Archive for the ‘Innovation’ category

Economic Crisis: Education’s Challenge, or Opportunity?

December 23rd, 2009

Collaboratively authored by Chad Ratliff and Pam Moran; originally posted on Customized Leadership.

Schools of our past are over. The biggest survival challenge facing educators right now is not Economic Storm ’09. It’s designing contemporary learning spaces for today’s learners. We understand our young people will be members of a national workforce competing in a global economy. They also need the skill-sets to be leaders and members of a global community. The needs of contemporary learners demand more from the education sector than ever before.

We educators know well that the human drive to learn and participate in a community runs deep. Over time, in villages and towns across the globe, this drive morphed into the place we know today as school. Tinkering around with schedules, room arrangements, new strategies, and different learning resources has become second nature for educators. Few of us have imagined schools being downsized, privatized, outsourced, or virtualized as has occurred within many companies in Corporate America. But, fellow Americans who worked in the steel mills of Pittsburgh or provided tech support in Silicon Valley once believed in the security of their workplaces, too.

John Maeda writes, “Boundaries that separate disciplines appear to be solid lines but up close are really dashed, and ready to cross.” Whether across our classrooms or across sectors –we can no longer afford to see only solid lines. To do so puts our profession, our children, and our society at risk. Contemporary learners will need to solve increasingly complicated global problems crossing geopolitical boundaries: poverty, water shortages, conflicts, and global climate change—to only name a few. Inside our borders, the rapid shift from manufacturing toward a project-driven service economy is clear. Contemporary learners will need to work collaboratively and be able to think quickly, critically, and creatively. And, whether young people leave or choose to stay and take non-fungible jobs in our local communities, they depend on us to equip them for successful entry into the workforce or college, or both. We can’t wait for the federal and state governments to make this happen. This is our job. Right here. Right now.

We must do everything we can to accelerate learning. This means eliminating the distance between learners and learning –a distance traditionally defined by the ratio of 1 teacher to 25 students or so. Today, the distance between learners and learning can be dramatically reduced. Great technological tools in the hands of youth can shift the learning distance from 1 to 25 to 1 to 1—no learning downtime, no arbitrary time limits. Young people should not have to power down when they come to school or stop learning when they leave. Neither should we.

Technology coupled with great learning practices accelerates achievement. So, how can we embrace technology to accelerate our work with young people in contemporary learning spaces? We can take down filters and facilitate social learning networks to create global learning communities. We can put handhelds, netbooks, livescribe pens, smart phones and other technologies in the hands of students and educators. We can learn how to best use these tools together, inside and outside of the place we call school. Indulging any resistance to using technology as tools for learning and administrative work can no longer be an option. If we attempt to maintain the schools of our past in a contemporary learning world, we will likely consign our schools to a Darwinian future in which all who can abandon them will do so for a continuum of customized options that we educators appear loathe to offer. Schools as we know them could become as obsolete as steel mills.

So, how do we turn the Economic Storm ’09 into an opportunity rather than a challenge of epic proportion? We must use the resources we have available to support innovation zone work—teachers and students aligned in research and development; figuring out learning for our future. This means redirecting limited resources to fund innovation projects: setting up model learning spaces, creating design labs to tinker with new approaches to curricula, and encouraging educational entrepreneurs in both public and private sectors. We cannot be afraid to fail, we cannot be afraid to learn, and we cannot be afraid to change.

If we transform our schools so that the distance between learners and learning truly becomes 1 to 1, we’ll create a learning grid that powers a future for our young people which exceeds our wildest dreams. After all, isn’t that why we’re here? It’s important to consider that doing nothing is a choice. Maintaining the status quo is a choice. What choices will we make? What choice will you make?

Dr. Pamela Moran (@pammoran) is the Superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools and Chad Ratliff (@chadratliff) is the Assistant Director of Instruction and Innovation Projects.

View Comments »

Posted in Chad Ratliff, Innovation, Pam Moran

Be More Than A School Administrator…Be An Innovation Coach

November 20th, 2009

I have an idea…

“It will never work.”
“We don’t have the budget to do it.”
“It will take to much time and we just don’t have any to waste.”
“The district won’t like it.”
“Teachers won’t want to do that.”
“That isn’t the way we do things at this school.”
“What does that have to do with test scores?”

These are just a sample of the typical answers we in education hear when we have an idea. Don’t scoff to easily, think about it a second. After a few perfunctory, “That’s great” or “Sounds interesting” we generally work our way to some of those responses.

What we need is some principals, directors, managers, and superintendents who encourage and support innovation. If change or improvement is what we seek, then changing what we do or how we do it should be encouraged not discouraged.

Mitch Ditkoff writes at The Heart Innovation, the weblog of Idea Champions, that we need managers who are Innovation Coaches. We need managers and leaders who can encourage and develop ideas.

“Most managers, unfortunately, perceive new ideas as problems — especially if the ideas are not their own. Bottom line, they don’t pay enough attention to the ideas of the people around them. They say they want to innovate. They say they want “their people” to do something different. But they do precious little to support their subordinates in their efforts to do so. They foist their ideas on others and can’t figure out why things aren’t happening faster.

“That’s not how change happens. If people are only acting out somebody else’s ideas, it’s only a matter of time before they feel discounted, disempowered and… well…just plain dissed. People are more than hired hands; they are hired minds and hearts, as well.”

Coaches empower others to reach within themselves and pull out their best, their best ideas and innovations. We need managers who will coach their people to pull out their best ideas and support them in the endeavor of finding, creating, and developing these ideas into innovative practices that impact their schools and their students. We need school administrators who can become Innovation Coaches.

“If you want to empower people, honor their ideas. Give them room to challenge the status quo. Give them room to move — and, by extension, move mountains. Why? Because people identify most with their ideas. “I think therefore, I am” is their motto. People feel good when they’re encouraged to originate and develop ideas. It gives their work meaning, makes it their own, and intrinsically motivates.

“Who has the power in an organization? The people who are allowed to think for themselves and then act on their ideas! Who doesn’t have power? The people who have to continually check-in with others.

“Think about it. The arrival of a new idea is typically accompanied by a wonderful feeling of upliftment and excitement — even intoxication. It’s inspiring to have a new idea, to intuit a new way of getting the job done. Not only does this new idea have the potential to bring value to the company, it temporarily frees the idea originator from their normal habits of thinking. A sixth sense takes over, releasing the individual from the gravity of status quo thinking.”

Nothing is more powerful and unstoppable than empowered and excited teachers. Those are the teachers who can change the world. So we need to be open to and encourage our teachers to bring ideas to us.

“You, as a manager, want to increase the number of new ideas being pitched to you. It’s that simple. You want to create an environment where new ideas are popping all the time. If you do, old problems and ineffective ways of doing things will begin dissolving. This is the hallmark of an empowered organization — a place where everyone is encouraged and empowered to think creatively. Within this kind of environment managers become coaches, not gatekeepers.”

Innovation and change doesn’t happen because you have some catchy vision statement printed on a poster and posted in all the classrooms. That is leadership through lamination. What is needed is leadership through co-creation and co-innovation.

“Creativity cannot be legislated. It cannot be sustained by mission statements and pep talks. What needs to happen is you, as a manager, need to change the way you relate to people. Each encounter you have with another in the workplace needs to quicken the likelihood that their unexpressed ideas will get a fair hearing — enabling a far greater percentage of them to eventually take root.”

So the next time one of your people comes to you with an idea, be a Innovation Coach and help them develop the idea into something truly innovative.

Mitch suggests…

* “That sounds interesting. Can you tell me more?”
* “What excites you the most about this idea?”
* “What is the essence of your idea – the core principle?”
* “How do you imagine your idea will benefit others?”
* “In what ways does your idea fit with our strategic vision?”
* “What information do you still need?”
* “Who are your likely collaborators?”
* “Is there anything similar to your idea on the market?
* “What support do you need from me?”
* “What is your next step?”

View Comments »

Posted in Collaboration, Innovation, Leadership, Rob Jacobs

Shift Happens. Even in Schools.

October 30th, 2009

On a recent field trip, neither my students nor I was at threat of being eaten alive by a t-rex.

Why, despite ruling Earth for nearly 80 million years (even longer than Wall Street barons), are Cretaceous period animals not regularly chowing on our gizzards? Things change.

Scientists have suspected this for some time. In fact, a growing body of geologic evidence seems to support the theory that things today are not the same as they were 200 million years ago. (Many even suspect tomorrow will be different than today.)

Surprisingly, this idea of “change as constant” is not yet an accepted norm. (Though it comes as no surprise to anyone who has visited any number of schools in the past few years.)

In a recent post, titled “Constant Transformation is the New Norm”, on his “Innovation Insights” page on Harvard Business Publishing, Scott Anthony writes:

There are still some executives who are waiting for things to return to “normal.” It’s not going to happen. Constant change is the new normal.

Um. . .correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t “constant change” been the norm for quite some time? Sure, there were (and will be) periods of relative stability, but these are often preceded and followed by periods of growth and transformation. Nothing stays the same forever. This hold true in both geologic and bi-pedal time.

So, why is this news? How can such a scientifically accepted norm make it onto a Harvard blog geared toward innovation? Why is this an emerging trend worth writing about by someone with such an impressive resume in innovation? Surely business executives were aware that things change. What’s so different now?

Pace.

Despite vain attempts by the learned and powerful to keep things as they were, the digital domain is disrupting the old standard, rapidly. Such meteoric growth is transforming how businesses do business, and should affect how schools administer schooling.

While the key to success is to adapt to the new landscape, the strategies for doing so are not so clear cut.

Toward this end, Mr. Anthony offers 3 points of advice:

1. True transformation starts with a deep understanding of the severity of the problem.
2. Transformation requires being outside-in, not inside-out.
3. Space is the only way to avoid the “sucking sound of the core.”

While specifically geared toward businesses, reform minded education trailblazers would do well to take notes on these points, because they offer insights for being on the leading edge of transformative change in our nations schools.

  1. True transformation starts with a deep understanding of the severity of the problem. In education’s case, it must include a deep understanding of the severity and variety of the problems. Too often measures are put in place based on a single problem, as in addressing an important issue, such as the achievement gap, while neglecting or exacerbating others. Leaders would do well to think system-wide before instituting scaled-up standards that solve one problem at the cost of creating others.
  2. Transformation requires being outside-in, not inside-out. Innovation is born out of a novel combination of knowns. Facilitating the innovation process necessitates drawing in elements/people/knowledge from outside the organization. Education’s deeply rutted top down hierarchy maintains the inside-out approach by limiting inputs. As a result, much of the “reform” appears much the same as before, just more of it. More standards, more tests, and more hoops to jump through. Yet, beyond the school walls there is a shift in how people are interacting with knowledge and each other, and an even larger shift in the behavior of the global economy. Looking for meaningful and lasting transformation requires that education leaders broaden their inputs from outside the economic interests of the lobby-sphere to include ideas and influences that develop life long learners.
  3. Space is the only way to avoid the “sucking sound of the core.” In an interview with Blogging Innovation, Mr. Anthony describes the “sucking sound” this way:

Most companies excel at managing innovations that extend their core business. They struggle with innovations that run counter to their existing way of operating. Then, the greatest enemy lies within. We call it “the sucking sound of the core.” A company’s core systems and structures “want” an innovation to conform to what a company has done before, not what is necessary for success. The sucking sound makes innovation slow and complicated. To break the sucking sound of the core, companies need to make sure they have a “safe space” for innovation, and that senior leaders actively step in to break standard operating procedures when required.

In many ways, charter schools represent the laboratory of the education institution, the Skunk Works of sorts. However, as testing and accountability systems become increasingly standardized, the sucking sound at the core threatens to pull any innovation in the public school system toward the previous norm. Continuing to develop and support the relative autonomy of charter schools will help to ensure that our education system has room to explore new and compelling ideas.

Change is not the new norm, but we would do well to act as if it is.

It is the one thing we can count on. In fact, it is the only thing we are sure our students will face as adults. Preparing them for adapting to change must be our top priority. If we are truly bent on normalizing our nation’s schools, we must find a way to standardize diversification and differentiation.

Image: National Geographic

View Comments »

Posted in Charter Schools, Harvard, Innovation, Jason Flom, Scott Anthony, change, transformation

Reform on Learning’s Terms

July 26th, 2009

At a press conference announcing the “Race to the Top” initiative, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pledged nearly $10 billion in federal grant money to public school divisions that can deliver on four assurances:

  1. Worthy divisions will develop more rigorous standards and assessments.
  2. Worthy divisions will monitor growth in student learning and use that data to identify effective teaching practices.
  3. Worthy divisions will identify effective teachers and principals, find ways to reward them, and find ways to improve or replace ineffective educators.
  4. Worthy divisions will reorganize or close failing schools.

Looking at the assurances, I have to ask: is continuous quality improvement the same thing as innovation, or even change? Does it really cost $10 billion to assure the status quo?

First, the federal government wants to provide states with the money to develop new assessments based on common, internationally-benchmarked standards. These assessments and standards need to go beyond content or we tread water in curriculum and instruction. So long as we use a single measure like external test data to compare students, schools, systems, and states, divisions will allocate resources to teach to the test. If we’re going to stay locked in that mindset, then we’d best dramatically overhaul assessment in American education to drive changes in curricula and instructional practice.

What about paying for common performance standards and a common performance assessment to overlay state content standards? What about funding multiple assessment measures of different types?

What about funding a pilot that excuses participating divisions from yearly testing so they can teach to assessments more aligned with 21st Century Skills, like the NAEP math assessment or College and Work Readiness Assessment?

What about a pilot that excuses participating divisions from yearly testing and evaluates them instead on high school and 4-year college rates and the consequent changes they make to curriculum, assessment, instruction, scheduling, and community engagement in-house?

What about funding persistent online testing outside of set windows so students can test ahead or test until they demonstrate mastery?

How would you innovate assessment to close the gap?

Second, the “Race to the Top” grants ask divisions to close the data gap, measure student growth, and identify the teaching practices that cause growth. So how about paying for portfolio, project, and performance-based assessment pilots? Look at the College Success Portfolio from Envision Schools, or these projects from an Expeditionary Learning school as examples. Summative assessments like these and the formative measures leading up to them would both be information-rich for teachers making instructional decisions. They would also cause real change as divisions revamped professional development to support teachers in using practices like authentic engagement, entrepreneurship, and service learning. If schools permeated instruction with these practices, there would be a paradigm shift in education. Instead of being siloed in special programs or isolated in rock star teacher classrooms, these practices could be the national agenda, not an add-on to it or a field trip from it.

We already know that to ensure real learning, learning must be relevant to the student. Countless teachers take it upon themselves to design relevant instruction, but the way to make sure all teachers are supported in doing so is to make states assess for learning in ways relevant to students, their education, and careers.

The kind of information-era innovations called for by the Obama administration will not come from enabling all kids able to pass easily-scored tests or by testing kids on school work. The innovation the administration wants will come from adults who were habituated to academic risk-taking and open-ended problem-solving as children in schools where failure was seen as part of the engine of success, not as its opposite. To innovate products and services in the global marketplace, we’re going to need to support brave teachers modeling inquiry for our brilliant students and to administer messy “tests” with canny scorers. We should invest accordingly.

Secretary Duncan says he feels hope for transformational change in American education, but the four assurances of “Race to the Top” only assure that some schools and programs will improve at what they already do: preparing students to pass tests that in the near future will continue to vary in rigor and content from state to state.

This raises questions about merit pay, part of Assurance Three: “reward effective educators.” We have yet to adopt national standards, let alone national assessments; therefore, we are not ready to evaluate teachers fairly, nor should we begin differentiating their pay based on the results of different state tests with inconsistent levels of validity.

I completely support differentiating teacher pay when all teachers can earn increases by meeting benchmarks in their careers that are proven to correspond to teacher quality and student achievement, such as National Board Certification, and when school divisions provide financial support for teachers pursuing such certifications. Teachers should be able to earn pay increases based on a portfolio of professional accomplishments empirically indicative of their learned skills. This is akin to the knowledge- and skills-based pay approach. We should no more assess teachers on a single measure than we should students. There are too many inequities and dangers to catalog, in the notion of paying teachers more just for better student test results.

President Obama did recognize that it’s meaningful to move a student ahead in achievement even if the student doesn’t pass a test, but providing merit pay for student growth is a slippery slope. Imagine two students, both entering 3rd grade 2 years behind their peers in achievement. The first student has 2 ineffective teachers in a row, and then a fantastic 5th grade teacher who helps the student be on-grade-level by the end of 5th grade, still just a bit behind peers ready for 6th grade. Under the four assurances, perhaps this teacher would get merit pay for causing so much growth.

The second student, though, makes a little bit of progress with three skilled teachers in a row to finish on-grade-level at the end of fifth grade. However, he or she never grows a full grade level with any one teacher. Would those teachers each get a share of merit pay for catching the student up over three years, or none at all for failing to move the student ahead a full grade level in any single year? Are these teachers considered ineffective?

Money would be better spent in rewarding teachers for attaining a menu of meaningful professional accomplishments, rather than in paying an hourly rate increase on the basis of how many grade levels of growth equals an “advanced pass” on a state test. It would also be a real change to how the nation understands merit pay and would provide career paths for teacher-leaders that keep those teachers in the classroom.

The fourth assurance calls on superintendents to re-organize or shut down failing schools. This assurance echoes NCLB sanctions for schools that serially lag behind AYP. I am all for meaningful accountability, but I’m against using a single measure like state testing data to determine a school’s fate. I have more questions here than counter-points. If AYP goes by the wayside, what will be the measure of a school’s success? Will superintendents shake up staffing and appoint successful teachers to failing schools? What if those teachers fail, too? What’s the incentive for risk-taking? What are the incentives for letting a school fail? How much time will be granted for innovative programs to get past start-up jitters? If AYP doesn’t go by the wayside, what happens to schools that only have a 99% pass rate beyond 2014? Is the federal government awarding grants to divisions based on their willingness to shut down failing schools? What if a division wanted to charter a failing school to innovate? Can a division dodge the failing-school assurance by chartering failing schools for charter money? Will a division get grant funding for shutting down a failing school this year that wouldn’t be shut down by post-AYP/NCLB criteria?

We need more than these four assurances to reform American education. Innovation doesn’t come from assurance. In fact, assurance is anathema to innovation. If what Secretary Duncan decreed were innovative, we wouldn’t already be assured of how the money is going to be spent. If success for all were already assured, we wouldn’t need to innovate. We do need innovation and we need it from classroom teachers.

United States Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra, our nation’s first CTO, recently implored our schools’ innovators to help him find them. That’s an assurance more inviting than any of Secretary Duncan’s. Help him, classroom teachers; share your ideas. Share them with your colleagues at work and online, with your principals, coordinators, directors, and superintendents. Spread your vision of learning and ask for what you need to make it happen. As your divisions compete in the “Race to the Top,” remember to start a dialogue with CTO Chopra and his office, as well. Get yourself the support you need in your classroom to change your own professional practice and ensure learning through genuinely reformative and relevant practices like authentic engagement, entrepreneurship, and service learning. Students can master any content through the skills needed for these endeavors, but no set of standards spread across separate disciplines will help them master those skills. Students need your help to facilitate the real, joyful work of learning.

Teachers: there’s energy in our country for real change, not just improvement. You are uniquely positioned at an intersection of students and learning, and networked by the technology and PLC-driven practices necessary to help each other with do-it-yourself instructional innovation. You can be the hub of students’ and teachers’ rediscovery of learning. We know what works; it’s difficult to do; we can help one another change our teaching. Advocate for your students, for yourselves, and for each other. Reform our schools on learning’s terms.

View Comments »

Posted in 21st century skills, Arne Duncan, Chad Sansing, Innovation, Race to the Top, Testing