Category Archives: Change

You can’t sell what people already have

The 36th Learning and the Brain conference is happening this weekend in Boston.  Amazing messages about the future of the educational model are coming out of it.  Here is a good, virtually realtime analysis of a couple of the keynotes and some of the themes:

Rethinking Teacher Roles in a New Networked World by Liana Heitin of Education Week

The pace of the education revolution that is underway is inspiring.  Things ARE changing.  Finally.  The leading educational thinkers are talking about the research, not the fads.  They are talking about the changes wrought by the information age and a networked world, and what they mean for schools – not what they hope they mean.

The best minds in education right now are talking about a model of schooling that is different than the one they experienced.  That is key.  The first trap educators fall into is in promoting a model of schooling that is exactly like the one they experienced – regardless of whether it works for students.  “It worked for me,” the argument goes.  Teachers tend to teach in a way that mimics their own schooling, which goes a long way toward explaining why change occurs so slowly in education.  Imagine if doctors practiced medicine the way they experienced it growing up.  Imagine any industry, profession, or craft that had such a built in mechanism for resisting change and growth.

Some highlights coming out of Boston this so far weekend:

  • The new PBL = place based learning = real projects of real relevance with direct and permanent impact on real communities that are local to the learner
  • Richard Louv on the deep and complex value of nature to student learning and well-being
  • Will Richardson says, “Stop asking questions on tests that can be answered with a Google search.”

If you – or more likely someone you know – has any doubt that things have changed and school has to change with it, consider just Google.  If everything else in our society, economy, and global community were the same, Google alone would change schooling.  Every one of us (with a smart phone) carries the entire internet around with us.  We have the complete curriculum of 90% of traditional schools literally in our back pockets.  What does that do to schools that are built on the notion of a discrete curriculum?  You can’t sell what people already have.

This is what they are talking about at the Brain Conference in Boston.

The Common Good – Commencement Address 2013

Here is the transcript of a speech I delivered on the occasion of the graduation of the Marin Academy class of 2013.  The venue was a gym, and the event was a luncheon offered by the parent association for the entire faculty and staff and the senior class.

Let’s begin with a poem.  This is The Summer Day by Mary Oliver.

Who made the world?

Who made the swan, and the black bear?

Who made the grasshopper?

This grasshopper, I mean—

The one who has flung herself out of the grass,

the one who is eating sugar out of my hand,

who is moving her jaws back and forth instead of up and down—

who is gazing around with her enormous and complicated eyes.

Now she lifts her pale forearms and thoroughly washes her face.

Now she snaps her wings open, and floats away.

I don’t know exactly what prayer is.

I do know how to pay attention, how to fall down

into the grass, how to kneel down in the grass,

how to be idle and blessed, how to stroll through the fields,

which is what I have been doing all day.

Tell me, what else should I have done?

Doesn’t everything die at last, and too soon?

Tell me, what is it you plan to do

with your one wild and precious life? 

Good afternoon, and thank you for the invitation – this opportunity – to bend your ear for a few minutes on this, the eve of your commencement.  Actually, that’s what I wanted to talk to you about: commencement.

It is an odd term, isn’t it, for a time that feels so much like things ending.  But that’s what we call it.  Commencement.  As in the beginning.  The starting point.  As in, something commences tomorrow.  But what?  What begins for you tomorrow?  Do you know?  Have you wondered?  Have you made plans?  Like, now what?  High school is over.  What are you supposed to do now?  Go on to college?  Maybe.  But college isn’t a mission.  It’s a place.  Right?  It is not a thing to do.  It is a place to do something.  But what?  Well, I want to suggest something here today, and I want to ask that you think about it.

But first, we need to consider that in order to know what you should do next, you have to know what you have been doing so far.  Because it is connected. 

So, think for a moment about what you have been doing here for four years.  For four years – I mean, actually for quite a bit longer, but let’s just consider high school for the time being – for four years, at least, you have been reading and writing and studying and thinking.  You have been speaking and listening.  You have been passing tests and completing projects and turning in assignments.  You have been performing and competing and honing your skills and constantly striving for more.  Thinking, questioning, and creating.  You have been learning every day here for four years.  But, why?  Why have you been doing that?  To what end?  What has been the point?

