One School’s Leap Into Design Thinking, Part III

In the two previous posts, I have outlined the process one school underwent to apply design thinking strategies to the improvement of the daily schedule.  Part I focused on the Discovery phase and our methods of collecting data from the teacher user group.  Still in the Discovery phase, Part II covered the collection of data from our student user group.  In this post, I will move into the Interpretation and Ideation phases of our DT journey.

Once data was collected from the two user groups of the daily schedule, it was brought to our Academic Council, a team composed of administrators and department chairs.  It fell to this group to interpret the data in order to determine the needs of the users.  To achieve this, we employed an Empathy Map.   This tool is effective in helping designers get from data to a more distilled design opportunity that can truly make a difference to users.  By exploring both the specific words students and teachers used to describe their thoughts on the schedule, and by making inferences or observations of their actions and feelings about the schedule, we were able to crystallize our work into a set of specific “How might we…?” questions that addressed the needs of the users.  The following are some of those questions.empathy map
How might we find more time for students to meet with teachers for help?
How might we incorporate academic club meetings (i.e. Science Olympiad, Math Team, Robotics) into the regular school day?
How might we allow more flexibility for students in lunch/recess?
How might we help students not feel rushed at certain points of the day?
How might we add more homeroom/advisory time?

empathy map

In the past, administrators would have analyzed the schedule themselves with the input of a handful of teachers.  The design thinking process helped to target the needs of the teachers and students specifically, thereby allowing the focus to remain on issues important to the learners and their learning.  If we had stopped the process here, I would have considered it a success for that reason.  However, the goals of this process included the incorporation of a larger group of problem solvers and designers.  Therefore, the HMW questions were taken back to the faculty for discussion and ideation.

The faculty brainstorming session was held with a group of approximately 40 teachers of all different subjects and ages within our division.  The group included those that were treated as users earlier in the process and Academic Council members that generated the questions.  We employed a Wagon Wheel protocol from the National School Reform Faculty to ensure the best possible mixing of ideas across the group.  Considering the numbers and the physical space and furniture our wagon wheel ended up being more of a conveyor belt, but the concept worked the same; short solution brainstorming sessions on one question with one colleague before shifting to another colleague to do the same with the next question.  The concept is akin to speed dating.  Once each question was tackled in this way, teachers were given the choice of which question they would like to work on further and grouped themselves into design teams.  Their goal was to come up with a prototype for a solution to the scheduling question they chose.  Prototypes and ideas were shared out with the full group and recorded by administrators.

It is important to note that throughout this process teachers understood that their solutions may not be used.  This can be a tricky part of designing in groups and a lesson that teachers would be wise to pass on to their students.  At the end of the day, the administrators will make the final schedule and the final product will have had a number of limitations applied to it, i.e. staffing, facilities, and finances.  Excellent ideas may have to be shelved because of these limitations.  Despite those possible disappointments, the inclusion of users in the process helps to create a culture of initiative, creativity, and self-advocacy that would surely benefit any organization.

Reflections:
– Time is an issue in a process such as this.  I felt that the process was stretched out over too many months, but design sessions themselves were too short.   It was difficult to incorporate student input due to time constraints, and I would like to see greater student involvement in general.
– Attitudes towards a process such as this also varied among all constituencies.  The first attempt at design thinking can seem forced or can fall flat because some may insist they do not have anything to contribute or perhaps think it is not their responsibility to solve such problems.  This can be exacerbated if the limitations set by administration, to which I alluded earlier, are too constrictive.  If there is a sense of pointlessness to the project, very little can be accomplished.  It is important, therefore, to begin to create a culture in which all problems are tackled this way.  Once participants see that their ideas are valued and employed, creativity and initiative will grow.

One School’s Leap Into Design Thinking, Part II

After a whirlwind end to the school year and an early summer dominated by a house sale and cross-country move, it is time to finally share more about one school’s attempt to use Design Thinking concepts to tweak the daily schedule.  For a recap of the early steps of this process and the entire plan, please refer back to the previous post here.

