Here is Youngme Moon’s awesome anti-creativity checklist. How many boxes can you check for your school leaders?
Moon is the author of Different: Escaping the Competitive Herd, which is nearing the top of my reading stack!
Here is Youngme Moon’s awesome anti-creativity checklist. How many boxes can you check for your school leaders?
Moon is the author of Different: Escaping the Competitive Herd, which is nearing the top of my reading stack!
This video was a smug, self-righteous, childish rant that mocks anyone who dares make a mature, thoughtful decision. Sadly, that wasn’t the intent of the video. I wholeheartedly agree with the intended message of the video. I had hoped that it would be a clever jab at people who refuse to get rid of their mimeograph machines. 😉 Instead, it scoffed at anyone who dares ask for research or data; derides those of us who act like grown-ups and decide that newer isn’t always better.
Would anyone show this at a staff meeting and expect the anti-creativity people to respond favorably? I wouldn’t. Because it pats the “creative-types” on the back but does nothing to help bring about real change.
I actually really enjoyed this video and will show it to our Arts Integration PLC in the spring. I think the point of this video is not intended to be smug, but to bring to the surface those common statements that cause schools to stay rooted in the “safe” way of doing things. I work in an large county system and when I originally applied to be an AP (for which the county had paid for my degree), I was told that I didn’t have 20 years of experience and that all of my leadership was based on “new” techniques that didn’t have 25 years of research backing it up. When I looked at the demographics of assistant principals and principals in the county, 90% of them had 20-25 years of teaching in before they moved into administration and none had started any type of pilot program before becoming an administrator. Many of my friends who have applied for administrative positions across the country have also been told they are too “young” or too “revolutionary”. This video just brings to the forefront with sarcasm how ridiculous those comments can be.
I do have to take issue with both “Show me the data” and “Use experience as a weapon” in terms of educational trends. Many Edu-Fads are done with little or no data (or worse, worthless data. I’ve seen plenty of “Studies” where the Confidence Interval is 90%, but the beta error was almost 50%, since Education doesn’t like using Chi-squared since almost none of the research has any statistical significance) and in fact, when you’ve been around long enough, you’ve seen the same idea before, and when you ask what’s different about it this time or what’s been done about problem last time you get the “Not a Team Player” designation. Of course there’s also a difference between “Why don’t we try X” and “You are all now required to do X [despite its questionable value]”
Bill, I’m not sure if it’s possible to have ever been around long enough in education. Every day brings a new challenge, a new scenario and should cause us to reflect on our current practice. Sometimes we can steal an idea from our past practice that we believe will be effective. Other times we would be best tossing out something from our current practice because it isn’t particularly effective.
I have heard your comment “when you’ve been around long enough, you’ve seen the same idea before, and when you ask what’s different about it this time…” many times. I agree that in education, previous ideas do resurface. However, while the idea might resemble a previous one, it is important to consider that the idea is being suggested at a different time, in a changed educational landscape, with different kids, by different educators and possibly with a different implementation strategy.
As someone who sees himself continuing in education for quite sometime to come, I believe I can learn a lot from experienced educators. i appreciate when other educators are willing to take the time to contribute creative suggestions and provide constructive criticism so that we can all improve past and current ideas in an effort to improve student learning.
I am going to continue to ask questions about what we currently do and why we do it, not just for the sake of it, but in an effort to explore whether we can make improvements.
Which is exactly my point: what’s different about it this time? Long enough in education is to have seen the same ideas floated as the solution to a problem before, and to know the reasons why it’s not being used anymore, or didn’t work in the first place. The same thing applies in Computer Science, the Automotive Industry, Banking, take your pick.
The other comment that I make about educational trends is that the problem with pendulums is they spend so little time in the middle. Everything tends to go to extremes (be it Constructivism, or Drill&Kill). Look at how many school are currently changing from “Middle Schools” to “Junior Highs” and then notice that about the same number seem to be changing from “Junior High” to “Middle School” both of them seeming to think that it’s going to solve some problem (often the same problems). That’s also a good example of how much “reform” is often presenting the same thing, as if a new label, logo, or color packaging changes the content. Maybe if we put out a new “Mission Statement” (or is it a Goal Statement this year?) things will change!
My experience is that many people who think they have been in education long enough simply shoot down ideas/initiatives they have seen/heard in the past without providing feedback as to WHY the initiative was unsuccessful. Again, experience is something that we can all learn from and this learning happens when those who hold the experience break down ideas and provide constructive criticism about specific aspects of the idea. From what I have seen, when people immediately write-off new ideas it has the tendency to create an environment that discourages creativity and innovation.
