach”…

But- we DO need reform.  We do need to change the education conversation.  Perhaps the Montessori model: tested, defined, and proven is worthy of consideration?

Read Full Post »

there’s thought there

At a few schools around the country there’s a glimmer of hope.  It seems that some folks, surely a small minority, are getting the idea that meaningful education is more than data retention.

There’s a renewed interest in what the federal government calls STEM programs (science, technology, engineering, math) where these specific skills are developed.  Fine, whatever.  That’ short-sighted.  But some people are taking the higher-level step and recognizing that if you want to introduce, say, engineering to young children, it’s not ABOUT the actual engineering elements or skills that they could learn, it’s about the PROCESS of being creative, solving problems, collaborating: thinking.  When five year olds work on a building project they are developing critical and fundamental skills that will translate to other areas in their life.  Let’s recognize this more and worry less about what trade they may end up in.  It’s not about preparing STEM careers, it should be about preparing for life in any career, and the fundamentals apply across the board.

Some supporters understand this, as the New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/education/14engineering.html?ref=education), they see that an engineering project “promotes critical thinking and creativity, and teaches students not to be afraid of taking intellectual risks” and “you want them to come away with knowledge that goes beyond that problem”.  Now that’s worth doing more of.  Of course, not all involved really get the big picture, as the NYT also reports that “some parents, teachers and engineers question how much children are really absorbing”, and the head of a national engineering association “cautioned that engineering lessons for youngsters should be kept in perspective, [because] ‘you’re not really learning what I would call engineering fundamentals’.  The detractors can’t see the forest for the trees.  It has to start somewhere, though.

Let’s hope that the champions of these ideas, the ones who see that there’s something of tremendous value to be gained when children are given the freedom to develop their own solutions, to invent and explore on their own.  Maybe it will make a difference or maybe the naysayers will be the majority and toss the efforts after a short while, dispensing it as just another fad.

Read Full Post »

to the root

If you look up “education” on Wikipedia, you get this:

“…education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another.

Etymologically, the word education is derived from educare (Latin) “bring up”, which is related to educere “bring out”, “bring forth what is within”, “bring out potential” and ducere, “to lead”.^“

So, it starts off poorly insofar as our culture definitely views education as being about “delivering content – accumulated knowledge”.  This is why I’ve come to call the model of traditional education/school a “content delivery system”.  That’s what it is: put kids in a class segregated by age, a teacher at the front telling them stuff, expecting them to tell the stuff back (checking to see if they remember), and if they do “success!”.  Pretty sad, really.  As if remembering stuff says anything about understanding, integration of knowledge or thought.

But.. read on the the origins of the word and we get to the root of what education could be.  If we really concern ourselves with the idea of “bringing forth” the person that is within, the potential of every person, then we’ll have something worth doing.  That would be an appropriate thing to change the conversation to.

This takes us back to psychology, as reported by Dr. Steven Hughes: “In 1925, Charles Spearman, one of the fathers of modern psychology, wrote ‘Every normal man, woman, and child is … a genius at something … It remains to discover at what… This must be a most difficult matter. It certainly  cannot be detected by any of the testing procedures at present in current usage’ “.  Wow.  This is the very message that creativity guru Ken Robinson has been arguing in recent years: find what you’re good at, passionate about and do that.  This is the job of education.

Let’s go.

Read Full Post »

social media savior?!

The latest chatter in traditional education circles is all about getting on the latest technology bus: social media.  Yes indeed.  Taking a 180 degree tack, schools who were only interested in blocking websites are now embracing them, encouraging students and staff to make use of the latest savior of schools: facebook, twitter, digg, and a wide range of sites and online services.

This is clearly reported here: http://www.edweek.org//dd/articles/2010/06/16/03networking.h03.html

You can read about how one teacher “sets up a meeting between classes [in different countries] using Skype. Students prepare a list of questions (What’s the weather like there? How big is your town or city? What continent are you on?) and chat with students in Canada, Finland, New Zealand, and Spain, among a long list of others.”  Yes?  And this is somehow going to make for a rich and meaningful educational experience?  They couldn’t find this information out before?  Somehow talking to other children far away is going to truly shape developing self?

It’s a sad thing to observe the world of traditional education once again grabbing onto the latest “thing” as a fix to all the problems or as something to really improve the educational experience of children.  Here’s statement from a while back “The central and dominant aim of education by [this new technology]” said reformed Benjamin Darrow, “is to bring the world to the classrooms, to make universally available the services of the finest teachers, the inspiration of the greatest leaders and unfolding world events which through [this new medium] may come as a vibrant and challenging textbook of the air”.

