EDUCATED OUT OF CREATIVITY?

I needed a bit of inspiration this week and so I watched a couple of Ted Talks featuring Ken Robinson.  

The first was about how the history of education has come to the current system having been conceived in different financial and cultural circumstances (Robinson).  His animated talk called, "Changing Education Paradigms" showed how the current system is based on a factory model, conceived in a "production line mentality".  I think what he was saying is that that model may have been right for those times, but that times change and it is time for a new model for a new global and changing economy.

Robinson when on to explain who education should be aesthetic, engaging the mind in a manner that is fully present and fully alive (Robinson).  However, in the age of an ADHD epidemic (or as he calls it a "fictitious epidemic), we are medicating to subdue, rather than stimulate minds. This is so sad, given that, as Robinson states, we are living in a time of the greatest stimulation every known.

The second Ted Talk was another featuring Robinson, called "Do Schools Kill Creativity".  I really liked this talk because it highlighted how children begin school with massive creativity and divergent thinking, but then become progressively less able to tap into these internal forces.  

Robinson hypothesized that we are "educating children out of creativity" (Robinson).  Some of the reasons for this trend were lack of acceptance of being wrong or taking chances.  He also noted that teachers need to see the creativity and foster it, rather than forcing the creativity out in favour of meeting standardized guidelines.

My reflection on both Ted Talks lead to more questions (as always!):

How do we teach the curriculum expected while fostering creativity?

How do we undo the knots created in the creative flow in order to inspire divergent thinking?

How do we deal with the benchmarks of standardized testing in order to show that divergent thinking does not come at the cost of the academic achievement that needs to be demonstrated?

RESOURCES:

Robinson, Ken.  (2010).  Changing education paradigms.  Ted Talk.  https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms

Robinson, Ken.  (2006).  Do schools kill creativity?  Ted Talk.

https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity

PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY MIND MAP

Cindy C. from GDPI811 shared a free mind-map software on her blog site and it looked great.  I was eager to use it. It was was pretty simple to use once I got on to it and far more flexible than other flow charts I have used.  Thanks for the sharable idea Cindy!

https://www.mindomo.com/mindmap/513d0e7ddd494325a4d804affdcfb032

I thought it would be a great way for me to start thinking about my personal philosophy and the factors that go into it.  Let the creative juices flow!

FREE TUITION- AN EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY ON THE HORIZON

I just watched the 2016 Michael Moore documentary “Where to Invade Next”.  In this film he compared the US to many countries across the globe on a variety of quality of life subject.  Higher learning was a hot topic within his research and it was perfectly timed with the theme of our GDPI811 topic of the philosophy of education.  This got me thinking about the variation of tuition of higher learning within different countries across the globe.

In the documentary Michael Moore interviewed students from Denmark who shared what they claimed was their country’s philosophy about higher learning.  They described that higher learning had so much value that it was fully funded.  It seemed puzzling to them why it might not be funded, given the importance.  It almost seemed insulting to them that people would be not given access to such a basic right.

The reading “Why we must abolish schools” by Ivan Illich merged with Moore’s documentary.  Illich’s argument was that SCHOOLS were too expensive.  SCHOOLS were ineffective.  SCHOOLS were inequitable.  It was not that he didn’t argue for LEARNING, he just didn’t think that formal learning was all it was cracked up to be and that we just didn’t need all the bricks an mortar to enable LEARNING.    And yet, considering Michael Moore’s documentary, there are countries that believe so strongly in schools that they fund them for all.  Hmmmmm…..

This brings me to my professional context.   I work for a community college. During my 19 years working for this institution, I have worked on many projects that have shown me how important access to education is in order to level the playing field for those who are economically disadvantaged.   I helped hundreds of workers who were laid off in the recession of 2008 to use a program called Second Career to access the financial support needed to rise their skill levels so that they could compete.  While many of these laid off workers did have to make modest investments to their own career path, I am proud to say that most of their needs were considered in these 100% grant programs.  With the philosophical goal access to education, this program was charged with part of the responsibility of raising Ontarian’s skills to a highly competitive level.  These social programs made good long-term business sense and aligned with the philosophy of education very well.  More importantly, it provided a chance at a second career to those who needed it most- the laid off workers of that major recession.

