And We're Back!

Today was 'officially' our first day of the 2013 school year, although our students don't resume until tomorrow - so it doesn't quite feel like 'real' school yet... 

Given it was the first time we had all been back together since the end of last year, there was obviously some reuniting, some holiday small talk and just general catching up to be done... 
In reality, though, there wasn't a huge need for these sorts of pleasantries, as most staff had been in and out of the school for the past two weeks preparing for the new school year! 

Once we got into our full day of PL, it was typically busy, fast-paced, full of information and detail, but also good fun.
Starting the day with some creativity exercises to 'energise' ourselves for the day, we followed with engagement announcements (!), welcomes for new staff, the detailing of key messages for 2013, a session on our approach to teaching Reading, a session on our approach to teaching behaviour, Skyping with a consultant for a Grammar and Spelling program that we use, a session on Professional Learning and Innovation, the work-shopping of some potential Mandatory Reporting scenarios, a Phonics session, then some general 'housekeeping' and 'need to know' stuff [timetabling, budgets, etc.]... 

At one point during the day, we had to write down something we were looking forward to in 2013... I wrote something like "working with motivated colleagues"... 
Admittedly, I didn't think long about it at the time, but, upon reflection, this is one of the absolute best and most rewarding aspects of working at my school [and many others, I'm sure]. 

We are all anxious for the students to start tomorrow and everyone is focused on doing what we can to make the first day, then the first week... as smooth and positive as possible for students and teachers - particularly our new teachers.

Bring on tomorrow! 

Desegregate and Diversify

In this video, a US Professor explains the benefits of desegregation policies on education in America:


Not only did black children benefit from their improved access to education, but - despite commonly-held fears at the time of these policies being enacted - white children's education did not suffer and there were significant inroads made into some of the education and later life disparities that had been in existence between blacks and whites.


Obviously, in America, there is work still to be done to make their country more equitable, but, in Australia, too, this is an important issue and education has a significant role.

What are we doing here to actively pursue 'desegregation' and diversity in out schools..?
What are we doing that contributes towards the segregation of people..? 
Such segregation plays out not just on the basis of race, as professor Rucker focuses upon, but also occurs in Australian schools through the division and separation of children based upon income, religion and other factors.

What would have happened if the US had not actively pursued desegregation policies..? What would their educational achievement 'gap' look like..?
We talk lots in Australia about such 'gaps' - the importance of 'closing' them, but also their growing nature... 

If we are serious about a more equitable society with reduced variation in educational achievement, social problems, occupational achievement, etc, then we need to not only discourage policies and structures that 'segregate', but also actively pursue higher levels of diversity in our school environments.

Carrots, sticks and all of that...

Most people are pretty familiar with the two main types of human motivation, extrinsic - the performance of an activity / task to achieve an external, separate outcome - and intrinsic - the internal drive that comes from the individual's inherent interest and enjoyment of the activity / task, itself.
In Drive, Daniel Pink makes the case that a reliance on extrinsic motivation to improve the performance of people [in workplaces, schools, etc.] has been the staple of "Motivation 2.0" and that we now need to move to "Motivation 3.0", which instead focuses on intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic Motivation

We are increasingly motivated by intrinsic drives because of the changing nature of our work. Algorithmic, routine, single-solution work was common and important right up until late last century. Nowadays, it is the more 'heuristic' forms of work that are becoming - not only more common - but more valuable, too - "Routine work can be outsourced or automated; artistic, empathic, nonroutine work generally cannot."

Extrinsic motivators can be effective when the work is inherently uninteresting or dreary... Now that more of our work is "more creative and less routine... more enjoyable", we need to shift to the form of motivation that is more effective for this type of work - i.e. motivators that 'tap into' the greater sense of inherent interest and joy that we can potentially derive from working creatively, solving problems and working with other people.

Pink builds a lot of his theory from the work of Richard Ryan and Edward Deci, who identified three key elements of intrinsic motivation - autonomy, competence and relatedness. Pink, too, identifies three key elements - autonomy, mastery and purpose.

• Autonomy refers to our desire to be self-directed and our capacity for choice in how we work.
• Mastery refers to our natural urge to get better and our capacity to apply and extend our skills.
• Purpose refers to our beliefs about whether our work matters and contributes to something important. Whether the organisations we work for stand for something... 

