Saturday I was fortunate to be able to present at the Social Learning Summit for Classroom 2.0 and Discovery. it was a fantastic array of content which fortunately is all free and archived here. I've done plenty of virtual presentations before but this time I actually did it in front of 30+ teachers in New Brunswick. 

At any rate, this was a talk about an idea that I often allude to in my presentations but have never devoted an entire talk to it. Along with the help of some great friends, I shared some ideas about "silly". It's not the typical tool or how to session but there are some ideas here that I'm still working through and trying to fully understand. Like most of my work world, this is a sandbox presentation, playing with ideas and seeing if they resonate. You tell me. 

Blackboard Collaborate Presentation

Slide Deck:

I was fortunate to work for many years in a relatively small school district. All teachers had pretty easy access to superintendents and directors and even board members. Trust was easier to build. Certainly it doesn't guarantee a trusting environment but it's much easy to build. Convincing 2 people is easier than convincing 10. That's basic math. For example, back in 2007 I had a teacher email me asking if there might be a way for her students to use their cellphones in the classroom. This was way before we'd heard of BYOD concepts and cellphones were not quite in the hands of the majority of our teens as they are today. Within a few weeks, I had contacted our local ISP provider and within a few weeks, a plan was in place to provide these students with phones and data plans. And by the way, the school's policy was "no cellphones" which was quickly abandoned. When I tell people about the open internet, liberal filters, posting of student images, BYOD, mulitple platforms and many of the other things I was part of at Prairie South, they are often baffled as to how easily these things were able to happen. Then I forget that in most cases, those decisions were made by a small group of trusting teachers and leaders in one or two meetings. 

On Monday I had my class listen to the story of Clarence Fisher and Heather Durnin. Two teachers from rural provinces whose classrooms are one. I can't even tell you all the cool and meaningful things they do all day. From their common learning space to their connections with each other and experts,  I can't imagine there are many better learning environments than this one. They are constantly exploring new opportunities for their students. Recently they launched their own radio station. I'm guessing that most teachers would never be able to even consider this. Even if you have a principal and teacher on board, questions about permission, privacy, the things the students might say or do, etc, would kill the idea before it could take root. Clarence has always been advocating that his students, even though they are from a remote, small town in northern Manitoba can have the same opportunities as anyone. The fact is, in many ways his students are getting more of an opportunity to learn than many of our students from our biggest districts. 

Another disturbing trend with many of our larger districts and schools is an arrogance to admit they might not have all the answers. Big organizations are looked to for leadership and often they seem to be guarded against seeking help or exploring what the "little guy" is doing. Whether they actually believe they know it all or maybe they think that smaller organizations couldn't possibly have anything to offer, it's something I've seen more and more. This is certainly a relativity involved here as well. When Prairie South amalgamated from 7 districts to 1, I noticed some of the larger schools (300+ which is still small in most large urban centers) ignore or at least neglect to look to our smaller schools for expertise and innovation. Now I'm seeing some of North America's larger school districts showing little interest in what anyone of lesser size is doing in the way of innovative and promising educational practices. 

Certainly I'm making some generalizations here. Not all small districts and schools are innovative and awesome and not all larger institutions are thwarting innovation. I know Will Richardson has been on the look out for bold schools. I'm not sure what he's collected thus far but my money is most of those have reduced bureaucracy. If you're reading this and you're from a large school or district and yet you're happy with the freedom teachers have to make change and innovation, feel free to comment and help others see that it's possible. For the most part, I'm stumped as to how the red tape can be removed. To me it comes down to trust, autonomy and leadership. There are some great leaders in larger jurisdictions that are humble enough to recognize they don't have all the answers. That's what often leads to trust and autonomy. However, leaders need other leaders and too often it just doesn't trickle down. 

I used to feel bad for small districts with limited resources. I don't anymore. I truly feel for our large districts and those innovators who fight the uphill battle to make both significant and even incremental change. 

That's what you get for spending a day and a half talking about really big issues with really smart people. 

The Background:

Photo: by Wes Fryer http://www.flickr.com/photos/wfryer/6997202637/

Discovery Education, for whom I'm now employed has been involved with digital spaces and for lack of a better word, a textbook, although we call it a techbook. We all agree, the term fails to recognize that we're trying to offer something different but it's the term for now and I suppose it has a recognizable feel that invites a larger group of educators to consider what it might do for learning. They've launched it in several states and wrapped it in loads of quality professional learning designed to help all teachers, no matter their configuration and access to use technology combined with excellent pedagogy to transform learning. That's the goal. We've had some success and feel good about what's been accomplished but recognize we need to get even better and with that invited 18 folks from across North America who are known leaders and thinkers and are willing to be critical for the purposes of making education better.  We spent the evening and a day exploring the future of learning and the role of textbooks in an event called "Beyond the TextBook".

The Format:

We began with a pretty broad couple of questions: What should a digital textbook look like and what is out there that you've seen that is worth talking about? That pretty much kick started a 3 hour conversation where folks openly and honestly shared what they saw as critical elements and ideas about learning in 2012 and beyond.

The Outcome:

For Discovery it served to gain some outside feedback and insight and see more broadly the implications of any kind of product and service development. Copious notes will serve for fodder for the next little while.

My Take Away:

There was largely consensus about several concepts. The idea that learning needs to be social and that the platform should have built in opportunities for students and teachers to connect ideas and be able to easily share. There also needs to be a way to bridge the gap between closed and open formats allowing students to bring in more open content and consider how to encourage remix. Curation was a big buzz word and while it has many implications in this context it focused on how the learner would be able to curate content easily. I suppose to simply all the conversations the three C's stood out most: Collaboration, Curation and Creation. 

I also recognized a distinct difference in perspectives. In the room where a mix of classroom teachers and administrators and consultants and higher ed folks. The focus of the teachers and administrators was more focused on the practical and immediate use in the classroom as well as concerns about access and cost. The higher ed and consultants had much broader concerns about the future of open education, the authoritarian nature of curriculum and textbooks and the pedagogical implications. Again, not that these were conflicting necessarily but it reflected the worlds they live in. 

Underlying all the conversations were two ideas that I didn't think were answered directly but certainly were influencing the discussion. First is the role of assessment and accountability. How is the testing culture influencing publishers and text books? The folks in that room as well as the people I know at Discovery are largely opposed to the emphasis of testing and are interested in simply making learning better and yet do they create and design products that ignore that reality or support it or maybe there's an in between place. 

The second issue that wasn't specifically addressed was what is the role of private, for profit companies in education? Many people everything should be free and that private has no place in public education. I've heard people suggest the Internet is the best text book. I think that's over simplying things and Tom Daccord actually does a nice job of addressing that in his post. The role of private companies will always be debated and has been for a while. Having now made the shift to working for one, I'm trying to sort out that role as well. While I don't directly have to worry about the specifics, I do feel like the intent is to create something of value, be that a service or product and empower and support students and teachers in a variety of great learning opportunities. The waters can get muddied no doubt but constantly asking the right questions about intent and purpose. I like what David Warlick says in a reply to a comment on his post:

I worried, when I left our state department of ed and started “charging money” for what I did, if I had joined the enemy . But then I realized that we’re all making a living. What’s changed is that my contracts last for a day, or three days rather than for a year. Companies create and market services and products to help. It’s a vast partnership. The problem is when any of these companies become so rich that legislation starts to wrap itself around their services, sustaining them and perpetuating how teaching and learning is done. Textbooks are certain an example of this. That said, I’ve been in this field long enough to know that I can be surprised, and that those of us who can inventively adapt to the changing needs of education are welcome. The rest will and should become obsolete and go away.

At any rate it was a fantastic couple of days.  I'd also encourage you to read for yourself what a few others have said:

#BeyondTheTextbook live feed on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23beyondthetextbook

Tom Whitby's recap: http://tomwhitby.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/we-dont-need-no-stinkn-textbooks-beyondthetextbook/

Wesley Fryer's posts about the Forum: http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2012/03/19/morning-discussions-on-digital-content-textbooks-learning-beyondthetextbook/ 

http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2012/03/19/synthesizing-beyondthetextbook-dialog-in-groups/

http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2012/03/19/visualizing-beyondthetextbook/

Audrey Watters' recap: http://hackeducation.com/2012/03/19/beyond-the-textbook/

David Warlick's recap: http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=3524

Karen Hornberger's recap: http://www.palisadessd.org/6063423912582/blog/browse.asp?a=398&bmdrn=2000&bcob=0&c=55781

Steve's ongoing bookmarks: http://delicious.com/stacks/view/K4ORca

Bud Hunt http://budtheteacher.com/blog/2012/03/18/not-beyondthetextbook-betterthetextbook/

There were a few more than this but could give you a good taste. If you did write about it, go ahead and leave a link in the comments.  

Here's a podcast that was recorded with a few of the participants.

Last week I visited two dramatically different conferences. FETC is one of the larger educational conferences you'll ever attend. While numbers have decreased significantly from the first time I attended over 11 years ago, there are still thousands that make their way to the Orange County Convention Center to drink in all things related to technology and learning. My first time there in 2001 I recall attending a pre-conference workshop on streaming video. I believe it was Miami-Dade County sharing how they were able to stream events such as football games and graduations to their community using a truck with TV studio equipment and servers coming out the wazoo. It took me about 15 minutes to realize that someone from Moose Jaw, SK with a handy cam and a lab of 30 computers had no business being in on that session and no hope of ever being able to do anything of that magnitude. I continued to be in awe that week of the emerging hardware and software that offered some new possibilities. I left feeling pretty excited. 

