Education Innovation

Essential Education: Lawrence Lessig on Institutional Corruption

Essential Education: Charles Leadbeater on Collaborative Creativity

Be More Than A School Administrator...Be An Innovation Coach

I have an idea…

"It will never work."
"We don’t have the budget to do it."
"It will take to much time and we just don’t have any to waste."
"The district won’t like it."
"Teachers won’t want to do that."
"That isn’t the way we do things at this school."
"What does that have to do with test scores?"

These are just a sample of the typical answers we in education hear when we have an idea. Don’t scoff to easily, think about it a second. After a few perfunctory, “That’s great” or “Sounds interesting” we generally work our way to some of those responses.

What we need is some principals, directors, managers, and superintendents who encourage and support innovation. If change or improvement is what we seek, then changing what we do or how we do it should be encouraged not discouraged.

Mitch Ditkoff writes at The Heart Innovation, the weblog of Idea Champions, that we need managers who are Innovation Coaches. We need managers and leaders who can encourage and develop ideas.

“Most managers, unfortunately, perceive new ideas as problems -- especially if the ideas are not their own. Bottom line, they don't pay enough attention to the ideas of the people around them. They say they want to innovate. They say they want "their people" to do something different. But they do precious little to support their subordinates in their efforts to do so. They foist their ideas on others and can't figure out why things aren't happening faster.

“That's not how change happens. If people are only acting out somebody else's ideas, it's only a matter of time before they feel discounted, disempowered and... well...just plain dissed. People are more than hired hands; they are hired minds and hearts, as well.”

Coaches empower others to reach within themselves and pull out their best, their best ideas and innovations. We need managers who will coach their people to pull out their best ideas and support them in the endeavor of finding, creating, and developing these ideas into innovative practices that impact their schools and their students. We need school administrators who can become Innovation Coaches.

“If you want to empower people, honor their ideas. Give them room to challenge the status quo. Give them room to move -- and, by extension, move mountains. Why? Because people identify most with their ideas. "I think therefore, I am" is their motto. People feel good when they're encouraged to originate and develop ideas. It gives their work meaning, makes it their own, and intrinsically motivates.

“Who has the power in an organization? The people who are allowed to think for themselves and then act on their ideas! Who doesn't have power? The people who have to continually check-in with others.

“Think about it. The arrival of a new idea is typically accompanied by a wonderful feeling of upliftment and excitement -- even intoxication. It's inspiring to have a new idea, to intuit a new way of getting the job done. Not only does this new idea have the potential to bring value to the company, it temporarily frees the idea originator from their normal habits of thinking. A sixth sense takes over, releasing the individual from the gravity of status quo thinking.”

Nothing is more powerful and unstoppable than empowered and excited teachers. Those are the teachers who can change the world. So we need to be open to and encourage our teachers to bring ideas to us.

“You, as a manager, want to increase the number of new ideas being pitched to you. It's that simple. You want to create an environment where new ideas are popping all the time. If you do, old problems and ineffective ways of doing things will begin dissolving. This is the hallmark of an empowered organization -- a place where everyone is encouraged and empowered to think creatively. Within this kind of environment managers become coaches, not gatekeepers.”

Innovation and change doesn’t happen because you have some catchy vision statement printed on a poster and posted in all the classrooms. That is leadership through lamination. What is needed is leadership through co-creation and co-innovation.

“Creativity cannot be legislated. It cannot be sustained by mission statements and pep talks. What needs to happen is you, as a manager, need to change the way you relate to people. Each encounter you have with another in the workplace needs to quicken the likelihood that their unexpressed ideas will get a fair hearing -- enabling a far greater percentage of them to eventually take root.”

So the next time one of your people comes to you with an idea, be a Innovation Coach and help them develop the idea into something truly innovative.

Mitch suggests…
* "That sounds interesting. Can you tell me more?"
* "What excites you the most about this idea?"
* "What is the essence of your idea - the core principle?"
* "How do you imagine your idea will benefit others?"
* "In what ways does your idea fit with our strategic vision?"
* "What information do you still need?"
* "Who are your likely collaborators?"
* "Is there anything similar to your idea on the market?
* "What support do you need from me?"
* "What is your next step?"

What Would Peter Drucker Say About Education Leadership?

What follows is a quote from Peter Drucker, but with an Education Innovation twist. I have removed words like business, company, executive, and economics; and replaced them with school(s), education, and principal.

“Schools prefer not to abandon the old, the obsolescent, the no-longer-productive; they’d rather hang on to it and keep on pouring money into it. Worse still, they then assign their most capable people ‘defending’ the outworn in a massive misallocation of the scarcest and most valuable resource—the human resource that needs to be allocated to making tomorrow, if the school is to have a tomorrow.”

