Education System Improvement

We are in the business of improving the way people and organizations improve.

We are a small firm that creates improvements in other companies, organizations, and individuals by shifting the way learning strategies are applied. We look at existing learning and communication systems, organizational cultures, and results/expectations before analyzing new objectives, proposing higher standards, and employing strategic paths for improvement.

Organizational Change
Utilizing change management and leadership development practices, we slowly begin altering the organization's direction and shifting its values hierarchy. The most common organizational response to changes is a pervasive fear and reticence which we overcome by inclusion and subtle changes in the initial phases.  As perceived threats are allayed and minimized, the organization become more and more willing to trust.  Building upon this trust is key for both short-term and long-term transformation.

We understand the importance of these strategies and advocate for them to be a central influence in the improvement process.
Working with education technology and improvement strategies in corporate environments have provided us with insights that could also be useful in improving school systems.  Corporate America, for the sake of increasing competitive advantages, changed the way they approach employee education.  What was once an expensive, delivery-centric training process became a measurable, ROI-justified, learner-centric process that proved its worth by:

• Lowering its own departmental costs
• Lowering overall company costs
• Increasing employee effectiveness company-wide
• Improving organizational decision making and operational efficiencies
• Increasing  market agility and customer satisfaction
• Retaining and improving the employee talent pool

Looking at our education system in the United States, specifically the K-12 public education system, we quickly saw many places where the same strategies that proved so effective in Corporate America could be successfully applied.  What we didn't expect was the cultural response.

Corporations operate on the premise of profitability. As such, all companies understand the need for competitive response.  Even non-profits that give out funding need to have enough income to sustain their operations.   Yet, public schools are not motivated the same way.  They rely on sustaining a consistent process.  They value continuity of expectations over continual improvement.  They value employee retention over improved effectiveness.  One more aspect that caused the school systems to fail to keep pace with changing times was a lack of effective leadership.

Clark Learning specializes in improvement strategies, but schools were not willing to follow new strategies.  They had no reason to change.  Leaders were brought in who wanted to improve things, but the principals and teachers were not eager to accept these initiatives.  Then No Child Left Behind and the fiscal crises began to pinch the schools and motivate them to accept changes.

Clark Learning then began working with local schools to implement change through inclusion and subtle, acceptable improvement strategies.  As schools look for ways to become regionally and globally competitive again, their need for guidance and effectiveness grows also.  We look forward to guiding schools and school leaders to find their best viable options, to continuously improve, and to serve their students with impressive effectiveness. 

Push vs. Pull Learning

Ever hear the saying, "everybody loves to buy, but nobody wants to be sold"?  Well, that's because we don't like having our freedom of choice influenced by someone else's idea of what they think we should do.  The same is true in learning.  Everybody loves to learn, but nobody likes being taught.

Push learning happens when an outside source or authority selects curriculum for a learner.  It comes with an implied understanding that "You need to learn this," or, "You have to learn this."  In a teacher-centric learning system, like most schools, the push learning methodology reigns supreme.  But, it also goes against the natural course of a mind's learning process.

The human mind is designed to learn on an opt-in basis.  The person controls motives and reasoning for learning.  When the person is genuinely interested in learning, they learn faster, retain the information longer, and are more likely to integrate the knowledge into their overall knowledge base, creating stronger cognitive connection points for future learning.  When the student is not actually interested, the information is pushed on them the same way a new food is forced on a child before they want to try it, the same way an in-law pops in for an unexpected visit and stays too long.  When pushed, the person naturally resists the experience and decides to minimize their time and depth with the process. 

Pull learning is based on the Adult Learning Theory.  It centers on the learners' decisions and preferences about learning, their relationship to the meaning of the content, and the ultimate value of the curricula.  In organizations that have evolved their learning strategies from mandated training classes toward becoming a "learning organization" the employees drive the learning content and the delivery methods most commonly offered.  These organizations realized that providing learning opportunities as a means to greater job success, and associate relationships that value the exchange of knowledge as a means of increasing overall company performance, gave them an increased ability to compete.  It also drove employee performance and retention numbers through the roof as people found greater esteem, respect, and satisfaction as added benefits of working there.

In academic environments the same principles apply and have a similarly positive effect on the learners' successes.  Students that have chosen a college major that fits their future interests and current aptitudes end up more highly motivated and willing to do the extra work that achieves better grades.  But, there's more.  Students who are truly interested in what they are studying extend their gaze into peripheral knowledge and associated applications of theories.  Instead of just doing the minimum, they end up doing much more.  They read the whole article instead of just the point they need to find.  They call experts in the field and ask pertinent questions.  And, they get excited about the way it all comes together.  They are reaching their thoughts out into the field of knowledge and pulling information into their minds. This way of learning greatly increases their preferred knowledge base, which in turn increases their associative knowledge and correlative relevance.  For example, we may be able to easily learn the stitching pattern on a baseball, but when we learn more about the game and the dynamics that occur between an experienced pitcher and an experienced batter, we then understand the use of the stitches for aerodynamics and competitively changing the ball's trajectory from pitcher to plate.   Associative knowledge and correlative relevance create fuller understanding and enhance context.