A more recent development that aligns with educational philosophy which draws a little closer to the vision of Denmark as described in Michael Moore’s documentary, is access to education for poor.  In 2016 there was a major announcement to address the issue of access:  Free university and college tuition for those who are from families making less than $50,000 per year.    Even with 19 years of working within this Ministry, I never thought this day would come.  Tuition costs being a barrier no longer!   I think this will be a wonderful experiment to see how this changes Ontario’s skill level, how it will address skills gaps as baby boomers exit the labour force and most importantly, how this could lead to innovation and equalization for the most financially vulnerable.   I am overjoyed.  You can read more about this here:

https://news.ontario.ca/maesd/en/2017/01/ontario-provides-free-tuition-for-eligible-students-in-london.html

I am sure that social programs like tuition grants and Second Career will still leave gaps, but they are creative and innovative starting points.  What I know first hand is that there will be data-driven decisions made to improve these programs.  I hope that philosophical and historical thinking will also be applied to consider how learning and teaching can (and indeed will need to) become more nimble, creative and innovative to meet the demand. 

Remaining questions:

What are other socio-economic factors that will be barriers for the poor and working poor, beyond financial considerations?

How will free tuition and education grants change access for the greater student population?

What will be the new selection criteria if educational spaces become limited?

How can business and industry assist in the educational process?

What can philosophy offer to disadvantaged students, in terms of enhancing the educational process?   How will this improve the lives of the economically disadvantaged?

Resources:

Illich, I. (1970, July 2). Why we must abolish schooling. The New York Review of Books, 15(1), 9–15.

FUEL FOR EMPLOYER-DRIVEN TRAINING

As my thoughts this week turn to the philosophy of education, I reflect upon my professional context.  

The idea of accessibility of education and when and where learning should occur leads me to consider the introduction of employer-driven training/education grants.

In 2015, a new cost-shared program between the provincial and federal governments was launched with the goal of job creation and workforce up-skilling.   The Canada Ontario Job Grant (COJG) is a professional focus of my work, helping employers to consider up-skilling and training options, as well as significant grants to fund the training.  This is a powerful tool for employers, who often cannot justify or afford training for their workers.  

As I think about philosophy of education, I consider how important these grants are because they do not interrupt income in order to further invest in acquiring new skills.  Being able to “earn while you learn” is important for the working poor, who often get stuck in job-ghettos of low skill and accompanying low pay, which is a highly depressing scenario.  This grant can empower those in poverty because they no longer have to choose to work or to get higher skills.

The other point worthy of philosophical reflection relating to the COJG, is the idea of employers becoming the drivers of learning, dictating what should be taught based on what markets demand of them.  When employers drive the learning process, the solutions can be responsive to the actual demands of the labour market and training becomes more “just-in-time”.    I am seeing impressive evidence of large institutions (like mine) being more nimble than ever before, not just in response to COJG but to employer demands, generally.  The COJG is simply another piece of evidence at the need to be responsive, or risk being plowed-over by institutions that can redesign and repackage in response to industry needs and demands.  

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that there is no longer a need for a liberal education.  Institutions continue to cover that territory very well with students who need to learn HOW to learn.  I just see in my professional context how employers demand both timely technical skills and broad-based skills.  I think the COJG can help do both.  Better, yet, it can help employers to become active and engaged partners with institutions of higher learning and vice versa.  Through these partnerships, I think that Ontario can rise to become a highly skilled workforce.  If progress in this direction is not made, then the evidence I see in my professional context would be troubling.  So is the idea that low skill work disappearing.  If workers cannot raise their skills, either through self-funded training, or employer driven training, like the COJG, then poverty and dependence seems the natural result.  This makes me think how important it is to have the messages of grants such as the COJG reach employers of the working poor.

