A new pedagogical DNA
 for the 21st century

Dr. Richard A. NeSmith

Following an analogy using DNA as the fundamental building blocks for an educational system is a step forward in understanding the systemic changes that need to take place in education. These changes begin from the very start of the cycle and simply follow the "translation" of that code in place. In other words, "tweaking" our education system has failed truly to make any differences in the educational system, and this is why. One can, like a surgeon, violate a body cavity to remove a cancerous tumor, but the harm, damages, risk, scars, etc., from that operation will remain. That particular tumor may be removed, but it does not help in deterring others from developing. However, if we were to identify that the tumor was hereditary, then one could alter the genetic structure possibly to avoid the development of tumors. In education, we have for a long time, acted as surgeons carrying Band-Aids.  One cannot, however, simply put Band-Aids on the educational problems found in most systems. Sir Greg Whitby's video (21st century pedagogy), states exactly that. It is the DNA that needs to be in our focus, and the results will then become, in proper time, systemic. From my own humble opinion, I would like to suggest that three stages of change need to occur: deregulation, a new focus, and hiring passionate people. Making these changes are not as much as “stages” as they are components of a system-wide change. Having said that, I humbly present what I believe how this new educational DNA should look.

Stage 1: Deregulate the unimportant

Deregulate every aspect of education except the final stage of accountability. Systems are created to standardize, formalize, and to reduce waste. The public schools of the US (my place of origin) do none of these very well. So, what has been put into place (usually by the government) to prevent problems, in fact, causes many of the very problems we now face; Low-levels of learning, achievement, literacy, school attendance, and graduation rates, all having some element of blame on the present system in place. Systems, unfortunately, are self-serving and, like cancer, can overwhelm the entire body.

1.  Accountability via some form of a charter from the top-down

Innovation surfaces from the bottom up. It is, however, generally, stifled from the top-down, if that system does not instill the security and support for the bottom to, indeed, become innovative. The very first requirement in changing the DNA of education is to have the state departments of education agree to permit some form of “chartering” of schools (that is, the school sets out in a charter/legal document to establish what it is they intend to accomplish), then let the schools have a go at it, making them accountable for that which they have "chartered" to do.  

Under a true charter, accountability becomes meaningful without all the regulations on aspects that have little to do with government or politicians. Schools are answerable for that which they have made their priority in the legal charter document. For example, if School A has chartered to “produce students who have an appreciation of the arts,” then that school will need to be able to provide evidence that they are, in fact, producing students who meet that goal. This solves a good number of problems, for politicians and the media tend to judge schools based on criteria that may or may not be appropriate, or simply seek to use national test results, such as TIMMS, which can easily be taken out of context and thus used to prove anything one wants to see.

Educators must have the freedom to be educators, and when, yet, when the present system requires or demands compliance, it is unfounded faith that prevents professionals from being professional. Educators need to be returned to the control towers of education, and they must be provided with a means to grow in their craft, but that will not happen under the restrictions found in most regulating state departments of education.

2.  Encourage a research-based, dynamic teacher preparation program

Grant the teacher-training universities the freedom to teach pre-service and graduate teachers outside the box. It should focus, first, on learning. Just as small contributaries feed into lakes and lakes into oceans, higher education, particular the schools of education are the rivers of life for education. Dam the river and you have a dammed river. Hmmm, I won’t take that statement any further! J Nevertheless, if the life-blood of providing a public education for all is the schools of education, then freeing up the norms and constructs will energize educators to be creative and look beyond the here-and-now, and to focus on the best ways to learn, thus determining the best practices, and the best ways to teach. There was a day when the university led the way in bringing technology to the students of elementary and secondary students. With a few exceptions, that does not seem to be the case anymore. In most schools I have been in during the last 10 years, I have found the students are far ahead of the schools, and the tertiary schools of education are even behind the elementary/secondary schools when it comes to knowledge and application of technology. This should have alarmed every one of us, but the overall “system” has managed to keep the apprehension down to a minimum.  

