Truth in Advertising

I've seen this commercial so many times in the past month it is now nauseating.  What's worse is that it makes something rather complicated sound so simple.  "The role technology should play in education."  And, many people buy in based on that approach.  Provide students a shiny new device(in this case Microsoft's Surface Tablet) for "real work" and then poof...they learn better and bearded teacher with the tan vest is doing a better job.  Obviously no work can go on without this device or any other.  The description of the spot online reads "This Teacher knows change is coming, but with the new Microsoft Surface his students can do just about anything, even do their homework."   Boasting that if kids have keyboards they can go home and Skype or play games all night or find out what is due or even do homework.  They appear happy, magically more productive and obviously are better students.  Maybe so, maybe so.

But let us reflect on this "old fashioned" teacher in the commercial.  On a superficial level, or on the surface(excuse the pun but it was low hanging fruit and I couldn't resist) I can tell he's not actually a teacher.  How?  Well any seasoned teacher can just tell.  If he was I'd believe him but I don't.  His real name is Bobby Richards and he appears to be a very talented actor.  He plays someone who, based on his classroom decor teaches history or geography. The ad implies he has his students looking up information on Mozart. Upon closer inspection, when the bell rings it appears he teaches twelve students. Twelve!   More on that later.  Would such a device be a useful addition to such a classroom...probably.  But whether or not it is the best choice to improve things is another matter entirely.

Change Can Be Good
You might think I am motivated to discuss this ad by fear of change or because I have it out for Bill Gates.   You'd be wrong.  I embrace just about every real improvement that comes my way in education but I tire easily of the superficial panacea that are peddled by for profit entities or pushed by ill informed "reformers."  I love technology but can't stand using technology for technology's sake.  In essence pressing play on a VCR is about the same thing as posting a video on Youtube.  Working in groups with a piece of paper sometimes is preferable to a virtual meeting.  Our infatuation with computers can be all consuming.

 I only want stuff that helps my students learn, helps me teach and saves me time.  Things that make me a better teacher.  Computers have that potential but let's not oversell their ability to motivate, engage and wait for it..."teach."  That's my job.  One way to help me would be to give me 12 students and watch how much more effective I am.  Guaranteed.  Believe it or not that class might be too small, but easing my student load and giving me more teacher currency...time, would likely result in far more gain for my students than any technology.

I use technology a lot in my class but I don't keep using it if it doesn't provide what I think my students really need.  Face to face, creative, tactile and active learning never goes out of style.  Neither is the much maligned "lecture" which if done well is as engaging as anything.   Sure with new technology the first few days are pretty cool but the novelty wears off.  Some of my students have overtly expressed to me that they do not always prefer to work on computers.  Hopefully we realize that all this talk of flipping and technology integration is mostly absent one key voice, the student.  We assume it is better and they prefer computers that are invariably "needed."  Who might know best what students need in the classroom more than the teacher?  Most companies aren't thinking about kids first and their agenda is quite different.  But they can still do some good.  Microsoft's tablet might be a good thing here, or it might not be.

What's for certain is that technology like the Surface alone will not solve any of the real problems plaguing our education system.  It is just an electronic tool.  Despite what the teacher says in this commercial about the future it is not really any more revolutionary than a chalkboard or even ...wait for it... textbooks were in their time.  The advantage they have is those things have a pretty much unlimited shelf life.  They require no maintenance and in the hands of the right person, can prove just as effective

 Reading is still reading.  Right?

Meaningful change in education will come slowly and incrementally and technology will and should be a big part of that.  We should not wait for it to happen and should demand movement forward.  But, the temptation to leap ahead haphazardly for fear of falling behind can create as many problems as it solves.  Enter the flashy new gadgets marketed at schools, school boards and the public.  Does giving teachers free tablets make these devices the best use of public funds?    Do parents, politicians or administrators really give thought as to what providing every single kid a device might mean in the actual classroom or even outside of it?  Do they provide opportunities for teachers to visit schools that have taken this step?  Do they consider the long term social, economic and other less obvious impacts on students,  classrooms, budgets and schools as a whole? Do they make efforts to educate and involve parents in the adoption of technology?  In my case I think they do for the most part.  But I am lucky, but that doesn't mean the decisions made are ones I always agree with.

