The Tempered Radical

What Role SHOULD Standardization Play in a PLC?

John Spencer -- an #eduthinker who I respect greatly -- has been wrestling with the role that standardization should play in a professional learning community this week.  He wrote:

The truth is that I became a better teacher when I was finally given autonomy. It's not an excuse. It's the impetus for innovation. When I have creative control and the freedom to experiment, some of the best lessons occur.

Last year, I was able to use a tech-integrated framework, move away from traditional grades, go with a project-based and problem-based approach and teach thematic units. I also had some of the highest reading, writing and math scores in the district.

All of that required a hefty dose of teacher autonomy. Although we were a PLC, the principal was flexible enough to say, "Try this and compare the results with your team." He never mocked my need for autonomy, but actually embraced it instead.

That's the same issue that Justin Tarte -- an assistant principal in a school that values autonomy and innovation -- is struggling with:

This year at Poplar Bluff Junior High School we are going through year two of Professional Learning Communities. Additionally, we are in the first year of our professional studies book club. We have been experiencing a lot of growing pains, but more importantly we are having difficult discussions that are helping to move us forward.

Most recently we read "Linchpin" by Seth Godin (you can find my blog post here).

While we were discussing the relevancy of Godin's thoughts to our school and students, a teacher asked a simple but profound question: "How do PLCs and their standardization of education fit in the mix of creating and developing Linchpins?"

And it's similar to the thinking of George Courous, who is in the middle of developing a series of supporting documents designed to give teachers a clearer picture of what effective #edtech integration should look like in their classrooms:

How do we ensure that all of our students get the same opportunities no matter what school they attend, while also ensuring that our teachers have the autonomy to be innovative in their teaching practices?  

Interesting stuff, isn't it?  Essentially, John, Justin and George have all stumbled on one of the central challenges of leading PLCs: Balancing the competing need for autonomy and standardization in the collaborative schoolhouse.

On the one hand, teachers are creative professionals who expect to be trusted.  We want to work in schools that allow us the flexibility to do what it is that we do best: Make instructional choices based on our deep understanding of our own strengths, our curriculum AND the students in our care. 

On the other hand, autonomy to the extreme often leads to drastically different learning experiences for students in different classrooms on the exact same hallway.  The push towards standardization that feels so wrong to teachers like John and I is just an inevitable response to this sad reality.

So where SHOULD the balance between autonomy and standardization in a collaborative learning community rest? 

Talking #edtech at the Teacher Roundtable

Not sure if you've had a chance to stop by yet, but Ed Week has been hosting a Teacher Roundtable discussion about technology's role in teaching and learning over the past two weeks. 

I've enjoyed my own place at the table -- but more importantly, I'm jazzed that I'm sitting at the table with a bunch of other real live classroom teachers!  Those are the kind of voices I think we need to hear more of in today's #edujabber. 

I wanted to point you to the two bits that I've written for that conversation.  They follow common themes that you've seen here on the Radical over the years.  Check 'em out and tell me what you think:

Technology is about Efficiency: One of the mistakes that I think we make in conversations about teaching with technology is believing that there really are NEW magical skills and behaviors that our students need to learn in order to be successful in tommorrow's world. 

In my experience as a learner, the skills that matter -- managing information, collaborating, solving problems collaboratively, being persuasive -- are no different than the skills that were important when Socrates was getting his seminar on in Greek forums.

The difference -- which I tried to detail in this post -- is that technology makes it possible to tackle each of those behaviors more efficiently than ever before. 

 

Our Never-Ending Reliance on Digital Resilience: Not sure if you've figured it out or not, but I'm a full-time professional pessimist.  My clouds never have silver linings.  There aren't sunshine and daffodils clouding my rose colored glasses.  In fact, the only glasses I own are half-empty -- or shattered on the floor in the corner.

That pessimism comes through in this post -- which is a bit of a rant about my impatience with the complete lack of tech tools in today's classrooms.  I mean it's 2012, y'all.  Shouldn't we be able to count on something more than collections of broken desktops and intermittent internet connections?

I'm down with being held accountable Mr. #edpolicyman as long as I'm given a fighting chance to work in a classroom that's outfitted with the tools necessary to do this work well.  Until then, your grumbling frustrates me. 

Hope you get a kick out of them.  And hope you'll leave me a bit of feedback.  I'm always down for a good bit of pushback. 

