During Boot Camp last week, Sheryl turned me on to Phillip Schlechty’s newish book “Leading for Learning: How to Transform Schools into Learning Organizations” and I had a chance to get through a chunk of it on the cramped, smelly plane(s) to Melbourne. In it, he makes a pretty compelling case that “reform” is really not going to cut it in the face of the disruptions social Web technologies are creating and that we really do have to think more about “transform” when it comes to talking about schools. There are echoes of Sir Ken Robinson here, and I’ve still got Scott McLeod’s NECC presentation riff on Christensen’s “Disrupting Class” on my brain as well, especially the “the disruption isn’t online learning; it’s personalized learning” quote. And while there are others who I could cite here who are trumpeting the idea that this isn’t business as usual, I think Schlechty does as good a job as I’ve seen of breaking down why schools in their current form as “bureaucratic” structures will end up on the “ash heap of history” if we don’t get our brains around what’s happening. In a sentence:
Schools must be transformed from platforms for instruction to platforms for learning, from bureaucracies bent on control to learning organizations aimed at encouraging disciplined inquiry and creativity.
To that end, Schlechty refers to past efforts at reform as “tinkering toward utopia” and says that if we continue to introduce change at the edges, we’ll continue to spin our wheels. He says that schools are made up primarily of two types of systems, operating systems and social systems, and makes the point that up to now, most efforts to improve schools have centered on changing the former, not the latter. Here’s a key snip in that case:
As long as any innovations that are introduced can be absorbed by the existing operating systems without violating the limits of the social systems in which they are embedded, change in schools is more a matter of good management than one of leadership. Such changes can, in fact, be introduced through programs and projects and managed quite well by technically competent people who are familiar with the new routines required by the innovations and skilled in communicating to others what they know.
In these cases, while it is sometimes difficult to break old habits, usually after a brief period of resistance, old certanties are abandoned and new certainties are embraced. For example, teachers now routinely use PowerPoint slide shows where once they used overhead projectors and slate boards. The reason this transition was relatively easy to accomplish is that it did not change the role of the teacher. Indeed, PowerPoint makes it easier for teachers to do what they have always done, just as a DVD player is easier to use than a 16 millimeter projector. Moreover, the technical skills required to use a PowerPoint slide show are easily learned and communicated, making the process of diffusion relatively simple.
But when innovations threaten the nature and sources of knowledge to be used or the way power and authority are currently used and distributed–in other words, when they require changes in social systems as well as operating systems–innovation becomes more difficult. This is so because such changes are disruptive in inflexible social systems.
So, from the social media standpoint, the message here is clear. This isn’t about doing what you’ve always done as a teacher or as a school. It challenges those social constructs in the classroom and in the system, and therefore, these shifts are going to be much harder to embrace. Channeling Christensen, he says that existing organizations seldom successfully adopt truly disruptive innovations, and that it’s easier to build something new than to change the old. And if you listened to Scott’s presentation, you get the idea that the time is ripe for those innovative systems to form and flourish in education. (My question is whether commercial interests will be at the heart of those efforts.)
What I really like about this argument so far, however, is that while the thinking is rooted in the affordances of the technologies, Schlechty also makes the case in the context of citizenship in a democracy as well as a moral imperative that we create citizens who “have discovered how to learn independent of teachers and schools.”
Many Americans fear that an inadequate system of education will compromise America’s ability to compete in a global economy [hearing Friedman here]. In fact, they have more to fear from the possibility that young people who graduate will lack the skills and understandings needed to function well as citizens in a democracy. Americans have more to fear from the prospect that the IT revolution will so overwhelm citizens with competing facts and opinions that they will give up their freedom in order to gain some degree of certainty than they have to fear from economic competition around the world. Leaders should be far more concerned that Americans will cease to know enough to preserve freedom and value liberty, equity, and excellence than they are with how well American students compare on international tests. As numerous scholars have shown, authoritarian leaders and charlatans thrive in a world where ordinary citizens are overwhelmed with facts and competing opinions and lack the ideas and tools to discipline thier thinking without appealing to some authority figure for direction and support. [Emphasis mine.]
That resonates with me on so many different levels, on trying to navigate the arguments about global warming, for instance, or in attempting to explain the nuances of the world to my kids who more and more are coming to me with questions inspired by their interactions with online media. The key to this all, to me at least, and a piece that I don’t think Schlechty gets, is that much of that now is dependent on our “network literacy” in terms of building our own personal systems of filters and sources that are balanced and open.
The idea that schools become “learning organizations” is compelling in the way that Schlechty describes the shift.
Schools will be places where intellectual work is designed that cause students to want to be instructed and will become platforms that support students in making wise choices among a wide range of sources of instruction available rather than platforms that control and limit the instruction available to them.
That “vision” started me thinking again about what our expectations are for teacher “learning” and the ways in which we might move toward a culture that celebrates and models and makes transparent learning in every corner. One thing that I constantly hear from Sheryl is the idea that we need to see teachers as leaders and as learners, not just teachers. That’s such a huge shift here, one that we talked a lot about and struggled with in Boot Camp. And it all makes me wonder what the next decade or two will bring.
Book by that name from 1995 by Tyack and Cuban:
http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/263
Thank you for sharing your take on Schlechty’s book. Another book to add to my “to read’ list.
What struck me in the passages you quoted was this:
For example, teachers now routinely use PowerPoint slide shows where once they used overhead projectors and slate boards. The reason this transition was relatively easy to accomplish is that it did not change the role of the teacher. Indeed, PowerPoint makes it easier for teachers to do what they have always done, just as a DVD player is easier to use than a 16 millimeter projector. Moreover, the technical skills required to use a PowerPoint slide show are easily learned and communicated, making the process of diffusion relatively simple.
….So in order to make any inroads at all with those hesitant to accept change, we need to demonstrate how any new tech tools will help make the teacher’s job simpler. That’s almost a “duh” moment for me; I get excited about the newness and capabilities of tools.
I know that the point of the passages you shared is not to just get teachers to try new tech tools, but to accept a shift in education. Honestly, I can’t see some of the teachers I work with ever accepting that big of a change, but I can see them willing to try new tools that allow the students to choose and control their learning.
I’ll take what I can get – one step at a time.
Thanks for the comment Fran.
I think the larger point is those tools that make our lives simpler per se don’t require any real change in what we do. It’s the tools that challenge us, the ones that require us to rethink what we do that foster the disruption. Too often, that disruption is quashed, not nurtured.
First, thanks for the post. I’ve found myself thinking about it on and off for the past 24 hours.
But I wish to throw in a caution about speaking of “technologies that make our lives simpler” being insufficient. Absolutely, its our schools’ cultures that need to changed in order to adopt the kind of connected, personalized learning that we want. But many educators are completely intimidated by the “challenge” of technology tools and are anxious about being so far behind. From a practical point of view I think one needs to argue that it’s easier to jump into the Read/Write Web than ever. The tools have been popularized and moving from one to another does not require a computer engineering degree.
We CAN also insist to our friends and peers that the important tools which will make learning easier for our students, even if we have to stretch ourselves a bit. Most teachers care enough about the kids to be concerned about giving them the best. At this point, in most schools the best we can hope for is an environment where experimentation and innovation is encouraged “at the fringes”, providing successful models for enticing other teachers.
Leaders must work to support (and model) this kind of exploration. Laying out guilt-trips is also quick and easy (and won’t accomplish change).
Will,
Thanks for your post and review. I am going to be buying Phillips book either from Amazon (for the iPhone Kindle app) or B&N with their new eReader app – most likely B&N as I can highlight and annotate in the application itself then email and review those notes… when I get finished writing this… I love that technology allows me to do this :0)
Ok, onto my thoughts. I was tossing and turning all night after finishing my post (trackback above) and reading yours, and then I actually dreamed about being at an education conference so I know that this is a topic that is really not sitting well with me right now. My questions and thoughts keep coming back to how? I am too often finding that (some) educators are so entrenched that gravity is simply keeping them in place from embracing change. For the past 30 years educators have watched the pendulum swing back and forth and often their colleagues and administration jump from initiative to initiative (often conflicting or reversing each other)that they are overly skeptical at best at any hint of a new approach to learning.
Chris Lehman (SLA) has a dramatic school, but in my discussions with him, he literally built an entire new school to effect the change required to embrace the idea of a learning organization or learning center as David Jakes posts about recently.
I completely agree with you that “we need to wrap our heads around this” but at what pervasive level can this be accomplished to impact a national (global) organization whose social structure prefers or demands stability in the tide of global social [networking] change. I give in to the fact that educators are changing all the time, and at a personal level are beginning to change in relation to adopting new technologies or conferences like NECC would not be flourishing, and the wonderful learning and inspiration that comes from them does make a difference however, as Fran references above, too often this adoption if for some “tools” or technology that “simplifies” a teachers job… going down that path will never (<- I know strong word but I am stuck there at the moment) effect systematic change. Especially the necessary systematic change that involves all constituents to the educational process (parents and communities, teachers, and learners themselves)…
As you can see I am struggling with this and currently appear negative about the process, but I don’t mean to. I am also not looking for a silver bullet it is just when I attempt to look at even my own institution on a macro level with the disparate forces (internal and external) operating on it without a common set of objectives to align all of the real initiatives with potential and the treading water counter productive initiatives the task of change feels completely overwhelming without tearing the entire system down and re-building from scratch.
-Scott
Hey Scott,
First…thanks for the B&N heads up. Unfortunately, it crashes every time I open in on my iPhone. Would love to experiment with the note taking capabilities.
I keep thinking about what Scott McLeod said in his presentation which is that innovation happens at the fringes until enough people recognize something happening that is better than what the standard is. I have a feeling that we’re going to be in an experimentation mode for a while and that whatever that “new” model is might already be out there. Until then, we implement personally on the fringes, pushing our own learning and practice to inform the larger conversation.
Will,
Say hi to Melbourne for me. I’ll be there in about a month.
I sure hope that Schlechty cited Cuban and Tyack when he used their 1997 term, “Tinkering Toward Utopia.”
I’ll add a popular technology to his list that has had zero positive effect on education over the past 2+ decades – the graphing calculator. I assert that the popularity of the graphing calculator is based on two factors:
1) It’s cheap (beware of the same POTENTIAL result when we go ga-ga over netbooks or iPod Touches)
2) The graphing calculator requires no changes to the content of the mathematics curriculum or the behavior of the math teacher.
If the graphing calculator has not done any damage to the severely broken notions of teaching “math” to children, that is enough harm in and of itself. There are opportunity costs associated with doing nothing when options exist to do better, especially when “math” instruction does so much damage to student understanding and self-concept. The classroom traditions reenforced by the graphing calculator do even greater violence to the beauty, magic, utility and power of authentic mathematics.
Although I agree with the usual stuff about change, leadership, global competitiveness, etc… However, I fear that neither Schlechty or your vision of computing is bold enough to bring about much educational change.
What does Schlecty cite as a use of computers that’s a game-changer?
While we’re at it, let’s stop buying those stupid white boards.
Hey Gary,
Thanks for the comment, as always.
He did cite Cuban and Tyack. Guess I should’ve made that clear.
Agreed on the whiteboards.
Re: the vision thing. I mean this seriously…I hope my “vision” inspires others to create their own “vision” of what learning looks like in a connected world. Schlechty is much more concrete than I ever will or can be in the way that he sees schools moving toward places where learning is central, not content. (I’m just not that smart.) I carry this silly hope that as educators (people) become more able, aware, sophisticated and comfortable with connecting online and perhaps even learning in those interactions that they’ll move their practice in the classroom to a place where they are better models, better leaders and better learners for their kids.
I’ll let you know about the game changer piece, but I’ll guess at this point it has to do with people being able to self-direct their learning at a scale not possible a few years ago. Just a guess.
Thanks Will,
If I ever get past a bazillion student papers to read (my mistake), a houseguest and sleep deprivation, I may write more on the subject.
As I eluded to at NECC, I don’t think even the grandest collective vision of “technology use” is grand enough. Nor do I think that what we do without technology approaches our potential either.
It’s tragic when we use the technology to excuse or reinforce bad practices.
I’d be interested in what you and your legion of of followers think of this – http://stager.tv/blog/?p=520
The real issue is one of pedagogical philosophy being demonstrated in teaching practice. How many teachers are willing enough to admit to their students that “they don’t know the answer, but we will (along with the students in their courses) investigate, research,evaluate & even create “the final answer” together? It has been my own experience that sharing the idea that the world is changing in exponential fashion (Friedman again)is only the first step. As a teacher I must be willing to “let go” of the traditional role of simply imparting information as a singular source in a linear form, for that does not “match up” with “information explosion” world in which we now all live! I need to model for students the idea that even I am a “lifelong learner”, and demonstrate how I am also challenging myself to continue adapting accordingly in order to gain true new learning!
I think this is what learning organizations or communities are all about, right? We are a part of the process of learning with others, and I just don’t think that has been enough of an emphasis in schools or in teacher ed programs or anywhere, for that matter. We do need to model that for one another as much as for our students.
Will I really enjoy this blog. I have been wrestling with these issues for a good while. We need powerful examples–I would say videos posted on you tube of teachers using technologies in exciting ways to advance student learning–not just to make their lives simpler. The learning part is much harder than it looks and it is hard to describe in books how to implement a really effective way of say using blogs or wikis or signing avatars for that matter. Show us and then don’t ignore the need to post outcomes and generate meaningful information that can show that learning is taking place.
I came across this blog as part of course assignment. Many of the comments posted reflect what I have discussed with colleagues over the last few years. As a teacher who has struggled with the knowledge that education has to change but not quite knowing just how or what that change should be, I am struggling with the speed of advancing technology and the difficulty in trying to learn and understand enough of it to be able to use it with my students. I’m pretty sure that many of them are far ahead of me and often I think I learn more from them than they do from me. However, I also know that many of my students are being left farther behind than ever because they simply can’t afford the technology that is currently out there. I am not worried about the next decade or two, I worry about the next three to five years.
