Transforming Education

Retention or Social Promotion: A Personal Narrative for Why the Answer is "Neither"

2012-01-14T13:54:00.000-08:00

Sometimes a personal story goes much farther than an intellectual or data-filled argument, so at the risk of sounding egocentric, here goes:

Trace the mathematician:

By 9th grade I was falling significantly behind in the building blocks necessary for me to be a confident mathematician - at least as defined by my school's curriculum. I had been decent until letters and lines began to replace numbers in math. Yes, algebra and geometry just never quite clicked. At first I liked learning algebra but the class went too fast and by the end, I was lost and geometry, well that made no sense at all. I started to dislike math, then hate it, then tried to avoid it at every turn. But I passed - a C or D I think - and I moved on. The next teacher didn't know me from Adam and the system assumed that since I was in Algebra II, I was at the same place as everyone else, or should be. Within 2 weeks I had an F and was completely lost. I tried for awhile and then just resigned myself to an F. I felt stupid and pretty soon had accepted the label "bad at math." I finished with an F. Needing another math credit to graduate I chose "computer math" which was learning to program in BASIC on a shiny new Apple computer, circa 1982. I learned how to do if/then statements and create loops and I had a great time and learned a lot, but not about algebra and geometry. I finished my high school career avoiding math, got just a good enough ACT score in math to not have to take remedial math in college, and escaped required math courses there as well.

Over this time, however, I was constantly doing math. I loved sports statistics and was always doing calculations. I was intrigued by how compound interest worked and enjoyed working out math issues related to finances and budgeting. I enjoyed woodworking and building things and, while lacking in basic geometry skills, learned what I needed (and wanted to) because it was important to me and had some context to it.

When I went after my master's degree I recognized that my days of dodging math class was over - I had 6 hours of statistics to get through. Oh, dreaded statistics. I finished with B's. As I sat in class I began to understand that I wasn't bad at math, I just had to have context. Algebra never made sense because it was so abstract. Statistics made a lot of sense and I tackled the formulas just fine.

Would having retained me in 9th grade or forcing me to retake algebra done anything to help me? I suspect it would have inflicted more damage. While I hope that kids are more tolerant today than in 1982, I can tell you that those kids who "flunked Kindergarten" or had to re-take courses were labeled by everyone as "stupid." More than once a kid would be reminded that they weren't smart because, "you couldn't even pass kindergarten." Would I have been more "motivated" by the good whacking of the bureaucratic "stick" I received? No way. My hatred of math would have intensified, my disdain for learning would have grown, and my already fragile sense of myself as someone worthy and able to make my future happen for me would have been damaged - I fear to the point that I wouldn't be where I am today.

Did socially promoting me help? Nope. The concepts that escaped me the year before and were foundational for the assignments ahead doomed me to ever-increasing failure. 8th grade C's led to 9th grade D's led to 10th grade failure. It became quickly clear that I was in a game in which I had no chance of escaping. My misunderstanding heaped upon one another until the inevitable "F" arrived.

What would my math skills be like if I had gone to school in a competency-based system? One that unfolded my potential by connecting important learning to my interest areas? I suspect that I wouldn't have gotten so lost and maybe, just maybe, had more options open up for me in the world because I got to learn math through statistics and woodworking and other things I found relevant. I suspect that my learning around math would have continued and by the time I was ready to matriculate, would have had a much stronger set of math skills. My GPA from 7th to 10th grade (when I figured out how to avoid math classes) 3.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.0: GPA 1.8

Trace the basketball player:

In 8th grade I was probably the 20th best basketball player in my school - only 60 or so boys to begin with. My friends had figured out how to make their bodies work, had matured faster, and had mastered the skills of basketball far faster and better than I. But I LOVED playing basketball. It was my all-consuming passion, something I wanted to be good at and so I kept at it. By my junior year, 10 of those kids better than me in 8th grade had given it up - they hadn't improved their skills to the point that they could compete. I was about the 7th best by this time. I had one thing going for me that wasn't a part of my 8 to 3 school day - basketball was a competency-based learning activity, not a time-based one, that acknowledged that passion and interest were a critical component to learning and improving (no one had to play for the team - it was a choice). I wasn't retained on the 8th or 9th grade team because I hadn't figured it out yet. I was moved along with my peers, but it didn't mean I got to play in a lot of games. I did, however, get to practice everyday with kids better than me and it was made clear to me what I could do and what I needed to do if I wanted to play more. The coaches never handed out grades-they shared their performance criteria and made the necessary competencies explicit.

My passion drove me forward. By my senior year I had started to figure it out and was, arguably the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team. I went on to play college basketball, only one of two from my school to do so - and I got better and better. During my years in college, returning home to play with people of all ages from our community, it was clear that I was far better than most everyone I played against. Passion matters.

What's the point? It certainly isn't that I became a great player, I was overall still very average as it relates to college-level ability and at age 46 it is completely irrelevant. It's that no one arbitrarily decided that since I wasn't any good as a 14 year old that I wouldn't ever be good. The system allowed me to progress based upon my competency and made it clear where I was at and what competencies I needed to acquire to reach the goals I wanted to achieve.

Had we been given grades in basketball, this would have been my high school transcript:

9th: Ballhandling: D-; Shooting: D; Passing: C-; Rebounding: C-; Defending: B-: Understanding of the Game: D. GPA: 1.3

10th: Ballhandling: D+; Shooting: D; Passing: C; Rebounding: C-; Defending: B-: Understanding of the Game: D+. GPA: 1.7 Cumulative GPA: 1.5

11th: Ballhandling: C; Shooting: D+; Passing: C+; Rebounding: C; Defending: B: Understanding of the Game: C. GPA: 1.8 Cumulative GPA: 1.6

12th: Ballhandling: B+; Shooting: A-; Passing: A-; Rebounding: B; Defending: A-: Understanding of the Game: A. GPA: 3.6 Cumulative GPA: 2.1

Two trajectories with .4 GPA separating the two. Maybe its just me but getting better at promoting or retaining or determining the best GPA cut-point seems counterproductive and a waste of our valuable time.

