In my last post, I highlighted education thought leader Richard Elmore’s provocative keynote presentation at the Learning Forward conference in Boston. Elmore warned educators that if we do not create a professional culture in schools that prizes teaching quality and the ongoing assessment of teaching effectiveness, “schooling” as we know it today will be replaced by other learning systems that are more responsive to the needs of 21st century students.
I had the privilege of introducing Dr. Elmore, and it fell to me to moderate the question and answer session after his talk.
Elmore began the Q&A with the African proverb: “When the elephants fight, only the grass suffers.”
In many of his comments to the audience, Elmore focused on the current monopolistic education status quo and again questioned whether the existing system has the capacity to transform itself.
Some interesting ideas emerged during the Q&A, including Elmore’s suggestions that practitioners, more and more, will look outside the current system for ways to create new learning environments without high overhead. Initiatives like the Khan Academy, he predicted, will also help break the current monopoly.
Partners vs. packages
Then Elmore made two points that I’ve been really pondering, related to our ABPC work:
Point One: He said that when people pay for the work of others, it means they aren’t willing to do the hard work themselves. I think about pre-packaged programs and vendor services. In some cases, certainly, districts are able to take, adapt, and use vendor programs with effectiveness. But there are many of these programs that promise more than can be delivered, even if the program is implemented with fidelity. So-called “teacher-proof” curricula and programs come to mind.
That said, we also work with districts and the state, and we charge for some of our services. So how is that different? We hope schools and districts perceive that we are forging a partnership with them. We are not erecting a pre-fab house, installing the essentials, and leaving an instruction manual on the kitchen counter.
I hope we all believe we’re in a partnership aimed at creating a culture of professional learning and continuous improvement, driven by a community of educators who are eager to find the best way to reach every student. To steal a slogan, our view is: YOU can do it … we can help. Consultants, coaches, teachers, school leaders — we’re in this together. As Jim Knight says in his new book High Impact Instruction: “The partnership approach is EVERYTHING.”
But partnership does not mean “we do it for you.” For me, a helpful analogy is losing weight. No one can do that for me. A personal trainer, or a committed friend, or a recommended regime of exercise and diet can make a difference. But, ultimately, it is up to ME to change. I have to do the sweaty, transformative work. And it’s the same for educators in our schools. They have to do the really hard work.
Point Two: The purpose of a successful clinical practice is to help schools and districts improve and not to create co-dependency. From the beginning of our work with schools, the Best Practices Center consultants and staff have had to balance that very sticky issue: How much help is enough? How much help is too much? At what point does assistance stop being helpful and start getting in the way of the change work that educators have to do for themselves? I hope we’ll always ask ourselves those questions and invite our partners to ask them, too.
Back to the Q&A
The next question focused on implementation of the Common Core Standards. Elmore, once again, surprised some participants when he said something like, “The Common Core Standards are beautiful. I like them.” He then mentioned how much he enjoyed reading them and thinking about them.
But then he compared the rollout of CCSS to an automobile coming off the assembly line with the body of a Ferrari and the drive train of a Ford Falcon. In his analogy, the drive train represents the amount of time and resources invested in preparing teachers who can achieve the vision of the CCSS’s creators. “We do not have the human capital to do this,” Elmore said. “We are asking too many teachers to teach things they never learned and they don’t understand.”
Closing the Q&A session, Elmore noted that one of the striking differences between the U.S. and those nations with the highest performing students was our “under-resourced education professions.” He also said that nations with highly successful schools think in terms of generations and understand that the next generation of teachers and students will not “look like them.” As a result, they don’t use “look like me” as a standard for teaching and learning.
Chatting with Dr. Elmore
It was 10:58 and another distinguished lecture was set to begin at 11 a.m., so I reluctantly brought the session to an end, thanking Richard Elmore for his thoughtful address, which left many of us with so much to consider.
With so many questions about the future of education hanging in the air, I wasn’t surprised to see many of the participants “swarm” around Dr. Elmore, hoping to continue the conversation. And I soon found myself in the unenviable position of interrupting him and asking if he’d be willing to continue the conversation outside of the room.
Knowing that he was on sabbatical and had been very generous to agree to speak at Learning Forward, I was mindful of his time. But then something magical happened. In a small group of about eight people, with me eavesdropping, a twenty-minute dialogue ensued that was fascinating. I wasn’t in a position to take notes and I can’t remember all the riveting things that were said. But I can point you to several places on the Web where you’ll find comments by and about Elmore that reflect some of what we heard:
Scott McLeod’s Dangerously Irrelevant blog
Peter Pappas’ Copy & Paste blog
Using Technology to Move Beyond Schools
(an Education Week commentary 5/18/11 – subscription)