If these three needs are well satisfied, people are likely to work with greater creativity, innovation and engagement - all traits that are becoming increasingly desirable in a world that relies less and less on people to do routine, algorithmic, instruction-manual-type work... 

Extrinsic Motivation

Relying on extrinsic forms of motivation is far less sustainable and effective in the long run. They can excessively narrow our focus [to achieving the external reward, itself] and can devalue the task / activity being performed [hindering long-term performance].

That said, there are some circumstances where extrinsic motivators are appropriate and effective - namely, when the task is of the routine, rudimentary, single-solution, low cognitive-effort variety. Not all tasks that we need to perform are inherently interesting and enjoyable... 

Another point to be wary of when applying extrinsic motivators is the distinction between 'if-then' rewards and 'now-that' rewards.

Contingent motivators - 'if you do this, then you get that... ' - amplify the negative effects of extrinsic motivators, with people directing their focus to the end reward.

Rewards that are unexpected, after the event, etc, are less likely to take away focus from performing the task, but still allow for recognition and reward for effort and good performance - 'now that you've completed this task well, you get this... '. These sorts of rewards can also help facilitate aspects of intrinsic motivation. eg: An unexpected, 'now-that' reward can improve one's sense of mastery [they know they've done a good job... ] or purpose [they know they've done something important for the organisation... ].

As a teacher, I need to take care in how I use extrinsic motivators. I think they have a place, as not everything we ask and need students to do is inherently fun, interesting and enjoyable [although this should be a high priority when designing learning experiences!]... They can also help facilitate intrinsic motivation, when used in a targeted fashion [an obvious example being the awarding of positive feedback upon progress being made, or an important task being performed... ]. But, as much as possible, I need to be conscious of not having the reward be the reason that the student performs the task.

Schools, themselves, need to focus on creating working conditions for teachers that facilitate intrinsic motivation - teachers should have autonomy over how they do their work, be encouraged to constantly be pursuing mastery and be clear about their purpose within their school.

We need teachers to be working collaboratively, with creativity and with innovation, so schools need to create conditions that best allow for this.

Measuring Teacher Quality

I recently read this article about the views of a data expert on the use of student test scores to determine teacher effectiveness. I found myself nodding in agreement at so much of it that I didn't think I could adequately share the sentiments via a tweet!

Data King Nate Silver Isn't Sold on Evaluating Teachers With Test Scores | Education on GOOD

Quotes in blue [my bits in black]:

"There are certainly cases where applying objective measures badly is worse than not applying them at all, and education may well be one of those.

• Just because the concept or big idea is worthy, doesn't mean we should accept poor application that does damage, rather than good - Yes, it is worthwhile to raise the quality of teachers, to identify the 'high-quality' teachers that can spread their good practice and lead, as well as to identify teachers that need development, but if the measures taken to do this are damaging to teacher practice and student learning, then a better pathway needs to be found... 

one of my projects involved visiting public school classrooms... talking to teachers, and their view was very much that teaching-to-the-test was constraining them in some unhelpful ways."

• Pursuing such a narrow, prescribed pathway to 'effectiveness' is highly-limiting, dumbs down teachers and makes them easily-replaceable [anyone can follow a narrow formula and do what they are told... ].

it's a "topic that requires a book- or thesis-length treatment to really evaluate properly,"

• But that would be too complex and difficult to 'sell' to the public - who wants to read a book or a thesis when you can get all the information you need from a graph on the front page of the newspaper?!?

Silver's hesitation about using test scores to evaluate teachers isn't exactly a surprise given that he's driven by data and facts, and plenty of other individuals and organizations have laid out the case against the practice pretty thoroughly.

The NRC noted that research does not support the practice and while they believed tests can be used to inform, "a single test should not be relied on as the sole indicator of program effectiveness."

• Too simple. Teaching is a latent variable - there are a myriad of identifiable traits [think planning documents, assessment strategies, use of space, quality of interactions, level of student engagement, questioning skills, capacity to differentiate learning experiences, level of professionalism, capacity for self-reflection, commitment to Professional Learning, etc, etc... ] that could be used to help inform a measurement of teacher effectiveness, but to narrow it down to only one seems very silly... 

holding teacher accountable for growth in the test scores (called value-added) of their students is more harmful than helpful to children's educations.

• ... because of the affect this will have on the way the teacher teaches - they are near forced to focus all of their time, creativity and teaching energies upon what will be tested [what they are accountable for] - everything else that contributes to a quality education falls by the wayside... 

Placing serious consequences for teachers on the results of their students’ tests creates rational incentives for teachers and schools to narrow the curriculum to tested subjects, and to tested areas within those subjects.

lose instruction in history, the sciences, the arts, music, and physical education, and teachers focus less on development of children’s non-cognitive behaviors—cooperative activities, character, social skills

despite the abundance of smart people speaking out against the practice, education policy makers continue their push for including test scores in teacher evaluations.

• So how do people 'push back' against narrow, simplistic and damaging policy viewpoints..?

Linchpin

Linchpin, by Seth Godin, is essentially a book about people and their work. In particular, it focuses on what is important work in today's society, how individuals can make themselves valuable ("linchpins") and what typically restricts us from doing this important work.

What is important work?

What used to be important was being compliant, following instructions, being a cog in the system... This is what employers were looking for in the factory era, where the goal was ever-increasing productivity...

"For nearly three hundred years, that was the way work worked... Factories created productivity, and productivity produced profits."

But the relentless pursuit of productivity means an inevitable 'dumbing down' of the work: "The essence of mass production is that every part is interchangeable. Time, space, men, motion, money, and material— each was made more efficient because every piece was predictable and separate... first you have interchangeable parts, then you have interchangeable workers."
Once your skills are deemed "interchangeable", your work is not valuable and you are easily replaced.

What is valuable is that which is scarce... Nowadays, given our systematic training of people to be 'cogs in the system', what is scarce (and therefore valuable... ) is:

• People who "exert emotional labor".

• ie. Those that do the 'hard' thinking and the 'hard' relational work - think empathy, generosity and NOT avoidance...

• People who "make a map".

• ie. Those that are willing and able to 'blaze a trail' and lead others through the tackling and solving of challenging problems or circumstances.

• People who deliver "unique creativity".

• ie. People who generate new ways and ideas... People who don't 'rest' on the status quo or tradition.

• People who can solve complex problems.

• ie. People who don't need to refer to an instruction manual (or a line manager... ) for every professional hurdle they encounter...

• People who have unique knowledge or talents.

• ie. People who have something that is rare and difficult to replace - think the expert in their field, the sportsperson with a special talent...

It is those that are demonstrating these traits that will be doing the most important work (c/f those that are still operating in the 'factory' mindset... ).

The big obstacle.

Our "lizard brain" - the limbic system of our brains. This section is the evolutionary elder of the neocortex, which is the section that drives our creativity, our complex problem solving and our big-picture, future-oriented thinking.
Unfortunately, this more biologically-entrenched part of our brain tends to be difficult to overrule, even by the more rational thinking neocortex... This results in a "resistance" to that which is not familiar, that which is beyond the status quo, that which is new and different...

To be valuable, to do the important work, we need to overcome this resistance and unleash the natural strengths of the newer parts of our brain.

How do schools create an environment that develops "linchpins" and allows them to thrive?

In creating an environment that promotes the development of this new type of worker, schools would need to allow, indeed encourage, staff to utilise their creativity, their individual strengths, solve problems, etc. - conditions that allow teachers to separate themselves from being "a cog in the... machine". Teachers need opportunity to prove themselves as difficult to replace.
We have cause for optimism - all schools would already have these sorts of "linchpins" within their ranks. There are probably a myriad of creative ways to maximise the impact of these influential teachers and staff members, but a couple of basic tenets stand out for me:

• Give them large amounts of autonomy - let them 'off the leash' to create, innovate, anticipate and solve problems, spread ideas and generally, 'do their thing'...
• Feed their sense of purpose - prioritise and focus their roles on important work, not trivial, menial tasks that *anybody* could do.

People and their work - a changing relationship...

Words that I'm uncomfortable with...

Below are a few words that I'm a little uncomfortable with, when they're used in an education context... I don't generally break out in a cold sweat when I hear these words... but, for me, they tend to send a message, represent a particular belief, or imply a notion that I don't feel good about.

Awards / rewards

As in: Students receiving these for some form of achievement...
Why not? They are often awarded too far past the actual achievement; They are extrinsic motivators which do little to facilitate intrinsic drivers or sustainably motivate students; They can devalue those that don't get the award; They tend to promote competition, rather than collaboration.
Alternative(s)? There is not much doubt about the importance of feedback for student learning - feedback often includes points, stickers, reward systems, etc, but the focus should still be on informing the child about what they've done right / wrong and what they need to do to improve. Extrinsic motivators can play a part in providing this feedback ('I've earned points for that action - I must be doing the right thing... '), but we should try to avoid having them become the reason the child performs the task... 