Deadly Assumptions About School "Reform" Hampers Iowa's Educational Future

2012-01-14T11:36:00.000-08:00

I had the good fortune of spending some time yesterday interacting with Governor Branstad and Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds during a meeting at SourceMedia Group in Cedar Rapids. The Governor and Lt. Governor are sincere and earnest in their desire and interest in dealing with Iowa's Educational system. Like almost everyone concerned with Iowa's future, Branstad and Reynolds want to return Iowa to the first-in-the-nation status we held during the days when factory-age schooling fit our cultural, social, and economic needs. This shared goal and desire holds great promise for our future educational trajectory.

As a person supremely interested in and passionate about creating transformational 21st century learning systems for Iowa's children, I am convinced that the only way to create these learning systems lies in our desire and courage to expose, confront, and dialogue around the implicit assumptions that many collectively hold related to the means of achieving these goals. Yesterday's dialogue made it clear that the Governor and Lt. Governor and those helping them shape the educational agenda continue to hold deadly assumptions that will prevent us from reaching the very future we desire for our children and our learning systems.

I am proud to be a part of a growing group of what I call a "coalition of transformational, action-oriented educators" who have taken the time to expose, uncover, challenge, and determine the continued validity of assumptions about learning and education in order to forge not only a strong vision for the future we want but the actions and means that hold the most promise of getting us there. Until the majority of our citizens, teachers, parents, administrators, business, and political leaders confront and dialogue about these assumptions, we will continue to propose and legislate feckless non-solutions. To illustrate, I will take on just a few based upon yesterday's conversation.

First, the growing coalition of transformational, cutting-edge educators desire and are pursuing a vision for education significantly more bold and forward-thinking than our government. Quite naturally, our state government has a strong and relentless focus on economic viability, of which education is a critical, foundational component. It doesn't go far enough. Our interests - I would argue our moral imperative - is to do more and go farther which, in the end, would dramatically strengthen our economic capability and performance. Put simply, it is the vision to "unfold the potential of every child." Within this vision is the utilization of the vehicle called "school" to make them "world-class."

The current dialogue coming from our Governor when confronted with challenges and questions to his recommended set of actions is to imply that detractors are seemingly against:

high expectations
high standards
accountability
making sure all children are proficient in reading

As transformationally-minded educators, my colleagues and I hold the same desires and values. We want to elevate the teaching profession, increase the expectations and standards, develop meaningful accountability systems, and ensure students are prepared for the future they face. The problem we see, because we take the time to carefully examine the assumptions driving our educational system and the solutions proposed, is that some of the proposed actions are actually counterproductive to our vision and goals.

When asked about the Governor's desire to rid Iowa of its factory-based model, stated in his proposal as: "This time-based system is the root of the outdated “industrial” or “factory” model of education," and the seemingly incongruent actions around 3.0 GPA for teacher preparation admission and 3rd grade retention, the assumptions of his administration became crystal clear.

The proposal and its defenders seem not yet to truly understand the implications and elements of the factory-model of education. As Jamie Vollmer so clearly and compelling argues, "as long as we choose to hold time constant for teaching, learning, and testing, we are sorting children not on the basis of their intelligence, but on the basis of (the speed with which they progress.) As long as we hold time constant, the selecting system will produce this distribution of student achievement." Schools Cannot Do It Alone pg. 57. Continuing to staunchly hold onto the notions of grades, courses, and the age at which someone is supposed to learn something creates an on-going plethora of non-solutions to the new problems we face.

3rd grade retention is a classic example of a non-solution steeped in the idea of the assembly-line, time-constant model. The Governor said yesterday, and I paraphrase, "We must do things differently if we are to change our education system." I couldn't agree more. The problem - doing more of the same isn't doing something differently.

Let me be clear on this point, I am just as opposed to social promotion as I am to retention. Why? Both are products of the assumption that time is constant and that the best way to organize and educate is by batching same-age children together, taking them through a series of disconnected and prescribed content-based coursework, evaluating them via grades and age/time based tests and then either sending them back for re-work or moving them down the assembly line incomplete because it is "time" for them to move to the next set of curriculum. Social promotion of children who have not mastered the competencies necessary for success at the next level because the assembly line demands it is horribly damaging to a young person. So to, is sending them back for re-work when they reach the end of the assembly line because the message is: you are a defective product. When will we have the courage to recognize that the system we place these children in artificially creates these failures?

If we truly understood and accepted a new assumption about learning - that learning is a highly personal and variable attribute - we would aggressively make strides to create a system based upon competency and the interventions and actions required to continue to help children demonstrate a basic set of skills and abilities as they progressed through the system. We would also recognize that student passion and interest is the prime learning motivation and not old and tired "carrot-and-stick" approaches. Brain research (and quite frankly, a good dose of common sense) tells us that people learn at different rates. Pat Wolfe, a noted brain researcher, indicates that "learning to read" occurs across a distribution from age 6 to 10. Artificially deciding that if a child isn't reading to learn by age 8 and assuming that this destines them for a poor academic career says more about the system we use to teach and move students than it does about the child. We assume that all students are and should be motivated to learn what we have to teach them, when we want them to learn it.

