Friday I left for Florida. Delta lost my luggage. This is the first time I've ever had my luggage lost. According to stats, airlines are 99.5% effective in getting people their luggage to the intended destination on time. I wasn't too worried. After all, I had my golf clubs which was really most important given I had a tee time the next morning. I knew my luggage was in trouble because it never showed up in Minneapolis where I have to claim it after I clear customs. The flight to Orlando had wifi on board so while in the air, I tweeted Delta's twitter account and they tracked down my bag letting me know it wouldn't make it to Orlando until the next day. They also instructed me to go to the baggage claim immediately after I got off the plane. I filed a claim and was told the luggage would be delivered to my Dad's place the next day between 6-10 PM. As the 10 PM hour came close it was evident the luggage wasn't going to arrive. I called the number on the claim form but only received an answering machine. Back to twitter. I tweeted @DeltaAssist again and they had me complete a form on http://whereismysuitcase.com where I was able to track the suitcase much the same way you track a package. Shortly after I received a call stating the luggage would be delivered somewhere around 2AM. 

The luggage indeed arrived and Delta offered me a rebate of my luggage fee as well as some Skymiles for the trouble. They were pleasant and quick to respond. 

Today I checked in to my hotel here in Orlando and immediately was faced with the $14.95 internet charge for a relatively crappy connection. Fine. Then as I go to connect my Ipad, I'm asked to pay another $14.95. I called the front desk and was told that's just how it is. I'll give you two guesses what I did next. 

Seriously Westin, $15 for internet and that's only a MB down and one device. @SPGInsider That's ridiculous.

— Dean Shareski (@shareski) January 22, 2012

I do this for a number of reasons.

1. I'm mad 
2. I think others should know about bad service or products
3. I like to see if companies are paying attention

Within a few minutes…

@shareski Hi Dean, Could we ask what hotel you are staying in?

— SPGInsider (@SPGInsider) January 22, 2012

And a few minutes after that the manager called my room and took care of the the charges.

I've tweeted about an even bigger resolution and many have had similar experiences I know. What I wonder is in the same way that some banks don't offer you the lowest interest rates unless you ask do companies only cater to twitter users because of its public nature? The hotel manager who called me specifically referred to my tweets as the reason he called. Is it simply a great way for companies and business to connect with customers or is it only about damage control? If I don't tweet, do I get the same kind of service? I don't think so. There's an immediacy with tweeting that and an ease at which they can respond to customers. I don't know if they watch how many followers you have and whether that plays a role but I do think it's a huge advantage to be able to connect with the people you have financial transactions with. (I wonder if any of the businesses, will track down this post since I tagged them?)

When I first began blogging and using rss, I wrote a post about how my expectations had changed. I expected to be able to connect and learn with people online and if I couldn't I was less inclined to read their stuff. I realize that's narrow and not very realistic but I'm feeling the same way about businesses and organizations and twitter accounts. I want to know that if I run into an issue, you'll be there to support me. I had that experience this week with Delta and Starwood. I recently had the same with Shaw Cable. 

I also don't want to use these connections only to complain, They all provided good service to me and I'm happy to recommend them because of that. I don't know if there's a lesson here for schools but at least it's one more reason to help our students understand how to leverage these tools. There are some literacies or skills here beyond simply creating an account. They aren't all technical but experience and being comfortable in these spaces is a good thing to have. It's been quite beneficial to me this week for sure. 

It's list season. Actually it's list season all year round. Writing a post with a numbered list seems the way many people think. Reminds me of my daughter's obsession with rankings. Come to think about it, I've written on this topic a few times so I may be repeating myself but as I saw a steady stream of tweets today linking to a plethora of posts I tweeted out this:

Working on some new posts. 54,000 reasons to tweet. 9,000,000 reasons to blog and 27 billion ways to use Flickr. Give me a minute.

— Dean Shareski (@shareski) December 30, 2011

A little snarky? Perhaps. But it seems to me this type of blogging is become all too prevalent. Maybe it's just a lack of creativity, or maybe it's just not my style. It just seems that that cumulative nature of these posts send a subtle message that answers can be neatly packaged into lists of 10. (actually, I'm seeing more top 12 and 11 lists just to shake it up a bit) Doug Johnson even recommends it. But since Doug often writes with his tongue in his cheek and never takes himself too seriously, I read it with a grain of salt. Ryan Bretag actually nails it pretty well with this quote:

We love to talk about lists. Just recently, I watched another 21st Century skills list get tossed about on Twitter with “oohhs and ahhs”.

And that is just it. These lists are so attractive. They’re easy. They have the instant “wow factor”. But what do they offer beyond that initial “wow” that has a meaningful impact on your organization, department, or you yourself?

Look, if you've written a post or two with a numbered list, relax, I'm not attacking you. Lots of people like list type posts. I just find them slightly lacking in creativity and at times simplifying complex problems. There's a tendency to try and be definitive, to have the answers. Sometimes we do, but I've seen too many "top 50 bloggers to follow" and "the best 20 videos for educators" lists to turn me off of that genre. These lists are far from definitive and even with disclaimers, that's how they are often viewed. I try not to immediately think in terms of ranking or even listing. In education and learning, few things can be ranked and ordered or even listed. Some people love that stuff.  I'm just not a big fan. 

Unless you've spend the last several years on another planet, you've been hearing about how the awful lectures are for learning. Often associated with these phrases, "sit and git", "stand and deliver", "teacher directed"  or "sage on the stage" for many, the word lecture has become synonymous with the worst pedagogical practices possible. 