The next few years at this conference were less and less exhilarating and by the 2009 I had pretty much decided there wasn't anything happening there that I would need. My learning space had shifted. What I valued from conferences was about meeting new people whose ideas and sharing I was beginning to understand but wanted some clarification. Call it the flipped conference. Unfortunately FETC wasn't the best place to experience this. Unlike ISTE,  who was not only larger but had begun to acknowledge this need amongst a percentage of its conference attendees, FETC wasn't really embracing this need. 

This year I attended FETC as part of my new role with Discovery. As it turned out, it was a great way for me to spend time with co-workers, ask questions, watch a pre-conference event and connect with many DEN stars. In addition, there were many Canadians in attendance (Florida in January may have something to do with that) and made some important connections that will be helpful as develop community in Canada. But although for me, there was benefit, I couldn't help but noticed that 11 years since my first FETC, there was still a large focus on tools and devices. Very few sessions dealt with the real hard questions of teaching and learning. To be fair, I was largely going by the program and session descriptions but I struggled finding sessions I thought woudl be interesting beyond, "here's a bunch of tools I think are cool". 

The conference ended Thursday night and Friday I left for Philadelphia to attend Educon. Educon and FETC are nothing alike. Educon is small, 500 or fewer. Educon takes place in a school. Educon is in Philadelphia, not Orlando. Educon is designed to be conversational. I led one of these sessions with Alec Couros and shared this diagram from D'arcy Norman as the basic formula for the conference:

This happens because Chris Lehmann attracts smart people. It happens because a high percentage of these people interact with each other regularly online. It's a community  coming together to get at some important issues. It's kind of a flipped conference. It's not a perfect conference but it serves the needs of many who are looking to connect deeply with people and ideas. 

I think FETC meets some of their needs as well. However it's much more of an introductory space for many. A large number of attendees are experiencing shiny new tools and ideas for the first time. I often lose sight of that. At the same time I don't think they're adverse to having the conversations that might take place at an Educon but may not be ready to go there. I think they lack a context for change. 

I'm making a number of assumptions here and I may in fact be wrong. But I did come to realize that just because I find the format and style of Educon more to my liking doesn't mean that an FETC conference doesn't have value. I also realized that my role with Discovery is going to mean that I need to find more ways to reach a more diverse audience. In one month of travels and conversations, I'm seeing first hand the spectrum of technology use and understanding which is greater than I perceived. Working inside a single district, I at least understood the culture. I knew that while not every teacher was using technology to its fullest, I was aware of the circumstances and barriers to a greater degree and was able to provide the more appropriate supports. I've seen some schools and teachers who are dealing with very different challenges than I witnessed. Schools with virtually no technology outside of a single smartboard and a lab of out of date computers. No wireless access. High levels of filtering. Boards with limited vision. While I was aware these problems existed, they weren't really my problems. Now they are. 

So all this to say the digital divide is vast. Somehow I need to prepare myself to address that and It begins with a more sympathetic attitude towards those just beginning to see that things could be different. I think at times I've been harsh and impatient with people. Not openly perhaps but may have dismissed someone's seeming lack of interest as being reluctant. I'm realizing that so many people have not had the opportunities and time I've had. Again, this isn't new but I got a good reminder last week. 

The Educon experience of community and challenging conversations is something I hope to pursue and nurture with my time at Discovery. I've got lots of resources to make that happen but I've also got a big challenge in supporting a country as big as Canada. 

I'll keep sticking with what's gotten me this far; smart people. I know a few. 

I'm a fan of change and new. Particularly when I believe it's for the better. But even when I'm not sure, I don't mind a little risk.

It's with that spirit that I begin a new journey in January. I'll be joining Discovery Education and serving as the DEN (Discovery Educator's Network) Community Manager. The job will be largely about developing and expanding the Discovery Educator network here in Canada. In the US, the DEN is a vibrant community of exemplary educators passionate about teaching and learning with technology. My job is to develop a similar community across Canada. In many respects it will allow me to continue what I've been doing in Prairie South but now potentially be supporting exponentially more teachers. I'll be based out of my home and spending a fair bit of time traveling, visiting schools, working with teachers, presenting at conferences and fostering community in whatever way I can. 

I began talking with the folks from Discovery back in May as we explored a potential position. This particular position didn't exist. We spent several months brainstorming what the job might look like. In the end, the posting was made public in October. When I read the job description, I felt like I wrote it.

I would be very hesitant joining a for profit business except for the fact that I have the utmost respect for people like Steve Dembo, Hall Davidson, Scott Kinney, Andy Schaefer and Lance Rouguex. These are high quality individuals. Many of these folks I've known for years and it's been evident their passion and focus lies in helping teachers. That will continue to be my focus as well.

I'll be taking a year leave of absence from my current position. This allows me and my family to decide if this job is a good fit for our family. Certainly increased travel will be a factor. It's nice that Prairie South offers that option. You can even apply for my job if you like. My years at Prairie South have been simply wonderful. I've had the opportunity to try many things and work with some outstanding people. If you've been reading this blog for a while you've seen me brag often about the work we do here. 

I'll continue to teach at the University of Regina. That's such a foundation for me as I can honestly tell people I'm still a teacher. It's something I truly wouldn't want to give up. I love teaching. 

Unless you work in Prairie South, our relationship probably won't change much. In fact, if you're in Canada, chances are you'll be getting to know me even more. We could be working together. If there's any way I can help, just ask. 

Thanks to everyone who reads this. In many ways you're the reason I'm able to have this opportunity. I'll try and do good work. 

Unlike a classroom where a teacher controls the lecture, the organic communities that emerge through collectives produce meaningful learning because the inquiry that arises comes from the collective itself.
https://kindle.amazon.com/work/new-culture-learning-cultivating-ebook/B004S72WOS/B004RZH0BG
 

Integral to this idea is giving yourself opportunities to experience and facilitate serendipitous learning. Currently there really isn't a better way to make this happen than twitter.

Here's the story.

Yesterday I'm attending a full day workshop (workshop is a loose term, it was really a 5 hour lecture) with Dr. Larry Bendtro, researcher and founder of the Circle of Courage Institute which focuses on reclaiming at risk students. Dr. Bendtro is a good speaker and while a 5 hour lecture isn't an ideal way to learn, there were lots of nuggets of learning I took away.

Sitting in the auditorium made up of educators and community people, I did see several ipads out but the majority of course were sticking with pen and paper to capture their learning. Lots of people were talking notes but of course, few, if any were sharing those notes. That's a bit of waste. So when I pull out my phone, I'm sure most people who see that think I'm checking email, texting, playing a game, or generally just off task. I used to be concerned about that but not anymore. I've learned that for me, engaging in a backchannel or simply using hashtags is the best way for me to stay focused and engaged. It may not be for everyone but it's for me. The person I sat with also uses twitter and we simply agreed to use the #circleofcourage as our hashtag.

Sidebar:

Last week one of my students was tweeting about being bored in class. I tweeted back that she should tweet what she was hearing and try and see if she could get others in her class to use a common hashtag to take collected notes. It worked for her.

Back to the story.

Part of the purpose of using twitter to take these notes is both for me, for the others participating but also because you never know. Early on in the lecture, Dr. Bendtro talked about the importance of a good theory but that if you can't explain your theory to a 4 year old, maybe you really don't understand your theory. As I was about to tweet that out, I see my buddy Dave Cormier in my twitter stream. I had the pleasure of having breakfast with Dave and his family last month and enjoy bantering and teasing with him so I decided I had enough social capital to present him a little challenge:

I really didn't know what I expected him to do with that. The nature of twitter is such that it could have easily fallen into the pile of useless tweets, which I'll admit I likely hold the world record. But Dave took my dare and did something, something quite awesome as a matter of fact. (I forgive you if you leave here now and spend time on Dave's blog. Go ahead, it's okay) He obviously had no obligation to do anything with my question. He could have ignored it or told me to mind my own business. Instead he created a useful artifact that is beneficial for me, others and for him as well.

I don't know if that's an amazing story because it's one that likely happens to many people every day because they place themselves in a space that fosters intentional serendipity. It's actually quite wonderful, joyful and meaningful. You can't quantify it, place it in a lesson plan but you also can't ignore it. I'm sure the vast majority of you reading this are twitter users and have your own story to tell. Maybe not. The point here is that intentional serendipity should be held in much higher regard. If you say you're too busy for serendipity, you might want to loosen up your schedule.  I've often felt that every classroom should have a space, be it a wiki or a bulletin board that highlights unintended learning. It's often the best kind.

Yet we do very little to achieve that goal. 

One of my favorite moments over the past several years was having a teacher write me about some of the changes she was making in her classroom. She described a shift of handing the reigns of learning over to students and moving from doing everything to as she put it:

Talk about engaged learning. I could be sitting at the back quilting!! They are helping each other, going above and beyond any expectations I have.

Of course she didn't sit at that back of the room quilting, but it does illustrate that her role as teacher at the front, in control of the learning had shifted. There are many new roles she will now have to embrace. I think there are some similarities for all types of classrooms but in particular I've been wondering how the gradual release of responsibility should look in our K-12 schools. In many cases, students have more freedom and control of learning in our Kindergarten classes than in our Grade 12 classrooms. That's both odd and disturbing. 

