What's Become Clear

School change at the high school level needs to begin with completely rethinking how we organize learning for students. That is, if we want kids to be able to do something with what they know, rather than simply knowing a lot of stuff for tests. That’s a big assumption. Schools presently are organized perfectly to give kids a lot of discrete information within any given academic discipline.

But I believe that in the 21st century what we really want is for students to be able to do something with the knowledge and information that they have. Being prepared for the 21st-century is more about the habits of behavior necessary in the 21st century than to simply knowing a lot of factual information for tests.

To help you understand I want to use an example that I’ve been using for many years. I always ask at the end of the example where my example is wrong. I have yet to have anybody tell me my example doesn’t hold up. So here it is.

If high schools were responsible for teaching basketball.

In high school were responsible for teaching basketball this is how we would organize the learning experience for students.The typical student schedule would look something like this.

1st Hour – Dribbling
2nd Hour – Shooting
3rd Hour – Passing
4th Hour – Rebounding
5th Hour – Offensive and Defense
6th Hour – History and Philosophy of Basketball
7th Hour – English Literature

We’d teach the students about dribbling, about shooting, about rebounding, etc. etc. instead of teaching them to dribble and teaching them to shoot, etc. etc. Even that creative teacher who would let them dribble or shoot etc. etc. would be doing it in isolation of the rest of the skills of basketball.

In addition we’d have them learn basketball by sitting and listening while the teacher explained and demonstrated in the front of the room. And we’d only allow them to play the game of basketball AFTER they graduate! And regardless of whether they were 5’6″ or 7’6″ they would get exactly the same curriculum and learn the same things.

It would be up to them to figure out what position and what knowledge and skills were appropriate for them.

By the way, we’d obviously have them learn English literature because for some reason dead white European male authors seem to be sacred regardless the educational system.

I think that you would agree that this would be a crazy way to teach basketball. It is no less a crazy way to organize our high schools if we want to prepare our kids for the 21st-century. Teaching discrete subjects in isolation may lead to short-term memorization of facts within the discipline, but it does nothing to prepare our kids for their future.

Just as in the basketball example, if we want our kids to function in the 21st century we need to give them experiences that, at the very least, simulate the world they are going to live in. Real school change in high schools should begin by dumping the Carnegie schedule .- Steve Wyckoff

Have you ever learned something that later on down the road you realize that your life would have been easier if you hadn’t learned it? Well I have. Several years ago my good friend Tammy Worcester attended a national conference. When she returned she asked me if I’d ever heard of a man named Roger Shank. I hadn’t. Tammy went on to tell me that I needed to read his book because he been a wonderful presentation as a keynote  speaker.

So I purchased Roger’s book, Coloring Outside The Lines. I loved the book and so I decided to contact Roger. The rest, as they say, is history. Over the ensuing years I have paid close attention to the work that Roger and his many talented colleagues are doing. They have reshaped how I think about schools. Which can be a very frustrating thing because there is so little we can do to change schools.

You see, Roger has made me see how what we do in schools has little to do with learning, especially learning that will enable the student to be a more productive member of society. In Roger’s words, “How we teach is antithetical to how we learn.” Roger talks about, “natural learning” and how it is different than what we do in schools. So here’s a quick look at the difference.

Natural learning occurs when an individual wants to learn to do something:

1. The learner has a goal. The more ownership the student has in the goal the better it is, but a skilled educator can create goals that motivate the student.  All learning occurs when the student does something, the goal is to learn to do that “something.”

2. The learner must then develop their own plan for achieving the goal. This plan is the path that the student has chosen to follow in pursuit of his goal.

3. As the student begins to implement their plan they will have expectations.  In their mind they believe they know what to expect as they proceed with their plan.

4. Along this path there will always be expectation failure or surprise. It’s inevitable nothing can be learned without either failing or being surprised that their plan succeeded.

5. Following expectation failure or surprise is the explanation that leads to student learning.  This explanation can come in many forms. It can be a teacher explaining, a video, a book, a website etc. This is the moment that learning occurs.

In natural learning the cycle is constantly repeated. If you think about it, it’s how we learn everything. How you learned to walk, how you learn to talk, how you learned to crochet, how you learn to fish. It’s also how you learned to read and how you learned to calculate.

So how does this compare to what we do in schools? Let’s look at our approach in traditional classrooms.

1. Explanation

2. Explanation

3. Explanation

4. Test

This is exactly the cycle we follow in traditional classroom. Our hope is that the students will remember what we told them long enough to regurgitate it on the test. And more and more that test is becoming a high-stakes State administered standardized tests thanks to No Child Left Behind.

So Roger has led to a great deal of frustration on my part. As they say ignorance is bliss. And my life as an educator was much easier before I considered how kids actually learn. –  Steve Wyckoff

Last week was a hectic week but it ended on a positive note. I got to attend MACE, that stands for Mid America Computers in Education, in Manhattan Kansas. MACE is always one of my favorite conferences to attend, not so much for the presentations but for the people. You see, MACE attract some of the most innovative, and creative, nerd wannabes around the state. For the most part they’re classroom teachers who are figuring out new and unique ways to use technology in their classrooms.

Typically, the presentations aren’t always the best, but I appreciate how many of these individuals are teachers taking a risk to stand in front of their peers and present. Many for the first time. The kinds of things they are doing in their classroom won’t get the attention of Bill Gates, they are swimming upstream against the system and for that they deserve a lot of credit.

MACE is always well run and the location on the campus of Kansas State University is beautiful. But I’m still most impressed with the enthusiasm, creativity, and innovation that the educators present are demonstrating. I wish, for the sake of all these individuals, their efforts were leading to more systemic change. Unfortunately there isn’t much of that going on in education today. You see very few administrators, principals or superintendents, at MACE. That’s a shame because they could learn a lot.

The good news is you hear very little, if any, discussion about raising standardized test scores. The bad news is conferences that don’t focus on standardized test scores don’t get very much attention. Focusing on standardized test scores is politically valuable, focusing on the stuff that the educators present at MACE focus on  means better educated kids. Unfortunately, in schools today we’re more interested in raising test scores than we are in providing a better educational experience for kids. If test scores did as much to prepare kids for the 21st century as do the educators at MACE public education would be in a lot better shape. – Steve Wyckoff

Compliance or engagement, which is most important? I am often concerned when educators talk about engagement that they are actually talking about compliance. Let me give you an example. I’ve seen several surveys that purport to measure engagement but when you look at what they measure they talk about students who get to class on time, students who turn in their homework, students who don’t miss school, and students to do their homework. To me those are all issues of compliance, students are doing what they’re told, when they are told, and how they are told.

Engagement on the other hand is much more about students that are so involved in what they’re doing that they lose track of time. So involved that they spend evenings and weekends working on schoolwork, not because they’re required to but because they want to.

But the most important issue around compliance and engagement is how well our students being prepared for their future. Students who are compliant are being perfectly prepared for algorithmic jobs. Those are the jobs that have established processes and procedures that lead to a defined correct outcome. That’s exactly what we prepare kids for in schools. Look at standardized tests, we want students to know exactly the right steps to come up with exactly the right answer. Algorithmic.

On the other hand, those jobs that don’t have established processes and procedures that don’t lead to one correct outcome make up about 70% of the new jobs being created in America. Yet in most schools little or no time  is spent with students in preparation for this heuristic types of work. Again, if you look at standardized tests they in no way reflect heuristic thinking.

So which is important compliance or engagement? Obviously the answer is engagement. Yet it’s not what we’re doing in schools. If we are going to prepare students for the 21st century  it’s important that they become self-directed, and problem solvers. And I don’t mean problems that have a well-defined process with one correct answer. For our students, having an educational system that is algorithmic by nature is boring and irrelevant. One of the keys to school change will be to quit focusing on standardized tests and instead preparing our kids for their future. That will mean making the educational experience heuristics in nature, not algorithmic. – Steve Wyckoff

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 read this phrase the other day and I thought it applied to education perfectly. Best in execution but worst in strategy. It is my observation that we are doing the best job in education we have ever done, doing what we’ve always done. Our execution is excellent. State assessment scores are on the rise. Dropout numbers are in decline. Each time the state or federal bureaucrats give us a new task to accomplish with our students we commit ourselves to accomplishing it, regardless of how little sense it makes.

On the other hand our students are less well prepared for the world they are going to live in than they have ever been. We have the wrong strategy. We are still preparing our kids as if a small percentage are going to go on to college and earn four-year degrees and the rest, at some point, are going to drop out of the system and go to a factory where they will do mindless work exactly as management tells them to.

Want some supporting evidence? Our core curriculum was designed over 115 years ago. It is still the core of what we teach our kids. It was designed to prepare the small percentage of high school students who were going on to college in 1892 to be successful. It was deemed to be such a good curriculum that every high school student should have it. And it was okay, because those kids who didn’t do well in the curriculum could still go into the workplace, show up every day, do what they were told, and make a good living.

More evidence: in 1950 over 60% of the jobs in America required unskilled workers. Today less than 15% of the jobs in America require unskilled workers. Only about 23% of all the jobs in America require a four-year college degree. The remaining 60% to 65% of the jobs require some type of technical skills.

But we are still preparing every student to go to college in the hopes that they will earn a four year college degree. And we are ignoring the vast numbers of students who need a different kind of preparation to be productive members of society in the 21st century.

Our strategy is all wrong …  but our execution is flawless. – 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

We’ve never seen the kind of financial cuts that are taking place in education today. Regardless of how you feel about school finance, and the ability of school districts to utilize their money wisely, the cuts that are being made today in the majority of school districts are painful at best. Decisions are starting to impact staffing decisions, including classroom teachers.

But every cloud has a silver lining. And often times the silver lining doesn’t show itself until much later. School districts are looking at ways to save money, cut costs, and yet at the same time improve the quality of the educational opportunities their students receive.

Down the road we’re going to look back at the decisions that are being made and many of them will have historical significance. Some because they devastated the district, and some districts will never recover from those decisions. But others will lead to creative and innovative solutions that will indeed increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the education our kids receive.

Our industry has been amazingly stagnant for the last century. We are long overdue to redesign major parts of our educational system; what we teach, how we teach it, how we organize to teach it, and how we assess what we have taught. Hopefully,  we will talk about, what the kids learned, how they learned it, where and how they were grouped to learn it, and how they demonstrated their understanding and use of what they learned.

Hopefully there will be enough examples of creative and innovative solutions that they will impact the educational system systemically. What would I like to see those systemic changes be?

I’d love to see all of our students emotionally (authentically) engaged in their learning experiences  on a regular basis. I’d love to see the content of what they are learning be the knowledge and skills that will make them more productive in their lives after school. I’d love to see them organized like we organize for work in the real world, in ways that allow them to collaborate with their peers and with experts from the fields of their choice. I’d love to see us scrap the entire standardized testing system and instead evaluate student learning based on the skills and knowledge they obtain which are aligned with their desired career  areas. I’d love to see teachers functioning as cold learners with the students, assuming a much more Socratic role. And most of all I love to see our students leave school loving to learn, and self-directed in their lives.

Is there hope? Only time will tell. Right now there is little reason for hope. Almost all of the discussions are centered on what to cut. On the other hand I was at the Topeka USD 501 Board of Education meeting last night and they are doing a great job of discussing the changes they can make to reduce expenses while at the same time focusing on improved opportunities for all of their students.

We can only hope that education and educators don’t blow it. – Steve Wyckoff

Why can’t schools change? It’s an interesting question. If you ask many educators they would say that schools have changed dramatically. I disagree. I think what goes on inside some classrooms has changed dramatically, but not schools. We do use more technology in classrooms; projectors, computers, smart boards, etc. But what we’re doing inside those walls is basically the same thing we’ve done for over 100 years. And sadly, with pretty much the same curriculum. Oh there have been some changes, but mostly tinkering inside the old format.

Some people believe that we need to change the rules so that schools look different. But then I can show you examples of schools that look dramatically different than traditional schools and are functioning within the same rules, regulations, and policies. So the rules must not be what is impeding our ability to change.

Other people think that a tradition that is over 100 years old is keeping us from changing. That we’ve done school the same way for so long that the belief system, and the culture around schools is too entrenched to change. These people often see parents as the biggest reason we can’t change. That parents demand that schools look like they did when they were students.

Still more people believe that the arcane rules for admission into college keep us from changing. That the emphasis on preparing every student to go to college forces schools to behave exactly as they always have. They believe that the Carnegie unit, Departmentalization, focus on standardized test, etc. are the fault of universities.

A cause that is never considered among educators is that perhaps we lack the leadership to make changes. School administrators are of the opinion that they are no longer managers, but rather leaders. I’m not sure I see any difference in their behaviors from when they were managers. I don’t think that continuous improvement of traditional processes constitutes leadership when there is a need for real systemic change.

There is also a school of thought that educators are risk-averse by nature, and that has a whole, are very, very reluctant to change. But when I talk to business people they feel the same way about themselves. Being resistant to change seems to be, to a large degree, human nature, and not reserved for educators.

And last, but certainly not least, there seems to be an non-articulated argument about the purpose of schools. There seems to be a “venn diagram” of purposes for schools. Prepare kids to go to college, prepare kids for the workplace, to give them a broad liberal education, to indoctrinate them for society, etc. The conflicting camps all want schools to change in a different way, therefore causing gridlock.

I think, in my humble opinion, that each of these is a characteristic of a centrally controlled bureaucracy. And there is no bigger centrally controlled bureaucracy than public education. Bureaucracies were designed to guarantee compliance, and stability in systems and processes. There is no system with more stable systems and processes nor more compliant than public education.

So what do I think the chances of real systemic change are? Zero. Nadda. None. In fact I think the bureaucracy has moved from the state level to the federal level with a corresponding increase in stability and compliance. I chuckle at the federal government’s insistence that they are encouraging real systemic change in schools. My observation is that they are causing exactly the opposite effect. Our schools have become test preparation Academy, whose sole purpose is to prepare kids to increase their scores on standardized test.

So what’s the solution? I believe the solution is “mission impossible.” The elimination of the educational bureaucracy at a time when our country is moving in the opposite direction seems hopeless. I keep looking for that ray of hope, but every time I see one, the results never seem to pan out. I don’t think there is a rule that America has to stay the best. Time will tell.- Steve Wyckoff

Erie school district has been blessed. By Mike Carson, Rose Frey, Ted Hill, and many many others who were involved in the transformation of their school. Erie high school is unique. What makes them unique is that their focus is on their students, and their student’s futures.

Erie high school has changed what the students learn, how the students learn, and how they organize the students to learn. In addition, while the students do take the state mandated standardized tests, their students are measured in much different ways than almost all other kids across the country.

The curriculum used in Erie high school is based on projects and problems designed by each individual student, based on their own interest, needs, and desires. And the results have been equally unique, students, and I mean all students, have far exceeded the normal expectations we have for high school kids. And, as former superintendent Mike Carson is fond of saying, “It isn’t just the head cheerleader and the quarterback that are doing great things.”

What Erie high school has figured out is how to not just expose their kids to curriculum with all the standards, but how to actually engage the students in meaningful work, whereby the kids learn the things that they want them to learn. Is it perfect? No. There have been, and continue to be, many issues. But unlike school improvement in traditional schools, they are getting better at the right things, rather than just getting better at what schools have always done.

I’ve observed for the last 40 years scores of creative an innovative projects. Some big, some small. The thing that they all had in common was a champion. The sad truth is, as soon as the champion moved on, and eventually they always do, the gravity of the status quo always pulled the project back into the mainstream and morphed it into a traditional program. There seems to be no way to make real systemic change in the educational system.

So I’m watching Erie high school with great interest. The superintendent has retired, as has the high school principal responsible for the project-based, problem-based learning curriculum. Other changes have been made with key personnel. My hope is that the model employed in Erie high school will spread across the state and the country.  The hope is that new champions have replaced the old champions.

I have low expectations. In spite of the fact that their kids are doing exceptional things and are truly well-prepared for the life they’re going to live; and in spite of the fact that it is actually cheaper to educate kids in this model; and in spite of the fact that we are in a financial crisis; I fear that it is impossible to actually make sustainable systemic change in public schools.

Time will tell.

I had the opportunity earlier this week to interview almost 20 educational leaders. I asked each of these individuals what the biggest issue is that they were facing has an educator in their role. Almost without exception they identified the financial crisis as the single most important issue. No surprise there.

But the follow-up question that I asked each of these individuals was, “What are you doing to address this issue?” Again, almost without exception, they described the cuts they were making. With a few of the individuals, because of their role in education, I asked them about innovative and creative solutions. I was very disappointed that almost all of the responses were the same, find ways to do what we always done with less money. It’s almost as if, as educators, we can’t see any solutions for educating children other than what we’ve done for more than 100 years.

But I did have three conversations that were very interesting to me. First of all I interviewed the interim commissioner, Dr. Diane DeBacker. Diane is an individual that I have the utmost respect for. In fact, I’m very perturbed that she isn’t a candidate for the commissioner’s position. She would be outstanding. But in our discussion I asked her if she was seeing creative and innovative solutions emerging as a result of the financial crisis. Her response was that she thinks schools are reverting back and becoming more traditional and more entrenched in traditional solutions.

The second conversation was with former Erie school district superintendent Mike Carson. Mike retired last year partially due to health considerations that were at least exacerbated by, if not caused by, the stress associated with making systemic change in the school system. For my money Erie high school is the best school in the state of Kansas. I have no idea what their standardized test scores are but what I did see when I visited Erie was every student authentically engaged in their work. Csikszentmihalyi would’ve said that they were hand “flow.”

If you’ve read my blog posts you know that I think standardized tests are the curse on education. Erie he doesn’t seem to focus on standardized test scores but rather on preparing students for their lives. What Erie high school has done is create a curriculum that is project based in problem-based. Where every student is engaged in learning centered on what is important to them and what they are interested in.

So when I asked Mike what the biggest issue in education was, he responded that our kids not being engaged in what they’re doing is the single biggest problem. And when I asked him about solutions he didn’t automatically say, “we need more money”, but he described a curriculum that met the needs of the students and was more relevant to their lives. What a breath of fresh air.

The third interview of interest was not with an educator, but rather with an architect, Allan Milbradt. Allan designed the new high school for the Erie school district. Allan told me that it was the best project he ever worked on because the school design was based on the curriculum that would be taught within the school, not simply modeled after every other school. Allan probably has more expertise in learning then many educational leaders.

So to answer my opening question, are we wasting a good crisis? I think the answer is yes. We have an opportunity to make lasting systemic change in the educational system. Changes that are sorely needed. Yet very few educational leaders are seeking really innovative and creative solutions.

Every school district has a mission statement, they’re all pretty much the same. In some way they all talk about preparing students to be productive members of society. But in spite of the fact that society has changed dramatically not just over the last hundred years but in the last 15 years, schools are doing pretty much the same things they’ve done for my entire life, and that’s a long time.

I think that the three most important things that schools try to accomplish, from their perspective, are:

1. Custodial care … make sure that we provide a place for every child to be in a safe secure environment.

2. Raise standardized test scores …  the growing emphasis on standardized test scores has almost every school obsessively focused on raising their standardized test scores.

3. Cover the content required by the Board of Regents for students to get into a four-year colleges … I’ve written many times about the core curriculum but as obsessive as we are about standardized test scores, we are even more obsessed with covering the content mandated by the Board of Regents, and in a manner mandated by the Board of Regents.

I’ve been spending time trying to make sense of this and thinking about what I believe the mission of schools should be. In fact I agree for the most part with the mission statements that schools have. The reality is they rarely have their systems aligned with accomplishing their mission. With that in mind three things that I believe are the most important for schools to try to accomplish are:

1. Custodial care … yes, it’s the same number one is traditional schools but I do think it’s important. I think it may look a lot different in that a safe and secure environment is necessary, but may not occur within the walls of the school.

2. A love for learning … okay, so I stole this one from W. Edwards Deming. Deming is one of the great thinkers of our time and he said if schools did nothing but send every student out into the world loving to learn that most of our issues could be dealt with more effectively. I agree completely. Our students come to school not even intending to learn, let alone developing a love for learning. They most often described high school as boring and irrelevant.

3. Self-directed … I believe that if kids love learning and are self-directed in their learning, whatever they need to learn to do to be successful, they will learn. In addition on top of learning they will learn how to do something with what they’ve learned. I would observe that over all the years that I’ve been involved with hiring and watching new employees integrate into the organization, the single greatest characteristic that they can have in the workplace is to be self-directed.

Tell me what you think I’d love to know your opinion. And to be honest my three most important areas of accomplishment are not written in stone, so I could be persuaded of others.

I’ve given a lot of thought to the standardized test phenomenon. How is it that so many well-intentioned and highly intelligent people can have so much faith in such a detrimental process? I think I might have at least part of the puzzle figured out. We’ve been using standardized tests for decades, and educators through those decades have tried to convince policymakers and the public alike what a great job we’re doing by sharing our standardized test scores.

And we’ve convinced the public and policymakers how important they are. The problem is we liked our test scores when we could pick and choose which scores to report. Now that we have to report the scores of all kids they’re not, in our minds, nearly as representative of our efforts and success as they were when we only reported the best scores.

But I think the bigger issue is we’ve confused what standardized test scores represent to us. Over the years we became aware that bright, well-educated, highly successful students, did very well on standardized tests. We interpreted that to mean that if you have high standardized test scores you will be bright, well-educated, and highly successful. Our reaction as educators, and the reaction of policymakers was to say that if we had more and more kids obtaining high scorers on standardized test they two would be bright, well-educated, highly successful.

But the relationship is not causal, it’s correlational. And on top of that we’ve reversed the relationship:

Highly successful =  high test scores

THEREFORE …

High test scores =  well-educated

That appears to be the logic that all of us, educators and policymakers alike, seem to be following. Yet when I looked at the issue in these terms I didn’t believe it at all. We’re proving that we can raise test scores but there is a growing sense that our kids are less well educated.  And that doesn’t even begin to address the issue of what “well-educated” means!

We’ve approached the evidence produced by standardized tests as if the relationship between the test and student success is causal. But in reality there is simply a correlational relationship between kids who are successful and their scores on standardized tests.

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.