Educational IDEAS do seem to fall into the pendulum effect. People’s thinking does move to extremes from time to time and sometimes this does lead to big scale movements. Unfortunately, I would argue that while IDEAS spread quickly (especially nowadays through the use of technology) and big organizational shifts may occur, advances and improvements in the classroom are not implemented nearly as quickly. As much as we talk about great ideas, for the most part when we look inside the classrooms of today, we see teaching and learning that has not changed considerably from many decades before us. We are aware of more effective ways of doing things, but as a whole we have not translated this knowledge into practice quickly enough. Teaching and learning should always remain at the heart of what we do and as the focal point of our decision-making process so I encourage all educators to be innovative, take a risk and try something new (or old) if it is in the best interest of student learning.
There is also a trend of people promoting “new” ideas of not seeking input from people with experience, or looking at previous attempts. In science the first step in research is to look at all previously published efforts in the area: in Education is seemed to be regarded as unnecessary. Educational research is also absolutely horrible about documenting what went wrong or did not work in reforms, but that seems to be a combination of CYA, politics, and funding issues.
I would question several of your claims, first that “We are aware of more effective ways of doing things” If you are, I’d love to hear them, since this is what sets the pendulum back and forth between “Push Fundamentals” and “Teach Higher Level Concepts” and the repeated swings between each as we repeatedly discover that children who do not have sufficient basic skills can not perform Conceptual tasks, and that over-emphasis on low level skills leads to students without ability to apply those skills. I’ve seen “whole language” vs. phonics, Integrated Math vs. Traditional, Constructivism and Inquiry vs. Recall, Long Term Project based learning vs. packaged activities. No one sets out to create a bad system, and they all have things that they do better on than others. You have committed an error in either thinking that you [personally] know what is better, or that we [collectively] know what is best. That’s just not true, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
The second part is claiming that things have not changed much in the classroom. I teach Mathematics and Science and can tell you that other than the fact that we still use the same equipment, almost everything has changed, and mostly through the use of technology. Computers and advanced calculators have taken the drudgery out of data analysis allowing us to teach the higher level concepts that we never possible given the amount of that that it took to do something like “find the relationship between two variables” using graph paper and a pencil, or play with “what happens when you change the coefficient of this term?” We have a weather station on our building, and collect for GLOBE. Quite different than teaching meteorology with overheads and a textbook! Technology may not have revolutionized teaching in English and Social Studies in the same way, but anyone parroting the “teaching hasn’t changed much” line is ignorant or delusional. Oh, and this is not a rich vs. poor district issue either… the school that I teach at is a Title 1 [low income], rust belt declining minor city under partial state control for budget issues, and neither our superintendent nor building head principal use email, so that’s not technology leadership from above.
To provide something constructive to the discussion, several ideas which are proven effective, and completely ignored are “Stop trying to teach teenagers too early in the morning” [we begin first class at 7:45am] and “Allow teachers more time to collaborate” [I am currently working on a proposal to show that it is possible to schedule common departmental planning time without modifying our existing schedule or running into Union issues]. Another proven way to improve teaching is foreign languages at the elementary level rather than secondary, yet is almost completely ignored, oh , and save/restart the elementary music programs!
Ideas, whether they be considered ‘new’ or ‘old’ are a matter of perspective. For people entering into education, it may be the first time they have heard of an idea. For those who have been in the field longer, it may not be something entirely new. I will always hear out the ‘new’ ideas of others, ask some questions and offer suggestions based on my own experience. When teachers get excited about something they are planning for their students, I never want to squash their enthusiasm.
Educational research, because it is often qualitative in nature, opens itself to interpretation. When I read educational literature, even from some of our most highly regarded thinkers, I always consider the context that they conducted their studies in and how such findings could apply to my own educational context. Just as you hinted at, a one-size fits all approach does not work for teachers, nor does it work for students, schools or districts for that matter.
When I speak of being aware of more effective ways of doing things I immediately think of two examples. First, there is still a fair amount of ‘stand and deliver’ teacher-centred instruction going on. This approach has its place at times, but I think it’s safe to say the majority of educators believe student-centred techniques that encourage active learning benefits students.
Another practice which received quite a bit of attention in British Columbia over the past decade at the Ministry, district and school levels is Assessment for Learning (AFL). Despite the focus and attention on AFL in so many B.C. schools, there are still educators who continue to apply practices that are discouraging and demotivating for students.
As a former Science teacher I’m happy to hear that you are incorporating technology into your lessons. It’s obvious that you are an example of an experienced educator who continues to remain current, embracing new tools and looking to connect learning at school to students’ real worlds outside of school.
I think it is very powerful for less experienced teachers when they see ‘veterans’ model innovative practices and continue their own learning in an attempt to improve the learning of students!