Administrator | My Island View

Archive for the ‘Administrator’ Category

REFORM vs. TRANSFORM

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, ISTE, Leadership, PLN, Reform, Skills, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Twitter on July 10, 2010| 31 Comments »

For those of you who are unaware of what #Edchat is, it is a weekly discussion involving thousands of educators discussing a specific educational issue. The discussion takes place on Twitter with two sessions, each discussing a different pre-selected topic. A common bond of an interest in education is only one of several bonds common to a majority of participants. Most chatters are technology literate or at least Twitter literate in order to participate. One may also assume that their participation indicates a common interest in the specific topic being discussed. The majority of the group is teachers. Others involved would be administrators, educational consultants, educational vendors, parents, authors, and people who were interested in the topic that was being discussed on social media channels in preparation for the Chat.

The many factors of commonality among the participants often foster agreement as to solutions for the problems being discussed. That does not mean that the solutions are weak or less warranted, only that they are recognized and agreed to by many of the participants. Educators, being who they are, often challenge these ideas to test their worth during the chat. It would seem the profession attracts those who love playing the “Devil’s Advocate”. This agreement on solutions among participants has labeled Edchat among some as an “echo chamber”. Unfortunately, labels sometimes cast doubt over what are very sound ideas as people place the emphasis on the label rather than the idea.

Changing education reform from discussion to action was the topic of last week’s #Edchat. It was one of the most active chats we have had since we began #Edchat. It was obvious that another interest common to #Edchat participants is the belief that there is a need for education reform and a need for educators to have some say in how that will happen. The resulting Blog posts during the week provided some answers to a growing frustration with things either not happening fast enough or not happening at all. People put forward some strategies for action.

The whole idea of connectiveness among educators for collaboration is still new to many. Again, labels seem to get in the way of progress. Twitter is connecting tens of thousands of educators around the world. They are successfully exchanging ideas and collaborating around the clock and over every time zone. Tens of thousands of educators collaborating sounds great until we consider the fact that there are millions of educators out there. Even if 200,000 educators were connected and collaborating, it is still a minority. There is a stigma attached to the technology label among some educators. There is a huge stigma attached to Twitter a s a legitimate form of collaboration or conveyance of ideas. The approach to Social Media and technology in general by educational institutions go a long way in discouraging participation in any collaboration amongst educators.

Technology is still viewed as something separate from education. People are still debating its place in education. They are still debating whether or not it promotes learning. There are some who insist on discussing if technology can ever take the place of the teacher. There are some who demand more research must take place before we can accept technology in education. All of this stalls any forward movement to change.

If we accept that “Ubiquitous” means omnipresent: being present everywhere at once, it would certainly apply to our everyday lives in regard to technology. It has affected most of what we do or come in contact with. Our health, transportation, entertainment, manufacturing, communication, appliances, and leisure time have all been infused with technology. We never debated it. We never questioned it. We never researched it. Except for a Will Smith and a Robin Williams movie of fiction, we never really questioned whether technology would replace people. Yet, in education, these questions are debated all of the time. ENOUGH ALREADY!

Technology is only a tool. It is the Platform that our children must use to earn a livelihood. Our children need to have skills that use the technologies that are ubiquitous in our society and the world. Educators do not need to teach technology, but they need technology to teach. Yes, one can be a great teacher without using technology, but what good does that do for a child who must use those learned skills in a society where technology is ubiquitous? A teacher providing the skills without technology is providing an incomplete set of skills for what today’s children need. It will be up to that child to fill in the blanks in his/her education. That child will need to pick up technology skills on his own. He will need to correlate the acquired skills from that teacher into a technology rich environment, which the teacher failed to do, in order to succeed.

There is no longer a debate to be had on whether or not educators should employ technology as a tool. It is already ubiquitous in our culture. It is here to stay. It is developing and moving forward. Our education system is not keeping up with that change. Our children are either on that train prepared to move forward or waving bye-bye at the station. Relevance is now key to our educators, because it is key to our children. There is now a new literacy required to use technology successfully. How many of our educators are lacking in that literacy? How many educators are now illiterate?

There are so many problems to address in education that it is always a challenge as to where to begin. My suggestion is to stop creating impediments by debating the need for something which is ubiquitous in our society and will only be more evident in the culture of our children. We need to encourage the smart use of technology. We need to teach and develop the smart use of technology with professional development. We need our administrators and teachers to model the smart use of technology. We need to provide exposure, education, and participation of parents in the smart use of technology.