Behaviour management

As in: 'You need good behaviour management to be able to control the class... '
Why not? The word "management" wrecks it for me... It implies a negative outlook - 'the best I can hope for is to 'manage' these students... '. It also suggests that control is the goal, or the desired outcome.
Alternative(s)? 'Student wellbeing'... 'Behaviour development'... 'Social skills'... Anything that shifts to a growth mindset would be preferable for me - I want to help people learn, not control them...

Compliant

As in: 'The students should be compliant... ', or 'Little Johnny is being non-compliant... '
Why not? My iPad dictionary's definition is "Inclined to agree with others or obey rules, especially to an excessive degree" - ummm... excessively agreeing with others doesn't really fit with 21st century skills and mindsets like critical thinking and innovation... And I am not a ruler of a kingdom - I don't want, need or deserve (!) to be obeyed...
Alternative(s)? Engaged = attracted, involved, participated - a far loftier goal for how we want students to act in our classrooms.

Consistency

As in: 'There should be consistency from teacher to teacher, from classroom to classroom... '
Why not? I'm not as sure about this one, as this is a commonly-stated goal for school improvement... However, it doesn't really sit well with me - consistency is good if it refers to raising the level of quality to the highest level in existence, but not if it is restricting people by devaluing their individual strengths...
Alternative(s)? I think we need to do more to unleash teachers to exercise their individual strengths. Having to conform is demotivating. Perhaps aspiring towards consistency through a greater focus on collaboration and sharing of individual strengths is a better way...

Explicit

As in: 'We need to make sure we are doing the explicit teaching'...
Why not? I'll refer again to the iPad's dictionary... "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt". I'm not against this form of teaching, per se, but it is more the common, underlying message that I'm not comfortable with - to me, when someone makes a statement like the example above, they are reinforcing traditional, teacher-centric models of education. I think there are times when kids need to have concepts and skills "stated clearly and in detail... ", but I don't think we need to be reinforcing and promoting 'telling' at the expense of authentic, first hand learning experiences if we can help it...
Alternative(s)? Anything that shifts the emphasis from the teaching to the learning.

Instruction

As in: 'The quality of instruction is important to student learning'... 
Why not? Like the previous example, it is more the message being sent than the actual application of the term, itself, that doesn't 'sit right' with me... 'Instruction' is defined as "a direction or order", or "detailed information telling how something should be done... ". Similar to the last example, it values the notion of the teacher being heavily responsible for any learning that occurs. We know that students having first-hand experiences of concepts for themselves leads to deep and lasting learning - 'instruction' implies a restriction of this capacity, as information is 'fed' to students.
Alternative(s)? Similar to the previous example - shift the emphasis to the student being the most active participant in the learning experience, rather than passively receiving from the teacher... Perhaps 'guiding', or 'assisting'..?

Preparing for (High School... University... Tests... )

As in: 'We need to be preparing students for the homework demands they will have in high school... for how to write essays at university... for how to take mandated, standardised tests... '
Why not? No we don't - we don't need to dumb down and compromise what we hold to be our best practice, in order to 'prepare' students for somebody else's poor practice.
Alternative(s)? Stick to our guns about what we believe to be best for student learning - don't throw out these beliefs and values because other institutions are making poor decisions... 

Respect

As in: 'Little Johnny [may or may not be the same child from the earlier example... ] is not showing any respect... '
Why not? This is a tricky one, as showing and treating people with respect is undoubtedly a good thing. However, sometimes it comes across from people that they are 'entitled' to automatic respect, by way of their position. This is not a healthy way for teachers, school leaders, or anybody to go about seeking respect. People - children included - rightly respect actions and behaviours, rather than positions or titles.
Alternative(s)? Something that implies equality in the relationship - respect should be reciprocal. We need to earn the respect of the students and the colleagues that we work with via our actions. 

Standards

As in: 'We need to set some standards about student behaviour... ', or 'your child's report reflects their achievement against their year level standards... '
Why not? Regarding behaviour, we obviously need to have some clearly-communicated boundaries that students understand, but it is the overly-aggressive, show-'em-who's-boss, standard-setting that can ruin relationships before they have a chance to form... With standards-based curriculum reporting, it seems a little easier to inform parents how their child compares [albeit in simplistic, five-point scale terms... ], but a little harder to accurately inform them of where their child is actually achieving at and the appropriate next steps for their future learning... 
Alternative(s)? We need to teach students appropriate behaviours, just like we teach them to read, write, etc. Expecting students to all meet a designated standard [and getting upset when they don't] is akin to expecting them to all be at the same standard for English, Maths, etc. With curriculum standards, we need to be careful that we are not funneling people down a narrow path towards a... standard [!!] outcome - people need opportunity to focus on and develop their unique interests, talents and passions.

Tradition

As in: 'That is the tradition around here... '
Why not? Excessive reliance on traditional ways is becoming less and less useful in a world that is changing faster and faster. 
Alternative(s)? We need to be open to change and new ways. 'Because that's the way we've done it in the past... ' is becoming less and less valid as a reason for making a decision. 


What do you think..?

Why School?

I've just finished reading Why School, by Will Richardson - another notch on the holiday reading list belt! 

The book makes a compelling case for why and how education needs to be revolutionised.

The Old [Existing... ] Way

"Our story about education has gone basically unrevised for 150 years. Time's up."

Sure, there have been some changes to the way we educate children over the course of time, but these have been of incremental, even glacial pace given the vast period of time that 'formal' education has existed for... 

A rough timeline of change in Education... 

Whilst there may be some give or take on the actual dates in the graphic above, it can be said with some safety that we, as a profession, are still using some the same methods and approaches that we were [gulp... ] 1000 + years ago!?!

Education has been / is slow to respond to the changing way that society is learning, communicating and recreating. A similarly slow response has been seen from Education to other trends of societal change, including Gamification and Social Media... 
Teenagers and Business are a couple of segments of society that have generally been much quicker to adapt to these changes than Education has been...  

No so much the old, but certainly the recent and current excessive focus on standardised testing and competition, has lead to an inevitable narrowing of focus - narrowing of curriculum content and skills that students are exposed to, as well narrowing methods of measuring how 'good' a student / teacher / school / country(!) is.

The pathway towards educational 'success'..?

This heightened state of urgency regarding testing, data and measurement of progress is all related to a philosophy of ongoing, incremental improvement... This is laudable, as we all [should] want to get better at what we do... 

The Case for Radical Change

Education no longer needs gradual 'tweaking'... We refine, polish and focus on minute improvements when we are near-perfection - our systems and methods were likely closer to this state when we were preparing students for an industrial society. A factory processing model was appropriate when students were likely to end up working in factories, or occupations that relied upon consistent and accurate application of fundamental skills and knowledge. In the future - even now, in the present - there will be far greater value placed upon creativity, problem-solving, collaboration and other much-quoted(!) '21st Century Skills'.
So we don't need improvement, we need significant, revolutionary change - we need to be "doing school 'differently', instead of simply 'better'".  

One of the most significant changes that has occured in society, which Richardson keeps coming back to, is the sheer abundance of information that is available to almost anyone nowadays - there is now unprecedented accessibility to knowledge and knowledgeable people. This information and expertise is only becoming increasingly accessible.

The New Way

"In this new story, real learning happens anytime, anywhere, with anyone we like - not just with a teacher and some same-age peers, in a classroom, from September to June." 

• Students have increased autonomy about what they are learning - less sausage factory, more motivated learners.


• Learners should have flexibility about where they seek assistance from - go to where the expertise is, rather than a central, nominated person who cannot possibly be expert in all areas...


• Provision of opportunities and experiences for children to participate in and learn from digital environments - don't ignore these increasingly significant aspects of our lives. 


• Discovery, rather than delivery - "move away from telling kids what to learn, and when and how to learn it."


• More collaborating with other people and creating new products of learning, less consuming of content.


• Teachers to be collaborating, communicating and sharing with fellow professionals beyond their own school - spread quality practice and ideas.


• We [students and teachers] need to be good at learning, not simply knowing or remembering - knowledge is not only increasingly easy for people to access, it "is constantly changing and being updated", as well. 


• Teachers need to adopt a mindset of being ongoing learners - "... the adults in the room need to be learners first and teachers second."

Is inspiring too strong a word..? The book was certainly motivating and left me hopeful that, despite the stodginess of Education systems and the burden of overcoming "the roots of 150 years of tradition around schooling", teachers can begin to join bottom-up reforms of how we teach and how we ask students to learn.

