The Adjacent Possible

I am "cheating” today for my blog post.  The following post was originally written for the blog that I kept as a superintendent when I was at the Penn-Trafford School District.  I am reissuing the post because of the nature of change in education.  Our MCL journey involves more than adopting simple slogans or instituting a new "program".  True change for our learners (and their learning) occurs when we think about the "adjacent possible".

 I would like to talk today about something that has been percolating in mind since I read Steven Johnson’s latest book, WhereGood Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. The idea is called “the adjacent possible”. This is basically the “space” that exists as a “next step’ in an innovation. In other words, what are the possibilities in the future for a particular innovation or good idea? As Johnson himself has written in an essay in the Wall Street Journal:

“The scientist Stuart Kauffman has a suggestive name for the set of all those first-order combinations: "the adjacent possible." The phrase captures both the limits and the creative potential of change and innovation. ….The adjacent possible is a kind of shadow future, hovering on the edges of the present state of things, a map of all the ways in which the present can reinvent itself…The strange and beautiful truth about the adjacent possible is that its boundaries grow as you explore them. Each new combination opens up the possibility of other new combinations.”

What does this mean for education and the work surrounding Mass Customized Learning? First, I want to state that public education can be a place of innovation. I would further state that public education (and our society) must have innovation in public education if democracy is to survive. Second, I am using innovation as a term that means more than the politicized mumbo-jumbo that Federal programs like Race to the Top have turned the term into. True innovation can only come from a grass roots development of ideas that meet the needs of a local community and school.

The nature of innovation indicates that it must develop slowly and that it builds momentum as good ideas emerge and develop into the “adjacent possible”. Public school systems must start the process of building momentum by developing innovative ideas that address local needs. The first step is to ground decisions in a school district based on local values and needs. This will assure that the decisions reflect local “flavor” Once this is done, a list of issues that are threatening the values of the school district or community must be made. Solutions to address these threats are then developed. This is somewhat simplistic, but I believe that you must start at a basic, grassroots level. Action is important. You cannot move close to the adjacent possible if there is no action.

Acceptable Loss in Education

Jess Millard is an elementary school principal in the Northern Tioga School District.  He has been working hard over the past two years incorporating Mass Customized Learning principles into the structure of his school.  His journey is filled with a lot of hard work and dedication on the part of him and the staff at Clark Wood Elementary School in Elkland, PA.  Recently when I was talking to Jess at the Mid-Atlantic MCL Summit meeting our conversation turned toward the difference in attitude that his school’s MCL journey has created.  It is hard to claim only one difference among many throughout the journey his school has taken, but Jess did mention something that I thought was profound.  He said that his school no longer believes in “acceptable loss”.  Let me explain.

In the industrial age model of learning, there is acceptable loss…much like there is acceptable loss on the factory floor, there has been acceptable loss in our school system.  There have been students that do not quite fit the mold for the industrial age learning system. Those students were marginalized or, in the worse case scenario, allowed to drop out. Unconsciously, educators turned away from the fact that the educational system simply was not meaningful for some students. These students were often allowed to drift away from schooling.  

Acceptable loss is not something that we want to talk about in education.  We use other terms to explain the phenomenon.  We talk about kids that “just don’t get it”; doctors encourage drugs to help kids cope with the system; at times we blame the kids for not learning; we blame out of school factors for student disengagement and the list can go on.  Acceptable loss also occurs with students that finish the system.  Many students stay disengaged throughout their school years but since they stay compliant and do not bother the adults in the system, they are allowed to matriculate through the system.  Jess believes (and I agree with him) that the systemic change required to customize learning for students simply does not allow for acceptable loss.

MCL requires the learning system to change in significant ways.  The most underrated aspect of MCL is that it is radically learner centered. Radically learner centered is a mindset.  A mindset that moves adult convenience to the periphery of the learning system.  A radically learner centered approach allows for possibilities for learners and learning facilitators. Empowering learning facilitators to create lessons and learning experiences that place learners at the center unleashes innovative programs and learning choices. The goal of learning is that a learner will actually learn not just be presented with material!  Anything less is unacceptable.  The system cannot hide behind the excuse that “we taught the lesson, it is up to the student to learn”, or “the learner was not prepared for my lesson, those darn teachers in the lower grades did not prepare them…oh well, I am moving on”. Actions create systemic changes.  When a school recognizes that they will not allow “acceptable loss”, the system of learning quickly changes.

In closing this post I have one simple question for you.  In your school, do you allow acceptable loss?

"This is not a program…you have to change your philosophy!"

The title of this post is a quote that was told to me by a teacher at the Mid Atlantic MCL Consortium summit meeting yesterday.  The Summit on Friday was a huge success.  Jim Parry facilitated a great conversation around the MCL Field Book in the morning while in the afternoon summit attendees participated in an EduCamp.  I noticed a lot of cross pollination of ideas as educators from different school districts shared their successes and setbacks in their MCL journey with each other.

“This is not a program…you have to change your philosophy” perfectly encapsulates the difficulty some educators may experience with Mass Customized Learning.  At the onset of the Summit yesterday we talked about the two facts: first, that MCL is not a program but a journey. A journey toward restructuring the educational system.  Secondly,  MCL is radically learner centered.  The ramifications of of these two facts require deep reflection.  For example, if the learner is at the center of all we do in education, then how does that impact what we take for granted in education?  An example that I use frequently is that of building a master schedule for high school or elementary school. Suddenly, the purpose changes from a process that is for adult convenience (a master schedule) to one that is truly learner centered.  This is just one way that a radically learner centered approach significantly changes the structures and standard operating procedures of education.

There are three fundamental questions that must be grappled with when reflecting on the education system becoming radically learner centered:

·      What is your belief about learning? 

·      What is your belief about teaching? 

·      What is the purpose of education? 

How a teacher answers these questions (within the context of what it means to be “radically learner centered”) significantly impacts their foundational philosophy about education and their career.  Are they simply a vessel for technically correct instruction delivered appropriately?  Or, are teachers an integral part of designing learning experiences that stretch the intellectual development of their students?  The question becomes, are teachers technocrats or professionals with deep knowledge of their students motivations and learning goals?

Teachers have become technocrats.  There is a belief that if teachers are given the correct “tools” to use at the proper time within an appropriate context then they have succeeded in helping students learn.  Schools of education, professional development directed at teachers, and teacher evaluation systems encourage the technocratic vision of a teacher’s job.  This vision of teacher responsibility prevents teachers from reflecting on deeper questions of practice and purpose.  After all, a teacher can say, “If I have this set of tools to use in this situation (and I employ these tools) then the responsibility now rests on the students to learn”.  A technocratic-centric interpretation of the teaching profession is not sufficient in our current industrial age model of education and not compatible with Mass Customized Learning.  Being technocratically proficient places the teacher at the center of the education process.  Because the learning experience for the student is predicated on adult convenience and NOT on crafting learning experiences that are meaningful for the learner the system is teacher-centric.  Letting their ego not dictate their student’s learning  is the crux of the change in philosophy that is required by educators.

Adults in the system must let go of their ego.  Learning is not about their knowledge of content or their use of the newest instructional strategy.  Although both aspects are important for learning to occur, they are not the starting point for the learning experience.  The starting point is the learner.  How can a learning facilitator (teacher) craft a learning experience that will help a learner achieve?  Transitioning away from a teacher-centric view of education requires a reset on the teachers philosophy of education and learning.  Grappling with these questions is daunting for educators.  What one discovers about themselves and their profession may be frightening.  However, the simple truth is that for our profession to move forward and change for the benefit of learners, then these uncomfortable moments must exist.