With our current policies and priorities, we impose on our schools, teachers, and classrooms a standardized curriculum that largely serves the needs of those who want to rank performance. We choose to make life easy for college admissions and legislators, very much as the expense of real learning. But it doesn't have to be that way.

::::::::

My guest today is Ted Dintersmith, venture capitalist, education philanthropist and author of What School Could Be: Insights and Inspiration from Teachers Across America.

Joan Brunwasser: Welcome to OpEdNews, Ted. I had the pleasure of hearing you speak at a recent *lecture. You could also be described as a revolutionary, at least where education is concerned. What turned you into an activist?

Ted Dintersmith: It was the confluence (an SAT word!) of two perspectives. First, machine intelligence is advancing at an accelerating pace. Within a decade or so, there won't be any routine jobs left in the economy. And it poses enormous complications to responsible, informed citizenship. Second, in most of our schools, a student will make the Honor Roll by excelling at memorizing content, replicating low-level procedures, and following instructions -- the exact sweet spot of machine intelligence. In a very real way, our education system is preparing our children to fail in a world of innovation. And it doesn't have to be this way. Once I concluded that we can, and absolutely need to, reimagine school to empower our kids to thrive in their futures, I was compelled to dedicate my life and much of my money to this cause.

This shift happened gradually, then suddenly. Many of these issues had perplexed me during my career in venture capital. We were backing start-ups that were going to restructure entire industries and, in the process, eliminate lots of jobs. And I saw far too many academic superstars flounder when faced with the ambiguity and real risk of failure in the innovation economy. But it really crystallized for me about a decade ago when my kids were in middle school. I got a note from the school about a brown bag lunch for parents on a brand new initiative to teach students important life skills.

That got my attention, and led to my beginning to reflect on what school is all about. Why a new program to prepare kids for life? Isn't that the core mission of school?? As I dove into this fundamental issue, I reached the conclusion that, for the most part in the U.S. today, the purpose of school is to prepare kids for standardized tests and college applications -- not for life. Worse, when you really examine what goes on with our kids in school, it actually impairs their life prospects in the world of innovation -- by diminishing their curiosity, audacity, and creativity. Absent profound change, millions of kids -- rich, poor, and in between -- are at risk. So much so that the health of our democracy is on the line. That strikes me as a cause worth fighting for.

JB: Agreed. You feel so strongly about this that you dedicated an entire academic year to looking more closely at schools across the country and then analyzing what you observed. Tell us about that, please.

TD: During the entire 2015-2016 school year, I traveled pretty much non-stop, going to all fifty states, visiting 200 schools, and convening 1,000 meetings. To say it was an intense immersion is a bit of an understatement. But so many non-educators weigh in on education without doing much homework -- and I didn't want to make that mistake. For most of the trip, I had no thought of writing a book about the experience. But by the end, I had seen so many remarkable classroom innovations, and met so many inspiring teachers, that I just had to convey what I observed. The result is What School Could Be: Insights and Inspiration from Teachers Across America. Demand has been so high that the initial print run sold out in just a few weeks and we're now in the second printing. It's an uplifting look at what's going right in our schools, and what conditions foster the innovations leading to these compelling learning experiences. We now have a great discussion guide to accompany the book, and are getting lots of interest from schools and districts to use the book as a summer reading resource.

JB: That's exciting! How did you decide where to go, who to speak with and what to look for? And did that change as the year progressed?

TD: The honest truth is that I didn't give myself much lead time before deciding to do this trip. In late July, 2015, I was on the phone with Greg Tehven, who runs a venture incubator in Fargo, North Dakota. He had some questions for me about venture capital, than asked me what I'm spending time on. As I was describing my interest in education, he stopped me mid-sentence and said, "Hey, can you be here in six days and give a talk at TEDx Fargo? Someone just canceled and I think people here would be interested in what you have to say." So, I canceled a trip to New York, pulled together my talk, and flew to Fargo. On the way, I thought, "Gee, it will be fun to go someplace and talk about education," which led me to decide to go to all fifty states -- which I announced in that TEDx Talk .

After committing to going to all fifty states, I then had to figure out how the heck I'd do it. I talked about the trip to Greg Whiteley, who directed Most Likely to Succeed. He had also directed the documentary on Mitt Romney-- Mitt -- and knew Romney's advance campaign planning team. So I talked to them and they were up for pitching in. The advantage for me was that every day of the nine months was cram-jammed with meetings from breakfast to late evening, with the most interesting set of people and schools.

It really made this immersive trip remarkably productive, and gave me a chance to see and meet so many involved with education. I met with governors, state legislators, commissioners of education, school boards, parents, students, and teachers -- in all sorts of settings. It was so, so interesting. And of all the people I met, I was blown away by our teachers. So many brought such passion and dedication to their profession. And many a time I'd meet with teachers in tears over the anguish they feel in navigating damaging policies.

As the trip evolved, we got more and more adventurous in trying to set up unusual meetings. We pushed the envelope and covered places most people never visit -- tribal villages, lots of rural communities, native American reservations, urban, suburban. The full landscape of American education, including places most people don't even think of as school.

So in writing What School Could Be, I had so many great experiences to draw on. The challenge was distilling them down to a manageable number and presenting them in a compelling way.

JB: Clearly, you're an impulsive guy. All this from one invitation! How did you know what you would find in the various places? Especially since you didn't have a long time to investigate ahead of your trip. I guess what I'm asking is, how does one seek innovation? How did you know who were the right people to talk to, to connect with? It's the nitty gritty here that makes all the difference: the innovative teacher, or school, or project, or just same old, same old. Can you flesh this out a bit, please?

TD: Actually, I'm not generally impulsive, but one does unusual things when they feel acute urgency. And I think there's nothing less than a full-bore crisis in American education -- and few really understand its exact nature. More later on that, I hope. But in terms of the trip, we accomplished a lot just through the sheer number of visits and meetings we set up. Many weren't all that memorable, and I condense a lot of the schools I visited into a school I gave a fictional name to, Eisenhower High, which is described in the opening chapter.

And in many ways, we didn't seek innovation as much as it sought me. The community forums we set up attracted many innovative educators, who would stay late to share with me their story and invite me to their schools for a visit the next day. We used our contacts and the community of people passionate about the film Most Likely to Succeed to identify great visits. And we just worked really hard, particularly Jeff Johnson and his team at Riverwood Strategies (the firm that specializes in advance planning for political campaigns). Also, when you're actually at a school, it doesn't take long to get a sense of what the student experience is like. I'd walk the halls, peek into classrooms, and interview students. In many (far too many) schools, kids are just going through the motions and the teachers are clearly demoralized.

But in the places that blew me away, there was energy that was instantly palpable. I'd look for, and fail to find, even one bored student. The teachers would share with me how they felt trusted as professionals to help their students. When I asked students questions, they know their stuff, and they had great reasons for why they were working hard on something.

JB: Now, you've intrigued me. Can you share a story or two of what you saw? What were they doing that 'worked?'

TD: The heart and soul of my book What School Could Be revolves around these stories -- courageous and visionary teachers in ordinary circumstances doing extraordinary things. One or two in isolation may seem interesting, but the real power comes from an overall mosaic of stories -- drawn from all across the country, across all grade levels, in every geography and demographic circumstance. I go from kindergarten kids in hard-scrabble Fort Wayne, Indiana, who are designing robots and mastering 3D printing right up through the amazing University of Maryland, Baltimore County, with their project-intensive STEM programs showing us how a university can empower kids, many from disadvantaged circumstances, to thrive.