It will be the “new” generation of graduating teachers who will continue to lead the way for future students. They will, however, find it impossible to teach in 19^th century-type schools. Some hold that the task of the “system” is to keep the lid on it, and to reduce the number of educational radicals to a minimum. However, it is the educational radicals who change the world (granted, sometimes only posthumously so). Great educators do stand on the backs of giants…but they do not stagnate there. They tend to use their brains to generate something “new,” but not necessarily accepted by their own peers or their own generation. We have scores of examples, the problem being that such “radicals” are not remembered as being “radical” once their ideas become in vogue. Most “radicals,” at least during the Dark Ages, did not live to see his or her lives's work completed. Dare I say that B. F. Skinner was considered a radical in his early days, as was Piaget, Vygotsky, and even John Dewey? There was a time when people raised an eyebrow at the mention of Watson and Crick, Madame Curry, Montessori, Malaguzzi (founder of Reggio Emilia approach). The list could go on and on, even in present there are contemporaries like Gates and Allen (Microsoft), Jobs and Wozniak (Apple Computers), Zuckerman and Saverin (Facebook), and Thiel (PayPal). These folks were not “regulated” into creating their successful (and world-wide) tools; they created the rules.  

Where does the present educational system encourage such freedom of growth, freedom of discovery, freedom of identifying a need and then doing whatever it takes to meet that need? For most, it does not. Granted, there are a few, such as Dennis Littky, Ted Sizer, or possibly a Bill Glasser or Ron Clark, etc., but one could argue that those educators created outside the system, for the system provided them little room or support. That does not diminish some of the great educators who work within the system today, but, for the most part, they are bound by cords; cords that restrict much of what they say and what they could actually do if unrestrained.  

The notion that deregulating schools will lead to anarchy is an illusion. Deregulating an overburdened structure empowers teachers and administrators, and empowered educators are not tyrants, they become creative. One must question why a politician, for example, would vote to deregulate banking, trade, commerce, etc., but then deny the need for it in education. Systems will not change until education is put back into the hands of the educators who are passionate about helping students. Politicians are not educators, though it might be useful to require them to take the SAT or TIMMS and to post their results on their stationery, shingle, and election placards. Perhaps we can get a referendum on that for the next election? Probably not; but the least we can do is to let educators be educators so as to create effective schools within an effective, but loosely structured system. It is then, and only then, that the DNA of education will properly transcript and translate into a vibrant and viable tool to prepare students for the real world.  

Stage 2: Focus on learning

       The first thing I noticed in education when I began teaching was that we (schools) major on the minors and minor on the majors. It’s cliché, no doubt, but there seems to be evidence that we are more concerned (by our actions and by our budget items) about a great deal of things that have nothing to do with learning. I remember some frustrating times when I had to ask myself quietly, of course, “Are we just ‘playing’ school?” Unfortunately, in many cases, that is exactly what we were doing…and some continue to do so still today. After taking my first university post, I designed an assignment that required my undergraduate students in a first-year education course to interview a few teachers and principals. One of the questions they were to address was “what is the purpose of schools?” That assignment was quite an eye-opener for if one asked five teachers and five administrators; one would get seven or eight different answers. Why? The purpose of schooling is unclear; even to many of those who abide inside the system. Of course, the “purpose” of education during the formative days of public education was to Americanize the immigrants to, basically, be law-abiding and respect those who make those laws. Of course, it was the venerable Thomas Jefferson who saw the purpose of education: “By this means twenty of the best geniusses will be raked from the rubbish annually, and be instructed, at the public expence, so far as the grammer schools go" (sic). So much for being enlightened.  

Granted, today, those working in school district offices would have their own concept of the purpose of education; that is, if they have taken any time to think about it. As for the “system” who knows what “it” might say? This should cause one to wonder if many of us are, in fact, the character Truman Burbank (starring Jim Carrey) from the 1998 movie, The Truman Show? Truman really and sincerely thought he was living a real life with a genuine occupation; and yet, he was simply a marionette experiment, not much different than that of a lab rat manipulated by experimenters (viz., the system). Let us hope that is truly a story of fiction.