Having honey poured in your ear by technology sometimes results  in getting things we don't really need.  Schools are no different than other parts of our throw away consumption driven world.  We are really good at generating piles of antiquated stuff that is no longer useful.  If we buy something it should be based on a real need, not so much a want.  Separating the two is the tough part.

There is no real litmus test.   Do students need computers in schools today?  Yes.  Does having access to the internet make things better or easier.  Probably.  But lets not overlook the hidden costs.    Network  infrastructure, upgrades to software, time until replacement, repair and maintenance, training and development...it must be factored in.  Bottom line is that it will end up being the classroom teacher bearing the brunt of any implementation such as this.  One to One means we on the front line have a lot to consider.  With technology growing more and more intuitive and integrated to daily life do we really need to flood the hours of a student's day with even more?

So with a little truth in advertising, what would this spot say?   
"Hey we've got this fairly low priced tablet that can access the internet, do some light word processing and can for a fee include a keyboard.  If you, your students or your school don't have access to technology on a daily basis this might be a low cost solution.  We have a bunch of extras and if you use it we might also be able to improve our market share in education.  The Surface also has some significant limitations that many find frustrating and we hope the low price will offset those.  Maybe that's why it isn't selling too well to the public...but... ah ha ...schools.   It could be like charity and we could write it off.  Seems a good use for unsold inventory.  Maybe its not a computer and you have might have trouble joining a domain, networking with other devices, saving and keeping software up to date but that said we are confident that many schools, teachers and students will like our product and that is why we are offering a whole bunch of them to a whole lot of schools so that maybe, just maybe they'll catch on.  Give us a try ...please."

Is the surface a good tool and good addition?  I'd start by asking teachers who use it.  Seems for  the most part reviews are favorable.  But many point out the limitations and unknowns.  Get their input and don't rely on top down implementation.  Understanding what is going on in this commercial is really pretty simple. Microsoft refocused and redirected its excess inventory at schools and launched a reward system as a means to gain entry into the education market.  Not that much different than a label drive from soup cans or some other means it makes sense to get everyone involved and behind the effort to fund low cost computers/devices in schools that want them.  Will it work?  Time will tell but I suspect that the Surface will be no different than many other forms of the latest greatest thing.

"Didn''t Care what you thought then.  Still Don't"

Truth in Reform
So now a little truth in reform.   What would leaders, politicians and decision makers say, or at least what SHOULD they?
Truth is refreshing.  To hear someone say "Hey I know this isn't exactly what you want but here's why we are doing it " would mean a lot.  I broke it down into sound bites to cover some of the major points.



"Hey...we know it isn't really the teacher's fault but someone has to be held accountable for these low scores."
"True, we haven't really given much thought to how to use the computers for instruction, but clearly we have to use them if we are going to keep up with all the affluent districts."
"Online learning might be great for motivated learners...but its not a viable option for all learners...we know that...but fact is it is a heck of a lot cheaper than hiring teachers. "
"I blame you...since no one else can be held accountable."
"It is not the type of learning we care about if you can't show us the data."
"I don't care about what you think, I care about what I think and I think I know better."

I could at this for hours...maybe in the comments section some of you could share what you wish reformers would say since it is what they mean.

Maybe some of that is too strong?  But the Appearance over Substance Paternalistic Movement for the Sake of Movement style of leadership that is rampant in this nation is wearing me thin.  It may not be any more responsible for problems than bad teaching, but it can certainly infect and interfere with quality teaching on a much greater scale.  As a part of this, buy the wrong devices or software and deploy them in poor manner and you have caused a lot of undue stress.  That is not good for students, not good for parents... and definitely not good for teachers.  Believe me, I know.


Technology in Education 
So back to the panacea of technology.  Big time movers and shakers are often far too cozy with computer, software and technology folks and do not pick up on the limitations.  They might get enticed with their own free version then commit and represent the tool as indispensable.  Forgetting the ever important mantra of K.I.S.S.     Having an out of the box access point for kids is in most cases a good thing.  But does the included Office software offer only a trial version?  Will the school division have to re-license applications and programs in a few years?  What happens if the device might break down(if you weren't aware...kids are hard on stuff)?  How long before this device is no longer useful.  Does a kid want to stare at 8" screen 7 hours or more a day?

