鈥淚nnovation in Education,鈥� is an umbrella term that means different things to different researchers and educators. While there is no single definition, most can agree that it鈥檚 about enacting positive changes inside the classroom and the greater school community to better serve students.
Waldorf educators explored the questions around innovation at the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America 2019 Summer Conference — Responsible Innovation: A Collaborative Approach to Educational Freedom. Specifically, we looked to clarify ideals of innovating within and with respect for the core principles of Waldorf pedagogy.
Yet even with clear principles and missions, the guiding forces for how to accomplish innovation is much debated in all education systems and schools. Some see 鈥渆ducation innovation鈥� as a buzzword for ed tech. Others imagine it to be disruptive change from the top down to whip underperforming systems into getting better standardized test scores. Others still believe it must be teacher-driven change at the individual classroom level.
The whys are somewhat similar, the hows vary greatly, and the results? Everyone can agree that no matter the desired results, accomplishing them is complicated and often elusive.
is learning this first hand with their i3 grant program, which invests in innovative ideas put into practice in public schools nationwide. The Investing in Innovation Program (i3) has issued 172 Grants since 2010 and has spent $1.5 billion dollars.
Results have come in for the first 67 programs funded and, according to the , only 12 have had positive impact on student achievement. Many education researchers and experts, like Barbara Goodson at the education research firm Abt Associates Inc., are not surprised.
Goodson was hired to analyze the results of the i3 grant program, formally named the , and she says, 鈥淚t is really hard to change student achievement鈥� learning is ultimately about changing human behavior and that is always difficult鈥� so many other things 鈥� like nutrition, sleep, safety, and relationships at home 鈥� affect learning.鈥�
She adds that the current measures of effectiveness, generally standardized test assessment, may be too broad to capture the benefits of many funded innovations.
This leads to a potentially more relevant question around innovation in education. Namely, how does an organization encourage, create, and measure what works in any given setting?
Lars Esdal, executive director of , a nonprofit organization working to improve public education, wrote about this topic at in the article . He maintains that innovation cannot be a mandate. It must be a culture created within a school or school system. He believes we must 鈥渃reate opportunities and incentives for folks to design different and better learning experiences, but not require it.鈥�
Once a culture is established that encourages change and new ideas, the system or framework for creating effective change is a well-researched topic. A foremost thought leader in the theory of systems change is , a Senior Lecturer at MIT and co-founder of the . Scharmer has written a book examining the core principles and practices behind changing an organization.
Scharmer says the book, , works as 鈥渁 framework and language that helps you locate yourself in the larger developmental framework of systems change. It鈥檚 a method that helps you move through phases. … to make visible the deeper structure that supports our best moments of leading and learning.鈥�
In his interview in , , he speaks of the tenets and the actions behind inspiring change at an institutional level. He echoes Esdal鈥檚 belief that a culture must be open for change, but adds an additional layer of responsibility on individuals for openness — saying we must be willing to have 鈥渙pen hearts, open minds, and open wills.鈥� Scharmer believes change is only possible if individuals are willing to 鈥渂e authentic, reflective, and mindful.鈥�
It is only then, according to Scharmer, that leaders are ready to take the actions needed which require they:
Stop and pay attention to what鈥檚 happening in the changing environment;
Let go of old methods and paradigms that no longer serve the cause or mission; and
Let new possibilities come from their higher or best selves.
But will all of these good intentions, processes, and ideas actually lead to innovation that works for students? As earlier efforts with i3 have indicated, there is either a failure in innovation itself large-scale or, more likely, a failure in the measurement of innovation.
Esdal squarely sets the blame on standardized tests. In his article, , he says, 鈥淲e have fallen into the trap of valuing what we measure rather than measuring what we value.鈥� He advocates instead for measuring what he calls, 鈥渃ollective outcomes鈥� — critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem-solving, and writing — to truly see the results of innovative initiatives.
Stanford Education professor and researcher, Linda Darling-Hammond, agrees. In her article , she recommends establishing multiple sets of assessment alongside standardized testing. She encourages educators to develop clearly defined rubrics (or criteria) for assessing changes and development via student portfolios, presentations, and other special projects.
Innovation is geared toward improving important 21st Century skills like, she says, 鈥渞ecall, analysis, comparison, inference, and evaluation… and they are the kinds of skills that aren’t measured by our current high-stakes tests.鈥�
The business world can lend credibility to expanding evaluations beyond hash marks and spreadsheets or scores and numbers.
Michael J. Mauboussin, Director of research at BlueMountain Capital Management and Professor at Columbia Business School in New York City, explores measuring success beyond statistics in his latest book . He delves into his core ideas in this Harvard Business Review article, .
Mauboussin reminds us that what matters are measurements 鈥渢hat reliably reveal cause and effect.鈥� Numbers are easy to measure, but are only a small part of a larger picture. Non-numerical measures, while more difficult to establish, are often more valuable. Mauboussin, in fact, has found that in the business world, those who can link up and measure non-numerical values and data have a better track record for improvement and innovation.
In the more practical and education-specific realm, , Director of the and, shares specifics on what these assessments can look like in her article also published by .
Thomas recommends simple tools for assessment delivered in a low-stakes environment to students such as student and teacher surveys, ungraded quizzes, in person interviews, and focused observation, to name just a few.
She says, 鈥渨e can deploy [assessments] quickly, seamlessly, and in a low-stakes way鈥攁ll while not creating an unmanageable workload… the point is to get a basic read on the progress of individuals, or the class as a whole.鈥�
Regardless of the complexities of education innovation, the obligation to innovate is as essential as it is urgent. All educators must commit to seeking and embracing change. Together we can shift paradigms around the way things 鈥渉ave always been done鈥� and make learning experiences relevant to our students, responsive to their unique identities, and tailored to their abilities.
Photo Credit:
