And then it got more fun…with an exchange between Dale, and Dick aka: Richard E. Clark – APA Fellow and author of  “Learning From Media: Arguments, Analysis and Evidence (A volume in Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning) (Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning” – and one of the Keynote Speakers at the 2012 ISPI Conference in Toronto next April.

Dale

With your permission, I’ll quote from your succinct history of past evidence-based PI efforts in ISPI’s past at the 2012 conference in Toronto.  I’m guessing that K-12 and Higher Ed might be more accepting in the next decades than they were in the past.  

Dick

***

Dick,

Yes, it is fine with me if you quote.  Please coordinate with Guy who requested input for an article he is writing. 

Dale

PS I’d love to hear your take on why K-12 and Higher Ed might be more accepting.  My pessimistic view is that they are likely to be more accepting only after a decade or two of stronger competition from charter schools or accredited but non-governmental schools. Or perhaps parents and voters will get really active and push the way they did when insisting that schools try to do the Special Education job competently.  But even IEPs were no match for inertia, at least in Ohio where I was involved. 

You are closer to that whole scene than I am now that I’m retired.  Your reasoned optimism would be a great comfort; your views carry weight with me.

***

Dale

I avoided K-12 for my entire career because I’ve shared your impression that decision makers in that arena (and most teachers) rejected nearly all rational and evidence-based approaches in favor of self-serving “do your own thing” fantasies about instruction and learning.  That pattern has not turned around but I’m inclined to think it may in the next few years.  What has happened in the past four or five years is that the constructivist and discovery people have gained the upper hand with many textbook publishers, university teacher education programs, state and local boards of education.  They argue their post-modern claptrap about escaping from robotic teaching practices imposed by authoritarian scientists (as if) that turn kids off about education and recommend challenging kids with engaging problems and leaving them alone (more or less) to discover what they need to learn.  

In STEM subjects (science, tech, engineering and math) it means asking kids and adults to act like scientists and learn to inquire by inquiring with no support.  Take a look at the most recent K-12 textbooks in mathematics and science – they are mostly discovery oriented now.  

The constructivist approach has finally (ticked) off no less than the American Federation of Teachers – the most powerful union group in education – and is gradually spreading to people who pay attention to their political clout.  As an AFT official put it to me in an email last week, “people are out there convincing boards of education not to allow teachers to teach”.  The AFT has recently approached a number of researchers in the English speaking nations and requested monthly columns for their publication “The American Educator” (Circulation about 55K)  that will describe, in teacher relevant terms, instructional strategies that have been found to work in well designed lab and field studies.  I’ve been asked to contribute a column and I know three other people who do great work who have also been invited.  

My take is that these patterns do not turn around quickly or very effectively but the evidence based movement is having a huge impact on medicine and there is a great deal of buzz in Washington about how to leverage what we know about learning to pull schools out of what most everyone agrees is a mess. At least the door has again cracked open so why not give it another try?  All big changes have to cycle many times before they start to take – both with K-12 education and ISPI.

The higher ed arena is changing because of economics more than politics. The competition between the for profit universities is increasing and the recent GAO audit sent many of them to their rooms without dinner- so their profits have been whacked and many are planning comebacks by advertising evidence-based front end analysis in professional studies programs and research-based instructional design for online and classroom courses.    It has already started and will pick up steam in the next couple of years.

How certain am I about all this – not very certain – but confident enough that I’m going to invest time in pushing the evidence-based agenda.

Dick

That is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg – in terms of the thought and sweat equity ISPI members have been investing in the challenges of improving education. Others are applying HPT to the education system in Macedonia – as I overheard at the recent International Conference 2 weeks ago. And there are dozens if not hundreds of other stories from the past 49 years.

The latest ISPI journal: Performance Improvement for April 2011 (Wiley) is a special issue focused on: Performance Improvement in Education. The PIJ as we call it is available for free to ISPI members – and on a Pay Per View basis too – see more about that here. The next issue of PIJ continues with a look at an application in Mexico.

ISPI is also pilot testing a new Certification for Certified School Improvement Specialist (CSIS). And while very new – and perhaps not quite finished – it is in Pilot – and a bit controversial (aren’t all new things almost always a bit controversial in professional organizations?) – this certification isn’t certifying knowledge via testing – it is intended to certify demonstrated results. As the ISPI web site states: The CSIS recognizes professionals who have demonstrated sustainable improvement in the performance of students, teachers, and school leaders. You can read more about that here.

Of course, my main professional home is not alone in this quest to improve education. ASQ – also a professional home of sorts for me – and many, many other groups have been working this – alone and with others.

Which brings me to this:

United we stand – divided we fall.

Or fail.

This isn’t a US issue. This isn’t a North American issue. This is a Global issue. A GLOBAL issue.

What is at stake GLOBALLY? 

Is it increased productivity in all sectors of the economy in all sectors of the planet’s geographies? Is it reduced hunger? Reduced tensions between nations? Reduced incidents of war? Reduced expenditures for what Ike (remember “I like Ike”) termed the Military-Industrial Complex – enabling the beating of swords back into plowshares – improving productivity for all – reducing hunger for all – reducing tensions, war, and…well, you get it?

Will the circle be unbroken?

Can we break it?

Can we focus on what ISPI’er Roger Kaufman has termed Mega: Societal good? From Wikipedia – and I’ve heard him say this in my presence as well – so don’t go Sinbad on me:

“Mega Planning” starts with the question of “What kind of world do you want for your children and grand-children?” with responses distilled in terms of consequences.

Call me an idealist. That’s cool with me.

For I do believe in the pursuit of perfection, zero defects, even while understanding that that is statistically unachievable.

For if we think we cannot – we surely won’t. And if we think we can – maybe we can get darn close.

I’ve got 4 grandchildren to consider. And other family and friends. How about you?

Let’s all Raise Our Voices – and combine our efforts – for this is just too important to let our differences stand in our collective way in meeting our collective needs.

# # #