Rock on,

Bill

 

Our Compulsive Obsession with the Impossible Sexy

I ran across an interesting article on the Fast Company website today detailing the work of Method -- a wildly successful startup selling ecofriendly soaps and detergents. 

In it, Eric Ryan and Adam Lowry -- the minds behind Method -- make a point that I think schools working towards sustainable change often fail to understand:  Sometimes the most successful innovations start from thinking at the edges of the box. 

To the Method guys, edge of the box thinking is called "soft innovation." Here's how they explain it:

"Soft innovators establish new standards for quality, experience, and sales in their categories without actually doing anything profoundly innovative. Think Ben & Jerry's, which introduced the ice cream pint to the world as a more personal alternative to the half-gallon or gallon tub."

In their own work in the personal and homecare marketplace, soft innovations have included tinkering with everything from the scents that they use in their products to the feel of their labels and the quirky shapes of their packages. 

These kinds of evolutionary steps are essentially risk free, argue the Method guys, and risk free innovation is a good thing:

"Don't get us wrong, we love big innovation...but many companies underestimate the power of soft innovation, which can enhance the consumer experience and drive massive differentiation within a category.

The advantage of a soft innovation is that it treads lightly on the R&D budget, requires less marketing support because consumers "get it" right away, and is predictably successful because the idea is familiar and the consumer learning curve is quicker."

Couldn't we revise this thinking into a beautiful statement about successful innovation efforts in schools?  It would look a little something like this if we did:

Don't get us wrong, we love big innovation...but many schools underestimate the power of soft innovation, which can enhance the student experience and drive massive differentiation within a category.

The advantage of a soft innovation is that it treads lightly on the PD budget, requires less marketing support because teachers "get it" right away, and is predictably successful because the idea is familiar and the learning curve for everyone is quicker.

What does this all mean for schools and their leaders?  Most importantly, we need to take active steps towards implementing soft innovations in our schools.  What simple and immediate changes can you make to:

• The ways that your teachers collaborate.
• The ways that your teachers assess and report on student learning.
• The ways that your students interact -- with ideas and with other people.
• The ways that your students communicate what they know. 

Sure, completely reimagining schools is sexy.  But the simple truth is that sexy isn't always doable -- and our compulsive obsession with the impossible sexy means most of our change efforts are ridiculous failures.  

_____________________

Related Radical Reads:

Sustainable Change in Schools is Evolutionary

Evolutionary Lessons for PLC Principals

Make Like an Obstetrician and Deliver

 

Digital Advice for School Leaders . . .

On Wednesday, I'll have the chance to present to the technology committee of our school district's Division of Principals.  In the process of preparing, I asked my network the ONE bit of advice they thought school leaders interested in driving change in their own buildings needed to hear.

Many of the responses shared the same theme -- a theme that was summarized nicely by Tim Wilhelumus, who wrote:

@plugusin Lead with the learning and not with the tools. Always. #wcpsstech #cpchat

— Tim Wilhelmus (@twilhelmus) February 13, 2012

 

In the end, driving change in schools means remembering that technology alone isn't revolutionary.  Technology just makes it possible for teachers and students to do revolutionary things. 

Our choices about technology need to start and end with our beliefs about learning. Forgetting to put learning first in ANY conversation about education is a recipe for failure.

I also loved Jon Becker's advice:

@plugusin that very few things could be more impactful than them modeling what it is to be a learner.

— Jonathan Becker (@jonbecker) February 13, 2012

 

Jon's right, isn't he?  Principals ARE the lead learners in our schools.  Your modeling means everything to us -- and that includes the example that you set when exploring the ways that new tools and social spaces can change learners. 

Finally, Steven Anderson's point is worth noting:

@plugusin Get connected. Team up with other admin and share and learn and grow, together. It's how we improve ourselves and our craft.

— Steven W. Anderson (@web20classroom) February 13, 2012

 

Whatever you do, move forward.  Take the digital plunge -- and bring some friends!  Learn together.  Experiment.  Figure out what's possible and what matters.  Change your own learning and then start changing the learning in your buildings.  

Any of this make sense? 

___________________________________________________

 Related Radical Reads:

Making Good Technology Choices 

Doubting Bauerlein's Dumbest Generation 

Reflections on Teaching for Tomorrow

Teachers, Chainsaws and the Dreaded Interactive Whiteboard

Technology Just Makes Good Teaching Easier

Note to #atplc Nation: Norms Really DO Matter

Over the course of the last week, I've had two separate conversations with two different principals about the critically important role that clearly articulated sets of norms play in governing the work of successful learning teams. 

Both principals are leading their buildings through the transition from traditional to collaborative schoolhouses -- and both underestimated the importance of the norming process.

That's understandable, isn't it? 

Norms are one of those ideas that seems overly-restrictive.  "Why EXACTLY do we need a set of rules for our learning teams?" the thinking often goes, "We ARE all adults, aren't we?  Why can't we just act like it?"

Here's the hitch: Norms are nothing more than the common patterns of beliefs, interactions and behaviors that define any collaborative group.  That means your team HAS norms, whether you take the time to articulate them or not. 

Read This: Fewer Priorities Makes Schools MORE Productive

I've been doing a ton of writing lately for my fourth book -- a title set to tackle the five frustrations of a Professional Learning Community -- and thought you might be interested in a few of the quotes that I've stumbled across while researching. 

The first comes from school change expert Doug Reeves, whose most recent title -- Finding Your Leadership Focus -- is a must read for school leaders. 

Reeves writes:

"In other words, educational leaders and policymakers can make a large number of changes to improve the lives of teaching professionals, but if they fail to address the fundamental issue of focus---giving classroom teachers more time to focus on fewer priorities and giving teachers a voice in what those priorities are---then that failure to focus will undermine every other reform."

(p. 76)

NOTHING could be truer, y'all.  When classroom teachers have the time to focus on a small handful of priorities, remarkable things happen for students and for schools. 

Reeves goes on to recommend that EVERY school and district complete an initiative inventory every year, warehousing projects that aren't making a measurable impact on student learning no matter how essential they seem to be:

"For school leaders enduring the withering assault of initiative proliferation, the challenge of focus may seem insurmountable.  After all, they are near the bottom of the hierarchical pyramid of a traditional of a traditional school system and, along with classroom teachers, they bear the brunt of multiple demands of policy, procedure, and prescription...

By asking the right questions, focusing on the factors with the greatest leverage, guarding a culture of success, and embracing the power of teacher leadership, school leaders can be at the point of a diamond rather than at the bottom of a pyramid." 

(p. 65)

So here's a simple question for you:  What one initiative are YOU going to ditch tomorrow?

If you need some help deciding, you might find this initiative monitoring handout from my first book on Professional Learning Communities helpful.

_______________________________

Related Radical Reads:

Decorating the Christmas Tree with Initiatives

Make Like an Obstetrician and Deliver

The Importance of a Clear Vision

Writing 25 Word Stories [Handout]

 

If you've been reading the Radical for the last few days, you know that I spend last weekend in Philadelphia at the Educon conference. 

That means I'm intellectually spent and WAY behind in almost all of my part time work right now.  Constant conversations and really, really cool interactions with some of the brightest people on earth will do that to you.  As a result, I haven't got a ton of time to write today. 

What I'll do instead is share a handout with you that I created recently for the language arts teacher on my team to use with our kids.

It's designed to walk students through the process of writing a really good 25 word story.  You can download it here:

Word Doc: Download Handout_CanYOUWritea25WordStory

Adobe PDF: Download Handout_CanYOUWritea25WordStory

So what's a 25 word story -- and more importantly, why would you want your kids to write them? 

Just Another Race to Know-Where?

Did you get a chance to read my recent post on creating a culture of "doing" instead of "knowing" in schools?  It has sparked a ton of interest and a bunch of great thinking -- both here on the Radical and in the other spaces that I mentally wrestle in. 

The strand that challenges me the most, however, was best articulated by John Spencer, who wrote: 

I don't think it's a culture "of this, instead of this." Paulo Freire was right when he said it needs to be a cycle of action and reflection. Too much of one and it becomes shallow, close-minded activism. Too much of the other and it becomes useless intellectualism. They're both necessary.

John's point is a simple one:  "Instead" thinking is often unhealthy when it creeps its way into schools -- and to suggest that knowing is fundamentally unimportant would be foolish.

In fact, it would be nearly impossible to successfully take action without a foundational understanding of the content behind the issues and ideas that you care the most about. 

Bradley Zakarin shared similar thinking in Twitter when he wrote:

@plugusin Artificial lines b/t do/know (or action/research) hinder student pursuits at both ends of spectrum. Can DO better w/ KNOWLEDGE.

— Bradley Zakarin (@bzeducon) January 29, 2012

 

Long story short: Balance matters, right?

