It is risky to be innovative?

David Culberhouse is an inspirational ed leader that I follow. His tweet above connects well to the discussion below. 

Sometimes it is risky to be innovative in schools. In some arenas, innovation and creativity by educators are not welcome. Teachers in situations like this have to squeeze their creativity and innovation in between the tight crevice of curriculum expectations and mandates. This squeeze can be challenging, so why do teachers do it?

Teachers are motivated to innovate and create because they see opportunity for betterment. When they teach expected programs and children react with lethargy or lack of learning, educators know that they need to make change to engage, empower, and educate students well. Yet, when the curriculum expects children and teachers to be the same, there is often little room for personalization, innovation, or creativity.

For many of us, we use the design process when it comes to curriculum. We're continually teaching, assessing, reflecting, and revising to make the program better and help children more. We don't simply take out the project box and teach the same every year. Yes, we may repeat successful learning experiences, but it's more likely that we are continually refining and developing our curriculum efforts to best teach all students in ways that are meaningful, relevant, and successful for those students.

To embrace a spirit of innovation and creativity in schools means that we have to move away from the fixed mindset notion that one book or curriculum program will serve students well for many years. Programs and books quickly lose their relevancy in today's world, and that's why good process is a better path, a good process that finds students and educators identifying the best resources, tools, and activities for learning. Identification of those resources, tools, and activities will have a lot to do with who the students are and what they need. For example, we have a list of standards to teach in science. I believe that the standards are solid. There are many, many ways to teach those standards, and now we are working on teaching those standards in ways that reflect interdisciplinary, relevant, and meaningful study, ways that embed social-emotional skills, hands-on activities, writing, reading, research, and learning in the local environment. This is rich work that will give students an opportunity to learn in ways that they will replicate throughout their lives--this kind of learning connects well to students' greater world allowing them to develop the learning on their own via conversation, play, and further exploration.

The challenge, I expect, for curriculum leaders is that to allow this level of innovation and creativity means that educators may all be doing somewhat different things, and this doesn't make for the kind of neat scenario when on a Friday at 11:15 every teacher is teaching the same science lesson with the same materials in the same way. That sameness is probably a lot easier to manage and discuss, whereas allowing educators to work like the scientists and artists they are is a lot messier and results in educators who are wholly invested in the students they teach and therefore are teaching the same standards in ways that look different in each grade-level and classroom. Of course, there's a balance to be had here, but you simply can't expect the diversity of educators to work as robots rather than people. A teacher with many years of experience will likely teach differently than a first year teacher. A teacher who is a physical fitness guru will likely employ the curriculum a bit differently than a teacher whose primary interest is art and writing. There is variation in educators, and this variation is a great advantage if valued and empowered.

Should it be risky to be innovative in schools?

How do curriculum leaders ensure that every child in the system is getting a top-notch, standards-based program while not expecting teachers to teach in one-size-fits-all ways?

How do we maximize our personal differences and strengths while mitigating our challenges as a teaching community? (a team approach is very powerful with regard to this question).

When is it important that we all do the same thing, and when is that problematic?

How do we foster optimal communication with respect to the questions above? What modern processes help to promote innovation and creativity while also supporting a strong, unified program?

I will think on these questions in the days ahead. I welcome your thoughts too.