As I traveled, this mosaic of transformational learning experiences seemed to be a bit of a jumble -- since no two are alike. But after the trip, as I stepped back and began reflecting on the overall pattern, I grew to appreciate that these extraordinary classrooms shared four common characteristics. These students are developing deep knowledge of a topic, essential skill sets and mindsets, true personal agency, and a sense of genuine purpose that comes from taking on challenges that make the world better. I use the acronym PEAK (purpose, essentials, agency, knowledge) to describe these powerful principles of meaningful education. Contrast these classrooms with all of the time students spend on tasks like SAT test prep, which is, in every way, anti-PEAK. Students drilling on stuff they find irrelevant just to move slightly up the pecking order in the chase for a more selective college. Ugh! We can do so much better.

JB: The Big Question, then, would be: how do we get from here to there? The education industrial complex has been built on the gods of standardized testing. It's not just the NCLB [No Child Left Behind] of George W. Bush, but it is Obama's Race to the Top which has further shackled our teachers and schools and disadvantaged our students. How do we accomplish a coup, work-around, full-scale reimagining within those constraints?

TD: And that is the single most important question facing our country, and the issue that will determine whether our democracy thrives or collapses. The urgency is profound and acute. I couldn't agree more about the damage done by NCLB and RTTT. Today, many view GWB's biggest policy blunder to have been the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq, which cost our country $3 trillion and only fueled the rise of terrorism. But as awful as that played out, his education policies will ultimately be viewed as more damaging. And Obama, with his promise of "hope and change," just piled on when it comes to damaging the lives of our students and teachers. And for those looking for a turn for the better from our federal government, the current Secretary of Education is singularly unqualified for her role. I do hope she stays in office, though, since the only thing worse than someone incompetent with bad ideas is someone competent with bad ideas.

So how do we make progress? I go right at this issue in What School Could Be. I explain the failings of our top-down central-planning policies, and the damage done by those eight seductive words -- "We have to be able to measure it." And I highlight leaders with an agile, effective innovation change model. I go into some detail on the remarkable work done in New Hampshire from 2009-2016 to put in place conditions for teacher-led change in both how students learn and are assessed. Their progress shows us that we can change schools at the state level, if our leaders have vision and are willing to trust and support our teachers in the field. And my website offers resources that any school, district, or community can draw on to energize their community, and start making informed progress through small steps that, over time, lead to big change. When you say 'small steps,' it doesn't sound all that consequential, but this is an innovation change model and, I'd argue, is the only way large systems ever change.

I'd emphasize one additional point. The biggest challenge in U.S. education is helping existing schools change. That's what I hope my film and my books do. But we have 137,000 existing schools with more than 75 million K-12 students in our country. Those who direct massive resources to creating a few new schools just miss the point. The clock is ticking; machine intelligence is sprinting ahead; other countries aren't tinkering around the edges; millions of our kids are at risk.

We won't help enough kids in a timely way if all we accomplish in the next decade is creating a few hundred new schools. We won't equip kids to thrive in a world full of dynamic innovation if our goal is eking out modest increases in standardized test scores. We can't possibly prepare our kids for their future if we short-change our teaching force when it comes to compensation, trust, and respect. Our country can do big things -- just think of World War II, or putting someone on the moon. But will we when it comes to education? That's far from clear. But if we don't, we're heading into a society with tens of millions adrift, and with a democracy that may not survive.

It's much, much harder to use a standardized test to assess someone's real-world expertise. So we have our kids study what's easy to test, not what's important to learn. -- Ted Dintersmith

JB: What is the value of hands-on projects? What do they bring to the mix that we don't get in our test-driven education system? How do they prepare us any better for life than what we've got now?

TD: I'm skeptical that all that much is being learned in theory-only academic courses, particularly in STEM fields. Just take a couple of minutes to watch this very telling short video. So graduates of MIT can't light up a light bulb with a wire and battery. Have they really learned much real science? Do they really understand electricity, or have they just been facile at memorizing Coulomb's and Kirchoff's Law? Keep in mind that these students all have 4.5+ GPAs in high school, 800s on their math SAT, and 5s in AP Physics and AP Calculus BC. They have completed four years at MIT, the most prestigious engineering institute in the world. And they can't light up the bulb. While anecdotal, this speaks volumes about the disconnect between theory-only academics and a deeper form of knowledge grounded in the real world.

