There must be a sense of continuity. Learning is a process that needs
many occasions for practice and reflection. A teacher's "great idea" without first having a
foundation for it developed over time in the lives of students or the opportunity for student application and
internalization in ensuing semesters and years can be a waste of time. Without consistency, there is the
opportunity for confusion and bewilderment on the part of students. In the long run the "great idea"
can be lost if it occurs only in the classroom of the creative teacher and does not become an ongoing part of
the total school program.
A third problem is that often the creative teacher forgets about the individual student. A creative teacher
can become so involved in what he or she is creating that the needs, interests, and learning styles of
individual students are ignored. It is possible that the teacher is so positive about the merits of the new
program or product that the student and/or the expectations of the community are forgotten. Without careful,
thoughtful and consistent assessment and evaluation the creation becomes the end instead of the means to
improve learning for all.
The perplexity of the situation, which the creative teacher faces, is two fold. First of all, problems
frequently arise as a result of mistakenly thinking that creativity is simply an activity. The successful
creative teacher recognizes that there is much more to the act of creating than merely "doing." It
is much more. Creativity is a process. That process must include at least four (4) categories of behavior:
DATA COLLECTION (data about what is, who the students are, what are the expectations of the school and
community etc.) DATA ORGANIZING (comparing, contrasting, prioritizing, looking for similarities and
differences etc.) IDEA BUILDING AND USING (generalizing, model building, inventing, designing, applying,
trying out etc.) EVALUATION (critiquing, assessing results, determining strengths and weaknesses, retracing
steps etc.) And, while those four categories are listed above in what appears to be linearly, they are in fact
used cyclically. This is especially true when one recognizes that as a result of assessment and evaluation,
there is automatically new data generated, which will start the cycle again. The unsuccessful teacher
frequently focuses on "idea building and using", and ignores the interrelationship that exists with
the other four categories. (See #1)
THE CREATIVE PROCESS
(The Creative Cycle for Teachers)
|

|
EVALUATION / REFLECTION
Student Portfolios
Student Interviews
Student Post Surveys
Post Grades and Attendance Records
Time Records
Retracing Steps
|
|
DATA COLLECTING
Observing
Reading and Discussing
Asking Questions
Who are the Students?
What Materials / Strategies Exist?
What are the Expectations?
What are the Needs?
|
 |
 |
 |
IDEA BUILDING / USING
Creating Models
Inventing, Designing, developing
Writing Papers, Reviews, Explanations, etc
Predicting Results
Hypothesizing
Trying out Ideas
Testing Knowledge, Understanding etc
Keeping track of results |
|
DATA ORGANIZING
Comparing - what is with what could be
Looking for Similarities and differences
Checking usage
Prioritizing
Determining strengths and weaknesses
Clarifying Specific Problems and Needs |
 |
The second difficulty, already alluded to, is the very real possibility that the teacher is forced to work
alone. While the "system" says it respects and wants creativity, more often than not, it does
nothing to encourage or support it. The creative teacher often has to literally fight for time, money,
recourses, and/or equipment necessary to truly create and become involved in all aspects of the creative
process. The "system" makes it difficult for teachers to share ideas, plan mutual activities, and
build upon each other's strengths and interests. While some of the creative process can and does take
place in private, in a social institution such as a school, those processes must also be public. Without that
public involvement and review, the products, programs and/or technologies created can easily become
misunderstood, ignored, or even divisive. Instead of bringing new possibilities to learning to all they become
cause celebres - bringing confusion, anger, and frustration to the creative teacher as well as to other
teachers who feel left out.
As to the notion of the "entrepreneurial teacher", by definition, it is impossible. Yes, teachers
might have an entrepreneurial "style" in that they are willing to take a risk and try out new ideas
without prior approval. Or, they might participate in what looks like an entrepreneurial "activity",
in that they are introducing something new to the classroom. In either case, they are not entrepreneurs. And,
they won't be until they risk their own time, energy and money to create a product, program, service, or
technology that will stand alone and be self supportive.
During the 1960's and 1970's some creative teachers were able to leave the classroom, and with the
help of government and private grants, develop some exciting new teaching and learning strategies. They
successfully brought about programs for such varied interests and needs as critical thinking, new math,
innovative assessment, individualized reading, inquiry training, and cooperative learning. They certainly
appeared to be entrepreneurial in what they were creating. And, in a way they were entrepreneurial in that
they were actively engaged in "finding" money, even if it wasn't their own. But, except for
losing a grant, or running out of funding sources, the personal financial risks were minimal.
