Everything You Know Is Wrong

Solitude with introspection followed by collaboration is powerful for ideas.

Yesterday, I went for a three mile run in the morning. My brain was churning with lots of ideas related to our upcoming staff development day in January, reflecting on the just completed semester with my graduate students, thinking about what has been accomplished in the last calendar year, and so on.

I followed this up with a phone call to C.S., of my colleagues who is a principal to share my thoughts and to get his take on it. We came to the conclusion: everything we know is wrong.

Try on some of the following theories for size:

1) Professional Development Conferences

Our district and many others spend thousands of dollars a year to send teachers out to professional development conferences on a variety of subjects. Each of these conferences cost anywhere from $100 to upwards of $500, depending upon the location and duration. Since the advent of the 100 hours of professional development requirement by the State of New Jersey in 2000, June brings the annual "counting of the hours" of teachers by administrators. A review of one's Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) usually becomes a teacher producing certificates that proves that they earned PD hours. District spent money. They attended. They get credit. Did anything change?

Analysis: Professional Conferences are not cost or learning efficient. Observations tend to show that teachers return from these conferences hopefully excited and motivated, but that isn't always the case. Only a few of them are research based. I often wonder, what do teachers do three days after the conference has ended. How is what they learned reflected in the learning that students do? Is there a trickle down effect?

Conclusion: In my opinion, good learning is made up of the three "C's": collaboration, conversation, and creation. Whether it is in a classroom, on a job, or at a PD conference, learning should take that form. The problem is, most conferences are "sit and get" or "fill my head with knowledge", a form that we know not to be wholly effective. Why then does it continue that way?

Analogy: I don't learn how to cook by watching the Iron Chef, Rachel Ray, or Emiril. I may be initially engaged or inspired, but unless I get my hands dirty in the kitchen trying to re-create what I've seen, I will not learn. Even if I can document 100 hours of watching cooking shows, I will not be a better cook.

As Brian Crosby alludes, Learning, like cooking, needs to be messy.

If it isn't hands on, it isn't powerful.

2) 21st Century Learning Skills

I'm just as guilty as the rest of us. I throw the phrase "21st century learning skills" around with abandon. What exactly happened in the year 2000 that suddenly changed the skills that were needed? Besides an advancing of technology and amount and speed of information: nothing.

Analysis: Back in the 1950's and 1960's it seemed as if the purpose of school was to get students ready for the world of work and/or the armed forces. College preparation was for a much smaller percentage and back then, having a high school diploma was enough to get you a decent working class job to support yourself and a family. In the 80's and 90's, it seemed as if schools changed. Junior high;s were changed to middle schools. Art and music programs ebbed and flowed. Schools were turning out more students destined for college and it seemed as if the overall goal was to turn out a well rounded student who had good self esteem and played well with others. Suddenly, it seemed as if our goal is to turn out students who are technology and thinking proficient to compete with the Chinese and Indians and others who will knock the US into second world nation state status if schools don't catch up. Baloney.

Conclusion: The focus of schools needs to be what it has been the goal for over 30 years. To produce students who can independently think, think critically, work cooperatively, and problem solve. These ideas didn't suddenly appear. Sure, the medium has changed in that they will be working with digital tools more than kids did in 1985 or 1995. But the goal hasn't changed one bit. We still refer to theorists from decades ago...Vygotsky, Dewey, Deutch...

Here's a grenade to throw: For many teachers who are late adapters of technology and whom it is a struggle to get them to use digital tools to foster these ideas, we shouldn't bother. I would argue it might be more important from them to effectively develop critical thinking, cooperative learning, and analysis skills for their students with paper and chalk rather than do it marginally with a SMART Board and a laptop.

Critical thinking is useful only in those situations where human beings need to solve problems, make decisions, or decide in a reasonable and reflective way what to believe or what to do. That is, just about everywhere and all the time. Critical thinking is important wherever the quality of human thinking significantly impacts the quality of life (of any sentient creature). For example, success in human life is tied to success in learning. At the same time, every phase in the learning process is tied to critical thinking. Thus, reading, writing, speaking, and listening can all be done critically or uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming a close reader and a substantive writer. Expressed most generally, critical thinking is “a way of taking up the problems of life.” (William Graham Sumner, Folkways, 1906)

That was from 100 years ago. I think it is still pertinent today.

3) Change

To get good at something takes time. Whether it is in sports, cooking, technology, marriage, child rearing, or auto repair, it seems that only those who are truly exceptional can master any skill in a short period of time. If there is a problem or a new situation that mandates change, it is difficult for almost anyone to adjust and then be good at the new way without time.

Analysis: "Web 2.0" and digital education have been here for maybe four years? Six years if you were an early adapter? To track change, most theorists seem to say that you need 4-8 years to measure impact. Why then are we so impatient when our teachers, schools, buildings, or students don;t change? I blame technology! We are so used to being instantly gratified with IMs, texting, twitter streams, high speed internet, GPS, You Tube videos, drive through coffee, online banking, overnight shipping, RSS streams, and the like that we expect education to change as quickly.

Conclusion: Give our students, teachers, and most importantly ourselves a break. If I look at yesterday, I might be frustrated because we are not changing or doing things as fast as I think we should. When I look back over what we've accomplished over the past four years, I am pleased. Much like futurists like Karl Fisch and Daniel Pink have us looking forward, we need to also look back to realize how far we've come as well as how much really hasn't changed in the way we "do" education.

Everything I know is right. Everything I know is wrong.