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?

Ignoring the Wall Writing - To Our Own Peril

Those of us who are able to tackle the job of improving our public school system should be very, very afraid.  We stand with each foot in a separate boat.  The boats have been released from their mooring, and set adrift, they are moving away from each other.   Being products of the very system we seek to change, we are stuck waiting for someone else to assign us a solution or a text to read that will tell us what to do.  But, life does not go according to the practices of schools.  Most every decision we make in life is one we had to figure out on our own.

Those of us who have been in two boats at the same time know that waiting only gets us wet.  Earlier decisions... uh, earlier better decisions bring us relief, dry feet, and commitment to a singular solution.  The hope of continuing in the old boat while committing to the new boat's promising future is akin to walking on two paths simultaneously.  Can't be done and shouldn't be attempted.

There is writing on the wall.  If you can't see it from where you stand - step closer.  Whether you look for it or foolishly wait for it to reach out from the paint and grab your sleeve - it is still there.  Like a tornado warning that falls under the desk, it is still there and the tornado is still coming, whether or not we look for the report. 

The gap between what students need to know and what they are being taught in public schools is widening exponentially each year.  The problem is monumental and includes millions of stakeholders in more than 100,000 organizations, schools, universities, businesses, governments, and institutions.  The problem we see isn't the actual problem.  The actual problem is that we are all products of the system we seek to change.

Just as if a top Microsoft engineer was asked to make Windows 7 run like Leopard OS X the task would be insurmountable because the Microsoft mentality and culture that he/she absorbed in order to succeed would inhibit and taint the need for new thoughts and ways of building an operating system.  The solution provider would need to be someone who knows Windows 7 but left Microsoft and went to work for Apple developing the Leopard OS X system.  The problem we see, converting the system, isn't the main issue.  The main issue is inside the existing mentality that prohibits Microsoft from hiring the programmer from Apple who once rejected Microsoft and left.  Territorialism is the problem.

In trying to solve the pending crisis of our two-boated leaders, their insistence that they know best, even though they themselves perpetuated and still advocate for the existing system, fails to inspire confidence.  At the rate we are changing, by my conservative estimate, we will be lucky to move halfway toward any collaborative and effective solution within 10-15 years.  That is an entire generation of children, and the problem is still only halfway solved.

Why is the peril ours if we ignore the writing on the wall?  Because the system will continue to produce new members of our society - new retail clerks, new sales reps, new factory workers, and new delivery drivers as well as new college students, engineers, managers, and voters.  Most terrifying of all is that the system that needs to be changed will continue to produce new teachers for the next 10-30 years.

The longer we ignore the tornado report, the closer the tornado looms.  We are going to be dealing with these members of our community who could be so much more prepared to contribute instead of being a burden to the economy, the cultural goodness we love to experience, and other areas where they are not providing good thinking and good solutions.

And, besides, who is going to teach them to decide for themselves what boat is best before they get soaked?

System-Centric or Learner-Centric

When we examine our options for improving training or educational instruction, we have many factors to consider.  The breadth of what we consider is dependent upon our own willingness to explore and learn.  Most often we know what we know, look over the fence of our boundaries, see something new, and proclaim it the Holy Grail of learning.  A teacher who knows that technology is the devil ends up trying an email app that saves her time and then she thinks email is the savior of all learning challenges.  A wearied corporate trainer, traveling cross-country to all branches, feels he is the company's best chance at fervent and authentic instruction.  Then he creates a video of his best training and uses a learning management system to administrate it to all employees, spending his saved-time developing new training curriculum, and suddenly he sees the light.  There is a better way, and now he thinks learning management systems are better than anything else. 

In public education we have teachers and principals who are entrenched in their knowledge and slow to look over their fences.  In Corporate America we have VPs of development who want to stick with what they know.  Hey, it's natural.  As humans we trust what we know and fear the unknown.  (Some would argue we are this way because we were trained to think this way by our public school systems where informational bulimia is taught and exploration of the unknown is discouraged, but I digress.)

The real question we must answer is related to our developmental focus.  When we are considering what to improve, what to change, what to keep, and how to go about any of this... we eventually find ourselves choosing between two options.  Which is more important - the learner or the system?  The easy answer is - both.  But, that doesn't help us when we get down to decisions between competitive options.  At some point the two paths will diverge and we must be more loyal to one or the other.

If we make the learner our focus we will have to make each and every learner's maximization our greatest intent, and that is very hard to do considering all the possibilities of learners and learning/development outcomes.  If we make the system our top priority then we become slaves to what engineers say is possible, to what options are available, and we end up trying to fit learners into the limitations of the system.

The funny thing about systems is they are formed for a purpose.  Gas pipelines and electric lines are extended through neighborhoods and to each house for a purpose.  We didn't connect utilities to homes and then think of heaters and refrigerators.  To educate people based on system capabilities is backwards.  The only way to develop pertinent systems is to begin with the learner in mind and determine system needs from there.

In order to serve all learners, we do need a system.  So, the learner-centric thinker must eventually realize that some learners will be failed without an adequate system, which puts the system into a high priority position again.  When this happens it is easy to be consumed with thoughts about developing a system, but we must be constantly aware that the system is intended to serve the learners... all learners.  So, if we are thinking about all learners we must think about systems, and if we are thinking about systems we must make them subject to the needs of all learners.

In other words, we need comprehensive thinking about system development, subject to the purposes of learner maximization, equal to all learners, and inclusive of continual system optimization.  Whew.  That's a handful, eh?  But, can we really settle for anything less?  Which learner deserves to be overlooked and under-served?

The Tree of Poisoned Apples

I recently attended a meeting of public school reformers.  As I listened to their list of demands I couldn't help but notice their myopic willingness to be content just shuffling the same old issues around the table as if the view would change enough from where they sit to make them comfortable.  I was perplexed and a bit miffed.  Not at them, but at the system they've inherited and poisoned by.

Like a family of drunks who wonder why they drink from the same bottle that polluted their parents, these people are all products of the very system they seek to change.  It is as if they willingly walk up to the tree of poisoned apples, pick one, take a bite and grimace.  From where they stand they cannot see the other orchards over the hill that many people are happily eating from.  So, resigned to their 'only' tree, and perhaps dulled in their thinking by the very poison they keep swallowing, they remain ignorant and unhappy.

The irony is that they are advocates for improved learning, and yet they do not open themselves up to the exploration and curiosity that drove the others over the hill to bliss.  The old tree cannot be made sweet and healthy by any means known to mankind.  The only solution it is worthy of is chopping, cutting, and burning.  While it rots and heads slowly in that direction, it continues to feed millions who don't know any better.

The current condition of our public schools warrants massive change, and revolutionary thinking.  Miles and miles of progress is needed and yet these advocates are content to battle over the inches the system is willing to discuss.  Crisis is the time for radical change because the masses can agree in their desperation that something must be done.  The danger here is that radical acceptance of poor alternatives does not improve our long term condition.  We are in real danger of desperately drowning administrators handcuffing themselves to a cement block that teeters toward the depths.

  

Isn't it funny that the very people who hold the power of creating change, the constituents of every district, are hindered in their ability to see better solutions because of how that same dysfunctional system taught them to learn?  It seems ludicrously ironic, and frustratingly tragic.

With Knowledge Comes Power, But...

We all have heard the old saying, "With knowledge comes power."  But, there are other things that often arrive with it; things like myopia, narcissism, closed-mindedness, reduced learning, and a staleness or creativity... to name a few.

One of the greatest obstacles to improving the public education system is the knowledge possessed by the people in charge of it.  In education, knowledge is key, and in the education system, knowledge is everything.  The person who knows more is put in charge of others, and then the one who knows the most is put in charge of everyone.  In a knowledge accumulation culture this hierarchy can be very successful and puts the emphasis on accumulating knowledge, but it does not maximize the role of learning.

If knowledge tells someone they know, then why would they seek to learn?  What happens to their curiosity, their daring to explore?  The comfort of knowledge and the esteemed stature of its perceived power can actually keep a good mind from advancing.

Much of the dysfunction in our current educational system can be attributed to institutional thinking.  'Institutionalized' thinking is thinking that perpetuates an established basis of purpose when the reason for that purpose is no longer needed or relevant.  Myopia of institutional thinking blinds us to the new opportunities.  We can easily see it when anyone says, 'Because that's how we do it' or 'that's how we've always done it.'  Instead of losing our curiosity and our thrill of discovery we could open our minds to the wonder of 'Hmmm, where are our needs taking us now' or 'what future needs can we head toward now?'  We live in an age of greatly available information and accessible global opportunity.  We do not need teachers who do it the same old way - making us memorize and regurgitate facts.  We need guides who help us find our purpose, talent, and passion... we need enablers of exploration and coaches who help develop student's skills for discovery.

Some who have learned a lot will say, "the more I learn the more I don't know."  Please realize the greater truth they are saying here.  They are saying, the more I learn - the more I realize the enormity of what else there is to learn.  For example, a person who stands in their backyard and looks at the stars can appreciate the view, but when they learn about planets and galaxies they realize the universe is much bigger than the night sky they first saw.  When they bend down to pick a flower they can smell the aroma, but when they begin to learn about pollen and bees and ecosystems they realize they have so much more to learn than what they first thought.

Well, when educators stop rewarding the entrenched beliefs of systemic knowledge and begin wide-eyed exploration for better innovations and creative ways to improve what is offered to students, they will realize the enormity of what is possible.  And they will be able to teach exploration because it is what they are doing, too. The problem with education is the focus on delivery of knowledge instead of the consumption of it.

What if waiters kept going back to the kitchen, filling their trays, and bringing out the same foods again and again without ever asking the customer what they want?  The restaurant would soon go out of business.  Students are the customers and no one seems to trust their natural appetites for learning.  When they become bored and want to leave the restaurant we think they are the problem.  The smart chef would not say, "I know what's best."  The smart chef would say, "What can we create and offer that would nourish them their entire life?"

Push vs. Pull Learning

PUSH.  PULL.  It seems like such a small difference.  Two letters.  That's all.  Just change the "SH" to a double "LL" and you have a different word.  It's no big deal, right?  Well, actually, it is a big deal.  When it comes to learning, the difference between Push and Pull is enormous.  Like... as-far-as-the-east-is-from-the-west enormous.  

We are all raised in a predominantly Push Learning culture, and most of the world's learning systems are based on Push Learning.  It got here first and set up camp.  So, it rules, right?  Well... maybe for now, but hopefully not for long.

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 interest, use of, and retention of the subject matter... creating minimal effectiveness.  Also, since the experience is a negative one the associative meaning given to it by the mind creates a built-in dysfunction working against any use of the information in the future.  Despite all of this, the enormity of such a flawed learning strategy is still marginally overcome by students trying to get ahead in life.

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 an actual "learning organization" the employees drive the choice of learning content based on what will best help their job performance.  They also indicate which delivery methods are most effective or preferred, and the company responds by "learning and changing" according to these inputs that come directly from the learners themselves.  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 in the marketplace.  It also drove employee performance and retention numbers through the roof as people found greater esteem, respect, advancement, 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 apptitudes 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 base" and its enormous 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 the context to create huge opportunities to increase performance.

Using the pitching metaphor a little bit more... the kid who is throwing and throwing may eventually stumble upon the use of the stitching, but if he is the product of a deeply "Push Learning" environment he may end up waiting to be told what he needs to know. He may end up frustrated because no one is teaching him how to pitch; no one is pushing the needed knowledge his way.  In a "Pull Learning" environment he would already be aware that there is a huge ocean of knowledge out there and he might take it upon himself to research on YouTube for videos, and then articles, and then on the manufacturing process and the specs on thread thickness and air-grip tendencies.

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 pitcher who doesn't even get a minor league contract out of high school may end up going to college to study aeronautics because of his interest in wind-drag, or if he was from a "Push Learning" school he might end up lost and confused after high school wondering what to do with his life since baseball didn't work out and no one is telling him what to do.

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, excuse, avoid and when does summer vacation start.  Like a bad trip to the dentist, they just want to get it over with.

In order to lead the world into new and improving social conditions, better global economic balance, and a political community  of unity instead of warfare, we need explorers.  Children are natural explorers.  Just watch the ones who haven't gone to school yet.  They climb to see if they can.  They ask "Why" because they might get an answer.  They study a leaf and a caterpillar with fascination.  They want to know things... many things.  But, it is our dominant push-learning academic environments that soon teach them to stop looking beyond the edge of their desk; 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.

What is Next for the 744?

On Thursday, February 2nd, Clark Learning sponsored and helped put together the Re-Energize Education Event, one of the largest educational improvement events in San Diego County history.  In conjunction with other sponsors and a core planning team, we helped create an opportunity for seven hundred forty-four educators, students, parents, administrators and community leaders to come together at one time, in one place, and for one reason - to improve public education. 

It was amazing to watch the buzzing interactions as everyone tried to talk to everyone else.  When best-selling author and San Diego leadership guru, Steve Farber, took the stage, it was the moment we had waited to see.  Could effective leadership concepts that help businesses excel also work in educational environments?  Would people see the value?

What happened was deeply intriguing.  The audience caught on to the idea that fear and minimizing ourselves reduces us to frustrated, tired, and negative influences.  But, in opposite thinking, we also realized that taking risks, and maximizing ourselves, thrills us and fills us.  There were some great stories about other educators from across the nation who had taken some risks and found ways to do amazing things.  It was a very inspiring and encouraging moment.

As the evening wrapped up, Steve Farber placed the opportunity squarely in front of all of us.  What would we do to improve education?  As people left the USS Midway the buzz was still being carried out into the night, and people lingered in the parking lot - excited to be talking with others who cared as much as they did.

Going forward, the big question is, what was accomplished?

Well, actually, quite a bit was accomplished... if you know where to look.

People who rarely collaborate began dialogues that require future work and consensus. People exchanged contact information and have the opportunity to do something more, to take the next step and become a united force instead of solitary idealists. We all received a copy of Steve Farber's book The Radical Leap Re-Energized, and as each person reads it and learns something from it, there will be many unseen changes occurring throughout our region. However, most significant of all is the opt-in email list that the attendees signed up for. Going forward, we hope to encourage and enlighten many of them with new opportunities to team up, create a task force, share an idea, use a new teaching method or find some other way to take further action.

The Re-Energize Education Event was designed to be a beginning, and yet it will be up to every one of us to help make something amazing come from it. We still need each other's voice in the choir, and we still hope to attract and engage even more people's voices who never heard about the event.

Individualism in Learning

The more I see what direction business has taken with the top, most effective learning strategies, the more I believe schools will eventually follow.  Schools struggle to advance and innovate because they don't seek what is possible and aren't motivated to agree-and-go-forward, the way businesses are. 

Business models for learning have aggressively marched to an understanding that the learner is king and becoming learner-centric creates the best learning environment, the best lesson delivery methods, and creates the best learning results.  Each year, the capabilities of technology supported learning systems allow for more and more customized learning opportunities and even customized curricula.  Learners can decide what they need and want to learn giving them the ownership that makes learning a fun thing, or rewarding thing instead of a drudgery thing like "being taught" does.  

Schools cannot seem to get past the need for uniformity and yet more and more of the experts are calling for individualistic learning opportunities for students in K-12 schools.  Is it possible that schools could take advantage of technology the way business has and create individualized learning programs?  Why not?

Welcome to Clark Learning

I hope we can create an exchange of thoughts and ideas about anything to do with learning.  I hope I can provide something interesting and something relevant.  So,  Let's explore.