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.