A powerful statement… and one that I will repeat. Kids who are active online outside of school know that what they think DOES count. But, being isolated by lo-tech curriculum is just one more way to make them cynical at, and about, school.

And, my feeling is that teachers and administrators remain terrified that anything resembling student-led instruction will take away their own power and reveal what they do not know. It is sad that they cannot also see the cultural and social shift in this young population– that of a cooperative, collaborative group of learners, producers and creators.

Thomas Newkirk’s new book, Holding On To Good Ideas In A Time Of Bad Ones, chronicles the state of mind in education from the “literacy” standpoint, arguing that the word “literacy” has become synonymous with READING, the most passive spoke on the literacy wheel which has come to over power the other two, writing and speaking. I bring this up because much of what happens in the technological classroom is active literacy–WRITING–and speaks directly to your statement about empowerment and things that count outside the classroom. Newkirk’s book is like a breath of fresh air and leaves me feeling like I am not crazy to think that getting kids to write can change the world.

Technology can be a wonderful tool – perhaps these teachers that have misused it shouldn’t be teachers at all. Like Jennifer said, “appropriate media is media that can be moderated by adults” – when teachers blur the lines between teacher and student another entity must step in to be the “adult” and lawsuits form and people get fired.

As teachers we need to remember that WE are on the front lines. WE are the ones that set pace and the example. We need to remember that!

The debate reminded me of Tom Peters’ book “Crazy Times call for Crazy Organizations,” in that the status quo wanted to keep the walls and cubicles because they’re comfortable when in fact we need to be looking at ways to tear down those walls and take people out of their comfort zones because until we do, we’re just treading water and putting on window dressing. Most current school design and practice does little to prepare students to be lifelong learners and to develop higher order thinking skills.

As for Doug’s comment regarding after school activities, I would ask how completing assignments digitally would differ from completing traditional assignments. Wouldn’t they take similar time to complete?

Or am I missing Mr. Richardson’s point? Is he essentially proposing an online “addition” to the school day when he mentions the “what can be done at home should be done at home philosophy”? That may be appropriate for higher level high school (AP classes) and college classes, but I would argue that it is unrealistic at the primary and lower level secondary grades.

I watched the debate (archived here: http://stream.istevision.org/videos/tuesday.mp4 ) remotely and came away with a completely different take on Jupp’s response to the lawsuit question. My sense is that he was incredulous that schools could be so paralyzed by unfounded fears that they would not embrace new technologies. He did offer the example of the East High School teacher who has successfully used social networks (Facebook) to connect with students. Further, if I recall correctly, he made a statement to the effect schools face far more liability in a face to face, brick and mortar environment. I know that context is everything, and I was 2000 miles away (interesting that the virtual attendee, me, had a different take than the face to face attendees in light of the topic), but I believe that Jupp’s response was a tacit endorsement of Web 2.0 technologies for schools.

Mike

Finally, in this age of increasing accountability, having a kid learn things on their own with the teacher serving mainly as a gatekeeper is a bit daunting.