What's Become Clear

One of the projects that I’m actively involved in is the movement to incorporate entrepreneurship into schools, especially small, rural, declining enrollment schools. The group that I’m working with is very specific in their desire. They don’t want kids to learn about entrepreneurship, they want the students to practice the discipline of entrepreneurs.

I believe that you only learn when you’re doing. And in this case the doing that we want kids to do, is being entrepreneurs … Starting and running businesses.

This week I had the opportunity and the pleasure to visit with Kylie Stupka who is theExecutive Director of Youth Entrepreneurs Kansas, and Phoebe Bachura who is the Development Director. I was aware of Youth Entrepreneurs Kansas. I had looked over their website and read some of their literature. Both of which were very impressive.

But visiting with these two young ladies in person was beyond impressive. Their organization is doing exemplary work with students mostly in south central Kansas. My hope is that we can collaborate with Youth Entrepreneurs Kansas and find a way to scale their program across the state, but especially to rural schools.

One of the major issues we have in rural America is the shortage of jobs and businesses. If we can find those students across rural America who have a passion that can be applied in a local business, we can grow our own jobs. We’re never going to get businesses to move to rural Kansas in sufficient numbers to solve the problem. It’s imperative for the survival of rural America that we begin to grow our own jobs.

At the same time we can use entrepreneurship to authentically engage our students in their learning experiences. Students should be able to apply and master academic skills in the context of whatever it is they’re passionate about, and the businesses they start around those passions.

After all, if our academic standards can’t be applied in real world settings, why do we have them? This is school change that can not only benefit the students but our rural communities. Please take a minute and watch the video below, I think you’ll be fascinated and impressed. – Steve Wyckoff

The annual KSDE conference was held this past week and I was interested in some themes that seem to be emerging from the many conversations. You can decide which conversations were the good news, and which were the bad.

Conversation number one. As always I had the opportunity to talk to a great number of superintendents about this years enrollment. The trend started early, superintendents were telling me that their enrollment was up. I don’t know what the numbers are, yes this opinion is unburdened by data, but I quickly became aware of how many school districts reported that they had increased enrollment. If this trend holds it is definitely a reversal from recent years.

Conversation number two. Actually, this was the un conversation that I became aware of when I talk to Terrel Harrison from Colby. She told me that it had been a much more pleasant fall without the constant threat of imminent budget cuts. That’s when I realized I hadn’t had a single conversation about money.

Conversation number three. The new Deputy Commissioner appointed just the day before the conference started was on many peoples’ minds. Some were exuberant in their support, many reserved judgment. Concerns for those that had them seemed to center on the issue of his support for innovation and creativity in schools, or would his traditional paradigm stifle the innovators? This will be an issue worth watching since the goal of the state Board of Education is the redesign of the delivery model. It’s hard to redesign the delivery model without turning the creative and innovative people loose to experiment.

Conversation number four. Testing, testing, testing … Insanity!

Conversation number five. The recommendations starting to come out of the Kansas Education Commission. There seems to be large and growing support for project-based learning, or more generally learning by doing; focusing on authentic student engagement, not just test scores; and the tension that is growing between college ready, career ready, and more generally, life ready.

In my opinion the news was a mixed bag. Some good, some bad, some wait and see. I am still very concerned that the federal government is absolutely forcing us in the wrong direction, but there are more and more conversations about how to mitigate the damages done by ESEA. We have had 12 years and two administrations encouraging the wrong kind of school change.

I am encouraged that there are more and more conversations about doing what’s best for kids rather than what’s best for the federal government. Stay tuned. – Steve Wyckoff

Schools are evolving slowly. Too slowly. The rate of change in society is dramatically faster than the rate of change in schools. School change as it currently exists is losing ground on a daily basis. Our schools are already obsolete and getting more so every day.

As part of the Kansas Education Commission I am extremely concerned that the discussions are still focusing on how to get better at what we’ve always done. We are working extremely hard to improve a one size fits all, factory model system, that even if we reach our goals won’t be satisfactory.

I am utterly amazed at all of the conversations I have with educators who get this. Yet at the upper levels of policymaking and administration, we are still focusing on the past.

The problems are overwhelming. Where do you began? Our system functions under so many misconceptions, old traditions, and outdated policies that I honestly don’t know where to begin.

