What is the purpose of K-12 Education?

When I ask this question to audiences I have the privilege of meeting with, there are a wide range of responses. Some say K-12 is about helping students to learn to think critically. Others give a general and perhaps idealistic speech about preparing students for the future. While both of these answers are somewhat true and relevant, what are we missing?

If we review Table 4 in the World Economic Forum’s The Future of Jobs Report 2018 titled, “Comparing skills demand 2018 vs. 2022, top ten” (page 12), we should notice that critical thinking skills are at No. 3 in 2018 (as compared to No. 2 in 2017’s report), but slide down to No. 5 for the skills in demand for 2022. In its place are skills like “Creativity, originality, and initiative”, and above that, “Active learning and learning strategies” at No. 2! Hang on a minute. Active learning and learning strategies sound a lot like someone who is a lifelong learner. To have strategies for learning probably involves the ability to know when to research on your own, when to ask an expert, when to work with a team, how to source materials, how to evaluate your resources, strengths, and limitations. It sounds like something that would take quite a number of years to cultivate. Am I right?

The purpose of this post isn’t to answer the question I presented in the title. Instead, I hope we can begin a dialogue about where we are in education, at this time, and whether or not it is possible to actually prepare students for the future, if we don’t know what skills they are going to need. If you compare the lists from previous Future of Jobs Reports, it is easy to see the rapid change. There are skills listed in the 2017 report, that were predicted for the year 2020 that are no longer mentioned in 2018. “Complex problem solving” was supposed to remain at the top of the list for 2020, it was listed at No. 2 in 2018, and falls to No. 6 for the skills in demand for 2022. This is what rapid change looks like.

The field of education might need to reconsider whether initiatives such as early college, and a focus on individual skill development rather than integrated skill development, whether check the box standardised tests, and all the things we spend so much money running is all worth it. Do these things develop lifelong learners who will be active and self regulated in their learning, and equipped with learning strategies? Or will they hold a piece of paper with a list of A’s and a grade point average of 4.0 and the expectation that the completion now warrants college entrance, or a job. How can we shift the focus to learning in such a way that we shape the future for the next generation?

For further reading to consider the focus of K-12, check out this recent Bloomberg article “American Students have Changed their Majors”

School learning succession: written curriculum

Most schools in the United States still require teachers to write individual lesson plans to document strategies for meeting aims and objectives. Few teachers receive any regular feedback on these individual forms. And most are required to write them again, year after year. In these contexts, compliance is more important than quality and improvement is isolated and often managed by administrators who are busy with a range of priorities. The reality is, that individual lessons plans are an outdated approach to planning. Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins published Understanding by Design (UbD) framework in the late 90’s and here we are still forward planning, in most schools, and trying to use data to inform instruction, without using tools that can help improve practices.

Backward Planning vs. Forward Planning

Why do so few schools backward plan? Perhaps because to do so requires more than teacher training, time, and a willing culture. It requires a system for which to organize the progression of learning. Learning experiences that is happen in individual classrooms miss the opportunity to ensure students are transferring what they understand and the things they can do, across contexts. This kind of cognitive flexibility is increasingly more important for the future of work (Future Jobs Report, World Economic Forum, 2018). To design a connected experience across subject areas and grade levels, schools need a systematic framework that empowers students able to make their own connections across their learning experiences over time. Wouldn’t it be great if each educator had a clearer picture of what students have learned and developed in the years prior, and what they are working toward in the years ahead?

Connected learning is systematic

The most successful learning environments in the are interconnected and designed to facilitate student driven growth. Many nations have organized education in this way so that there is authentic continuity and alignment. The International Baccalaureate has created this system and structure to be portable across more than 120 different counties and taught in more than 90 different languages. Systems and frameworks should empower innovation, not restrict it. So why don’t we see this kind of organization in United States contexts? When I have asked lead educators what systems schools are using to organize themselves around learning, some have suggested they use NGSS or Common Core standards, others have talked about the accountabilities for teacher licensing. The reality is, that none of these are systems because they do not interconnect. They are not designed to intersect, correlate, or integrate learning across subject disciplines and are perhaps best classified as base-line tools for quality.  

Bigger design thinking for US education

Governing bodies and local governments could think of ways to develop a flexible framework for developing teacher quality through professional development that is related to the approaches to learning designed to connect learning experiences across contexts. Why shouldn’t we work to develop a systematic web for which teachers build units of study that can be refined and redefined over time. A UbD philosophy and practice provides a basis to reflect on the actions and strategies that drive forward targeted improvement, rather than reinventing the wheel every single time a lesson is to be taught. Through use of a written curriculum, we also have clearer reference points for what can be done to increase student success. Perhaps with a well-designed system, we could determine appropriate times for benchmark testing, and use the data as one of the resources for which to improve instruction. 

Leave a legacy of learning

Units of work that are grouped around themes and concepts enable students to develop deep, enduring understanding rather than focusing on content in isolation. A designed and integrated written curriculum which captures the aims, objectives, various methods of assessment, opportunities for differentiation, and other useful strategies is the core of what schools need for construct a legacy of learning, for the future student groups, and future teachers. We should use the written curriculum to reflect on what we have tried, what worked, and to know where we are headed. Improvement of our practices should be grounded in the immediate future, and  for the years to come. Future school communities can will benefit from schools who have learned, and document this growth as a resource for the future. 

QUESTION: How do we build this kind of quality without a systematic approach across schools and school systems? 

A common language for learning

I first created this website as a project in my Master’s of Education program, as I explored digital platforms for learning and communications for leading learning. Today I decided to resurrect the project and begin cultivating my thoughts about design thinking in education. Having spent over a decade working in an International Baccalaureate context, I have come to value the systems and structures that the IB provides to schools, emulating national systems from around the world that organise around a common set of principles and practices, as well as a common language for learning.

Students need a vocabulary for which to talk about their learning experience, and so do teachers. There are many books and resources about professional learning communities, often referred to as PLC’s, and yet so few focus on culture and vocabulary. How can we express ourselves without a kind of language, even if it is sign language? For those of us who are mono-lingual (one of my most embarrassing attributes), we realise the challenge it can be to dig into deep communication with others who do not speak our language proficiently. For both communicators, it is easiest to stick to small talk and general conversation, rather than progress into topics requiring meta-language.

This has been my observation and experience in contexts that lack a framework that elevates a sense of common understanding. What do we practice? How do we approach? These are not always simple areas of agreement. Rather, they can be questions that go unaddressed and we can focus more on the activity and the delivery, than we do on the strategy.

So today is a new day. I will attempt to share my thoughts and connect readers with great resources from innovators in education. Particularly those with a design sensibility, a ‘method to their madness’.