Pull learning is learner-driven and therefore becomes an extension of the internal composition of the person.  Their identity becomes vested in "getting what it wants" and owning their destiny.  Being able to choose what path to follow gives students confidence they are able to go anywhere they want to in life.

The push learner becomes resistant to the process and will actually shut down their own sense of interest.  The game of power and control (especially in young children) becomes about minimizing their submission to the imposition of authority.  There is no inner satisfaction without an inner decision to "want to" learn the material.  Without the "want to" as a source of empowerment, looking for the extra ways to apply the lessons and learn peripheral material don't even come up.  Without the interest that comes from a desire to learn the material the learner's inner goal becomes escape, vacation, and just getting it over with.

We need explorers.  Children are natural explorers, but our dominant push-learning academic environments soon teach them that learning is not about exploring.  We need adults who believe learning is fascinating.  But, our system drives them into years and years of being conditioned to see learning as a sacrifice of their freedom to choose, a submission of their thinking to another's idea, and accepting the belief that what they find interesting doesn't lead anywhere valuable or useful.  We are teaching our children to hate learning.

You can see it in your own experiences. Figuring out an answer to your own question is satisfying, isn't it?   How often do you like being taught something you didn't decide to value?  When we push learning onto people we push learners away, and when we allow them to reach out and pull learning towards them, they end up excited about pulling new knowledge into their minds for the rest of their lives.

Learning Strategies

In a capitalistic society, the primary decisions are driven by corporate objectives to maximize wealth for their owners.  For the ones who make these decisions this means "increase profits or we'll find someone else who will."

The ubiquitous presence of global competition - including current competitors, future ones, and even the imagined ones that keep us awake at night - drives decision making to maximize revenues and decrease costs to extremes.  “What customers can we reach today?  What expenses can we get rid of today?  However, the best organizations keep their eye on being competitive, not just for today, but for years to come.

During a recession the market has less money to split up between competing companies and the weaker ones will struggle to stay in business.  Quite often we see these weaker companies abandoning their training and development strategies, seeing them as a luxury and not critical to their survival.  When their boats start leaking (contracts lost, stock price dropping, top talent jumping ship) they don't see much point in teaching their employees.

However, hindsight has proven that the companies who not only survived the recession, but also raced ahead soonest when the economy rebounded, were the companies that taught employees better ways to reach customers, save money, and keep their top talent.  By developing better employees they became stronger competitors.  These companies are the ones everyone else is now chasing, and they did it through strategic learning processes.

It's not enough to simply hold a few training classes.  Strategic learning is based on continuously improving the improvement process.  These strategies usually center on finding faster and more effective ways to:

• develop the training
• deliver the training 
• reduce employee learning time
• assess training results 
• maximize knowledge usage

The strongest competitors know that better decisions come from better informed employees.  And, in hyper-lean market conditions it becomes imperative to keep your best talent from leaving, or worse, going to work for your competition.  The strongest companies know this, having learned that employees who learn more are happier, more effective, and loyal.  So, is employee development really a luxury?

Explorers Needed
Improved learning strategies also enable quicker, more agile responses to market changes.  When teenage girls in Thailand catch a retro fad and want bobby socks and saddle shoes, who will be the first company to respond well?  Who has a learning system in place that can help a product manager to change direction, a marketing manager to cross language and cultural barriers, and a supply chain manager adapt to new distribution channels?  Many decisions will need to be made at the loading-dock and in-store level of operations.  To have people who are ready to make decisions that are good for the customers, good for the strategic partners, and good for the company is crucial.

Learning strategies build contextual awareness, contingency preparedness, interpersonal dynamics, and improved communications.  Learning strategies drive revenues up through smarter marketing, better product design, and improved distribution.  Learning strategies drive costs down through better operational efficiencies, fewer mistakes and accidents, and improved supply chain leveraging.

The question isn't whether a company is better off with improved learning.  The question is whether they will realize it, admit it, and take action to improve their learning function.

Collaborations - A Weird Beginning

It is true that two heads are better than one.  Because each person has an enormous repository of knowledge that no one else has.  They also have a point of view, a perspective that no one else has.  These things are important to remember when entering into a collaborative relationship.  Too often the effectiveness is difficult to find at first because there are different styles of learning, different leadership styles, and each person has different reasons for participating in the joint venture.

