A piece of “how”: flatten schools?

Posted on by
6

Thomas Friedman pointed out to us that The World Is Flat. Do you think that the acceleration of change in the world is related to the progressive flattening of the world?

Many think that schools are one of the slowest changing institutions. Some know the story of Rip Van Winkle waking from his hundred-years nap and only recognizing schools…except that the boards are white instead of green or black. Do you think that the slow rate-of-change in schools is related to their traditionally intense hierarchy?

Would schools be more adaptable and accelerated in their change if they were flatter organizations?

Recently, during one of my morning walks, I listened to Daniel Pink’s “Office Hours” podcast – particularly the interview with Gary Hamel. While listening, my mind made a Venn of a number of resources from which I have recently learned:

  1. “First, Let’s Fire All the Managers,” Gary Hamel, Harvard Business Review, December 2011.
  2. “The Power of Networks: Shifting our Metaphors for Learning and Knowledge,” a blog post from Jonathan Martin on 21k12 – particularly the RSA video of Manuel Lima.
  3. “Nobody’s as Smart as Everybody—Unleashing Individual Brilliance and Aligning Collective Genius” by Jim Lavoie at Rite-Solutions, discovered as I explained on this recent blog post.
  4. “What If Bill Gore Founded a School?” a great blog post from Craig Lambert.

What if schools were flatter in nature…like our flat world? Would school adaptability be amplified and accelerated?

[“A piece of ‘why,'” A piece of ‘what,'” and A piece of ‘how'” are strands of a series on why school needs to change, what about school needs to change, and how schools might navigate the change.]

A piece of “how”: Know what we do; communicate, communicate, communicate; build a tribe

Posted on by
Reply

Do we really know what we do in schools? Does each school know what it does? Not at a cursory level, but at a deep and meaningful level.

Do we communicate tirelessly and effectively with our internal folks and with all of our external constituencies? Does every stakeholder or group member genuinely understand and believe in what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we are doing it?

Are we nurturing relationships – people – to turn groups into unified tribes?

[“A piece of ‘why,'” A piece of ‘what,'” and A piece of ‘how'” are strands of a series on why school needs to change, what about school needs to change, and how schools might navigate the change.]

PROCESS POST: Is flipping the classroom just a step on a prototyping path?

Posted on by
7

Much is written about “flipping the classroom” – the practice of moving teacher lectures, videos, etc. to time at home, and moving interactive work to the school day. This reversal flips the age-old routine of lecturing in class and doing work at home. With the transformations to school that I imagine and for which I advocate, I wonder if flipping the classroom is just a step on a prototyping path.

I am not knocking the practice of flipping the classroom! I think it is a step in a right direction. But I think it is only a step. I do not see it as an ultimate destination.

So many people write about flipping the classroom, and I myself have only really studied the trend – I have not truly flipped the classrooms with which I participate. In the past two to three years, I actually tried to move away from any teacher-assigned homework, except that which the student learners feel (with some coaching) is essential to moving their curiosity and project work forward. You might say I failed to implement this change fully, but I was trying to move in a right direction myself.

Here are just two, interesting, and recent, reads on flipping the classroom:

  1. Jonathan Martin’s great book-review post, “‘Flip Your Classroom’: the new book from Bergmann and Sams,” which includes some additional, link resources at the end of the post.
  2. Anatomy of a Khan-troversy, by Francesca Duffy, which I clicked to as I was reading Education Week‘s “Teaching Now.”

So, where do I think we are headed, if flipping the classroom is just a step on a prototyping path? What might the ultimate destination look like? Or at least another step, or steps, further down the path…

  • More self-curated learning for students: I think the lectures and videos assigned to students to watch at home are examples of “curated learning.” School people paying attention to the transitions in education understand that school used to be the fundamental repository of knowledge and information for young people. School, in the physical sense, is no longer such a monopoly holder. People have far greater access to information, now, so we are moving our curated learning from the classrooms into greater alignment with other means with which people obtain their self-curated information. This seems a logical step. I think Khan is such curation. I think TED is such curation. I think Chicago Ideas Week videos and the Do Lectures videos are such curation. Podcasts and iTunes U are such curation. But when are we going to trust young learners to curate their own instruction and learning, based on their passions, project-pursuits, and personal interests? I’m not sure yet that I think we should move entirely to such self-curation, largely because I think scaffolding, coaching, and advice from expert curators are important, too. But I believe we are out of balance – I think we need to trust students more to read what they want to read, to watch what they want to watch, to discover what they find curious. [And I know the cynics will jump quickly to the worst-case scenarios, but that kind of thinking paralyzes the majority because of the “sins” of a small number of explorers. And for those we can offer great adult sherpas and mentors, right?!]
  • A reclaiming of the home and a different model for a school year: While I may not align perfectly with Alfie Kohn, I do think he makes some excellent points about homework. I believe that flipping the classroom – curating video lectures for students to watch at home – assumes to a great degree that the school day is not enough time in 24 hours for students to learn. So school “invades” the home. Yet, there are things that I desire for my sons to learn that aren’t necessary assigned from a school teacher. I want my boys to play in the neighborhood, to romp in the creek, to throw the ball for the dog, to read a book of their choice, to draw a picture, to eat a longer dinner with my wife and me, to sit and do nothing but talk and visit. I am finding that each year of school brings far fewer minutes for these invaluable lessons. Homework gets in the way much of the time. And I cannot make it all up – all that “lost ground” – on the weekends. Like most things – eating, exercising, etc., – we are better off engaging some each and every day…not cramming more in later. And I want my boys to sleep. Whatever happened to the 8-8-8 thinking? Eight hours to work, eight hours to recreate with family, and eight hours to sleep. [And I don’t mean a rigid conforming to such a formula – just a model for better balance.] If we think “school” is essential for more hours of the day – enough to send homework or flipped, curated lectures home – then why don’t we lengthen the school year and separate ourselves from the agricultural framework of the school year? It’s just a question! I am a huge lover of camp, summer break, trips to the beach, etc. Those do not have to go away or perish with a 200 or 220 or 250 day school year. When people react so negatively to that suggestion, I think it is largely because they have only one movie in their mind about what “school” could be. But school could be so much more…ironically by being so much less.
  • I’ve run out of time on my “process post” guidelines that I set for myself (self-curated and respectful of other things I need to do), but I was going to write a really awesome paragraph here about the real-life, project-based, integrated system that the school day could be. But you who read here have read a lot of that from me already. If the school day were more compelling, more engaging, and more immersive…then students would choose to self-curate their learning at home, or they would take a much needed break and enjoy a balance of time with friends and family, pursuing equally important learning.

A piece of “what:” pedagogy

Posted on by
2

46. At the heart of pedagogy

When we think about the role of school, we have to take a minute to understand that we backed into this corner; we didn’t head here with intent.

A hundred and fifty years ago, 1 percent of the population went to the academy. They studied for studying’s sake. They did philosophy and mathematics and basic science, all as a way to understand the universe.

The rest of the world didn’t go to school. You learned something from your parents, perhaps, or if you were rich, from a tutor. But blacksmiths and stable boys and barbers didn’t sit in elegant one-room schoolhouses paid for by taxpay- ers, because there weren’t any.

After the invention of public school, of course, this all changed. The 1 percent still went to school to learn about the universe.

And 99 percent of the population went to school because they were ordered to go to school. And school was about basic writing (so you could do your job), reading (so you could do your job), and arithmetic (so you could do your job).

For a generation, that’s what school did. It was a direct and focused finishing school for pre-industrial kids.

Then, as often happens to institutions, mission creep sunk in. As long as we’re teaching something, the thinking went, let’s teach something. And so schools added all manner of material from the academy. We taught higher math or physics or chemistry or Shakespeare or Latin—not because it would help you with your job, but because learning stuff was important.

Public school shifted gears—it took the academy to the masses.

I want to be very clear here: I wouldn’t want to live in an uneducated world. I truly believe that education makes humans great, elevates our culture and our economy, and creates the foundation for the engine that drives science which leads to our well being. I’m not criticizing education.

No. But I am wondering when we decided that the purpose of school was to cram as much data/trivia/fact into every student as we possibly could.

Because that’s what we’re doing. We’re not only avoiding issues of practicality and projects and hands-on use of information; we’re also aggressively testing for trivia.

Which of society’s goals are we satisfying when we spend 80 percent of the school day drilling and bullying to get kids to momentarily swallow and then regurgitate this month’s agenda?

(from Seth Godin’s “Stop Stealing Dreams.” Read more of the thought-provoker/action-provoker here.)

[“A piece of ‘why,'” A piece of ‘what,'” and A piece of ‘how'” are strands of a series on why school needs to change, what about school needs to change, and how schools might navigate the change.]

A piece of “what:” map making, problem finding, messy searching

Posted on by
3

Rebecca Chapman, literary editor of a new online journal called The New Inquiry, was quoted in the New York Times. “My whole life, I had been doing everything everybody told me. I went to the right school. I got really good grades. I got all the internships. Then, I couldn’t do anything.”

The only surprising thing about this statement is that some consider it surprising.

Rebecca trained to be competent, excelling at completing the tasks set in front of her. She spent more than sixteen years at the top of the system, at the best schools, with the best resources, doing what she was told to do. [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, no one is willing to pay her to do tasks. Without a defined agenda, it’s difficult for her to find the gig she was trained for.

[Then, later…] Education isn’t a problem until it serves as a buffer from the world and a refuge from the risk of failure.

(from section 35, pages 53-54, of Seth Godin’s “Stop Stealing Dreams.” Read the entire section and manifesto here.)

In my jobs as teacher, school administrator, husband, father, educational innovator, etc., I am having to search and discover what needs to be addressed, celebrated, ceased and desisted, opened, studied, innovated, reiteratively prototyped, and enhanced. No one is digesting the messiness for me and handing me well-crafted assignments to complete. While I was in formal school, I think the tasks given to me and the work assigned to me taught me invaluable lessons that I would not trade for the world. I am eternally grateful to my school teachers. But my life has also been filled with the need to make maps, not just read them. I have found it essential that I find problems, not just solve the ones given me. I have needed to search through mess and muck to explore possibilities, connections, relationships, and opportunities. I don’t think I learned these things enough in my formal schooling. Why shouldn’t we incorporate more of this set of modalities into school? Why can’t we create and design more balance into the system of well-defined problems and ready-made assignments?

As the school year begins, are you…

  • Letting students wander in search of their own questions and curiosities, or just directing them to the ones you’ve already defined?
  • Designing space and time for map making, or just promoting and teaching map following?
  • Getting off to the side while students find problems that they think need solving, or just having them solve problems with answers that can be found in the back of a textbook?
  • Making room for students to explore what various real-life work feels like, smells like, tastes like, and sounds like…or just handing them the packages of industrial-age school?

[“A piece of ‘why,'” A piece of ‘what,'” and A piece of ‘how'” are strands of a series on why school needs to change, what about school needs to change, and how schools might navigate the change.]