Envisioning the Whole Elephant

Creating a systemic approach to 21st century learning has frequently been like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man finds a different part of the elephant and thinks that is the elephant, but in fact it is only a part. Much of what has been written and discussed about 21st century learning are only parts, and sometimes the parts have unfortunately appeared as heated advocacy and debate. Therefore it is now invigorating to have a systemic model that best serves a holistic approach to student learning.

An important systemic model has emerged through a research paper by Michigan State University faculty members Kristen Kereluik, Punya Mishra, Chris Fahnoe, and Laura Terry that is entitled "What Knowledge is of Most Worth: Teacher Knowledge for 21st Century Learning," and is a brilliant synthesis of key research studies on 21st century learning. In addition to receiving a distinguished award and publication in the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, the results of this research will also be a featured keynote at the ISTE Conference in summer of 2014.

This 21st century learning model has three main categories for student learning: Foundational Knowledge (to know), Meta Knowledge (to act), and Humanistic Knowledge (to value). Each main category has three sub-categories that articulate direction and intent.

The three sub-categories of Foundational Knowledge include: Digital/Information Literacy, Core Content Knowledge, and Cross-Disciplinary Knowledge. Within each of these it becomes important to identify what is of most worth for learning (as opposed to voluminous learning for the sake of learning) and to also look at ways to pursue authentic learning that establishes relevance and integration. There has sometimes been a struggle for dominance within these three sub-categories in schools, and this approach recognizes purposeful balance.

The three sub-categories of Meta Knowledge include: creativity and innovation, problem solving and critical thinking, and communication and collaboration. These are the critical processes necessary for developing high levels of foundational knowledge. These skills involve processes for effectively working "in the box" and also "out of the box,"so that learning is an act of production and creation. There has been justified criticism of education that it has become too much about learning and not enough about doing. This meta knowledge level is very much focused on active and engaged doing.

Finally the three sub-categories of Humanistic Knowledge include: life/job skills, ethical/emotional awareness, and cultural competence. These attributes focus on empowerment of the learner through awareness of self, as well as development of social and global context. Humanistic knowledge is sometimes an area that is slighted in schools, and this model suggests that success in life is interconnected with a humanistic perspective. There have been many brilliant people throughout history who have done horrible things, and this area of emphasis says that we need to pay attention to quality of life and to recognize our interdependence in the world.

In many ways this research shows that "nothing has changed" and also shows that "everything has changed." I have seen schools that have had a dominant focus on one or two sub-categories of Foundational Knowledge, and not recognized the important skills of Meta Knowledge. I have seen schools that have largely ignored Humanistic Knowledge. There are a multitude of variations that lack focus, coherence, and direction, and yet there are also pockets of excellence almost everywhere. The challenge is bringing it all together in ways that are purposeful, universally understood, and that allow people their creative modes of expression.

Ultimately it's important to understand the distinctions within Foundational Knowledge, Meta Knowledge, and Humanistic Knowledge, so that a well-rounded, comprehensive, liberal arts education is made possible in the education of the whole child for ALL children.

For staff at schools who are serious about developing a systemic approach to 21st century learning, I suggest looking at Appendix B in the research study to see all of the descriptors identified for the main categories and sub-categories. This could be an excellent source of conversation and self-assessment for identifying where to celebrate and where there is work that could lead to meaningful strategic planning and long-range goal setting.

For people who would like to read the full research study, here's the link:
http://punya.educ.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/JDLTE-29-4-127-Ker.pdf

Where is the World in World-Class Education?

It is interesting to note that a multitude of school mission and vision statements make reference to some notion of world-class education, and then provide a random list of justifications for how it is pursuing this. It is similarly interesting to note how 21st century learning skills frequently lack a transformative purpose, even though numerous rationales are given about how the world has changed and is continuing to change. Finally, it is interesting to note that even international schools may have no clear focus on what it means to provide a global education.

If we believe the world has changed, how are we supporting education that fully engages students in this changed world? More importantly, what are the intentional habits of mind or dispositions that are being cultivated in students and staff that offer ongoing learning and growth to meet the demands of an ever-changing world? In order for any school to become world-class, for 21st century learning to have purpose, and for international education to have focus, there needs to be greater clarity around the transformative aspects of what it means to live, learn, and work in the world. To be prepared for the future means to be globally competent.

Global competence is inclusive of college readiness and work readiness. To reverse the focus to college and work is to miss the point, to significantly limit student learning and contributions, and to lose focus on the transformation that is needed in the world. Howard Gardner, author of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed, has said:

“The world will not be saved by high test scores. . . . Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st we have seen all too well the incredible world-defying blunders committed by the so-called best and brightest. The disastrous Vietnam war, the unforeseen consequences of the invasion of Iraq, the financial meltdowns of 2001 and 2008—educational and financial elites bear much of the blame for these lamentable events. What is needed more than ever is a laser-like focus on the kinds of human beings that we are raising and the kinds of societies—indeed, in a global era, the kind of world society that we are fashioning.”

The good news is that there are many schools, countries, and organizations in the world that are focusing on developing global competences for students. These are systems that deeply understand that success increasingly requires the ability to compete, connect, and collaborate on an international scale. These are systems that know their students will need to be active and collaborative inventors of their future. Unfortunately a significant number of college graduates in the United States are now unemployed because they have been trained in a traditional rite of passage model that is no longer relevant.

There are schools and countries around the world that do not yet fully understand that the well-being of their students and economies, and the interdependent well-being of the world, is linked to everyone’s ability to develop globally competent students. Global competence is inclusive of the needs and issues of one’s school, community, country, and world. Therefore the urgency to develop globally competent students is now.

The most important step forward is for schools to systemically design what it means to develop globally competent students, and to put these plans at the forefront of their actions. Here are a few starting points to consider:

1. How are globally competent students identified in your school’s vision, mission, and/or strategic areas of focus? 
2. What is your operating definition for globally competent students? 
3. How will you promote ongoing inquiry and discourse throughout your school on what it means to develop globally competent students? 
4. How will leadership actively support systems that enhance global competence for all students? 
5. How will global competence become a prominent focus within the school’s curriculum and assessments in ways that are enduring, substantive, authentic, and transferrable? 
6. What is your graduate profile for a globally competent student, and how will this support backward design through all the other grade levels? 
7. How will students be empowered in their own areas of inquiry, connection, and action in the world?
8. What kinds of strategic partnerships with other schools and organizations could powerfully benefit global competence for your students?

There are many excellent resources on global competence, but a place to start is with "Educating for Global Competence: Preparing Our Youth to Engage the World:"
http://www.edsteps.org/CCSSO/SampleWorks/EducatingforGlobalCompetence.pdf

Strategic Thinking and Planning

After serving as a school and district consultant in the U.S. and internationally for strategic planning, I've had opportunity to experience what makes strategic planning work and fail. One of my Superintendent friends adamantly believes strategic planning is a waste of time, and I think many of his arguments are valid.

I am guided, however, by the wisdom of baseball's Yogi Berra who once said: "If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else."

Let's start with why strategic planning fails. From my research and experience, here are the top 10 reasons why strategic planning fails (in no particular prioritized order because any one of them can take you out):

1. Lack of a compelling vision or direction
2. Lack of stakeholder involvement and/or understanding of the why, how, and what of the plan
3. Lack of a "focused strategic plan" with clear targets
4. Lack of leadership (including distributed leadership) and accountability
5. Lack of resources to implement the plan (e.g., people, time, supplies/equipment, training)
6. Lack of ongoing PLC/teams development in implementing the plan with reasonable timelines
7. Lack of organizational stability
8. Lack of flexibility to monitor and adjust
9. Lack of understanding for context and culture
10. Lack of organizational learning on how to implement successful change

So what are potential entry points for effective strategic planning?

Learning to Think Strategically

Before a school can pursue effective strategic planning, it needs to develop understanding and skill in how to think strategically. Many ideas that come forward as strategic are actually tactical or "thin solutions," and not leveraged and robust opportunities.

Creating a Culture of Strategic Thinking

A school or district needs to look at how it will "create a culture of strategic thinking." Not only does this culture piece translate well for organizational needs and issues, but strategic thinking also translates well for teachers and students in classrooms. When everyone is focused on how to most elegantly leverage learning, hearts and minds race with possibilities.

For strategic thinking to accelerate, look at what promotes strategic thinking and what hinders strategic thinking. Find ways to accentuate the boosters and find ways to reduce the barriers. Everyone needs to pursue this within their own sphere of influence, and also wisely advocate for how strategic thinking can be further enhanced across the sacred domains and silos of a school and district.

Don't focus on answers. Focus on questions. What is the school we want to create for our kids? What would this look like, sound like, feel like? How would this be different from what we have now? Why do we think this might be better? What might be some good first steps? What might be our biggest challenges and opportunities? In short, begin to tap into the innate interests of educators to create a better future for kids. Dare to dream big.

Building Capacity for Strategic Thinking

Here are some other ways to build capacity for thinking strategically:

1. Create opportunities for long range visioning throughout the school
2. Support conscious and intentional culture shifts -- find ways to honor and respect the past, build enthusiasm for a desirable future, and continue to shine the light on what is going well in the transition between the past and the future
3. Build collaborative and distributed leadership engaged in regular focused strategic thinking
4. Establish structures that support a learning organization -- research and development, Professional Learning Communities, connected learning networks, environments within the school that naturally and comfortably support conversations and brief or extended interactions
5. Pursue backward design -- develop graduate profiles, and plan backwards from high school to elementary on how to coherently support success for the realization of the graduate profile
6. Use school accreditation for deep and honest review, reflection, and renewal
7. Encourage innovations throughout the school that address strategic objectives
8. Think 21st century -- environmental scans, scenario planning, 21st century learning standards, connect with "like-minded" people and places throughout the world so as to mobilize and energize the school 
9. Create visual models for people to discuss the vision and future directions, so as to build understanding for the "big picture" and to reduce confusion and a sense of fragmentation
10. Empower people and students as strategic thinkers, and celebrate both successes and failures

Strategic Planning

The Schooling by Design model created by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins is a complementary strategic planning model to the Understanding by Design model that is frequently used by classroom teachers in the development of units of learning. Both of these models are also complementary to the model used by Professional Learning Communities: 1) What do we want students to know, understand, and be able to do?, 2) How will we know when students are learning it?, 3) What will we do to optimize learning for all students (those who already get it, those in the middle, and those who struggle)?

It is helpful to have a strategic planning model that mirrors the design of curriculum units and the work of teams of teachers. These complementary models become known as how the school thinks and takes action. The main caution I have about this is when plans become overly complex and detailed, and then lose sight that life and learning happen. Therefore these need to be boldly and simply designed to communicate purposefully and also to be appropriately flexible in the process.

I remember organizational developer Marilyn Ferguson repeatedly saying: "The map is not the territory." It is important for everyone to know that plans need to be understood, appropriately supported, implemented, reviewed, revised, and sometimes abandoned.

The Apollo 11 moon flight was off a straight course more than 90% of the time, but its destination was clear. Continual monitoring and adjusting allowed the mission to arrive at its desired destination. A clear vision and direction with flexibility is the key.