I’ve long had an idea of what kind of school I’d like my child(ren?) to attend, but I’ve had a hard time articulating it.  Fortunately, there are plenty of smart and creative bloggers and academicians out there that help me learn and think.  In fact, I still can’t articulate everything fully, so you’ll have to settle for a few links.

So, for me, the future of schooling is approximately:

THIS +THIS + THIS + THIS + THIS

Ubiquitous computing and, therefore, ubiquitous learning.  Knowledge as rhizomatic and negotiated.  IEPs for every child.

I can dream, right?

Tags: education, future, knowledge, learning, school

There’s quite a bit of really good edublogging and commenting that lies at the intersection of “change” and “21st Century Schools” (see e.g. Chris Lehmann’s blog and Will Richardson’s blog).  As one who has studied extensively the research and literature on school reform, school change, policy implementation, etc., I’m having a hard time with a few aspects of the conversations that are going on.

First of all, what are we changing?  Are we talking about a classroom (i.e. changing one teacher’s pedagogy?)?  Are we talking about changing multiple classrooms?  Are we talking about changing a whole school?  Are we talking about changing the whole institution of public schooling?  Those are all very different scenarios and require very different approaches.  And, it gets back to the macro vs. micro distinction I made in my last blog post.

More importantly, though, let’s please consider that there is a HUGE, DEEP pool of research and literature on school change. There’s not a huge need to re-think this stuff; there’s a lot to be learned from what has already been learned.

In the mid 1970’s, the Rand Corporation conducted a national study of four federally funded programs “intended to introduce and support innovative practices in the public schools.”  The Rand researchers examined a sample of 293 local projects funded by these four federal programs in 18 states.  This so-called “Change Agent” study remains the paragon of all “implementation” studies.  According to Milbrey McLaughlin (1990), one of the principal investigators on the Change Agent study:

“…the following strategies generally were seen to be ineffective:

• reliance on outside consultants
• packaged management approaches
• one-shot, pre-implementation training
• pay for training
• formal, summative evaluation
• comprehensive, system-wide projects

The following strategies generally were effective, especially when applied in concert:

• concrete, teacher-specific and extended training
• classroom assistance from local staff
• teacher observation of similar projects in other classrooms, schools, or districts
• regular project meetings that focused on practical issues
• teacher participation in project decisions
• local development of project materials
• principals’ participation in training (p. 12)”

Since the 1970’s we’ve learned even more about change and policy implementation.  McLaughlin revisited the study in an article in 1990.  Her main conclusion there was that some of the findings of the original study needed to be reconsidered, but mostly, things remained the same.  “A general finding of the Change Agent study that has become almost a truism is that it is exceedingly difficult for policy to change practice, especially across levels of government (p. 12)”  In one study I conducted, I was able to determine that of all the variance in student computer use across the country, less than 2% could be accounted for by differences in state-level policies.  An additional study of the effects of state-level policies on pedagogy showed that 3% of the variance in teaching practices could be attributed to state-level polcies.  As the Change Agent study taught us, effective change in schools doesn’t happen by “adoption,” it happens by mutual adaptation; the adaptation of a project or policy and the organizational setting to each other.

So, what does this all mean?  Well, I think we’d all to well to internalize the bullets above as a list of what works.  First, one-and-done, sit-and-git PD doesn’t work; it has to be ongoing and as close to the classrooms/teachers as possible.  Second, teachers must be included in the change process, especially as learners.  Third, leadership must be involved at all stages and at all levels.  Finally, change is interpreted locally and the context of the institution adapts along with the change.

I also want to bring our attention to the final bullet in the list of ineffective strategies: comprehensive, system-wide projects don’t work.  We can’t change the system all at once.  So, it seems to me that School 2.0 is going to have to come about in one of two ways.  Either we get enough teachers and leaders to understand why change needs to happen in their schools and HOW that happens effectively (and what not to do).  Or, we go outside the “system.”

Tags: change, Rand, reform, school, systems

There’s an interesting discussion happening in a comment thread over at Will Richardson’s blog.  If I could summarize, I’d say the conversation is about how large-scale, future-oriented school change might happen.  Will and others are searching for ways to make change happen consistent with what he and we know about what’s possible.  I particularly like the idea of folks like Will delivering keynotes at conferences such as AASA and ASCD.  I think the ed. tech. echo chamber needs to “infiltrate” the general ed. world.

It occurs to me, though, that someone (me?) also needs to infiltrate higher education and schools of education in particular.  I can’t speak for all schools of education, and what evidence I do have is anecdotal.  But, here’s what I believe to be happening in the places that serve pre-service teachers and school leaders:

• Courses on school change or school reform, if they are offered at all, are typically taught in departments of educational leadership.  That’s understandable, but shouldn’t pre-service teachers understand theories of change?
• The school reform courses typically focus on reform per se; i.e. how does change happen (theories of change).  However, there’s not much emphasis on the “why” or the “towards what”.  There might be some discussion of changing school climate or school culture, but I don’t know of many education faculty members who are leading courses on future-oriented change.
• The technology courses are just that, courses.  Typically, a pre-service teacher ed. program will include one (maybe two) standalone tools-oriented courses (here’s how you can use PowerPoint with your kids!).  The use of technology is not integrated across the teaching methods courses.  You’ll typically find one faculty member in each department of teaching and learning who is the “tech. prof.”  She/he teaches those standalone courses.
• I know that in the school of education in which I currently work, and the one I left last year, there are no cross-department conversations about the future of education.  Everyone is so focused on the here and now, meeting accreditation demands and other practical matters of making sure our students are prepared to work with their students.

So, my number one priority for this year is to make change happen locally.  I’m going to insist that my colleagues join me in learning about the future of education and the future of schooling.  As that happens, we’ll discuss the implications for us as professors of education.  I will argue that we are preparing educators for an outmoded system; others will push back.  That would be wonderful.

photo credit: MarmotChaser

Tags: education, future, reform, school, technology