TLN Teacher Voices

Ravitch Book Well-Argued, Thought-Provoking, and Short on Solutions

The Death and Life of the Great American School System
by Diane Ravitch

(Basic Books, 2010)

Reviewed by Sarah Schumacher
Secondary Literacy & Social Studies (WA)

TLN New Millennium Initiative

Why would a powerful, successful advocate for what amounted to a revolution in our education system completely change her mind about the initiatives she once supported? And what happens when she does? What do we do next? Those were the questions on my mind as I picked up Diane Ravitch’s newest book The Death and Life of the Great American School System. I had heard of Diane Ravitch and her ideas many times in my career and had heard rumblings about her so-called ‘mea culpa’, and so was excited to find out what her motivations were, what she had seen that so completely changed her mind.

There are no sacred cows in this book; Ravitch pulls no punches. She systematically goes after many of the initiatives and policies that have been held up in the last years as cure-alls for the ills of our education system: testing, tenure, charter schools, Teach for America, vouchers. . .the list goes on. As she says late in the book, “American education has a long history of infatuation with fads and ill-considered ideas.” As educators, we see so many initiatives rolling through that are promised to be panaceas that we often know will lead to nothing. So it’s refreshing to hear someone speaking so candidly and with so much depth. On the other hand, as you read the book you’re left wondering what else is there? If these things aren’t “magic feathers,” then what should we be doing instead? We definitely learn the ‘why’ of her transformation, but not so much the ‘what next?’

Her first chapter, “What I Learned About School Reform,” outlines Ravitch’s career as an educational researcher and writer and subsequent ascension to the position of assistant secretary of education in the George H.W. Bush administration. One thing I respected immediately about her arguments is that she doesn’t let herself off the hook for the role she played. She admits that, “I began ‘seeing like a state,’ looking at schools and teachers and students from an altitude of 20,000 feet and seeing them as objects to be moved around by big ideas and great plans.” The chapter then chronicles her change of heart as she realizes the initiatives proliferating education are not getting the results they should. She ends by beginning her argument that in the era of NCLB education was beginning to be viewed as an institution that could, and should, be run as if it were a private, for-profit enterprise. However, she emphasizes that she does not have clear alternatives of her own. More about that later.

The second chapter, “Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement,” continues to set the context for NCLB. It is in this chapter that you learn three things about Diane Ravitch. First, she strongly dislikes NCLB and all its progeny: testing, so-called accountability, choice, etc.. Second, she appreciated the 1983 report A Nation at Risk and the prescription it gave the nation’s education system. Third, and most of all, she likes strong standards and curriculum, believing that they lead to more well-rounded, deeper thinking students. Take note, because that’s about the only thing she appears to like in the entirety of the book.

The book then becomes a whirlwind of detail in a House-That-Jack-Built layered style of argumentation. In other words: She really makes her case. The third, fourth and fifth chapters tell the stories of three different school districts and how fundamental changes to their organizations and policies in the mode of NCLB-era ideas led to uncertain outcomes. Those uncertain outcomes are a theme throughout the rest of the book. It seems that for every initiative there are a thousand studies, all of them reaching a different conclusion.

The next three chapters form the crux of her argument: “NCLB: Measure and Punish”, “Choice: The Story of an Idea”, and “The Trouble with Accountability.” In these chapters she outlines, detail by detail (by detail) the case against No Child Left Behind and its policies. In “What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do?”, she talks about the growing movement to link teacher evaluations to test scores and wonders if her own favorite teacher, Mrs. Ratliff, would be considered a great teacher today, she of the red marking pen and nineteenth-century poetry. Sadly, she probably wouldn’t.

Finally, the next to last chapter, “The Billionaire Boys’ Club” is aimed directly at those large foundations and endowments that, Ravitch argues, are driving education reform with their own agendas instead of seeking out innovators already in the field. She talks at length about the Gates Foundation and its small schools agenda and how the Broad Foundation is supporting the movement to turn school administration into a business. This seems to be the core of her argument, that the more the powers that be have treated education as a business, the more detrimental it has been to our nation’s students. She makes this argument thoroughly and leaves no question marks about any of the major factors impacting education today.

Given that, what was unexpected for me was that there are many questions left unanswered at the end of the book. I finally reached the chapter I’d been waiting for, “Lessons Learned,” and found it pretty unsatisfying. Throughout this shortest of chapters, she uses the refrain “Our schools will not improve if…” to share what she thinks should be the priorities of our education system. She brings up national standards and common curriculum and talks about what the goals of testing and teacher evaluation should be, but gives very few specifics.

I guess I’d liken it to hearing a firebrand speaker and getting passionately excited about the cause only to be given a tin sword with which to go start the revolution. We need much more than lofty generalities to fix what is broken about our system. In all, though, I found this book incredibly well-argued, thought-provoking and interesting and would recommend it to anyone who wants to know the other side of the story of education in the last decade.

Sarah Schumacher is a secondary literacy coach and social studies coordinator in the Edmonds, Washington School District. She’s a member of the New Millennium Initiative teacher team exploring teaching policy issues in her state.

Interview: Rick Wormeli Talks about Teaching with Metaphors and the Need for Teachers to Embrace Professional Growth

Teaching and learning really come down to connections and re-connections, and metaphors are wonderfully apt in creating those bridges in kindergarten, special education, gifted education, ELL classes, elementary/middle/high school, and at the university level. It’s such a commonly occurring yet powerful force in learning, we really shouldn’t leave it to chance or occasional attention.

NBCT and Disney Teaching Award winner Rick Wormeli began his writing and professional development career more than a decade ago, drawing on his many years of practice as a middle grades teacher in Northern Virginia to produce two “classics” for novice middle school educators, Meet Me in the Middle and Day One and Beyond. Wormeli, a long time member of the Teacher Leaders Network, has gone on to write other books about key aspects of effective teaching, including Differentiation, Fair Isn’t Always Equal (assessment), Summarization in Any Subject, and most recently, Metaphors & Analogies: Power Tools for Teaching Any Subject.

In a recent interview with fellow TLN member Elizabeth Stein, herself an NBCT (literacy) and special education teacher in New York, Rick explains his own fascination with the power of metaphor and analogy to increase student learning — and extends the discussion with insightful opinions about the need for teachers to take full ownership of their own professional growth and to resist the anti-intellectualism that Wormeli sees as a significant barrier to advancing the teaching profession.