“Tomorrow always arrives…It is always different. And then even the mightiest school is in trouble if it has not worked on the future. It will have lost distinction and leadership—all that will remain is big-education overhead…Not having dared to take of making the new happen, it perforce took the much greater risk of being surprised by what did happen…And this is a risk that even the largest and richest school cannot afford and that even the smallest school need not run.”

“The principal has to accept responsibility for making the future happen…It is the willingness to tackle purposefully this, the last of the educational tasks in education that distinguishes the great schools from the merely competent one, and education builder from school principal’s office occupant.”

Essential Education: "Myths and Opportunities: Technology in the Classroom" by Alan November

Find more videos like this on NL Connect

Literacy Challenges of The Social Technographic Ladder

The ladder. Charlene Li and Josh Bernofff have written a great book titled Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. In their book they describe The Social Technographics ladder.

“Each step on the ladder represents a group of consumers more involved in the groundswell than the previous steps. To join the group on a step, a consumer need only participate in one of the listed activities at least monthly.”

I believe that each rung of the Social Technographic ladder presents a unique literacy challenge for our students.

As an educator you know the standards, the curriculum, and the methods to bring about literacy. If technology is not part of that you are missing a major component of what our students will need in the coming years. Our students need to be able to climb the "ladder" and it is your job to make sure they get those opportunities.

Top Rung: Creators
These are the people who, at least once a month, publish a blog, put an article online, maintain a website, or upload music or videos. In the United States, about 18% of us on are the top rung or creators.

The percentage is only going to go up. So, what are you doing to prepare your students to be creators? How are you preparing your students to occupy the “top rung” of the Social Technographics ladder?

If you think about it, this is a question of literacy. For example, here are the writing standards for 6th grade in California: 

Narrative
^{write narratives, that(1) establish and develop plot and setting, and choose a point of view that is appropriate to stories
(2) include sensory details and concrete language to develop plot and character
(3) use a range of narrative strategies (e.g., dialogue, suspense)
Expository
Write expository compositions (e.g., description, explanation, comparison and contrast, and/or problem/solution) that
(1) state the thesis or purpose
(2) explain the situation
(3) follow an organizational pattern appropriate to the type of composition (e.g., if problem/solution, then paired)
(4) offer persuasive evidence for the validity of the description, proposed solutions, etc.
Research Reports
Write research reports that
(1) pose relevant questions narrow enough to be thoroughly covered
(2) support the main idea(s) with facts, details, examples, and explanations from multiple authoritative sources (e.g., speakers, periodicals, on-line information searches)
(3) use a bibliography
Persuasive
2.5. write persuasive compositions (or letters for grade 5) that
(1) state a clear position in support of a proposition or proposal
(2) support the position with organized and relevant evidence; and (3) anticipate and address reader concerns and counter-arguments}

The standards seem to say that we want students to be creators. The question I have is; are we preparing our students to occupy the top rung in the groundswell. Remember, the groundswell is: “A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.”

In other words, the groundswell is what is taking place in this new ecosystem called the web where any person, in any place, can be a producer of media. Or, as Clay Shirky says, every person is a one-man media outlet.

So why only 18% participation?  Obviously this is an optional activity. Nobody has to be a creator. In our classrooms we require that our students be creators. We want all of our students on the top rung. We ask that our students create stories, research reports, projects, and narratives. We are teaching the next generation to succeed in this new online ecosystem. The standards seem to suggest we have the right intentions, but do those standards prepare our students for life in the groundswell? I think it depends on the teacher. The greater the teacher's understanding of the power of the groundswell in the online ecosystem, the better the assignments will utilize technology as part of learning and mastering the standards.

The next rung down: Critics
Critics react to what has been created. This is similar to the responding to literature standard.
_{Response to Literature
Write responses to literature that
(1) develop an interpretation which exhibits careful reading, understanding and insight
(2) organize the interpretation around several clear ideas, premises, or images
(3) develop and justify the interpretation through sustained use of examples and textual evidence}

Again, the question becomes, are we properly preparing our students for being a critic in the groundswell?

When I was a student, I was never allowed to comment on what other students wrote. Even in college, my job was to create. The only opportunities I had to be a critic was in writing a book report. Most of us are simply not used to commenting on blogs. We were not trained to do it as students and we had so few opportunities in our academic lives to practice it. But, our students are growing up in the online ecosystem that allows them to comment and critique nearly everything. They can comment on a song, a picture, a video, place a comment on a blog, put a book review on Amazon, or review a product on CNET.