One of the big issues in our K-12 schools today is that most students spend their middle- and high-school years on academic college-ready content that's a mile wide and an inch deep. By and large, I don't find that they're retaining what they study, nor have a particularly deep understanding of it -- despite working hard and, often, scoring well on exams.

So just suppose, for a moment, that our high school kids studied electricity in part by shadowing a master electrician. Developing expertise in how to wire a home electrical system. Really understanding loading, grounding, and the role of circuit breakers. Would some have a running start on a career as a master electrician? Would those going to college to study physics be able to light up a light bulb with a wire and battery? And would we have more adults that know what to do when the electricity goes out? Applied learning is advantageous to almost all involved . . . except the testing organizations. It's easy to test a student's recall of Coulomb's Law and ability to take three parameters and solve for the fourth.

It's much, much harder to use a standardized test to assess someone's real-world expertise. So we have our kids study what's easy to test, not what's important to learn. And, fast forward, our kids leave high school with no demonstrable applied skills, so their only choices are more formal, costly education or taking some crummy minimum wage job. Shouldn't the purpose of education be to give our students multiple fulfilling paths forward, instead of just having them jump through college-ready hoops?

This issue gets right at the core of the health of our democracy. Today, our society elevates the worth of someone with a college degree, with many viewing those without a college degree as second-class citizens. That pervades our K-12 curriculum, which by the way is mapped out by a bunch of education PhDs with no real-world experience. But to get that college degree, a student and her/his family need to come up with $75K or more. Some get scholarships, but many are draining retirement or going deeply into debt.

And look at the harsh math of those heading off to a four-year college. Just over half graduate in six years or less. Of those who start, about 25% get the kind of job we assume all college grads will secure. And some 70% leave with an average student loan debt of $43,000 -- which dogs many for decades. So for many, many adults in the U.S., education didn't open doors for them, and they don't see education as an affordable path forward for their children. And when employers use a college degree as a convenient filter, and when our best colleges are mostly filled with our affluent kids, we are making it almost impossible for a child growing up in a low- or middle-income family to realize the American Dream. As society bifurcates into the haves and have nots, with college tilting the scales heavily in favor of the affluent, we sow the seeds of our democracy's demise. And if you're skeptical, just look at what's unfolding right before our eyes in America today.

JB: Let's shift gears a bit. Your team made an interesting decision regarding the distribution of your film, Most Likely to Succeed. It's not available on Netflix.Why not?

TD: The purpose of the film isn't to entertain, but to help schools move forward. If I had sold it to Netflix, people would watch it at home alone on their laptop, and nothing would change in the schools they care about -- except they might get even more frustrated with the status quo. But we've now supported some 7,000 community screenings around the world -- in 35 different countries. And the film is playing an important role in helping schools, districts, communities, and even states move forward. It brings people together, raises thoughtful questions, and gives them real energy about the possibilities that can be attained if we have the courage and vision to re-imagine school. As a friend told me, "Netflix is where social change documentaries go to die." Well, we picked a different route and are thrilled with the results.

JB: Fabulous! Now what? Where do you go with all this energy and involvement?How do we make sure that the ball is not dropped and that inertia and the standardized testing industrial complex don't continue to reign?

TD: That's the single most important question facing our country. How do we give our citizenry the right kind of education that enables individuals to lead fulfilling, meaningful lives? We're not anywhere near doing that today. With our current policies and priorities, we impose on our schools, teachers, and classrooms a standardized curriculum that largely serves the needs of those who want to rank performance. We choose to make life easy for college admissions and legislators, very much as the expense of real learning. But it doesn't have to be this way. The film Most Likely to Succeed is catalyzing change in schools and districts all over the country, and in schools around the world. Over the past two years, I've spent lots of time, and made grants, to help advance education in two very different states -- North Dakota and Hawai'i -- and their progress has been remarkable. The approach is the antithesis of our federal top-down central planning standardized data-driven policies. What's proving effective is an innovation change model. Teachers are trusted and are leading the way with small steps leading, over time, to big change.

Our website offers an innovation playlist with helpful resources to facilitate grassroots progress. But, the course of history reminds us that this is the only way deep and lasting change ever occurs. I was talking this week with a senior person at a very large foundation that, despite investing lots of money in education, hasn't made much of a positive contribution. My point to them was that if you insist that people do something they have no voice in and don't believe in, even massive amounts of spending won't make good things happen. But if you empower people to do what they believe in, to set their own goals, to take real ownership for their actions, remarkable things happen with only modest amounts of financial support.

Will America step up to the challenge of re-imagining our schools? In a timely way? That's far from clear. If we don't, I'd bet that democracy as we know it collapses. The stakes are that high. If millions count on education to open doors for themselves and their children, and it actually prepares them to fail, well, there will be hell to pay. And machine intelligence is advancing rapidly. But our country is capable of doing great things when we work together on an aspirational goal. And what's more aspirational than making school engaging, authentic, and filled with purpose? I can't think of a better cause.

JB: Well put, Ted. I've been thinking a lot about this since we've started talking. About the purpose of education and what we should be getting out of it. Like many of my peers, I went all the way through high school and college and got a master's degree. I've worked in various white-collar jobs over the years. Yet I've never really felt the same kind of satisfaction I've gotten by putting together a piece of furniture, navigating cross-country in the pre-GPS days, gardening, writing, or even tough word puzzles. The academics never really gave me any sense of mastery, that I could function in the real world as a puzzle-solver or creative person. In fact, I've thought many times over the years that if I were to live my life over again, I'd want to be whatever the female equivalent of a handyman. How does this figure into the mix, or am I overthinking this?

TD: I don't think you're overthinking in the slightest. There's real satisfaction in creating something, in making something work, in taking on a problem and see tangible improvement from your efforts. It's just that almost none of that happens in most of our school years. In a very real way, we prioritize data tied to low-level tests over what matters in life. For some, school comes easy and the process works . . . at least for a while. And those academic hoop-jumpers are put on a pedestal in our society, accelerating their rise to the top of policy bureaucracies where they can -- surprise, surprise -- elevate the importance of academic hoop-jumping. And yet, how many of us can readily point to the academic superstars in our lives who just seem clueless in life, and the expert 'handy person' who has the most thoughtful set of views on a wide range of topics?

We live in a society that glorifies the academic, that uses it to rank and sort, and that has an education system that affords huge advantages to the affluent. The playing field is very tilted, and tilted in the direction of a type of learning that prepares someone to be a college professor, but is almost entirely decoupled from the real world. As a result, millions not only feel that they're left out, they are being left out. And so why should we be surprised when millions vote in shocking ways, willing to throw hand grenades into the ballot box? Or when people in desperate circumstances turn to drugs or violence. We're seeing the splintering of our society, and it stands to get far worse. But it doesn't have to be this way. If we reimagine school, if we challenge kids with real-world projects that value a wide range of competencies, if we respect all paths, we could unleash an entire new generation of purpose-filled creative problem solvers. We can. But will we? That's the question that will define the future of our democracy.

Change happens slowly right up until it happens quickly.--Ted Dintersmith

JB: Indeed. You raise basic questions that affect the very future of our nation. Anything we didn't touch on yet that you'd like to talk about before we wrap this up?

The biggest point I'd underscore is that when it comes to education, change is local. On monumental challenges like addressing climate change, the actions of any of us depend on the actions of all of us. But that's not the case with school. We can make choices that affect a child, or a particular school, and the consequences don't depend all that much on the actions of millions of others. We can encourage a child to go deep with an interest or a passion, or we can push them to play the game. A school can choose to be bold and innovative, or just keep trying to do more of the same a little bit better. It's really in our hands. And innovation comes in bunches.

It's a lot easier for several teachers in a school to innovate than one lone outlier. A lot easier for several schools in a community to innovate than one 'alternative' school for 'those kids.' And I always remind audiences: Change happens slowly right up until it happens quickly. This is a challenge we can meet. We can reimagine school to make it far more engaging and meaningful for our children, and restore trust to teachers in the classroom. It's right there in front of us, and our children are depending on us to do the right thing.

