The Game Layer

Why aren't schools more fun?

Don't get me wrong, students have fun in school, but this probably happens most often in their extracurricular activities. Sure, there are many classrooms in which engaging activities take place led by dynamic, caring teachers. I'm sure students enjoy these classes and take away a lot of valuable information and learning from these experiences. However, the system used most often doesn't support the idea of fun. Maybe academicians equate "fun" with "frivolous" and that doesn't fit their views of the seriousness and importance of learning.

However, most humans are naturally curious and want to learn new things. They enjoy the experience and the knowledge and skills they gain. However, humans also learn when they feel the need and are motivated to do so. This doesn't work for schools. We have limited time and a lot of information to plow through, so the topics are chosen and the time to learn them are regulated. We've chosen this system as a matter or practicality and measurability; the efficacy of this approach is secondary and this is both unfortunate and unnecessary. Learning is often the casualty of an educational system structured for assembly-line production.

In 2010, a young man named Seth Priebatsch presented at one of the TED Talks gatherings. His talk was titled, The Game Layer on Top of the World and is available as a video at this link:

Game Layer Video

In his talk, Priebatsch describes how he hopes more of the world can capitalize on the intrinsic motivation of humans. He points out several activities which many humans do regularly mainly because they enjoy the experience and receive something they value—even if what they gain can easily be dismissed as not having "real" value.

He addresses schools directly and I love the quote of, "School...is a game; it's just not a terribly well-designed game." He asks why grading systems can't be configured to GAIN points and status instead of losing them. In most schools, students' grades can easily fluctuate and most of us have experienced dropping from a good grade (an A for example) to a lower grade. This is discouraging and demotivating. Priebatsch suggests we simply change the recording system so students "level up" when they gain experience and do work. It's on them to make this happen and when they can produce evidence of their learning, they get to advance. 

People may ask how this is different from what we do today. It's different largely in perception, but perception can have a HUGE impact on motivation. The game layer system asks students to work and produce and when they do they will be rewarded (level up, advance, get a cool new avatar, etc.) and if they don't then they simply remain where they are. In the traditional system we ask students to work and produce and when they do they remain where they are ("Everyone starts with an A!") and when they don't they are penalized, demoted and feel they're going backward. Some people probably think this is just doing the  same thing but using different words. Exactly! It's changing the way we view things, but the substance remains the same. It doesn't require overhauling the system, it simply requires repackaging. Motivational speaker and author, Wayne Dyer, has said, “Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Perception is our reality and is often more important than "truth".

Several of our teachers recently visited a school in California and were impressed by a tool they saw being used for assessment and grading. It's called ActiveGrade and uses a system similar to what Priebatsch is suggesting. Here's a link to what seems to be a very inexpensive, but very cool product:

ActiveGrade

The goal in ActiveGrade is for students to gain competence or mastery in a subject area. The school (or teacher) defines what counts as mastery (content and skills standards) and teachers define what assignments and activities can be used to demonstrate understanding and mastery of these standards. As students complete these tasks and activities they "level up" until they reach (or exceed) what is required for credit.

On their Website, the folks at ActiveGrade state,

"If the purpose of school is learning, simply telling a student they earned a 'C' at the end of the semester is hardly an accurate reflection of what a student has learned. ActiveGrade uses grades as feedback to reflect a students progress in the key skills and concepts required in a class."

ActiveGrade is probably not as "fun" as Priebatsch might desire, but the concept is solid and it could easily be used as one of the tools employed to measure growth in whatever "fun" system a teacher or team of teachers is willing to create. I love what I've seen of ActiveGrade and the team of teachers I work with is going to use it next year.

This summer will be the time for us to explore how we make this part of our educational program. School should be fun. Learning is. Most of us naturally want to learn, and schools, for some strange reason, and have not capitalized on this as one of their best motivational advantages. It's time to change that. It's time to reclaim the fun of learning and again make education irresistible.

Prioritizing Standards

So much energy has been expended on discussing standards in education. They have been a hot topic in education almost since they first coalesced in the 1990s. What happened before that time? Did we not have any standards in education? Was it all a chaotic free-for-all? I don't remember that being the case.

Like many "new" initiatives, the number and use of standards started small, ballooned into something large and rather unwieldy and may now be settling down into something more useful and manageable. At various times there have been so many standards to consider some have estimated that covering them would require students to stay in school many years longer than they do now.

There are many proponents and opponents for having a nationalized set of education standards. The discussion really started to heat up when NCLB was passed in 2001. Currently, the Common Core standards are the focus with most states saying they will use these once they're all complete.

In his book, Rigorous Curriculum Design, author Larry Ainsworth discusses the challenges and benefits of using standards and outlines a process for making them useful in classrooms—where students and teachers dwell. After all, it doesn't really matter what the standards are if teachers don't, can't, won't use them to inform their educational practices. Here's a quote from RCD:

"The reality is that Canadian and U.S. educators are faced with the daunting challenge year after year of trying to teach, assess, reteach, and reassess their students on far too many grade-specific and course-specific learning outcomes. I present these examples for no other reason than to support my assertion that educators must be able to determine— through a thoughtful, collaborative process— the Priority Standards or Essential Outcomes they consider necessary for their students to know and be able to do."

Ainsworth, Larry (2011-04-16). Rigorous Curriculum Design: How to Create Curricular Units of Study that Align Standards, Instruction, and Assessment (Kindle Locations 824-827). NBN_Mobi_Kindle. Kindle Edition.


In this section of the book, Ainsworth also quotes other education leaders Robert Marzano, Douglas Reeves, and W. James Popham, who are calling for a better approach to standards. Here's a link to the book:

Rigorous Curriculum Design

Ainsworth goes on to outline the process he uses to "prioritize" standards. Our team of teachers at school is currently working through this process together. Our goal is to establish where we want to go with our students so we can then use that information to backwards plan our projects and educational activities.

Below are the steps in general. For a more complete picture, get the book.

"Left to their own professional opinions when faced with the task of narrowing the voluminous number of learning outcomes, educators naturally “pick and choose” those they know and like best, the ones for which they have materials and lesson plans or activities, and those most likely to appear on state or provincial tests. But without the benefit of specific criteria for prioritization, everyone is likely to make certain choices that are different from those of their colleagues. Priority Standards are collaboratively decided, so there is an absolute need for objective selection criteria. These criteria, briefly introduced earlier in this chapter, are: 

• Endurance (lasting beyond one grade or course; life concepts and skills) 

• Leverage (cross-over application within the content area and to other content areas, i.e., interdisciplinary connections) 

• Readiness for the next level of learning (prerequisite concepts and skills students need to enter a new grade level or course of study) 

A second set of selection criteria, often used interchangeably with the first, looks at the standards through the “lens” of students and also considers standardized state or provincial assessments, college entrance exams, and career and technical education competencies— an important criterion for selecting Priority Standards that cannot be ignored in the current climate of high-stakes testing: 

• School (what students need to know and be able to do at each level of learning) 

• Life (what students will need to know and be able to do to be successful after the conclusion of formal schooling) 

• Tests (those concepts and skills that are most heavily represented on external, high-stakes assessments)"

Ainsworth, Larry (2011-04-16). Rigorous Curriculum Design: How to Create Curricular Units of Study that Align Standards, Instruction, and Assessment (Kindle Locations 987-988). NBN_Mobi_Kindle. Kindle Edition. 

That last bullet point, "Tests" is an unfortunate reality in my opinion. Although assessment is very valuable and necessary, the assessment value of standardized tests, especially in their current formats, is very small. But, these tests are currently what is in vogue for education administrators and politicians.

I am looking forward to working through this process completely with my team. The main challenge, of course, is time, but we have made this a priority for this quarter (and summer) so we'll be better prepared for next year.

