Opinions vs. Facts- Use Your Words Wisely

flickr CC image via Gabi Agu

When primary school teachers are working with kids who have trouble expressing themselves verbally, they often direct them to "use their words." Some kids just have difficulty vocalizing what they're feeling, and I'm not sure simply telling then to use their words helps. Perhaps posing questions like "are you trying to say that...", and then modeling an answer for them to restate would be a better strategy. Sometimes I feel like I should be using this strategy to help my colleagues appropriately say what they want to say.

I have said that silence can do many things; so can words. Two fatal mistakes teachers make when discussing any of the infinite issues we seem to want to perpetually discuss (sometimes at the expense of simply looking for a solution,) is to state opinions as facts, and so-called facts as absolute truth. What we say can be very damaging to our professionalism, our image and the amount of respect we receive from those we serve.

Of course the tendency to confuse facts and opinions is not limited to teachers, but it's particularly damaging to teachers. We don't enjoy a tremendous amount of respect as a profession, and when we spout off without any context, knowledge or experience to back up our position, we look very unprofessional. In another context, the realm of education is constantly changing, (not quickly enough for some) and if teachers aren't speaking about this change in an engaging, professional and solution-focused manner, we also look foolish. How can we adjust our tendencies when we speak about what we do to more accurately reflect what we want to say and how we need to say it?

Three simple words can do wonders for us... "in my opinion." When discussing pedagogical issues with colleagues, and even more importantly with those outside our profession, it would behoove teachers to qualify their subjective statements with these three words. As simple as it sounds, it's very unproductive to argue opinions as they often originate from emotional thoughts, and as such are difficult if not impossible to change, so why even try? Opinions, although varied, do not have to be agreed upon to move an issue forward. I have suggested that 'hybrid thinking' is an appropriate and effective strategy to achieve this purpose.  In another post about hybrid thinking, I said that,

the integrative mind understands that within the current change climate we find ourselves immersed in, our viability as a global society will depend on a synthesis of ideas that should not be considered dichotomous, but rather complementary to one another. In the context of supporting effective child development, this form of hybrid thinking will ensure that we don't miss the boat on any developing idea's potential.

The essence of this form of interaction is to let go of dichotomous and conflicting positions during debate, and instead look to the opposing side for positions you can live with, and that may synchronize with your ideas in some manner or form.  It works.

The flip side of stating opinions directly and clearly so there's no confusion, is to state facts with authority and confidence that they can be verified and supported with proof. Citing sound scientific research behind the fact, or using anecdotal, qualitative data to support your facts are professional practices that some of us fail to emphasize when stating so-called facts. Of course, all research is open to academic scrutiny, but that's OK... this academic environment of formal debate around quantitative and qualitative measures is very professional, and teachers need to put themselves in this environment. There are far too many unchallenged practices out there in teacher land, and we suffer from this pseudo-professional tendency to latch on to the 'latest and greatest' educational trends just because a politician, publisher or creator of educational resources says they are effective. We must stop doing this, and line our purpose with a larger degree of scrutiny surrounding our pedagogy.

So, state opinions as such to avoid pointless conflict, and when you know what you know because you've done your homework through research and qualitative efforts, don't be shy to state facts either. Teachers are the most well-positioned to tip education reform, and to keep tipping it on the cutting edge of progress... but we need to responsibly look, feel and sound the part.

Why not teaching schools for teachers?

clickr CC image via foxypar4

Doctors receive real-time training and support from their profession during their internship. This process is generally recognized as an automatic and routine element of physician training. Teachers, on the other hand, if they are lucky, only get a few weeks of practicum experience during their pre-service training, and they don't receive any tangible on -the-job training at all. If internships are good for doctors, whey wouldn't they be good for teachers?

Teacher training doesn't appear to be keeping up with things. The training pre-service teachers receive in university has been under scrutiny at least since I was an undergrad, and things don't seem to be improving. Unbelievably, like I was required to take a course learning how to laminate things and use a photocopier while I was in university, today pre-service teachers are required to take classes learning how to use digital technology in the classroom. It's ironic that teachers in the field are starting to understand that teaching about technology is ineffective when compared to using technology to teach, and the newest teachers among us aren't getting this message in their own training. They should be using 21st Century technology as a tool in their learning. This is just one example of the unimaginative and static hoop-jumping pre-service teachers are required to participate in.

