Education Innovation

Essential Education: Six Pixels of Separation

The Ambidextrous Professional Learning Community

F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald perfectly describes the quality of thinking possessed by an Ambidextrous Professional Learning Community.  They are comfortable with a duality, an "ambidextrous" approach to their focus and their function.

Roger Martin, dean of Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, and author of the book The Oppossable Mind: Winning Through Integrative Thinking, calls the embracing of this duality as having an, “opposable mind.”

“…we were born with an opposable mind we can use to hold two conflicting ideas in constructive tension. We can use that tension to think our way through to a new and superior idea.”

“Using our opposable minds to move past unappetizing alternatives, we can find solutions that once appeared beyond the reach or our imagination.”

In other words, Professional Learning Communities can think with ambidexterity.

Ambidextrous Thinking
Ambidextrous thinking is similar to what Roger Martin calls Integrative thinking, that is, “…the capacity to hold two diametrically opposing ideas in their heads. And then, without panicking or simply settling for one alternative or the other, they’re able to produce a synthesis that is superior to either opposing idea.”

Martin defines integrative thinking as: "The ability to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and, instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing ideas but is superior to each."

Martin offers 4 qualities of the integrative thinker.

1. "The first difference between integrative thinkers and conventional thinkers is that integrative thinkers take a broader view of what is salient.”

“More salient features make for a messier problem. But integrative thinkers don’t mind the mess. In fact, they welcome it, because the mess assures them that they haven’t edited out features necessary to the contemplation of the problem as a whole. They welcome complexity. And they feel confident that they will not get lost along the way but emerge on the other side of the problem with a clear solution.”

Ambidextrous Professional Learning Communities welcome complexity, they welcome the mess of student needs, strategies, student data, research, mandates, rules, restrictions, and barriers. Ambidextrous PLCs are comfortable with the mess and confident in their ability to arrive at a solution that will benefit students and teachers.

2. "Second, integrative thinkers don’t flinch from considering multidirectional and nonlinear causal relationships. Simple, unidirectional relationships are easier to hold in the mind, but they don’t generate more satisfactory resolutions."

The Ambidextrous Professional Learning Community understands that there are many factors, including nonlinear causal relationships that might account for increases or decreases in student achievement. Easy and quick conclusions are not necessarily the correct conclusions. There are many factor involved in learning, and the ambidextrous PLC considers more of them in their work.

3. "The third difference between integrative and conventional thinkers is in the architecture of their decisions. Integrative thinkers don’t break a problem into independent pieces and work on each piece separately. They keep the entire problem firmly in mind while working on its individual parts."

Ambidextrous Professional Learning Communities can work on keep the entire issue of student learning and achievement in their minds while they plan, develop, improve, and manage individual parts. They do not fall into the problem of “elementitis”, breaking things down into smaller disconnected elements and losing context. They keep all the elements connected and in context of the overall needs of students and teachers.

4. "Fourth and finally, the integrative thinker will always search for creative resolution of tensions, rather than accept unpleasant tradeoffs. The behavior associated with such a search—delays, sending teams back to examine things more deeply, generating new options at the eleventh hour—can appear irresolute from the outside, but the results are choices that could only have been generated by an integrative thinker who won’t settle for trade-offs and conventional options."

Ambidextrous Professional Learning Communities do not accept the traditional method of accepting trade-offs. They believe that all students can learn, regardless of the student, the situation, and resources. They believe they can put students first and put teachers first. The traditional trade-offs of breadth vs. depth, or taking your time vs. staying on pace, can be avoided through creative and innovative thinking. They look for non-conventional options to accomplish their work.

It is the ability to embrace this duality in their thinking that builds an Ambidextrous Professional Learning Community. To hold to opposing ideas in their minds and reach a creative solution creates an amdidextrous PLC, making them more flexible, innovative, and effective. It’s ability, but maybe more importantly, it’s attitude.

In the coming days I will discuss how the Ambidextrous Professional Learning Community's thinking can have...

Internal and External Focus

Bias Towards Thinking and Bias Toward Action

Put Teachers First and Put Students First

Focus on Teaching and Focus on Learning

Focus on All Students and Focus on Individual Students

Kaizen and Tenakaizen

High Levels of Teamwork and High Levels of Personal Accountability

We Have the Answers and They Have the Answers

Data Driven and Skeptical of Data

Predictable and Change is Normal

Only Connect: A View on Education in the 21st Century

Only Connect

View more documents from Stephen Collins.

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking

View more presentations from ohassta.

Lateral Thinking

09 005 Problem Solving Lateral Thinking

View more presentations from l.bicknell.

Essential Education: Storytelling 101

Storytelling 101

View more documents from Scott Schwertly.

Having Fun? 11 Questions For Analyzing Your School’s “Levity Effect”

Are you having fun at work? Is your school a fun place to be? According to Adrian Gostick and Scott Christopher, authors of the book The Levity Effect: Why It Pays to Lighten Up, “If people are having fun, they’re going to work harder, stay longer, maintain their composure in a crisis, and take better care of the organization.”

The following questions were adapted from the book.