I once heard Tom Peters explained the best advice is father ever gave him, “Dammit Tom, do something!” Perhaps we should give that same advice to superintendents? I am amazed at how many superintendents are paralyzed by the fear of repercussions for any move they make. A well justified fear, but a paralyzing fear nonetheless.

I worry that we have killed the innovation and creativity among our kids. But we have done even more damage to the creativity and innovation within our system. Educators are terrified to make the kind of systemic change necessary to prepare our kids for the 21st century.

So in my opinion Tom, LET THE REVOLUTION BEGAN! It doesn’t really matter where you start, dammit, do something! – Steve Wyckoff

I couldn’t have said it better … NO REALLY! I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER! So I’m not going to try. Here is a post from my friend Deb Haneke’s blog. I will take credit for inspiring her to write this post because I placed the link to this video on our group page on Facebook, Rural Education and Community Development Collaboration. And credit Jerry Butler for sending me this intriguing video by Sir Ken Robinson. Sir Ken hits school change right on the nose!

Deb’s Post …

I’ve heard other presentations by Sir Ken Robinson, but this eleven minute video does a great job of really summarizing many ludicrous things about our current design in education. From the myth that a college degree will guarantee you a job, to the idea that the most important thing about kids is the date of manufacture (meaning we group them and run them through the system based on their birthdate) Sir Ken shines a flashlight on many myths and outdated practices, that are not serving kids nor the economy of this country.

In addition to the profound quote I included below, I also appreciated the research he shared about divergent thinking which he clarified is not the same thing as creativity, but rather an essential capacity for divergent thinking. This longitudinal study clearly showed all persons have the capacity for divergent thinking but it deteriorates over time. According to Sir Ken, education is likely a key factor in these results.

Sir Ken recognizes that it is not teachers who want things this way. Rather he refers to the “gene pool of education.” I hope you enjoy this insightful, and thought-provoking video as much as I did.

It started  some time  ago when I realized not every student needs algebra to be a productive member of society. I, like all educators, had drank the kool aid.I believed that every student needed algebra.

But it kept nagging at me that I couldn’t give sufficient real world examples of the use of algebra in the real world. And I visited all the time with highly successful people who told me they use little of what they learned in algebra, and NEVER in the context they learned it.

A good friend asked his father after heart surgery if he was ever worried he might die. He quipped that, “No, he knew it wasn’t his time” because his algebra teacher told him he’d need algebra someday, and he hadn’t needed it yet, and he knew his teacher wouldn’t lie to him.

All kidding aside …

I think the myth of algebra began with Larry Lezotte and Ron Edmonds. In their research they found that algebra one was the gateway to the advanced curriculum. They didn’t say that students needed to learn algebra to be productive members of society, but rather the  “system” required algebra I before you could take any of the advanced sciences.

We as educators interpreted that to mean that students needed to know algebra to be successful. I simply don’t believe that’s true. Let me be clear, I believe all of us use some algebra on a regular basis. But as far as I can tell the only profession that requires that you know all of algebra, is algebra teachers.

My second experience that leads me to question our math curriculum began as an accident. We have a shortage of engineers in my geographic area. In discussing this problem I began to hear that our students couldn’t pass the three required calculus courses to become engineers. The three required calculus courses were the “flunk out courses.”

Just by chance, an engineer offhandedly told me how hard calculus had been, and that once on the job he never used it. Since then, whenever I have an opportunity to speak to an engineer, I asked them how much they use calculus on the job. By far, the most common response is never.

Interestingly, if I asked the spouse of an engineer they often tell me that their spouse uses calculus all the time. Go figure.

Yesterday, October 13, 2010, I had another one of those experiences that caught my attention. I was in a meeting discussing project-based learning. The people who were present who are actually using project-based learning were saying that the one subject that they have not been able to figure out how to build into projects is math.

It caused me to think that we are approaching math education all wrong. I reflected on Howard Gardner’s book, Five Minds For The Future, where he talks about the need for our students to not just know about a subject, but to practice the discipline of that subject. Our students need to practice the discipline of being a social scientist, not just know a lot about the social sciences etc. etc..

When I applied that thinking the math, I asked myself the question do we really want kids to practice the discipline of mathematicians. The reality is, statistically speaking, none of our students is going to be a mathematician. But all of our students will use math in their future. We approach teaching math as if all of our students are going to be mathematicians.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It seems to me that we should completely rethink how we teach math. And perhaps the need to abandon much of what we expect students to regurgitate on math tests.