Though the responsibility of designing and setting class schedule is mainly left to administration, it was important to us to include faculty and students in the process.  After all, they are the users of the schedule.  As described in the previous post referenced above, the Discovery phase called for the involvement of these two user groups.  After data was collected and compiled from sessions with faculty, we turned to our most important users.  All 6th and 7th graders were split into groups of 15-25 and placed with 2 or 3 teachers familiar with the Chalk Talk and Affinity Mapping protocols used for data collection and discussion.  In these groups, students were given the opportunity to share their thoughts on schedule details that either work or do not work for them.  In order to ensure useful and relevant data, teacher facilitators previewed the session by brainstorming schedule elements with students .  By defining up front the difference between a scheduling issue and other issues, they helped limit irrelevant comments.  For example, when discussing lunch, students would need to realize that time and duration of lunch were open for discussion, but not what food was being served.2014-01-23 08.58.18

It is always evident in sessions such as these that students love to be asked what they think.  This chance to be heard is essential in the development of a voice and the ability to self-advocate.  While there are those that will distract from the task at hand, for the most part students took this opportunity seriously.  Many engaged in the process in a way that showed their belief that they have a say in their own educations.  Teacher facilitators were all advised, however, to remind students that just because they want something changed does not mean it will be.   The complication of putting together a school schedule and the limitations in place due to staffing, facilities, and finances can make the reality a fair bit different from the ideal.  It was important for students to hear this and realize that the goal was to simply get feedback on their experience with the schedule.  This was sometimes difficult as many students wanted to talk about how things should be rather than how they are.  All comments, though, were useful in the overall analysis.

These student sessions were held in 45 minute blocks as part of a rotation of activities taking place on a non-cycle day (such days do not have scheduled classes and are set aside for large inter-disciplinary projects and/or special events).  I have shared the document teacher facilitators worked from to help them get started with the sessions here.  Schedule Student Feedback Protocol 1-23

In the next installment, I will share the next steps of the process which included interpretation and ideation, as done through Empathy Mapping and Prototyping.

One School’s Leap Into Design Thinking, Part I

design thinking, IDEOWe often start brainstorms with the phrase, “How Might We” (HMW, for short). We use these three words because they help frame a problem in an open-ended, optimistic, and collaborative way. “How” assumes there are solutions out there. “Might” says some of the ideas may work, others won’t—either way, it’s OK. And “We” says we’re going to solve the problem together by building on each other’s ideas. – Tim Brown, http://designthinking.ideo.com/

Successful schools turn out students who are creative problem solvers; students who think critically, and without fear of failure, about improving our world through asking questions, showing empathy, and collaboration.   To achieve this goal, educators must develop a culture in which students are given the opportunity to discover problems for themselves, the time to think and tinker, the access to each other and the world outside of school, and, perhaps most importantly, the trust that they are capable of accomplishing great meaningful things without the constant intervention of adults and systems of compliance.  More often than not, this sort of culture runs up against the traditions of how schools work.  The time has come for schools to embrace a shift of culture and to change the way school works for the benefit of student learning and student initiative.

This past summer I came across the idea of Design Thinking (DT) and how it can be used in schools.  Through my exposure to the Design Thinking mindset, which I can attribute mainly to the wonderful educators who take part in the #dtk12chat Twitter chat each week (Wed 9-10pm EST), I have come to learn that by using certain DT processes a school can begin to make the kind of culture shift I mention above.  With this in mind, I have made the infusion of DT attitudes into both classrooms and faculty meetings one of my goals for this year.  Inspired by a visit to Mount Vernon Presbyterian, an Atlanta independent school committed to a DT way of life, I began looking for opportunities to inject the power of HMW into our environment.  When it came time to assess the effectiveness of our new daily schedule, I knew I had found a starting point.

PROCESS

This year is the first year using a new daily schedule that had been overhauled through a nearly two year process.  As with any new schedule, there have been some bumps along the way, but the overall feeling after one semester is that it is working well.  Thinking like good designers, we have seen the need for some tweaks to this new schedule, so that we may deliver our program even more effectively.  Though we do not desire a complete blowup and redesign, I decided to approach this from the beginning of a design process.

Step 1: Discovery – This phase will take place in two waves, so that we may work on refining our challenge and collecting data from the two main sets of users of our schedule: teachers and students.  At our January teacher in-service, we gathered as a middle school faculty to collect data from teachers.design thinking

  • We employed a Chalk Talk protocol adapted from the National School Reform Faculty, whose model of Critical Friends’ Groups we have used for our own PLC groups for two years.  This was intentionally done so that the teachers would be familiar and comfortable with the process.  Through this protocol we allowed unlimited viewpoints on what they would keep and what they would change in the schedule and asked teachers to write on sticky notes and post in the appropriate areas.  There are very real limitations on what is possible within our schedule, i.e. facilities, staffing, finances, etc., but it was important for us to disregard those at this stage of the process.
  • Next, we asked the teachers to Affinity Map (see the NSRF link above for explanation) their responses, keeping in mind the differences between schedule changes that have a direct effect on student learning and delivering the program and those that have more to do with teacher convenience.  These categories were certainly not a judgement of responses, just a way to honestly assess the issues raised.
  • After all the data was collected and categorized, I processed the data to prepare it for our next step.