Thanks for the comment, Cheryl.
I worry about that too, and, having spent a week down here in Melbourne learning about their 1-1 initiatives (which aren’t perfect, btw) it saddens me to see so little effort to put technology into the hands of kids in the States. We’re spending ungodly money on white boards when we could be targeting ways to help kids get access. Makes no sense.
Cheryl,
I think your comments express some understandable, common concerns and an anxiety about technology that is very prevalent among teachers. Among my own students I find a much higher comfort level with technology than adults, but a wide, wide spectrum of skills.
As far as the anxiety about the “speed of advancing technology” goes I find that colleagues make remarkable progress with technology when they focus one project at a time, looking for simple, straightforward new tools to make one part of your classroom experience better for your students. People at my end of the building really took off using Google Docs or Blogger for example. They didn’t try to learn how to do everything at once, but in significant ways they began encouraging more collaboration and student generated course content. Not utopia, but pretty cool by my standards.
As a person just dipping my feet into the www and it’s educational uses, my fellow neophytes and I are constantly struggling with, “building our own personal systems of filters and sources that are balanced and open.” Perhaps that is where the curmudgeonly refusal of my fellow teachers to explore technology comes from: a sense of being utterly overwhelmed. I wonder what Thoreau would say about this process of, “building filters and sources that are balanced and open,” or would he just hop in his canoe and paddle away from the whole thing?
I’m not in a team as such but have been lucky to have Jenny Luca work we me for the last year. Working with me, so that I can work with others. I’m in a state school, Jenny’s independent, it’s great that we have someome who’s a talented leader and teacher and I stress ‘working teacher’ who will develop others. Do you follow her?
Hey Nina,
I had dinner with Jenny and others just last night, in fact, and she’s been a great leader in our Powerful Learning Practice work here in Australia.
Hi Will,
As a Boot Camp participant, I can attest that we did converse about and struggle with not only this concept of teachers as leaders (and leaders as learners), but also with the need to be transparent with that learning process. Which leads me to my greater point about school, the root of this transformation for me is the shift from what is being taught, to what is being learned. So often, we as educators focus on the instruction side of the equation. We review the curriculum, we develop strategies, we plan our lessons and we even assess our students, but how often do we plan for learning? How often do we stop and assess what is learned for purposes other than to determine a grade for the student?
Schlecty’s quote about changing from “platforms of instructions” to “platforms of learning” hits the to the core of personalization. Our monolithic (Christensen’s term) structure for public schools doesn’t allow for the personalization and customization that students deserve and are beginning to demand. As long as we continue to be monoliths we will continue to focus on the most efficient model, which is based on instruction – we are going to teach this and you are going to learn this and whether you have learned it or not, we are going to move on to this. Once we focus on the learning and truly assessing what kids know and can do, then designing customized instruction and learning plans will allow us to shift from instruction to learning.
I bought the book upon my return from Boot Camp (finished Christensen on the plane home) and am stoked to read it.
Tony
Tony,
I was interested in your comments about focusing on learning as opposed to simply instructing. I certainly recognized my own method of teaching in your description of instruction-based education. That is how I was taught as a student, that is how I was taught to teach, and that is what I am comfortable with. However, I do understand your point that more is necessary to truly be effective in the classroom. I am currently working on my Master’s degree and watched a DVD presentation by Sonia Nieto in which she mentioned that we are preparing students for jobs that do not currently exist. I was struck by that statement and realized again that simply filling my students’ heads with knowledge and skills is not enough to sufficiently prepare them for the future. My question is how do you envision this shift being made in our country’s education system, particularly with the emphasis on standards and the accompanying high-stakes testing?
Hey Tony,
Thanks for chiming in. I think that they key phrase in your comment is about the personalization that kids are “beginning to demand”. It will be interesting to see how quickly that grows, and I wonder if they even know how to demand anything about their own learning. (We’ve turned them into passive learners, as Chris alluded to at Boot Camp.)
Let us know what you think about the book.
I feel a bit like someone in on a big secret. When I think of my peers at school and how they haven’t yet connected to the ongoing upheaval, I am amazed to think of all the people in this world in general who are not part of the conversation. Will it take the more traditional approach of f2f PD sessions to bring these folks along to the party? They have a great deal to share. I guess this will all have to become even more user friendly for them to arrive. Casual computer types will need more point and click tools. Things like embedding links, feeling safe commenting, or creating blogs and webpages will need to become even more simple. This has to be part of the upheaval, creating an interface that is as easy as shopping on line.