The list is a good starting point, especially frame one: instructional core.

Frame two: Is it strongly supported by the evidence? Unfortunately, my experience has been “only when it’s convenient.” NACEP accreditation, together with other forms of “specialized” accreditation, comes to mind, as there is no evidence (let alone “strong” evidence) that specialized accreditation “standards” enhance student learning (frame one).

Frame four allows us to compare our performance against others, and the international scope of the frame is appropriate and necessary; however, there is a risk: anytime we benchmark, we tend to imprison ourselves within those particular benchmarks, which may hinder innovation. See Blue Ocean Strategy and, particularly, Southwest Airline’s strategy of creating a successful, high-performing system by “going off the board” and actually redefining benchmarks — some of which no other airline comes close to matching.

Underlying all of the frames should be: “Hire professionals, and then get out of their way, and quickly.” Looking back to my experience in education — including as a high school teacher, as a college professor, and now as a mean college administrator — I can’t help but notice a trend of imposing various bureaucratic requirements in the paths of our educators: exhaustive lists of learning benchmarks, standards, and strands; No Child Left Behind; programs of study; Perkins performance standards and reports; project “this” and project “that,” and the list goes on. An interesting research topic would be to examine the correlation between bureaucracy in education and student learning; it wouldn’t surprise me to see decreased student learning accompany increased bureaucracy.

Mark Gruwell

There is no criticism here, just efforts to clarify the terms of the discussion. When you speak of “the whole system” I can only guess which system you have in mind. My guess is that you are thinking about all k-12 education at the state level. Thus, your concern about The Blueprint topics of teacher preparation, recruiting, hiring, career paths, salaries, and evaluation are addressed.

“Systems” thinking is a useful way to define the totality of configured pieces that are joined together because of how they must relate to each other to function effectively. A school is the unit that must function effectively for the benefit of a student, therefore it must also be designed as “a system.” The norm, however, is a disjointed, fragmented collection of activities which leaves the student challenged to navigate for his intellectual gain. Our systemic thinking must focus on the core of the chosen system to ensure systemic compatibility and collaboration.

Let me quickly say that, of course, there are many systems which must function effectively beginning with the one that includes all k-12 education in the state is also important. It’s just that we must not lose sight of the primary system, that which is closest to the student.

Attention to this system operationalizes the researched contention that the best decisions are made closest to mission actions. It demonstrates bottom up strength and acknowledges the unique personal characteristics which we value in education in both students and teachers. A careful balance should be maintained with any essential top down requirements from the state system.

We agree. “We know what works.” In truth, many things work, very well. Educators are flooded with good advice which is all clearly linked to some study. There is no shortage of constructs emanating from gurus who will never see the faces of our students. Actually, research has told us it is the school that is the most effective unit of reform. The challenge is to synthesize an operating system that supports continuous professional learning and results in student achievement at that level.

Your own resolve to continue to learn and grow is what needs to be transmitted to each school site. That attitude can confirm the vision and generate the creativity to successfully use differently the existing resources so that Iowa’s students will again be leading learners.

As a stand alone effort “technology” for it’s own sake would not meet the 4 lens test. However, if there were specific technological strategies that met the four (and I think you can make an argument that there are), then a more specific technological/education strategy could be considered.

Thanks much for your considered response.

A careful read of this post clearly indicates an important place for innovation. But it should be carefully constrained and empirically guided before launched on a whole system. Ceaseless and unconstrained whole system innovation is exhausting, wasteful and potentially damaging. Innovate – yes and without question. But do so with prudence.

There are a number of education strategies that do pass these four lenses so this is not a call for inaction. Rather, it is a call for calibrated and proven approaches that get results (more on these in later posts).

In many cases we do not need a new innovation to get to improvement. In many cases, we know what works – the issue is implementing what works with fidelity and low variability. I know of no shortcuts to world-class status.

While there were several aspects of last fall’s education blueprint that do pass these four lenses, it can be fairly criticized as being too broad and not being tightly vetted through these four lenses.