We need to understand that teaching writing with an Underwood typewriter and erasable bond paper is not the best way to teach today’s children to be writers. Let us not debate whether it could be done that way. Of course it could, but why would we do that? We as educators must be relevant and that is a day-to-day struggle. Educators can use technology to accomplish this. We need to educate the educators how they can maintain relevance.

Feel free to comment

Read Full Post »

Tech Org Reorg

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Interactive White Board, ISTE, IWB's, Leadership, PLN, Reform, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Truth on June 18, 2010| 9 Comments »

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!

Read Full Post »

Feast of Assumptions

Posted in Administrator, Education, Leadership, Ning, PLN, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Skills, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Truth, Twitter on June 3, 2010| 26 Comments »

An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts. There are many assumptions in education that are common in many schools from many districts. Some assumptions can be a hindrance to education reforms. Because these assumptions are believed by many educators to be true, they plan and make decisions based on these assumptions as if they were facts. Assumptions are not facts, but people continue to believe that they are. By the way I have no way of proving these statements that I am about to explore before you. I am making the assumption that my observations over the length of my career are proof enough for me to make generalizations.

First Assumption: Kids know more about technology than the teachers. We do not have to deal with technology since they know all about it.

Kids; are cell phone masters, can program DVR’s (VCR’s before that), text, use social media, download mp3 files, download videos, and use search engines. All of these abilities, however, are not a mastery of technology, although it might seem so to those who are even less technologically skilled.

Second Assumption: As an educator, if I can do PowerPoint presentations, I am effectively integrating technology into education.

With the introduction of a vast array of Web2.0 tools technology is cheap and abundant with applications to search, analyze, collaborate, create, communicate, and present. PowerPoint as good as it is, has become a digital Overhead projector. It is still useful, but limited compared to combinations of applications available.

Third Assumption: Colleges will turn out students to become teachers with a complete understanding of technology and education integration.

Many Colleges are using more and more Adjuncts. Many of these Adjuncts come from the ranks of secondary teachers, often older and many are retired. These are the very same educators who failed to integrate technology into education to begin with. They are believers of the first two assumptions.

Fourth Assumption: Senior teachers will never change; they are burnouts and will never take the time to learn new things.

As the founder of The Educator’s PLN Ning I accept members to that site every day. Many if not most of over 4,000 members are over 45 years of age. Veteran teachers are becoming targets and victims of assumptions. They are the highest salaried teachers, so the reason for targeting should be obvious. The fuel for this might be those senior teachers who do burn out, or refuse to professionally develop, but we are talking about a few and applying it to the whole.

Fifth Assumption: Administrators do not need to go through Professional Development. It is geared to teachers and not Administrators.

Administrators are our educational leaders. They need to model that which they expect their teachers to do. It goes without saying that they need to understand pedagogy to assess teachers’ lessons. Why should we not expect them to have a working knowledge of the newest tools of education as well?

Sixth Assumption: If we teach every bell and whistle in an application, teachers will see its worth and make it work in their class.

IT people need to understand that teachers need to fit the tool to the lesson not learn the application just to create a lesson. Professional development is very important for educators to stay relevant. I received a Masters degree in Educational Technology and none of the software or hardware that I learned on even exists today. Without Updating with PD I could not enable my students to effectively use the tools that they will need to be effective educators in our digital world.

I have offered a feast of assumptions which I have observed. I assume that you have your own favorites from you own experiences. The point of this post however, is not to swap war stories. We need to question and reflect on assumptions that are stalling change in our education system.

The biggest assumption: If I teach the way I learned, they will get it. We don’t need this technology stuff. If it was good enough for me it will be good enough for them.

I could continue the assumption list, but unless you have been living in a cave you should get the point and see some comparison of my examples to your own experiences. Feel free to comment here on assumptions that you are aware of and expose them. The sooner we dispel this stuff the sooner we can focus on what is real and get on with change. By the way I believe that my assumptions about these assumptions are factual.

Read Full Post »

Digital Pointers?

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Leadership, PLN, Reform, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking on May 27, 2010| 14 Comments »

In an effort to simplify reasons for change not happening fast enough in regard to technology in education, we often point fingers at the obvious and go no further in our exploration of the problem. Assigning blame and not solutions is counterproductive. In as far as Technology not being used ubiquitously in schools, this certainly is the case. It is easy to point the finger at educators and say that they are not a welcoming audience for this 21st Century, way-of-the-world medium. It is true that educators make the final decision as to how involved they, or their students, will be in engaging technology in both teaching and learning. I would hope that these decisions are not made without some due consideration.

