I'm at Pop Tech in Maine, and I had the pleasure of meeting Carl Honoré, one of the speakers with whom I seemed to agree vociferously -- in particular, on the benefits of going slow.
I told him I'd share in more depth some ideas we began discussing last night. But first, a brief review for those who have not yet visited my planet.
Where Does the Time Go?
Last year, I consulted to the Thought Leadership group (as they call themselves) at PricewaterhouseCoopers to break down the essentials of what they do. For obvious reasons, I didn't mention the name of the company (although Carl and I had a word on it as well).
The information I posted about grown-ups comes from work with kids (who are really just children in uneven ways. Makes them very complicated students).
For Carl, I hearken back to those posts for a quick summary -- and at some points I'll try to find him some links.
The Point
For PwC, I posted extensively on principles of learning, blocks to learning, and thought leadership (if you'll pardon the expression) so that one member of the group had references with which to persuade higher up's of changing direction.
The Gist
Curiosity, is like hunger or thirst for a child, propels them to forward when fear or other emotional blocks would otherwise stop them from. Pursuing ideas for their own reasons can be frightening -- or worse: might not even occur to them as an option -- if very tall people in charge seem to be expecting you to read their minds. Fast.
What's Wrong With This (Other Than the Obvious)?
For novices and experts alike, fast is bad. The latter could probably use this lesson more than the former.
In attempts at problem-solving or analysis, most people get stuck somewhere between observation and drawing conclusions. We're an answer-based culture that designs schools in which kids feel they do not own their own educations.
Instead of exploring ideas with a sense that they might have new ideas on an old subject, kids more often get the impression that the answer pre-exists them walking into a classroom. It's their job to conduct a kind of scavenger hunt.
(To be fair to teachers, they have unreasonable goals to meet -- it's not their fault. But that's another post).
So What Happens?
Kids begin at a young age dissociate from what engages them and about which they are curious. Instead, they try to guess the answer that will please the teacher. Observation of the facts is rushed, and conclusions are drawn by short cuts.
The only way to make something else happen is to slow down the process of observation. It's essential to practice - and get feedback - on the results of observing what's in front of you.
Then comes the tricky part -- observing your own thought processes. Once you understand to look carefully at your own intellectual reactions, emotional reactions, and the relationship between them, that you have at least a shot at knowing what you think.
This requires slowing down for long periods of time. Always, if possible.
Why Bother?
This cuts to the core of the Big Picture reason for education: f children don't know what they think or how they arrived at their conclusions, how can you take responsibility for their convictions?
For businesses, this is no less important an issue when everyone is looking for innovation:
Without employees ability to observe both what is in front of them and the ways in which they process information, they'll continue to come up with what you already know. The unknown might be uncomfortable, but spending time in that space is essential to develop new ideas.
In other words, use known data points, and there's no way to come up with anything new.
From Kids to Corporates
As I mentioned, I've written many of these posts (sustainable curiosity, for example) explicitly for a corporate (or older child -- say, 40). All of these ideas come from children of the ordinary age.
More after today's sessions.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Thoughts Before Pop Tech
Pop Tech: The Conference
For the uninitiated who would like to know, Pop Tech is a much anticipated conference on the impact of technology on the people. The website goes on to say we're here to talk about technology's "human impact."
It's more than that, however -- at least as I have understood it.
Pop Tech is a forum for people with remarkable experience and perspectives to share ideas. In other words, people come here to get recharged for their own missions, to learn other directions to go (sometimes, better), and to get inspired for the next long haul of doing whatever it is that they do.
From the Sublime . . .
This might sound a little mundane on the eve of an inspiring three days, but I can't help asking:
Why Camden?
I flew in from London to Philly, then from Philly to Portland, Maine. Not wanting to drive after that much time on planes, I took a taxi service to Camden where the conference is held every year. $215 later, I check into one of the pricey places in this very charming (but expensive) town.
It's not a lot better, even coming from the East Coast. I was talking to a fellow who traveled from Baltimore to Portland and then rented a car. The car was more expensive than the flight, The trip took forever.
Why Is This a Problem?
Pop Tech is devoted to changing the world - in fact, Andrew Golli, the curator, has begun several projects himself that can have real impact and next year is bringing 50 Fellows at no cost to help in this mission.
However, at the same time, Pop Tech has become so expensive and difficult to attend that only those with a lot of money -- or fame - can attend.
The cost is prohibitive for most independent consultants I know (even past speakers have told me that they can't justify the money to return as attendees). Starting next year, tickets are $3500. My boss will pay for it, but what of all the independent thinkers who could contribute who can't possibly afford the price of admission?
What's more, the conference is tied to the Camden Opera House that seats something like 400 people. This means, like Ted, if you aren't on the inside -- you either haven't already attended the conference or don't know when tickets go on sale -- you can't attend. There simply are no tickets left.
The value of the community work -- and of meeting the individuals who attend -- should be offered to people who are neither stars or wealthy (or "in"), particularly given the stated (and real) effect of the event -- inclusiveness of contributions from those with new perspectives.
It was a great experience, and I feel lucky to have attended, but this all must be said.
More on why people work so hard to get there in the next posts.
For the uninitiated who would like to know, Pop Tech is a much anticipated conference on the impact of technology on the people. The website goes on to say we're here to talk about technology's "human impact."
It's more than that, however -- at least as I have understood it.
Pop Tech is a forum for people with remarkable experience and perspectives to share ideas. In other words, people come here to get recharged for their own missions, to learn other directions to go (sometimes, better), and to get inspired for the next long haul of doing whatever it is that they do.
From the Sublime . . .
This might sound a little mundane on the eve of an inspiring three days, but I can't help asking:
Why Camden?
I flew in from London to Philly, then from Philly to Portland, Maine. Not wanting to drive after that much time on planes, I took a taxi service to Camden where the conference is held every year. $215 later, I check into one of the pricey places in this very charming (but expensive) town.
It's not a lot better, even coming from the East Coast. I was talking to a fellow who traveled from Baltimore to Portland and then rented a car. The car was more expensive than the flight, The trip took forever.
Why Is This a Problem?
Pop Tech is devoted to changing the world - in fact, Andrew Golli, the curator, has begun several projects himself that can have real impact and next year is bringing 50 Fellows at no cost to help in this mission.
However, at the same time, Pop Tech has become so expensive and difficult to attend that only those with a lot of money -- or fame - can attend.
The cost is prohibitive for most independent consultants I know (even past speakers have told me that they can't justify the money to return as attendees). Starting next year, tickets are $3500. My boss will pay for it, but what of all the independent thinkers who could contribute who can't possibly afford the price of admission?
What's more, the conference is tied to the Camden Opera House that seats something like 400 people. This means, like Ted, if you aren't on the inside -- you either haven't already attended the conference or don't know when tickets go on sale -- you can't attend. There simply are no tickets left.
The value of the community work -- and of meeting the individuals who attend -- should be offered to people who are neither stars or wealthy (or "in"), particularly given the stated (and real) effect of the event -- inclusiveness of contributions from those with new perspectives.
It was a great experience, and I feel lucky to have attended, but this all must be said.
More on why people work so hard to get there in the next posts.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Painting Stories
One of the most remarkable storytellers I know is Fanny Rush. Fanny is a portrait painter who began as an art director and taught herself to paint in Brazil.
Fanny's work is quite, quite beautiful -- and in addition to the stories she tells with the portraits about the sitters, her website tells stories of her process. Fascinating stuff.
We recently sat at supper with two other friends, and the subject of -- well -- subjects (of portraits) came up. Fanny suggested that it annoys her when the first question about a painting that someone asks is about the identity of the sitter.
I had asked about the sitters in a painting in her studio just a week before. And another friend at the table said it was her inclination as well.
I admitted to being nosy -- I look into apartments in NY when I pass by if the shades aren't drawn (I call it apartment neck). I like seeing the inside of other people's houses, particularly in my neighborhood or in my apartment block. Everything about it interests me.
But I don't think I'm so unusual. Before all else, the minds of most people I know are drawn to narrative. We non-specialists rush to know the story behind whatever we see or hear, or we create one to fill the void left by inadequate information. It happens so fast that we're not even conscious of it.
Fanny, on the other hand, sees her work as a painting first and foremost. But then she already knows more of the story than we will consider.
Is this the issue? Or is it a question of different ways of seeing?
All ideas are welcome.
Fanny's work is quite, quite beautiful -- and in addition to the stories she tells with the portraits about the sitters, her website tells stories of her process. Fascinating stuff.
We recently sat at supper with two other friends, and the subject of -- well -- subjects (of portraits) came up. Fanny suggested that it annoys her when the first question about a painting that someone asks is about the identity of the sitter.