To improve the situation, I believe it would make a bunch of sense for teachers to continue their practicum work during their pre-service training, but to also be expected to work under a mentor for a period of time after graduating from teacher college in what I would call a teaching school. Teaching schools would employ intern teachers just like teaching hospitals employ intern doctors. I see great possibilities to get new teachers into schools where they can begin to ply their craft as apprentices without the high levels of stress and anxiety new teachers routinely describe as they are thrown to the wolves in their first years. I also see great possibilities to connect in more meaningful ways the work that is done preparing teachers in pre-service training, and the real-time, action research-based work that is done in the field. There is such a chasm between the theory teachers learn in college, and the practical use of these theories in the field. We need to bridge that gap.

Doctors intern, lawyers article and even engineers participate in a mentorship of sorts before receiving their final accreditation from their professional governing body. It's time for teachers to do the same if we intend to raise our stake on the professional landscape. A collaborative, three-way partnership between government departments of education, teacher preparation institutions and school boards makes sense to me if we are truly interested in establishing a holistic and effective framework for teacher training and accreditation.

Is there a wrong reason to teach?

flickr CC image via denise carbonell

I have heard the phrase "teaching for the wrong reasons" enough times now that it's become annoying to me. It has become common for teachers who intend to criticize their peers to use this statement. Please tell me, what are the wrong reasons to be an educator?

During a recent Twitter dialog I was involved in, I heard someone used this phrase once again, and I challenged her to define what she meant by that. She cited a flexible schedule, low intrusion by management, time off when kids are off and teacher independence as "wrong reasons"... seriously. I had a tough time imagining any of these things as wrong. These are perks to be sure, but who in their right mind would become a teacher for any one or all of these reasons alone? Liking and appreciating these perks doesn't make  teachers bad people, it just proves they are human. I also found it contradictory that I often hear teachers talk about too much control over what we do, and this person was listing low intrusion by management and independence as wrong reasons to teach.

Now, of course there are those who may read this and counter with an assertion that there are individuals who don't have kids' best interests as a priority, and that some of them may become teachers. What exactly would be the draw though, if in fact these people didn't really care for the kids in their care? It's certainly not the money, and although teachers are generally well-provided for in the health care and pension departments, we aren't that far ahead of any other vocation that someone would hate kids and still become a teacher just to get these benefits. Notwithstanding the cohort of sociopaths that seem to find their way into every profession and vocation, I find it very difficult to believe that a teacher would knowingly hurt kids.

We speak out of both sides of our mouths when we say that marginalized students need extra support and remediation, but also that marginalized teachers should be fired. "Bad" teaching often results from bad teacher preparation, and I could go on forever about that, (another post for another time.) Undergraduate teacher training is still locked in Second Way (see page 8 of the Google preview at this link) philosophy. The teacher preparation process needs new thinkers, new ideas and strong candidates in order to improve this situation. A paradigm shift to Fourth Way thinking is required... good teaching will require support, coaching and care from those established teacher leaders that feel passion for what they do, and are connected directly to the teaching and learning process in schools; not tenuously at a distance as some tenured education professors seem to be. The teacher preparation process needs tacit leaders who can connect pre-service teachers to the grassroots reasons teachers do what they do, and provide some teflon from the negativity that some among us appear to want to perpetuate without explanation.

I invite you to consider something about the negative teacher in a similar fashion to the way you may consider the negative student. In their book The Art of Possibility, Rosamund Stone-Zander and Ben Zander discuss the strategy of giving people an 'A.' Giving people an 'A' is all about seeing the vulnerable person behind the perceived problem, and looking for the latent positive elements that person brings to the table. I really like this concept. They also speak about the virtue of seeing negative people as those who are truly passionate by nature, but have just been disappointed or unsupported too many times. Taking these perspectives allows us an opportunity to re-frame problem teachers as simply vulnerable, faltering colleagues that desperately need our support as opposed to our judgement.

I also invite anyone who actually believes there is a "wrong" reason to get into teaching, to let me know what that reason would be.

Aim for moving targets...

 flickr CC image via johntrainor

When I coach lacrosse I'm always telling players that standing still is not good. In lacrosse, as in many other sports, a player wants to be where they think the ball will go before it gets there. Good players understand that 99% of the game is played away from the ball. I believe this principle also applies to teaching; 99% of teaching happens away from the target.

I love this quote...

An understanding heart is everything in a teacher, and cannot be esteemed highly enough. One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those who touched our human feeling. The curriculum is so much necessary raw material, but warmth is the vital element for the growing plant and for the soul of the child. - Carl Jung

In the context of this post, I draw your attention to the part about curriculum... The curriculum is so much necessary raw material... to illuminate my point. Referring to the curriculum as 'raw material' is interesting. The term 'raw material' conjures up images of unrefined, unsophisticated parts that make up a whole when put together in some meaningful and deliberate way. To me, curricula as raw material  means we should consider it as the ingredients required to create a refined and marketable final product (our target); well-rounded and articulate students who are prepared for life's challenges.