Brain Bugs

I recently finished reading a book by Dean Buonomano about the brain and some of its imperfections - Brain Bugs: How The Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives.

There were a series of fascinating insights into some of the dilemmas we face, as a result of the human brain's recent struggles to evolve at a rate that is consistent with the rate of change we are experiencing in modern society. There was also plenty of practical advice for how we can help our own brains [and those of others] overcome some of these biologically-stubborn 'flaws'... 

A complex device

"Your brain is a web made of approximately 90 billion neurons linked by 100 trillion synapses - which in terms of elements and connections surpasses the World Wide Web, with its approximately 20 billion Web pages connected by a trillion links."

Human Brain vs the World Wide Web... 

For a variety of evolutionary reasons, our brains are naturally-inclined to be good at making approximations, recognising patterns and making connections. This points to the importance of students learning about knowledge / skills / concepts in an interrelated manner and being taught to make conceptual connections, rather than being taught knowledge and skills in an isolated, 'stand-alone' fashion - our minds work best by storing knowledge "in an associative manner: related concepts... are linked to each other."

On the other hand, human brains perennially struggle with mathematical calculations - we will "never be able to match the numerical prowess of digital computers". Despite our ability to carry out highly-complex tasks ["... virtually every human brain on the planet can master a language... "], we have to think hard in order to solve relatively simple mental calculations... 
Our brains are also quite poor storage devices - there are limits to how much information we can store and how accurately we can recall that information. Fortunately, technology is fast alleviating this issue for us - there is an ever-lessening need to ask the brain to store information, as we now have Google, YouTube, Internet-connected mobile devices, electronic calendars, etc. to perform these tasks for us.
In schools, we no longer need to be focusing on 'filling up' students with knowledge and content - knowledge is increasingly accessible in the age of the Internet and it is biologically inefficient!

Manipulating behaviour and motivating people

It seems we may be 'hard wired' to seek immediate gratification - particularly for activities that are related to the limbic section of the brain, responsible for some of our more basic functions. 
The term temporal discounting has been coined to describe how "the perceived value of a reward decreases with time." i.e. We become progressively less interested in a potential reward the longer that we have to wait to receive it... 
So we need to provide frequent positive feedback about progress to students [and teachers... ], to ensure that they engage with the journey towards the long-term outcomes - show them the steps along the way, not just the final destination. Gamification, with its focus on short cycles of feedback about the performance of 'players', does this well.

"... our brain is rigged to favor immediate gratification" - people need short cycles of feedback to maximise motivation.

Irrational Fears

We excessively fear many things because it made biological sense to fear such things 100,000 years ago... eg: We have an "innate uneasiness and distrust of outsiders... [because] competition and aggression between neighboring groups was constant throughout human evolution... " This 'innate', but often irrational fear, is routinely exploited by politicians ["amygdala politics"] and others, in order to strengthen their followings.
These outdated fear circuits reflect our genetic encoding, which "can only be reprogrammed on a slow evolutionary timescale". Skunks are a good example of "the consequences of running an outdated operating system". The cocky skunks will nonchalantly turn around and spray a potential enemy with their powerful odor - a tactic that serves them well against most species they encounter, but not against speeding cars... 
These outdated fears also commonly lead to excessive conservatism and reliance upon traditional ways. Partly, this is due to our memories having "no convenient way to delete information" - even proven bad information can be hard to eradicate... 

So how do we overcome conservative and outdated - but tightly-held - views that exist in our schools..? How do we expediate necessary change?

Overcoming our 'brain bugs'

In order to effectively tackle the inherent flaws of our brains, we need to develop our awareness of how the brain works.

The term, asymmetric paternalism [George Loewenstein] refers to the concept of enacting laws and regulations that "take our propensity to make irrational decisions into account." Without restricting our freedom or available choices, such laws "should nudge us toward the decisions that are in our own and society's best interests"... 

• If we had greater collective awareness of the brain's workings and its potential flaws, would schools be able to put some structures and processes in place to protect against irrational conservatism, or fear of difference..?

Another approach is to use the brain's propensity to value the behaviour of the group - "studies suggest that one of the most important determinants of people's behaviour is what they believe others are doing... ".

• Do schools need to work harder at promoting and celebrating people who are demonstrating the behaviours and actions we are hoping to 'spread'..?

Anyway, that's enough for now, my brain hurts... 

