july 16 2013 draft doors technology and the 21st century one...

DOORS CONCEPT DISCUSSION OUTLINE

Technology and the 21st Century One-‐Room Schoolhouse

DRAFT: 7/7/13 3:42 PM

This Concept Paper is designed for internal discussion within the Consensus for Change organization and among a small group of school district superintendents about an experiment in public education to (1) recapture the values of an early form of public school (the “one-room schoolhouse”) and (2) to re-imagine the concept with the advanced technology tools available to today’s (and tomorrow’s) educators and students. The Paper intends the concept to be consistent with present state laws and State School Board policies, but it is not an initiative being led by state officials.

This is not a government document.

Technology and the 21st Century One-‐Room Schoolhouse of 36

© Cornerstone Foundation 2013

Contents

Introduction to DOORS: the Digitally Optimized One Room Schoolhouse .................. 4 Proof of Concept.................................................................................................................................... 4 A Brief History of the One Room Schoolhouse......................................................................... 5 The African American Post-‐Slavery Experience................................................................. 6

21st Century One-‐Room Schoolhouses ........................................................................................ 7 Pros ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Cons .....................................................................................................................................................10

Digital Optimization: Linking the One-‐Room Schoolhouse to Advanced Technology....................................................................................................................................................................10 DOORS As A Disruptive Innovation ............................................................................................12 What Is “Digitally Optimized” .......................................................................................................12 “Digital” ..............................................................................................................................................13 “Optimize”.........................................................................................................................................13

Training the “Teacher 2.0” for the One-‐Room Schoolhouse ............................................14 Implementation and Operational Challenges.........................................................................17 Designing the Schoolhouse; a Creative Opportunity...........................................................18 Options: Not Just a Free Standing Building ........................................................................18 Options: Size and number of Teachers.................................................................................19

DOORS and Community Resources.............................................................................................19 DOORS Is Permitted Under Michigan’s Education Laws ...................................................21 Potential Applications of the One-‐Room Schoolhouse Concept.....................................23 Technology and Learning Styles Discussion...........................................................................24 President Obama............................................................................................................................24 Concepts from Governor’s Education Message ................................................................24 Michigan State Board of Education........................................................................................25 School Aid Rewrite Project ........................................................................................................25

Learning style concepts: ..................................................................................................................25 Implementing DOORS.......................................................................................................................27 Legal Analysis..................................................................................................................................27 Special Education...........................................................................................................................27 Technology Assessment..............................................................................................................28 Community Assessment .............................................................................................................28 Educator Support...........................................................................................................................28 Research and Assessment..........................................................................................................28 Budgeting and Finance................................................................................................................28 Schoolhouse Design ......................................................................................................................29 Funding the Pilot............................................................................................................................29

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................30 Appendix 1 Budget Elements ........................................................................................................30



Appendix 2 Non-‐instructional Functions.................................................................................30 Appendix 3 Technology Notes ......................................................................................................30 Appendix 4 Teacher 2.0 Notes ......................................................................................................30 Appendix 5 Governance Alternatives ........................................................................................30 Appendix 6: Disruptive Innovation ............................................................................................31



Introduction to DOORS: the Digitally Optimized One Room Schoolhouse The DOORS Pilot Project is composed of Four Key Elements:

• “One Room Schoolhouse,” a modern incarnation of the values of the iconic one room schoolhouse that educated generations of Americans.

• “Digitally Optimized,” an experimental pilot Michigan public school designed and operated to provide teachers and learners with continuously improving technology tools to enhance teaching and learning.

• “Teacher 2.0,”* a new class of professional educator who possesses not only the best of present teacher skills and education, but also advanced understanding and skill in two additional areas: use of learning technologies and deep understanding of the impact of learning styles on student performance.

• “Learning Style Implementation Strategies.” A set of strategies involving computer-assisted learning, flipped classrooms, and other emerging innovations in a self contained small school with students from grades K-6 in a single learning environment.

Proof of Concept DOORS is a Pilot Project, not a reinvention of Michigan’s public school system. Because of its small size, ability to be replicated, and scalability, DOORS may be able to advance the infusion of new learning approaches and new technologies into existing school environments.

Wikipedia defines a proof of concept (POC) or a proof of principle as the realization of a certain method or idea to demonstrate its feasibility, or a demonstration in principle, whose purpose is to verify that some concept or theory has the potential of being used. A proof of concept is usually small and may or may not be complete.

A pilot project refers to an initial roll out of a system into production, targeting a limited scope of the intended final solution. The scope may be limited by the number of users who can access the system, the business processes affected, the business partners involved, or other restrictions as appropriate to the domain. The purpose of a pilot project is to test, often in a production environment.

The DOORS pilot experiment is a small scale preliminary study conducted in order to evaluate feasibility, time, cost, adverse events, and effect size (statistical variability) in an attempt to predict and improve upon the study design prior to a full-scale implementation.

* “2.0” is this context does not mean a C grade on a 4 point scale. 2.0 is used in the software context where version 2.0 is a substantial upgrade and improvement over an earlier version.



Although pilot experiments have a well-established tradition in public action, their usefulness as a strategy for change will likely be questioned. It will be argued that extrapolation from a pilot study to large-scale strategy cannot be assumed to be possible, partly due to the exceptional resources and favorable conditions that often accompany a pilot study.

A Brief History of the One Room Schoolhouse The “One Room Schoolhouse” is an iconic image of early America. It conjures up both the challenges of rural and frontier life and the importance of education in the life of the country. Importantly, the one-room schoolhouse also plays a significant role in the education of African Americans during the immediate post-slavery period.

The Clarke Historical Libraryi at Central Michigan University has a 5-part exhibit devoted to “One Room Schools:”

Several generations of Michigan children received their education in one-room schools. In these small buildings students and their teachers learned together. They shared a unique experience characterized by camaraderie and personal challenge. Despite their many successes, one-room schools were a passing phase in American education. Dwindling rural populations and a move to improve childhood education through consolidated schools, ended the days of the one-room school.

According to Wikipedia:ii

All the New England colonies required towns to set up schools, and many did so. In 1642 the Massachusetts Bay Colony made "proper" education compulsory; other New England colonies followed. Similar statutes were adopted in other colonies in the 1640s and 1650s. The schools were all male, with few facilities for girls. In the 18th century, "common schools," appeared; students of all ages were under the control of one teacher in one room. Although they were publicly supplied at the local (town) level, they were not free, and instead were supported by tuition or "rate bills."

Canada, too, had experience with the one room schoolhouse:iii

Imagine a time when you didn't have to go to school - when your education was often regarded by your family as secondary to helping out on the farmstead. Imagine a school day without electricity or plumbing, where drinking water had to be brought from a neighbouring farm and the washroom was a hole in the ground in a shed across the



schoolyard. Imagine sharing a classroom with students of all ages, with brothers, sisters and cousins, and being taught year after year by the same teacher. It seems a far cry from the modern school world of today, but as recently as 50 years ago it was the reality of the rural education system, which was so dependent upon the one room schoolhouse.

