Education for doing and failing

The business world, the world where people work once they move  out of schooling, knows the value of “doing”- it’s called “experience”, and there’s no substitute for it.  Employers regularly complain about new hires out of school who can’t do anything. They can’t think, they can’t apply a principle if they “didn’t have a case study about that” — in short, they aren’t good at DOING.

In rethinking about what education needs to be about and how we can then go about achieving this two things always come to the surface.  One is that education needs to be conceived as more than the transmission of data/facts and second is that the means by which you go about doing it conveys as much as what you are conveying.  In other words, how you go about the  business of education says a lot about what you are teaching. In fact, the two are inseparable.

Want to teach engagement and creativity/innovation?  You have to give students the opportunity to ask their own questions, explore and discover.  Stop “telling”.  Figuring out what the good questions are will always be more important than finding  out the answers to any questions.  Yet, schools today still provide the question and send students off to find the answers.  “Innovators” in education today think they are making significant strides when they  provide iPads as a tool to find the answers.  This is what passes for thoughtful and “forward thinking” solutions to the education crisis.  Myopic indeed.  This is what happens when people who have not truly been “educated” are old enough to be in charge.

Of  course, “doing”, if we’re lucky, often leads to failing.  More about  that in the next post.

Read Full Post »

Intelligence, Ingenuity, Genius

Do schools make us smart? smarter? What is more important: intelligence or ingenuity?  If you had to choose, which would you?

Steve Jobs biographer, Walter Isaacson, recently wrote that Jobs was more ingenious than he was conventionally intelligent.   He argues that Bill Gates – that other guy – had more raw intelligence but that Jobs, like Einstein and others before him, stood at the intersection of the humanities and science.  Ingenuity here means “practical creativity”, it means seeing the relationship between disparate things that others don’t see, the connections.

It’s not that ingenuity is better than intelligence, they are just different.  The world needs all kinds.

What is an educational experience to do with these?  How can the experience in schools support both styles?  There’s no secret today that there are many kinds of learners.  Jobs’ insight is said to come from “experiential wisdom” – that’s learning which comes from doing, from acting in the world, learning from errors, trial and error- like all the great inventors did.

Of course, Jobs dropped out of college.  School was a limitation for him.  It didn’t allow for him to function, dare we say “excel”, the way he he was born to.  The reality is that we are all “born this way” – the way we are.  We need schools that recognize this, that allow each student to be themself, to learn as they need to, to think, create, invent, explore and solve problems.  Some may not even need school the way it is typically conceived of today.

Read Full Post »

Computer-Assisted Learning Still Missing the Mark

What on earth will it take?

The NY Times ran a story the other day about an Arizona school district that has spent millions of dollars on classroom technology over the past 5 years, with little to show for it when it comes to assessing learning.  How many such stories do we need before we come to realize that the way to improve learning is not to replace the teacher’s chalkboard with an electronic one, it’s to replace the teacher’s style, approach and materials.

Stories about how technology has failed to make any gains have been around as long as technologies have been touted as silver bullets.  It’s true – look it up.  It doesn’t matter whether it was the radio (yes!), television, computers, the internet or smart boards – every one of these was championed as the thing that will solve the educational problem- the holy grail of education.  Not one ever did.  Not one ever will.

The problem, as has been written about extensively in this space, is one of style not technology.  The solution lies not in how we present content to learners but in the very emphasis of presenting content.  Conventional education remains what I call a “content delivery system” with its emphasis on passing along content, as if that’s what learning amounts to or how it occurs.  Until we come to recognize that learning is something the learner does, through a process of self-directed, self-initiated action, we’ll not make any meaningful, long-lasting improvements to education.

Has our culture been so permanently hoodwinked by flash and speed that we can no longer see the issue for what it is?

Read Full Post »

“Good teachers” and Real education

A recent NY Times book review (of Steven Brill’s Class Warfare) discusses the author’s claim that “truly effective teaching… can overcome student indifference, parental disengagement and poverty” – because these things have been shown to act against student achievement in conventional schools.  Making the case that “good teachers” can overcome these would be a good argument for having more of these quality teachers as well as pointing to a possible solution other than the more complicated solution of fixing those things in our culture that leads to these kinds of things in the first place.

All very interesting, but completely beside the point.  What the author, Brill, is looking at is test scores as a measure of student achievement and how “effective teaching” can overcome some of the very obstacles that many teachers argue stand in their way of making progress.  What Brill is missing is the fact that (i) it’s not effective teaching that will solve these problems, it’s a NEW APPROACH to education, and (ii) test scores don’t measure “learning”.

Simply getting better test results in a “content delivery system” model is a low goal, and one that truly lacks an understanding of what an education is supposed to do for a person.  A new approach, a new paradigm, that fully recasts what education is and how it takes place is what can address ALL of the kinds of issues that Brill raises.  The results are in and it’s demonstrable  that a better fundamental approach can correct for all of the factors that Brill identifies.  AND, it doesn’t require parents to become super-parents.

Have a look at the results that have been logged at the East Dallas Community School.  They adopted a new education paradigm – not some window dressing new reading program, not longer school days, not more technology – they  simply  sis one thing: throw away the conventional content delivery model and adopt one that actually works on all levels… they became a Montessori school.

 

Read Full Post »

Computers and Change in Education

Listen, if anyone tells you that the “way out” of our present crisis in traditional education is “computers” – just run away.

Computers are no more going to solve any educational problems than changing the color off the paint in the rooms of classrooms.  Going back to the 1980s “computers” were tooted as the savior of all educational problems.  Nothing changed.  Clinton in the 90s talked about “wiring every classroom”… the internet was going to change everything and save all.  Nothing changed.

Computers have done nothing to help children learn or improve how or what they learn.  As Christensen points out in his book Disrupting Class, we’ve “spent billions putting computers into US schools, [and] it has resulted in little change in how students learn”.  He actually thinks that there’s still a way to do it, but he’s mistaken.  Using computers, whether it’s virtual classrooms or allowing greater access to teachers, will not change anything worth talking about.  This is because you haven’t changed anything fundamental.  Until we get to the root of the problem, we’re merely tinkering.

The problem is not one of insufficient information, it’s a problem of “style” – call it that.  It’s the general approach that is faulty – much like “the medium in the message”, the “style is the problem”.  We have to raise our view up to a higher level to see this.

Computers are great, and they have a legitimate place in the process of education.  But they are a tool, a new modern tool alongside pencils, rulers, pens, etc.  Nothing more.  Computers won’t help you develop thought or independence or resourcefulness or adaptability.  These are the things that are lacking and which represent the real “outcomes” that we need to reach for.

Read Full Post »

disruptive innovation

This concept was just introduced to me.  Already a few years old, it has grown from the business world where it was launched and found it’s way to the world of education as a “solution” to the problem that traditional education has in meeting the individual learning needs of all students.

The person behind the phrase/concept is Clayton Christensen (Harvard Business School).  His idea makes sense, but his proposed solution for education is off-mark.  Probably because he’s coming from a business perspective, he’s simply taken his idea and applied it to “schools” without having a deep appreciation for what learning is and how it happens.  That’s okay, his idea still has merit.

Look for a more detailed discussion of his education ideas (in his “Disrupting Class” book) in this space soon.  “Disruptive” is good.  Fundamental Innovation is good.  We just aren’t seeing it.

What I know of Christensen’s education solution so far is that it’s not unlike what “School of One” is doing in NYC under Joel Klein (see yesterday’s post). Actually, Klein got his ideas from Christensen, so there’s a direct link.

The solution to “individualized education” already exists… is it really so unknown to so many?

Read Full Post »

interest-based class model

So I’m researching something else today (STEM programs) and I come across this report talking about “reinventing schools for the 21st century”.

Guess what you find in that report?   “Educators can’t truly deliver 21st-century instruction in schools that reflect Industrial-Age designs, with rigid schedules…. and fixed boundaries between grades, disciplines, and classrooms…”

I’m thinking “this sounds familiar”.  Maybe the ideas written about in this space aren’t so foreign.  Wouldn’t that be nice.

The report goes on: “measures of learning must include thoughtful assessments of a student’s ability to apply and demonstrate knowledge in complex situations”.  INDEED!  One of the parents in my office last week, a high school math/science teacher, was bemoaning the lack of thought, creativity and ability to apply concepts to a new situation.  Moving beyond memorization and regurgitation.. there’s a goal.

Mirroring my comments yesterday about having long, open time periods for student-lead interest-based work, this report notes that ““it is even more important that class time be elastic. Instead of assigning a certain amount of time for teaching one subject per day, teachers need the flexibility of bigger and more adjustable time slots to truly impact learning.”  This is wonderful. The sad reality, though, is that the time lag to get quality ideas into real classrooms is FOREVER, and further, once you take a good idea and pass it through the sieve of collective thinking (various departments, committees and other sundry groups) you end up with something to put into application that hardly resembles the original fine idea.  The result is that the shabby approximation that is put into practice won;t actually work well, because it’s a watered down approximation, and so it gets tossed out as a silly idea to begin with and we go back to what we were doing.

Here’s hoping that the voices calling for fundamental change ( see this: fundamental change ) will grow loud enough and big enough that maybe the good ideas will actually make it through with enough of their substance that goodness will emerge.

(The study also talked about integrating technology into the classroom even more and of blurring the lines of the “classroom” so much that virtual learning spaces be integrated.  This is fine at some levels, surely not at the elementary and middle school levels.  The report can be found here: reinvent schools)

Read Full Post »

Word Getting Out?

Check this out:

“We’re way past reform,” said Jeff Piontek, the head of school at the Hawaii Technology Academy, in his closing keynote speech at the just-wrapped-up ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) conference in Denver (http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/2010/). “It’s time for a revolution in education.”  He goes on to talk about “following your passion and infusing creativity and innovation” into schools, and “standardized tests are not a true gauge of student learning”…. and “it’s creativity and innovation that’s going to drive our economy”.

“Perfect” I thought.. word IS getting out.  But… wait… what’s the context?  Oh, this is a conference about technology as the savior of education.. technology is what’s been missing… ah, I see.  (cue anti-climactic music)  Piontek then goes on to suggest “Educators must give students the technological tools and resources they need to become competent global citizens”.  It turns out the emphasis was on “rethinking the way students are taught and assessed, using technology to support learning”.

Really?  Do we HAVE to go there?  More window dressing?!  If this guy really has been exposed to Ken Robinson’s ideas then he’s missed the boat and is bastardizing the ideas Robinson has presented.  “Way passed reform” and we need a “revolution” in education.. and THIS is it?!  Is he kidding?  Adding more technology or changing how it’s used in NOT fundamental innovation.  It is NOT a REvolution of traditional education.

We need to keep clear on what the target is, keep our “eyes on the prize”, otherwise we’ll hear plenty of Orwellian doublespeak like this and get the “same ol’ same ol’ ” out the other end.  More or different technology barely counts as REFORM, never mind Revolution.

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 »

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 »