1. Children are adaptable.
2. G00d [muppets] take time to evolve.
3. Change is unavoidable.
4. “C” is for competition (not just cookie).
5. Freshen up.
6. Learn from your mistakes.
7. Keep it simple.
8. Push the envelope.

I am not going to make this a long narrative, but just simply want to quickly reflect on each of these lessons.

Children are adaptable: The certainly are. What comes to mind here though, is that children both adapt to good things in their environment as well as to not so good things. In schools, my concern is that children have adapted all too much to our didactic, passive, rote methods of teaching. I see this when they arrive at the college/university level. Many are struggling to battle this all-too familiar adaptation they have masterfully undergone for 12 or so years. Although, I must say many gladly rise to the challenge and move from the “feed me” “hoop jumping” and “minimum criteria” types of environments when relevant opportunities are placed before them, but it can be a struggle, nonetheless.

Good [muppets] take time to evolve: The evolutionary process can be indeed slow. Many of us get frustrated with the lack of evolutionary speed in schools. However, one key principle of evolution is that of natural selection. Wikipedia defines this as “is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.” So, what are those traits (often influenced by environment, not just heredity) in education that seem most dominant and lead to their survival, while others just don’t seem to gain a significant foothold? Why is it that the progressive vision for education conceptualized by the likes of John Dewey, Johann Pestalozzi, Friedrich Froebel, Jerome Bruner… and their contemporaries like Herb Kohl, Deborah Meier, Ted Sizer, and others… seem so hard to achieve?

Change is unavoidable: So why does education spend so much of its efforts on avoiding change, not the superficial window dressing kind of change, but substantial, revolutionary change? It seems that we are living the axiom, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Coming back to evolution, what are those most dominant traits that keep us from substantial change?

“C” is for competition: We have moved to this very competitive model of education over the past years. We are competing and ranking internationally on assessments like TIMSS. We rank and compete internally (NAEP)with one another for the top districts, top schools, top scores, quickest to meet AYP, top students,… We are competing for federal dollars that get dangled like carrots in front of hungry rabbits (Race to the Top, NCLB,…). (If you haven’t watched this lecture given by Yong Zhao, especially the first part of it, it is worth your time.) Competition often serves to make us better. But it is in defining “better” and “success” that we have become lost. As with Faust, have we make a bargain with the devil that has robbed us of what Dewey and other progressives understood as being most valuable?

“Jefferson told us where to look to see if a nation is a success. He did not say to look at test scores. Instead, he said to look at ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ ” (Keith Baker, 2007)

And then, Alfie Kohn and  Dean Shareski remind us all of the importance of joy in learning, both for teachers and students. Is that one of those traits that will selectively be extinguished if we let it?

Freshen Up: Who can argue with giving things a fresh look. However, too often we have giving things in education a “fresh look” in the name of meaningful change. Many folks see the addition of the interactive white board, for example, as a symbol of the 21st century classroom – a needed facelift to the aging chalkboard. They are nice and the technology is impressive. However, when major budget dollars are allocated to “fresh look” kinds of changes without any meaningful change or innovation ever happening, the result can often be no more than expensive window dressing. And then there are the schools that really need freshen up… paint, roof, air conditioning, pencil sharpeners that work, desks that aren’t broken, computers that run, physical education, art, and music equipment,… What are we doing?

Learn from your mistakes: In education, and elsewhere, we love to report on mistakes, humiliate and criticize those who make mistakes, and grade mistakes as a form of punishment rather than constructive feedback. Many have learned to avoid taking risks for fear of the consequences of making mistakes. The fact is, we learn best through our mistakes when a grade is not the end of the learning cycle. Programers understand this. Debugging is a powerful and critical part of the programming process, as it is in the learning process. Seymour Papert, Gary Stager, and others have been and continue to be passionate proponents of children learning through programming, through meaningful projects, and learning by doing meaningful, relevant, and therefore engaging things. Somehow, with current educational policy, we are not learning from our mistakes. Instead, we seem to be making the same ones over and over again. This brings me back to evolution and natural selection. What’s driving this perpetuation of the same?

