Friday, July 15, 2016

Education Redesigned, But Will It Last?

Emily Pilloton’s 2010 Ted Talk entitled “Teaching Design For Change,” recounts a design job that turned into a complete life change for a pair of designers and a rural county. Her design company’s core philosophy was based on communal design implemented to create a difference in communities.  In 2009, Emily and her partner were hired by the new Superintendent to help revamp some classrooms in a failing school system in Bertie County in rural North Carolina. They created an outdoor play space that could also be used as an innovative, interactive outdoor classroom. They created a computer lab that was aesthetically more appealing to students than what Ms. Pilloton called the “kill and drill” testing facilities normally found in the county’s schools.  The new labs could also be used for computer based instruction. They also launched an awareness and support campaign to provide every student with a computer and access to the internet, but that was just the beginning.



The design job’s scope increased to include Ms. Pilloton and her partner creating a year-long, high school curriculum where students would create a design project aimed at improving their community.  The projects were a return to the hands-on skill learning of yesteryear’s shop class, but with a different target audience and goal.  Instead of shop classes aimed at the less academic-minded, students enrolled in “Studio H” were charged with building skills to use in college and the work force.  The students were to implement their design through their own labor thereby learning practical skills as well as developing teamwork, leadership, analysis, design and critical thinking skills.  The student’s first project was to create an open air farmer’s market.  The goal was to create a legacy of pride and giving back in the community.



The timing of this project was interesting to me because of its relation to the roll out of the new Common Core standards. I was struck how Studio H, as well as the redesigned classrooms, seemed in concert with the Common Core objectives.  If Common Core was to emphasize the development of critical, creative and analytical thinking as well as de-emphasize the “teaching to the bubble” created by No Child Left Behind’s test score mandates, then Ms. Pilloton’s projects seemed to be in step with the new age.  But, the design team was hired in 2009 which was a year before Common Core was first adopted and several years before full implementation of the standards were put into practice. Recently, North Carolina passed legislation to “review and replace” Common Core.   It remains to be seen if they will do away with the standards in the future completely. 

A Google search revealed that the forward thinking Superintendent Dr. Z, who initially orchestrated this endeavor, left the district for another job in Texas and died in 2014.  Ms. Pilloton (despite her proclaimed love for Bertie County) returned to California and now conducts her renamed “Project H” at a Charter School in Berkley. The Info tab on Project H’s website says that they have kept in touch with all 600 of their students and that 92% of their graduates have gone on to college.  

Could the story of Studio H be a harbinger for the fate of Common Core?  I hope not.  Like the old Christian parable, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he will never be hungry,” I believe that we should be teaching our kids how to think, not what to think.  If we give them practical, analytical and critical thinking skills, they will be able to apply them to anything they wish to achieve. 

Clearly, if the statistics are true, Studio H was a tremendous success, but then why did it retreat to California?  Why isn’t there evidence of the program still existing in Bertie County’s high schools?  Sometimes good ideas are big.  Something big ideas need time to bloom into reality.  My question is will Common Core like Studio H (with its Common Core-esque curriculum) be a big idea that takes root or will it whither and fade away before its lasting beauty can truly be revealed?




Photo:  Meet Emily Pilloton, ThinkRevolution Product Evangelist | Lenovo

Sources: 

Pilloton, E. (2010, July). Teaching design for change [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/emily_pilloton_teaching_design_for_change (TED Talk, 16:43)



Sanchez, Claudio (2015, January 14)  North Carolina rethinks the common core [article] http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/01/14/371656747/north-carolina-rethinks-the-common-core

http://projecthdesign.org/info/

4 comments:

  1. I appreciate that you took the time to follow up on the "story." You point out a very important issue--sustainability of educational practices. Like make commercial products that disappear in a few weeks to a few years when put in market, many innovative projects and programs do not last long in schools. It can be: (1) novelty is gone; (2) funding dries out; (3) personnel change; (4) quality changes as quantity increases; and so on. A lot of time, effort, and money are wasted. So at the end of the day, we hope to see the wisdom we garner from successful projects. I think one viable way is to establish archives of effective practices AND actively use them (instead of storing them in a computer, for example).

    R Chen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your feedback. It seems that educators are responsible for retaining and implementing the best of what the "edusales" industry, innovators and theorists have to offer. I will try my best to stay current and curate the best of what I discover.

      Delete
  2. Thank you for your interesting blog post. I found your analysis thought-provoking, especially the link to Common Core. I have similar concerns about new designs for education and often wonder how many new, "great" theories we will be exposed to in our teaching careers, and how much say we will have in choosing what to implement directly into our classrooms. As Dr. Chen mentioned, there are several reasons why programs do not last for the long-term. I like the suggestion he gave about storing "archives of effective practices AND actively use them." Unfortunately, I can see the later being an obstacle for many teachers who have a lot to manage on their plates already. Regarding another one of your questions of why the program organizers "retreated to California": According to their website at http://www.projecthdesign.org/news/, it looks like they are still implementing their Studio H idea in the form of camps, but I wonder if they are still spreading their idea and attempting to implement their design in schools. It was unclear to me on their website what the cost was per child, but I wonder how they can reduce the cost of implementing such a program to make it more doable for rural, lower income areas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete