Mike Miles

A growing chorus of voices argues for a transformation "“ not a revision "“ of our public education system. Many of the voices of change are finally starting with the right question: what should students have to know and be able to do ten years from now? It is the curriculum, not the technology, that needs reforming. True transformation will also require systemic change. The enormity of the system problems we face, however, may lead to inertia, forcing reformers to make minor modifications to a defunct paradigm. At the end of the day, we will need schools and districts to lead the way and trade the "go slow to go fast" approach for thoughtful initiative.

Many of the initiatives to build "21st Century" schools have focused on the hardware. One-on-one laptop initiatives (whereby schools provide every student with a laptop), interactive smart boards, wireless environments, and the purchase of computer projectors have led the 21st Century reform efforts. To be sure, it is important to maintain technological capacity; however, schools will get little return on their technology investment if they are teaching an outdated curriculum.

In Colorado, few districts have attempted to consider a fundamentally different curriculum "“ one geared for the skills and knowledge students will need when they graduate 10 years from now. Most districts have tried to improve the level of critical thinking required for students to be proficient in the core disciplines. Some have thought to add standards in information literacy or basic computer competency. Unfortunately, merely adding new standards to the already daunting list of core standards will do little to help and will add to resistance from teachers. A new paradigm is needed.

At present, public education is stuck in a paradigm of a different era. Our core subjects have been Math, Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies. We have tried to infuse those core subjects with critical thinking. But that paradigm is still based on "what" students should know and not "how" they think. With the information age and pace of technological advances accelerating, we cannot afford to continue to teach a curriculum focused on the "what" of learning. Over a decade ago, Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon made the same point:

"The meaning of knowing has shifted from being able to remember and repeat information to being able to find and use it. The goal of education is better conceived as helping students develop the intellectual tools and learning strategies needed to acquire the knowledge necessary to think productively."

We need to focus on the "how" of learning. Essentially, we need to turn the current paradigm on its head: teach subjects in critical thinking, analysis, and information literacy and infuse those subjects with Math, Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies concepts.

In the Harrison School District, for example, Version One of our 21st Century Curriculum project comprises six subjects: critical thinking and analysis, information literacy, economics and globalization, math and science reasoning, Chinese language, and the Arts. Standards include how to approach problems as a team, processes to become proficient at prediction and analysis, common fallacies of logic, data manipulation techniques, and how different media change the way information is delivered and received. Version One is for middle school-aged students and emphasizes thinking skills over straight content knowledge.

Even if stakeholders could agree on a common, reformed curriculum, the task of transforming public education to meet the exigencies of a "flatter" world will be daunting. The transformation will have to be systemic and is necessarily complex. If the curriculum changes significantly, will we make the concomitant investment in teacher training? Are we willing to change state assessments to align with a new curriculum? How quickly can colleges and universities revise teacher education programs? Do we have the capacity to teach educators how to teach critical thinking skills? How will college entrance requirements be revised and how will post-secondary education be reformed? Are we as a nation willing to pay teachers a salary commensurate with the job requirements and a salary that will attract the best and the brightest in sufficient numbers to deliver such an advanced curriculum? These and other questions only begin to describe the systems challenge we face.

Complex problems of the 21st Century, such as the transformation of public education, will probably require a collaborative dilemma management approach. At the same time, we should also pay heed to the innovators' dilemma, a concept described by Clayton Christensen in his book The Innovator"™s Dilemma (1997). The dilemma is that the criteria used to keep organizations healthy at the moment may make it impossible for them to do the right thing for the future. Additionally, organizations that listen closely to stakeholders may do things that only improve their business on the margins.

With regard to education, we face an innovator"™s dilemma in that the public and departments of education hold schools accountable for results in the present system. Innovators have to take a huge risk and may have to accept less than adequate results on present criteria, while succeeding at different criteria that will not have been widely adopted. Moreover, those served well by the present system may have little incentive to change. Indeed, parents of high-performing students within the present system, who are able to send their children to well-known universities, may lack the sense of urgency true transformation requires.

Because of this dilemma and public education's penchant for slow, methodical change, we stand the risk of taking several years just to discuss the various facets of the problem and to get everyone"™s input. Alternatively, we may be persuaded to make only minor modifications to our current practices.

There is no easy solution or specific roadmap that will allow us to skip the soul-searching and tough discussions to come. In the end, a few schools and districts are just going to have to lead the way. Significant reform in education may take place after early innovators take the risk and find the resources to answer the questions for themselves and initiate version one of a 21st Century curriculum and a truly different model of public education. They will have to trade the "go slow to go fast" approach for thoughtful initiative. Time is certainly against us. Every year we wait to transform will find more children, especially at-risk students, further behind.