What if we had a system whereby an 8 year old who read like a 6 year old but had a passion and talent for science discovery could continue to pursue those skills while teachers helped him connect his passion areas to reading - to help him see for himself how improving his reading could open up a greater world of science? Perhaps his motivation to read would kick in and the system would allow him to progress naturally through his reading progression. By age 9, he might likely be "reading to learn" and still be engaged in and excited by his learning. A much different vision than making him repeat an artificial construct like "3rd grade" because he didn't read as well as other 8 year olds. Einstein didn't learn how to read until age 9 but it would be tough to argue for his retention. So here's a novel idea: lets quit making reading by age 8 a manufactured problem because we believe we have ready-made solutions for that problem. No doubt our system should be getting a majority of kids "over the bar" by age 8, but labeling a child a "failure" does us or that child little good, nor does social promotion that assumes they "should have gotten that skill last year."

Our problem is one of the system of education, not in the correct application of factory-age solutions. So let's look at our proposed solutions, expose the assumptions we hold, determine if they remain valid, and then take action that moves us towards "unfolding the potential of every child" instead of trying to fit our solutions into a factory-age conception of education.

You Can't Continuously Improve Your Way Into Something New

2011-11-06T06:48:00.000-08:00

The Total Quality Movement and the notion of continuous improvement has made significant contributions to business, industry, and education. Continuous improvement enables organizations and individuals to maximize the potential of a given product, design, or desired outcome. But what happens when that product or design is maximized to the point of diminishing returns? What happens when the desired outcomes and needs change so dramatically that they call into question the very thing that has been the effort of continuous improvement? Those who continue to hang onto the notion that they can "continuously improve" themselves out of the mess their in find themselves continuously frustrated and increasingly obsolete. In short, when there are dramatic shifts in context and direction, continuous improvement becomes a feckless and expensive dead-end. But it doesn't have to. Combined with the notion of design thinking, continuous improvement can once again be called to action and help drive us towards improvement.

Let's look at a simple example to help explain:

The Wright Brothers developed the first "heavier than air" flying machine over 100 years ago. This was not a continuous improvement of the stagecoach or even the emerging technology of the automobile. It was a new, "clean sheet" design informed and helped along by technological breakthroughs like the internal combustion engine. From that point on, a vision of "air travel" drove scientists and engineers to continously improve on this flying contraption. We made it faster, safer, and larger by continuously improving on the original design. Along the way, there were new designs that were introduced to the existing platform - jet engines, pressurized cabins, advanced navigation and flying instrumentation, etc. These new designs fit well with the on-going vision of "air travel." Today those improvements continue but at a much slower pace. Early on, there was a lot of "slack" in the design - there were many things that could be done to improve air travel and we quickly and drastically improved on the design. Over the past 30 or 40 years, however, things don't look much different, do they? The passenger jets from the 1960's don't look much different than those of today. In short, the improvements have slowed down. Sure, they're more efficient, safer, more technically advanced but they still aren't much different. Why? Because the airplane, like any design, has a maximum carrying capacity - a limit to what it can do and become.

In the late 1950's and 1960's when America began to think about space travel, did we seek to continuously improve the airplane to get us to space? Of course not - doing so would have been seen as impractical and unreasonable. Imagine it for a moment: our engineers would have built bigger fuel tanks, put more engines on the jets, increased the expectations for pilots, and recruited the best pilots by providing greater incentives and rewards. Chuck Yeager was a brave and bold pilot - we would have put him in this new and improved jet and instructed him to aim for the moon. Many unfortunate pilots would have followed in his demise, millions would have been spent trying to tweak the airplane to get to outerspace, and we would still not have reached it today. Imagine the world without satellite TV, GPS, and advanced weather tracking and satellites.

But we didn't do that. Why? Because we clearly understood that we had a new vision - it was no longer "improving air travel." Instead, it was "getting a man on the moon." This simple vision statement changed everything. Our engineers and scientists were no longer constrained by the design of aircraft. They could discard old assumptions like: every part of the ship must make it to the destination - (a relatively important element in air travel!); the trajectory had to be horizontal in nature, and; flying requires liquid fuels. Counterintuitively, they even utilized designs intended to take down airplanes - mortars and other ammunition. They were able to utilize the concepts of rapid, explosive power to project an object, leaving behind the very part that projected the device. They were able to consider the notion of a dry power source rather than a liquid fueled one. They were able to utilize what was learned in aviation about stability and control to influence their design but not be constrained by it. Over time, they iterated and approximated their design to maximize its potential.

So what's this have to do with the current debate and discussion around schools? In short, we too often assume that we can continuously improve into something new. Just like the engineers could have never continuously improved the airplane into a spaceship, education cannot continuously improve its current Factory Age model whose vision is to sort-and-select to one that unfolds the potential of every child so that we can compete globally and maintain our status in the world. They are dramatically different visions - equal in difference between "improving air travel" and "getting a man on the moon." We must forge a new and clear vision for our education system and begin to relentlessly move towards that vision, unstrapped yet informed by our past. Once down that road, our collective ability to continuously improve will create rapid and sustainable changes that do unfold the potential of more and more children. It's no longer practical and reasonable - or even defensible - to argue that continuous improvement on our existing design is the road to the future we want. A new vision and design with clear steps to approximate the design and move it forward - that's the practical and reasonable move we need.

Newsweek's "America's Best High Schools, 2011" a misprint. Should read: "America's Best High Schools, 1961."

2011-07-20T13:53:00.000-07:00

Newsweek recently released its ranking of what it considers America’s 500 best high schools. Ignoring, for a moment, the ridiculous assumption that ranking high schools is valid, important, helpful, and instructive, the criteria used to determine the list is faulty and 40+ years past its prime. Such rankings, and the process and criteria used to create such rankings, is not only ill-informed but damaging as it further propagates that industrial-age, factory-model schooling continues to be a valid and improvable model for 21^st century demands.

Before proceeding, it is important I make explicit my assumptions and bias’ about both the schools on the list and the educational assumptions that created the list. For the past 20 years I have actively worked against and actively reject the idea that the industrial-age school system – and its accompanying structures, processes, and measurement systems – are capable of leading us into a future incomprehensible to the men who created our industrial school model.

Of the 500 schools that made the list, I only know three of them. While I do have certain opinions about those three, including one that my children have and will attend, I will not assume that they are reflective, either positively or negatively, on the other 497. These 500 schools are not the target of my criticism and many might – and I hope would – make a list using the criteria I propose.

For a long time now, education has talked about “school reform” and “improving schools” and many great initiatives ensued without truly addressing the fundamental issue: America’s school system is an industrial, factory-age model that continues to produce outstanding results for an industrial economy. I won’t go into further discussion of this topic as I have covered my argument, as have many, many other made this argument, in other blogs and articles (see www.tracepickering.com).

While I don’t know any of the evaluators personally, I have held Dr. Darling-Hammond in high-esteem in her efforts to advance the transformational educational agenda. In short, I was disappointed that such a criteria and ranking system has her name attached to it. I expect more and hope for better from her as this list does not fully embrace her work, from my perspective. In short, Newsweek’s ranking system simply extends the past into the future by accepting the assumption that traditional, narrowly focused outcomes and measurement tools are appropriate for ranking America’s high schools – schools purportedly leading in 21^st century learning for students. These measures better define factory-age schooling and learning outcomes and approaches. Let’s take a look at their major assumptions in turn.

Assumption #1: The number of AP courses offered and the number of AP/IB tests taken by students is a robust and largely complete picture of a quality high school in 2011.

While admittedly not a huge fan or supporter of AP as the answer to great learning, it nonetheless has a place in school. However, to assume that the relative presence or absence of AP courses and those taking the test is a primary or valid measure of a quality high school is precarious at best and disingenuous at worst. Like virtually all learning and teaching approaches, AP is not an appropriate nor a successful path for all but a small percentage of students. Typically, in my experience, AP is taught in a traditional consumer-oriented approach whereby students listen to lectures, read textbooks, and do colossal amounts of homework – worksheets, essays, reports, etc. Largely, AP converts teachers into automatons who must rapidly and unceasingly cover content on a tight, unwavering timeline in order to prepare them for a single, high-stakes (a high score is college-credit worthy, after all) test. In short, it simply puts students who excel in the traditional classroom – compliant, diligent, with strong literacy skills, and an addiction to grades and GPA on a faster factory-age assembly line. For some students this is the way they like to learn best and should have that opportunity. However, I would assume that this is not the approach a vast majority excels at or finds interesting, motivating, or worthwhile.

In fact, such a singular focus on a particular curricular/instructional approach can create unintentional consequences. If a school or community finds value in their school making such a “best high school” list, it becomes easier and easier to sub-optimize other great learning approaches and opportunities to push the AP agenda as THE best answer to adolescent learning and achievement. “AP for Everyone” is an example of such sub-optimization – the belief that if a school can only get all kids into AP, they will be successful and have a great school. AP is but one – and I would argue minor – part of a successful 21^st century high school.

Assumption #2: Immediate matriculation to college after a 4-year journey through high school is the key indicator of a successful student and, by extension, their high school.

Here is another assumption steeped deeply in the factory-age, assembly-line model of school. While true that, on average, most college-bound students finish high school in 4 years or less and immediately matriculate to college, some do not. Those “some who don’t” should not be assumed failures or reduce their high schools’ rank. The idea that every human being needs to complete a prescribed set of courses in a predefined period of time to be considered successful is an Industrial-Age way of thinking. Being competent and confident in real world contexts is not time and course bound. Some students launch new businesses, some are better prepared for post-secondary learning if they can take a little longer, or shorter, to demonstrate their competency. Some take time after high school to enter the workforce, pursue a passion, or deepen their experience with the world rather than immediately transitioning to the next educational assembly-line.

Assumption #3: The 500 identified schools are somehow the best and better than the rest and acknowledging them as such helps encourage other schools and communities to strive to do better and be like them.

First off, let’s deal with the obvious – this self-reported survey sent to only 10,000 schools – there are about 27,000 high schools in America - was only returned voluntarily by 1100 of them. The 10,000 likely self-excluded or included themselves based on how well they met the narrowly defined criteria. So being one of the 500 means you bettered only 600 other schools, not 10,000, not 27,000. In fact, a high school opting to put students through college-level, credit-bearing courses via post secondary enrollment/dual enrollment options (PSEO) available in many states, rather than offering AP and hoping students score well enough to gain credit at one of the few post-secondary institutions that accept AP (18% of the nation’s colleges) would not fare well in this contest. The schools engaged in Virtual Reality Education Pathfinders, world robotics competitions, electric car/green technology competitions, and a myriad of other highly academic, rigorous and contextually-rich opportunities would also fare poorly against a high school focused largely on filling its course schedule with AP courses.

A thoughtful educator who truly understands the need for transformative education and in the diversity of needs, passions, and learning styles walking the halls of school everyday may find making such a list a BAD thing. Perhaps it is best to try not to meet Newsweek’s criteria so as to avoid perpetuating the myth of the comprehensive high school as an appropriate and effective answer to 21^st century learning demands.

As noted social systems theorist and practitioner, Jamshid Gharajedaghi has stated, “Relevancy is the most important concern in selecting performance variables. . . because we find it difficult to accurately measure what we want, we have chosen to want what we can accurately measure. Unfortunately, the more accurate the measure of the wrong criteria, the faster to the road to disaster.” (Gharajedaghi, Systems Thinking, 2^nd edition pg. 176). This certainly seems to hold true with Newsweek’s criteria for determining America’s best high schools. So, while acknowledging the difficulty and complexity of collecting data on the following recommended criteria here is what I propose would be more apt criteria for determining America’s best high schools for 2011 (again going along with the false assumption that ranking high schools is a worthwhile endeavor).

The percentage of students graduating with a competency-based diploma anchored by rigorous performance standards and multiple, contextualized demonstrations of those standards.
The number of accredited college credits awarded and the percentage of students receiving at least 3 college credits prior to graduation.
Percentage of students taking AP/IB/ACIE courses.
Number of PSEO/dual enrollment courses offered and percentage of students successfully completing such courses.
Number/percentage of students accepted into job training/professional apprenticeships within 2 years of graduation.
Number/percentage of students launching and operating entrepreneurial endeavors within 2 years of graduation.
Percentage of students engaged in community/non-profit leadership and volunteer work NOT part of a regular, credit-bearing high school coursework.
Type, number and percentage of students involved in innovative, real-world, contextually rich and challenging work like but not exclusive to:

US Robotics competitions.
Lego-league.
Virtual Reality Education Pathfinders
Electric car/alternative energy competitions.
Speech/debate/mock trial competitions.
Engineering competitions.
Project Lead-the-Way

The percentage of students successfully completing rigorous independent and/or on-line learning opportunities.
The percentage of special education students improving by more than one years growth and/or the percentage of special education students successfully exited from special education.
The percentage of students graduating upon successful completion of a personalized learning plan endorsed by the parents.
The percentage of graduates taking the ACT/SAT and scoring at or above the national average scores.
The school has a strong, research-based mentoring and induction system for its teachers and administrators.
Schools rating highly on culture surveys completed by the student body – surveys that evaluate the extent that the high school has an adaptive culture - one in which student voice and choice is heard and responded to.

Such evaluations would better represent a 21^st century school where students have a wide and diverse array of customized, competency-based, producer-oriented options for its students. Admittedly, few of the nations schools would likely score well on the above set of criteria. In the meantime, we should cease and desist in ranking schools based upon their ability to deliver 20^th century learning. To continue to do so does the schools on the list, and all of us working to transform schools away from highly successful Industrial Age models to highly successful Communication Age model a huge disservice.

-Dr. Trace Pickering, July, 2011.

From "Consumer-Oriented" to "Producer-Oriented" Learning (and schools)

2011-06-21T13:52:00.000-07:00

I'm excited about the future of education. The problems we face as a nation, state, and community are seemingly intractable and the decisions made by Newtonian government structures and processes seem to make things worse. Despite all of this, I believe in the American people and the leaders - education, community and business - who understand we must transform education to remain viable.

As I continually search out easier, simpler, more direct ways of expressing what is meant by "tranforming schools" I've come across the concept of "producer-oriented" schooling and learning. I can't say exactly from where it came, although I know I am certainly not the originator. Perhaps it was in my renewed conversations with my mentor and friend, Al Rowe or perhaps it was a collection of ideas from multiple conversations and readings. As Steven Johnson says, "an idea is not a single thing. It is more like a swarm." Where Good Ideas Come From. The Natural History of Innovation (p. 46).

Our schools - most of them anyway and in particular the "comprehensive high school" would best be termed "consumer-oriented" in that it treats learning as a consumable good and children as consumers. Students, usually without the ability to "purchase" what they want, are fed information and knowledge through courses, classes, curriculum, and teachers. The general idea is to provide them with these inputs (goods) and have them spit back what they know, thus validating them as learned. This cycle repeats itselt multiple times a day, 180 days a year for 13 years. It reduces children to passive receivers who are valued for their compliance and "good attitudes." Being successful in a consumer-oriented school doesn't require a student really understand the complexities and "wicked problems" that truly exists in a world where discipline knowledge isn't so neatly and conveniently compartmentalized.

Schools today must become "producer-oriented" organizations where students are asked to create, innovate, and produce things of value beyond just a course grade or to satisfy one teacher. Students enter our schools as creators, innovators and producers so enhancing and building on that natural desire must be entirely possible and plausible. Our schools must make it impossible for a student to pass through it without having the ability to understand the complexities and interconnectedness of the disciplines and that there are ways to deal with "wicked" and seemingly intractable problems. When students engage their passions and interests and connect with adult professionals who can mentor and facilitate their learning to create things that have value beyond the classroom or assignment, we are ensuring America's future success.

How long must we continue to tweak and cajole small scale improvements in our consumer-oriented systems before we get busy doing what we must do - transform schools to producer-oriented organizations?

TransformED Video Pushes Move Toward Transformation Education

2011-05-20T06:16:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Source Media Group (The Cedar Rapids Gazette and KCRG TV) launched its TransformEd site http://iowatransformed.com/ . This site is designed to create a place for the healthy exchange of ideas, sharing of actions, and a place for those working on educational transformation to find each other and link their work together for the betterment of all kids.

On the same day the Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, announced his agenda for the next year is to push Iowa to "reform" its schools - as we have "slipped" from the top. While I applaud the Governor's focus on education I question his understanding of the issues as he continues to use the word "reform" and old methodologies for trying to spur action. Transformation and Reformation couldn't be more different and the distinction is critical as it provides insight into the implicit assumptions people carry into the work of improving schools.

To "reform" means to accept the current conditions as largely unmovable realities and instead focus on changing, introducing, or adjusting the means used within the constraining conditions. To "transform" means to envision a preferred future and create a system - a whole new system - that will help create that preferred future. Reformers tend to oversimplify both the problems and the set of solutions - typically they have a preferred solution and work to frame the "problem" as one that can be addressed by their "solution." Transformationalists understand something much more fundamental - that the set of problems faced by the current system are so interconnected, so interrelated, that "fixing" one or two inevitably leads to one of two things: 1) other problems get exacerbated; 2) the "fix" can't survive in the current model because it is incongruent with the status quo.