To say that educators refuse to accept or learn technology is too simple a statement and in most cases misleading. The argument that really gets me is that many educators are too old to get it. We need to replace the old guard with new blood. Educators by nature are sharing and nurturing individuals regardless of their age. Teaching and learning are central to everything they do. If educators are not embracing technology there must be reasons. If we can identify the reasons, and address them, we may take a major step in the right direction to improve education. Yes, I did say improve. At this point in time, the deficiency has been established by the sheer numbers of people who have voiced their concern that our education system is not producing what it is that society expects. Of course that expectation is another topic. What is that expectation that society demands as THE educational outcome, or goal?

In the past, lack of time, and lack of funds were the major excuses for educators not to engage technology. That was a topic of one of my past posts, “No Time, No Funds” http://bit.ly/87G63j. (Thanks to Shelly Terrell for inviting me to post.) Putting those aside we should discuss the other major deterrents for technology use in education.

My personal choice of leading deterrents and where we might first point a finger would be the lack of leadership on the part of the local educational leaders. The leaders would include: Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Directors, Principals, Assistant Principals, and Department Chairs. These are the people who determine the direction of a school or District. There are some examples of leaders who have embraced technology for their districts and often they are Keynote speakers at education conferences. I guess that supports the point that they are unique among educational leaders.

Teachers would be more accepting of technology if their leaders understood, used, and modeled technology use in their everyday leading tasks. Additionally, supporting and encouraging those educators who use it successfully would also make a big difference. Many leaders are quick to cite the wonders of technology when making public speeches, but that is lip-service support. When those same leaders return to their offices, many (not all) have no clue. How many IT Directors have to research, develop, and construct the PowerPoint presentations for their Superintendent to deliver at school board meetings?

Many educators see PowerPoint and email as the pinnacle of technological mastery. The attitude seems to be that, if we use e-mail and our teachers give PowerPoint presentations, our school is employing technology in education. The other extreme, acting as a deterrent, would be the district’s IT staff. I cannot say this happens in every district, but I can say that this is often the complaint that many educators express. They point the finger to the IT people as a problem. The tech people are big tech fans. Their life is tech. They know it. They love it. They can’t live without it. Some are viewed as being more of a techie than teacher, yet they need to teach tech to teachers to teach. (ya gotta love alliteration) The problem is the damned bells and whistles. Some IT people teach their PD classes as if these teachers are being trained to teach tech. They are NOT tech teachers! They have no need to know all the bells and whistles. They need to determine what tech, if any, can help them to teach their students. Can a specific tech application enable their students to learn more meaningfully? Sometimes the answer is no, it can’t. They need to be taught the ability to view tech in the context of their course. Here is the point. If they don’t get it, they won’t use it. Once they do get it, it sells itself.

If the use of technology works its way into the culture of the schools, we will not need to demand tech training for teachers. In a technology rich culture the teachers and students should be engaging technology and each other as a further step to deeper learning. Schools should develop their own tech support groups using best practices and mentoring programs for professional development. Leaders and teachers will model learning for students. Students will engage learning in the digital world in which they have grown up with the help of educators who have had to learn and adapt to that world.

I would hope that, if we can identify our problems and go beyond the finger-pointing to apply solutions, there is a chance for positive change. Without an approach to solutions however, the finger-pointing can disintegrate into a far less helpful finger display. Comments are welcomed, either thumbs up, or thumbs down.

Here is a cartoon series done in response to this blog from my friend Jeff Branzburg: http://edudemic.com/2010/06/the-7-reasons-technology-isnt-in-your-school-comic/

Read Full Post »

Hunter, Gatherer, Teacher?

Posted in Administrator, Education, Leadership, Reform, Skills, Teacher, Thought Provoking on May 22, 2010| 23 Comments »

I attended a dinner last night for a man I greatly respect. He was my Principal when I was a middle school teacher and now he is being elevated to the Superintendent’s position, a move that should have been made years ago. There were a great many educators in attendance spanning several generations. This man, as a person, educator, and administrator, is very popular with people he has worked with, now and in the past, because he gets it. Whatever “it” is, he definitely gets it. I think “it” is a balanced combination of intelligence, understanding, passion, compassion, fairness, and leadership. This is a rare combination of skills for most, which limits further the number of educational leaders who get it.

The gathering of teachers celebrating the occasion included a great many who had already retired over the years. Reminiscence was the main course of the evening. Stories, experiences, and sharing made up the side dishes. The ages of educators ranged from the very early 20’s to the autumn years of 70’s. It spanned 50 years of teaching. What struck me for reflection was the fact that many of the experiences of the older generation of educators had little to do with the role of educators today. Of course it still involved adults teaching kids, but the position of teacher seems to have evolved to a different level.

Back in the day, the teacher was the center of information. The teacher was the Hunter, gatherer, and provider of content. (That description always brings to mind visions from Lord of the Flies.) The teacher was the expert. The teacher was the “go-to person” for the information within the subject he or she was licensed to teach. The teacher maintained the position at the front of the classroom in order to dispense or provide the information to the class.

If the teacher did not have an answer, there were books and sources to help hunt down the information. Teachers would gather information over a period of years to provide to their students. The most experienced teachers had the largest collection of file cabinets in their rooms. When it came time to retire, they would dole out their dittos and files like hoarded treasure to the up-and-coming, fledgling teachers. Those younger teachers became the new controllers of content. It was control of information that was the power of education.

Today, there has been a shift in the acquisition of information. There is too much information for most people to be experts. Information is exponentially accumulating minute by minute. Publishing is instantaneous. Content that was non-existent this morning is available online by this afternoon. Teachers can no longer be the sole hunters, because there is too much to hunt. They can no longer be the sole gatherers because there are not enough file cabinets or rooms to house them. Without the ability to hunt and gather with focus and purpose, how can the teacher be the provider?

The strategy for teachers today has to be different from what it was. Teachers still need to be content experts, but that becomes the starting point and not the end of the process. No longer are they the hunters, but the leaders and guides for the hunting parties. Teachers need to send out the hunting parties with clear direction and finely honed hunting skills to capture the content. They then need to gather the content from each of the groups to share with all of the other groups.

We have shifted from mastering the content, to mastering how to master the content. We no longer hunt it down, but teach that skill to our students. We need not provide content directly to our students, but rather provide the skills for them to present and cooperate and collaborate with others for the purpose of mastering the skills to learn information and provide it to others.

As educators, our task should no longer be to teach content, but rather how to find, access, analyze, understand, and create content. This should be the role of teachers today. It is probably one of the few things that teachers can directly affect in the way of educational reform. “Give a man (woman) a fish and he (she) eats for a day. Teach him (her) how to fish and he (she) eats for a lifetime.” (Sentences were so much easier when they were sexist.) This is an oldie, but a goody. This is not a place where many educators live, but it is a place where many should begin to move. If we support reforming an education system that does not seem to be working to the satisfaction of those who support it, more educators need to change the things they have control over.

Read Full Post »

Teacher Lounge PD?

Posted in Administrator, Alfie Kohn, Blog, Education, Leadership, Ning, PLN, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Truth, Twitter on May 13, 2010| 15 Comments »

As a supervisor of Pre-service teachers, I start my first meeting with my students with a list of do’s and Don’ts, High up on the Don’t list is a very important rule for all new teachers: Stay out of the Faculty Lounge. Although it is a gathering place for educators, it is in reality not a place to professionally develop.

The teacher’s lounge or faculty room is one of the most important rooms in a school building for some teachers. It is an oasis from the stress, a place to blow off steam. Back in the day it was a smoke-filled room. (That is a great example of “what the hell were we thinking” items.) It is a social room for faculty. It is the virtual water cooler where those types of conversations take place. It is a place where teachers can voice opinions about education with colleagues. Some schools offer Department offices providing a mini-experience of the same things for department members only, an exclusive lounge.

Then there is the “Dark Side” of the lounge. It is a place for student bashing, teacher bashing, administrator bashing, and finally a place for parent bashing. It is a place where careers can be torpedoed by individuals publicly ridiculing colleagues. It is a place that can be very intimidating to new teachers. It is a bastion of traditional ideas and stories of those who got away with things that could not be done today.

The reality is that, it is not a place for Professional Development. It is not thought of as the place where one goes to discuss the latest methods or research in education. It is not thought of as the place where one would see the latest best practices in a lesson for professional development, or videos of the latest speakers on educational topics. Marzano, Kohn, November, Gardner, Rheingold, and Heidi Hayes Jacobs are not names bandied about in the Lounge. Most people are not listening to podcasts, or viewing webinars, or exchanging links. The discussion of which apps are best for which outcomes is a rare bird indeed. As a matter of fact, many of these terms, or at least the experience of use of these things would be foreign to many, if not most, in the room.

