Global education, diversity and multi-cultural appreciation are ideas that I believe are essential for our student's success. I also believe as educators we need to model this for them.  So when I used this tool to see where the folks that I follow reside, it was a little embarrassing.

A little North American centric ya think? While this tool only allows a sampling of 100 of your followers, (I currently follow about 700) it's likely a pretty reasonable indicator of who's got my attention.  Ewan's concerned about this as well. He blames time zones and short attention spans and he's got a point. Christian Long argues:

And perhaps — no matter how much Friedman and well-intentioned educators may want — the world defaults to hyper-local (scaled accordingly) rather than global when it comes to conversation over time.

While that offers some explanation I can't quite take myself off the hook. Add to the fact that a number of those outside North American are ex-pats I have to hang my head in shame. Clarence Fisher is doing wonderful things to help his students experience a global education all the way from northern Manitoba. He requires his student to have a diverse global network of students to learn with. 

So to appease my guilt and practice what I preach, I need to do some different things. By the end of the year, I'm going to find 50 new followers from outside North America. I may even look for random people as it could improve my creativity. I'm going to find 10 new bloggers from overseas and 5 new flickr contacts.  Okay, maybe there's more to do but that's a start. What about you? Happy with who you're learning with? Feel a need to expand? Have any tips or suggestions? Speak now and leave some great recommendations for new global blogs to follow.

Update: I should add the Jennifer Wagner wrote a very similar post last month which I did read and perhaps by osmosis, I've pretty much covered the same ground. I'd like to say "great minds…" but I'm not in that category. Go read Jen's post too.

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.

[display_podcast]

There are so many powerful ideas packed into this story.

• Geography is largely eliminated from the learning equation. These stories continue to emerge from isolated communities that realize there are opportunities to be found and are willing to find them.  Isolation may be the mother of invention when it comes to connected with others.
• The teacher’s recognition that there may be others in a better position to teach his students is key. The teacher became the network administrator in providing his students with other experts.
• People want to share. The fact that other ukulele players flocked to provide instruction and share their passions continues to be the theme of the social web.
• Music matters. While not a direct message in this story, research is clear about the value of music in learning. Learning an instrument requires complex thinking.
• Modeling how to learn. These students have been given a powerful lesson in teaching themselves. Having access to a variety of people/resources will serve them well in their future.

I think I’ve mentioned this before but if you haven’t already subscribed to Spark, go do it now.

*Disclaimer: I am not paid by Spark, however I’m sure my tax dollars help pay them. So in that regard, I’m part owner.

“There is absolutely no reason that any teacher right now should be on Facebook with their students,” Thompson said. “You cannot control it.”

Control? When will we realize that the type of control some schools are still clinging to is over? Read Pesce’s article for more thoughts on that.

Social networking services are implicitly interconnected, and Thompson argued that unintentional communication between student and staff members could too easily occur.

That’s the point. The ability for teachers to connect with students in whatever space works for them has to be seen as a step forward.  Not every teacher is comfortable with a relationship that extends beyond the classroom. But many are and they shouldn’t be prohibited from that. It may not be via Facebook but goodness knows there a gazillion other spaces and ways in which people connect. One of the very best discussions on this is found in this podcast featuring danah boyd and Marc Fisher.  They do a wonderful job of critically analyzing the current climate of teacher-student relationships and offer some balanced perspectives. The bottom line is the potential is great and many teachers are genuinely interested and able to connect and foster relationships that do indeed extend beyond the classroom walls and district created spaces.

“There are a million different uses of Facebook, and many of them are legitimate,” Thompson said, “…but you’re putting yourself out there, and it’s a risk.”

Anybody who’s ever posted a comment, photo or video online is at risk. Why is Facebook so different? What these folks fail to get is what I’ve often referred to as the leaky boat syndrome;  plugging one hole in the internet is only going to help you for so long, another one will emerge in about 17 seconds. Educational institutions that are trying desperately to maintain control over this are simply entering a battle they’ll never win. Instead, why not develop some principles or policies that aren’t about control and avoiding liability but that encourage and honor thoughtful and healthy relationships and place a level of trust for its employees? Why are most policies of this nature intended to curb the behavior of a very small minority instead of supporting the great work that could potentially come when teachers can, if they choose, be a part of student’s lives? If we believe that learning is not an isolated event, why would be make policies that assume it is? These policies are in keeping with filtering policies that on the surface are said to protect students but in reality are done to reduce liability.

Superintendent Matt Gibson said the district should still take an official stance on the issue. Elmbrook is “not equipped” to be responsible for inappropriate use of technology, he said. Greater supervision and control means less liability.

What is the cost of this control? Not only are there dollars involved in monitoring this, but the cost of mistrust, loss of innovation and demoralizing relationships might be difficult to recover.  If I’m missing something here, I’d be happy to hear the other side. But these attempts at control continue to reflect a lack of vision and understanding about 2009.

Image: Leaky Boat #1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/branewbs/427184981/

The complexities of these topics imply more problematiztion rather than definite answers.  The desire for educators to have clear cut responses and answers to a shifting society is becoming more and more moot.  Technology continues to raises at least as many questions as it does answers.

Original Photo: danah boyd at HHL08 by Ewan Mcintosh
http://flickr.com/photos/edublogger/2941900634/

• Does location matter anymore? A discussion of telepresence and computers/webcams as social prosthesis’.
• Clay Shirky on cognitive surplus
• Do organizations have responsibility to maintain their social networks? Disney recently closed their virtual Magic Kingdom. Thousands of users suddenly lost their content and due to restrictive privacy policies, couldn’t contact those they had met and developed friendships with on the site.
• What happens to your digital legacy when you die? A slightly morbid but interesting discussion about your digital life and what happens to your stuff after you’re gone.
• Lee LeFever explains the concept behind his Common Craft video

There’s tons more good stuff included in each 27 minute episode. Each show has 4 or 5 stories with extended interviews if you are interested. The format is great, the topics engaging and often leaves you with more questions than answers. Add it to your ipod. It’s time well spent.