twelchconsulting.com Blog

Do What You Do Best and Outsource the Rest.

Did anyone else see the eschoolnews.com piece that was picked up in the ASCD hotline last week (http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=58946)? In a nutshell it noted that after spending billions of dollars on the notion of “small schools”, the Gates Foundation had come to the conclusion that what matters most is great teachers.
That’s good news/bad news in my estimation. I’m not surprised at the conclusion, who would be? Who among us that made it through school, doesn’t immediately associate wonderful, terrific teachers with the experience? I think I can still name every single teacher I had K-12. When I think of why they had an impact, it wasn’t because of their knowledge base alone; it was because somehow they let me know that they cared about ME, and in turn, I cared about them. It’s what good teachers have always done – formed a relationship of caring and nurturing with students. In What Would Google Do? Jeff Jarvis suggested “Do what you do best, and outsource the rest!” What if we established environments where teachers could really do that? I’m not talking about coddling students, excusing laziness, accommodating irresponsibility, or giving unwarranted “rewards”. I’m talking about establishing relationships with learning and exploring at their center, with high demands and high rewards, with high measures of encouragement and high degrees of personal investment and involvement. I’m not talking about continuing a system of a “clearly articulated curriculum” where the most important thing is what’s “covered” instead of what a teacher helps learners uncover.
So the good news? The good news is the recognition that, as my Dad used to regularly say: “Whatever it is, it’s 90T people”. Good teachers matter; good teachers change lives. Congratulations Gates Foundation. You figured it out.
But the bad news? I’d divide that into two parts. One part is that the system is not set up to help teachers do what they do best. Artificial time limits (almost always too short or too long), and curricula designed to drive students against it and see how they do is not a way to help teachers and students develop strong relationships centered in expanding learning. It happens from time to time for some teachers and some students, but pretty rarely in my estimation. The second part? We don’t have enough of those wonderful caring teachers that every child deserves. I’m always happy for kids in wonderful schools and districts, but also very saddened by thinking of the millions of kids who, because they live in the wrong place, won’t get to experience the teachers or the school that has, for a period of time at least, gotten it “right”. My familiar theme – In the 21st century we cannot continue to let geography be the main determiner of a student’s opportunity to learn at the highest levels.
Conclusion—we must find ways for Jarvis’ notion to take hold. We must find ways to let teachers do what they do best – create strong personal relationships centered on accelerating student learning, and set systems in place so that those relationships can be sustained over years.
Yes, learning in the 21st century CAN be done very differently; teaching can be done very differently. It’s up to us to see that it happens.

KYHOI – A Knock Your Head Off Idea.

We each keep banging our head against the wall because we can’t figure out how to change the system of schooling in our country! From “School Reform” to individual teacher efforts to combat the system we keep up the valiant struggle.
In responding to the comment to my blog from JBVH, it hit me this morning like a ton of bricks. Mea Culpa! I’ve been trying to focus on how to change the system and that’s the wrong struggle. That throws me against the system time after time. Problem with that is the “System” is much bigger and stronger than I am and has much more historical experience at self preservation. In addition, over the years it has become more and more reinforced internally and externally through policy and practice. Not the fault of the system, in fact there is much I admire about its roots and goals.
We don’t need to “change the system”. What we really want is not a changed system, it’s better and better ways to make sure each child can learn at the highest possible levels. That’s where our focus needs to be, not on changing the system.
Now it’s time to begin considering questions such as What does that mean for each person who shares the desire for that goal? What’s it mean for a classroom teacher? What does it mean for an administrator? What’s that mean for kids and their parents? That’s not easy. If you are, for example, a science teacher then you have a dual role – you have to fulfill your “system” obligations, but at the same time pursue the notion of “How do I ALSO provide opportunities for each of my students to learn science at the highest possible levels?”
Hmmmm. . . let’s think about this together.

During a recent evening of channel surfing, I stumbled across a great show on the History Channel dealing with the development of the typewriter. I knew some about the history of the typewriter, including the fact that they key placement was designed to slow the typist down so that they machine could keep up and that key jams would be lessened.

The IBM Selectric was a revolution. No more jammed keys! Instead, IBM thought of a new way to make the typewriter work better — put the letters on a ball that whirled around, striking the page as directed by the typist’s keystrokes. Not only that, but the balls could be interchanged, allowing for different fonts, etc. No doubt about it, the Selectric represented a tremendous reform in typing, allowing people to produce better documents, faster and with fewer headaches.

Here’s where business is different from school. If you check info on the Selectric now, you’ll find that the last innovations on the Selectric were in the early 80s. A twenty year run that was tremendous for the company and the consumer. The end came because consumers didn’t want better typewriters, they wanted to produce better and better documents and publicatons! While the typewriter was the way to do that for many decades, almost no one uses a typewriter now; we use our computers!

Education is stuck in a “typewriter” mentality. The government keeps trying to improve on the “typewriter” of education — which is the school model. We don’t want/need better schools — we want and desperately need better and better ways to help learners learn! Schools, like typewriters, used to be the best means to the end. No more.

My personal resolution is to help lead the transition away from the IBM Selectric mentality of improving schools, to the revolutionary possibilities that are available with a PC, online learning and a connectivist mentality!

My latest “read” has been What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis. I had picked up the hardcover when strolling through the Orlando airport when I was stuck there on a 36 hour flight delay a couple of weeks ago.
I decided I’d take some of the passages that grabbed me as I read and blog about them. Of course, I read everything through the lens of school and learning. Here are some of my thoughts. I hope they spark some thoughts and discussion from some others.
Jarvis starts out: “It seems as if no company, executive, or institution truly understands how to survive and prosper in the internet age . . . Except Google” (3). Grabbed me right away. Sure seems to me that very few of the people in education in this country have really understood that notion. He goes on to talk about a “world that has changed radically and forever”. Well, not yet; not in American education at least. That change hasn’t occurred. We’re still in some sort of weird time warp.
The internet has changed everything? In education we just don’t quite understand the word “change” I guess. Most teachers, educators, districts and education organizations think the net has perhaps “improved” their world, not changed it. Let me give you a few examples. If we step back we see the same structures that have been firmly in place for the last hundred years. Every morning for about 9 months a year, kids leave home Monday through Friday and gather in a school that is within a reasonable distance of their home (reasonable in some places means subjecting them to an hour ride each way, but that’s a local decision). The daily schedule varies slightly from school to school or year to year, but those changes are administrative or cosmetic and certainly have not resulted, in and of themselves, in significant changes in student achievement, graduation or dropout rates. No silver bullet there, but the changes make a school feel that they are “reforming” and proactive. What a joke. Well-intended to be sure, but a joke when it comes to change in the last 100 years.
Look at what is going on in classrooms in the internet age. Pretty much what always has. Students go through lessons at the same teacher-dominated learning environment, teacher-determined pace, along the same linear curricular track. Who chooses the pace? The adults. Who chooses the content? The adults. Who chooses how long it takes a student to learn? The adults.
And what of changes brought about by the “internet age”? Fancy baubles on the lifeless manikin.
Two of my litmus tests for change? In 2009 every child in a classroom is given the exact same amount of time to master a subject, and despite the amount of brain-research, learning theory, and the millions and millions spent on professional development, the same amount of time is given as when my mother was a student in those same classes 80 years ago. She studied algebra for approximately 180 days. Students today? Just the same. Even more remarkable, the same goes for U.S. History. At least when she took history, it didn’t matter that the teacher only made it through WW I. Think of all the events in world and US history of the last 80 years, from the stock market crash and the Depression to WWII, Viet Nam, the Civil Rights movement, and on and on, and? Yup, still exactly the same number of days. Every other subject – same story. Same number of days. Why doesn’t this strike anyone else as being crazy?
Everything has changed with the internet? Oh, I forgot, now teachers can assign students to include internet sources and video clips in a PowerPoint assignment. Sorry if I am less than thrilled.
Who else thinks it’s insane that “SCHOOL” is unchanged in the internet age? Can real change happen? Yes, of course. We’ll get to that another day. How about some more examples of the old French proverb “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.” [The more things change, the more they remain the same.]
Tom Welch
tom@twelchconsulting.com
Facebook: twelchky
Twitter: twelchky