I’ve recently been reading a lot about how traditional media are changing. I think there should be some parallels with school change.

It appears that listenership on radio is changing dramatically. First of all, satellite radio allowes individuals to listen to their favorite radio station whenever and wherever they are. Secondly, iPods allow individuals to listen to exactly the music that they enjoy most. In fact, iTunes with the use of Genius even helps you find new music aligned with your personal taste. And thirdly, some of the most popular radio is talk radio. So what does all this mean? In society today individuals want to listen to what they like, when they like it, and in many cases they want to interact, not just be passive listeners.

I think students in classrooms feel the same. It is just no longer acceptable, just because somebody is an adult, to stand in front of the room and spew information and expect the student to eagerly soak it up. Students want more say in what the content is, and more interaction.

TV today? I don’t know about you, but I think TiVo was one of the great inventions of the 20th century! It finds my favorite programs, records them for me, allow me to watch them when I want, and best of all, I don’t have to watch the commercials! And if that isn’t good enough I can go to YouTube and find darn near anything I want to watch, or even create my own, which I have done, and put it on YouTube! I can create my very own channel on YouTube.

So again, comparing it to the traditional classroom, I want the content that I want, in a format that allows me to consume it how I want, and the ability to make meaning of, and create my own, content!

Newspapers. Going out of business. Fewer and fewer people want somebody else to decide what’s important for them to read, and to dictate when they get it and in what format. Enter the news aggregators. I can set up a news aggregator, for example Google reader, and it becomes my personal assistance that 24/7 is searching for exactly the stories and news that I want to read. How does that compare to a textbook?!

And I don’t know about you, but I don’t have much time to read. So much of what I get in terms of news and information, is in the form of a podcast or an audio book. In fact, I haven’t read a book in years. But I listened to about 60 books year. I’m guessing that we still have substantial numbers of schools that don’t allow their students to consume information in audio format. In fact I can guarantee it.

So what does all this mean for school change? Probably nothing, schools seem to be impervious to societal changes and influences. –  Steve Wyckoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I used to be surprised, I’m not anymore. It used to be noteworthy when I would read a book and the author would give some advice to help individuals overcome the effects of public education. Today I’m more surprised if I read a book and they don’t give advice to help individuals overcome the effects of public education.

Just recently I have read Linchpin by Seth Godin, Book Yourself Solid by Michael Port, Drive by Daniel Pink, and Inbound Marketing by Brian Halligan. In each of these books there is significant advice for the reader about how they might overcome the learning that they experienced in public school. And these are just a few of the recent examples.

One of the reasons I’m sure I see this a lot is because I read so many books that deal with how to be successful in the 21st century. And our schools have nothing to do with being successful in the 21st century. Our core curriculum has nothing to do with preparing students to be successful as adults. While there is some movement in our high schools to try to do a better job it’s the side dish, not the entrée. Their focus is much more on improving standardized test scores, and preparing kids to go to college. And even in those subjects that don’t do standardized testing, raising test scores is still their excuse for not changing education.

Our two-year post secondary education institutions, community colleges and technical colleges, are doing an excellent job of preparing their students for the real world. Unfortunately we lack emphasis in K-12 schools to prepare our kids to attend those post secondary institutions that prepare students for industry-standard certifications and associate degrees, that lead to high-paying, highly satisfying careers.

I was especially struck by Dan Pink’s description in Drive of the two kinds of work that exist today, the algorithmic and heuristic. Our schools focus almost entirely on preparing students to do algorithmic work, and almost completely ignore preparation for heuristic work. This, in spite of the fact that estimated 70% of all the new jobs being created involve heuristic work. So perhaps the advice that the authors give to overcome the effects of public schools is important and valuable. – Steve Wyckoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clayton Christiansen wrote a book titled The Innovator’s Dilemma. It’s a wonderful book, I’ve listed it in my 10 most important reads. One of the dilemmas facing innovators, as identified by Christiansen, is that if you’re not careful your best customers can drive you out of business.

Let me explain using education as an example. In education our best customers are those students who get the highest grades, participate in the most activities, are happy with their school lives, successful, and their parents are extremely happy with their educational experience. In many cases these kids come from the families that are the most affluent, influential and respected in the community.

These also are the parents least likely to seek systemic change in the educational system.

But we have other kids in the system, many in fact, that are not successful academically, do not participate widely in activities, whose parents are estranged from school (typically because of a poor experience when they were students) and overall dissatisfied with their child’s experience in the school.

The problem is that the highly successful students would most likely be successful in any system. Their success can be directly attributable to influences outside of the school. On the other hand our unsuccessful students have few if any influences outside the school that impact them positively.

So as we try to improve schools the changes need to be designed to make the learning experiences of all kids more fulfilling. Rarely, however, do the parents of unsuccessful kids clamor for real systemic change. On the other hand the parents of our most successful kids will rise up in revolt if they fear that changes may negatively impact their children. And once again these are the most influential parents in the school district.

So while we are catering to our “best customers” our school districts are sinking into mediocrity or worse. And the day our schools get bad enough our “best customers” will abandon us for private schools, leaving us with a system that is perfectly designed to serve the students who are no longer there, and not at all well designed to serve the students who need is the most.- Steve Wyckoff

Seems like a simple concept right? Reading, writing, speaking, and listening. I thought about this this morning and chuckled to myself. If you want proof about how the world is changing just take four simple concepts like these and think about how they play out in the 21st century.

I hardly ever read any more, but I read about 60 books a year. How so you ask? My favorite library is located at audible.com. I have subscriptions for four books a month plus I typically buy several more. So am I well read? Or well listened?

Writing? I’m lost without my speech to text software. While it’s not perfect, for somebody like me who can’t spell, and can’t type, yes I’m a hunt and pecker, speech to text is a lifesaver. I recognize that I’ll never be a good writer, but speech to text does at least make me better. Hold on, does that make me a better writer or a better speaker? And is “speaking in” text the same as speaking to an audience?

And how it all of this be accepted for students in schools today? Is the most important skill reading, or  for having the content of the book get into your brain? And is the act of typing or writing the important part, or getting your thoughts down on paper?

And I haven’t even ventured  into the world of text-to-speech that is available on almost every computer today. I admit, that occasionally I will use the text-to-speech function for e-mails or articles so I can just sit back and take in the content.

All of these issues are probably irrelevant in schools because they do nothing to improve standardized test scores. And besides, most schools would not allow our kids to have the technology present in class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over the last month I’ve had the opportunity to visit with several friends and colleagues. It’s always great to catch up with people, especially those in your profession, that you don’t get to have a conversation with very often. These conversations were eerily familiar. But before I tell you about the conversations I need to tell you about the people.

Each of these individuals is highly successful in their particular niche in education. Each of them is positive, hard-working, and highly respected by their peers. They include nationally prominent speakers, directors of highly successful alternative programs, policy makers, instructional technologists, and school administrators. If you would observe them functioning in a professional setting you would applaud their efforts and results. You would also see that other educators look to them for leadership.

Each of the conversations was similar in that each had just finished a lively and positive professional conversation. But when we sat down to talk each began with a similar, rhetorical question. “Steve, what’s going to happen to education?” The conversations that followed included discussions about the insane focus on standardized tests, memorization and not learning, bored to tears students who are measured by compliance not engagement, the lack of innovation and creativity in education, etc.

These conversations were not out of the ordinary for me. Whenever I’m in a group as a presenter or participant, I always try to have one-on-one conversations where I can really get people to tell me their deepest feelings about our profession. I intentionally try to have conversations with those individuals who in the larger group are upbeat and positive.

It’s alarmingly common that in private these individuals tell me about their frustration level and diminishing hope for public education. And often times they ask, partially rhetorically, how are they going to keep doing what they’re doing. Each day for them is a struggle to remain positive and proactive.

I’m still connecting all the dots in my head, Dan Pink’s new book, Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us, really has me thinking. I’ve listened to it once but I need to listen to it again. And in fact I’ve even bought the hard copy so that I can look up some specific points. For those of you who know me, when I buy the hardcopy of the book it’s serious business.

So in upcoming posts I’ll try to explain what’s become clear to me about the educational system and what drives our educators. As always, leave a comment above to know what you’re thinking.

Drive by Dan Pink

One of the biggest issues that we face in education is that we are in adequately preparing our kids for their future. I recently finished Dan pink’s new book Drive, and sure enough more evidence that we’re not preparing our kids for the 21st century.

Let me explain. In his book he talks about two kinds of work. The first, algorithmic, “are those tasks in which you follow a set of established instruction down to a single pathway to one conclusion.” The second, heuristic, are  “tasks that are just the opposite. Because no algorithm exists for it, you have to experiment with possibilities and devise a novel solution.” Now, which of those most sound like school. You got it, the vast majority of the work done by our kids in school is algorithmic. In fact, the measure that the public, well politicians anyway, love is the standardized test. Most of which measure how well the student follows established instructions down a single pathway to one conclusion.

Interestingly, those activities in school that are most algorithmic are in our beloved core curriculum. Which by the way happen to be the classes that kids see as the most boring and irrelevant. On the other hand, those activities   which are the most  heuristic are found in the co-curricular courses, and extracurricular activities. Drama, band, art, newspaper, yearbook, athletics … you get the picture.

But here’s the kicker, again from Pink’s book, “McKinsey & Co. estimates that in the United States, only 30% of job growth now comes from algorithmic work, while 70% comes from heuristic work.” He goes on, “A key reason routine work can be outsourced or automated; artistic, empathic, nonroutine, work generally cannot.”

One of my favorite educational researchers Larry Lezotte always said, “What gets measured gets taught.”  Well, what we’re measuring in schools is the algorithmic stuff, that means that it will get taught! So we are doing a great job spending most of our time making sure that students acquire the skills and behaviors that are most likely to be outsourced to other countries.

What do you think? Leave me a comment.