As parents, I would hope that our goal is to help increase independence and self sufficiency as our children get older. When they're 3 we hold their hand as we cross the street, talk to them about traffic, how to look both ways, etc. At 5-6 we might stand at a safe distance and watch them practice and cross the street on less busy sections. Hopefully by the time they are 8-10 they can do this on their own. We repeat this gradual release of responsibility in many facets of parenting. Certainly this varies depending on your parenting style, beliefs and disposition, but in general, all parents are trying to get their kids to be relatively independent adults by the time they reach 18ish. 

Yet our schools can't seem to get this for the most part. Instead of giving students more control and independence in many ways we decrease it. Sure in our high schools we offer electives but beyond that, there's very little intention about helping students become these life long learners we talk about. Part of this issue is the antiquated structure of high schools. At least in K-8 environments, teachers have the ability to reduce the impact of time which allows for the potential of project based learning, which at its core and at its best is student driven. I'm still amazed at the "rigor" around assignment choice at the high school level. Too often there is little room for choice or option. We even take away their cell phones in order to maintain control. I'm astonished at the unwillingness to even engage students in a process of decision making. Couldn't we at the very least have a conversation with students? Students leave high school without being true independent learners. As Stephen Downes says:

We need to move beyond the idea that an education is something that is provided for us, and toward the idea that an education is something that we create for ourselves. It is time, in other words, that we change out attitude toward learning and the educational system in general.

We're not having enough conversations around this idea. Partly because I don't think enough educators even believe this. Our institutions, our jobs have been designed to maintain that status quo. The status quo for schools is, "come here, listen to us, mind your own business, do what we tell you and we'll give you a diploma". That's the current deal. It's largely our structure that maintains this but what we often see as our best results are continuing to feed this system.

I see many of these same students enter university. These are the best students, the ones who were most compliant (that's another issue but related) and high achievers. Many of these students are still highly dependent on a teacher to learn. Too many still don't own their learning. Besides a lack of choice, we've made them dependent on grades as well. if we truly believe in life long learning we have to be much more diligent in emphasizing learning for learning's sake, not for a grade. My experience tells me there is very little that happens in school that makes this message clear. Just like parenting, we all go through the anxiety of allowing our children to choose, allowing them to fail and allowing them to feel success and discovery on their own. 

As a parent of four, I know I'll always be a parent. In that respect, I'm not really working myself out of a job.  But my role has to change somewhat. My influence changes as does the relationship. Instead of helping them cross the street, I'm advising them on buying a car. 

So what should and could and are we doing to develop life long, independent learners? What does gradual release of responsibility look like in our K-12 schools? Maybe we are doing something about it, I'm just not seeing it.

Photo: by shareski http://www.flickr.com/photos/shareski/209122376/

I’m on a mission.

In case you haven’t noticed, high schools often represent the most traditional, stagnant educational spaces. The very structure of that world from the segregated subjects, focus on content, credit acquisition, departmental/state testing all join forces to make change difficult.

In our school district, our High School Learning Support Team is tasked with supporting our high schools in a variety of ways. In particular we face many teachers struggling with student engagement. We have great conversations about the changes that could help these teachers and classrooms move forward but recognize that us simply telling them how they might change may not be the most well received approach. They need to see others in action, thinking differently and making a difference in student’s lives.

They are out there. Sometimes they aren’t easy to find but they’re there. Teachers and schools who stare those structures in the face and decide to challenge them. They do so only because they know its best for kids. It’s much easier to continue on, not make waves and seek compliance. In some cases, their efforts are celebrated and even supported by leadership and in other cases, they do so in hopes no one finds out. In other cases they don’t even realize what they are doing but just do innovative things instinctively. These are the positive deviants.

The Power of Positive Deviance is about finding people and ideas that are making a difference but are happening without an awareness of what they’re doing different from their peers.

As a leader in a school district I do believe much of this exists internally but I also am interested in discovering these folks no matter where they reside. For High Schools here are a couple of great examples of deviance.

The Classics Academy

Here’s the 15 minute documentary of their program.

The Innovation Lab

This was an experiment that I heard about before but spend several hours on the weekend examining their work. Monika Hardy and team are doing some fascinating things. It’s a multi-faceted approach to personal and passion based learning built around the idea that “nothing is for everyone”. There’s some really thoughtful work that’s gone into this and they are in their 2nd year of implementation. The documentation of this is outstanding. Videos, writing, presentations and student work is all available. I’d encourage folks to spend some time exploring. Share this with others. 

The Independent Project

Just watch the video and discuss.

Project Based Learning in Prairie South 

In my own district we’ve got some teachers making some inroads in attacking the system. This video is a couple of years old but these same teachers are continuing their work and I may need to make another video showcasing their work.

While in the true sense of the word “deviance” these may not be pure examples. These teachers aren’t doing things in private and they’ve done a fair bit of thinking before jumping in. However in the larger context of traditional education, they indeed represent the deviants. Lest you missed the link to technology, these efforts wouldn't be possible without it. In many cases their links are explicit:

Technology is a vital part of The Academy. Students and teachers bring in personal devices or borrow iPads provided by the school. The iPads enrich the educational experience and prepare the seniors for their entry into college. Latin teacher Mr. Gutkowski said, “The instant access to the Internet revolutionizes the way information is used in class.” The essential use of technology, within MHS, also allows for interesting classroom discussions, quick note-taking and the ability to access information from the Internet thereby enhancing overall classroom dialogue.

Who are the deviants in your school or district? Find them and help tell their stories.

Cross posted at the Huffington Post.

Steve Jobs never believed in focus groups. Guy Kawasaki, who worked for Apple and Steve Jobs said, "Apple Market research is an oxymoron. If you ask people what they want they'll tell you "Better, faster and cheaper"- that is better sameness, not revolutionary change. Many other innovators have echoed similar sentiments. This flies in the face of the idea that the customer is always right. Jobs also said "people don't know what they want until you show it to them" No doubt he was a brash visionary that designed some very innovative products that many people adore. 

In education I hear this sentiment a lot lately: "Involve and engage all stakeholders". That sounds lovely. Why wouldn't we want input for parents and the community? All stakeholders in this case probably means every parent and taxpayer. That's a lot of people with a lot of ideas about what school should look like.  There's a desire to be transparent and be collaborative. These are words I use with great frequency to describe learning. But I'm beginning to question these ideas when it comes to making bold moves in education. 

I think of Zac Chase's tongue in cheek post a few months back about turning off his phone on the plane. He writes about whether turning off your phone will or won't impact the flight:

But I don’t know.

And that’s the key.

I don’t understand the system. Aviation, engineering, electronics – all these are outside the areas of my expertise.

In this system, I have an amazing amount at stake. I am thoroughly invested and committed to its success.

Entire sub-systems and interactions are beyond my understanding. Thus, I keep my mouth shut. If I decided to study aeronautics, become familiar with everything involved in the process of moving a plane from one side of the country to another, then would I have a space to speak up.

When my life and the lives of others are on the line, it’s probably best not to disrupt a system I do not understand.

I see all the ways in which flying planes and running a for profit business is NOT like a public school. They don't have a public directly paying for all kids. And yet, like Zac I try and show some humility when it comes to many government decisions. I vote people I think we represent me well and wait 4 or 5 years to assess and determine if I think they should continue their work or not. We have many persons and public people very invested in education and very knowledgeable. However when it comes to envisioning something new and different it's more than just fear that holds them back, it's ignorance. I don't say that in a demeaning way. I say that in the same way I don't understand many systems and don't spend anytime envisioning and experimenting with new ideas. Add to that those that don't care.

So as the conversation and dreams of a new place of learning happens in staff rooms and even district offices, who should really be involved in that process? I'm well aware that in many cases, these conversations are not happening but I have been part of these in schools, in our district and even at the provincial level. In these discussions, the topic of stakeholders always comes up. Even suggesting students be part of the conversation. My caution is that depending on the students, they too aren't seeing and picturing many new ideas. I realize that it's our job to engage students and parents in conversations like this but at some point, someone needs to do something. Maybe without full consensus. 

Will we really be able to create something awesome by asking people what they want? I think the average parent, taxpayer, student and even the average teacher just wants a system that's better. Higher "student achievement" (i.e. test scores) and lower dropouts. If schools did this, most people would be happy. But I know I wouldn't necessarily want those things. We can do better, we have to do better. I'm looking to be part of creating something different and I don't think it can involve all stakeholders. 

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nimboo/105368831

I'm going to be spending much more time this year focusing on supporting teachers with writing. While I don't have an extensive background in teaching writing outside of most classroom teachers, I am a writer. After a 1,000 blog posts, a few "traditionally" published articles, nearly 50,000 tweets, 100+ podcasts, 100+ videos and thousands of emails, I think I qualify. It may be that you do as well. 

Of course the thing is, according to our curriculum you could teach students writing and never once touch a computer or publish anything online. That's not only scary but I believe it's educational malpractice. I'm not suggesting that most of our teachers don't acknowledge digital writing as something different but I'm wondering how many would even remotely understand what Will is talking about here:

The video has been resized to embed here on the blog. I recommend viewing it in full screen mode. Or if your browser doesn't render the video. Watch it here. 

Show that to a writing teacher who doesn't write online.

Not only would the majority of teachers not be familiar with the tools, which isn't that important, they likely wouldn't understand how he's taking notes, why Evernote is superior to analog note-taking, the thinking behind the mindmeister, how he plans to share it out and the fact that he collaborates with others as he writes. If you want an insight into what the writing process looks like in 2011, watch it again and dissect it to death.

Digital writing is still a fringe idea. As with most things, unless their writing and writing in online spaces, they'll simply see writing as a course to be taught and not as essential to being a human being in 2011. (Was that too bold a statement?)

While I know a plethora of great writing resources exist, it's not about the resources of course, but getting curriculum to be more explicit and more importantly getting teachers to experience and understand what it means to be a writer in 2011. We've kind of figured this out when it comes to taking pictures. No one is teaching photography using analog cameras. If they are, it's likely some romantic notion of photography they're into. The reality is we are now all photographers. As a society, we take more and better pictures than ever. Yet we know that "cheap failure" is awesome but it also means we might not be as careful or as critical as we once were. That's important and that's where good teachers help to focus on quality but also within the context of digital. Certainly many skills learned about composition still apply but there are also way more affordances, including editing tools and camera options that are essential to understand in order to be a great photographer. But more importantly, there are ways and means to share our work. For those who are most passionate about photography, that's not a point to gloss over. Understanding tagging, embedding is essential. Again, not just how to, but why to, where to and when to.

​The same  shift is happening with writing and perhaps maybe more so. Yet as I said, teachers are well within the curriculum to ignore the the world has fundamentally changed in the area of writing. I'm sure some might argue it hasn't changed that much. I think they're wrong. I will agree then tenets of good writing are still important and I'm not suggesting we abandon that. However, I am suggesting that if we are teaching writing essentially in the same way we taught it in 1985, we fail. If writing really matters, prove it to your students. That's partly the fault of a curriculum that fails to acknowledge what year it is as well as a lack of teachers who are actively exploring this on their own. 

I'm looking for some answers.

"How long did it take after the birth of blogs or Twitter for you to begin speaking up? Before this, you had no cheap, easy, allowable way to speak your mind to the world. You weren't allowed. Then you were. And yet most people who use these tools took years to take action and start. "

I would add, "And still many either don't think they're allowed or can't figure out what they need to say."

Many schools and organizations would like to keep you from speaking up. When you speak up to question, initiate or wonder, you cause work and trouble because someone may have to respond, grant/deny permission or defend. The meetings where no one talks are short and efficient. Agenda items get passed, people get out early. Seems like a win-win. Schools are filled with enough challenges that you speaking up is unconsciously seen as trouble. But most of the meetings contain unexpressed thoughts and ideas that while complicating matters, could perhaps be exactly what's needed or at least suggest new possibilities. In most cases, people don't speak up because they're not allowed. Not explicitly, but implied by culture or past experiences.

That's why I blog and do the Twitter. You don't have to listen to me if you don't want to. I'm not afraid to say something stupid (insert smart remark) or play. I'm also not afraid to wonder or question. I'm also trying to model for others, fellow teachers and students they they too are allowed and that they have something to contribute.

I've written often about why I think blogging is a big deal.

• Becoming Narrative Champions
• How to Make Better Teachers
• What Stupid Will Get You
• In Search of Reflective Practitioners
• There Must be a Link
• Why Audience Matters
• Chalk up another one for Blogging

Godin's nugget reminded me that we/you are now allowed. Even if you work for some antiquated organization that says you can't participate in is global conversations, you can. Maybe under a pseudonym but your voice matters. I subscribe and read every person in my district that blogs or tweets. I hope I reach the point where I can't because there are just too many. At that point I'll work to make sure at least someone else is reading their stuff because it matters.

PS. Weird, I even felt like I was writing in Seth Godin style.

Cross posted at Tech Learning

Saying technology is “just a tool” can be a very dangerous statement. I understand that when people say this, they’re simply trying to point out that technology is a peripheral that enables us to do the things we want to do better than before. I can agree with that concept but the problem with this thinking is that it often gets used to see technology only as a means to automate or make current practice more efficient. There are very few people involved in any level of education that thinks technology isn’t necessary for our students. Where we disagree is in how we’ll use it and most often there exists a lack of understanding and appreciation for the trans-formative nature of technology.

I thought I would share a little about the content as well as the format and process of this workshop in case it has value and ideas that others might find useful as well as a chance to provide any suggestions for improvement. 

For the morning I decided to chunk my keynote into 3 sections and offer a chance to play and learn in between. My plan was somewhat derailed as my brand new MacBook Pro decided to have a kernel panic twice during my talk and caused me to restart. Some fancy footwork hopefully kept the momentum going and participants were kind and willing to go with the flow. I thought my presentation was synced to my ipad via Dropbox but it wasn't. The internet wasn't fast enough to get it there and I didn't actually have it on my ipad. Lesson learned for next time)

Here's my talk.

The 150 participants were sitting at tables of about 8 each. Activity one had participants choose one of three quotes that I selected out of the Great Quotes about Learning and Change. They were to have a discussion on one and record their findings in the google doc. We did some large group sharing after that was complete.

What I had hoped was there would be time and a way for groups to look more closely at what other conversations were taking place. Time was my enemy here. I was hoping for some controversial ideas to be exposed and while not everything would be addressed, perhaps if they spent some time perusing other conversations, it would not only provide more fodder but also demonstrate the power of collective learning.

The second activity is one I've used before. I've asked participants and those in my twitter network to post a photo to my flickr account. Usually this involves something very easy such as the weather outside. This time I wanted to up the ante a bit and asked folks to consider composing an image directly related to their learning. The response was quite overwhelming. This photo in particular from Amanda Dykes represented something quite powerful. I highlighted it as an example of why networked learning matters. Having someone who is directly affected by this disaster elevates the understanding and empathy that is often lost in mainstream media. Here are the entire 196 photo submissions:

This really helps to show people the power of networks as well as collaboration and social learning. The theme of social learning is one I emphasis a great deal in many of my workshops and particularly for high school teachers as the nature of most high school structures do not lend themselves to social learning because of time constraints and emphasis on content and subject matter. The playful nature of this activity also highlights an important shift for many. Reading  A New Culture of Learning is making that point very clear to me. 

Because of my machine crashing twice I was unable to get to the final activity which was to rethink curriculum by brainstorming ways in which their own curriculum might be changed using Wallwisher. 

The afternoon kicked off with a panel discussion that included 3 students and 2 teachers. They explored how they use technology, what they think of the current structure of school and hopes and dreams for a new approach to learning. It's always great to hear from students. 

We wrapped up the day with Show and Tell. I asked the organizers to identify 10 or so teachers that would be willing to share 1 minute of something they're doing in their classrooms as well I asked for others in my network to do the same. Here are 5 clips from those who submitted video. Andy Marcinek even Skyped in. 

Doing a full day and trying to keep people active, trying to model what I'm sharing about social learning, networked learning and access to unlimited resources when you have limited resources, space and time is challenging. I really would have liked to have participants interact more with the content that was created during the day. There are a few other things I would change but overall was pleased with the ideas and concept I attempted. Save the stupid computer crash and it was a pretty good day of learning. At least for me. 

Why would you Skype someone involved “in the process?” What process? Who? State legislators? What are they likely to tell a student that can’t be found out in a book or article?

The connections you speak of, now matter how much you yearn for them may be as inauthentic as the task itself. Perhaps they just make a task nobody cares about even more arduous. The “you can use Google ____ or Skype with someone” suggestions have become as automatic and meaningless as when a politician says, “We need to pay teachers more, but hold them accountable.”

To be fair, Gary's comments here were about a broader issue and he goes on to discuss it in more detail. For me the striking comment that “skyping someone in” is often a automatic response to trying to demonstrate you have a classroom that “gets it” gave me pause to think. While I applaud teachers who consider this strategy, without thought and purpose it has no more value or impact that asking a parent or principal to randomly come talk to your class.

But today was a day where I saw Skype used in a truly authentic, powerful and yet quite unassuming way. Much like a pop-in. On the surface it was a class in the small town of Mortlach, Saskatchewan talking with students in Philadelphia, PA. Depending on who you ask that may or not be all that remarkable. The technology was pretty straightforward. A laptop, webcam, and a projector. Call someone up and start talking. Today we can longer attempt to think that that requires any degree of skill. it doesn't. Unless you have some type of fear mongering administrator or IT person weary of Skype, or an unwilling teacher, every classroom can and should have the capability. no training required.

Allow me to deconstruct this for you.

A week ago, Zac Chase of SLA posted a wonderful recording on his blog of some students in a task he calls Story Slam. I listened to it and immediately shared it with my own kids and then thought of a teacher in my district that I knew would love this idea. I shared it with her and without asking permission, I suggested that Zac might be able to have his kids and him Skype in and share this. Which brings us to today.

What I witnessed was a group of students sharing a couple of stories and learning about an idea. The students from SLA talked about what story slam involves, students in Mortlach asked a few questions and in turn shared a story too. A brief pop-in that later led to more conversations about storytelling, inspiration, encouragement and learning in a very natural way.

The untold story here is how a conversation like this can even happen. There's a story of networks and connections, a willingness for one teacher to publicly share practice and student work and another teaching actively seeking a better learning experience for her students. I'll take partial credit for the networking and connections. Part of my job is to connect learners.

