Schooling ≠ Education

Media Use Among Children and Teens

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:01:00 +0000

If I were to ask you how much time per day children and teens spend with various media - computers, televisions, video games, etc - what would you say?

Would you imagine it is more time than young people spend in a school on any given day?

In a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation called GENERATION M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds (January 2010) they found that young people spend 7.5 hours per day engaging with various media - but because of multi-tasking they pack 10.75 hours of stuff into that 7. 5 hours (and that's every single day). And that's the average! 11-14 year olds pack in 11:53 per day (nearly 12 hours) in total media exposure!

In addition, texting is NOT part of this study however 7th to 12th graders report spending about 1 hour and 35 minutes per day sending or receiving text messages.

Here's a quote from a press release about that study:

With technology allowing nearly 24-hour media access as children and teens go about their daily lives, the amount of time young people spend with entertainment media has risen dramatically, especially among minority youth, according to a study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week). And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.

The amount of time spent with media increased by an hour and seventeen minutes a day over the past five years, from 6:21 in 2004 to 7:38 today. And because of media multitasking, the total amount of media content consumed during that period has increased from 8:33 in 2004 to 10:45 today.

Assuming this is true, what do you think the implications are for schools and schooling?

If young people spend approximately 6 hours per day in the schooling environment (not counting extra-curricular activities) doing what we might call single tasking while spending about 7.5 hours per day multi-tasking with technology what chance do schools have in getting and keeping their attention - let alone getting them to learn anything?

And, young people spend time using media 7.5 hours per day seven days per week, 365 days per year.

This blog has been attempting to explore the difference between schooling and education. One of the key models I've developed to explain this difference is something I call the Spheres of Influence model. The concept originated in some work we did with a school district in southern California back in the early 90s.

The model attempts to visualize several things. 1) Schools operate under a control and compliance operating principle. 2) The organizing principle is a hierarchy however that can be shown in a different way 3) All human beings want to have some control over themselves as well their environment. 4) the model attempts to show different spheres of influence from a systems perspective.

The model begins with the young person in the middle and moves out from there. The classroom is the first sphere of influence, then the school, then the school district. The school board has the most influence over the district with the state department of education influencing the boards and the federal department influencing the states.

The image above is a venn diagram showing these spheres of influence. It's not to scale or meant to show the difference or amount of influence each sphere has over the other. This model by itself can be a catalyst for conversations about improvements and changes in the system that might be beneficial to the overall outcomes of the system.

At the same time we can also draw another model which reflects the influences in the young person's life outside of the schooling system. These sets of influences can be considered the education environment (note: I will need to define what I mean by schooling vs education in another blog post).

This set of influences again start with the young person in the center. The family is the immediate sphere of influence around the young person, then the neighborhood and the community. Moving out from there is the city, the state, and then the nation.

The image above left is a venn diagram of these spheres of influence.

Note that the specific types of influences are not shown nor are the degrees of influence each sphere has over the other. Media of all types will show up in this sets of influences.

Again this model can serve in a number of capacities when thinking about making changes or improvements to the lives of young people.

In light of the research shown in the report mentioned above one simple way of looking at these things can be time. A young person spends more time in the model I'm calling education then they do in the model I'm calling schooling.

Research has also shown that young people spend up to 16% of their time in the schooling environment while they spend up to 84% of their time in what I'm calling the education environment.

The model at the top of the page, while not precisely to scale, attempts to show the situation described here.

These models, taken separately or together can provide a perspective and some food for thought when engaging in a process exploring influences in young people's lives as well as changes that might be made in schools in order to be relevant in today's world.

What do you think is most important in looking at these models? What kinds of things could you imagine schools doing in order to put them in the education business? What questions do these models raise?

What are the implications of the use and influence of technology and media on these models? and what should be changed in the system of schools and schooling to take advantage of technology and media?

Here are several links to the press release and to the report: Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds.

The Future of Business Education

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:37:00 +0000

If you haven't already seen it I posted a blog post on our main blog about the Future of Business Education. This post was inspired by a video interview by the McKinsey Consulting firm of Blair Sheppard, dean of Fuqua School of Business at Duke University. As the dean of the school he's feeling like business schools need to change to provide a different and better product for a new era.

Check out the post at

http://www.innovationlabs.com/2010/01/future-of-business-education/

and let me know what you think. Will business schools be able to make the necessary changes to not only keep up with the changes in society but to lead?

The Best Platform for School Portfolios

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:18:00 +0000

Over the last few weeks I've been working with several clients focused on Career and Technical Education. One of the projects involved helping State Directors of CTE craft a vision and a set of principles to guide development of CTE into the future.

The other project focused on helping one state understand and define for themselves what it means to be 'college and career ready' (a new jargon that is getting more and more focus and will possibly be made into policy nationwide.

During these sessions, as has been the case for more than 10 years now, there was considerable conversation about the need for, and value of, digital learning portfolios.

As I listened to these conversations it became clearer and clearer to me that the perfect platform for wide spread adoption of a digital online portfolio for schools and learning already exists and is used by more than 300 million people. It's called Facebook.

It's so obvious to me that every person that has a profile is already used to creating and sharing some part of themselves with other people - mostly friends - but that this platform can easily be morphed into one that will support digital files and media of all types - allowing people of all ages to share and show-off what they have produced in the context of learning.

Facebook was originally conceived as a tool for people involved in a school to stay in touch with other people they knew from that school. As it has morphed into a social media platform for people of all walks of life the concept is very well accepted and well used (people spend more time on Facebook than they do on just about any other web site).

It makes perfect sense to me that every profile can have an option to add a section specifically designed to 'show-off' all forms of self-expression and learning.

If I was an app developer I'd develop that app immediately!

School Violence - Painful Lessons

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:25:00 +0000

It might seem that I have a negative attitude about schools and schooling. I can understand how it might seem that way since much of what I write about seems to lean in a specific direction. I'd like to offer another perspective or another possible way of seeing the things I write about.

In much of what I write about I am advocating for examining our thinking about why schools exist and trying to understand a little more about what we do in schools and schooling. I am not doing this from an academic perspective. I am a concerned citizen that would like the best for each and every young person in the world - no matter what their background, nationality, religious upbringing, or socio-economic status.

I am inspired by the fact that schools and schooling touch each and every young person at some point in their lives. As such schools and schooling would seem to have a huge potential for making positive changes in the world.

That said, the art an article a colleague of mine sent me earlier today reminded me that there are many places throughout this country where young people are not getting anything close to what could be an amazingly wonderful opportunity to learn and grow and be successful in their lives.

This article reminded me of often heard rhetoric about zero tolerance for violence and gang related activities in schools. This rhetoric often results in perpetuating and increasing violence - it doesn't reduce violence. Our actions - the actions and behaviors demonstrated by adults - in school settings (which include policies and practices) betray our real underlying philosophies. The results speak for themselves.

Personally I have zero tolerance for anything that is harmful, disrespectful, or violence perpetrated on or at young people.

For several years now I have been scanning the school oriented press and have found several subjects continually discussed which I feel deserve further exploration and/or understanding. I am often surprised by what passes as news or passes as thoughtful considerations about what to do to improve the schooling process. The amount of violence that young people are exposed to and subjected to does not decrease. Bullying is rampant - both in face to face situations and in online communities.

Most of the strategies being employed to address bullying and violence focus on reducing freedoms, reducing choices, limiting options, and controlling behavior. These strategies are not productive and actually harm young people.