I don't think it's that bad. 

First let's define what we mean, or in this case, I mean when I think of the word lecture.

1. An exposition of a given subject delivered before an audience or a class, as for the purpose of instruction

​That is a commonly held definition and one isn't all that bad.  Remove the "delivered before:" part and think about simply an exposition of a subject. In that sense, reading a book or article, watching a video or listening to a conversation could be very lecture like.  Aren't progressive educators supposed to hate lectures? If so, why do we all love TED talks?

​Okay, I get it. We're really trying to shift the balance of instruction away from teacher at the front talking to students to something that better leverages the time and space we share together. I'm all for that. But even in a constructivist environment, where inquiry reigns, there has to be some "lecturing" or content acquisition in order to make meaning. That can happen in many ways via exploration, discussion, etc. But the lecture isn't limited to a teacher talking or watching a video but in certainly is useful if there are some experts at some point exposing people to new and different ideas. That could be fellow learners who have crafted an argument or articulated a message using all types of communication and sharing methods. But even if you mean one person talking, that's still useful. Not as the only means of learning, not necessarily as the primary means of learning but as an effective, essential means of learning. 

I'm bias. I'm awed by someone who can speak for more than 5 minutes and keep my attention. It's not easy. I've given my share of talks and keynotes and I realize that I'm not sure I've ever accomplished it. However, I learn a lot by listening to others. I'm also in favour of using new technologies to allow interaction and pushback. The concept of a backchannel can be very powerful and it adds an important layer on a traditional lecture. But even without it, a lecture can be good. When we read the brain is doing very similar things it does when you're watching or listening to someone speak. 

Some folks argue that ideas like the flipped classroom are bad because it still promotes the element of a lecture. So what? If you agree at all with my premise, lectures are important. What I like about the flipped classroom is that it better utilizes time and space and makes use of the fact that people are in a room together and should have equal opportunity to share, interact and even lecture themselves. 

(Longer) Lectures fail when:

• they're too long …I don't know the optimum length but you know when you've said all you need to say. TED talks work because of the constraints.
• it's just about facts …give me a handout to read instead. You stating facts has no added value. 
• there's no story or stories …this is key. We listen to stories because they have emotion. 
• there's no passion or urgency …like stories I need to know you care about what you're saying. Show me that. 
• there's no consideration of audience needs and interests …difficult but someone who conveys they have some understanding of the audience has my attention. Whether you're talking to 5 year olds or 65 year olds, they should have a sense you care about them. 

So please consider this the next time you denounce lectures. I think they're useful. And if you're going to spend more than 5 minutes giving one, do it well. Practice it and make people's experience listening to you a good one. 

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scobleizer/2236177028

I ranted a little today about a word that's bothered me for a while.

Even if you scramble around for a definition that's not so offensive the best you get is: "thorough and exactness." 

Even those words easily can be translated to inflexible or "my way or the highway".  I don't get the fascination with some people and this word. This document doesn't even define the term and this one says:

There are many definitions of the noun rigor, most of them related to some form of physical or mental rigidity or severity. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary definition of logical rigor—“strict precision or exactness”—seems at least relevant to the educational context. The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English defines the related adjective rigorous as “extremely thorough. ” Yet neither of these definitions satisfactorily conveys the intent behind the word. To me, rigor implies the reaching for a higher level of quality in both effort and outcome.

Over the past several years, I've attended many conferences and workshops where speakers have talked about how all kids can learn and the importance of that belief. They also talk about how, if that's true, it's our obligation and duty as teachers to make sure all students learn and have success. This famous clip serves as the mantra for many schools and districts determined to see students succeed. 

Okay, I get that. We all love kids and want them to succeed. If fact we want to design systems where no child is "left behind" and no child fails. Full proof schools where everyone is a winner. They unintentionally paint pictures of kids "not getting away with not doing their work". These are not places of joy but places where come hell or high water, kids will succeed and if they fail, it's the teacher's or the school's fault. What if it is the kid's fault? Can they ever choose not to be successful? Should a 5 year old even be considered a failure? Should a 17 year old be allowed to fail? How do we create a gradual release of control or do we ever relinquish that control? The other huge misconception that is rarely explored under this philosophy is that all children, while they are capable of learning, aren't all capable of learning the same thing at the same time in the same way. 

On the other hand we hear other folks talking about student's owning the learning, customized and personalizing learning for every child. I subscribe to that belief and I'm not suggesting these two ideas are mutually exclusive but I wonder about the value of failure. We're also hearing many talk about embracing failure. Is that simply as adults? Can students learn to embrace failure? Not just in terms of  risk taking but of  not achieving. I'm talking more about 15 year and 16 year olds who drop out of school. Is our goal to  make schools where 15 and 16 year olds want to stay? What if there is a better option for them like working?  Maybe there are 15 and 16 year olds who aren't having their needs met. Some suggest not all kids need to go to college, but do they all need to finish high school? Schools, as much as they try can't be all things to all students. Particularly as we are currently a million miles for making school the personal and project based places many dream of. Our schools today by in large, for better or worse, have mandated curriculum that determines what is and isn't important for life. Even when teachers begin to make learning more meaningful and personal, school still consists of arbitrary learning goals. What happens when a student decides he/she isn't interested? At what age is it appropriate for a student to make a different choice of how to spend their day? As well, what ways to we invite and make it easy for students to re-enter school as adults? I had a friend who dropped out at 15 and returned to school at 18 and outside of the stigma attached to being 18 years old in high school, it was a good move for him. 

I've seen lots of talk about reducing the dropout rate. What I continue to see is a focus on changing the supports for these students and little in the way of making school in general a place that doesn't suck. But really my question continues to be, if we believe (maybe you don't) that the kids should own the learning, shouldn't they own the failure too? I'm not suggesting we simply create a smorgasbord of learning and then watch them sink or swim but I've witnessed educators spending countless hours hand holding and walking students through painful exercises designed to help them 'get through" the curriculum. Reminds me of parents who do their child's homework. 

In some ways this returns me to a previous post about personalization and standardization. I don't have many answers and am really inviting some conversations, help me see what I may be missing but I"m frustrated with both the "no kid can fail" attitudes and the "kids own the learning but not the failure" thinking too.

The only thing I can think of that helps me work through these ideas is my own parenting. I obviously want my kids to succeed and yet they've all experienced some failure. My kids have all started into sports and music programs they decided they didn't like and quit. Sometimes we made them persevere and on occasion they discovered they liked it. As parents, we felt all our kids needed a basic proficiency in swimming and music. They didn't have a choice. Some of them choose to go beyond the basics, others met the basic, then quit.  As they got older they chose they own paths. Altogether my kids have quit/failed at many things. Big deal. None of these endeavors, like school are on the same level as Apollo 13. It's not life and death. I'm not suggesting it doesn't matter but whether or not a student passes algebra shouldn't carry the weight if often does. I'm sure others will disagree. Feel free. 

Alright, I've been all over the map here, not my best writing but I hope I've started a few ideas we might talk about together. Should kids be allowed to fail? Under what circumstances? Go. 

"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.

It's been over a year since one of my students wrote a very heartfelt post about his younger brother. The aftermath of this post was quite powerful and led to  a big change. Read the comments, a few of which aren't very nice to get the full picture. Kyle handled himself with integrity. I continue to point to this post as a great example of the power and potential of blogging. But the whole grading and honour roll thing continues to be problem-some, at least for me.

All my kids have been on the honour roll. For them the grades were motivating and to be honest, they didn't really work all that hard. Sure they studied and put in the effort but I know many students who worked much harder with poorer results. School came pretty easy for them. In the end, the real winners were the ones that learned how to learn, the ones that found a passion, worked hard because they cared about what they did and wanted to make the most of every opportunity. I'm not saying my kids didn't achieve any of these but it wasn't the dominant reason they went to school. My youngest, who is 12 is tired of me telling her not to focus on the grade but focus on the learning. But it's hard for her to think differently when everything around her tells her the grade is really the most important thing. We live in a system that prizes numbers and letters.

So back to Kyle's post. Last night Kyle and Jordan presented to my current ECMP 355 class on ideas that are still resonating with them a year after taking my course. One of the reasons I asked them to do this was to demonstrate that hopefully what they learn in my course has value, value beyond a grade but something they'll use for the rest of their lives. They did a wonderful job. Kyle spent a few minutes talking about that post and some of the inside stories around it. I posted it to twitter last night and my colleague and mentor Rick Schwier posted a comment that has been in my head for the day:

I have a son with a different kind of disability. He has Down syndrome, and he is 37 now. He’s the most academic of my three kids, and I mean it… not in some pathetic condescending way. He pays attention. He is a serious critic. He has no tolerance for fools. He remembers important things and refuses to internalize trivial things. He inspires. Honour rolls. Silly. Trivial. Unnecessary. And at their worst, soul destroying. The older I get, the less tolerant I’m becoming of the deleterious effects of grading and its offspring.

Wow. "…the deleterious effect of gradings and its offspring". Chew on that for a while.  

The PISA results were released this month and my overwhelming response was: Who cares? Many of my fellow Canadians were quite happy to be ranked sixth in the world. What does that even mean? Is that cause for celebration? Should we be upset? What would we do if we were first? (Hint: I've talked to many educators from schools with high test scores. They are the most resistant to try new things and be innovative for fear it will lower their test scores). Once again, these tests perpetuate the idea that:

• Schools should measure math, reading and science only.
• Arts, Health and Physical Education are not really necessary (rewatch Ken Robinson's video on creativity).
• Tests taken on a single day are a good and accurate measurement of student learning and achievement.
• Rankings against other countries/districts/schools/classrooms/students is important because education should be competitive.

There are no questions on the test that measure creativity (if that can even or should be measured), collaboration, or media literacy, never mind their ability to learn or their understanding of their body. The other thing it doesn't measure is whether or not students like school. I'd like to know where Canada ranks on that scale. As a parent, I value that. I've been around schools enough to know that there's lots of learning that happens, even in our so-called "worse" schools and classrooms. Sure, there are some teachers and schools better than others, but I also believe that students that are happy and enjoy school actually learn more. But of course, we don't consider that important data. I'll bet some people would consider it fluff. Instead we get the usual discourse from non-educators about how education sucks and the curriculum has to be revamped. Diane Ratvich recently debated a high ranking U.S. official about the obsession with testing and he challenged her with the the oft heard claim:

"You measure what you treasure." To which Ravitch replied, "No, you cannot measure what you treasure." How do you measure, friendship, love, courage, honor, civility, love of learning?