Was it to pass the test?  No.  If that were the point, there was an easier way.  Was it to get into college?  No.  We already talked about that – college is not a point, it’s a place.  Was it to fill up your permanent record with the first letter of the alphabet?  No.  That’s a means to an end, but not an end in itself.

Was it to guarantee yourself a paycheck later in life?  Maybe.  And here is where it gets interesting.  Actually, money is a fine objective.  You know the old saying that money doesn’t buy happiness?  It is not true.  Turns out, up to about $75,000.00 a year in salary (averaged nationwide, it is a bit more here in Marin), money buys happiness.  It does.  No question.  Above that, across the spectrum, it doesn’t seem to make much difference in degree of happiness.  But if you have been doing all this learning so that you can go on, get a good job with full pay and be okay, there is nothing wrong with that.  Just realize that money is not your objective.  Happiness is.  You, like everyone else on the planet, want to be happy.  And I expect that comes as a relief.  Doesn’t it?  I mean, your are not in it for the money.  You are in it for the joy.  For happiness.  Just like everyone else.  And that is why I want to suggest a greater mission, a higher purpose, and a larger context. 

The common good.  The common good

Not personal gain.  Not to get ahead.  If someone is ahead, lots of folks are behind.  I submit that your education, like every system of education, anywhere, ever, is intended to serve the common good.  Education, as a system, is supposed to raise the quality of life of people.  And I am not just talking about the 1%.  I am talking about the 100%.  Everyone.  We all want to be happy and we all have the same claim to that desire.  And reading and writing and studying and thinking should help us satisfy that desire. 

Okay.  So, if the purpose of your education – and by that I mean the toil, the tests and projects and papers, the thinking, the questioning, the creating – if the point of all that is to raise the quality of life of all people, then what?  How does one put one’s education to use?  And that is the main question to ask at this juncture.  How can I be useful?

The simple answer is that you find a need and fill it.

So, if you want to know what is commencing for you and what you are supposed to do now that high school is over, just ask yourself, “How do I put my education to use for the common good?”  And not just for myself – or for people like me – or for my investors.  Right?  But for the common good.

Because when you think about it, one way or another today, we all live downstream. 

There are 7 billion people here.  Resources are finite.  It is a closed system for matter.  When the climate changes, it changes for everyone.  We all live downstream.  And climate change is not the only crisis we are facing.  Right?  We have real, live problems in the world and plenty of opportunity to fill a need and get involved.  The planetary population explosion.  The problem of war and global militarism. Pandemics and disease.  Human rights abuses.  Poverty.  The global bacon shortage. 

(Yeah, look into it.  It’s a pretty big deal.)

Look.  My message is not about doomsday.  My message is about the common good. 

And the need we all have to be useful and not just to ourselves.  The time of providing solely for yourself, of amassing a personal fortune and that being called success, is over.  We are all connected.  And there is no benefit for one without an attendant effect on someone else.  With all due respect to Joseph Campbell and Hippocrates, gone are the days of blissfully following your bliss and doing no harm. 

Harm is being done.  The old school educator, Horace Mann, put it well.  He said, Be ashamed to die before you have won a victory for humanity.  Ashamed to die before you have won a victory for humanity.  A little morbid, maybe, but it certainly raises the bar.  Doesn’t it?  And I don’t think your victories have to be grand.  They can be small.  Local.  Because there are a lot of us here and we can all contribute.  But they have to be victories for humanity and not solely the self.

The only question to ask now in going forward with your education is, What good can I do with what I know and for whom?  Because, you know, you are all really, really good.  Think of how good you are.  You have spent the last four years learning to be as good as you can be.  And think of how well you have learned it.  Think of all you have accomplished, everything you have done here in these classrooms, these studios, these athletic fields, and in getting outside.  You are good.  We all are. 

And you have been recognized for it.  You have been honored and awarded and spotlighted and patted on the back – and you deserve those plaudits and recognitions – and there will be more tomorrow.  

But now, as you move forward from this place of preparation, it is time for something more.  Because you are not just good.  You are also capable.  And it is time not just to be good.  But to do good and to do good wellThat is what is beginning for you.  That is what is commencing.  Because that has not yet been asked of you.  How good are you is the question school asks.  But what good can you do and how well is not asked in school.

