At the end of last year Apple called for applications for the Apple Distinguished Educator programme. The application consisted of a series of essays and a 2 minute video. Despite being heinously busy trying to finish reports, I figured I’d give it a go thinking that the application process itself would be an awesome reflective tool to document my first year in teaching.
Never in a million years did I think that I my application would be successful and that I would get to hang with a couple of hundred awesome educators from around the Asia Pacific region.
But here I am in paradise with an important lesson already learned, never say no to opportunities. You might think there are other, more awesome and better qualified people that will get the nod. But really there’s no harm in putting your hand up, the worst that will happen is that someone might say no. And sometimes, you might get a yes.
And that yes can be life changing.
Already I’ve met so many fabulous educators, so many people to connect with and learn from. I’ve got ideas from improv artist, photographers, doctors, techno geeks and awesome teachers that will make a difference in my class. Which is part of the reason I’m here. While I love geeking out and playing with gadgets I’m here to learn to be a better teacher.
Coming into the Apple institute, I worried that the technology might actually detract from that mission. After all Apple users can be a tad obnoxious about their love of iDevices at times. Several hundred in one room could run the risk of the event being a full on Mac love-in. However far from being a full on meeting of of the cult of mac, the conference thus far hasn’t been about having the latest shiny device or a 1:1 programme. It’s been about making connections, taking risks and asking big questions.Proving my maximum that’s it’s not about having the latest technology that makes a difference, it’s what you do with the technology that counts.
In the words of Bill Frakes, who gave an amazing presentation on creating engaging digital assets, the device doesn’t take the photo. It’s the heart, eye, mind, and soul the black box is just a capture device.
I’m looking forward to learning more in the coming days.
A few weeks ago, I was at meeting where the presenter remarked to the largely teacher audience that we would have to excuse her creative right-brain tendencies during her presentation.
I’ve been ruminating about this off-hand remark for weeks, the idea that teaching isn’t a particularly creative profession. Certainly when we think of creative fields, design, art, music, film, writing and even science probably figure a lot more prominently in people’s minds than education.
Yet when we think of great teachers, and more importantly see representations of great teachers in the media, creativity is a common trait along with a commitment to education that goes beyond thinking of teaching as a job.
And I think there’s something in the idea that when we invest our creativity into an activity, our feelings about it change.
Is that why schools and by extension teachers are often viewed so negatively by society? Because they are seen as being places that kill creativity.
In one of TED’s most popular talks, Sir Ken Robinson argued that our educational systems have perpetuated a crisis of creative thought as students get their creativity taught out of them, time and again, in a systematic fashion.
So in many ways I don’t think the presenter of my workshop was entirely off-base when she assumed that teachers are detail-orientated types who love nothing more than flicking our red pens over spelling mistakes and making sure that our students pull their socks up. After all, I doubt many people would list a teacher among the creative people they’ve met. Maybe an art or music teacher might make the grade; maybe that one special teacher who marched to his or her own tune. But in general teachers are viewed as a uncreative bunch.
Certainly Sir Ken is right that part of the problem is undoubtedly inherent in our educational system. Schools are institutions which come with regulations and organisational hierarchies that often don’t sit well with creative-types. Because another central theme in the superhero teacher narrative is that this subset of teachers are frequently disruptive to school culture and often find themselves on the losing side of clashes with school authorities.
John Keating got pushed out in the Dead Poets Society as did Katherine Watson in Mona Lisa Smile. Real-life teachers Erin Gruwell and Jamie Escalante clashed with administrators over pedagogy in their films and in a nod to my friend @apathyjack, Dr Cox would have lasted all of five minutes in a school setting.
Perhaps it is this conflict between creative individuals and existing systems which is the reason that creativity isn’t something that is valued in the selection of would-be teachers nor much in teacher education programmes. Yet we can’t expect our educational systems to produce creative concept-driven thinkers if we don’t also have creative teachers in the classroom. However in my experience there is far more emphasis put on developing teachers as managers of classroom learning rather than as creative professionals.
One of the scary implications of the rise of Kahn Academy is that teachers don’t have the inclination nor interest to become competent producers of content – digital or otherwise – in their own right. I’ve had a couple of people remark to me that they can’t understand why I’m not in the film industry because of the video content that my class and I produce. Yet I don’t consider myself in away a proficient digital story teller. In fact most of my ideas are frequently stolen from others.
And I think that’s part of the problem. Teachers themselves often don’t view themselves as being creative, they think they merely reuse and adapt the ideas of others. What we often forget is that creativity isn’t a lone flash of insight but actually the adaptation of existing ideas to new contexts. It’s taking a reading programme and changing it to fit the needs of your learners. It’s turning a bucket into a place to store student gear.
Would schools function well if they were full of creative-types? I know I am a terrible when it comes to anything remotely admin-related. Collecting forms, organizing learning portfolios, policing uniform, even remembering to take the roll are tasks that are forever tripping me up and I hate doing them. What’s more standards and exams can also be rightly pointed to as constraints on teacher creativity.
But the thing is that creative professionals are always working within constraints. In fact creativity is often defined by the constraints in which it transpires. But even if you hypothetically swept away National Standards, NCEA and other traditional boogeymen of classroom creativity what would teachers do? Are teachers on the whole prepared to move forward as creative professionals?
If teaching is a creative profession how do we develop the creativity of our future teachers? How do we attract creative people to enter teaching? When and where, if ever, do teachers come to recognize themselves as creative professionals? How do we develop creativity in the teaching profession?