Just a blasphemous thought on school change. – Steve Wyckoff

School change at the high school level needs to begin with completely rethinking how we organize learning for students. That is, if we want kids to be able to do something with what they know, rather than simply knowing a lot of stuff for tests. That’s a big assumption. Schools presently are organized perfectly to give kids a lot of discrete information within any given academic discipline.

But I believe that in the 21st century what we really want is for students to be able to do something with the knowledge and information that they have. Being prepared for the 21st-century is more about the habits of behavior necessary in the 21st century than to simply knowing a lot of factual information for tests.

To help you understand I want to use an example that I’ve been using for many years. I always ask at the end of the example where my example is wrong. I have yet to have anybody tell me my example doesn’t hold up. So here it is.

If high schools were responsible for teaching basketball.

In high school were responsible for teaching basketball this is how we would organize the learning experience for students.The typical student schedule would look something like this.

1st Hour – Dribbling
2nd Hour – Shooting
3rd Hour – Passing
4th Hour – Rebounding
5th Hour – Offensive and Defense
6th Hour – History and Philosophy of Basketball
7th Hour – English Literature

We’d teach the students about dribbling, about shooting, about rebounding, etc. etc. instead of teaching them to dribble and teaching them to shoot, etc. etc. Even that creative teacher who would let them dribble or shoot etc. etc. would be doing it in isolation of the rest of the skills of basketball.

In addition we’d have them learn basketball by sitting and listening while the teacher explained and demonstrated in the front of the room. And we’d only allow them to play the game of basketball AFTER they graduate! And regardless of whether they were 5’6″ or 7’6″ they would get exactly the same curriculum and learn the same things.

It would be up to them to figure out what position and what knowledge and skills were appropriate for them.

By the way, we’d obviously have them learn English literature because for some reason dead white European male authors seem to be sacred regardless the educational system.

I think that you would agree that this would be a crazy way to teach basketball. It is no less a crazy way to organize our high schools if we want to prepare our kids for the 21st-century. Teaching discrete subjects in isolation may lead to short-term memorization of facts within the discipline, but it does nothing to prepare our kids for their future.

Just as in the basketball example, if we want our kids to function in the 21st century we need to give them experiences that, at the very least, simulate the world they are going to live in. Real school change in high schools should begin by dumping the Carnegie schedule .- Steve Wyckoff

Last week at the the Kansas Education Commission meeting one of the participants commented about “the classic liberal arts education” as if it were given how important, and appropriate, the classic liberal arts education is. As I’ve written before, the most difficult thing to do in school change is to decide what not to do any longer.

I think that it’s time to take a critical look at the “classic liberal arts education” and make some tough decisions about the assumptions we have made for over 100 years, and decide what parts of that education should be abandoned. I know that opinion will rankle more than a few feathers, especially among higher education people, and those who teach in the K-12 core curriculum.

But with the ever changing face of our society it’s imperative that we begin to abandon the least worthy pieces of our traditional education system. I make light of the fact that we seem to think there’s nothing more important than reading the works of dead white European male authors. While I may say it lightheartedly, I am dead serious with my question. What is so important about dead white European male authors that they must be studied by every student.

Not only do I believe that much of what we teach in the classic liberal arts education is no longer appropriate, but I believe it’s the part of our curriculum that students find most boring and irrelevant. At the very least we have to figure out how to make our core curriculum relevant and interesting to our students. In the best possible world we should figure out what to do instead of much of what we do in our core curriculum.

I know this will be hard to swallow for many educators, but at some point we have to begin to abandon something, and somebody’s sacred cow is going to get gored. When we talk about school change we mean exactly that, change! You can’t keep doing everything you’ve always done and pretend that you’re changing. – Steve Wyckoff

As I talk with individuals about school change one of the issues that always arises is the sense that teachers get that they are being criticized for not being good teachers. I always try to point out when I talk about school change that teachers are doing the best job they’ve ever done, at what we’ve always done in education.

The issue is this, the needs of our kids after they graduate have changed dramatically. And therefore what we do in K-12 schools needs to change dramatically.

One of the fundamental changes that has occurred very subtly over the last several decades, is the need for our students to be able to do something with what they know, not just know something.

There are a couple of different aspects to this need. First of all, for decades and decades, it was sufficient to just know a lot of stuff. That’s what separated the educated from the uneducated. And that was okay because the uneducated could still go out, and if they were willing to show up every day and work hard, they could earn a good living.

And Americans are known for their work ethic. So that worked well.

But gradually the need to be able to do something with what you know became paramount. In 1950 65% of jobs were unskilled. They required no post secondary education. Just show up and work hard and you could be successful.

Today those numbers have changed dramatically. In fact about the same percentage, 65% of jobs, require the individual to have acquired some type of technical skills in order to successfully do their work. The real kicker is those necessary skills are always changing. So the need to not only be able to do something is important, but the ability to learn new skills and apply them is now extremely important.

Howard Gardner in his latest book, Five Minds For The Future, does an outstanding job of describing the need for our students to not simply know about a subject, but to practice the discipline of that subject. It isn’t enough to know about biology. We must allow our students to practice the discipline of a biologist. That same logic can be applied to any subject area.

Obviously, it’s impractical to have every student practice the discipline of every field. There simply isn’t enough time. So we need to be figuring out how to allow students to sample the various disciplines and then begin to choose those fields that are most personally interesting to them.

This solves another major issue that we face in schools. By my estimation less than 5% of our kids are authentically engaged in the educational process in our schools. And according to Gallup’s research, 50% of our students are either going through the motions at school, or are actively undermining the teaching learning process.

There is ample evidence to show that students who are given the choice to choose fields that are interesting to them, and are allowed to learn by actually practicing the discipline of that field, are dramatically more engaged than the students who were not.

This means that schools must begin to analyze their entire curriculum, and learning experiences, and figure out ways to move to a learning by doing model.

So I’m not criticizing teachers’ effort or results when I say they need to change. But I am criticizing leaders for not “leading” their schools to models that are more beneficial to our students. That’s what I mean when I talk about school change.–Steve Wyckoff

Not all school change is good.  For example, the Kansas Board of Regents is considering adding an additional year of math in high school for students to meet qualified admissions for the regents universities. They think that having kids sit through another year of math class is somehow going to prepare them better to be productive members of society.

It may better prepare them to sit through another math class in college but there is little evidence that another math class will benefit more than a very small number of Kansas high school students. And the reality is it will cause more students to drop out, and probably lead to more students being disengaged from the educational process.

What the Kansas Board of Regents doesn’t get is that we don’t need to have students learn “more about” any subject. What we need to have Kansas kids learn is the discipline of particular fields.

Let me explain. I was in a conversation last week with four Kansas school districts who are collaborating on creating entrepreneurship programs in their schools. They were very clear, they don’t want kids to know more about entrepreneurship, they want kids to be entrepreneurs. They want them to learn and practice the discipline of being entrepreneurs.

Our kids don’t need another math class they need to understand the discipline of what it means to be a mathematician. You don’t get that by covering more math absent the context of the real world. That’s a major issue with our entire core curriculum. We have kids learn about the social sciences, and we have them learn about the language arts, and we have them learn about communication, and we have them learn about science, and we have them learn about math.

What they don’t learn is how to practice the discipline of being a social scientist, or the discipline of being a communicator, or the discipline of being a scientist … You get the picture.

Want an example? A young lady at Erie high school, the project-based learning school that I’ve talked about many times, developed her project around cloning cattle. She found a mentor in the area who is a world renowned bovine geneticist. She actually practiced the discipline of being a scientist. Specifically a geneticist. She may not have covered all the content that other kids covered in a traditional science class. But she has a far greater understanding of science, and what it means to be a scientist, than any student who has simply sat through a science class.

If the Kansas Board of Regents really wants to improve the education of our kids, and better prepare them for post secondary education, they should start a dialogue with K-12 education to dramatically change the educational experiences our students receive in K-12 education. And also change the expectations that they have for what students will know, do, and be like when they arrive on campus.

Unfortunately, I don’t see real school change happening if KBOR is involved. If anything they are more entrenched in a decades old system, perhaps centuries old system, then K-12 education. -  Steve Wyckoff

I’ve never been short of  opinions or advice. And I’ve never been reluctant to share either one. Fortunately, I’m not all that sensitive, so I don’t get my feelings hurt when people ignore my advice and opinions. So I want to give the Commissioner of Education some advice.

The role of Commissioner, in the minds of most people, isn’t very well defined. So I think there’s an opportunity for our Education Commissioner, Dr. Diane DeBacker, to do something that has never been done before. Since nobody really knows what she’s supposed to do I’d advise her to take a page from the playbook of CEOs of large corporations. On a regular basis, they bring together the heads of all the divisions of their company for a discussion of the future.

She’s kind of the CEO of schools in Kansas. And if you follow the analogy a little further we have almost 300 “divisions” or as we call them, school districts.

I’d like to see her bring just the superintendent’s, no substitutes and no assistants, a couple of times a year, for some real heart-to-heart discussions about the issues we face, the possible solutions, and most importantly, the development of action plans to deal with the issues.

These wouldn’t be just a “state of education” speech opportunity, but rather a community of superintendents coming together to collaborate on building a better future for our kids. And not just once but on a regular basis!

Superintendents are an interesting group. For the most part they’ve figured out that the way to best survive is to keep their heads down, and not say anything. As I had one superintendent tell me, “Silence is always the easiest thing to defend.” I think you’ll agree that’s not a very good attitude to have for the leaders of our educational system, if we want to move our schools into the 21st century.

I know Diane well enough to know that she has a clear vision of where school should go, the ability to facilitate a large group to consensus, and the respect of superintendents around the state to pull it off. So for what it’s worth Diane, put on your best Lou Gerstner or Jack Welch persona and give ‘em hell! –  Steve Wyckoff

I’ve embedded an interview with the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Diane DeBacker. Deb Haneke does an outstanding job of asking really important questions of Diane. I would urge all Kansas educators, and even educators outside the state of Kansas, to listen to the entire interview. Diane touches on some very important topics.

I’m especially interested, and encouraged by the things that Diane has to say. I hope that what she believe should happen in education can be made to happen. She’s a good thinker and has a clear vision of what our schools should look like. I hope she doesn’t get buried by the bureaucracy, and the special interest groups who are only interested in protecting their own turf. With her leadership I have faith that we can experience real school change.

You can also view some very interesting interviews with state Board of Education members, And Cheryl Semmel, executive director of United School Administrators of Kansas by going to the Crisis In The Classroom website. – Steve Wyckoff

One of the points I try to make when I talk about real school change is that educators must continue to be learners, and they must be learning about life in the 21st century. In fact, when I speak to groups of educators I often tell them that if they aren’t reading at least one book a month they are committing professional malpractice.

One of my good friends,  architect Allan Milbradt, made a comment to me recently that his car was a university. I hadn’t thought of it that way before but he’s exactly right. Allan, is an avid listener to books at am I. In fact many of the books we read were recommended by the other one.

But he also pointed out that we listen to many podcasts that are very educational. For example, I listened to the Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders podcasts from Stanford University. They are absolutely outstanding and give you a great glimpse into the future by listening to entrepreneurs and the businesses they are starting.

You can also listen to content from the top universities in America. Harvard University, among others, has made all of its content available free of charge. You can get a Harvard University education free of charge! You just can’t get  a Harvard University diploma free of charge

So as you think about improving your professional knowledge, think about the time that you spend in your car and all the ways that you might engage in self improvement. It’s sure to help you as an educator better understand the need to change schools. – Steve Wyckoff

I’ve been involved recently in several very interesting conversations that demonstrate the need for school change but also bring to light the myriad of possibilities for rural school districts to collaborate with their communities to increase the economic well-being of their communities. It can be a rather complex puzzle but let me try to put the pieces together for you.

In my many conversations with rural educators who want to improve economic conditions in their community. They typically focus on trying to entice a company to move to their town and hire lots of people, in high-paying jobs.

It isn’t going to happen!

But there are several things that schools can do to assist the community.

1. Schools can develop home construction programs. Many districts already have this program, and are using it to create nice affordable housing in their communities. Nice affordable housing is a rarity in many rural communities. One example is in Little River Kansas. They have either built or completely remodeled a home every year for the last six or seven years. There are approximately 15 students living in those houses who moved to Little River.

15 students doesn’t sound like a lot in a metropolitan area, but for a rural community like Little River that has a major impact on the community.

2. Schools can develop entrepreneurship programs. This one’s a little trickier because the natural inclination for schools would be to create an entrepreneurship class. Typically, the students would set and take notes about entrepreneurship. They can answer a lot of questions about entrepreneurship but wouldn’t have the slightest clue how to be an entrepreneur. When I say develop an entrepreneurship program, I mean that the school should actually have the students starting and running businesses.

Just such a program exists in Stafford Kansas. I’ve written about them in this space before. The stuff that the kids are doing there is phenomenal! Most of them won’t end up being entrepreneurs, but if just one student a year stays in Stafford and opens a business, in a decade it will have an amazing impact on the economics of the community.

3. Last but certainly not least, I believe that students could develop a website and using well understood search engine optimization strategies, could attract two or three families to move to their community every year. There are 3 billion people on the Internet, if a community can accurately portray itself on its website, and use search engine optimization to get it in front of the right people, there is no reason that they can’t attract two or three families a year. There are at least two or three families somewhere looking for a community to make home that looks exactly like the community the students are representing.

But most importantly I believe that each of these three ideas would begin to rapidly move us to a curriculum that informs and teaches us about learning by doing. So in essence, the strategies used to improve community economic development are a way to move our schools where we should be going anyway. Now that’s what I call real school change! – Steve Wyckoff

While I normally talk about school change, I just finished the book, The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick and it prompted several thoughts. The idea of a “helicopter mom” being one of those thoughts. “Helicopter mom” is a relatively new idea. It describes the mom that hovers over her children with much greater knowledge and participation in their kids lives than ever before.

A friend of mine who is a professor at a major university has told me several times how mothers of his students actually call him. The first time he told me I was flabbergasted! I barely told my mom where I was going to college let alone give her enough information to call a professor.

But Facebook has changed all that. In it’s inception it was strictly for college students, but as it grew Facebook began to allow anybody to join. The phenomenon of helicopter moms was born. Mothers started demanding that their kids friend them. And since the penetration of Facebook among college students was so great it instantly made mothers aware or of their child’s inner most thoughts and activities at college.

But it’s just not a phenomenon for college students. Most high school kids have a Facebook account also and many parents allow them to have a Facebook account under the condition that they friend the parents. So as with the college students, parents of high school students are learning more about their students, what they think, and what they do, then ever before.

It created an interesting and new dynamic for educators. I think the jury is still out whether or not the effects are positive or negative, but I suspect that more transparency in the long term will be a very good thing. I’m not sure yet either if it will cause real school change or simply impact the current system. – Steve Wyckoff

I speak to groups often about school change and I frequently hear the same question, “Don’t you think were doing anything right?” The answer is “yes” with a great big BUT. That “BUT” is this.

We are doing the best job in education that we have ever done, at what we’ve always done. The problem is this, what we’ve always done is not the right thing to be doing in the 21st century.

The problem is school change happens so slowly, or not at all, that over the years, and now even decades, we have fallen further and further behind. Most of you are too young to remember this chronology but in the 60s we saw major shift when we included special education students in regular education classrooms.

Between that time and 1983 we saw a very gradual gap develop between what we were doing in schools and what we needed to be doing with our students to prepare them for their future. In 1983 the report, A Nation At Risk, was the first shot across the bow of public education.

Between 1983 and the late 1980s we saw an increase in the criticism of public education that led to a highly contentious conversation about “outcome based education.” That was a really the beginning of the conversation fueled by our students’ inability to adequately perform in society.

Between the late 80s and the early 1990s we saw states all across the country mandating accreditation processes based on outcomes rather than inputs. Kansas was no different. The Outcome Accreditation Task force was charged with creating the structure for a new accreditation process that would become known as QPA, Quality Performance Accreditation. In the interest of full disclosure I was part of that task force.

Following the implementation of accreditation processes focusing on outcomes across the nation, there was a mass movement to understand and identify standards, align curriculum, and base accountability on state level standardized assessments. The crowning jewel of that movement is No Child Left Behind.

And now in Kansas we have the Kansas Education Commission trying to figure out what the next iteration of  NCLB will look like. Again, in the interest of full disclosure I am part of the Kansas Education Commission.

I can tell you what it shouldn’t look like. It shouldn’t look like schools have looked for over 100 years. The problem is this. We have spent the last 25 years seriously trying to improve public education by getting better at what we’ve always done. Somewhere along the line we should have started the conversation about what we should be doing instead of what we’ve always done.

So when somebody asks, “Are we doing anything right?” It depends on your perspective. If you’re asking, “Are we getting the things right that we’re working on?” The answer is “yes” we’re doing a tremendous job. If you’re asking, “Are all the things were working on the right things to be working on in order to prepare our kids for the 21st century?” the answer is “absolutely not.”

It’s not too late, but we need to get moving. School change doesn’t just mean that we change how we do what we’ve always done, it means to change what we’re doing.-  Steve Wyckoff