If you did not recognize this description, because your school has no such room, or nothing negative happens in your faculty lounge it can mean only one thing. After four decades of teaching, supervising, and observing in hundreds of schools, I never visited your school. I guess that I should only say that this is a description of a lounge in many schools I have visited. Of course the names will be withheld to protect the innocent.

If the exchange of educational ideas is not taking place in the areas where teachers gather, it must take place somewhere else. Perhaps the district is supplying a time and place for the exchange of ideas to happen. There is always the monthly or bi-weekly Department meeting that occurs at the end of the school day when teachers are always open to new challenging ideas.

If educators are to be relevant and literate in this digital age, these are the types of things that need to be discussed and planned for. If we as educators are not discussing this now, we will soon reach a point where it will not matter.

We are in an environment of people being fed up with status quo. We are in an environment where expenditures of money are demanding higher accountability. We are in an environment where people want more bang for less bucks, more effort from fewer people, more education with less time to do it, more testing for better outcomes with less time to teach, because of more time required for test preparation. No matter how fast that mouse runs there is always more of that spinning wheel.

As I discussed this with my friend, Dr. Joe Pisano, he pointed out that maybe the walls we need to knock down with technology are the walls of the Faculty Room and the Myth of educators exchanging ideas for Professional Development. The box that we need to think outside of is the school building itself. We need to involve educators to engage others on a global network of educators. We cannot count on Districts supplying the time and place for needed discussions to happen. They are not leading us to the needed reform to maintain our relevance and ultimately our jobs.

We need to share our digital collaborative efforts that have educators involved in Twitter, Ning, Delicious, Diigo, Wikis, and any of the web tools out there now or yet to come. We navigate an information-rich environment. We are collaborating daily. We are using Blog posts for reflection and deep discussions. As Educators on the Professional Learning Network we do all of this and benefit by it daily, yet we are a minority of educators. We represent the smallest of fractions of the Millions of teachers who still rely on the Teachers Lounge for relevant Professional Development.

]

Read Full Post »

Deal Or No Deal?

Posted in Administrator, Education, Leadership, Reform, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Truth on April 29, 2010| 59 Comments »

Since I have shifted my news-junkie habits from print media to my computer, I find myself screen-screaming more often than is good for my health. The object of my screaming is often educators who think they are properly taking a stand against the evil encroachment of technology into the education system. For whatever reasons, Tech, and the internet specifically, cause disruption of what, according to many educators, should be a highly controlled environment.

Educators must now deal with distractions from students’ cell phones. Students are texting during class. Students are playing video games during lectures. The cyber bullying is getting out of hand. Kids can be lured from the safety of the school or home by child predators. They can even search for answers to tests on Google or Bing. An even tougher issue to deal with is the children’s ability to access porn. These are some of the problems that educators and parents need to deal with in the 21^st Century. Whether real or imagined, if these problems are negatively affecting our children they need to be addressed. There is no question about their existence, only a difference in approach to the solution. As I read the text on my screen of proposals for solutions by education leaders, my dog runs from the room in fear as I expel vocal outbursts of profanity. Will these Education leaders choose to deal or not deal with the problems?

In order to address these problems, we need to understand the role of technology in the lives of children and not adults. Any of us, over 25 years of age, (I am considerably more) have had a choice about our technology involvement. The older one is, the more choice of technology involvement one has had. Children today have no such choice. Their world is all tech. They use it at home, in school, at the Library, and in the supermarket. They have been in front of a computer of some sort since before they could talk. Toy manufacturers know this and create Social Media platforms to engage children. They recognize the power of social learning. Check out Webkins or Club Penguin. For these children it is an easy transition to MySpace or Facebook. Educators have two choices. Either they acknowledge that kids are doing social networking and teach them to be appropriate and responsible online, or they can ban it from the school, ignoring to address any skills. Education must take place from the age that these kids are beginning their technology involvement. Ask what choice your school has made. I hesitate to ask for the sake of my dog again running away from the din of expletives not deleted.

Cyber Bullying is a real problem. Bullying itself has been an issue that we have always dealt with. Now however, with the use of technology, it can have devastating effects in a short period of time. This is another issue that needs to be addressed with education. Even before Columbine, we recognized the horrible effects of bullying on individuals. We cannot expect it to fix itself without someone stepping up and addressing the problem with education. The other choice is to ignore it until there is a problem and then bring in counselors and psychologists to the school to help everyone deal with the consequences.

Distractions from texting or game playing are another problem for some. This is especially an issue in Higher Ed, since many secondary schools ban laptops and cell phones. Accessing inappropriate sites is another issue. The inappropriate use of technology is a social issue that must be addressed through education. The consequences for abuse or misuse of technology must be taught to our children at an early age. Maybe after we educate them we can attend a play without needing an announcement to turn off all cell phones. People will know, because they were taught.