I had asked about the sitters in a painting in her studio just a week before. And another friend at the table said it was her inclination as well.
I admitted to being nosy -- I look into apartments in NY when I pass by if the shades aren't drawn (I call it apartment neck). I like seeing the inside of other people's houses, particularly in my neighborhood or in my apartment block. Everything about it interests me.
But I don't think I'm so unusual. Before all else, the minds of most people I know are drawn to narrative. We non-specialists rush to know the story behind whatever we see or hear, or we create one to fill the void left by inadequate information. It happens so fast that we're not even conscious of it.
Fanny, on the other hand, sees her work as a painting first and foremost. But then she already knows more of the story than we will consider.
Is this the issue? Or is it a question of different ways of seeing?
All ideas are welcome.
Critical Theory is for the Birds (Although They Wouldn't Be Interested Either)
Continuing from the last post . . .
No listener, especially if he or she is a child, needs to be told the lesson of the stories of Red Riding Hood (either the traditional one or the one written about 15 minutes ago on this blog).
That's the beauty of a good story -- they make us feel, think, and draw conclusions without the work of theoretical analysis. The choices a storyteller makes place the listener in a position where he or she is persuaded of either justice or injustice of a situation or action, depending on how the characters a listener likes act and the consequences of that action.
No discussion necessary to draw conclusions. But if you don't know why you think what you do, how can you take responsibility for your choices?
Telling Our Own Stories: Taking Ownership of Our Place in Them
So -- what if we look at the choices while telling a story? What if we change the choices and explore the differences in what we feel, think, and assume?
The CAGSE storytelling program begins by asking the children to create a story as a group. They use theatre games, writing exercises, and performance, and they choose the setting, events, characters, and outcomes.
Throughout the year, each child adds to the community story by creating new pieces from local environment or imagination. At the end of the year, we see the variety of choices and the implications of those choices on the way we think and feel about the story.
More explanation of the kinds of work we do -- and why -- in the next post.
No listener, especially if he or she is a child, needs to be told the lesson of the stories of Red Riding Hood (either the traditional one or the one written about 15 minutes ago on this blog).
That's the beauty of a good story -- they make us feel, think, and draw conclusions without the work of theoretical analysis. The choices a storyteller makes place the listener in a position where he or she is persuaded of either justice or injustice of a situation or action, depending on how the characters a listener likes act and the consequences of that action.
No discussion necessary to draw conclusions. But if you don't know why you think what you do, how can you take responsibility for your choices?
Telling Our Own Stories: Taking Ownership of Our Place in Them
So -- what if we look at the choices while telling a story? What if we change the choices and explore the differences in what we feel, think, and assume?
The CAGSE storytelling program begins by asking the children to create a story as a group. They use theatre games, writing exercises, and performance, and they choose the setting, events, characters, and outcomes.
Throughout the year, each child adds to the community story by creating new pieces from local environment or imagination. At the end of the year, we see the variety of choices and the implications of those choices on the way we think and feel about the story.
More explanation of the kinds of work we do -- and why -- in the next post.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
When Last We Saw Our Hero . . .
. . . I had arrived in London but was not posting. Too much to do to set up CAGSE LLC UK (and US).
Happily, I can announce that after two and a half months, we have a full Latin program in place in at least three boroughs -- in primary schools, years 5 and 6, every week -- and a Storytelling program ready to launch.
Classic Approaches to Learning Along with the Classical
Latin is a bit more straightforward than storytelling as a course within the primary school curriculum. Furthermore, CAGSE's unique approach to Latin has already been discussed, so it's time to give the other program a go.
Storytelling and interpreting stories are no less rigorous activities than learning Latin. They sound like fun, and are. They also provide serious skills that run across the curriculum.
Here's why.
Tell a Story, Make a Choice
Every story, every situation within a story, every character is the result of a series of choices. Every choice works with the others to persuade the listener (or viewer) of a series of values and attitudes.
Sometimes the choices have explicit implications (eg Martin Luther King marched on Washington to protest racism) and sometimes implicit (eg Cinderella's sisters are ugly and bad while she is lovely and good -- ergo, sue me if you don't agree -- or at least the writer of the tale).
Hear a Story, Make a Choice
All stories situate characters in and hold them to ethical standards. For example, if the wolf eats a nice girl in red, he dies. He is punished for choosing to eat someone the listener likes.
The story simultaneiously situates the listener within the same ethical standards by attempting to persuade the listener that the standards are absolute to which the characters are held.
Who could like a wolf who eats someone with whom the listener has empathy when that same wolf seems to have no redeeming characteristics at all?
The wolf SEEMS to have no redeeming characteristics because the storyteller CHOSE to deny him any. That way, it's hard to side with him and easy to think him deserving when killed by a local hunter.
If the Wolf Had a Family . . . .
What happens if you tell the same basic story but make other choices?
Say a storyteller gives Red Riding Hood's wolf a name (Peter) and a family -- Mrs. Loop de Loup, little Romulus, and his baby sister who they affectionately call Pup.
The listener hears that the Loups have been hungry for weeks. We hear of Rommy's and Pup's weakness and see them fading from lack of nourishment. Deforestation and propagation of human suburbs will soon completely destroy their homes, and the homeless, particularly of the canine variety, are rounded up and put in pounds where they await execution.
And:
Say Red Riding Hood's family historically has been active in the National Rifle Association and the Loup Klux Klan, believes that killing is fun, and, in particular, that killing baby wolves is a real hoot because a hunter can watch them die slowly.
Now whose side are you on?
More in the next post.
Happily, I can announce that after two and a half months, we have a full Latin program in place in at least three boroughs -- in primary schools, years 5 and 6, every week -- and a Storytelling program ready to launch.
Classic Approaches to Learning Along with the Classical
Latin is a bit more straightforward than storytelling as a course within the primary school curriculum. Furthermore, CAGSE's unique approach to Latin has already been discussed, so it's time to give the other program a go.
Storytelling and interpreting stories are no less rigorous activities than learning Latin. They sound like fun, and are. They also provide serious skills that run across the curriculum.
Here's why.
Tell a Story, Make a Choice
Every story, every situation within a story, every character is the result of a series of choices. Every choice works with the others to persuade the listener (or viewer) of a series of values and attitudes.
Sometimes the choices have explicit implications (eg Martin Luther King marched on Washington to protest racism) and sometimes implicit (eg Cinderella's sisters are ugly and bad while she is lovely and good -- ergo, sue me if you don't agree -- or at least the writer of the tale).
Hear a Story, Make a Choice
All stories situate characters in and hold them to ethical standards. For example, if the wolf eats a nice girl in red, he dies. He is punished for choosing to eat someone the listener likes.
The story simultaneiously situates the listener within the same ethical standards by attempting to persuade the listener that the standards are absolute to which the characters are held.
Who could like a wolf who eats someone with whom the listener has empathy when that same wolf seems to have no redeeming characteristics at all?
The wolf SEEMS to have no redeeming characteristics because the storyteller CHOSE to deny him any. That way, it's hard to side with him and easy to think him deserving when killed by a local hunter.
If the Wolf Had a Family . . . .
What happens if you tell the same basic story but make other choices?
Say a storyteller gives Red Riding Hood's wolf a name (Peter) and a family -- Mrs. Loop de Loup, little Romulus, and his baby sister who they affectionately call Pup.
The listener hears that the Loups have been hungry for weeks. We hear of Rommy's and Pup's weakness and see them fading from lack of nourishment. Deforestation and propagation of human suburbs will soon completely destroy their homes, and the homeless, particularly of the canine variety, are rounded up and put in pounds where they await execution.
And:
Say Red Riding Hood's family historically has been active in the National Rifle Association and the Loup Klux Klan, believes that killing is fun, and, in particular, that killing baby wolves is a real hoot because a hunter can watch them die slowly.
Now whose side are you on?
More in the next post.
Friday, September 07, 2007
London Calling: Time for a Chat?
Moving Experiences (The Other Kind)
I've officially settled to London and am surprised to love the weather. New York is fabulous, but the summers are horrific.
As many of you can attest, I'm sure, moving, especially out of the country, isn't much more fun than New York summers, but I'll leave that for tips on what not to do if ever the urge arises to become an expat.
When Last We Saw Our Heroes . . .
CAGSE had hooked up with The Iris Project -- an excellent effort in two classrooms to teach Latin in one school and a very good classroom Classics magazine. It grew as its founder joined CAGSE, and with the company's help, grew into a full-blown program in 20 schools -- possibly, now, 21.
Lorna Robinson, our director of Latin programs, two weeks ago decided to go her own way and leave CAGSE. She will continue teaching in Hackney, and we wish her well.
News From the Front
Happily, however, we have found someone we think is even better suited to CAGSE's highly creative and adaptive strategies. Rich Scott, and actor by training, spent last year teaching year 5 children Latin in highly innovative ways. He has agreed to come onboard as our new director and with our CEO, Richard Gilder, hired 7 teachers in a field with a reputation for scarcity. The key? Our teachers come from widely different backgrounds and formal schooling -- from anthropology to history to classics to theater.
It's these differences that have made our program so much richer than if we had left the job only to post-graduates in Classics. Along with Richard's teaching strategies -- tested for 22 years on students from primary through post-graduate school -- we have no doubt that these classes will demonstrate that Latin is an effective vehicle for teaching the kind of transferable skills every school (and business) cries out for.
Follow us as the year progresses and see what happens.
Meanwhile, Somewhere in Central London . . .
We have gained many other remarkable staff as well in the past two weeks for whom we are grateful.
Sarah Mooney, an independent consultant and professional storyteller, is working with me on programs to integrate critical thinking into coursework.
The journey involves uncovering biases and challenges lurking beneath all narratives -- from newspaper articles to fairy tales. Children use familiar structures to tell their own stories, to critique them, and to find their own voices in the service of self-expression across contexts.
Sarah has a magic about her that all wonderful storytellers do. You can't describe it any better than you can the magic of a great teacher. But it's there.
Natalie White, a consultant who specializes in behavior management, is working with us to put together an assessment of the soft skills that the Latin, Learning Lab, and critical thinking effect and influence.
Natalie is also creating a citizenry program for an under performing school in Essex and has generously asked me to contribute some work on thinking and writing. It's going to be a lot of fun.
Henrietta Barnes has taken over the management of our website, and we will continue posting information about programs and bio's of our remarkable staff as we get them. Hen is one of the fastest studies and funniest people I've ever met.
Pippa Salmon, a PhD in Physics and mother of two wonderful kids, is working with us as a strategist, project manager, and general problem-solving consultant. There might never have been someone as overqualified for a job as Pippa is for this one, but she, like the rest of us. are dedicated to help change the way people think about education and of what all children are capable.
And there will be more.
Anyone Up for a Chat?
This is not an attempt at marketing. CAGSE is currently running at full capacity with three pilot programs in three different London boroughs.
I'm posting today to ask for those involved in similar work to get in touch.
Do any of you implement diverse programs -- as vastly different as learning the Latin language and having kids work with industry -- for the sake of developing the same sorts of skills in each?
If you're in the US rather than the UK, what have you found? If you're in the UK, where do you operate, and what do you do?
I'll continue posting this year about what we discover.
Anyone up for a conversation?
I've officially settled to London and am surprised to love the weather. New York is fabulous, but the summers are horrific.
As many of you can attest, I'm sure, moving, especially out of the country, isn't much more fun than New York summers, but I'll leave that for tips on what not to do if ever the urge arises to become an expat.
When Last We Saw Our Heroes . . .
CAGSE had hooked up with The Iris Project -- an excellent effort in two classrooms to teach Latin in one school and a very good classroom Classics magazine. It grew as its founder joined CAGSE, and with the company's help, grew into a full-blown program in 20 schools -- possibly, now, 21.
Lorna Robinson, our director of Latin programs, two weeks ago decided to go her own way and leave CAGSE. She will continue teaching in Hackney, and we wish her well.
News From the Front
Happily, however, we have found someone we think is even better suited to CAGSE's highly creative and adaptive strategies. Rich Scott, and actor by training, spent last year teaching year 5 children Latin in highly innovative ways. He has agreed to come onboard as our new director and with our CEO, Richard Gilder, hired 7 teachers in a field with a reputation for scarcity. The key? Our teachers come from widely different backgrounds and formal schooling -- from anthropology to history to classics to theater.
It's these differences that have made our program so much richer than if we had left the job only to post-graduates in Classics. Along with Richard's teaching strategies -- tested for 22 years on students from primary through post-graduate school -- we have no doubt that these classes will demonstrate that Latin is an effective vehicle for teaching the kind of transferable skills every school (and business) cries out for.
Follow us as the year progresses and see what happens.
Meanwhile, Somewhere in Central London . . .
We have gained many other remarkable staff as well in the past two weeks for whom we are grateful.
Sarah Mooney, an independent consultant and professional storyteller, is working with me on programs to integrate critical thinking into coursework.
The journey involves uncovering biases and challenges lurking beneath all narratives -- from newspaper articles to fairy tales. Children use familiar structures to tell their own stories, to critique them, and to find their own voices in the service of self-expression across contexts.
Sarah has a magic about her that all wonderful storytellers do. You can't describe it any better than you can the magic of a great teacher. But it's there.
Natalie White, a consultant who specializes in behavior management, is working with us to put together an assessment of the soft skills that the Latin, Learning Lab, and critical thinking effect and influence.
Natalie is also creating a citizenry program for an under performing school in Essex and has generously asked me to contribute some work on thinking and writing. It's going to be a lot of fun.
Henrietta Barnes has taken over the management of our website, and we will continue posting information about programs and bio's of our remarkable staff as we get them. Hen is one of the fastest studies and funniest people I've ever met.
Pippa Salmon, a PhD in Physics and mother of two wonderful kids, is working with us as a strategist, project manager, and general problem-solving consultant. There might never have been someone as overqualified for a job as Pippa is for this one, but she, like the rest of us. are dedicated to help change the way people think about education and of what all children are capable.
And there will be more.
Anyone Up for a Chat?
This is not an attempt at marketing. CAGSE is currently running at full capacity with three pilot programs in three different London boroughs.
I'm posting today to ask for those involved in similar work to get in touch.
Do any of you implement diverse programs -- as vastly different as learning the Latin language and having kids work with industry -- for the sake of developing the same sorts of skills in each?
If you're in the US rather than the UK, what have you found? If you're in the UK, where do you operate, and what do you do?
I'll continue posting this year about what we discover.
Anyone up for a conversation?
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Proof of Concept: Following from the Last Post
. . . I just watched a play about the Minotaur in a school where the children are categorically not considered Gifted and Talented (literally).
The actors made the project interactive -- lots of standing up, screaming out, and playing roles.
At the Q & A part of the morning, the kids' answers were much more interesting than the questions the actors asked them.
And they all could answer in Latin.
The actors made the project interactive -- lots of standing up, screaming out, and playing roles.
At the Q & A part of the morning, the kids' answers were much more interesting than the questions the actors asked them.
And they all could answer in Latin.
Friday, August 31, 2007
An English G&T (The Other Kind)
Notes from A Broad
I've been looking at the politics of schools in England over the last week, and in some ways they are very close to those in the US.
For one thing, teachers have the habit (from training) of standing up in front of kids and talking. The children listen, or don't.
There is a category for those who are seen to shine. This group is called "Gifted and Talented."
All Children Are Gifted and Talented. Period.
Richard Gilder, CAGSE's CEO, had a wonderful analogy: potential doesn't mean what we say it does. All atoms have the potential to split, but they need the right force for it to come to pass.
For the right explosion, you need the right ingredients. Gun powder on its own is just dust.
The G&T kids (as they are dubbed for short) very well might be both gifted AND talented (although the moniker seems redundant), but the real distinction between these kids and their colleagues is their level of accomplishment.
(Americans, don't get smug -- we have the same sort of system. It just doesn't sound like a cocktail.)
Why Some Kids Go Farther
Here's a shocker: It's all down to test scores. Therefore, the teachers teach to the tests, certain kids do well, and the rest are deemed less intelligent (or G. or T. or both).
The kids don't like it, and the teachers don't seem happy with it either. My research is anecdotal here rather than scientific.
However, friends in America, does this not sound familiar?
What We've Found at CAGSE
For those who just tuned in, I am now the Director of an organization called CAGSE. It stands for either Curriculum Articulation for the Global Support of Education or for the Subversion of Education.
To a certain extent, these alternatives have become the same thing.
CAGSE doesn't Support existing structures of education, unless they work. So often Subversion is the only option to support learning.
Lorna Robinson, our new Director of Latin Programs, began the Iris Project on her own. She left her independent school job teaching Classics in order to work with kids who wouldn't ordinarily get the same opportunities as wealthier children.
Lorna picked Hackney, or Hackney picked her, and off she went teaching Latin in schools considered to be some of the worst in the country.
Short Digression for Americans
In England, it must be understood; Latin is only taught to the best and the brightest. It's considered a privilege. It's considered the province of classes well above the kids Lorna teaches.