The article referred to above has some pretty strong language in it about this situation. Here's a quote from the article:

Students being miseducated, mistreated, criminalized and arrested through a form of penal pedagogy in locked down schools that resemble prisons is a vicious and incredibly visible index of the degree to which mainstream politicians and the American public have turned their backs on young people in general and poor minority youth in particular. As schools are reconfigured to resemble prisons, crime becomes the central metaphor used to define the school environment while criminalizing the behavior of young people becomes the most valued strategy in mediating the relationship between educators and students. The consequences of these policies for young people suggest not only an egregious abdication of responsibility - as well as reason, judgment and restraint - on the part of administrators, teachers and parents, but also a new role for schools as they become more prison-like and more segregated as a consequence, eagerly adapting to their role as an adjunct of the punishing state. One wonders how many more kids have to be brutalized in their schools and killed outside of schools before the American public wakes up and takes seriously not only their responsibility to young people, but also their commitment to a mode of politics and a future that is on the side of young people rather than a vision shaped largely by the values of the corporate state and the disciplinary apparatuses of the punishing criminal justice system.

Here's the link to the whole article.

I know this isn't the experience at every school - but if it's happening at one school that is one school too many.

A Must See Video - Making Schools the Nexus of Community Activity

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:21:00 +0000

This link below is a must see video by an architect that designs schools. This is one of the best and most understated presentations I've ever seen about the possibilities for redesigning schools to be integrated into the community and a 'nexus' of activity.

http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/mpstudy/movies/movie3.html

He describes something that is actually a great opportunity - some day - to do an invitational design process with experts from different domains in a community. He calls it a NEXUS development team with experts in 6 domains (that make up a community). He defines something amazingly reasonable and possible to do. This is something every community in the US should be considering right now.

It's one of the most inspiring views of transforming public schooling I've seen in a very, very long time.

Does Environment Matter? What Do Classrooms Say About Our Philosophy?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:43:00 +0000

I just became aware of an architectural contest to design new classrooms. In looking at the winners - it's easy to see why we are still in the mess we're in. Only one of these offers something that might be a little different from what we already have in classrooms that were designed over 100 years ago.

Why is that?

Environments and structures create behavior and the form of our classrooms are no exception. We can learn a lot about ourselves by looking at our physical environments. Our homes, work places, hospitals, and schools tell us a lot about our philosophy - the way we think and what we value.

Schools and classrooms are fundamentally about compliance and the physical environment supports that. These are NOT places where creativity are valued. These are NOT places where social interaction are valued. These are NOT places where exploration and discovery happens.

Early research into teaching and learning shows that a single adult can control about 19 young people. Classrooms were designed with this kind of knowledge in mind - and they still are even though most classrooms today have upwards of 30 young people in them.

If we continue to design what we've always designed there is no hope in having what happens in these rooms be any different than what has been happening in these rooms for nearly 150 years now.

Do Schools Harm Children?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:52:00 +0000

Some friends of mine are engaged in instigating a really important conversation in their community. Minority parents and students have been attempting to show how the schools are profiling certain young people as potential gang members and forcing them in one way or another to leave school - primarily to improve their drop-out and graduation numbers.

As many as 100 young people have already left one of the schools through these means.

The conversation that has begun is about developing something that will although these young people an opportunity to experience more of life and achieve some or all of their goals - while removing the typecasting and stigma of an 'uneducated' person.

I applaud this and really, truly hope that something good can come of it. It even looks like some school personnel are willing to participate in this conversation.

I know it's hard as someone involved in the schooling system to continue to want to do good - and do the best you can - while all around you there are challenges and criticisms about what's going on. Much of what's going on is not your fault. At the same time much of what is going on is actually harming young people.

Do Schools Harm Young People?

The following is part of a note I wrote to my friends in this community. This is the first time I've been public in this explicit a way with one of the most important insights I've had about schools and schooling.

I am only posting one side of the conversation here. I am not including the many emails that have gone back and forth about why this kind of thing happens (profiling and forced drop-outs) but I am posting my response which refers to how and why I believe some of this activity might come about. I am open to any and all comments and further conversation about this.

Here's part of my email:

One of the clearest and most powerful ways I can communicate about how schooling and education are different is by using the example of American Indian Boarding Schools. The methodologies used in those schools are the very same methodologies used in every public school in the United States today - in varying degrees and some less than others. We really have to understand that public schools are not healthy for young people. They never were intended to do anything like what we have talked about and what you are talking about doing this evening and with the entire community inclusion and transformation process.

The same tactics and intentions were used in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, to destroy existing native cultures and South Africa during apartheid to control and limit blacks from getting anywhere beyond the ghettos. Schools are tools for white oppressors to dominate and control the poor, native people and people of color - and anyone from another culture.

No one that I know would admit to this publicly. That's one reason why I'm only copying a few of you.

A few of the tactics that are evident (and this is not an exhaustive list) in the use of schools to destroy people and cultures are:

taking responsibility away from the parents and family
separating children from their homes and their parents
forcing the use of another and non-familiar language (english)
not allowing elements of existing cultures to be present - be it language, dress, or cultural idiosyncrasies
celebrating sameness and removing difference
corporal punishment and force for non-compliance
grading, ranking, dividing, profiling, and segregating children by achievement or any criteria
a forced and controlled curriculum
mandatory attendance
separating the school from the rest of the community (insulating the school from the community)
social injustice and inequity

The racial profiling that has been discussed that is happening Capital is likely happening in every school everywhere to some degree or another. This is a natural part of the "schooling" process and one of the reasons I have harped on making this distinction so hard. Needless to say it's harmful to individuals and ultimately very harmful to society.

What Miguel has suggested for the conversation this evening - and for the larger conversation - is about helping young people feel wanted and to feel a part of something that helps them develop their own identities and self-expression while in the context of learning and serving. These few concepts are anti-thetical to school and schooling and CANNOT be a part of what we know of as school. Something else has to be created to do that.

There is one more thing for this short rave. The young people that are being pushed out and/or dropping out are the smart ones. I doubt that many people around them can see how smart they really are (although John G made reference to this in one of his emails). These young people deserve our respect and our best thinking and resources.

This conversation you will be having this evening and the ones that follow could be the most important conversations any of us have ever had. The seeds for brilliance are there.

Dept of Ed says online learning is better than face to face

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:44:00 +0000

A recent study put out by the Department of Education shows that students using online methods of learning actually perform better than those who just learn in the classroom. That shouldn't come as any surprise if we really understood what's happening in the classroom - or paid any attention to the rise in the number of users of computers and other devices accessing the internet.

Why would it be a surprise that people learn more when they have choice, can take their time, and learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it?

Or why would it be a surprise that a blended situation - some online and some face to face - would produce better results than just one or the other?

What is surprising is that the Department of Education would publish such a study.

To me this is looking in the wrong place for something that isn't really that important. Online courses simply replicate a methodology that is really only valuable to a small percentage of teh population. Rote learning or drill and practice isn't really an optimal strategy for either online or face to face learning. So replicating what is done in the classrooms in an online environment isn't any better. What would be interesting to me would be seeing a change in the methods used to learn in either situation. What about experiences? What about making connections to the rest of life? What about theory? What about learning for deeper meaning and wisdom?

Just for fun, here are some of the key findings from the study:

Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.
Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.
Studies in which learners in the online condition spent more time on task than students in the face-to-face condition found a greater benefit for online learning.
Most of the variations in the way in which different studies implemented online learning did not affect student learning outcomes significantly.
The effectiveness of online learning approaches appears quite broad across different content and learner types.
Blended and purely online learning conditions implemented within a single study generally result in similar student learning outcomes.
Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to influence the amount that students learn in online classes.
Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection.

Here's the link to the study.

Response from David Langford about Paying Students to Learn

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:44:00 +0000

On December 11, 2008 I posted an article written by David Langford about paying students to learn.

An anonymous person commented that there is research that says there are positive effects of incentive based programs. I forwarded that response to David and asked him if he was interested in responded. He sent me the following:

Thanks for passing along my article to those who might listen. Unfortunately we are fighting a losing battle with extrinsic manipulation. It is so easy to implement these programs it is hard to stop politians and administrators. The new pick for Education Secretary Arne Duncan is also an advocate of pay-for-grades and implemented such a program in Chicago. I am fearful we may see an escalation of this thinking during the Obama administration.

I read through each of the studies the person who responded offered. None were credible comparisons of the blatant manipulation offered in the Chicago Public Schools or in Washington D.C.

Offering girls in Kenya scholarships to continue to go to school if they work hard does not compare to throwing money at kids who get A's, in a fabricated rating system, when they are already guarenteed a free education: Apples and Oranges comparisons. The study from Texas cited on paying students to take AP courses I believe lacks credibility since in order to get the predicted results they wanted they changed systemic factors such as opening AP courses to anyone interested instead of doing what they had always done by limiting class size to class rank. This is only one of a multitude of problems in this study.

The real problem is not how to make a better buggy whip, but should we be making them to begin with. I know I could produce the same positive correlation to improved work by beating children if they do not work hard. But, should we adopt that as a program and then start improving it? Automating or improving a bad process just means you can do something very bad quickly and to a larger number of people. Maybe Harvard would like to promote that study since they seem to be the source of promoting these pay-for-performance programs. I like the line in the movie Jurassic park that goes something like this, "You were so busy trying to see if you could you forgot to think about if you should!"

All of these types of programs and studies take time away from studying and fixing the real problems. No child will say I don't work hard at school because they do not pay me enough, but they will say it's boring or my teacher dosn't care. Who will work on these problems? Let's work on the real problems preventing high quality work and effort instead manufacturing new problems.

I'm interested in hearing from others about this very important topic.

Rates of Change - What does all this mean for public schooling?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:11:00 +0000

One of the arguments I have for re-inventing public schooling is the rapid rate of changes taking place in society. Schools and schooling are the most disconnected institutions we have on the planet. By disconnected I mean, what is taking place inside of schools is disconnected from what is taking place outside of schools.

Sure there has been a push to get technology into schools - but that technology has been viewed and used under the same fundamental operating principle that is driving all schooling (control and compliance) and the methodologies technology has been applied to are the same fundamental concepts as traditional teaching (sit and get; drill and practice).

There is a large amount of data from many sectors of our economy and society that demonstrates increasing rates of change moving towards exponential rates of change. We see increasing rates of change in global population, in consumption of resources, and increasing pollution. We see the same types of changes in the use of technologies like fax machines, cell phones, computers, and the internet. The amount of data being digitized and stored on computers somewhere in the world has followed a similar curve.

Over the last 100 years the system of public schooling (including colleges and universities) has changed some but very little compared to the rest of society. This gap, which we can call an Opportunity Gap, continues to grow. The longer we wait to make necessary changes the worse it will get. And this gap actually explains a lot of what people are experiencing today in public schooling.

Every organization in the world is facing the challenge of managing within this environment of rapid change. In the competitive environment the amount of pressure on companies to adopt and stay competitive is quite significant. Product life cycles for consumer electronics companies in some competitive markets have shrunk from 18 – 24 months to around 6 months and some companies complete the entire cycle from concept, through development, through to the end of a products life in that time period.

More significant for leaders and managers of organizations (especially large ones) is having an understanding of the impact this kind of environment has on ‘how they manage.’ How you manage in an organization that is moving fast – staying up to speed with the rate of change – is different from how you manage in an organization that is moving slower. And managing a slower moving organization that is attempting to close the Opportunity Gap is different still.

Partly because of the fact that schools have been kept separate from the rest of society, and partly because of the slow moving changes within the schooling system, the managers and leaders in that environment have not felt the same kinds of pressures as business leaders. Until recently society has not demanded these leaders to have the same kind of competence. But that luxury is quickly being eroded. Pressure from the outside is growing and the skill sets of school leaders will be challenged significantly.

Here's a short video that makes the argument for re-inventing schools better than I could with pages or writing:

Schooling ≠ Education

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:52:00 +0000

Based on recent learning and insights I've changed the name of this blog to Schooling ≠ Education. This new name reflects the most important and critical shift in thinking that is necessary for the reinvention of public schooling.

As noted in one of the first posts on this blog, it was back in 1999 that the first ideas for writing a book emerged. This first inspiration came after visiting with a small group of teachers and having conversations about topics I had thought were common knowledge (topics I had been talking to colleagues about for nearly 20 years at that point).

I was working in a unique and powerful learning environment that reflected an integration of physical space, technology and process. During the conversation we talked about the rate of change, complexity, structures and their influence on behavior, as well as the brain and how humans learn. The original name for this blog, There is No One Right Answer, was an attempt to break through what I call "the right answer syndrome" and get people to think.

Those same topics discussed back in 1999 are still, to this day, not common knowledge - or not knowledge enough to make a difference in what we are doing in our schools. Over the last ten years I have continued to ponder why making necessary changes and improvements in schools and schooling is difficult/challenging. Today my core theory is that most people make the mistake of confusing schooling with education. This mistake is prevalent around the world, in every country, in every walk of life, in governmental circles, in business circles, in churches and religious institutions, and in homes and villages.

My theory is that real, substantive, and necessary changes will not be able to be made until the people involved in schools and schooling make the mental shift and see that schooling is not equal to education. Until that time as that mental shift is made the necessary actions and requisite behaviors will not be made.

Hence, the new name of this blog, Schooling ≠ Education.

I will be persistent in urging people to adopt this point of view and this understanding in the desire to help people see that we will never get the kind of educational experience we truly want for our children unless we make this change first.

What The F**K is Social Media?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:16:00 +0000

If there was ever any doubt, people involved in schools and schooling must see this SlideShare Presentation:

What The F**K is Social Media?

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: socialmediamarketing marketing)

Listed on Alltop

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:36:00 +0000

Wow! my blog is now listed on Alltop.

Not familiar with Alltop? Check out their site - they aggregate news and blogs under specific topic headings. Check it out.

Here's the area where I am listed - http://education.alltop.com/ (it's at the very bottom - but hey, at least I'm there).

Quality Learning: Paying students to learn?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:00:00 +0000

David Langford is one of the smartest and best consultants I know working in the schooling world. His knowledge and experience of quality and it's application to schooling is beyond par. The following article came in a recent email newsletter from him. I couldn't say it any better! I've copied the newsletter in its entirety. Enjoy.

Quality Learning: Paying students to learn?
By David P. Langford

In the past, I believed most educators understood the inherent differences between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, and valued the latter over the former. However, this does not seem to be the case. Pay-for-grades, gold stars, student-of-the-month programs and attendance rewards are all too prevalent extrinsic motivators used to push students to do a better job. I've found an overwhelming amount of evidence that these schemes do not work in the long term, and can even dangerously affect attitudes toward learning. (Alfie Kohn does an excellent job of compiling the evidence against extrinsic motivators in his books No Contest and Punishment by Reward.) There is no lack of evidence that pay-for-grades programs do not work, so why do schools continue to use them? The short answer is: because they appear to work.