TCAP (or...All Teachers Need A Good Rant)

It's TCAP (Transitional Colorado Assessment Program) time at school, one of the best things to come from No Child Left Behind. NCLB... On the surface, it sounds like one of the noblest, best ideas in the world. Communism does too. In true communism everyone works as hard as they can and gives everything they earn/produce back to the collective so it can all be distributed evenly. Everyone does what they can and everyone shares equally in the benefits. Everyone decides together how to proceed with everything. It's all very democratic, full of sharing, full of "good will to all". It's all great—on paper. In practice, it doesn't work except, perhaps, on a very small scale (families?).

Why doesn't communism work well? It's because of one critical factor: humans. Humans, have a hard-wired sense of "justice" and "equality". We don't want to work hard and then give away what we've earned to someone who isn't working as hard as we are or as hard as we think they should be. We also have a pretty strong tendency to compare ourselves to others accompanied with a desire to "do better" or "be better" or "have more" than others. It's not that we want others to have less, it's just that we want to have a little more than those around us. It makes us feel good about ourselves.

In a capitalist society we have the opportunity to "get ahead". We work hard and are rewarded for that work and make gains. We get the rewards...personally. We can CHOOSE to share (making us feel benevolent) what we have with others, but we aren't required to do so. We move forward because of our hard work, someone else doesn't (or can't) work as hard as us and doesn't do as well. It all makes sense to us typical humans.

No Child Left Behind was promoted in such a way that is was difficult to criticize. After all, no one wants to leave children behind, without education, right? Who would claim that they were okay with that? The theory, though, places all the burden of responsibility on the system (the teachers and schools). It assumes that all children WANT to be educated and are willing to do whatever they can to become educated...in the WAY we decide they should be...in the TIME we decide they should be...in the PLACES we decide they should be....in the SUBJECTS we decide they should be...and in the MANNER we decide they should be. If they meet us in all these areas, then no child should be left behind. If they don't (or can't) meet all these requirements, then what? "Well...but...if...do you mean...huh? That's too complicated. Let's not consider all those things. Let's shoot for the norm, for the middle ground. Let's just move forward. Here's your curriculum map, daily script, and box of standardized tests, now get to work."

"Woohoo!" says the teacher. "Now we can all get to the important task of getting everyone to the same level of mediocrity, not really good at much of anything except taking standardized tests. Now, that's a goal I'm passionate about and to which I want to commit my life's work!"

Oh, the TCAP... Formerly this test was known as CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program), but after 16 years, it was time for an update. TCAP is the interim version. The publishers are working hard (and keeping track of thousands of billable hours, I'm sure) on the new version. Maybe it will be the CRAP (Colorado Revenue-for-us Assessment Program). The following interesting statistic was reported in 2007 regarding McGraw-Hill (publishers of the CSAP):

"McGraw Hill, publishers of CSAP, reported profit of $49 million in 1993 before high stakes testing; in 2004 with contracts in 26 states, profits exceeded $340 million."

Source: Exposing the Myths of High Stakes Testing 

Whatever it's name, it remains the hallmark measure for NCLB. Let's take one-day, one-hour snapshots of student work and measure everything—quality of the teachers, quality of the school, quality of the school districts, etc. on the results. In fact, let's not only measure the quality, let's tie everyone's paychecks to the results. No, don't stop there. Let's tie their jobs and even the very existence of the particular school itself on the results. That will motivate everyone to do their best, right?

Let's now make some assumptions about these tests and test environments.

First, let's assume that everyone does well with a written, "fill in the bubble" approach to assessment. Who can't color in a bubble, right? That's really all there is to it.

Second, let's assume that all students and teachers fully embrace that the information they're interacting with is relevant and important. It all is, right?

"What I'm reading on this test today is going to help me get a better job, right?"

"Sorry, no."

"It's at least going to make me a better citizen?"

"We can't really say that."

"A better family member?"

"Not likely."

"Where is that "none of the above" bubble for me to color?"

Third, let's assume students care about the scores they get on these tests. Why wouldn't they care? "How do these tests impact me personally?"

"They don't. Just try."

"The results are included in my report card for my parents to see?"

"No, we don't share that information with anyone."

"Are they included on my transcript?"

"Nope, never."

"Shared with colleges and other schools?"

"Oh no, never."

"Okay, give me that #2 pencil, I'm ready to do my best for absolutely no reason!"

Next, let's also assume that students are rested and well-fed and feel ready to take these tests that mean so much to them. 

"You had a good breakfast, right?"

"I didn't even eat yesterday, much less today."

"Your mom and dad forgot to give you breakfast?"

"I haven't seen my dad in years and my mom stayed at her boyfriend's house after work yesterday."

"Who got you up and drove you to school?"

"Me. I walked to school, as usual."

"But you don't have a coat? It's freezing outside!"

"Yeah, it's pretty cold, but not that much different than our apartment. We haven't had heat in there for a week, which is why we're moving again. Every month it seems."

I can hear the arguments already. That's a ridiculously overstated version of some student's life. Sure there may be one or two in that extreme situation, but not very many. Really? Ever visited an inner city school? This scenario is not only common, there are often many worse stories. Many of these students have little stability in life and are constantly concerned with getting their basic needs met. They are poster children for "not having their basic needs met" according to Maslow's hierarchy.

And finally, let's assume that all students not only understand, but fully embrace the need to do well on these tests because it will help their school and their school districts. If students aren't in this idyllic state of mind, it must be the fault of the teachers and the school in some way, I'm sure, because teachers have so much control and influence over these factors outside the school walls. My niece, now in college and an excellent student both in high school and also now in college, talked bemusedly to me about how she and her friends would make interesting designs with their completed bubbles. They at least had an artistic goal. Did their artwork relate in any way to correct answers? That wasn't even considered. It was irrelevant to them—as was the test. My poor niece. She must have had really bad, irresponsible teachers because they didn't get her excited about doing her best on something that was meaningless to her.

We've entered the age of education where all we measure must be calculated by computers. If it can't be, it isn't important, or so we're asked to believe. It doesn't matter that life in every other aspect besides school and for every human everywhere doesn't fit this belief system. Numbers, statistics, data. They're all that matter. And, not just any data (because that comes in many usable forms) but data, that can be captured in a standardized test. But, remember teachers, you must also be inspirational and motivational and make things relevant and interesting and prepare students to be good citizens who contribute in positive ways to their world. Are you going to be measured by these things too? Sure! Well...not really. We can't find a good way to get that information from our bubble generators. However, it will show in how well students do on our standardized tests, right?

My love of NCLB and all the wonderful changes it has brought to our educational systems isn't unique to me. None of what I've outlined here is new and won't be surprising to anyone who has paid any attention at all to discussions about education today. I've not even touched on many of the things people dislike about NCLB.

Even so, I know there are those who can find some benefits in how the current system is set up and in which way we're moving educationally, but I'm not one of these. There are better ways to approach education, and they're not all that new. Good educational practices have existed ever since one human decided to teach another something they didn't know. We've used many of these good practices and many can still be found in schools in spite of (not because of) current educational trends.

My hat is off to the teachers who continue to pursue what they know will benefit students. Some have even found ways to wring some relevance out of all the test prep strategies required of them. Many teachers are still passionate about the life work they've chosen and are committed to making the best of what they've been given. Imagine what they could do if they were provided the tools and the support system to do what they already know works.

Many people in many arenas and spheres of influence are seeing the problems inherent in our current system. Many want change and many are moving in the right direction. It's time for some significant changes—and changes not to the "new" and "innovative" but to some of the old "tried and true". It's time for us to re-understand how humans learn and have shared information for centuries. It's time to remake education into something irresistible for students and for all of society.

The Three Rs

In common vernacular, "the three Rs" usually refers to, "Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic". Those are still tried and true fundamentals needed by all members of our current society.

In their book, Change Leadership, Tony Wagner, Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey (et al.) define the three Rs as, "Rigor, Relevance and Respect." Today, in a professional development session, we read part of chapter two of this book and I found it very interesting and encouraging.

Rigor

First, the authors addressed "rigor" a word that is regularly trumpeted in school circles and often vilified  as well. Their definition and views of rigor rang true with my own:

"Rigor is about what students are able to do as a result of a lesson. Rigor implies holding students responsible for meeting certain objective, qualitative standards and measuring progress regularly... We do take a strong stance, however, on what rigor is not: rigor is not simply about students being given more or harder work."

I know teachers who ignore rigor and I know others who simply pile on more work and additional assignments and point to all the "work" as demonstrating something useful. Both are misguided.

Relevance

Second is the issue of "relevance". This one was most discussed today. Although we were all amiable and respectful and open to learning from each other, you could definitely see "camps" forming on this topic.

On one side are those who more often take what I call the "suck it up and do it" stance. These teachers err on the side of less explanation (maybe they can't explain relevance or don't feel they have time?) and remind students that there are things in life that "you just have to do". How often they have to communicate this to students concerns me. If it's daily, weekly or even monthly, then there needs to be some reassessment of teaching. Surely the majority of their academic content doesn't fit into the category of lacking any real-life application?

The other camp was the "everything must have relevance" camp. I find myself sitting around the campfire with these folks most often. While I can appreciate that endeavors of a strictly academic nature can be worthwhile—for those who want to become immersed in a particular subject—they don't need to be taught universally. Skills and the use of them should be the universal focus. Usually, the topics that are exclusively academic are only useful for theoretical discussion. There's nothing wrong with theoretical discussion, but do we really want to spend our limited time with all students pursuing something that will be soon forgotten by everyone except those few who embrace the topic? Of course, many could argue that students soon forget a lot of topics that actually have relevance. This may be true, but maybe that's somewhat of a reflection of our lack in helping them see relevance?

Here is one of the comments from the authors:

"...it is increasingly clear that many of today’s students do not retain knowledge or master skills that appear to have little or no relevance to their lives."

I would expand this comment replacing "students" with "humans". Humans are designed to learn, but to learn when we need information. We are often presented with excessive amounts of information that we either ignore or soon discard if it doesn't continue to be of benefit to us. Why should students be asked to operate counter to the very way they are designed? Sure, a few of us are information collectors and love to keep lots of random tidbits of information in our brains at our ready access. I want these people on my team in trivia contests, but does that mean they have better skills and are better equipped to succeed in life?

Relationships

One quote I really liked from the book was:

"Students attending urban, suburban, or rural high schools; students who struggle academically; and students who take advanced courses all say the one thing that makes the greatest difference in their learning is the quality of their relationships with their teachers."

So, basically, all students indicate the importance of relationships to their academic success. This wasn't a huge "aha" for anyone in our group. One of the things we do really well at our school is relationships. Students, for the most part, know we care. Sometimes we fall into the trap of enabling, and we have to guard against that, but our teachers do care...a lot...about our students. If they didn't, they'd leave and go find positions in schools with many fewer challenges.

Linking Them All

For me one of the best sections was about linking the three Rs together. This was very helpful to our PM team as we continue to refine our ever-evolving program. Here's an overview:

"The 3 R’s are an attempt to create a systemic framework for discussions of good teaching, and a framework that can produce a more complex, comprehensive understanding of instructional practice. Each concept is dependent on the other two for the entire system to work. Many of us have known rigorous teachers who were so caught up in their material that they were unable either to explain its practical application or to connect personally with most students—and so their lessons left many in the class confused or indifferent. Similarly, there are teachers who excel at making a curriculum more relevant with interesting projects and hands-on work, but the skills students are expected to master may be unclear or well below what they are capable of doing and need to know. Finally, some teachers seek to instill a positive self-image in students through caring relationships, but if they have not taught students real skills, this self-esteem quickly evaporates at the next level of education or the first job interview. Rigor, as a concept, is a starting point for educators to translate the demand for all students to master new skills into new classroom practices. Relevance and relationships help us begin to understand what is required to motivate all students to want to master these new skills."

Take some time to read Change Leadership. It will undoubtedly help any group interested in creating "irresistible" educational programs and experiences.

Reference: Wagner, Tony; Kegan, Robert; Lahey, Lisa Laskow; Lemons, Richard W.; Garnier, Jude; Helsing, Deborah; Howell, Annie; Rasmussen, Harriette Thurber (2009-10-08). Change Leadership: A Practical Guide to Transforming Our Schools (Jossey-Bass Education) (Kindle Locations 1434-1440). Wiley Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Collaboration

Collaboration is currently a buzzword in society. We talk about the need for this skill more and more in the second decade of this century. People are intertwined as never before and dependent on each other. Fewer and fewer jobs are done in isolation. Many schools now focus on collaboration as a skill to be taught/exercised instead of requiring exclusively individual work.

Collaboration, like anything, has great benefits and some drawbacks. The benefits are many: shared experience, larger conversation, deeper learning using multiple perspectives, cooperation and problem-solving skills, etc., etc. The main drawback I've noticed is the need for collaborators to rely on others who may not be as reliable and dependable as they need to be. This definition of "not as reliable" may be real or perceived, but the result is the same. Our students express this frequently which is why we usually allow them to choose their own partners. At least when they do this they can only blame themselves when they choose poorly. In every project we have meltdowns and disintegrations and also some pairs who work together in surprisingly efficient ways.

Our team of teachers is currently experiencing some collaboration pains. The struggles and what they reveal about our personalities, philosophies, strengths and weaknesses have been more surprising than most of us anticipated.

Teachers, I've realized, are naturally independent creatures. That may be one reason teaching is chosen by some as a profession. Most teachers in the traditional environment find themselves as sovereigns (or dictators—benevolent or not) of their particular rooms. They decide what will be taught, for how long, the activities, the desired outcomes, etc. They even decide the class norms for behavior and seating. All of this gives teachers great control and autonomy. Many love this more than they realize. They come to expect it and depend on it. Sure there are outside influences: those pesky administrators who impose their own agendas and who occasionally visit, fellow colleagues who are part of the same PLC (Professional Learning Community), etc. Yes, there are curriculum requirements from these or from the district and state and/or curriculum committee, but to a large degree what actually happens on a daily basis in a particular classroom is largely up to individual teachers.

We've taken away much of that with our current PM program. There is still autonomy in how various pieces of each project are conducted by teachers, but mostly the planning and execution have gone from individual purview to a collaborative effort. This means that teachers no longer plan in isolation, but come together as a group to work through a comprehensive plan to be use by all teachers in all content areas. This is cross-curricular planning across the board.

What has surprised us is the difficulty of this approach. Before, each teacher could spend as much (or as little) time as they saw fit to plan their day, week, unit, quarter, semester. This could be done at any time and could be paused and restarted at will. Now, others and their personal time commitments, viewpoints, opinions, personal preferences and styles have to be considered. Teachers can't plan in a vacuum; they have to share their ideas and make those fit with what others want to do.

The advantages to this are obvious to our team. We all bring ideas in and they are discussed, dissected, torn apart and reassembled into projects which are stronger and better than what we would have planned on our own. We all love this aspect of cross-curricular planning.

The disadvantages are as painful as the advantages are pleasing. Time is one of the big factors. When do we meet? What do we do when we meet so we can get the most accomplished? We've had sessions lapse into brainstorming and/or philosophy sessions that net us little preparation for the upcoming face time with students even though they are great for big-picture planning. Personalities are another stumbling block. We have those who prefer to plan every detail to the minute while others prefer the "wing it" style. There are those who prefer to process verbally and others who are internal thinkers. We have visual learners and listeners. We have those who prefer to hash through details in the group and others who simply want the big concept and expect everyone to work through details on their own. This can lead to trust (or distrust) issues. One person's idea of "prepared" may look quite different from another person's idea of "prepared". One person feels like they've put in much more time and effort than others. Add to all of this varying educational philosophy differences and you end up with a group attempting some Herculean tasks. In many cases, the result has been frustration and an overall feeling that we "aren't prepared" and "never accomplish much".

Much of this is not new to groups who collaborate in other professions. Group norms and expectations help alleviate much of this stress. Adequate meeting time and accountability for work outside the group meeting also help. But, these things are new to many teachers who have never had to think of these things before—at least to this degree.

I think it's great. I think it strengthens the whole effort and us as individuals as well. I think the ultimate result is improved instructional design, delivery and results. The painful process of establishing and following norms is just part of the learning experience. I'm not sure my team embraces these ideas as enthusiastically as do I. I have to be careful as a leader to point out progress, remind us of our intentions, encourage people to share and explore differences and find ways to exploit individual strengths while minimizing weaknesses.

Our team has had some painful (but constructive) sharing sessions which have revealed many of these, and other concerns. We have expressed frustrations and made commitments to work in ways that foster collaboration, but we haven't always followed through as intended. We all have perceptions and assumptions that are both good and bad about each other and ourselves. I think most of the team is willing to find that elusive middle ground of compromise. It's working. It's good. It's beneficial to our program and to us as individuals, but it's not fun at times. I've heard everyone express positive things that each has gained in this set up. I know we've all been surprised about what we've re-learned from each other's content areas. We celebrate when students make the connections we planned for them to make. We are encouraged when they tell us they like this system. I think we all ultimately like what is happening, even though it seems like it would be easier to go back to a more individualized system.

Cross-curricular collaboration is not easier, in fact, in many ways it is much harder than individual autonomy. It takes more time, takes more consideration of others, is slower and much more complex. However, when we find the right working balance, the results can be truly amazing. Synergy is defined as

"the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sumof the individual elements, contributions, etc."

We hope to have more/better synergy as we continue the process of collaboration. Have we been tempted to quit this and return to what is easier? Absolutely. Cross-curricular collaboration is NOT irresistible. It is easily resisted and has been by many teachers in many situations for decades. However, the result of effective cross-curricular collaboration IS irresistible. It's worth the pain. Now, I just have to keep working to continually convince my team of that.

Hippie From Oregon

My principal (who knows I like non-traditional approaches to education) recently sent me a link to an article about a principal and school in Oregon who were doing amazing things with students similar to our own at the New America School in Aurora, Colorado. The article titled, "Flattening the School Walls" was published online in "Education Week" on April 18, 2012.

I'm not sure what my principal expected me to do with this information other than get excited and try to persuade her to allow us to do something like this at our own school. We've begun doing some project-based work in our program, but nothing to the extent described in this article. The approach used in Oregon would require a willingness to do things in radically different ways. So far, we as a school aren't quite ready yet for that plunge. When will we be? I'm not sure, but I'm ready to have the conversation and start making plans.

Here is a quote from the article followed by a link to the whole thing.

"Horn describes project-based learning as "working down Bloom's taxonomy instead of up." The students are given a task that requires higher-order thinking skills—often to create something—and they must learn and practice lower-level skills along the way. Whether or not students realize it, the standards are embedded into the projects from the start. Horn and his teachers map out each project on a matrix, with the content subjects on the horizontal and phases of the project on the vertical. The state standards are embedded in the boxes. For instance, a student doing beekeeping might need to research and write a paper on bee behavior to address a language arts standard. The overall goal of completing a project that will benefit the community motivates kids, according to Horn, and is an "entry point for reshaping their love of learning."

Read the Full Article.

Tom Horn's school may not excite many "educators" within the system. A lot will dismiss it as, "one of those 'less-than-acceptable' approaches used for students who can't hack 'real' education" instead of seeing the possibilities for ALL education, regardless of the population, their cultures or their socioeconomic statuses. Many will immediately start pointing out what they perceive as "flaws" and "academic inadequacies" with this approach to education, but I believe that is part of the problem. It's time to shake things up a bit. Technology has shaken up our society and changed how we interact with each other and how we access the world around us. Schools have worked hard to protect themselves from this "disruption" and have dug in deep to keep things as they are. Sure, many give lip-service to technology and acknowledge the need for "21st Century Skills" but most are afraid of the "disruption" this reality could bring to their classrooms, attitudes, teaching styles and file cabinets full of "tried and true" lesson plans. "Technology is fine for you kids as long as you turn it off in my classroom and actually try to learn." It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the fear of change technology is mandating.

Tom Horn, the self-proclaimed "hippie kid from Eugene" isn't afraid of change. (He's also not from a traditional education background.) He's found ways to make a real (not simply academic) difference in the lives of his students and community. He has made education at his school "irresistible" and I think we all need to follow this example in our own unique ways.

Why "Irresistible"?

In his Kindle book, Why School, author Will Richardson uses the following quote:

“A popular quote paraphrased from psychologist Herbert Gerjuoy predicts that 'the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write. The illiterate will be those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.' ”

Richardson, Will (2012-09-10). Why School?: How Education Must Change When Learning and Information Are Everywhere (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 366-367). TED Conferences. Kindle Edition. 

For too long we as a society have accepted certain assumptions concerning our schools. These assumptions about how schools "must be" have kept us from innovating and moving forward and keeping relevance as a foundational principle. Most other organizations and institutions feel keenly the need to change and to grow in order to meet the demands of their clients. If these organizations aren't moving forward and paying attention to what their customers want (or better yet, to what their customers will want even though they don't know it yet) then they know they are falling behind, risking becoming irrelevant, and thus, going out of business. Any viable organization does this—except for in education.

One of the many mistaken assumptions made in educational circles today is, "Schools are a given. We're necessary. So, we're 'safe' from elimination." While this has been true in the past, and may be true for a while longer, if schools don't find a way to meet the needs of their customers (students and the larger society) then this comfortable, guaranteed existence may be a thing of the past.

Richardson continues with this statement:

“I believe there remains a great deal of value in the idea of school as a place our kids go to learn with others, to be inspired by caring adults to pursue mastery and expertise, and then to use that to change the world for the better.”

Richardson, Will (2012-09-10). Why School?: How Education Must Change When Learning and Information Are Everywhere (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 210-211). TED Conferences. Kindle Edition. 

I agree and applaud all schools (and there are some of them out there today) who fit the description above. Schools are changing. People are no longer happy with an outdated, ineffectual status quo. Innovators are making great advances by returning to some basic principles and understandings about how humans naturally learn. Schools can change. Education can be transformed. It can become "irresistible." We can create schools where learners and educators look forward to attending everyday—and not just for the social interaction. We can create environments where skills are learned and practiced, skills that will transform not only the individual lives of our students, but society as a whole.

Students look forward to attending school—in Kindergarten. Their experiences at that level are relevant and rewarding. As students move through the higher grades most lose their love of school because they're too often shown that "serious academics" and enjoyment are incompatible. School becomes an exercise in compliance and a means to an end. As a society we bemoan the fact that fewer and fewer students are pursuing careers in math and science. But, instead of showing them the exciting innovations in these fields and allowing them to explore the possibilities in tangible ways, students are asked to listen to lectures and memorize "important" facts that have little relevance to their "real" lives outside of school. Why do we think this approach will get students enthused about becoming scientists?

Nelson Mandela once stated, "Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world." He is right. This is a true statement of "education" but is not necessarily true of "school." School and education are not synonyms and too often are actually antonyms.

The witty Mark Twain quipped, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." It's unfortunate that this is not only true, but a sentiment held by many people who merely endured school as a means to an end. Why we have accepted this as a "norm" in our society is beyond my understanding. Let's change this reality and make our schools—our educational opportunities in whatever format—irresistible.

Irresistible means literally, "not able to be resisted or refused; overpowering, very fascinating or alluring". Most humans love to learn. We have naturally curious natures and a desire to improve and better ourselves. People of all ages will spend hours working on things that interest them (whether these things are viewed as "valuable" by society or not). Schools can become the places Richardson imagines where, "kids go to learn with others, to be inspired by caring adults to pursue mastery and expertise". If we can't become these places, then we will become obsolete. Let's make it happen. There's no better time than now and no better group of people than those who are currently willing to try.