Iowa was, for a long time, at or near the top of the country's school system as defined by success on standardized achievement tests (a can of worms for another day!). For the last 40 years, without much variation, Iowa has perfomed in the high 70's and low 80's on these tests. When our ranking began to fall - read: other states started catching up - we started to panic. A continual theme running through conversations and debate: "Our kids are getting worse! That darn constructivism is ruining us - back to the basics! Teachers are bad! Administrators are fools! We must hold schools more accountable!" Rarely - dare I say ever - has anyone really taken the time to think about the system of education. Every system has what is called a "carrying capacity" - the maximum amount of output it can produce. Schools are no different. I would argue that our current design of schooling - largely unchanged for 100 years - has a carrying capacity of about 80% proficiency +/-.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Iowa maximized its school system to at or near its carrying capacity sooner and longer than other states. Other states, when NCLB came into being, had a lot more "slack" in their systems to improve without really changing the system. Iowa did not have such a luxury.

So, what's the point? The longer we engage in conversations about "reform" the worse it is going to get. I know many Iowa educators who are working on "transformation" and need the support and encouragement from legislators and the Governor - not lectures, motivational speeches, punishment-based laws and regulations, or ideologies. We have much work to do to help uncover and expose the many implicit assumptions our legislators, teachers, parents, and community members hold about what "school" is - until people clearly recognize we can't reform our Model T into a NASCAR qualifier, we will continue to struggle to move forward.

Leadership in Times of Transformational Change

2011-04-03T19:18:00.000-07:00

While my reading list continues to outgrow my ability to get them all read, I continue to find myself drawn back to Russell Ackoff. Yes, I know - I'm a social systems junkie. However, we are working on and in social systems and so I return to social systems design to better understand how to lead and influence the education system - my area of passion.

I think a lot about leadership and what it means in an age of transformation -when it is no longer about reforming or improving our systems but changing their very essence. Perhaps it was this bias in my thinking that caused one of Ackoff's quotes to jump off the page: "Inspiration without implementation is provocation, not leadership. Implementation without inspiration is management or administration, not leadership. Therefore, leaders must be both creative, in order to inspire, and courageous, in order to induce implementation." (A Systemic View of Transformational Leadership).

Inspiration: rather than persuade, demand, or get "buy-in" (tools of mechanistic and biological system paradigms), transformational leaders must inspire - move people to make sacrifices in pursuit of a preferred future. Here is why it is critical that new leaders understand the theory and methodology of social systems - Inspiring visions are creative acts of design and to be a designer of a social system one must understand its principles and dimensions as well as the principles and dimensions of the systems we have inherited.

Implementation: If you can inspire people to move towards a preferred future but can't or won't aggressively take action, then you simply create more cynics (passionate people who don't want to be disappointed again). Ackoff uses the word "courageous" - I like this word and think it means - be bold, take well-thought out risks, push people out of their comfort zones, be willing to stand with them as they take bold and audacious actions, and allow them to make mistakes for it is the only way we learn.

So - you want to be a leader in an Age of Transformation? Ackoff asks two important questions: 1. If you do not know what you would do if you could do whatever you wanted, without constraint, how can you possibly know what to do when there are? 2. If you do not know what you want right now how can you possibly know what you will want in the future?

Do you have an idealized design - a future you would have today if you could? Is it based upon the principles and dimensions of a social system?

As Ackoff says, "Transformational leaders are driven by ideas, not by the expectations of others." Education cannot afford any other type of leadership today.

The Joy of Teaching: When the "light" comes on.

2011-03-28T18:05:00.000-07:00

I know - this is a big 'ol "DUH" to us educators but when it happens you just have to share. You see, to stay connected to teaching and to extend my influence related to social systems theory and design I teach a class in Mount Mercy University's MBA program. The book is tough, the concepts are life-changing, and the paradigm shift for many is thunderous. Tonight while reading the discussion board one student posted that he had been struggling and was resistant at first and then went on to describe how all of a sudden, the whole system thinking and methodology became clear and he realized a whole new way to think. He now believes that he has the tools to be a great leader and can push his organization forward. It feels good to help mentor and guide someone to new and significant learning!

A Tipping Point in Our Patterns of Thought

2011-03-22T14:52:00.000-07:00

Most of us have heard variations on Einstein's quote but I bet few have seen what he actually said/wrote and that is this: "Without changing our current patterns of thought we will not be able to solve the problems created with our current patterns of thought." As Russell Ackoff points out in a May, 2004 address, "Everyone I talk to agrees with this statement although almost nobody understands what it means."

So what does it mean?

Most educated people feel like they can solve problems and they would largely be correct. As Jamshid Gharajedaghi once told me, "Americans are the greatest problem solvers the world has ever seen - they can solve anything they are tasked with. The problem is this: the are among the worst at formulating the right set of problems!"

