Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Skills’ Category

The Future of EDU in SIX Hours

Posted in Administrator, Assessment, Curriculum, Education, Leadership, Reform, Skills, Standardized test, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Truth on July 16, 2011| 9 Comments »

Every three years I force myself to do something that, although it is geared to save me money and provide for my safety, I dread it more than the possibility of Kidney Stones. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, the DMV provides a Defensive Driving Course for drivers to complete and earn a reduction on their insurance premium, or a reduction on points on their license as a result of traffic infractions. Not wanting to suffer alone, and needing to get the highest reduction possible on my insurance premium, I enlisted my wife and daughter to attend the SIX hour course with me. Misery loves company. We did have a choice of two, three-hour sessions, or one, SIX hour course. Our choice was to not prolong the agony over two sessions. We opted for the SIX hour course

I do not know for sure, but I imagine other states offer such courses for their drivers. The entire SIX hour course was developed by the DMV. The instructors are all certified by the DMV. The 56 page workbook was developed by the DMV. The 20 question course Exam with multiple choice answers as the culminating event was developed by the DMV. The course was delivered on a DVD which was produced by the DMV. The course was delivered by a private driving school. The classroom was provided by the driving school. The fee for the course went to the driving school.

I always go to this course waiting to see the original Blood on the Asphalt, an old Driver’s Ed standby 16mm film from the 60’s. It never appears. It must be residing in some Driver Ed museum. The DVD used to present the course provides a number of very modern videos during the course, all of which are of a higher quality than those of the 60’s. The pre-packaged curriculum is very well thought-out. What wasn’t so well-thought-out was the rows of folding chairs in the room for the SIX hour course. There was a non-interactive whiteboard in the front of the room. It could have been a blackboard. All in all, it looked like a modern version of a 19th century classroom without the Franklin stove.

The instructor was a very nice guy. He had been specifically trained to teach this defensive Driving course by the DMV. He was, as many of these instructors are, a retired teacher. He was also a driving instructor. He was friendly, engaging, and humorous. He did however need to follow the curriculum set out by the DMV and complete the 56 pages within the allotted SIX hour time slot. Additionally he needed to confirm our completion of the 20 question multiple choice Exam.

Here is what really struck me during the course. We went step by step following the curriculum and doing the worksheets at the appropriate times. We watched the prescribed videos as they appeared on the DVD. I had a cup of coffee and a bagel early on, so I was somewhat awake. My daughter however, was nodding off, and had to get off the somewhat padded folding chair for the comfort of the carpeted floor. Halfway through the SIX hour course, that’s when it happened. We watched one of the prescribed videos on driver safety. The subject of the video was putting people through a driving simulator. They encountered various scenarios in the simulator. The subjects drove in the simulators and adapted to various defensive driving scenarios. We got to look at the results. As the video ended, the blaring question in my brain was, “Where the Hell is this damned simulator?”.

If we all took turns in the simulator, my family and our 8 classmates would all be better defensive drivers in a much shorter period of time than SIX hours. We would be the “Ninja Warriors” of defensive drivers. Instead, we were being prepared over a SIX hour period to pass a 20 Question Multiple choice test developed and delivered by the DMV. That is when I realized why fate had me endure this SIX hour agonizing experience. It was to view the future of Education.

This was a course developed by the government. The instructor was trained by the government to stick to the curriculum. The curriculum was canned on a DVD so that there would be little deviation from the prescribed material. The consumable worksheets were developed for the course by the government. Private industry partnered to make all of this possible. The classroom, furniture, instructor’s pay, tech and whiteboard were all provided by independent business and no taxpayer expense.

It was all too obvious. As all of this went through my head, I could not believe the parallels I was beginning to formulate. Consider: the government mandates, the call for a standardized curriculum, the certification of teachers, the goal of passing a standardized test, and even the arrangement of seats in rows. Let us also consider the incursion of private business into the education space. The best thing of all is that we can do all of this in just SIX hours. I believe I have seen the future of Education. What is even worse is that I have experienced it. It is not learning.

The best thing is that the DMV offers an online alternative. It may be quicker than SIX hours, but I do not know if it is better. The best part is that the worksheets and test are presented online. The key, for a less scrupulous person, would be another Tab on the computer. During the Test a student could open a Tab and go to. From that point on it is a matter of cut and paste. So much for “Ninja Warrior” Defensive Drivers. The 20 Question Test however, the real indicator of defensive driving readiness, would have been aced, to make the student a certified defensive driver. I feel so much safer on the road.

If this is a path for education, and there are indications that it may be, what can we expect as the outcome for our kids? We need to rethink prescribed curriculum, standardized tests, the use of technology and all of the rest. There are no easy answers. I have experienced the future of education in SIX hours. I have seen the enemy and it is us.

Read Full Post »

Digital Native Myth Buster

Posted in Administrator, conference, Education, Elementary, Internet, ISTE, Leadership, Literacy, Mentoring, PLN, Skills, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Truth on July 6, 2011| 34 Comments »

After a wonderful experience at the ISTE11 Conference in Philadelphia, I finally made the decision to get away from any computer and get myself to the beach for a week to decompress. Of course, I have my Droid, so I am still somewhat connected, but frustratingly so. A mobile device doesn’t yet fully replace the speed and convenience of a loaded laptop or desktop. Yet, it is that very inconvenience with only a mobile phone at the beach that enables me to say to my family that I am, for the most part, disconnected. If truth be told I have gotten a few socially oriented Tweets off with beach and sunset pictures. I needed to share some of those moments. I guess my reality is that I am not so good at decompression by disconnecting.