The Dangers of Efficiency

To work efficiently is to minimise waste - the wasting of time, the wasting of effort, the wasting of money, etc.
Operating efficiently is a vital component of successful workplaces, as it ensures that resources [financial, human, physical] are used in productive ways, with minimal waste and misuse. Errors, 'fat' and ineffectiveness are removed from processes and structures, in order to refine our work, consistently-implement 'best-practice', as well as ensure 'quality-control'...

Schools, like other organisations, value and aspire towards making productive use of their time and resources - after all, teachers are very busy and we all want to 'get the most out of' our students and the time we are investing in our work.
In schools, this view is related to the value we place on having ultimate consistency between classrooms and teachers, regarding the programs, approaches and schedules that we use. There is a lot of good research that identifies why it is important to have consistency of practice within schools, to eliminate the poor / less effective practice, remove examples of time / resource wastage, etc.
However...

Is there a side effect of schools aspiring towards uniformity and efficiency of operations..?

The only thing we know for sure about the future is that it will be different from the present. It is not simply this acknowledgement of inevitable change that is significant, but the exponential rate of change that society is experiencing since the dawn of the Internet...

The way children learn, the way teachers work and the way schools operate, will also all change as a result of our changing society - the variation will be in how responsive schools and teachers are to the changing needs of our students. i.e. Are you going to:

• ride the crest of the wave, or 
• miss it, have to wait for the next one and fall behind..?

If we [within schools] are uniform in our approaches...

• Yes, we are consistent; 
• Yes, we are efficient, through refining and scaling of processes;
• But we leave little room for experimenting, for trialing, for innovating... 

• If we do the same things in the same way, we remove the ability to investigate new ways and ideas and reduce our capacity to adapt and respond to inevitable change.

How can schools structure to better-accommodate change..?

Instead of aiming for and valuing uniformity, we need to 'tinker' more... An efficiency-mindset seeks to remove all errors, but if we stigmatise errors and mistakes, we won't be trialing and experimenting with new ideas and initiatives, because an inevitable [essential?!?] aspect of trials and experiments is the errors and mistakes we make and the learning that comes from these errors.

Seeking perfection of output and ultimate efficiency of process makes sense on a factory floor, or even when the role of schools was to produce workers for such contexts...

But this is no longer the role of schools - we are now preparing students for a future that is far different and less-known than that for which schools have traditionally served.

In schools we need to structure for and value the trialing of new ideas and experimenting with new approaches. We need to acknowledge and accept that some of these will end up being inefficient [i.e. not particularly successful] uses of time and resources, but value the learning that occurs from 'finding out' and investigating, as well as the successful new ideas that we can spread and scale.

The time and resources we spend investigating and tinkering with new ideas, projects, strategies, etc. shouldn't be seen as inefficient, but rather an investment in our ability to adapt and respond to change and, ultimately, to be relevant to our students and the communities that we serve.  

How do we make it equal?

Equality...

Is it ensuring that everybody is treated equally..? That we are all treated in the same fashion and those that work the hardest, those that 'want it' the most and those who are the most effective will reap the greatest rewards..?
Or is it focusing on equality of outcomes..? i.e. providing extra assistance to those that need it most and reducing assistance for those that are already advantaged..?

It often seems like a natural reaction to treat everybody in a consistent manner. As children, we are taught to 'share'... And by 'share' they (parents, teachers, et al... ) don't mean, "give your younger brother more than what you are keeping for yourself... "
It is natural for us to want the same treatment as other people, as well as to question why other people get 'better' treatment than ourselves...

Unfortunately, the 'survival of the fittest' mentality of treating people equally, is destined to result in unequal outcomes. Darwinism might make sense in the field of evolution, but when we have control over the outcomes, we can do better at 'spreading' the opportunity to succeed.

If choosing equality of outcomes over equal treatment, we need to direct and focus resources where they are needed most and reduce the level of support provided to people and groups of people that already have a high level of opportunity to succeed.

Why give people more than they need..?

Why leave people short of the opportunities that they need..?

Society

A recent development that has occurred in most modern democracies is the increasing rate of income inequality (Fisher and Hout 2006). Such income inequality "undermines societies: the more inequality, the more health problems, social tensions, and the lower social mobility, trust, life expectancy." [Durante, Fiske, Kervyn & Cuddy]



An OECD study identified Australia as part of a group with some other English-speaking countries, each of whom had above-average inequality in labour earnings, with the significant factors driving this earnings disparity being a wide wage dispersion range and a relatively low rate of full-time employment. 
i.e. Our top earners are doing very well for themselves... and we have lots of people without full-time employment... 