design thinkingThe second wave of the Discovery step will take place in a couple of weeks during a non-cycle day with our students.  We will guide them through a similar process, so that we may have an equally important data set with which to work.  During our faculty session, we took a few minutes at the end to discuss strategies for successful data collection with middle school students.  It was important to have this session with teachers first and to have those discussions because we will need teachers to facilitate the student sessions.

Step 2: Interpretation – This phase will likely take place next month.  My intention is to ask our Academic Council to create an Empathy Map based on the data collected through step 1 and through observations and conversations with users.  I hope the result of this process is a set of specific HMW questions about the parts of the schedule that can/should be tweaked.

Step 3: Ideation – The plan would be to take the HMW questions back to the entire faculty and facilitate a brainstorming session that leads to possible solutions and/or schedule prototypes.  The protocols we will use for this step have yet to be determined.  We will also think about how we can include students into this phase of the process as well.

REFLECTIONS

While it is a bit early to have too many reflections on this process, I can say that it has and will serve many purposes.  Whether this process is effective in leading us to creative ways to tweak our schedule or not, what it does is model the kinds of activities we would like to see in our classrooms and meetings.  By asking our teachers to reflect, discover problems, and collaborate to devise creative solutions, we are building a culture of trust in which risk-taking initiative is valued.  By helping teachers to find ways to engage their students in similar projects and activities, we are spreading that culture throughout our school.  My hope is that the Design Thinking mindset catches on throughout the administration, faculty, and student body.  With that mindset, we can look forward to innovation and initiative like we have never seen in our community of learners.

**Clearly, we have only just begun this process and there may be many changes along the way.  Please follow along with the series of posts as we move from step to step and don’t hesitate to leave feedback, suggestions, or questions.  I would love to also be able to model to our faculty the power of a PLN to help with projects such as this one.**

Getting Our Hands a Little Dirty

I am an educator because I want to help develop young people who are makers, doers, growers, and learners, rather than consumers, talkers, destroyers, and knowers.  A few posts ago, I highlighted the Maker Movement and the importance of encouraging students to see themselves as problem finders, solution designers, and prototype creators (read that post here).  While a culture shift in most schools is required to achieve the ideals of the Maker Movement, I feel confident that such a shift is gaining momentum.  What is less evident is that schools are working to develop self-sufficient growers who are able to maintain healthy lifestyles.  dirt, garden

It is rare in my experience to come across students who truly understand healthy nutrition and exactly where our food comes from.  In a country where the most affordable food is often the worst for us, it is of paramount importance to educate children on the realities of food production and how knowledge of farming and cooking can improve quality of life.  Generations ago this was the responsibility of parents or other family members, but as food production has moved away from family farms and into the hands of large corporate entities, it has become increasingly important for schools to lead the effort.  To this end, curricula have been designed to provide students with learning opportunities that move outside classroom walls and into gardens and kitchens.  (for one such example see here and the video below)

cooking, food prepWe are constantly searching for ways to make learning more relevant and real for students.  Is there anything more relevant to them than food?  The satisfaction students get from seeing a project through from inception to product is evident in schools all the time.  Often, though, the product is meaningless to them, a way to get a grade.  As soon as it is turned in, it is forgotten.  When the product is something useful to them, or edible, student interest grows exponentially.  Harnessing such interest into varied experiences that incorporate science, math, history, culture, and other subjects is the goal of any good program.  Doing so in a way that also develops important life skills and greater knowledge and interest in health and nutrition should be a no-brainer.  If we can help students understand the process of getting from seeds to salads, we can develop people who care and know about what they eat, which, in turn, will begin to inflict some positive change on a society that is at the mercy of entities who put healthy commerce ahead of healthy people.

Schools need to find a patch of earth somewhere on campus and get down into the dirt with students.  We need to add words like plant, cultivate, harvest, and cook to our curriculum map action verb lists.  If we do, we will be helping our future leaders take better care of themselves and the planet.  As educators, is there anything more important than that?