JB: Thanks so much for talking with me, Ted. It's been a pleasure. What you're calling for is a tsunami of local action, dozens, hundreds, thousands, many thousands of individual actions. This is absolutely doable. Keep inspiring us and holding us accountable as we reimagine what education can be. I'm counting on your revolutionary fervor being extremely contagious!

TD: And thank you for the great questions and for helping spread the word. A fight worth fighting for!!

***

Thank you, Meryl Ann Butler, OpEdNews Managing Editor, for your editing magic and endless patience!

*I heard Ted speak recently at a FAN (Family Action Network) lecture, part of an ongoing series of outstanding talks for teachers and interested citizens. Check it out here.

What School Could Be: Insights and Inspiration from Teachers Across America, by Ted Dintersmith, Princeton University Press, 2018

Most Likely to Succeed documentary

Most Likely to Succeed trailer

Most Likely to Succeed FaceBook page

Ted's TEDx talk, Fargo, ND: Prepare Our Kids for Life, Not Standardized Tests

Most Likely to Succeed: Preparing Our Kids for the Innovation Era [book] by Ted Dintersmith and Tony Wagner

Great short videos from Ted's website:
The Future of Work [see below for YouTube link]: 2:52 minutes

What Teachers Value: 1:41 minutes

No Child Left Behind? [see below for YouTube link]: 1:44 minutes

What Students Need [see below for YouTube link]: 1:45 minutes

Ted's TEDx talk: 11:37 minutes

**

Odyssey of the Mind is a great example of creativity at work, on a peer-to-peer basis. They periodically hold their world championships at University of Maryland, College Park. I saw them in action a few years ago and was wowed. This program has been going on, across the country, and in many foreign countries since the late '70s. I interviewed the founder and mastermind, a coach from Maine, and another coach from Florida, who started out as a young participant. Check it out for your community, school or youth group.

Temple Grandin - Calling All Minds: How to Think and Create Like an Inventor, including 25 hands-on projects for kids

Another education-related interview:

Hidden Factors That Affect College Success: Who Knew? 4.2.2018

***
The Future of Work:

No Child Left Behind?

What Students Need:

Authors Website: http://www.opednews.com/author/author79.html

Authors Bio:

Joan Brunwasser is a co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) which since 2005 existed for the sole purpose of raising the public awareness of the critical need for election reform. Our goal: to restore fair, accurate, transparent, secure elections where votes are cast in private and counted in public. Because the problems with electronic (computerized) voting systems include a lack of transparency and the ability to accurately check and authenticate the vote cast, these systems can alter election results and therefore are simply antithetical to democratic principles and functioning.



Since the pivotal 2004 Presidential election, Joan has come to see the connection between a broken election system, a dysfunctional, corporate media and a total lack of campaign finance reform. This has led her to enlarge the parameters of her writing to include interviews with whistle-blowers and articulate others who give a view quite different from that presented by the mainstream media. She also turns the spotlight on activists and ordinary folks who are striving to make a difference, to clean up and improve their corner of the world. By focusing on these intrepid individuals, she gives hope and inspiration to those who might otherwise be turned off and alienated. She also interviews people in the arts in all their variations - authors, journalists, filmmakers, actors, playwrights, and artists. Why? The bottom line: without art and inspiration, we lose one of the best parts of ourselves. And we're all in this together. If Joan can keep even one of her fellow citizens going another day, she considers her job well done.


When Joan hit one million page views, OEN Managing Editor, Meryl Ann Butler interviewed her, turning interviewer briefly into interviewee. Read the interview here.

While the news is often quite depressing, Joan nevertheless strives to maintain her mantra: "Grab life now in an exuberant embrace!"


Joan has been Election Integrity Editor for OpEdNews since December, 2005. Her articles also appear at Huffington Post, RepublicMedia.TV and Scoop.co.nz.