Some people reading this might disagree with the very narrow definition of entrepreneur used in this paper.
Through misusage, many people have disregarded the fact that the original use of the word was related to
business and did require the risk of using one's own money in the creation of that business. Regardless,
the true entrepreneur is independent. His product must stand-alone. Entrepreneurs cooperate, work with others,
seek help, and often share ideas. But they are autonomous and self-reliant. And, most importantly to be truly
successful, they must engage in a process. That process is similar to the "Creative Process"
described earlier in that it is cycular, it never finished.
The ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS, like the Creative Process has four categories of activity: RESEARCH AND
PLANNING (determining needs, checking the industry, identifying resources, preparing a business plan etc.)
DEVELOPMENT (developing prototype, testing prototype, selecting staff, developing product etc.) MARKETING AND
DISTRIBUTION (advertising, publicity, storage and warehousing, billing and collection etc.) ASSESSMENT AND
EVALUATION (surveys, profit and loss statements, customer comments, sales projections vs. sales) (See #2)
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS
(A Cycle for Creating a Business)
|

|
ASSESSMENT / EVALUATION
Satisfaction Surveys
Profit & Loss Statements
Sales Projections vs. Sales
Customer Comments
Staff Surveys
|
|
RESEARCH / PLANNING
Determine Needs
Check Industry
Determine Skills
Identify Resources
Research Government Regulations
Prepare Business Plan
Determine Organ. Structure
|
 |
 |
 |
MARKETING / DISTRIBUTION
Advertising
Publicity
Transportation
Billing & Collections
Storage & Warehousing
Training User's Staff
|
|
DEVELOPMENT
Develop Prototype
Develop Product
Test Prototype
Select / Assign Staff
Identifying Time Lines
Identifying Sales Strategy |
 |
With very little thought, it becomes immediately obvious that this process is impossible for use in the
existing education system. In reality, the only way a truly entrepreneurial teacher can function is by leaving
the system he or she wants to positively influence. It is not the teacher's fault. It is the system itself
which has become so politicized and overly regulated that is at fault. Practically every decision as to what
the public schools should be doing and how they should be doing it comes from the state - not the school or
the teacher. With the exception of a few teachers, just a few administrators, and very few schools everything
is designed to bring change into the system from the outside that system. Creative teachers are ignored and
discouraged. What could at least be an entrepreneurial attitude is impossible to maintain in the current
environment. That is why so many teachers leave the profession.
Where does that leave us?
As stated, we have a quandary. Like with any real problem the answer is not an easy one. This paper will
not provide "the" answer. In fact, it will not even provide "an" answer. Instead,
hopefully at least, it will offer a few questions that need to be asked. Also, it will provide an idea or two
about what we must do if we are truly interested in releasing the creative energy of those special teachers
who want to bring about a dramatic change as to how teaching and learning can best be institutionalized. And,
most of all, it will describe a process that will make it possible for creative teachers to remain within the
system. That process can be identified. That process can provide a structure for determining what changes must
occur throughout the organization if that organization does ultimately live up to the goal of supporting the
creativity of its teachers. Creativity can be exciting and rewarding in and of itself. It can keep teachers
inspired, stimulated and energized. While these are all worthwhile outcomes, they alone do not justify putting
the necessary commitment into the task of what amounts to a systematic change. The only justifiable reason for
that commitment is the improvement of learning for all students.
Some of the first questions we must ask ourselves are; what is education? What role does training have?
What are the differences between education and "going to school?" Who should be educated? How? What
do we do about differences in students' abilities, needs, interests and goals? Where can education best
take place? Who decides what is taught and how should it be measured? What role does "choice" have
in organizing learning environments? How can understanding and creative be assessed and evaluated? How should
education be financed? How are decisions made for individual students and families? These and many other
similar fundamental questions need to be asked and their answers publicly agreed upon. As of this moment in
time, there are as many answers as there are people answering them. That condition is one of the main reasons
why creative teachers are frustrated, angry, and disillusioned. They are forced to either act alone, in
secrecy or to somehow put undue attention on "winning support" from administrators and the public
instead of on teaching and learning. Today, the creative teacher is all too frequently put in the position of
"us against them."
One possible way to bring a dramatic change to "what is", is to think in terms of "what
might be." And, what might be is a system that is purposely designed to support the creativity and
autonomy of all those teachers who have an entrepreneurial bent.
The true entrepreneur functions in a free market. The public schools are not and never will be in and of
themselves a free market institution. So long as they are entirely dependent upon governmental financial
support they will be dependent upon political forces, not market forces. While public schools in the United
States hopefully are, and should be, a reflection of free enterprise, that is all they are. They merely, and
that term is not used pejoratively, mirror the goals and objectives of the society that sponsors them.
What is needed is a new construct, a new paradigm for the organization of any school system. That new
organizational structure will be one that is purposely designed to support, and make public; a system
established to unleash the power of the creative teacher. It will be conceived with a firm understanding of
and belief in the energy and force inherent in the act of entrepreneurship. It will combine the elements of
the Creative Process and the Entrepreneurial Process, in that it respects and pays attention to both. That
process is the INTRAPRENEURIAL PROCESS.
The INTRAPRENEURIAL PROCESS, like the CREATIVE PROCESS and the ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS, has four distinct
categories of activity: PREPARING (recognizing needs, collecting community data, identifying funding
requirements, researching existing programs), DEVELOPING (identifying purposes, formalizing goals and
objectives, sequencing activities, trying out segments etc.) IMPLEMENTING (field testing, finalizing funding
requirements, disseminating materials, collecting ongoing assessment data) CONFIRMING (analyzing assessment
data, identifying successes and problems, reporting, disseminating results)(See #3)
THE EDUCATIONAL INTRAPRENEURIAL PROCESS
(The INTRAPRENEURIAL CYCLE)
|

|
CONFIRMING
Analyzing and evaluating
- Portfolios
- Tests
- User Surveys
- Observations
- Anecdotal records
- Follow-up activities
Identifying successes and problems
Recording and reporting all analyses, successes
and failures
Disseminating results
Identifying new users, clients, and/or markets
|
|
PREPARING
Recognizing problems and concerns
Researching existing materials and strategies
Preparing specific needs assessments
Identifying obstacles and support systems
Identifying related laws, rules, regulations and
policies
Collecting community data
Identifying potential users
Recognizing cultural differences
Identifying hypotheses for testing
Identifying funding requirements
|
 |
 |
 |
IMPLEMENTING
Field testing of material / strategies
Training project staff
Identifying necessary interventions
Contacting potential users and settings
Implementing materials and strategies
Disseminating strategies and materials
Training user's staff
Institutionalizing materials / strategies
Establishing funding guidelines and payment
schedules
Collecting on-going assessment data
|
|
DEVELOPING
Identifying purposes and limits
Formalizing goals and objectives
Sequencing materials, activities and strategies
Trying out and chronicling possible activities
Finalizing funding requirements
Forming implementation plans and schedules
Publishing necessary materials and appropriate
usage guidelines
|
 |
Again, these four categories are listed lineally, however they are applied cyclically. Obviously, truly
creative people and/or entrepreneurial ones are never finished. Their joy comes from engaging in the process,
not in the finished product alone. As of this time in history, there is little or no recognizable support for
the Intrapreneurial Process to function in the schools. In fact, there is much to prevent it.
How would education be different if the Intrapreneurial Process was used to help make decisions about such
important organizational issues as teacher preparation and certification, teacher pay, teacher scheduling,
administrator responsibility, teacher assignment, school board responsibility, administrative structure,
teacher support, and teacher evaluation?
As stated earlier, this paper does not have the answer. The only real answer can come from hard work and
confidence in the possibility that a public institution can benefit from a thorough and continuing look at the
potential power inherent in the concept of the "INTRAPRENEUR." The entrepreneur can only function in
a free society. Similarly, the intrapreneur can only function within a private or public institution. That
institution must have in place a recognized structure calculated to utilize the creativity of human beings who
make up that institution. The focus must be on the change and improvement of the organization; its'
products and services. In case of schools, the focus must be on the improvement of teaching and learning for
all. Obviously, there must be a systematic change in how schools are organized and administrated as, by
definition, intrapreneurism takes place within an institution. That change, if it occurs, will only occur as a
result of a conscious resolve and commitment to establishment and maintenance of a system that subscribes to
the belief in the human capacity of the individual in free society. That new system will be designed to insure
the implementation of the INTRAPRENEURIAL PROCESS. Then, creative teachers will stay. Students and communities
will benefit.
|