Michigan’s Greenfield Village has a working one-room schoolhouse as part of the Greenfield experience.iv

The Michigan Historical Center of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has extensive material on Michigan’s history of one-room schoolhouses,v including:

One-room district schools (often called "little red schoolhouses" even though the buildings were not red) were the centers of late 19th century education in rural Michigan and smaller communities. By the 1880s most of these had been replaced by newer frame, stone, or brick buildings heated by wood stoves. Larger cities were constructing large multi-floor school buildings with central heating

In 1880 school buildings in Michigan varied widely in quality, size, and type of material. That year there were 6,400 schoolhouses in Michigan. Their material of construction was recorded as follows: stone: 75; brick: 816; frame: 4,949; log: 560. The buildings could house 446,029 students and had an estimated property value of $8,977,844.00.

The Michigan One-Room Schoolhouse Associationvi is the only organization of its kind in the United States. The Association coordinates an ongoing survey and inventory of all existing one-room schools in Michigan. It serves as a clearinghouse of communications and information for historians, historical societies, and other programs involved in the preservation, interpretation, and appreciation of one-room schoolhouses.

The African American Post-‐Slavery Experience

The Education of African Americans After the Civil Warvii:

After the war, much of the South experienced high debt. Thus, the government was hesitant to fund certain programs but did raise taxes in order to appropriate money for public education. Proponents of this had various rationalizations. First, throughout the post-war South there were much lower literacy and school attendance rates among blacks and whites, as compared to the North.



Furthermore, Southern families grew in size, meaning there were more children to send to school. Finally, given the hard economic times, the Southern states struggled to pay teachers and upkeep school buildings unless they taxed. Not everyone favored these taxes, though, and as McClure wrote, it caused "our state to disagree."

Before the 1860s most of the South had only a rudimentary public school system. After the Civil War, southern states ultimately created a dual educational system based on race. These separate schools were anything but equal.

The Quest for Educationviii:

Yet, the commitment of African American teachers and parents to education never faltered. They established a tradition of educational self-help and were among the first southerners to campaign for universal public education. They welcomed the support of the Freedmen’s Bureau, white charities, and missionary societies. Black communities, many desperately poor, also dug deep into their own resources to build and maintain schools that met their needs and reflected their values.

The Freedmen’s Bureau was established in 1865 to aid formerly enslaved African Americans. Its limited resources never met the tremendous demand for education from African Americans across the South.

To meet the enormous desire for education among African Americans, northern charities helped black communities start thousands of new schools in the South.

21st Century One-‐Room Schoolhouses The one room schoolhouse exists today. According to the Wall Street Journalix:

In the U.S., 237 public schools had only one teacher, according to 2009 federal data, down from 463 in 1999. Most are located in remote areas. And while conditions are far from the rough-hewn rooms of "Little House on the Prairie," such schools often lack the amenities typically associated with high-quality schooling, such as computer labs, libraries, sports, art, music, nurses and psychologists.

WSJ reporter Sue Shellenbarger looked at the few hundred remaining one-room schools still operating in the U.S. and found “many lacking almost every modern educational amenity thought to be crucial, from classroom computers to in-person instruction.”



Both the frontier schoolhouse and it modern incarnation offer intangible assets that may be unavailable in larger “traditional” schools, including:

• Students often build close, positive relationships with teachers. • Pupils in mixed-age groups help each other learn. • Parents and neighbors tend to get so deeply involved that the school becomes the

center of community life.

One-room schools, on the other hand, cannot be expected to assume the broad range of functions imposed on school traditional districts; they must be focused on one service -- educating the students in the school.

And a one-room school implies another significant limitation – one teacher. How can a lone teacher undertake as many as 30 daily lesson plans, interacting with students, along with grading papers and planning exercise and enrichment?

And can a teacher also be the school principal, superintendent, business manager, property manager, chief custodian, and attendance officer? Clearly not, if we assume that each of these specialized functions must be incorporated in a one-room schoolhouse.

A series of snapshots of modern one-room schoolhouses is included in Lessons From the One-Room Schoolhouse, by Sue Shellenbarger:

He starts the school day by leading his students, ages 5 through 10, in a half hour of Zumba dance or other exercise. With the help of two aides, Mr. Teter then cycles small groups of one or two grades at a time through 20- to 30-minute lessons. Between lessons, the students practice skills or do homework or learning games at their desks. Fridays are reserved for field trips to swimming lessons and arts or museum programs, plus time at a gym—led, again, by Mr. Teter, a former high-school coach.

The Decker community—about 100 people—plays a big role. Everyone is invited to back-to-school night and other events—even if they don't have children. The school's bus driver deposits a newspaper published by the kids in all the mailboxes along her 150-mile daily route. And last year's Christmas pageant drew a standing-room-only audience of 60. "The school becomes a community center," Mr. Teter says.

At tiny Mist Elementary School in Mist, Ore., teacher Joanie Jones will welcome 23 students in kindergarten through fifth grade next week, with the help of one aide who doubles as custodian and a small army of volunteers. Mist Elementary lacks the reading instructors or lunch,



music or physical-education programs offered by big schools. Yet Principal Aaron Miller says its students' test scores are higher than average in the 593-student district. More than 95% of third- through fifth-grade students at Mist Elementary met or exceeded state achievement standards in reading and math in the 2009-2010 year, the latest data available—well above the statewide average of 78.5% in math and 81% in reading.

Kimberly Scott, who runs a marketing business out of her home, volunteers weekly, teaching music and such subjects as science or cooking when needed. She taught students how to make rock crystals and electromagnets. For a lesson on the Pilgrims, Ms. Scott, who is among the eight regular volunteers at the school, taught them to cook traditional New England foods.

Here are some of the Pros and Cons identified by Shellenberger’s research:

Pros

• Everybody helps each other out. • Individualized lesson plans for each student. • Teacher is able to include students' personal interests. • Volunteers play a critical role:

o Volunteers may take aside half the students at a time for music or physical education.

o Others may help individuals with reading or writing. o An energetic volunteer taught a weekly "Mad Science" class. The

volunteer drew the kids into hands-on science projects and the special attention helped motivate students.

• Test scores of students can be "very competitive with the top end" of average scores in an area's elementary schools.

• Parents are so involved that "it's almost a throwback to the time when schools were an extension of the family."

• Students at one-room schools learn to work independently while the teachers are with others.

• Older students can reinforce their own learning if they help younger ones with lessons.

• The Search Institute, a Minneapolis nonprofit, has compiled lists of 40 "developmental assets" kids need to thrive, such as safety and family support, based on 800 academic studies and surveys of three million students, says Gene Roehlkepartain, an executive vice president. About a quarter of these assets involve forming close bonds with adults outside the home, such as encouraging teachers and neighbors. These are opportunities tiny schools tend to offer, he says.

