What time is it? Where are you?

If you are familiar with the book Way of the Peaceful Warrior then you are familiar with the reference “What time is it?” and “Where are you?” Way of the Peaceful Warrior is advertised as

A book that could change your life: When Dan Millman was a young man, he expected that hard work would eventually bring a life of comfort, wisdom, and happiness. Yet, despite his many successes, he was haunted by the feeling that something was missing. Awakened by dark dreams one night, Dan found himself at a gas station with an old man named Socrates, and his world was changed forever. 

In this autobiography Dan describes Socrates as a mentor who seems to ask these unusually out of place questions at times when Dan is confused, anxious, and basically out of sorts.  The questions are meant to ground Dan in order to keep him in the present as the appropriate response to each are:

Q.  What time is it?   A. Now

Q.  Where are you?  A. Here

    Over the years as I am in and out of classrooms while having conversations with teachers I have had this urge to ask, “What time is it?” and “Where are you?” when teachers lament that they need to do “X” because next year the students are going to have to do it at “Y” school/grade.  The teachers are anxious about how they are going to get the students ready and concerned for what might happen to the young people in the future. This has happened at every level in our district even though "X" isn't necessarily appropriate for the young person's current grade level. However, it does seem to be a universal burden that many teachers unnecessarily bear. I get their concerns, but the best thing we can do is to focus on what we can and should be doing now at this particular grade level or class (here).  In short, we need to focus on the process in order to obtain the product we desire and not the other way around. (Spec #4 from A New Narrative for Our Schools)

     One of the best analogies for describing schools is to look at them as a greenhouse (also see Adopting a Greenhouse Philosophy for Schools), because ultimately the success of any school, like a greenhouse, should be measured by how healthy, how strong, and how “deeply rooted” the individuals are that leave the school.  Our young peoples’ metaphorical “roots” are those qualitative skills that are “under the surface” such as: collaboration, communication, empathy, perseverance, critical thinking, etc.  The greenhouse is intended to provide the ideal conditions for the plant’s roots to develop, so that those roots will be able to anchor, support, and provide nutrients to the plant no matter the environment in which the plant is placed.  So too should the environment in our schools nurture the “roots” of young people as these “roots” will allow young people to be anchored and supported no matter the environment (school, work, or military) in which they place down their roots.  

     Keeping this analogy in mind, we would be shocked to find the caretaker of a greenhouse subjecting the seedlings in a greenhouse to intense heat from a heat lamp and denying water to these vulnerable plants because there is a chance that when they leave the greenhouse the plants could be exposed to extreme heat and drought. These actions by the caretaker would actually stunt root growth.  We would instead expect the caretaker to respond in the opposite manner. Those plants with the deepest and strongest roots would have the best chance to survive a drought, so it is important for the caretaker of a greenhouse to nurture the roots of each developing seedling under ideal conditions. The caretaker is focusing on the here and now in order to best prepare the young seedlings for the future  If this is true for the greenhouse caretaker, then why do so many of us educators put young people in situations in school akin to a heat lamp in the name of getting students ready for the next grade level or level of schooling? 

In schools we instead need to be focusing on what we should be doing that is appropriate for this grade level or class. Learning is developed along a continuum and if we sacrifice the here and now in the name of the “what ifs” further down the continuum then young people in our classrooms will not be prepared for the next steps.   We will have completed a self fulfilling prophecy that we were so anxious about in the first place. However, if we do focus on what we have control of and the next appropriate steps for the young people in our classroom we will be nurturing their roots which will best prepare them for their next steps. It is the opposite of what we often find ourselves doing, but exactly what we should be doing.  So, the next time we find ourself or a colleague getting anxious about the young people in our classroom not being ready for all the things they might need to do in the next grade level we should stop and remember to ask, “What time is it?” and “Where are you?” We will find those questions will refocus us on what is important and needed. In fact, I suspect these grounding questions will bring about a sense of peace that will ultimately lead to being more impactful educators.  One might even say we would be following the Way of the Peaceful Educator.  

