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 19th 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:
- Large
enrollments in classes
- Longer
school days
- Textbook-driven
lessons
- Time-constrained
lessons
- Desks;
in neat rows, of course
- Teacher
as the dispenser of knowledge
- Student
as regurgitator of knowledge
- 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 21st 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
I am not trying to be an alarmist, but I am concerned that we are just "consumers" to be exploited in whatever capacity corporations and our own government deem necessary to serve their own purpose and profit. I would encourage you to share this long thread with other concerned citizens. 