Lorna found that the Hackney kids, considered neither G nor T by anyone else, love the challenge of being stretched in a new subject. They enjoy Latin, and the skills are giving them confidence and a better understanding of English as well. English is a second language for many of these children, and their first languages are Asian, not Romance-based as in the States.
And So?
Lorna came to work for CAGSE because there were many other schools in the area that wanted Latin as well. We're raising the funds to support now 20 schools -- 20 schools from an original 1, then 5, then 12.
The politics around Latin here are fierce. Don't ask. So much that is based in academia suffers from this problem. Lots of talk, lots of meetings, and sometimes tiny territorial issues leave the work undone and factions fighting.
CAGSE is going under the radar practically (although the powers that be certainly know about us). The opportunity is here, now. Enough talk. Enough meetings. Enough lobbying for particular texts (the sales component is fierce here, too).
CAGSE's program uses no single text for teachers, and absolutely no textbook in the classroom. We're talking to the kids -- not the texts -- and certainly not the tests.
I've been looking at the politics of schools in England over the last week, and in some ways they are very close to those in the US.
For one thing, teachers have the habit (from training) of standing up in front of kids and talking. The children listen, or don't.
There is a category for those who are seen to shine. This group is called "Gifted and Talented."
All Children Are Gifted and Talented. Period.
Richard Gilder, CAGSE's CEO, had a wonderful analogy: potential doesn't mean what we say it does. All atoms have the potential to split, but they need the right force for it to come to pass.
For the right explosion, you need the right ingredients. Gun powder on its own is just dust.
The G&T kids (as they are dubbed for short) very well might be both gifted AND talented (although the moniker seems redundant), but the real distinction between these kids and their colleagues is their level of accomplishment.
(Americans, don't get smug -- we have the same sort of system. It just doesn't sound like a cocktail.)
Why Some Kids Go Farther
Here's a shocker: It's all down to test scores. Therefore, the teachers teach to the tests, certain kids do well, and the rest are deemed less intelligent (or G. or T. or both).
The kids don't like it, and the teachers don't seem happy with it either. My research is anecdotal here rather than scientific.
However, friends in America, does this not sound familiar?
What We've Found at CAGSE
For those who just tuned in, I am now the Director of an organization called CAGSE. It stands for either Curriculum Articulation for the Global Support of Education or for the Subversion of Education.
To a certain extent, these alternatives have become the same thing.
CAGSE doesn't Support existing structures of education, unless they work. So often Subversion is the only option to support learning.
Lorna Robinson, our new Director of Latin Programs, began the Iris Project on her own. She left her independent school job teaching Classics in order to work with kids who wouldn't ordinarily get the same opportunities as wealthier children.
Lorna picked Hackney, or Hackney picked her, and off she went teaching Latin in schools considered to be some of the worst in the country.
Short Digression for Americans
In England, it must be understood; Latin is only taught to the best and the brightest. It's considered a privilege. It's considered the province of classes well above the kids Lorna teaches.
Lorna found that the Hackney kids, considered neither G nor T by anyone else, love the challenge of being stretched in a new subject. They enjoy Latin, and the skills are giving them confidence and a better understanding of English as well. English is a second language for many of these children, and their first languages are Asian, not Romance-based as in the States.
And So?
Lorna came to work for CAGSE because there were many other schools in the area that wanted Latin as well. We're raising the funds to support now 20 schools -- 20 schools from an original 1, then 5, then 12.
The politics around Latin here are fierce. Don't ask. So much that is based in academia suffers from this problem. Lots of talk, lots of meetings, and sometimes tiny territorial issues leave the work undone and factions fighting.
CAGSE is going under the radar practically (although the powers that be certainly know about us). The opportunity is here, now. Enough talk. Enough meetings. Enough lobbying for particular texts (the sales component is fierce here, too).
CAGSE's program uses no single text for teachers, and absolutely no textbook in the classroom. We're talking to the kids -- not the texts -- and certainly not the tests.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Jargon, Silos, and More Fish Metaphors (In That Order)
Babble in Babel
One of the reasons I began this blog is to persuade experts in particular lines of work to acknowledge and consider the ideas of those in disciplines other than their own.
Business people call these divisions "silos." It's proof of concept really. Those with MBAs of found jargon to exclude everyone else from the conversation, especially, I suppose, from anyone with a different education, like those on farms, from whom the word was most likely taken.
My idea is that if you round up all the people who have the same goals for people in their charge -- which, according to my interviews, seems to be almost everyone -- and come up with a common vocabulary, people would learn what they need to know from the time they start kindergarten through the time they retire.
Once Upon a Time . . .
I told a story about a year ago about attending a conference for primary school teachers to learn to teach writing. Everyone in the room had some colleagues in common -- except me. When it came time to introduce myself and what I wanted to get out of the day, I explained that I had taught at Brown and wanted to know how my kids knew what they did and were so weak in other related thinking skills.
The shock to me: I was the only university teacher any of these people had met other than their own.
Teaching to a Standard
How can primary, middle, or high school teachers teach to a standard if they don't know what it is? In fact, how can any of these people get their students jobs if they haven't also consulted with industry?
The only sort of person who connects each stage of learning for a child (and adult) is an administrator. From school to school, from school to university, from university to industry, we've got administrators screening people about how they learn.
And how one learns was the number one priority of every person I interviewed -- from teachers to policemen to C-level executives.
Shouldn't the principal stake-holders -- those for with whom these kids will learn the next stage of thinking -- have a say in all this?
But I Digress . . . .
My name is Annette, and I am a recovering academic.
I was never your ordinary academic, however, and that's probably why I no longer dwell in the Ivory Towel (as my mother calls it). There is a large group of us who were interested in what is true rather than what is clever, although the latter is always fun when the former is the priority.
I had a conversation with a non-academic friend of mine two days ago (let's call him Sam), and he couldn't understand why the university people with whom he was negotiating a deal to build their technical infrastructure were so nasty to him.
Sam stopped formal schooling with a BA. When asked by academics if he has a PhD, he replies that he has a Masters and Johnson. From what he tells me, most of the people in the room usually don't get the joke.
That Smarts
Sam is one of the brightest and most creative people I've ever met. He also gives others credit for being as curious and excited about new ideas as he.
Then Sam started working for institutions of higher learning. He found that not only would professors not admit they didn't know what he was talking about, they'd insist that he was wrong.
Sam is from the practical innovation side of business. A babe in the woods when it comes to scholarship (even what has become known as business scholarship). In other words, he acts on ideas rather than writing them down.
Now please believe me when I say -- I'm not generalizing about all academics. Just the very insecure ones and those who give up common sense in favor of cleverly worded nonsense. These categories are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Academics as Bottom Feeders
My explanation is that the profession itself has become so distorted that, particularly in the liberal arts and social sciences, academics have been forced to become bottom feeders.
In order to survive, teaching can't get in the way of publishing.
This is what the highest standard of education has become.
Any idea, no matter how inane, is fair game, as long as no one has found it before and it can be defended, even by the most fantasical series of arguments.
Living in the depths, where there is hardly any light, sight naturally dims and visual field narrows. After a while, turning on the lights can be painful. Also, once it's clear that the fodder for publications consists mostly of left-overs, university dwellers can feel pretty embarassed.
Not surprising that they would want to bite the hand that flicked the switch.
Back to the Point (What Was It Again?)
To come full circle here (I'll bet you didn't think I could), the way one discipline thinks about another -- and each about itself -- has got to change.
It all comes down to language.
Get rid of jargon, and you've got transparency. Once you can see what's being said or done -- in terms of other things that are being said or done in other fields -- priorities will shift.
Would become the leader in his field (as happened in the 80s) by making a huge career out of pounding out book after book on gender casting in Shakespeare?
Would he have a top job if a theater historian would reveal that his premise is all wrong? That in Shakespeare's time, casting was part of the joke and not part of some obscure counter-culture revolution?
Imagine all such academics without the protection of jargon, without the ability to obfuscate, examined by people who actually know what they're talking about.
Imagine these poor souls being forced to find another job, a more useful pursuit, like, say, digging ditches or trying to cure cancer.
And imaging those at university learning from mentors who were not intellectually opportunistic and who were genuinely interested in their students' development.
So What to Do?
In order for real innovation to happen and be recognized, for someone in one discipline to either collaborate or expose the frauds in another, each has to be able to understand what the other is saying.
Imagine what a shift would happen if this same principal were applied to a more lucrative field -- say, business. What might happen to the stock market if every genuinely innovative mind had the vocabulary to converse with every other?
One of the reasons I began this blog is to persuade experts in particular lines of work to acknowledge and consider the ideas of those in disciplines other than their own.
Business people call these divisions "silos." It's proof of concept really. Those with MBAs of found jargon to exclude everyone else from the conversation, especially, I suppose, from anyone with a different education, like those on farms, from whom the word was most likely taken.
My idea is that if you round up all the people who have the same goals for people in their charge -- which, according to my interviews, seems to be almost everyone -- and come up with a common vocabulary, people would learn what they need to know from the time they start kindergarten through the time they retire.
Once Upon a Time . . .
I told a story about a year ago about attending a conference for primary school teachers to learn to teach writing. Everyone in the room had some colleagues in common -- except me. When it came time to introduce myself and what I wanted to get out of the day, I explained that I had taught at Brown and wanted to know how my kids knew what they did and were so weak in other related thinking skills.
The shock to me: I was the only university teacher any of these people had met other than their own.
Teaching to a Standard
How can primary, middle, or high school teachers teach to a standard if they don't know what it is? In fact, how can any of these people get their students jobs if they haven't also consulted with industry?
The only sort of person who connects each stage of learning for a child (and adult) is an administrator. From school to school, from school to university, from university to industry, we've got administrators screening people about how they learn.
And how one learns was the number one priority of every person I interviewed -- from teachers to policemen to C-level executives.
Shouldn't the principal stake-holders -- those for with whom these kids will learn the next stage of thinking -- have a say in all this?
But I Digress . . . .
My name is Annette, and I am a recovering academic.
I was never your ordinary academic, however, and that's probably why I no longer dwell in the Ivory Towel (as my mother calls it). There is a large group of us who were interested in what is true rather than what is clever, although the latter is always fun when the former is the priority.
I had a conversation with a non-academic friend of mine two days ago (let's call him Sam), and he couldn't understand why the university people with whom he was negotiating a deal to build their technical infrastructure were so nasty to him.
Sam stopped formal schooling with a BA. When asked by academics if he has a PhD, he replies that he has a Masters and Johnson. From what he tells me, most of the people in the room usually don't get the joke.
That Smarts
Sam is one of the brightest and most creative people I've ever met. He also gives others credit for being as curious and excited about new ideas as he.
Then Sam started working for institutions of higher learning. He found that not only would professors not admit they didn't know what he was talking about, they'd insist that he was wrong.
Sam is from the practical innovation side of business. A babe in the woods when it comes to scholarship (even what has become known as business scholarship). In other words, he acts on ideas rather than writing them down.
Now please believe me when I say -- I'm not generalizing about all academics. Just the very insecure ones and those who give up common sense in favor of cleverly worded nonsense. These categories are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Academics as Bottom Feeders
My explanation is that the profession itself has become so distorted that, particularly in the liberal arts and social sciences, academics have been forced to become bottom feeders.
In order to survive, teaching can't get in the way of publishing.
This is what the highest standard of education has become.
Any idea, no matter how inane, is fair game, as long as no one has found it before and it can be defended, even by the most fantasical series of arguments.
Living in the depths, where there is hardly any light, sight naturally dims and visual field narrows. After a while, turning on the lights can be painful. Also, once it's clear that the fodder for publications consists mostly of left-overs, university dwellers can feel pretty embarassed.
Not surprising that they would want to bite the hand that flicked the switch.
Back to the Point (What Was It Again?)
To come full circle here (I'll bet you didn't think I could), the way one discipline thinks about another -- and each about itself -- has got to change.
It all comes down to language.
Get rid of jargon, and you've got transparency. Once you can see what's being said or done -- in terms of other things that are being said or done in other fields -- priorities will shift.
Would become the leader in his field (as happened in the 80s) by making a huge career out of pounding out book after book on gender casting in Shakespeare?
Would he have a top job if a theater historian would reveal that his premise is all wrong? That in Shakespeare's time, casting was part of the joke and not part of some obscure counter-culture revolution?
Imagine all such academics without the protection of jargon, without the ability to obfuscate, examined by people who actually know what they're talking about.
Imagine these poor souls being forced to find another job, a more useful pursuit, like, say, digging ditches or trying to cure cancer.
And imaging those at university learning from mentors who were not intellectually opportunistic and who were genuinely interested in their students' development.
So What to Do?
In order for real innovation to happen and be recognized, for someone in one discipline to either collaborate or expose the frauds in another, each has to be able to understand what the other is saying.
Imagine what a shift would happen if this same principal were applied to a more lucrative field -- say, business. What might happen to the stock market if every genuinely innovative mind had the vocabulary to converse with every other?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Musings on Schools -- of Fish, and Others
Richard Gilder, the CEO of CAGSE (the consultancy for which I now work), wrote a most insightful note on adolescents.
He says,
What Does It Mean to Learn to Be Your Own Person?
Going back to past posts, it is impossible to consider the learning process as an entirely intellectual exercise. Cognition involves a web of both emotional reactions and more abstract analyses.
What is inspiration but a meeting of intellectual and emotional insight? And can anyone develop an idea without first being engaged in other ways as well?
Yet by the time students in school are old enough to write persuasive essays or research papers, they no longer use "I" or any reference to feeling at all. The fashion dictates that both erode credibility.
Eventually students become dissociated from their feelings, their likes and dislikes, their own impulses -- themselves. Academic fields define the methodology as creating an objective voice in writing.
Circular (Il)Logic
If being objective means being able to argue all sides of a question, then clearly engagement is a necessary component. There has to be an "I" who knows, writes, talks, and so on. To disallow the pronoun is just windowdressing -- and can be downright dangerous.
True, the students who stop learning by cutting themselves off from their own inner resources often succeed academically because, with no inner compass, navigate by saying what others want them to say in the way they are asked to say it. They also might succeed in social groups (that I leave to Dr. Gilder), but then it might be the kind of group you don't want to join because it would have someone like you as a member.
Later on, the danger increases when these successes choose careers because it's what they feel others think they should do for a living (hence the invention of the mid-life crisis).
And So . . .
Emma Gilding once said to me that every school constitutes its own ecosystem. Social, academic, political, and emotional tides rise and fall and crash against each other while the both the adult and adolescent inhabitants develop habits to help them survive.
How hard must it be to stand the pressure?
I'm not against trying all sorts of writing -- why not? But it seems to me that some of the time, the least a teacher can do is allow kids to have their say. And to claim the ideas as their own with any pronoun they like.
He says,
Adolescents (and many young[er] adults as well) are in a constant battle with what they perceive as two diametrically opposed desires:
to be their own person;
to be part of a group. . . .
Self-confidence comes when adolescents realize that they fit into a group not in spite of, but because of, their independence.
In everything but relationship between pronouns and verbs, there must be agreement all round.What Does It Mean to Learn to Be Your Own Person?
Going back to past posts, it is impossible to consider the learning process as an entirely intellectual exercise. Cognition involves a web of both emotional reactions and more abstract analyses.
What is inspiration but a meeting of intellectual and emotional insight? And can anyone develop an idea without first being engaged in other ways as well?
Yet by the time students in school are old enough to write persuasive essays or research papers, they no longer use "I" or any reference to feeling at all. The fashion dictates that both erode credibility.
Eventually students become dissociated from their feelings, their likes and dislikes, their own impulses -- themselves. Academic fields define the methodology as creating an objective voice in writing.
Circular (Il)Logic
If being objective means being able to argue all sides of a question, then clearly engagement is a necessary component. There has to be an "I" who knows, writes, talks, and so on. To disallow the pronoun is just windowdressing -- and can be downright dangerous.
True, the students who stop learning by cutting themselves off from their own inner resources often succeed academically because, with no inner compass, navigate by saying what others want them to say in the way they are asked to say it. They also might succeed in social groups (that I leave to Dr. Gilder), but then it might be the kind of group you don't want to join because it would have someone like you as a member.
Later on, the danger increases when these successes choose careers because it's what they feel others think they should do for a living (hence the invention of the mid-life crisis).
And So . . .
Emma Gilding once said to me that every school constitutes its own ecosystem. Social, academic, political, and emotional tides rise and fall and crash against each other while the both the adult and adolescent inhabitants develop habits to help them survive.
How hard must it be to stand the pressure?
I'm not against trying all sorts of writing -- why not? But it seems to me that some of the time, the least a teacher can do is allow kids to have their say. And to claim the ideas as their own with any pronoun they like.
Friday, June 08, 2007
A Good Idea Takes Off -- A Bit of News
Latin Appeals
Regardless of the run-of-the-mill attitude that Latin is a luxury -- or worse, irrelevant in a modern world -- there are now thirteen schools in London interested in giving classes next year. There are ten primary schools in Hackney, two secondary schools (into which the primaries feed), and one in Kilburn. There's also one secondary school in Preston near Manchester.
That's a lot of interest after Lorna's one class for one year of teaching in an underperforming school.
And So, An Appeal for Latin
CAGSE, in conjunction with Boris Johnson, MP, will be holding a fundraising event at the House of Commons on June 26th. No money will be raised there exactly -- it's really for people of means and interest to see if they'd like to fund the programs for next year and for later discussion.
The Learning Labs are another set of programs in which underperforming schools have shown a great deal of interest. Geraldine Walkington, our Director of that project, has done quite amazing work with twelve-year-olds in Preston.
More on that in the next post.
Regardless of the run-of-the-mill attitude that Latin is a luxury -- or worse, irrelevant in a modern world -- there are now thirteen schools in London interested in giving classes next year. There are ten primary schools in Hackney, two secondary schools (into which the primaries feed), and one in Kilburn. There's also one secondary school in Preston near Manchester.
That's a lot of interest after Lorna's one class for one year of teaching in an underperforming school.
And So, An Appeal for Latin
CAGSE, in conjunction with Boris Johnson, MP, will be holding a fundraising event at the House of Commons on June 26th. No money will be raised there exactly -- it's really for people of means and interest to see if they'd like to fund the programs for next year and for later discussion.
The Learning Labs are another set of programs in which underperforming schools have shown a great deal of interest. Geraldine Walkington, our Director of that project, has done quite amazing work with twelve-year-olds in Preston.
More on that in the next post.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
What Can Latin Do For You?
Lorna Robinson, Director of Latin Programs for CAGSE for which I am Executive Director, is a tremendously talented teacher. I had the luck to sit in the back of a class of nine-year-old's in Hackney in London. Hackney is one of the lower performing school districts in England.
Learning Environment
The day I sat in, Lorna had the kids learning the imperative tense in Latin by making signs telling someone -- or some people -- to do something. The idea was to get the spelling and endings right.
Lorna buzzed around the room answering questions while the regular classroom teacher kept order in a highly marshal manner that seemed almost reflex. The contrast between her strategy and that in which the Latin was taught made it clear how lucky the kids were to have Lorna, even if they learned no Latin at all.
Remarkable, Ordinary Kids
On the white board were conjugations, just as in any language class. There were no special guides for children -- no illustrations that often accompany text in books for kids of this age.
The children focused on their signs, correcting them as Lorna answered queries. My favorite was a boy who told his peers "Don't Eat Cats," although he had to correct one of his word endings to make it correctly plural.
The most remarkable moment, however, came when the sign-making was almost over. "That's an object, Miss," he said, without hesitating, in response to a query from Lorna at the front of the room.
Way Ahead of the Game
When I taught at an Ivy League school, my students had never learned the parts of speech in English. I very much doubt most of them knew them in Latin.
However, the Hackney kids had none of the advantages -- or experience that comes with age -- that my students had. Yet these nine-year-olds know their grammar because they interact with language in creative ways, rather than by memorizing rules.
Why Latin?
English makes very little structural sense when compared to many other languages.
Latin, on the other hand, is much more regular. As a root language no longer in use, it's immune from the kinds of changes that happen over time to the languages that derived from it.
There's another reason in England why Latin is such a powerful tool in a place like Hackney. The class system, no longer as visible as it once was, nevertheless has prevented Latin from being used in the schools in poorer areas. There are a variety of reasons for this, lefty reverse snobbery from the districts the least of them.
Consequently, the kids feel special when they can learn a language and a history that is usually not available. They also get special attention by having an outside teacher come into the classroom and stay all year, even if it's only for two hours per week.
Furthermore, most Latin teachers will tell you that Latin as a language changes they way one thinks just by the way one formulates meaning. In fact, the other teachers at this school have noticed a difference between the way these children's approach language, although they haven't articulated exactly how.
This is our theory, anyway, and it seems clear from observation alone.
Can We Prove It?
What's the difference between a rationalization and a business case?
Credibility.
In order to demonstrate the outcome we've observed in ways that are persuasive to those who make high-level decisions in the educational community, we've got one assessment this year -- by Cambridge University. This is for one class of students.
Next year, we'll have many more classes, and consequently, much more data. We'll also have another assessment by Cambridge, one for leadership skills from a representative of the Duke Business Consortium, one by a lexicographer and linguist who edits an Oxford University Press dictionary, and one by the University of East London (where these kids would end up if they went to university at all).
Stay tuned, and let's see what happens . . . .
Learning Environment
The day I sat in, Lorna had the kids learning the imperative tense in Latin by making signs telling someone -- or some people -- to do something. The idea was to get the spelling and endings right.
Lorna buzzed around the room answering questions while the regular classroom teacher kept order in a highly marshal manner that seemed almost reflex. The contrast between her strategy and that in which the Latin was taught made it clear how lucky the kids were to have Lorna, even if they learned no Latin at all.
Remarkable, Ordinary Kids
On the white board were conjugations, just as in any language class. There were no special guides for children -- no illustrations that often accompany text in books for kids of this age.
The children focused on their signs, correcting them as Lorna answered queries. My favorite was a boy who told his peers "Don't Eat Cats," although he had to correct one of his word endings to make it correctly plural.
The most remarkable moment, however, came when the sign-making was almost over. "That's an object, Miss," he said, without hesitating, in response to a query from Lorna at the front of the room.
Way Ahead of the Game
When I taught at an Ivy League school, my students had never learned the parts of speech in English. I very much doubt most of them knew them in Latin.
However, the Hackney kids had none of the advantages -- or experience that comes with age -- that my students had. Yet these nine-year-olds know their grammar because they interact with language in creative ways, rather than by memorizing rules.
Why Latin?
English makes very little structural sense when compared to many other languages.
Latin, on the other hand, is much more regular. As a root language no longer in use, it's immune from the kinds of changes that happen over time to the languages that derived from it.
There's another reason in England why Latin is such a powerful tool in a place like Hackney. The class system, no longer as visible as it once was, nevertheless has prevented Latin from being used in the schools in poorer areas. There are a variety of reasons for this, lefty reverse snobbery from the districts the least of them.
Consequently, the kids feel special when they can learn a language and a history that is usually not available. They also get special attention by having an outside teacher come into the classroom and stay all year, even if it's only for two hours per week.
Furthermore, most Latin teachers will tell you that Latin as a language changes they way one thinks just by the way one formulates meaning. In fact, the other teachers at this school have noticed a difference between the way these children's approach language, although they haven't articulated exactly how.
This is our theory, anyway, and it seems clear from observation alone.
Can We Prove It?
What's the difference between a rationalization and a business case?
Credibility.
In order to demonstrate the outcome we've observed in ways that are persuasive to those who make high-level decisions in the educational community, we've got one assessment this year -- by Cambridge University. This is for one class of students.
Next year, we'll have many more classes, and consequently, much more data. We'll also have another assessment by Cambridge, one for leadership skills from a representative of the Duke Business Consortium, one by a lexicographer and linguist who edits an Oxford University Press dictionary, and one by the University of East London (where these kids would end up if they went to university at all).
Stay tuned, and let's see what happens . . . .
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Picking Up Where We Left Off . . . .
In the months between this post and the last, I've been helping to set up a business. The details aren't important per se, but it's now up and running.
New Horizons for Old Territory
I'm moving to London to spread the kind of educational spirit and strategy for which this blog was originally begun. As Executive Director of an organization called CASGE LLC, I will coordiante and develop an American educational consultancy whose focus next year, strangely enough, involve schools in England.
The Americans just weren't interested.
CASGE's Programs
Currently, we've got two kinds of programs going. The first is critical thinking across subject areas. Within this purview, I and my colleagues, particularly Geraldine Walkington and Sarah Mooney, will be working with teachers to integrate new ways of learning into the set curriculum. These include workshops for teachers, workshops for students, and a program named for the same Danish think tank as this blog -- The Learning Lab.
The Learning Lab offers students the opportunity to work with designers in industry, and we define design very broadly. Information design counts as does costing and arranging flowers. The idea is to give students confidence (Spar supermarkets chose three flower arrangements for Mother's Day bouquets nationally, for example) and to offer ideas of careers with which they might not otherwise be familiar.
Critical Thinking Through Classics
The other set of CASGE programs involve innovative thinking through the learning of Latin.
Those who haven't seen the program -- and know little about Latin -- find the focus a bit narrow and arcane. In fact, the results indicate a sharpening of the broadest range of skills, linguistic, creative, and analytic.
So far, Lorna Robinson has taught one program in one school in Hackney for one year. Two months ago, we had interest from five schools in the area. Next year, as Director of Classics Programs, she will be teaching in and helping to coordinate 23 classes in 12 schools.
More on this program in the next post.
New Horizons for Old Territory
I'm moving to London to spread the kind of educational spirit and strategy for which this blog was originally begun. As Executive Director of an organization called CASGE LLC, I will coordiante and develop an American educational consultancy whose focus next year, strangely enough, involve schools in England.
The Americans just weren't interested.
CASGE's Programs
Currently, we've got two kinds of programs going. The first is critical thinking across subject areas. Within this purview, I and my colleagues, particularly Geraldine Walkington and Sarah Mooney, will be working with teachers to integrate new ways of learning into the set curriculum. These include workshops for teachers, workshops for students, and a program named for the same Danish think tank as this blog -- The Learning Lab.
The Learning Lab offers students the opportunity to work with designers in industry, and we define design very broadly. Information design counts as does costing and arranging flowers. The idea is to give students confidence (Spar supermarkets chose three flower arrangements for Mother's Day bouquets nationally, for example) and to offer ideas of careers with which they might not otherwise be familiar.
Critical Thinking Through Classics
The other set of CASGE programs involve innovative thinking through the learning of Latin.
Those who haven't seen the program -- and know little about Latin -- find the focus a bit narrow and arcane. In fact, the results indicate a sharpening of the broadest range of skills, linguistic, creative, and analytic.
So far, Lorna Robinson has taught one program in one school in Hackney for one year. Two months ago, we had interest from five schools in the area. Next year, as Director of Classics Programs, she will be teaching in and helping to coordinate 23 classes in 12 schools.
More on this program in the next post.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Wisdom of Crowds: What Can Be Learned?
Continuing from the last post . . .
Newsassignment.net’s Goals
Newsassignment.net is a joint project with Wired.com. They share the costs of hiring a professional editor and skeleton staff to manage the site.
Newsassignment was designed as a research project to ask the questions:
--What can be the consequences of investigative reporting – the core of journalism – when with falling costs for people to find each other, share information, and create value? What are the effects on what’s published?
--Can a publication take one trend story, break it up into parts, develop the parts online, distribute them to citizen journalists within the community, and publish the best of what results? What is the quality of the resulting news?
--Can a story be written with the contributions of hundreds of writers rather than two or three?
Jay Rosen suspects that an open source business structure would push forward a platform of a new kind of reporting. This open source reporting would have more value than the traditional competitive model that relies on individual insights.
Rosen decided to establish this project because the cost of learning is so low that it made no sense NOT to try it.
Journalism 1.0
Rosen calls blogging journalism 1.0. “Dan Gilmore did a great job to get individuals to do their own thing,” Rosen says, “Who DOESN’T have a blog, and how long did that take?”
However, Rosen says, what blogging doesn’t promote is the process of working together on one story. In fact, blogging is almost antithetical to such a practice. “You get a reputation for your individuality, your unique perspective, your attitude – and you can link to others who agree with you. But it’s rare to collaborate.”
Journalism 2.0
Rosen calls what’s happening now Citizen Journalism 2.0 because he feels that crowd-sourced information creates not only a better product than that of mainstream media but it also goes after articles that papers like the Washington Post would never attempt.
2.0 require fact checking, and so it’s not necessarily a cheaper journalism, says Rosen. “But it’s a better journalism that comes up with bigger stories and bigger truths.” The example Rosen gives is the Sunlight Foundation’s request to find out which members of congress employed his or her own family members. The question was posted on a Friday morning, and the results were published in edited form on Monday morning.
Rosen warns that it was not entirely citizen journalism because the foundation did thorough fact checking during the process and after. However, there were very few errors. Rosen feels that this vindicates the speed, breadth, and reliability of crowd-sourced work.
The Implications?
Regardless of the web’s impact on the last election and of Rosen’s convictions, the real implications of newsassignment’s process will not be clear until the public assesses the quality of the results. Perhaps crowd-sourcing is useful in some cases but not in others, perhaps mainstream media could take advantage of specialized firms to expand their reach, or the perhaps whole project might be too unwieldy to handle.
More on the results of this experiment after the presidential elections.
Newsassignment.net’s Goals
Newsassignment.net is a joint project with Wired.com. They share the costs of hiring a professional editor and skeleton staff to manage the site.
Newsassignment was designed as a research project to ask the questions:
--What can be the consequences of investigative reporting – the core of journalism – when with falling costs for people to find each other, share information, and create value? What are the effects on what’s published?
--Can a publication take one trend story, break it up into parts, develop the parts online, distribute them to citizen journalists within the community, and publish the best of what results? What is the quality of the resulting news?
--Can a story be written with the contributions of hundreds of writers rather than two or three?
Jay Rosen suspects that an open source business structure would push forward a platform of a new kind of reporting. This open source reporting would have more value than the traditional competitive model that relies on individual insights.
Rosen decided to establish this project because the cost of learning is so low that it made no sense NOT to try it.
Journalism 1.0
Rosen calls blogging journalism 1.0. “Dan Gilmore did a great job to get individuals to do their own thing,” Rosen says, “Who DOESN’T have a blog, and how long did that take?”
However, Rosen says, what blogging doesn’t promote is the process of working together on one story. In fact, blogging is almost antithetical to such a practice. “You get a reputation for your individuality, your unique perspective, your attitude – and you can link to others who agree with you. But it’s rare to collaborate.”
Journalism 2.0
Rosen calls what’s happening now Citizen Journalism 2.0 because he feels that crowd-sourced information creates not only a better product than that of mainstream media but it also goes after articles that papers like the Washington Post would never attempt.
2.0 require fact checking, and so it’s not necessarily a cheaper journalism, says Rosen. “But it’s a better journalism that comes up with bigger stories and bigger truths.” The example Rosen gives is the Sunlight Foundation’s request to find out which members of congress employed his or her own family members. The question was posted on a Friday morning, and the results were published in edited form on Monday morning.
Rosen warns that it was not entirely citizen journalism because the foundation did thorough fact checking during the process and after. However, there were very few errors. Rosen feels that this vindicates the speed, breadth, and reliability of crowd-sourced work.
The Implications?
Regardless of the web’s impact on the last election and of Rosen’s convictions, the real implications of newsassignment’s process will not be clear until the public assesses the quality of the results. Perhaps crowd-sourcing is useful in some cases but not in others, perhaps mainstream media could take advantage of specialized firms to expand their reach, or the perhaps whole project might be too unwieldy to handle.
More on the results of this experiment after the presidential elections.
Learning Through Collaboration: Citizen Journalism
But First, An Apology
I have been working on developing Atra Luce and projects both in England and New York. Please forgive the lapse in posting.
Social Media Club
For those of you who have not yet encountered the Social Media Club, it's worth a visit. If there isn't one in your city at the moment, there will be soon -- or could be if you'd like to start one.
In the wake of WAAAC and NYNMA and all the other meet up's that have fallen by the wayside, there remains the Tech Meet Up (in New York, it's impossible to get into) and Social Media Club. It's good to have a place to gather and discuss Big Ideas about best practices online.
The next post will cover an event I attended last week.
I have been working on developing Atra Luce and projects both in England and New York. Please forgive the lapse in posting.
Social Media Club
For those of you who have not yet encountered the Social Media Club, it's worth a visit. If there isn't one in your city at the moment, there will be soon -- or could be if you'd like to start one.
In the wake of WAAAC and NYNMA and all the other meet up's that have fallen by the wayside, there remains the Tech Meet Up (in New York, it's impossible to get into) and Social Media Club. It's good to have a place to gather and discuss Big Ideas about best practices online.
The next post will cover an event I attended last week.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Kindergarten at MIT
For those of you who don't know about Lifelong Kindergarten, take a look. Although it isn't meant to replace the name "lifelong learning," it would be a much a better way of expressing the same concept. It implies freedom to experiment, play, and a desire to learn because it's fun.
The papers are worth perusing. For those of us interested in network analysis, check out "Who Knows Whom in a Virtual Learning Network?" listed second or third. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
The papers are worth perusing. For those of us interested in network analysis, check out "Who Knows Whom in a Virtual Learning Network?" listed second or third. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
But Wait, There's (Always) More
For those of you who are already persuaded that new languages come with new perspectives, or for Classics teachers looking for an unlikely use of dead languages, here's a site where you can get podcasts of current global news in Latin.
More on Latin and Why It's Big Stuff
Continuing from the last post . . .
So if Latin provides more than an exercise for intellectuals to learn about ancient culture and literature, how does it work? As important, will it work for the average teacher?
Road Tested
Metamorphosis can offer a program in Latin for teachers to enhance their lessons in any subject because its founder, Dr. Richard Gilder, has experienced the way it's changed the atmosphere in classrooms. In addition to offering workshops across the US, he currently teaches at Tuxedo Park School and City University of New York.
For those of you unfamiliar with New York, you couldn't get two institutions further apart in membership. The first is an expensive (what Americans call) private school, and the second is a state university with a diverse population of students -- most of whom don't have the money for (well) a posh, expensive alternative.
There's also a great deal of interest at schools in the South Bronx from teachers who want to show their students patterns in all sorts of data -- from language to the relationship among course areas.
Back to Grammar: through Latin More than Just Word Order, Vocabulary, and Punctuation (Which Really Should Be Enough)
Richard teaches Latin in relation to English. Whatever he demonstrates in Latin is practiced in English first. Through the exercises, the class explores variations of ways to express themselves in particular circumstances. Then they learn to recognize patterns in English that offer sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle, logic behind the differences.
Why is This Fun?
Richard treats language like a complicated machine that can be taken apart and put back together again like a car engine -- or a computer. Sometimes language is more like a creature with both predictable and surprising behavior, the logic of which can be understood regardless of its movements.
This car engine, computer, or creature is one with which kids are already intimately familiar. It lives in their bodies and connects them to every person, object, and idea in their lives. Understanding how this works is fascinating to them.
And the Latin makes the lesson impossible to forget.
So if Latin provides more than an exercise for intellectuals to learn about ancient culture and literature, how does it work? As important, will it work for the average teacher?
Road Tested
Metamorphosis can offer a program in Latin for teachers to enhance their lessons in any subject because its founder, Dr. Richard Gilder, has experienced the way it's changed the atmosphere in classrooms. In addition to offering workshops across the US, he currently teaches at Tuxedo Park School and City University of New York.
For those of you unfamiliar with New York, you couldn't get two institutions further apart in membership. The first is an expensive (what Americans call) private school, and the second is a state university with a diverse population of students -- most of whom don't have the money for (well) a posh, expensive alternative.
There's also a great deal of interest at schools in the South Bronx from teachers who want to show their students patterns in all sorts of data -- from language to the relationship among course areas.
Back to Grammar: through Latin More than Just Word Order, Vocabulary, and Punctuation (Which Really Should Be Enough)
Richard teaches Latin in relation to English. Whatever he demonstrates in Latin is practiced in English first. Through the exercises, the class explores variations of ways to express themselves in particular circumstances. Then they learn to recognize patterns in English that offer sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle, logic behind the differences.
Why is This Fun?
Richard treats language like a complicated machine that can be taken apart and put back together again like a car engine -- or a computer. Sometimes language is more like a creature with both predictable and surprising behavior, the logic of which can be understood regardless of its movements.
This car engine, computer, or creature is one with which kids are already intimately familiar. It lives in their bodies and connects them to every person, object, and idea in their lives. Understanding how this works is fascinating to them.
And the Latin makes the lesson impossible to forget.
Latin for the Masses (And More than Even the Catholic Kind)
Continued from the last post . . .
Atra Luce is still in the process of transforming itself. It will offer several sorts of grants -- some of them are in coin and some in kind.
Both are under discussion, but one program has already been clearly articulated: using Latin to explore language in general and English in particular. The target market comprises schools where children struggle with achieving high standards in many subjects.
Why is This Unusual?
The study of Latin is generally considered to be an elitist pursuit. Most students in English-speaking countries choose French or Spanish -- and sometimes German -- if given a choice to study another tongue.
After all, who has time or use for a dead language other than those with no need to be relevant in this century? Even most Catholic schools dropped Latin as a requirement after Vatican II declared that religious services could be offered in the vernacular.
So What's the Problem?
Increasingly, teachers in English-speaking countries are not teaching students the grammar of their native language.
Many teachers to whom I spoke don't feel comfortable teaching it because no one taught it to them. Some told me they were taught to diagram sentences and found later that it (strangely) helped them very little to do anything other than -- well -- make diagrams. Still others had been forced to memorize rules that they couldn't remember because the logic had never been explained.
There is also the school of thought that students should learn to write without regard to structure in order to encourage them to feel comfortable in the medium. The premise is that once engaged and writing regularly, students will pursue the nuts and bolts of precision in future life.
Unfortunately, this doesn't often happen. Grammar doesn't sound like fun to anyone in traditional education. Furthermore (and maybe consequently), most of the teachers I spoke to -- from university through primary school -- blamed their predecessors for their students inability to recognize a sentence.
Why Does This Matter Anyway?
An understanding of how language works involves more than following rules. It makes one aware of the way we think as a culture and as indivduals. This awareness changes the way we perceive ourselves, others, and the rest of the world in which we live. This is big stuff.
More on this in the next post.
Atra Luce is still in the process of transforming itself. It will offer several sorts of grants -- some of them are in coin and some in kind.
Both are under discussion, but one program has already been clearly articulated: using Latin to explore language in general and English in particular. The target market comprises schools where children struggle with achieving high standards in many subjects.
Why is This Unusual?
The study of Latin is generally considered to be an elitist pursuit. Most students in English-speaking countries choose French or Spanish -- and sometimes German -- if given a choice to study another tongue.
After all, who has time or use for a dead language other than those with no need to be relevant in this century? Even most Catholic schools dropped Latin as a requirement after Vatican II declared that religious services could be offered in the vernacular.
So What's the Problem?
Increasingly, teachers in English-speaking countries are not teaching students the grammar of their native language.
Many teachers to whom I spoke don't feel comfortable teaching it because no one taught it to them. Some told me they were taught to diagram sentences and found later that it (strangely) helped them very little to do anything other than -- well -- make diagrams. Still others had been forced to memorize rules that they couldn't remember because the logic had never been explained.
There is also the school of thought that students should learn to write without regard to structure in order to encourage them to feel comfortable in the medium. The premise is that once engaged and writing regularly, students will pursue the nuts and bolts of precision in future life.
Unfortunately, this doesn't often happen. Grammar doesn't sound like fun to anyone in traditional education. Furthermore (and maybe consequently), most of the teachers I spoke to -- from university through primary school -- blamed their predecessors for their students inability to recognize a sentence.
Why Does This Matter Anyway?
An understanding of how language works involves more than following rules. It makes one aware of the way we think as a culture and as indivduals. This awareness changes the way we perceive ourselves, others, and the rest of the world in which we live. This is big stuff.
More on this in the next post.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
A New Educational Foundation: Atra Luce
It's been a month since the last post -- and now I'm proud to tell you about a new foundation of which I have become executive director.
It's called Atra Luce.
Atra Luce: What Does it Mean?
Atra Luce means "dark light" and describes the effect on a fury's torch when it hits the human seat of understanding. The furies transform men into poets this way -- as with any kind of learning, probably not very comfortable. But better than the alternative.
Here is the mission statement:
Atra Luce
The Foundation For Transformational Learning and Teaching
In Nova Corpora
The Mission of Atra Luce is to identify, encourage, support, and foster engaging, effective, transformative approaches to learning and teaching beyond the traditional educational curriculum.
The richest learning and teaching experiences are transformational. They challenge preconceptions, engender reconsiderations of old material, encourage consideration of the new. Such experiences are instrumental for intellectual growth in breadth and depth; they result in an on-going redefinition of limitations in an ever expanding circumference. Experiences of this ilk can spur a learner/teacher to take a different path - or make a new one all their own.
Atra Luce's Mission is to provide the opportunity for those experiences to happen.
For information on how to apply, please keep an eye out for coming posts.
It's called Atra Luce.
Atra Luce: What Does it Mean?
Atra Luce means "dark light" and describes the effect on a fury's torch when it hits the human seat of understanding. The furies transform men into poets this way -- as with any kind of learning, probably not very comfortable. But better than the alternative.
Here is the mission statement:
Atra Luce
The Foundation For Transformational Learning and Teaching
In Nova Corpora
The Mission of Atra Luce is to identify, encourage, support, and foster engaging, effective, transformative approaches to learning and teaching beyond the traditional educational curriculum.
The richest learning and teaching experiences are transformational. They challenge preconceptions, engender reconsiderations of old material, encourage consideration of the new. Such experiences are instrumental for intellectual growth in breadth and depth; they result in an on-going redefinition of limitations in an ever expanding circumference. Experiences of this ilk can spur a learner/teacher to take a different path - or make a new one all their own.
Atra Luce's Mission is to provide the opportunity for those experiences to happen.
For information on how to apply, please keep an eye out for coming posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)