I am still learning

 Our two weeks of intensive summer work have ended. It is early to talk about results but I can reflect on what I have learned. In the past two weeks, I have been fully immersed with our participants, occasionally I led discussions and activities the rest of the time I split between being a catalyst for discussions sparking directions and ideas, and participating. I was a learner, artist, and curriculum designer. I reflected on my teaching and made plans to do better.

I rediscovered the joy of learning with experienced yet eager professionals. I have learned earnestness, patience, technique, vulnerability, and the joy of movement to name a few. I have been in higher education for close to 25 years and have not had (or allowed myself to have) a professional development that I embraced as thoroughly as I did in Art TEAMS. 

I will try to name a few specific lessons:

1. Movement in magic- Sir Ken Robinson said in his famous Ted Talk Do Schools kill creativity? that education thinks only from the shoulders up. I agreed with his argument but as a university head-first person assumed that it was only marginally true for me. I agreed with his example that some people are dancers and should have the opportunity to move and express themselves. What I missed was that we are all dancers moving through the world (some like me more goofily), and that we can all benefit from movement (thank you Maggie).

2. Trust is everything- This is something I often discuss in my teaching but this time I felt the impact of trust (and the breaking of trust) on me and the teachers around me. With trust, our fight or flight instincts do not emerge immediately when confronting something difficult and uncomfortable. I can say more but I would like to wait for our research to shed some light.

3. Playfulness is learning- During the two weeks, I created art in what can only be described as playful ways. I used different materials approaches and media to mixed results. I failed spectacularly and shared my failures with as many people as possible. Yes, I aimed to model learning behavior but mostly through "forgetting" and letting myself just be in the creative moment. As a result, I learned a lot (still processing) and got a lot braver about sharing my work and sharing myself.

 4. Emerging Media arts emerged- I have been worried that we did not infuse enough emerging media arts into the work. We decided to wait on digital tools and just occasionally included tools to bring forward the work into the realm of emerging media arts. Despite this "low infusion" approach the final projects and reflections included many products that included emerging media arts. Moreover, now the teachers are ready for a bigger taste of emerging media and eager to integrate.

In the coming months, I will add some more but this is where I am now, exhausted, satisfied, and eager to continue!

What Tech Startups can Teach Educational Reform

Photo from: yoursmallbusinessgrowth.com

Let me start by saying that I have never been part of a tech startup so my view may very well be skewed. I recently read that many venture capitalists prefer investing in entrepreneurs that have already failed once. Actually in a phone conversation with my father he quoted the late Uri Menashe who told him once that he likes hiring retired IDF officers after they had failed their first civilian position. The main lesson for me is that to be successful you need to fail a few times, sometimes many times.

The problem is as Sir Ken Robinson likes to point out repeatedly is that we are building educational systems that seem to converge on the exact opposite direction. High stakes tests that constantly push one answer and the notion that failure is not an option.

So what are the lessons of startups?

1. Collaboration: most if not all startups are based on a group of individuals with different capacities and skills working together to accomplish something that hasn't been done yet. Relationships and the ability to work with others are crucial.
2. Failure must be an option: while the long term must be successful the road to success must include many short term failures.
3. High expectations: startups are successful only if they do something new, or something old considerably more efficiently that it essentially becomes something new.
4. Continued innovation: Once you do succeed you must work to improve and work on the next problem.

There might more and different ones for those who are inside startups but these are my takeaways. What does that mean in education? I believe that points to a very different system than the one we have now. Instead of a high stakes low expectation system I advocate a low-stakes high-expectation system. That is true in the classroom and in the school, for students, teachers, and administrators.

The fear of high-stakes is driving administrators, teachers and students to focus on the most direct route to a known answer- the exact opposite of a startup. Low stakes allow honest discussion and the option to fail occasionally so you can succeed in the long run. If every failure has high stakes we who are a risk averse species (see Arieli) shy away and stop innovating and taking risks. For education to match the needs and fast paced changes in modern society we must make room for low stakes so educators can experiment and provide room for short term failures leading to subsequent spectacular successes. We do not need to give up on high expectations instead we need to be patient for long term gains while short term fluctuations occur. In essence its what your investment advisor told you- don't pay attention to short term. In essence it makes all the leaders managing our educational systems akin to day traders instead of high-tech entrepreneurs.

Mike on Ken Robinson

I teach an undergraduate literacy methods block for Elementary teachers and in it my students are asked to reflect weekly on hat weeks readings and their classroom observations. I do allow them occasionally to deviate if they find a topic that is particularly appealing to them.
About a week ago Mike wrote this piece in response to a Ken Robinson piece (I am publishing this with his explicit permission):

"I'd like to take this opportunity to depart from the traditional format of the blogs and comment on something else. A friend of mine recently showed me this link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

In the video, Ken Robinson talks about the nature of our education system. He says that our educational system is far too linear. We start kids off in elementary school preparing them for middle and high school where we then prepare kids for college. All of this is designed so that the kids end up getting a degree and can thereby be successful in the world. Robinson argues that it was a great idea back when college degrees were comparatively rare to high school diplomas, but today, we have a higher percentage of people going on to get their degrees than ever before. As such, a bachelor's degree is not what it used to be. So if everyone has a degree, what more can we do with education to keep improving? Robinson's answer is creativity. He says that we need to teach kids to embrace creativity rather than cut our arts and music programs from the school's curriculum.

I like what Robinson had to say, but I think he overlooked some key aspects of education. Yes, more and more people are going on to get their degrees in post-secondary education. And yes, it would be really smart to teach those graduates to be more creative and well rounded. But what about the students we have to specifically tailor our instruction around? Special needs students present some of the greatest challenges to us as teachers. I feel like Robinson completely glossed over this very substantial, important group of people. It's naive to think that our current education system is great if not for it's lack of emphasis on creativity. Yes, we're sending more kids off to college than ever, but we still have a lot of work to do with educating every one of our students. Belmont, especially, has driven this point home for me"

Mike's comments contextualize what many teachers are thinking, namely that before we attend to creativity there is a lot of other work to be done. I wholeheartedly agree with Mike that we are not yet great at teaching all children what they need to be full citizens. On the other hand there seem to be an underlying assumption that creativity is the cherry, like higher order thinking or comprehension instruction something that comes after skills.

This is the danger that talks about the big C can lead to- the fact that teachers, administrators and parents worry about regular everyday capabilities and rightly so. The little dancer from Robinson'sstory would be a heartwarming story if she grew up to be a world class dancer- but we all know the chances are slim. We need a Ken Robinson who follows up and says and look how we can use her dancing to enhance her learning so she feels empowered to learn and we to teach through it- so she can be successful in everything she chooses to be engaged in.