I watched a Ted-Talk recently where the speaker addressed innovation in education. The focus of the talk was on a proposed solution to the problems in education. It boiled down to a lack of innovation in education. The speaker correctly pointed out that classrooms in the US have not substantially changed in a century. In talks that I have done, I often make the same point. I show a slide of an operating room from the early 1950’s and then a slide of one in this Century. The changes are breathtaking. In comparison I then show a slide of a 19th century classroom followed by a typical classroom today. In the latter slide the desks lack inkwells, but the rows, as well as most of the surroundings remain the same. The impact of those pictures causes laughter from educators, which seemed to come from recognition, embarrassment, nervousness, frustration and resignation that this indefensible condition is not changing any time soon.
The Ted-Talk speaker went on to suggest that a solution would be to bring into the education system more individuals with less of an education background to present and introduce more innovation. She also pointed to what she referred to as the successes of Teach for America in doing just that. Of course the successes and failures of Teach for America would be the stuff of another post, so I will not enter that quagmire here. My objection to the speaker’s position is that we need not bring in outside innovators to the education system in order to insure innovation. Educators are among the smartest and most educated people in America. Many educators are natural innovators. The success of many educators is a direct result of their innovation in the classroom. It is not for lack of innovators that the system has not sufficiently evolved over the Centuries to adjust and remain relevant; it is the system itself that limits change.
As I speak to many new teachers around the country about their teacher preparation, I am struck by how underprepared many of these kids were when they were sent out to seek employment. It almost seems that the plan is to teach the same basic pedagogy and methodology to be used within a walled classroom that has been employed over the centuries. The hope seems to be that when the student gets a job, his/her employer will mold them into master teachers. To an extent that is true, because the culture of any school or district has a great influence over the development of a young teacher. Schools with effective mentorship programs have a very positive effect.
Often however, those school cultures are steeped in traditions. The long-standing position is usually: this is the way we have always done it, so we will continue to do so. I have seen many pre-service teachers held back from implementing new proven innovative lessons just because it had never been done in that school before and people feared possible consequences. That is not a culture open to any innovator. Compliance is also a big part of many school cultures. Students must be compliant to the teacher, and teachers must be compliant to the administrators, and the head administrator must be compliant to the board. So it is written, and so it shall be done! This is hardly an atmosphere for any innovation to be successful wherever the innovator comes from.
In the history of charter schools they were supposed to be incubators for innovation. The reason charters were exempt from so many mandates, rules, and requirements was to allow innovation to flourish. Of course innovation takes time and time is money, so given the choice between profits or innovation the bottom line must produce a profit. It is just business. So much for Charter school innovation.
Teachers themselves are not blameless in this system of stagnation. Too many are comfortable with what they are doing and how they are doing it. Innovation requires people to leave their areas of comfort. Many hold to these comfort zones even at the expense of the education of their students. If the ways of old were good enough for the teacher, they should be good enough for the student. The focus of teaching kids to live in their world moving forward to their future is lost to accommodate teachers comfortable with their own past. No, this is not true of all teachers, but it should not be the position of any teacher or administrator.
Now we come to standardization. That in itself suggests that innovation has little place in a system that is trying to get everyone on the same page. Of course innovation can address that and it would probably help educators reach their goals more effectively and efficiently if it were supported. The standardized tests however that are a mandated result of standardization are used to force teachers to comply with the tried and true methods of test preparation at the expense of time for any innovation. To insure that teachers adhere to the testing priorities, someone decided to tie teacher evaluations to student performance on standardized tests. That “advance in education” was not innovation’s finest hour. Again, this is yet another counter-productive move in support of innovation in education.
When it comes to innovation in education, there are many educators who have great ideas that could effectively change the “what” and “how” of learning. Many teachers are well aware of the myths of education that are so blindly believed and supported by non-educators, as well as those in control of the system. To effectively innovate in an antiquated system, we do not need outside innovators, but rather our own educated innovative educators to enter the discussion of education. We need a system that not only asks for innovation, but one that welcomes and supports it. We must change the culture before we change the system or it will not matter whom we go to in order to find innovation for relevant education.
Innovation vs. Compliance in Education
December 17, 2014 by Tom Whitby @tomwhitby
As long as “college and career readiness” is the prevailing adopted standard, attempts to carve out room for true, systemic innovation will fail. Unfortunately, the media, public opinion, and even many of my colleagues are under the spell that these goals deserve their priority status. When we begin creating and prioritizing standards for “civic responsibility, media literacy, and creativity” with the same gusto marshaled by corporate education reformers and their witting and unwitting followers, then and only then will real innovation happen. A good start might be refusing to adopt paradigms created by groups wherein working, veteran teachers are not the majority of voices consulted. Conservatives claim (an irrational) fear of having “death panels” decide their medical fate at the end of life. My rational fear is that there are already education death panels making decisions for the beginning of my students’ lives.
Bureaucrats, not bureaucracies, stifle innovation. Bureaucrats rely heavily on the organizational chart to maintain the top-down style of managing or controlling, not leading, an organization. Bureaucrats are great at making rules and developing procedures, both of which stifle innovation and creativity. Bureaucrats want to evaluate not build capacity. On the one hand, bureaucrats say they want innovative teachers and principals, while on the other, they do everything to control and restrict those same principals because that is what bureaucrats are supposed to do.
Bureaucrats believe that they can raise student performance by edict. While doing nothing to increase student math skills, bureaucrats declare that all 8th graders will take Algebra I …whether they are ready or not. Bureaucrats unilaterally terminate science programs and then blame the teachers for low science scores. Bureaucrats reactively stop reading programs and fire teachers and principals because their state test scores drop. Bureaucrats consistently say that there are not quick fixes, but they are always the ones proposing them. They shy away from the real challenges and seek the glamorous that will earn them recognition and promotion. It is the bureaucrats, not principals and teacher leaders, who unilaterally decide that 80% of all high schools start before 8:15 a.m. even though research shows that student achievement would be increased by 10% by starting later.
An accurate observation and one that almost shouts “Let teachers teach”. Education is not seen as a team game, there are more than several partners and differing opinions each one wanting their own way with those on the sidelines controlling the play. I recently wrote an article that echoes many of the issues here where I asked would education recognise the Holy Grail if it was within their grasp? The Holy Grail being an education system that will enable learners to reach their potential and support the development of the skills needed to make their way in the world of tomorrow. My conclusion is that it would not, not until we stop what we are doing and do something different that enables learners to manage their learning environment to meet their learning needs. The trouble is it’s not a big step to take or a big change to adopt and easily within our grasp.
Link to article: “What if there was a simple way of enabling learners to be the best they could be?” http://wp.me/p2LphS-lu
Great blogpost, Tom. Here is a good image to go with it: http://imgur.com/vvmGTXN
[…] Innovation vs. Compliance in Education @tomwhitby tomwhitby.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/inn… […]
Reblogged this on Art Edutech and commented:
#arteducation #education #technology #tedtalk
[…] I watched a Ted-Talk recently where the speaker addressed innovation in education. The focus of the talk was on a proposed solution to the problems in education. It boiled down to a lack of innovat… […]