Here's the thing, though - There IS no balance in schools today.  Curriculum writers and politicians have slapped together courses of study that leave NO ROOM for doing. 

Take the North Carolina sixth grade science curriculum as an example.

We tackle everything from a study of the layers of the earth and the formation of minerals to the way that light, sound and heat transfer energy.  We look at why humans should protect soil, how space exploration has benefited mankind, and how species adapt to their habitats. 

We talk about the differences between the planets.  We look at earthquake and volcano patterns.  We learn about convection and conduction.  We wrestle with symbiosis, mutualism and parasitism.  We examine food chains.  We study the parts of waves -- both transverse and longitudinal.  We look at convex and concave lenses.

We study the parts of the eye and ear.  We discuss the Law of Conservation of Energy. We explore the differences between potential and kinetic energy.  We learn about how the gravitational pull of the sun and the moon influence the earth.

Are you starting to get a sense for just HOW massive the knowing part of our curriculum really is?

The results are really quite simple:  There's not a whole heck of a lot of time for doing in classrooms.

Here's a tangible example of how this changes the instructional decisions made by teachers:  Marsha Ratzel -- a buddy of mine teaching science in Kansas -- introduced me to the Science for Citizens website yesterday. 

She describes it like this:

Science for Citizens offers regular folks like me (if I'm regular I guess) the chance to participate in science projects from right where we live, doing pretty normal stuff and then sending in what we learn to the principal investigators.

Can't get much more "doing" than that, can you? 

But here's the hitch:  While I LOVE the idea of getting my kids involved in projects that would give them a chance to be a part of a much larger community of practicing scientists -- a lesson I think is pretty darn important for them to learn -- I literally WORRY about incorporating any of the projects into my classroom because I'm already  a month behind in my curriculum. 

The moral of the story is that I believe in balance too.  We can't throw the content baby out with the bathwater.  "Instead" thinking really isn't any healthier for schools than "Yeah, But" thinking.

But let's not pretend that what we have in schools now is a finely balanced knowing-doing experience. 

From my point of view, we're not "doing" much more than sprinting our way to know-where.

Any of this make sense?  Do y'all feel that the knowing-doing balance is out of whack in your worlds too, or do your kids have plenty of chances to take an action-stance towards their content -- and more importantly, their communities?

____________________________

Related Radical Reads:

What If Schools Created a Culture of Do INSTEAD of a Culture of Know?

Stuffing Kids with Content

Brainpop and the Overloaded Curriculum

Skills Matter More than Tools

 

 

 

What If Schools Created a Culture of "Do" INSTEAD of a Culture of "Know?"

Here at Educon yesterday, I had the chance to learn a bit more about design thinking from David Jakes. 

David's central point was that schools and teachers often get stuck in a "Yeah, but..." mindset when thinking about change. Instead of dreaming about what's possible -- taking a "What if" stance towards the challenges standing in our way -- we're all too ready to trip over the hurdles in front of us without even attempting to jump. 

David asked each table group to come up with a "What if" question spotlighting a more positive -- and possible -- future for classrooms and then to break that question down into the tangible steps that schools and teachers would need to take in order to move towards that future.

Here's a graphic organizer detailing what Kristen Swanson, Patrick Larkin, Larry Fliegelman and I came up with:

(click to enlarge)

 

Our key question is a good one, isn't it? 

What IF schools created a culture of "DO" instead of a culture of "KNOW?" Doesn't that action-oriented stance reflect the kind of real-world learning environment that we know resonates with kids? 

More importantly, don't we WANT kids who see themselves as living, breathing contributors to the world around them rather than simply as little people locked away behind our walls waiting to be released?

Of course, we'd have to work to take active steps to redefine almost everything about our schools if a culture of "Do" is really going to be possible.  Grading will need to change -- from a focus on content mastery to a focus on demonstration of an ability to apply content in novel situations.

Purchasing and budget decisions would have to change -- from a commitment to buying containers holding content (read: textbooks) to a commitment to giving kids opportunities to interact with their worlds. 

The rules that govern how kids advance from one grade level to the next would need to change -- from an emphasis on hours spent in seats to an emphasis on the use of artifacts to prove levels of mastery that we're comfortable with.

So this all sounds great, right -- but how do you move forward with what seems like such a significant change?

That depends on your role in the system.  As a principal, Larry was ready to start rethinking purchasing decisions starting on Monday morning, placing an emphasis on spending that encouraged doing instead of just knowing. 

Patrick -- also a principal -- was ready to begin moving towards creating a separate track in his high school that parents who were interested in a "doing" experience for their kids could opt into, knowing that it would be non-traditional in almost every way. 

Kristen and I are convinced that most teachers could begin creating learning opportunities that allowed our kids to work independently -- and interdependently -- on meaningful tasks without much trouble.

The key point -- as David would argue -- is that EVERYONE needs to move forward.  Find a step you can take tomorrow.  Find a step that you take a week from now.  A month from now.  A year from now.

But move forward.  Give up the "Yeah, buts" and start asking "What if . . ."

Three Innovation Questions Left Unanswered

Blogger's Note: Excused the rough feel of this post, y'all.  I'm running late this morning but I wanted to do some transparent reflection before heading back to #educon.  Hopefully something here will spark your thinking too.

__________________________________________

So I'm here in Philly this weekend for #educon -- one of the highlights of my professional year -- and I left last night's panel discussion on sustaining innovation with a TON of unanswered questions.  Here's just a few that are roiling through my mind right now:

Can innovation happen without remarkable leadership?

I've spent the past month reading I'm Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee #59.

One message that comes across loud and clear in the book is that Larry Page and Sergey Brin were the driving force behind Google. Their choices and attitudes and ideas and believes permeated through every decision and action and organizational direction in the early days of Google. 

That made Google much more than just another startup company in Silicion Valley to Larry and Sergey.  Instead, it was literally an extension of their core beliefs -- about the role companies should play in the world, about the ways that workplaces should be structured, about what "don't be evil" looks like in action.  

Don't you think that's true for The Science Leadership Academy too?  Don't you think that in some ways, the remarkableness of SLA is an extension of their remarkable principal Chris Lehmann?

So the question for me is what happens to SLA after Chris is gone? 

Isn't it possible that SLA's next principal will be a well-intentioned guy or gal who unintentionally squelches what SLA has become? 

The sad truth is that there just aren't a ton of Chris Lehmanns out there, so can we really believe that SLA will remain the inspiring place that it is today under the stewardship of someone else?

And if not, shouldn't school districts spend more time and money on principal professional development programs to find and to feed and to grow their most innovative leaders?

 

What role does accountability play in either encouraging or hampering innovation?

At one point in last night's conversation, every panelist preached about the important role of failure in the life of an innovator.  Successes were just the tip of their professional icebergs, argued robotics genius CJ Taylor.  Failures are adorable added Alex Gilliam -- the founder of Public Workshop.

Their thinking lined up nicely with Steven Johnson's work on the evolutionary nature of sustainable change.  Growth doesn't depend on out of the box thinking.  Instead, it depends on a willingness to think at the edges of your box -- even if that thinking results in failures because you are pushing your intellectual comfort zone. 

But I couldn't help thinking about the impact that consequences have on our willingness to push ourselves to the point where failure is a possibility.  Aren't we more likely to stand squarely in the center of our boxes if we know that failure will lead to embarrassment or professional and personal ridicule?

And if so, how do today's grading -- and cudgel-based school accountability -- programs stifle innovation in our schools?  More importantly, is there anything that we can do to foster innovation even when we remain shackled by these practices?

 

Is innovation even possible in large organizations?

When they were asked to define innovation last night, the panelists used words and phrases like "nimble" and "ready to react and respond."  A sense of action shaped their perceptions of innovation -- and that resonates with me.

But as a guy who works in one of the 20 largest school systems in America, that also has me worried because there's nothing nimble about my district -- and while I think our leaders have a commitment to innovation, I worry that it will never happen simply because we're so huge.

Is it possible that small schools and districts have greater innovation potential than large schools and districts?  And if so, why the heck are we still building 2,000 student schools and cobbling together 100,000+ student school districts?

More importantly, why are we so fixated on standardizing everything in education?  Wouldn't we be better off if we looked at schools as innovation incubators -- an idea that Clayton Christensen pushes for in Disrupting Class -- and encouraged as much diversity within the local context as possible?

Finally, what the heck are we thinking when we put our faith in the federal government's ability to successfully encourage innovation in schools?  Are we REALLY convinced that centralizing educational choice at the national level is going to make us MORE nimble and responsive and innovative as a system?

I'm not.

_____________________________________

Related Radical Reads:

Innovation Interview Questions

Innovation and Intellectual Collisions

Teaching Innovation with the Curiosity Box