Course Syllabus

 A314 syllabus S16 1-25-16.docx

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Redesigning Education Systems for the 21st Century: A Workshop is a class devoted to conceiving and developing a vision and strategic plan for a broader, deeper education system featuring comprehensive, integrated systems of education, child development, health and human services and out of school learning. We will begin by identifying the limitations of our current school system, which despite extensive reform, has failed to close achievement gaps and produce excellence and equity in American education. Working in teams and as a class, students will participate in a design and planning process to produce new 21st century models of integrated, “schooling plus” systems that deliver on the promise of preparing “all children for success”. As part of our problem statement, we will consider a prototypical student living in poverty and facing a range of challenges in her daily life at school and at home. We will use this client to ground our thinking about designing a system to meet her needs.

 

The course will meet for thirteen weeks in an intensive workshop format. Our focus will be on formulating designs to address specific systemic challenges posed by educators in Chelsea, MA, one of the highest poverty districts in the state. Student consulting teams will address a particular challenge situated in one of the three major areas for systemic policy redesign. The three areas are: personalized learning, the integration of health and human services, and increasing access to out of school learning and enrichment opportunities. The majority of the work for the course will be conducted within these consulting teams.

 

We will spend the first part of the course developing an understanding of the existing system and the realities and needs of the system’s most disadvantaged “clients”. We will look at issues and educational implications of poverty, talk to prospective consumers of this work and situate our culturally responsive designs in a particular community. We will also explore the current status and recent innovations in each of the three major design areas and will begin to develop a broad vision for entire systems. Students will work in class workshops and outside of class to select strategies and develop design proposals to address the particular challenges framed by the Chelsea educators. Once the groups complete their design proposals, members will present these to the class and the clients. We will debrief for content, presentation and process. We will discuss the challenge of synthesizing the different models to produce integrated systems. Finally we will consider issues of scaling within Chelsea and beyond.

 

Through participation in this course, students can expect to develop design thinking skills and a deeper understanding of the application of design thinking and strategy development to the challenges of addressing poverty and underperformance in US school systems.  

 

REQUIRED TEXT (RT)

• Mehta, J., Schwartz, R. B., & Hess, F. M. (2012). The futures of school reform.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

 

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

The nature of this workshop requires a full commitment from every student to the goals of the class. Students are expected to attend every class, read the assigned materials, complete written assignments, participate in group and whole-class activities, and be engaged in class discussion. Satisfactory completion of the course is dependent on the quality of students’ participation and willingness to contribute to the overall success of the class experience for all students.

  

CLASS SCHEDULE

 

SYLLABUS READING KEY

(iPac)   iPa© found on course site (CL)   Citation Linker/HOLLIS e-resources (website) see given URL

WEEK 1: JANUARY 27 | Introduction to System Design

Class Objective: The first class is devoted to introductions of the class, content, members and expectations. The focus of this class is on identifying the problems that will become the challenges to be addressed by the course’s design work. We will examine the principles and processes of design thinking and engage in some preliminary design exercises.

 

Readings:

• Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Introduction & Chapter 1. In Disrupting Class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns (pp. 1- 17, 21-42). New York: McGraw-Hill. (iPac)

• Bryk, Anthony S., Gomez, Louis, Grunow, Alicia, and LeMahieu, Paul. Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better. February 2015. Chapter 1: Harvard Education Publishing.(iPac) 

• City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., & Lynch, D. (2012). Chapter 6: Redefining education. In Mehta, R. B. Schwartz, & F. M. Hess (Eds.), The futures of school reform (pp. 151-176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. (RT)

• An Introduction to Design Thinking PROCESS GUIDE

• Helsinki Design Lab, Recipes for Systemic Change. 15-41, 54-64.

• Helsinki Design Lab. (2012). From shelter to equity: Designing social housing but building wealth. Available for download

• Friedman, T. L. (2013, March 30). Need a job? Invent it. The New York Times, p. SR11. (website)

• Reville, P. (2013). Seize the moment to design schools that close gaps. Education Week, 32(33), 36. (CL)

• Reville, P. (April 21, 2014) How to create a new K-12 engine. Education Week.

 

Optional, but informative material for skimming:

• Fullan, M. (2011, April). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. East Melbourne, AUS: Centre for Strategic Education.

• New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Tough choices or tough times. 

 

WEEK 2: FEBRUARY 3 | Develop an Understanding of the Clients and Context, Community – Chelsea Visit

Class Objective: In this class, we will consider the community in which the new models will be situated. We will meet with some community leaders and residents to discuss their environment and how their children’s educational and development needs can be more effectively met.