We need to bring children up with a whole different way of thinking about food and their lives.  – Alice Waters, Founder of Chez Panisse Foundation

Giving Kids the Keys

“Every teacher spends an hour lecturing us about rules and netbooks and textbooks and such, and we’re all so used to it, we usually just sit there either with drool hanging out of our mouths and our brains somewhere else, or doodling on a sheet of notebook paper.  We’ve heard it all before, so none of us really pay attention.  We listen to whoever we have first period, and then for the rest of the day, we sort of sit there, as I said, with drool hanging out of our mouths, half asleep, wouldn’t even notice if the teacher’s hair was on fire.”  – 8th graderbored student

The above reflection is an alarm bell.  It should signal to teachers and administrators that things need to change in classrooms.  This 8th grader may have been the only one brave enough to write and turn in such an honest opinion, but it is very unlikely that she is alone in her assessment.  Many students, whether they actually have drool hanging out of their mouths or not, are being systematically disengaged by schools and by teachers who struggle to relinquish control to their students.  Great strides have been made to move from the “sage on the stage” mentality of past generations and “student-centered” has become the norm in school literature, but many schools have yet to find a way to eliminate the scene described in the above student commentary.  We need to find a way to move from student-centered to student-driven, and all it takes is trusting kids enough to give them the keys.

Project based learning, experiential learning, inquiry, and student-written class rules are all examples of useful ways to give students a voice in their schools and in their work.  Many times, however, the limitations still exist and it is because of our attitudes, not our pedagogical strategies.  Too often adults don’t believe kids can handle the responsibility of leading and designing their own learning.  In some cases, this may be true, but it is likely because they have been trained not to.  For most of their young lives, they have been relieved of all responsibilities by their parents and teachers.  From cleaning up after them to packing their backpacks every morning for school to helping them with homework, adults continuously teach our kids to not be responsible.  When they arrive in class, most students expect to be told what to do, how to do it, and be helped if they have trouble.  The only way to help students develop a sense of responsibility for their own learning is to give them control of it.  There will likely be frustrating challenges and failures along the way for students, but it takes challenge and failure to rise to new heightened expectations.   There will also likely be terrifying moments for teachers.  They must find a way to put their organized, prepared, often linear-thinking selves in the passenger seat and realize that school needs to be about what students find compelling, not teachers.

Educators should embrace the position of navigator.  Give our student drivers the keys, ask them where they want to go, and help them get there by pointing out the various routes and possible detours.  We must resist the temptation to grab the wheel or slam on the brakes because it is the creative, optimistic, anything is possible attitude of children that pushes forward the bold ideas of innovation.  We must simply buckle up and hang on while our students lead us on adventures we couldn’t possibly have planned.

This TED talk by 12 year old Adora Svitak shows there is much adults can learn from children.

Learning between grown ups and kids should be reciprocal. – Adora Svitak

Where High Tech and Low Tech Join Forces

Credit: MakezineMany of us in education have spent much time and energy recently pushing the agenda of so-called “21st Century Learning”.  The problem with that phrase is that it can be misconstrued to mean that we are focused solely on creating a generation of students skilled in the use of digital technologies and, thus, prepared to become useful members of a future workforce.  While we know there is so much more to 21st century education than mastery of new technologies (i.e. developing creativity, critical thinking skills, perseverance, adaptability), we do sometimes fall into the trap of looking for the next cool gadget for our students to play with, thereby losing sight of the big picture.  Many teachers are cautious not to use technology just for the sake of using it, but rather as a tool to accomplish something otherwise impossible, but shouldn’t we still be asking ourselves just what type of users of technology we are creating?  Do we run the risk of merely feeding the pool of desensitized screen zombies whose connection to the world around them grows more tenuous?  Surely, helping students master a varied toolbox of hardware, software, and apps is important, but we need to work to be certain that we are not just creating a generation of consumers when what we really want is a generation of makers.

The Maker Movement, which is best explained in the below video, is not new, but it is beginning to find its way into the world of education in more meaningful ways.  Educators are beginning to see the value of giving time for student invention and creation. (see: http://www.geniushour.com/)  Even universities have opened their application process to include student projects. (see: http://makezine.com/2013/08/16/mit-welcomes-makers/)  The beauty of the Maker Movement is that it holds high tech and low tech in equal stead.  Maker spaces at the most well-known facilities are supplied with buttons, pipe cleaners, glue, and hand drills, right alongside the 3D printers and laser cutters.  The idea is to give makers whatever they need and the results and processes are often a blend of handmade and machine-made.  Most importantly, a Maker Movement in schools encourages problem finding, question asking, solution trying, failing forward, and the use of a wide range of technologies, some cutting edge now and perhaps some cutting edge 100 years ago, for the purpose of making our world a little better for everyone.  If we are finding ways of helping students master technologies for this purpose, than we can be proud of the work we are doing.

