SUMMER SEMESTER... AND SO IT BEGINS!

I am now just over a week into my 3rd and 4th courses in GDPI and I can certainly tell these courses are compressed from 10 weeks into 7 weeks!  This is going to be a wild ride!

For the first time, I am taking two courses at a time and I didn't want my blog posts to be inter-mingled and confuse those with whom I am collaborating with my comments on two separate courses.  So, I set out to find a way.

You will notice that I have a left side-bar and can now have pages and subpages set out for both courses.  Crossing my fingers that this works.  It would be really cool to keep all of my PME coursework in one blog.  

Once I am done it would represent all of the work that has gone into my Master's studies, brick by brick.  I have been to thesis burning parties in the past... the idea of hitting delete on a blog seems somehow less satisfying!

"EMOTIONS ARE THE SECRET SAUCE OF INNOVATION" - FORBES

I just had to share this FORBES article on my blog.  In the article was an important  new idea of innovation ghat I had not yet considered in the context of innovation:  how emotions play into the innovation process.  The article explains that we live in a world of data and information.  I believe that the article is saying that information is not new and innovation is becoming reliant on false intelligence, but what cannot be faked is human emotion.  

"Innovation is not just a cognitive process. It’s emotional. It requires doing something new or novel, and that can be scary because it requires the courage to enter the unknown and it involves learning from experimental failures. Many of us learned as children that success comes from making the fewest mistakes. We learned to avoid making mistakes and looking stupid. We also developed emotional defensives to protect our views of ourselves – to protect our ego. Protecting our ego and fear are the two big emotional inhibitors of innovation" (Hess).

The article goes on to describe what creates and detracts from the emotional energy needed to innovate.  Hess explains that innovation depends on positive emotions and can weaken in the presence of negative emotions. I believe wholeheartedly that this is true.  Yet, I think that companies often put undue stress on their employees to innovate under the gun.  This may, in fact, produce results, but I am not convinced that it produces the best results.  So, how to companies apply just the right positive pressure to create motivation?   By creating the right climate to produce innovation, realizing the dichotomy of emotions:

"Innovation happens best when we reduce our fears and ego defensiveness thereby freeing our minds to imagine, create, connect, and explore the new and unknown with others in a non-competitive way. That happens best when people feel psychologically safe and trust each other. It is all about emotions" (Hess).

Hess, Ed.  (JAN 17, 2017).  Why emotions are the Secret Sauce of Innovation".  Forbes online:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darden/2017/01/17/the-secret-sauce-of-innovation-emotions/#774148db7116


How can individual workers LEARN to self regulate emotions to result in the best, most innovative results?
What can employees do to contribute to positive emotions in the workplace, when competitive times lead managers to apply pressure in negative ways?
What is the "Secret Sauce" of emotion at an individual level, rather than collective, and how can it be converted into positive innovation-friendly emotions?  What might employees need individually?

YOUTH TRANSITION INNOVATIONS: "LINKING LEARNING TO LIFE"

My professional context includes helping youth to make the transition from school to work.
In the course of my work on a youth program, I came across this brief that highlighted innovative practises for making these transitions and I just loved the phrase used in brief:


"LINKING LEARNING TO LIFE"

I really like this phrasing.  I think that it points to a gap area that is important for those making transitions.  If we fail to ask questions of youth, while they are in the supportive communities that education creates, then how will they be prepared to make the giant leaps that are required when they graduate and the world doesn't provide them with pathways, learning outcomes or frames of inquiry that are needed to successfully transition?

This brief was intended to help those working with youth to engage in purposeful and positive work experiences to make the transition a positive step rather than a fearful leap.

In the brief there were a number of transitions considered for youth transition, including:

• Internships 
• Summer Jogs
• Youth Run Business/ Entrepreurship
• Service Projects
• Part Time Jobs
• Volunteerism 
• Pre-employment Programs
• Soft Skills Programs
• Work Training Programs

With each of these opportunities to link learning to life, I believe there is a process of inquiry that is needed so that the opportunity does not pass without the student tuning into the learning that has occurred, or what is noticed about what is needed for future learning.  This is why I love the idea of cooperative education.  Students who gain work experience and are guided through a reflection process are most likely to retain the learning that can lead in the direction of the most personally interesting and fulfilling direction.

One of the programs I worked in in the past was called the Futures Program.  It was a completely in-school program for the first 6 weeks, as a paid pre-employment experience.  This program was discontinued eventually, but ran for many, many years.  In the time that it was discontinued, the need still existed and many youth struggled greatly with making transitions from school to work.  Having a community that required inquiry and reflection had a great deal of value for the youth involved who simply didn't know, what they didn't know about career planning, the world of work and the expectations of adult life.  I am so encouraged to see these programs, however the funder decides to revise them, being reintroduced. In an uncertain world, transitions are hard.  It is a cold world to realize that in high school there was a supportive community, but then you are on your own.

