Wednesday, September 20, 2006

School of the Future / TODAY!


Published: September 20, 2006

Where Big-City Schools Meet ‘Microsoft Smarts’

Born of a partnership between the Philadelphia public schools and the world's leading software-maker, a new high-tech high school starts strutting its stuff.

As its organizers see it, Philadelphia’s School of the Future is high-tech testimony to just what can be accomplished when big-city school districts team up with corporations that like to try new things.

“Philadelphia asked us to do something we’ve never done before: build a school,” said Craig J. Mundie, the chief research and strategy officer at the Microsoft Corp., which created the newly opened high school in partnership with the city school district. “So we took our best shot.”

A gleaming white building on the edge of a blighted West Philadelphia neighborhood, the $62 million school garnered wide attention when it opened this month, in part because of its technological bells and whistles. Those futuristic features include a tablet personal computer for each student, interactive digital whiteboards, a supercharged wireless network, customized educational software, and digital “smart cards” to open lockers and pay for meals—all making possible a virtually paperless environment.

Business, government, and education officials also laud the 162,000-square-foot school for its energy-efficient design, the flexible classroom furniture, its use of some of Microsoft’s business practices for staff and students, and a curriculum featuring project-based learning and career-skills requirements.

The need for such a school—and the business community’s support of it—is clear in light of an increasing demand for smart, adaptable employees in the United States and abroad, said Mr. Mundie. “It is more important than ever for companies … to help global educators meet future economic and social needs,” he said.

Microsoft and district officials stress that the technology giant did not pick up the tab for building the school. Nor did the money come from the Seattle-based Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The funds came from the district’s $1.9 billion capital-improvement program.

Instead, Microsoft brought something better, said Paul G. Vallas, the chief executive officer of the 194,5000-student district: its people.

“This isn’t Microsoft money,” he said on the school’s opening day, wearing a blue Oxford-cloth shirt with the Microsoft logo on the front. “This is Microsoft smarts.”

Doug Lynch, the vice dean of the University Pennsylvania’s school of education, said superintendents elsewhere should look at the partnership between the Philadelphia district and Microsoft, with its can-do culture and wealth of learning resources. Yet he also suggested that such relationships should be approached with care.

“This innovative spirit … is laudable,” Mr. Lynch said. “But I urge caution, because if you fail, you’ll lose a lot of kids.”


Such admonitions were nowhere to be heard during the school’s opening ceremonies Sept. 7, when a crush of local dignitaries, 170 students and their camera-toting parents, and reporters and camera crews swarmed the campus, careful not to trample the newly sodded grass.

The events culminated with a video clip of Microsoft founder Bill Gates promising to visit. Then, as U2’s “Beautiful Day” boomed over loudspeakers, local, state, and company education officials rang handbells, signifying the school’s formal start.

Microsoft

The technology giant primarily provided human capital to the School of the Future. Forty-seven Microsoft Corp. employees helped plan the school’s design, technology, and management tools. The company also provided customized educational software and donated $100,000 to name the visitors’ briefing center.

Almost 50 Microsoft employees helped devise the School of the Future, the company says. “We wanted to create a learning environment more continuous, adaptive, and relevant,” said Mary J. Cullinane, the group manager for Microsoft’s U.S. Partners in Learning, a program that works with state governments and local schools on improving education, and the company’s point person for the school.

Ms. Cullinane led the creation of an “education competency wheel,” a set of 37 essential work skills for staff and students. The tool is modeled on Microsoft’s hiring and professional-development competencies. The Redmond, Wash.-based company also developed software, called the Virtual Teaching Assistant, that lets students direct the pace of their learning and allows teachers to give tests via the students’ computers.

The idea for the School of the Future started with Mr. Vallas, who approached Microsoft in 2003. At the time, the company was already considering building a school laboratory to show how technology can enhance learning, Ms. Cullinane said. The concept was to be similar to the Microsoft Home, a house near Microsoft’s facility in West London, England, that is outfitted with various new technologies, such as a bathroom mirror that doubles as a television or music player.

The partnership between the district and Microsoft kicked off in September 2003. By December of that year, the Microsoft team had begun full-time management of the project. In 2004, the district and Microsoft held school briefings in Philadelphia, England, and Australia and visited tech-savvy schools in California, Texas, and England to gather ideas.

Construction crews broke ground in March 2005. That July, Microsoft sponsored a summit on the future of education in which more than 200 education and government leaders from more than 30 countries participated. The second summit is scheduled to be held here in November.

“This [school] contains the best thinking of everyone we could bring into the project,” said Ellen Savitz, the district’s chief development officer.

Microsoft is not the school’s only corporate partner. For example, Blackburn, England-based Promethean Group Technologies Ltd. provides the school’s whiteboards; Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Meru Networks installed the wireless computer network; and Gateway Inc., based in Irvine, Calif., provides laptop computers to the students and staff.


The school has had its share of obstacles. Construction delays placed pressure on an already truncated 18-month building schedule. Costs also rose from a projected $48 million to $62 million, Ms. Savitz said.

Then there’s the name of the school. Its present name is temporary—though not from lack of trying.

The district hoped to raise up to $14 million in naming-rights fees for the school’s endowment fund, ranging from $25,000 for a classroom to $5 million to name the entire school. The district has raised $3 million so far, said Ms. Savitz. If no company steps up with $5 million—the price the district has set on the school’s name—the district may ask the community to help pick a permanent name, she said.

Of the money raised to date, $2 million comes from the Bowland Charitable Trust, a foundation in Blackburn, England, that helps support education projects in the United Kingdom and other countries.

The trust has a special interest in improving education in poor areas, and will encourage educational exchanges between urban schools in the United Kingdom and in Philadelphia, said Carole Fahy, the trust’s administrator. “We believe that not just the School of the Future, but the work that is being done by the Philadelphia school district, will in some areas show the way to improvements in urban schools, and not just in the U.S.,” she wrote in an e-mail.

Donations

Outside organizations donated about $3 million toward the School of the Future. Other businesses donated equipment or human resources.

• Bowland Charitable Trust: $2 million
• Philadelphia Water Department: $300,000
• SAP AG: $150,000
• Vanguard Foundation: $250,000 to hire a community-engagement coordinator for three years
• Promethean Technologies Ltd.: $250,000 in technology and equipment
• Microsoft Corp: $100,000
• Philadelphia Stock Exchange: $100,000
• SunGard Data Systems Inc.: $25,000
• Gateway Inc.: 10 laptop computers

The remaining $1 million comes from other companies, including $100,000 from Microsoft to name the visitors’ briefing center.

Walk into the school and what strikes you is the sunlight flooding its interior, its wide public spaces, and its strong, bold design. Mr. Vallas has called it a “school without shadows.”

But the school doesn’t just look good. It’s also energy-efficient, garnering the third-highest level in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system of the U.S. Green Building Council, a Washington-based coalition of building industry leaders advocating environmentally responsible buildings.

The school’s heating and cooling system is almost 50 percent more efficient than a traditional system, said Jason Kilwinski, the director of sustainable design and operations for the Prisco Group, the Hopewell, N.J.-based architectural firm that designed the school.

A 40,000-gallon tank captures rainwater, which is used to flush toilets. That by itself will cut water use by 60 percent, Mr. Kilwinski said. Photovoltaic glass panels also help decrease the school’s electricity costs. In addition, the performance center’s green roof—composed of plants and mosses—will help insulate it and protect it from ultraviolet rays.

“The more you can do with natural processes,” Mr. Kilwinski said, “the more savings you can build into the system.”

The building itself is a teaching tool, he added. Students can soon go to a Web site to monitor how much power the school is using, for example, or how much water is being absorbed by the green roof.


Despite its pedigree, the school is not a magnet school, but largely draws students from the neighborhood. It will eventually educate 750 students, adding a class each year.

Roughly 1,500 students applied to the School of the Future this year; the 170 chosen were picked by lottery. Seventy-five percent came from the West Philadelphia community, and the remainder from the rest of the city.

Almost all the students are African-American, about 10 percent are in special education, and about 85 percent are poor.

“We did not screen for grades, attendance, discipline issues,” said Ms. Savitz. “We’re going to get what we’re going to get.”

At the end of the opening day, Principal Shirley Grover says goodbye to students from the first freshman class at Philadelphia's School of the Future.
—Christopher Powers

Students must demonstrate fluency in a foreign language, complete a research project, and demonstrate 11 “21st-century skills,” such as time management and problem-solving, to graduate, said Shirley Grover, the school’s principal. They must also apply to a college or university to get their high school diplomas, she said.

Honor students from Villanova University will tutor School of the Future students online, and professors from the University of Pennsylvania will teach a class in robotics and another in urban design. Drexel University will also provide resources, including a graduate student in library science, for its interactive learning center.

On the morning of Sept. 7, the school’s first freshman class approached the school holding white banners bearing names of continents. Many were neatly dressed in khaki pants and blue polo or T-shirts with the logos of local universities.