At the other end of the spectrum were a group of Nordic countries [and Switzerland], each of whom had below-average inequality in labour earnings, due largely to a narrower range of wage dispersion and a high employment rate.
i.e. There is a smaller 'gap' between high and low income earners... and a higher rate of people are working full-time. 

Schools

The Government has a responsibility to provide an education for its young citizens and it is this provision of education that is oft-promoted as the the vehicle for long-term societal change, particularly for those that are facing disadvantage.
If this is to be more than lip service, then Governments need to use their education systems to take on some of the responsibility of addressing the many and varied instances of disadvantage that are existent in our society today.

• Greater support for schools that are struggling.
• Proportionally greater support for schools that service disadvantaged students.

Classrooms

Within schools, we are probably more clearly on the path towards equitable outcomes. Most teachers and school leaders know (and put into practice) that students in greater need deserve greater support.

• Younger students are more dependent upon adult support and therefore need more of it. eg: Better teacher : student ratios in classes with younger students... 
• Academically struggling students need greater support, so they can engage with age-appropriate content and not face 'dumbed down' learning expectations and curriculum content...  
• Students with behavioural issues often need higher levels of time, attention and support than their peers, in order for them to close 'gaps' in their learning regarding appropriate behaviour - we accept that some students need extra assistance with reading [Maths, speech, fine motor skills, etc... ], but sometimes it is harder for people to accept that students are at different 'levels' regarding their skills and understandings about appropriate behaviour. It is no different to academic areas - we need to differentiate the support we provide so that all students have an equal opportunity to engage in and learn at school. 

So, if we are pursuing a more equal society as an outcome, we need to treat our individual students and schools differently, giving them what they need to ensure that they have equal opportunity to achieve success.

“Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need.” 

― Rick Riordan, The Red Pyramid

Start With the Purpose

In his September 2009 TEDx talk, Simon Sinek identified the need for a re-think of traditional ways that leaders communicate:


Sinek identifies 'The Golden Circle', comprising three elements that need consideration when communicating significant decisions, initiatives or change:

Sinek states that most people communicate from the 'outside, in', focusing on the what - the results... what 'it' looks like in practical application... 

Instead, we need to be communicating important decisions and initiatives from the 'inside, out' and focusing on the why - identify, explain and clarify the purpose.

"People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it"

Daniel Pink is another who comprehensively states the importance of having people see the purpose of their work, identifying it as one of the crucial ingredients in maximising the intrinsic motivation of people.



Sinek defers to science in order to evidence why this 'inside, out' approach is a more effective form of communication, citing biology:
There are three main components of the human brain:

• The neo cortex [the most-recently evolved part of the brain].

• This is the rational, analytical part of the brain.

• The part of the brain that consumes and interprets information. 

• The limbic sections.

• Responsible for the emotional and instinctive parts of the brain. 

• It is these limbic parts of the brain that drive behaviour. 

Leaders, themselves, need to know and believe in the 'why' of their decisions / initiatives, if they are going to be able to effectively communicate this to their people.

The goal is "to hire people who believe what you believe".

It is not enough to hire people because of 'what' they can do - if they don't understand and identify with the 'why', then they will not be intrinsically motivated by their work.

"If you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe."

We need to be more open and regular regarding 'what we believe' about the purpose of our work.

Regardless of how, or how well, we communicate, the 'law of diffusion of innovation' suggests that there will always be some people who 'buy in' to new ideas and innovations - the 'Innovators' and 'Early Adopters'... 

The challenge is to get over the 'chasm' and get the majority to buy in to the idea being communicated.  

A slight detour, but this popular video is a decent example of this concept of 'diffusion of innovation':

• The Lone Nut = Innovator
• The First Follower = Early Adopter
• The Early Majority come in and a tipping point is reached... 

What does this mean for schools?

• We should communicate our significant decisions and initiatives 'from the inside out', focusing on the 'why'.
• Schools need to be clear about their beliefs about teaching and learning. They need to discuss these beliefs openly and regularly.
• When making staffing decisions, schools need to explore the extent to which applicants identify with the important beliefs of the school, rather than zeroing in on 'what' skills and abilities candidates have - 'get the right people on the bus', rather than plugging perceived holes in skill sets of staff groups... 

• As Simon Sinek states, the goal should be to work with people "who believe what you believe".