Questions from my professional context naturally arise:

How do we best market the COJG to reach all of the classes of workers and employers?

How can we help employers to choose the best training for their needs when the options are so wide open?

How can employers and trainers/colleges/universities foster collaborations with industry in new an innovative ways?

What can industry and higher learning institutions functionally do to better predict demands in order to be more educationally proactive?  How can we further leverage COJG to do this?

WE MUST ABOLISH SCHOOLING?

I recently read the article:  “Why we must abolish schools written by Ivan Illich in  1970.

Resource:

llich, I. (1970, July 2). Why we must abolish schooling. The New York Review of Books, 15(1), 9–15.

In the article, Illich argues that schools, as institutions of bricks and mortar, are inefficient, inequitable and financially non-feasible.  He further asserts that schooling results in neither successful teaching, nor learning.  This article really got under my skin- I have been thinking it for days! 

His data was compelling about the costs of schools, which got me thinking about the evolution of education and the benefit of 40 years of history and hindsight.   Evidence is not hard to find.  If you look around most school properties these days, you are likely to see at least one or two “portable” classrooms, which are physical reminders of the budget restrictions under which schools tend to operate.   I don’t this serves to punctuate the realities of the financial limitations, not Illich’s argument that schools should be abolished but investments must come with innovation, in order to truly be effective. 

In 2016, the Ontario government committed $1.1 billion dollars to upgrade physical learning spaces, most likely because budget restrictions cannot delay much needed upgrading and maintenance indefinitely.  The goal of this public investment is to create better spaces for, you guessed it, LEARNING!   But appropriate, accessible space is not the only issue, especially when enrolment is a moving target, often showing declines.

In my personal context, I began considering ways in which de-schooling may have already taken place to match with Illich’s recommendations of casual or real life learning.  Cooperative education is one of these innovations.  Being able to lift learning out of the institution and into real workplaces has helped cement learning, without the need for set curriculum.  Many students who don’t remember a thing from geography class, remember their co-op learning in vivid detail.  Another development from higher learning are community projects and field placement, where both the host company and the student derive distinctly different, but mutually beneficial results.    While Illich seemed not to believe in credentials of any type, I feel that he would at least respect that learning is recognized beyond the classroom.

Speaking of learning outside the classroom, I think Illich might also approve of the current trend toward prior learning assessment and recognition as a way to prove competencies over credentials.  In my professional context, I work with clients to develop portfolios, and it is a very effective means to proving to others (and yourself!) the competencies you have acquired through standard and non-standard experiences.  In fact, the post secondary institution in which I work has endorsed “co-curricular records” in order to value both curriculum based learning as well as extracurricular involvement and learning.  In this way, I think Illich’s vision is partially realized with recognition of learning opportunities in and outside of institutional learning.

So many questions remain:

How can Canada provide equal access to education, without overburdening taxpayers?

How can institutions be physically more multi-purpose in order be economically efficient?

What other learning opportunities can business and industry provide as “living classrooms?”

LET'S TALK ABOUT "CONTINUOUS INNOVATION" INSTEAD OF "CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT"

I am beginning to understand the value of both history in education and philosophical perspectives on education.  This is leading me to consider how both play out in my professional context and how my feelings about working within data-driven models.

 Lately, I have been noticing my reaction to funding in data-driven models.   I am finding the concept of “continuous improvement” to be professionally frustrating.  

Don’t get me wrong… I believe in innovation and improvement.  I am just irritated that data is becoming a situation of the tail wagging the dog, instead of the reverse. 

These recent studies in the history and philosophy of education are helping me to better articulate my argument, which is that data is important, but we are so busy trying to achieve data results that we are not really having the level of innovation that we clearly want and need. 

In trying to achieve data results, the approach gets designed only to show these types of improvements.  This often results in doing things that don’t make operational or logical sense in order to see the numbers go in the direct that they need to in order to prove effectiveness.  This translates to feelings of “getting very good at playing the game”… but if the game is a bad game, then why are we trying to get better at it.   In social services,  there are many subjectives.  There are changes at the local community level that might not be considered at the macro level that cannot be addressed when achieving targets and data check points is the only focus.

Continuous improvement, in the context of data, is a total crock.  If data is expected to continuously improve, eventually targets will be hundreds of times their original set point OR you have to hold back good results so as to avoid not going higher than outstanding results in the future.  It is a game no one can win. 

To this point, I was reading a book recently  (Charle Dugig’s “Better, Faster, Smarter”) and there was a very interesting chapter within the book that discussed how some of the worst performing schools in America (the writer’s context) were able to use data to transform their schools into effective centres of education.   Dugig’s message wasn’t about simply having the data, in fact, data by itself was often completely ignored.   What seemed to be the difference was teachers INTERACTING with the data.    The observation from this exercise was that teachers who manually work with classroom data start seeing patterns and become able to devise plans for supplementation that can actually change the data.  Innovation, in this way, becomes not about having access to data, but having professionals who can USE the data to innovate with students, individually and in groups.  

This is where philosophy becomes and history becomes important because it points more toward values and the human factor, not just the data.  What we should be teaching and why we are teaching it has value beyond test scores and success measures.

So, if you want to talk with me about “Continuous Innovation” then, I am all ears.  If you want to discuss “Continuous Improvement” then you need to apply some philosophic and historical perspective to data discussions.  Otherwise, I will simply become good at playing a data-game, rather than focusing on innovation.

I will end with a question….

In what ways can education and social services build compelling arguments using philosophy and history to lead to innovation, beyond data-driven continuous improvement?

OOPS! I ACCIDENTLY READ SOMETHING THAT CONNECTED TO MY BLOG THOUGHTS!

I was reading book review article "Can historians help school reformers?" and somehow I downloaded forty pages of reviews.... 3 authors and 9 books later, I rea didn't answer tlized that I had stumbled upon two themes of my last most posts.  

One of the themes was on about the history of morality in educational history.  My blog post was actually more about biblical history examples than morality, but the idea of of morality and spirituality are common in that they are often neglected in curriculum.  I liked how the authors noted the historical importance of morality and how education is described as a having a key role in moral development. It is interesting to look at the past struggle through modern eyes. 
The other theme that I psychically predicted was education as preparation for the workforce.   The history during the industrial era made sense at the time- having students who could function in the new world of work. To be cliche... the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Because my professional context is the school to work transition, I am finding it personally challenging to help youth to navigate this life stage.  As we look for solutions in the present, it may help us to look back at how education did and did not assist in times of stability and times of uncertainty.
No questions this time... only connections.... accidental as at process may have been.

WHAT CAN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS LEARN FROM EDUCATION HISTORY?

In my professional context, I am preparing for some new youth employment funding, that includes delivering workshops to youth to engage them in positive steps toward future employment.  I am excited about these changes because I know that they are important and necessary to help with transitions.

The youth in these programs no longer have the school safety net.  They are on their own.  Workplace bound and barely ready for the interview itself.

When working with youth, I find myself comparing employment to school- ALOT!  There are more differences than similarities.  In school if the student is absent, teaching adjusts.  If a student is late, there are consequences, but seldom do students find themselves expelled when they are tardy once time too many.  Employers will not tolerate it and the youth would be fired.  If the student is not living up to his potential in school, it is a shame but not a deal-breaker.

The workplace is far more judgemental.  No do-overs.  No notes from home.  No counselling department to get to the root of the problem.  It is a "make it or break it" scenario.

I suppose the one exception to this rule is co-op education.  I believe deeply in this experience as nothing can better teach real world expectations of employer the way a placement can.  The dynamic does change somewhat when the placement is unpaid because it buys quite a bit of employer tolerance.  My placements are paid and so the youth need to be good and ready for the challenge.

To that end, I have many questions, but will limit myself to just a few, as relevant to GDPI811:

What can youth employment programs learn from educational history?  And vice-versa?

How can work-bound youth learn from their workplace experiences in a deep and meaningful way?