It’s not really about the one piece of equipment or the latest and greatest tool.  It’s really about creating the environment for them to feel free to experiment, to feel free to fail, but always have the ability to continue to progress.  – Leif Krinkle, Director of Visible Futures Lab, School of Visual Arts, NYC

Schools Don’t Need to Be Creativity Killers

Though genetic attributes contribute to differences in intellectual capacity among individuals, all humans are born with the ability to engage in creative thought and action.  Whether or not individuals use and develop that ability, how they use it, and how well they use it all depend on what they have learned from their environment, parents, teachers, peers, and culture.  Through the observation of young children, it is plain to see that humans possess a natural curiosity and tendency towards creative problem-solving.  With or without encouragement from parents, children exhibit vivid imaginations and are frequently making connections between concepts in novel ways.  As children get older, they become more exposed to the attitudes and dispositions of their caregivers.  Adults who seek to foster creativity can positively influence a child’s exercise of creative capabilities.  Those whose attitudes tend to discourage creativity, because of individual prejudices, cultural traits, or institutional constraints, can stifle those same capabilities.  Most often, it seems to be the school setting which plays a significant role in developing or impeding creativity.  So, how can we make sure that we, as educators, are not contributing to the killing of our children’s creativity?

creativity, kids

set us free!

creativity, kids

set us free!

creativity, kids

set us free!

 

Creativity expert Robert Harris tells us that the successful use of creative abilities relies on the development of certain creative dispositions and attitudes.  These include:

  • Openness to change
  • Willingness to play with possibilities
  • Unwillingness to blindly accept the status quo
  • Relentless curiosity
  • Desire and motivation to work hard to improve the ways thing are

We need to examine our school learning environments to determine whether we are unknowingly erecting obstacles to the development of these attitudes.  If schools or educators demand conformity, sap confidence by creating a culture of fear of low test scores, or restrict student curiosity and experimentation with confining schedules and physical space, then they are taking from our children a key element of what it means to be human and slowly starving it death.  However, if teachers make a concerted effort to begin feeding their own creative selves, they can begin to create a school atmosphere that satiates the voracious creative appetite our students naturally bring to the table.  If teachers believe in their students’ capacity to create, they will.  If they are willing to make and admit to mistakes, their students will too.  If they tolerate and encourage different perspectives, answers, and questions, their students will take discussions places they have never been.  If they say “What if?” or “Why not?” instead of “That won’t work” or “Stop being silly”; if they reward great questions as much or more than right answers; if they ask open-ended questions rather than ‘googleable’ ones…if they do all of these things, their students will be free to exercise the creative talents they possess in ways that will amaze us all.

Wonderfully innovative ideas do not come as a bolt from out of the blue as popular culture would sometimes have us believe.  They require hard work, persistence, a willingness to take risks, and, perhaps most of all, an environment in which the creative attitude can survive and thrive.  Why would we intentionally create a learning institution without such an environment?  If we are truly concerned with preparing students for a life beyond school that demands creative thinkers, we had better begin to recognize the changes required in our schools and our teaching.

What if we weren’t the creativity killing school most of us went to as students?   Just imagine.

Sir Ken Robinson, one of our most influential thought leaders on education and creativity, on this very subject circa 2007.

One-Size-Fits-None

In Todd Rose’s compelling TEDtalk on the Myth of Average (see below), he tells us that “desks are the cockpits of our economy”.  This is a provocative statement which sums up the analogy he makes between fighter jet cockpits and desks in schools.  Rose explains that the Air Force, after years of poor performance, finally came to the realization that a one-size-fits-all cockpit simply did not work.  Faced with such a wide range of body types, engineers had always designed cockpits to the average size profile.  What they learned through extensive research was that this average pilot did not exist, so the cockpits were really one-size-fits-none.  From that time forward they engineered cockpits to the outer edges of the range and added the ability to adjust where needed, thereby giving each individual pilot an opportunity to find the comfort and access needed for success.  Rose has adeptly made the connection between cockpits and student desks.  If we understand that every student is different, with different strengths and weaknesses, different styles of learning, different rates of maturation and development, then why do we think that a one-size-fits-all education works?  If we design our textbooks, curriculum, learning spaces, even our desks to the average student, do we end up really designing for nobody?

classroom learning environment

designed for nobody

I am consumed with exploring questions such as these and opening up the conversation with educators around the world.  In the last few years, I have seen a shift towards the understanding that education needs to be as customizable as possible and that successful independent schools need to provide diverse opportunities designed to prepare students for future challenges that no longer lie within a predictable range.  This shift has been driven by a pledge to know, challenge, and love every student and has been furthered by strong commitment to faculty professional development and facility upgrades.

