Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I was always intrigued by the saying, “I taught him everything he knows, but not everything that I know!” I always thought that was a pretty clever saying. It was also true of educators in years gone by. They were the content experts. If you wanted knowledge, these experts had it. People paid good money to travel to the places where these content experts delivered their wares, universities, colleges and monasteries. Knowledge was a commodity and, if the expert held anything back, a student’s only recourse for more, was to search the libraries. Ah, the simplicity of the bygone days. As public education came about we had many more content experts and many more libraries. That was the model, listen to experts and read content in books housed in academic or public libraries. Since all of education was based on print media every teacher was media literate, if they could read and understand.

Media began to change first with TV, and then with computers offering other means of content delivery. Television was easily understood and adopted quickly by educators. VCR’s were more easily handled than threading those ratchety, click-clickety-sounding 16 mm projectors. Video cassettes made everything user-friendly. I always thought that Social Studies teachers were the quickest to use video to deliver content. It was suited for them. Some teachers even allowed students to create content with video. That was innovation back in the day.

What threw the monkey wrench into the sprocket works of education was the damned internet and all of the stuff that it delivers. It comes in mass quantities and things are always changing, or evolving, or, in some cases, disappearing altogether to be replaced by something else. Being a content expert is easier if the content doesn’t change. Commit to it once, and you are done. The idea that there might be constant change and additional information happening on a frequent basis changes the dynamic of the content expert’s job. If content changes faster than the expert can adapt, maybe the expert needs to change the strategy. Teach students what to look for, and what to value in content, so they can access it in whatever form it is being delivered. More importantly, allow students to use those tools of technology and information to create new content and share it with others.

In order to do this, Educators, who are still the content experts, need to be literate in the area of media. They need to be aware of the means of delivery and learning tools for creation of content for their students. Gutenberg’s printing press innovation carried education for years. However, it is now a new digital era and Gutenberg technology is beginning to fade. I am sure someone told Gutenberg that they would never read his printed text because they loved the feel and smell of hand written scrolls. Guttenberg would probably feel delighted to know that people feel that very same way about his printed text today. They don’t like digital and prefer the printed text. Not so much the younger generation living with texting on 4 inch screens, digital readers, iPad and tablets.

I recently read a post defining Information Literacy, Digital Literacy, and Digital Citizenship. Information Literacy, Digital Literacy and Digital Citizenship by Maggie Hos-McGrane.  It was also a Topic on a recent #Edchat discussion. After considering all of this, as well as a presentation that I am working on dealing with the subject, I have made some personal observations. I really believe that, as content experts, most educators are information literate. That would mean: To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and has the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.

Where I begin to have my doubts however, is in my day-to-day contacts with educators throughout the year. I supervise student teachers requiring me to travel to many different schools contacting many different educators. I have not accumulated data, or even done a survey, but in my many encounters with educators they have often expressed objections to the use of technology tools for learning in education. It is not necessarily the actual use of technology that is being objected to, but rather the need for the educator to have to personally learn the technology. This may be the result of many things such as: bad professional development experience, lack of support to try new things, control issues, or simply not wanting to have to learn anything more. This is where I begin to be concerned. It is my OPINION that there are too many educators falling into this category. They have little chance to meet the next requirement of Media or Digital Literacy. Digital literacy is the ability to locate, organize, understand, evaluate and analyze information using digital technology.

How many digitally illiterate teachers in a school does it take to begin to affect the way kids are learning? This definition does not call for technology mastery, but rather simply an ability to use technology. YES, you can be a good teacher without using technology. Your students however in order to be Lifelong learners, as we all want them to be, will need a knowledge of these things to access and create content as they move further into their future. No one will be resurrecting Guttenberg technology to support outdated methods of teaching. Technology tools are no longer an option left to a teacher’s discretion. Students without a digital literacy will be handicapped as learners in their own lifetime.

How we teach often reflects how we learn. New learners have new tools. Many teachers learned and teach with old tools. They are comfortable with old tools, but a teacher’s comfort is not the goal of education. Additionally, the variety of tech tools for learning offer great opportunity for success with differentiation. Educators need to be aware. What good is it being a content expert if no one is getting the message?

Good educators need to model learning. Not being media literate in the 21st Century is a very POOR model. A teacher’s content expertise is a small rival to the internet. Teaching and guiding kids to harness that content should be the goal. Projects and speeches on paper, display boards and podiums have been replaced by many tech alternatives. Kids get it, some teachers don’t! We shouldn’t teach kids to be keepers of content, but learners of content, better yet, creators of content. It needs to be a lifelong process and tech tools are required.

If relevance requires continuous learning and it is necessary for acceptance, how do educators keep up without knowledge of media literacy? It is a professional responsibility! Media Literacy requires people enter a world that gives up a great deal of control. Many educators are not prepared for that. Comfort and control issues however, do not excuse educators from being media literate. Even one illiterate educator in a school is one too many. An even worse offense is a media illiterate administrator. We all need to model learning, especially our leadership, and moving forward, technology will be a part of that learning.

For the first time since I have been supervising student teachers, I have a group at the start of the year, as opposed to my usual assignment at the latter half of the school year. This has brought to light a subject that I often fought against as a teacher, and now have to counsel student teachers on how best to approach the subject. Summer Reading: how do we assess it?

New York State’s recommendation for reading is that each student completes reading 25 books per year. Most adults don’t even approach that goal, but adults have to work and their time is committed  to other stuff. It is understandable that adults’ time must be dedicated to other stuff. Kids have more time to read than adults. In a 24 hour period a kid’s time is taken up by: one hour preparing to get to school, seven to eight hours in school, two hours extra-curricular (depending on the sports’ season), and one to two hours of homework. Let’s allow an hour and a half to eat dinner and chill. That has accounts for Eleven to Thirteen hours. If we consider the ten to twelve hours of recommended sleep, that would leave one to two hours per day that a kid could be, and should be reading to get to 25 books per year. It all works out on paper. I always loved the expression, “Man plans, and God laughs”.

For all of the reasons mentioned it is difficult to get all 25 books done in the school year. Of course, if you ever went into a Border’s Book’s during the summer when there was a Border’s Books, you would see an awesome display of Books for the Summer Reading Lists for your school. Summer reading is highly recommended to keep those young brains sparking away. Many districts assign multiple books to really charge up those summer-lazy brains. Hopefully, thought was given to those  book lists to be high interest level books of brevity, so there would be at least a chance of accomplishment. War and Peace is not a beach book. It has been my experience that those who make up these lists are often people who love reading and actually read 25 books per year or more. In their day, they must have been the best students, if we are to consider  the New York State recommendations as an indicator. I do believe that reading is important, and we should, most definitely, provide suggested lists to students for summer reading.

That being said, I need to talk a little bit about my understanding of assessment. I always approach assessment as a tool for the teacher. Formative assessment tells the teacher how well the teaching is going. Is there a reason to re-do something, or is it time to move on? Summative assessment is the final result. After all is said and done, how much was learned? It is like a chef who needs to taste the cooking until the diner gets the plate (formative). The diner tasting the meal is the final assessment (summative).

Now we move on to the point of all of this. Students are told that they MUST do the summer reading. This may be in more than one reading and in more than one academic subject. They are also told that there will be a test within a short period of time from the start of school which will go into their average. By the way tests are one form of assessment, so this test should be formative or summative. If the teacher is using it as formative assessment than it is testing how effective the lesson was, but there was no lesson. Therefore, it must be a summative assessment. How much learning was accomplished from the activity?

One would hope that in an ideal situation, we could get most of our students to at least an 85% achievement level. If the entire class did not get there, it might be necessary for the teacher to revisit a number of things to clarify and expand on some ideas. After all a good chef does this to complete the course for the summative assessment of the diner. Sometimes, if at first you don’t succeed… There is always a re-test after fine tuning. This would be wonderful if that was done.

This does not always occur in the real world of education. Some teachers give the final test and what  a student gets is what student gets. “You should have completed the reading.” “You had every opportunity and all the time of the summer to get it done.” “ You knew the rules going in.” “ This is the way our department does it.” “ That is what summer reading is all about.” “ I don’t make the rules, I follow them.” Does any of this sound familiar?

What does a failing grade on the summer reading test indicate? After all it is a summative assessment so it should tell us something. Does it indicate the student has a reading problem? Does it indicate that the student fails to make connections. Is it an indication that there is a problem with higher order thinking skills? Does it indicate a need for remediation? Are there emotional problems interfering with learning? These are all possibilities. This is what teachers should be asking of any summative assessment that identifies a student’s failure to learn.

Of course if these are not the questions being addressed by the teacher, there might be another reason for this assessment grade to be averaged into the student’s average. It is not assessment, but PUNISHMENT. The student did not do what he or she was told, and the student needs to pay a price in the form of a lowered average. That should require an asterisk on the grade at the end of the year stating that the average is not a true account of the student’s ability to learn. It has been skewed to account for punishment for not reading over the summer.

Many of those students who receive punishment for not reading do not take it as a constructive criticism, for that is not what it is. It is intended to be a negative experience, as all punishment is. That does not promote reading. There are many ways to assess things beyond a test. Group discussions, and projects based on the reading give reasons to students to complete the reading. Teachers need to remember that we are here to promote and nurture learning and not to punish students into submission. Leave that for the behavior policy. Assessment is not for punishment.

I am sure there will be comments on this and they are welcomed. I am off to read book number two, the year will soon be over!

As an educational blogger I would love to think, that once I reflected on an issue in education, and addressed it in my blog, everyone would clearly understand the error of their ways and fall in line according to my sage advice. Of course the reform movement would move forward, and I would expect a small plaque would be placed on a bench in front of the lobby of some school commemorating my great contribution to the system that we call education.

That being said, the reality is that many educational bloggers have to continue to reflect and continue to revisit subjects that are like festering sores on the body of education. As we move forward in time, we are confronted with new technologies and new ideas that force us to make changes in our lives. If we make no change, we are destined to live in a place that will no longer exist for the majority. The culture moves on leaving some behind. This may be okay for some adults, but it is not okay for the children we are educating for the purpose of not only living in the future, but hopefully thriving. It is always frustrating when answers to problems are so obvious to some, but a large number still don’t get it.

With that in mind, I am again writing about a subject that continually pops up in media, wherever media may be these days. I was prompted to write this post when I saw yet another blogger writing on this very same subject, forcing me to again comment, again reflect, and start my own post, again. The post was “When Should We Introduce Social Media?” by Brian Bennet.

As parents and educators, one thing that becomes immediately apparent dealing with kids, is that you cannot control, limit, or stop kids from growing up. It happens, and we must accept it as a fact of life. Along with that growing up, kids adapt to the culture to which they are exposed, and make it their own. There is nothing adults can do about that either. The best adults can do, is to try to prepare kids to make the right decisions and to be critical thinkers in arriving at those decisions. That will prepare their generation for moving forward without the adults’ generation which in reality will be left behind.

Unless we are Luddites,we have no chance of stopping the future development of Technology and all that it affects. Technology is a given in the future of our children. Social Media is one such effect of technology. It is here and it is being embraced by young and old. It is accepted and will continue in the future to be with us. We can debate its effect on society, its merits, its pitfalls, and its relevance, but we can’t ignore it, hoping that it will go away. The same can be said of most technology. If we can’t control it, we must certainly learn and teach how to deal with it. Blinders may work well on horses, but they look silly on people.

What individuals do on the internet, stays on the internet for the entire world to see. This is referred to as a digital footprint. Everyone should Google themselves to determine their footprint. Most people began leaving their footprints as they became involved with social media. They made that choice as adults. In this post however, I am talking about kids. Kids today begin leaving their Digital footprints on the internet at birth. Let that sink in, AT BIRTH! “You are crazy, how can that be?” you may ask. The proud parents of any new-born will predictably announce, for all to see, by the essential announcement tool at hand today, Social Media. They continue their storytelling of their never-ending adventure with their children with every new milestone or vacation recorded on Facebook, Twitter or personal Blog.

Of course, you say, but the kid is not involved with Social Media! Not so fast. The toy manufacturers were in this, and saw where it was going, and recognized its potential way before parents and teachers. Webkinz World has over 5 million members and Penguin Club has over 12 million. Surprise! They are Social Media Sites for toddlers and kids under 10. Chances are if your toddler is not a member, he or she knows someone who is, and that someone is telling your toddler all about it. Now here is a ridiculous question: When should we introduce kids to Social Media? A better question must be: When will we begin to teach kids to use Social Media responsibly? If they are social Media aware as toddlers, and they are watching their parents and siblings modeling the use of Social Media at home, the age of introduction is a moot point.

Now that that question has been asked and answered, we need to ask another more important one, so that we may address our responsibility. Social Media is here to stay. It is now, and will continue to be, in the lives of our children. When will we begin to deal with that? Blocking and filtering are just stupid. We will look back at those policies some day and ask; What the hell were we thinking? We need our kids to learn how to be safe, collaborate, interact, critically analyze content and most importantly create content. In order to learn that it must be taught. We do not teach by blocking and filtering. Leave the blinders to the horses.

I live on Long Island, New York. We are fortunate to own a second house on Fire Island. I know what that means to the future of my daughters. I made sure that they could swim before they could walk. I was responsible for their safety and ability to thrive in the environment in which they were to live. I also taught them about Social Media and the internet. They now teach me. When will this senseless debate end?