And because those things are hard to measure, many think they aren't all that important. That's really sad. Some openly dismiss those values as pie in the sky or "nice but not necessary" for learning. Few dare to openly state that, but I found one who wasn't. I wrote about Michelle Rhee over 2 years ago when she made the following statement to Time Magazine:

People say, 'Well, you know, test scores don't take into account creativity and the love of learning,'" she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. "I'm like, 'You know what? I don't give a crap.' Don't get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don't know how to read, I don't care how creative you are. You're not doing your job."

This presumes you can't do both. I think we can. I would argue that as educators we're obligated to do both. But until we begin to design assessments that actually give credence to the love for learning, creativity and other so-called 21st century skills, I'm not going to "give a crap" about any of these tests.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/27087959@N00/359572656/

The issue today of course is that many of these debates aren't really debates but exchanges of sound bites in media outlets, comment fields, twitter and passing remarks in a variety of settings. These sound bites become part of the culture and people are often quick to choose sides in efforts to find simple solutions to complex problems

I've been thinking of a few of these issues and without trying to argue further for any position, although I do have my opinions, perhaps it's important to at least frame the issues more clearly. Here goes.

Training vs and Learning

In the world of education and professional development the word training is often used to describe a particular event. "We're having Smartboard training". "I've been trained in the Montessori method".  Training is the acquisition of skills toward a competency. Many criticize the use of training as they hear things like "iPad training" which assumes that there are skills needed to be competent in using an iPad. There may be some skills but most would argue they are minimal and likely don't warrant formal training. Training usually doesn't offer a lot of wiggle room. Perhaps you might classify this as the science of teaching.

Other forms of professional development are more intellectually demanding and require much more of a constructivist approach. These are the ones that are about pedagogy and are more complex. There is no prescribed method and thus "training" seems like the wrong word. In fact, even calling it "professional development"  can be less than accurate and to me conjures up a linear approach. In our district we've been using the term "professional learning". For most, the difference is negligible, but I think it's an important distinction. 

By no means I'm I suggesting one is more important. One is certainly more complex and perhaps we're at a point where we need to be focused more on the challenging stuff but I know that I've been guilty of dismissing training as menial and unnecessary at times. That's a somewhat arrogant attitude I need to guard against. 

Assessment and Evaluation

These two terms may be interchangeable in some circles but in our district and province and many other jurisdictions, they have an important distinction. We've been using the word assessment to refer to formative assessment. We like to think of the Latin meaning of the word which means "to side beside". This makes assessment the coaching part of teaching where we don't focus on a grade but rather provide meaningful feedback to help the learner learn more. Evaluation is the summative portion where we assign value to the learning. When people use the word assessment, they often refer to assignments and the work that will be evaluated. Again, it may seem like interchangeable terms but when you are trying to make clear distinctions and promote the use of formative assessment, it's important to be clear on the two terms.

Homework 

Along with a recent grading policy controversy in our own province, homework is continually a controversial topic. Part of the controversy centers around what homework should be for. Here's a few perspectives:

• finishing work not done in class
• practice
• punishment
• extending learning/working because there's not enough time in class

Again, homework means very different things to different people. It's a generic term and when debate occurs, people may be thinking very different things. Alfie Kohn writes a lengthy, but valuable article outlying why homework, in most cases, may not be a good practice. It's worth a read and for me, one I'll read more than once.

Other terms of confusion include "Literacy and Skills" and "Cooperation and Collaboration". I'll wait for Ben Grey to blog about those. 

I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts on these terms or feel free to add other terms you feel often are either misrepresented or misunderstood. Too often, discussions are taking place and people aren't even speaking the same language. 

Photo: Day 233: Talk to the Hand. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahmae/2048336011/

This disdain for the word busy has been with me for a while. It's simply becoming more annoying. When someone tells you how busy they are, I never know how to respond. Should I feel sorry for them? Congratulate them? Offer to help? When people ask how busy I am, I usually respond, "No busier than you" or "Do you really want to know?" The truth is no one is really interested. Your declaration or acknowledgement of your busyness is usually meaningless at best, depressing at worst. 

I'm not suggesting your life isn't full but for the most part it's the life you've chosen. You can argue that sometimes it's not, but you decided to have kids, you choose to work where you work, and you choose to be a good person and help others out. All awesome things. Even if you're the exception to the rule and have been coerced into your lifestyle by some outside force or alien, what would my sympathy offer you? Busy is the default status and talking about it as if you're in some type of pissing contest has no purpose. 

I don't usually preach but I know too many people who's perceived and declared busyness only serve to bring others down. It translates into, "my job is too hard", "my organization doesn't value me", "if you worked as hard as I do, maybe we'd be better off." We live in a culture fueled by busyness. Anyone who says they're not busy is assumed lazy. What a warped world where we seem to live in that honors this badge so reverently and questions anyone who doesn't want to join the ranks. 

I worked for a principal one time that I knew was had tons going on. His desk was full of notes from people to call, his day full of meetings but he made every kid and adult in the school feel like he had time for them. If people asked if he was busy, he would brush off the question and invite you to come in and sit down. He never made you feel rushed or that you were keeping him from something. 

So I'm not asking you to quit anything. You do what you need to do. Just stop telling everyone about it and when someone asks you if you're busy and you can't think of anything clever to say just say "no comment".  Thank you.