Was Mr. Darrow speaking about the internet? NO. What about television? NO.  This was a statement from an education reformer from the early 1920’s… talking about, yes, the brave new world of RADIO and how it would revolutionize education.

We’ve seen that neither radio, nor television, nor the internet has served as an educational golden arrow.  None of these, just as social media today, made a difference worth talking about in how children are effectively prepared for living their lives.  Ultimate prep school: that’s the name of this blog, because education should be about preparing one to live one’s life – that’s the ULTIMATE thing to be “prepped” for.  Why did none of these new technologies make a difference?  Because they are window dressing on a tired, decrepit system that has rotted from the inside out.

Hence, again, the need for FUNDAMENTAL change, fundamental retooling.  A serious reassessment of what education is considered to be and how we go about it is what is required. Nothing less will do and nothing less is what we owe to the millions of children going to “school” every day.

Read Full Post »

what science can teach educators

As we look to construct the best learning environments for children, let’s be sure to tap into the wealth of knowledge that has developed in the fields of psychology and neuroscience over the past 20 years.   They have much to contribute.

Following up on yesterday’s post, Dr. Steven Hughes offers: “How much does general ability predict lifetime success? Does it predict 5-10% of success? Does it predict 20-30%? Or how about 50-60%?  How many of you say 60% or more? Well, the answer is somewhere between 5 and 10%. Not that much. General ability predicts occupational attainment, but not success within one’s occupation, and not satisfaction with one’s life, or one’s general wellbeing.”

This is a HUGE statement, especially in a culture that is tripping over itself trying to raise test scores in the belief that THIS is what will “take care of children’s futures”.

Hughes has looked at the state of education very carefully, he’s noted the massive drop-out rates, the student pressures and suicides, and he comes to ask, “Can we afford to waste this much humanity? Can we afford to squander a third or more of our young people? Who among us thinks that if we keep it up, push traditional education harder and harder, if we put more pressure on teachers and schools to improve academic test scores, to do better, to teach more, who, at this point, thinks that we’ll get 50% improvement? Nobody thinks this. Probably nobody really thinks we have 20% more to gain. I really wonder if anyone, anywhere really thinks we could realistically get 10% more by squeezing traditional education harder.

Myself, I think education is right up against the wall: it has no more to give and we may, in fact, be moving into diminishing returns at this point.”

What more do we need to know or hear?  The responsibility falls to each one of us to call for significant (see my “innovate fundamentally” post) change in education – let’s start by changing the education conversation today.

Read Full Post »

school 2.0

A good friend has been ruminating on this idea recently.  Steve Hughes, pediatric neuropsychologist, has raised the question: will the 21st century see a fundamental change in what “schools” are and what “education” is?

He relates that only in recent years has the telephone made a move to phone 2.0.  Ever since Mr. Bell came up with the first model, it has remained in essence the same, and Mr. Bell would have recognized as phones the ones in use in our homes until the turn of the millennium.  But, would he recognize as a “phone” these tiny devices strapped to our waists and buried in our purses and pockets, that  we need not even hold in our hand to use as we make use of our bluetooth earpiece?

Aren’t we ready for a similar quantum leap with our schools?  Hughes argues that:

“Children now in school will face adult life as independent agents to a degree never before seen in our history. They will not be tied to a single job, employer, or even industry, and will experience career paths that were unimaginable as little as 20 years ago. This is occurring even as the trend toward rigid control, high-stakes academic testing, and limited school curricula has robbed them of the opportunities necessary to develop the broad-based problem-solving skills necessary for happy, productive, interesting lives.”

He goes on to suggest something radical and likely to be controversial:

“The educational methods, materials, and developmental culture identified by Dr. Montessori 100 years ago have never been more relevant [and] Dr. Montessori’s work in 1907 anticipated—by 100 years—the need for a method of education that supports success, happiness, leadership, and progress in the world of the 21st century.”

This is worthy of consideration if our concern is WHAT IS BEST FOR CHILDREN, LEARNERS, STUDENTS.

For more information about Dr. Hughes visit: http://www.goodatdoingthings.com

Read Full Post »

what is equal education?

If education’s role is to allow each person to become the best version of themselves possible, then surely all will not  follow the same educational path.  There are those in today’s world who contribute in all ways, at a variety of levels, and there is no common path that any has taken.  Successful people have spent years earning college degrees and successful people haven’t stepped foot in a college classroom.  Clearly a college degree is not essential.

Thomas Jefferson argued that we should have  an approach to education that allows each person to find their right place and that for different people and different professions the time of schooling and length of it will  vary.