As I've thought about this and observed people's behaviors over the past 7 or 8 years I believe both Jamshid and Russ are correct - most people don't really know what Einstein means and most people are pretty awful problem formulators. What I beleive Einstein was referring to was more a systems view than a problem/solution view. By this I mean we are confined into a specific pattern of thought as it relates to how we see and interpret the world - our systems view of the world, rather than our ability to alter a thought pattern on a discrete task or process. You see, the systems view we hold as a collective defines the nature of the "game" we play - the "rules," the "scoring," and the "winners and losers." If we continue to operate via the implicit set of assumptions and rules of a particular pattern of thought, any "new" ideas or solution is really a non-solution - further cementing a cycle of failed "reforms" and wasted efforts by smart and diligent people.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Our American system of education came of age in the early 1900's and was explicitly designed based upon the dominate systems view of the day - the mechanical system. The assumptions and practices of that mechanical system still live on today and color virtually every "new" idea and "solution" brought to bear on the system. "Change!" "Improve!" they yell. So we educators diligently go to work and wonder quietly, "haven't I seen this bandwagon pass before?" But no, we bury our heads in the work: improving the teaching of reading, doing curriculum reviews to ensure a solid scope and sequence, teaching educators how to conduct and use formative assessment tools and techniques, tweaking evaluation systems, messing with class times and lengths - ever watch a community fight it out about block scheduling? Rarely do any of these things fundamentally change either the behavior of a school and its staff or the outcomes it produces - at least over the long term. Why? The design of the existing educational system still contains its unwritten rules and assumptions about "the way it is" and we dutifully and unknowingly must play by the old rules, scoring, and decision points about winners and losers.

A few rules we play by: kids are best grouped by chronological age; children are consumers of knowledge and teachers are the delivery vehicle; learning is defined by courses taken, hours spent in a class, and days spent per year; the way to improve a particular output is to improve its particular input. (e.g. Want better reading scores? [output] Teach teachers how to teach reading better. [input] )
How we score: any "game" you play in education, the score is number of credits, number of classes, and a letter grade (like a piece of meat at the butcher) assigned to a body of work done over a defined period of time over a set of content defined by someone else.
How we determine who wins: students who get through with good grades and do so by quietly and obediently following adult directives and who adhere to a defined set of "good" activities: sports, drama, band, etc. are the winners. Students who do not are the losers. Winners go to college and losers don't. The school system itself is never the problem - problems are inherent in the individual and school only helps us sort out the winners from the losers.

Until we collectively challenge the above assumptions and change our patterns of thought related to what we really believe about human potential, education, and opportunity we will continue to solve the wrong problems via the existing pattern of thought.

Standards based grading, project-based learning, competency-based education, passion-driven learning environments are current examples that, in their true form, are incompatible with the existing patterns of thought. Why such backlash when an Iowa school moves to standards-based determination of learning? Our current pattern of thought rejects it.

So what does all this mean for us educational leaders?

We must openly and constantly challenge the implicit set of rules and instructions about our education system.
We must engage our communities and show them in clear, explicit ways - what education can and would look like with a "new pattern of thought."
We must work on several fronts simultaneously rather than as a checklist. Getting technology in place, then improving teachers' ability to assess both formatively and summatively against standards, then changing the pay and evaluation system of educational professionals, then getting rid of Carnegie units, ad nausem is an old pattern of thought way of transforming.

Look around at the best and brightest - they are working on the system simultaneously moving forward on all of the above and more. THAT is the new pattern of thought- empowerment, cultures of innovation, finding and pursuing passion, designing systems made for humans rather than Model T's, etc. My hats off to those doing this work - you have my support and respect. Its what all great leaders must do in todays world. I hope you will join us!

Bill Spady and OBE - a brief personal history for my young educational friends

2011-02-04T15:45:00.000-08:00

From 1992 to 1994 I was fortunate enough to get to know and work with Dr. William G. Spady - the founder and father of Outcome-Based Education, or OBE. All of us working now to implement competency-based learning systems, dynamic teaching and learning, authentic assessment, and contextualized learning in a multitude of dimensions owe a great deal to Bill Spady. If you've never heard of Bill or OBE - you might want to read this little history lesson.

In 1992 my friend and mentor,Al Rowe, connected me with his friend, Bill Spady. For those of us in education and paying any attention in the early 90's we all know him to be the father of OBE - Outcome-Based Education. He was right then, he's right now and we owe a lot to our current transformational efforts to him. Bill allowed me to participate in his workshops across the country and to hone my consulting and presentation skills as a very young educator. He was an intense and unrelenting intellectual power combined with passion and desire to transform education. At the height of his influence, he was packing hotel conference centers with 700-800 people every weekend in cities across the country. People clamored to come and learn how to transform education. He was calling for a 21st century learning system that would abandon the factory-model 20 years ago in a clear and compelling message. Gladwell's "Tipping Point" was 12 or so years from being written, but looking back, I remember us all feeling that we were nearing a point where schools actually might begin to change. That all changed in late 1993 when a group of people got scared and wanted a return to "back-to-the-basics" and realized that kids might recognize that they had minds of their own and could be taught to use them!

It was tragic and sad to watch Bill get attacked by a fearful group of people who misinterpreted OBE to mean "mind-control" and "schools dictating what students will believe." So strange was this to Bill, since this was antithetical to what he was saying, that the groundswell ate him up before he realized it. He has a great book, "Paradigm Lost" where he tells this story with candor and insight. What was on the move and nearing a tipping point in 1993 was dead and over in 1994 - and America and our schools have suffered since. So here we are, 18 years later finally getting back to implementing his work - I'm glad we're finally here again, its been a long wait. Belwo is a segment from a column in 1994 that does a nice job of telling the story. Below is just one paragraph talking about Bill Spady.

It's good to remember Bill Spady as we attempt to build 21st century schools!

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_new_school_wars

Lost in the Translation by Peter Schrag

The OBE fights have raised important educational and ideological issues. If OBE was a welcome answer to conservative impatience with the constant emphasis on school inputs (which usually meant demands for more money), few people noticed that it also dovetailed nicely with a major liberal agenda: to get rid of objective testing and rote learning in favor of so-called performance-based assessment--more open-ended essay questions, more problem solving, more analysis, more emphasis on "higher-order" reasoning, perhaps even more creativity. At the very pinnacle of OBE guru William Spady's "Demonstration Mountain" was something called the "transformational zone," where assignments transcend the bounds of specific academic disciplines and require "real world . . . complex role performances," sometimes called "authentic assessment." For all its jargon, Spady's pinnacle seemed to be precisely what a lot of employers were looking for: applicants with social skills, the ability to work cooperatively, tolerance of people of other races, and skills suited to solve practical problems. In many states, the Business Roundtable was a major booster of OBE-type reforms.

Following the "Research" in watershed times, is like driving using the rear-view mirror.

2011-02-03T18:15:00.000-08:00

First off - don't jump to the conclusion that I reject research altogether. Don't get me wrong - I find value in research. The issue for me is a simple one: research is contextual. Research is also conducted, by necessity, within the existing framework - the functions, structures and processes - of the current educational paradigm. We are at a point in history where I believe it absolutely critical and necessary to create and implement a new educational design. The simple fact is that you cannot continuously improve into something new - something new requires design or re-design. Research is about finding ways to improve within the current constraints and frameworks - great when you are actively trying to improve what you have. But what happens when we have a model we don't want anymore?

Research, even emanating from the old paradigms, can be instructive. Let's just be careful that we don't simply "follow the research." The game is new, it is uncharted, and we must create and design - sometimes without a lot of research. Research - most published today is already years old - is indeed like trying to navigate the road by using the rear-view mirror. A fairly safe bet on a straight and low-traveled desert road, not so easy when the road is hilly, twisty, and full of traffic - like the context of education we now find ourselves in.

Recent blogs I've followed related to the 1:1 initiative have debated about the research on 1:1. The above applies - when applied in the old paradigm as a more efficient way to teach disconnected, episodic, and de-contextualized content, of course the research is going to suggest that 1:1 doesn't work - because it doesn't. The introduction of the computer to schools (circa 1979) didn't affect school either. It wasn't the technology, I'm afraid to report, it was (and is) the system of school. In Seymour Sarason's book, "The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform" he says, "I came to see what should have been obvious: the characteristics, traditions, and organizatoinal dynamics of school systems were more or less lethal obstacles to achieving even modest, narrow goals." p 12 - like the few schools who aren't focused on changing the system of learning and instead hoping that changing the tools available will somehow make things better. A mistake that the leaders of 1:1 schools in my Twitter network are NOT making.

Reform & Transform: A Difference that Makes All the Difference!

2011-01-13T18:46:00.000-08:00

The great systems thinker and designer, Russell Ackoff, tried during his lifetime to help people understand that continuously improving a poor system is just a path for getting worse faster. In those discussions he talked about reform and transform. Unfortunately, most of educational "change" over the past several decades (right up to the very recent past and present) has focused on "reform."

Reform: to leave a system as it is and try to change its behavior by modifying the means it employs. (Ackoff)

Reform, then, is a lot of talk about changing things and improving things. For our culture, this usually means doing more of the same - or faster. If a few math credits in the past seemed to work, lets increase the number of math credits. If a clear curriculum with scope and sequence worked in the past, let's make it more clearer and more detailed. In short, we try to mess with processes and to a lesser extent structures without changing the essential functions OR we declare a new set of functions (e.g. "We are no longer in the business of sorting and selecting students -all must succeed") and continue to adhere to the same structures and processes that sorted and selected in the first place (grading, credit chasing via Carnegie units, seat time, tracking, artificially separating courses and disciplines as if they have little to do with one another, etc).

What we all need to focus on is transformation: changing both the system's objectives/ends and the means of achieving those ends. If education is now about ensuring success for all, for acquiring a very different set of skills from those needed in 1900, then we cannot continue to run schools as factories, treat teachers as line workers and, worst of all, treat students as raw material ready to be altered into some pre-defined final product. (Everyone knows and expects raw material going into a GM Camaro factory will come out, with little or no deviation, a Camaro). Learning, people, students are not raw materials to be made into pre-defined final products . . . so why do we insist on so rigorously hanging onto the factory model and only play around the fringes?

The Iowa Core/Common Core is a great example. A great start outlining what students might need to know to be successful (at least our best guess given our inability to accurately predict the future - who saw the Kinect coming so fast, really?). If we attempt to implement the Common Core through the vehicle and mechanisms of the Machine Age it is doomed to failure - making it the next "bandwagon idea." What's frustrating is that the "bandwagon ideas" of the past 30 years have been all very interesting, thoughtful, and tranformational - the problem is that we refuse to deal with the deeper issue: the Mechanical and Biological Systems paradigms that made America great in the 20th century are ill-equipped and simply incompatible with what we need today.

A quick look across the country seems to suggest that the carrying capacity of the Machine-Age school is about at the 80% proficiency rate - and that is on Machine-Age conceptions of learning, the standardized test. Therefore, even on tests aligned with its own paradigm, it can only be expected to be 8 of 10. Actually, this is an amazing accomplishment! A system specifically designed to sort and select has somehow found a way to get 8 of 10 kids over the bar at peak performance! Astounding! Unfortunately, its not enough.

So join me and the other "crazies" who are banding together virtually and face-to-face to forge a new vision for education that identifies the new set of functions schools need to produce AND provides examples of the structures and processes necessary to make it all happen.

Oh yeah, one more thing, the bad news is that we can't continuously improve into something new and working on one or two things at a time won't work. Social systems are so interconnected and interdependent that we must work on a new solution as a set: how we validate learning, how we organize teachers, how we compensate teachers, how we fund schools, how we organize students, etc, etc. has to be designed up front and implemented in concert.

The good news - people lile Jamshid Gharajedaghi, Susan Leddick and burgeoning systems scientists like myself and many of my colleagues and friends - know how to do this! With your passion and expertise in your area and we in systems design, we become a force that can't be stopped!!

Call me crazy.