Full disclosure: I'm not an American. I'm Canadian — which isn't all that significant outside of the fact that most, if not all the discussions here on The Huffington Post Education's page are often centered around all that's wrong with American education; most recently around the controversial documentary Waiting for 'Superman' and all the hoopla that ensued.

I've spent enough time reading and interacting with my colleagues to the south to know and sometimes share their deep discontent when it comes to education. The educators I know are passionate, caring people — a few of whom are writing for The Huffington Post. The issue of reform isn't exclusively a U.S. issue by any means. Yet there is a certain angst and polarizing nature to the conversation as Americans seek to figure out what their schools should look like. Well meaning, caring people can be on opposite sides of these debates. Hard to believe, but it's true.

A few years back I attended a conference in Boston where another colleague from Scotland and I were observing this discontent surfacing in nearly every conversation. I had not witnessed this first hand before and was slightly overwhelmed with the intensity of the discourse. Ewan, remarked that he felt that the U.S. needed a positive educational myth. When I asked what he meant, he told me of the Scottish myths of education. Basically, these myths promote Scottish education as highly egalitarian, democratic and among the best in the world. The origins of these myths are often hard to pinpoint, but the perpetuation of these ideas can be very useful, even as schools make decisions of both major and minor proportions. Every family had a story about someone they knew who rose from a lowly place to achieve greatness. These myths become part of the identity and reputation of an institution and buy leaders and innovators an opportunity to make change and move forward without having to justify each and every move along the way. The term myth in this case doesn't mean lie but rather reputation.

These myths build trust. We see this play out in higher education. Stanford and Harvard have built reputations of being great business schools. While I'm sure there are long-standing traditions there, I would also venture to guess that they are given a great degree of latitude when it comes to making changes. I work in a community with four high schools. One school in particular has developed a reputation of academic excellence. Teachers, administrators, parents and students all will tell you that their school is where the "bright kids" go. Working inside this district, I can tell you that if you simply looked at grades and tests, there is very little difference between these schools, and yet one school continues to gain community support and trust because of a longstanding myth. I say more power to them.

So while the challenge of building a myth for education at a national level may take decades or even centuries to establish, it might be worthwhile to consider the myths and reputations of schools and districts in your local community. Do these myths serve to empower schools or are they serving to diminish education even more? I'm not suggesting that we create facades to hide real problems, but I do wonder about enabling our schools to move beyond political pressures and the constant demands for accountability. A myth in many cases can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think we could all stand some new ones about education.

Data can be extremely useful and yet our obsession with it is leading to some really weird and potentially damaging decisions in all areas of life.

Parents are just bad at risk assessment,” said Christie Barnes, a mother of four and the author of “The Paranoid Parents Guide.” “We are constantly overestimating rare dangers while underestimating common ones.” Nytimes.com

The one that continues to haunt me is the very scary Internet predator. I've written about it often enough but what I want to address here is the way in which data has be used carelessly and unethically to promote fear and sell products.

“One in five children is now approached by online predators." This statistic has been quoted numerous times by media and other agencies to paint a very inaccurate picture of life online. From the Skeptical Inquirer

This alarming statistic is commonly cited in news stories about prevalence of Internet predators, but the factoid is simply wrong. The “one in five statistic” can be traced back to a 2001 Department of Justice study issued by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“The Youth Internet Safety Survey”) that asked 1,501 American teens between 10 and 17 about their online experiences. Anyone bothering to actually read the report will find a very different picture. Among the study’s conclusions: “Almost one in five (19 percent) . . . received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year.” (A “sexual solicitation” is defined as a “request to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult.” Using this definition, one teen asking another teen if her or she is a virgin—or got lucky with a recent date—could be considered “sexual solicitation.”) Not a single one of the reported solicitations led to any actual sexual contact or assault. Furthermore, almost half of the “sexual solicitations” came not from “predators” or adults but from other teens—in many cases the equivalent of teen flirting. When the study examined the type of Internet “solicitation” parents are most concerned about (e.g., someone who asked to meet the teen somewhere, called the teen on the telephone, or sent gifts), the number drops from “one in five” to just 3 percent.

So that figure gets blatantly tossed around and pretty soon it becomes part of the culture. The "one in five" stat is used more than you can imagine. Using volatile terms like "sexual solicitation" and then jumping to "predator" is a sneaky and unethical. It reminds me of lawyers who might use a phrase or question that is inadmissible but once it's out there, it's in the mind of the jurors. I've been noticing some questioning of that belief but it doesn't help when governments back organizations who perpetuate a myth. While preparing for a recent symposium on digital citizenship I came across this site sponsored by the government of Canada and several high profile communication companies. They've nicely packaged this for teachers and while there likely is some decent content on there I get more than a little irritated when I see this about the risks of social networking:

Sexual offenders target social networking sites where kids are encouraged to create online diaries and connect with new people.

Really? (doing my best Seth Meyers imitation) What happens when a well meaning teacher or parent looks for help and curriculum to help students in their digital endeavours? They quickly develop paranoia and fear in themselves and potentially their students and children. 

I'm not nearly as diligent about research and data mining as I could be, but it's obvious that we continue to need filters and the ability and desire to ask the right questions to undercover the truth. Even when we do this, there will still be debate and interpretation of that data but in this case, there's not much to debate. Believing that online interactions put you in danger of sexual offenders is shameful abuse of data. We need to stop relying on others to interpret data and respond and eliminate unfounded fears that many are using to suppress learning.