• A student recalls how, years ago, neighbors and friends packed the school for her performance as a Christmas elf. "Everybody in the community came, whether



they knew anybody in the school or not. It made me feel important, like, 'Wow, all these people actually came to see me,' " she says. "It kind of makes you feel good about yourself."

Cons

• A bad teacher can ruin a year. • Some past students say the lack of sports or music programs put them so far

behind their urban peers that they sat out those activities in high school. • The transition to bigger schools can be difficult. Adjusting to junior high can be

tough because of cliques in the larger school.

Digital Optimization: Linking the One-‐Room Schoolhouse to Advanced Technology An article “Returning to the One-Room Schoolhouse”x by Bethany M. Baxter was an early attempt to address the technology opportunities for small schools.

Baxter’s view was that: We will never fully optimize our investment in technology unless we stand back and completely redesign our approaches to children in the classroom. Before we rush to embrace technology, we should look not at teaching but at the ways in which children learn and how technology can enhance that learning process.

She recognized that colleges of education do not spearhead technological reforms based on student learning patterns. Until recently, most colleges of education used little or no technology in their own teaching. She claims that, “in fact, colleges of education have been the last academic area to integrate technology into the teaching/learning process.”

The standard curriculum has continued to include a myriad of methods courses, taught in a traditional fashion, with limited application of information technology in the general learning environment.

Colleges of education concentrate on the teacher rather than the learner. When an approach does not reach all children and prove to be universally applicable, it is systematically discarded even though it may have been effective with many students. As a result, unlike other disciplines, education is not an inclusive body of knowledge that has grown over the years. Instead, educational theory continually reinvents itself, disregarding and forgetting earlier approaches.

Some educators have learned that these failed "magic bullets" are actually techniques to address different learning styles, and there is a need for multiple approaches in any classroom. These educators reject the concept that there is a single "best" approach (such



as those between parents who debate whole language approaches to reading versus phonics or social promotion versus retention).

Baxter posited that technology could permit a new approach to a child who is failing; it can allow that child to move on with his or her class and still study unmastered concepts/lessons. It offers a better alternative than having a child spend an entire year covering material in the same fashion and at the same speed in which it was originally presented.

Baxter articulated the approach being advanced in the DOORS Project:

Technology offers the potential for remarkably efficient individualized learning, but this learning model is by no means a new concept. Nineteenth-century American schools, generally one-room schoolhouses, featured students of many ages and skill levels working on a variety of lessons in a single classroom. Based on the experiences of my grandmother, who taught in a one room schoolhouse; my father and aunts and uncles, who attended these schools; and my own experience in 1962, teaching in a rural high school where the students had attended one-room elementary schools through seventh grade, I am convinced that the one-room schoolhouse model meets the needs of individual students in a way that our modern schools typically do not.

During the days of the one-room schoolhouse, a teacher—with one year of normal school and no other adult support—was able to effectively reach 30 children ranging in age from 5 to 16 because each child's education was based on an individualized lesson plan. Mastery learning was the norm; children did not move on until they mastered the topic they were studying. Progress may have been slow or even non-existent, but no one expected children simply to move at a pace set by the teacher. Today, technology gives teachers the ability to again offer every child an individualized learning plan and to implement mastery learning using an abundance of resources. It allows teachers to find materials that motivate individual students, to have those materials immediately at hand when they are needed, and to devise activities that match students' unique learning styles.

Technology can bring back the model of the one-room schoolhouse in a way that will allow instructors to reduce failure and teach in different ways in the same classroom. However, this model will fail if teachers do not identify



how individual children learn best; have a great enough understanding of the content area to be able to use multiple approaches in one classroom; or become familiar with the many learning resources available through CD-ROMs, interactive software, and the World Wide Web.

DOORS As A Disruptive Innovation The fact that the DOORS concept can be used to implement new learning technologies without disrupting an entire school district may make it a useful tool for progressive school authorities and teachers to try new ideas.

At the Michigan Governor's Education Summit on April 22, 2013 Peter Hutchinson, of Accenture, and Curtis Johnson, of Education Evolving, made a presentation on “10 Disruptive Innovations That Will Put the Horsepower We Need into Our Education Engine.”

Several of the conclusions and proposals from their presentation, summarized below, may be applicable to the DOORS concept:

• The achievement gap is permanent unless learning is radically personalized.

• Every student has an Individual Learning Plan that links learning targets, learning style and learning resources over time.

• Every Teacher and Student/Family Knows and gets the Best Lessons; Crucial to implementing the Common Core successfully

• Tech enabled learning platform + Tech enabled teachers guiding = Learning happening any time, any place and any speed.

• Students/ Families bundle the education services that are best for them. Educators and others spend their time delivering the services at which they are the very best.

• Leadership that Makes a Difference:

o Control through personal responsibility/ ownership.

o Align Authority and Accountability.

o Trust the teachers - labor can be management.

o Trust the parents –customers can be owners.

A broader look at Disruptive Innovation is at Appendix 6.

What Is “Digitally Optimized” The term “digitally optimized” is an easy term to understand; implementing it will be the challenge.



“Digital”

As used in this Concept Discussion Paper, we use the term “digital” as involving or relating to the use of computer technology, e.g., "the digital revolution." It is also used in the broad sense of bringing technology tools to the traditional public school teaching model. Many academics, educators and policy makers talk about developments including:

• Blended learning models, where students receive instruction from high quality online educators, along with face-to-face instruction from high quality classroom teachers.

• Innovative learning tools. • Creating a robust virtual learning environment. • Innovative technology. • Innovation and educational entrepreneurship must be cultivated through improved

models of instruction. • State Board of Education: Support “any time, any place, any way, any pace”

initiatives that help schools to personalize learning for every student.xi • State Board of Education: Increase access to quality distance and blended learning

options.xii

The DOORS concept incorporates a deep level of technology in all aspects of the one-room school, not just teaching techniques. Public education is a highly regulated public service with layers and layers of laws, rules, regulations, reports and oversight that are an essential part of the system regardless of the size of the school.

Clearly the 19th Century one-room schoolhouse teacher did not face the mountains of red tape facing today’s teachers. But today’s school authorities have rapidly improving technologies that can help them keep up with the government-imposed demands, if properly organized and supported. That is what we mean by “optimized.”

“Optimize”

The DOORS concept uses the term “optimize” as meaning “to make as effective, perfect, or as useful as possible” and “to make the best of.”

This will be a significant challenge. Technology in society and in our schools is changing rapidly. But public schools are not well equipped financially or administratively to respond to the rapid technological changes taking place. What is optimal today probably will be obsolete or at least outdated within 2-3 years.

To be successful, a DOORS school organization needs at least the following:

• A financing and organizational model that builds in the intensive continuing technology training for one-room schoolteachers.

