Archive for the ‘Pondering’ Category

What’s next?

January 31st, 2011 by James Scoolis

Recently I went to an in-service where I was advised to make my office “impeccable,” by which they basically meant nearly empty.  I was even told to get rid of my computer!  While that is not going to happen, I did decide to clean out my office.

I started with the bookcase.  I had books in there going all the way back to my master’s degree program when I was still a regular classroom teacher.  Let me just say that was when the internet was still considered experimental and “Apple or Windows?” remained a hotly debated question in school districts.   One book I moved to the donation-recycle pile was ASCD’s 1998 Yearbook, Learning with Technology.

Flipping through the pages I reflected on how far we in education have come with our long-desired “technology integration.” For example, there were visionary discourses on school in the 21st century with statements like, “Encourage teachers and students to start using the internet to become familiar with technology,” “Provide internet access in each classroom, or at least in as many classrooms as possible,” and “Provide email accounts for teachers.”    I think we have that last one under control.

There were also articles that discussed how technology would be the centerpiece of a complete redesign of schools—well, not schools, but rather learning centers, without actual classrooms, where  teams of teachers would work as learning facilitators.  That hasn’t happened yet anywhere near where I work.

What did the visionaries of 1998 omit from their prognostications?  There wasn’t anything in the book about discouraging students from bringing or using handheld internet devices.  No mention was made of the fact we should not use a student’s name in the subject line of an e-mail, nor were we reminded that each and every e-mail is, in fact, a permanent document subject to subpoena.  You get the idea.

Despite the fact not all of  the yearbook’s predictions have come to pass, technology certainly has become integrated into seemingly every aspect of life at school, home and work.  We have Google to answer our questions, Facebook to find and be a friend, and Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.   Our music, video and other entertainment is nearly all digital and available immediately online. The nature and concept of software itself is being transformed.  Fears that computers would isolate us or expose us to all sorts of revisionist history have proven false.

Schools, students, teachers, administrators—we all have and use technology.  Wow!  Now what?  What’s next?

On the horns of a dilemma

November 22nd, 2010 by Michael Simkins

Even in the Age of Technology, I don’t think we can have it both ways.

Back in the Iron Age, when I was teaching 5th grade, my class found itself stuck on the horns of a difficult dilemma.  We’d had two school-wide assemblies in one week.  The first told us what to do in case of an earthquake: sleep with your bedroom door open; you don’t want it jammed if you have to get out.  A few days later, a fire marshal instructed us in no uncertain terms to sleep with our bedroom doors closed; keep the smoke and fire out as long as possible.

Of course, on returning to the classroom, the immediate question was,  “Mr. Simkins, what should we do?  We can’t sleep with the door open and closed at the same time?”  As good as it was, my teacher preparation program did not prepare me to arbitrate between the civil defense authorities and the fire department.  I was at a loss to know how to respond.

Moving to the realm of educational technology, two recent experiences left me similarly perplexed.  First, I read an advertisement about a wonderful “pen” that records sound.  Among the many benefits of this device, I’m told, is that students no longer need to bother themselves taking notes during a lecture.  Now they can devote their entire attention to what the professor or teacher is saying.  Subsequently, I participated in an online seminar where I was told I should encourage students to backchannel during a lecture—that is,  exchange text messages with other students in the class.

Hello?

As a student, I’m supposed to use the recording pen to enable me to devote my undivided attention to what’s being presented in class and, at the same time, use my cellphone, smartphone, netbook, laptop—whatever—to engage in a side conversation with my buds, er, I mean,  fellow students.

Is it just me, or do you, too, see a problem here?

What path innovation?”

October 12th, 2010 by Butch Owens

Are common standards and national tests the panacea for our nation’s woes?  Some seem to think so, but I’m not so sure.    Just last April I had the opportunity to hear Yong Zhao, author of Catching up or Leading the Way,  speak at our annual Leadership 3.0 Symposium.   He argues that while for years, politicians and the public have been looking for what is wrong with American education by constantly comparing the test scores of American students to those of students in such places as Russia, Japan, Singapore, and China, test scores don’t measure how well a country itself is doing. One striking example is how far America is ahead of all other countries in the number of patents issued; China, by contrast, is ahead in toy production.

The irony is that while we are busy trying to catch up with countries that have better test scores, those very countries are trying to emulate our educational system—or at least the one we used to have.  China, Korea, Japan and Singapore, for example, all have national initiatives to move their educational systems toward more local control, more autonomy, less emphasis on test scores determining a student’s or school’s future, and greater choices for the individual.  These are traditional characteristics of our system which have contributed to our success in turning out well rounded and innovative citizens.  And all of the latest literature argues that the ability to innovate is what we need in the future.