1. Train practicing teachers to focus on learning

       During the last 25 years, we have become more knowledgeable about learning and the human brain than we have ever known. Many of the effective methods we used in the past are just now having their effectiveness being explained by science and technology research. There are other means, modes and modalities of learning that are just now coming to light. The use of technology; especially the computer and the Internet, are, seemingly, boundless tools to facilitate learning. Various software programs are showing promise though the jury is still out on their actual effectiveness. However, there is still much that we do not know. We must focus on what learning is and how it can be facilitated, as well as what prevents learning from taking place? We need more research and application on how personal individualized learning plans can be used to accommodate each learner. Learning preferences need to be considered, honed, and greater emphasis on conceptualization and less on rote memorization or test-taking skills. More research needs to be done on what effective assessment looks like and how it could be implemented in a formative fashion. How do we know when something is learned? What is the proper way to measure it? With all the billions of dollars spent annually on purchasing standardized tests for nearly every student in every school, the money could be better spent on this and still have millions left over for the classroom. What a change of atmosphere would be experienced in our schools if such amounts of spending were diverted from the testing industry! Such overuse of high-stakes testing never helped a single student to improve their level of learning or understanding.

2. Determine what strategies are most effective

What strategies are most effective? These are often individually-centred, and discipline-specific. There are no silver bullets but there are plenty of rusty nails. We cannot simply continue trying to patch the proverbial “leaky roof” on the educational system (I probably just crossed analogies, here!). Those without teaching or research backgrounds need to realize that no single strategy will suffice. Even the most effective teachers find that what works with some students is not so useful for others. I always tried to drill it into my pre-service and graduate teachers who “Any strategy overused loses its effectiveness.” And, since I have been making that statement since 2002 (and do not recall reading it anywhere), I will take full credit for that epigram. The jest of the matter is that one must have some ability and opportunity to personalize and individualize instruction to various degrees. This cannot be done in a classroom with 35-60 students. We will address that issue a bit later.

In the history of education, we have gone through the past practices of being "teacher-centred" and "student-centred." What we need to do is to become more "learning-centred." Until we break that bondage we are always going to focus on the curricula…and that is one of the present problems. Curriculum, like computers, calculators, and microscopes, are only the tools of education. We are to use curricula as a tool to engage and help students learn the knowledge, skills, and processes they need to be successful human beings. Curricula changes and is often driven by regional needs (which is, also, one reason I am uncomfortable with plans advocating a national curriculum. In addition, one could memorize all that is presented in a course but fail to benefit from it if they do not understand and build those dendritic connections between and among the concepts. It happens every semester or term.  

3. Recognize that dynamic learning is not a stagnant process

If learning is a personal interaction with one's environment, the teachers must become more individualized with what they teach, what they require from it, and how they teach it. Thus, it is my belief that we are well past due to needing every student a personalized learning plan. Another factor I noticed quickly when entering the profession of teaching preadolescent and adolescent students is that what worked for those in “special education” also seem to work for those not in special education. Special education has used Individual Education Plans (IEPs) successfully for some time. It is now time we provided this for all students; not just for verbiage passivity (like politicians do with photo opportunities!) but in practice.

As one focuses on learning one will begin to see the importance of teaching students how to think. Enthusiastic teachers produce enthusiastic students. Likewise, thinking teachers will produce students who are no long afraid to think for themselves. If what one knows is important (facts), then having the ability to think is one hundredfold in importance (apply those facts). Thinking students will find whatever knowledge they need to make proper decision or finish a task.

4. Intentional, and purposely, leave the Industrial Age methodology and practices

If one were to drive their car into an auto repair shop in order to get a tune-up, one would expect more from the mechanic than to see him or her put a wrench to the engine block and to their ear, listening for rhythm, unusual noises, etc. No, if I am going to pay for their service, then I would expect him or her to connect my engine to the latest automobile technology and computers, review the latest specs, and compare my car’s actual performance to the standards of other cars of my make or model. And, I would expect they would seek to replace old parts with proper replacement parts of the utmost quality. Yet, most of our schools, apart from some technology sitting around (often unused or under-used), run, operate, teach, test, and deal with students almost exactly like those who were educated in schools 100 years ago. If this DNA script is to be changed, we must realize that our "industrial age” system of education was only a tool (be it for the right reasons or not). Tools grow old. Tools have to be replaced. Tools are not even the centerpiece of focus…they are only tools. 

It does seem that education, in contrast to other professions, spend more time patching the problems then actually analyzing to see what does not work; conversely, better still, why some method, strategy, etc., was not effective. Learning from failures is the best way to become successful. We have all heard the epigram ascribed to Einstein;  “Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Here are just a few of the practices schools continue to try to resuscitate:

1.  Large enrollments in classes
2.  Longer school days
3.  Textbook-driven lessons
4.  Time-constrained lessons
5.  Desks; in neat rows, of course
6.  Teacher as the dispenser of knowledge
7. Student as regurgitator of knowledge
8. Pattern of predictable classroom lessons (read, lecture, complete the questions in the book, video, test)

There are many more and this list is not limited, but rather simply pointing out some of the “minors,” that we major on in schools. I am not declaring all of these do not have some legitimacy or should entirely be banned…but rather, WHY do we do these, and do they help students learn or are they just how we “play” school?

I am reminded of the young wife who is looking forward to preparing a nice home-cooked roast for her Christmas family gathering in her magnificent state-of-the-art kitchen. She purchases the roast, cuts it in half, as her mother had taught her, and began preparing the first half in her pan. She realizes that she does not have a second oven pan and so has to go to her friends to borrow one. She’s quite peeved that she has had to make this delay and makes it known to her husband. Upon hearing, he begins to question her. “Honey, why do you need two pans for the roast?” She replied because my mother always cut the roast into halves and cooked them in separate pans. As any good husband, he smiled and nodded, walking away with that dumb look of no comprehendo on his face. When the family all arrived for Christmas dinner, he asked his mother-in-law about it. She delightfully shared with him that she had such a small oven that he had to cut the roast into two in order to prepare it. Thus, she needed two pans. There are times when we do what we do because “that is the way it is done around here.” Or worse, “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.” This, incidentally, is probably not a comment that a person with a passion would make. We really have a lot of advantages over our Industrial Revolution colleagues. It may be that what they did does not even apply to our present situation. Such practices, however, need to be changed in the DNA of teaching in order to stop wasting our time looking for another pan when our ovens are ample size to cook the entire meal at one go. Also, if it ain’t broken, then go ahead and break it so you can replace it with something better.  

Stage 3: Find the right people

In his book, From Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't, Jim Collins examines, in a scholarly but practical manner, what ingredients make corporations great. There are many useful concepts in this business management text that would benefit education. One that seems appropriate here is his discussion of who to employ. Collins says that all great companies spent time and effort getting the right people “on the bus.” In America, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act contained one element of ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified teachers. By the way, those measures put forth by NCLB are really the same requirements that for teachers entering the profession the last 40 years: a) degreed in area of teaching, b) passing specific teaching (content and professional practice) tests, and c) supervised input and training the first few years of teaching. NCLB, however, was another patch-job that failed to restructure the DNA of education.

1.       It is all about passion

Collins does not even suggest that one must hire the smartest, most brilliant, or even the most experienced people. He simply found that great companies got the right people on the bus…and that centered on finding those to join you who had the same passion for what they do. In fact, Collins notes that if you get the right people on the bus, their passion, love for what they are doing, and their knowledge and expertise will multiply in a synergistic way BECAUSE you cut them lose and let them “do their thing.” In other words, if you get the right people on the bus you hardly have to supervise them for they hit the ground running, and they are not doing it for you or your boss, they are doing it because that is who they are and what they do. Those who lack some knowledge seek out those who have that knowledge. They are self-motivated and self-driven to do the best they can and to be the best they can be? Sounds too good to be true? Well, it sounds too fanciful to many of us because in the past, we failed to hire employees (or our bosses did) with passion and love for what they do for we were too busy trying to fill a slot that the traits that make for a great company are overlooked for ones that, generally, were poor indicators to begin with.

2.       It is all about how to manage

Worse than hiring the wrong person is hiring the right people but not permitting them to do their job or use their expertise. Great companies hired the right persons with passion, but afterwards permitted those employees to seek that which ignites their passion. You see, filling buses requires locating the right person (with the burning passion for what they do) and THEN, empowering them to make the decisions in the areas of which they have been assigned. The flames from one passionate person then fan the flames of the others in the company or division, and synergy runs freely. Over-managing squelches creativity and leads to employees checking their watches to see when they can leave, how they might get out of work, or even (subconsciously), seeking how they can undermine the boss without it pointing directly at themselves as the instigator.

