This post reminds me of the excellent animation on the Schlechty Center’s website, “The Way Things Are, The Way They Should Be” http://www.schlechtycenter.org/.

You included a “whatever success is for them” caveat, and I agree, but how do we as teachers prepare students for such an intangible aspiration? How also do we define the “citizens we want?” Is there consensus on this? I would assert no unless we’re referring to the generic qualities of a democratic state where everyone behaves and displays good character w/o affecting anyone else negatively, (the basis of character and citizenship canned programs everywhere in education.)

I’d like to nudge your thinking on this a bit- what type of citizens do we want, and how do we prepare kids for the moving target that is their future?

I measure learning in these domains. If the tool/strategy/approach I choose results in equal measurements of learning, I have done no harm and can continue to expand possibilities. If it results in higher measurements of learning, then pedagogcally speaking, I have made an advance and would manipulate it accordingly.

There are so many variables to successful learning as we all know- there is much trial and error in each learning context, and I think thats a good thing. Even within the tech integration routine, we must evaluate and re-evaluate perpetually to target those “aha” moments you refer to.
Cheers,
Sean

But having said that, let’s do the math. There are over 100,000 public schools and about 15,000 districts in the US alone. Let’s say that means about 100,000 superintendents and principals (assuming some combined services.) How many are being transparent about their thinking around change using Twitter, blogs, etc? Let’s be generous and say 1,000 (though that feels high.) Heck, let’s say 5,000 just for kicks. That’s 5%. And that’s just principals and superintendents. I’d be surprised if that was any higher for administrators as a whole. Factor teachers in the mix and…well, you get the picture (in my mind at least.)

Now, can leaders create change without participating in all of this? Sure. The superintendent in my district here is leading what I think is pretty transformative change (moving to 1-1, inquiry based curriculum using social learning tools.) She’s not, however, participating much at all in the “network.” So I’m not sure how many like her there are kind of flying under the radar.

Having said all that, though, I guess it comes back to the same question: where is the real impetus for change? My opinion? We’re not there yet, and we’re not going to be until two things happen, imho. First, parents are going to have to demand something more in terms of technology in schools. They are going to have to see it as important, as oxygen, as Chris says. As something that their kids cannot be as successful learners without. And just for the record, I believe that wholeheartedly as a parent myself. The chicken/egg problem here is that we’re going to have to educate parents around that, but most leaders won’t or can’t because it’s too disruptive and too risky. Which leads to the second part.

We all want leadership, but, I’ve become convinced that until we get some real national leadership around this shift, we’re going to be mired in the status quo tinkering on the edges practice that we’re in now. And let’s face it, most of the folks that are in the “network” don’t face the really dire problems that a huge number of teachers face: kids in poverty, kids without access, kids who can’t read or write. I look at the national statistics of kids who are reading way below grade level and I ask where are they or their teachers showing up in this “conversation” we’re all having about change. I understand the cries for “accountability” and “higher student achievement” coming from our national leaders. It’s the easy way to see where progress is (or isn’t) being made. And let’s take a look at how all of these old white men use technology in their own lives. Pretty distressing.

So, yeah, we keep building islands and we build bridges between them and we make as much change as we can, and we keep pushing and pulling to move the needle “forward” but at the end of the day, we’re at least 5-10 years away a whole bunch of people standing up and going “you know what? We need to get technology into every teacher’s and every student’s hands, and we need to make sure they know how to use it, we need to give them access to the Internet, and we need to change the way we think about what we value in the education process.” And more, but you get the idea.

And now that I’ve ticked off my wife and kids who want to go out to Sunday breakfast…

Thanks for the back and forth Russ, and thanks for the suggestions. It’s all good stuff. And as negative as this sounds, I really don’t mean it to be. There is a lot of work to be done…and we’ll get there. I don’t think at the end of the day, we have a choice. But the barriers are still pretty huge right now.

While I appreciate the pat on the back, it seems like that’s pushing for more “pockets of excellence” (not that what I do is by any means excellent).

Call me naive, but I don’t accept “Policy makers don’t want change.” Too bad. They need to change. And a few teachers doing things differently — even a few schools doing things differently — aren’t going to get them to change.

So where are the education leaders?

I asked a specific question at the beginning of the last #edopenmic night: In education, when we say “leaders” do we mean administrators or people who lead? I was told we mean administrators when we say leaders, yet we spent most of that #edopenmic conversation talking about how teachers and students can be leaders. Now, you’re telling teachers to lead by example in their classroom. I’m not arguing that’s a bad thing, merely pointing out what I see as inconsistency.

I’ve been pestering Scott Mcleod to do more DABA (deserves a bigger audience) entries on his blog and I’ll challenge you to do the same. Give us models. Force administrators to shine a spotlight on their teachers who are taking that leap of faith. Interview (and post) administrators who are pushing their teachers to take those leaps of faith.

So what — exactly — is it that “the good ones” do to address the latter definitions? Show us. Tell us. Show us again. Tell us again.

I follow a lot of education chatter on the net and I haven’t come across a wealth of these models. It is very possible that I’ve just missed it, at which point I will happily consume those models with my tail between my legs.

No question that the tools don’t define the learning, nor is it the only way. I don’t think I or anyone else is arguing that. But it is one way that we ignore at our peril. And, yes, I would argue, that in my childrens’ lives, it will in many ways be the main vehicle though which they experience those ah hah moments, through which they become inquisitive and eager learners.

Should we, as teachers, by allowing pupils this investigation time?

Thoughts:

There is a 10 minute period when help from the teacher can not be asked for

At the beginning of the lesson, pupils know to come in and log on and monitors off. The register is taken and pupils move to see the screen better.

The problem for the lesson is placed on the whiteboard. Three slides normally. The first with the overall problem and slides two and three detail the problem in more detail.

If a hand is raised within ten minutes, then no help is given. Pupils may, however, seek help from their colleague.
Key message: Encourage investigative learning through timed sessions

If we who do things “differently” achieve equal or higher results in learning than those that think “traditionally”, who can argue with that? Just do it and let the results, not the actions, speak for themselves.

I continue to be alarmed by the perspective that tech integration is at the forefront of educational change. Really? There are SO many variables to change… if positive changes in ed were dependent primarily on this one, I would be alarmed to say the least.

Authentic learning is not defined by the tools with which we choose to produce it, its defined by the state of mind of the learner, and tech (although a welcome and fascinating tool for those with access to it) is not the only way to effect a state of mind that proves authentic learning ahs taken place- a satisfied, unstressed, inquisitive and eager learner who remembers what’s been taught and is engaged without requiring motivation beyond the lesson.

Cheers,
Sean