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 youngest daughter is known for asking these types of questions. She has actually asked that one but usually the questions are more about a favourite part of a movie, what's your favourite vacation spot, etc. That's pretty typical for kids and even adults. We love to order and rank things. I have many favourites. But when does it go too far? Are these lists of favourites personal or is their value in crowd sourcing our favourites?

I think there is a place for ranking. But not for everything. 

Trip Advisor is a great example of crowd sourcing and rating. It may not be definitive but provides a useful beginning in making a financial investment. Digg and Youtube are fine examples of places that use rating systems to determine popularity but not necessarily quality. That can be useful but not definitive. 

It starts to bother me however when we feel compelled to create list of greatness when it comes to people who, because of their generosity have chosen to use their cognitive surplus to share online. These folks, and I'm mostly speaking about educators, have joined a revolution of sharing and connecting and have worked together, mostly for free, to learn together. That's pretty darn cool. Deciding to rank and rate them is a little like having a potluck dinner and then having a vote at the end as to who made the best meal. What would be the point other than to single out a few and let others feel less than worthy. 

I love the social nature of the web. Anyone who knows me gets that. I also like recognition. I like to contribute and like to know I'm helping folks. I get that recognition from trackbacks, comments, Retweets, mentions, links and thank yous. I know how important they are to me and try to respond in kind, partly because it's natural and partly because it's the right thing to do and partly because it's how all this will continue to work.

I've been on a few lists of best blogs or whatever. I'll admit, it's flattering but I can't tell you how many times these lists are derived by a single person and looking deeper at the lists, many blogs appear that are inactive or are just plain bad. They always leave out many that should be included and in the end do little than cause controversy. I haven't linked to one of those lists in years. I appreciate a thoughtful comment much more than making a list. 

I do think that those who create the lists or awards mean well. I'm sure they either want to raise the profile of others or give recognition to those that have influenced or supported their learning. That's cool. But I think we've now reached a new way of filtering content.  Dave Weinberger talks about the power of folksnomy, tagging and personalized sorting. This is what makes the web great. Yet, our natural instinct is to rate and order and better yet,get others to agree with our rankings. I'd love great work to be promoted and shared more  but I'd like to see that done by using the tools of democracy that the web offers. Retweet like crazy, leave a comment, tell somebody but leave the rankings alone. 

We live in a metric obsessed world. Moreover, our education system is based on the ranking and ordering of students. Who's the top of the class? Who had the highest mark? Anyone involved in education know how silly that is and how it often fails to recognize many students who deserve recognition. We know our measuring tools are flawed and that at the end of the day we want our students to learn because learning is life and rankings aren't all that important. In the same way that ranking damages and can discourage those who don't get noticed, I worry we do the same for those who are just beginning to discover the power and value of sharing online. I can't imagine any teacher who introduced their students to blogging and sharing online start to have students rate and rank each other. It's hard enough to be transparent and open with your learning. To start to sort out the best from the worst borders on offensive if not unethical. If it's wrong to do with students, why would we do it with each other?  I'd hope that as educators we could model sharing, celebrating and learning that doesn't have to classified as "best", because best implies there's worst.  

This has largely been a think aloud post. I'm up for questions, clarifications or disagreements.

This blathering is based on a controversial issue that arose in our school district and the way in which people lack both critical thinking skills and the patient problem solving mindset that Dan Meyer talks about. It’s 18 minutes, features car noises and a little rambling.

Also, if anyone can figure out how to fix my itunes feed, I’d be grateful.

These are the types of decisions that continue to promote the “us vs. them” mentality.  What incites me is the reason they give for banning cell phones:

There’s the disruptive nature of the phone ringing or vibrating during class.

Students can text message each other and send answers about exams, a high tech way to cheat.

They can also access the Internet over the phones, making it too easy to surf or find answers they’re supposed to know while class is in session.

Phones can also act as MP3 players, another interruption.

And the built-in camera capabilities in them have been used by some students to post embarrassing and harassing videos to sites like YouTube.

Teachers are enthused.

Disruptive? That might be a good thing. But even if we don’t view the term disruptive in a positive sense, can we not involve students in developing policies that everyone agrees upon? In my experience, anytime students are given the opportunity to develop rules, it saves everyone a great deal of trouble in enforcing them.

Students can text message and cheat? Read this.

They can access the Internet over their phones. That’s a bad thing? Potentially but again, consider that if we value the idea of computers, kids are now bringing one with them to class, less cost on the taxpayer and the potential for learning is pretty great. We need teachers who understand the power and potential of having the sum of human knowledge in their hands. That’s an assest, not necessarily a liability.

Phones can act as MP3 players. Good. Heard of podcasts? Even if kids are listening to music while they work, why is that always bad? Perhaps this could be addresses with students as well.

Built in cameras? Could they use them for something like this?

Teachers are enthused? Why? I’d be infuriated.

I’m not suggesting the cellphones don’t cause problems. So do laptops, pencils and power saws in shop class. But until we realize the potential and involve students in developing responsible use policies, this lame approach will continue to be used in an effort to control things. Good luck with that.

cc licensed flickr photo shared by Scott McLeod

Imagine it's 1991. A principal of a large school has students that are doing some really nice writing and art. Imagine of a large publishing company comes to the school and wants to try something different. They offer the principal a chance for every student in the building the opportunity to publish any or all works of their choice. They'll publish these books of writing and/or art and distribute them to libraries and book stores all over the world. And they'll do it all for free. The principal listens to their offer and says, "No thanks."