Shake-Up

After the earthquake on the East Coast last week, I guess I had the term “Shake-Up” on my mind. I don’t know which I considered first, the title, or the post.  The beginning of the school year has arrived as many of us do every year, I am wondering what I will do differently this year from those same classes that I had last year. This is something that many teachers consider as they enter a new year. It is also something that many teachers do not ultimately address, but rather settle for many of the same methods and tools of the previous year to get through the new.

If a teacher developed a lesson, worksheets, quizzes, and tests that worked last year, why reinvent the wheel. It takes a great deal of time to develop this stuff, and who has time today?  This year’s students never saw this stuff before, so it is new to them. As a secondary teacher of 34 years, I have been in this very same spot. That is how I know it does go on. I have done this. I also recognized it as a fault as I did it. This practice, unfortunately, just reinforces the status quo, and that is the thing that has been under so much scrutiny lately.

If there is one thing that supports the status quo in the education system, it is the way teachers are assigned classes for their schedule. Some schools have almost a cast system. The youngest most inexperienced teachers get the leftover classes. The”problem classes” no one else wants. The teachers, who have been around awhile, the experienced teachers, get the cream of the crop. The result is that the kids who need the most experienced teachers get the newbies. The kids, who are self-motivated life-long learners and have the ability to search out content on their own, get the teachers who are there because they are recognized as content experts.

Teachers who are interested in starting classes often work very hard initially to develop curriculum and selling their course to their “superiors”. If they are lucky, they are given the opportunity to teach that class and it becomes theirs. They actually take ownership and it is their course and deservedly so. However, ownership of classes continues for many years with one teacher, teaching specific classes possibly over decades.

It stands to reason that a teacher who has taught a course over years is truly a content expert for that course. Up until now content expertise is what was demanded of educators in all the previous years of our system. Content is King. The problem comes in when innovation goes out. The creativity that was used by that teacher to get the course up and running is replaced over the years by habit and complacency. Innovation is hard and things have been going along fine without it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. No, not every teacher falls prey to this attitude, but many do, too many.

Of all the problems in our system, this is not the biggest one. I believe however, that it is more prevalent than schools care to admit. Maybe it is time for a Shake Up. Maybe we should consider rotating teachers around after a few years in one area. There are some licensing areas that are subject-specific, especially in science. Other areas are less specific. A teacher certified in secondary English is expected to be able to teach any English course on the secondary level. Maybe three years is enough time for a teacher to teach a specific subject before getting a new assignment. There will be disappointments, but maybe that can be turned around by the creative juices of innovation. If nothing else it will promote collaboration between colleagues. It might also have teachers seek out best practices by others.

This need not be limited to teachers. There are many administrators in large districts who might benefit by a rotation to another school in the district. It would expose them to the culture and leadership of another school. It would broaden their leadership experiences. This would certainly hold true for department chairs as well as assistant principals.

Of course this Shake Up idea will probably go nowhere for one reason, the comfort zone. That is the ultimate place that we all strive to find. Once we find it, we want to always live there because life in the comfort zone is easy. The sky is always blue and everything is right with the world in the comfort zone. If we are to change the system, we need to change the culture. We need to change the comfort zones of educators. They need to be comfortable with, innovation and change. In order to make that happen, they need support. Support from Administrators, parents, colleagues, and kids. If we really want to support change, we need to all support teachers. Since we expect a great deal from teachers, our full and unwavering support is the least they should expect from us. The Shake-Up applies to all.

For those who do not know about it, #Edchat is a weekly chat about education that takes place at noon and 7 PM ET every Tuesday on Twitter. It has involved as many as a thousand teachers globally putting out over 3,000 tweets in an hour. #Edchat has existed continuously for two years, taking only 2 weeks of for Christmas and New Years. #Edchat has won awards and has been written about in every major US educational Journal. Additionally, since #Edchat began, about 60 other chats have popped up over the years. Chat Listing: Cybraryman’s Educational Chats on Twitter

One criticism often voiced about #Edchat is that it is an echo chamber. I always assumed that meant it was a discussion with many like-minded individuals giving opinions on topics that they all already agreed upon before the discussion. After participating in both #Edchats every Tuesday for two years with few exceptions, I feel that I do have a somewhat considered opinion. #Edchat does have its detractors. Not everybody gets it, and that is okay. Social Media offers many opportunities for educators to involve themselves in a multitude of ways that they are comfortable with and also meets their needs.

It is not surprising that many #Edchat participants have similar interests and philosophies. Two years ago Social Media attracted many people who used and were comfortable with technology. They tended to be some of the more progressive among educators. Today more and more educators are being attracted to Social Media for professional purposes. Many are being exposed to ideas that are not generated from their own schools. Ideas are being discussed that, before now, were not generally discussed in their buildings. They are being exposed to ideas that they can now take back to their buildings to be shared for possibly the first time. These discussions not only offer a glimpse of what other educators think globally, but it prepares participants with a perspective that they may not have gotten in their own building.

At one time it was referred to as “airing dirty laundry”. Today we call it “Transparency”. We demand it of government, so why not demand it of education as well. #Edchat does not offer change, but it does allow for the change discussion. Teachers and administrators may be hearing on #Edchat what they should be hearing in their schools but they are not. It arms educators with ideas and perspectives to fight for change in their buildings.

In many schools today the ideas of: true leadership, assessment, authentic learning, grading, high stakes testing, Social Media impact, and even Homework, have been stagnated in schools through complacency. The status quo remains in many schools without being challenged. If #Edchat was truly an echo chamber for all educators, why would we even need to discuss reform?

It seems to be fairly clear that the system needs to change from what it is, to what we need. The what-we-need part is the struggle. It will take a discussion of ideas to hammer out the needs of the system. Discussions should to take place where educators gather. Influences within buildings are limited. Influences in Social Media are many, and now becoming more diverse. What may seem as an echo chamber to some may be an inspiration to others. There are 7.2 million teachers in the USA. Only a fraction, a very small fraction, of those educators, is on social media for professional reasons. We need more transparent discussions to properly address the needs of the system. We must have these needs addressed not by politicians, and business people who know marketing, business strategies and profits, but by educators who know about education and children.

The real value of educational chats like Edchat lies not in the immediate chat, but what comes after. Yes. Many educators in these chats are in agreement on some of the topics. If they are good ideas and have value why wouldn’t people support them? It is that very support of good ideas that needs to be witnessed and carried off to other educators. If those ideas were supported by every educator, these problems would be solved and there would need to be discussions of something else.

The effect of the chats on educators for further reflection is testimony to their influence. After these chats a further exploration of these ideas takes place in education blogs around the world. Each of these Posts requires a new set of comments and further reflection. Many participants carry the subjects back to colleagues in their buildings. Administrators involved in these chats appreciate the worth of many of the chat Topics and carry them back to their buildings for further thought and future action.

#Edchat and the other chats will not be around forever. In the world of technology and Social Media things change or disappear in a relatively short period of time. Discussions, however, have been with us from the beginning. We need to continue to transparently discuss our problems and concerns no matter what the platform is that we use. We also need to share the ideas with those most affected, as well as the decision makers. I consider #Edchat, and all the other chats with us and those yet to come not as Echo chambers, but as sounding boards for educational ideas ideas ideas deas eas as s….

This is the listing of all of the videos from #140EDU Conference. Please feel free to share these videos with your friends and colleagues:

Chris Lehmann – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-welcome-5465616
Jeff Pulver – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-welcome-5465616
Jack Hidary – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-jack-hidary-5475010
David Singer – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-david-singer-louis-wool-5465907
Louis Wool – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-david-singer-louis-wool-5465907
Rebecca Levey – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-rebecca-levey-5465920
Christian Long – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-christian-long-5465962
Steven Anderson – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-steven-anderson-tom-whitby-5469136
Tom Whitby – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-steven-anderson-tom-whitby-5469136
Lisa Nielsen – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-lisa-nielsen-5474229
Inga Ros – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-inga-r%C3%B3s-5474278
Patrick Higgins – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-patrick-higgins-5469157
Cynthia Lawson Jaramillo  – http://blip.tv/140confevents/cynthia-lawson-5469188
Mel Rosenberg  – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-mel-rosenberg-5469255
Jerome McLeaod – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-panel-growing-up-in-real-time-5475039
Danielle Duncan – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-panel-growing-up-in-real-time-5475039
Joshua Hendarto – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-panel-growing-up-in-real-time-5475039
Daniellee Villa – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-panel-growing-up-in-real-time-5475039
Maya Wright – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-panel-growing-up-in-real-time-5475039
George Haines – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-george-haines-5469357
Don Burton – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-don-burton-5469338
Katie McFarland – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-katie-mcfarland-5469369
Barry Joseph – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-barry-joseph-5469388
Marc Ecko – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-marc-ecko-5469424
Anthony Stover – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-parents-panel-parents-of-sla-5469471
Janos Marton – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-janos-marton-5469496
Michele Haiken – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-michele-haiken-5469532
Adam Bellow – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-adam-bellow-5469551
Shelley Krause – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-shelly-krause-5474324
Michael Federochko – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-shelly-krause-5474324
Niki Kakarla – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-shelly-krause-5474324
Perry Hewitt – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-perry-hewitt-5474355
Andrea Genevieve Michnik – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-andrea-michnik-5469595
Will Craig – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-will-craig-5469623
Dale Stephens – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-dale-stephens-5469901
Barry Schuler – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-barry-schuler-5469972
Lynn Langit – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-lynn-langit-5474396
Samantha Langit – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-samantha-langit-5474378
Eric Sheninger – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-eric-sheninger-5469999
Tal Horowitz – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-tali-horowitz-5470009
Tom Krieglstein – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-tom-krieglstein-5470025
Gina Johnston – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-gina-johnston-5474416
Kim Sivick – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-kim-sivick-5470043
Wendy Brawer – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-wendy-brawer-5470079
Dr.Green – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-panel-alternatives-to-an-outdated-education-model-5470112
John Mikulski – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-panel-alternatives-to-an-outdated-education-model-5470112
Donna Murdoch – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-panel-alternatives-to-an-outdated-education-model-5470112
Shelly Terrell – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-panel-alternative4
Erik Endress – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-erik-endress-547012
Jane Barratt – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-jane-barratt-5470147
Kyra Gaunt – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-kyra-gaunt-5470171
Mahipal Raythattha – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-mahipal-raythattha-5470860
Deb Eckerling – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-debra-eckerling-5474465
Ethan Bodnar – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-debra-eckerling-5474465
Kristen Durkin – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-debra-eckerling-5474465
Linnea Keys – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-2-11-debra-eckerling-5474465
Kelly Sutton – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-kelly-sutton-5470892
Douglas Crets – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-douglas-crets-5470912
Michael Karnjanaprakorn – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-mike-karnjanaprakorn-5470958
Karen Blumberg – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-panel-educators-taking-control-of-their-own-professional-development-the-edcamp-model-5471079
Ann Leaness – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-panel-educators-taking-control-of-their-own-professional-development-the-edcamp-model-5471079
Meenoo Rami – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-panel-educators-taking-control-of-their-own-professional-development-the-edcamp-model-5471079
Gregory Corbin – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-gregory-corbin-5471120
Randee SchneebergPomerantz – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-randee-schneeberg-5471136
Michael Margolis – http://blip.tv/140confevents/140edu-8-3-11-michael-margolis-5474488

I am growing tired of the number of posts and stories I read about everyone’s plan on “teacher accountability”. I see too many holes in too many plans to deal with what is being categorized as “THE PROBLEM” with education; bad teachers. Unfortunately, when the outcome of many of these ill-conceived plans like Merit Pay result in failure, that too will be blamed on the teachers for its failure to work and not the fact that the plan itself was flawed. Teachers are in a no-win situation with targets painted on their backs. Nowhere was it more evident than in the reporter’s attack on Matt Damon for his support of teachers at the Save Our Schools March in D.C.. I guess we should be grateful for, if it wasn’t for the press coverage of Matt Damon, the entire March might have gone on with absolutely no press coverage. Why cover a bunch of protesting teachers when we all know that they are the problem with education? They cost too much and do too little. The newest added dimension, thanks to enlightened Missouri Legislators, is that all teachers are suspected to be potential child molesters.

I am not saying that teachers should not be held accountable. I am saying that there is no one factor that is creating the perceived failure of our education system. I recently read a post suggesting that the professional thing for teachers to do was to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and fix themselves through self-evaluation. Of course that was my take on it, and I did comment to the blogger. You may assess it differently. Teacher Accountability & PLCs.

The one big question that keeps nagging at my brain is: Where is our leadership in all of this?  Other questions: Who is standing up for teachers? Besides Diane Ravitch whose voices are we hearing nationally in support of teachers? But the most important question of all is: Where are our local, educational leaders in this? What responsibility are the superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, principals, and assistant principals taking for the “demise” of our education system?

I do not want to enter the realm of Admin bashing, but there are some observations that can be made that might be helpful in leadership evaluation. After a career in secondary education, I have a longstanding awareness of the capabilities of teachers. Additionally, my recent experience with educators involved in Social Media is also very positive, and finding that most educators are involved to improve their craft and be relevant as educators. Most educators entered the profession for reasons more noble than to bilk the system with an easy ride for high pay and healthcare. The leadership of education comes from these very ranks. What happens to the educator who transitions to an administrator? Are all administrators leaders? How much of our administrators are still educators?

The industrial model of education requires a hierarchy of supervision. Unfortunately, for some Admins, this creates an adversarial relationship with an Us/Them mentality and teachers become the problem. Those admins may no longer be comfortable with teachers and tend to lead from their office. You won’t find them in professional development workshops. Some will never enter the student cafeteria at lunchtime. Walking the halls is the lowest priority on a long list of important administrative duties.