During my stay at the beach, I am constantly asked by folks what is it that I am doing these days. Of course explaining my involvement in Social Media in Education is a discussion that eradicates decompression, so I try to simplify. “I am involved with using technology as a learning tool in education.” This often brings the response about how kids today know everything they need to know about computers. They are “Digital Natives!”

It is that very attitude by adults that had a generation of kids programming the family VCR’s to record shows, or to at least stop the blinking “12 AM” light. That single task may have marked the very time when adults relinquished responsibility for technology to kids. It is true that when it comes to Technology stuff, kids approach it differently. They are less intimidated, and less concerned with breaking something. They are more intuitive when it comes to technology use. Most devices and applications now have many more common bells and whistles that carry through to other devices and applications. Of course this behavior in tech use is learned through repetitive actions, as a result of this commonality of devices and applications and may suggest or give an appearance to a non-tech user that it is an example of a native intelligence for technology. However, it is, in fact, very much a learned behavior. It is that very attitude however, that is misleading to many educators.

If there is one thing that can be learned from politicians it is this: Facts do not matter! If you say something often enough, and long enough, people will believe it, regardless of the facts. That seems to be the case when it comes to adult perceptions of youth and Technology.

I have written about this before, but obviously a majority of our vast population has missed or not gotten around to my earlier posts. I now teach in Higher Education. My experience is that most students are experienced in texting, downloading music and video, creating some music and many ringtones, and having a fair knowledge of word-processing. Lest I forget, they are master Googlers (I am not even sure that is a word), as well as copy-and-paste superstars.

Primary teachers leave technology to the secondary teachers; Secondary teachers leave technology to the Higher Ed Teachers; and Higher Ed teachers assume that students are “digital natives”. Tech skills of Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking, Research, Social Learning, and Media Literacy in general are not being taught by some educators, but rather being assumed to be mastered by our digital natives. Of course a question obvious to many is, if these are skills required for media literacy, how many of our educators are media literate? The answer to that is critical to how many educators will enthusiastically embrace teaching with tools of technology. No, this does not apply to all educators, but if it does apply to some, then that is too many.

If we are making assumptions that our students are digital natives and using Tech intuitively, then we need not require further technology education of our educators. Of course this is ridiculous. But then again, the more I speak about relevance in education by using Technology as a tool for learning for both educators and students, the more I experience resistance to do so. The objection that always pops up is we don’t need technology to be good teachers. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that. If we are teaching kids to master skills that will make them at least productive and at most competitive in their world, which is still developing its technology then we do need it in education. As educators, how can we teach kids what they need for their world in a technologically competitive society, if we are not keeping up with it. These skills are not intuitive; they are learned. In order to be learned, they need to be taught. In order to be taught by educators, these skills need to be learned by educators. Again, to be better educators, we need to be better learners. Believing in the myth of digital natives does not relieve us of the responsibility to teaching with tools of technology. We need not teach all the bells and whistles, but, as relevant educators, we need to employ Technology as a tool for learning where it is appropriate. Technology will never replace teachers but it will change the way they teach. Content may be delivered more by mentoring than lecturing. The best content experts cannot compare their knowledge to that which becomes available on the internet. Teaching how to access, process and communicate that requires technology and mentoring skills. The creation of content may become a shared experience with teachers and students.

If we, as educators, personally use and teach with technology consistently throughout the education system, we will need not teach technology, because our kids will be digital natives.

 

Read Full Post »

How do we fit the policy to the need?

Posted in Acceptable Use Policy, Banning, Child Predator, Education, Elementary, FaceBook, Filtering, Internet, Leadership, Literacy, Parents, Skills, Social Media, Teched, Technology, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Twitter on June 6, 2011| 6 Comments »

My post today is on a topic which I have discussed before and probably will discuss more in the future. As much as we talk about reform in education, the system is very slow to change. Many of the people shouting the loudest for a need for sweeping improvements are some of the same people who are ardent supporters of the status quo. For whatever reasons they may publicly state, their preference is to keep things the way that they have been. Whether it is comfort or ease, things in a system, as large as education, are very slow to change. Even though we are educated adults, with adult experience, more often than not we hear the term “baby steps” used in conversations of education reform.

My school district for many years spent what may have been thousands of dollars each year on the first day back to school in order to provide an inspirational keynote speaker for the entire district faculty meeting to kick off the new year. It was an expense, and a practice which I always found to be a waste of time and money. There is however, one memory of one such speaker sharing an experience, which I remember lo these many years.

According to this speaker, each Christmas her family had a traditional family dinner featuring a ham for the main course. Through the decades the ham was always prepared the same way. In its preparation each end of the ham had a portion of the meat sliced away, literally inches of meat removed prior to cooking. One day, the speaker asked her mother why the removal of the ends of the ham. Her mother replied that it was always done that way, and so, it was how she learned to cook it from her mother. Since the Grandmother was still alive, although not in attendance at the dinner, a phone call was placed to inquire about the method requiring the cutting of the ham. When the question was posed, “Why do we cut the ends of the ham before we cook it?” the answer came as a shock. The grandmother explained that when they started the family dinner, decades back, they only had a small roasting pan and needed to cut the ham to fit it into the pan. Hence, the cutting of the ham continued for years without regard to origin or reason. They just did it and continued to do it, because that is how it was done.

With that as my backdrop, it is now time to get to the meat of this matter. With the beginning of the internet (sometimes attributed to Al Gore) and its incursion into education, many educators and parents were unaware and fearful of the unknown. That very fear drove the development of policies that were adopted to protect kids from the evil that was the internet. The very fears that are used as hot buttons by the media to drum up huge audiences for shows like “To Catch a Predator”. The very fears that are used as hot buttons to sell filtering software to schools to block out any site mentioning sex, drugs, or rock and roll, not to mention Facebook, and Twitter. These very same fears fostered ideas like Acceptable Use Policies limiting personal rights and academic freedom.

It would be irresponsible, as well as idiotic to say that the internet is free from any of the same dangers we encounter anywhere in the world digital or not. How we deal with these dangers is what we must consider. The subject of child predators has changed. TV and Movies would have you believe a majority of kids as victims are molested by strangers. For years we pounded into kids heads beware of strangers. We now have evidence that there is better than a 90% chance that the predator is a family member, close family friend, or even a clergyman. We have had to change or at least adjust the focus on strangers in our lecture about “don’t let ANYBODY touch you in an inappropriate way”.

It is time that we make adjustments to our internet policies in our schools as well. We need to be educated about the internet not fearful. We need to control our use of it, and not allow it to control us. We don’t need to refuse access to it, but rather educate kids how to responsibly access it in order to be responsible digital citizens. There is a big difference between signing an Acceptable Use Policy and teaching, learning and modeling an Acceptable Use Policy. Abuse of the internet is a discipline infraction and should be dealt with as such. A comprehensive code of conduct for any school must include technology abuses.

Access to, and understanding of the internet is becoming a needed skill if one is to compete in a technologically competitive society.  The sooner we educate our children to be responsible digital citizens, the sooner we can hold them responsible for their actions. Internet awareness must begin on the elementary level. We cannot hold children responsible for that which we have not taught them. Education is the key to safety. Filtering eliminates the ability to teach children to be responsible. It may allay the flamed fears of parents which are fanned by software companies and TV producers, but it does nothing for preparing kids for the technologically competitive world in which they must live, compete, survive, and thrive. The educator’s job is to prepare kids for the world in which the students will live. It is not the world in which the educators lived. It is not the world in which the kids’ parents lived. It is the world yet to come. There are many pitfalls and safety precautions kids must be aware of, and that cannot be denied. Teaching rather than blocking is a better strategy to defend against these pitfalls. Fear-mongering to parents may sell software to schools, and build big TV ratings, but in the long run it does not address the issue. We cannot educate kids about content that is filtered and blocked. Subjects like Breast Cancer or sexually transmitted diseases are often blocked to those students who need the information for school reports or personal inquiry. Teachers, who are also adults, are blocked access as well. This blocks needed relevant sources that would help lessons to teach. Is this what we need for our schools? Is this what we want for our kids? I do not want it for my Kids. I would hope most parents would opt for education as opposed to the void of banning.

Until we re-examine our policies to match them to the world in which we now live, as well as the world our kids will live in, I imagine I will write similar posts in the future. Technology isn’t going away. It will continue to flow no matter how many dams we build. It’s time to ask real questions, in order to understand what we really need, and how do we get there. A small roasting pan from days gone by should not determine the education that our kids need for the future.

As always, your comments are welcomed.

Read Full Post »

The Homework Option Plan

Posted in Administrator, Alfie Kohn, Assessment, Education, Homework, Leadership, Parents, Reform, Skills, Teacher, Teacher assessment, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking on May 22, 2011| 20 Comments »

I was recently asked, along with several other educators, to comment on a post dealing with grading homework. The premise on which we were asked to comment involved a teacher grading homework and giving a zero as a grade to those students who did not do the assignment. This is not an uncommon practice amongst educators. I employed this strategy myself for many years. It was and probably still is an accepted strategy, but after decades of teaching, I have grown to a point where i am not a big believer in giving homework. I stated my homework philosophy in this post, Hmwk: Less Value or Valueless?

If homework is to be given by a teacher, students need to believe that the teacher will value their efforts in completing it. Homework requires a sacrifice of personal time on the part of the student. If students observe that the teacher is not at least checking homework, they will not spend time, which is important to them, doing the assignments that are not valued. A mistake often made however, is that rather than assess the work, the teacher records a zero, or a failing homework grade for the student. This would also apply to a project prepared outside of the class that was to be presented at a specific time, a deadline.

I see assessment having two functions. The formative assessment is to tell me how much the student understands, so I can decide to move forward, or if I need to, change my strategy. The summative assessment comes at the end to determine, how much of what I taught, was learned by the student. A zero for a homework grade does not seem to fall into either of these categories.

It would seem that the zero grade is a punishment for non-compliance. Maybe an argument can be made for assessing the student’s understanding of deadlines, but that might be a stretch. That may be more of a work-ethic value and I don’t know how to assess that in number terms. The issue is bigger than zero for a grade of non-compliance. It is a question of the relevance of homework.

If the grade is an assessment of the work, and the student’s understanding, but it was not done, how can it be assessed? If the homework is more important to the teacher than it is to the student, who benefits? The zero seems more like retribution for not finding value in what the teacher values, or has been told to value. It’s more of a control thing, and not an assessment thing. If a student consistently performs well in class, how is it that when assessed on the same skills performed outside the class in the form of homework, the work gets a zero? It is a power issue.

Maybe we need to change the emphasis or at least offer an option for change. We could give control to the students, by giving them a homework opt-out option. Of course the ultimate control would need to be given to the parents, but let us consider this option. Students, with parents’ permission, could opt out of a homework grade for the year. The teacher would give homework assignments to the entire class, but would only be required to assess the work of those who have opted in for it. Students who have opted in, get a homework grade as an extra grade in their overall average. Every student will be given an opportunity to do the assignments, but, the only grading the teacher needs to do would be for those who opted in. If, as the teacher would hope, the homework makes a difference, it should be evident to all in the grades of the students who have opted-in. The opt-outs could still do the work, but it would not be assessed for a grade. Additionally, if opt-in students miss a specific number of assignments, they would be opted-out and parents would be informed. The group choosing to do the homework is now perceived as having the advantage in grading, making it very desirable for all. Of course that only works if the homework is relevant and if it does make a difference. There is a very good possibility that homework may make no difference at all in the students’ learning. In that case, those who have opted out, have not been harmed at all.

I believe homework should be given as infrequently as possible, and only if necessary. It should take no more than brief period of time. If homework is given to students, it must be valued. Their efforts outside of the class should be recognized. If we consider the schedules of our students and value down time, homework becomes less important and class time becomes more valuable.

This topic of homework is often a huge magnet for teachers’ comments on a blog post. For some reason educators feel a need to defend or attack the homework issue as a matter of professional pride. I await those comments.


Read Full Post »

Twitter, Simply Complicated.

Posted in Administrator, Blog, EdChat, Education, Elementary, FaceBook, Internet, Leadership, PLN, Reform, Skills, Social Media, Teacher, Teachmeet, Teched, Technology, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Truth, Twitter on May 12, 2011| 20 Comments »

Twitter’s biggest obstacle to being the number one tool of Professional Development for educators is Twitter. It is a simple tool, based on a simple idea, which is complicated by its simplicity. To use twitter is to get it. To explain Twitter is a losing proposition. Twitter’s reputation as an application is its worst enemy. It has been the brunt of comedians’ jokes since it began. Members of the Hollywood crowd embraced it for the purpose of engaging their fans with a majority of mindless tweets to build a following. Many have a following in the millions. The concept most accepted by the public is that Twitter is used by individuals to broadcast to people the meaningless actions and events in their day-to-day existence. How could this ever be taken seriously, not to even mention being used as a tool for Professional Development for educators?

Social learning is common to all. We learn through social encounters. We pass along information in social settings. We collaborate with others in our social engagements. A committee is simply a gathering of individuals for social interaction for the purpose of learning and creating. This all occurs in our face to face world. This all takes place with people who can assemble in close proximity at predetermined location and a pre-determined, in-common, time period. Our face to face learning has the boundaries of time and space, but when those boundaries are accounted for, meaningful learning may take place.

With the advancement of technology, and its integration with the internet, the ability to make social contact with individuals is enhanced because the internet takes us beyond boundaries of space and time. We can contact individuals around the globe. Our thoughts and ideas can be suspended in time until retrieved by others. We can exchange ideas or information in the form of: text, audio files, photos, videos, Blog posts, articles, URL’s (links), charts, data, and live interaction. All of this is made possible with Social Media.

Twitter is a social media application. It enables people to use it as a conduit for information to other individuals. That is the simple part. Now let us consider the complications that come from trying to keep Twitter simple. First, the Tweet, or the message, can only be 140 characters in length. Many find this too limiting. I expect those individuals might be long-winded in a face to face setting as well.

A huge problem with Twitter for some is understanding who is getting the message. Remember Twitter is Social Media and is based on social interaction. If you walked into an auditorium full of people and started talking without engaging someone first, no one would be listening. You would be talking out loud to yourself.  If you introduced yourself to someone and then began a conversation you now have someone listening and interacting. You would then do the same with a second, third, and fourth person. You have connected with those people and selected them as persons you may interact with, and they have selected you as well, based on your intelligent contributions to the discussion. As that works in life, so it works in Twitter.

Simply stated, the only people who get your tweets are those who follow you, your “followers”. The only Tweets that will come to you are those from people you choose to follow. They are called “Following” If you follow family members, you may expect Tweets about family matters would monopolize your tweets. If the idea is to use Twitter as a professional Development tool, then the people you should follow would be educators. You will build a personal, professional learning Network by limiting the people you follow to educators. In addition, if your Tweets are educationally topical, those who follow you will also be educators, or people interested in topics of education.

All Tweets are public and will be seen by all who follow you. A Direct Message is private. A” DM” can only be sent to a person you follow and he, or she must be following you as well. You cannot “DM someone who does not follow you.

Educators tweet educational things including: text, audio files, photos, videos, Blog posts, articles, URL’s (links), Charts, data, and live interaction. These could be a lesson specific tweet, or a topic involving methods of education. Personal experiences from educators globally. It could be a question from an educator seeking an answer. Having information and collaborating on ideas creates an environment for Professional Development. It can be used at any time without regard to boundaries that impede face to face socialization. The number of participants is not limited to a school, district, city, state, or country. There is no isolation of Elementary, Secondary, or Higher Ed educators.

Not knowing how to find educators to follow may have been a problem in the past, but it is being made easier all of the time. Educational Blogs may have a “Follow Me on Twitter” Icon. Click and follow. Always check out the profile of a perspective person to follow. You will be able to see that person’s last tweets as well as their profile. Additionally, you can view icons of who they follow. Click on any of those icons and you are transported to that person’s profile. Repeat the process as long as needed, or return to the original profile to start a new path of follow research. Profiles may also contain lists of followers. A twitter list may contain a large number of educators. One click will follow every member of the list. There are several educational chats ongoing weekly. Educators from around the world are involved. If you find interesting participants in the chat, follow them on Twitter.

Twitter is only one component of a comprehensive PLN. There are many Social Media applications that serve educators well for communication, collaboration, and creation. All of these applications are constantly evolving or disappearing, to be replaced by new applications. We need to buy into the method and not the tool. Tools change, but learning continues. To be better educators we need to be better learners.

Those of us who successfully use Twitter as a tool for Professional Development need to act as ambassadors of information. We need to share that which we glean from our Personal Learning Networks and not be shy about telling other educators where it came from. It was not Ashton Kutcher,  Linsay Lohan, or Paris Hilton who shared that information, but collaborative educators.

Read Full Post »

To Reform Education, Reform PD.

Posted in Administrator, Banning, Blog, EdChat, Education, FaceBook, Filtering, Internet, Leadership, Linkedin, Literacy, Mentoring, Merit Pay, Ning, PLN, Reform, Skills, Social Media, Teacher, Teched, Technology, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Truth, Twitter on April 20, 2011| 11 Comments »

This week we had a much energized #Edchat. #Edchat is an online discussion involving over 1,000 educators on a specific topic each week. This week’s Topic dealt with Professional Development being relevant for educators. This seems to be one subject that rivals in popularity the opposition to standardized, high-stakes testing. It seems that most educators have an opinion on PD. There are so many aspects of this subject that one post will not cover it all. It may however, be able to at least frame a discussion.

The best first change for Professional Development would be to rename it. PD has become a hot button issue amongst many educators. Since each district develops its own policy, there are some districts that do a fine job. Based on comments by many educators on social media sites however, these districts seem to be few, and far between. In addition to district mandates, there are also different PD requirements enforced by individual states.  Before the movement to change the name takes hold, let’s talk about PD as we know it today.

The most recent statements supported by Secretary Duncan tell us that a teacher with Master’s degree has little effect on students’ learning. Following this line of reasoning through, it would seem that the government would want our teachers to begin and end with a bachelor’s degree. Of course that would be a less expensive way to go, but the burden on PD would be that much greater in the future.

Demanding that any labor force spend time beyond that which is established by the job description requires that the employer pay the employee additional compensation. Since PD requires a time commitment in addition to an educator’s work week, this is what is done in most districts. Of course, if the school district is paying for additional hours, it has a right to make requirements for what it expects. Those requirements often become a point of contention.  This seems to create an “Us vs. Them” dynamic and the beginning of the PD problems.

Regardless of how far any educator travels in his or her academic career, information does not stop flowing when the degree is conferred. Although teachers are expected to be content experts, the content itself continues to develop and evolve. Of course that may not be as true for Math as other subjects, but most content for most academic areas continues to accumulate and evolve. Experts cannot be experts if they do not keep up with the evolving content. A writing teacher who knows nothing of blogging is a questionable expert. A social studies teacher without an understanding of social media can hardly explain the revolution taking place in the Middle East.

Aside from the continuing development in content areas, the methods used to teach and learn also continue to evolve. Methods are also affected by the culture of our society and that continues to change. The Huck Finn controversy certainly underscores this. The culture of the community, or the school itself, has an incredible effect on the school’s approach to learning. Sharing and reflecting on the ways we teach is the best way to change and evolve. The introduction of Social Media to PD gives it a new dimension. Ning sites creating collaborative learning communities; Twitter and Facebook connecting educators locally and globally; YouTube enabling creation of content to be shared and commented upon, are all influences of social media that affect culture.

With the rapid advancement of technology, the tools for learning are changing continually. Whatever tools teachers used in their methods classes in years past, would be hard pressed to be found today. Of course, Overheads and PowerPoint are still around. The concepts of Social networks, mobile learning devices, web 2.0, webinars, podcasts, blended learning, and cloud computing are new to all. They will have a huge impact on learning, but unless educators are up to speed, they will not have an effect in education. That is when education becomes irrelevant because our educators are technology illiterate.

Approaching PD as an extra item in a labor contract may not be the best approach. PD is something that should be part of the work week. It needs to be there in order to maintain relevance for all educators. It cannot be a one size fits all approach. Different educators have different needs. We insist on this for our students, why not for our educators.

The best hope we have for real reform may lie in reforming PD first. IT directors are tech content experts, and may not know what educators need to know in order to teach their respective subjects. Educators are content experts in their respective areas, and technology is not necessarily their strength. Educators need to learn what to ask, and IT managers need to learn how to answer to meet the needs of the educators. IT people seem to view many problems as insurmountable obstacles and are quick to deliver edicts and bans to stop the problems from occurring, rather than trying to solve the problem. IT staff are educators of educators. The same approach of guidance and patience to analyze and problem-solve should be employed by IT people when working with educators.

Administrators have a big role in PD as well. Too often when it comes to PD, administrators use the “do as I say, not as I do” method. They need to be a part of the PD as well. They are the leaders in education, and that requires that they must be out front. Being out front requires some idea of what is going on. Too often, too many administrators have no clue. If PD can lead education to reform our leaders must be there as well. Sitting in an office having IT directors develop PowerPoint presentations for board meetings does not make for cutting edge educational leadership. I know not all Administrators fall in this category, but what is an acceptable percentage of those who do?