The willingness of a teacher to share allows me to even know that this good work and good idea exists. Can I once again implore everyone to please share your work? It matters.

Finally, a teacher who sees herself as a learner, wants great things for her students and is open to ideas that will help them finished the story.

All these pieces were necessary for this to take place. This is no flat classroom type project, no massive project based learning example, just some teachers and students interested in storytelling and a desire to get better.

So Skype, for Skype's sake is just superfluous. This is about way more than technology. It isn't just about technology, but in some ways, it is.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dkuropatwa/4766403166/

]]> http://ideasandthoughts.org/2011/03/28/the-anatomy-of-a-skype-call/feed/ 0 http://ideasandthoughts.org/2011/03/20/barbers-and-school/ http://ideasandthoughts.org/2011/03/20/barbers-and-school/#comments Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:21:01 +0000 Dean Shareski http://ideasandthoughts.org/?p=1277   My son, for whatever reason, has chosen to let his hair grow while at college in Toronto. His mother and sisters and I have been trying to get him to get it cut for months. On Friday he did.  He Skyped me to tell me the good news and relayed how it was a [...]]]>  

My son, for whatever reason, has chosen to let his hair grow while at college in Toronto. His mother and sisters and I have been trying to get him to get it cut for months. On Friday he did. 

He Skyped me to tell me the good news and relayed how it was a rather lovely experience. The barber, who was recommended by a friend, was a little ways from where he lives in Toronto. So he took the subway and made a day of it. Not only was he describing the best burger he ever had but also the haircutting experience itself. Apparently the guy who cut his hair totally ignored my son's suggestion and proceeded to do his own thing. I guess he knew what he was doing and my son was quite pleased with the result. After he finished, he asked that Sam stay and play a game of chess with him. The barber schooled him. My son left feeling quite pleased with the whole day. It was indeed much more than a haircut. It was an experience and a time well spent with a stranger. From the tone of that conversation, he'll be back. 

During this call I was on hold with Alec as we were planning an upcoming event. I briefly shared this story and he told me of a friend of his who decided after taking his share of university classes to open up a barber shop in his home town and cut hair for a living. Alec told me how his friend loved to cut hair and visit with people and painted a picture of one of those places "where everyone knows your name."

The idea of devoting your life to a job like cutting hair somehow doesn't seem like it fits in with all our conversations about global connections and shifted learning. Nor does it fit in with standardized testing and rigorous curriculum. (by the way, I hate the word rigor to describe anything about school)

Which lead me to consider a couple of questions:

1. What could be better than finding a vocation that you enjoy and that allows you to spend time with people connecting and sharing life while providing a useful service?

2. Do our schools help our students seek such a life or do we see a hairstylist as somehow a lesser profession?

3. How did their schooling contribute to the life they lead now? Did it help them become the person they are or did they become that in spite of school?

4. What if we began to measure our schools, not simply at the end of a term or year but for the quality of individuals it serves? Do we want to or need to measure happiness or quality of life?

A Saturday twitter conversation with Will, Bud and Brian got me thinking about the what we need to be paying attention to. Will is currently looking to the edge. I like the edge too. I spend much of my time trying to reach it and see what new opportunities and accordances might be useful to help us learn better and learn more and learn differently. The edge is an important place to explore but these barbers would hardly be considered living on the edge. But in many ways, it's hard to argue they aren't living well. Really, really well. It seems like a nice way to spend a life.

When you take 35 minutes of interviews and try to condense it to around 5 minutes, you risk leaving out key ideas or making ideas flow. I used snippets from her blog to frame the video and then allowed her and her students to speak more directly about their experiences.  There may be some who see her as being critical but her critique is much more about a faulty system and paradigm than about teachers.  I hope this video can be used to elicit some discussion. 

On a side note, the reason it has (revised) in the title because my first cut was over 8 minutes and needed some cleaning up. Thanks to Ben Grey and a few others who offered some detailed and important feedback I was able to get it to this point. I can say enough about the need and power of feedback, particularly when tackling a project like this that takes several hours to create. 

Certainly a statement like this will elicit a great deal of discussion as is should. My point here is that my thinking about one to one computing which has been ongoing for at least 6-7 years has focused on purchasing laptops for every student. That may still have merit in some instances but I think we have to move beyond that single path and begin to explore a variety of options and configurations that truly do enhance learning. 

The idea of BYOT (Bring your own technology) is beginning to take shape. Certainly there are cost savings involved but more importantly it acknowledges that the type of equipment you have may not matter and in many aspects of learning it doesn't. The naysayers will be quick to argue that mobile devices lack the ability to create in the same ways that a typical laptop does. I'll concede that argument but would also argue that a great deal of learning is about consumption. I realize that's almost a dirty word in today's Read/Write world, of which I participate fully, but even in a world where publishing and creation is more prevalent and possible than any time in history, creating first comes from consuming. To quote Will Richardson, "Blogging is about reading". To paraphrase, we can't create, until we consume. If that's the case then we need to acknowledge that allowing and promoting students to use their devices, as limited as they may be,  at a minimum allows access to the sum of human knowledge. That is going to be a great start in creating a learning space that offers a plethora of possibility. 

Frasier Speirs argues against such a model. He cites the following issues:

• "It assumes every child has a mobile phone." No it doesn't. Just because you allow students to bring what they have doesn't mean you won't supplement those who don't.  Schools still need to be aware of inequities and address them. In the same way schools offer free and reduced lunches for those that need it, the same could be done when it comes to access.
• "It assumes that every pupil's mobile phone has a certain baseline capability." Again, no it doesn't. Talk to someone like Liz Kolb who has been exploring the use of cell phones for a number of years. She readily acknowledges that not all phones are alike and yet has been exploring the untapped potential of devices once thought could only make phone calls and text. Classrooms and schools should have a variety of technology but there seems to be a desire for uniformity. Some might call it standardization. The problem  is that we assume that when students leave the building they have uniformity at home. We need to help them make the most of whatever technology they have access to and when necessary, supplement those who need something more. 

Speirs goes to make a few more arguments all of which presume an all or nothing approach. I've yet to hear anyone suggest that allowing students to bring their own technology means that no more hardware would be purchased. That would be ludicrous.

In my district you'll find Macbooks, Netbooks, ipads, ipods, Windows, Linux, Snow Leopard, BlackBerrys and basic cell phones. Some are district owned, some are student owned. We certainly haven't got it all figured out but as an IT department, the acknowledgement that students and staff all have personal preferences and personal devices they want to use has been a key philosophical view that pushes us forward. Ask our IT staff if they like it and they'll usually say, "it's not the easiest approach but the most beneficial for students". 

So when we consider what a classroom and learning space should look like, what do we envision?  It's difficult to come up with a singular description. Age and developmental stages would have to be an important consideration. What a grade 2 classroom and a senior biology classroom look like should likely be quite different and this would likely be true with technology as well. However, I'm envisioning spaces that perhaps are similar to many households and businesses where multiple devices are employed. For most people, a laptop is overkill. I'm seeing more and more professionals make the transition to mobile devices and yes, ipads.  My daughter, who is 23 currently owns a MacBook. She asked me what I thought about her replacing her MacBook with an Ipad. We discussed what how she currently uses her MacBook. We didn't uncover a single reason for her to own a laptop. For any "heavy lifting" computing, she would have access to machines at school or work but she really couldn't think of any occasion in the past year where she needed that. The ipad itself is beginning to grow on me as a device that offers a unique experience. It's difficult to compare it with a netbook which is so often the case. Certainly there are similarities but it many respects it's quite a different device in the same way that a mobile phone is different from a laptop. Some might think differently but as I think about a classroom makeup, I see a variety of devices and choices much like the variety of students and aptitudes that come to our schools everyday. 

As a side note, I do think that we highly under utilize the power of our computers. I agree with Gary Stager that in our connected and published based world, we've lots some of the potential for computers to create and build. We do need to provide students with the opportunity to do complex and challenging work that computing can offer. Even if we provided every child with a high powered laptop or desktop to do the heavy lifting, we still have to acknowledge that other devices are part of the landscape and again, most of the time, those other devices are the ones we use most often. 

So while the mish-mash of technology may prove to be challenging for teachers and IT staff to manage and control, in the end this isn't about management or control but learning. It's about helping students use the tools and gifts they have at their disposal, maximizing that potential and showing them new possibilities as well.  

I tend to rely as much as possible on others to help me with this stuff. Call it lazy or smart, whatever, that's also how I roll. 

I began by posting this question to the twitter. 

Lots of great responses came in.

Thanks for the great responses everyone.

As you can see there are some patterns. These are really helpful to me as I try and connect the dots in my own thinking as well as try and develop a coherent presentation of ideas to share with others. 

In fairness, twitter does restrict ideas from being fully developed and yet it requires the reader to do a bit of thinking and meaning making on their own. But I do want to provide this space to continue the conversation and perhaps clarify my intent and thinking.

Many of the ideas of what to keep, in my mind are actually fairly new practices. Things like project based learning, teacher collaboration are not yet entrenched in schools but indeed many are moving this way. Part of my talk hopes to illicit deep rooted practices and beliefs about teaching and learning that we need to continue and indeed are classroom practices as opposed to system type practices and policies. My goal is to expose teachers to some new ideas, which I have plenty of, but also to remind them of great things they've always done and should continue to do.

If you have a moment, please let me know about educational practices and experiences that you had that were positive and that you feel we ought not to lose sight of as well as ones you feel are still happening that need to be ditched.  Feel free to expand on ideas already posted above or offer some new ones. 

Dear Ms. Winfrey

I'm Not Waiting For Superman

What Randi Weingarten Should Have Said

I also wrote a post a few years ago about Michelle Rhee and her methods.

The issues in the US have some similarities to our issues in Canada and Saskatchewan but we're now battling our own reform issues. Recently the Saskatoon Public School Division, our provinces largest district, implemented some new policies around grading that are in direct alignment with our new curriculum. In a nutshell, we're moving to outcomes based education and need to change some of our practices to stay true to that. The problem is that many of these practices appear to fly in the face of many things that have been mainstays in schools for years. The biggest problem you have when making these changes is in garnering support. In this case all stakeholders are having difficulty understanding these changes. Administrators, teachers, parents and students are questioning the changes. Our own Premier has come out publicly and is questioning these policies. There's nothing wrong with questioning change. Change is difficult and in this case, some of these changes at first glance can appear downright strange.

But this is a combination of poor communication and implementation as well as media who are in the business of creating controversy. Headlines like "Teaching Plagiarism" or "How to Succeed: Cut and Paste" all serve to incite readers and enable them to quickly jump on the bandwagon and find a target in school officials as incompetent idiots. Everyone in education realizes that it's one of the few businesses that everyone feels they are expert in. That makes it very difficult to consider alternatives when many leaders and strong voices were once successful under the current regime of schooling. You'd have to read most of my 500+ posts over the last 5 years to get a small glimpse of understanding of the changes that are occurring that require us to change. This is not about change, for change sake, this is about doing what is ethical and best for kids.

 I'm going to try and address some of the most common misconceptions in this new policy and while our division has fully implemented these ideas, rest assured that in the BEST INTEREST of students, we do hope to move forward.

Students are not penalized for late assignments. False. The major shift in this policy is separating grades from behaviour. If we're going to measure learning, time should not be a factor. The argument many are making is that this is unfair to students who get their work in on time and it isn't teaching them real world skills. Once again, if this is a behaviour issue, schools need to determine how to deal with poor behaviour. Traditionally, many teachers simply made students stay behind or docked them marks. Schools need to set guidelines and ways to deal with lates. There should be deadlines and there should be consequences for late assignments. The obvious consequences is that those finished, don't have it hanging over there head. But there can be other consequences, but losing marks shouldn't be one of them. It's not often a reflection of their learning, it's a behaviour and should be dealt with accordingly. The solution of docking marks was the simplest but I'm not sure it solves the problem and definitely doesn't reflect what a student knows and can do.

Students are not penalized for plagiarism. False. Like lates, they aren't penalized academically but as a behaviour. In this case, the obvious consequence is do it again. The other issue here is one of education and developmental appropriateness. If a 10 year old is caught cheating, I don't think the consequences should be the same as a university student who knows better. If our job is to educate, then we need to start from that premise. Sometimes educating may involve punishment but it needs to be appropriate.

Schools are getting soft on kids. False. These policies are not intending to make it easier for our kids but if implemented well, places more onus and ownership on students. The struggle comes in developing specific protocols as the school level that are fair for teachers as well. A team approach is required which once again, has not been the norm. Typically classroom teachers have had to carry the full load of both late assignments and cheating. I think the consequences for these behaviours should vary according to age and regularity. Giving student a zero for cheating is a pretty soft consequences as opposed to making them redo it and maybe tacking on some community service for example.

I really don't understand those who think behaviour and achievement should be lumped together. One argument is that there is a relationship between the two. Absolutely. But this is another example of our need to simplify. Instead of rich information about a student that pinpoints learning strengths and weaknesses and also reveals work habits and behaviours, we ask for a single number to define the entirety of a student. We say, that's how it is in the real world. That's where I might disagree. Suppose you were hiring an electrician, I might tell you that she's does outstanding work, goes above and beyond but she takes forever. Depending on your situation you may be fine with hiring her. I could also tell you of an electrician that is adequate but can be there tomorrow and will finish the same day. The more information we have, the better decision we can make. That's the entire purpose of this grading change. The problem is we want simple, clean evaluations that can be reduced to a two digit number. How sad and potentially useless. 

I'd encourage you to listen to the 11 minute interview with Ken O'Connor who is a noted expert on grading. You may want to explore the area of his website where people have asked him questions.

The recent discussions in the US is slightly more complicated and controversial because the argument around what schools should be about is at the core of the discussion. Media has encouraged the public to look for simple solutions to complex problems. This approach satisfies our human need to see the world in black and white, good and bad. I'm sorry to say it's not that simple and to say it is borders on arrogance. I work with teachers every day who know the challenges and difficulties of providing great learning for all students. In the case of the new grading policy, we all want simliar things. We want our students to be accountable. The one deeper philosophical debate is whether you believe that schools are about sorting and ranking students into smartest to dumbest, good to bad or if you believe it's about helping all students learn. Those interested in ranking or survival of the fittest may lean towards lumping achievement and behaviour together.

As I said, we know that even our own teachers are struggling with these ideas. They fundamentally shift many long held beliefs. The implementation of the concepts themselves are challenging. They require staffs to sit down and figure out how make this manageable. Again, our old system was very efficient in many ways but not always in the best interest of our students. I'm not yet comfortable with how we've helped teachers become part of these discussions, let alone the parents, Joe Public or even our students. Simplistic approaches and answers won't cut it.

Thanks to the media, they've reduced a very important conversation to a bucket load of stupid, mean spirited comments that will only polarize people instead of uniting them. (by the way, if you want to listen to an intelligent discussion about how to balance the idea of transparency and public commenting, have a listen to this CBC spark clip) I'm hoping our district can do better to inform all stakeholders as to why these changes are important and ultimately serve the best interest of students.

 It is a student-centered learning philosophy that focuses on empirically measuring student performance, which are called outcomes. OBE contrasts with traditional education, which primarily focuses on the resources that are available to the student, which are called inputs. While OBE implementations often incorporate a host of many progressive pedagogical models and ideas, such as reform mathematics, block scheduling, project-based learning and whole language reading, OBE in itself does not specify or require any particular style of teaching or learning. Instead, it requires that students demonstrate that they have learned the required skills and content. However in practice, OBE generally promotes curricula and assessment based on constructivist methods and discourages traditional education approaches based on direct instruction of facts and standard methods. (wikipedia)

Most of the ideas expressed here are agreeable among most educators and researchers. Clearly education is not a pure science but we continually strive to make learning possible and better for all students. On that point, we move forward.

The implementation of this brand new curriculum has been poor at best. The government mandated a new curriculum, cut staff at the ministry level and asked them to write a brand new curriculum. To my knowledge, many of these were written by one individual. The results is a document that is thin on resources, and supports outside of the big idea/outcome and some supporting indicators.

The province has then asked school divisions to implement these in very short order. The challenge of teaching in Saskatchewan often means multiple grades and up to 8 subjects. As part of a curriculum team we've wrestled with how exactly to support teachers with this daunting shift that is about much more than simply new content. As one teacher said today, "Having been a student for 16+ years, a teacher for another 20+, I feel like this is pretty much starting from scratch".  He's right. Embracing concepts like Understanding by Design, Assessment for Learning, Inquiry, Project Based Learning is to say the least overwhelming if you've not had to do this before. 

We've been given 3 days to work with teachers. We've been asked not to take teachers out of class for more support as they felt like too many teachers have been out of class too often in the past. I understand and appreciate that perspective. Which leaves us as a curriculum team scratching our heads as to how we are going to help our 600+ teachers sort out how they're going to fulfill their obligations to teach these new curricula. 

I don't have the answer but would suggest a few things need to be considered.

1. Slow Down. If resources and time doesn't increase, there's no way new curriculum can be implemented in a year or even two. If someone wants to tell the teacher who's currently teacher a grade 3/4/5/6 split and has 8 subjects for a total of 32 curricula they need to teach the new stuff now, I'll be on hand with that pail and bucket to mop up the aftermath of that "conversation". 
    
2. You can't implement many of these concepts with the current school structure. The ideas of project-based learning, inquiry and student-centered learning is not designed to have learning compartmentalized into 45 minute learning blocks. That's insane. Real learning doesn't work like that. Most kindergarten teachers know this but for some reason, we can't figure out that that would be good for all students. This system is not designed for outcome-based education. Discussions need to happen now about what restructuring would look like. Schools need to be given power and autonomy  to begin to explore a new way to teach and learn.
    
3. Leverage the best. Rather than have all teachers develop curriculum in small pods, this work needs to be organized as a province. I recognize the Ministry is currently strapped for personnel but simply having a few teachers with expertise from various divisions work on developing and completing the curriculum. Currently the curriculum is not ready for the classroom as it lacks resources in many cases, alignment of resources to outcomes and starting points for teachers. Seconding teachers for even 2 months to work exclusively on a single curriculum would be money well spent. To that end, I've proposed we eliminate text book purchases and instead create and build our own. The savings on that alone would pay for any time for teachers to be out of their classrooms. In general, efforts and mechanisms to share must be increased.
    
4. Stop promoting segregated learning. For years I've heard the push for interdisciplinary approaches to teaching. Learning in isolation is never the best. The whole concept behind project based learning and inquiry lends itself to cross-curricular learning and outcomes. We have few models that work well with our current curriculum. Once again, calling expert teachers to come together to build models that can actualize an interdisciplinary approach is something that is sorely needed and would be of huge benefit to our rural schools in particular but in reality, all students would benefit.

The current approach that divisions are taking in implementing this renewal is abysmal. There is no way that that intent of this curriculum can be fulfilled under the current model. We face a real danger of teachers giving up, reverting to old practices which, while may not be aligned to these philosophies at least provide some sanity in an overwhelming and initiative fatigued environment. I don't blame teachers for that. In further efforts to simply and manage this, we also move dangerously close to a prescribed, dumb down, paint by number curriculum that is devoid of teachable moments and authentic discussions of real world learning. Indeed, with some supports and constructs a teacher could build an entire learning experience around the Oil Spill that hits several outcomes from various curriculum. Fluid learning around relevant issues requires practices, support and flexibility. In the end, this is about good design. You don't learn this in 3 days and no teacher has been taught this in their pre-service days. 

Today many of our teachers met to begin the work of curriculum renewal. I can't tell you how positive the majority of these teachers are in attempting to do this work. This work is hard. Very hard. These are good people, good teachers who desperately need guidance, leadership and support. We as a curriculum team are equally desperate to provide them with exactly that. Given the limitations of time and structure, I'm not sure we can.

My microphone ran out of batteries near the end so if you’re brave enough to stay till the end, you’ll hear my audio patchwork job.

If you’d simply like to look at the slides sans commentary, or want to download them, here you go.

“In this world in which we are so centered on metrics, those things that are not measured get left off the agenda,” he said. “You need a metric to fight a metric.”Technology brings ever more metrics. The strange thing is that nothing in them prevents us from using other lenses, too. But something in the culture now makes us bow before data and suspend disbelief. Sometimes metrics blind us to what we might with fewer metrics have seen.

I’ve been fortunate to work in an environment where metrics and hard data have only been a small portion of determining value in education. I’ve operated in work places where trust was the core value which gave me and others the ability to make decisions and target efforts that while guided by some structure, curriculum or shared goals recognized our own instincts and judgements. This is changing and while it’s not all bad, in the absence of trust, data becomes the most important part of the decision making. Lack of trust = just show me the numbers.

Chris Lehmann has often said, “Good assessment isn’t cheap”. Triangulation of evidence, combined with story represents better attempts at quality assessment. We’re still pretty bad at triangulation so we opt for single sources of evidence and try to distill judgement inside a narrow rating scale.

Telling Stories to Administrators

Stories can complicate the process. What may have been a clear cut decision to cut staffing purely on numbers, can be seen very differently because a well told story suggests that the numbers might not be enough. Stories focus on emotion and emotion matters. If you’re a parent you know exactly what I mean. Your kids can be described with metrics in any kind of a meaningful way.

What is becoming clear to me is that our jobs as educators and parents must include the ability to tell a story. We need to have a variety of ways of telling that story for different audience and in different context but we simply can’t sit back and allow metrics to take over our decision making.

… something in the culture now makes us bow before data and suspend disbelief. Sometimes metrics blind us to what we might with fewer metrics have seen.

I’m not denying the need for accountability, data and all that jazz. It has its place. But those who can tell stories in powerful, meaningful, succinct ways are going to fair far better than those who will simply allow metrics to tell their story for them. Garr Reynolds on Dan Pink:

“What begins to matter more [than mere data] is the ability to place these facts in context and to deliver them with emotional impact.” Cognitive scientist Mark Turner calls storytelling “Narrative imagining,” something that is a key instrument of thought. We are wired to tell and to receive stories. “Most of our experiences, our knowledge and our thinking is organized as stories,” Turner says.

I’m wondering if you’re telling these stories, how you’re telling them and where you’re telling them. I’m not suggesting it’s a singular answer to making great decisions but certainly something that needs more emphasis. As classroom teachers, administrators and leaders, find a place where you can share you stories regularly. Practice telling them in different ways, using different mediums.  I think it’s critical.

My pre-service teachers are required to blog. I take great pleasure as they take ownership of those spaces and begin to share their passions, question things and connect ideas with others. One of my students has recently purchased his own domain name and hosting space. I don’t expect everyone to do that but applaud his efforts.  The other day he posted a pretty compelling argument that questioned the practice at the school his brother attends. He did not identify the school. I’m sure a little investigation could have revealed the school but this was not the point of the post. His post was meant to illuminate a larger discussion of equity and student recognition. He got several comments and generated some good discussion.

A few days later the principal of the school called him upset with the posting but stated the staff was discussing changing the policy. The principal was upset that Kyle did not come to him privately to discuss the matter. I discussed it with Kyle and we agreed that by posting it online it likely garnered enough attention to warrant a staff discussion. A private conversation may not have.

So the question remains, should he have posted it? Did he break any ethical code? My instinct is to say no to both but I want to throw it out there. I don’t want us to hide behind our blog or use it as a place to rant but a place to converse.

These are the types of conversations and issues that should be discussed. I don’t want my students to shy away from controversy but tackle it. A blog is a great place to get feedback and insights that you may never get in your local context. I’d love all my students to post something that caused schools to consider to change.

I’ve played the role of utility man or 6th man depending on your sport of choice. It’s been enjoyable and has been a great personal learning experience both from a community building standpoint as well as simply connecting with passionate educators.

Sheryl and Will are now in the process of gathering new cohorts for the next school year. This is a great opportunity for schools and districts to move their practice forward.

PLP is not about technology and it is not about tools. While both of these things play a central role in the school and the curricula of 21st century focused learning, PLP is about pedagogy and teaching and learning. There are opportunities for both schools and school leaders to take part.

Specifically, I would like to see a cohort here in Saskatchewan. I’m fully aware of the power of this experience and would love to see some of our divisions and schools take advantage of this not only for personal professional development but to build connections on a provincial basis. If you at all interested in that, contact me and I’d be happy to discuss my plan to make that happen.

Either way, no matter where you are, consider this a great opportunity to participate in a great PD experience that has tremendous local impact.

When my wife announces, "I can't stand living in squalor, we need to clean this house now!" I tend to respond by saying, "Just tell me what to do". I say this not because I don't care about our house but it's clear who manages it. I'm more of a high ranking employee (I think I may be inflating my position). I fine with that. I don't want her job. I'll contribute but don't want to expend much energy in the decision making process. While she might like me to be more invested, she realized a long time ago it's not likely to change.

Being involved with an abundance of initiatives, teachers in my school division often have the same response as we implement change. There are times when I can't blame them. Their plates are full and they are trying manage their lives and their classrooms. However I believe it suggests, like my attitude towards my household, they don't have much interest in owning the change. I'd be the first to admit that in many cases, these changes don't welcome their ownership. It is thrust upon them without much consultation. When they are asked for their input, it may be that they aren't trusting of the process given their past experiences. Yet many times when clear opportunities present themselves for teachers take charge of their learning, they retreat.

I'm part of a team that is working hard to model and develop partnerships with teachers. We recognize that in many cases we not only do not have the capacity to create the resources and supports for learning but also recognize the expertise we have amongst our teachers.  Many do take up the charge and flourish and relish the opportunity to co-create. We're smack dab in the middle of a curriculum renewal. This curriculum represents a major shift from the past. Fewer outcomes, bigger ideas and more latitude for teachers to teach and students to learn. While that might appeal to some, for others it raises questions like, what resources do I use? How do I assess? Where do I find the time to develop all the curricula? All important questions that are best answered collectively. As support people, we don't have all the answers, nor should we. Teachers have great expertise and should have their voices heard as we implement these changes. Yet many disagree and would be preferred to be told what and even how to teach.

While there remains some disagreement as to who is responsible for curriculum design, the larger question for me remains, at what point do we no longer accept the response of "just tell me what to do" in all areas of education?

This is a direct parallel to what happens each day in classrooms. Typically the higher achieving students are very happy to be told what to do because they have developed skills in giving teachers what they want. They're good at it and can remain a non-committed learner and have success as defined by high grades. The moment we ask students to take charge of their learning, it suggests a level of commitment, engagement and discomfort that many aren't willing to accept. Asking students what they want to learn and how they want to learn it is a shift of major proportions. I'm not suggesting we fully adopt a system where authority and guidance have no place but at present, there is very little opportunity for students to take control and charge of their learning.  I'm not sure we're ready to move in that direction  until we can get teachers to begin to own their learning as well.

If you're reading this blog, you're likely someone who already takes charge of your learning and you choose what to read and absorb. You likely rarely say, "just tell me what to do" on the big issues of your job. Compliance isn't always a bad thing and there are many occasions, when we just are as invested as others and just want to get the job done without a lot of discussion or analysis. But the shift to personalized learning, if indeed you see or believe that shift, demands students and teachers to take charge. That might be the biggest challenge of all.

So when is it okay to be told what to do and when do we suggest, and even demand learners (teachers and students) to own their learning? This is hard question no doubt and I relish your thoughts.

cc licensed flickr photo shared by shareski

Rather than commenting on each person, I thought I'd highlight some of the more salient remarks and perhaps add some commentary of my own.

Alan writes:

I am less sanguine about the consensus for change. Competing philosophies of education still hold teacher’s attention. The teacher’s priorities also act as a barrier. Dean mentioned concerns that the focus is to narrowed on Math and Reading (add writing to this). Sure there are marginal teachers, or sound teachers in a slump; however, as Dean remarked, most teachers are innovators. We all have private action research projects we have committed ourselves to and these compete with the division’s primary curricular goals.

I'm not so sure I'd use the word innovator but certainly each teacher brings their personal bias and strengths which adds diversity to students' educational experience. While no one explicitly states that health or art are less important, the message is implied. It reminded me of a post and the comments of a previous rant from about 11 months ago as well as this quote:

Dave writes:

I’ve never seen a detailed breakdown of teachers’ time. If a group of teachers voluntarily started keeping these notes, and if administrators and support staff paid attention and gathered the data, we’d have a much better picture of the problem, could work towards some solutions, and make actual progress because we’d have data to show the decision-makers.

This could be an interesting research. My sense is that so much of the is interrupted in terms of student learning which includes obstrusive assessments. I had a number of teachers last week tell me that they spend more time working at home than they ever have. Again, this is anecdotal, perhaps some hard core data would be of value. Two can play that game.

Megan:

I am convinced that it can only happen when teachers are taught about the power of the personal learning network. By reading and writing and reflecting, teachers can not only connect with those down the hall but also with others from around the world. Through these networks, teachers can begin to grow professionally in their own ways and on their own time line. Of course, this takes great leadership (and possibly PLCs which teach and foster a 21st century mentality), but I think it’s a way to make transformative changes in schools and in teacher-attitudes from the bottom-up.

Although a few of the teachers I spoke with fit into this category, I agree that the support and power of personal learning networks are valuable. That said, our current division uses the term PLC very badly. In fact, what we do is not a PLC and it certainly isn't personal. Teachers are given 3 days throughout the year to work collaboratively on fairly targeted areas.  The work itself is important but somehow the personal part needs to be included. This argument always falls back into a lack of time and will to provide teachers the ability to learn from and with each other. That's why those who are developing this online have the edge. They use their own time and efforts to do this work. There needs to be a better balance between personal learning and professional learning. Not that the two terms can't coexist but as a district or school, there may be certain goals that don't necessarily align or meet every teacher or student's needs but we can't ignore the professional judgement and needs of individual teachers.

Gord, a school administrator from my division writes:

There is no disagreement among teachers, administrators, or senior administrators that the changes we are discussing/implementing are positive and promising for improving student learning. In fact many of the changes we have been wanting for years are coming to fruition. The challenge of course is not in the believing or understanding of the change, but rather the complexity of the implementation. Teachers need time and training to successfully implement the transformation. Just as we do with our students, chunking, scaffolding, and mastery of outcomes come one at a time and build on one another. What we are doing right now is serving a buffet of change and asking teachers to taste a little bit of everything, without really having time to digest anything. Thus, as the instructional leader in our school, I find it my responsibility to filter out some of the myriad of choices and present them one at a time rather than force feeding everything and causing a mass case of indigestion. Change is good and will be a constant for all, but how we manage change and take others with us in the journey is critical to a true transformation.

Sue King,

To me, one of the biggest issues is that deep level change is needed – significant change – and that is not possible to do incrementally while school is in session in the manner we currently do things. I think a very different approach is needed – but the state leaders in education seem hell-bent on staying on the course of accountability via low-level standardized assessments given to all in order to “hold teachers and schools accountable for student learning.” Though the “student learning” being measured is not, to me, genuine learning. I am ready for a change – just do not know how or with whom to join to create something different – something that can start small but be brought to a larger scale in a reasonable amount of time!

Deep level change. That's an ongoing problem with education. We nibble at a variety of approaches and rarely dig deep. I'm excited about the possiblity of our new Saskatchewan Curriculum. It offers the possbility to go deep. Fewer outcomes that focus on big ideas and supporting indicators to guide assessments. Designing learning that answers the questions, "Why do I need to learn this?" and "What is it that I want my students to remember 5 years after they graduate?" is a worthy goal. There are huge implications about how to do that. That's a major shift we're dealing with right now.

Bill Ferriter,

I’ve never wanted to be anything but a classroom teacher–and have turned down many, many high paying opportunities to work beyond the classroom to stay true to that commitment. But I’m actively looking for a way out….and I’ll do almost anything: consultant, college professor, instructional resource teacher etc.

Pretty harsh reaction to someone who obviously is a valued teacher. I worry more and more of our best will be thinking this way. Not that those options are bad, I'm one of them, but certainly seeing those options as a way out, doesn't bode well for the future of the profession.

Finally, a bit of a dissenting point and one that is worth considering and responding to. Joel says,

I don’t think it’s fair to paint teachers as victims or martyrs. Professionals in many fields take responsibility for the product and the process of their work, and it seems that teachers may finally need to step up to the plate on both of these fronts.

I’m always amazed by teachers who think that education is some kind of ultra-noble exercise that is unaffected by the laws of organizational dynamics. It seems we’ve largely neglected our professional responsibilities for quality control, productivity, corporate culture and innovation. We’ve handed the reigns of our profession to administrators, staff development experts, teacher’s unions, and local and federal policy makers.

What did we expect? Did we really not see this kind of reform coming?

My response to Joel is that the "pull up  your bootstraps" approach does have some merit, however, there are so many mixed messages that the whole idea of reform is a muddied notion.  As he states early in his comment,

I’m a sixth grade teacher in Tucson, and I feel much of the pressure you describe. It feels like trying to rebuild the engine of a car while the car is still cruising down the highway.

Reminds me of the EDS ad about airplanes. That challenge is particularly unique to education since we can't ever stop.

Thanks for all those great comments and insights. This is why I write; to learn. Does any of this strike a nerve? Did we miss something?

If you're looking to participate in a learning event that's different from the regular conference, this is it. Fortunately Chris and his staff and students have always made it available virtually so even if you can't attend in person, you can participate both as an attendee but also as a facilitator of conversation. From Chris' Website.

The students and faculty of the Science Leadership Academy — and all the amazing folks who give of their time and energy and ideas — are again hosting EduCon! This year's EduCon 2.2 is now open for registration and for the call for conversations!

This conference only happens because so many people are excited to come together and share their ideas and passion. We have some amazing events lining up for this year, but the sessions — the things that the community creates and imbues with meaning — will always be the heart of the conference. So please, consider coming, and considering submitting a proposal to facilitate a conversation.

About EduCon 2.2:
 

And it is not a technology conference. It is an education conference. It is, hopefully, an innovation conference where we can come together, both in person and virtually, to discuss the future of schools. Every session will be an opportunity to discuss and debate ideas — from the very practical to the big dreams.

The Axioms

Guiding Principles of EduCon 2.2
1) Our schools must be inquiry-driven, thoughtful and empowering for all members
2) Our schools must be about co-creating — together with our students — the 21st Century Citizen
3) Technology must serve pedagogy, not the other way around.
4) Technology must enable students to research, create, communicate and collaborate
5) Learning can — and must — be networked.

Now, perhaps more than ever, it is important that a community of educators come together to share a vision of what our schools can be. Proposals are due November 1st. Registration will be open without late fee until mid-January.

 

cc licensed flickr photo shared by teachandlearn

Our division, specifically, is only 4 years old. Like all the divisions in Saskatchewan we forced to combine with smaller divisions to make larger ones. Ours is made up of 7 small districts. I would argue that we’ve done a pretty decent job of transitioning and building culture given the circumstances. But in addition to that our teachers are dealing with new curriculum, decreased PD time, new grading system, high expectations around differientated instruction, larger class sizes and i ncreased accountability. These changes represent major changes for many teachers and the overall theme here is to insure the highest quality of learning opportunity for all students.

I’m fortunate to be able to work with great teachers who genuinely want to get better. They recognize that while the may be skilled teachers, they don’t have the time or resources to implement all the necessary changes that are being placed upon them. We have very little argument about the shifts to student involved assessment, student led conferences or brand new curriculum.Good teaching, while based on many tried and true principles always considers how it needs to improve. In general, they appreciate the work that the consultants in our division do. I believe that the vast majority of our teachers fit into this category. No one goes into teaching to be lousy. We have bad teachers, but I don’t that we have very many.

I also get to spend a great deal of time with our superintendents and other leaders in our division and to a person, they all want to create a division where students succeed, teachers are great and everyone loves their job. They aren’t interested in making people nuts. As a province and division, our curriculum and beliefs around teaching and learning is recognizing the shift in role of expert to learner. This is all good but simply telling people they need to change isn’t a great formula for success. Not that that has been the case but when I talk to teachers I’m hearing the same message.

"It’s too much"
"It seems the only things that are valued are Reading and Math"
"I feel like everything I’m doing is wrong"
"I’m not sleeping well"
"I need time to implement"
 

Something’s very wrong when a whole bunch of good people all trying to do what’s best for kids feel like this. Is this just about a bad system or are we trying to do too much too quickly? I’m not sure but if we don’t figure this out soon, we’re going to have problems finding great teachers to fill our schools. Maybe we’ve always have been saying these things, it just seems to me things are escalating. I don’t think the things I suggest here are unique to our situation. But maybe I’m wrong. We could just, "stop the train, slow down" and not rock the boat. But if we believe that change is envitable and necessary, how do we do that and not drive teachers nuts?

So please help me understand. Does the scenario I write about resonate with you? If so what are your thoughts about the root causes and solutions? If you feel differently about education, by all means share what has made the difference.

cc licensed flickr photo shared by Maria & Michal Parzuchowski