We do not need Acceptable Use Policies for technology. We do not have Library Use Policy, Cafeteria Use Policy or a Playground Use Policy. The misuse and abuse of technology is behavior and requires a common sense conduct policy. Any such policy will define the infractions and also the consequences of the poor decisions. Technology is not outside what we do in Education, it is a big part of what we do in education. If it is integrated, then it should not require a different set of rules to govern it. We educate and test people in driving and our laws cover traffic infractions. I do not remember agreeing to an automobile use policy.

The biggest obstacle we have in Education in regard to technology is the parent perception of child safety on the internet. I am not going to say that there is not a safety issue here. We are driven however by the high interest “gottcha” programming of nabbing internet child predators on TV. We need to educate children and parents how to safely and responsibly navigate the internet. The elephant in the room however, is the fact that if a child is going to be a victim of sexual abuse, it is most likely to come from a family member or friend, or someone they know, and not an internet predator. We all need to be educated.

If we choose to view technology in our society as a problem and not teach our children safe and responsible use, then ban technology from school. That plan will not work however, if you do not ban it from your home, and your neighbor’s home, and your other family members’ homes’ and the library. I am sure I left someone out.

Our educational leaders have a choice; Deal with the issue with education, or do not deal with it by banning it. A ban will leave the problem for others to deal with after it becomes a larger issue. In the not too distant future, when technology is a ubiquitous tool of education, people with cooler heads will look back at this time and question the leaders. “What the hell were they thinking?”

My final thought on this subject is a mystery. If schools ban and filter the Internet for “Student Safety”, what is the rationale for filtering and banning the teachers as well? Are they not responsible adults? Leaders Deal, or No Deal?

Read Full Post »

Why Change?

Posted in Administrator, Education, Leadership, Reform, Skills, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking on April 23, 2010| 12 Comments »

Technology in our society should be more than a topic for superintendents and principals to use in speeches in order to make them sound as if they are cutting-edge educators. These speeches are given to impress groups of parents by drawing great pictures of students, who will have the ability to create, collaborate, communicate and learn with the modern tools of technology. The picture drawn shows our children liberated to learn. They sell the sizzle, but nobody will ever get to see the steak.

Those same technology tools for education become problems to be controlled and limited. They become problems because they are yet another element of education that requires Professional Development. They become problems as added items on an ever-growing list of items for which administrators are to be held responsible to the public. They become problems because they challenge many of the methods of teaching ingrained in the hearts and minds of many, many educators. These problems are of: money, implementation, support, professional development, safety, morality, cyber-bullying, scheduling, and infrastructure. We now have education policy makers making policies about technology with a limited understanding of how it fits in education as a tool for learning, or even how it works, and viewing it as more of a hindrance than a help. It would be so much easier if Technology went away and we could get back to the “Three R’s”, good ole’ read’n, rite’n, and rithmetic.

What many do not get is that Technology in Education is no longer a topic of Should we? or Could we?, but rather, “ How do we make it happen?” It is not a question of “How do we control it? but rather “How do we educate kids to use it effectively and responsibly?” How do we develop today’s literacy, so that students can use these skills beyond the classroom and apply them to life? How do we enable them to use these skills to be productive and successful and safe?

There are no answers here. These same arguments were made when the first computers entered the system. People discussed the same issues then. While educators are stuck on the same questions as to whether or not technology has a place in education, technology keeps moving forward. It does not need permission to be used by kids. Educators cannot control it. The only place the “Use It, or Lose it” axiom applies, is to our own relevance. If we fail to understand and use the technology, our students will not need us at some point. Technology is a tool and not a teacher, but if teachers fail to grasp that concept and do not embrace the possibilities, the idea of self-education may grow stronger with the advancement of technology in the light of stagnation in education. Educators are smart people and they need to figure this stuff out.

We did not have the use of pencil debates. We did not say pencils can poke eyes out, so we need pencil safety courses. We did not create pencil labs for large group pencil use. We did not ban the use of pencils because students might be distracted by doodling. We did require a specific platform, the #2 Pencil. Yes, I understand that it is a much more complex issue than that, but a tool is a tool is a tool. We need our leaders to be more aware of the decisions they are making. We do not need 19^th century thinking controlling 21^st century problems.

These topics were discussed at the #140 Character Conference in New York City. There were six education discussions on the Agenda. This video was one. The Education Panel Video: Click Here

Another passionate presentation was done by Chris Lehmann. That video is linked Click here.

Feel free to pass the videos or Post along to anyone that you think might benefit from the information.

Read Full Post »

IWB’s Help or Hurt?

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Interactive White Board, IWB's, Leadership, Ning, PLN, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Skills, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Twitter on April 17, 2010| 41 Comments »

I teach pre-service teachers to prepare them for the classroom, but I also try to steer them in directions that will make them more marketable as they look for jobs in an extremely competitive job market. In addition to trying to make them web 2.0 tech-aware, I also require that they do at least one interactive whiteboard lesson. I like to require that the lesson deal with some aspect of Grammar. This tackles two of the biggest hurdles for English Teachers, Tech and Grammar.

Although I require that my students achieve a comfort level with the Interactive White Board, I needed to update my personal knowledge of the subject in order to keep up. At my own expense I signed up for a workshop/conference on the Interactive Whiteboard sponsored by one of the leading Interactive Whiteboard companies. I had limited expectations, expecting maybe 50 educators and a few trainers.

This conference was held at one of the many Long Island high schools which have embraced the IWB technology. There were more than several classrooms with IWB Technology in them. Hence, this was the perfect choice of locations for an IWB conference. There were nine hands-on workshops repeated over four sessions and there were Science, Math, Social Studies and ELA Training classes conducted on both the elementary and secondary levels. There was a product demonstration area set up in the Gym. There had to be 500 educators in attendance. This was a pleasant surprise, a real conference. My adrenaline was pumping away. I was truly excited as I often am at statewide or national educational conferences.

My enthusiasm was somewhat dampened as I engaged educators in conversation and asked two simple questions. Are you on Twitter? Do you use The Educator’s PLN Ning site? The first question elicited not verbal responses, but stimulated what can best be described as facial contortions. The second question was answered by one or two questions: What’s a PLN? or What’s a Ning? I digress however. This is a topic for another post, so, back to the IWB’s.

Two things that I strongly advocate in my class would be creative thinking for students through authentic learning, and the use of technology as a tool for learning. It is no coincidence that it also takes up much of the discussion time in our #edchat discussions. These are major common concerns of many educators today.

Now, I need to address the point of this post. I must admit that I believe that IWB’s are an asset to the classroom. They can seamlessly use web 2.0 applications to engage students in creative and constructive lessons for learning. The important element in this however is the training of the teacher using the IWB. Without training the user, the IWB becomes an expensive video projector or an expensive PowerPoint presentation tool or a very expensive hat rack.

What I believed one of the added pluses to this product was, is the vast library of lessons which are available to qualified users, but, therein lies the rub. We teach that according to Bloom’s Taxonomy, the highest form of learning is creative. A lesser form of learning, although necessary, is remembering. As I attended each of the workshops, which unveiled several very thoughtful and creative examples of previously recorded and now archived lessons, I began to notice a distressingly common thread. Each of the archived lessons addressed the remembering learning described by Bloom and not the creative learning for which we, as educators, should strive. As I watched the trainer of one of the sessions showcase another remembering lesson. I remarked that the creative learning was not on the part of the students partaking in the lesson, but rather on the part of the educator creating the lesson. It would then stand to reason, for the students to get the full benefit of an IWB, they should each be creating lessons to present to fellow students.

I am not saying that remembering lessons have no place in education. They are necessary and must be taught. This is content. However, it is the use of that content for more creative efforts which affords students learning. Remembering lessons should not be the focus of education, that focus should be on the creative.

The danger in the use of IWB’s is the lack of training. If districts place IWB’s in a classroom without training the teacher in its use, that teacher will seek from the library, lessons which have already been developed, most of which are remembering focused. This is a case of doing the right thing with the wrong result. I have been told that there are districts which place these IWB’s in classrooms as incentives for teachers to be motivated. They do not attach it to proper training. Would any of us fly with a pilot who had a 747 placed in his driveway as an incentive to fly a bigger plane without training?

Now here is what set me off today. I was in a workshop using clickers to respond to questions from a lesson. As a formative assessment it was great. They were multiple choice questions which could be instantly analyzed. It is not to be confused with a tool for learning, but rather a tool for assessment in the multiple choice genre of tests. It was in this workshop that the trainer revealed to the group that the company had filed a number of standardized tests which could be used for practice with the use of the clickers. This would offer the data to be aggregated in any way needed for analysis. Some might use the word manipulated. A teacher in the group immediately came to life. He was excited to see that this would provide him material to use for the month of May. That was the month that his district administrators designated as THE MONTH FOR TEST PREPARATION. In my mind that was squandering a month of learning for the sake of test preparation. Then the same administrators ask, why are we failing our students.

I believe in Technology. I believe in support for that Technology. We need to teach our students to be prepared for their world and not one that which we might prefer. We do not get to make that choice. IWB’s with training and support can move our students forward. Kids understand IWB’s and want to use them. It’s the adults who need to be brought along. Creativity should be the focus and remembering should be the support.

Read Full Post »

Education Industry?

Posted in Administrator, Education, Leadership, Merit Pay, Reform, Skills, Teacher, Thought Provoking, Truth on April 7, 2010| 13 Comments »

Industry: refers to the production of an economic good (either material or a service) within an economy.

Industry: a group of productive enterprises or organizations that produce or supply goods, services, or sources of income. In economics, industries are customarily classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary.

Although the words industry and education are often paired together, I have not seen the words combined within the definition of Industry in the few sources that I have considered. That is not to say that they do not appear together somewhere. However, either in the definition of “Industry”, or in a listing of the major classifications of industry, they do not seem to appear together.

I have seen, and heard, many references to the “education Industry” over lo these many years as an educator. I understand that there are many industries tied into education, textbooks from the Publishing Industry, Hardware from the Computer Industry, busses from the Transportation Industry, educational applications from the Software Industry, and chairs and desks from the Furniture Industry. The use of so many industries within education does not necessarily make it an industry onto itself.

The concept of public Education is said to be based on the industrial model. It was formed and designed to provide industry with a source of educated people to fill the ranks of workers needed by industry for it to succeed. This goes back to observations of an earlier post. “The 3 R’s of Industry” https://tomwhitby.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/the-3-r’s-of-industry/

This is the background to my latest reflection about the need to change the culture to reform education. I again engaged this ongoing reflection after commenting on an educational Blog site. When the investors of the education industry look at what their industry is producing for their investment, what do they see? They, the taxpayers, are the stockholders and investors in this local industry, so they have a right to ask.

The question is easy, How much bang are we getting for our buck? The answer is more difficult, because we need to agree on what the buck is. If we think of education as an industry, we should be able to look at the end product and see the ROI, return on Investment. What is the widget that comes out after a 12 year production? This is easily defined by most industries. We simply look at the profit line. Money talks or somebody walks.The problem is that the Education Industry makes no money. there is no monetary profit. Without money as an indicator of success, what do we use?

This is where Education as an industry falls apart. We do not have agreement on what the product is without money as the measure. Is it how many kids graduate? Is it how many students passed standardized tests which assess knowledge of content? Is it based on how many students go on to college. Is it based on how many go on to be employed in a meaningful way? Is it based on how many become lifelong learners?Is it based on how many learning skills each can exhibit?

To further complicate it we need to evaluate: what skills are important; what facts are necessary; what do we place an emphasis on vocation, or higher education. The focus of these directions depends on whom you ask. Students, parents, teachers and politicians each have different expectations for the outcomes. This further confuses whether the investors are getting a return on their investment. If we cannot agree on a common measure for success we will never be able to satisfactorily answer the question.

Now we need to look at the management of the Education Industry. If education is not an industry, why would we run it like an industry? According to Dan Pink, research tells us that merit pay for teachers will not only be unsuccessful, it will be counter-productive. Further, which of the criteria for success should be used to determine whether the entire staff of a district should be fired as punishment for failure. Do we ask: the Students, the parents, the teachers, the politicians? Does mass firing, in addition to being a punishment for failure, also serve as a great incentive to attract better teachers who will work harder to meet the goals of that district?

In my humble opinion we have to stop thinking of Education as an industry. We need to come to some agreement on what the outcome of a good education is. The outcome or the Profit is never going to be in monetary terms. Maybe each student needs develop an Individual Educational Plan with desired outcomes clearly stated and agreed upon by all parties. We can then assess every student’s progress and success as they proceed in a formative assessment and not when it is too late to change course. This would enable us to assess reflect an adjust individuals’ educations, which is our product. We would shift from report cards to IEP meetings. This, although a time-consuming alternative, could save time for students over a 12 year career in school. With successful results meeting times would be less, unless a program of more rigor is indicated to challenge those who need it.

This is a simple plan that only needs us to get the students, parents, teachers and politicians to agree to the change and agree on the outcomes. I guess that would be the part of the reform equation where we need to change the culture. It may take a few weeks.