How have the demands of employers (of their workers)  changed as a result of educational history in the past century?  

What challenges would more recent history indicate as critical for youth in order to thrive in the future world of work?

CAN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES IN EDUCATION BY ILLUSTRATED BY THE BIBLE?

This is a little on the personal side, but because it cemented a learning concept for me, I am sharing.....

My daughters have grown up in the Catholic school system and their teachers never cease to amaze me with how their faith-based studies can be entwined with other curriculum, like art and social studies.  And I mean all faiths not just that of the Catholic school system.  Maybe they are influencing me more than I imagined because during one of my readings for next week,  I started thinking about history from this perspective.

I was reading "Beyond 'content' and 'pedagogy':  in search of a way to talk about history education by Peter Seixas.  He said, "precisely because meaningful accounts of the past are contentious, and because no single account will be taken as the truth simply by virtue of its being offered by an authority, students themselves need the means to asses historical counts, to analyze historical sources and to construct consciously a framework of historical meaning for their lives" (Seixas 333-334).

Immediately upon reading this, my reflection was that this is why there are gospels from different apostles.  The multiple accounts of the same period in history allows for the perspectives needed for Christians to first of all have multiple accounts, thus validating the content, but also to be better assess the accounts and construct a framework that is meaningful to them.

When attending church, we have different priests who have different strengths.  Some are very social, some are great at getting projects going, others are expert historians.  Each have something wonderful to offer the students, but what I like about those who are true historians is that they can make seemingly unrelated concepts connect.  Just like in this article when it talks about students not understanding because they don't "get" what was happening in the lives of the characters of history.  When they have the stage set with things that they understand (moral dilemmas, betrayal of friends, having no money, feeling powerless) then they can better understand the content and why it "went down, the way it went down).

Ok... enough rambling thought.... now, to turn this into a question....

Could the religious of the multiple accounts of the apostles be used to help Christian children to be better able to apply critical thought to history education?

If so, what effect might this have on faith?

RESOURCES:

Seixas, P.  (1999).  Beyond 'content' and 'pedagogy':  in search of a way to talk about history education.  Curriculum Studies, 31, 317-337.

Various Contributors.  (unknown).  The Bible:  The New Testament.    Pages 1- infinity.

(I will know if you caught this cheeky reference by the way you comment on it :)

SCHOOL TO WORK TRANSITIONS.... HOW CAN WE MAKE THEM AS GOOD AS POSSIBLE?

8 years of my career were spent as a Career Educator at a community college.  During that time, I saw a great number of students transition from secondary to post secondary.  That transition can be very difficult for reasons related to maturation.  The student may be away from home for the first time, maybe not ready to self-regulate through the sea of adult choices.

There were so many services and supports that wrapped around those students and I was so proud to be a part of the journey in welcoming and helping them begin a new chapter.  But then, two or three years later....

The students had a new chapter that involved leaving the comfort-zone that they worked so hard to integrate into and going out into the world of possibilities.  I love that college graduates now have so many choices and options, but admit that it can all be very overwhelming and scary.  We do our best to connect them with employers, help them to reinvent themselves to fit into the demands of the labour market.  We infuse them with understand of generational differences, personality differences and typical expectations.  But, nothing can prepare them fully.  They need to learn by doing.

So, as I think about modern problem through a historical lens, I wonder:

Historically, what orientation have schools had to the transition process?  Were these formal, or informal?

What community or industry structures helped or hindered the transition?

How can we create more positive school to work transitions?

SHOULD EVERY STUDENT HAVE AN ONLINE PORTFOLIO?

In my professional context, I often work with youth who are making the transition from school to work.  I find portfolios are a powerful tool for building in competency awareness.  Portfolios are also wonderful, tangible products that can help others to see the value in a student for a job or work placement.  Even more importantly, the portfolio development process cultivates self confidence and preparedness for speaking positively about one's self.

I was reading an article in the Huffington Post about the many different online portfolios.  I took a course in my undergrad in Portfolio writing and I put it into an electronic format which, at the time, was a novel idea.  (No age comments, please!)

There are so many formats now, Huffington post mentioned:

Google Drive Portfolio
Linked In
Educlipper
Three Ring
Pathbrite
See Saw
Exibi
Go Ennounce

Has anyone used any of these before with success?  

Do you are with the article that argued that everyone student should have an online portfolio?

Now, the historical perspective... 

What have been the key student privacy issues that have shaped modern educational policy?  Why?

SOURCE:
Van Ark, T. (2016).  Every student should have an online portfolio.  Huffington Post.  

DEFINING LEARNING: WE'RE LEARNED SO MUCH SO FAR!

I'm adding my final mind-map just to be complete.
Why is defining teaching was more difficult than defining learning?

In my own learning, I  have  noticed that I often struggle the most when trying to define something I know very well.  It is like all the thoughts in my head are getting tangled up as my mind runs off in a million directions.  Yet when I have something that I have a lesser body of knowledge, I don't find my self so frozen.

Complexity is like one question door that leads to another, then another.

Does anyone have a theory on the reason why?

More importantly, any mental strategies that help with not getting bogged own in detail?

DEFINING TEACHING: TEACHER APPROVED IDEAS!

Ok.  This seriously gets harder and harder....
Again, using the same process, I set out to get the key ideas in a dashboard from which I could then zero in on the ideas missing from my definition.

I couldn't help but notice the many comments made by my fellow students about how difficult it was to articulate.  It seems the more entrenched one becomes in an activity, the harder it is to take a surface approach.  No surprise, but comforting to know that we all struggle to describe our life's work, our daily joys and struggles.... maybe even our obsession with the continuous improvement in the art an science of teaching.

Beyond the searching for the impossible- an all-encompassing definition, we settle for inspired ideas that contribute to better understanding and practical .  After all... that is what teaching is about- why shouldn't we allow ourselves that?

So, a new definition jumped off the page and onto the paper.

TEACHING IS....
A continuous improvement cycle of purpose-driven, holistic and culturally relevant collaboration or exchange, built on human relationship factors, to engage motivation, attention and goal setting in order to extract knowledge, skill or other value from a “hands on” and/or “minds on” experience or opportunity.

DEFINING CREATIVITY.... WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS!

Creativity.  We all know what it is.  We all have our own brand.   We know this.... and yet, why so hard to define?

Maybe because there are so many important factors to creativity.  How it's made, where it comes from, what it produces.   It was all very jumbled and confusing, but using the same process as I did for innovation (see last post), I was able to note themes I had neglected, ideas not fully explored until reading my fellow students' posts.  There are some brilliant minds in this GDPI811 and, of course, I am mining their golden ideas!!!!

The final verdict?

CREATIVITY IS....

Creativity:

A complex neurological change in brain activity that engages diffused imagination and leads to a highly personal experience, often propelled by intrinsic motivation, that is untethered to certainty, expectation, limitations and feelings of risk to result in a product, process or perspective that is unique and worthy of non-judgmental consideration.

INNOVATION DEFINITION- NEW AND IMPROVED THANKS TO CLASSMATES!

This was my process for learning from other students in my class.
I was surprised and amazing by the breadth and depth of ideas that came forward from the same base question- What is the definition of Innovation.

 After reading and considering each post, I jotted down idea that wasn't included (or fully explored) in my own definition.  This strategy stopped me from the going into the task of "word-smithing" to a deeper level discovery:  what are the important elements of innovation?  Then, after seeing all the ideas, I was able to pull out those ideas that I felt were the most important- the essential ingredients of innovation so that I could then weave the ideas into a definition.

My definition was still crazy-long, but at least at the end, I felt it was complete (see below).

My final product... a more thorough definition of innovation... thank you fellow students for getting game there!

Innovation:

Ideas, of either good or evil origin, that are conceived of need, reconsidered, adapted, further developed or intersected with other ideas so they can be applied as a solution to a pervasive problem, issue or concern.