Time is needed.  But too often the excitement and momentum of the venture drives task activity before the working relationship is developed.  This is all normal when entering a new collaboration, but too many people aren't familiar or comfortable with the process.  Tragically, this little thing called “unfamiliarity” can destroy all the hope and promise of what might become of this union.  So, how do we prevent things from falling apart?  Open and honest communications.

When two people enter into a new partnership the safest track to take is establishing a freedom to speak openly and an acceptance of whatever is said.  This is one way collaborative relationships differ from other work-based relationships. There are going to be moments of question where we don’t know what they mean or what they really want.  But, we can find out. 

In normal “office” relationships between colleagues there are established rules of conduct, goals, company cultures, and a singular boss at the top to answer to.  In collaborations there are no clear boundaries, processes, or even an agreed upon goal.  All these have to be established.  Establishing these things ahead of time would be nice, but there isn’t a history or basis for establishing them.  So, it all has to happen simultaneously… which we are not used to doing unless we have done collaborations before. 

Two people establishing a new collaboration is difficult, three is worse, and four… oh, my goodness.  For instance, place four strangers together in the woods with the tools they need, and let’s even give them the previous knowledge they will need.  What will they do?  Will they build shelter?  Will they hunt and gather?  Will they cook and season the food?  Will they enjoy the process or argue and maim?

Collaboration is about saying, “We agree to work together” and part of that process is discovering what “working together” looks like while we are working of setting up the way we’ll work together.  Things change.  Roles change.  Outcomes differ from intentions.  Can we adapt?  Can we learn?  Yes, we can, if we are willing.

So, collaboration is an organic process that is never the same.  That makes it exciting.  It is a process that reveals character and skills.  It is an original creation of a functional relationship that will create an original outcome… and THAT is a very good contribution to this world.

Why Not?

Just got off the phone with an education professional who sees the possibilities.  She has thirty years experience in the education system and instead of being mired in the traditionalistic views that many who have served so long end up in, she has a contagious eagerness to create impactful and beneficial changes.  In my experience, this is rare… quite rare.

As we rambled back and forth with erupting ideas, and the natural enthusiasm for having found a cohort in a mutual quest for improving school systems, we saw many new and readily available possibilities that evoked a simple question.  “Why not?” 

• Why not shift the emphasis from teacher-centric strategies to learner-centric strategies? 
• Why not use technology to release teachers from the droning repetition of rote lessons and elevate their student interactions to the higher levels of subject integration?  
• Why not save money and also accelerate each student’s progress? 
• Why not use algorithmic software to track each student’s progress, rate of learning, and areas of need?
• Why not embrace the obvious momentum, the inevitable integration of new visions for a remarkable learning system that gives our children the greatest advantage in a global economy that is quickly distancing itself from what we are providing? 
• Why not accelerate the rate of change and simultaneously create solidly effective foundations?
• Why not invite the teacher unions to take the lead in transformation instead of applying the brakes of traditionalism?
• Why not create individual learning tracks that allow students to learn at their own pace, in their own direction of interest, and in the manner that best suits their personal learning styles?

As we chattered on, each nudging the other from the proverbial microphone, we prudently retained a whisper of caution – realizing the wheels of change grind slowly in school systems.  The process is tantamount to moving a mountain that does not want to be moved and only having a single spoon to move it.  Yet, we still saw the possibilities and were excited that someone else agreed. 

Where two can see the same horizon and the same paths that cross over it, more can come and stand with us.  Maybe all they need is to be invited… and to be asked, “Why not?”

Being the Ant On the Elephant's Trunk

A while back I read an amazing book by Vince Poscente about change management called "The Ant And The Elephant - Leadership For The Self" where the tiny ant rode around on an elephant trying to help it change direction - for the benefit of the elephant.  It is a great metaphorical message and I recommend it to anyone studying change management.

In the book the ant represents the conscious mind and the elephant represents the enormous, powerful, and difference-making sub-conscious mind.  The metaphor also carries over to organizational culture and bureaucratic change applications.  The small influence of a knowing leader trying to get the entire organization to shift direction, shift behaviors, shift expectations, etc. becomes like an ant on an elephant.  The current crisis at the Veterans Administration is an example of "bureaucracy out of control" and asking one person (even the Director) to change it is like asking an ant riding upon an elephant to change the pachyderm's direction.

When I look at our national education system as a conglomerated bureaucracy it is easy to see it as the elephant.  The voices of the many who cry out for change are the cacophonic ants who are frantically trying to keep the elephant from heading over a cliff.  But, they do not cry out in unison.  