A New Narrative for Our Schools

Each year the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) puts out a report card for both school districts and buildings in Ohio.  For the second time in as many years in which the district letter grade rating has been given, the Aurora City Schools was recognized with an “A” designation.  We are one of only 31 districts in the state with the mark. I intentionally use the term “mark” because, although the “A” is the highest designation that the state can give for a district, I feel the letter grade leaves a mark on our district that undermines the real work taking place in the classroom.  It is much easier for the community or even the schools for that matter to use the “A” sound byte as a measure of the district’s success rather than to highlight what is happening in the schools that yield such a product. In other words, I feel it is more important to share the process of learning taking place with the community more than the product that ODE seems to be promoting.  The question is how can we change that narrative to one in which our community can easily understand and use to highlight the district?

     One suggested narrative is to share that the learning environments we are creating or trying to create in the schools will lead to young people having the skills they need to be prepared for life.   Those skills should not be limited to knowing how to be taught and take tests, but should instead emphasize knowing how to learn and apply said skills. In order to do this, we need to design environments that promote using the skills and then promote the application of these skills to the community.  Let’s start with how to design these learning environments.

     The shift from a traditional model of schools which emphasizes curriculum delivery to a model in which young people are prepared for life can be made if we focus on five main ideas or specifications when designing our classroom environments.

Specification 1: Honoring Identity Through Relationships

Relationships need to include trust, respect, and empathy, such that all people, younger and older, value each other. All people are equal partners in the learning experience with each person having a voice.  The moment an environment dictates how or what a learner thinks, is the same moment their opportunity for learning is lost. 

Specification 2: Learning is Social

The design of all learning environments should honor the social aspect of our humanity.  The environment should provide abundant opportunities for collaboration, social engagement, and for young people to freely reflect and challenge the thinking of others and themselves.  

Specification 3: Nurturing Innovation

Our learning environments should be designed so our young people have as much ownership as possible. If young people are not given autonomy and the freedom to fail [take risks, experiment, make mistakes] authentic learning cannot exist. The brain develops according to how it's used and therefore environments should promote active reflection and productive struggle by giving young people meaningful practice in iterating through failure, even at the cost of efficiency. Helping our young people discover their interests and passions are essential for fueling their innovation process.

Specification 4: Process vs. Product

Learning is not an outcome, it is a process.  Well-designed learning environments should demonstrate that content within a curricular area is merely a medium, a backdrop. The content within our design is used to explore the process of deep and meaningful learning. Correspondingly, the design of the environment should not optimize on content delivery and coverage.  We strive to develop young people who are not merely good at knowing how to be taught, but who actually know how to learn.  

Specification 5: Beyond Points and Grades

Extrinsic motivation, as facilitated by grades and points, naturally diminishes the process of learning. It causes the acquisition of knowledge to become superficial and mechanical, and leads to a fear of failure within the learner. Deep, authentic learning is a result of an environment, driven not by grades and points, but designed to promote independent ownership, goal-setting, and self-reflection.

Anyone who has seen these specifications loves them and what’s not to love.  They are hard to argue against and especially so if you have a child in the district.  By the way, these specs are not “my” specs, but were developed by a group of educators in our district in which I was a part (Spec #2- Learning is Social).  They also were not easily developed, but were generated after much struggle and passion filled arguments for or against certain aspects of learning (Spec #3- Nurturing Innovation).  The development of these specifications do demonstrate the value of the process of learning over the product (Spec #4- Process over Product) and the importance of not being lulled into believing the rating of an “A” from ODE is the end goal (Spec #5- Beyond Points and Grades).  If we design learning environments in our schools using these five design specifications there is no question our young people will not be just good at being taught and taking tests, but will be prepared for life. I believe these “five specs” can not only be used as blue-print for how to design such learning environments, but can also be used to share “why” this type of learning is needed.  In short, I believe these “five specs” could be our new narrative or “sound bite” to the community. A point of concern might be, what evidence do we use for this type of learning taking place? 

     Although strong test scores will be a natural byproduct of the learning taking place in schools, I would avoid referencing these “grades,’ but instead go straight to the source. That source being the young people in our schools.   We can share stories, videos, and other evidence of learning with parents through phone calls, newspaper articles, tweets, and even conversations at Heinen’s. However, the most important avenue which demonstrates what is valued in our schools is through the experiences that the young people who go to our schools share with their parents.  What if those experiences demonstrate a narrative shift from the Aurora City Schools being an “A” district to the Aurora City Schools being a district which prepares young people for life?  How do the schools prepare young people for life?  In grades K-12, the schools design learning environments that honor identity through relationships, understand learning is social, nurture innovation, value process over product, and go beyond points and grades.  Now that is a narrative I can get behind and a sound byte that emphasizes why we send our kids to the Aurora City Schools.  

 

Considerations for Empathy & Understanding

We have a new course at our high school titled “Innovative Design and Progressive Manufacturing” and it is based on young people learning and applying the Design Thinking Process to a problem of their choosing.  I have visited the class a few times, but this week one of the teachers of the course shared a quick overview of what the young people were doing in class. In particular, the young people were struggling with the first step of the design thinking process which is empathy.  Empathy, in this case, is defined as developing an understanding of the needs, thoughts, and motivations of the person for which you are designing a solution or product. Apparently, the young people in class are struggling with slowing down to understand the problem. They want to jump right into producing a product to “solve” the problem.  As a result, they end up spending a lot of time on the wrong problem because they didn't have an understanding of the need. This didn’t come as too much of a surprise as these young people have spent years in schools which are designed to optimize on product over process and efficiency over empathy. However, an unforeseen connection I did make was the similarities between the design thinking process and “Plan B” from Dr. Ross Greene’s “Lost at School”.

Lost at School is a great read which I highly recommend.  It addresses the fact that young people who struggle in school with behavioral issues are not intentionally trying to be a burden or cause issues.  Greene believes the first step in working with young people struggling with behavioral issues in school is to “achieve the best possible understanding of a kid’s concern or perspective related to a given problem” (Greene, 2014, p.79).  In other words, the first step to Plan B is Empathy. (Plan A, by the way. is basically “my way or the highway” and it usually doesn’t work in these situations.) Like the young people in the Design Learning class, many adults have a tendency to rush through or even skip this first important step in the process.  Empathy as the first step in Plan B and the Design Thinking Process is not the only similarity between these two approaches.

Design Thinking Process Stages -Empathize -Define -Ideate -Prototype -Test

Plan B Steps -Empathy -Define Adult Concerns -Invitation Step +Start with young person’s ideas to solve the problem +Key is to collaboratively come up with a realistic and mutually satisfactory prototype solution +Test the solution

Neither the Design Thinking Process stages or Plan B steps are necessarily linear.  Of course certain steps must not be skipped over when first designing a solution in either process but there are many opportunities to revisit ideas, adapt based on testing, and revise.  They key for being successfull in both of these processes is to slow down and put a lot of time into the first two stages. That is to say, we need to be sure we don’t skip straight to trying to solve the problem, but instead slow down in order to understand needs, thoughts, and motivations (empathy) and define the problem (not the symptoms of the problem).  Albert Einstein in his well known quote about the importance of slowing down to understand and define a problem stated, "If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask...for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minute."

I have often said, in education time is currency.  How we spend it demonstrates what we value. Too often we, all educators, spend time racing to cover material in order to get answers (produce a product) and we rush right past developing an understanding of the young person’s needs (where they are) and what the next steps should be to help them to build off their current understanding (defining the problem).  In other words we skip the first two steps of the aforementioned effective problem solving methods. I wonder how much more effective educators could be if we designed our lessons with these two methods in mind? Skipping these steps often means we are spending time and energy on the wrong question to solve. Like Einstein, if we take the time to understand the problem our limited time will be better spent. Certainly many teachers are shifting the classroom focus from product to process, but do the keys to this shift include slowing down to consider empathy and defining the problem?  I also suspect we would find that although on the surface a course of study (COS) for a subject area looks linear the most effective COS documents are non-linear in nature. That is to say, the most effective plans are developed through the lens of empathy and understanding and are designed to be implemented with flexibility to include revisiting, refining, and redesigning. This is a shift in thinking, but one that would positively affect the young people in our classrooms much like Plan B or the Design Thinking Process. If we can make this shift, I strongly believe we would begin to look at our profession less as delivers of information and more as designers for learning.

References

Greene, Ross. (2014).  Lost at School: Why Our Kids with Behavioral Challenges Are

    Falling Through the Cracks and How We Can Help Them. New York, NY: Scribner.

Understanding Why the Struggle is Important

Standford University Professor and Math Guru Jo Boaler recently published “Limitless Mind” which I am just starting to get into this week.  I guess the book will eventually share “the six keys of learning” (Boaler, 2019, p. 8), but the first 50 pages contain a heavy dose of growth mindset and the power of productive struggle.  It is this power of productive struggle that my mind seemed to be focused on this week. Operating within the zone of proximal development and/or productive struggle has been a blog topic in the past.  In fact, I feel like I should bring up that in They do not understand shallowness because they do not experience depth (from January 2017) there is a great video from Robert Kaplinsky addressing productive struggle.  Productive struggle is definitely an important topic for all educators to consider, but it is not the “what” of productive struggle that I was wrestling with, but rather more of the “why”.  

     Why don’t young people see the power of productive struggle?  I don’t think it is because they are lazy. That is an often used cop out statement from educators that rely on BCD (Blame/Complain/Defend) to justify not changing their practices. At the same time there is something to the question.  Research has shown that college students favor lectures over a more active learning approach, often called active instruction, even if lectures have shown to be a less effective learning instruction technique.  Again, why is that the case?  Could it be because, when struggling, young people often get that feeling of helplessness?  Kaplinsky alludes to this when discussing unproductive struggle. That is to say if there isn’t a feeling of hope or support a young person might quickly give up on the struggle.  They are therefore operating outside of the zone of proximal development. Certainly unproductive struggle is... unproductive, but I wonder if the issue has to do more with young people understanding “why” teachers would put them in that situation and having trust in the teacher more than knowing “what” is productive struggle? 

      I have heard educators introduce the why of productive struggle to young people, but often times it is assumed that one introduction is all that is needed. I really believe that when first dealing with any struggle we all need a constant reminder of why we are either being subjected to such a struggle by someone or why we would subject ourselves to said struggle.  That means that young people need to know the “why” every day and not just as a one time introduction. We have to smile and hit them over the head with the “why”as if it is a 2x4 until they start making the connections.  Believe it or not, that is how we build trust.  Half the battle is being there and supporting young people.  We can’t make the connections for them by offering extrinsic rewards such as candy, gold stars, points, or grades.  Human brains are not built that way. “No one outside influence or force can cause a brain to learn. It will decide on its own.  Thus, one important rule for helping people learn is to help the learner feel she is in control” (Zull, 2002, p. 52). This comes back to empowering young people. 

     Young people don’t really want us to do the work for them or tell them the answers even though that is often the perception in the classroom.  They do need to constantly feel as if the support is there, understand why the struggle is important, and make connections as to how it will help them to grow as a learner.  The origin of the word “teach” comes from the Old English term “techon”, which means “to show”...not to tell. If, as teachers, we keep this in mind each day in the classroom we will provide the opportunity for young people to feel empowered which will naturally lead to making connections to the power of productive struggle.

References

Zull, James (2002).  The Art of Changing the Brain.  Sterling VA: Solution Tree Press.

Stylus Publishing.