Grade the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5

1= never
2= hardly
3= neutral
4= most of the time
5= almost always

1. Are new teachers and staff are made to feel welcome?

2. School meeting are positive and light?

3. Does your school have fun activities at least once a month?

4. Is it common to hear teachers and staff laughing at school?

5. Can you be yourself at school?

6. Does your school have a lot of celebrations for special events?

7. When brainstorming ideas, do teachers like to have fun?

8. Is your principal usually optimistic and smiling?

9. Would your students say you are fun be in class with?

10. Do you have friends at school that make you laugh?

11. Do the teachers and staff at your school have a good time together?

According to Adrian Gostick and Scott Christopher, a score of 40 or above indicates your school has a great environment. A score of 30-40 means your school needs to lighten up. A score of 30 or below means you have “terminal seriousness.”  Remember, we are working with kids. You need to have some fun.

Analyzing Your Educational Brand

As readers of this blog know, I believe that technology, education, marketing, and brands are on an eventual collision course that will create Educational Brands for teachers, schools, and districts. Teachers, schools, and districts will have marketing brands created by students, parents, test scores, and any number of available data streams in the coming years. Much as business has had to come to terms with their brand and reputation, so too, I believe, will teachers, schools, and districts have to come to terms with the need for brand management. Educator brand management.

Here is a questionnaire to help you analyze your educational brand.
(Adapted from Mitch Joel’s book Six Pixels of Separation)

1. What do people “feel” when they think of you as an educator?

2. What does your educational brand do for people—are they excited about you as a teacher? Do they want to tell everybody?

3. How would you feel if someone gave you your own business card? Does it impress you?

4. What does a your school website (or lack there of) say about your educational brand?

5. How do people find out about you as an educator?

6. How much marketing are you doing to make students, parents, and other school districts know about you?

7. How much money will you spend to attend educational trade shows, conferences, and networking events?

8. How often are you speaking or presenting at these educational events?

9. How often are you involved with organizing those educational events?

10. What are the many cost-effective ways you can better market your educational brand?

11. How comfortable are you with the new digital channels?

12. What kind of relationships are you forming at your school, in your district, in your community, and in the educational community? Are you a trusted educational adviser, an appreciated educational ally, or just another teacher?

12. How many websites, blogs, books, magazines, etc., that cover education are you currently reading (and have you thought about writing for them)?

13. What untold stories unfold every day in your classroom or at your school and how are your fellow teachers, school administration, district administration, students, parents, and the community informed of theses successes?

14. What is your unique promise as an educator?

Essential Education: Three Laws of Performance

To complete your Essential Education take a few minutes to watch friend Steve Cunnigham's great video summary of the book The Three Laws of Performance by Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan

Can Geography Determine Global Competitiveness and Innovation in Education?

Does location or geography matter in education?

Let's see what kind of answer we can get by combining urban competitiveness, innovation, The Economist, the Creative Class blog, the book 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques, colleges, and education into the Education Innovation blender.

I came across this interesting article from The Economist on the Creative Class website.

From The Economist print edition

"New York is the world’s most competitive city, according to the Global Urban Competitiveness Project. The study ranks 500 cities on their ability to attract and use resources to generate wealth. The cities are assessed on nine measures, including income, economic growth, innovation, jobs, prices and the presence of multinational firms. The report found that the gap between the best-performing cities and the worst is widening. Indeed, there is a fairly large gap between the top two cities, New York and London, and Tokyo in third place. Cities in Europe and North America are richest, but China has the fastest-growing ones. Asian cities also score highly in patent registrations and attracting multinational companies."

How do you think your school or school district would rank if compared on global competitiveness?

James M. HIggins makes this interesting point in his book 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques.

“Research by Michael E. Porter, a renowned business strategy researcher and consultant, and several others has clearly demonstrated what we have long suspected—it is easier to innovate in some geographic locations than others. This is because these places have more of the necessary supportive environmental factors that lead to successful innovation that do other locations.”

He cites several comparisons to illustrate the point. It is easier to innovate in the Silicon Valley in California as opposed to Jackson, Mississippi. It is easier to innovate in Denmark as opposed to Germany, in Singapore than in Japan, in Boston than in Paris.

Higgins explains that there are several factors that contribute to this.

“There are several factors that constitute a supportive societal environment. Some of these are a supportive govern-ment in term of policies and economic factors such as taxes, a positive view of innovation by the society, an acceptance of entrepreneurs as being vital contributors, a positive view of achievement, major research universities, and excellent public education system.”

Is it possible that some school districts, school sites, and teachers are more successful at innovation than others? It must be.

Some school districts are bound to have a more positive view of innovation when compared with other districts. What factors would contribute to that? Leadership, history, success with innovation, openness to new ideas, and flexibility would be factors. I am sure that the same could be said for individual school sites and individual teachers. Some will have a more positive view of innovation than others.

What about acceptance of "entrepreneurs" as being vital contributors? These entrepreneurs will either be viewed as an important and welcome part of a district or a school site that is bringing new and creative ideas to the fore, or viewed as a troublemaker who is not following policy and procedures. Again, there are clearly levels of acceptance from district to district or school to school. What are the implications for the kids?

Some school districts have the good fortune of being located near or within the same city limits as a college or university. Does this translate into those districts or schools being more innovative as compared to neighboring districts and schools?  It seems that business benefits from the proximity, but does education?

How might being in a geographic area with a high concentration of colleges impact the education students in the local school district receive. For example, in the district I work in their is one junior college, a CSU campus, a private college, a law school, and an optometry school. One might think this would foster a high level of educational innovation in the local school district through partnerships and research. There has been some, but not to the extent one might imagine.

What kind of school or district are you working in, high innovation or low innovation? Are your neighbors doing innovation better? Inovation in education might come down to location, location, location.