• A budgeting model that does not see technology as an occasional capital cost when equipment gets outdated, but a fundamental part of the continuing school



strategy. “Optimized” will change each year and technology enhancements and change must be an integral part of the school model.

• Strong back room support. By design the DOORS teacher spends most of his or her time with students, not with administrative matters. But a technology intensive and complicated system requires skilled, available personnel to keep the shop running.

A digitally optimized one-room schoolhouse cannot be a standalone facility. Its success depends on integration with a technology infrastructure. A supportive district could provide this infrastructure, multiple districts working together, an educational management organization working with a group of charter schools, or even another public entity with a flexible infrastructure.

Initiatives by the Michigan Department of Education to treat educational technology “As a Service” and provide an educational technology infrastructure at the highest level of service, and at lowest possible cost will be important to implementing DOORS.

MDOE’s Bruce Umpstead addressed this:

Digital Content and Assessments: a device in every kid's hands and surplus broadband will free schools to think digitally, to stop pouring money into antiquated resources like textbooks, and to start using and producing rich, mobile education media that will truly transform education. Digital content will energize and enable anywhere, anytime, any way learning in schools and create the next generation of knowledge workers that are both consuming and producing content and leveraging "Crowd Accelerated Innovation" for their own education. On the assessment side, much is being done on the national level to develop online assessments, but Michigan can do more. With smart investments, the State can move all assessments online, lower annual development and delivery costs, and add instructional value by returning results to schools within weeks, not months. Online tests can and should be on-demand and allow students to take and retake short-interval assessments and progress at their own pace (or conversely, not progress until they demonstrate mastery).

Training the “Teacher 2.0” for the One-‐Room Schoolhouse Creating and successfully operating the digitally optimized one-room schoolhouse will require a teacher with extraordinary talent and a range of skills that few teachers possess today.

This “Teacher 2.0” must not only be a great teacher in the traditional sense, he or she must acquire deep knowledge and experience with technology on a continuing basis.



The term Teacher 2.0 is frequently used in education discussions. For example, an interesting video is “The Myth of the Teacher 2.0” with Speaker: Roxanna Elden, Hialeah High School Teacher.xiii

Ideally, the DOORS Teacher 2.0 would have skill and training in all three areas of:

• Content area knowledge and skill in integrating technology into the learning process.

• Ability to access the solid body of knowledge on learning processes from the fields of psychology and the neurosciences.

• Knowledge and skill in implementing organizational changes.

It would be a serious mistake to design and implement the DOORS concept without laying the groundwork for the necessary Teacher 2.0 training and development.

The DOORS Program is designed to take a leadership role in integrating technology into the teaching/learning process and provide a platform for teacher education that moves from teaching about teaching to teaching about learning—from promoting techniques for managing classes to promoting techniques for managing the learning of the individual child, and from focusing on how to teach a subject to identifying all the approaches and materials available to help students learn that subject.

As Baxter argues in “Returning to the One-Room Schoolhouse:”

The greater community must move from associating content with time (thus expecting students to learn regardless of how the material is presented) to expecting mastery from individual students. It must place the responsibility on teachers to provide students with appropriate learning experiences. Utilizing a collaborative approach, colleges of education can lead public schools by showing how technology will allow the return to the era of the one-room schoolhouse, when every student had an individualized lesson plan.

The specialized training required for the Teacher 2.0s in the DOORS schools can be met, in part, through state and federal funding for professional development:

MCL §380.1525(1). State and federal funds appropriated by the legislature to support professional development and education may be used for the following:

(a) Professional development programs for administrators and teachers. These programs shall emphasize… site-based management… instructional leadership; and the use of data and assessment instruments to improve teaching and learning for all pupils.



MCL §380.1531(1). Except as provided in this act, the superintendent of public instruction shall determine the requirements for and issue all licenses and certificates for teachers, including preprimary teachers…and an endorsement of teachers for teaching a foreign language in an elementary grade in the public schools of the state.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this act, the superintendent of public instruction shall only issue a teaching certificate to a person who has passed appropriate examinations as follows:

(b) For an elementary level teaching certificate, has passed the basic skills examination and, if it is available, the elementary certification examination, and has passed the appropriate available subject area examination for each subject area, if any, in which he or she applies to be certified.

Bruce Umpstead of the MDOE addressed some aspects of this:

Teacher Capacity. Imagine the first day of school when every student enters school with an Internet-ready device and enough broadband access to search and find all the information needed to “ace” that day’s multiple-choice exam with an application that has automatically written the research paper due Friday. By and large, our teachers are not prepared to teach in a fully integrated, digital learning environment, a one-to-one environment with unencumbered access to a World Wide Web of learning resources. This is an environment where the students know more than the teacher with it comes to the tools of learning. At the same time we are building out our IT infrastructure, we have to invest in our teachers as human capital to fully leverage the technology.



Implementation and Operational Challenges

Think of a DOORS school as two overlapping circles that together create the 21st Century one-room schoolhouse:

• Circle A: One small or building (or room within a larger structure) that is focused solely on learning by and development of a cohort of pupils under the guidance of a teacher and his or her assistants with access to a wide range of teaching and learning tools.

• Circle B: The “back room” of the school that provides administrative support, technology and building maintenance, human resources functions, testing and assessments, transportation, rules compliance, government reporting, financial controls, and all the other non-teaching requirements for operating a public school.

Since DOORS is designed to be “digitally optimized,” school authorities may want to experiment with a “Virtual Back Room” to efficiently and economically serving a number of community-based DOORS schools.

Bruce Umpstead, of the Michigan Department of Education, in an August 29, 2011 paper addressed this issue:

Consolidation of Business, Data, and Technology Services: There is great potential to reduce the cost of schooling in Michigan by consolidating “back office” operations, including student information systems, instructional data systems, and business accounting



software. The lack of consistent Internet connectivity has slowed this progress, but the State lacks clear policy and incentives for moving this consolidation forward. By consolidating business, data, and technology services to a regional level, Michigan increase the quality of services while reducing cost and increasing the use of data in making decisions.

Designing the Schoolhouse; a Creative Opportunity One aspect of traditional school systems that has been changing is the configuration of classrooms. For at least part of their education, most students no longer have to line up in rows with 30 (or more) students listening to a lecture by a teacher. Computer labs, flipped classrooms and many other teaching techniques are frequently being used. But these techniques generally must fit into the rigid grade structure used by most schools and reinforced by federal and state regulations and data systems.

The DOORS school, as a one-room schoolhouse, will of necessity be required to be designed and outfitted differently. This creates both a challenge and an opportunity for creative architects, designers and educators to work cooperatively to create this new “digitally optimized” school environment.

The potential for creative assistance from the architecture profession is reflected in this Message from the Dean of the University of Michigan School of Architecture:

The fields of architecture and urban planning are poised to undergo dramatic changes….

