Trying to meet the future by doing what we did in the past

Today I stumbled onto an RSA animate of a speech given by Sir Ken Robinson last year on changing paradigms in education. In this speech Robinson believes that in education we're trying to meet the future by doing what we did in the past.


This is because it's in the gene pool of education.


Public education is a product of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The Enlightenment constructed a view of the mind, and as such the learner and also the curriculum. The Industrial Revolution provided an economic reason for public education. Our present model of schooling is modelled on the interest and the image of industrialism.


Robinson argues that models of learning (and therefore schooling) need to go in the opposite direction to standardisation; standardisation reflected in curriculum and testing. This doesn't imply a lowering of standards.


Below is the RSA animation to the talk (11mins 40 sec).

The full version of the original speech is below (55mins 20secs).

There are a number of questions that arise that perhaps require some divergent thinking!

• What are our new models of learning?
• How can education best meet the future?
• What leadership is needed?
• How can this change be brought about?
• What is needed to make this change last?

After all schools are remarkably resilient places in their present structure.

Bring on the Learning Revolution

Many people would be familiar with Sir Ken Robinson's 2006 TEDTalk, Do schools kill creativity? This is the "follow-up" 4 years later at the 2010 TEDTalk.

Some key points from this TEDTalk are:

• Education dislocates people from their natural talents.
• Reforming education systems is of little use because it's trying to improve a broken model.
• What is required is a revolution that transforms the system into something else.
• Innovation is fundamental to the required transformation.
• We need to challenge what we take for granted.
• The Tyranny of Common Sense works against transformation.
• The Narrative of Linearity in education (ie. it starts here and finishes here) is an example of what is taken fro granted.
• "A three-year old isn't half a six-year old!"
• Education results in conformity through a fast food model.
• Passion is what excites the spirit and gives energy.
• Does education feed people's passions?
• Human flourishing is organic not mechanical.
• "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams." -W.B. Yeats
• Everyday, education treads on children and young people's dreams.

The video of the talk is below.

The Australian National Curriculum. Back to the future?

Earlier this week ACARA released the draft Australian National Curriculum for English, Mathematics, Science and History for general consultation.

Like my colleague, Helen from Rapantred, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the political rhetoric surrounding the release of the draft curriculum.

I attended several forums on the proposed National Curriculum that ACARA held. One of the key messages at these forums was about developing a curriculum for this century that will take Australia forward.

The Shaping Paper from ACARA reflected this:

Changed context

“Schooling must not only deal with these remarkable changes but also, as far as possible, anticipate the kinds of conditions in which young Australians will need to function as individuals, citizens and workers. These future conditions are distant and difficult to predict. We expect almost all young Australians who begin primary school in 2011 will continue their initial education until 2022. Many will go on to post-secondary education and not complete their initial education until the mid-2020s and later. However dimly the demands of societies in the mid-2020s can now be seen, some serious attempt must be made to envisage those demands and to ensure they are taken into account in present-day curriculum development.

A curriculum for the 21^st century will reflect an understanding and acknowledgment of the changing nature of young people as learners and the challenges and demands that will continue to shape their learning in the future. Young people will need a wide and adaptive set of knowledge, skills and understandings to meet the changing expectations of society and to contribute to the creation of a more productive, sustainable and just society.”

The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (2009)

I was impressed with Barry McGaw, and believe him to be a man of integrity, with the ACARA Board seeking to deliver a curriculum for Australia's future.

The political rhetoric is less inspiring.

The Government has been focusing on rhetoric about about a Back-to-basics curriculum (with a hint of the future):

JULIA GILLARD: Kerry, this is basics and beyond. I think the Prime Minister is using the description basics because this is returning to some traditional styles, some traditional curriculum content that has been lost in the last few years in education. So for example, children are learnt to read by sounding out letters - "cuh, ah, tuh: cat" - and of course children are going to be taught grammar at every level - sentence construction, nouns, verbs - all of those things that perhaps you and I were taught when we were at school which haven't been common in teaching of late. But this is curriculum for kids from the first year - prep or kindergarten; it's called different things in different states - through to Year 10, so we don't have kids in year 10 going, "cuh, ah, tuh: cat". By then, of course, we hope that they are studying rich lit

erature works, but this curriculum does continue to have literacy support through each year level. So rather than saying we teach literacy to young kids and if you miss the bus, well, too bad, even for the older children, if they still need literacy support, it will be there.

As Helen points out, the basics (phonics, grammar) have been a part of the English syllabus here in New South Wales for a while.

Meanwhile we have an opposition attempting to generate old debates: Black arm band views of History and over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture at the expense of British traditions and British heritage.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I note that there are 118 references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture.

Curriculum development is always contentious. But I'm not sure how this sort of rhetoric leads to the development of a world-class education system for the future.

It seems that the more the Government develops its Education Revolution the more things stay the same: testing, school halls, laptops. Perhaps all good for what is today - but it seems to be a case of the more things change the more they stay the same.

Maybe that's what revolutions are about - finishing up where you started.

Images:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/schoolexamREX_468x360.jpg

http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/news/2009/06/10/aap_students_465x288_100609_t325.jpg

What would be a real revolution in education?