I have failed to give my loudest plea, and therefore accept the responsibility of education's peril as much as I can own.  For some, myself included, the urge to save this plodding, stumbling, and ill-fated monstrosity is like watching a trainload of first graders chugging toward a ravine with no bridge.  I constantly wonder, "Which ant will be heard?"  

In Poscente's book, the key to reaching the elephant's will comes through the ear.  But too often our agents of educational change rush out front and position themselves on the trunk because it is farthest forward.  Well, if you have ever watched an elephant walk you can see the problem; everything moves all over the place, and the trunk is constantly moving the most.  

Being the ant on the elephant's trunk may seem like a brave and "leader-like" thing to do, but it changes nothing.  In order to save the train of children, we must come together in our voice.  We must compose a message the elephant will revere and heed. We must gather at its ear and shout in unison.  

The longer we ants rely on our own single voice, the closer we get to the cliff's edge.

 

Reforming the Rules of the Road for Education

Ever stop and wonder why we drive on roads the way we do?  Sure there are laws and financial reasons, but usually it's for our safety and for the safety of others.  However, there's an even bigger benefit - the equality of everyone's opportunity to get where they want to go.  Why can't public education work like that?

When we learn how to drive we realize that what works best is to become part of the flow.  We learn to have courtesy and patience because it works for the best - for us, and for everyone else, too.  We drive on freeways and streets determining our own path and pace - confident we will get to our destinations, while hopefully not hindering anyone else from their path, pace, and destination.   Shouldn't education allow our children the same opportunity?

Think about it... we signal and turn, stop, go, accelerate, and slow down in an enormous flow of mixed intentions, different desires, and unique driving styles.  Yet, it works.  We all get to go where we want to go.  We all have an equal opportunity to enter the stream of traffic, choose a road, proceed as far as we choose, and end up at our destination of choice.  Yet, before William Phelps Eno wrote “Rules of the Road” in 1903, the misery of congestion and mishaps was an accepted part of life on the road.  People didn't know what else was possible.  They couldn't conceive a society where people were courteous about sharing the road.  And, you know what I think is funny, people who seek to reform schools don't see equality of opportunity as realistic.  They say the logistics won't allow it.

Soon after writing the book Mr. Eno wrote the first ever municipal traffic code for New York City, then helped London and Paris fix their traffic issues.   Having never driven a vehicle himself, he was able to observe the issues and possibilities, and then think of a system that allowed everyone to flow instead of clog.  He described a system where grace and mutual respect allowed everyone the chance to get somewhere more easily.

The old system, based on "I do things my way, and to Hell with everyone else" had proven to be a culture of desperate survival.  Looking at our current national system of roadways, stoplights, crosswalks, and painted lines, it has become a case of - the many making things better for the greater good of all.  We still get to do things our way within the new system, but instead of "to Hell with everyone else," we work together to create a flow of equal opportunity.  We have taken Eno's idea and created a highly functional community of participation; effectively encouraging civility and allowing everyone who wants to... to enter into the system, use it to their liking to attain their specific results, and then to leave the system until they need it again.  It is the ultimate "Opt-in" community of mutual opportunity.

Our public school systems and all the reform/improvement efforts are much like the city streets of 1902 New York City.  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 our public K-12 schools had more than 3.6 million teachers, 3.4 million administrators and support staff, 55 million students, and more than 132,000 separate schools.  Add to that the tens of thousands of educational technology companies, non-profits, reform groups, political lobbyist groups, publishers, authors, parents of students, and government education departments, and we see an enormous population of people interested in improving education, but there are very few, if any, coordinating influences.   The system is not set up to grant students equal access to whatever paths of learning they want to follow.  Instead, just as in New York City before traffic laws were passed, we have many students who are desperately trying to get where they want to go despite the clogged roadways, gridlocked intersections, and mounting frustrations.  We also have many students and reformers who have given up.  They just stand on the sidewalks - looking upon the mess with incredulity.  Thankfully, just as they had then. we have some who try to help by stepping into the fray to direct traffic.  But, even those who are trying to help have no agreed upon system of waving their arms and giving directions.  From one street to the next the customs and expectations are very different. The same is true in our schools.

We have no consistency from one school to the next, from one classroom to the next.  How can this be equal?  How can we offer one child one education and another a different education and say it is equal?  It is not, and their future opportunities are changed by what opportunities they have in school.

Not only do we need a system that allows every student to safely and equally get where they want to go in life, we also need a system for the people who are helping in the street.  When a study is done on student drop out rates and a key factor is found, how can someone who wants to help pitch in?  How can others in another state take advantage of that valuable information?  Isn't it time we reformed our rules for the roads of education reform?

A new system is just around the corner.

What do you think it looks like?