Will Richardson

Speaker, consultant, writer, learner, parent

  • About
    • About Will
    • Testimonials
    • Contact Will
  • Blog
  • Speaking
  • Coaching
  • Books
  • BQI

Curiosity Is the Cat

February 11, 2017 By Will Richardson 16 Comments

I’m becoming more curious about curiosity. I’m beginning to think it’s the only “C” that truly matters, and that it’s been badly disrespected in all the conversation around the 4Cs or 7Cs or howevermanyCs that people have been throwing around.

I mean really, when it comes to learning, what comes before curiosity?

Critical thinking doesn’t, because if you’re not curious as to whether something is true or fake or accurate or real, you won’t really think very hard about it.

Creativity doesn’t, because making stuff is borne out of the curiosity of “What if?” What if I try this note here? What if I apply this touch of paint there? What if I mixed these two things together, or built another arm on that robot, or…

Communication doesn’t come before curiosity, because if you’re not curious about your audience, if you’re not using curiosity-driven empathy to craft your message, it probably won’t get across.

And collaboration? Isn’t that rooted in the curiosity of what other people might know and contribute to your own learning? People don’t collaborate for the sake of collaborating…except in schools, of course.

Think of most skills, all the stuff that doesn’t show up on the report card, all the stuff that probably matters more than the stuff that shows up on the report card, and you’ll find they are steeped in curiosity. Problem solving, problem finding, persistence, cooperation, adaptability, initiative…(add your 200 more here). Which of those doesn’t require being curious first and foremost? Can you be any of that if you’re not?

Hard to find one.

Reality: Kids are curious as hell when they’re 3, 4, 5 years old. They’re not so curious any more when they’re 13, 14, 15, years old, at least not about what’s in the curriculum. And the discussion around why is long over: we kill it in schools.

Reality #2: The most “successful” (and you can define that just about any way you want) people moving forward will be the most curious. The ones who are constantly asking questions. The ones who are always wondering “What if?”

Reality #3: Connection amplifies curiosity. This Internet thing has been the greatest boon to curiosity ever. I mean think about having a connection and NOT being curious. Sad!

So, what are we doing in schools to develop curious, connected, learners? Because the first without the second ain’t gonna cut it in the modern world.

Image credit

Filed Under: learning

10 Principles For Schools of Modern Learning

January 31, 2017 By Will Richardson 1 Comment

It’s time to raise the bar on our conversations around school change.

For too long, we’ve been paying lip service to “transformation,” unwilling or unable to reimagine our work in schools in ways that are fully relevant for the realities of the modern world. And as we pursue half-measures to become “better,” we neglect the needs of our students who need us to be decidedly “different.”

The gap between the increasing pace of change and our inability in schools to adequately respond to it is what keeps Bruce and Missy and I (and others) up at night.

We need to close the gap.

Introducing our newest white paper: 10 Principles for Schools of Modern Learning: The Urgent Case for Reimagining Today’s Schools.

It’s our first shot across the educhange bow that we hope will get you thinking and talking and acting to lead serious, sustainable change in your schools and classrooms.

This 20-page ebook highlights:

  • A framework for developing kids who are deep, powerful, curious, agile learners.
  • Action steps to inform a change process in your school.
  • Questions you can ask to start creating change in your school.
  • Links to resources you and your stakeholders can access today to get started.
  • Insights and ideas to help you make better decisions about your school’s future.
  • Methods that schools are already using to transform student learning.

We’ve got more coming: a new podcast series, resources for ChangeLeaders, and an 8-week course that we think will move schools into the modern world with relevance, sustainability, and scale.

We’re not naive as to the work that real change takes. In fact, if you don’t have a healthy dose of courage and commitment to creating a new narrative for schooling in this moment, you won’t want to tag along on this ride.

But if you do, welcome. Read and share the whitepaper, join us on Facebook, and start to build your own capacity for change with a community of global leaders invested in doing what’s right for our kids in these challenging yet exciting times.

Filed Under: On My Mind

Zen and the Art of School Change

January 27, 2017 By Will Richardson 8 Comments

About a week ago I grabbed Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig off my bookshelf and cracked it open for the first time since I first read it probably 30 years ago. I didn’t remember much of the story, but I did remember thinking it was an important read the first time around. And I’m finding that again. For the uninitiated, it’s the true story of the author, his son and two friends on a motorcycle trip through the high plains and Rockies, and the search for a deeper understanding of life and existence. It is, for me at least, a pretty deep and challenging text that I’m enjoying struggling through.

Anyway, last night I read this one passage that when I read it made me go “yeah…that’s what I’ve been trying to say but haven’t been able to.” Pirisg is writing about Phaedrus, who, it turns out, is actually a younger, darker version of himself. He writes:

“He felt that institutions such as schools, churches, governments, and political organizations of every sort all tended to direct thought for ends other than truth, for the perpetuation of their own functions, and for control of individuals in the service of those functions.”

I love passages like this one that literally (and I mean literally) give me goosebumps of resonance, if you know what I mean.

So let me try to break that down a bit more in terms of my sense of the schools part of that quote.

Do schools “direct thought for ends other than the truth?” This is what I’ve been trying to suss out in my never ending homilies around beliefs and common sense in schools. I think, too, this is what Frank Smith argues so well in The Book of Learning and Forgetting. There are just truths about learning and schooling that we deny. Truths like we don’t remember what we don’t want to learn or what doesn’t have relevance in our life. That we don’t learn when we are oppressed. That standardizing an education pushes against the inherent uniqueness of children. That learning in schools doesn’t reflect learning in real life, and so on. This is the Russell Ackoff quote, again, where we do things right at the expense of doing the right thing. It’s why so many people go “aw, crap” when I show that side by side slide of conditions that we know kids (and we) need for deep and powerful learning and the conditions we actually create.

And the idea that schools (meaning the people in them) do this for “the perpetuation of their own functions” is absolutely true. If we truly were to move agency over learning to the learner and hew to the truths about learning, our functions would radically, fundamentally change. Teacher wouldn’t be teacher. The architectures of schooling would be seen as barriers to learning, not as paths to efficiency. The narrative would have to be completely rewritten. But the reality is we’d rather be “better” than “different” because the former doesn’t require huge change.

Finally, do we avoid the truth and instead focus on the “control of individuals in the service of those functions” that are already well established? No question. This is what Seymour Sarason writes so passionately about in terms of the power relationships that have existed and currently exist in schools. I’ve written before the literally hundreds (if not thousands) of times where I’ve talked to teachers who have told me they are “powerless” to change. They are, in other words, controlled by the system, by the standards, by the narrative. And no one doubts that kids are controlled; they have little voice in what happens to them, and classroom management is still high on the list of things that teaches are evaluated on.

