Keep It Simple

Back in May of 2022, Getting Smart’s Rebecca Midles wrote an interesting article titled “Framing and Designing the HOW.” Midles uses Simon Sinek’s work on organizational why, how, and what as a guide to her writing. As we attempt to create a new system of learning, I thought it wise to return to Midles’s thinking regarding these three important aspects to organizational change.

Midles writes,

“The Golden Circle of the Why, How, and What is a familiar process for organizations. Simon Sinek and others have used this framing to explain the work of alignment and coherence.”

“As a learning system, however, we approach the design work in a different order. We are trained to design with a goal in mind, a learning outcome, and a learning experience. After designing the why, we move to the goals, our what, and then set out path to design the how. This process is to define how we learn, our instruction, our assessment, and how we report on growth. After defining the why of what we do, our approach flows next to the outcomes, or the what. Where we dedicate our iterative efforts resides in the how.”

“Defining the Why – Learning systems are specifically designed to get the results they have, and to change results, we have to redesign the system. In terms of transforming learning, it is crucial to define why a learning organization exists. This process takes time in order to equitably invite stakeholders to process and gain understanding. To intentionally bring diverse voices to the table to build and/or update the vision, and to flatten access by inviting new voices into conversations providing transparency in communication about the process and feedback collected.”

“Defining the What – With a vision as a driver and a starting definition of learner profiles, organizations can move to develop an understand of what learning could look like to support these outcomes. This can often look like an aligned set of competencies or a set of learning look-fors across the system that supports the learning vision by creating a shared understanding of expectations. It could be a set of design principles to shape future learning experiences. There may also be agreed-upon commitments between staff about how to work together to make this vision a reality for all kids. This is not a small task and requires considerable and commendable effort. It is also the beginning and doing this well is a great boost to the work ahead. This defines the why, and the what, and in the best case, it begins to define the how.”

“Defining the How – Whether it is called a learning model or a learning framework, the way in which each member of a team support learning and growth needs clarity and accessibility. For example, an expectation might be set that great teaching is fundamentally about relationships, which requires safety, trust, and the expectation to know our learners, their interests, and their passions. This could be tied to a guiding visions that learners deserve a space to grow, a place that has personalized high expectations and instills a belief that learners can lead their learning choices and become agents and coauthors of their learning path. There could also be a focus on learning culture, mindsets, and dispositions to prepare learners and adults in the organization for future growth and the level of change.”

Why do we make things complicated when they can be so simple?

It’s not that I disagree with anything Rebecca Midles writes above. It’s just that I think the why, what, and how could be explained in simpler terms, especially when they are applied to personalized learning.

My experience tells me that the why of personalized learning is the pursuit that every young learner will be able to define, plan, execute, and evaluate their own learning.

The what of personalized learning is contained in the young learner’s personalized learning plan. Within that plan contains expectations for personalized learner interest, reading, writing, and problem-solving goals, and character development expectations.

The how of personalized learning is embedded in the negotiation process between the young learner and their learning coach regarding the process by which learning goals are met, or not, and how new learning goals replace those that have been attained. Without negotiation involving the young learner, we run the risk of the learner themselves thinking their input doesn’t matter.

When we think about the why, what, and how of a learning system, let’s try to make that thinking simple and straightforward. The new learning system should beware not to become the bureaucratic mess, difficult to explain, that our traditional public school system has become.

Til tomorrow. SVB