Passion from, and trust in, those right ones joining the bus drives the company to become great. Thus, the DNA of education must include new paradigms, not only in the classroom, but also in the school and district and state educational offices. It requires an entirely new approach to educational administration that provides accountability but permits the passionate teachers to be trusted enough to run the course. If we hire the right people, they will do the right thing. Does this sound too good to be true? That is why there are few corporations that go from good to great! And, that is why we have such a breakdown in education. We hire some of the best and then treat them as though they are, themselves, kindergarten students. Subsequently we wonder why they are not dedicated, why they do not want to show up for various meetings, events, etc.

In essence, the concept of changing the very DNA of education seems to be a logical means of making the changes need, and necessary, in public education; however, before doing so, one actually has to determine what end results are desirable. One could argue that this in, in actuality, the act of tracing backwards or reverse planning, where one starts at the end point and works backwards. This, in contrast, is more vital for the school than it is for the “new” system being suggested, for it is the task of the school to produce what they have set out to produce, whereas, it should be the task of the district or state department of education to be realigned with a new mindset to be able to support and encourage the schools to reach their respective charters, and then hold those schools accountable, accordingly. On paper this is what the present state departments and districts are shown to do, but in practice, this has been filtered through the wrong archetype and was more policing and controlling. Thus, changing the DNA of education changes this mindset, thereby freeing up, energizing, and empowering teachers and school administrators to do what is necessary to help individual students improve in learning and achievement.

Figure 1

Figure 1 provides a visual of the concept suggested for the changing of the DNA of education for a public education system. Though the conceptualization of such a change is overwhelming and leaves much logistically, the main tenet here is that positive change cannot truly result following the incremental fashion that has been tried during the last umpteenth attempt to reform education. The heart of the matter is a matter of the heart; the very DNA has to facilitate learning, not test scores, not reduced budgeting practices, and not blaming teachers for the systemic failures of an antiquated system. Radical? Yeah, and John Dewey and Horace Mann were considered outright radicals for the very Industrial Revolution-type education system we presently keep resuscitating. We cannot afford to continue to allow non-educators to design and to micro-manage/legislate our schools. We just cannot afford to sustain a dead horse. Someone once wisely said, “When the horse is dead, dismount.” Let us make the past our past. Build on the giants of history, but do not expect their works to answer our questions. For the most part, we are far more advantaged (and supposedly advanced) than our forefathers; however, we continue to hold to an obsolete model that was developed by men and women willing to be considered fanatics, loonies, or worse.  People could not fathom how or why a government would want to provide a free (tax-based) education system for all children. It was unprecedented. It was insane. So, maybe Einstein or whoever actually made the statement that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” would not have called those early innovative educations insane, after all. That claim may just belong to our generation. 

In considering our options, “patching it up” or “changing the very DNA of education,” will not stop changes going on around us. Change will continue to occur all around our nation and the world no matter what we do. Change is inevitable, and it is reaching record speeds in the 21^st century. Positive change, however, requires planning and action, otherwise, entropy will prevail. We can hold tight to our beloved system and watch change, like a steamroller, move right over the top of us. Not all students will lose, of course, but many will. Like the Biblical parable, we can continue to put “new wine” in “old wineskins,” but the end result will be very unpleasant. Nations will rise and fall. Countries are changing in relation to their power and prestige, based primarily on what they do with their youth and how well the newer generations adapt and adopt using the skills, knowledge, and processes they have learned, or failed to learn, in school. Similarly, Smith-Corona was probably the biggest and most successful producer of portable typewriters. It is said that when Smith-Corona (Machines Corporation) released their newest and latest portable electronic typewriter (with an electronic spelling function, even!!!) it was deemed the world’s best typewriter. Unfortunately, that was 1985 and the typewriter market was already giving way to IBM/DOS and Apple Computers. That may not be the only reason SCM went bankrupt shortly thereafter, but it was the nail in the coffin. They never recovered. But with public education, we are not simply dealing with a failed company. Far more is at stake.

References