Three ways to keep innovative teachers in the classroom

My last post garnered great reactions from many corners. Some pointed out that innovative teachers
are rare while others discussed ways to keep these teachers engaged. These two reactions are not in any way contradictory. We have few, or too few, and we need to make sure they stay in classrooms long enough to have a real impact on their students, colleagues, and school.

While I have no direct research on innovative teachers (would love for one of my students present or future to pick that up!), I am using some of my own experiences, as well as the work on motivation and rationality.

1. Let them innovate. Create a space that teachers who seek to try new ideas can innovate without looking over their shoulders. One such example is the classroom structure one fourth grade teacher created in Bellevue NE. It has to be ok for some classrooms to look and be different as long as learning happens and they meet standards.

2. Challenge teachers. Innovative teachers need to be challenged. They need feedback and honest conversation about what they accomplished. Yes, we need to celebrate their creativity, but we also have to provide tough questions and room to discuss their concerns. Sometimes we celebrate our innovative teachers and miss the fact that they may be less sure of what they are doing than they let on. Moreover, innovative teachers sometimes rush from one innovation to the next without firm results. They need the challenge to do better to think about evidence for learning this challenge will keep them going and improving on existing practice. The challenge needs to be in the format of a low-stakes critical friend group.

3. Let them learn. Innovative teachers seek out professional development. Support their efforts to get the right PD by making sure they have control over their PLN. It can be more formal such as graduate degrees, and conferences or less formal in EdCamps, and Twitter.

If we want to keep innovative teachers in the classroom for a while longer (they will not and should not stay forever) we need to act and provide them space, feedback, and opportunity.

Grading, Creativity, and Teacher Education- Making Room fo Complexity

I caught the middle piece of a radio lab broadcast on choice. In it Gladwell (of Outliers and Blink) discusses the impact of explaining choice on the decision making process. In the battle between system 1 (quick snap judgements as in Blink) and system 2 (deliberate thinking), the latter seems to try and counter bias system 1- with the results being less than satisfactory (I borrowed the system 1 and 2 from Kahneman). In this he quotes Tim Wilson's work from VGA.

I started thinking about this effect as I was grading my students work on a rubric. I just finished grading and it dawned on me that my very specific rubrics, valued by my students, seem to encourage students to back away from ambiguity and complexity. In simple terms it means that when the rubric is specific it is economically beneficial for students to respond with simple lessons than complex ones, to choose one or two objectives than a complex integrated lesson. Going back to Gladwell (not fully Wilson's et al. point) forcing students to explain in detail may push them to make simplistic choices and shy away from complexity.

As  nation our testing system seems to be having exactly the same effect. Measuring creativity a popular subject recently may have the same exact effect. By clarifying what we mean by creativity we may be losing sight of the big picture...

Adding to my challenge is the fact that I do not control the milieu for the assignments. It is a negotiation between our students and their cooperating teachers. It is not always clear who sets the tone for the lesson- so I cannot penalize students for having simple lessons because it is not always up to them. The question is how do we make room for complexity- reward it in this context.

I suggest simply rewarding complexity (I know it when I see it) and demanding that simple lessons (like simple dishes on cooking challenge shows) are perfect. This note just like myself is a work in progress: We need more poetry! (A quote from a recent presentation by Sarah Thomas)

Creativity in Teaching, Alchemy, and Technology?

One of my new colleagues Lauren Gatti has recently summarized her research interest as "The ways teachers are alchemizing a crappy curriculum". It is such an apt metaphor of what we do in teacher education- that I had to share. In alchemy early scientists tried to make gold out of lower metals, and we try to teach our teachers to make something out of top down often ridiculous mandates about content, delivery, and assessment.

The driving force in alchemizing I would argue is creativity. My reading and thinking about creativity has led me to think about creativity as a process and not a product. Bob Woody a colleague who has great insights about creativity has recently twitted this review of a working paper on creativity. At the heart of the argument is that creative minds are inquisitive, persistent, imaginative, collaborative, and disciplined. It occurred to me that while teaching creativity is an oblique idea, teaching these qualities is not just possible but in many ways is already happening. If we focus on process and not product we can help our peers, colleagues and students develop creative processes- the kind that can help them alchemize crappy curricula and directives into meaningful learning.


So what does technology has to do with this? Well, technology is not necessary for the process.You can alchemize without high-tech tools. Technology, however, provides a space and time to be creative and open horizons that are usually closed. I find that many of the more creative teachers I work with gravitate to technology because it provides them new, multi modal ways of being, thinking and alchemizing.

Creative Teaching, Personal Growth, and the Brain Drain

Take one: One of our presenters in the Tech EDGE conference (coming next week for the third time) told me when we had a few  minutes that she was tired of how slowly her district was transforming. She felt that after 5+ years at the forefront of technology implementation she wanted to move to better and bigger things.
Take two: At the NETA conference last spring I came face to face with a sobering reality. Here was a crowd eager to learn, eager to grow and be creative in teaching. We heard exceptional speaker, learned new applications and had way too much coffee together. But conversations around the tables and the professional reality of many of the presenters (and I suspect participants as well) was in transition. Many were working at the district level, ESU (Educational Service Units), some even for technology companies.

The question is whether education or more specifically teaching is experiencing a "brain drain". Is it possible that  teachers leaving the profession after 5-20 years experience because they cannot be creative and innovative in large bureaucratic systems? The data I have is anecdotal (there is a dissertation in this I am sure) but still intriguing. It is possible that creative and innovative teachers seek out more education, professional development and new ideas. I have long held the belief that there is a point in a teacher's career that she feels that there must be something else out there beyond the district. That when teachers seek out professional development, graduate degrees and new projects. The irony is that the new knowledge and innovative ideas can be exactly the thing that starts distancing them from the classroom until they cannot see themselves going on and start looking for alternatives. When the opportunity is there they get a doctoral degree, become teacher educators, or perhaps go work for Apple.

Why now? I think that there are structural reasons in public education that may be encouraging the "brain drain". On the one hand the increased pressure on teachers to "perform" on high stakes standardized measures constrain curriculum and creativity leaving little to no room for experimentation. This is contrasted by the fast paced changes in technology and society. The difference in rate of change is staggering. Finally, it is more socially acceptable and often necessary to change careers at least once in adulthood.

While I understand the urge to make personal changes I wonder if the state of public education might be progressively hurt by this phenomenon. Are the best minds running in the other direction? It could be that this is "The new normal" for education. The challenge is not just having a younger less experienced teaching force, it is that a good portion of the veteran work force are exactly those who are less likely to innovate and lead positive change. Now, to be totally honest, I am not in the classroom anymore either. I made the same move. How, I wonder, can we create schools that will allow teachers like that to stay, grow, and innovate without leaving the profession? Should this even be a goal?