Given that we don't know what jobs will be beyond the next few years, how can we prepare our youth to be competitive in a labour market that is yet to exist?
How can we stress the importance of doing work that is personally fulfilling and meaningful when we know that income and stability is like a more basic need?
How can youth become more innovative and personally connected to the labour market, beyond the programs listed above?  How can education innovate to provide even more meaningful options to "link learning to life"?

PERSONALITY TYPE: WHICH IS THE MOST CREATIVE?

I am certified to administer the most famous, reliable and valid personally assessment of all time:  The MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator). This is one of the subjects that I love to teach most because of the understanding of self and others that typically results.

One of the things that gets under my skin, professionally speaking, is when people talk about
"Creative Types".  This bugs me a bit because it assumes that some personality types are blessed with creativity and others are not.  This could not be further from the truth because ALL personality types have the ability to be creative.  As Segals so eloquently states it in her title, we all have "tools for understanding and inspiring- the many voices of creativity.

Just as voices differ, so do the many ways in which creativity can be expressed.  This can be unique to individuals or the type to which the individual belongs- there is no one standard in creativity.
What MBTI offers to the understanding of creativity and innovation is immeasurable!  The value is about knowing and honouring one's self and one's unique gifts.  It is also about doing the same for others.  When there is a theme of mutual respect, innovations and ping-pong off one another and become something even more brilliant than before.  That is, if people can creatively navigate and respect differences.

The natural next question would be how MBTI predicts the ways in which people will express their creativity.  It is most likely that the expression of creativity among the 16 unique types would be common in that most within that type are interested in the same thing, share the similar values, draw their energy from the same source, organize thoughts in a similar manner and notice similar things in any given situation

This is not to say that working to one's innate preferences and typical behaviours is the  ONLY way they can express creativity, but rather what ways will be their natural inclination to do so.  This can be enormously helpful for an individual to play to, and to mine for strengths, but also to see potential creative blindspots and to broaden the view, perhaps to request collaboration in order to mine for strengths in others.

So, which is the most creative personality type?  All of them!  The type of creativity, it's expression and output will be unique and wonderfully different.  Each personality type has creativity to spare, and should be treated as "THE CREATIVITY TYPE" that it is.  No one type owns creativity and it is so wonderful to know share our own unique brands with others.

Segal, Marci.  (2001).   Creativity and Personality Typle:  Tools for understanding and inspiring the many voices of creativity.  Telos Publications.

How can students grow to understand their own creativity types?
How can we brighten our type to consider other ways of expression?
In what ways can we value and benefit from creative types that are not our own preferred styles?

INNOVATION IN MULTI-GENERATIONAL WORK ENVIRONMENTS

Once upon a time, there was a simple workplace.  The manager was easy to spot, he was the one with gray hair.  Most the workers were similar in age to one another, going through the phases of life together, they understood each other very well.   People retired after a set number of years of service and they were replaced with those of a similar age and stage of life.   This story is not a tale of diversity- that is a chapter in another book.  This story is one of age profile.  It is a very short story because it lacks the specific kind of conflict that happens when people are in different stages of life or from different generations.

In another story, there are coworkers, of different generations.  They range in age from 16 years old to 80 years old.    The workers ages are, at least, shaped by the worldview of their generations.  In this span of time, there would be GenZ, Millenials, GenX, Baby Boomers and Vetrans.  If you think this is a fictional story, think again!  Go to any Walmart and you will see that the employee landscape is highly age diverse, which is fantastic from a diversity perspective, but somewhat concerning form a human relations perspective, if workers cannot navigate their expectations of others, their biases and their own self awareness.

What kind of biases?  Millenials may be judged as being tech obsessed, while Baby Boomers may be judged as disconnected from modern times and so on. 

I was once told that diversity is the golden ticket, as long as people can positively navigate their differences.  I think this is especially true when you consider innovation as a work output.  The value of having multiple points of view in any problem solving endeavour is a clear positive, but none of those gains can be realized unless biases are overcome.  Once the biases are set aside, then innovation can be realized.  This reminds me of my own definition of innovation in GDPI811, in which I emphasized that, in order to be innovative, an idea has had to have had third party validation.  This is where my ideas intersect with mutli-generations and innovation:  to get that validation, the idea needs to be understood and embraced by other team members.  I assert that this cannot be done with a barrier of bias.  If the bias is there, it squashes innovation and it leads to a lose-lose for the team.

So, what can be done?  I think that teams need to be given the opportunity to discover the generation gaps that exist, what enhancements come from this and the inherent risks.  Awareness is key.  Having managers who are as bias-free as possible is another important factor to having generational teams lead to innovation.  Teaching, through modelling accepting behaviours is another powerful consideration.

One of the things that I think teachers don’t get the opportunity to experience very much is the benefit of generational learning.  Does the first story sound familiar?  To teachers, it should…. It is the typical high school set up.  It used to be the classic workplace too.  But, times are changing and we need to find ways for our youth to acclimatize to this new reality.  And so, I leave you with a few questions:

How can we create opportunities for Millenials and GenZ’s to learn about the shared values and world views of Baby Boomers and Genx’s?

What are the job search and career planning implications for today’s youth?

How can we foster a sense of identity, without denying the need to embrace other worldviews?

DIVERGENT THINKING- VIEWS FROM THE SKY AND SEA

Both of my daughters are great students, but for very different reasons than one another. 

My oldest daughter is classic compliant student- she listens in class, she puts in massive effort toward the defined outcomes, does her homework like clockwork and her grades reflect how marvellously she fits the educational mould.    

My younger daughter is a creative student who listens to her rich inner world, pours on the effort when she is inspired, which makes her forget about the structure of class and homework and routines.  Sometimes it causes her to be corrected by teachers and sometimes they marvel at her special talents.

To provide an example, both my girls were taught by the same amazing kindergarten teacher.   This teacher believed in the value of divergent thinking and encouraged her students to let their imaginations run wild.  This was a rich mental playground for my daughter.  At a parent-teacher interview, the kindergarten teacher announced that she had something special to show us.  She explained that in the decades of teaching kindergarten, she had never seen anything like it.  What "it" was was a picture of our family on a pirate ship.  That is not so unusual, but the fact that it was drawn from an ariel view was quite unique and unexpected.  The teacher explained that she didn't know that kids that age could think in terms of being above the scene and looking below.  The best part was that there was bright blue water all around the ship AND when you flipped over the paper you could view the ship and the water below, complete with fish and sea creatures.  DIVERGENT THINKING!  

It is hard to not get discouraged on my daughter's behalf because her older sister enjoys the perks of fitting the system.  She has higher grades and more praise and recognition at school.  But, what if the system is bent or broken?  Who says that the school system has it right to praise one child over the other?  What if divergent thinking is the most important skill for the next generation?  What if divergent thinking was given a grade?  We have been so lucky that we have had several teachers who "get" my youngest daughter's creativity and understand it's value.  I mean, she still needs to learn her times tables, but that doesn't mean she has to unlearn her creativity to do it.  She gets that grades aren't everything and I cannot wait to see her shine beyond the box of education.

I posted a reflection of a Ted Talk about Ken Robinson a post or two ago and I have been thinking about it ever since.  He asserted that all children are divergent, creative thinkers, but they are educated out of this tendency.  It is heart breaking to consider this a true statement.  I say heart breaking because it is a loss.  Thinking inside the box of rubrics, success criteria, curriculum... perhaps the education system could learn something from a kindergartener.

How can we get our creativity back as adults?  How do we inspire children to further their creativity.

In what ways do we need to be cautious when providing student praise, so as to spark creativity, rather than snuffing it out.  

MY PHILOSOPHY

How hard could it be?  All I have to do is write a 250 word series of statements about my philosophy, incorporating what I have learned over the past 8 weeks.   The readings, interacting with peers and reflections about learning, teaching, innovation, creativity, history and philosophy should allow the ideas to flow.   Easy Peasy!  Or....

I can tell you with certainty that writing about personal philosophy creates  is an internal tug-of-war.   It is a deeply personal reflection that cannot be taken lightly.  It is something that exposes you for who you are and what you stand for.  Writing this this is like giving birth- it is full of turmoil, but with a beautiful result that is uniquely yours.

STUDENT LEADERSHIP GROWS HERE!

My oldest daughter is preparing to make the transition from a small school grade 8 class to a large high school.   She is excited, but a bit apprehensive as well.   We were invited to a Grade 9 welcome night, which we attended with great enthusiasm.  There was the expected teacher-lead portion of the tour where each teacher playfully boasted that he or she had the best job in the school, provided encouragement and showed school spirit.  But then.....

Something magical happened!  Silently, two groups of school t-shirt wearing students surrounded our group, standing at first, then falling to one knee in a perfectly choreographed entrance.  The suspense grew as they knelt there, unexplained.  Then, the teacher announced that THESE were our student peer leaders.  THEY were here to make our tour well organized and informative.  THEY were going to tell us what OUR school community was all about.  THEY were also here to make sure that every grade 8 was part of a strong and supportive school community.  It was BEAUTIFUL!

The students lead the vast majority of the event.  They were knowledgable, polished and professional... all 30 of them.  As I spoke with the principal, I couldn't contain my amazement.  She explained to me that this was the capstone project of a class they were taking.  Each teenager had to apply to get into the class and was held to a high standard on the basis that student leadership was important, necessary and impactful.  These youth had to believe that they could make a difference, or they would not be accepted into the program. 

Neslon Mandella once said: "The youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow".   Isn't this so true?

Cultivating leaders of tomorrow is some of the most important work we can do.  How to be innovative in this goal will be a never-ending pursuit.  It will need to change with the times.  It will need to value experience over outcome.

You knew a question would follow.... didn't you?

How do we engage those students who are not "joiners" so that they too can experience leadership and self-leadership?

In what ways does youth leadership change when we consider the concept at the local level versus a global level?

How could peer pressure be overcome, or even leveraged for the development of leadership qualities within our youth?

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?