I stand up and own that and acknowledge my own shortcomings. I’ve learned and grown.

I am also increasingly clear that a better path ahead can be found looking through these four lenses. I am ready and resolute to take up this new direction – in fact I already have within the Iowa Department of Education.

I hope I can count you as an ally in that work for a better approach.

Thanks again.

Now, a year later, you are suggesting four decision-making lenses for deciding on action.

The instructional core is paramount to what goes on in schools given that schools exist for students’ needs. Since we now have an accumulated professional body of knowledge, it is reasonable that we use that evidence. But your fear of being paralyzed by analysis is real, as we can often see. Meanwhile, our students wait for us to get it together so that more than a third of them can demonstrate proficiency as independent learners.

Does your own thinking on reform truly believe what The Blueprint suggests about the spirit of innovation? What if we had one of those “incredibly important” pilots or projects somewhere in Iowa and what if the followup action had been taken “to grow the validated approach”? Would we respect “the history, culture and context” associated with a school enough to nurture that “spirit of innovation” by supporting replication?

This “spirit of innovation” in The Blueprint was a direct result of last year’s summit and here we are a year later still wondering “where we should put our efforts.”

Researcher Michael Fullan defines three levels of reform: the school, the district, and the policy level (state/federal). The spirit of innovation can be clearly aimed at the school level, and it’s about time. How many more years, decades, are we willing to see our talented colleagues working as hard as they can, but still unable to show improved results with our children.

Are we willing to see yet another year’s graduating class of Iowa students—terrific as they are—still not demonstrating the stronger proficiencies we seek?

Could we possibly find McLeod’s “‘black box’ of the learning-teaching process” by nurturing that spirit of innovation, especially one that is born in the system at the school where the student and teacher meet? What if our systems approach at the school level focused on cognitive development, could increase the quality of teaching and learning. Could these results play well globally?

The reform discussions go on, but should we be taking some action now to support that spirit of innovation?

I believe there are very few, if any, teachers who feel that education in Iowa is as good as it can be – that changes and improvements should and must be made. But we are most concerned with students and learning in real time – day to day and minute by minute. Every teacher I know works as hard as they can to enable every student to learn every day, but still cannot escape that inevitable feeling of failure. We do believe that every student can and will learn, but we just don’t get to see it every day.

The feeling of failure comes because, even though teachers do everything they can, within the system and with available resources, some students still are not “proficient” as it is defined by others outside the system. But this failing leads to an unavoidable lowering of teachers’ self-worth as our society is constantly and relentlessly reminded how poorly our public schools are doing. At least in my community, this leads to the general feeling that is is the teachers who are failing.

Please encourage and promote a more positive view of teachers as this discussion of improving education in America continues.

I’m encouraged to see a stronger focus on pedagogy. We have failed as a profession in the past because we misdiagnosed the problem as one of content: what is taught, when it is taught, the content of teaching, and the messages it delivers. Most of what students learn is derived not from what is taught but how it is taught. (e.g. I’ve forgotten a bunch of what Mr. Koch taught me but will always remember how he taught me – that’s what made the difference in my life).

We are much better off discovering wrong solutions to the right problems that finding and applying the right solutions to the wrong problems.. We usually get good feedback to correct wrong solutions but rarely from wrong problems. As Ackoff says, “Wrong problems are perpetuated by right solutions to them.”

On the testing front, I’m not against PISA or other tests, I’m against them as the primary, first, and/or only measures we use nationally and internationally. Much of this is due to the fact that real learning escapes our abilities to measure it. I would argue that poor test performance is a symptom of a larger problem – one which we’ve largely ill-defined as meaning “they need more and better science, math, and reading courses!” For one, the system we inherited is designed for a very different purpose and continues to produce the results it was designed to produce.

Thanks for this space – there are many, many great things happening in Iowa that is helping us to better “see” what a new educational system might look like and the elements it may contain. As Jason often says, “let’s all keep leaning into it!”

Thanks for this response. You give us much to consider. I was among the last students Dr. Achilles taught at Seton Hall. A colorful individual we are all better to have known!