As we consider how today’s traditional schools need to be reformed, let’s take this under consideration. Let’s do away with the bland idea that the same amount of education should be completed by everyone.  There are successful people in the world who would tell you that they were largely self-educated, or that what they learned that was truly important and helpful was not learned in a classroom.

We need to come  to an understanding that “it’s okay” if it’s not the same for all.  Equality in education can’t be equated with spending the same amount of time in school.  Some people are in school who really don’t need to be.  They are learning more harmful things that good: learning to dislike learning,  learning to not know who they are, learning that because they don’t feel right in school there’s something wrong with them, and so on.  Surely these people would be better off learning how to sustain their life in a meaningful and responsible way now.

As we change the conversation, let’s keep this idea in mind.  One size does not fit all in a world of unique and lovely human individuals.

Read Full Post »

legions of parents

If you read Thomas Moore’s UTOPIA you might be surprised to learn that his conception of the ideal world, when it comes to child-rearing, was to have the state remove children from their parents at a very young age so that the state could turn them into what was needed.  That is, educate them according to the needs of the “master plan”.  This would likely strike most parents as odd and certainly unsavory- peculiar for a “perfect world” .

Moore got his ideas from Plato, who argued for just the same sort of setup: the state knows best and parental bonds should be broken- best if you don’t even know which child was yours.  You just produce them so that society ash the raw material to do what needs to be done.  Very much a factory model when you think of it: churning out “goods”.

While no culture ever explicitly adopted this approach overly, one has to wonder how much we’ve adopted it indirectly.  Where did the idea that the state should control your child’s education come from?  Central control and planning?  There is plenty of research today to suggest that with greater local control (at the school level) comes greater educational outcomes.

Take this the next step and you get the “school choice” movement.  We’re slowly making our way down this road with home schooling, more private/independent schools, magnet schools, charter schools, etc.  As one commenter (Czako) to this blog said recently, “I strongly believe that it is ultimately the parent who has responsibility for their child’s education and growth…not the school system….It is parents that need to encourage determination, self discipline, self awareness, etc. It is only if the parent does this can the child be successful. This is done by being involved with your kids, leading by example, and encouraging these behaviors.”

We need the legions of parents out there to step up more and more and demand that schools adapt to what science knows to be best.  We need parents to demand from their schools and school districts that the disconnect between what takes place in traditional schools be broken, so that the evidence in the research can reach the children.

Encourage all you know to use their voices.  Too many days have gone by, wasted, as the education conversation remains the same.  The system needs to serve the users, not the state – speak up to change that, to change the conversation.

Read Full Post »

human flourishing

Yes, so who’s NOT in favor of that?  Imagine a school that promoted this as it’s mission: “deliver your child to us and we’ll deliver a capable, confident, accomplished, creative and immensely competent young person”.  Whoa.

If we were as a culture to just be embarking on the business of education today, I suspect we’d draw heavily from what we know about human development from developmental psychology and neuroscience.  We’d likely ask “what do we know about how children develop?  How do their brains grow? What developmental needs to they have? And how do they best learn what they need to learn?”

We’d discover that there are different styles of learning, different modes of learning.  We’d find that there are “optimal conditions to learning” (that apply equally to children as to adults) like: control over what you’re doing, choice about what you will do, and active in the process of learning.

Take this for example: “The Learner Centered Principles provide an excellent guide for restructuring our schools so that they are more relevant to students. A school that adopts and lives by these principles centers attention on learners rather than on teaching, curriculum, instruction or administration of the school. In a learner-centered school, education is done “with” instead of “to” students. Students feel connected in a learner-centered school; the student, his classmates and his teachers are “partners” in the learning process.”  This is from an article put out by the American Psychological Association’s Board of Education Affairs.

Why does this NOT sound like the school in your neighborhood?

This information is not new.  The above was put out in 1997.  It remains largely ignored to today’s mainstream, traditional schools.  Why?  As I wrote yesterday: because the present model was designed NOT from a perspective of developmental concern for optimal learning and we’ve never looked back, never “innovated fundamentally”.

Human flourishing?  Yes, and that needs to encompass not only the tangible (mostly academic) outcomes but also the intangible (character) outcomes.  Ask parents what their vision of a secure, well-adjusted, ready for the world young adult looks like and this is what they tell you: responsible, a go-getter (self-starter), empathetic, good communicator and collaborator, creative, etc.  Why? because these are the things that LIVING LIFE requires.  As adults we know this.  And these intangibles are the things that will serve a child’s life in the long term, they will be the backbone to their life.

Guess what?  Traditional schools are not addressing these intangibles.  They are not in the curriculum.  Fundamental  innovation is needed.

Read Full Post »