So, yeah, we ignore what we know is true because if we didn’t, we would have to seriously change what we do. It’s just easier to work within the well established norms of learning and teaching, the efficiency model, and to impose power over those who may want to challenge those norms in a quest for truth and effectiveness in learning. In other words, as much as we as individuals may want to change, the institution we’re stuck with is built not to. It works to “perpetuate its own functions,” which is why real, high-bar change in schools is so hard to effect.

Thoughts?

(Image credit: Alan Levine)

Filed Under: Change, leadership, On My Mind

Playing at “Agency”

January 23, 2017 By Will Richardson 6 Comments

From the “Sometimes Your Read Something That Makes You Want to Scream ‘THIS!’ Department” I give you Sean Michael Morris:

“This is the right of agency. It does not give us power over another, but it gives us mastery over ourselves. And an education that does not encourage or facilitate this agency is not an education.”

Read and repeat. Without “Mastery over ourselves…” it’s “…not an education.”

“Agency” is one of those growing buzzwords now in education, which means that its true meaning is soon to be neutered in practice. Especially because “agency” is at the heart of everything related to serious, re-imagin-y school change. It is, I’ve come to believe, the only real measure of whether a school is truly about learning…or not.

Because it is so foundational to the work, you can already see “agency” being watered down. Students are being given “agency” over how to learn what’s in the curriculum (a la “competency-based education.) Or students given the choice the technologies they use to master (as in pass the test) the content in a course (a la “blended” or “flipped” learning). More often than not, “Genius Hour” is our feel good attempt to check the agency box. (If we really meant it, we’d have “Curriculum Hour” instead.) And don’t get me started on “personalized.” (Seriously…don’t.)

And make note of that word “given” which to me is what makes all the difference. In most conversations, we are to “give” kids agency over their learning. No, we don’t. We do not “give” agency to students. Similarly, we do not “empower” students to have choice as power is not ours to give. Instead, we create conditions under which “agency” can flourish, under which our students can create their own power and become powerful in their own right. Conditions under which students have “mastery” over themselves and their learning, not just the content. Conditions built on what we believe about how kids learn.

For all the talk of “transformation” in schools, none of it matters if we don’t start here. Forget buying technology if you plan to distribute it to students without allowing them to fully own it in a learning sense. Forget curriculum if we don’t see it as something as navigated by the learner on their own terms. (Remember that there is a huge difference between “having to learn” and “wanting to learn,” and that only one of those really leads to learning.) And forget, as well, assessments that aren’t driven by the learner in a quest to learn more deeply. Otherwise, it’s just a meaningless, contrived metric that says nothing about real learning beyond memorization.

As Morris says, however, “agency” doesn’t mean that adults in classrooms don’t have a role to play.

“In other words, agency doesn’t so much exert itself upon others as it does float within the intersection of freedom and authority. Enacting one’s agency is always a balancing act between doing what is within your understanding of your own power and working with the boundaries of others’ understandings of theirs. It is a cooperative, chemical interaction. Freedom delimited by others’ freedoms delimited by yours. In a classroom, this means that authority remains present. Sometimes, the authority of the teacher; but in the best situation, the shared authority of the group of learners (and the teacher).”

I love that phrase “the intersection of freedom and authority.” But he’s not talking about “authority” in the typical school sense. The traditional power relationships in schools suggest that the adults are the authority, both when it comes to curriculum and to behavior. Traditionally, students are bereft of agency in any real sense, because the efficiency model of education can’t deal with it. (The idea of kids with real agency over their learning makes our heads hurt.) But a teacher’s will should be limited by the freedoms of learners. It’s not our job to impose an education on kids. It’s our job to allow them to create their own with our guidance.

But here’s the thing, as Morris suggests. We’re in deep trouble as a society if we continue to either deny or play at the edges of creating classrooms where students are the agents of their own learning. Kids who are trained to wait to be told what to learn, when to learn it, how to learn it, and how to be assessed on that learning will grow into adults who are of the same cloth, waiting for someone to tell them what to believe and how to act and what to think and know without the critical lens that only freedom can nourish. In large measure in the U.S., we’re already there.

So, don’t say “agency” unless you really mean it, unless you truly intend to create classrooms where kids “have mastery over themselves” and the freedom to employ that mastery with other learners.

Image credit: Annie Spratt

Filed Under: learning, On My Mind

The Future (and Present) of Expertise

January 19, 2017 By Will Richardson 2 Comments

Yesterday, I ran across this quote from Degreed, an online credentialing site:

“The future doesn’t care how you become an expert.”

Now, is that a marketing pitch or a reality? Obviously, for some professions, the future is still going to care a lot about how people gain their expertise. As I’ve said many times, I don’t want my surgeon trained on YouTube. (And don’t laugh; that stuff is already starting to happen.) There will always be certain kinds of expertise that we will want to accredit through rigorous training and practice.

But there’s going to be a whole bunch of stuff that isn’t going to require a traditional certificate or diploma given by a traditional school. For lots of “professions” now, people will (and are) able to begin to cobble together their own credentials. And portfolios. And websites that display their expertise. And networks that connect them to other professionals or learners or whatever.

In other words, the potentials to roll your own career are exploding, assuming you have certain skills, literacies, and importantly, dispositions to do that.

In schools, we talk about the skills…a lot. To be honest, I don’t know how well we actually develop the skills since “learning” them is so hard to quantify. We love our data, and we hew to the quantifiable in the end. Testing for real world, in the moment critical thinking is hard and messy and time consuming.

And we cover the “literacies,” although again, I think you could argue that we don’t do a great job of it. Recent Stanford research suggests that at least.  I think it’s arguable that by modern standards, most students and teachers are illiterate, and that our practice around teaching literacy is in dire need of rethinking.

That all said, how do we do on the dispositions part? I know that a good chunk of how kids approach the world is hard wired or baked in by the environments they grow up in. But if the opportunity (expectation?) is that expertise is now something that you develop on your own, then how are we tackling in schools the development of mindsets to do that? How do we create conditions where kids will learn perseverance in non-oppressive ways? How do we help them remain optimistic in the face of some serious global changes and tensions? How do we nurture patience and healthy confidence with a significant chunk of extroversion?

The answer isn’t hard. It’s about culture and about a mission and vision that focuses as much if not more on the “immeasurables” as on the easy to measure stuff. What’s hard is actually changing culture and mission and vision to accommodate that need.

The next time you look at the students in your schools, ask yourself this: Will they be able to become experts on their own when they leave you? Will they be able to learn to the depth necessary, connect widely enough, and have the confidence to make their expertise known to a global audience?

They’re not all going to do that, I get it.

But they all should be able to.