One of them was 14-year-old Aja Fairbanks, who wants to be an astronomer. “I’ve always been interested in the stars, skies, and space,” she said. “[The school] will give me the knowledge to succeed.”

Virginia Campbell, a parent of another student, said she hopes the school will fulfill its promise and won’t fall victim to urban neglect. “I hope people will keep it up, keep it clean,” she said, eyeing the spotless exterior. “West Philly could really use this.”

As with any experiment, Ms. Cullinane of Microsoft predicts, the new school will face bumps along the road. “We’re sure there will be mistakes, and sure there will be things done well, ” she remarked. But she said the company would stick by the school for the long haul: “We’ve committed not to just opening the school, but also learning from what’s been created.”

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

The "POWER OF THE OBVIOUS"

TECHLEARNING BLOG, SEPT.14, 2006 nailed the reality of today's technological superior students who thirst for knowledge and seek to make a contribution and share with the world their discoveries and understandings.

DIVE The "END GAME!"


September 14, 2006

Students as Creators and Contributors

Today’s generation has an opportunity like none before it. The opportunity to freely create and contribute to society and a global audience from the confines of their own home, school, library or any other place they can connect into the network of information.


It’s this power of creating and contributing that draws our students to the rapidly growing sites of Myspace, Facebook, Xanga, and YouTube.

The Wall Street Journal reported some interesting data on the popular video uploading site YouTube. (Via Micro Persuasion)

* In a single month the number of videos on the site grew 20% to 6.1 million
* YouTube has some 45 terabytes of videos
* Video views reached 1.73 billion
* 70% of YouTube's registered users are American, roughly 50% are under 20
* The total time people spent watching YouTube since it started last year is 9,305 years

Students today do not want to receive information, they want to create it. They want to be a part of a social-network not just read about it. This is why sites like YouTube and Myspace are so popular. These spaces were designed for the purpose of allowing people to create information, not just receive it. Brian Crosby had a posting earlier this week on the Learning is Messy blog in which he states:
One of the issues I believe is that kids are perceived by society as only having the potential to contribute to society sometime in the future. If kids were appreciated for what they can contribute now, and that “contribution” was valued by society, perhaps society would be more willing to “invest” more substantially in them at an earlier age. One of the transformative aspects of technology is that it allows students to produce finished products that others have access to and can use: Other students, other members of the local community and members of the global community.

We are in a place and time when creating and contributing to a worldly audience is easier than ever; whether through the written media (blogs and wikis), spoken media (podcasting), or the visual media (videos). It reminds me of the educational idea:

Tell me and I forget
Teach me and I remember
Involve me and I understand

Creating is doing and doing with a purpose is contributing to society. So as educators how do we harness this power in positive, educational ways? We listen to our students.

Morning after morning my middle school students come in and head to one web site…YouTube. YouTube is the new entertainment center for teens, and I don’t blame them. Spend some time there and you soon find the minutes flying by as you get deeper into viewing what people have created and contributed to this social-network. Where was this when I was in school? I remember having to run to the computer lab to make sure I got one of the copies of Oregon Trail…the original Oregon Trail!

Watching this day after day, I decided to harness this power of creativity and have my students create digital stories. Using the free Microsoft application Photo Story 3 and the tutorials created by David Jakes, my students taught themselves how to use the program to create their stories for class. Then using the K12 group within YouTube that Miguel Guhlin created, the students uploaded the videos to share with a worldly audience. Students as creators contributing their new knowledge to the world.

Listen to your students; find what new web tool, web site, or social-network excites them. Find a way to harness their excitement of being creators and contributors and bring that excitement into the classroom and allow your students to create something that teaches or tells a story to a global audience.

(Stay Tuned....To Be Continued)

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

AND From NEW BEGINNINGS Come NEW UNDERSTANIDINGS!

September 04, 2006

Our Schools are Leaking!

In most schools, it has begun. We are forcing our children back into containers. For weeks, they have lived, played, learned, and worked without boxes -- through gadgets on their desks, on their laps, and in their pockets. Their schedule has been theirs -- often sleeping until 11:00, and playing and working until 3:00 and 4:00 the next morning. They have roamed a limitless realm of information with friends whose geography means absolutely nothing. Walls do not exist, because of the gadgets they carry.

And now, we are forcing them back into our containers -- container schedules, because they are back in learning containers (school and classroom), where they receive information from containers (textbooks and worksheets), tied to knowledge containers (standards) -- and we will seek to control their gadgets.