So, I am asking you now.  What good can you do and how well can you do it?  But I can’t just ask you the question without giving you a way to answer it.  So, how do you do good well?  You ask yourself one question all the time: For whom is it good?  Right?  Who benefits from what I do?  If the answer is only me or only people like me or only the 1%, it is not enough.  Sadly.  We are not down with minimum impact or zero impact or even Leave No Trace.  I want you to be thinking about positive impact.  Active and intentional contribution to the common good. 

But how?  What can one person do and how is it done? 

Well, how about a Twitter account?  Consider Josh Begley, Marin Academy class of 2003 and current NYU grad student, a man who got upset one day that the government’s campaign of CIA-controlled drone strikes on human targets was going largely unnoticed by the public so he decided that he would tweet each one simply to raise people’s awareness of what he felt and still feels is an unjust use of power and an unethical military tactic.  He has received national recognition for his efforts, and recently the Obama administration announced the CIA would no longer be overseeing its drone program.  Because of Josh Begley?  In part.

Or on a more local scale, consider Marianne Moore, MA class of 2004, who worked with a group of community organizers in Oakland to open the Victor Martinez People’s Library. Because where there is a library there is reading and that means learning and that means education and we all know what education is for.  The common good.

Those are just two examples from your predecessors and I am not going to name any more – there are dozens of examples.  You know what good people are doing out there.  And you know how good you are.  Get to it.  If we all just stopped just being good and committed to doing good, to putting our learning to use, think of the possibilities in this room alone.  It is staggeringly hopeful.

You know, I hope it is fairly obvious that my point is not to push a particular political agenda and it doesn’t matter to me whether you think that what Josh and Marianne are doing is politically right or wrong.  My point is that these people care enough to act, to do something with what they have learned in service to the common good. 

And that is what I am asking you to consider.  You have one wild and precious life and a hell of a good education.  Now what good are you going to do with it?  It all begins tomorrow.

Congratulations to the class of 2013 for all you have accomplished.  So far.  I will watch your paths unfold with great interest.

Be well.  Do good.  And take care of each other.

Thank you.

TEDx Talk – 5/23/13: The Need for Positive Change in Education

Here is the transcript of a TEDx talk I recently delivered at TEDxMarinAcademy.  The theme of the event was Positive Change, and the purpose of my talk was to lay out, as clearly as possible the argument in favor of a major overhaul in our system of education.  I will post the video when it becomes available.


I ask questions.  I always have.  It is what drives me in life.  And I try to ask the big ones.  Like, where did we come from?  What are we supposed to be doing?  And I think these are rather important questions.  Otherwise, how do we know that we are doing it right?

I ask the same questions about education.  Where did it come from?  What are we supposed to be doing – in school?

So, tonight I want to talk about education, and I want to begin with questions.  For starters, why education?  Why systematize learning, something that happens quite naturally, all the time, school or no school?  And why school?  Why locate our system of learning in a building?

If you haven’t asked these questions, how do you know we are doing it right?  Here are some more.

Why classes?  Why do we have classes?  I don’t mean why do we gather together in rooms to learn, although that is a good question, too.  I mean, why do we coalesce a collection of skills and concepts around a single topic and lay out a sequential course of study – like a recipe.  Because it is, isn’t it?  A class is like a recipe for learning.  It’s like baking a cake.  It has a list of ingredients – we call it a syllabus.  It has a sequence of events, a list of things to do in a particular order – we call it an assignment schedule.  And it has a predictable outcome.  Serves 18.  And we assess the cake against a standard set of evaluation criteria – flavor, texture, fluffiness.  Why do we do that?  Why is that our model of learning?  I wonder.

Why tests?  Why the sit-down, short-answer or multiple choice, pencil and paper tests?  Why measure the value of what you know and what you can do by doing something later life does not value and you won’t be asked to do again outside of school.  (The DMV notwithstanding, of course.)  In any case, I do wonder.  And there are plenty of questions to be asked about schooling.

Why group students for learning by age?  This one baffles me.  Is age that significant?  Should students all be learning the same thing at the same age?  Should students all be learning the same thing? – now there’s a question.

What we know is that human beings are wonderfully differentiated, each in possession of a unique set of strengths, weaknesses, interests, and challenges that change over time.  Different things become relevant at different times.  Why, then, group students by age and have them all doing the same thing at the same time?  I wonder.

Here’s another question:

If high school didn’t already exist, if we didn’t know what high school was, what would we create to serve the purpose?  And what is the purpose of high school education?  What is it for?

I believe the purpose of education is to assist individuals in reaching their highest potential in community with others and in service to the common good.  That’s pretty much it, isn’t it?  Education is about your personal potential, it’s about living together, and it’s about the common good.  Great.  So, if that’s what it is for, are we doing it right?  And why are we doing it the way we are doing it?

Well, as it turns out, there are some answers.

Before about 150 years ago there was no common system of what would come to be known as public education in this country.  State-funded, relatively-open schooling for all did not exist before about 1860.  People did not go to school then the way we do now.  At that time, cities were growing and the urban population was expanding, and a group of folks – educators, politicians, business types – got together and created a system that would prepare almost everyone for citizenship in an increasingly industrialized society.  What they came up with was the foundation of American public education and it had a very specific purpose: To meet the needs of the emerging industrial economy and consumer-based society.

Industrialization?  You mean factories?  Yes, I mean factories.  Production facilities for products for large markets.  Consumerism?  You mean buying things?  Yes, I mean buying things.  The acquisition of tangible goods beyond what is required for daily life.  Am I saying that we have been convinced to buy things we don’t need and it is related to schooling?  Yes.  I am.

Think shoes for a minute.  How many pairs of shoes do you own?  Personally, I own many.  The fact is, one pair of shoes can get me to work, up the mountain, out to dinner, dancing, anything I need.  And yet, I have shoes.  Dozens.  I have shoes I never wear.  Don’t you?  Ever wonder about that?  How did we get convinced to buy all these shoes?

I have said that the industrial influence on education was profound.  If you wanted to profit from an emerging industrial economy, you needed two things.  You needed the capacity to produce products and you needed people to want to buy those products.  How do you get that?  You educate for it.  You create a system that conditions people to want more than they have.  Consumers.

If you want to think about how schooling is like a consumer economy, just ask yourself who is selling what to whom and what is the price?

But as a rising industrialist, you also needed people to work the factories – and it is tough work on an assembly line.  Long hours.  In rows and columns.  Doing repetitive tasks.  Mostly alone.  With strict time limits.  Deferring gratification.  And producing products that are subject to evaluation based on standardized measures of quality.

What?  Does that sound familiar?  Actually, I hope not.  Not too familiar.  I was talking about working in a factory, but it describes the current dominant paradigm in education in this country very well.

So, the emerging industrialists needed people to work the factories and people to buy the products.   But they needed something else too.  They needed to control for creativity.  Because it turns out that creativity in a factory setting is a liability.  If we are being honest, we do not want people on an assembly line coloring outside the lines.  An entire line of widgets assembled … creatively.  No.  We want outcomes to be measurable, predictable, and consistent, and we want to be able to track productivity and to control for quality.  So, creativity in an industrial economy becomes a liability.

And the raft of research that tracks the decline of creativity in students through schooling is well known.  Creativity declines in school.  But why is that?  What happens in 12 grades of school that makes creativity so unlikely?  I wonder.

I was speaking to someone recently and she told me a story of her son, a 7th grader at a prominent Marin middle school.  She said one day she was called in for a parent conference.  Apparently something had happened and they needed to talk.  So, she went and as she tells it, the science teacher’s chief complaint about her son was that he was singing in class.  Singing.  Well, you know.  That is understandable.  Singing during a test or a silent reading period or something.  But, it wasn’t that.  They were doing a lab – conducting an experiment, working in pairs or trios and apparently there was quite a bit of activity and chatter in the room already.  But this behavior, she was given to understand was unacceptable.  Singing is not called for on the lab instructions, is it?

I tell this story not to out these teachers but because it illustrates something about the system and what the system values as worthy evidence of quality performance.  The fact is that singing may well have been a sign of engagement.  This boy’s mother was so convinced – he is generally an A student.

Exceptionally curious.  Extremely bright.  Fully engaged.  But no where on the plan does it call for singing.  Singing is not a part of learning.  Is it?  And it is not on the rubric! – so singing becomes, by definition, out of bounds.  My point is, what our system can’t predict, it can’t tolerate.

But you know things have changed around here lately.  The economy is no longer simply industrial.  It is post-industrial.  Unto informational.  We accept the idea that anything that can be automated, will be.  Why will anything that can be automated, be automated?  Because machines are programmable, controllable, predictable.  And people are not.  People are creative.  They don’t do those jobs as well.  And so manufacturing jobs in are in decline.  We have a system of education in this country that trains people to do jobs for which they are not well suited and that are increasingly unavailable.

At the same time, our most innovative companies have recognized the value of human creativity in the work place.  I heard recently that Apple’s motto is, “If you want to be managed, you are not employable.”  If you want to be managed, you are not employable.  It is an interesting idea, isn’t it?  There was a time when part of being employed was being told what to do.  Not so much anymore.

I had an interaction with a student a few years ago that illustrates what I mean.

We were beginning the process of writing an essay – a literary analysis – and I had just finished a lesson on thesis statements and how to craft a powerful thesis out of real questions students really have about the text.  My argument was, in fact still is, that a great thesis depends on great questions, and if you are going to write the essay they need to be your questions.  At the end of class one of my students approached me, quite concerned.  In fact, she was on the verge of frustrated tears.  So we talked and at one point she said to me,  “All of my other teachers have simply told me what to write, and I have written it, and I’m good at that.”  That’s really what she wanted me to know.  “But you’re not telling us what to write.”

And I said, “That’s right. I can help you learn to write well. I can coach you on form and style.  I can give you strategies for diction and syntax and even idea generation.  And I can help you understand the text.  But I can’t ask your questions for you and I can’t tell you what to write.”

The point is, if you want to be told what to write, if you want to be managed, you are going to find it hard to find a job that is creative, innovative, and part of positive change for the future.

You know, Google, I hear, has a 20% rule.  That is, 20% of the time, one day a week, employees can spend pursuing their own, creative projects.  People work alone, in pairs, in groups.  And many of these ideas fizzle out, fail, go nowhere.  But some of them do go somewhere.  And Google trusts this.

Google Earth came out of their 20% rule.  Did you know that?  It was somebody’s independent study project.  Google, like other companies in the business of innovation and creativity, has figured out that good, new ideas come from people seeking answers to their own questions, and being allowed to risk failure without penalty.  So, the 20% rule.

Why not a 20% rule for school?  One day a week kids can learn whatever they want?  I wonder.

Failure, incidentally, is the other thing that the industrial model of schooling gets wrong.  In school, failure is one the worst things that can happen.  Right?  The F.  We give it its own letter and its own lexicon of euphemisms.  In fact, in some cases a failure on an assignment is never redeemable.  It has to be right the first time.  And maybe now you can see why.  In industry, failure can be catastrophic.  If you fail to sew the seam, make the weld, install the circuit, the thing doesn’t work.  And that is a deal breaker if you are trying to sell it.  In the production of products, failure is to be avoided at all costs.

So, if school is preparing you for work in an industrial economy, failure has to be discouraged. Vilified. Punished.  But what if school were not preparing you so much to produce products as to  make positive change in the world?  Failure in any field based on innovation is a pathway to success.  Right?  We know this to be true.  Failed attempts are keys to later success.  The design firm IDEO uses the mantra “Fail early, fail often.”  Pixar uses the same idea – so I hear.  Why?  Because they like things not to work?  No.  Because failure is the goal?  No.  It’s because they know the value of a failure well made.  They know that innovation depends on repeated attempts.  They know that creativity requires feeling the freedom to fail.  They are destigmatizing failure.

If schools are preparing students for a job market that is not about working in a factory, and is about innovation and creativity, then we should be teaching our students to fail early and often and to learn and improve from their mistakes.   And the process of failing well should be encouraged, designed, assessed, evaluated, measured, rewarded.

Crazy ideas?  Not at all.  They work.  But schools don’t do these things because they are stuck in an outdated model that has not seen change since its inception.  It is time we moved on.

So, how do we do it better?  No.  Scratch that.  Let’s ask a different question.  How do we do it differently?  Because I don’t think we need to do what we have been doing better or more or harder or more on time or with stronger study habits or with more sleep.  We need to do something very, very different.

And I have some ideas.  There are three things any school that is thinking about its future has to do today:

The first thing we have to do is shift the paradigm.  The curriculum is no longer ours and we must stop thinking of schools as delivery systems for information.  Every one of us carries the entire internet in our pocket and content is not what we are selling anymore.  The curriculum is free and available to anyone with a connection.  So, educators need to shift their thinking and their self conception from deliverers of content to facilitators of learning.  Step number one: we begin to see ourselves as educational choreographers (or what some have called learning ecologists) and not task-masters in the delivery of content.

The second thing we have to do is personalize education.  We have to stop telling kids what to learn as if we knew what content would be useful five years from now.  We don’t.  We have to start asking different questions:  What do you want to learn?  What will be your process?  And what will success look like for you and how will we measure it?  We have to involve kids much more deeply in determining and defining their own learning pathways.  And we have to help kids identify their interests and develop them into passions so that they can lead lives of fulfillment and joy at the intersection of what they are good at and what they find valuable.  So, step number two is moving from standardized curriculum to personalized learning.

And finally, we have to take the concept of relevance much more seriously.  Students should be working and learning in the real world, on actual problems that actual people face, and they need to see the relevance of their learning in the impact it has on people’s lives.  Students should be presenting their understandings to authentic audiences of evaluators – their teachers as well as people they do not already know.  Because a pencil and paper test does not measure the kind of understanding that is valued by the world we are preparing these kids to change and to heal.  But a performance of learning to an audience they don’t already know does.  Step number three: abolish the pencil and paper test and move to performance assessments and real world projects.

You know, it is critically important for schools to realize and respond to the fact that students today have access to all of the information they would ever need.  The internet is truly a game changer.  So, the question is no longer, What do you know?  It is, What can you do with what you know – and for whom?  Students can be trusted with their education.  They might need mentoring, guidance, coaching, as do we all, and there might be failures along the way, in fact I hope so, but students no longer need us to give them the answers.

They need to be put in charge of their own education, they need to put in touch with the thing itself, not its facsimile, and they need to be asked to show what they know and what they can do in authentic situations.

This is the agenda education for the 21st century.

The Role of Introversion and Schools of the Future

A couple of worthwhile ruminations here.  By rumination I don’t mean matters of small, passing, and primarily intellectual import.  The life of the mind sometimes takes a beating, trivialized as not quite as exciting or real as the life of the body.  I disagree, as, I think writer Susan Cain (see below) would, too.  In fact, I mean these are ideas we should take seriously, consider deeply, glean insights from, and strive to incorporate into our lives and the way we think about people and the world.  It takes an active effort to meet ideas like these half way and an open-minded willingness to be moved by them.


The first is Susan Cain and a Ted talk she gave about the value of introversion.  Introverts, too, have been taking a beating lately.  In education especially, as the recent drive for collaboration, teamwork, and group decision making – all powerful creative tools – reaches a fevered pitch.  More than anything, I hear Susan Cain reminding us to stay open-minded and positive about different cognitive styles, and to regain our balanced center in issues of workplace productivity.  Introversion and extroversion, active teamwork and contemplative isolation, collaboration and autonomy – they all have their valued place.  The better functioning schools of the future – like the most creative organizations today – will know and trust this.

And this follows on the heals of an article I circulated previously.  Susan Cain’s New York Times piece called The Rise of the New Groupthink, January 15, 2012 (linked below.)  Again, Cain is not suggesting that teamwork and collaboration are ineffective or misguided or should be dispensed with.  Nor am I.  In posting these I am arguing that in the current climate of education, introversion is vastly undervalued – and in some cases demonized.

Enjoy: The Rise of the New Groupthink


The second is a recent interview from an online professional community called The Future of Education.  Steve Hargadon, the community’s moderator, interviewed Littky on February 24, 2012, and the audio file is available below.  Dr. Littky talks about his Big Picture Learning organization, a large-scale innovation in education that he started with his colleague, Dr. Elliot Washor, in 1995 to make schooling more responsive to the notion of relevance, authenticity, and individual student interest.  The Big Picture Learning idea is an amazing development and it has spawned dozens of schools nationally and internationally.