A stable school culture is developed over time. To affect that culture in a positive way, any admin needs to spend time working on  needed change. The system however, often requires that admins move on, to move up. Aspiring admins are too often not around long enough to affect needed change leaving that to the next admin to come along. This also creates a void in teacher evaluations. Any continuing guidance an admin may be offering  a teacher in need of such structure, leaves with the admin. The new admin generally does not want to rock the boat or create enemies, so follow-through is usually tabled for the time being. That usually means, until there is a problem that is visible. Some refer to this as falling through the cracks. administrator mobility causes many, many cracks.

Leadership works best when there is a mutual respect between teachers and admins. It has been my observation that this works best when admins view themselves more as educators than supervisors. An educator who supports other educators in the goal of developing learners is a much more respectful way to lead than the Boss and Worker model. Support of teachers requires trusting teachers. That requires giving teachers power. The Power and control issue in any school creates that adversarial thing that always gets in the way.

The whole educational philosophy idea can really muck things up as well. At the extremes we have conservatives and progressives. The conservative approach to education much as in politics, harkens back to the tried and true methods of olde. The progressive philosophy calls on teaching the 21st Century skills and employing tech tools for learning. Of course the bulk of educators fall somewhere in the middle, again, much like politics. This is where professional Development and life-long learning come into play. Better learners make better teachers. Better learners also make better leaders. This can’t happen with once or twice a year workshop day for teachers. We need Leaders to offer constant PD and to lead the way by modeling their involvement.

There is an Irony here that I feel the need to point out. I do not expect too many comments from administrators objecting to my opinions here. Most of the administrators who would even be exposed to this post are the administrators looking to learn and reflect for a better way to lead. The unfortunate part about that is that, they represent only a small, but hopefully growing number. So, the people who I need to have read this post for the most benefit, will never see it. Maybe they would, if someone printed it out and walked it into their office.

To be better students, we need better teachers. To be better teachers, we need better leaders. To be better leaders, we need better methods. To get better methods, we need more involvement. To get more involvement, we need to be better learners. Ta Da! To be better Educators, we ALL need to be better learners.

In addition to all of this, we need to be better marketers of education. Marketing is the key to success. I once took a marketing course for educators at, of all places, Disneyworld, the Mecca of marketing. That was a valuable course for me. I learned the four important points for marketing education.

  1. Do a good job. 2. Do a good job. 3. Do a good job. 4. Tell everyone about it!

#Edchat, as well as about 50 other educational twitterchats, Digital Personal Learning Networks, Online Discussion Groups, Twitter, LinkedIn and a number of other Web 2.0 social media applications are often attributed by educators for offering professional development, or PD. Social Media is also credited with helping the emergence of Edcamps and Teachmeets, as well as online conferences like #140edu Conference and the Reform Symposium Conference. These are all considered by many to be PD.

I recently came across a very informative, somewhat scholarly post from Education Week which was first published in August 2004 and updated, June 29, 2011, Professional Development.  My take-away from the research referenced in the post was that it is difficult to connect the teacher’s professional development to an increase in their students’ success or at the very least improvement in student performance. Of course after teaching for many years, I ask myself, “Did the PD courses these teachers took have anything to do with what it was that they taught?

Many states require that teachers be provided or otherwise obtain PD. Often this comes in the form of workshops or even an expert or consultant coming into a school to work with staff in small groups. Other PD may be in the form of mini-classes offered by professional organizations or institutions of higher learning. Most schools have procedures to approve requests for PD since it is often a requirement for maintaining a license or obtaining a pay increase. Consequently, a wide array of subjects for educators may be deemed acceptable. Some schools even have committees to approve PD requests for credit.

This does leave open the possibility that a class approved for PD may not align with what a teacher teaches. A Phys Ed teacher may be getting his or her required PD in reading. That fulfills the requirement, but it may have little impact on their students since Physical Education requires little in the way of reading. An English teacher taking a cinematography or video course makes sense, unless the curriculum for what they teach does not allow the opportunity for cinematography or videography. There are many opportunities in the existing system for teachers to take approved PD courses that will not impact the performance of their students directly. It would seem even if the teacher takes a PD course directly related to what will be taught in his or her class, quantifying the results of the impact on learning would have its problems.

Now let us consider Social Media as a conduit for PD.I hear from educators almost daily how their Social Media involvement, Twitter/#Edchat is the best PD they have ever experienced. That is where I think I part ways. I do not see social media as the PD, but as a portal to the PD. It comes from educators engaging other educators in discussions and exchanging ideas that lead to the best sources in order to access the specific PD. It is this self-determined direction which is what involves learners in a deeper more meaningful understanding of a subject. This is regardless of extra pay or outside approval from the school district.

Now the question arises, is this PD resulting in an improvement in the students’ learning? I have often said, “To be better teachers, we must first be better learners”. It would seem to me educators who are seeking Professional Development to meet their specific needs as an educator, would certainly be a first step to better learning. The astonishment on the part of so many may not be in what they are learning, but rather how they are learning. They are being rejuvenated in many ways. This is having a very positive effect on individual educators. They are being energized by their learning. Many are being listened to by appreciative digital colleagues. It is bolstering many who have wavered under the constant attack on education and educators. Relevant discussions of content and pedagogy on an ongoing basis, 24/7, goes a long way in improving self-image, confidence, and understanding of one’s profession.

Social Media, in any of its many forms, enables educators to tap into a vast number of sources in the form of people and content. It enables educators to direct their learning to meet their needs. It enables educators to feel good about learning and continue down that path. Whenever a person can be picked up dusted off and respected for what they do, it must have a positive impact. If that happens to an educator, it must in some way impact their students in a positive way. I need not get caught up in the paralyzing analyzing, because I know it works that way for me. I can only hope it works that way for others.

An even more important point is that, if we view this as a positive form of learning for educators, why would it not apply to students as well? We are all learners. Social Media should be yet another tool in an arsenal of tools used by educators to enable kids to become better learners. They need to continue to learn long after their contact with teachers has ended. Most of my teachers are now gone, yet I continue learning. That is a lesson we all must keep in mind.

I recently read a post from Andrew Marcinek, an educator who I greatly respect and often agree with. Are We Chasing Technology or Mastering It? His post however caused me, for the first time after several years of connection, to disagree with him. In his post he asserts that we should slow down the way we expect teachers to learn and use technology as a tool for learning. He makes some valid points. We can never be on the cutting edge of Technology, since it changes and advances so rapidly. I totally agree. There is also an explosion of education applications available which causes information overload for even the most Tech-Savvy educator. Again I agree. I agree with Andy’s approach to teaching teachers. We cannot shove Technology down their throats with an arrogant approach espousing what we know as the best thing for all teachers to do.

There was a passage however that grabbed me, and set me off a bit. For those of you who know me, it really does not take too much. The passage read:

If your colleagues use PowerPoint effectively and the kids are learning from it then let them go. Let them check it off as technology integration! Don’t be one of the Tech-jocks and scoff at their slow uptake on the tech wave. Embrace them! Give them a short, resounding golf clap for stepping out of their comfort zone. And remember, not everyone teaches like you; just as our students don’t all learn the same way.

If PowerPoint were the lowest common denominator in the area of technology and learning, I might be less upset. The fact is that the chalk board is probably the lowest, followed by, 60 year old technology, the overhead projector. These are not bad tools for learning and each still may have a place in teaching and learning in the minds of some, but they should not be the focal point. The pinnacle of technology in the classroom cannot be PowerPoint.

I agree that we need to be patient and help educators along, but let us not forget who this education system is for. It is for the students. They are the learners that we must address as the focus of education. It is the comfort of the students with which we need to be concerned. It will always be the skills which students need, that must be the key to education. The tools of learning that kids need to master should be our main concern. Some teachers will never be comfortable with Technology and we must accept that. I was engaged in these very same arguments in the 80’s. We must however keep trying to engage them to engage. It is professional, as an educator, to be relevant. It is professional as an educator to be a learner. It is professional as an educator to be professional.

We are not educators to teach kids within the limits of our comfort zones. Hell, I grew up in the 50’s; my comfort zone no longer exists. As learners we need to move our comfort zones forward. We are teaching kids for their future not our past. (That is an oldie, but a goodie.) There is a place for blackboards, overheads, and even PowerPoint in education, but it is not where the focus of learning should rest. We need to prod and push people in the nicest of ways to strive forward. Yes, it would be counterproductive to overload them with the plethora of tools available today, but we need to move forward. That very same plethora will not go away in the future, it will grow. Standing in place is moving backwards in today’s technologically competitive culture.

I appreciate Andy’s concern for his colleagues. I agree with Andy’s approach to compassionate teaching. I part ways when it comes to placing the comforts of a few over the needs of the many, the students whom we have a responsibility to teach. We cannot be expected to be treated and respected as professionals unless we act professionally. Continuing to learn and to be relevant, as is required by our profession, is what we need to do as professionals. If I hold myself accountable to those standards, I cannot expect less from my colleagues.

Thank you, Andrew Marcinek for causing me to commit this to text on my blog.

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.