What's Become Clear

I had the opportunity yesterday to play with the new iPad and as I was putting it through its paces I kept wondering, “is this the new technology that will lead to school change?” My friend Kevin Honeycutt had pre-ordered the new iPad and sat patiently on his front porch Saturday until it arrived.

This new technology is off the charts cool! Actually it’s an iPhone on steroids. All of Kevin’s apps from his iPhone work on his iPad. But in many cases their functionality changes dramatically simply because there’s a bigger screen. And in some cases there are some new applications.

As I played with it I kept wondering how might kids use this in school? Reading books on it is amazing. The lighting is perfect and I can control the size of the font, while still holding it just like a book. I can easily see books that we have kids read being downloaded and read right on their iPad.

And if you read my blog at all you know that I don’t type, I use MacSpeech dictate which is a speech to text software application. Well the new iPad has built-in Dragon speak. It may be even better than the computer version of the software since you don’t have to train it. For all of those kids out there like me who struggle writing, this free application could be a lifesaver.

I haven’t even talked about the Internet search capabilities. The iPad is blazing fast and is completely controlled by the touch of your finger. Students could use the iPad in class to instantly access any needed information. To say nothing of the engagement factor this technology would have on kids.

So what do I think the chances are that this technology will lead to school change? None. Once again, what we have kids learning and how we have kids learning, is completely isolated from modern technology and the modern world. Perhaps if somebody could show educators how this new technology dramatically raises standardized test scores then it might be adopted, until then there isn’t a chance. –  Steve Wyckoff

If you liked this post then check out Kevin Honeycutt’s post on Literacy Apps For The iPad.

Tweet This Post

Yong Zhao has written a wonderful blog post about the role of testing in China and the United States. It is a must read for educators as they ponder the direction they want to take our schools relative to standardized tests. I’ve written before about my objections of standardize tests and their impact on school change. In light of Dr. Zhos’s blog post our emphasis on standardized tests is even more disturbing.

While the Chinese are apparently gaining momentum in terms of changing their schools to prepare their kids to be more productive and more well suited to participate in 21st-century economies, we are going exactly the opposite direction in America. Their schools are trying to figure out how to make their kids more creative and innovative and at the same time we are trying to figure out how to clone test takers.

This is a disturbing trend. Americans in general, and educators more specifically, believe that we cannot possibly lose our standing as the predominant country in the world. When I hear these comments I always remind the person who makes them that 100 years ago the sun never set on the British Empire. Today the British Empire has come back to the pack and has been passed by many, many countries. It can happen to us to.

Political leaders and educational leaders alike are taking us down a path to become a second rate country. We should be striving for school change that propelles us to a leadership role among countries in the 21st century, the path we are taking now is doing just the opposite. -  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

For the 34th and 35th time I had the opportunity this week to speak to students in the College of Education at the University Kansas. Twice each semester for the last nine years I’ve had the opportunity to speak to students in Dr. Mike Neill’s class. These are students who hope to become teachers. Usually there are 80 to 100 students in each class. That means that over the last nine years I’ve had the pleasure to interact with between 2,800 and  3,500 students. Okay, so if you do the math it should have had the 35th and 36th time right? Well they missed one day a couple of years ago because school was dismissed because they won some basketball game. You may remember

Anyway, these are always some of my favorite days. I have the opportunity to interact with students who are pretty much fresh out of high school, but also are committed to becoming educators. In many ways it’s refreshing and uplifting. In other ways it’s depressing.

Let me explain. I always love their enthusiasm and their commitment. They possess a passion for what they think they’re going to face. They are bright, engaged, and ready to take on the world.

The depressing part, I always visit with them about authentic engagement. The flow that learners are in when they are so engaged they lose track of time. I tell them it is my opinion that the most important thing they can do is to create learning experiences that are so engaging that their students are regularly authentically engaged. But then I ask them how many of them were authentically engaged on a regular basis in high school.

Yesterday was most one of the most depressing days when I asked this question. Not one hand was raised. Think about it, these are young adults who want to spend the rest of their life in school, and yet none of them were regularly authentically engaged in high school.  Normally, there are only five or six students in the entire class who were regularly authentically engaged in high school, but still to have no students raise their hand was a little bit shocking.

Through our dialogue it was clear that they understand what being authentically engaged is. They even talked about their school experiences that were authentically engaging. They listed them, year book, drama, athletics, and other experiences that were almost all outside of the core curriculum.

When we talk about the core curriculum students in this class through the years have rarely, if ever, identified them as authentically engaging. Interestingly enough  when students did find a class in the core curriculum that was authentically engaging to them, that is typically the subject they are preparing to teach. I hope they don’t model their teaching after the teachers they had simply because it was authentically engaging to them.

The other thing that I’m always aware of when speaking to the students is how pervasive the thinking is that the way our system operates is the only possible way the system can operate. I wish that we had more time to talk about how the system could be modified in order to engage students and yet still learn the things that we want students to learn, that usual in education time limited how much we can accomplish.

Other interesting topics we cover: standardized tests, which always realize a conversation; the need for individualizing instruction; innovation; and our system is pervasively focused on preparing kids to go to four years college rather than preparing them for their life. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

I spent a lot of time thinking about what needs to change in schools, how we do school reform. I also spend a lot of time listening to books. Over the last several months I’ve listened to six books that make great connections for me. I’d recommend the following six books for every educator.

Drive – Daniel Pink
How We Decide – Jonah Lehrer
Talent Is Overrated – Geoff Colvin
The Talent Code – Daniel Coyle
Outliers – Malcolm Gladwell
The Element – Sir Ken Robinson

So what do all these books have in common? They all deal with motivation, learning, and great performance. Let me give you the Reader’s Digest version of what I took from these books, but please read them and let me know what you think their importance is.

First of all there is a common thread through the six that motivation and excellence are linked to interest. Individuals who have high intrinsic interest in what they’re doing are better learners. So for schools this means that we must allow students to have choice in what it is that they’re learning.  School reformer Phil Schlecty always said that teachers don’t know what their job is. He said, ” That a teacher’s job is not to teach kids. A teacher’s job is to create work that is meaningful and engaging to the student, whereby they learn the things that we want them to learn.” He’s right on target according to these authors. We have to give kids work to do, but it has to be meaningful and engaging to them.

The second thread that runs through these books is that there is no such thing as inherent talent. There are several studies that are referred to that show two things. One, and individual must spend approximately 10 years and/or 10,000 hours involved in the pursuit to become an expert. But time alone is not enough, the individual must also spend that time in what the authors referred to as, “deliberate practice.” That’s practice that focuses on improving each and every facet of the performance. By the way, the performance can be physical or cognitive, it doesn’t matter.

So what does that mean to us in schools? Well the sad truth is what we have students practice most often for 10 years and/or 10,000 hours, is passively being compliant. We ask them to sit in the seat, do what they are told, do it when they are told, and do it how they are told to do it. If they run into trouble we tell them to raise their hand and we will answer their questions, and solve their problems.

Our current system is designed to reduce the deficits that our kids have. We identify what they’re not good at and we try to raise them to mediocrity. What we should be doing is identifying what they are good at, and letting them become experts in that area. In the real world if you can shine at something you can be a success, in spite of your deficits.

Does that mean that we ignore their deficits? Absolutely not, but we should improve on those deficits as part of the deliberate practice they do in the area that they have a high interest. So they will become experts in an area with the supporting skills and knowledge necessary.

So schools, start figuring out how to create educational experiences that are, long-term, engaging to each and every student on an individual basis, and allow the student to become an expert in what rows their boat in the 21st century. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

In the innovative educator’s dilemma part 1, I talked about how your best customers can drive you out of business if you’re not careful. That your best students with the most influential parents will keep you in the old paradigm of education, traditional schooling, right up to the point that they leave for private schools, and your school isn’t meeting the needs of any of your students.

But there is a further dilemma to this story. Even the parents of students who are the least successful, and those that are far less successful, than your best students, believe that every child should be prepared to go to a four-year liberal arts college, and that schools should look much like they did when the parents were students.

This is a real problem. I talk to school leaders all the time who tell me that the fastest way for them to get in trouble is to suggest to some parents that their kids should not go to a four-year college. We’ve done a tremendous job getting parents to believe that education is the key to success. Now we’ve got to convince them that a four-year liberal arts degree is not necessarily the kind of education that is the key to success for their child. Only about 25% of jobs today require a four-year professional degree. On the other hand about 65% of jobs are what we refer to as skilled. These skilled jobs require post secondary education.  But the post secondary education may be in the form of certification programs, associate degree programs, and yes even bachelors degree programs.

Four of 10 of the most popular majors include Social Sciences (ex. History and Political Science) Psychology, Communication, and English

Popular careers of these majors include:
retail store manager
customer service representative
administrative assistant

So the dilemma for school reformers is that we must not only convince educators that they must redesign how they prepare students for their future, but we must also help parents understand that we need to change how their children are educated if they are to be successful in the 21st century. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Why can’t schools change? It’s an interesting question. If you ask many educators they would say that schools have changed dramatically. I disagree. I think what goes on inside some classrooms has changed dramatically, but not schools. We do use more technology in classrooms; projectors, computers, smart boards, etc. But what we’re doing inside those walls is basically the same thing we’ve done for over 100 years. And sadly, with pretty much the same curriculum. Oh there have been some changes, but mostly tinkering inside the old format.

Some people believe that we need to change the rules so that schools look different. But then I can show you examples of schools that look dramatically different than traditional schools and are functioning within the same rules, regulations, and policies. So the rules must not be what is impeding our ability to change.

Other people think that a tradition that is over 100 years old is keeping us from changing. That we’ve done school the same way for so long that the belief system, and the culture around schools is too entrenched to change. These people often see parents as the biggest reason we can’t change. That parents demand that schools look like they did when they were students.

Still more people believe that the arcane rules for admission into college keep us from changing. That the emphasis on preparing every student to go to college forces schools to behave exactly as they always have. They believe that the Carnegie unit, Departmentalization, focus on standardized test, etc. are the fault of universities.

A cause that is never considered among educators is that perhaps we lack the leadership to make changes. School administrators are of the opinion that they are no longer managers, but rather leaders. I’m not sure I see any difference in their behaviors from when they were managers. I don’t think that continuous improvement of traditional processes constitutes leadership when there is a need for real systemic change.

There is also a school of thought that educators are risk-averse by nature, and that has a whole, are very, very reluctant to change. But when I talk to business people they feel the same way about themselves. Being resistant to change seems to be, to a large degree, human nature, and not reserved for educators.

And last, but certainly not least, there seems to be an non-articulated argument about the purpose of schools. There seems to be a “venn diagram” of purposes for schools. Prepare kids to go to college, prepare kids for the workplace, to give them a broad liberal education, to indoctrinate them for society, etc. The conflicting camps all want schools to change in a different way, therefore causing gridlock.

I think, in my humble opinion, that each of these is a characteristic of a centrally controlled bureaucracy. And there is no bigger centrally controlled bureaucracy than public education. Bureaucracies were designed to guarantee compliance, and stability in systems and processes. There is no system with more stable systems and processes nor more compliant than public education.

So what do I think the chances of real systemic change are? Zero. Nadda. None. In fact I think the bureaucracy has moved from the state level to the federal level with a corresponding increase in stability and compliance. I chuckle at the federal government’s insistence that they are encouraging real systemic change in schools. My observation is that they are causing exactly the opposite effect. Our schools have become test preparation Academy, whose sole purpose is to prepare kids to increase their scores on standardized test.

So what’s the solution? I believe the solution is “mission impossible.” The elimination of the educational bureaucracy at a time when our country is moving in the opposite direction seems hopeless. I keep looking for that ray of hope, but every time I see one, the results never seem to pan out. I don’t think there is a rule that America has to stay the best. Time will tell.- Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Erie school district has been blessed. By Mike Carson, Rose Frey, Ted Hill, and many many others who were involved in the transformation of their school. Erie high school is unique. What makes them unique is that their focus is on their students, and their student’s futures.

Erie high school has changed what the students learn, how the students learn, and how they organize the students to learn. In addition, while the students do take the state mandated standardized tests, their students are measured in much different ways than almost all other kids across the country.

The curriculum used in Erie high school is based on projects and problems designed by each individual student, based on their own interest, needs, and desires. And the results have been equally unique, students, and I mean all students, have far exceeded the normal expectations we have for high school kids. And, as former superintendent Mike Carson is fond of saying, “It isn’t just the head cheerleader and the quarterback that are doing great things.”

What Erie high school has figured out is how to not just expose their kids to curriculum with all the standards, but how to actually engage the students in meaningful work, whereby the kids learn the things that they want them to learn. Is it perfect? No. There have been, and continue to be, many issues. But unlike school improvement in traditional schools, they are getting better at the right things, rather than just getting better at what schools have always done.

I’ve observed for the last 40 years scores of creative an innovative projects. Some big, some small. The thing that they all had in common was a champion. The sad truth is, as soon as the champion moved on, and eventually they always do, the gravity of the status quo always pulled the project back into the mainstream and morphed it into a traditional program. There seems to be no way to make real systemic change in the educational system.

So I’m watching Erie high school with great interest. The superintendent has retired, as has the high school principal responsible for the project-based, problem-based learning curriculum. Other changes have been made with key personnel. My hope is that the model employed in Erie high school will spread across the state and the country.  The hope is that new champions have replaced the old champions.

I have low expectations. In spite of the fact that their kids are doing exceptional things and are truly well-prepared for the life they’re going to live; and in spite of the fact that it is actually cheaper to educate kids in this model; and in spite of the fact that we are in a financial crisis; I fear that it is impossible to actually make sustainable systemic change in public schools.

Time will tell.

Tweet This Post

For the last 20+ years I’ve constantly considered what it would take to make systemic change in the public education system. I’ve looked at it from every angle and I’ve changed my mind many times. Apparently, this is another one of those times, because I have change my mind again. In the past I’ve looked at policies, regulations, and practices, from the perspective  of what should we require schools to do. I’ve considered universal vouchers, and while I think they are still a good idea, they aren’t going to happen, and even if they did under the current conditions it wouldn’t change much.  I admit that up until now I’ve got universal vouchers were the answer.

Let me explain. I think vouchers, at least in a state like Kansas, would be very much like the charter schools. The charter school law while well-crafted, and well-meaning, has had little or no impact on the educational system. This is true in Kansas because control of charter schools has been left in the hands of local school districts and the state Board of Education. To become a charter school in Kansas, in spite of what the law says, you must look exactly like traditional public schools, in order to be granted a charter. This clearly violates the intent of the law, but I think lawmakers were more concerned with having a charter school law that having charter schools.

I realize that in some states charter schools have had a tremendous impact in terms of systemic change. States where this has occurred have had the benefit of a charter school law that is strong, and a legislature that intended to really have innovation in their schools. Neither of these is true in a state like Kansas.

So why do I think vouchers would fail in a state like Kansas? They would fail because there are so many regulations and policies that force every school to operate within the very narrow parameters of what we’ve always done in school. On top of that overcoming the inertia of more than 100 years in the current system is a daunting task.

What’s become clear to me is that if we really hope to implement real systemic change in public schools the solution lies in eliminating or dramatically reducing the ability of the state Department of Education and the state Board of Education to regulate and control schools. In an age of customization and individualization in all aspects of our life, it makes no sense for 10  laypeople to make decisions that require every single school in the state to behave in exactly the same way. Nor does it make sense to have bureaucrats make decisions that each and every school must follow in spite of the fact that in almost all cases there are many possible solutions that might work well.

Again I refer to Dan Pink’s book, Drive, or perspective. Pink outlines the factors that lead  heuristic behavior. Exactly the kind of behavior we need in our schools if we hope to meet the needs of our students in the 21st century. One of the key elements that Pink talks about his autonomy. He identifies four components that must be present to satisfy the need for autonomy.  He called them the four “T’s”: the task, the time, the technique, and the team,

The task is what you actually have people working on, they must have some control over the task. Currently the KSDE, and KSBE, are continually narrowing down exactly what the task is that schools must accomplish in spite of the fact that neither students nor society are served well by the defined tasks. They define the core curriculum, most of which is out of date, and the metrics for measurement, define standardized tests, that turn our kids into test taking machines and our schools into test preparation academies. If regulations didn’t exist mandating exactly what every student will receive in school, schools would immediately start to redefine what it is they want every student should know, do, and be like. And in turn to a much better job of meeting the needs of individual students and society.

The second “T” time is also mandated by the state. In fact every school must account for 1118 hours (I think that’s the right number, but it’s so irrelevant who would bother to remember it). In addition there are hosts of regulations and guidelines surrounding the “how’s” and “when’s” those hours must be counted. Another side effect of standardized testing mandated by the state and federal government, is that schools are controlling the timing of instruction and learning more rigidly than ever before. Which flies in the face of the fact that all kids learn at a different pace and are ready to learn things in a different time.

The third “T” is technique, the how you go about your business. Through certification requirements and collaboration with colleges, every teacher must be certified in the subject area that they teach. This ensures that how we teach and what we teach will never very from a traditional classroom model. This model is several centuries old now. I do concede that we are doing the best job of traditional instruction that we’ve ever done. The research surrounding this method is extensive. But it leaves no latitude other than direct instruction as the dominant instructional mode.

The fourth “T” is team, or who you work with. Once again through certification and departmentalization, mostly as a result of college entrance requirements, teachers work in isolation, teaching their subject in isolation. Not only do they not have the choice of who they team with, they don’t team. We do have anecdotal evidence of schools that are promoting teaming among their teachers, but they certainly are not the rule, nor do they seem to have much shelflife.

My contention, that if we would eliminate most of the rules and regulations forced upon us by state and federal regulations and policies we would see the kind of innovation that occurs in other industries, and a real focus on preparing students for their future,  rather than forcing them to “fit” into a system that is over 100 years old.

Leave me a comment, I’d love to hear from you.

Tweet This Post

As I observed leadership in our schools it started to become apparent to me that not all leaders are created equal. So I started to pay closer attention to see if I couldn’t create in my mind some general categories for the types of leaders that I see. Mainly I’m talking about superintendents, but with some thought I might be able to apply this to high school principals also, but that’s a thought for another time.

The thing that started me thinking about this was observing a handful of superintendents that appear to think differently and behave differently than most superintendents. They tend to be younger, more innovative, and less willing to be one of the “good old boys.” In conversation they are more likely to see the need for real systemic change, and not as likely to see more money as the only solution to education’s problems.

They appear to prefer to “fly under the radar”, and implement strategies in their schools that pushed the defined limits of the system. They neither see, nor desire, the approval of their peers not in their immediate circle of professional friends. The superintendents seem destined to implement the really “out-of-the-box” thinking that may lead to real change in education. Interestingly, this seems to be a  group that is growing in number. And for my money, that’s a good sign.

As I was analyzing the small group of superintendent I started to think about the other categories that superintendents might fit in. The first obvious group are those veteran superintendent’s who have emerged as  de facto leaders among their peers. They are more confident and outspoken about what they believe. They tend to be very supportive of doing business as we currently do, only better. For the most part they are highly respected by their peers, and also by policymakers. They truly are the banner carriers for the profession. They inherently are neither innovative nor creating outside the bounds of what is traditionally accepted as good educational practice among educators.

The category that occupies the middle ground of superintendents tends to be made up of relatively young superintendents who agree with, and seek the leadership, and mentoring, of those veteran superintendent’s who are attempting to improve on the status quo. They appeared to be biding their time until they emerge as the veteran defenders of the system. These superintendents are very reluctant to be the initial implementers of any new strategy, preferring to follow the lead of their mentors.

Anyway, food for thought. Whether you agree or disagree leave a comment. Like I said, this is the beginning of what I think I believe

Tweet This Post