These gadgets are their links to information. They talk, text message, and google with their mobile phones, IM on their laptops, surf the world wide web, build and interact on MySpace, play Net-based video games and MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games). These gadgeted connections represent intellectual appendages to our children. They're like alien tentacles that grow from their bodies. We can't see them, but they are real. They are a part of how our children see and define themselves. These tentacles are the hands and feet that carry them where they want to go -- and as they enter our classrooms,

...we will cut those tentacles off.

The flow will continue. Their thoughts are still on the civilization they are building at home, the video they are producing with a friend from Norway, their new MySpace profile, or the song they're remixing for a boyfriend -- that is if they do not have their hands on a contraband mobile phone, text messaging another friend, with one thumb, under the surface of their desk.

Educators! Our classrooms are leaking!

Through their mobile phones, wireless handhelds, mobile game systems, their laptops, and a simple, yet pervasive sense of a broader world that ignores time and distance, our children’s attention is leaking out of our classrooms, our textbooks, and our state and national standards. The leaks have appeared and they will only expand and become more serious, the more we try to block, filter, and confiscate.

The question that confronts us today is...

Do we continue to container our children, amputating their intellectual appendages during “learning time?”

or

Do we try to integrate learning into the flow of their attention, taking advantage of the new porous nature of their lives, using these tentacles to connect children to the world that we are teaching them about?

This is a question that we can not put off another day, because our children are waiting. ..and it's answer is nothing less than the foundation of our future.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Of Course with EVERY END.......There is a NEW BEGINNING!


Building the School of the Future

By Lindsay Oishi
URL: http://www.schoolcio.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192501205

Microsoft and the School District of Philadelphia have worked together for three years to create the School of the Future, an innovative model for incorporating technology into education that opens on September 7, 2006. Rob Stevens, the project’s architect for software solutions, and Mary Cullinane, group manager for Microsoft’s Partners in Learning program, spoke to School CIO about how IT leaders can learn from the School of the Future’s vision and approach.

Q. How much has the school cost so far?
A. The entire project is funded at $63 million, which is a traditional budget for the School District of Philadelphi. The money required toa operate a school is mostly spent on maintenance. But we’ve used LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification guidelines, so that the overall cost of maintenance will be less than the cost for schools that don’t follow these guidelines.

Q. What technologies are you providing students with?
A. Wherever these kids go, whenever there’s a learning opportunity, they have access to an infrastructure has been built to give them an appropriate environment. That means wireless throughout the school, experts from around the world coming in via streaming media, and infrastructure allowing them to communicate with teachers and parents. The collaborative environment will be very powerful. The other area that will be very powerful is the Virtual Teaching Assistant and Virtual Library. With these, we hope to foster a community of learning.

Q. Tell me more about the Virtual Teaching Assistant.
A. One of the principles of this school is to create an adaptive learning environment. When we went to school, every kid had to turn the page at the same time. With the Virtual Teaching Assistant, the class can have an individualized pace. As a teacher, you can put together a quiz, give it to your students, and immediately ascertain where your class is. The quiz comes up as a window on the students’ machines—they each have their own laptop computer. The results go back to the teacher right away, and if a student gets a certain pattern of questions wrong, the teacher can give them extra help in that area.

Q. How do you keep student data secure?
A. We’re relying entirely on credentialed access. Once you log into the operating system, we know who you are. You don’t have to remember multiple passwords. We have very secure passwords that allow, for example, parents to be identified only with their children, so parents will not be able to get information on another child. We’re not custodians of extremely sensitive information. But we do have the ability to protect it. It’s a well-bounded community of learners—people from the outside will have great difficulty getting information.

Q. Which technologies offer the highest return on investment?
A. First, the multimedia capabilities available through Windows Media services give students a wealth of resources that are visual and online. These are the most valuable in terms of the ultimate product, which is educational accomplishment. The Virtual Library, for example, is a repository for different types of digital media. It allows movies, documents, Web sites, and other content to be stored together. Second, we have automatic mechanisms for student enrollment. Whenever a student is added to the school, they automatically get a Windows account for school portals, e-mail, and a personal Web site. This translates into savings of time and administrative effort, which also reduces cost.

Q. How do school portals work?
A. The school has portals for students, the extended community, and faculty and staff. When you log in to your computer, you’re automatically logged in to your portal. If you’re a student, the portal knows what classes you have and shows you a picture of everyone in your classes. The extended community portals allow parents to be more familiar with their students’ teachers, and to find out what happened in the classroom. Faculty and staff can also use their private portal to communicate about students or even view pay stubs online.

Q. Do you have advice about making public-private partnerships work?
A. CIOs shouldn’t limit themselves to the most obvious asset a partner can bring to the table. When someone thinks about Microsoft, they think of software. But the School District of Philadelphia got to see how we hire people, motivate people, and create the culture of our organization. The other thing to remember is that money is great, but people are better. Individuals and their thinking are valuable resources. We’ve had over 45 people at Microsoft touch this project in various ways, and you can’t put a price tag on that.

Q. How can CIOs keep informed about the school?
A. Every step of the strategic planning has been documented on the Web site, for all schools that are interested in following a similar process. U.S. Partners in Learning will host quarterly briefings with schools across the country, and there is also an annual global forum where school leaders can get together and discuss the results of these innovations.

Lindsay Oishi is a graduate student in Learning Sciences and Technology Design at Stanford University.

© School CIO

Monday, September 04, 2006

ALL TOO SOON...........It Was The END!


Published: August 30, 2006
Commentary

Why Thinking ‘Outside the Box’ Is Not So Easy

(And Why Present Reform Efforts Will Fail)

In the fall of 1987, the Associated Press carried a story from Tacoma, Wash., about a boy “penned in a coffin-sized box for two years because his stepgrandmother feared he was brain-damaged.”

Two years in a box! Did the kid scream to get out? Feel abused? Unhappy? No. When he was let out, according to the news item, “he was amazed to learn not all children are shut up in the same way.”

The boy illustrated, literally, the difficulty of “thinking outside the box.”

We all share that difficulty. We’re bundles of unexamined beliefs about what’s proper and acceptable, and many of those unexamined beliefs relate to schooling. We cling to them not because research has shown them to be true or because they make good, common sense, but simply because lifelong immersion in the status quo makes it exceedingly difficult to imagine alternatives.

Of all the education-related unexamined assumptions, none is more deeply embedded than the belief that the main business of schooling is to teach the “core curriculum”—math, science, social studies, and language arts. Supporting that belief is another assumption: that these four fields of study are the only, or at least the optimum, organizers of general knowledge.

That last assumption is so powerful it shapes education worldwide. At all levels, from middle through graduate school, the four areas of study are the main institutional organizers. So taken for granted is it that they are the fundamental building blocks of education, that reform movements don’t question their centrality. Separate sets of “standards” reinforce them. “Measures of accountability” are keyed to them. Even those who know that knowledge is seamless, who know that the walls between fields of study are artificial and arbitrary, tend to assume that the four are the ultimate organizers of knowledge. They may call themselves “interdisciplinarians,” or may make use of projects, themes, problems, student needs, or other content organizers, but they don’t push the disciplines aside. They try instead to “bring them to bear.”


The traditional curriculum has given us much. We’ve created a way of life that makes specialized studies indispensable. But assuming that the “core” fields are pretty much the whole story has also cost us much, and the costs are escalating. School, finally, isn’t about disciplines and subjects, but about what they were originally meant to do—help the young make more sense of life, more sense of experience, more sense of an unknowable future. And in that sense-making effort, math, science, social studies, and language arts simply aren’t up to the challenge. They’ve given us a curriculum so deeply flawed it’s an affront to the young and a recipe for societal disaster.

TalkBack
Join the related discussion, “Thinking Outside the Box.”

Consider the problems listed below. Any one of them is serious enough to warrant calling a national conference, and the general curriculum in place in America’s schools and colleges suffers from all of them. It:

• Has no agreed-upon aim;

• Ignores the basic process by means of which knowledge expands;

• Disregards the holistic, systemic nature of knowledge;

• Neglects the brain’s need for order and organization;

• Fails to model the seamlessness of human perception;

• Has no criteria for determining the relative importance of what’s taught;

• Relates only tangentially to real-world experience;

• Disregards important fields of study;

• Doesn’t capitalize on the mutually supportive nature of knowledge;

• Uses short-term recall rather than logic to access memory;

• Has no built-in self-renewing capability;

• Is little concerned with moral and ethical issues;

• Lends itself to simplistic approaches to evaluation;

• Doesn’t move smoothly through ever-higher levels of intellectual complexity;

• Makes unreasonable demands on memory;

• Penalizes rather than capitalizes on student differences;

• Neglects higher-order thought processes;

• Doesn’t encourage novel, creative thought; and

• Vastly underestimates student intellectual potential.

These problems can be solved, and solved rather easily, but not by playing with course-distribution requirements, adding more math and science courses, or tightening the “rigor” screws. The solution lies “outside the box,” in raising students’ awareness of their thought processes. What they need but aren’t getting from school subjects is a “master system of mental organization.”


The role played by mental organizers is easily demonstrated. Say to a student, “Name as many games as you can,” and, after a dozen or so, most will begin to stumble. But an occasional student will attack the problem differently, will think, “children’s games,” then, when he or she has exhausted that category, will move on to other categories—party games, games played with cards, dice, words, balls, computers, across nets, and so on. Performance will depend less on the quality of the student’s memory of games than on the quality of his or her “game categories” system. If it’s good, the names of a hundred games may be reeled off with little or no hesitation.

School isn’t about disciplines and subjects, but about what they were originally meant to do—help the young make more sense of life.

Math, science, social studies, and language arts are mental organizers. They give students elaborate category systems for thinking about certain kinds of things. But only certain kinds of things. This is especially true now, after a little over a century of “standardizing” via textbooks, legislation, and inattention. As the above list of problems should show, they’re not up to the challenge of comprehensive “sense making.” They don’t connect with each other, don’t adequately connect with or organize ordinary experience, don’t “stack” categories in order of importance, don’t include “open-ended” categories essential to novel, creative thought—don’t, in short, do the job that needs doing.

Ironically, every kid shows up for the first day of school already making sophisticated use of a “master” category system for organizing knowledge that can do the job that needs doing. There’ll be no major improvement in students’ intellectual performance until they’re helped to surface that system and put it deliberately to work.

Here’s where professional educators begin to balk. And the higher up the professional ladder they’ve climbed—the more rigid the box they’re in tends to be—the balkier they get. It’s unlikely most have ever given thought to the possibility of alternatives to the familiar disciplines, subjects, and courses as organizers of knowledge. That one of those alternatives might actually be superior seems too unlikely to take seriously. That that alternative is already known and used by everybody makes it either a threat to that which they’ve achieved or gets it labeled as too mundane to merit scholarly attention.

Notwithstanding obliviousness, lack of interest, skepticism, or other obstacles to acceptance of the idea, humans make sense of experience by weaving together, systemically, five main kinds of information:

TIME (the Ice Age, morning, during World War I, when the cap is removed, once upon a time, and so forth);

PLACE (ancient Egypt, the forest, on the five-yard line, Paradise, on the shelf);

ACTORS (Esau and Jacob, a crowd, the queen and court, me and Dad, or Goldilocks);

ACTION (sign the lease, attack the fort, pay a visit, check for clues); and

CAUSE (revenge, too much heat, loneliness, broken dam, impure water).

From the weaving together of these kinds of information, humans then draw SYSTEMIC RELATIONSHIPS (“One morning, Little Red Riding Hood asked her mother if she could go into the forest to visit her grandmother, as it had been a while since they’d seen each other.”)

There will be no significant improvement in student performance until educators begin to make use of the brain’s usual way of organizing knowledge.

Think of the five categories—time, place, actors, action, cause—as drawers in a file, each with a system of subcategories, sub-subcategories, and so on, encompassing not just the organizing systems of everything now taught, but all knowledge, everything cross-filed with everything else.

Now comes the hard part. Pointing out the most powerful mental organizer known to humankind is easy. Teaching it is also easy. In fact, it doesn’t have to be “taught” in the usual sense of the word, just raised into consciousness, elaborated, refined, and put to use as sense-maker. Students helped to see, early on, how their brains organize knowledge, before they’re pushed into the artificial confines of subject-matter boxes, will simply take it for granted that schooling deals primarily with the whole of human experience and only secondarily with certain useful but random parts of it.

Neither does use of the system mean trauma for traditionally trained teachers. No subject, no course, no favorite lesson need be discontinued, just put in larger perspective, rather like matching pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to the picture on the lid of the box.

The difficulties of acceptance of a supradisciplinary knowledge organizer lie where they always have, in policymakers unable to imagine alternatives to the status quo, in inertia, and in simplistic “reforms” like the No Child Left Behind Act,which aren’t reforms at all but simply attempts to pursue the status quo with greater diligence.

Education leaders came out of the 1960s aware of the instructional potential of systems theory and the centrality of conceptual frameworks. The institution was pointed in the right direction until the publication of the unduly alarmist A Nation at Risk in 1983 triggered the present reactionary trend. There will be no significant improvement in student performance until educators begin to make use of the brain’s usual way of organizing knowledge.