What future for education? A final reflection

"You have to speak your dream out loud." Kelly Corrigan

Well we have come to the end of our course, What future for education? and a final task was to prepare a TED-like Talk to share our vision for education. Based on the reflections from the classes and my personal musings and experience, I shared my thoughts about primary education. The resulting video is cringe-worthy (honest feedback from my son!), but the sentiment is heart-felt. And so, rather than subject any followers of this blog to my video attempt, I decided to share the script as a post. Of course, you need to imagine me talking from a red circle of carpet with a five minute time frame, and hearing a school bell sound at the beginning! 

Bell on Pixabay, CC 0

"A school bell. What runs through your mind when you hear this sound? I’m late for class! Or, time for lunch. I’m sure you can imagine students lining up, chatting with their friends before school starts. Walking in, being greeted by their teacher. Handing in homework. Settling down into their desks, waiting to hear the plan for the day. Reading, math, a language lesson. Maybe a quiz. There will be time for recess, for lunch. There might even be an opportunity to start on a project, being assigned a group and a topic, but students won’t have time to finish because it will be time for the next class. Then the bell will ring again and the teacher will say, ‘Don’t forget about your homework.'

This is an easy scenario for us to imagine because the organisational structure of public elementary schools has not really changed since its inception. Sure, advancements in technology over the past 25 years has challenged us to think about global collaboration and our students' access to information. We may even be more aware of the value of student-centred inquiry and allow for students to engage in the famous Google 20% time, or Genius Hour as it is sometimes called. But at the end of the day, in most elementary schools, that bell still rings and the teachers still organise learning based on the factory model of education.* 

So why is this a problem? For starters, we’ve learned quite a lot about how we learn since the creation of public education.** But do our schools reflect this? 

We know that we learn best when we feel safe. Brain research has shown the interconnectedness of the cognitive and emotional systems of the brain. When students are in a positive emotional state, they are more able to learn. Yet, schools are organised to cause stress. We put artificial times in place, asking students to start an activity only to stop them and then hurry on to the next thing. We have stressed teachers who rush students in order to cover required content before testing students to see if they have learned the material. If students are late or do not complete assigned homework they are often chastised or made to feel badly about their performance. Elementary schools can be places of great stress. 

Photo by Leo Rivas-Micoud CC 0

But, what if we removed the artificial time boundaries? What if we removed assigning homework or mandating content? What if there were no exams? What if schools were designed to be places of inquiry? Places where students could work at their own pace with teachers as mentors? Places where students were empowered to control their own learning?  Elementary schools can be places of wonder and joy. 

We know that the learning environment itself has an impact on student learning. Research has shown that not only the visual stimuli in the classroom, but scent, lighting, temperature and sound all influence learning. Too many of our classrooms today are like office spaces with fluorescent lighting, predictable seating, closed windows. Students spend most of their day in their assigned classroom, only leaving to attend special subjects such as PE or music and for short breaks. Yet, we know this can have a negative effect on learning. Elementary schools can resemble the factory model on which they were based. 

Photo by Brandon Morgan CC 0

But, what if learning spaces weren’t confined to a room? What if buildings were open and allowed for movement of learners? What if there were spaces designed for different purposes? Quiet areas for reflection and research, areas for collaboration and building. Places to pose problems and create solutions? What if the outdoors was a part of the learning space? What if students could decide where they were most comfortable and learned best? Elementary schools can be thoughtfully designed places of creative inspiration. 

We know that the brain filters new information through the lens of our prior experience and knowledge to create new meaning. We develop our conceptual understanding by making connections and challenging our assumptions. Yet, in many classrooms, teachers insist on covering content in a particular order, not giving students the ‘big picture’ until all of the facts have been ‘taught’. Studies have shown that this can impede learning as students cannot retain disjointed facts and details. Elementary schools can be places where content drives instruction. 

Photo by Tim Gouw CC 0

But, what if we invited students to start the learning by asking questions? What if we provoked students to think about big ideas and challenged them to develop their understanding? What if teachers provided formative feedback throughout the student’s inquiry? What if reflecting on learning was an integral part of the process? Elementary schools can be places where the desire to understand drives the learning. 

