Education | My Island View

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

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.

Read Full Post »

To Tell the Truth

Posted in Education, Leadership, Skills, Teacher, Thought Provoking, Truth, Twitter on March 19, 2010| 23 Comments »

I recently attended a thoughtful and thought-provoking webinar conducted by Ira Socol. If you are a twitter user, you may recognize him as @irasocol. The result of this webinar was the identification of yet another needed skill that our education system needs to address with passion, the skill to verify truth in information. Of course this is just another skill to be added to a long list of skills that educators must prepare our students with, if kids are to be successfully educated. By the way I don’t think this skill is represented on a standardized test.

The failure of our education system to address this skill is evident and underscored each and every day in the news. Technology has given us the ability to store and enable access to a huge amount of information which continues to grow exponentially. The information however, is both correct and incorrect, both true and false, both fact, and fiction. The skill to not only be able to obtain the information, but to also verify its truth, is essential. A reason to support public education is the necessity to educate the population of our democratic society to make intelligent choices of those issues which will affect the lives of all citizens. If people are basing their decisions on false information, the intended outcome will not be successful.

Consider the emphasis that our news agencies now place on the popular man/woman in the street interviews. People are asked their opinions on topics without regard to how well they are prepared for that opinion. This has been referred to as “Opinion without Portfolio”. Yet, after the opinion is given, it makes the airways without verification of the truth. To continue the process we have a large number in our society that believe, if it is on TV, it must be true. If we needed a life saving operation, would we go to the person on-the-street interview to consider our choices?

Consider the role of Polls in newscasts. If we think of a poll as a type of formative assessment or a snapshot of public support of an issue, it is valid. When the opinion poll and individual contributions to that poll are featured as the focus of the story it is a problem. The opinion is then presented as fact and it, at the very least, muddies the issue.

Consider the TV ads for Cable, Satellite, and Verizon. Each claims to be giving the facts as the truth. When we compare the facts of each, we must determine someone is being less than truthful. We do not hold anyone accountable we just believe whichever one we like without verifying what is true.

Joe the Plumber was my favorite. He was a plumber who asked, then candidate, Obama a question about taxes and starting his own Plumbing company. Joe was then catapulted to fame as an expert on taxation, free enterprise, and entrepreneurship. He was even a highlighted speaker at John McCain rallies. He was interviewed several times, as if he was an expert, and those interviews were broadcast to the American public. His credentials were never questioned until after the election and his 15 minutes of fame had been somewhat dulled by the facts.

Politicians are the worst offenders in our efforts to teach the skill of verifying the truth. Members of both political parties claim to be representing what the American People really want. This is not a stretching of the truth but an outright lie on the part of both parties. A plague on both of their houses. Now, we have the Birthers, those claiming the President is not American. There are also the experts who claim there are Death Panels in healthcare plans. What about legislation that will be “breaking the bank” or” saving the ranch”? We have become a society of extremes with the truth being lost in the middle.

If we are to be considered good educators we need to be able to instill in our students a need to strive for the truth. They need to be able to determine what information is of value. If information is the food of knowledge, then we need not consume food which has no nutrition at the best, or is poisonous at the worst. This is difficult for educators to do, for if we teach our students to question, they must question us as educators as well. “Be careful what you wish for!” comes to mind. Where does this skill fit in a list of all of the other skills that educators are now required to teach? Is this for the English teacher, or the social studies teacher, or the science teacher? Of course Math is always truthful. That is probably why it is so hard.

As always I come away with more questions than answers. I do believe however, that an important question was posed by Ira Socol: “How do we know that’s true?” This must be asked by everyone in our democracy and it is the educator’s responsibility to make it so.

Read Full Post »

ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

Posted in Education, Leadership, Reform, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking on March 13, 2010| 16 Comments »

The word “Passion” is often thrown around by educators when it comes to educational reform. It has also appeared in more and more tweets and Edchat comments. That is probably a result of it being so difficult to promote change within the Educational Community. Ordinary enthusiasm is often not enough to get it done. One reason for this is that, as educators, we have been conditioned to believe that once a movement for change comes banging at our door, if we wait long enough, it will go away. Sometimes, it depends on who has the most passion for their cause, in this world of winners and losers, to wait it out. Whoever has the most passion to hang in the longest wins. Unfortunately, this often takes us to a place where it is about what is best for us, and not what is best for our students.

Since I am passionate about education, and accessible to other educators in several social media venues, many people share with me their stories of wins and losses in the battle for educational reform. That is not a phrase I select without thought. There is passion amongst the 10 to 15 % of people who will always be satisfied with education as it remains today and also as it was yesterday. They are passionate for what some refer to as a comfort level, but it is in reality a call for the “Status Quo”. If it was good enough for me, it’s good enough for my kids!” They attempt to recruit as many to their cause, as do the reformers to theirs. This creates the “us and them” mentality that hurts collaboration. Need I mention the word “PARTISANSHIP”?

An experience shared with me recently, may serve as a good example of the problem faced by passionate reformers. It is a typical story like many told to me on a regular basis. This incident took place in the arena of Higher Education, but it could have taken place at any level. It occurred at a Professional Development workshop conducted by an educator who is interested in integrating technology and learning. The workshop addressed how to incorporate Web 2.0 tools into lessons. Everything seemed to be going well, until the end of the presentation when the participants were asked for questions or reflections.

One professor passionately motivated to share his views stood up before the group to respond. Since this came to me second-hand, I cannot be exact, but he said something to the effect that, if anyone needed to get information to him, they need not text, twitter, message, or email him. They should simply talk to him. It was good enough for him, so it is good enough for his students. Furthermore, what was the need for this tech stuff anyway? These kids know how to do this stuff when they come to us. (So much for formative assessment.) The workshop obviously was not working its magic with that Professor. But wait, there is more! If you believe in edtech reform, the part of the story which may cause you to start “screen-screaming”, is this; the audience of educators applauded the statement.

That might almost be enough for some to run from that room into the streets screaming “All is Lost, All is Lost!” But alas, we must remember these were the words of a “Ten-Percenter” and not necessarily the opinion of the majority. We all have the right to make personal decisions. The nature of these decisions however, is just that, personal. They should be decisions affecting us individually and our families. As educators our decisions have a ripple effect that goes out and touches the lives of many individuals. If we make a personal decision to live in a cave that is fine, it is our right. We do not have a right to make others live in a cave with us.

Tradition, however, falls on the side of the “ten-percenters” when it comes to Education. A majority of our society sat at desks in rows looking at the blackboard, or squinting at an overhead, or listening to scratchy records and tapes. They may have watched movies on film, film strips or video tapes. We were even used to filling out mimeographed worksheets. Those are all familiar tools which made a majority of us comfortable. These tools are also in the process of disappearing. We will no longer see them. Some are gone already. It may be the time to get out of the horse and buggy and ease into the car. YES, it is true a good teacher needs no tech to be good! It is also true that a good teacher with tech can be better!

I hope this is more than a re-hash of things I have said so many times before, but rather, a call to passionate change agents of educational reform, not to be discouraged. The “ten-Percenters” are the reason so many call for the tearing down of the system. The reason so many say we can’t wait for these people to die off. I believe passionately that is a radical approach. We need to keep plugging away at change. These people are dedicated and educated individuals who may need to be cajoled into a level of comfort with technology. To those who totally refuse the call to change, we may need to ignore. They will be revealed as time passes them by. To those who remain passionate in their pursuit of reform, I would say in my best dialect free Latin, ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM, which sounds much more intelligent than its English translation, “Don’t let the bastards grind you down”.

Read Full Post »

Lead Us Into Reform

Posted in Administrator, Education, Leadership, Reform, Teacher, Teched, Thought Provoking, Twitter on March 4, 2010| 10 Comments »

A recent tweet about my “crew” brings me to this Post. I did not know that I had a crew until someone pointed it out in a tweet. The tweeter made reference to the @tomwhitby crew discussion – 1) Admins stink. 2) Teachers are holy. 3) ???? 4) Profit! I really did not fully understand points 3 & 4, but, based on 1 & 2, I believe this person felt that I always knock Administrators and praise teachers.

If that is the perception of the flavor of my tweets, I am misrepresenting my beliefs and I should apologize to a number of people. I firmly believe that, if education is to improve, it will be because a number of great educational leaders will lead us from where we are today, to where we should be tomorrow. I do not believe we should throw everything out and begin from scratch. Many of these leaders reside in the ranks of today’s educational administrators. In my not-so humble opinion there is a difference between leaders and administrators.

My perspective on this comes from a career in education as a teacher who has worked with a number of Administrators. My personal,professional experience has spanned over three school Districts and two Colleges. I entered the teaching profession as enrollments were declining and schools were reducing their staffs to accommodate the shrinking size of their baby-boomer, student bodies. Many teachers lost their jobs and did not re-enter the profession. With each reduction I was lucky enough to land on my feet and secure positions in other schools.

In 34 years I worked under many administrators; Eight Superintendents, nine Principals, sixteen assistant Principals, ten department Chairs. Recalling these numbers for the purpose of this post brought to mind many good people and many others who did not exactly advance education. Those I had great respect for included: Two of the eight Superintendents, three of the nine principals, two of the sixteen assistant Principals and three of the ten chairs. My respect for those administrators came from their ability to understand and enable teachers on the staff to be successful. It was apparent to me that for many reasons, the great administrators came in much smaller numbers. Too many of the less supportive people floated to the top. I am haunted by the thought of those 13 AP’s moving up.

During my career I have always been involved with Professional Development. Many of the teachers that I worked with looked to improve their teaching methods and learn about new tools. This is not to say that there weren’t teachers who were unwilling to learn and grow. I really believe that I have addressed those teachers in many of my tweets. I also spent Five years on the Board of Directors of the New York State Association of Computers and Technology in Education. I worked with many progressive administrators leading their schools into the future with technology. That was highlighted by their teachers giving wonderful presentations of accomplishments with Tech and Teaching. Presentations which would not be possible without administrative support.

Teachers, however, are at the bottom of the power structure. The only group lower than teachers in regard to power would be the students. If real change is to come, it might be suggested by the lower levels, but it must be directed to happen from the top. Superintendents and Principals are in a much better position to promote lasting change in the educational system. Their attitudes and leadership will direct buildings and districts. Teachers or students, although influential, do not have that power.

And then there was the Superintendent from Rhode Island announcing that her entire teaching staff was being terminated. The teachers refused to work longer hours and more days without additional money. They also refused to eat their lunches in the student cafeteria with the students. This particular superintendent did not provide the leadership needed for improvement. If the teaching methods were not working during the regular work week, why would a superintendent expect that, an increase in the number of hours and days using those same methods, would improve a dropout rate? What other ideas had this superintendent implemented for professional development? Did she promote best practices? Was there a mentor program in place? How supportive was she of her staff?

What made it worse for me was that our head Educational leader, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, immediately supported the action and said that more actions like this may follow. This was underscored by the President of the United States reaffirming that statement within days.

What motivates people to become teachers is usually a need to affect change. I see many students enter the profession with passion and energy to change the world. They are smart and willing to work. If, after a period of time as a teacher, these qualities are less obvious, they may not have disappeared, but rather may have gone dormant for a number of reasons, lack of leadership being one. These qualities do still exist. They may need to be awakened by a caring and knowledgeable leader who looks to build and not tear things down. Teachers should teach, and Administrators should lead. Politicians should do whatever it is they do, but that would not be anything involving Education, unless it is their own. The only way to improve education is to lead us to improvement. Tearing down the system and starting over wastes resources, money, and people.

With this as a backdrop to my tweet, I apologize to all of those administrators who are supporting their staffs and encouraging learning. I believe teachers who are not doing their best to advance themselves professionally are doing wrong by themselves, and their students. They should be held accountable. I do not apologize for promoting collaboration and discussion to involve those who need to be changed. I believe teachers need to support change by directing and supporting their administrators in the best ways to teach kids how to learn. I believe social media allows all parties to collaborate and exchange ideas to benefit all educators. I believe anyone willing to be in my crew gets an extra ration of RUM.

Read Full Post »

PLN’s, Parties, and Pajamas.

Posted in Blog, Education, Ning, PLN, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Twitter on February 26, 2010| 41 Comments »

A big problem with getting the word out to educators about the incredible collaboration that is growing and improving among educators globally is the means that we use to communicate this. If you found this post on your own, you probably have an understanding of everything that I will now talk about. The people who most need to see posts like this however, will never see it, unless you, or I, print it out and hand it to them. You may check this on your own with a little informal survey. Randomly select 10 of your colleagues and ask each of them two questions. Do you read Educational Blogs? Could you name two that you read on more than two separate occasions? A simpler question might just be “Do you use Twitter as part of your Personal Learning Network?”

This is a guess on my part, but here goes. What’s a Blog? Twitter, you have to be kidding, right? Who has time for that? I don’t use a computer for that stuff. I read the real stuff from printed sources. I don’t get that “Techy” stuff. I need things to help with my teaching, not technology. I spend too much time grading work, I have no time to play on the computer. I read books not screens, I like the feel of books. I don’t use a computer. I have heard these very words or some variation of these answers even before I began talking about Social Media in education. In your quick little survey I would bet that, if the respondents are truthful, probably 4 out of 10 will be able to name some blogs that they have read. Maybe, some might use Twitter. Well, maybe 2 out of 10.

Recently, I was asked by a very progressive and highly respected District Administrator to speak to some Higher Ed educators to explain the idea behind teachers developing a Personal Learning Networks as a professional tool for teachers. These Higher Ed people were working with Pre-service teachers who would be working in this administrator’s district. He was looking to provide pre-service teachers with the tools that they would need to fit into the vision for which he had for his district. He sees his district as a progressive environment using the tools of the 21^st century for not only authentic learning, but also relevance. This would be a great district for any school of education to have their students placed as teachers. However, as future teachers, they need to be prepared to contribute in that environment.

We decided that since I could not fly from New York to Iowa for a brief meeting, Skype would be the next best thing. I prepared for the conference call by putting on a shirt and tie. I looked great in my Skype screen, the epitome of a higher Education professional. They actually commented how professional I looked on the Skype screen in my shirt and tie. Of course my retort was,” Thank you, but I must admit I am not wearing Pants”. I was actually wearing pajama pants. Of course, they failed to appreciate my humor, and I knew I was in trouble. My impression was that they may not have had much Skype experience. When I asked if they understood what a PLN was, my question was answered with silence. I knew that I was in trouble. I was working my way uphill in my pajama bottoms.

This drove home the very words I have said on several occasions. These are words with a meaning that I often stray from. We tend to lose perspective, as we engage with educators within our Personal Learning Networks. We tend to think all educators are participating with us in this network. The truth is that we represent only a small portion of all educators.

The PLN has often been described as a huge cocktail party. Participants can move from group to group within that party and take what they want or need from a group and then move on to the next group. This is a really clever analogy. The problem is that even though a large number of people are attending the party, the larger percentage of educators never even dressed for it. They are still in their houses sitting around in their pajamas. This does not mean that they are not doing their job. It means that they are not interacting with others at a party.

We see the party as very helpful. We move from group to group gleaning useful information, exchanging ideas, and collaborating with other party goers. The question is how do we get all of those others, the vast majority of educators, to the party? These other educators do not live in our neighborhood. How do we connect with them, since they do not communicate as we do. If we did get them to our party would they benefit from it? Would we benefit from it? Do we have time to wait for them? How do we change the culture?

My frustration is that Personal Learning Networks are treasure troves of educational sources, great ideas, and collaborative educators, and I have no way of getting this concept to the great majority of those who could most benefit by its discovery. Social Media is what we can use today, to link up those people who need to link up, but social media is not yet socially accepted by the masses.

We need to deal with PLN’s in Professional Development workshops. We need to Email links to colleagues who do not use Twitter, Nings, or Wikis. We need to have students develop PLN’s as a source of learning. We need to connect those who need to be connected and then we can all learn as professionals in our pajamas.

Read Full Post »

The 3 R’s of Industry

Posted in Education, Homework, Reform, Technology, Thought Provoking on February 21, 2010| 9 Comments »

I know as I begin this post that there will be any number of readers who will run to their bookshelves to find references to nail me on some of the observations that I am about to put into print. Sorry, I should have used the term” text”. Additionally, those people are not running to bookshelves with hard copies of textbooks or encyclopedias. I forgot we are in the 21^st Century and we use computers and search engines. It is sometimes easy to forget. I would hope that comments of this post could bring some clarity to that which I often find confusing. This is the twenty-first Century.

As long as I can remember, I have always pictured the birth of our public education to have started in a conference room of factory building somewhere in the northeast. In my little vision I see captains of industry getting together and determining that if the United States was to move ahead as a manufacturing giant in a someday-to-be world economy, U.S. workers needed to come to work with skills that would be needed to support that industrial effort. We needed them to have a work ethic and a culture that would lend itself to the needs of industry. Of course someone pointed out that not all of America was industrial, so some concessions would be made. To placate Agriculture, they allowed farmers to have their child laborers from June until after the Harvest in August. Of course we needed uniformity, so they extended those dates to be common to all schools.

The idea was to set up the schools just like industry. They started the school day in the A.M. and the shift would then go to the afternoon. An eight-hour day would be great, but these are young people, so they shortened the shift by an hour. They could always get that hour back by giving kids work to take home. They set up little groups to train the needed skills, Reading, Riting, and Rithmetic. That was a cute way to name the needed skills, the 3 R’s. This is the Job for kids. If the kids show that they get it, they would get a promotion in their job as long as their manager approved. Each of the factories would be managed by a small group of managers under one overall lead manager. That manager, called the principal, would develop the schedules and make sure everyone puts the hours in.

This is how I pictured it in my mind. The facts do not really matter, so do not run to Google to download a firsthand account of who was where, and who said what back on the day as they thought all this up. None of that is important, because the reality is that this industrial model of Public Education is what we deal with as part of our culture. It matters not where it came from. Over the centuries, research has not changed this model. We still have our 8-3 shift. We still send our kids home for the summer to work the crops. We still group kids together and give promotions. We still focus on the 3 R’s. This is all despite the fact that research has supported doing things in a much different way in most, if not all, of those areas.

To take this industrial model a step further our society has come to believe that educators are manufacturing a product. People are paying taxes to support education and they need to know what their Return on Investment is. Hence, the Standardized tests were introduced. They provide an easy explanation, and a way to measure the needed skills of Reading, Riting, and, Rithmetic. It would seem that this is the product people expect to be manufactured. This is what is needed by our labor force to get and maintain job. That must be the goal of education, a job.

Now, I wonder is there a need to change what everyone chooses to believe. Centuries of time couldn’t do it. Research couldn’t do it. An economic downturn couldn’t do it. Huge unemployment numbers do not seem to be doing it. Even the collective common sense some educational leaders seem to have at times has had no effect. It would seem that people are demanding change to get a better Return on their Investment, but they want this without allowing any change to take place. I think that may for me be the most confusing part.

If we are to keep this industrial model, can we agree on what the product is? Can we restructure our workforce? Can we fairly hold managers accountable? Can we update our manufacturing tools with technology? Can we improve our work schedules?

If we cannot do all of that, an alternative might be to examine if this industrial model of educations is still the way to go. Is it serving us the way it should. If the safety, security and continuation of our society and democracy is dependent on the product of Education, it is incumbent upon us to get it right. It is a growing concern that I have, while I watch the 6:30 P.M. News each evening. It is my twentieth Century habit that increases my Twenty-First Century concerns.