What's Become Clear

This is a repost from Because Our Future Depends On It, Deb Haneke’s blog. I think she’s right on!

Will another great crisis go unexploited?

January 11, 2011

For some reason it seems to me that educators lack the where-with-all to seize the moment and make use a good crisis to redefine how we do business. Despite finding ourselves in the spotlight on many occasions, where demands for educational reform were prolific, we responded with ‘more of the same.’

From the launching of Sputnik by the Russians in the late 50s, to the release of the report “A Nation at Risk” in the early 80′s, to the implementation of “No Child Left Behind” under President Bush, our response has been to do MORE of the same when educational reform is being demanded. Add more time, more standards, more required classes for college admissions, more high-stakes one-shot tests, more graduation requirements…. You get the picture.

So here we are today in 2011 with an economic crisis like none we’ve seen in America since perhaps the 1920′s. Revenues from taxes continue to fall far short of meeting the demands of a system that has grown ‘fat,’ at all levels of government–local, state, and federal. Public education in Kansas and many other states has not been spared the discomfort of deep cuts and more are likely on the horizon.

Yet, through all this, the primary response from education has been to try to protect current funding. Very few educators or leaders outside of education have asked if we were to take advantage of this financial crisis and make REAL changes in the educational system, what might be possible with less money. I have long contended that many ‘educational’ decisions are made based on the need for custodial daycare.

Maybe it is time to recognize the core business of education and make decisions that support the mission with which we are charged. In our current system, time is fixed and learning is variable. What would an educational system look like if learning were the constant and time as well as delivery systems became the variables?

Thanks Deb! – Steve Wyckoff

The C3. That’s what they’re calling them in McPherson USD 418. So what are the three C’s, how did they get there, and are they really leading to school change?

They got there through a multiple year process of asking their staff, parents, and community what they collectively want for each student. The C3 are the result of those conversations.

Citizenship Ready, College Ready, and Career Readiness. I have to be honest with you, I was skeptical about how much school change was actually occurring when I heard the stories about what McPherson was doing. Don’t get me wrong, my skepticism wasn’t about McPherson, it was about education in general.

As the saying goes, “When all is said and done, there is more said than done.” I once heard a superintendent say, only half jokingly, “They had a program that was so bad, they had to change the name.”School don’t change easily, in fact they rarely change.

But when I had the opportunity to hear McPherson superintendent Dr. Randy Watson talk about this C3, and provide evidence as to the results, I must admit I was impressed.

If you want to read the whole story you can go to a page on McPherson’s website that describes in detail C3.

McPherson has asked the federal government for a waiver from the state’s standardized test. In fact the date when they would be notified about their request has come and gone several times. But even if the feds don’t allow the waiver I suspect that McPherson will figure out a way to minimize the damage of the state’s standardized tests.

I believe that what makes this C3 so powerful is the focus on each individual student in preparation for their future. I was worried when I heard the stories that this would just be another program disguised to make sure that every student had the same identical curriculum focus completely on preparation for a four-year liberal arts degree. What I heard instead was a focus on each individual students post secondary needs based on their career aspirations.

McPherson still has literally hundreds, if not thousands, of issues large and small that will need to be solved as they move forward. But kudos to them for making a real effort at school change, to educate each student in preparation for their future. – Steve Wyckoff

I decided to write this post to honor those educators that I believe are actually doing something to change the educational experiences for significant numbers of kids. So my criteria was, did they actually do something that changed the educational experience for their students for the better? These leaders are actually engaged in school change.

Dr. Randy Watson: Randy is the superintendent of schools in McPherson USB 418. Over the last several years Randy has facilitated a discussion with the Macpherson community to define what they collectively wanted for their students. They’ve decided that the three most important things for their graduates are citizenship ready, college ready, and career ready.

