This was originally delivered as a speech at the High Tech High GSE Retreat on September 15, 2023

I want to tell you a story. It’s a story about innovation. It’s a story about improvement. It’s a story about equity.

As far as I can tell, there are these three camps in education: an innovation camp, an improvement camp, and an equity camp. And each camp has an important point to make.

We do need more innovative teaching and learning in schools. We do need more innovative school models. We do need more deeper learning, more collaboration, more critical thinking, more communication. We do need more 21st century skills. We do need more personalization, and real world connection. We do need an ethic of excellence where kids produce multiple drafts so they can do their best work. Those innovation people—they have a point.

We do need more systematic improvement. We do need to understand root causes and see the system. We do need to set measurable aims (“how much by when?” “Some is not a number; soon is not a time”).  We do need to say “and why is that? And why is that? And why is that?” We do need to understand variation, so that we can learn and so that we can spread what works. Those improvement people—they have a point.

We do need more equitable schools. We do need to interrogate self, others, and systems. We do need to examine how we show up. How our identities impact how we interact with others. How our identities impact our relationships with students and colleagues. How our behaviors make our students and colleagues feel a greater sense of belonging or not. Those equity people—they have a point.

It seems to me that if we want to keep students at the center and improve schools, we need the best of innovation. We need the best of improvement. We need the best of equity. We need the speakers, the thinkers, the authors, the mindsets, and the tools. This seems kind of obvious to me.

But! These camps have a hard time talking to one another, because they really want to point out what is wrong with the other camps.¹

Talk to innovation people. They’ll tell you that improvement people are too technical. Too focused on small problems. Missing the big picture. They’ll tell you equity people are sometimes focused on lecturing to kids about social justice, but forgetting to teach in socially just ways. Those innovation people—they have a point.

Talk to equity people. They’ll tell you innovation people and improvement people don’t get it. They’ll point out that too often, innovation people and improvement people say they want to close gaps by race, but they don’t want to talk about race. Those equity people—they have a point.

Talk to improvement people. They’ll tell you innovation people and equity people are well meaning, but question how they are going to reach their aims. They’ll tell you that innovation people and equity people have “miracle goals, but no methods.” Those improvement people—they have a point.

To me, if you’re an improvement person, and you’re doing some improvement projects, but you never get past improving logistical issues, and you never get to more ambitious teaching and learning, and you don’t really feel comfortable talking about race, something has gone wrong.

And if you’re an innovation person or you’re an equity person, and you’re doing project based learning, and you’re examining self, others, and systems, and someone says, “How do you know if what you’re doing is making things better?” And you say, “Well, it’s kind of hard to know…” Something has gone wrong.

So, my charge to you. If you find yourself drawn to one of these camps… If you are more of an “improvement person” or an “innovation person” or an “equity person,” push yourself to learn from these other camps. If you’re an equity person, attend an improvement event or read an innovation book. How can you integrate the best of the other camps into your practice?

Notes

1. Editor’s note: as you’ve probably gathered, Ben is speaking in generalizations for effect. If you’re reading this and thinking “not ALL improvement people…” you are correct, but we think the generalization is useful in this instance.