We have to convince teachers that intellectual and professional explorations are positive things, directly benefiting them. Teachers who question policies, offer new research to consider, share compelling professional reading with others — who post regularly on professional listervs and networks and think critically about teaching and assessment practices — should be affirmed and supported, not made to feel like the goody-goody at the front of the room keeping everyone from recess because they are excited about amphibians and have one more question to ask about tree frogs in the Amazon.

At the end of the interview, Rick Wormeli invites anyone with an interest in pursuing these ideas to get in touch. We tell you how.

___________________

Elizabeth Stein: Rick, your idea for a book about teaching with metaphors was extraordinary, and I wonder why no one had written such a book before. Did you get any strange looks from your fans, colleagues or publisher when you proposed it? And how has it been received?

Almost everyone wondered how I could make this into a full-length book. Just like a lot of ideas in education, however, once you start going down the path, you see these other branches in the path. Then, suddenly, one path connects to a parallel path, but the two of them lead to an even greater route, and you have an “A-ha!” moment.

My publisher was supportive, but definitely wanted a fleshed out chapter outline just to make sure there was plenty of “meat,” and to make sure the content wasn’t just a re-statement of old ideas in new skin. I agreed with this — I hate to waste educators’ time with things they already know. There are some things in the book that many teachers understand, but I believe there is plenty of new thinking or alternative perspectives that can ignite novel applications.

Today, when most people hear of the book, they nod politely and think they know basically what it is – another tool for teaching metaphors in English or Language Arts class. While there’s plenty in the book that will help English and Language Arts teachers do that teaching, the majority of the book is for teachers of all subjects and grade levels. In fact, one of the nicest and most accurate commentaries I’ve seen about the book came from a technology blogger who applied the ideas to technology education. And Marsha Ratzel, a well-respected math and science teacher, wrote about how she was excited about all the science applications. Yes!

When I explain the book’s premise to teachers and administrators, they get very interested, noticing the same opportunities and connections that I saw when writing. They are curious about the practical applications, especially when so much of the book’s material helps teachers differentiate instruction and integrate many of the 21st century skills so often cited as necessary for students’ success.

When you researched other writing about teaching with metaphors, what did you find?

Before I began, I wondered whether anyone had written a book about this topic, too. When I dove into the research, I found a paragraph, a page, or a chapter in many different books where authors alluded to the possibilities, but nowhere did anyone flesh out metaphor applications across the disciplines to make them doable in daily planning, or to extend the possibilities into differentiated instruction.

There are several terrific books on cognitive linguistics, the larger domain in which metaphorical thinking and writing resides, but these were mostly research and analysis about the nature of the human mind. Not much was practical or inspiring for the educator. When I went back through my old lesson plans and saw all these metaphors in the lessons that were successful, I realized there was a missing bridge between the esoteric thinking about metaphors and real classroom application, and I became excited about the potential for the book.

When Kelly Gallagher, someone I respect very much, came out with his wonderful book, Deeper Reading, he had a great chapter in there about the power of metaphors in teaching. Though he wrote mostly about literature and character analysis, my mind was making connections to science, law, physical education, technology, religion, foreign language, politics, math, drama, art, music, and much more. I almost couldn’t finish reading his book; I was so excited about the possibilities for metaphors. That week, I wrote the first outline for the book.

You clearly express that it's time to "bust metaphors out of solitary confinement in English classes. Shackles off, metaphors are ready to serve any teacher of any subject in any grade level." In your experiences are there any limitations? Is there a type of teacher, subject, or grade level where the application of metaphors is more successful than another?

Great question. When someone like me speaks in seeming hyperbole, it’s reasonable to start looking for a limitation or catch. But I have yet to find a general exception. From the earliest learning experiences to the most advanced, whenever someone struggles to convey an idea or skill to someone else, they think of something familiar for the intended learner and try to map similarities between the new idea and the familiar frame of reference.

It’s amazing how quickly teachers and non-teachers alike pick up on this technique. I’ve seen sports coaches, CEO’s, dental hygienists, pharmacists, auto mechanics, heater repair personnel, landscapers, lifeguards, and many more professions use analogies and metaphors readily to explain something or to make an emphatic point, and I’ve seen it even more so since doing the intense research for the book

This quick resort to metaphors on our part is probably in our nature to some degree, as humans are consummate learners: The brain is wired for ceaseless learning. We quickly develop tools for making sense of the world, and one of the primary techniques is comparing new concepts to something we know and noting the differences and similarities. We constantly seek meaningful patterns: think of how many people look at the physical geography and shadows on one spot on Mars and see a human face, but it’s really just that geography and shadows, nothing more.
   
Teaching and learning really come down to connections and re-connections, and metaphors are wonderfully apt in creating those bridges in kindergarten, special education, gifted education, ELL classes, elementary/middle/high school, and at the university level. It’s such a commonly occurring yet powerful force in learning, we really shouldn’t leave it to chance or occasional attention. Hence, the book.  

With Mike Rose, We Should All Be Asking - Why School?

Why School? Reclaiming Education for All of Us
by Mike Rose
(The New Press, 2009)

Reviewed by Kenneth Bernstein
High School Government & Social Studies (MD)


Teacher Leaders Network

How we think about and voice the purpose of school matters. It affects what we put in or take out of the curriculum and how we teach that curriculum. It affects the way we think about students — all students — about intelligence, achievement, human development, teaching and learning, opportunity and obligation. And all of this affects the way we think about each other and who we are as a nation.

Perhaps it may seem odd to begin the review of a book with its final words. Yet is also appropriate, because to answer the question Mike Rose poses in his title, it is necessary to consider the destination towards which we head. It is especially appropriate for this book, because this final observation explains succinctly the concerns Rose attempts to address in Why School?:

• what is in the curriculum and why
• how we teach
• how we frame what intelligence is, what we value, in school and society
• issues of opportunity for all, including appropriate remediation
• issue of common obligation that should be part of our culture as a democratic society.

Rose is in many ways uniquely qualified to take on this task. He teaches in the Graduate School of Education at UCLA. He has taught at many levels. His personal background is from working-class roots and he has maintained a sense of respect of the requirements — including intellectual — of what too many dismiss as manual labor. He is very committed to the democratic ideal that allows people to rise above their origins as he was able to do. He is a superb writer and an even better story-teller, not afraid to use stories to teach, to help us understand.

Before going on, let me provide some specifics. Why School? Reclaiming Education for All of Us is published by The New Press, which is based in New York City, and which was established two decades ago as a not-for-profit alternative to large publishing houses. The publishing house

operates in the public interest rather than for private gain, and is committed to publishing, in innovative ways, works of educational, cultural, and community value that are often deemed insufficiently profitable.