"Someone adopt me ...please"

I know I wouldn't have to look too hard to find storage closets full of old I-touches, unsupported computers or other fancy items destined for the Island of Misfit Tools.  That place is just as sad as the one in the Christmas classic.  Bottom line is most of this stuff represent budget busting Big Ticket Items.  As a teacher I see it as a means to divert more funding, energy and attention away from the classroom.  (<----Read that sentence again)   A narrow view perhaps, but one built on long experience.  The more we spend away from students, classroom, and actual learning instead on indirect support of the learning can mean we get less return on our investment.

I instead would focus on hiring good people.  Giving them what they need and a few things they want.  And, working very hard to make them feel supported and valued.  In today's world that means yes, technology should play a vital role.  But we must never forget what motivates and interests Microsoft, Apple, or any other for profit firm when they enter the realm of education.  Rest assured it is not what motivates those who can make a real difference in the lives of young people.   If we simply throw technology at our problems in an effort to improve, we won't even get past the surface(sorry...did it again).  Would I take some Surface tablets?  Why not?  But I don't feel I need them and I most definitely would not stand in front of a camera and blindly share my thoughts like this Timothy Busfield "teacher" did in this commercial.  But the tan vest...nice.

Read it Here First. Or at least Second Hand

Education Technology

Missing TU up to the minute posts?  Too bad.  We've been busy.  Teaching 8 classes is taking its toll.  When push comes to shove we focus on the classroom and not the blogosphere.  Still there are some happening worth sharing.  Given time is short it makes sense to simply share with you the thoughts of people who said what we were already thinking.  Enjoy.

From Our School Newspaper:
"Next time, learning space designers, you should get the input of of those who are actually going to be using the spaces"   She said what we think. Change isn't "better" when it limits functionality. If that doesn't sum up some of our biggest issues as teachers, then nothing does.


From Cavalier Daily on Teach For America:
"On the surface, the program appears to offer an antidote to the nation’s educational crisis, but in reality the program’s model, structure, and impact leave much to be desired."  I sat at a UVa football game yesterday and watched one of the most abrasive individuals I've ever observed gloat about the Duke win.  What's worse is he had a "Hoos love TFA" sticker on.  Blah.


From Huffington Post on teacher Stress:
"almost half of teachers leave the profession after just five years, costing districts' billions of dollars and depriving students of the experience of learning from seasoned professionals."
Whether I am more stressed or not remains to be seen, but I am definitely doing more work, seeing more students and tasked with more aspects of education than just "teaching"  then I used to be.

From NEWSPLEX
"A conflict between two school employees on Sunday caused officials to close Madison County schools as a precaution on Monday." 
Maybe as result of all the stress?  I've certainly argued with folks at work.  But threats?  Seriously though this is a bad deal for everyone.  I hope that it was more precautionary than anything else.

From Reuters- Obama Promises fix to Healthcare website:
"There's no sugarcoating it. The website has been too slow. People have been getting stuck during the application process. And I think it's fair to say that nobody is more frustrated by that than I am."
As we flock to incorporate technology we become reliant upon it.  Guess what, this isn;t always a good thing when it fails to function as we want.  Whether this is our division's grading software or the common app that college applicants are completely dependent on, when things go south...its bad.

Next time, learning space designers, you should get the input of those who are actually going to be using the spaces. - See more at: http://ahsrevolution.org/opinion/2013/10/10/constructive-criticism/#sthash.dJYp2U2b.dpuf

Next time, learning space designers, you should get the input of those who are actually going to be using the spaces. - See more at: http://ahsrevolution.org/opinion/2013/10/10/constructive-criticism/#sthash.dJYp2U2b.dpuf

APWATW (A picture is worth a thousand words)

Preparing for the Future

I love “survivalist” reality shows on television. The best ones focus on the need to simplify and make sure of two things in a survival situation. 1) Make sure to acquire basic needs (as opposed to wants) and supplies. 2) Value items that provide multiple uses. The main idea of these two points being that if you take care of the essentials, use a little creativity, and prepare to adapt your chances of surviving and perhaps even flourishing increase greatly.

We’re rarely confronted with the need to adopt a “survivalist” mentality because our world is relatively predictable from day-to-day. When it isn’t and disaster strikes, we face uncertainty and failing to prepare for and react to uncertainty is deadly.