If we want reform in education, we better start paying attention to how educators learn and teach to enable that learning. They are not yet teachers when they leave their college classrooms with a degree. Great teachers come from what they learn in their own classrooms as a teacher. They need guidance and support to maintain relevance in the ever-changing world for which they are preparing kids. To be better teachers and better leaders, we need to first be better learners. Without a thoughtful system in place to enable that, the results will be limited at best.

Instead of forcing a merit pay model in education, which will not work, let’s consider using that money differently. Why not use it to compensate teachers who are being successful with their methods and are willing to share their methods with colleagues. Teacher to teacher sharing is a great way to professionally develop teachers. It also supports innovation and excellence in learning. When asked how to reform education, we should consider reforming how we educate our educators, and our educational leaders. We need to reform Professional Development in order to reform education.

Read Full Post »

A Third-Rail Education Issue

Posted in Administrator, Assessment, cooperating Teacher, Education, Leadership, Observation, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Skills, Student teaching, Teacher, Teacher assessment, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Truth on April 12, 2011| 11 Comments »

I am far from an expert on this topic. My teaching experience barely involved my participation in this turn-of-the-century program that I would now like to open to discussion. With that as an opening for this post, readers may not be interested enough to read any further. The fact that I haven’t mentioned what program I would like to discuss, is the only thing that may keep readers hanging in.  As Social Security is the third rail of politics, I believe that Inclusion Programs may be a third rail education issue. Anyone looking to explore this issue, or a possibility for alternatives, may be burned beyond belief.

I understand, and, for the most part, agree with the philosophy, that students should learn in the least restrictive environment. It is this belief that has removed students with special needs from small classes working with special education teachers specifically trained to address the specific needs of those students’ and placed them into mainstream classes. The idea is to have special-needs students as active participants and beneficiaries of mainstream classes, and working within an academic class along with the academic subject classroom teacher, as well as the special education teacher, and any required aides, if indicated by a student’s IEP. In the ideal situation the number of special needs students would be limited and the overall class size should also be small.

Educators often consider fairness to all as a primary consideration in any program for education. It is truly a noble endeavor, but sometimes fairness to all, means unfairness to some. The Irony of course is obvious. Staffing programs like this with effective teachers is the problem. Academic teachers are educators with expertise in content areas and little concentration on special education. Special Education teachers are educators with expertise in Special Education methods and little concentration in content areas. Sometimes an educator comes along with expertise in both areas. They are not in the majority. I do not know if there is a Secondary Inclusion certification. The best models of inclusion involve: collaborative teachers, common planning periods, small classes, limited number of special needs students, and participating teachers in complete and enthusiastic support of the program.  It can be a very costly program.

Many believe that the inclusion programs are better alternatives to the small special education classes that often separated special needs students from their fellow students. Including them in a general academic setting is seen by many to be more beneficial, as long as all of the students’ IEPs are being addressed in the overall setting.

As a methods teacher in higher education, many of my students do observations in inclusion classes each and every week. As a supervisor of student teachers, I observe many of my students doing their student teaching assignments in inclusion classes. I am in a position to look at many inclusion programs in many schools. The problem I have observed is that there seems to be many different models of inclusion in place, and they seem to vary greatly. It is understandable when one considers all of the variables in such programs. Multiple teachers for one class, small class size, required aides, scheduling considerations for common planning, these are all money considerations. These were very important when the programs were conceived and implemented. Under today’s climate of cutbacks and reductions however, their import has been reduced.  Education considerations are taking a back seat to monetary considerations.

An Inclusion program, to be successful, requires a delicate balance of components. It is not a cheap way to go. Many believe that it is the best setting and the most effective way to meet the needs of students who require special methods and considerations to learn. That may very well be true. My point is asking if anyone is questioning if these programs, under the current conditions, are still meeting their intended goals. Can schools provide the same quality of education while scaling down all of the components necessary to make it happen?  Are schools even trying to assess the effectiveness of these programs in their current forms?

My fear is that these programs will become a shell of what they should be. I fear administrators will not call for needed assessments to determine if these programs are still viable with less money invested. I fear that questioning these programs, even for the purpose of assessment; will be deemed as an assault on students with special needs. If we can’t fund education the way it must be funded to succeed, should we not reconsider what, and how we do things. If it is not important for us to fund things properly, how do we best deliver what we can with what we have? How do we do what is needed, as opposed to what we can afford. I fear I have too many questions with too few people even trying to seek real answers. I do not oppose these programs. I do oppose doing things half-assed and then looking to blame someone for the failing result. We all may benefit by assessing how we are teaching, as opposed to what we are teaching.

Read Full Post »

Lack of Leadership in Life Long Learning

Posted in Administrator, conference, Edcamp, Education, EduCon, ISTE, Leadership, Literacy, Mentoring, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Seniority, Skills, Social Media, Student teaching, Teacher, Teacher assessment, Teachmeet, Tenure, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Truth on March 16, 2011| 8 Comments »

The term Life Long Learning has been bandied about by educators for years. It is a term that has worked its way into Mission Statements of schools across our nation. It is a term that teachers use with their students. It has become a goal that every teacher strives to put in place for students. It is also a goal that many (not all) teachers, for the most part, do not apply to themselves.

I sometimes think that our culture, demanding that teachers be content experts, is a hindrance to education reform. There is an implication that an expert is supposed to know it all. That position may limit a willingness to learn. How can a teacher be the expert, if he/she has more to learn? Even if one was an expert in some content area and at one point knew all that there was to know about a given subject, there is still always more information being developed. With the advancement of technology this is happening faster, and in more volume than ever before. Content experts remained experts longer in the 1800’s. It took years to question their expertise. Change was slow.

A teacher’s response to this might be one of disbelief. Teachers may not admit to this in public. However, if we consider teachers’ responses to suggestions of Professional Development, their actions belie their rhetoric. Many are resistant to Professional Development. In fairness, not all PD is worthy of consideration. It is not always well thought out or well presented. However that is not an excuse to resist all PD. The fact of the matter is that it is a big point of contention among many educators.

Colleges are being blamed for not producing enough great teachers. Not enough content experts. That is simply ridiculous. Colleges need to educate students in their content area as well as philosophy and methods in education. They are required to make students content experts in their content area and in education in four years. Teachers are born in the college classrooms, but they develop, mature and become great teachers in the schools in which they teach. This only occurs with support and leadership from their educational leaders. It requires continuous learning over the lifetime of a career. It requires teachers and their leaders to be Life Long Learners.

This all adds to a predicament in which teachers have placed themselves. Senior teachers are being vilified more than any other group of teachers being vilified by the critics of education. They are being portrayed as unwilling to learn or change. They are being pitted against the younger more energetic teachers who appear willing to learn and change. The senior teachers are victims of the culture of education. They are the experts as they were expected to be. They believe this themselves. They have attained their lifelong goal, therefore, they believe that there is no need to learn any more, or to change the “tried and true”. They have achieved expertise status as required by the system.

The culture cultivated this attitude, but now finds it unproductive and in need of change. It is the perfect excuse for educational leaders and politicians to use to eliminate what they see as an easy way to cut the budget. The most experienced teachers are the most expensive. Eliminating senior teachers is about money and budgets, and not better education. It requires eliminating fewer senior teachers to get the most Bang for the Buck. It doesn’t consider experience and stability of the school. It doesn’t consider loyalty and the very expertise it demanded. It’s all about the money

If we are to have better education system we need teachers to be better learners. For that to happen we need better leaders, who also need to be better learners. Life Long Learning is essential for all involved in education not just the kids. If we were serious about education reform we need to work on educating the educators in earnest. We can get very, very few great teachers from college classrooms. We can get teachers with great potential, but that potential must be nurtured and taught on an ongoing basis. It is the school’s leadership and culture that will enable a teacher to be great. It will be the commitment and support of the school leadership to professional development and Life Long Learning that will move us to where we need to be in education reform. That may only happen one school at a time. It might happen sooner if the idea of social learning ever takes hold in education. The Irony obvious to me is that Educators are for everyone being Life Long Learners as long as it doesn’t affect them. (No, that does not mean you, but many of the other educators.)

 

Comments welcomed!

 

Read Full Post »

Young vs. Old; Bad vs. Good.

Posted in Administrator, Banning, cooperating Teacher, Leadership, Mentoring, Merit Pay, Parents, Pre-Service teachers, Reform, Seniority, Skills, Student teaching, Teacher, Teacher assessment, Teched, Tenure, Thought leadership, Thought Provoking, Truth on March 2, 2011| 10 Comments »

I am growing tired of the call for the ouster of older teachers and the elevation of the younger. I am of the older generation (some might say very older) after a career in education spanning four decades. I was also a victim of budget cuts during that career losing my job at the end of every year for my first nine years in three school districts. After 34 years, I am no longer in Public education, but I am involved with Higher Education. My assignment is to train and observe Pre-service teachers, student teachers. In that role I get to travel from school to school and observe educators on all levels.

I teach and observe student teachers for a living. I know that my students have observed over 100 hours of lessons by teachers in the field prior to their becoming student teachers. Additionally, they must show mastery in a program of courses in both philosophy and methods in Education. This is all in addition to the courses required in their content area. By the time these students have an opportunity to stand as teachers in a classroom they will literally have hundreds of thousands of pieces of information floating through their heads, being arranged and rearranged depending on the situation in the classroom at any given point.

I remember reading an article in Time Magazine in the 60’s that rated the most stressful jobs in America based solely on the number of decisions that had to be made in the course of a day. I expected Air Traffic Controller, or Brain Surgeon to be at the top. I was pleasantly surprised to see my own occupation at the top of the list. It was very specific; an Eighth Grade English teacher was listed. That was me, and it was true.

Experience is the best teacher in life. When observing student teachers, I often note that the mistakes being made will be eliminated with teaching experience. So often these student teachers are pumping and processing so much information through their brains that it is amazing to me that they don’t crash at the end of every class. I guess that can be attributed to the energy of youth. As experience mounts up, the brain begins to file away and store those thousands of pieces of information which are repeated over and over each day, so that the teacher no longer needs to bounce that around in the brain. many things become an automatic response. This frees up the experienced teacher to focus more on more important decisions for motivating kids to learn. As a general rule, my personal measure is about ten years in teaching before I consider a teacher truly experienced. Of course any teacher with less than ten years experience will loudly disagree.

These experienced teachers are the foundation of each school’s culture. They become the mentors of the younger teachers. They are advisors to the administrators who often come and go in a never-ending cycle. They are connections to parents whose families have moved through the school over the years. They are the keepers of the keys. This is not how they are being portrayed by politicians and people with agendas for education. These experienced teachers are becoming targets. They are being demonized as the bad teachers, the burn-outs. The only hope, we are told, is the new youthful teachers entering the system. We are told that if cuts must be made, and they must, we need to base it on merit and cut the old, bad teachers, and keep the good, young teachers. We cannot consider any loyalty or obligation to any employee, even if they were loyal to the school district for years.

This has nothing to do with good or bad, young or old. It has everything to do with a political agenda. Older teachers are more experienced and better educated, making them more expensive. Younger teachers are eager to volunteer, less experienced, less credentialed and ultimately less expensive. You have to see where this is going. It is about the MONEY. Politicians want the ability to cut the least number of people with the most impact on the budget. There is little thought given to the educational impact. Having the ability to cut the older teachers is also the best way to push through other needed reforms like: Larger classes, elimination of collective bargaining, reduction of the arts, increasing the impact of high stakes testing, and fewer extracurricular activities. These may all be good for the budget, but not great for kids needing to be educated.

We should all be for maintaining good teachers and removing those who may not be making the mark. We have procedures in place to do this. (Please refer to an earlier post, Tenure’s Tenure ) What needs to be worked on is a program for Professional Development that enables every teacher the ability to stay relevant and knowledgeable about the tools and methods of their profession. It cannot be a voluntary or incentivized program, but an ongoing required program scheduled for all educators to participate. It must be a priority, if we are to improve the quality of education. This requires an investment in Education and not budget cuts and reductions in staff and services. We need an explanation as to why we give $40 billion in incentives to an Oil Industry that shows $100’s of Billions in profits every year while we are cutting back teachers and programs to educate the very people who we will need to call upon to lead us out of this mess.

 

Read Full Post »

Will a Device Suffice?

Posted in Administrator, EdChat, Education, Interactive White Board, IWB's, Literacy, Mentoring, PLN, Skills, Social Media, Teched, Technology, Thought Provoking, Truth on February 24, 2011| 10 Comments »

Last night I listened to Dr. Gary Stager on a live Webinar presented by #Edchat, and The Educator’s PLN. As I often do after attending such presentations, I latched on to one statement by the speaker and began noodling and reflecting for the purpose of further exploration. Dr. Stager took issue with the term “Device” in regard to it being used as a term for a specific computer used as a tool for learning. He made his point by explaining that people do not walk into an Apple Store and ask to see a device. If that is true, how did we, as educators, arrive at a place where we use such a generic term for any form of technology that we want to use in the classroom?

From my point of view I find technology to be an integral part of learning for today’s learners. Of course not every educator agrees, and I recognize that. I also acknowledge that there are many times where technology does not fit into a lesson. No educator should use tech for the sake of using tech. If it doesn’t fit, don’t force it. However, for the purpose of collection, collaboration, communication, or creation of content, technology beats out the old school methods. Of course, there are some who would not accept that.

That resistance on the part of some educators might very well be a contributing factor in the use of the word “Device” as opposed to the word “Computer” in education. I am always amazed that a profession filled with so many people holding advanced degrees can be so resistant to a tool, or apparatus, or a “device” for learning. There, I did it as well. I called it everything but a computer. Why? (Actually in this case it was to make the point) The idea of a computer is similar to garbage dump. Yes, we need it; yes, we must have it; No, I do not want it in my backyard.  As long as somebody else is using a computer in some other class, educators can say that kids are using tech in education.

Many believe that the best way to engage our kids in learning and preparing them with the skills that they will need in the world in which they will live, requires a computer for each student. That idea however, is a hard sell. Once we recognize that as a fact, it commits every community to a goal that many are not willing to pay for in either intellectual or monetary currency. It would require that all educators immediately become media literate, and communities would be required to fund a computer for every child. Those commitments will not happen. The plan then becomes, “If they don’t buy into computers, let’s try to get them to accept devices.” The word itself sounds cheaper and less intimidating.

More and more schools are committing to a laptop for every student. This scares a great number of people. The costs involved initially go beyond just the cost of the computers. It requires training teachers in the use of the computers, as well as new methods in teaching while using computers as a tool for learning. This is a big commitment. Many educators have been educated with limited computer use and now they are being asked to put that aside and learn a different, less familiar, and less comfortable way of teaching. The idea of “devices” may be a baby step way of getting there. If we can use the smart phones that kids are familiar with as a “Mobile Learning Device”, that could be a baby step forward. If an IPod is small enough, and cheap enough that is another device that takes us a baby step forward. A tablet with an Interactive White Board is a cute device, and it may also take us a baby step forward. My only problem with any of this is that we are not babies. We cannot settle for baby steps.

All of these devices are great for what they do, but we need more of a total commitment, if we want real education reform. There is no way to expect reform without having to change something. Band-Aids and baby steps over time are expensive alternatives to a thoughtful commitment. If we are not yet ready for the financial commitment, we can at least claim a computer for every child as a goal. The professional development of teachers can then be focused for that in preparation of reaching that goal. “Devices”, at that point, must be recognized as stop-gap measures, and not the end goal. They are all parts of the bigger picture of technology integrated into curriculum. Technology designed to support the curriculum without replacing it. Technology should empower the teacher to do more not less. Technology should remove boundaries of time and space for students. Technology should enable learning to take place anytime and anywhere. Technology should enable life-long learning for teachers and students alike.

Your comments are welcomed

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »