“Innovation” is all the rage, and it is probably the most used word in my blog posts as well. However, there are a lot of new ideas and methods that become wrapped up under the innovation label. A particular challenge is that, for everything new we add to the K-12 system, we also need to determine what will come out. Currently, we are trying to address a jammed-full curriculum, and adding new items without withdrawing other items only exacerbates the challenge.
The first thing we have come to realize is some interventions, ideas, courses, or programs have a shelf life. It is not that they were wrong decisions, the world changes and our programs need to reflect that change. I think this is also true with a number of initiatives intended to encourage technology and support digital literacy. As the use of technology becomes less “learning with technology” and more “learning,” the special initiatives — whether built around one-to-one programs for specific student cohorts, or some distributive learning programs — need to be recognized for the role they have played in moving education forward and then we need to move on. Of course, we are so much better at starting initiatives than we are at ending them, even when it is time.
This is not failure. When new research is being considered, and when new ideas are being proposed, stopping (before again moving forward) ensures the new innovations have an opportunity to grow. We have tried running all the courses we had last year along with the new ones proposed, to the same students, and sign-up is fragmented, often with many courses being cancelled because they haven’t had the opportunity to develop. We also can and do protect existing programs, even if they no longer connect with students in the same way they had before, thereby limiting the opportunities for new programs to develop. It’s a bit of a Catch-22, and it becomes further complicated as teachers have favourite courses they want to teach, and resources invested, but may no longer be a good match for what kids need and want.
In the private sector, where the free market rules, it seems to be much easier to abandon innovations that no longer work. I give full credit to one of the most creative district principals I know. Diane Nelson, who nurtures our sports academy programs, proposed a field hockey academy, and it didn’t work. So, instead of trying to force it to work, she moved on, and now she has a baseball academy set for the fall that is highly subscribed. She knew to walk away from the one, and to reinvest in the other, continuing the search to find programs to meet the needs and wants of our students and their families.
When courses disappear, or school rituals retire, it should not be seen as negative. In many ways, it is progress. Great ideas have a shelf life, and is often from where other ideas do develop and grow. So, while we are really good at celebrating all the “new” we are starting in education right now, we shouldn’t be shy about acknowledging the need to cull along the way to make a place for the better.
Perhaps more than being innovative, we need to be malleable. Maybe just another buzzword but also a valued disposition of 2012 and beyond.
Yes Dean – and we just have to be OK with it. We seem to struggle in education, more than elsewhere to give things up. We also tend to always want to look back and restore everything we used to have instead of asking what it is we want to have / should have to go forward.
It can be interesting how buzzwords can move us forward, but also hold us back. Good reminder to focus on the ‘what’ of the doing, and what we have learned from mistakes and moved on to…..less on the word/buzzword maybe..
Thanks Sheila. We do love our acronyms and buzz words in education – I am sure it is true of other professions as well.
In Vancouver, with the gifted team we continually try to look at our programs and figure out what is working and what isn’t. Is the term “gifted” passe? How can we service students with dwindling resources? How can we empower talented students and meet their needs in large and diverse classrooms? It is a processes and refinement every year, and I have to continually ask myself “does this work or not?”. However, in the face of change (the only real constant in our lives) I look at the core values and ideas that work: providing critical and creative thinking processes to students, providing opportunities for like minded students to share an experience in learning, and making sure that we communicate and share our learning with others. It is a sort of a movable “structure” within the changing landscape of education!
Thanks for the comment, nicely said. I think those working in student services, with struggling learners, and gifted learners, are some of the best at moving on to new places and abandoning interventions that are no longer as relevant – some of it is driven by budgets, some of it is driven by research and some by the changing world around us.
It is difficult to let go of something that “works” but the question for teachers is, Who is it working for?
Yes James – it is crucial we continue to come back to how whatever the “it” is works for students – and not just for the adults (be that teachers, administrators, parents or others).
Yes, BC K-12 needs to be realistic and reasonable. There are related comments on the BC Education Plan website here:
1. http://bit.ly/HNr5yc
2. http://bit.ly/Ivise2
Great ideas may have a shelf life, but let’s not forget three important elements…what we teach, how we teach, and literacy…as Schmoker states in his book “Focus” these three elements, if even reasonably well-executed, would have more impact than all other initiatives combined…let’s not lose sight of simplicity in our ever changing world…
I agree!
I put my kids in a more traditional school environment because I believe the most important things was for them to learn to read and write well because it is the cornerstone of communication…..we can not realize what is ahead of them, but by having the ability to communicate well in the English language, the ability to share ideas in writing, and to process information, I felt that we could not do wrong. Through this process of reading and writing well, my sons have learned to be critical thinkers. I can not thank the teachers enough for their delivery of a strong curriculum; it may not have the trappings of being innovative, but it has been SOLID, and a strong basis for wherever they may go for high school.
I also love that for novel studies, the boys have been exposed to “The Secret World of Og” and “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” and “A Cricket in Times Square” and “Owls in the Family” – older novels that often we as teachers would not study because they are dated. There is so much great literature out there, but I appreciate that these novels are still being read!
I find with my own kids there is a balance – I do appreciate that some of their experiences resemble my experiences (I have also seen the Secret World of Og around my house), but while it is reassuring, I know that the world that my kids are graduating into is very different than the one I graduated into twenty years ago. While the “core is still the core” I am also heartened to see my kids have more choice over what and how they learn than I ever experienced.
As I’m thinking and planning for next year, this post has been a good reminder to let go of some of the good material I’ve created but may not connect with what my student’s needs are. I find that I’m increasingly strapped for time trying to fit everything into the various curricula I teach. Thanks for the reminder!
Thanks for the comment – we are so good at adding in education but struggle to take out . . . a real challenge.