Their world is the world of the critic. Are we as educators equipping them to succeed in this world?  Are we preparing them for life on the second rung? What opportunities do your students have to critique what others have created?

The next rung down: Collectors
Collector collect RSS feeds, save website to Del.icio.us, vote for sites on Digg, and accumulate all forms of created digital media from the online world.

So, what standards address that? How are we preparing our students to be effective collectors of information? What opportunities do our students get to practice the art of selective information collection? How do our students learn to filter information for their select needs? How are we preparing our students to be literate collectors?

The next rung down: Joiners
Members of Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Orcut, etc. are all joiners. These are the people who maintain profiles on social networking sites. My guess is that most of our students are far ahead of most of their teachers in this aspect. But, how can we teach our students the skills necessary to properly maintain these sites for optimal effect and leverage their power to further themselves via networking?

Our students are natural collaborators and net-workers, but how are we making them literate in the power of networks?

The next rung down: Spectators
Spectators consume what the rest produce. This is the largest part of the groundswell. This is about making choices. What they choose to consume can enhance our students’ education.  So, our students need to make choices that will enhance them as people, as students, as informed citizens, etc. Of course kids will always choose the strange and offbeat, but we can equip them to understand what sorts of media are important for them to consume. What opportunities are your students getting to be selective literate spectators?

The bottom rung: Inactives
These are the people who are not impacted by the groundswell at all. For our students, it might those students who have no access to technology and the web. I still meet students and parents who have no web access. If the school isn’t providing it, and they have no access at home, when are these students given chances to move from inactive to spectator, to joiner, to collector, to critic, or to creator?  We need to think about how we can provide opportunities and resources for them to climb the Social Technographic ladder. It is a literacy issue for life in the 21st century.

Catalytic Questions

In what way is your leadership preparing your school and your students for the literacy of technology?

Is your personal leadership and catalyst or hurdle in the implementation of technologies that will provide opportunities for technology literacy?

In what ways do our current literacy standards meet or fall short of the issues and challenges faced by our students at each rung of the Social Technographic ladder?

In what way can we better prepare our students to be literate creators of information?

How might this look in a classroom?

In what ways can we provide opportunities for our students to be literate critics of created information?

In what ways can we prepare our students to be literate collectors of information?

What might this look like in the classroom?

How might we prepare our students to leverage the power of networks?

In what ways could we prepare our students to make literate choices about the networks they join and the information they place on those networks?

In what was are we preparing our students to be literate spectators of information?

How might we better equip our students to make excellent choices in the information they consume each day?

In what ways can we provide resources or tools to move the non-participating Inactive up the Social Technographic ladder? 

Dumber Together? Brainstorming in a Professional Learning Community

You have seen it before. The PLC agenda says, “Brainstorm ideas for…” You look around and see the chart paper, pens, and Post-It notes lying on the table, and you think to yourself, “Why do we waste the time.”

You know the rules of brainstorming in PLCs…
1. No criticism
2. Wild ideas are welcome
3. Quantity is the goal, the more the better.
4. Look for combinations of previous ideas and improvements on previous ideas.

You also know that it helps if your PLCs…
1. Stay focused
2. Stick to one conversation at a time
3. Get visual and physical
4. Use chart paper, white boards, Post-It notes, etc.

You know all these things. But does it work the way you hope it would. Are your PLC brainstorming sessions effective? Are they creative? Do they produce quality ideas to drive instruction and increase student achievement?

According to Keith Sawyer, author of Group Genius, “In many organizations, the group ends up being dumber than the individual members.”

Why you ask?

Because, according to Sawyer, “…decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.”

In other words, instead of brainstorming, you should brain assemble. Put the ideas generated by individual teachers alone into an “idea pool” an assemblage of ideas.

It not that these rules of common brainstorming don’t work, it just that they work best when done by one’s self. “These studies just show that the rules work better when people use them alone than when they use them in groups.”

A lot of bad ideas are of no use to a PLC. What is needed is a lot of good ideas, or at least as many good ideas as the team is capable of generating.

But what makes an idea “good?”

According to Sawyer, we often judge ideas based on the wrong criteria. “Most people use the wrong criteria to evaluate their ideas; they think about what will work, about what worked before, or about what is familiar to them.”

What if you judged ideas based on how creative, how original, how unique, or how valuable they are? If you knew this is how ideas generated by PLC team members would be measured, chances are the teams would generate more creative ideas. You should give directions to your PLC teams that explain this.

Sawyer refers to this as “critical instructions.”

Telling your PLC that we want well thought out ideas that meet the instructional needs of students, ideas that are practical, unique, valuable, and high quality; no silly or impossible ideas.

Establishing an evaluation criterion for ideas sounds counter-intuitive, but Sawyer cites studies that show brainstorming sessions are more productive when participants are told their ideas will be evaluated for creativity and that, in fact, participants are more creative than with no criteria at all.

So instead of just telling your PLC teams to fill up a piece of chart paper with ideas, give them “critical directions” and judge them according to your pre-established criteria. You will turn brainstorming into an effective PLC tool, instead of a time wasting activity that fills ups chart paper but does nothing to improve quality of ideas developed using "critical instructions" and "idea criterion." Use the "new rules" of brainstorming.

The Power Of Impossible

The Power Of Impossible By Mark Raison Yellow Ideas Eaci Ecci Creativity Congress 29 10 09

View more presentations from mark.raison.

Do The Math- The Networked Collaborative Formula

The Professional Networked Learning Collaborative has a large network surface area. Network surface area is a measurement of the extent and number of connections from the team members who are physically present with each other, and community partners, useful outsiders, specialists, consultants, professors, etc. who join the network as virtual team members for a time to help the work of the team.

Each member can potentially leverage not only their network, but also the network of others who are in their network. This principle is known as Metcalfe’s Law. The number of potential connections between nodes grows more quickly than the number of nodes. The total value of the network where each node can reach every other node in the network grows with the square of the number of nodes. In other words, when PNLC members connect their networks, it creates more value than the sum of networks independently.

Network Surface Area = (# Team Members x Member Networks²)

The greater the number of network members the greater the network surface area of the Professional Networked Learning Collaborative.

The Professional Networked Learning Collaborative is not as agile as a single individual or even a small grade level or department Professional Learning Community. But it has a greater knowledge mass and greater knowledge mass is advantageous because in the words of Peter Drucker, “Mass enables the organization to put to work a great many more kinds of knowledge and skill that could possibly be combined in any one person or small group.”

More knowledge and skill brought to bear to increase student achievement is the power of knowledge mass.

The ability to leverage the surface area of the networked collaborative and the mass of its knowledge on to a specific topic or problem is the level of cognitive concentration. The number of minds applied to any given topic, question, or problem. The level of cognitive concentration is what allows the Professional Networked Learning Collaborative to be so effective in solving student learning issues, creativity, and problem solving. More minds working on a single problem generates higher levels of potential solutions.

Collaborative Focus =              _____Problem or Question to be solved or answered______
                                        Cognitive Concentration = (Network Surface Area x Mass of Knowledge)

The power of the Professional Networked Learning Collaborative is the power of collaborative focus. A power that can be described through a formula dividing a problem or question with cognitive concentration, the product of network surface area and mass of knowledge. This is the formula for the next evolution of collaboration and teams in education in the form of a Professional Networked Learning Collaborative.

Education's Triple Bottom Line

How does an organization measure success?  One measure, or should I say three, is the Triple Bottom Line. According to Wikipedia,

“The phrase was coined by John Elkington, co-founder of the business consultancy SustainAbility in 1994. It was later expanded and articulated in his 1998 book Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.

The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility be to 'stakeholders' rather than shareholders. In this case, 'stakeholders' refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm. According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.”

Leadership guru Ken Blanchard defines the triple bottom line are the three most important factors of performance. Blanchard says, “It recognizes that great companies are the provider of choice, the employer of choice, and the investment of choice.”

So I began to wonder if the TBL could apply to education. A school district’s TBL might be something like…
School District XYZ is the school district of choice and its schools are the school of choice for the parents of this community.
Now, we know that public schools are the only choice for most parents, but if they had the choice, would your schools be the school of choice for parents? This isn’t a question designed to open up the debate about school choice, but rather a question to get us thinking about our school and the parent’s perceptions of our schools. After all, they are the clients we are trying to serve.

School District XYZ is the school district of choice for both experienced and new teachers.
Most teachers, especially in Southern California are just happy to have a job, but if the job market reversed and put districts and schools in the role of recruiting teachers, would those teachers choose you? What can you offer that makes a difference? 

School District XYZ is the school district of performance and results.
Results, usually defined by metrics such as state test scores, are measure of performance that tells “stake holders”- local parents and citizens- that students are learning and improving. Investments in the district are being used effectively to meet student needs.

The TBL, as defined here, is just an opening into the discussion of the various factors and variables that would impact each of the three. However, it is a valuable place to begin and forces those of us in education to look at education from a different perspective and ask some tough questions of ourselves, which, is always a good thing.