There is so much we know about learning and most people I speak with agree that we need to change our educational system. We are no longer in need of the human cogs for the 'bureaucratic administrative machine' that Sugata Mitra describes in his 2013 TED Talk, the industrial age is long gone. We can design schools for learning. We can create places that nurture creativity and provoked thinking? What can give children time - time to wonder, to think, to explore to try. Elementary schools can be places that prepare our children to be lifelong learners and confident, capable, compassionate members of our world."

* The notion of the factory model of education was made quite popular is Sir Ken Robinson's TED Talk, Changing Education Paradigms as shared by RSA Animate. This talk provides a quick overview of why our educational system generally looks and functions the way it does and challenges us to think of alternatives to better suit the needs of our children in today's world.

** Many of the ideas shared about what we have learned from brain research are summarised in the Brain Targeted Teaching Model by Dr Mariale Hardiman, EdD at John Hopkins University.

Week 4: Can schools make a difference?

"There's an alternative. There's always a third way, and it's not a combination of the other two ways. It's a different way." David Carradine

I suppose the hallmark of a good reflection question is one that stops you in your tracks - really makes you think, or as Professor Alex Moore would say, one that challenges your assumptions. Well, this week's reflection task has had this affect on me. My initial response is, of course schools make a difference. I've been a teacher for over 25 years, I must believe that what I am doing is worth while and has some kind of impact on the lives of the children I work with. After listening to this week's lectures and completing the readings, I have come to realise that I am not sure if schools do make a difference, especially those organised in a traditional manner.

School Bokeh by Ryan McGilchrist on Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0

Can schools make a difference? This is such a broad question I feel the need to narrow it down a bit and preface my own response, understanding that I am making broad generalisations. When talking about a school I am referring to those that are most typical (if there is really such a thing), but those with classes organised by grade or year level, with homeroom and subject teachers. A place where students are assigned to a class and expected to meet specific outcomes or standards before being promoted to the next year level. An organisation with a set curriculum, whether it be national or international, inquiry-based or some other pedagogical approach. While I know there are many different types of schools, all of which vary greatly depending on specific context, generally this descriptive framework applies to a certain extent.

This week's lectures in What Future for Education? were based on an interview with Dr Jane Perryman, who began by describing what we might mean by a good school. Her stance was that such a school would enable students to do better than they expected they could do and that this is such an individual thing, that an ideal school would be different for different people. How can we possibly measure the effectiveness of schools if the ideal school needs to be different for different students? With the invested interest of governments in the success of their schools, there will inevitably be attempts to try and standardise schools, which in turn ultimately means that schools try to become the same as they are measured with the same assessment tool. Her examples focused on the UK's Ofsted inspections and the impact it has had on schools in Britain. Her findings suggest that the negative impact of such school inspections greatly outweigh the positive effects.¹ In fact, when asked if it made a difference what school a child attended, she asserted it was not as important as how a child was raised.

So, do schools make a difference? I think they do in some circumstances. My very first teaching position was in a remote, northern community in Manitoba, Canada. The school (there was only one) was an important part of the community. The school had dependable heat, electricity and running water, all of which were not certainties in the homes of the students. The only library in town was the one in the school (remember - this is pre-internet and Google days!) and it provided books not only for our classes, but also for a home reading programme. Through school activities, such as sports and music, students had opportunities to travel to other communities and meet students from other schools. I believe that this school did make a difference to the lives of the children in that particular community. In a community that was marginalised, where many of the families lived below the poverty line, it enabled students to learn more about the world outside of their town and provided a safe place where the community could come together. In a way this school is similar to the community school described in Mark Smith's article for Infed. It was an integral part of the community and used by all, but there was little in the way of curricular innovation or democratisation. Its foremost purpose was to educate the children in the community and that curriculum was dictated by the province.

