by Grant Wiggins, Authentic Education
Ed note: This post was originally longer, but we’ve broken it up into two separate posts to highlight Grant’s thoughts on making reform last, which can be seen here.
However, after pondering the subject intensely for a week, I find myself facing a somewhat different and broader question – the baby and bathwater question: Why do we constantly fail to distinguish a good idea from confused and ineffective implementations of good ideas, and throw out the idea – instead of refining the policies and practices?
For, surely, this is the issue with Differentiated Instruction. The idea could not be more pedagogically and morally correct: design learning to make it most likely that all the varied learners in front of you will learn and be engaged in their learning. Even DeLisle acknowledges the core idea as sound. Indeed, almost every elementary teacher has long differentiated in ELA due to reading level differences (something apparently unknown to other critics).
But once the going gets rough (e.g. classes are far too diverse; planning becomes more time-consuming), we rise up against “differentiated instruction” instead of tinkering with the way the idea is being implemented.
Raise your hand if there has been pushback against UbD, curriculum mapping, block scheduling, authentic assessment, standards-based grading, and problem-based learning in your school. Ok, everyone put their hands down now.
You don’t even have to like these initiatives to see that the implementation problems are rife: failure to think through training and feedback; failure to allocate enough time to experiment with the ideas before full implementation; failure to think through the likely rough spots and misunderstandings of those ideas.
At the implementation level of school reform, it’s one big game of Lucy holding the new-initiative football, and Charlie Brown thinking “THIS time it will work!”
Schools simply do not know how to change themselves. They are status quo machines of the highest order – on par with churches. Worse, administrators – in their naïve enthusiasm and stubbornness to bring change – too often fail to listen to critics or build in self-correcting mechanisms to ensure that implementation can be tweaked all along the way of the reform – as if admitting mistakes in early implementation would discredit the whole idea (and their leadership).
I can speak to this problem with lots of firsthand knowledge related to Understanding by Design over a 15 year period. Let me list a few horrible ways that UbD has been implemented in schools, districts and other countries – without either our blessing or consultation/feedback of any kind:
- In each unit there must be 4 essential questions
- In Year One, every teacher will design and implement all their units in UbD
- Every LESSON will be planned in the UbD Unit Template
- There has to be at least 1 performance task for every lesson
- In Year One, every UbD unit will be placed in the Atlas Rubicon software, with limited PD on either initiative
- Requiring SEPARATE UbD units for each subject at the elementary level in which the one teacher plans and teaches ALL the units.
I could go on, alas, but you get the point.
Launch, Fail, Grow: Building An Iterative Reform System
What tends to happen when leaders fail to (build sustainable reform)? We throw out the baby with the bathwater. i.e. we toss the good idea along with Implementation version 1. (Imagine if software creators gave up after Version 1, and you have some idea of how little we would now value software.)
Resisters/opponents of change get most of their power from the failure of implementation, not sound arguments against the core idea: “See? I told you it wouldn’t work; I told you it was a bad idea.” I think most of the big reform ideas mentioned above are sound, addressing fairly obvious needs for greater personalization, coherence, and accountability. Alas, even “reform” now is a bad word in many quarters (cf. Diane Ravitch) because the implementation of many of good ideas has been so poor.
Nor should we despair over the enormity of the task. We don’t need to be geniuses to change things for the better. We just need to want, solicit, and act on feedback when we initiate any change. That is the key to all modern improvements, from hardware to software to services. Change of any kind, to lead to progress and to llast, involves a robust feedback system.
Yet, school-people – be they admins or teachers, be it large-scale school reform or individual experiments in teaching – are prone to charge ahead without an adequate plan, then give up on an idea that doesn’t work out of the box. That’s why it is essential in reform to provide structures and opportunities that send the message: Implementation Version 1.0 is LIKELY to fail. We won’t get this right, most likely until Version 3.5.
So, let’s fail early and often (as they say at IDEO) and work to get it right as quickly as possible, based on feedback and advice.
Otherwise, like Charlie Brown, we’ll just be wishin’ and hopin’.
This article was excerpted from a post that first appeared on Grant’s personal blog; Grant can be found on twitter here; Using Iteration To Build Great Schools; adapted image attribution flickr user globalpartnershipsforeducation