Dr. Mary Jo Taylor: Mary Jo is the superintendent of schools in Stafford Kansas. Stafford high school has a student population of about 70 kids. In spite of that small number. Mary Jo and her staff have implemented three innovative programs that benefit her kids, and their local community. They have a health sciences program with almost 20 students that leads to the students being certified as CNA’s, CMA’s, or EMT’s. Next year they will add certified pharmacy technician as an option. Each of the students is also receiving college credit along with their certification. In addition they have an entrepreneurship center where students are running their own businesses, and a construction program where the students last year built the first new stick home in Stafford and almost 25 years.

Dr. John Morton and Mrs. Natise Vogt John is the superintendent of schools in Newton Kansas and Natise is the principal of Walton Elementary School which has been transformed into a rural life charter schoolOver the last several years. The school epitomizes what a learning by doing experience can look like for elementary school children.

Dr. Diane DeBacker: Diane is the Commissioner of Education in Kansas and after initially being named interim Commissioner of Education, the interim was officially dropped. Diane formed the Kansas Education Commission made up of 50 individuals from across the state to thoroughly examine the key priorities found in the Blueprint for Reform. Diane gets it, the only question is is any individual powerful enough to change the direction of public education. Only time will tell.

Mr. Mike Carson: okay Mike retired two years ago so this is kind of an honorable mention. Mike was the superintendent of Erie public schools. Mike lead the transition to a project based curriculum. This may be the best job of leading I have personally observed in public education. Mike truly lead systemic change. Again, time will tell if the change sticks.

I truly wish this list was a lot longer. There are several people worthy of mention for implementing programs that made a difference for some kids but lacked the systemic impact of these four individuals. Perhaps next year and looking at school change for 2011 this list will grow significantly. – Steve Wyckoff

The federal government, through No Child Left Behind, has set the direction for school change in America. The NCLB act appears to be focused on two issues; develop a set of national standards that are adhered to by all schools, and raise standardized test scores. There is a fair amount of rhetoric around innovation and creativity but very little action.

Recently however, I listened to a very interesting podcast by Neil McCluskey of the Cato Institute. The first thing that I found interesting was that Dr. McCluskey pointed out that since data has been kept in the 1950s, the United States has never led the world in standardized test scores.

Where we have always led the world is in creativity and innovation. And yet, creativity and innovation are exactly the areas we are reducing in order to increase standardization of processes and content. Other countries, such as China, are making a conscious effort to make their students more innovative and creative. No such movement exists in America, in spite of the urging by many researchers and experts. Politicians are hell-bent on raising test scores. At any cost.

The second push by the federal government is to move us to national standards. It’s always pointed out to us that the top 10 or 12 countries on standardized tests (again, who cares) all have national standards. What Dr. McCluskey points out is that the bottom 12 countries all have national standards. There is simply no evidence that national standards lead to higher test scores, even assuming you want higher test scores.

In a time were school change should be all about customization and individualization for every child, our federal government is forcing us in exactly the opposite direction. I hope, but seriously doubt, that there are enough rebels out there telling the federal government to stick it, and doing what’s best for our kids in spite of the consequences, to overcome this disastrous direction. – Steve Wyckoff

In my previous post, School change:  so does Oklahoma get it, and Kansas doesn’t?, I was responding to an e-mail sent to me after my post, School change: Oklahoma gets it, Kansas doesn’t. Part of that e-mail asked the question:

Other comments have to do with what the direction of education should be. We keep hearing that we need to change and there is never an answer about what needs to change. I know the long range vision would be to do something different with our educational system but my question is what?

So I’d like to take a shot at answering that question. Again, this is my opinion, and I would love to hear your opinion on this topic. Bear in mind that I’m trying to describe in a few paragraphs what would require months if not years of discussion and transition for full implementation. And my focus is on high schools.

There are three main areas that we need to address; what we want kids to know, do, and be like; what their educational experiences would look like; and how we would organize our schools to facilitate learning.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is what the educational experience would look like for our students. We should begin the transition to learning by doing, rather than learning by sitting and listening. I think that Erie in high school has demonstrated how you can begin to successfully transition to a learning by doing environment.

They have chosen project-based learning, which I would include, but you could also have students solving real-world problems, engaging in real world career experiences, and entrepreneurship opportunities. Stafford high school is a leader in this area. They have students engaged in construction that last year built the first new home in Stafford in almost 25 years. They have students engaged in health sciences who will be certified in areas such as CMA, EMT, and phlebotomists. In addition they will have college credits in all these areas. They also have students in their entrepreneurship center, the SEED Center, that are rationally running their own businesses.

In Oxford students are running the local restaurant, and in Pretty Prairie they are working to have their students run the local grocery store. I believe that all of these, and others based on the needs of the students and the community, should be options as well.

The “what we teach” should be changed to what we want students to know, be able to do, and be like when they graduate. All of our current standards should be reframed in the context of their real-world application. We can actually start this process today by working with teachers to understand how they can validate standards mastered in real-world experiences.

The key to the success of learning by doing experiences is the ability to give core subject academic credit for standards that are mastered and demonstrated in a real-world context. The pieces are in place to do this today.

The last area is how we organize the school day. I’ve written about this before in a blog post titled; School change: how we organize schools makes no sense. The Carnegie schedule is a relic of the past and needs to be abandoned.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification, and addresses only the changes necessary at the high school level. In my opinion the high school level is the most critical piece of the puzzle. If we change high schools, middle level and elementary level educational experiences will naturally align accordingly.

But even with that caveat  there is a great deal of work that would need to be done. But as I identified above there are schools already doing these things. There is nothing magical here. As Ron Edmonds and Larry Lizotte said, “all we lack is the will to do it.” If we want to change schools for the better, and make every student educational experience more relevant and useful we can. –  Steve Wyckoff

I received an email from a superintendent/friend regarding my blog post Oklahoma Gets It, Kansas Doesn’t, and I’d like to respond here so that others with the same questions/thoughts might see my response also.

Your recent article “Oklahoma gets it, Kansas doesn’t” has raised some conversation within our district. One of the comments was “That’s interesting because I was at one of the Kansas conferences he was at last week, and we didn’t have any sessions that covered raising test scores.

I’m assuming you could pick presentations to attend that would avoid the topic of assessments. And while I didn’t hear the keynotes, typically KSDE has brought in speakers who present the bigger picture of the world. So I’m not doubting the validity of the above statement. But, the conference title used to be, “The Fall Assessment Conference.” It has been combined with the annual conference but with a major emphasis still on NCLB, AYP, and standardized tests.

I did a little further digging in the breakout session descriptions and the  topic of assessment, and the variations on the word assessment, was mentioned 71 times; tests was mentioned 58 times. Inspire, and its variations, were mentioned 2 times; and innovation, and its variations, were mentioned 4 times. Creativity, passion, and remarkable  weren’t mentioned in any of the descriptions.

So again I don’t doubt the validity of the statement, but there is no doubt that the focus of this conference was on standardized tests and not on our kids and their futures.

The next comment in the e-mail was;

In fact, we had some speakers from Kansas talking about some of the things these national/international speakers were talking about…”

Again, I don’t doubt the validity of this statement. In fact I had many conversations with individuals about the things that we should be doing in education. And I’m sure that these ideas were talked about in breakout sessions. It is my experience in talking one-on-one with educators that there are some broad areas that we have a high agreement on. Unfortunately policymakers and higher-level administrators aren’t moving the system in that direction. And the reality is, like it or not, our standardized test scores in reading and math are what we are measured by. And a preponderance of the breakout sessions were focused on standardized test scores.

I think the focus at the national level, regardless of the rhetoric, is solely focused on standardized test scores. And regardless of what our policy makers and state-level administrators wish we were doing, they are being forced to comply with the feds desires.

Other comments have to do with what the direction of education should be. We keep hearing that we need to change and there is never an answer about what needs to change. I know the long range vision would be to do something different with our educational system but my question is what?

This discussion is worth an entire blog post, so click this link to read what I believe are the most important changes that need to be made.

I think we do some things very well and there are some areas that frankly we have not been able to change for whatever reason. We as a nation have been accused of not preparing our students for the future and to some extent I would agree with that.

I agree completely. In fact I repeatedly say, and it almost never gets heard, we are doing the best job that we have ever done at what we’ve always done. There’s no doubt that we have optimized the current system. The problem is policymakers and state and federal administrators keep forcing us down the old path.

When policymakers and state and federal administrators told us we needed to raise test scores, we raised test scores. And that’s just the latest mandate that we’ve endured. Unfortunately, higher test scores are not an indicator of a student’s readiness for their future.

I know we have not kept up with the test comparisons around the world but I also know that we include a totally different group of students in the results than most nations.

In my mind comparisons of test scores with other countries are useless. So is the conversation about national standards. The United States has never led the world in standardized test scores since the comparisons began in the 1950s. What we have led the world at is innovation and creativity, both of which are being sacrificed today to achieve higher test scores.

And the advocates for national standards all point to the fact that all of the countries who score better than us on standardized test scores all have national standards. What they fail to mention is the bottom 12 countries and those comparisons also have national standards.

I would caution you to get on the bandwagon of anything that standardizes. We are in an era of customization and individualization. In the education our children receive should be as customizable as any good or service today.

I hope that I have addressed the concerns completely and adequately. I truly appreciate any opportunity to have dialogue on the topic of school change. So please, if you have a comment let me know and let’s talk about it. – Steve Wyckoff

What magic elixir can KBOR possibly be feeding the rest of the education world? How else can you explain the hold that the universities have on K-12 education.

The perfect little world of colleges! How do you get a gig like this!

First of all universities get to dictate what and how high school kids learn. They establish standards for “qualified admissions” that have become the gospel for high schools across the state. Even more frustrating is the fact that they mandate that this content has to be taught in isolation, and in a theoretical rather than applied setting. in spite of the fact that the vast majority of students find the “qualified admissions” curriculum boring and irrelevant to their lives.

Then they get to select who they want to admit based on the student performance on the curriculum they mandated.

In spite of all this preparation, sorting and classifying, they fail the majority of their students.

Then when they fail they blame high schools for poorly preparing the students.

And even with the ones that succeed, about 20% settle for jobs that don’t require a college degree because they aren’t prepared to actually succeed in the real world. AND, according to one insider at the University of Kansas, less than one fourth of their graduates actually get a job requiring the degree they earned. I’m pretty sure the results are much different at the other regents universities.

And to top it all off they brag about their results.

All the while leaving over 70% of our kids in their wake with total disregard for their futures!

The saddest aspect is that they buffalo K-12 into drinking the Kool aid! You have to admire their influence, if not their results.

I think it’s about time we had a serious school change conversation about the relationship between K-12 schools and universities, and the curriculum that they mandate.

I’m pretty sure I’ll catch hell for this one, but I’m tired of conversations with principals, superintendents, and curriculum directors, who can’t do what they feel is best for kids because of the shackles of universities. It felt- Steve Wyckoff

Schools are evolving slowly. Too slowly. The rate of change in society is dramatically faster than the rate of change in schools. School change as it currently exists is losing ground on a daily basis. Our schools are already obsolete and getting more so every day.

As part of the Kansas Education Commission I am extremely concerned that the discussions are still focusing on how to get better at what we’ve always done. We are working extremely hard to improve a one size fits all, factory model system, that even if we reach our goals won’t be satisfactory.

I am utterly amazed at all of the conversations I have with educators who get this. Yet at the upper levels of policymaking and administration, we are still focusing on the past.

The problems are overwhelming. Where do you began? Our system functions under so many misconceptions, old traditions, and outdated policies that I honestly don’t know where to begin.

I once heard Tom Peters explained the best advice is father ever gave him, “Dammit Tom, do something!” Perhaps we should give that same advice to superintendents? I am amazed at how many superintendents are paralyzed by the fear of repercussions for any move they make. A well justified fear, but a paralyzing fear nonetheless.