Now imagine you're a parent of children from this school and find out about the offer and the principal's decline of that offer. Would you be satisfied with that or would you be marching into her office and find out if she's gone completely insane?

Are we insane for not accepting that same deal that every school on the planet has been offered in 2010? I've heard a few arguments about publishing today but seriously, if your child, in 1991 was offered a chance to have their work published, would you not jump at that chance? I get that perhaps not all work is worthy of publishing but I can't imagine many students, principals or parents who would have passed up the offer back then.

• PLN (too inside baseball)
• 21st Century Learning/Skills (everyone has a different idea of what it means, plus how far into the century do we have to go before we stop using it)
• Web 2.0 (most people have no idea what Web 1.0 was)
• preso (I want to take a shower after hear that word, very used car salesmanishy)
• calling a movie a slideshow (happens when you create a video with a lot of stills)
• "at this point in time" (a fancy way of saying now)
• "that being said" (a fancy way of saying but)
• "could care less (wait. what are you saying?)
• 'za' as in let's get some '[piz]za' (I can honestly say I've only heard this used on very rare occasion but I would have to punch you if you said it. Almost as bad as 'coff" for "coffee")
• calling a blog post, a blog. "That's a great blog you wrote today"
• Speedy Creek (only SK folks will get that one, I could never call Moose Jaw, "The Jaw")
• LOL (this might well be the first time I've ever typed that)
• Peeps (I could never be cool enough to use that term, plus a barely know what it means)

I'm not losing any sleep or anything, just wanted to get that off my chest. Now it's your turn. Whaddya got?

cc licensed flickr photo shared by tomswift46

I'm not sure why but this topic runs pretty deep with me. I found Alfie Kohn's article this morning on twitter (I like the fact that he brings back stuff from the archives, I wish more people would do that. Old is not bad) and thought I'd highlight a few gems found inside it.

While I recognize many peoples opposition to Kohn's highly progressive, Deweyesque slants, I find myself more in agreement with him than opposition. In the case of this article, I find it hard to disagree.

I would begin by defining joy as a clear sense of satisfaction at the work or relationships that surround us. That's the definition, I'll use as I explore this idea. This does not equate with happiness, it's perhaps part of it but I'm talking about a sense of purpose and success. This is directly linked to a passion based learning environment.

Joy has been in short supply in some classrooms for as long as there have been classrooms. But I join Deborah Meier in wondering whether things are worse now, not only because more people are less happy but because this is taken for granted; we don’t even see it as a problem that requires our attention.

I can't remember having "joy" or "student's attitude toward school" on any meeting agenda in 20+ years in education. It's less important than if the school sports teams get new uniforms or if we'll stop allowing students to bring potato chips as snacks.

It’s simply stunning, therefore, that some traditionalists actually complain about an excessive concern with children’s happiness. Earlier this year, I came across an essay by an administrator who attempted to explain the supposed inferiority of U.S. schools by asserting that, whereas parents in other countries ask their children, "What did you learn in school today?," American parents ask, "Did you enjoy school today?"

Would that it were true! The author Frank McCourt, who taught at a prestigious New York City high school for 18 years, told the journalist John Merrow that only once in all that time had a parent ever asked him, "Is my child enjoying school?" Instead, all he—and, presumably, the students themselves—heard from parents were questions about test scores, college applications, and getting the work done.

It bugs me when my own kids, who do very well in school say they don't really like school. I know that it's the right thing to say when you're a kid but even when we get past the surface response, it's clear that learning isn't all that pleasureable. This is not because we have bad teachers, it's because we have schools that place student satisfaction way below everything else. "It doesn't matter if they like it  or not." Really? What are the chances your student's will be proficient in using Mathematics after high school if they hated it? Again, this is about everything we do being akin to spending 6 hours playing HALO, but there has to be an element of joy, don't you think? Those classrooms where joy is the unspoken or spoken default environment, are the ones where good learning happens everyday. I have no data to back that up so you can dismiss that as opinion but I'd stand by the claim. But as I consider what we're doing to teachers in the quest for "higher achievement", I think we could remedy much of their stress but supporting them and encouraging them more strongly to make learning a joyful experience.

Academic excellence, the usual rationale for such decisions, is actually far more likely to flourish when students enjoy what they’re doing. "Children (and adults, too) learn best when they are happy," as Nel Noddings observes in her book Happiness and Education. How they feel—about themselves, about their teachers, about the curriculum and the whole experience of school—is crucially related to the quality of their learning. Richer thinking is more likely to occur in an atmosphere of exuberant discovery, in the kind of place where kids plunge into their projects and can’t wait to pick up where they left off yesterday.

But in pointing this out, I fear that I’m appearing to accept an odious premise—namely, that joy must be justified as a means to the end of better academic performance. Not so: It’s an end in itself. Not the only end, perhaps, but a damned important one. Thus, anyone who has spent time in classrooms that vibrate with enthusiasm needs to keep such memories alive in all their specificity to serve as so many yardsticks against which to measure what we’ve lost: 6-year-olds listening to a story, rapt and breathless; teenagers so immersed in an activity that they forget to worry about appearing cool; those little explosions of delight attendant on figuring something out.

Nobody seeks to snuff out joy intentionally, it just happens. The antidote is to be intentional about including joy in the classroom. We can fall into the same trap as parents. The fact we love our children should make this minimal but we've all been guilty of getting so caught up in accomplishing our various goals that we forget to experience joy and live in world where mistakes are valued, where working together on a project is fulfilling and where we celebrate completing a challenging task. Again, this is not some airy, fairy thing, this is, as Kohn suggests, an end, in and of itself. These not be separate, but seriously, if I had to choose between rigor and joy, I'd pick joy every time. But I don't think we have to choose.

I'll end with this quote from Taylor Caldwell

"Learning should be a joy
and full of excitement.
It is life's greatest adventure;
it is an illustrated excursion into the minds of noble and learned men."

Now there's a mission statement that matters.

cc licensed flickr photo shared by John-Morgan

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?

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

I’m always amazed at how excited people become when they find they don’t have to accept the default settings of a product. Default settings in many cases provide a starting point but they often become a hindrance as users become more sophisticated or desire to use take more control. I’m more amazed at how many people never even think they options.

Here are a few examples:

The default browser of every Windows computer is Internet Explorer. It works will for basic web surfing but as many know has some huge disadvantages when compared to a browser like FireFox which offers a far greater degree of customization. When people discover the power of extensions, they never go back to IE. Yet over half of all computer users stick with IE, mostly because either they don’t know another option exists, or they don’t see why they would switch. They are oblivious to any options or ideas that they can have more control over their experience.

Have you ever been in a meeting and someone opens up a laptop, logs on and everywhere in the room has to hear the Windows chime theme while the person scrambles to turn the volume down? How does that sound do anything to add to the experience of computing? They likely have no idea that you can disable that sound. They just live with it. Grant it, it’s a pretty minor issue but it’s also an easy fix.

Here’s a personal pet peeve. My wife on occasion gets to control the remote. When she does, she refuses to change the settings to “Subscribed Channels”. Instead she leaves it on the default setting of “All Channels” and scrolls through a bunch of channels we don’t get. I squirm impatiently in my chair and make a few comments but she refuses to change it. Maybe she just needs more practice. Unfortunately, that won’t happen. I realize in this case she’s doing it just to drive me nuts but I wonder how many others leave that setting as is and move through a number of channels they can’t watch anyway.

Last week I was working with a class of students who are all using SmartPhones and we talked about successes and frustrations in using their phones. It was evident that those most frustrated were the ones who failed to change many of the settings to meet their needs. Those who had understood how to customize the phone were much more satisfied users. They truly owned their phones. I told them to start thinking like hackers. I asked them to think of their devices in terms of what it should be able to do rather than only what it does. The hacking mentality strives to “own the devices” not let the device own them.

I hadn’t heard this story for a while but it made me think of the idea of default settings again,

A young woman was preparing a ham for a family dinner. She proceeded to cut the end off the ham prior to baking. Her husband asked why she did that, she said, “Mother always did and her ham was always very tasty”. The husband, thinking that seemed odd, went into the other room where his mother-in-law sat and asked her why she cut the end off the ham. She said her mother did and it was always very tasty. Trying to solve this mystery, the husband called the grandmother on the phone to find out once and for all why she cut the end off the ham. The grandmother answered, “My roaster was too small to fit the entire ham”.

The story has a number of variations but you get the idea. There’s a lot of things we do and have no idea why and never consider to ask if there’s a better way.

I’m sure you make a number of connections here to our schools and learning institutions. There are hundreds of default settings that we simply accept either because we don’t consider the alternatives or we think it’s too much to change. That may be a valid response in some cases but as I told the students with the SmartPhones, starting to think like a hacker opens up more opportunities for customization. When we continue to blindly accept the default settings without asking, “can we do better?” we fail to recognize our ability to customize.  While I know this mantra may not work and be applicable in every situation it seems to me we CAN do better.

I leave you with this quote.

Now go turn off the Windows startup chime or buy a Mac.

Before the printed book, people had to flock to a select few scholars who had the knowledge and learning that needed to be shared in the community. This oral tradition meant people had to learn in social ways. The book transformed this and made it possible for people to learn on their own and in private. The scholars and teachers of the day had lost some of their power and significance. People could learn in private. The horror!

I think we’ve seen that the book hasn’t really destroyed community and neither will video games or the web. In fact, as Rory argues, most games cannot be done in private but have to be done together. I’ve observed my son many times yell, scream, laugh and have these seemingly incoherent mumblings on a headset and be in contact with several friends and strangers involved with a scheduled raid on WOW. I don’t totally get it but when I ask if he’s going to get together with his friends, he simply answers, “I already am”. Had he been sitting in a chair reading a book all evening, many would be much more pleased and feel his time is being better spent. I’m not prepared to make a complete judgment.  Yes balance will always be important but there is still a shift here that my 45 year old brain is still working out.

The shift in how we consume content continues to challenge and amaze me. Social reading is something I’m trying to wrap my head around.  Diigo is something I’m recently exploring that facilitates this.  Being able to highlight content, leave sticky notes, see what other parts people have annotated creates a social experience and richness never possible before. Will explains it really well in this post.  As I sit in my easy chair reading online with others many might find that odd. Again, if I had a printed book and was reading alone,  it would likely get more respect.  For many people, sitting in front of a screen is not a social experience.  For my son and I, that’s not the case.

This is certainly not to say that all reading should be social. But as we spend more time working out what learning looks like on the outside, we need to keep this in mind.

So the next time someone blames the web or a video game for destroying community and social interaction, tell them the book started it.
Image: by Yives