Image credit: Steven Wei

Filed Under: learning, Literacy, Networks, On My Mind, The Shifts, Vision

On “Learnability”

January 17, 2017 By Will Richardson 2 Comments

I find words fascinating, especially new ones. When I was teaching high school English, one of my favorite classes was an elective titled “Language Development” where we looked at etymologies, made connections between words and cultural shifts, and created all sorts of new words on our own among other things. We even ended up creating our own “suburban” dictionary of slang at our school that ended up being a really hefty research project that my students actually loved.

Anyway, I came across the word “learnability” this morning, and while I’m sure I’d seen that word before, in this instance it had an interesting twist. Look up the word in the dictionary and it most definitions run along the lines of “the ease with which something can be learned.” So, for instance, the “learnability” of Spanish, let’s say, would be greater than that of Chinese. Software creators wonder about the “learnability” of their products. And so on.

But in this article on the coming “skills revolution,” “learnability” takes on a different definition. Here it’s “the desire and ability to learn new skills to stay relevant and remain employable.” In essence, it’s a human characteristic, not a measure of difficulty.

And I find that interesting. And relevant.

Do the kids in your schools leave you with “the desire and ability to learn new skills to stay relevant and remain employable?” Is that part of your mission as an educator, to nurture and develop that characteristic in your students?

And even more, what does learnability mean in the context of being an educator. Obviously, aside from some really bold schools where contracts are renewed every year, “remaining employable” in education doesn’t require too much effort. But what should we expect from teachers and leaders in terms of exhibiting “the desire and ability to learn new skills to stay relevant?”

I would suggest we should expect a lot.

You can judge for yourself whether the authors’ emphasis on “learnability” is as crucial as they claim, but I don’t doubt that learning new skills perpetually is going to be a reality for most students.

We getting them ready for that?

Image credit: José Martín

Filed Under: On My Mind

Learning. All. The. Time.

December 19, 2016 By Will Richardson Leave a Comment

So, the “2017 Predictions” posts are starting to flow, and while I’m certainly interested in the education prognostications, I’m more interested in what people are saying outside of our field. (I’m somewhat pessimistic that anything will significantly shift in edu next year, especially in terms of our penchant for trying to do “the wrong thing right.”) To that end, I came across an interesting Deloitte paper that makes a number of interesting forecasts. I’m just going to pull a few out, but the whole report is pretty interesting reading if you have the time. Remember, these are for business, but they’re for us as well.

Prediction #1: “Organizational Design Will be Challenged Everywhere”

Key quote: “Today, the key to organizational success is not “scalable efficiency,” but “scalable learning.” You, as an organization, must be able to experiment, put prototype products in front of customers, rapidly learn from your competitors, and stay ahead of your marketplace, industry, and technology trends. This means your whole organization has to focus on customercentric learning, experimentation, and time to market.”

Thought: That sound like schools and classrooms to you? Innovation in schools does not tend to be driven by “scalable learning” but by usually isolated, courageous edge runners who aren’t waiting for the system to catch up. And imagine if the entire system really focused on the way students really learn best, “studentcentric” learning if you will. That would be doing the “right thing.” I doubt many school organizations will be “challenged” any time soon.

bwdeletePrediction #2: “Culture and Engagement Will Remain Top Priorities”

Key Quote: “Culture creates innovation. When a company has a clearly defined culture (whatever that may be), it offers employees a sense of security and freedom— they know what to expect…In other words, today’s organizations cannot succeed in silos—so people who “fit the culture” and feel comfortable communicating throughout the company also tend to be most effective as individuals. Such a transparent and open environment can only happen when people feel authentic, included, and respected. All of these qualities come from a strong, reinforced, and well-documented culture.”

Thought: I’m becoming more and more fascinated by the ways in which culture is absolutely integral to relevant, sustainable change in schools. A lot of my work in 2017 will be around this question, but if you’re in a school environment that isn’t “transparent and open” and where people don’t feel “authentic, included, and respected,” well, good luck with changing anything for the long term.

Prediction #10: “The Learning and Design Function Will Continue to Struggle

Key Quote: “But what has really changed for 2017 is the fact that today L&D should embrace “self-directed learning” and truly build a “learning experience” that helps individuals at all levels to learn all of the time… ‘Digital organizations’ are learning all the time. This means people are trying things, discussing mistakes, and learning on the job.”

Thought:  Please let me know if that sounds like what students in your school are being prepared for. Please.

Prediction #11: “The Future of Work is Here”

Key Quote: “The essential issue we face in 2017 is the rapid commoditization of AI technology (speech recognition, natural language processing, sensors, and robotics) and the impact that could have on almost every job… New tools are becoming commonplace; they are entering the workforce at a time when jobs themselves are becoming more dynamic, more than 40 percent of workers are contingent and the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” has increased. So we, as HR leaders, are in the hot seat to figure out what all of this means.”

Thought: Actually, we in K-12 education are on the hot seat as well. And if you haven’t already figured it out, no amount of flipped classrooms, maker spaces, “personalized” learning, Chromebooks, or “college and career”/”future” readiness is going to make any difference if we don’t step back and do a fundamental rethink of our work.

The workplace is transforming, and I don’t use that word lightly. But in education, we’re still happy to just adopt and trumpet “innovations” that at the end of the day change little because we haven’t been brave enough to do what we all know is best for powerful and deep learning (not schooling) to take place in classrooms, and because we’re loathe to keep up with and embrace the difficult new contexts of life and work that our kids are facing.

So here’s a prediction for 2017: Only those who truly feel the discomfort and challenge of these times will lead meaningful change in their schools and classrooms. Unfortunately, my sense is that too few will have the courage, the capacity, and the conviction to do that work.

(Image credit: Brian Gaid)

Filed Under: On My Mind

Making “The Olin Effect” Your Own

December 10, 2016 By Will Richardson 8 Comments

We talk a lot about “student agency” in these parts. But to be honest, most of what we label with those words are tepid substitutes for the real thing. As I Tweeted the other day, if these are the stories we’re writing in major education publications, the bar is set really low.

So, Thursday I sat in on a panel presentation that featured two students from Olin College of Engineering and two more from Hampshire College. The title was “Program Improvement Through Student Engagement,” which didn’t sound all that captivating. But since I’d heard about Olin a number of times, and since I had a younger family member who had just finished at Hampshire, and since my own presentation was scheduled for the next session in the room next door, I settled in to listen.

Really glad that I did.

For those not familiar with these two schools, they are outliers in the university narrative. Both give students almost total choice over the subjects they study and the ways the study them, to the point where kids create their own majors and most of their coursework. The kids at Hampshire then document their work in a digital portfolio, one of which you can see here.  Dig around…it’s pretty interesting, and it will make you think about the possibilities. (This blog post is indicative of the work being done in the program.)

The Olin students shared their work to redesign their school library, and they both talked about how immersed they were in the work. But it was when they started talking about “The Olin Effect” that I got really interested:
olindelete

The Olin Effect:
“The heightened state of engagement, creativity, and productivity that comes from taking control of your own education.”

Love. That.

I quickly snapped a picture of their slide and started creating a slide of my own to drop into my keynote (which, at that point, started in about 20 minutes.)

I found it interesting that one of the students from Olin said that what both amazed him and what he appreciated the most was the level of trust that he received from his teachers and his fellow students. He said it was without question the foundation for the good work that he and his team did.

At the end, I asked the panel whether or not they had had the experience of “taking control of your own education” before they got to their respective colleges. The two from Hampshire both came from very traditional settings in high school, but the two Olin kids said that they came from smaller schools that were somewhat innovative in their approach. Still, they hadn’t been granted the amount of freedom and agency that they found when they went to college. I followed up with “Would you have like to have had that in high school?” and they both said something to the effect of “Um…absolutely!”

When I got to the Olin part of my own presentation, since much of my talk was about student agency, I asked my audience how many of them had ever experienced “The Olin Effect,” that flow and good work that comes out of doing something you really care about. Something that you CHOOSE to work on. Almost every hand went up. And then I made the point that everyone of us also encounters The Olin Effect when we’re like five and six years old and we’re in charge of our own explorations of the world. That time when the adults look at us and marvel at how intense and creative and persistent we are with our own learning. There’s not one among us who hasn’t lived it. And, importantly, there’s not a kid in our schools who hasn’t lived it at some point and who can’t live it again, given the freedom to do so.

But that’s the problem, right? “The Olin Effect” is the exception that happens when the conditions for powerful learning truly exist: freedom, choice, relevance, audience, passion, etc. In schools, unfortunately, it’s not the rule.

So here’s an idea. Make your own poster like the one above, but instead of “Olin,” put the name of your school in its place. And then figure out what you need to do to make your own students feel “The heightened state of engagement, creativity, and productivity that comes from taking control of your own education.”

I mean, seriously. Why wouldn’t we do that?

Filed Under: learning, On My Mind, schools

The American Experiment

December 5, 2016 By Will Richardson 3 Comments

Reading me some Neil Postman this morning as I continue to be drawn to thoughts about education that are at least a quarter century old. In reflecting on my own thinking about all of this, I find it fascinating the extent to which going back in time seems to inform the path moving forward more than anything else. I’m sad to say that for a long time, I missed some eternal truths about learning and education, truths that if I’d realized them sooner would no doubt have sent my thinking and work in bit of a different direction. But, as they say, better late…

Postman has always been a mix for me. Somewhat a contrarian on technology but also a champion for student “voice and choice” as we seem to want to call it these days. I think he’s aligned with Sarason who says “the overarching goal of school should be to develop students who want to keep learning more about themselves, others, and the world” when they leave us.

But in light of recent events, I found myself thinking about one particular chapter in “The End of Education,” one titled “The American Experiment.” There, he suggests that schools should commit themselves to helping students “acquire/develop a love of one’s country.” But instead of suggesting more rote patriotism a la the Pledge of Allegiance, he offers up four questions that all students should grapple with:

  1. Is it possible to have a coherent, stable culture that allows the greatest possible freedom of religious and political thought and expression?
  2. Is it possible to have a coherent, stable culture made up of people of different languages, religions, traditions, and races?
  3. Is it possible to provide a free public education for all citizens?
  4. Is it possible to preserve the best of American traditions and social institutions while allowing uncontrolled technological development?


Those are some heady starting points for debate. Sure, we could add others dealing with globalization, the environment, and more.  But as Postman says repeatedly, kids are not only intellectually ready to grapple with these questions but, in some cases, they are closer to them in their real lives than the adults.

At the end of the chapter, Postman writes:

I mean to say that this is a powerful story that is at the core of what America is all about. The story says that experimenting and arguing is what Americans do. It does not matter if you are unhappy about the way things are. Everybody is unhappy about the way things are. We experiment to make things better, and we argue about what experiments are worthwhile and whether or not those we try are any good. And when we experiment, we make mistakes, and reveal our ignorance, and our timidity, and our naïveté. But we go on because we have faith in the future–that we can make better experiments and better arguments. This, it seems to me, is a fine and noble story, and I should not be surprised if students are touched by it and find in it a reason for learning.

I’m not sure where we are with this American story that has taken such an unexpected turn of late. The experiment seems a bit more dangerous these days. But the only way to a better future is to engage in the messiness of the debate in all of its passion and, at times, ugliness. Schools can do much to help students develop as citizens able to do just that.

(Image credit: Gabby Orcutt)

Filed Under: Good Reads, learning, On My Mind

Follow the Kids

November 25, 2016 By Will Richardson 3 Comments

As I was finishing off the last crumbs of pumpkin pie after the big, annual Richardson Thanksgiving Day feast, I caught this snip of a conversation between two extended family members, one a 24-year old girl who was struggling to finish college, the other a girl in middle school who clearly was not enjoying it.

“I hate school,” the younger one said. “It’s all about stupid stuff that no one cares about.”

“I know,” said the older one. “They just make you study boring stuff and memorize it for a test and then you just forget it all anyway. That’s not the way people learn.”

It’s not the first time I (or you) has heard this or some variation on the theme. But here it was again, delivered in pained, frustrated tones that made me close my eyes, take a deep breath, and once again wonder why.

Why, when we know that this is what by and large school does to kids, why do we keep doing this? I mean, I know the whys that everyone cites. But why do we give those reasons more cred than it’s just not right to be boring and disengaging kids from learning regardless of what policy makers or parents or whoever else doing the counting want?

We gotta stop.

Loris Malaguzzi, the founder of the Reggio Emilia approach of educating kids, puts it as clearly as anyone:

“The teachers follow the children, not plans” (Kindle 1561).

#thereyago

In other words, it’s about learning, not teaching. We’re so wedded to our lesson plans and curriculum guides and on that we’ve forgotten the focus of our work. It’s not science or history or Shakespeare or calc. It’s kids…learning. Learning how to learn.

This isn’t rocket science. If we care at all about the fact that we’re creating another whole generation of disengaged learners in schools, just start following the kids. Let them lead. As Malaguzzi also says:

“The objective of education is to increase possibilities for the child to invent and discover. Words should not be used as a shortcut to knowledge. Like Piaget, we agree that the aim of teaching is to provide conditions for learning” (Kindle 1451).

Yeah. Go do that.

(Image credit: Vanessa Bumbeers)

 

Filed Under: On My Mind

Taking Stock

November 9, 2016 By Will Richardson 1 Comment

The one good result for this morning is this: It. Is. Over.

We know better (though not completely) what we face. The shock will wear off. The disequilibrium will subside.

For me, it’s not anger. I understand why this happened.

For me, it’s fear. Usually, that’s a reaction to uncertainty. This morning, it’s the opposite. I am so very certain that the longer term prospects for both our nation and our world are worse today than they were yesterday. And I’m also certain that the causes of last night’s result are impossible to ameliorate in the short time frame in which they need to be addressed. Progress on the issues that so urgently confront us has been set back decades.

As it happens, in the wee hours this morning, bleary-eyed and unable to sleep, I came across this interesting snip from a book titled Education and the Making of a Democratic People. It’s a collection of essays released in 2008, edited by John Goodland and others. This excerpt comes from Alan Wood’s essay “What is Renewal? Why Now?” Eight years later, it speaks volumes about last night:

The rise of the United States to global preeminence began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. The Industrial Revolution, with had propelled Europe to world dominance between the 1830s and 1890s, crossed the Atlantic and transformed the American economy from an agricultural powerhouse into an industrial one. That same Industrial Revolution has now crossed the Pacific to China and India. The canter of the world economy and global power is shifting back to Asia, where it in fact resided for most of human history (even as recently as 1830, China produced one-third of the world’s total Gross Domestic Product). The playing field, in effect, is being re-leveled for the first time in almost two hundred years. The consequences of the economic rebirth of Asia will be profound. No longer will America dominate the world like a colossus. Not longer will it be able to act unilaterally on the international stage.

America also faces two additional challenges, one internal and the other external. Internally, the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in American society has increased to a degree not seen since the Gilded Age in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. For reasons that remain unclear, we seem to have lost the commitment to equality—a fundamental basis for any common standard of equity and justice— that for so long was one of the defining characteristics of American society. Over time, these inequalities will corrode the connective links that hold American society together. Externally, we have embarked on a series of military campaigns–from Vietnam to Iraq—that have dissipated our power, drained our resources, multiplied our enemies, and alienated the world. The impact of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, which might have stimulated the United States to open up to the outside world, appears to have had the opposite effect, making us more defensive, more insular, and more inclined to use violence to protect ourselves than ever before. The unintended consequences are notable for their ironic quality. In the name of fighting terrorism, we seem to have abetted it; in theme of building democracy, we seem to have undermined it.

The worldwide change we confront is even more fundamental. Humankind now faces a challenge unique to its entire existence on this planet. For the first time the lethality of our weapons and the degradation of our environment endanger not just individual societies but the world as a whole. The very survival of Homo sapiens hangs in the balance. Meanwhile, the central ideology of our time—nationalism—and the central institution of our time—the nation state—are inadequate to the task at hand. Both grew out of a highly competitive, bloody stage in European history that is long since past. We face the twenty-first century, in effect, with eighteenth-century tools.  [Emphasis mine.]

Over the last couple of months, I’ve been doing some intense work with a number of schools trying to help them frame a learning response to the challenge of this modern, connected, distracted, moment we now find ourselves in. I still believe in its opportunities. But what last night teaches is that the challenges are indeed significant when it comes to the work of schools to more effectively prepare our children to embrace and overcome the significant trials that collectively confront us. We in education are, in fact, facing the twenty-first century with eighteenth century systems, structures, and mindsets. They are deeply rooted realities and narratives that will take years if not decades to change, if they can be changed at all.

Time to reflect, refresh and, hopefully, reboot.

Filed Under: On My Mind

Change Sucks

September 27, 2016 By Will Richardson 13 Comments

“This hasn’t been easy, you know.”

That’s the principal of a middle school where the way kids learn in classrooms is fundamentally changing. More questions. More projects that actually tackle stuff that’s happening in the real world and that are driven by kids’ interests. More making stuff. More presentations. More kids who are taking on their own “home work” because they want to, not because someone assigns it.

In other words, some real shift.

It’s taken a good chunk of time. She’s been at the school for six years. The first three? “Spinning wheels. Baby steps.” The last couple? “I didn’t know if I’d see it happen, but there’s definitely less pain now.”

15831047566_e7d7322b3b_cI ask her about that last part, the pain part.

“I don’t think you can do this without feeling a lot of pain,” she says. “A lot.” Pain as in confusion and pushback and anger and failure. “I know if we’re not feeling it, we’re not changing. But it’s hard to see it through sometimes.”

No one likes it, she says. No one likes to be uncomfortable. But it’s a necessary part of the process.

“You just don’t get anywhere, really, unless you embrace the discomfort and commit to working through it.”

I wonder how many people in school leadership are embracing the pain. I wonder how many of them, are instead trying to mitigate the pain, to not confront it. To appease those causing it instead of leading them through it.

And I wonder how many of them really believe in what they’re doing enough to see it through.

Image credit: Cogdogblog

Filed Under: Change, On My Mind

From Russia (and Finland) With Tradition

September 22, 2016 By Will Richardson Leave a Comment

Now that I’m home from my most excellent, whirlwind trip to Russia, Finland, and Sweden, I want to share a few reflections on what I heard and what I learned. I’ll talk about Russia here, and I’ll be posting my Finland reflections on our ChangeLeadership Facebook group. (Join us!)

Given the political conversation here in the States right now, it was an interesting time to go to Moscow. But to be honest, I never felt any sort of tension. The Russians who I got a chance to spend some time with were in a word, great. Sincere, curious, funny and really helpful to their international guests.

There’s no question that Russia employs a highly traditional approach to schooling despite a lot of discussion about technology, at least at the EdCrunch conference I spoke at. From what I could tell, the focus was around digital literacy, and everyone was excited about being able to “digitize” all aspects of the school curriculum. The speakers mentioned “flipped learning” a number of times, and I heard about a couple of huge roll outs of video curriculum to support it. They want to teach kids “critical thinking,” but they seemed to want to do so via explicit instruction rather than by putting kids in situation where they need to think critically in order to solve a problem or reach a goal they care about. Yet, my questions about how critical thinking or creativity or other skills and dispositions were to be assessed went pretty much unanswered. It’s too hard.

moscowkidsFrom the late night dinner discussions with other speakers, my take is that there is little in the way of a progressive, interesting approach to technology, and, not surprisingly, little coherence around what anyone meant by the word “learning.” (As a side note, I was shocked (but not really shocked) by one high profile speaker in particular who is having a huge influence on the conversation globally couldn’t really articulate a definition that he could actually apply to his own experience.) In general, like most other places I’ve been, the Russians seem to be playing with change. It’s surfacy, driven by tradition and global rankings, proffering a vision that’s grounded in little more than how to deal with the digitalization of the curriculum and the growing ubiquity of devices. 

To that end, one of the most ironic moments was when one of the cute school kids they brought on stage at the beginning of the conference answered “to get a good grade” when the emcee asked him what was the goal of learning. (That and when they gave the kids iPads to look up Newton’s First Law of Physics and the wifi wasn’t connecting. Oi.)

What I enjoyed most about my trip were two things: meeting some really interesting and well-meaning educators from around the world, and hanging out with the university students who were our guides at the conference. My guide, Olga, had never left her country but was dying to come to the United States. And another young man, Kyrril, who personally rushed me to the airport via subways and trains with like six minutes to spare, also aspired to make a visit and see what we were all about. They were nice kids who were very much awed by their foreign guests. (Lots of group selfies.) 

For my take on Finland, skip over to Facebook.

Filed Under: Conference Stuff, On My Mind, Personal

Cultures of Perpetual Learning

September 10, 2016 By Will Richardson 3 Comments

Over the years, we’ve heard a lot of predictions about what the future of work holds for all of us, not just our kids. It’s interesting now to see some of those predictions actually playing out.

Case in point is this post in the Harvard Business Review that summarizes the Herculean change initiative now underway at AT&T. It’s a fascinating read on it’s own, but it’s even more interesting when you start to align some of the findings to the work of schools. Or maybe more daunting.

The biggest takeaway for me? Professional learning is now the responsibility of the learner. I’ve harped on that for a while now, but AT&T pushes that idea in spades. For instance:

From the outset, AT&T was clear that employees interested in new roles would be required to use their own time for—and in some cases invest their own money in—their reeducation.

And:

Once employees have identified skill gaps through the self-service platform and in conversations with their managers, they take it upon themselves to fill them through online courses, certifications, and degree programs developed through a partnership between AT&T, Udacity, and Georgia Tech. Most employees spend five to 10 hours a week on retraining.

All of this works within a “culture of perpetual learning.” AT&T employees know that their roles will change, on average, every four years. In other words, if you’re not constantly learning, you’re toast.

7876968098_fee041d1e3_kSome of that learning is focused on skills like coding, data science, and cloud-based computing. But “many of these fields are advancing so quickly that traditional methods of training and development cannot keep up.” That’s where on demand courses, badges, nanodegrees, and even master’s programs come in. Perpetual learning is supported by the company, but the learners are self-determined (with the help of surveys and evaluations.)

Finally, the whole organizational structure is shifting as well. Instead of a corporate ladder, the new metaphor is the “corporate lattice” which supports “supports lateral, diagonal, and both ascending and descending career moves.” Which leads to this:

Essential to lattice thinking is the principle that individuals actively own their development, which fundamentally changes the social contract between employer and employee. AT&T is working to instill a mindset in which each individual becomes CEO of his or her own career, empowered to seek out new skills, roles, and experiences.

As always, I urge you to read the whole thing.

The implications of this for education are many.

Are we building cultures of “perpetual learning?”

Is there an expectation (supported by the union, as in the case at AT&T) that professional learning is owned by the educator?

Do educators in our systems see themselves as the CEOs of their own careers?

And, maybe most importantly, are we working to help our students understand what it means to be the CEOs of their own learning?

I see this all happening more and more in the places I visit and work, but in all honesty, most schools seem no where near to creating these types of cultures or framing their practice through these types of lenses.

(Image credit: Denise Krebs)

Filed Under: learning, Teacher as Learner

The Killer Modern Learning App

September 7, 2016 By Will Richardson 3 Comments

tinderedHere’s an idea for a killer modern learning app:

Call it Tinder-Ed if you like.

Sign up, and fill in a) what you want to learn, and b) what you’re able to teach. Maybe add what time zone you’re in. Simple.

Once you’re signed on, fire up the app, and start swiping through the people Tinder-Ed has matched you up with to find some synergy.

You teach me this thing that I want to learn, I’ll teach you this thing you want to learn.

Quid pro quo. The perfect learning date.

We can add some Uber-ish ratings stuff in there as well. Cred matters.

It’s probably already been done. I haven’t really looked.

But if it hasn’t…

Filed Under: On My Mind

My Problem With a “Growth Mindset”

August 29, 2016 By Will Richardson 11 Comments

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t like just about every five year old have a “growth mindset?” I mean, depending on parents and other circumstances, I’m sure even kids that age can see themselves as limited. But most of the tail-waggers I’ve seen in kindergarten feel like they can conquer just about anything. They’ve already got a “growth mindset.”

The reason we need all sorts of “growth mindset” books and workshops is not because we need to develop that in kids. It’s because we’re now in the business of trying to restore  that in kids, something that by and large schools strip away.

We really think ranking and sorting with grades are good for kids? We really think that telling them that they can’t continue to pursue their interests is good for their “growth mindset?” Or that focusing on problems with one answer makes them more confident in their potentials to achieve?

Really?

It would make more sense to focus simply on nurturing and supporting the learning mindsets that kids already bring with them, rather than forcing them to adopt a “school mindset” that has little connection to their real lives.

Filed Under: On My Mind

The De-Construction Crew

August 27, 2016 By Will Richardson 1 Comment

If you’re a frequent visitor here, you know that I’m always going on about the importance of grounding our work in education in what we believe about how kids learn. (If you haven’t checked out my latest TEDx Talk, you’ll get the gist.) You’ll also know how surprised I am that so few of us have actually articulated what exactly we do believe, not to mention how few schools and districts have done that as a community.

Those that have done that usually face a dilemma. They quickly find that most of the structures that we currently employ in schools and classrooms really don’t support our fundamental beliefs about learning. I mean, and again I’ve asked this before here, if you were building a new school from scratch, would your beliefs about how kids learn lead you to separate them out by age? Would you teach a standardized curriculum assessed by standardized tests? Would you separate out disciplines into 50-minute blocks, or make students compete for grades and rankings or pretty much prevent students from asking their own questions and solving real life problems? Would those things hew to your beliefs?

I don’t think they would. Most would never argue for those things.

15612738556_2c325a8c00_bBut that’s what we’ve got. And that’s our dilemma: Do we do the “right things,” the things we know in our hearts and minds are best for kids and learning? Or do we sacrifice those things in our attempt to “do the wrong things right?” (That’s not a new question here either, but one I keep feeling the need to come back to.)

So it follows, I think, that the road to real transformation, that place where students have true freedom and agency over the learning, where it’s about their questions, their problems, their passions, and their pathways, getting to that place requires a serious de-construction effort to break apart those “wrong things” that don’t actually fit with our beliefs about how kids actually learn.

It’s hard work. We need some de-construction helmets for sure. But if you’re serious about change, you’re going to have to do that work.

And if it’s about learning, why wouldn’t you do that work?

Image credit: Kevin Jarrett

Filed Under: Change, On My Mind

Learning the Change

August 26, 2016 By Will Richardson Leave a Comment

The world as it is today, the one in which we have access to all sorts of knowledge, people, and technologies, that world is not the one that most current educators thought they were stepping into when they went into teaching. The image of schooling that most had was built on scarcity of those things, not abundance. It was an image built on what most of us experienced in our own education. One of structure, of teacher as planner and assessor, of rigorous organization.

But change has happened, very quickly, with the Web.

And I wonder, how are we in education coping with it? Do we adults have the literacies and dispositions to cope with it effectively? Were we, are we prepared for it?

The good news is that despite the challenge of it, we are full force experiencing the kind of mega change that most expect our students will have to deal with as they go through their lives.

So, if you want a sense of what our kids will need as they face the future, look inward. You’re in it.

What do you need right now to deal with the change you’re feeling? And how does that inform your practice?

Filed Under: On My Mind

The Work of “Different”

August 13, 2016 By Will Richardson 2 Comments

From the “Doing the Wrong Thing Right Department,” George Siemens on the LMS:

“You’ve made a process efficient that would make an awesome, productive employee in the 1960s, but you haven’t developed the mindsets, the networking capabilities and so on that you need for an individual—not just an employee, but a member of society—in 2020. To make a process more efficient that shouldn’t be done at all is a waste of time.”

How many things are we trying to do “better” that we shouldn’t be doing at all?

More, do we have the mindsets as school communities that push the curious, creative, agile, persistent dispositions that it’s becoming more and more clear will determine our kids’ ability to flourish?

Trying to do “better” is easier than trying to do “different.” Different means uncertainty.

But “different” in school also means understanding (or at least trying to) how the lives our children will lead will be “different” from the ones we are currently leading.

You doing that work?

Filed Under: On My Mind

Risky Business Redux

August 12, 2016 By Will Richardson 3 Comments

(Building on this post.)

From a New York Times article on Anne Holton, Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s wife:

Ms. Holton later enrolled in Open High School, which allowed students to create their own curriculum and did not give grades. When asked to pick an activity for physical education, she took up clogging. When assigned to research her family’s ancestry, she presented not the names of distant gentry, but the names of slaves owned by her great-grandparents.

This a woman who eventually ended up at Harvard Law where she met her future husband.

But how can that be, that someone can go to a school that says to students “you create your own education” and doesn’t give grades can end up at Harvard? She must be special, right? That kind of school experience just can’t be for everyone, can it?

I’m sure it’s not.

risk deleteBut I wonder how many of our kids would flourish in that type of an environment given the chance. I wonder what would happen if that model was the great reset for education.

Look, no one argues that there are currently millions of kids for which the traditional system simply doesn’t work, doesn’t engage. Yet most of us see ideas as an Open High School as a risk to becoming “educated.”

Seriously, what if it were the other way around?

The way we think about what an “education” should be is just a current best guess at meeting standards and outcomes using methods that policy makers and businesses are heavily invested in and loathe to change. Happily, that guess seems to, finally, be up for more serious debate at increasingly higher levels. But it still dominates.

There’s a lot less risk than we think when it comes to doing education “differently” instead of better. The greater risk may be to stay the course.

(Photo Credit: SpaceX)

Filed Under: Change, On My Mind

The One Word That Prevents Real Educational Reform From Happening

August 3, 2016 By Will Richardson 2 Comments

Given the common sense arguments for learning that run counter to the current day structures and practices of schools, it would seem that a real rethinking of our education system would have happened long before now. It’s hard to argue that forcing kids to learn the same thing on the same day in the same place at the same pace with other kids their same age from their same neighborhood with the same teacher to be assessed in the same way is built on any sound theory of learning and not instead focused on being as efficient as possible in “delivering” an education to our kids. Kids don’t learn that way before they become school age, and no one learns like that in real life. Imagine, if you can, if we set the same conditions for our adult learning. We wouldn’t stand for it, would we?

But despite the obvious problems with the structures, we come up with all sorts of reasons for not changing. It’s because we can’t ignore the state assessments. Or we can’t change the structures. Or we can’t make the parents upset. Or we can’t ask the unions to change. Or we can’t risk our college placement rankings. Or we can’t…

And that is the word, “can’t,” that we use to quell any real discussion of change and reform. Real change is just not possible. It just can’t be done.

15519253863_2fc81c8dd4_bBut here’s the thing: in my travels, I’ve seen every one of the “can’ts” overcome in one school or another. A number of schools don’t give grades because they think they’re detrimental to learning, yet their kids end up going to great colleges if they so desire. Other schools have mixed age groups because they believe that’s a better condition for learning. There are schools that have created relationships with parents so that when change is needed, the community comes out in support of an at times even initiates the change. And there are schools who have stood up to the state assessors and asked for and received waivers to what they see as counterproductive policies and practices. Or, they convince constituents that the test scores are not where real learning and preparedness for the modern world resides.

If we’re honest, it’s not about “can’t.” Instead, it’s about “won’t.” We won’t do those things, even though common sense says we ought to, because we don’t have the conviction or the courage or, importantly, the conscience to do them. And so, we introduce cosmetic changes meant to soften the disconnect between what we believe and what we do all the while knowing deep in our learning minds that we’re trying to do the wrong thing right. (I know, broken record.)

Sure, real change that requires us to think differently about the experience we provide for our kids is extremely difficult. And it challenges centuries of history and practice.

But let’s be clear: it is not impossible.

It’s happening all around us.

If we want to resist real change in our schools, so be it. But let’s just own the fact that it’s not that it can’t be done.

It’s that we won’t do it.

(Photo Credit: Maurits Verbiest)

Filed Under: Classroom Practice, leadership, learning, schools, Vision

RIP Seymour Papert

August 2, 2016 By Will Richardson 1 Comment

One of the most frustrating moments when I give a talk to educators is the moment when I put Seymour Papert’s picture and quote up on screen and ask how many of them have ever heard of him. Nine times out of ten, maybe a hand or two goes up. Many times, no one knows of him.

I was in that camp too not so many years ago. I’ve lamented many times the fact that people like Papert, Seymour Sarason, Russell Ackoff, Deb Meier, and many other progressive, challenging thinkers on education, learning, and technology came to me so relatively “late” in life. It wasn’t until I was into almost my 25th year as an educator that I started reading these and others who resonated so deeply with my own experience but never had a chance to directly impact my classroom practice. I was never introduced to them in my pre-service courses, never talked about them in staff lounges, never knew anyone in my physical space education circles who espoused their world view.

It wasn’t until seven or eight years ago when Gary Stager started feeding me these links and book titles that my brain started melting with thoughts and ideas about what learning really is, what schooling might be, and I’ll be forever grateful. Gary worked closely with Papert, and I know his loss right now is huge. But we should all be feeling some sadness today, because there’s no question that Papert was one of the greatest minds of our time at the intersection of the work that so many of us care deeply about and do every day.

It’s not at all surprising that I heard of his passing this morning as I was working on a piece for Ed Leadership in which I mention Papert serveral times. In fact, in my tabs, I’ve got open the directory of Papert’s writing that Gary started and I’ve contributed to, and also his essay “Child Power,” which I’ve read many times and was citing in my piece. If you’ve never read Papert, it’s a good place to start:

So the model that says learn while you’re at school, while you’re young, the skills that you will apply during your lifetime is no longer tenable. The skills that you can learn when you’re at school will not be applicable. They will be obsolete by the time you get into the workplace and need them, except for one skill. The one really competitive skill is the skill of being able to learn. It is the skill of being able not to give the right answer to questions about what you were taught in school, but to make the right response to situations that are outside the scope of what you were taught in school. We need to produce people who know how to act when they’re faced with situations for which they were not specifically prepared.

I never had the chance to meet Seymour Papert in person, but I will always be thankful that his writing, his speaking, and his ideas live on, and that my own life has been made many times richer by his work. Many more eloquent tributes will be written in the next few days from those who can capture his impact and his spirit far better than I. But I can’t let his passing go by without some mention of the important role that he has and will continue to play in my intellectual life. May he rest in peace.

Filed Under: On My Mind

The Shaping of Institutions

July 22, 2016 By Will Richardson 3 Comments

zen deleteHere’s your Friday moment of EduZen to think about over the weekend. As always, would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks for reading this week.

Brown, Davison, and Hagel:

In previous generations of institutional change, an elite at the top of the organization created the world into which everybody else needed to fit. The institutional changes ahead will be quite different. These changes will be driven by passionate individuals distributed throughout and even outside the institution, supported by institutional leaders who understand the need for change but who also realize that this wave of change cannot be imposed from the top down. The new institutional model will involve a complete refocusing: Rather than molding individuals to fit the needs of the institution, institutions will be shaped to provide platforms to help individuals achieve their full potential by connecting with others and better addressing challenging performance needs. The success of institutions will depend on their ability to amplify the efforts of individuals so that small moves, smartly made, can become catalysts for broad impact (7-8).

 

Filed Under: EduZen

Why Do We Need to Teach Kids “Self-Motivation”?

July 21, 2016 By Will Richardson 2 Comments

From the “Ways of Thinking About Learning That Drive Me Crazy Dept.” comes this article in the Miami Herald titled “Ways We Can Make Students Interested in School.”

Now, anyone who reads this space regularly knows that I don’t think this is a very difficult question. We can start by looking at schools where kids actually enjoy the learning environment and process and try to discern what makes it so. We can ask ourselves what would make us interested in school if we were students. Heck, we could even ask the kids.

Those don’t seem to be in the mix for the author of this article, however. No, instead, this author seeks to “fix” apathetic kids. We have to teach kids, wait for it, to be “self-motivated”. That needs to become “the new educational buzzword” that should shape our work.

guitar deleteWhat this means, of course, is that kids should be trained to be self-motivated to achieve “habits and discipline that will lead to academic success,” two things that “have all but gone by the wayside” in our consumer driven society (of which kids are a part.) We do this by getting kids to “sit in the front, take notes, ask questions, be organized, do all the work, and find a study partner.”

And, as I’m sure you know, this is important because “because at some point in every person’s life, either at school or in a job or in a marriage, he or she will have to buck up and say, ‘This is hard. This is boring. I don’t want to do this. But I’m doing it anyway. And I’ll do my best.”

I love that last part, because it absolves anyone in schools from doing anything to make schools less boring. In fact, we actually should make school boring so kids can deal with boring jobs and boring marriages and boring whatever else when they become boring grown ups. So, if you actually enjoy school, you miss this important life lesson.

But here’s the thing: kids are self-motivated to learn out of the womb. They are constantly learning without being taught. They are constantly asking questions and figuring out their worlds, creating their own lesson plans on the fly, learning tacitly with and from other kids. Most kids are learning sponges, with technology or not.

And then they come to school and over a few years we drive it out of them.

The irony of the argument in this article is obvious: we’re supposed to be putting back in what we took away in the first place.

There are millions of kids in this world who love to come to school because school is a place that allows them to maintain their self-motivation to learn and finds ways to make sure the school stuff they need happens in contextually meaningful and relevant ways. Those schools start their work with where the kids are, put an emphasis on maintaining and nurturing that learning disposition they already have, and create cultures where boredom is rare or at least creatively useful.

Unfortunately, there are many millions more kids who are stuck in cultures where the those conditions are replaced with the “buck up” mentality that says “School and learning sucks sometimes. You need to learn our stuff whether you want to or not. So, get over it.”

No school, no culture, no environment is perfect. But there are models. And it’s not rocket science. Just depends on what extent we truly value kids as learners and not the objects of teaching.

(Image source: Kychan)

Filed Under: Classroom, learning

Risky Business

July 20, 2016 By Will Richardson 4 Comments

Reading this most excellent post by Ira Socol this morning got me thinking about the word “risk” and its use in a learning context. So often I hear that we in education need to “take more risks,” or that our kids need to do that, that “risk-taking” is an important part of learning.

And I totally agree.

But what is “risk” exactly? I mean, what’s the bar for “risk-taking?”

surf deleteAt it’s most basic level, as Ira suggests, it’s just doing something different, changing up the lesson, changing the environment, or trying a new technology. While I may not see these as “risky” practices at all, I understand how hard it is for some to do even that much. (Actually, maybe I don’t understand that, unless the adults feel no sense of a culture that supports (or expects) at least these kinds of minor tweaks.)

At it’s most extreme level, I would assume taking a risk would mean to put kids in harm’s way. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard of someone doing that, regardless of how you define “harm.” (I’m sure someone will share a story of such “risk-taking” now that I’ve said that.)

So what is the “risk” that we’re really talking about?

Is it the “risk” of failure?

The “risk” of losing control?

The “risk” of not having permission?

I’m sure that’s a part of it, but it’s arguable how “risky” those things really are.

But my sense is this: The real risk people feel in education is around letting kids make decisions for themselves and have agency over their own learning. It’s also a risk to let teachers do that stuff, too, to let them be learners in their own right. That’s just not the way it’s done. We don’t trust “them” enough to learn with us instead of from “us” however you define those groups.

I wonder what we risk by doing that, by not making it about the learning rather than the teaching. I wonder what we risk by not creating cultures where learners are trusted, at every level, from the board to the administration to students to the community, to find and pursue meaningful and interesting questions that matter to them.

I wonder what we risk by not taking risks.

(Image credit: Anton Repponen)

Filed Under: Classroom Practice, On My Mind, Personal, schools, Teacher as Learner, The Shifts

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 152
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • “Never”
  • My 2023 “Tech Cleanse” Has Begun
  • Five Themes for Educators in 2023
  • Schools in a Time of Chaos
  • Has This Crisis Really Changed Schools?

Search My Blog

Archived Posts

Copyright © 2026 Will Richardson · All Rights Reserved

Follow me on Twitter @willrich45