How would you judge an effective school?  Here are some top criteria on my list:

  • The number of  varied opportunities a student has beyond the core academics
  • The degree that students enjoy their school and feel they are important
  • Teacher behaviors that convey the expectation that all students can learn
  • Opportunities for students to progress at their own rate
  • Strong art and music programs and curricular activities that connect students to school

When you look back on your school days, is it the test scores that really motivated you to excel, or all of the opportunities you had to be an individual and find your own purpose and passion?

Take away those things that have enabled our system to produce the inventors and innovators of today and what will be left?  At best, a technically capable American engineer competing for the same job as an equally capable engineer from India who will do the job for $7500 a year.  A better alternative is an educational system that creates an American engineer with not only the technical skills but the imagination, innovation and creativity to design the new ideas that will need the $7500 a year engineer in India to help develop.

In an earlier post I wrote about what students really need to know and learn in school in this 21st century and ended with  the comment, “If it’s easy to test, it’s easy to digitize, and if it’s easy to digitize it can be done easily by a computer.”  What we really want are well rounded, innovative students prepared for a lifetime as productive, innovative citizens.  Will common standards and national tests ensure that outcome?

As you ponder that question, listen to Harry Chapin’s “Flowers Are Red“; how common do we want our standards to be?

Mentoring for Student-Centric Learning

July 31st, 2010 by Sandra Miller

Students are motivated differently and want to learn in new ways.  One way to help teachers adapt to diverse and changing students may be to encourage them to think of themselves as mentors.

In his book Disrupting Class, Clayton Christensen talks about student-centric learning, “customized” learning, and teachers mentoring students.  Technology for customizing learning is being used across the country, and on-line learning institutions are becoming specialists in this area.  Christensen’s ideas on mentoring make sense and could be shared with teachers.  In particular, his discussion of  “challenges” and excuses as to why education has or hasn’t changed are well expressed.  Principals could use Christensen’s ideas as a springboard for faculty discussion about just what can be done to make our schools more successful.

The 2010 National Education Technology Plan,  Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology echoes what Christensen and others are saying about changes to the traditional classroom program.

“…put students at the center and empower them to take control of their own learning by providing flexibility on several dimensions.  A core set of standards-based concepts and competencies should form the basis of what all students should learn, but beyond that students and educators should have options for engaging in learning…”

Christensen’s book and the new federal plan are great resources for us as we work to take on new roles and better utilize technology that can make us all more effective educators.

Mentoring for Creativity

July 18th, 2010 by Sandra Miller

21st century learning is exciting!  I feel like the chains of No Child Left Behind are beginning to loosen.   Hopefully, testing will begin to take a more appropriate role, and teachers will be free to teach in ways they know will serve their students well in the future.  Now, for those of us who are principals, a part of our job is to help teachers move toward new ways of working with students.

We know 21st century learning covers a wide list of skills, but one area that is particularly challenging is “creativity.” How do you explain to teachers what it means to  “mentor students to be creative” when you really aren’t sure yourself?

Daniel Pink has two books that focus on the 21st century.  A Whole New Mind (2005) is thought-provoking, a fast read, and could easily be used with teachers to learn about creativity.  Pink explains creativity, presents tools and exercises to examine our own creativity, and talks about developing “creativity skills.”

Pink also discusses the skills needed for jobs in the 21st century.  He says high paying jobs will require that workers use their creativeness.  Much traditional work—accounting is a typical example—will be taken over by computers or outsourced.  Creativity will be the requirement for better jobs.

In his newest book, Drive (2009), Pink predicts tomorrow’s workers will be motivated by autonomy, mastery, and purpose; workplace rewards that may have worked in the past are outdated.  As educators, we have known for years that these are powerful motivators for learning, as well.  And, in fact, much of the work of the future will be all about learning.

David Kelly offers a complementary perspective.  While his research has been in technology design, his current focus is design thinking in K-12 education.   He believes students need to learn skills, but that for 21st century work, the creative side of the brain needs intentional development, too.  “Design thinking is basically a methodology that allows people to have confidence in their creative ability,” states Kelly.  “Design thinking is ‘intuitive’ thinking, it unlocks the other side of the brain.”  Sharing Kelly’s ideas with teachers can help them become better “mentors of creativity” to their students.

As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, and constraints lessen, it’s an exciting time share new ideas with your staff.  Pink and Kelly are a great place to start.