Keep it simple (stupid): Embrace and keep what works. There is no need to make things overly complicated. Some of the most effective pedagogies and learning principles are not all that complicated when it comes down to it. Often, it is the limiting structures, policies, roadblocks, and other expectations that over-complicate things.

Push the envelope: To me, this is my daily challenge when it comes to growth. I try to convey this to my students ad nauseum. The opposite of this is status quo. Don’t rock the boat. Do what’s familiar. Keep things comfortable… all the enemies of business… and education. It’s about growth – becoming and remaining a professional. I am so appreciative of the countless people in my personal learning network (PLN) that share evidence of this every day. One thing that my learning network has done for me is that it has broken down the walls of isolation and has connected me to educators and experts who are truly doing great things around the globe with their students. We do not have to feel (and be) limited by those within our physical circles of influence. Too often, teachers feel isolated and become tunnel-visioned, thinking that what they see and experience around them is indeed reality on a larger scale. I am thankful to say that it isn’t. My students are beginning to understand this – that they don’t have to limit their imagination – that they can connect with inspiring, passionate and excellent teachers and experts in so many ways never before possible – that they indeed have a voice that can make a difference.

As I conclude, what has struck me in writing this morning is that many of these lessons are interrelated, making meaningful and substantial change difficult. As such, I have certainly not done each justice in my narrative here. Are we really learning from these lessons? How do these lessons resonate with you? I’d love to hear what you think.

Who would your Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster, Ernie, Bert, or Snuffleupagus of education be?

The answer isn’t PowerPoint, digital whiteboards, blogs, wikis, PRS systems, high-speed Internet, Web2.0, … But, they can be part of a solution. [Generalization coming...] Why are we not pushing many of these attributes presented in the video with the same passion that we are pushing (and adopting) new technologies? As a geek-at-heart, it sure is much easier to get excited about “potential” or promise of new technologies rather than focus what we already have that is not working. Much of the time, things are not “working” because of much bigger issues than old technologies or technical support (don’t get me wrong… technical support is crucial). So, if your students are not excited about your language arts (math, science, social studies…) program, ask yourself “Why?”. My guess is that it’s not mostly because they are not using the aforementioned technologies.

I would encourage you to read one of David Warlick’s recent posts titled, “If it’s not about technology, then what is it about?“. Be sure to have a look through the comments as well. Lots of food for thought. (It’s where I discovered this video, too.)

Eric Paris, who earned a 3.8 high school GPA but is finding his freshman year at Virginia Tech much more challenging, says the big difference is “it’s all on my own.” In class, “it’s up to me if I want to sit on Facebook or pay attention.” He, too, wishes he’d taken more challenging high school classes but thought a high GPA was more important.

We lead students to believe that grades are everything, that having a high GPA is critical to getting into a good college (and it is, but it’s not the only determiner), so they then take easy courses to boost their GPAs and end up with this false sense of accomplishment that get stripped away when they are told that they must enroll in remedial writing or remedial math their freshman year. I have had students like this. You wonder how the system has failed them. Actually, I have had graduate students who have never had to write a real research paper. I have had elementary education majors who wanted to teach high school, but could not complete the requisite math courses. They figured since they were not all that good at math that they could at least teach younger students. I want to strangle them at this point of the conversation.

You know, we have a number of highly complex problems that continue to plague American education. This should not be one of them. We desperately need strong math and science teachers at the elementary level. I, myself, am a recovering math disaster, largely due to many of my elementary teachers who did not have a clue as to how to really teach mathematical concepts. Sure, they could teach the rules of regrouping or the definitions of polygons, but all that takes is reading a few statements out of the teacher’s manual. That didn’t meet my needs. Today, I have a much healthier and sound conceptual mathematical understanding and am so thankful for some of my education professors who taught methods of teaching math and remedial math methods. I now reteach my own son when he comes home from school, not understanding the most basic of concepts.

I avoided the hard courses to keep my grades up in high school. I hope that my children do not. I hope that they are both empowered and challenged by their teachers. I hope that their teachers will see areas of need and address those needs ASAP. I hope their teachers will teach to their strenghts and strenthen those areas of weakness. I hope their teachers will value their interests and make learning relevant. I hope that their teachers use all resources and tools at their disposal. I hope that their teachers will fight for resources and tools that they do not have access to and desperately need. I hope that their teachers believe in them.