Technological changes paired with economic forces are significantly altering the construction of buildings and the practice of architecture. Conventional techniques will no longer suffice if architecture is to remain a viable venture. In addition, architecture’s role in the construction of culture has become associated with elite societies and, as a result, has remained outside of recent dramatic cultural shifts.

Monica Ponce de Leon, Dean and Eliel Saarinen Collegiate Professor of Architecture and Urban Planning (http://taubmancollege.umich.edu/about/deans_message/)

Options: Not Just a Free Standing Building

The DOORS Project is based on the iconic image of the 19th Century one-room schoolhouse with 21st Century technology.

But, the concept may be equally applicable in other situations such as:



• School within a school. Great Schoolsxiv discusses “multiplex” or co-located educational environments in a single building, sharing what is considered a state-of-the art facility, each school has its own principal, teaching staff, and unique theme.

• Inclusion of a one-room schoolhouse within an existing residential facility.

• A school using space in a municipal library or other public facility with excess space.

Options: Size and number of Teachers

The iconic one-room schoolhouse on which the DOORS concept is based is the small, 30 or so student, one teacher model. But Salman Khan, founder of the Khan Academy and author of “The One World School House” has this vision:

I would also propose maintaining student/teacher ratios, but merging classrooms together. Now that students can all learn at their own pace, we no longer need the artificial separation of classrooms that are designed for students to listen to a lecture from one teacher.

***

But rather than three or four separate classes of twenty-five kinds and one lonesome teacher, I would suggest a class of seventy-five to a hundred students with three or four teachers.

***

Giving teachers more professional companionship and real-time support would make their work less stressful. As in almost every other field, teachers would not be able to observe and mentor each other. Younger teachers would learn from more experienced ones. Older teachers would absorb energy and fresh ideas from newer ones. Everyone would benefit from being less isolated.

DOORS and Community Resources Because of its smaller size, a DOORS school may have greater opportunities and the need to participate with other community and educational institutions, including:

• Libraries. Under Michigan’s constitution, libraries are educational institutions and have always had a close relationship with public schools. While the 1940s and 1950s “bookmobile” is no longer around, the modern local library is an important community resource where its helps to bridge the digital divide. In



addition, the Michigan Electronic Library (“MeL”) is a statewide resource accessible to all citizens.

• Museums. From world-renowned institutions like the Cranbrook Institute for Science and the Detroit Institute of Art to local history museums, museums and other cultural institutions serve school children of all ages. And as with education, our cultural institutions are rapidly expanding their digital outreach to serve broader audiences in new ways. For example, Cranbrook Educational Community has this program that would be available to DOORS schools:

Continuing its long held tradition as a leading center of education, science and art, Cranbrook Institute of Science and Cranbrook Academy of Art and Art Museum co-present Cranbrook Art and Science on the Go, funded by The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation.

Cranbrook Art and Science on the Go provides free cross-curricular programs that allow students to investigate items from the art and science museum collections as well as hands-on experiences that develop an understanding of connections between art and science. All programs are closely aligned with Michigan Grade Level Content Expectation Benchmarks for Science, Social Studies, and Visual Arts.

Middle schools in northern Michigan are eligible for no-cost, grant-funded outreach programs, with preference given to rural schools. As well as supporting schools in achieving higher standardized science test scores, Cranbrook Art and Science on the Go fosters an understanding of the convergence of art and science that will help create inquisitive cross-disciplinary thinkers. [http://science.cranbrook.edu/for-teachers/asog/about]

• Parks and Community Recreation Facilities. A DOORS school is designed to be integral part of its community, not a self-contained island. Whether in a rural, suburban, or urban setting, the DOORS school and its students should experience and be part of the community, particularly its outdoors. Parks are often a place where young learners first understand the wonder of science by seeing the abundant life in parks. Community facilities designed for school children may also provide easily accessible facilities to enhance the educational experience in the school.

• Public Safety Buildings. Crime, violence and personal safety of students and teachers are a fact of life in many urban schools. For example, there are public schools where students are given sticks to fend off feral dogs that endanger children on the way to and from school. Given the much smaller footprint of a DOORS facility (compared with a large urban school), it may be possible to design and locate a DOORS facility within or adjacent to an existing police or fire facility or other government service building.



DOORS Is Permitted Under Michigan’s Education Laws The DOORS concept is built on the existing structure of public education in Michigan and appears to require no changes in the school laws.

As provided in the Michigan Revised School Code, a DOORS school is a “public school:”

MCL §380.5(6). "Public school" means a public elementary or secondary educational entity or agency that is established under this act, has as its primary mission the teaching and learning of academic and vocational-technical skills and knowledge, and is operated by a school district, local act school district, special act school district, intermediate school district, school of excellence, public school academy corporation, strict discipline academy corporation, urban high school academy corporation, or by the department or state board. Public school also includes a laboratory school or other elementary or secondary school that is controlled and operated by a state public university described in section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963.

The concept of a community-based small public school, with significant parental involvement, is consistent with this provision of the School Code:

MCL§380.10. It is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. The public schools of this state serve the needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil's parents and legal guardians to develop the pupil's intellectual capabilities and vocational skills in a safe and positive environment.

Michigan’s geographically based public school districts have broad authority as to the types of schools they establish and operate. Michigan school districts already operate a wide range of public schools meeting the varying needs of the district’s children and families. The broad school district powers are reflected in the following:

MCL§380.11a. … (3) A general powers school district has all of the rights, powers, and duties expressly stated in this act; may exercise a power implied or incident to a power expressly stated in this act; and, except as provided by law, may exercise a power incidental or appropriate to the performance of a function related to operation of the school district in the interests of public elementary and secondary education in the school district, including, but not limited to, all of the following:



(a) Educating pupils. In addition to educating pupils in grades K-12, this function may include operation of preschool, lifelong education, adult education, community education, training, enrichment, and recreation programs for other persons.

(b) Providing for the safety and welfare of pupils while at school or a school sponsored activity or while en route to or from school or a school sponsored activity.

(c) Acquiring, constructing, maintaining, repairing, renovating, disposing of, or conveying school property, facilities, equipment, technology, or furnishings.

(d) Hiring, contracting for, scheduling, supervising, or terminating employees, independent contractors, and others to carry out school district powers. A school district may indemnify its employees.

(e) Receiving, accounting for, investing, or expending school district money; borrowing money and pledging school district funds for repayment; and qualifying for state school aid and other public or private money from local, regional, state, or federal sources.

In addition, school districts are authorized to work together to meet the educational needs of children. For example, the “virtual back room” envisaged for the DOORS schools could be jointly established and operated by multiple school districts under the following:

MCL§380.11a. (4) A general powers school district may enter into agreements or cooperative arrangements with other entities, public or private, or join organizations as part of performing the functions of the school district. An agreement or cooperative arrangement that is entered into under this act is not required to comply with the provisions of the urban cooperation act of 1967, 1967 (Ex Sess) PA 7, MCL 124.501 to 124.512, as provided under section 503 of that act, MCL 124.503.