I worry that we have killed the innovation and creativity among our kids. But we have done even more damage to the creativity and innovation within our system. Educators are terrified to make the kind of systemic change necessary to prepare our kids for the 21st century.

So in my opinion Tom, LET THE REVOLUTION BEGAN! It doesn’t really matter where you start, dammit, do something! – Steve Wyckoff

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

As I talk with individuals about school change one of the issues that always arises is the sense that teachers get that they are being criticized for not being good teachers. I always try to point out when I talk about school change that teachers are doing the best job they’ve ever done, at what we’ve always done in education.

The issue is this, the needs of our kids after they graduate have changed dramatically. And therefore what we do in K-12 schools needs to change dramatically.

One of the fundamental changes that has occurred very subtly over the last several decades, is the need for our students to be able to do something with what they know, not just know something.

There are a couple of different aspects to this need. First of all, for decades and decades, it was sufficient to just know a lot of stuff. That’s what separated the educated from the uneducated. And that was okay because the uneducated could still go out, and if they were willing to show up every day and work hard, they could earn a good living.

And Americans are known for their work ethic. So that worked well.

But gradually the need to be able to do something with what you know became paramount. In 1950 65% of jobs were unskilled. They required no post secondary education. Just show up and work hard and you could be successful.

Today those numbers have changed dramatically. In fact about the same percentage, 65% of jobs, require the individual to have acquired some type of technical skills in order to successfully do their work. The real kicker is those necessary skills are always changing. So the need to not only be able to do something is important, but the ability to learn new skills and apply them is now extremely important.

Howard Gardner in his latest book, Five Minds For The Future, does an outstanding job of describing the need for our students to not simply know about a subject, but to practice the discipline of that subject. It isn’t enough to know about biology. We must allow our students to practice the discipline of a biologist. That same logic can be applied to any subject area.

Obviously, it’s impractical to have every student practice the discipline of every field. There simply isn’t enough time. So we need to be figuring out how to allow students to sample the various disciplines and then begin to choose those fields that are most personally interesting to them.

This solves another major issue that we face in schools. By my estimation less than 5% of our kids are authentically engaged in the educational process in our schools. And according to Gallup’s research, 50% of our students are either going through the motions at school, or are actively undermining the teaching learning process.

There is ample evidence to show that students who are given the choice to choose fields that are interesting to them, and are allowed to learn by actually practicing the discipline of that field, are dramatically more engaged than the students who were not.

This means that schools must begin to analyze their entire curriculum, and learning experiences, and figure out ways to move to a learning by doing model.

So I’m not criticizing teachers’ effort or results when I say they need to change. But I am criticizing leaders for not “leading” their schools to models that are more beneficial to our students. That’s what I mean when I talk about school change.–Steve Wyckoff

I’ve never been short of  opinions or advice. And I’ve never been reluctant to share either one. Fortunately, I’m not all that sensitive, so I don’t get my feelings hurt when people ignore my advice and opinions. So I want to give the Commissioner of Education some advice.

The role of Commissioner, in the minds of most people, isn’t very well defined. So I think there’s an opportunity for our Education Commissioner, Dr. Diane DeBacker, to do something that has never been done before. Since nobody really knows what she’s supposed to do I’d advise her to take a page from the playbook of CEOs of large corporations. On a regular basis, they bring together the heads of all the divisions of their company for a discussion of the future.

She’s kind of the CEO of schools in Kansas. And if you follow the analogy a little further we have almost 300 “divisions” or as we call them, school districts.

I’d like to see her bring just the superintendent’s, no substitutes and no assistants, a couple of times a year, for some real heart-to-heart discussions about the issues we face, the possible solutions, and most importantly, the development of action plans to deal with the issues.

These wouldn’t be just a “state of education” speech opportunity, but rather a community of superintendents coming together to collaborate on building a better future for our kids. And not just once but on a regular basis!

Superintendents are an interesting group. For the most part they’ve figured out that the way to best survive is to keep their heads down, and not say anything. As I had one superintendent tell me, “Silence is always the easiest thing to defend.” I think you’ll agree that’s not a very good attitude to have for the leaders of our educational system, if we want to move our schools into the 21st century.

I know Diane well enough to know that she has a clear vision of where school should go, the ability to facilitate a large group to consensus, and the respect of superintendents around the state to pull it off. So for what it’s worth Diane, put on your best Lou Gerstner or Jack Welch persona and give ‘em hell! –  Steve Wyckoff

I’ve been involved recently in several very interesting conversations that demonstrate the need for school change but also bring to light the myriad of possibilities for rural school districts to collaborate with their communities to increase the economic well-being of their communities. It can be a rather complex puzzle but let me try to put the pieces together for you.

In my many conversations with rural educators who want to improve economic conditions in their community. They typically focus on trying to entice a company to move to their town and hire lots of people, in high-paying jobs.

It isn’t going to happen!

But there are several things that schools can do to assist the community.

1. Schools can develop home construction programs. Many districts already have this program, and are using it to create nice affordable housing in their communities. Nice affordable housing is a rarity in many rural communities. One example is in Little River Kansas. They have either built or completely remodeled a home every year for the last six or seven years. There are approximately 15 students living in those houses who moved to Little River.

15 students doesn’t sound like a lot in a metropolitan area, but for a rural community like Little River that has a major impact on the community.

2. Schools can develop entrepreneurship programs. This one’s a little trickier because the natural inclination for schools would be to create an entrepreneurship class. Typically, the students would set and take notes about entrepreneurship. They can answer a lot of questions about entrepreneurship but wouldn’t have the slightest clue how to be an entrepreneur. When I say develop an entrepreneurship program, I mean that the school should actually have the students starting and running businesses.

Just such a program exists in Stafford Kansas. I’ve written about them in this space before. The stuff that the kids are doing there is phenomenal! Most of them won’t end up being entrepreneurs, but if just one student a year stays in Stafford and opens a business, in a decade it will have an amazing impact on the economics of the community.

3. Last but certainly not least, I believe that students could develop a website and using well understood search engine optimization strategies, could attract two or three families to move to their community every year. There are 3 billion people on the Internet, if a community can accurately portray itself on its website, and use search engine optimization to get it in front of the right people, there is no reason that they can’t attract two or three families a year. There are at least two or three families somewhere looking for a community to make home that looks exactly like the community the students are representing.

But most importantly I believe that each of these three ideas would begin to rapidly move us to a curriculum that informs and teaches us about learning by doing. So in essence, the strategies used to improve community economic development are a way to move our schools where we should be going anyway. Now that’s what I call real school change! – Steve Wyckoff

I speak to groups often about school change and I frequently hear the same question, “Don’t you think were doing anything right?” The answer is “yes” with a great big BUT. That “BUT” is this.

We are doing the best job in education that we have ever done, at what we’ve always done. The problem is this, what we’ve always done is not the right thing to be doing in the 21st century.

The problem is school change happens so slowly, or not at all, that over the years, and now even decades, we have fallen further and further behind. Most of you are too young to remember this chronology but in the 60s we saw major shift when we included special education students in regular education classrooms.

Between that time and 1983 we saw a very gradual gap develop between what we were doing in schools and what we needed to be doing with our students to prepare them for their future. In 1983 the report, A Nation At Risk, was the first shot across the bow of public education.

Between 1983 and the late 1980s we saw an increase in the criticism of public education that led to a highly contentious conversation about “outcome based education.” That was a really the beginning of the conversation fueled by our students’ inability to adequately perform in society.

Between the late 80s and the early 1990s we saw states all across the country mandating accreditation processes based on outcomes rather than inputs. Kansas was no different. The Outcome Accreditation Task force was charged with creating the structure for a new accreditation process that would become known as QPA, Quality Performance Accreditation. In the interest of full disclosure I was part of that task force.

Following the implementation of accreditation processes focusing on outcomes across the nation, there was a mass movement to understand and identify standards, align curriculum, and base accountability on state level standardized assessments. The crowning jewel of that movement is No Child Left Behind.

And now in Kansas we have the Kansas Education Commission trying to figure out what the next iteration of  NCLB will look like. Again, in the interest of full disclosure I am part of the Kansas Education Commission.

I can tell you what it shouldn’t look like. It shouldn’t look like schools have looked for over 100 years. The problem is this. We have spent the last 25 years seriously trying to improve public education by getting better at what we’ve always done. Somewhere along the line we should have started the conversation about what we should be doing instead of what we’ve always done.

So when somebody asks, “Are we doing anything right?” It depends on your perspective. If you’re asking, “Are we getting the things right that we’re working on?” The answer is “yes” we’re doing a tremendous job. If you’re asking, “Are all the things were working on the right things to be working on in order to prepare our kids for the 21st century?” the answer is “absolutely not.”

It’s not too late, but we need to get moving. School change doesn’t just mean that we change how we do what we’ve always done, it means to change what we’re doing.-  Steve Wyckoff

In preparation for a presentation on school change that I was doing recently I was going back through my material and came across the work, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading by Marty Linsky and Ron Heifetz.

Their work is really good stuff, and if you haven’t read it I would highly recommend it. Their work has always been pertinent and right on target, but I think it is especially relevant at this point in time. The most important point for me is a quote that they used about technical solutions versus adaptive challenges.

Technical solutions are the things that we  already know how to do. We apply those solutions when there is disequilibrium  (their term) in the system. For those of us in education we would call those solutions best practice. Those are the things we have been working really hard on for the last 15 years. And we’re really good at them now. In fact were probably doing the best job of what we’ve always done, that we’ve ever done.

The problem arises when doing what you’ve always done, regardless of how well you’re doing it, either isn’t good enough, or isn’t the right thing to be doing. Linsky and Heifetz call them “adaptive challenges.” Adaptive challenges require that we learn new ways, not simply get better at the old ways.

I believe that we are absolutely facing adaptive challenges. That we are going to have to change what we have kids know and do, change the educational experiences where they learn them, and change how we organize for those learning experiences.  Their quote about the mistakes leaders make applies to us today in education.

“Indeed, the single most common source of leadership failure we’ve been able to identify … is that people, especially those in positions of authority, treat adaptive challenges like technical problems.” - Heifetz and Linskey

I think that we  our treating adaptive challenges like technical problems. That is why, in spite of all of our efforts and success, society still not satisfied with the education our students are receiving. Rural school change will mean figuring out those adaptive challenges in finding new ways to meet them. – Steve Wyckoff

During a conversation about school change an individual made the comment that we’d be fine if, “The kids would just bear down and be responsible like they used to be!” Interesting thought. This individual went on to say that students from foreign countries, especially emerging countries, come to America and kick our kids butts in school.

As you might guess, I have a different point of view on this. I think that if our kids got their drinking water from a hole next to their house they would be equally motivated to do what ever it takes to change their station in life. Fortunately this isn’t the case.

In an affluent society such as ours we are never going to return to the student behaviors of the past. It’s incumbent upon us as educators to create a system that meets the needs of society in such a way that it also engages our students as they’ve never been engaged before.

The other day while speaking at the University of Kansas to a group of teachers in the process of obtaining their certification to become building level administrators, I was asked if there has ever been a time in our history that our students were authentically engaged on a regular basis. The answer obviously, is no. But it didn’t matter. Our students were being prepared for a completely different society than we have today.

In fact, that’s part of our problem. We are still preparing students for a world of factories and mass production. A world where the most important skill was compliance. If you want to succeed in today’s schools, be very compliant, and act like you care. Guaranteed success.

Unfortunately, graduating from that system doesn’t guarantee success in life. In fact being compliant is the path to a job that has, low pay, high potential for being outsourced, or automated using technology.

The school change we need to make needs to be a thoughtful transformation to schools that prepare kids for their future in the 21st century. For us to attempt to make our kids adapt to our schools is utter nonsense! – Steve Wyckoff