From here I moved on to the city and a teaching position in a private school. The majority of the students came from very wealthy families and success at school, and then moving on to university, was an expectation. The parents were very 'hands-on' and greatly involved with every aspect of school life. The focus at such as school was really on student achievement, and back then, in the early 90s it was a wonderful opportunity to explore inquiry-based teaching and learning. In fact, it was in this school that I was first introduced to the IB's Primary Years Programme. My students were lovely and my colleagues rather amazing. I loved being in a collaborative environment and trying new things.

During this time I had a friend teaching in public school. We would often talk about the differences between our schools and the challenges she faced that were simply not an issue where I worked. My school was not inclusive, the students were selected based on a series of entrance requirements. I did not have to deal with behaviour issues or students with great challenges to their learning. I remember feeling it was all so easy. My friend was quite passionate about her work and believed her school was making a difference in her students' lives. I couldn't really say the same. I was  quite convinced my students would have done well at school, no matter the teacher, no matter the system. They would do what was necessary to go to university and select the career path they most desired.

5/365 by Anna Gutemuth on Flickr CC BY 2.0

As my own children got older and we began to travel to other countries, experiencing as a family different schools and systems, I began to see that, too often, student success was not because of the school, but despite it. I saw cases of inspirational teachers, but not inspirational schools. Archaic homework practices, heavy work loads, working in isolation and fearing the repercussions if something was not done the way a particular teacher wanted it done, I found myself saying to my own children, you just have to get through this (assignment, course, teacher, year) and then when you graduate you can begin to have control over what you decide to do. School became something to be endured and if you survived you would have the opportunity to choose what would come next. Perhaps time for a gap year to discover what inspires you or what area of further study you might want to explore.

I want schools to make a difference - as both a parent and an educator. I've been struggling with the notion of what a school should be for a few years now and this week's reflective prompt has helped me clarify my thinking - at least in so far as to recognise that this is a very complex issue. Can schools be different for different people? Do schools have to be the same? How might we measure their effectiveness? What do we mean by effectiveness? We tend to measure things that are easy to measure, but perhaps in education, the things that are important cannot be measured easily.

As luck would have it, I came across this image a couple of days ago on Facebook.

At the end of the day, these are the qualities I hope my children (and my students) will embrace and continue to develop throughout their lives. Schools are located all over the world and in all types of circumstances, but what if they were all places where students had opportunities to explore and discover and not worry about grades or exams? What if schools devoted time for students to uncover their passions? What if we nurtured curiosity and looked at each child as an individual and worked with them to plan their learning, based on their own passions and needs? There is time enough for developing expert skills and knowledge once students are older and have a better sense of what they would like to take further.

This week's reflective prompt has raised more questions than answers, but I know now with greater certainty that our traditional school system does not work. There must be a different way.

---

1 During the interview Dr Perryman referred to her own research that suggests that Ofsted inspections can cause great stress for teachers and school leaders as a poor evaluation may mean a loss of jobs and students being pulled from schools. Such high stakes often encourages schools to prepare for inspection, making decisions based on what is best for a good evaluation and not necessarily what is best for the school or students. Another issue with the Ofsted system is the variability of the inspection teams and the personal bias that is brought into an inspection. She also found fault with the notion that 'value-added' by a school is ignored and that factors such as the socio-economic background for the school's population is not taken into account.^↩

Learning Spaces

Day 5: Post a picture of your classroom, and describe what you see–and what you don’t see that you’d like to.

Well it's day five of my blogging challenge and I'm about to cheat a little bit. School starts tomorrow and I have a lot to do after a few weeks off, but you don't want my excuses! This prompt is about a topic close to my heart and I've been doing a lot of reflecting about effective learning spaces over the last year. Instead of rushing through a newly written post, I thought I would 'remix' some of my previous thinking about my journey to explore the learning space I share with my students.