The school I work at has invested a good deal of money and energy this year into the development of more flexible learning spaces.  Desks have been removed from a middle school computer lab and replaced by a series of tables that can be arranged in a variety of formations suitable for a wide range of activity.  Everything from small group work to boardroom presentations can be easily accommodated, thereby creating a space for both student and teacher collaboration that lends itself well to project work.  More informal spaces complete with comfortable couches that can be used for group discussions and socializing have been added, while plans in the library include the possibility of mobile bookshelves for customizable and shareable learning space.

In first grade classrooms, desks were replaced by fold-able work tables on wheels.  Every day the students themselves will have the power to decide how they are most comfortable and thus ready to learn.  Need more organized workspace?  Leave the tables up.  Prefer to work on the floor?  Fold the tables, push them to the side and have all the real estate required.  In a traditional school building, minor changes such as these are certainly steps in the right direction.  Without actually knocking down walls, we are working to move past the old notions of classroom learning and encouraging teachers to allow students more freedom to move around.

In Sweden they have taken this concept and run with it.  Wishful thinking for most of us…Check it out here. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665867/school-without-walls-fosters-a-free-wheeling-theory-of-learning#1

Learning takes place in many different ways.  Gone are the days when a quiet room of students seated in rows of desks is the ideal learning environment.  While that type of environment can be appropriate at times, what we have learned from Todd Rose, other thought leaders in education, and from our own experience is that an adaptive, flexible learning environment with multiple spaces and configurations is paramount to the development of student creativity and achievement.  By moving out of a one-size-fits-all mindset, we will be providing the opportunity to succeed to all students.  After all, if desks are the cockpit of our economy, than it is imperative for our future that we be sure to make those desks adjustable.

Todd Rose was not really just talking about furniture in his talk.  He was making a call to our education system to stop designing all activities, materials, and spaces to the average.  If we listen to him, we can begin to free students from the constraints traditional schools have placed on them and we can give all students an opportunity to continue to love learning.

Do Schools Give Students the Chance to Grow “Organically”?

child chasing chickensWhen we picture the animals on an organic farm, we see chickens or cows roaming free in a bucolic setting.  Happily eating naturally and growing organically, they are not force-fed filler or injected with chemicals to enhance or speed the growth process.  We often consider these animals to be the lucky ones, though they will share a similar fate in the end, compared to their counterparts in traditional farms equipped with over-crowded cages.

Students in schools are certainly not chickens or cows, nor do they deserve to be thought of as such, but the idea of school as farm makes for a compelling metaphor, one that helps guide our thoughts on what education in schools could and should look like.  What if students in schools weren’t shuttled from classroom to classroom, often constrained to a less than comfortable desk?  What if schools didn’t ask students to compartmentalize learning into 45 minute blocks of time?  What if schools didn’t force-feed students content that was not relevant or interesting to them?  In short, what if schools worked to adapt learning environments, i.e. physical space, schedule, pedagogy, curriculum, to allow for greater freedom, flexibility, and creativity for their teachers and students?  What if, like an organic farmer, we set the fences, fostered an environment for organic growth and development, and allowed our students to then be free-range?

There are certainly a great number of schools, organizations, and educators working towards these ideals through conversation and practice.  The aim of this blog is to join that conversation, share ideas and success stories from around the world, and to report on some of the efforts and experiments of one independent school that is embarking on the journey.

it's about learning

exploring the educational crossroads of our time

The Principal of Change

Stories of learning and leading

Wright'sRoom

Pondering education, technology, and making a difference

Leading is Learning.

The Santa Fe Leadership Center's Incubator for Teaching and Learning

Granted, and...

thoughts on education by Grant Wiggins

The Randolph Journey

Life in a K-12 community of learners

Edudemic

Thoughts on How Innovative School Learning Environments Can Better Prepare Students to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century

TeachThought

Thoughts on How Innovative School Learning Environments Can Better Prepare Students to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century

Lisa Nielsen: The Innovative Educator

Thoughts on How Innovative School Learning Environments Can Better Prepare Students to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century

My Island View

Educational, Disconnected Utterances

Will Richardson

Will Richardson

%d bloggers like this: