The
CORE Education Blog

I’ve been reflecting a lot lately on CORE’s mission: to ‘push the boundaries of educational possibility’. Most of the work we do at CORE involves working with educators, schools, and government agencies to introduce innovative approaches to what they do. Of course, the innovation itself isn’t the end we’re looking for, but is the means by which we are attempting to make a contribution to an education system that is relevant, future-focused, and ‘world class’.

So, we are looking for a ‘world-class’ education system

The concept of how we develop a ‘world-class’ education system is high on the agenda of governments and education leaders  around the world. An obvious and appropriate measure for this is based on measuring student performance and success—as illustrated by the approach taken by the OECD with its PISA studies.

I blogged earlier this year about Andreas Schleicher who spoke on the background and findings of the PISA studies. Schleicher challenges us to think about how this data might be used to bring about change at a whole-of-system level, rather than at an individual school level, and points out that the bottom line for where we put our energy and resourcing must be related to understanding what we value most about education.

What we value is closely aligned with the beliefs we hold about education, and the mental models we have developed as a result of these beliefs—which exist for all of us whether we are conscious of it or not. Often, these values and beliefs lie below the surface, the product of the modeling and ‘conditioning’ of our own school experiences.

Agendas for change

When working with education leaders—at school or national level—one thing I find is that the language used to describe what they’re doing in their efforts to bring about change reveals two quite different perspectives—what I call agendas for change.

The first is what I refer to as the ‘improvement agenda’, where the assumption is that what we are doing is fundamentally OK, but needs to be refined, adapted, modified in some way to improve it in areas of poor performance—a little like tuning a motor car to get better ‘miles per gallon’ in performance. The motor and the car it propels are essentially the same—but performance has been improved through adaptations to the way the fuel feeds through the carburetor, or with ‘spoilers’ added to the bodywork to improve airflow around the vehicle for instance.

The second is what I call the ‘transformation agenda’, where there is a conscious effort to question the existing paradigm and propose alternative models or approaches. The differences between these two agendas are illustrated in the summary table below—which I’ve blogged about earlier this year also.

The reason for trains and planes…

To go back to my transportation metaphor—consider the difference between trains and planes. The fundamental problem they are seeking to address is the same—how to efficiently and cost-effectively transport goods and people over long distances.

 Over many years improvements were made to the rail systems in countries around the world—from steam, to diesel to electric, from narrow gauge to wider gauge rails etc. All of which provided faster, more efficient service in the transportation of goods and people—provided they were on a rail network and bound by the geographical boundaries of the continent on which they were located.

Then came planes. Not only could they do everything that trains could do, but they were able to cross the boundaries of continents separated by vast oceans, and could also change route to land in different places without the need for a rail system to get them there. Planes were transformational. In the world of air transportation we now enjoy holidays in Australia or Paris, and have food in our supermarkets from dozens of countries all over the world.

…education faces the same challenge

This is the challenge in our education system. In seeking to establish a world class approach, where learners are equipped to live and work as citizens in a globally connected, increasingly digital world, we need to consider how appropriate our current structures and systems are — whether they are ‘fit for purpose’ in the 21st century. Consider things like the hours in the school day, the division of tasks among teachers, the grouping of learners according to age, and the building of schools as blocks of ‘egg-crate’ classrooms etc.

This is not an easy thing to do, as there is a lot of emotional attachment associated with what we’ve done in the past, and a lot of our sense of identity and worth can be tied up with that. But that’s about us — our focus needs to be on our learners and their future.

We can focus purely on improvement—in which case we’ll end up with shinier, faster, more effective versions of our current schools. Or, we can be transformational, and think more ‘out of the box’, imagining what the experience of education might be like if we simply removed all of the existing structures and systems we have.

The challenge is ours for building a 21st Century School System—will we be building trains or planes?

Universal Design in an engineering or architectural context is about creating solutions to problems that meet the needs of the most people possible at the outset. It is about avoiding the need for retrofitting. In the context of curriculum, how might the same principles impact on the way in which we design and organise learning environments and resources?

Practical opportunity to apply the principals of UDL

At our recent CORE retreat, focussed on, “Where are we now?” and, “What next?”, 120 staff unknowingly participated in an event that gave us first-hand experience of the potential of underpinning environments with a universal design approach.

A small team of us had been charged with creating a team building “social activity” that would be “fun” for everyone. Although our CORE whānau is predominantly made up of teachers and facilitators, we are also an eclectic bunch of developers, events managers, researchers, learning designers and administrators. So variability in people’s interests was a predictable given and we knew that a one-size-fits-all solution was not going to float.

An idea, all things being considered

In a rapid brainstorm over Skype, we came up with a design challenge based around the fashion show Project Runway. Now, at first glance you may think we might have missed our demographic, but as the photos attest, the punt we took captured the hearts, minds, “and hands” of our colleagues.

For those of you who might initially associate Project Runway with aeroplanes, the show is actually focused on clothing design. Each team is given a design brief and has to interpret it within a given time frame with a range of resources. Our teams were also required to give a commentary that reflected each team’s creative style and CORE’s commitment to Tātai Aho Rau — a concept related to weaving that illustrates our values.

And the outcome—it works

As the social committee, we had hoped that we had built in enough options to capture people’s diverse interests, and we wanted each person to be able to fully participate and contribute. We thought through the potential barriers to getting stuck in, and tried to create some supports to nudge people along. What we hadn’t bargained on was the way in which everyone threw themselves into the experience with such relish, took full advantage of both hard materials and technology, and created intricate and experimental work both with words and with textiles. The result: a magical and hilarious celebration and a creative demonstration of our shared understanding of what CORE is about.

Revealed to all—why the activity was successful

The following day, the opportunity to highlight that our Project Runway event had been universally designed, was too good to miss. For many at CORE, it was a significant “a-ha” moment, and dispelled a few myths that had aligned “Universal Design” solely with “special education” or accessibility.

The Ministry’s Universal Design approach

In a wider context, our shared epiphany also lines up with the Ministry of Education literature review, which identified Universal Design and the framework known as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as an approach that can make a difference for all learners, and can be applied to “all facets of education: from curriculum, assessment and pedagogy to classroom and school design” (Mitchell 2010).

A framework for moving culturally responsive concepts into actions

As an educator who has been exploring UDL for the last few years, it is exciting to see conversations gaining momentum online, in workshops, and classrooms. At the international UDL Summer Institute at Harvard Graduate school, and whilst with Dr Sharon Friessen at the University of Calgary last year, discussions frequently revolved around the need for each country/community to take the learning around UDL and shape it for its own unique cultural context. As I, alongside colleagues such as Karen Melhuish Spencer and Janelle Riki, explore ways to underpin our own work with a UDL approach, we particularly see how the principles provide a framework for moving culturally responsive concepts into actions.

Also, hand-in-hand with a tool like the e-Learning Planning Framework, the UDL principles enable us to consider how technology can be used to provide options for the way in which we create resources, provide options for learners to demonstrate their understanding, and design environments to engage and sustain the interest of all learners.

Appeal: please share your UDL stories!

So, if you have dipped your toes in the water in this area of learning design and have a story to share, we’d love to hear from you. The more stories we gather, the more we can shape our own Aotearoa New Zealand UDL narrative.

And, if you are new to UDL, check out the links below, and watch this space—as here at CORE, we are intent on exploring how to design both physical and online learning environments underpinned by a UDL—there will be stories to tell.

And one last thing, huge thanks to Karen Melhuish Spencer for the first and last photos, and to Micheal Lintott for the middle two. Exquisite.

Useful links

• Universal Design for Learning — Maryland Learning Links — Maryland State Department of Education’s UDL support material. Really clear and useful.
• National Center on Universal Design for Learning — In-depth information on all aspects of UDL, including research, educator resources etc.
• Education that fits: Review of international trends in the education of students with special education needs. Chapter 16 Universal Design for Learning. — Education Counts.

I recently listened to Aza Raskin speak at the Webstock conference in Wellington. Aza was named the 2011 Master of Design, and one of the top 40 influential designers by Fast Company. Aza is the founder and CEO of Massive Health, and was until recently Creative Lead for Firefox and a founding member of Mozilla Labs.

In his talk Aza stated :

“it’s not about thinking outside the box. It’s about finding the right box to think inside.” 

This really stopped me in my tracks. Too often we are trying to break out of the constraints we find ourselves in rather than looking at all the unique opportunities those constraints offer us. He then challenged us with the statement:

“Constraints create creativity”

How do obstacles change perceptual and conceptual scopes? Aza showed the following as an example:

• Turning an unused crack between two houses into a home
• World’s narrowest house video

Constraints force us to think differently. Apparently it has been found that if you encounter a detour on your way home you are more likely to eat something different for dinner. Constraints change habits.

It is via the constraint that we can overcome mundaneity and banality, it forces us to break our habits. Focused obstacles and questions are just constraints.

So … How do we ask the ‘right’ question?

The way to solve a problem is to know how to ask the right question—turn a difficult question into an easier question by changing the way you ask it. Most of the time we are trying to solve the wrong problem because we don’t understand what the problem is.

After reflecting on this talk I came to the conclusion that it is fabulous to have a mindset that revels in constraints, and embraces challenges that change habits. This would be a great way to approach our schools and our classrooms.

This brings to mind the story of three teachers who embraced their constraints and created a new way to teach their students.

Collaborative teaching in a traditional environment from EDtalks.