A few years ago I was most fortunate to be able to test out some new furniture in my fourth grade classroom. My students and I had spent a good part of the beginning of the year talking about what an ideal classroom might look like and we used this feedback while putting together the order. The most important thing to them was choice - they did not want to have to work in the same place every day and sometimes they wanted to sit at a desk and at other times they did not. Another key piece of advice was to make it easy to change the room around to suit whatever we were doing - sometimes working in groups, sometimes having individual space and at times, performing and presenting. It was a great success - empowering for the students and quite liberating for me as a teacher. Gone were the days of stressing about how 'I' would set up the room. It became a true collaborative endeavour.

Then I moved to a new school, new country and new role. As a technology integrationist, I found I had inherited a somewhat traditional learning space. A computer lab with desks in a U-shape and a Smart board up at the front. As I got to know the space (and the students and teachers) I found it increasingly difficult to work in this environment. Inspired by the Third Teacher and learning more about the Maker Movement I knew something had to change. I was inspired to write this post in March 2015 and create this presentation to share with our organisation's ICT Think Tank.

With a supportive administration and some open-minded colleagues I have been able to make some significant changes to our learning space. Gone is the old u-shape computer lab - in fact, half of the desktops have been removed to allow for more open, flexible use of space. We supplement with Chromebooks, laptops and iPads. We have introduced Family Fridays where students can come and explore the materials and resources we have invested in with their families. Teachers are now beginning to see the space in a new way - no longer a computer room, but a 'creation station' (we're still testing possible names!). We have groups using Makey-Makeys to explore circuits, students programming with Scratch and WeDo Lego and others testing out possibilities with Thymio robots. We are about to embark on a unit of inquiry using Minecraft as a learning space and will be using the more open space to build physical structures. We've made great progress.

I realise though as I write this that I have not done a very good job in taking pictures to document the transition. A new promise to myself. Oh - the original prompt asked for a photo of our classroom - there is one of the old computer lab in the presentation that was shared. I plan to take a new one tomorrow when I get to school and update this post (I'll do a bit of a 'side-by-side' comparison).

As promised...

The Third Teacher: Creating effective spaces for learning

"In brief, the environment consists of those conditions that promote or hinder, stimulate or inhibit, the characteristic activities of a living being." ~ John Dewey

I have always valued the creation learning spaces that best suit the needs of students and a community of learners. I remember when I first began teaching, sitting in my empty classroom in August and imagining what the room might become. In those early days, these decisions were usually made by me, but as I became more experienced, student voice became a critical piece of the design process for our classroom. I came to realise, however, that our conversations were still chained by the traditional reality of our space. Our classroom was still a single room filled with the stuff of schools - student desks, chairs, boards, bookshelves and so on. While much can be done within such a space - I know my students certainly felt good about the rooms we had created for learning and we all accomplished a great deal - I can't help but feel a bit stuck. How can we re-invent schools without changing (drastically) the structure of the building itself? How can we leave classrooms as they were 50 years ago and think that this arrangement still meets the needs of learners today?

Seeking ways to redesign my current learning space, I began to investigate possibilities. I am most impressed by the Maker Movement (a blog post for another day!) and believe that such an approach best supports inquiry-based learning.

Exploring how we might create this type of learning environment for our Primary students led me to the book, The Third Teacher: 79 Ways you can use design to transform teaching & learning. The opening quote spoke to me:

The child starting kindergarten this fall will graduate in the third decade of the 21st century. All we can know about the world she will step into is that it will have challenges and opportunities beyond what we can imagine today, problems and possibilities that will demand creativity and ingenuity, responsibility and compassion. Whether this year's kindergarten student will merely survive or positively thrive in the decades to come depends in large measure in the experiences she has in school. Those experiences will be shaped by adults, by peers, and ultimately by places, by the physical environments where she does her learning. United in the conviction that environment is our children's third teacher, we can begin anew a vital mission: designing today's schools for tomorrow's world.

After reading this book I am firmly committed to making a change to the space I have some control over - the primary computer room. I am setting out on a journey to transform this room; to build a safe place that will promote student innovation, allow for tinkering and time for reflective design thinking. As I enlist the support of colleagues, I will be sharing the ideas from The Third Teacher and The Maker Movement Manifesto.