The problem with this analogy is we can't ever really know what our target should look like. Every student is different... There are infinite possibilities for each individual child we teach to become so many things. How can we know what our students will become? Perhaps we shouldn't even try. What if we stopped defining the answers first (curriculum), and started with questions instead without a defined target? Certainly we need a base of principles that we would frame our questions around, but once this reconstituted base (a critically analyzed and paired down set of curricula that forms a foundation for our questions) is established, the limits of our learning are bound only by ourselves... learning should be a moving target.

In education, moving curricular targets should be like the moving ball in a game of lacrosse. Without limiting our students to a rigidly defined set of curriculum, we should be throwing that ball where we think the student needs to be, and the student should be taught how to be where the ball is going to be; to have instinct for learning. It's time for this. It's time for kids to become partners in their own learning as opposed to recipients of a predetermined list of static outcomes.

Students are moving targets. There's no room for static learning anymore in education. Teachers need to learn how to hit these moving targets. Don't let students stand still. As soon as they've caught the metaphoric ball, start thinking about where you're going to pass it next and get them moving there... inquiry-based learning requires questions before it can determine answers.

Start warming up.

Drug and tech companies... too much influence?

flickr CC image via shipbrook

As drug companies influence medicine, is there a concern among educators that tech companies will become too influential in education?

In a market driven economy, I am of the opinion that sometimes wrong actions take place because they haven't been thoroughly and systematically reviewed beforehand. The Vioxx controversy comes to mind. The massive scale prescription of Vioxx proved to be damaging to our collective health to be sure.

The tech world operates in a market economy too. I wonder if we are occasionally sold a bill of goods in the "latest and greatest" tech tool that will advance our teaching practise and our student's abilities. As I write this, I'm actually wondering as far as software goes, why we're being sold anything tech oriented with all the open-source software out there for the taking. To further that idea in the context of education, can we be far away from open-source hardware? I see possibility in big hardware companies taking advantage of the availability of the recycled tech hardware that Moore's Law creates, refurbishing it, and giving it to educational institutions for free under the provision that a partnership is established to help develop software and uses for the hardware that the partner company has a vested interest in.

All I'm trying to say is, in our vigor to remain on top of Moore's Law in providing the most advanced tech integration possible in our schools, are we forgetting in our haste that just because something is "new," that it doesn't automatically mean it is pedagogically good for us or our students?

Homework shouldn't be assigned, it should be inspired!

flickr CC image via ultrakickgirl

My good buddy and colleague, Joe Bower, is a passionate and intelligent person. I just finished reading his last post at his education blog, 'For the Love of Learning'. In The Destructive Forces of Homework, Joe states that,

If we are to walk the talk of life-long learning, we must care how kids feel about their learning. If ever there was a consensus among people, it could be found among kids and their hatred for homework. So if we truly care about students' attitudes towards learning, and we are doing something that is sabotaging that attitude to go on learning, then we have a professional obligation to stop.

OK Joe, I'm going to challenge you on this statement... I totally agree with your first point, "if we are to walk the talk of life-long learning, we must care how kids feel about their learning." This point is inarguable. Perspective is the key to motivation. I would also agree that there is a wide-spread (almost cliche) negative perspective toward homework among the student set, but I ask myself why this is. Do students hate homework, or do they hate what we call homework? I submit the latter is more true.

We need to contextualize homework. If students love what they do in school so much that they want to continue to do it at home, can we not call that homework? The logic you suppose is based on your position that homework is inherently bad, and therefore "sabotaging" student's attitudes to go on learning. I can't necessarily agree. If teachers are engaging students in meaningful and authentic ways at school, and that learning continues at home, (a good thing in my opinion,) I don't think my definition of homework sabotages anything; I actually believe it would enhance learning.

After reading some of the comments on your post, and considering the litany of comments in various teacher circles related to the homework debate, I must say that teachers have done an incredible disservice to the topic of homework in general. True life-long learning as an attitude is something that we should embrace to be sure, but I can't see how that can perpetuate if we are saying learning is defined in such narrow parameters as whether homework is either good, or bad. I cringe when I consider that homework as most people define it, (unfinished work, worksheets for drill or memorization of facts,) is really just more of what already happened in school on any given day, and if we're saying homework is inherently bad, what are we saying about school?

I would like to pose the challenge that homework doesn't have to be absolutely bad. It doesn't even necessarily have to be done as an "assignment" that everyone is expected to do, and that those who don't are somehow punished for as a result. For example, if I asked my class to go home with some basic instructions on how to build a cell battery out of some paper towels, pennies, copper wire, tape and salt water, and the majority of them actually do it, (not because it was for marks, or because I said they had to,) and then brought their excitement and batteries back to class the next day wanting to show the kids who didn't build one, for whatever reason, how they worked, I'm going to say this is a good learning situation, (a true story from my class this past week.) This is also a process I would call homework that certainly doesn't damage attitudes toward learning, but rather improves them.

We don't have a professional obligation to stop sending homework; we have a professional obligation to start sending homework that is meaningful to students, applied to the exciting teaching and learning going on in our schools and that students will do because they want to, not because they have to.

Occam's Razor- The Simplest Path to Education Reform

flickr CC image via Andesine

Occam's Razor, otherwise known as 'lex parsimoniae' (the Law of Succinctness) is one of my favorite guiding principles. There is a great deal to be learned from applying Occam's Razor, and I think the process of education reform could use a healthy dose of this principle.

According to Wikipedia, the principle of Occam's Razor is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. We don't tend to lean toward principles like Occam's Razor in education, especially under Third Way structures that have dominated the teaching profession for the last number of years. As a result of the seemingly perpetual top-down quest for higher student achievement, teachers have been spooked, and for good reason. This past February, the entire school staff at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island, USA was fired as a result of low student achievement. We have become so engrossed as an institution with externally-applied standards of education, that any regard for decentralized autonomy and customization of teaching and learning to suit local needs has simply disappeared. Government education departments have become so intently focused on standardizing the education system using high-stakes testing processes and statistical analysis that they don't even seem to be aware of the infinite alternatives to the game of natural selection they think they're playing.

This post is about getting back to a routine in education that observes a localized need for learning; one that makes adjustments in real-time according to that need, and that understands there is more than one way to climb a mountain. Every school is different. Even schools from within the same school district have identifiable characteristics that set them apart from all the others. If you don't believe me, ask a substitute teacher who regularly works in different schools within the same district how they feel about their time in the different schools they teach within. It's remarkable how varied their descriptions will be, even between schools that are mere blocks away from each other in the same neighborhood. Every school has its own culture; it's own identity as defined by the unique individual teachers and students that spend their time there. This reality does not appear to favor a unilateral approach to the management of learning that is so prevalent in contemporary education.

So what is the alternative? I would argue there is more than one alternative; in fact there is no end to the alternatives. Do we need standards in education? Yes. One would be ignorant to assert otherwise. Here's where Occam's Razor comes in. Our tendency to multiply entities beyond necessity has been drummed into us in our never-ending quest to find the latest and greatest strategy that will raise those all-important test scores. We have completely forgotten that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. "Less is more, less is more"... we need to drum this into our heads until it resonates louder than the current more is more perspective that so many teachers subscribe to.

I envision a curriculum that removes all overflow and gets down to the critical, timeless and core elements of knowledge within each subject area. Once grounded in this core pedagogy, let's let the teachers adjust and customize their instruction to fit the group they're teaching at any given time... that's what they are trained to do, and I would argue strongly that it's also what puts the passion back into their purpose.

Let's remove subjects like music, art, health (and any other that is currently set aside as a supplemental class) and immerse these fine art elements into everything kids do in school. Why can't a music specialist teach alongside the classroom teacher providing musical expertise during math (can you think of a more natural way to add interest and fun to math class?) or social studies or language class? I have never understood why these subject areas are taught in isolation- it's an unnatural multiplication of entity beyond necessity.

Let's understand that to kids, life is simple. Kids just are. They experience everything in such visceral ways, and we take that away from them in school. So many teachers (perhaps adults in general) have become so wound up in the official world that we've lost our ability to see the real world through child's eyes... the world that should be amplified in schools through any means possible, and there are so many possibilities. Let's stop paying lip service to "meeting kids where they're at" and actually meet them where they're at; this wonderful place where everything is new and spectacular and worth looking at for hours as long as no adult comes by to hurry them along. Let's try to remember that, in the immortal words of Henry David Thoreau, "all change is a miracle to contemplate; but it is a miracle which is taking place every second." These words encapsulate perfectly the perspective of a child... the one that believes a miracle takes place every second, and I think, learning in general as perpetual inquiry and discovery.

Let's use technology as a value-added element of education, and not just for the sake of learning how to use technology. I'm of the opinion that technology should be omnipresent in our schools, not as an alternative to more traditional learning tools, but as a supplement to them. There will always be a mystique attached to reading a good old-fashioned book, and there will always be excitement created when kids build stuff in three dimensions using their hands and whatever can be found... but if we can show kids that e-readers and 3D digital representations are cool too, all the better.

Let's understand that teachers know best regarding where their students academic abilities and challenges lie. Given this understanding, it makes sense that assessment should be based on this insight. Teachers would appreciate more latitude to exercise the creative ways they know how to use formative assessment practices designed to develop understanding of those core curriculum principles I was referring to earlier. If we want our students to display an inquisitive and creative perspective, then we critically need opportunities to model that for them. We need to practice what we preach regarding our style of instruction and assessment to reflect a culture of inquiry and discovery for both teachers and students in our schools.

There are so many ways we can change to make education better; these suggestions are but a few. I've got ears for anyone, anytime who wants to add to this list. The only rule is that whatever the idea, it has to be seeded in the philosophy that less is more, and that the simplest and quickest path to wonderment in education is always the best. Once you set off on this path, the kids will take it from there.

Calling All Experts- What is Authentic Learning?

flickr CC image via mzagor

Learning should be an organic, concentric process, not a linear one. The world surrounds us; it's not a point to point path. However, our education system is set up as a from here to there journey- not a great reflection of the broader world we are a part of. Enter authentic learning.

There is a debate brewing over what authentic learning looks, sounds and feels like, I just know it. I'm hearing people make reference to the term, but I'm not sure if people know what it means. I'm not even sure if I know what it means. I have my point of view on the concept, but I haven't actually heard a definitive explanation. Sad it would be if the potential value of what authentic learning has to offer kids were to be diminished as a result of teachers bantering the term about without actually creating authentic learning in their classrooms. (Reminds me of what's happened with PLC's. Alarmingly, many teachers claim to be involved within a professional learning community, but they have no idea what Richard DuFour intended that to actually mean... I know because I've asked them.)

So what is an authentic learning environment? Here's some examples of what I think an authentic learning environment might look, sound or feel like:

• Kids who go home at the end of the day and do homework that I didn't assign, but that is totally related to what we did in class that day
• Unit and lesson plans that adjust for the unforeseen possibilities that crop up in an organic learning environment (a.k.a. teachers who aren't slaves to their well-thought out plans for instruction; those that think on their feet)
• Evaluation and assessment practices that reflect student's progress against his/her personal goals and aspirations, and that are relative to where the student jumped off at the beginning of the learning journey
• Learning activities that provide multiple formats and opportunities to display learning
• Learning that stimulates all modalities; that draws the whole person into the process... there's more to learning than just what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears
• Learning in three dimensions (can you say paperless teaching?)
• Kids suggesting what we should do next in whatever class to extend the learning objective we just met
• Parents knowing what their kids are doing at school because the kids are so darned excited that they can't wait to tell them every day
• Teaching and learning that understands we are emotional beings; that we need to reach people on personal levels before we can reach them on cognitive levels (and that by doing so, we can go so much further in the cognitive domain)
• Teaching that exploits all degrees and variations of student strengths without apology with the understanding that there is no limit to what can be learned
• Teaching from a perspective that doesn't recognize or validate failure, only relative degrees of success
• Teaching that utilizes various forms of technology as critical tools toward creating authentic learning when the lived experience isn't possible (field trip to the moon)
• Teaching and learning that incorporates the fine arts and physical movement into all learning activities as opposed to the traditional practise of conducting classes for these as separate 'subjects'
• Teaching and learning that incorporates the issues, challenges, contexts and mysteries that the broader world provides
• Teaching and learning that perceives mistakes as critical and valuable elements within the process of searching for understanding
• Teaching and learning that accepts the connectivity we enjoy in our global environment not as a novelty, but a necessity
• Teaching and learning that exudes creativity and takes risks understanding that the two mixed together equal opportunity 

OK you experts, how am I doing? I swear I have not looked up authentic learning on Wikipedia, nor have I done research anywhere else on the topic whatsoever. I'm just throwing this out there hoping I'm close to the mark because I sure like the thought of teaching in a class that looks, sounds and feels like what I describe.

Drive Through PD

flickr CC image via Robert Couse-Baker

Saying one-shot teacher professional development is a valuable and effective tool toward positive teacher growth is like saying drive through restaurants contribute to long-term health. Serious involvement and meaningful change take time and commitment, neither of which are elements of our profession's most popular form of professional development.

We need to seriously re-think how we do professional development for teachers. There is a pervasive tendency within our profession to add-on to an endless stream of the "latest and greatest" ideas pertaining to teacher growth and the provision of high-quality learning environments. We attend school, district and large (sometimes massive) scale professional development events, for the most part organized around a list of one to three hours sessions discussing (if you're lucky; if not you just sit and listen while a stream of Power Point slides flashes in front of you) virtually everything. There has to be a better way.

It seems to me that it's so easy to "add-on"... teachers are always looking for the latest trend, topic, resource, perspective, etc. to save them from the challenges they face in the classroom. The pendulum swings back and forth as we jump on, and off the bandwagon trail of teaching philosophies and "best practise" trends. I read dozens of comments via Twitter arriving in real time from the recent Association for Supervision and Curiculum Development Conference in San Antonio this past weekend mentioning the overwhelming volume of not-to-be-missed PD offered to delegates. People were saying things like, "I can't wait to put these ideas to good use," or "there's so much going on here, I don't know where to start." I'm not sure these comments are as encouraging as they first seem relative to the provision of authentic and sustainable professional development for teachers.

I must admit, as a presenter, I'm guilty of providing this drive-by style of teacher professional development. When I get my invitation to speak, the parameters regarding the room I'm assigned, the conference schedule, duration of my allotted time and the target audience are all elements that I have no control over. I simply do what fits, and strive to make the content engaging and provocative enough to make sure the participants in my session have a good experience. I try to do things outside the box as much as possible... I tell participants to leave their phones on, and feel free to use them (immediatley after the moderator asks them to please turn them off)... I insert as many interactive possibilities into my presentation as time allows (I have yet to leave a session I presented without having learned something from the session group)... and I try to present thoughts as opposed to knowledge.

Above all though, the most important point I need my session participants to understand is that I don't believe in the use it on Monday approach to teacher PD. There is nothing I can share with my colleagues in one, two or even three hours that has the capacity to change their immediate plans for their classroom. On the contrary, my goal as a PD facilitator is to plant a coneptual or philosophical seed that I encourage participants to continue exploring, and if it resonates with them, great... if not, that's OK too. I usually do alright with this approach; participants often tell me they're appreciative of the provocation.

I don't want to contribute to the never-ending supply of latest and greatest trends about how to do education better; I'm more of an ideas guy. I want to boil contemporary ideas about how to do education better down with the authentic, grassroots and timeless pedagogical ideologies we teachers prescribe to (but sometimes forget about amidst the fervor to find the latest and greatest) so old meets new in a thoughtful and critical manner. Why can't our conferences reflect this concept? Perhaps they can.

Any ideas?

Hope Without Action is Just Wishful Thinking...

flickr CC image via emilydickinsonridesabmx

I first heard about Geoffrey Canada by reading a book called "Hope: How Triumphant Leaders Create the Future," by Andrew Razeghi. 

Since 1990 Canada has been president and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone in Harlem, New York, an organization whose goal is to increase high school and college graduation rates among students in Harlem. His story is a remarkable example of the can-do attitude I believe is required to reform education, not as an end to a means, but rather a perpetual process that should never cease to evolve. I've been following Canada's speaking session at the ASCD 10 Conference in real-time via my Twitter friends (how amazing it is that real-time tweeting allows me this privilege!) and just as they did when I read Razeghi's book, his comments are resonating with me.

I designed a recent post I wrote (Why Is It Always About the Funding?) to ask the question of why reforming education seems to always come down to economics. The goal of the post is to solicit ideas from educators detailing how they believe we can improve education for free. At ASCD, Canada made this statement, "When it comes down to saving kids, we get tripped up by things like money, but we should have a plan for that." Indeed we should. I'm not so naive to believe that the education system can operate for free, but I am also of the opinion that much of the more meaningful actions we can take to reform education would cost nothing at all.

Canada also stated at the conference that, and I paraphrase, "the American education system is the equivalent of reaction to Hurricane Katrina; people waiting for a plan. We are the plan." Right on Geoffrey! I admire Canada's pragmatic approach to education reform, and I believe teachers make up a massive segment of the "we" he's referring to. I also believe he would define this plan as one connoting action. In Andrew Razeghi's book about hope, he contextualizes it as an action word. Did he ever get it right when he chose Geoffrey Canada as an example of this paradigm? It's time for teachers to adopt the same perspective and stop waiting for someone else's plan. We are the plan, and I assert that the best ideas to take action on within our plan cost nothing at all.

I'm getting some early feedback on this idea. Adam Burk, (@pushingupward) appears to agree. He responded to my blog post by saying "a positive school culture is created by positive attitudes. And last time I checked those were available for free." Amen to that! I've also received some great comments pertaining to the replacement of traditional forms in schools (i.e. paper textbooks to free online texts & paperless 1 to 1 teaching) as technology integration cost-saving measures. The ideas are out there, we simply need to share them. Teachers know how to reform education, and I think they also know that the education reform plan we personify is really a process as opposed to a plan, and one that can never stop.

Learning should be an organic, concentric process, not a linear one. The world surrounds us; it's not a point to point path, however, our education system is set up as a 'from here to there' journey- not a great reflection of what I will call natural learning. Teachers need to reflect on this concept, question their acceptance of the status quo inherent in some of the less-effective forms of traditional teaching and learning and stop waiting for someone else to tell them what to do.

Teachers- think, create, tweet, evolve, share, apply, synthesize... join a developing movement that doesn't even accept that there is an end to the means of education reform.

It's high time we adjust our attitudes toward how we do what we do, and begin taking our rightful place as perpetual pedagogical innovators.

Comments?

There's always another way...

I've been speaking with loads of people about education reform lately.

The topic of reforming education in North America is a popular one. Everyone's talking about education reform... in politics, economics, the social sciences, fine arts, health and wellness, science/technology, and doubtless other areas as well. I'm left wondering, no matter where education reform ends up, who's going to lead the change?

I'm reading The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change, by Andy Hargreaves and Dennis L. Shirley. The authors begin chapter one by stating,

We are entering an age of post-standardization in education. It may not look, smell or feel like it, but the augers of the new age have already arrived and are advancing with increasing speed.

I'm not finished with the book, but it appears to me that Hargreaves and Shirley have presented an excellent call-out to anyone concerned with the state of education, and who wants to be part of the process. Halfway through I'm thinking this is a book that every teacher should be reading, not just in North America, but throughout the world. Sustainable change results from bottom-up, grassroots tipping of ideas. Who better than teachers, hundreds of thousands of them, to lead the move into this post-standardization age in education? In order to do this well, teachers will need to get re-acquainted with the core beliefs and guiding principles that they've been suppressing for so long amidst the standardized system many have spent their entire careers working within.

Everyone, including me as a teacher and parent, has an opinion regarding why education needs to be reformed, and how it should be done. Teachers are embroiled in the debate to be sure, and it's disconcerting for many who have become so used to being led in transactional ways. There's no shortage of groupthink occurring within the education reform debate, and once a little dichotomous or dualistic thinking is mixed in... voila, we have a full-fledged battle on our hands. Teachers everywhere are looking for a side to belong to. What is particularly troublesome for me though, is not what's included in these conversations, but what's missing. There are so many agendas being promoted as part of the massive education reform debate, that it appears to me teachers have lost their foundational voice; the personal belief system that should be guiding them is missing in action.

As society enters a new age in education, teachers should be playing a paramount leadership role in the process. In order to do this effectively, they will have to think hard about what it is that inspired them to become a teacher in the first place, and how their preferred future in education might align with these long-lost values and ideologies. To this end, I thought I'd do my small part as an educator and espouse some of my personal beliefs about teaching and learning. I'm going to choose some of my more passionate beliefs and post them here over the next few weeks. I'm going to do this because I believe in public education, and I believe that teachers, as the most critical cogs in the machine, have very important voices to express in moving what we do to the next level. Perhaps my effort will resonate with other teachers and encourage them to express their voices as well, but if not, at least I've made my contribution.

Here goes... 

"I believe that effective education is about people, always. We must reach people on personal levels to foster relevance in what they learn."

In the era of standardization in education, what Hargreaves and Shirley refer to as the Second Way, students, and teachers became resources in a game of high-stakes targeting of externally prescribed goals and benchmarks relative to the teaching and learning process. Somewhere in the fervor to meet these external standards, I think teachers lost some of their humanity. Curriculum standards, testing standards, professional development standards, accreditation standards... perhaps necessary elements to high-quality education, but when coordinating supports and resources aren't in place to help meet the standards, stress and anxiety result. Teachers have felt both stress and anxiety in massive doses for a long time, and this can't be good for the kids in their classes.

I have maintained my view that the most direct path to a well-adjusted student who has a passion for learning is to support the teacher working with that student professionally and personally. Well-adjusted, well-prepared, and hard-working teachers are built through systems support that ensure affordable access to professional development, curriculum development support, and sincere appreciation for the effort they make every day within challenging learning environments. We need to reach teachers on an emotional level in order that they can do the same for their students.

I'm fond of this quote...

“An understanding heart is everything in a teacher, and cannot be esteemed highly enough. One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those who touched our human feeling. The curriculum is so much necessary raw material, but warmth is the vital element for the growing plant and for the soul of the child.” - Carl Jung

Enough said. Stay tuned.

Personal Learning Stories

flickr CC image via Enokson

As a former special education teacher, I have had numerous opportunities to develop individual education plans (IEP) for students. Like many things special education teachers do for their students, I was left wondering why writing IEP's wouldn't be a good idea for every student. The process of developing a learner profile that addresses learning strengths and challenges, and then the setting of goals to address both seems quite logical, doesn't it? I believe that every student has a story, and I think of that story as containing three main components: the student's past; the student's present and the student's future. In a more specific context for me as the teacher, these components translate into the story I need to learn about (past), the story I need to help write (present) and the story with the happy ending (future).

As I continued to write, and re-write IEP's every year, I realized that an effective plan wasn't just one to guide learning. For me, IEP's took on a life of their own, and I began to think of them as organic and fluid; it was necessary for the IEP's to change and evolve as the students they were written for changed and evolved. I realized that the IEP was really just a story about where the student came from, where the student is 'right now' and lastly, where the student wants to be someday as a result of the learning effort he/she makes.

To effectively support students, I believe that in the context of this personalized learning approach, we have to begin at kindergarten and, pedagogically speaking, consider education as a 13 year learning story. Every student's story would begin with the IEP renamed as the 'Personal Learning Story' in Kindergarten, and this document would be passed on with the student all the way to graduation detailing challenges, goals and most importantly, successes achieved along the way. Consider the assessment possibilities that could be aligned with this form of tangible documentation... a world of possibilities providing much more insight into the individual student than a 13 year compilation of letter grades or percentile rankings.

Above all in education, the student must feel a sense of empowerment and control over his/her learning. We all write the best stories about ourselves; our experiences, thoughts, feeling, actions and words. Let's consider allowing kids to be the authors of their own learning- let's give them the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the process. The result will be a tangibly increased sense of authenticity in our classrooms, and a renewed sense of responsibility for learning on behalf of students.

The Brilliant Words of Prof. Herbert W. Vilakazi

flickr CC image via Dave_B_

Unifying values and practice in child and youth care programmes:

"The problems of children and of youth, giving rise to child and youth care programs, can only begin to be solved in that society of humankind’s dream; a more collective-oriented society than at present, when the father of the child shall be every man as old as the child’s father; when the mother of the child shall be every woman as old as the child’s mother; a society of responsibility of the entire community; a society without poverty; without the inequalities of society members, based upon race, class, or sex; a society without the use of violence against other members of society; a society without any exploitation and oppression of any group by any other group; a society of equals; a thoroughly democratic society; last, but not least a society that shall have, once more, incorporated productive labour into the educational process."

The notion that children are our future is undeniable. It is from the minds and souls of children that every future discovery, every idea, every solution and all hope will come. Herbert Vilakazi's opening address to the National Association of Child Care Workers 1991 Biennial Conference (http://tinyurl.com/yfxzdwn) in South Africa provides brilliant insight to how we need to think and act if we are to support today's children as our gifts to the future.

We cannot know where the next Beethoven, Einstein or Mother Teresa will come from. Great things are possible, and probable as human history has proven. Educators today need to support children's natural curiosity and spirit to learn in ways that don't stifle or restrict their potential to do these great things. The world we know is changing, and it always has, but not at the rate or in the manner we are witnessing today. Today, in the midst of what amounts to a perfect storm within the social, political, geographical, technological and economic realms of the new global society, transformational change is inevitable. To deny this would be ridiculous. To deny that we as citizens of the emerging global society must be proactive to ensure the transformation is managed effectively, and results in an improved society, would be even more ridiculous. 

Within his 1991 address, Professor Vilakazi touches on what I believe to be the key to managing the transformation of our world. With respect to the issue of caring for children he states that,

We are not further along, than peasant culture, in our knowledge of child psychology. What we should do, in our efforts to increase and improve our knowledge of child psychology, is not only to study what our specialists child psychologists have written, but also to go out to learn, and collect, and record, and collate carefully, the psychological and psychoanalytic theory of childhood contained in peasant cultures, and to integrate or synthesize the two. This applies to all spheres of knowledge.

I believe Vilakazi is saying that there is contemporary wisdom to be gained through modern scientific processes that will help us continue to learn and develop insight into how to maximize our support for children, but also that there exists timeless wisdom yet to be acknowledged by contemporaries about how caregivers have effectively supported children since the beginning of mankind. It is the integrative nature of combining the two spheres of wisdom that would allow us the largest capacity to package our 'gifts to the future' so the promises we intend them to offer will be fully realized.

Our human tendency to debate opposing ideologies without apology until one is accepted by a majority resulting in a "winning" idea or concept is counter-intuitive to progress. On the contrary, the integrative mind understands that within the current change climate we find ourselves immersed in, our viability as a global society will depend on a synthesis of ideas that should not be considered dichotomous, but rather complementary to one another. By taking two or more perspectives on effective and positive child development and combining their best elements into a synthesized hybrid of all of them, a new paradigm is born, and those who brought each perspective to the process no longer operate independently and in defense of their point of view, but rather interdependently in support of each other and the best possible course of action.

I believe that our children will be best prepared for the future when we as KARE-givers are able to move to an interdependent and proactive paradigm of child development that acknowledges and celebrates diverse thoughts and theories no matter where, and from what point in history they originate.