Extrinsic rewards and punishments always seem to work if you do not count the costs. Studies have shown that you can get people to do almost anything if you make the motivator—payment or punishment--strong enough. For example, would you sabotage a colleague for ten dollars? Most people would answer “no.” But what if I upped the stakes? Would you do it for one thousand dollars? Ten thousand? One million? If I continued to increase the reward, most people would agree sooner or later--especially if they got to pick the colleague.

The same principle is true with students. If you pay students to get good grades, more students will get good grades for a while. Very quickly students who were only working to get the reward will discover that it is hard work to maintain good grades, and they will decide it isn't worth the effort unless the reward is increased, because the motivation for getting good grades is not to learn, but to be rewarded. The concept of "learning" to improve one's self never comes into play with the reward system. Just as teacher unions negotiate for higher pay, so student “unions” will eventually want to negotiate for a higher reward.

Extrinsic Theory: Improved Grades = Reward

Most always these reward schemes are touted as a “new trial program,” as if the idea of extrinsic motivation is a new one. In Washington D.C., Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who is making a valiant effort to improve a failing system, was asked why they implemented a "new" program that pays students to get good grades and attendance and she responded, "When critics say that it's sad to pay students, I say it's sad that only 8% of D.C. eighth-graders are proficient in math. People in the suburbs use incentives for their kids all the time, like giving them $10.00 for an 'A.' Kids in our program can save money for college or get a bank account." (Parade Magazine, November 16, 2008, p. 26.) It's unfortunate that we have such huge education gaps in this country and I am certain Chancellor Rhee feels the need to do something about it, but the bottom line is that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some parents bribe their children to get better grades does not mean we should apply the same principle to all students. We can easily sabotage motivation through the best efforts of well meaning people.

If the pay-for-grades theory is correct, there should not exist a single example of students succeeding on their own. Yet there are thousands--if not millions-- of students who work hard because of a love of learning. Dr. W. Edwards Deming often stated that it only takes a single example to invalidate a theory. Having only 8% of students proficient in math is a dismal statistic to face, but the problem is in the system--not the students. Manipulating students with money will improve some students' performance for a short period of time, but what happens to students when you can no longer afford to pay them and their attachment to learning is for money? Smothering intrinsic motivation is a cost too great for even one student.

Intrinsic Motivation: Acquired Knowledge = Joy in Learning

When learning rewards and punishments are eliminated, systemic performance results will always return to what they were before extrinsic manipulation. Remember, 98% of the problem comes from the system, and students have little or no control over systemic factors. Manipulating student extrinsic motivators does not address the basic cause(s) of the problem. Try asking students with a Force Field Analysis to identify driving and preventing forces of learning, then prioritize the preventing forces with an NGT. You might be shocked to realize that existing factors preventing learning have nothing to do with lack of pay-for-grades. One of the most misguided efforts of quality improvement is trying to improve something that should be eliminated, such as automating grading systems, increasing training for behavior modification or improving the pay-for-grades program. I can guarantee you, in low performing schools there are fundamental problems with:

Teacher training and support
Leadership and management
Process Management
Communication
The way schools are built and maintained
The way technology is being used or not used
Funding for classroom books and materials
Vision and purpose

One of the reasons many extrinsic motivation programs have stayed around for so long and are continually resurrected and improved is because they are convenient for the people managing the system. They keep the focus off leadership and mistakenly place it on the people working in the system. In every education system I have consulted--from the U.S. Naval Academy to primary and secondary schools in the U.S. and Australia to pre-schools in Argentina--the story is the same: we blame students for poor performance without first considering the systemic causes. In psychology this is known as the fundamental attribution error.

If you want a significantly different result, you must first change the system. I applaud Michelle Rhee in Washington D.C. for trying to improve a broken system, and I offer my help. She has made many excellent systemic changes in D.C. such as closing 23 under-populated schools and paying for librarians, art, music and P.E. teachers at remaining schools. These systemic efforts will help to improve student motivation for learning.

Systemic problems are normally out of the circle of influence of students and none of these systemic problems will go away simply by bribing students to work harder within a failing system. Leaders must learn to, as Dr. Deming once said, "work smarter, not harder." If you want a different result, try changing the system and watch what happens to behavior, instead of continually doing what we have always done by leaving the system alone and trying to change the behavior of the people in it.

©2008 Langford International Inc. All rights reserved.
e-Mail: office@langfordlearning.com
12742 Canyon Creek Road, Molt, MT 59057
Phone: 406-628-2227 Fax: 406-628-2228

Drill and Practice becomes Drill and Test

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:45:00 +0000

With all this focus on No Child Left Behind and the ensuing testing culture that's been created I wonder how many people have noticed that the predominate methodology used in schools has gone from Drill and Practice to Drill and Test.

Drill and Practice is an instructional strategy developed and used for much of the history of schools and schooling. Many people feel the practice is out of date and not appropriate for meaningful learning to take place. On the other side of the argument, people that still support the idea of drill and practice as an effective teaching methodology suggest that repetition is necessary for the brain to 'wire' itself appropriately.

From a web site on instructional strategies:

As an instructional strategy, drill & practice is familiar to all educators... Drill-and-practice, like memorization, involves repetition of specific skills, such as addition and subtraction, or spelling. To be meaningful to learners, the skills built through drill-and-practice should become the building blocks for more meaningful learning.
http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/DE/PD/instr/strats/drill/index.html

From another web site:

Development of basic knowledge and skills to the necessary levels of automatic and errorless performance requires a great deal of drill and practice. . . . drill and practice activities should not be slighted as “low level.” Carried out properly, they appear to be just as essential to complex and creative intellectual performance as they are to the performance of a virtuoso violinist.
http://www.audiblox2000.com/repetition.htm

I believe the accelerating focus on testing has shifted teaching methodologies to be more akin to drill and test. Tests are taking up more time and focus in the school setting. Many people have complained that teachers are teaching to the test at the cost of learning.

So the old method of drill and practice is giving way to the new method of drill and test. Learning suffers as a consequence.

From a Carnegie Mellon article:

A recurring criticism of tests used in high-stakes decision making is that they distort instruction and force teachers to "teach to the test." The criticism is not without merit. The public pressure on students, teachers, principals, and school superintendents to raise scores on high-stakes tests is tremendous, and the temptation to tailor and restrict instruction to only that which will be tested is almost irresistible.

further it says:

There is a lesson here for teachers and assessment specialists alike. The tension between the instructional and assessment communities, as well the pejorative connotations that "teaching to the test" entails, will continue unabated so long as testing and assessment are seen as something quite apart from instruction and learning, rather than an integrated reflection of what was intentionally taught. To paraphrase A. G. Rud of Purdue University, what is needed is a deliberate attempt on the part of all parties to link curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards in a more generative and even transparent way.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating for either of these methodologies. In fact, I don't recommend either methodology as being the right thing to do in today's environment. The purpose of pointing out what I think is happening is to support people to make conscious choices - to know what they are doing and why.

In today's world I recommend a whole person and brain based approach to learning - with the focus on learning NOT on teaching. Drill and practice is a good method for memorization but as I've said in another post memorizing is not the same as learning.

"Smart Drugs" for Young People

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:41:00 +0000

Making the mistake of thinking that schooling is education can lead to a very large number of additional choices that make sense in one context but are completely different in another context. If we continue to think about schooling the way we do we will force young people to do things they are not meant to do nor do they do naturally.

Here's a perfect example of the kind of thinking that will ultimately lead to more problems than it solves. Researchers are predicting the development and use of 'smart drugs' for 'enhancing' the memory, attention, mood, or motivation of young people.

Think about this. These are the things that 'schooling' values and requires: memory, attention, mood, and motivation.

The fundamental underpinnings of schooling has the need to control the behavior of the 'student' in order for them to demonstrate they can repeat the desired behavior (repeat behavior and also regurgitate desired bits of content to demonstrate both paying attention and the form a learning that is valued by schooling - memory).

In fact repitition is the primary tool used to 'teach' specific subjects.

It makes sense then that at some point people involved with schooling would conjur up the 'bright idea' to develop drugs as a tool to enhance the things that are valued.

These same things that are valued in the current schooling system are some of the primary reasons why there are so many dropouts. The reason why mood, motivation, and attention are lacking in the schooling system is because the experience is NOT interesting nor connected to any other aspect of young people's lives. Humans have a natural ability to pay attention and be motivated when there is something that is interesting to them. People will naturally remember what they 'learned' when the experience they have is both interesting and challenging, and has some emotional component to the experience.

Here is the article that stimulated this blog post:

Schoolchildren could be given 'smart drugs' in a bid to boost brainpower
By LAURA CLARK - Last updated at 9:32 PM on 19th September 2008

Schools will soon have to ensure all pupils have access to brain-enhancing 'smart drugs', according to officially funded experts.

They said teachers risk claims of bias against poorer children if they fail to give all pupils the same chance to take a new generation of pills which boost attention, concentration and memory.

Researchers predict that within a generation, cognition enhancing drugs - or 'cogs' - will be so advanced that parents and teachers will be able to 'manipulate biology' to enhance pupils' brainpower.

---

It also predicted that within 25 years, so-called 'smart drugs' will be specific enough for pupils to choose drugs for particular mental faculties.

These could include improving memory, attention, mood or motivation.

Where are the people advocating for the interests of young people? How could we allow this thinking to continue and come to fruition. It is wrong and damaging. But without a change in thinking about the difference between schooling and education this kind of thing is almost inevitable.

What's the Goal?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:50:00 +0000

A friend of mine had this published recently. I include it here in its entirety.

What's the Goal of This Education System?
Leaving Every Child Behind
By JOHN GOEKLER

As we head deeper into the “silly season” of an election year, all the old position papers on education are being recycled. John McCain touts market forces for school improvement. Barack Obama endorses more accountability and higher standards. School boards speak of efficiency (to pass bond issues) while teacher unions speak of commitment (to earn higher pay).

But the simple fact is, our public school system is irretrievably broken. It doesn’t need to be tweaked. It needs to be tossed.

This system is the dysfunctional remnant of a bygone era. It is a nineteenth century model, imported from Germany, that emphasizes punctuality, obedience, and rote, repetitive work suited to turning out assembly line workers. In short, it teaches kids to fill jobs that have long since moved to China, and are now heading toward Bangladesh.

In an era in which collaboration, creativity and adaptability are vital to success, most schools remain authoritarian, banal and inflexible. They separate and alienate children from community life, even as integration and relationship are ever more important to a cohesive society. Schools remain linear and left-brain oriented, although imagination and self-direction are far more critical to problem solving. And they are competitive and elitist, separating children into “winners” and “losers” through designations such as Advanced Placement, VoTech, and Special Needs.

Despite frantic efforts by schools, districts and states to cook the books with inflated test scores, lowered standards and underreported drop out rates, all objective data says our schools are failing our children. But never mind test scores and assessments, which are all about politics and nothing about learning. The single most important indicator is as simple as it is harsh – our young people are turning their backs on school in record numbers and walking away without a backward glance.

Why?

Because we’re failing to engage them. Because they don’t see what we offer as relevant to their lives and futures. Because – despite entire libraries of data that tell us how to engage the human brain in ways that support learning – we blindly persist in teaching the wrong things, in the wrong ways, at the wrong times.

What’s the Goal of the System?

There’s a rule in systems dynamics that says to understand a system’s behavior, diagnose its purpose. If the purpose is uncertain, analyze its patterns of behavior and see what beliefs, choices and structures underlie them.

Take the typical school schedule – roughly 8:00 to 3:00, five days a week, 180 days a year, closed for summer. Why? Because it’s convenient for adults. We start and end at times that accommodate bus schedules and drivers’ contracts. We go five days because that’s the work schedule for most families. And we close for summer – originally because kids worked in the harvest, now because staff contracts say so. (And part of why we perpetually underpay teachers is, “Because they get the summer off.”)

But any neuroscientist can tell you that body rhythms of high school age teens cycle from about 9 am until midnight. (And any high school parent can tell you their kids would qualify for “legally dead” at 7:00 a.m.) A better schedule for their brains to optimize learning might be 10 to 5, four days a week. We run the schedules we do because it’s all about us – not about learning.

As to curriculum, we’re still teaching core subjects prescribed prior to World War II. That was fine in 1930, when there was only so much bandwidth in the world and knowing X percentage of it made one a literate person. (At least literate enough to work on an assembly line.) But today, there’s exponentially more information available on Wikipedia than even existed in 1930. And we live in a very different world that calls for very different skills. In an era of nuclear weapons and jihad, for example, which seems more relevant – calculus or conflict resolution?

Why do we insist on delivering content that’s largely irrelevant to students’ lives? Again, it’s all about us. We tend to believe that whatever we learned is the mark of a literate person. That's why parents and administrators consistently stonewall true reform. It was good enough for us (and we turned out OK, by golly!) so it's damn well good enough for our children.

And our pedagogical models? Same thing. It’s all about us. More specifically, it’s all about the convenience of teachers and administrators. Standing in front of a class and lecturing is largely useless for imparting information, typically providing 10 percent retention or less. But it’s easy. Using standardized tests is essentially worthless in assessing true learning, but again, it’s easy. You can grade them with a machine.

True learning, on the other hand, looks a lot like chaos. People are running every which way in their excitement to find out what they want to know. They’re building things and tearing things apart. They’re scribbling on whiteboards, walls and scraps of paper. They’re asking questions, jumping online, running to the library or the science lab or outside to make observations or run experiments. They’re bombarding teachers and each other with questions, testing assumptions, trying things out, making mistakes. It can be messy, maddening and exhausting for “command and control” teachers, but it works!

The most basic thing neuroscience tells us is that emotion drives attention and attention drives learning. The human brain is designed to learn. It wants to learn. In fact, it needs to learn. Why do we throw prisoners into solitary confinement as extreme punishment? Because a lack of contact, stimuli and curiosity is painful. It drives us mad.

So, examining what, how and when we teach, what can we infer about the system’s purpose?

Sadly, the answer is that our schooling system seems primarily intended to baby-sit our children – to warehouse them during parents’ working hours and to keep them out of an already saturated job market.

Warehousing is increasingly necessary because the share of wealth controlled by the vast majority of households in America has declined steadily since the 1970’s. In most families, both parents must now work to stay afloat. (If there are two parents.) There’s no one home to care for kids, so schools get the job by default. (Hence, a major force behind the push for schools to take on “out of school time”.)

Keeping young people out of the job market is considered necessary (though unspoken) because if the roughly two million 16 to 18 year olds in the US were to compete for employment, the already underreported jobless rate would go through the roof. Even though most modern service jobs can easily be performed by 16 year-olds with minimal training, we keep them in school because in a downsized, outsourced economy, there’s nowhere for them to work.

The third leg propping up the status quo is the desire on the part of far too many school officials to keep collecting enrollment money from state and federal governments to support an immense – and largely useless – bureaucracy. In a modern school, to paraphrase John Steinbeck, you can’t shoot a marble “knuckles down” without hitting an administrator, consultant, or “education specialist”.

How’s this working? Well, we’ve spent roughly $3 trillion on “school reform” over the past four decades and not gained any traction, so you make the call.

Creating New Models

Bucky Fuller observed that we don’t create real change by fighting existing structures, but by building new structures that are more attractive and functional. Then the old ones die of simple neglect.
So what kind of model would be more attractive and functional? And, more importantly, what kind of model would protect, foster and engage our children and young people while effectively preparing them to thrive in an uncertain and rapidly changing world?

First, it would be a “whole child” model, based on a goal of making sure every one of our children is safe, healthy, loved, affirmed and fulfilled. It would not separate economic, social and educational arenas, but view each of those as essential pieces of a whole system whose goal is whole children.

It would embrace Einstein’s observation that, “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” So this new system would have a new mission – helping families and communities raise and educate healthy, capable young people. It would be a locus of child advocacy and its loyalty would be to the well-being of kids, families, communities and the planet, rather than to administration, curriculum or political correctness. It would be an integral part of the community, not a separate entity.

Because the work of raising healthy children begins long before the commencement of structured learning, it would start with making sure every child is welcome and wanted. (That’s a polite euphemism for effective and accessible family planning and reproductive health care.)

To make sure every child is ready to learn when “schooling” does start, prenatal care, and child and maternal health care would be universally provided, along with education and mentoring to instill and expand parental skills. Nutrition programs, environmental health programs, and affordable, accessible day care and preschool for every child are also vital.

To make sure schools are ready to receive kids who are ready to learn, they would employ a very different model from today. First, it would start at a later age, typically about seven, when children become neurologically capable of abstract thought.

Contrary to trends in the US, where academics and testing now begin in kindergarten, studies show that starting children on academic studies at an early age generally does not increase performance. All too often, the opposite occurs. Children who are not cognitively capable of logical thinking tend to self-identify as being “bad at school” when they cannot meet the demands unfairly placed on them. That self-imposed (and system reinforced!) label often follows them right through school until they bail out.

Anyone concerned that a “delayed” start on academics will limit a child’s later performance need only look around the world for reassurance. Finland, which is consistently rated as the most creative society in the world and regularly scores highest of any OECD country on international academic tests, starts formal schooling at age seven. Prior to that time, kids are in pre-school and quality day care.

The focus with those younger children should be on reinforcing their love of learning and helping them develop social skills. Just as anti-social behaviors in young children are associated with later learning difficulties, acquisition of “pro-social” skills is closely associated with later success.

The pre-school ages are a time to identify physical, neurological and emotional deficits, and remedy those to the greatest extent possible through interventions from nutrition, counseling, movement and play therapies, to visual and hearing correction.

Once formal learning commences, it should be student-directed, immersion or “expeditionary” based and community-centered. And it should occur in safe, comfortable, environmentally benign settings. Facilities must be well lighted and toxin-free, with child-friendly proportions and high indoor air quality, all of which have been shown significantly to increase learning, and student and staff health.

“Teaching” in these whole child contexts would not be “stand and deliver”, but more on the lines of facilitating each learner’s success. That means helping them identify strengths and weakness, connecting them with mentors and coaches, helping them find things that fascinate them and gain the skills necessary to pursue that attraction.

And we absolutely have to avoid trying to instill what learning we value based on our own experiences. The US Department of Labor says students in school today will have between 10 and 14 jobs – by the time they're 38! The jobs we tend to train them for likely won't exist by the time they're ready to fill them. The jobs they will hold likely haven't been invented yet. (Ever know anyone 10 years ago who was training to be a biomimeticist, paleo-astronomer, nanotechnologist, podcaster or eBay marketer?)

Instead, we can help them gain the necessary social, emotional and intellectual skills to move seamlessly through the overlapping and often messy realms of their future – work, play, partnership, citizenship, parenting, health, service. We can help them learn to make sense of the world and their place in it.

We can help them understand complex systems, envision their desired futures and facilitate change. We can help them gain the interpersonal skills necessary to initiate and maintain healthy relationships, and the intrapersonal skills necessary to sustain themselves through times of uncertainty and struggle. Most important, we can help them become proficient at thinking, learning, unlearning, relearning and communicating.

Core content would support all the above, and might include environmental science and sustainability, yoga and meditation, travel and adventure. Kids can still learn calculus and chemistry if they choose, along with how to bake, dance, play music, make movies, write poems, build fires, sew clothes, use a compass, design a fort or tree house, nurture a garden, raise critters, build and program a computer, navigate in the wilderness, create a business . . . In the process, they’ll acquire the math, reading and communication skills all those demand. And because they’re invested in it – because it’s theirs – they’ll be good at it.

Throughout, we need to re-envision who our learners are. Because in times of drastic change – which will be the rest of our lives – “students” will be everyone. We must all gain, enhance and maintain those skills if we are to succeed in living the lives and creating the futures we hope for.

Schools must become centers of community to support this. They are already the most extensive (and expensive) pieces of public infrastructure in most communities, and are generally the least utilized. So why not integrate pre and post-school care, family health services, adult education, community technology access, cultural activities, sports and nearly any other content needed by the community for its well-being?

We are in a stage of human history where vision, compassion, communication and creativity are far important than traditional literacy. Re-envisioning what learning is about and redesigning our schooling system around that provide the single most powerful avenue available to help us navigate an uncertain future. And to begin to create the kind of future our children and grandchildren deserve.

John Goekler is the founder of Change Factors, a training and consulting firm in Santa Fe, New Mexico. His work is applying complexity science to help individuals and organizations learn to act with greater clarity and effectiveness to create a better future for our children, our communities and the planet. www.changefactors.com

Creating Safety in Schools

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:05:00 +0000

What do you think makes schools safer,

metal detectors
teachers carrying guns
creating a positive connection between young people and adults

As many people know metal detectors are becoming a common site in schools these days. Why is that? What does that say about our schools and our society? And the bigger question is, do metal detectors create a safe environment for young people?

In the practice of accelerated learning there is a saying that, "everything speaks." So what kinds of things might metal detectors say to young people as they enter their school? Do you think it says to them that they are safe? I can imagine metal detectors send another message to young people that they can't be trusted - and that other people coming into the school cannot be trusted.

In a recent post I showed pictures of hospitals, prisons, and schools. By adding metal detectors schools take one step closer to being a like a prison.

Taking that way of thinking one step further, a Texas school district recently approved the carrying of hand-guns by teachers. Believe it or not, the Texas Governor has given his support of this. Now what kind of environment does that create? And what does that say to the young people in that environment?

Guns don't kill people, people using guns kill people. And what about 'mistakes or accidents?' What happens when some creative young person figures out a way to steal a teacher's gun they have 'hidden' on them or in their classroom? Having a gun in an environment where young people are should be a crime - not a sanctioned activity.

This type of thinking and behavior on the part of adults is so far away from the thinking that is required if we are to develop healthy and wholesome participants in a democratic society. But maybe that isn't the goal or interest of the people involved in the Texas school district?

What is the purpose of the public schooling system?

North Texas school district will let teachers carry guns
HARROLD, Texas — A tiny Texas school district may be the first in the nation to allow teachers and staff to pack guns for protection when classes begin later this month, a newspaper reported.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated Monday that he supports a school district's decision to allow teachers and staff to pack guns for protection when classes start this month.

From the ASCD newsletter on educating the Whole Child:

Another good example is the use of metal detectors in schools. In the wake of horrific, terrifying school shootings, districts around the United States added metal detectors at school entrances as a deterrent to those who might be carrying weapons. Many adults in schools and surrounding communities feel safer as a result of this strategy. Yet, no less authorities than the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education say that metal detectors are unlikely to prevent a serious incident of school violence. Rather, they suggest that schools create a climate of safety and respect, free from bullying and filled with opportunities for adults and students to have meaningful relationships and open communication.

» No, whole child education is not easy, and coming close doesn't quite count. We need your voice to speak out for real policy changes to ensure that each child is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged. Visit the Policy Blackboard, and use our advocacy tips in your community!

Also from that newsletter, this quote taken from a report on the threat assessment in schools (page 6).

“In an educational setting where there is a climate of safety, adults and students respect each other. This climate is defined and fostered by students having a positive connection to at least one adult in authority. In such a climate, students develop the capacity to talk and openly share their concerns without fear of shame and reprisal.”

Should schools be allowed to paddle young people?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:34:00 +0000

Oh, I forgot to include paddling as an appropriate form of discipline!

Here's an article about a school board that is voting to allow corporal punishment in schools. This is abuse and should be outlawed! But this is included in the 'theory' being employed in schools to 'force' young people to be obedient. If you can't provide something young people are interested in you shouldn't be in business!

School board brings back paddling with parental permission
By JULIE HUBBARD - The Telegraph in Macon
JEFFERSONVILLE, GA. --Twiggs County principals will be pulling out their dusty paddles when school resumes and using them when students act up.
At least that's the school system's aim.

Will the public school system ever provide something that young people are interested in and want to participate in? Or does mandatory - by law - mean "do anything to force young people to sit in their chairs, pay attention, and regurgitate bits of data?"

This makes me sad...

External vs Internal Motivation and the Theory of Knowledge

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:47:00 +0000

More and school states and school districts are developing programs designed to 'motivate' students to improve on standardized tests. Combine that with incentive programs for teachers to improve test scores and we have a train wreck in the making.

I still marvel at the fact that good, well meaning people, have a limited understanding of how people (and the brain) actually work. Unless of course these aren't well meaning people (which I refuse to think about).

Everyone acts from theory - whether they are aware of it or not. The brain develops 'models' of the world and how it works and we behave consistent with those models (even abhorrent behavior is consistent with some mental model in the brain).

So what are the theories in use by the people that develop policies for the public schooling system? It appears, from where I sit, the theory employed in school policy and practice includes:

people need extrinsic motivation
incentives motivate people
memory is learning
control and compliance are highly valued
learning is teacher and testing centric
memory and tests demonstrate 'knowledge'
order and discipline are requirements for learning
school can be disconnected from life
curriculum determines what is learned
schooling develops good people
emotions have no place at school
people aren't people when they are at school
school is disconnected from the rest of life

The public schooling system is the one institution that touches just about every single person in the country. There is tremendous 'potential' there. But what happens when we use extrinsic motivation and incentives to 'produce' an outcome?

Extrinsic motivation slowly destroys self esteem, dignity, cooperation and a yearning for learning - all of which are innate and high early in life. They are diminished throughout our life by what Dr. Deming calls the forces of destruction - of which extrinsic motivation is one of these destructive forces.

To paraphrase Mary Walton's presentation on Dr. Deming's teaching on performance appraisals, such an approach will "encourage short-term performance...discourage risk-taking, build fear, undermine teamwork, and pit people working against each other for the same rewards." ("The Deming Management Method," chapter 19, page 91). As Dr. Deming noted in "The New Economics," Ch. 4, p. 113, "When children are given rewards, such as toys and money, for doing well in school...they learn to expect rewards for good performance." This leaves the child, and then the adult, extrinsically motivated, relying on "things to make them feel good." And that destroys essential self-esteem. Dr. Deming expanded on this in pages 147-153.

So what should schools do? Here's a quote from a review of Dr. Deming's book, The New Economics.

To achieve notable improvement, the education system should abolish grades, merit ratings for teachers, comparison of schools on the basis of scores, and gold stars for athletics. Joy in learning comes more from learning than from what is learned. A grade is a permanent label for opening doors or closing doors, a way to achieve quality by inspection, rather than building in quality, a way to produce competition between people, rather than cooperation, a way to label people as winners or losers, a way to humiliate those at the bottom, rather than to promote their desire to learn and future achievement.

The California legislature has passed a law (awaiting the governor's signature) authorizing and encouraging school districts to provide non monetary "incentives to middle ad and high school students for achievement or improvement on standardized tests."

Here's an article about this.

What Does Architecture Tell Us About Learning?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Over the last 20+ years my firm has worked with large groups to accelerate and enhance their ability to learn and collaborate. This work results in increasing the productivity of the group - often accomplishing weeks, months, or years worth of work in a matter of days. To aide us in accomplishing these results we use a creative physical environment that allows information to move along with the people (most everything in the environment has wheels!).

The idea that human interaction can be enhanced by the environment is something we take for granted. It is so much a part of what we do we often forget that this way of thinking and working is not common for much of the world.

The concept that work environments can contribute to or inhibit the productivity of the people in those environments is not new. What might be new however is the idea that the people that work in the environment could/should participate in the design process - to determine the environment within which they will work.

From an article in Education Week by Frank Kelly:

Buildings are among the most telling artifacts of what we believe, what we value, and what we think. Western Europe’s great cathedrals built in the 12th to 16th centuries leave no doubt about what was most important in their time. While our society in the 21st century is far more diverse, our buildings will speak just as clearly to future generations—including the kids who attend our schools.

What do our school buildings say about what we think is really important? What do schools being built in 2008 around Frederick W. Taylor’s and William Wirt’s ideas from 1908 say to kids about their futures? What do schools that mimic the architecture of other centuries say to the children within them working on digital devices? Are our school buildings saying what we want to convey to teachers and students?

Schools are inherently about the future. We design school facilities to house the education of students for their futures, and we plan those facilities to last for decades. Our challenge is heightened by the most rapid change in all of human history—Moore’s Law, which defines the exponential growth in digital technology, is quickening the pace of change in every aspect of our society. In planning new or renovated school facilities, educators and architects are “futurists’’—the question is whether we recognize and fulfill the responsibility thrust upon us.

What does the architecture of our school buildings tell us about the activities that take place in them? How do those buildings influence learning (positively or negatively)? How can we re-conceive the physical environment so it encourages and enables the type of learning required for success in the 21st Century?

In the 70's I came upon a book that contained photographs of the architecture - buildings - of schools, hospitals, and prisons. I haven't been able to find that book but I did find some photos that might give an idea of what this book showed.

School, Hospital, or Prison? When looking at the pictures that follow, which one is a school, a hospital, or a prison?

What does this say about the way we think about the activities that take place in each of these buildings?

In a recent NY Times article entitled, Technology Reshapes America's Classrooms, it suggested the activities in the 'school of the future' will be different from the activities that take place in the current schools. But what does the building look like? Have they considered the physical environment when developing this new school? Were teachers involved in the design process to 're-think' the way they interacted with young people, the type of learning taking place and how the physical environment might enable this?

Here's a short quote from that article:

Education experts say her school, the Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School in Boston, offers a glimpse into the future.

It has no textbooks. Students receive laptops at the start of each day, returning them at the end. Teachers and students maintain blogs. Staff and parents chat on instant messaging software. Assignments are submitted through electronic "drop boxes" on the school's Web site.

"The dog ate my homework" is no excuse here.

The experiment at Frederick began two years ago at cost of about $2 million, but last year was the first in which all 7th and 8th grade students received laptops. Classwork is done in Google Inc's free applications like Google Docs, or Apple's iMovie and specialized educational software like FASTT Math.

"Why would we ever buy a book when we can buy a computer? Textbooks are often obsolete before they are even printed," said Debra Socia, principal of the school in Dorchester, a tough Boston district prone to crime and poor schools.

We won't really see different types of knowledge, behaviors and skills being learned in our schools until we see the types of environments that learning takes place in re-thought and re-designed.

Answers: the pictures above from top to bottom are 1) hospital 2) prison 3) hospital 4) hospital 5) prison 6) school 7) school - (the label on this was 'school for blacks')

Sensitivity to Initial Conditions

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:21:00 +0000

There is a concept in the theory of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) that suggests systems are significantly influenced by their initial conditions. Complex Adaptive Systems develop patterns of 'order' that emerge out of the seemingly chaotic 'soup' of interactions between lots and lots of 'agents' (independent agents following 'rules' to guide their behavior).

Anyone that has been involved with public education can see that the school system is a very complex system. There are a great many rules that guide the behavior of everyone involved (everyone! including parents, teachers, administrators, young people, and the communities in which schools exist).

I've been in many situations over the last 25 years where teachers and administrators were asked, what the future of school 'should be.' Or they were asked, what kinds of things would need to happen to make schools 'ideal.'

The kinds of answers that were given will not surprise anyone. These answers have been the same or similar with a few variations in almost every setting I've been in.

The kinds of things that were suggested included:

community involvement
parent involvement
creativity
personalized learning
problem solving
thinking skills
alternative assessments
choice
brain-based learning

I could go on - but the point is, when asked, most people want the same or similar things for schools (and for the young people) but why aren't those thing happening? or better said, why aren't those things happening in a systematic and systemwide way (all of these things are happening in little bits somewhere in some school or district - but no where is the kind of schooling we need for young people to be successful in the 21st Century happening in a systemic way).

Why is that?

I would contend the reason schools and schooling is the way it is - is because of the initial conditions that were present when the idea of free public schooling was conceived. In other words, the patterns established at the early stages of the development of the schooling system are the very same patterns that make it difficult, if not impossible, for schools and schooling to do the things on the list above.

In other posts in this blog I have written about some of the original conditions.

The free public school system was created to 'school' the 20% of the young people that were too poor to attend a private (meaning a paid) school. The intention for this free public school system was to provide 'the basics' (reading, writing, and arithmetic) so that these poor young people would be good citizens and there would be less crime.

In another recent post the origins of the high school system was discussed. High schools were designed to educate about 5% of the young men in this country so they could make the connection between elementary school and higher education (college). High schools were designed to be 'feeder' schools for colleges.

From a recent article by ASCD Executive Director, Gene Carter:

This month, as high school students across the United States receive their diplomas, our failure to improve that system will be evident in the number of students who don't. Studies of graduation rates indicate that nearly one-third of high school students drop out before graduating. That means that one student drops out every 26 seconds; between 6,000 and 7,000 drop out every school day; and 1.2 million drop out every year. Among African American and Hispanic students, the graduation rate is about 55 percent, or roughly one in every two students.

Furthermore, the studies raise questions about whether the students who do graduate will be prepared with the problem-solving, critical-thinking, and oral and written communication skills needed to succeed in an increasingly global market—questions that are echoed in the public's perception of high schools as reported in last year's Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll. The poll found that 40 percent of respondents do not think most public school students leave high school prepared for college, while 50 percent think the same students do not leave school prepared to do skilled jobs.

Today the cry is to transform schools to teach 21st Century Skills. These include life and career skills, innovation and learning skills, as well as information, media and technology skills.

It is clear that schools and schooling as we know them have not changed much since their conception. Sensitivity to initial conditions - and the patterns initially established when schools were first implemented - make changing schools very difficult. Even when we know what 'should be done' it still isn't.

That makes me think that we need to change our thinking about what schools and schooling are, why they exist, and what they should do. Schools and schooling must be re-conceived and re-designed if we are to establish patterns that can be useful and successful now and in the future.

Do Schools Kill Creativity

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:23:00 +0000

Do Schools Kill Creativity?

To me, this is a rhetorical question but I believe there are people in the world that might not think so. There are many people in the world that have no desire or see no need to change the public school system - except maybe to 'get back to the basics' (which are reading, writing, and arithmetic).

Human beings have a natural capacity to learn, to change, to grow, to improve and to create. These natural tendencies are systematically drummed out of people that attend public school.

Why? Because the school system wasn't set up to encourage creativity or encourage growth and improvement. The school system was set up to support the industrial revolution and produce people that could follow rules and stay within the lines.

The hierarchy of subjects taught in schools is designed to put the creative elements at the bottom (or not at all). The schooling process values 'academics' and much of the natural capacities that people have.

Here's a short video that makes an argument for the reinvention of schools and for rethinking the fundamental principles we have for school and schooling. He says our task is to educate the whole being of children.

Where Did High School Come From

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:50:00 +0000

This blog is about building a case for redesigning our public schools. In several posts I have commented about the fact our schools are based on a model that was conceived and implemented some time around the 1870's. And it hasn't changed much.

One thing I didn't know is where the design for high school came from. In reading the first chapter of a book called, Personalizing the High School Experience for Each Student, I have learned that it comes from a model to reach about 5% of the young people in this country - and it was developed in the 1890's.

In a previous post I included a table that shows the graduation rates in US High Schools. Now that I understand that High School was really designed to graduate about 5% of the population I think we can reasonably say it's a miracle that more than 50% actually graduate.

In our work we make a distinction between incremental innovation and breakthrough innovation. In a previous post I've asked the question whether schools as we know them need to be improved or redesigned.

I hope we can see that it's time to provide support for the re-invention of public schools and to move beyond incremental improvements and get to breakthroughs. We are, or were, the innovation leader in the world. With a public school system that we have now that leadership is surely in jeopardy.

Here's a quote from the first chapter of that book:

In the 1890s, Harvard College, a regional institute of higher education, desired to become a national university. To guide Harvard leaders in how to do this and to ensure that they would be getting students from across the country who were properly prepared to be successful in higher education, the college convened the Carnegie Commission. Yes, we're talking about that Carnegie Commission—the commission that decided that our high school students needed to earn course credits based on seat time. This 19th century concept, which is based solely on educating students who would be able to go on to Harvard, is still the basic organizing structure of our high schools in the 21st century.

The United States in the 1890s was a country whose population felt that an education past the 4th grade was a waste of time for most individuals. It was a country where high school was only for those who needed the connection between elementary school and higher education. It was a country where very few women and at most 5 percent of the young men went to college. That's who our high schools were designed to educate: 5 percent of our young men. The rest of our adolescents were employed in our mills, mines, and farms.

Project Based Learning

noreply@blogger.com (Michael Kaufman) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:13:00 +0000

Here's a video describing a software tool that supports project based learning and aligning projects with state standards. The tool is called Project Foundry. The school is somewhere in Milwaukee.