 

Readings & Videos:

• Chelsea Public Schools profile

• Elliott, A. (2013, December 9). Invisible child. The New York Times. (website)

• Putnam, R. D., Frederick, C. B., & Snellman, K. (2012). Growing class gaps in social connectedness among American youth. The Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America: Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

• Strauss, R. (2013, June 16). Schooling ourselves in an unequal America. The New York Times.

• Tough, P. (2012). Chapter 1: How to fail (And how not to). In How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character (pp. 1-48). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin (iPac)

• S. Department of Education, For Each and Every Child—A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, Washington, D.C., 2013.

• Porter, E. (2015). Education Gap Between Rich and Poor is Growing Wider. The New York Times. (website)

• Reeves, R. (July 2015). Four charts that show the opportunity gap isn’t going away. Brookings.

• Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation 

• National Center for Children in Poverty
• Children's Defense Fund
• Child Trends

Interviews:

• Bootcamp Bootleg Pgs 9-10
• The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design Pgs 39-51

 

WEEK 3: FEBRUARY 10 | Focus on Personalized/Individualized schooling

Class Objective: This will be the first of three classes devoted to considering particular design challenges. This session will focus on creating for a 21st century education system to differentiate between students on the basis of needs and customize learning opportunities to meet learners’ needs. With the help of an outside expert, we will look at the challenges associated with personalizing education. Students will be challenged to develop some preliminary design sketches for a more differentiated system of education. Students will debrief Chelsea visit. Finally, students will be divided into their particular design work groups to establish norms and procedures.

 

Readings:

• ASSiSTments overview (websites) http://www.wpi.edu/news/20101/136468.htm - https://www.assistments.org/

• Dede, C. (2009). Disrupting the traditional classroom. Education Week. (video)

• Hecht, B. (2013, April 4). 5 disruptive education trends that address American Fast Company.

• Khan, S. (2011). Let’s use video to reinvent education

• Rocketship

• Talbert, R. (2012, July 3). The trouble with Khan Academy. Casting Out Nines: The Chronicle of Higher Education.

• S. Department of Education. (2010). Learning: Engage and empower. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

• Summit Public Schools

• Henig, J., Riehl, C., Rebell, M., and Wolff, J. (October 2015). Putting Collective Impact in Context. Teachers College, Columbia University.

 
NO CLASS FEBRUARY 17^TH

WEEK 4: FEBRUARY 24 | Client Visit – Design Challenge

Class Objective: Student design teams will return to Chelsea, this time to visit with their particular design clients. They will interview the school leaders, visit schools and develop a thorough understanding of their particular design challenge. 

Readings:

Other Empathy Methods:

• Bootcamp Bootleg Pgs 6-8, 11-13, 33
• The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design Pgs 52-69

Synthesizing Learnings

• Field Guide for Human Centered Design - Pgs 77-80, 84, 89-93
• Bootleg Bootcamp - Pgs 15-20, 40-41

 

WEEK 5: March 2 | Focus on Integrated Services

Class Objective: This class will focus on the challenges of eliminating the health, mental health and other problems that get in the way of children coming to school and providing their most engaged effort when in attendance. We will consider the design challenges of braiding health and other social services with education services in a way that treats children and families more holistically. Design teams will be asked to discuss and produce a problem statement summarizing the design challenge they will address.

 

Readings:

• Anderson Moore, K. and Emig, C. (2014). Integrated Student Supports: A Summary of the Evidence Base for Policymakers. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends

• Dryfoos, J. G. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth, and families (pp. 6-17, 45-76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (iPac)

• Harlem Children’s Zone. (2009). Whatever it takes: A white paper on the Harlem children’s zone

• Turnaround for Children. (2013).

Problem Definition

• Field Guide for Human Centered Design - Pgs 31-33, 81-83, 85-87
• Bootleg Bootcamp - Pgs 21-23, 26

 

WEEK 6: MARCH 9 | Focus on Out-of -School Learning and Enrichment

Class Objective: This class will be devoted to consideration of how to enrich the 80% of children’s waking hours that are spent outside of school during the K-12 years. How do education systems make more high quality after-school and summer programs available to those children who don’t ordinarily have access to such opportunities? It is clear that, from a learning perspective, these enrichment opportunities are at least as important as anything that goes on in school. With some expert help, students will design some preliminary models. Design teams will also be asked to discuss and construct a list of possible solutions to their respective design problems.

