What's Become Clear

Several years ago a superintendent who was a friend of mine sent an e-mail to the superintendent’s listserv. He asked if any of the superintendents who were members of the list had a set of beliefs by which they operated their schools.

I responded to him, okay sarcastically, that based on my observation of what was going on in our schools, I had created a list of beliefs that as educators we must obviously hold, because in practice, we were demonstrating our beliefs.

So here is the list of belief statements that I put together:
1. All kids learn at the same rate.
2. All kids learn in the same way.
3. All kids in the same grade are ready to learn the same things at the same time.
4. All kids enter a class knowing nothing that will be taught in the class.
5. Not all kids can learn.
6. Schooling kids is more important than educating kids.
7. Kids learn best when they are bored.
8. You can’t learn if you’re not there.
9. The purpose of schools is to prepare kids to go to college.
10. Kids who do not get prepared to go to college came to us broken.
11. Textbook is synonymous with curriculum

Perhaps if we really want school change we should start with a different set of beliefs. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

It seems to me that the only acceptable measure of school change is standardized test scores. I have a real problem with that. It’s not that I devalue standardized test scores completely, I do believe that they are one small indicator of how we’re doing. But when I see the over emphasis on standardized test scores I have to shake my head.

I hear the stories from teachers and parents about the crazy things we do in order to raise test scores. I’m completely convinced that we spend more time on test taking strategies, and memorizing material for tests, then we do on real learning.

I am constantly reminding myself, and usually anyone else that will listen, about the analogy of getting your drivers license. When you got your drivers license you took two tests, a written test and a driving test. It’s obvious which one is the more meaningful. In fact in most states, perhaps all states, when you renew your driver’s license, send you the test in the mail along with the answers. That’s because the stuff that’s on the test is meaningless in the real context of driving and we don’t remember it. The truly important stuff we remember because we practice it on a daily basis, and because for the most part it is non-conscious.

It’s not that the stuff being tested isn’t true, it’s just that out of context of driving its meaningless. For example, how far before you turn are you supposed to turn on your turn indicator? When I ask this question of an audience most of them get it wrong, not because they can’t drive but because the context of driving often times dictates using your turn signal sooner than the law requires.

It’s the same on our standardized tests. The stuff we test our kids on is true and in many cases used in context would be meaningful. But taught, and tested out of context makes what the student is learning meaningless.

We should be testing the student’s ability to use the context in new and, predictable and unpredictable situations. That’s when the material is useful.

I always cringe when I hear an educators talk about “improved achievement.” Real school change would include authentic assessment of the use and application of knowledge and skills in a contextually based problem. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

When we talk about school change we automatically fall into the mindset that what ever changes we make should apply to all schools. Every elementary school should look like every other elementary school, every middle school should look like every other middle school, and every high school should look like every other high school.

But in the 21st century that makes absolutely no sense. Why, in this day and age, would we want to “mass-produce” students that were all exactly the same? We have never lived in a time that is more customized and individualized. Furthermore, we’ve never had the tools that we have today, that we could use to customize an individualize for every school, and for every student.

Having one set of defined requirements to graduate from K-12 schools, defined by a central authority of 10 people, and regulated by the Department of Education, is insane. It’s worse than insane, it’s criminal.

I’ve used this line many times including in testimony to the House education committee, and the state Board of Education, but it still applies, “If we had a state department of bookstores they wouldn’t have allowed Amazon.com to exist!” You see, Amazon.com didn’t look like a bookstore, get it sells more books than any traditional bookstore. Furthermore, it has contributed greatly to the dramatic change in how people shop and buy today.

We need to be creating the Amazon.com’s of schools. Yes, some would fail, but many would not. If we would unleash the creativity and innovation inherent in Americans we would create the kind of schools our children need and deserve. Real school change is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, it’s a customized and individualized proposition. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

Even former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch agrees! Well she didn’t exactly say it’s a curse but she did say when speaking about No Child Left Behind, “… I’ve looked at the evidence and I’ve concluded they’re wrong. They’ve put us on the wrong track. I feel passionately about the improvement of public education and I don’t think any of this is going to improve public education.”  And I couldn’t agree more!

Her primary concern is the same as mine the emphasis on standardized tests.  I believe that we have created a culture of test taking skills, she believes we have created a culture of “cheating and dishonesty.”  I think that she believes the tests are important and that the scores mean something, I don’t think they’re important and I don’t think they mean nearly as much as we like to believe.

I see all too often schools that are focused on strategies to raise test scores, that have nothing to do with students learning more, and being able to apply the knowledge under real-world conditions.The net effect of the strategies is that our students by school more boring, and more irrelevant than ever. And boring and irrelevant are not desirable conditions for learning to occur.

However, it is encouraging that some high-level people, mostly former policymakers, are seeing that the top down, centrally controlled strategies for improving education aren’t working. Hopefully, those in charge will abandon these well-meaning but misguided strategies and focus on real systemic change that leads to the kind of educational system our kids need, and deserve, in the 21st century. – Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

I had the pleasure last week of listening to Randy Rivers, superintendent at  Bluestem school district, and Jerry Cullan, currently superintendent at Medicine Lodge but formerly Superintendent at the Ashland school district. While superintendent at Ashland Jerry implemented and managed a four-day school week for six years. Randy, has led his district to the decision to implement a four-day school week beginning in the 2010-2011 school year. Randy and Jerry, facilitated by Deb Haneke, engaged in an hour-long discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of a four-day school week.

To be honest going into the discussion I believed that schools went to the four-day week for the sole purpose of saving money. I’d never considered the educational advantages that might be experienced in a four-day school week. But I have to admit that after listening to Randy and Jerry I believe  that there may be many valid educational reasons for switching to a four-day school week.

However, the barrier of tradition is an unbelievably high hill to climb. There are many high-ranking educational officials who oppose the four-day school week simply because it’s not what we’ve always done. If you are interested you can watch the entire discussion at  Crisis In The classroom. You can also watch two podcasts with Deb Haneke and Clint Corby who are discussing the same subject. Clint is the superintendent in the Haviland school district which is also on a four-day workweek. –  Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

I think kids at Erie high school have the best opportunity to receive an educational experience that prepares them for their future in the 21st century than any other total school population in the state of Kansas. I had the opportunity last week to speak with Mike Carson, Ted Hill, an architect Allan Milbradt about the transformation of very high school.

We had a wonderful discussion about the steps they took and the lessons learned. But today I wanted to share a video with you featuring Allan Milbradt discussing the project at Erie high school.

Tweet This Post

“And yet most of the trouble businesses get into – in serving their customers and in general getting things done with dispatch – is directly attributable to the ugliness of their systems and processes. Over time, even a beautiful system tends to get elaborated and elaborated … and then more elaborated … with every change. Each one made of course, for a “good reason.” Until the whole ugly, sloppy, inefficient, demoralizing, dehumanizing, mess makes everybody unhappy. We end up “serving the system” rather than having the system serve us.” – Tom Peters

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

Yes.

I fear it is. It’s slow, almost imperceptible, but things are either standing dead still, which is the same as getting worse, or getting worse. But for me the most depressing part is we aren’t even dealing with the  most important educational issues. The only discussion going on among mainstream educators is about money, the lack of money, and what cuts to make because of the lack of money. Don’t get me wrong money is necessary but it is not sufficient. Even before the financial crisis when we had more money the only discussion was “we need more money.”

In any discussion about improving, we almost always  focus on how we get better at what we’ve always done. So I do agree, if we are going to get better at what we’ve always done it will absolutely take more money, lots more money. The problem is, even if we reach our goal, our kids aren’t prepared for the world they’ll be living in.

For years I have believed that when conditions changed dramatically, for whatever reason, schools would finally make real systemic change to improve the educational experiences of all kids. Well, conditions have changed dramatically. We’ve never experienced the kind of financial issues we are facing today. Yet, there are no conversations of significance about changing the paradigm of public education.

Are we in a death spiral? I’m afraid so. I hope I’m proven to be wrong, we have a lot to lose.  But there is no law that says the United States of America has to be the most dominant country in the world. Our dominant position in the world is not guaranteed. 100 years ago the most dominant country in the world was Great Britain. As the saying went, the sun never set on the British Empire. The British Empire lost that lofty status. So can we. The sun can set on us also.- Steve Wyckoff

Tweet This Post

If  you ask high school kids to describe school in one word, what word would they choose? I’ve asked this question for years, I’ve had four answers, worthless, prison, sucks, and

BORING

I do get the occasional answer that varies from these four, for instance I had a professor from a College of education tell me that he was positive most kids would answer with words like, invigorating, interesting, and stimulating. I suspected he may have been abusing drugs.

Phil Schlecty says that we get kids who are engaged in one of four ways:

Authentically engaged: these are the kids that are so engaged in what they’re doing that they lose track of time. They look up and the bell is ringing, and they didn’t even know that the end of the period was at hand. These are the kids that Csikszentmihalyi would say or in “flow.” This is the state of engagement that we should try to achieve as often as possible, but rarely see especially in our core curricula.

Ritualistically engaged: these are the kids that say, “Don’t tell me what I  need to learn, tell me what I’ve got to do to get an A.” These are the teacher pleasers. They’ve learned how to play the game of school. Sadly when we talk about students being engaged, we mean ritualistically engaged. These are the kids that turn their homework everyday, show up to class every day and on time, smile at like they care, and do what they’re told.

Passive compliant:  these are the kids that say, “Don’t tell me what I need to learn, tell me what I’ve got to do to get by.” These are the students that the teacher has the unwritten agreement with, if they don’t bother the teacher, the teacher won’t bother them. Sadly these kids float through school making passing grades, just barely, never being authentically engaged, and never understanding the joy of being in a state of flow.

Rebellious: these are the kids that just don’t tolerate the system and let us know about it. Their needs aren’t being met but they refuse to sit by passively as victims of the system. They rebel in different ways, some angrily, some through passive aggressiveness, and some who just quit coming, either literally or intellectually.

I think the Phil Schlecty has one of my most often quoted statements. Phil Says

” A teacher’s job is not to teach kids. A teachers job is to create meaningful engaging work whereby the kids learn the things we want them to learn.” -  Phil Schlecty

I think he’s right on target. If we give kids work that is meaningful and engaging to them, and it teaches them the things that we want them to learn, we will have made great strides toward improving our schools. Our goal should be to constantly increase the level of authentic engagement on the part of every student in the system. – 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

I have many opportunities to speak to school groups, policymakers, educational leaders, and educators at all levels. On many occasions after speaking to these groups or individuals, I am sought out to have conversations about improving education. So I have given a great deal of thought to the issues surrounding school improvement.

In many cases I believe we are and asking, or answering, the wrong questions. One of those issues is the idea of school improvement. It is my opinion that we are not trying to improve schools but rather we are trying to improve schooling.

Let me explain what I mean. I think that we are working very, very hard to get better at what we’ve always done in schools. The question, I think, we should be asking and answering is, what should we be doing in schools instead of what we’re doing, to better prepare kids for their future.

I would estimate that we spend at least 80% of a child’s K-12 educational experience preparing them to be successful in a liberal arts college. Our entire core curriculum is built around the expectations of liberal arts universities. This is a holdover from the days, even decades, when K-12 schools thought it appropriate to prepare kids who were going to attend college, and all other kids would enter the workplace and be successful simply by working hard.

But those days are over. Kids simply can’t leave high school expecting never to have post secondary training, and being successful in life. Furthermore, kids who do go to universities and obtain a liberal arts degree, are no better prepared to be successful in their life than students with no post secondary education.

If you analyze the data, about 23% of all Americans hold a baccalaureate degree. And about the same percentage of jobs require a bachelors degree. On the other hand, more than 65% of all jobs require skills typically obtained in certification programs, and or associate degree programs at community and technical colleges.

I recently had a Dean of a prestigious four-year college tell me that as  they analyze their data, about one in five, or 2%, of their graduates actually enter a career requiring the degree that they obtained.

So when we talk about school improvement  we need to consider that it is no longer appropriate to prepare 100% of our kids to enter four-year institutions knowing that over 75% of them will not be successful. Improving K-12 schools means changing our practices so that we prepare all of the kids for their postsecondary education experience, and the life they are going to lead.

Tweet This Post