This post needs a bit of a disclaimer in the beginning. For several years I was a member of the Board of Directors of the New York State Association for Computers and Technologies in Education, NYSCATE an ISTE affiliate. Like many Educational Technology organizations its mission is to promote the use of technology in education. This organization is similar to many other State wide organizations of other states with the same basic purpose. The leaders of these organizations are volunteers, some paid, most unpaid. These are people who work hard for long hours in support of these organizations and the mission.
That being said, and this being my post, I am going to openly reflect on technology organization stuff. These are my reflections as an educator and a former director of an educational technology group. If it were a lesson, I would assess, reflect and then change things as needed to become more effective. Since I don’t lead any of these organizations, I guess I stop at reflection. I have no ability to change things.
Technology in Education has always been a sticky subject. It requires understanding, training, modeling and innovation in order to be successful in the system. Some districts have recognized this and have had great successes. It is still a lesson to be learned in many other places. The mission of the Educational Technology organizations however, goes beyond a few forward-thinking districts. That term “forward-thinking” itself implies that technology is the future in education and not the now. My question to start would be: If the purpose of Educational Technology Organizations is to achieve ubiquitous use of technology in education, how do we do a formative assessment of that mission? Technology is always evolving, but many of these organizations were formed in the 70’s and 80’s. After over 30 years of striving to promote Technology use in Education, how close are we to ubiquitous use. Yes, we are using more Tech than ever before, but many places are still debating its value in education. We may also be using more technology because there is so much more to use, which has little to do with the influence of these organizations.
“Top Down” and “Bottom up” are two of the ways Technology is adopted in schools. As a classroom teacher, I was always partial to bottom up stuff, because it came from other teachers who used it successfully with kids. Top down to me meant it was a product that an administrator was sold on, with limited knowledge of how it worked, or what was involved for the teacher to make it work. Mandates are rarely successful. My experience has taught me that people need to be lead and not directed. Leaders cannot demonstrate a product and overwhelm folks with bells and whistles and tell them that they will use it from now on. We lose the required understanding, training, modeling and innovation in order to be successful. If you doubt that, look at the Interactive Whiteboards placed in schools all over the country. What percentage of these expensive boards are being used as Video, or PowerPoint projectors.
Now we need to consider the leadership of these organizations, as well as, who participates in their conferences. Being a leader in any of these organizations requires a huge amount of time. Time to a teacher is not negotiable. The flexibility of time is more in the domain of the administrators. It stands to reason that it is easier to provide release time to an administrator than to a classroom teacher. Therefore, it stands to reason that more administrators than classroom teachers run these groups.
The perspective of the teachers in the organization is; “how do I get kids to use this technology to learn?” The Perspective of the Administrator is; “how do I get my teachers to use this Technology?” both of these perspectives must be considered, but it must be in balance. As Administrators monopolize the leadership, that balance seems to be lost. There is almost an elitist air about these organizations. Classroom teachers are the very people we need to attend these conferences. If you ask a classroom teacher if they would attend an ISTE Conference and you then explained what ISTE was, the response would be simple. “I don’t teach Technology, why would I attend that conference?” It is my observation that some of the leadership of these organizations shift focus. The focus shifts from the success of the mission to the success of running the group. To some that comes down to the success of the conference in attendance and buzz. Attendance is measurable, Buzz is not.
A goal should be to involve as many classroom teachers in the synergy that is evident at any of these conferences. It would be hoped that while they were pumped up with the conference high, they would advocate for tech with their fellow teachers. That would be “bottom up”. Who really attends these conferences anyway? I do not even know if that data is tracked. I do know from personal experience I saw a great many administrators repeatedly attending the conferences year after year. Not that anything is wrong with that, but if a majority of the attendees each year are the same administrators who deal with technology as part of their job, where does that leave the classroom teacher and the group’s mission? It should not be an elite club for technology administrators.
Before everyone starts to run to the comment box to blast me on the elite club comment consider this. If these organizations were not being perceived this way by a large group of educators, why are Tech camps springing up all over? Teachers have been filling the void. They are doing their own mini conferences. They are providing sessions on the Internet. They are involving educators in technology in greater and greater numbers. PLN’s for teachers are providing information and collaboration that these organizations have not provided to the classroom teacher.
Educators are striving everyday to be relevant. That is why Professional Learning Networks are expanding by the minute. When we talk about education Reform, relevance is a big part of it. We need relevant Educators. The same can be said of Educational Technology Organizations. They are needed and necessary. They need to focus on their mission and not their organization. If they put the mission first the organization will succeed. Again this is not an attack, but a reflection. If we cannot see where we are going wrong we cannot adjust to correct it.
Now you can run to the comment box and blast away!
Hi Tom
I think the idea of preaching to the converted or playing to the galleries is something which is prevalent in all areas to do with education, not just technology. PLN’s could also entail a certain clique-ism – but only through deliberate choice, and I would call that a learning club rather than a PLN. Just because you are not in my PLN, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be in yours, and a healthy sign for me in Twitter, for example, is the person who is selective about who they follow. I am fairly new to electronic forms of networking but it can be easy to get into a kind of cultism or a slavish observance of everything, if you don’t pick and choose what is appropriate to you personally and your own individual situation.
I also like to think of an “Inside-Out” where something starts in the middle and filters up and down at the same time. Many educational uses of technology may have come from educators becoming aware of what their students are using and are interested in. In your terms, the students are the “Bottom Up”, but we can’t expect students to be particularly interested in educational applications of their social networking…
It may be useful to think of ourselves as mediators here, rather than the idea of being ‘stuck’ at the bottom.
“Inside-Out” for me also suggests the idea of looking at something from a completely different direction instead of being ‘bipolar’!
Well Tom you really have me reflecting here….I started in the ed tech organization as a teacher using the bottom up scenario…caught the wave and worked on it through my teaching of students and other teachers….as an administrator I found less time to belong to these organizations and more of a shift from using technology in the classroom now that I was not teaching..so I would agree that we need to continue to help teachers but I think we really also need to help the admins shift their focus…
PLN…my God I need to get on board again…as an admin I find myself in the trenches of budgets, running my dept etc, etc and using tech to help ME do that….but I also try to help my educators….maybe I need to get back on the horse by developing my PLN and then helping my teachers develop theirs…I have also found that instructors of adult learners are more likely to use educational technology once you give them the tools….then you keep feeding them the How To….
I also agree that more tech dept folks attend these things…we definitely need to get more teachers to attend and see how it relates to them, but again I think it also depends on those admins…whether they are tech savvy, use it themselves or just put the tools in the rooms with no real excitement or manual of use because they are told to or think they have to…so it would seem it is the mission for the ed tech organizations to bring these learning communities together… to unite the admin with the teachers to focus THEIR mission on PLNs, using tech or whatever…we used to do that….made all the difference!!
God I miss talking with you over these same topics as part of those ed tech orgs…
Tom you say “As a classroom teacher, I was always partial to bottom up stuff, because it came from other teachers who used it successfully with kids. Top down to me meant it was a product that an administrator was sold on, with limited knowledge of how it worked, or what was involved for the teacher to make it work.”
Tom, your bias shows through in this section. A positive spin on teacher contribution, a negative one on administrators. I think both are sometimes true, sometimes not.
Likewise for “The perspective of the teachers in the organization is; “how do I get kids to use this technology to learn?” The Perspective of the Administrator is; “how do I get my teachers to use this Technology?”
I would extend the administrator perspective to say how do I get my teachers to use this Technology so that students learn?”
(By the way, why do you capitalize Administrator but not teacher?)
You say “If you ask a classroom teacher if they would attend an ISTE Conference and you then explained what ISTE was, the response would be simple. “I don’t teach Technology, why would I attend that conference?”
I think that would depend on how you explain what ISTE is. If you leave it at just the mission statement (“ISTE advances excellence in learning and teaching through innovative and effective uses of technology”) you are probably right. But if you show the teacher all of the curriculum-related workshops and events related to specific subject areas at an ISTE conference, I think many would want to go. Better still, though (and I think you would agree) would be increased workshops etc at curriculum conferences (e.g., NCTM, NCTE, etc) that infuse technology. These are increasing, but I suspect need to increase some more.
You ask “Who really attends these conferences anyway? I do not even know if that data is tracked.”
It is. I found some stats on http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2008/exhibitors/demographics/. In 2007, 16% of NECC (now called ISTE) attendees were administrators, 24% teachers, 22% technology coordinators (another important leadership group in organizations, because they, like administrators, have more flexible time options, ans you point out). The rest were curriculum specialists, library media specialists, students, staff developers, and ‘other.’
I agree with you that classroom teachers are under-represented. As you say, and as I agree, they are the people who will implement whatever is brought into the classroom, and so should have primary input as professionals!
As a newbie attending ISTE2010, I want to thank you for this post, Tom. I am only able to attend ISTE because of funding help from my district. I am part of a group of 15 classroom teachers going as part of a project designed to support technology & innovation in the classroom. In all practicality, this could very well be the only ISTE conference I attend.
I’m going to the conference hoping to learn the practical – how do I use technology tools safely to support learning for 29 4th graders. Something I can put into place on Monday. I know the limits of my influence and it doesn’t make sense to attend sessions about district level policies. Financially, it doesn’t make sense to even attend sessions about ipads & smartphones. We’re not a 1:1 school, heck we’re not even a 10:1 school! There aren’t funds for that kind of technology where I teach.
Admittedly, there is a division in the conference between administrators & teachers. I also see that division in Twitter. I think any national (and probably state) conference about a single topic needs to address that division.
I think we’re all going to find our own “place” and find the value of the conference that each of us needs.
Even though as a classroom teacher, I’m the bottom of “bottom up”, I also look forward to absorbing the positive (and probably frenetic) energy at the conference and, in a teaching world where I don’t always fit in, I’m looking forward to a little validation.
How about a volley of approval instead of a blast across the bow?
If we build it, they will come….some because they are now digital immigrants themselves, and others led by the kids they teach.
Whatever….it seems to be working better all the time.
Hi Tom…
Thanks for posting this topic, i learn something from your blog. Thank you Tom for sharing 🙂
Jeff may be on to something with his comments about potential bias. However, my experience and anecdotal evidence from others is that admins are not as knowledgeable about in class dynamics. They can’t be because of the shift in their duties to being an admin. There are a few exceptions in our PLN, probably a few more out there we don’t know about yet, but by and large, I agree with your generalizations despite Jeff’s insights.
All that to say, it adds to my struggle about my future as I earnestly desire to lead change. From where will I lead, the bottom, top, or find some happy middle?
Matt, even with my comment I agree with you. It is easy to lose sight of what goes on in the classroom when one is out of it … I guess what I was trying to say is not all admins are out of touch and not all teachers in touch. Tom is definitely on to something with his observation about ed tech organization leaders; I was on the NYSCATE board with Tom, and most of us were out of classroom people (Tom wasn’t, maybe somebody else). It definitely slants the conversation.
Tom,
Thanks for the great post. I love tech and sharing it with my fellow educators, which was one of the reasons I volunteered to chair our districts PD committee. NJ is involved in promoting 21st Century Skills, so I got to attend many Web 2.0 workshops last year. I have made it a habit to “toot my own horn” when I’ve learned new tech skills, so my administrators are familiar with what I can do. As a result, this past year I was able to do a tech day with the PD committee; I loved it! Even though I teach music, my administrators have allowed me to grow and help others to do so as well. Perhaps if more administrators allowed their staff to stretch a bit they would be pleasantly surprised at the return. I’m practically begging to do more teacher training!