The most amazing thing to me about the story of Dennis Littky and the quest for better schooling is the origin of his particular set of ideas.  In 1981 Littky became principal at Thayer Junior/Senior High School in New Hampshire.  Thayer, by any meaningful measure, was a failing school.  Littky writes briefly about it in his book The Big Picture, and Susan Kammeraad-Campbell writes at length about it in her book, Doc; The Story of Dennis Littky and His Fight for a Better School.  The changes Littky and his team were to make over the ensuing years were big and fundamental and effective – and simple.  Having read his book and listened to his interview, what strikes me is that his take on education and what works for students is not rooted in arcane knowledge or revelation, not a spontaneous act of brilliance.  In fact, when faced with a failing school, disengaged students, and disheartened teachers, Littky made the obvious choice: focus on community, real world relevance, and the interests of students.  What could make more sense?

In the interview, you will hear the interviewer, Steve Hargadon say with some incredulity – “It all seems so logical” – and Littky’s response is appropriately incredulous – “Well, of course!  Why not?” (quoted inexactly.)

Enjoy: The Future of Education – Littky interview

Change by Necessity or Faith

“Sometimes … reaching your Element requires devising creative solutions to strong limitations.  Sometimes … it means maintaining a vision in the face of vicious resistance.  And sometimes … it means walking away from  the life you’ve known to find an environment more suited to your growth.

“Ultimately, the question is always going to be, ‘What price are you willing to pay?’  The rewards of the Element are considerable, but reaping these rewards may mean pushing back against some stiff opposition.”

Sir Ken Robinson, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything, Viking, p155.

Not just throw-away advice, it seems to me, although, unfortunately it has the ring of platitude.  In fact, I think all great advances, in whatever field and whatever context, were revolutionary – tending to turn things around or upside down, demanding sacrifices and causing anxiety.

What’s deceptive about Sir Ken’s words, what seems platitudinous is how easy it is to accept in hindsight.  The “of course” factor is huge, as it is in all platitudes.  But there is no “of course” when you are turning your world upside down, swimming up stream, making sacrifices, and causing anxiety.  There is no “of course” in the moment.  Still, that is what people tend to say.  “Of course, it was hard.  Of course, there were sacrifices.  That is part of the deal.”  But that belies the severity, the pain, and the difficulty experienced.  The great and noble stories unto myths we pass around the family of relatives who gave up everything to follow a dream, uprooted their families to reinvent their lives, faced the fear of failure for the chance to greater success, don’t include the reality of the pain, don’t allow the experience of the anxiety and the difficulty.  What we experience in stories like that is the the inspiration and the success.  As if the price paid for change is somehow a little less relevant.

And it is so much easier to go with the flow, to make lemonade, to take it easy.  But those aren’t the stories we tell.  The story of uncle so-and-so who “was never particularly satisfied with his lot in life, but he made it work.  Day in and day out he just got along, kept on.  Sure, somewhere deep down he had something like passion, a dream that he always said he couldn’t remember, but what he was really good at was going with the flow, taking it easy, playing it safe.”  We don’t tell that story – because success depends on adversity.

Weird, eh?  Why should that be?

And great advances are always perpetrated out of necessity, not luxury or privilege.  It is too hard to swim upstream – unless you have to, unless there is no other option.  Think of pacific salmon that die after struggling to invent the next generation.  (And listen to the inspiration in that: struggling to invent the next generation.  It gives you chills.  But I wonder whether if the salmon had a choice, they still do it?  Would they still swim up stream?)

Looking back we say it was all worth it, but in the moment, how can we know?  We can’t.  In the moment, we trust.  Change requires either necessity or faith – which is belief without support, believing in something despite the evidence (not purposefully believing in something that is contradicted by evidence – some people do that and that practice is perverse.)  But, you don’t always need evidence to know something is true.  Or right.  Or apt.  Or necessary.  That’s intuition.  And as the poet Rumi says, “There are many ways of knowing.”