I quote those words from the page containing the copyright information for several reasons. First, this book definitely meets the test of educational and community value, as I hope this review will demonstrate. Next, the mission of the publisher is very much in conformity with both the purpose of this book and the focus of Mike Rose’s life work, which is to have us committed to a broad sense of common purpose. And finally, I truly think this book may well disprove the notion about being "insufficiently profitable."

On that same page Rose informs us that the essays in the book are reworked from a number of previously published pieces on which he holds the copyright. Had one not read those words, or the words in the introduction where he explains the purpose of the book, one might well think this was a book written at one time with one purpose. In that sense it is consistent with much of the work of Rose in his writing and his teaching.

Teachers as Senior Education Leaders

In a recent blog post at On the Shoulders of Giants, TLN member Ariel Sacks reflected on a new program planned by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, aimed at producing 21st century education leaders prepared with the business skills and the understanding of teaching and learning necessary to successfully lead schools.

Ariel cross-posted her blog entry in our TLN Forum discussion group. It sparked a LOT of conversation, some of which we share here. To get the most out of this dialog, read Ariel’s blog post first: Can Teachers Be ‘Senior Education Leaders’?

In her conclusion, Ariel writes:

…Coming from the opposite angle, could a classroom teacher--or group of classroom teachers--become a major force in education reform? I think yes…

I'd love to see a group of teachers enter Harvard's doctoral program and graduate having created and prepared themselves to take on hybrid roles--splitting their time between actual classroom teaching and working closely with senior "educational leaders" to help transform education.

If Harvard won't, can we create that program?

Anne replied:

That's an excellent suggestion, Ariel. I do some curriculum writing for middle schoolers. No matter how carefully and thoroughly I think it through, until I get in the classroom and teach it I don't know just how many changes I need to make! Nothing takes the place of the classroom reality check.

I especially like the idea of education reformers living and teaching the changes they recommend. Either that, or get out of the education reform business and let teacher leaders be in position drive the necessary changes. Actually, I like the last idea better, anyway!

Bob wrote:

Our educational system is yet to be widely structured in a way to tap into the leadership of classroom teachers or financially compensate classroom teacher leaders who remain in the classroom. I am unsure as to whether we are going to win over politicians and central office administrators in sufficient numbers unless some of us move into those positions while staying grounded to the experiences of the classroom.

I have a principal certification and am not tempted to use it right now because I love teaching. Financially it is a stupid move because I spent $15,000 for a second masters that did not increase my salary. I am not jumping in because when I went up to the front office and was a principal for short periods of time during my internship, I thought I was doing work that was far less rewarding than teaching. Part of the reason is that internships usually touch on discipline and procedures much more than instructional leadership.

I find far fewer administrators passionate about their job than teachers. Once exception is a principal I met by the pool at a San Diego principals' conference last year. He gave a passionate endorsement for becoming a principal. I remember his words clearly: "If you are a good teacher, ok that's something, but what does it amount to in the big picture? …But if you are the principal, you can really do anything. You can change a whole school. You want to teach a class, no problem. You’re the principal.”

Some experienced teachers need to become the prominent politicians, superintendents and principals in a way that they are still grounded to the classroom. Those that try will likely be criticized because it is not a common practice right now. I am looking forward to stepping into my classroom tomorrow morning. That is where it is at for me at this moment. So I do not know if we need to draw straws and have those that lose pursue the prominent positions, but we need more teacher perspective in those positions.

Ariel replied:

I keep thinking that principals are not really the education leaders that Harvard is thinking of--or many people think of when we say policy makers. I see principals as much closer to teachers because they are in schools every day and in contact with students every day. Superintendents probably do count as policy makers, but there are lots of other players in the game. Foundation people, leaders of organizations like TFA and New Leaders for New Schools, etc, and also politicians like Arne Duncan and Joel Klein and everyone who works for them. It would be very interesting to see how many have teaching experience and if they do--would they be interested in teaching in a public school classroom once a week, for example.

Chances are it would have to happen the other way, where teachers lead the way by moving into hybrid roles.

Reform Policies Rise or Fall on the Backs of Teachers

By Mary Tedrow

The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)  have joined forces to develop a new set of national standards – begun by a cadre of policy makers, and with little attention given to gathering teacher insights or earning teacher buy-in.

This is a mistake.

No matter what is decided in the latest round of tinkering with standards, here's a little secret: EVERY SINGLE mandate will survive only if a classroom teacher sees that it is effectively implemented.

Do not kid yourself. . .

• Data is collected and reported by teachers first.

• IEPs are implemented, upheld and carried out by teachers first.

• Community connections and parent contact is done by teachers first.

• Rates of attendance, observation of psychological issues, drug dependence, parental abuse, health issues, nutrition issues - all observed and reported on by teachers first.

For those who sit some distance from these issues and make decrees, extend your imagination for a moment to see how that looks on the ground.

In and out of the classroom since 1978, my job has grown ever more complex, all while the hue and cry over failed schools has grown increasingly shrill. Most reform initiatives have been slowly piled onto my original skill set. As a result, I find it hard to imagine what it must be like to walk into a classroom today as a novice, even though I'm working beside them.

There is no longer a learning "curve" that allows beginning teachers to move from beginner to master to expert. Instead, it's a straight vertical climb that most novices can only deal with effectively by working round the clock beginning in year one. Hence: a frustratingly high rate of burnout and departures in the first five years and more finger-pointing at failed schools.           

Ironically, hard-working young teachers sometimes see few results because their hard work does not always benefit children but others outside the classroom.  I've seen numerous instances where promising teachers have thrown up their hands in frustration and walked out because the initiatives seemed nonsensical, overwhelming, and often child unfriendly.

New teachers, fearful of recriminations, rarely kick about the nuttiness we sometimes endure. But they are voting with their feet. Sadly, those who grow frustrated the fastest are those most attracted by what they believed would be an opportunity to influence the lives of children.

To date, the chief beneficiaries of the new standards movement appear to be test developers and scorers whose profits also rest on the backs of teachers. The College Board, creator of Advanced Placement and SAT tests, looms as a large presence in the newest standards discussion.

If policy makers hear one thing from teachers, it should be that the job must be completely restructured and supported at the ground level if we have a hope of helping all of our students become successful. It really is time to take a bold step and approach reform in its literal sense and RE-FORM the work of teachers. The current standards program just nibbles at the edges of what needs to be done, while sucking in more time and dollars.