That’s a lot of hoping, isn’t it.

Should so much at stake be resting in the arms of hope?

This 35 year teacher veteran coming from a prestigious prep school into a tough urban school is described in the following situation:

“Holmes had nothing unusual planned (for a lesson where a student asked to be excused for what she thought was a good reason). He considers every lesson, every minute of class time, to be important, and, at age 66, he often stays up past midnight preparing for the next day’s lessons.”

No one can say that being an effective teacher is easy. No one can say that effectiveness can be routine. No one can be effective in the classroom without a great deal of dedication, passion, conviction, knowledge, and skill.

The article goes on to describe various attributes of this teacher in his last year of classroom instruction and also reports on a number of anecdotes. The article goes on to end with this statement describing his last class teaching:

“There are no fireworks, no speeches, no round of applause. Just this: As he walks out the door and heads to the parking lot, Phil Holmes knows that today he delivered a good lesson. He didn’t waste a second. He made the students think.”

Now I know some would take up issue with the word “delivered” and take the philosophical viewpoint that instruction should not be “delivered” but rather experienced and socially constructed, but those same folks would often sacrifice “effectiveness” for poorly implemented cooperative learning, differentiated learning, on-line learning, project-based learning, technology-mediated learning, social learning, problem-based learning… The list goes on. All of these pedagogical structures have merit. But, the bottom line is measurable results that validate effectiveness as a teacher. Here is a teacher that perhaps takes an unpopular approach to teaching. The article does not even mention all of the technology-based tools that he uses to reach a digital generation. I suspect that he uses few to none. But, he gets results… excellent results. Students care about him and appreciate his skillfulness in the classroom.

How do you define effectiveness? Is technology really a required prerequisite? Or, should we let effectiveness and results speak for what should be required?

“If you wanted to create an education environment that was directly opposed to what the brain was good at doing, you probably would design something like a classroom.”

He is not saying that one cannot learn in a traditional classroom. We all have. However, he does challenge the notion that it is the best or most effective way to learn.

Oh, what we sacrifice in the name of “efficiency”.

Here is one finding that I think merits serious thought:

Only 26 percent of teachers say that their most recent formal evaluation was useful and effective in helping them to improve their teaching. Seventy-nine percent support strengthening the formal evaluation of probationary teachers. And nearly a third of teachers (32 percent) say that tenured teachers should be evaluated on an annual basis.

I can remember some of my “formal” evaluations. They were typically done by an overburdened administrator who had the monumental task of evaluating every teacher in the building at least twice a year in addition to all of their other responsibilities. Often, those evaluation visits where rescheduled due to unexpected events that arose. And, all of those evaluations where scheduled ahead of time. The result – teachers (myself included) would plan a smashing “song and dance” lesson that included those key elements that we all knew the principal liked and was looking for. Once the evaluation was over, it was back to business as usual. In the evaluation de-briefing (which also had to be scheduled with every teacher), unless there was anything glaringly abhorrent, most constructive criticisms were insignificant at best.

So, it is no surprise to see the low statistic of only 26 percent of teachers reporting that they found their most recent formal evaluation useful and effective. Along the same lines, 32 percent of tenured teachers feel that they should be evaluated on an annual basis. That makes total sense if almost the same percentage feel that those evaluations are not all that beneficial.

So, what to do? Are K-12 administrators perhaps not the best candidates to do faculty evaluations? Are they too busy to really give useful constructive criticism? Is their own teaching craft stale and their own idea pool dry? Can we expect building administrators to really be excellent teachers as well? Perhaps you consider yourself lucky to have an administrator who is still an active practitioner and who is keeping up with teaching innovation. But, my guess is that if you did a PowerPoint, projected a web page, sang a cool song, or did a nifty craft, you would get kudos – assuming your students were well-behaved (notice I didn’t use the term “meaningfully engaged”).

Who said education reform was simple? Are new models of teacher growth and evaluation needed?

Tell us something that we don’t know. Imagine, a general conclusion was that it is best to foster creativity among students at school, “not only to produce a competitive workforce, but also to help all students succeed in life”. This report is yet one more example of not doing what we know is best – about obstacles that get in the way of best practices, solid learning theory, and curriculum. What will it take to bring about real change… and I emphasize “real” – no window dressing or politically charged policies.

During candidate interviews of employers seeking creative employees, characteristics were ranked as follows, from highest to lowest:

1. candidate’s ability to look spontaneously beyond the specifics of a question (78%)

2. responses to hypothetical scenarios (70 %)

3. elaboration on extracurricular activities or volunteer work (40 %)

4. appearance (27 %).

Also, employers noted that “problem identification or articulation” was of paramount importance in creative employees. Even with problem-based learning, teachers can’t resist defining the problems for their students and guiding them to solve pre-established problems with pre-determined solutions – Neither what employers see as all that valuable… nor realistic in real-world problem-solving contexts. Perhaps the solution is to test creativity (can you see the sarcasm dripping here?).
So, where do these types of reports leave educators. Where to they leave policy makers?

Where do they leave you?

Students will use engaging technologies in collaborative, inquiry-based learning environments with teachers who are willing and able to use technology’s power to assist them in transforming knowledge and skills into products, solutions, and new information.

• I am a 21st century learner
• I game 3/5 hours a week
• I will spend 16.5 hours watching TV this week
• 5.5 hours on the computer
• 2 hours reading a book
• I listened to 5 hours of Harry Potter on my ipod this week
• We expect to be able to create, consume, remix, and share information with each other
• My parents us email
• I text, instant message, blog

Well, we know that many kids are not reading books much (Books are what my parents read, not me! What good can come out of reading a book?), still watch a lot of television, and spend more time than ever with the computer and other media-rich devices. It used to be that good teachers expected students to create and share information with each other. Now, suddenly it is the student that is expecting this – but only with technology, of course. There is no way that they could create and share meaningful learning artifacts without technology, right? Here is part of the problem, I think. It is that schools became too passive in their pedagogy, too textbook driven, too teacher centered and too assessment driven. And, in the end, the result is boring classrooms and lessons, seemingly irrelevant learning, and disconnected students.

• 76% of my teachers have never used wikis, blogs, podcasts
• At least once a week 14% of my teachers let me create something new with technology. 63 % never do.
• 61% of my reading teachers never use digital storytelling software
• If we learn by doing, what are we learning sitting here?
• How do you learn?

According to this video, it really doesn’t matter how I learn. But this I do know. The concept of learning by doing is nothing new! The true crime here is that teachers and educational systems are making it hard to allow students to learn through the creation of relevant and meaningful artifacts. To imply that students today are incapable of learning anything while sitting and listening to someone else is just irresponsible. Perhaps 61% of reading teachers never use digital storytelling software, but does this mean that these same 61% are terrible reading teachers? What is the percentage of reading teachers who do very little at all with storytelling? I would guess it is also up there.

• What kind of education would you want me to have if I were your son, your daughter,
• By the year 2016, the largest English speaking country will be China.
• There are more honor students in China than there are people in North America
• But only 1/2 of us will graduate from high school. Will I?
• I will have 14 jobs before I am 38 years old.
• Most of those jobs do not exist today
• How will this (referring sullenly to a notebook with writing in it) help me?
• How could this help me? (holding and iPod or laptop in hand)

Yes, the state of US education is in trouble. But to imply that a book and pencil has no use in the learning process flies directly in the face of countries like China and India who are still learning with books, pencils, pens, and excellent listening and thinking skills, and disciplined minds. Of course, they also use newer technologies, as so should we all. But the tone here is such that unless we are using these newer technologies all the time, we are failing as teachers, that unless we are blogging or using wikis and creating digital stories, we are hopelessly defunct.

• Teach me to think, to create, to analyze, to evaluate, to apply. Teach me to think.
• Let me use the WWW… Whatever, Whenever, Wherever
• Let me tell a story… digitally
• Engage me! (repeated by 15 different bored students)
• We are digital learners.

Once again, engaging students and teaching them to think, to create, to analyze, to evaluate, to applly… is nothing new! But to imply that the solution alone here is to let students use technology and the internet whenever, whereve, for whatever,… is just plain nutty. The bigger failure here is that we, as educators, have often failed at helping students think, analyze, evaluate, apply, and create meaningful and relevant learning artifacts. Of couse, technology today can play a powerful role. Of course we need to embrace new cultural tools and new forms of learning. But the mere act of doing so does not guarantee improved thinking, analytic, and evaluatory skills. Excellent teachers are still required. This video discounts the power of an excellent teacher, with or without the use of newer technologies. It attributes all learning power to new technologies. Just let kids have at it with all the tools that they love to use, and learning will result (and in some cases, it certainly can).

This video implies quite strongly that learners today (“digital natives”) are ONLY digital learners and that learning any other way (meaning without new technology) is simply a waste of time… it doesn’t work any more. To embrace such a view that throws away books, pencils and othe more traditional learning technologies, and discounts the ability to listen and process relevant information, that writing in an analog world is not writing and has no value, that the only form of social learning is the digital form, that public speaking is a dying artform,… is a huge mistake. To buy into this idea that this digital generation cannot learn unless digitally connected is wrong. The learning community in general would be much better served by videos that depict best practices and strong rationales for any technologies rather than gloom-and-doom, woe is me, China is going to take over the world types of messages. For, I think, these types of messages as in this particular video serve only to “preach to the choir” and get played mostly by the very communities that aspouse the inherent values and ideas presented in the video. Yes, this generation thinks, socializes, and learns in new ways. Yes, we need to harness these new forms of learning in a very digital world. Learning networks. Social learning. Creation tools. Creative tools. Tools to facilitate collaboration beyond physical space…. There are so many fantastic learning tools and opportunities out here like never before. We should be using them in the classroom. But, at no point should we be communicating to both kids and the educational community at large that unless we are using ALL of these tools ALL the time, we are somehow flawed…. educational fuddy duddies. And, there is no reason why kids cannot and should not learn by listening to a developmentally appropriate “lecture”, from reading a book or textbook, by writing with a pen or pencil… on paper, by participating in a community project or apprenticeship,… The heart of the issue really is engaging students in meaningful learning, both with and without technology. Be a great teacher! And yes,  to be relevant and meaningful today, technology must be used to a new level. Teachers must stay fresh and current in all that they do – not only with technology.

Just please stop making and promoting these kinds of videos that portray a distorted and flawed view of learning.

“…But routinized learning is not an end in itself. A good coach may well make his players throw the ball to first base 50 times or swing again and again in the batting cage. That will help, but by itself it won’t make a strong player. The game itself — reacting to different pitches, strategizing about base running — requires thought, flexibility and inventiveness.

Children would never tolerate baseball if all they did was practice. No coach would evaluate a child, and no society would evaluate a coach, based on performance in the batting cage. What makes for learning is the right balance of both learning processes, allowing children to retain their native brilliance as they grow up…”

So, what does this all mean? Well, for one thing, unless we make learning relevant and give it practical application, students will never experience the true love of learning – love of the game. For, without practical and authentic application, all that remains is information and decontextualized skill acquisition. Students need to experience the thrill of the game and its inherent skillset, strategies, problem-solving, creativity, inventiveness, flexibility, teamwork…

So, ask yourself anew – are your students experiencing authentic information and skill acquisition situated in larger context of “the game”? Are they getting a chance to play the game, or is it just practice, practice, practice? Are we preparing our students to be successful at “school”, or are we preparing them to be successful at [the game of] life? And, ask yourself if the “game” has changed over the years since you were in school. Are there new technologies to prepare for and play the game? Are there new ways to facilitate the playing of the game? Are there virtual ways to experience the game and take part in it like never before? If there are, then it stands to reason that the game can be kept fresh and real if we embrace these new and powerful tools for becoming better players of the game. But, yes, if the game is not important, then we can just be happy with learning about the game and practicing the skills that were needed for the game a few decades ago.

Oh yes – there has to be assessment, right? The test….  In baseball, the true test is what one does on the field… in the game. Imagine if baseball players, or any athlete for that matter, where assessed primarily by their performance on a written test on the rules and strategies of the game. Would  such performance ensure excellent players and a winning team?

I never thought that tonight’s practice would bring up so many things to think about. Play Ball!