 

Readings:

• Edutopia (2007). A new day for learning: Expanding the educational experience. The George Lucas Educational Foundation.

• Farbman, D. (2012). The case for improving and expanding time in school: A review of key research and practice. National Center on Time & Learning

• Peterson, T. (ed.) (2013). Expanding minds and opportunities: Leveraging the power of afterschool and summer school for student success. The Expanded Learning & Afterschool Project.

 

• 2015 Boston Summer Learning Project. (October 2015). Boston Beyond.

• The Achievement Gap. National Summer Learning Association.

• United Way Out of School Time Toolkit

• The Learning Gap. ExpandED Schools.

Ideation

• Field Guide for Human Centered Design - Pgs 94-110

  

SEMESTER BREAK

WEEK 7: MARCH 23 | Prototyping Workshop

Class Objective: Students will delve further into the process of design thinking and develop a greater understanding and facility with design skills and tools. Students will develop a clear understanding of the final product expected in this class. They will develop actual prototypes. Finally, students will discuss and begin to develop a work plan to guide the development of their design and the final products for this class.

 

Prototyping

• Field Guide for Human Centered Design - Pgs 111-127
• Bootleg Bootcamp - Pgs 34-39

 

WEEK 8: MARCH 30| Design Workshop

Class Objective: This time is completely reserved for the design groups. Design groups will present their design plans to the instructor for feedback and continue to work on refining those plans. Groups may use this time for research, contact work, asset mapping, further prototyping and any other activities leading to better understanding of the problem or clearer description of the strategies for the final design plan.

 

Readings for Specific Groups:

Personalized Learning

• A State Policy Framework for Scaling Personalized Learning. (August 2015). Knowledge Works.
• Educator Competencies for Personalized, Learner-Centered Teaching. (August 2015). CCSSO.
• Chuong, C. and Mead, S. (June 2014). A Policy Playbook for Personalized Learning: Ideas for State and Local Policymakers. Bellwether Education.
• Stacy Childress, Rethinking School
• The Nellie Mae Education Foundation

Integrated Services

• Turnaround for Children
• McGinnis, T., Crawford, M., and Somers, S. (July 2014). A State Policy Framework for Integrating Health and Social Services. The Commonwealth Fund.
• Carroll, L. and Kelly, B. (July 2015). Creating Health in the 21st Century. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
• Ogul, D. (August 2012). City Heights Breaks Ground On School-Based Health Centers. City Heights Life.

• Jones, C. (August 2014). Uplifting the Whole Child: Using Wraparound Services to Overcome Social Barriers to Learning. Mass Budget.

• Supporting Learning Through Better Health: A Strategy to Ensure Adequate and Stable Funding for School-Based Health Centers in New York State. (June 2015). Teachers College, Columbia University. 

• Basch, C. (March 2010). Healthier Students Are Better Learners: A Missing Link in School Reforms to Close the Achievement Gap. Teachers College, Columbia University.

• Brooks Bowden, A., Belfield, C., Levin, H., Shand, R., Wang, A., and Morales, M.(July 2015). A Benefit-Cost Analysis of City Connects. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Out of School

• Wong, A. (January 2015). The Activity Gap. The Atlantic.
• Brownie, D. (July 2015).Growing Together, Learning Together. The Wallace Foundation.
• Expanding Minds and Opportunities
• Miller, B. (June 2007). The Untapped Power of Summer to Advance Student Achievement: The Learning Season. Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

WEEK 9: APRIL 6 | Scaling and Systems

Class Objective: Students will consider the implications of their work as it applies to scaling within Chelsea and beyond.

 

WEEK 10: APRIL 13 | Short design presentations and development

Class Objective: Groups will present condensed versions of their design to the class for feedback.

 

WEEK 11: APRIL 20 | Workshop: Finalizing the Presentations

Class Objective: Design teams will meet to review and refine their final presentations.

 

Readings:

• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Chapter 2: Successful change and the force that drives it. In Leading change (pp. 17-31). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. (iPac)

• Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government (pp. 70- 76, 118-134, 151-189). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (iPac)

 

WEEK 12: APRIL 27 | Presentations

 

WEEK 13: MAY 4 | Synthesis and Debrief

Class Objective: Students will reflect on their presentations, the feedback received and potential modifications to their designs. The class will consider the overlap and integration of the various design proposals. How can systems be constructed based on the solutions discovered in this very particular process? How might those systems be integrated? The class will consider the applicability of these Chelsea designs to other places. Finally, the class will discuss the process and experience of working in design teams.