Here in Australia there is a show on the ABC called QandA, Adventures in Democracy.

The show’s format essentially is to have a panel of 5 people consisting of politicians, activists, community group representation moderated by a journalist. Questions are put to the panellists.

The ABC saw that recent show (Thursday 6th August 2009)

"was a special episode of Q&A in which the leaders of the present discussed the issues of the day with the leaders of tomorrow. The entire audience and three of the panel members were in the 16-25 age bracket….” (from transcript accessed 8th August 2009).

The panellists on the show were Julia Gillard (Deputy Prime Minister), Malcolm Turnbull (Leader of the Opposition), Sara Haghoodsti (climate change activist), Mitchell Grady (law student) and Linden Brownley (indigenous advocate).

The following question was put to the panel by Jono Leonard:

"I would like to ask a question in regard to the Labor party's 'Education revolution'. Should the government be focusing more of the $14.7 billion away from infrastructure and more towards productive means of education such as smaller class sizes, and better trained teachers? Shouldn't all teachers be 'superteachers'?"

The discussion was interesting, but at times I found a little irritating.

So what irritated me?

Reference to quality teachers, rather than quality of teaching. This resonated with a discussion I was part of at a recent forum I attended where it was noted that discussions around health care don’t focus on Quality Doctors; discussions about the legal system doesn’t focus on Quality Lawyers, Barristers and Judges.

In talking about quality teachers it is implied that there is a pervasive lack of quality teachers.

Greg Whitby recently tweeted about this:

Can any one explain what a quality teacher is? Mustn't all teachers be doing quality work or they shouldn't be teaching?

Statements from that panelists that the solution lies in “a) the curriculum; and b) having quality teachers to interpret and teach that curriculum” over simplifies the complexity of the work of teachers.

Further statements that “our numeracy rates are lowering. Our literacy standards are lowering. We're not going to fix that with a new gymnasium. We're going to fix that with better teachers teaching better curriculum” create a crisis that doesn’t exist by all accounts from international testing.

Such understandings can lead to attempts to teacher-proof the curriculum which lead us nowhere.

"Putting disinfectant right through the system"

Discussion moved into the publishing of schools' results publicly to allow for comparisons of "like schools". Publishing results to allow for comparisons of like-schools may well serve parent choice (though probably not those in disadvantaged communities). It does not however serve learning. The example of league tables in the UK and policies such as No child left behind in the US, that purported transparency and public accountability, have actually compounded the problem.

Julia Gillard, in response to a question in relation to disadvantage and publication of school performance data stated

“We can make a difference to that disadvantage if we focus on it.

That's what the transparency I was asked about [publishing performace data] is all about - putting disinfectant right through the system, every school, putting their results up so we can see where the problems are.”

An interesting analogy – “putting disinfectant right through the system.” Does it presuppose an infected system in need of cleansing, or at least prevention against possible infection?

World's best school systems

The McKinsey Report (2007), How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top, studied 25 of the world's school systems, inlcuding 10 of the top performers. This study, conducted by Barber and Mourshed , identified that

“The experience of these top schools systems suggests that three things matter most: 1) getting the right people to become teachers, 2) developing them into effective instructors and, 3) ensuring that the system is able to deliver the best possible instruction for every child.”

This involves society, including politicians, appreciating the complex work of teachers and valuing that work and what it does contribute to society in terms that are broader than the predominant economic ones.

The issues are complex and require well thought out and whole system solutions. This, I think, requires smarter policies with a view to the long term and the future, not a short term political cycle.

It requires a view that says that our students need basic skills as well as skills and capabilities for an uncertain future. Our students need to understand oppression, patriarchy and discrimination to create a civil society – not just learn to spell these words; and indeed they can understand the concepts without necessarily being able to spell them!

They will require skills and capabilities to engage in and solve the problems they will face them: global warming, the water crisis, learning to live with diversity in a globalised world.

They also require teachers who can teach for uncertain futures. Teachers who understand learning and how today's world shapes how young people learn. Teachers that understands digital natives; but also understand that not all students use digital technology the same way or are in fact digital natives.

This requires time and space for teachers to learn. It has been argued by Professor Brian Caldwell that teachers should spend 20 days a year in professional learning.

The Australian Education Revolution, whilst well intentioned may not move us that much forward.

It seems to me that schooling, as presently experienced in disadvantaged communities, isn’t working well for those communities. Maybe there needs to be less emphasis on the business of schooling and being concerned with how to do school, and a stronger focus on learning and how learning is mediated, of which school maybe a part. This requires structural and institutional changes, not just “quality teachers”.

The Building Education Revolution doesn’t seem to be paying attention to creating spaces for learning, but rather seems to be replicating what has been – halls, gymnasiums, rooms for classes.

The Digital Education Revolution doesn’t appear to be paying much attention to emerging technologies. Laptops for every student may be superseded but more flexible, mobile technologies that can achieve the same. Maybe this is because those that design the policies don't engage with the technologies.

Understand learning

For me part of the solution lies in teachers better understanding learning and how to support the learning of a diverse group of students and engage them in learning. There is no one size fits all. The “cookie cutter” or “production-line” approach to schooling doesn’t serve us well today.

• What if the focus were on learning and not schooling?
  
• What if the profession of teaching were charged with the responsibility for ensuring the quality of teaching?
  
• What if every backbencher worked in spaces with teachers for a week every year?
• What if teachers had professional learning that focused on solving the complex problems of ensuring learning for all?

Great educational experiences depend on great teaching that takes place in great spaces (virtual and real), supported by great professional learning with great valuing of the complexity and significance of educators by the community.

I am left wondering, “What would be a real revolution in education?”

Images:

http://www.portablecontent.com/static/files/assets/5d49d0f2/teacherstech.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/4/4272852_fa4b4a45f4.jpg

http://cafnr.missouri.edu/images/news/iphone-radar.jpg

http://warwick.creativeblogs.net/files/2008/02/ss850258.JPG

Education systems - too narrow and backward looking

During the last week Sir Ken Robinson was interviewed on ABC's 7:30 Report.

I've always liked Sir Ken Robinson since I first saw his TEDTalk, Do schools kill creativity.

The interviews we're shown in two 15 minutes sessions over two nights.

He raises a number of interesting points (as is usual) which caught my imagination.

How can you educate for productive future?

This is a challenge that many schools are trying to address in exploring 21st Century learning. Recently I was working with a Principal who was preparing a submission for a National Quality Teaching Award. At the heart of the schools innovation was the desire to provide learning experiences that prepare the students with skills and understandings to engage with issues facing us today that will shape the future.

We have the power of imagination and capacity to solve the problems that face us.

Kids that start school in Kindergarten this year will be retiring in 2070.

No one knows what 2070 will look like.

Robinson argues that most education reforms are backwards-looking. They are trying to address existing systems that are the result of the Industrial Revolution.

There are some real challenges for the future. Robinson believes that politicians should stop trying to teacher-proof the education system through the curriculum and testing regimes. Teachers need to be given the room to breath and do their jobs.

It was interesting that the same day Greg Whitby (Executive Director, Catholic Education, Diocese of Parramatta) had tweeted:

anyone else frustrated with latest fed govt partnerships model for supporting learning and teaching. No explicit principles underpinning them

He is right (I think). The National Partnerships that form part of the "National Education Revolution" here in Australia lack any real principles of learning and are another political attempt at teacher proofing. The way forward may lie in the National Partnership: Teacher Quality - but I fear not, unless the profession, through organisations such as the Australian College of Educators, takes some leadership over this agenda

The same is true to some extent with the Building Education Revolution that is largely replicating school buildings from last century; or the Digital Education Revolution which is seeing a roll out of laptops in secondary schools. Why not handheld devices?

There is a need for robust conversations around what education should be and could be; and what schools and schooling will look like within that.

The interviews are below:

Part 1 (13 minutes)

Part 2 (12 minutes)

Playing Spaces, Learning Spaces

I love FutureLab! I always enjoying getting their newsletter. The February 2009 Newsletter linked through to a presentation by Tim Rudd (photo left) on Re-imagining the design of outdoor play and learning spaces.

Whilst the presentation is about 43 minutes in length, it is well worth having a look at. The screen shot below is linked to the presentation.



The presentation explores the link between school design and personalisation. The challenge is put forward that school design requires visioning and thinking differently.

I think this is particularly pertinent with the recent announcement (4 February, 2009) by the Australian Government to fund 7,700 primary schools to construct or upgrade buildings.

There is a danger that we set about building the same style of buildings that will not serve us well into the future.

Tim Rudd from FutureLab puts forward the challenge to place children at the centre of the design process and to involve children as co-designers.

In the presentation a number of questions are posed that got me thinking - no answers - just lots of thoughts!

• Should we be even thinking in terms of "school"?


• How do you actually think of a school as a learning community?


• How are children involved in the co-design of learning spaces?


• Do our environments really constitute areas that really stimulate people and get them to think and relax and play as well?

He argues that in building schools there has been a lack of emphasis on outdoor learning spaces

"because it’s building schools and everybody automatically starts to think about the structure."

He believes that outdoor spaces in schools are often under-utilised and often unimaginative.

In developing outdoor learning spaces he explores the place of technologies (handheld and projection technologies) and the possibilities for developing sensory environments.

FutureLab have also published a handbook, Reimagining outdoor learning spaces which maybe of interest.

Creativity, Innovation and Learning

Late last year I was contacted by a consulting company who has been commissioned by the European Commission to identify a list of Good Practice for Fostering Creativity and Innovation in all sectors of society within EC countries.

This project has been commissioned as part of 2009 European Year of Creativity and Innovation.

Despite being located in Australia, they had come across my "extensive work on learning and innovation" (their words), and thought that I might be able to help them identify practices that I may have come across in the EU.

They are seeking practices and projects targeted at:

• Stimulating innovative/creative behaviour in people, and



• Promoting an innovative/creative approach to tackle problems in society.

I think they would probably be aware of the work of the places I visited on my Churchill Fellowship but I put forward some recommendations.

What captured my imagination though was the focus on creativity and innovation. It sounds much more promising than the Australian Government's Education Revloution.