An example of a state law that will require creative responses for a DOORS school is the physical education requirement:

MCL §380.1502(1). Health and physical education for pupils of both sexes shall be established and provided in all public schools of this state. Subject to subsection (2), each



pupil attending public school in this state who is physically fit and capable of doing so shall take the course in physical education.

(2) A school district may credit a pupil's participation in extracurricular athletics or other extracurricular activities involving physical activity as meeting the physical education requirement for the pupil under subsection (1).

The DOORS concept is designed as a district-based public school under the overall governance of a district school board. But a charter school corporation created by either a school district board or a state university board could also apply the concept.

A more complete analysis of federal and state laws and regulations will be necessary to undertake the DOORS concept.

Potential Applications of the One-‐Room Schoolhouse Concept The digitally optimized one-room schoolhouse (DOORS) is a concept that is primarily focused on recreating a small, neighborhood-based elementary school. The small size, community and parent support, technology assets, and highly skilled teacher are designed to give pupils from K-6 with a unique and high quality learning experience. Properly organized and operated, DOORS could serve general population students, English language learners, some special education students and at-risk students.

DOORS may also be used to design schools that appeal to unique, self-selected clusters of students, including:

• Spanish speaking students from communities with a high concentration of Latino families. Other language and cultural groups could also benefit.

• Contract schools or limited enrollment schools that serve unique populations such as the families of international students at state universities. Declining district enrollments in some university communities threatens the operation of these unique schools that have long been a part of Michigan’s population of international undergraduate and graduate students in our state public universities.

• Communities where a substantial number of students arrive at school with very few language or social skills who would benefit from the intensive, personal environment of DOORS. Under the DOORS model, a student could remain with the same teacher and classmates for a number of years.

• There is a substantial amount of literature on the subject of culturally responsive teaching, particularly among African-American educators. DOORS, with its neighborhood and small community focus, may be an appropriate place to implement this strategy.



• Where there are sufficient numbers, a gifted and talented focused school using the DOORS model could get these bright students off to a fast start.

Technology and Learning Styles Discussion The one room schoolhouse and the technology infrastructure is simply the framework for what is most important in this concept: a Teacher 2.0 able to effectively implement the learning styles strategy.

This is an approach that has the attention of not only educators, but also government leaders at the highest levels:

President Obama

The DOORS Project reflects many of the education reform ideas being promoted by the Obama Administration. Excerpts from President Obama’s “Plan for Connecting All Schools to the Digital Age” includexv:

Our schools were designed for a different era–based on a limited school day and a seasonal calendar. This system does not take into account the constant learning opportunities of global connectivity, and does not prepare our students for a collaborative and networked economy.

We must make our schools an integral part of the broadband and technology transformation – particularly when that same technology can be harnessed to drive empowered, more personalized learning.

From digital textbooks that help students visualize and interact with complex concepts, to apps and platforms that adapt to the level of individual student knowledge and help teachers know precisely which lessons or activities are working, this technology is real it is available, and its capacity to improve education is profound.xvi

Concepts from Governor’s Education Messagexvii

The DOORS concepts of a technology-intensive school are consistent with some of the proposals being advanced by Governor Rick Snyder, including:

• We must minimize… barriers that hinder innovation… including…the traditional configurations of classrooms and instruction.

• The time has come to embrace innovative learning tools for all Michigan students.

• Michigan’s education system has revolved around a static approach to education delivery that can be at odds with individual learning styles.



• By taking hold of exciting options ranging from partnerships to innovative technology, education across Michigan will be infused with the unfettered ability and enthusiasm to teach and learn.

Michigan State Board of Education

The 2012-2013 Goals and Reform Priorities of the State Board include supporting “any time, any place, any way, any pace” initiatives that help schools to personalize learning for every student and increased access to quality distance and blended learning options.

School Aid Rewrite Project

The following material drafted in connection with a proposed rewrite of the School Aid Act may be relevant to the DOORS Project: America’s system of K–12 education is, we believe, on the cusp of a major transformation. Such significant change has not been on the horizon since the Industrial Revolution helped prompt a metamorphosis from the one-room schoolhouse to a system of local unified districts. Rapid technological advancement, student diversity, global economic change, critical policy factors, and continuing brain research all come together to make this a decisive moment in education history. Consider the following:

• A robust and growing body of research is showing that traditional classroom structures must change to engage more learners. Students need to interact with course content in ways that are participatory, deep, and customized to their unique experiences and learning styles.xviii xix Although many teachers do work hard to customize their lessons to accommodate the characteristics of each student, they are generally constrained by factors outside of their control, such as competing demands, larger class sizes, too few available resources, and other local concerns.xx

• Technology has changed the world, and schools are struggling to keep pace. The Internet and other technological tools have dramatically altered the ways in which we gather and use information. For many schools, however, computers are merely an add-on to existing teaching methods.xxi We have not yet managed to harness the transformative power of online learning and student-centered software programs. We imagine the day when students can pursue highly individualized ways of learning content, with a teacher who is free to act as a coach and resource.xxii This new structure—whose time is upon us— will bring new flexibility to schools’ operational, financial, and academic models.

Learning style concepts: DOORS is based on the idea that there are differing learning styles that, if understood, affect how a pupil learns. One definition of “learning style” is:

The composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological factors that serves as a relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment.”



Much academic work involves analyzing the behavior of learners and developing method for learning style diagnosis. While many of the theories have been developed for traditional face-to-face educational settings, not computer mediated instruction, they provide a useful basis for understanding the concepts.

In both approaches, the goal is to assist in exploring the relationships between learning preferences and student behavioral patterns.

There are a number of taxonomies that describe learning styles. Each proposes a set of characteristics generally related to: perception modality, way of processing and organizing information as well as motivational and social aspects.

Popescu uses one useful set and is a subset of ULSM with12 learning preferences grouped in 6 dimensions:

• Visual preference/Verbal preference • Abstract concepts and generalizations/Concrete, practical examples • Serial/Holistic • Active experimentation/Reflexive observation • Careful with details/Not careful with details • Individual work/Team work

Another author has proposed Index of 4 dimensions of preferred learning styles:

• Perception (Sensor/Intuitor) • Input (Visual/Verbal) • Processing (Active/Reflective) • Understanding (Sequential/Global)

Determining a student’s learning style is only the first step. The school, teacher, student and learning tools must be organized so that the student in a technology-enhanced learning environment is able to actually learn and retain information. And the learning and retention must be an improvement over traditional methods if it is going to justify the effort.

An August 29, 2011 paper by Bruce Umpstead, of the Michigan Department of Education discussed several concepts relevant to the DOORS concept. Excerpts include:

For Michigan educational innovators, there is no better time to be in public education than right now. The four disruptive forces, identified by As Harvard Research Clayton Christensen in his book, Disrupting Class, are sweeping through the Great Lake State: improved learning technologies, an enhanced understanding of and appreciation for multiple intelligences and learning styles; shortages of high qualified, effective, properly prepared teachers; and exorable cost pressures.



21st Century Learning Environments: Michigan must declare that the era of drill-and-kill assessments and sit-and-click software substitutes is over. We need to refocus education on engaging each and every learner through rich, meaningful, rigorous learning opportunities with the goal of producing a 21st Century workforce. There are more opportunities then ever to create authentic learning environments where students can analyze, discover, debate, explore, solve, and understand. Engaged, lifelong learners are the types of employees every employer wants to hire; that is what our schools should be producing. By focusing on this learning outcome, we believe student achievement will increase for all students and a world-class workforce will result.

Implementing DOORS. The leap from this concept paper to successfully teaching and learning in a digitally optimized one-room school is a long one. But for those educators who have this read far and want to think about implementation challenges, here are some thoughts on next steps:

Legal Analysis

What are the limits and flexibility in state and federal laws and policies that would either permit or inhibit something like DOORS? Law student interns and pro bono service from education law firms may be available to address these issues.

Special Education

The complex issues surrounding special education services will, of course, be a challenge to any district implementing the DOORS concept. However, in any school reform discussion, educators should seek to be in full alignment with these principles:

• All students are general education students first.

• Students receiving special education services must be included in the general education population at least 80% of the time.

• All students—special education and otherwise—can benefit from Individual

Learning Plans directed toward achievement of required learning standards (e.g., the Michigan grade level/high school content expectations and the Common Core State Standards).

• Opportunities for project-‐based learning and cross-‐disciplinary activities can

support students at all ability levels.



Extended learning time, the use of new educational technologies, and other approaches may make it possible for students receiving special education services to be served in ways that may be far more effective at delivering content and helping with the transition from school to work and/or postsecondary learning. The key will be effective coordination of services and supports at all levels.

Technology Assessment

What technology tools – existing or on the immediate horizon -- are available to permit the one-room schoolteacher to succeed? DOORS cannot be just an add-on to a district’s technology resources; “digitally optimized” means rethinking and reimagining a unique technology infrastructure. For example, a number of private sector technology leaders had agreed to participate in the Technology Intensive School Project that was aborted by the Governor. In addition, academics in state university colleges of education or other disciplines may have ideas to contribute in this area.

Community Assessment

Is there any demand or community support for smaller schools and the values a one-room school could provide? Would special interest groups oppose the concept, e.g., special education parents, minority groups, liberal organizations, conservative organizations, churches, local media? On the other hand, many mayors and municipal officials are concerned about the impact of declining enrollments and closing schools on the viability of their communities. They may be willing to consider this approach if school district leadership shows an interest.

Educator Support

Would the school board, administrators, and teacher unions support creation of an experimental school that has not been tested and proved by others?

Research and Assessment

DOORS is an untested concept. It will be essential to identify and fund academics or others willing to conduct rigorous research and testing on the concept.

Budgeting and Finance

DOORS will not work if it drains funds from the rest of the district. It can only work if the operating costs are equal to or less than the costs for students in traditional classrooms and schools. On the other hand, developing the new technology infrastructure, specialized training for the Teacher 2.0, and creating an efficient “back room” for administrative and reporting functions, will clearly require outside investment, probably from private philanthropy.



Schoolhouse Design

As with technology and teacher skills, the design and construction of a 21st Century one-room schoolhouse will be a challenging and exciting undertaking for architects and school design professionals. One idea has been to encourage design professionals to help develop the concept through the 1%xxiii, a program of Public Architecture, which connects nonprofits with architecture and design firms willing to give of their time pro bono. This program has been inspired by the culture of pro bono service in law and other professions.

Another option being considered is to conduct an Architecture Competition for either professional architects or architectural students:

An architectural design competition is a type of competition in which an organization or government body that plans to construct a new building invites architects to submit a design proposal. The winning design is usually chosen by an independent panel of design professionals and stakeholders (such as government and local representatives). This procedure is often used to generate new ideas for the building design, to stimulate public debate, to generate publicity for the project, and to allow emerging designers the opportunity to gain exposure. Architecture competitions are often used to award commissions for public buildings: in some countries rules for tendering public building contracts stipulate some form of mandatory open architectural competition.xxiv

Funding the Pilot

Private philanthropy will be needed to finance the research and planning necessary to refine the concept and to have others challenge, criticize, amend, improve, and otherwise refine the concept. Many iterations may be required before the DOORS Project is ready to be formally proposed to school authorities. Because DOORS is intended to be a public school within an existing district, it is important that the planning process be transparent, and with participation of all stakeholders.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Budget Elements (Budget elements)

Appendix 2 Non-‐instructional Functions (Non-instructional functions)

Appendix 3 Technology Notes (Technology Notes)

Appendix 4 Teacher 2.0 Notes (Teacher 2.0 Notes)

Appendix 5 Governance Alternatives

Appendix 6: Disruptive Innovation Harvard business professor Clayton Christensen, however, has devised an insightful look at what he calls “disruptive innovation” and its impact on public schools.xxv The DOORS Project adopts several elements of Christensen’s approach.

Christensen is articulate in comparing what he calls “monolithic instruction” to the factory model of industrial production. As he sees it:

Educators borrowed the concept of monolithically processing students in batches, with a fixed time spent in each stage of the process of assembling an educated person, from the concept of batch processing in industry so that they could cope with the burgeoning student population in the early twentieth century.xxvi

Under the monolithic instruction model (the model historically used in Michigan), even if a student fails, he or she must move on, because moving on is inherent in the model of monolithic instruction.xxvii

While the analogy can be stretched too far, it does explain the historical basis of our 20th-century, assigned-district education model. Christensen goes on to argue that computer-based technology will serve as the disruptive innovation that opens K–l 2 schools to new levels of achievement.

Looking at the course offerings within U.S. schools reveals many areas of what Christensen calls “nonconsumption” where technology-based solutions can take root. Some of the opportunities where the alternative is nothing at all include specialized or advanced courses; small, rural, and urban schools that are unable to offer breadth; and the like. Technology-based learning has already planted itself in these foothold markets, and is gaining traction at a predictable pace.xxviii These “foothold” areas are, individually and collectively, areas where the individualized needs of students cannot easily be met by the monolithic model of classroom instruction. These areas of nonconsumption offer real, student-centered content that meets a set of unique learning objectives.

DOORS is designed to introduce change in our 100-year-old system of schools, but in a way that is not threatening to those in the monolithic system who see change as negative disruption, undermining its well-established structures and norms.

Parents and others, however, are likely to see such changes as favorable, leading to better outcomes for their children. Some of the benefits resulting from disruptive innovations that occur in the realms of technological and online learning, for instance, will be:

• Accessibility for those who previously would not have been able to take a particular course.

• Convenience to fit a course into a student's schedule at the time and place that it is most desirable.



• Comparatively greater flexibility for students to customize their own learning and instruction, based on their individual learning styles.

• Scalability.

Disruptive Innovation Is Not Sudden Christensen sees a pattern of change in which disruptions first compete against nonconsumption (i.e., populations that are currently underserved) in a “new plane of competition.” As technology improves and the underlying cost declines, the disruptive innovation begins drawing applications from the original plane of competition (i.e., the traditional school system). Transition is neither abrupt nor immediate, but measured, thoughtful, and appropriate.

Christensen’s examples outside the education market indicate the initial substitution pace is slow; then it steepens dramatically; and, finally, it asymptotically approaches 100% of the market. (Two examples known to everyone are digital photography replacing film photography, and the smart phone replacing the landline phone.)

Christensen suggests how the disruptive innovation process will take hold in education, and we believe this process is already unfolding here in Michigan:

• The overriding concern among school leaders is to improve the test scores in subjects on which schools will be judged.

• Schools double up on reading and math at the expense of other subjects. • Priority resources are focused on core subjects. • Schools disinvest in “nice-to-have” courses. • A vacuum of nonconsumption is created—the ideal place for student-centered

online technology to be deployed. Schools use technological resources to provide courses they are relieved not to have to teach, but do feel the need to offer.

• Through a rational and incremental process, schools begin to use alternative technologies and services to carry out more and more instruction.xxix

In accordance with Christensen's outlined pattern of change, the disruptive innovation of DOORS may provide opportunities in areas where positive disruption can readily occur with limited negative impact, including:

• Science courses where there are insufficient numbers of qualified teachers. • Small, rural, and urban schools that are unable to offer breadth—federal

requirements that only “highly qualified” teachers deliver instruction in each subject limit the availability of staff.

• Home-schooled students. • Students needing special tutoring. • Pre-kindergartners. • Courses for gifted students. • Enrichment classes for special-needs children, including some children who thrive

in an online environment, but are unable to function well in the traditional classroom.



• Online supplementary courses. • Languages.

Another, quite profound innovation that fits the Christensen model is the transition from teacher-led to technology-intensive/teacher-facilitated instruction (sometimes known as “flipped” instruction). Stage One of this process is making computer-based or online learning available and familiarizing teachers with new pedagogical approaches. But the real change comes from Stage Two: student-centered technology where students take the reins of their own learning, and build their knowledge and skills in a manner that is consistent with their individual learning needs.

Responsibility for learning is placed with the student, with the school offering skilled guidance, curated instructional resources, and opportunities for growth. Moreover, the school becomes a place where students’ personal growth also is facilitated. When teachers are freed to become coaches, instructors, and counselors, they are able to provide greater one-on-one interaction with students. Imagine, for instance, an individualized education plan for each and every Michigan learner, regardless of his or her abilities. A flipped instructional model can support this type of approach and lead to stronger personal and academic growth across the board.

Christensen’s work is cited and reinforced by a large and growing number of educational researchers, who note the misalignment between available technology and current classroom practice. These experts underscore the importance of student connectedness and engagement as a facet of the learning process, and indicate that a better coupling of technology and pedagogy can dramatically improve student outcomes.

In his recently released exploration of technology and learning, Stratosphere, scholar Michael Fullan builds on the ideas set forth in Christensen’s work:

New forms of engagement for students are key [to better outcomes. We must design] work that is irresistibly engaging, is elegantly easy to engage in, accesses technology ubiquitously, and is steeped in higher-‐order skills.... Teachers in small groups become leaders, designers, and active guides to learning. Principals become leaders of leaders (not instructional leaders). District and state infrastructures become redesigned."xxx

Researchers see tremendous promise in the marriage of technology, pedagogy, and change as a means of generating far more favorable student results. This approach is in keeping with the Governor’s call to action.

Our schools and communities need to show kids that they matter, that we see them as individual human beings, and that we commit ourselves to knowing and developing what is right about each and every student.

With legislative support, DOORS could operate through a funding model that is flexible enough to allow these changes to develop with the support of those education leaders



who want to be change agents. The goal would be an “innovation-friendly alternative funding system,” as described by scholar Paul Hill:

Under an innovation-‐friendly alternative funding system, federal and state governments would not mandate particular uses of funds, or support particular programs, administrative structures, or salary scales. An innovation-‐friendly funding system would tie money directly to individual students’ education.xxxi

i http://www.cmich.edu/library/clarke/researchresources/michigan_material_statewide/One_Room_Schools/Pages/default.aspx ii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States iii http://www.oneroomschoolhouses.ca/ iv See: http://www.thehenryford.org/education/pdf/ teacherGuide_OneRoomSchool.pdf. vivi http://www.one-roomschool.org vii http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3956 viii http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/2-battleground/quest-for-education-1.html ixhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903352704576540453011452540.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_editorsPicks_2 x This article was originally published in The Technology Source (http://ts.mivu.org/) as: Bethany M. Baxter "Returning to the One-Room Schoolhouse" The Technology Source, September/October 2000. Available online at http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034. xi http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/FINAL_SBE_MDE_Goal_and_Reform_Priorities_2012-2013_389150_7.pdf xii xiii http://vimeo.com/43565010 xiv http://www.greatschools.org/school-choice/multiplex-schools/6975-school-within-a-school-multiplex.gs xvhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/06/12/35erate.h32.html?tkn=VZXF4MV4w5988NXXiY5blykzB7SWabASN2v0&cmp=ENL-II-NEWS1 xvihttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/06/12/35erate.h32.html?tkn=VZXF4MV4w5988NXXiY5blykzB7SWabASN2v0&cmp=ENL-II-NEWS1 xviihttp://michigan.gov/documents/snyder/SpecialMessageonEducationReform_351586_7.pdf xviii Gardner, H. (1997). Big thinkers: Howard Gardner on multiple intelligences. Interview in Edutopia. http://www.edutopia.org/multiple-‐intelligences-‐howard-‐gardner-‐video. xix Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-5373_5379-256147--,00.htmlSupervision and Curriculum Development. xx Pennington, M. (2009). 12 reasons why teachers resist differentiated instruction. http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/10-reasons-why-teachers-resist-differentiated-instruction/ xxi Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., and Johnson, C.W. (2008). Disrupting class: how disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill. xxii Ibid. xxiii http://www.theonepercent.org

xxiv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_competitions

xxv http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/, accessed January 14, 2013 xxvi Christensen, C.M., op.cit. xxvii Ibid. xxviii Ibid. xxix Ibid.



xxx Fullan, op.cit. xxxi Hill, P. (2012). "School Finance in the digital-‐learning era." Education Reform for the Digital Era. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

july 16 2013 draft doors technology and the 21st century one...

Documents