And yet, teachers who can speak authoritatively to the needed changes are not seated anywhere near, much less at, the table.  Instead we are fed a steady diet of end-of-course testing and little in the way of time and resources to help ourselves and other teachers develop the teaching skills necessary to bring an impoverished child to the state-defined level of college and career ready standards.

From my perspective, devising new ways to "hold teachers accountable" to current conditions is a phenomenal waste of time. It squanders a huge resource — those who know kids and the public system of teaching best — in favor of buying more assessments, holding more blue ribbon panel discussions, writing new laws and creating delays that avoid opportunities to develop and support a truly world-class teaching force.

We won't get anywhere by adding to the list of jobs teachers are already asked to accomplish. The newest set of rules will just line someone else's pockets while ignoring the realities of teaching and learning.   

Here's another little secret:  There are accomplished teachers who are having great success with real children right now whose knowledge and talents goes untapped for the greater good. Successful classroom teachers already know who is falling behind. We don't need a test or a new definition of a standard to tell us. We already know what we need to get the job done better.  Ask us. Give us the support to get the children, and a new generation of teachers, ready for the future.

Mary Tedrow is a National Board Certified Teacher in Virginia, who teaches high school English and journalism.

 

Book Review: The Sleeping Giant Awakens

Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders (3rd Edition)
Marilyn Katzenmeyer and Gayle Moller
Corwin Press (June 2009)

Reviewed by Nancy Flanagan, NBCT
Teacher Leaders Network

The second edition of Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders sits on a shelf above my workspace, its spine cracked and tattered. Text is highlighted — in three colors — and the volume is awash in sticky tabs, margin comments and random scraps of paper bearing quotes and additional book recommendations. I have assigned the book twice as a text for a graduate course I teach called "Teacher as Change Agent" and consider it a seminal work in the field of teacher leadership, my personal passion.

To be a useful source of ideas for positive change over time, updates to any education book must be significant, and content must have lasting value and importance. Teacher leadership is a rapidly evolving theme in the broader field of educational leadership. Books that once represented cutting-edge thinking are eclipsed as new research, conceptual frameworks and tools emerge. Works that once had great relevance and utility for practitioners are reexamined  in the cool light of collected and analyzed data. Major policy shifts re-prioritize educational goals, and technology modifies leadership practice.

When Katzenmeyer and Moller published the first edition of Sleeping Giant, in 1996, the concept of teacher leadership was neither well-known nor clearly defined.  Over the 13 years between the first and third editions, many national organizations and educational thinkers have attempted to identify critical characteristics of practitioner expertise and influence, and develop models, standards and structures for advancing teacher leadership. The new edition of Awakening the Sleeping Giant keeps pace with these developments. It continues to stand as a practical and effective foundation for the work of developing leadership in teachers — a kind of primer around the basic rationale for paying attention to teachers' craft and collegial knowledge, and a self-help plan for teachers interested in building their own leadership skills.

Revisions in the third edition were carefully incorporated; one of the nicest is the replacement of "expert" quotes at the beginning of each chapter with quotes from real teacher leaders. New self- and system-assessment tools have been added, and Katzenmeyer and Moller include updated thinking on the long-range career development of teachers who lead, generational differences in teacher expectations, and a range of new insights garnered from recent research. While each new edition has grown by approximately 40 pages, the authors have also judiciously removed or modified outdated or less-useful sections. The Resources section includes a well-chosen collection of important books and organizations, and the References list is comprehensive and thorough, a great launching pad for anyone interested in studying teachers as leaders. Moller and Katzenmeyer also generously acknowledge many teacher leadership initiatives, communities and authors in the text, including the Teacher Leaders Network.

The first two chapters of the book provide a framework for understanding the multiple definitions and kinds of teacher leadership and offer a well-researched justification for promoting leadership in teachers. Plainly, there are clear benefits to empowering teachers, beginning with increased student learning, accountability, creativity, retention, teacher satisfaction, and sustainable improvements in practice. In Chapter Three, the authors make a case for intentional development of leadership capacity in all teachers, beginning in pre-service teacher preparation and continuing with experiences in sharing expertise, building learning communities, and changing roles over the span of a career.

Chapters Four through Six describe an interactive, three-part model of leadership development: Personal assessment, changing school cultures to utilize teacher expertise, and cultivating individual leadership strategies and skills. The pieces of this model are interdependent — and the most exciting and progressive examples of teacher leadership happen when teachers understand their own strengths, fill their leadership tool bags, and work in an environment where adults can and do collaborate.

Katzenmeyer and Moller debunk the myth of the single charismatic school leader and offer hope to teachers whose school cultures seem inhospitable to the influence of teachers with good ideas. They provide a number of research-supported suggestions for reaching out to formal school leaders with evidence that distributing leadership tasks makes organizational sense and leads to more effective teaching and learning.

Chapters Seven and Eight examine some of the emerging challenges to new conceptions of teacher leadership, and the authors sketch a template for ongoing scholarship and structures to continue building knowledge and leadership models. Again — "teacher leadership" was virtually unrecognized in the educational leadership literature two decades ago. As teachers step forward to be change agents,  eager to take responsibility for improving instruction and taking control of their own work, the path is not likely to be smooth. Moller and Katzenmeyer offer a persuasive rationale for pursuing the goals of teacher leadership in spite of obstacles and setbacks.

While the authors provide conclusions and recommendations in each chapter for principals, district administrators and university professors — and most teacher leaders would love to have their superintendents and graduate advisors reading and endorsing the ideas presented in the book — Sleeping Giant's natural audience and greatest impact is likely to be with practitioners. Well-researched and full of useful citations, the volume is less a scholarly investigation of changes in the practices of teacher leaders than a guide to developing and advocating for leadership from the classroom.

A teacher colleague, currently a graduate student at a local university, confessed that she found the book eminently useful in her own thinking and personal growth as a leader —— but said she had been discouraged from using it as a resource in developing a framework for her dissertation research on teacher leadership. She was told that Sleeping Giant was a "practitioner book," full of self-assessment surveys, tools, resources, and concrete (non-academic) language. She described the text as "leadership code switching for teachers" — turning significant and complex educational concepts into constructive, accessible suggestions for teachers.

This strikes me as both true and a ringing endorsement for the third edition of Awakening the Sleeping Giant. I seldom buy a new edition of a volume I already own, but I'm making an exception with this book.

Nancy Flanagan is a 30-year teaching veteran, a former Michigan state teacher of the year, and a consultant specializing in teacher leadership and virtual professional communities. She blogs at Teacher in a Strange Land.

Read an interview with Sleeping Giant co-author Gayle Moller here.

Review: Children in Their Natural 'Element'

My son has a lucky dinosaur. He keeps it in his sock drawer and pulls it out when we play board games. His mother says that when she found it she "knew it was his lucky dinosaur." We have started to move him towards considering that maybe HE is lucky. I think he is starting to believe us.

I hope he starts to internalize this idea because it may help him find his bliss. I say this because being "lucky" is one of those ephemeral traits that seem to surround successful people. I just finished reading The Element by Sir Kenneth Robinson and turns out that being "lucky" is one of the traits that can help you find and inhabit your "element." Luck is the ability to be open to opportunities, to act on opportunities, and to turn misfortune into opportunity.

When we start to describe luck this way it becomes much less about superstition and much more of a creative skill. It is this type of thinking that Sir Ken Robinson is known for exploring.

Reading The Element is like reading a transcript of the conversation between your heart, your head, and your education. Only this time, your heart wins the argument. Ken Robinson tells us all the things that we told ourselves before we were "tracked" or Myers-Briggs'ed into groups for easier classification. This time though, your heart has some heavy-duty research behind its case.

 In The Element, Robinson argues that schooling, as a system, is like a machine that dehumanizes kids by trying to stuff them into boxes instead of helping them to find their potential as human beings. He says schooling is all about society and not about the kids. Through stories of many exceptional people, Robinson describes what might have happened if famous and successful people had listened to their parents, or their teachers, or their Myers-Briggs for that matter.

If so-and-so had listened to the teacher who said, "You’re good at ____ so you should become a ____," they never would have become the creator of The Simpsons or the author of The Alchemist or the winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Economics. The key is that these individuals discovered their true passion, realized their aptitude, and stuck to it, sometimes in the face of their education and in spite of a community or a society that didn't buy it.

The trouble with schooling, according to The Element, is that schools do not ask the right questions. Schools today are built on the question, "How smart are you?" Robinson says we should be asking, "How are you smart?"

If schools were organized around identifying and supporting students' finding their "element," teaching and learning would look much different than it does now. "The Element is the meeting point of natural aptitude and personal passion," he concludes.

I have to say I can relate to this book. There is this feeling I get when I am painting and sometimes when I am teaching. Actually, it is not so much a feeling as place I feel like I inhabit. This feeling of being in flow. It seems to be a state that almost all people are able to reach. But in society there is a meta-story that seems false to me about what creativity is and means. Many times creativity is seen as a gift from a higher power, something out of the ordinary.

In Robinson's view, creativity is what happens when aptitude and passion find each other. It is what students will need to tap into in order to be successful in the unknown future. Robinson says "it would be wise" to support students in identifying and pursuing their element, rather than a particular career or a set of marketable skills, because the only thing we can be sure of is that the future will be different than the world we live in today.

John M. Holland teaches in the Head Start program of the Richmond VA public schools. He is a National Board Certified Teacher in early childhood education and blogs at Lead from the Start and Inside PreK. Images of many of his paintings can be seen at Much Too Bright.

Common Creativity: Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century (Part 2)

Part One of this in-depth discussion of “creative” teaching and learning began with some consideration of Sir Ken Robinson’s contentions in his recent book The Element. The conversation quickly turned to the challenges of bringing creativity into the classroom in today’s high stakes testing environment – and then toward introspection.

Do teachers really know how to “teach” creativity? What does that mean? Is it a soft “21st century skill”? A precursor to pedagogical anarchy? A threat to Core Knowledge or “the basics”? The conversation, which took place within the Teacher Leaders Network virtual learning community, continued. . . .

Rick, an accomplished teacher turned teaching consultant, wrote:

Wow, this is a great conversational thread. Thanks for the insight from everyone. I'm really struggling with the perceived tension between creativity in classroom instruction and the need to teach what society thinks students at whatever age we teach need to learn.

I'm not talking about the conflict between creative, meaningful lessons and mundane, test-preparation lessons. It's more a matter of revisiting why we have schools in our society – what are the roles of schools? Is their role to pass along current knowledge and values in order to perpetuate society? This seems utilitarian only, and I need a noble, meaningful cause to fuel my passion for teaching. There has to be more to it then simple survivability or usefulness.

Part of me is right with Marsha and others (see Part 1) who say we need to teach basic information, whether students find it meaningful or creative or not. Students on the journey toward their becoming don't always realize something is meaningful to them unless a wise counselor helps them discover it. So while teaching the specifics of usage, punctuation, and paragraphing in an English class may bore most of our students to desperation, the great teachers among us show students how such knowledge improves their writing and analytical thinking so much they are better communicators, and thereby, how they positively affect the opinions of those around them. Through their improved writing skills these students cause others to act or to be so affected by their words as to transform thinking. Relevance, power, and meaning are achieved.

So where do we draw the line between incorporating students' interests and differences, cultivating non-dogmatic curriculum and instruction, yet teaching what those of us who have lived longer perceive as necessary for a happy life?

Mediating relevance of curriculum and creating the balance between mandates and free expression or exploration is a careful walk for teachers. We're not always perfect at it, but perhaps over multiple attempts and remaining ceaselessly open to students' input into its composition, we approximate the goal. I don't think there is a perfect way to do this in all situations, but embracing the mindset at every turn has to be among the more helpful attitudes we can adopt. For me, this means establishing creativity, relevance, and free exploration as non-negotiable fundamentals of good teaching. It means we stop seeing our classrooms as increasingly diverse populations, and instead, realize the diversity was there all along and we are just now opening our sleepy eyes.

And, of course, we do this all within a 50-minute period, five periods a day, every day, while training students to create formulaic test responses that protect the status quo. A little sarcastic, I know, but the sentiment is the same: My cry for the dismantling then full re-design of today's schools.

John, a National Board Certified teacher and professional painter, replied:

In our discussion of creativity it is important that we acknowledge the normative function of schooling. I am all for starting all over, burning down the house, and beginning again by redefining the purpose and hence the accountability necessary for our schools. However, I think that some of the aspects of schooling that we might change might not be the parts that need to change.

Creativity needs to be brought into our expectations every day, not separated out for use when we’re not “teaching the basics.” There have been numerous researchers who have found that the most effective way to teach at-risk kids is to teach the basics and higher level thinking at the same time. Otherwise kids will not be ready to use either by the time they are adults.

I am sort of like the hammer that sees nails all over the place. I see creativity in many places where others don't.

Creativity sometimes substitutes for the word “expression.” I can see how teachers are fed up with the lack of expression of their humanity in their practice. In many cases it is not why we got into this teaching gig. But, creativity and expression are not the same thing. Creativity is figuring how to get that test answer out of that kid as much as it is helping kids see past that test question.

Creativity is a big word with different meanings for a lot of people, sort of like schooling is different from learning. If all kids had to do was learn then they wouldn't need us. It is the “schooling” that makes teachers necessary. It is also why our creative expression is sometimes compromised for the sake of an accountability tool that does not measure creativity. If the purpose of schooling moved past (but included) the basics standards, we would probably have plenty of time for creativity; in fact, we might be required to teach it three hours a day. Then what would we have to complain about?

The big issue seems to me to be that there is a conflict between what schools need to be about, and what they are held accountable for creating. These expectations are almost polar opposites now, which can cause a great deal of stress for the people responsible for meeting conflicting expectations. We have a hunch about what kids will need in the future, but right now that doesn't matter. Right now what matters is the test. So we, as these teachers of “right now,” have to teach to both sides of the brain at the same time without compromising either. It can be done, in fact it has been done in poor schools for years.

Elizabeth followed up with a teaching definition of creativity:

John said: “I am sort of like the hammer that sees nails all over the place. I see creativity in many places where others don't.” I just wanted to add – I love this! I think I can relate, and I also do not see a problem with weaving creativity into daily instruction.

I think the basic meaning of creativity is misunderstood by many teachers who have "the tests" on their minds. The curriculum conveyor belt takes over, and then creativity becomes a fragmented entity to the point where it feels like "something else to do." Yet it does not have to be. Too often creativity is taught as a separate reality. But why? It certainly isn’t.

The bottom line about what creativity is...is simple. It is when we create something new--come up with new solutions to problems – or think of new questions related to any given topic. (Ken Robinson verifies this bottom line). If we think about creativity in this way, doesn't it relate to all subject areas and grade levels? If creativity is thought about in this bottom-line fashion, is it not easy to integrate this solution-finding approach to teaching as we strive to both engage students in content and prepare them for tests – avoiding the mindless Pez dispenser mode of test prep?

By engaging students and themselves in this creative problem-solving approach, teachers would be teaching and modeling lifelong thinking skills, not just teaching for a test. I think all effective teachers apply creativity, perhaps without full awareness due to the sound of the curriculum conveyor belt  – and the tick of the clock.

Mary, a high school English and writing teacher, offered a story:

John, since you are both a teacher and an artist, I thought I'd share my ah-ha moment in learning about creativity from an elementary art teacher in our summer writing institute. She made a clear distinction between the creative teaching act and teaching how to follow directions (which she claims some art teachers do by assigning the same step by step projects; e.g., the ubiquitous winter snowman out of pre-ordained construction paper shapes, or the drawing exercises in books by Ed Emberley).

She supplied us with lines or shapes and a generalized assignment "create a monster" and we went at it, creating creatures as individual as snowflakes. She gave us just enough tools so that we could all be successful (non-artists all). I found transference from her teaching world to my own world of teaching writing by supplying generalized instructions and letting my students bounce around within those parameters to find and resolve their own self-created problems.

It’s a tenuous balance, I think. You have to give the kids SOME help, in the form of basic tools and an overarching goal and not simply let them go at it willy-nilly. Too few directions leads to frustration or some weird anarchy that misses the goals of the course and produces a kind of anything-goes assignment that has no basis for evaluation.

Maybe this is where the ART in teaching replaces the SCIENCE? Or is this a skill that can be taught to all teachers? Maybe I just answered my own question. If you begin thinking about your evaluation before you assign something to the kids, then you can establish your loose parameters through backward design. They can bounce around inside those parameters, but you’ve provided the floor and walls needed for effective bouncing to occur.

Ken, a high school history teacher, replied:

First, on failing and whether failing has value: There’s a tale I remember vaguely about Thomas Edison. For sake of discussion, let me use the number 100 as I reconstruct the exchange:

"Mr. Edison, you have now tried 100 different things for the filament and failed with each one. What have you learned?"

"I now know 100 things that WON"T work for the filament."

Perhaps the idea of "failure" is wrong. Whether an effort is successful or not, what we should be doing is teaching our students reflective practice, examining not merely their relative success, but the WHY. Call it a lesson in metacognition.

About the false dichotomy between factual and creative: This gets us to the low level of the convergent thinking sought for in multiple choice items, with one correct answer and no credit for a second best, and no opportunity to explain the reasoning used (which might reveal student assumptions or even expose faults in the test question).

Science is often creative, in that it requires divergent thinking, the ability to look at information in a new way. I spent 20-plus years of my life, before I became a teacher, working with computers in various capacities. I knew few people who had my skill in solving computer problems. For one thing, I have well-developed pattern recognition skills, partly as a result of my musical background and training. For another, I am used to scrambling things around to look at them in different ways.

We all use mental frames. It can be important for students to understand how the frames they use can limit their understanding. In examining history, particularly of cultures different than our own, it is quite important to have awareness of how our own thinking process tends to shape what we learn. The one year I taught World History, while we were rearranging the sequence of our required social studies courses, I began with a lesson to illustrate this. I put a number of items on the floor -- I think ten --and asked the students to put them into three groups and explain their groupings.

They all put markers, chalk and pencils together. When I asked why, the answer was that they could be used to write. When I asked, “Suppose you didn't know about writing, how might you regroup?”, the pencil was placed with the scissors, as a possible weapon. And one lesson was learned. I would then ask why they accepted my demand to put the objects into three groups, and we would have an interesting discussion about how we are trained to use our minds and think.

Finally, I am something of a believer in Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. When I work with them, I usually keep myself to his original seven, even as I can see validity to the ideas of (other intelligences he has since identified). Thomas Armstrong once noted that in theory one could teach in any domain using any of the seven intelligences and then assess in another. In theory that meant there were 49 possible combinations of instruction and assessment. Yet more than 90% of what students were asked to do in school, at least at the secondary level, was pure verbal-linguistic, as in “read a book” or “write a report.” And most of the rest was logical-mathematical. How narrowing, how misunderstanding of the diverse ways in which we perceive and interact with the world.

In a closing comment titled “Product, Process, the Arts and Ironclad Assumptions,” Nancy wrote:

What a great discussion. Some random, process-y thoughts:

§ John said: There have been numerous researchers who have found that the most effective way to teach at-risk kids is to teach the basics and higher level thinking at the same time. Otherwise kids will not be ready to use either by the time they are adults. Nancy responds: So true! But much of the education discourse today is framed as "versus" – product versus process, sage/stage versus guide/side, 21st Century Skills versus Core Curriculum. Why are we always competing for ownership of the “right” solution?

§  People often assume that some subjects (art and literature) are "creative" and other subjects (math and science) are based on fixed content. It strikes me that in aiming to teach any subject in a "rigorous" manner, we often achieve rigor mortis instead, and that no subject is inherently creative or not creative. My own subject, music, is frequently taught in secondary grades as if it were basketball – selecting the students who are perceived as best, then setting out, through meticulous drill, to win contests. Zero creativity.

§ People have been using "product" and "process" for so long I'm not sure we know what they mean any more. While what students learn in "process" (discussion, discovery, formative assessment, trial and error, cooperative learning) is valuable, does that negate the need to end up with a quality product? I don't think so. And if you read Laura Reasoner Jones' fabulous TLN commentary in Teacher magazine – where she muses about letting kids "fail" (in other words, not come up with a decent product, although the process was valuable) – lots of people seem to value the product over any wishy-washy process. Plus lots of people who commented in response to Laura’s article (mostly misguided and frequently nasty people) really enjoy the idea of kids failing. Because they deserve it, or something.

§ As I've read through the descriptors of open-ended projects that teachers in our virtual community have assigned (and the exciting results you got, even when students were confused or resistant at first) -- I am thinking the members of the Teacher Leaders Network Forum do this FAR, FAR more often than the average teacher, who values alignment to the parameters of the assignment more than going off on an innovative bender. (That's an assumption on my part.) Our national educational values center around standardization, which allows us to promote competition and identify a "meritocracy" – pretty much the people who make the rules about what's important and what's not. (That's another assumption.) Are my assumptions correct?

John says he's a man with a hammer who sees nails all over the place. I just read another variation on that aphorism: “To a man with a computer, every problem feels like a need for more data.”

Common Creativity: 21st Century Teaching and Learning (Part 1)

In this dialog from the Teacher Leaders Network Forum, what begins as some reflection on a new book about education and creativity evolves into a lengthy and often profound discussion of what it means to “teach” creativity – and to be a creative teacher.

Elizabeth in New York State wrote:

In the foreword of his 2009 book The Element, Sir Ken Robinson explains the title:

I use the term the Element to describe the place where the things we love to do and the things we are good at come together. I believe it is essential that each of us find his or her Element, not simply because it will make us more fulfilled but because, as the world evolves, the very future of our communities and institutions will depend on it.

Chances are, as an educator, you are already in the Element zone. I think I have been in mine for a very long time, but as I read the book (written with Lou Aronica), I’ve have been immersed in the significance of the authors’ message, which is not only about finding one’s passion, but also about the importance of doing so personally and universally.

Of particular interest is Robinson’s view on education. There are some key points that resonate strongly with me:

∞ He argues that the education system must be transformed – not just reformed. The focus should not be on changing curriculum and assessments and expecting all students to succeed in a “one size fits all” curriculum. Rather, education should be about customizing the process of learning so students may be in harmony with their true talents and creative passions – leading them to be successful in the 21st century workplace.

∞ Robinson states that the future of education is not in standardizing but in customizing. This highlights the need to cultivate the individual abilities of each student. Curriculum should be transformed to eliminate the "hierarchy of subjects," basing curriculum instead on disciplines that personalize individual abilities. He argues for fundamental changes in how we educate students everywhere in hopes of meeting the challenges of living and working in the 21st century.

In my excitement to talk about these ideas with others, I’ve invited colleagues at my school to join me in discussing this riveting book. So far 15 of them have said yes. As I continue to read while they all buy the book, these are some of my wonderings:

Do teachers need to feel that they are in their own element in order to inspire students to arrive at theirs?  Why is it essential for schools to teach creativity? What is one way your school nurtures creativity? How does your school “kill” creativity?

Are all people creative – or just a select few? Most children are bursting with creative ideas – what happens to them as they grow older?

Robinson states that public education as it is configured today places pressure on students to conform, which “kills creativity." My hope is that as I differentiate instruction and implement multiple intelligences into daily lesson plans I’m doing my part (at least in the confines of my own classroom) to nurture rather than kill the creativity of my students.  I believe this makes a difference – I hope I am right.

 

Bill titled his response “Burning My Professional Bra” and tackled the question, “Do teachers need to feel that they are in their own element…in order to inspire students to arrive at theirs?”

I never feel like I'm in my Element anymore. Instead, I trudge through massive curricula trying to prepare my students for the end-of-grade tests. My work lacks both creativity and imagination because creativity and imagination take time – and I ain't got time if I'm going to cover the entire curriculum before the end of the school year.

Sometimes I catch myself in mid-tirade in class. "How could you guys miss that question! It's obvious you weren't taking this very seriously. D is a crazy answer. If you're going to get good scores on the End of Grade tests, you've GOT to get easy ones like this right." And then I cringe. I mean, maybe my kids didn't get the question right because they just don't give a damn about what I'm teaching and how I'm teaching it.

Which leaves me in an incredibly uncomfortable position: If I know that what I'm doing is irresponsible and ineffective, do I burn my professional bra and take a stand against a system that beats creativity and imagination out of every student and teacher? Or do I continue to find new ways to prepare my kids for the tests that everyone seems to continue to worship as evidence of effectiveness?

This is the central question in my professional career right now, and if I can't find an answer, I'm going to lose my mind!

I miss being creative and inventive. I know that having lost the opportunity to freely create has changed who I am as an instructor, as well as the kinds of learning opportunities I offer to the students in my classroom.

 
Choosing the (creative) title “Sir Ken and the Sorcerer's Stone” for her post, Nancy replied in part:

Like most of you, I was dazzled and energized by Sir Ken Robinson's  2006 TED talk, and I think he's absolutely right that further standardizing curriculum and instruction and endless testing will not make kids the creative innovators and leaders we need for this new century. His book is full of examples of people who took non-traditional paths and ended up doing amazing, magical things with their lives, once they let imagination take precedence over knowledge.

The problem is that nobody – and I do mean nobody – who thinks like Sir Ken is making education policy these days. The visionaries and the humanitarians are giving talks and writing books, but the people in public policy around education are stuck in an "efficiency" mode. There's recently even been a bloggy movement to heap scorn on the idea of "21st century learning," calling it just another educational fad.

There aren't many parents who would sit still for a teacher saying "hey, let's eliminate the hierarchy of subject disciplines – your kid loves music, so let's put him in the band four hours a day and forget about math." In the end, what a child "needs" is not only determined by his own unique gifts, but his parents' goals and ambitions and social fears. Plus the embedded belief that school changes only a little, from time to time, and that's a good thing.

I don't think we know how to teach creativity – and even if we did, we would be too afraid to even suggest it, as a formal topic of study. The Henry Ford Academy, a charter school in Dearborn, MI, added a required daily class in "design innovation." How cool is that? They did a presentation for a few of Michigan's best teachers on how to create a new product to fill an identified need, incorporating art, math, science, language, marketing, etc. The teachers had fun identifying needs and creating products (in an hour). And then they spent the next hour talking about why this would never work in their classrooms. Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies, a profession with very little ability to see out ahead of the present.

Still, I love the fact that a cluster of teachers in Elizabeth’s school is reading the book. Good luck! If there ever were a small window of opportunity to make huge changes in the zeitgeist around American education, that time would be NOW.

A middle school teacher in New York City commented on Bill’s predicament:

Bill, I hear you. It is such a tough dilemma right now. I am extremely lucky because the big test my students take in 8th grade happens in January. So after that I'm more or less free. But I am not free of the thinking that goes into preparing kids to do well on these tests. Anyone else about ready to burn their bra on testing?

Nancy is really right that cool thinkers like Ken Robinson are not making policy right now  – they are writing books and giving talks. It's a huge problem. From my small experience with somewhat mainstream people who are making policy, I have found it extremely frustrating. [But] I think instead of fighting the bad guys, we have to make ourselves so valuable, make sure we have a clear vision of what we want, and then make the policy people realize that we have so much to offer from our direct experience that they have to try it our way. 

But there's no way to do this without some figurative blood being spilled, and we can't be naive about that. Major changes to a deeply flawed system mean major players are going to lose money and jobs (e.g., the testing industry giants and all the politicians and policy makers they partner with). We have to get them in a place where they have no choice but to cough up their power and status.

Honestly, I wonder how many of us, as teacher leaders, are up for a struggle at that level? Would it be harder than the daily struggle we face in our classrooms with these tests?  Would it be as rewarding?

Marsha argued that creativity “is hidden in between test prep...”

Ken Robinson “argues that the education system must be transformed." I completely agree with this conclusion, but I'm completely stumped by how that happens. Given the status quo, I think it is foolish to believe we can effectively individualize instruction without a radical restructuring of what we expect students to accomplish. Today, we work within the confines of a system that understands all students can learn – but is silent on what that learning is or how long that learning should take.

I do believe that the longer I hang around, the more entrenched I become in finding local solutions to reform issues. I think that is one way we might have a realistic hope of customizing education around what is acceptable within our communities and responsive to the needs of those we serve. To believe we can change a whole nation...well, it's beyond my ability to see.

I'm in agreement with Bill that the very life seems to get strangled out of you in the midst of test prep season. In my subject, math, it’s almost about unlearning how to be a budding mathematician and how instead to assume the persona of a plug 'n chug calculator. Actually, most of the kids are pretty good at understanding the whole notion of conforming and play along.

I never know what creativity really is. Almost the very act of defining it seems to ruin it for me. But I know this much. In order for my kids to be passionate about science and math, they have to know stuff. They also have to see how stuff is related and how the pieces of the world fit together given those content viewpoints. Once they have that, then I am able to set them up to wonder. And if you're going to let them wonder, you'd better let them really do that and be prepared for losing control of precise outcomes. And you'd better be equipping them to accept failures because there are bound to be more of them than successes if they are tackling big ideas and problems.

I do think, even given all that I've already said, that there is a vital role for the mundane. It is critical and equally essential that I do the "boring" part of teaching.  Examples would include: earning how to read expository text, knowing how to interpret graphs and tables, having some higher level of automaticity in recalling math facts, using applicable vocabulary words in classroom conversations, taking turns, listening to others, being a responsible and contributing member of small groups, and so on.  Without some foundational pieces, I don't believe you can analyze or think or learn to tolerate situations where you don't have an immediate answer.

I'm with Nancy on thinking that no one that is making educational policy these days even has a clue about all this.

Then Susan wrote:

I keep thinking about this right now as we are working with trying to come up with alternative assessments for our special needs students. We're doing that not because we really want to find out what they know and can do, but so we can sort of kind of pretend that the are just like everyone else.

Common knowledge is one thing, but we seem bound and determined to produce students who are consistent products, not individual works of art. I find this especially interesting in a culture that says it values "handcrafted" and "one of a kind," but continues to eat in chain restaurants and buy everything from China.

As educators, is it that we lack imagination or that we are overly cautious? I wonder if it just seems to be the path of least resistance? I tend to think it's the latter that drives our own conformity, which is interesting because the most direct path may very well be the most difficult. Why not instead go with the flow and follow our students' strengths? Why can’t pundits and policymakers “get” that shaping your teaching around student strengths is not abandoning your professional responsibility, but operating at the highest levels of the teaching act?

Elizabeth followed up:

When I talk about teaching creatively, I am not talking "artsy" creative. I am talking creative thinking. And I believe this is the creativity that makes for a 21st century teacher. The kind of creativity that leads to critical thinking. The uncertainty about how to teach creativity has been mentioned. I think the bottom line is to get students to generate ideas  – regardless of subject area. We can still cover the curriculum but do it in ways that get students to justify their thinking and still gain the facts. 

The tests send the wrong message to students. They are left with the thought that there is only one right answer to questions. We all know how wrong that is. My response is to go right into the classroom and do everything I can to prepare them for a future where they will need to be independent thinkers.

NEXT TIME:

In the second segment of this discussion, Rick notes that “Mediating relevance of curriculum and creating the balance between mandates and free expression/exploration is a careful walk for teachers.” John, who is both a nationally certified teacher and a professional artist, argues that “Creativity needs to be brought into our expectations every day, not separated out for use when we’re not teaching the basics.”

Mary describes the difference between classroom anarchy and guided teaching: “You have to give the kids SOME help, in the form of basic tools and an overarching goal and not simply let them go at it willy-nilly.” Ken describes teaching methods that can help students move beyond the “mental frames” that impede higher order thinking. Finally, Nancy summarizes some of the conversation’s key points and considers barriers to school transformation.