My school district is beginning a process of creating a new strategic vision and plan for the future. At it’s root, that’s what education is about, preparing students for the future. That’s not an easy task when the future is an uncertain place.

All educators should be familiar with the “Shift Happens” videos and the Beloit College “Mindset Lists.” These resources describe the ways that our world has changed and is changing for current students. The lesson we should take from these resources is that predicting the future is futile. Twenty years ago, I lived in a dying analog world quickly being taken over by a digital revolution. Today I’m fully immersed in a digital world. When I consider twenty-years from now, it would be foolish to not consider that by then our world will be post-digital with a new set of challenges and opportunities that we’d never think of today.

As I sit playing a video game on my iPhone, I remember the first “Pong” system I played as a child. I carry a device in my pocket that connects me to the world, serving as my map, calendar, entertainment, reference source, a place to shop, do my banking, and communicate in ways that weren’t even possible twenty years ago. How did my education prepare me for this world?

Teaching students to adapt to an unpredictable future requires that we teach them enduring principles and ideas and give them the opportunity to apply those ideas in multiple ways.

I learned how to read and use a map in school. It doesn’t matter that I use it on my phone today, knowing how to locate yourself and others in the world is essential.

I learned personal and collective responsibility in school. Google calendar sends me text reminders every week so that I don’t forget to take out the trash, but I learned the importance of keeping up with my tasks because of the effect it has on me and others with paper and pencil.

I sometimes spend too much time watching videos and playing games on my mobile phone. I also remember wasting entire Sunday afternoons listening to the top 40 countdown on the radio waiting for the song I wanted to record on my cassette tape. Unfortunately I didn’t learn enough about not wasting time in school.

I learned that context matters in school and different levels of respect were required in different situations. I prefer texting to communicate today, but I still take the time to make sure my grammar is correct and the tone is evident to avoid miscommunication. I learned this because my teachers all had different expectations that I sometimes had to discover on my own through trial and error.

I recently read a book written by one of the stars of the above mentioned “survival” shows. It included an old cartoon of a couple in a fallout shelter, surrounded by stocks of canned food. The wife berated the husband for forgetting the can opener.

What a tragedy to starve to death in the midst of food for lack of a tool. The author followed up with a tedious but effective way of safely opening a canned good with nothing more than an abrasive surface.

That’s how you prepare for uncertainty. You don’t just learn to use the tool, you learn why, and how the tool is useful. Tools are extensions of humanity that facilitate our ability to accomplish a task. The knowledge of why and how gives us the ability to use it effectively, improve it if needed, discern if something new really is better, and to adapt when it is.

The idea of preparing students for an uncertain future can be scary. It’s tempting to buy into the next best thing in fear of being left behind. It’s easy to dismiss the value of technology in enhancing the experience of education.

Ultimately, the best we can do is to teach the lessons that endure to the adults of tomorrow using the most effective tools of today.

My Adventure With A MOOC

Overstatement is never a good thing. 

...the budding revolution in global online higher education. Nothing has more potential to lift more people out of poverty — by providing them an affordable education to get a job or improve in the job they have. Nothing has more potential to unlock a billion more brains to solve the world’s biggest problems... more potential to enable us to reimagine higher education than the massive open online course, or MOOC, platforms that are being developed by the likes of Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and companies like Coursera and Udacity. --Thomas Friedman, NY Times, 1/26/13

He's talking about college professors video recording lectures, superimposing their faces over a digital whiteboard or powerpoint slides, embedding quick quizzes to check for understanding, and giving regular tests for students to demonstrate their learning. NOTHING else has more potential to lift more people out of poverty?

I recently finished my first MOOC, using the Coursera platform mentioned by Friedman in his article.  The course, Drugs and the Brain was offered through Cal Tech. I thought it might give me a little more credibility in writing about the value of MOOCs, and as a Psychology teacher I wanted to learn more about the biology behind the interactions between drugs and the brain.

Overall, I would rate my experience as quite positive.

1)I had an opportunity to learn for free from a very accomplished instructor through a prestigious University.

2) While I could have probably found most of the information shared somewhere on the internet, having an instructor narrow the focus and give it meaningful direction added an efficiency to the process that made it possible.

3) With two jobs, three children, and a terrible writing habit, finding the time to leave home for three to five hours a week to sit in on a class is not an option.  This course was accessible.

4) Related to the third, this course was for personal and professional growth. I wasn't interested in showing full mastery or the capacity to continue a course of study or move forward in a sequence. I was able to casually devote whatever time I wished to sacrifice without the "de-motivator" of no credit or a bad grade.

I accomplished my goal through this course. I can't explain much of what I learned, and truthfully, I still don't understand some of it.  But, when I teach my students about neurons in the brain and how chemicals in the body function, I can do so with a little more clarity and understanding of my own.  I am more confident with the level of material that I'm supposed to know than before I took this class.

But does it really have the potential to "unlock a billion more brains to solve the worlds problems."  My experience wasn't all that.

1) The first two weeks were so far over my head, I learned very little. I was able to take the quizzes a first time and return to the class notes with more focused study for a second or third attempt. This process of quizzing, studying, and requizzing helped me learn a bit more.  From the discussion threads, I gather that many in the course considered this cheating. I considered this, but as a consumer, I took the course with a different purpose than finding out how high I could rank among other students. But this presents a clear problem with the platform-- how will it measure student learning in a fair way considering many of the courses have thousands of students enrolled.

2) Other than accessibility and convenience, there is little difference in the instruction from a traditional college course. It involved lectures and testing. The instructor was good, but even in a room with other humans, lecture without interaction is tedious.  The topics were delivered in 5-15 minute segments, but still accounted to hours a week of lecture. By week three, I resorted to setting the playback speed to 1.5x and 2.0x by week four, slowing down for items of interest or pausing for better understanding.  Week five was the most relevant topic for my learning goals, but other commitments that week led me to skimming over the lecture slides and giving the quiz a shot without watching the lectures. I do plan to go back and watch them, but this doesn't look much different than typical behavior in a traditional setting.

3) The course instructor notes in comments on Friedman's article that they plan to award 4400 statements of completion and remarks that the online community has generated more than 5000 postings. Over a five week course that averages to 1000/week. I considered participating in this community, but the number of people and volume of posts were overwhelming. The serious difference in MOOCs, and other forms of online courses shows itself the most here. In the half-dozen or so other online courses that I've taken, I've been a part of a community of 8-30 people, expected to interact with each other.

4) Finally, I found it easier to "compensate" for what I didn't know than to put the effort into learning it.  I ignored formulas and calculations throughout the course because they involved skills that I either didn't possess or hadn't used in several decades. I knew it would take a little time to brush up and figure out how to do it, but I also knew that the cost of not learning would be minimal and I wouldn't find myself needing it in the future anyway.

I would rather end on a positive note than a negative about my MOOC experience.  The only reason I bring up the negatives is to place a little reality check on the praise.  There is a place for MOOCs in the world of education.  They provide a valuable service that cannot be provided any other way in our current world.  I am enrolled in two more courses through Coursera for this calendar year and look forward to them.

But, they aren't going to save the world.  Maybe they'll make a boot shaped dent that's better than nothing, but they won't replace education as we know it.  And if we think they will, and try to make it happen sooner rather than later by not supporting public preK through college education appropriately, we might find that our adventure in MOOCs could have the opposite of the rosy effect Mr. Friedman predicts.

The Best Technology Tool Ever- BubbleSheet

I found this gem today in the iTunes App store. Who says technology doesn't revolutionize education?

Here's the description from the App store site:

MasteryConnect is a web-based system that allows teachers to assess and monitor student performance of the Common Core and state standards, share common assessments, and connect in an online professional learning community.  With the BubbleSheet app, teachers save time in grading student assignments and assessments as scores are automatically populated in the MasteryConnect’s scoring system.  

I came up with this:
From the makers of DigiRoll the computerized Wheel comes BubbleSheet.  Paper and Pencil is so old fashioned, why not add some critical thinking and analysis to your assessment by enhancing it with technology. Twenty-first century learning just got easier.
 

Think you can create a snarkier description than that?

 (Here's a link to the site if the screenshot quality is poor)

Technology: Friend or Foe

Many folks in the blogosphere have addressed the role of technology in education.  Views on the subject run the gamut and opinions differ for a variety of reasons.   We here at the TU find technology the frequent topic of conversation. And, we talk about its role in more than just education, discussing how and where it has altered the landscape significantly in the last five years.  We've written about the issue a half dozen or so times but it keeps coming around and a recent lunch conversation made another post seem warranted(type "technology" in the search box to the right to take a peek).

Technology is and has always been a creation intended to improve the human condition.  Whether saving effort with labor or making work easier and more productive, it is supposed to help.  Perhaps our development and reliance(some would say unhealthy dependence) on technology is what has allowed us to emerge as such a unique species.  From our earliest attempts with stone, bone, and wood, technology put us in a position to master our world and empowered us to do more things not possible before.  The purpose was to aid humans.  Constant innovation would periodically revolutionize our way of life.   Reshaped agriculture, transportation, communication, medicine among other areas touched almost every aspect of human life.

But we also have a funny way of forgetting the less desirable side of technology.   Once we started with tools and then farming, it likely didn't take long before we were developing things as a means to destroy stuff or people we didn't want around.  That you can usually see coming.  More recently the effects of technology are more subtle but arguably harmful as well.  It is these unintended results that bring the discussions about technology full circle.  Too often new becomes synonymous with better.  In particular those of us who work with young people are keenly aware of how intertwined they become with the newest technologies.  They block out the outside world with earphones and rarely say a simple "hello" while busy staring at the screen of their smartphone. (perhaps this isn't unique to young folks)  These gadgets quickly eradicate basic elements of civility.  Their efforts to "connect" with each other and the world virtually often leave them out of touch.  People are emboldened by perceived anonymity and do and say things they would never actually do or say face to face. Overall I'd say the greatest concern I have is that too much technology can be harmful.  Which bring me to the topic of education. 

Education's relationship with  technology is no different than other areas of society.  What is different is how powerful people embrace it and then take a paternalistic approach to how it ought to be used.  The change from the outside point of view revolves around "we know how to fix schools and we will do it with technology."  As a case in point take a recent post we did on Khan Academy.  The approach here  is using simple online recorded lectures with some included visuals.  The accessibility and ability to repeat and duplicate are great .  They offer tremendous advantages but couldn't a student or teacher just record a lecture?  How can anyone in their right mind think they are better than having an quality teacher?

The answer lies in our love affair with technology.  In the hands of decision-makers, the ideas of group-think do-gooders quickly become misguided and produce a vastly different product than envisioned in the conference or boardroom. In some ways, interacting face to face is the same as online.  In many ways it is not. The economic downturn has led to the laying off of teachers and cutting of valuable programs to save funds; all while funds are used on technology which fails to benefit everyone.  Computers, smartboards and technology that ultimately have a limited shelf life are  purchased.  Sure they are very useful, when their role is understood the right way.  So really technology is neither a friend or a foe, it is the instead how we view it that proves problematic. 

Most teachers are not technophobes(I even stand near the microwave when cooking).  We embrace what helps us do our jobs.  We are also wary of becoming too dependent or reliant on technology.  This is a positive trait.  The "paperless" classroom might not be all it is cracked up to be.  Most good educators realize how technology can help, but know that it can't replace people and relationships in education.  We are not talking about assembling something on a production line.  We are talking about young people.    Tech can be many things but it cannot do what humans do in education.  This dogmatic view of the role technology in our future does a great disservice and ultimately could worsen things in many ways.

Defenders of technology infusion would say "we are not suggesting that at all." But that is happening.   Rather than empower and improve our lives, new technologies often alienate and isolate.  While we have instant access to information, we often fail to internalize the importance of what we learn and how to use these tools.  Leaving it to someone else, say Wikipedia, to set that mindset for us.  If everyone was taught by the same teacher with the same approach it would be fair to say quality would suffer. I read once that getting information off the internet is like drinking from a fire hydrant. Makes sense.  You can get a lot from the internet, mainly information.   The benign marketing of technology that shatters the "one size fits all" school model misses the reality that varied instruction provides a rich environment to learn.

We end up isolated since we carefully self select our networks and thereby restrict views that may differ from our own.  This can be problematic.  Having students who don't learn the same and don't always get along actually provides a real world experience.  Freeing up the teacher and online collaboration sound great but what lies beneath that is less obvious.    Imagine if you will a toddler seated in front of a large screen with the alphabet along with some morals and values are imparted to them from some distant source.  Technology can convey knowledge and content.  But it can't really help teach responsibility, judgement, character, how to treat each other and it doesn't provide any wisdom.  I'd prefer to have my own children learn form a good person as opposed to good technology. 

The simple question is do people learn better using technology or using each other?  The answer is a complex one. Some would seek to produce a study using a true valid measurement to prove this, one that any experienced teacher won't be able to poke full of holes in 30 seconds.  They miss the point.  People learn from other people in so many ways and entertaining the idea that technology is anything but what it started out as, a simple tool would be a huge mistake.  Let's stop all the revolution talk and just try to find ways we can help our young people. As importantly let's be aware that anything we do should never have the potential for doing the opposite.    

Thoughts in closing.
A friend is someone you trust, not something you trust.  
 "Technology accelerates at a relentless pace.  Anything not moving forward, is moving backwards."  This is a quote from a 2013 Lexus Commercial.     I would respond that while it is certain technology can make us faster and able to do more, the one thing technology will never create is more time during the day.  So by doing more aren't we just getting busier?

For demonstration purposes lets just watch this commercial and see if you pick up the potential bad things(hazards)of new technology.

Step forward, backward or sideways?

Closing out the week of Spring Break TU noted that Virginia students who enroll in 9th grade in 2013-2014 will be required to take at least one high school course online to receive their standard or advanced diploma.  This would appear to be a step forward  advancing educational access and integration of technology.   This "blended learner" model presents a lot of future unknowns.   A few thoughts:

Thinking about it a bit it begs the questions of what exactly is the goal?  Is it improving education or getting a feather in the cap?  There is still relatively little known about how online learning and more traditional methods vary in the long run but anyone who has taken an online class has an opinion.  Testing I suppose provides an answer.  But not a complete one.  Rural communities where offerings and staffing are harder to provide might stand to benefit more.  But legislating every student to take a course might seem to originate from somewhere other than Virginia and quality.  

Likely an outgrowth of Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Educational state initiatives program, online learning has benefits and limits.    But the origin of the measure is notable.  Three things summarize the approach pushed in Florida and other states by Bush's Foundation and they are school choice, accountability through testing and more use of technology to change education. Accompanying this are a host of other reforms.   There are several posts worth of material there but I read a blog post back in October that did a good job providing some background on the issues.  So the foundation wants to transform education.  I just get worried what it will be transformed into.

Jumping back to the change in Virginia part of me I suppose gets a bit threatened by virtual or distance learning, but that is a small part and doesn't blind me to the potential value of such programs. And speaking of value I would have to assume that local divisions will asked to carry any costs associated with this.  Not that big a deal for larger divisions like the one where I work, but I suspect some will feel the pinch.  The questions is which private company will be happily take that money off their hands. 

A couple types of students typically take virtual courses now.  Often those that are behind and need to catch up or need more support in an alternative setting can be found in the computer lab.  Others include those that can benefit from the expanded offerings available online.    Now a third type will take courses(notice I didn't use the word classes) and that's kids that are made to take them.    I suspect that this measure will do little to impact most students in the long run.  I further doubt that the  experience of taking whatever they have to will make learning very fulfilling.  It will instead just be "filling" in a matter of speaking. 

 Given there do not seem to be limitations of which courses can be taken, I would guess that if allowed many students might choose to take courses already offered at the school.  Seems a bit redundant.  New state requirements like the financial literacy course seem an obvious choice for pairing with technology but I suspect localities will have to figure this stuff out.    The true value of online classes will likely always be debated.  They can get you past a test.    I've taken a few, worked with kids taking a few an they have their limits.    I've taken them for two reasons.  Some because i wanted to learn and others because it was required.  I much preferred the former and most of the latter variety were awful.   Mostly I didn't have to think, just do stuff.  That tends to worry me both as an educator and a parent.  Not that this is a bad thing.

Khaaaaaaaaan! Academy

Shatner is clearly not a fan.

The future of education involves technology.  No one disputes this.  Less certain is how that technology will and should be utilized.  If you are savvy enough to locate this post then you have most likely heard of Khan Academy.  If you haven't then you need to watch the 60 Minutes segment linked below.  Everybody who's anybody in education including Bill Gates and everyone in the media seem to be falling in love with the potential of what Khan academy might mean for the future of our schools.  I'm in love too.  I love the simplicity and usefulness of Khan's videos.  But as a Star Trek fan and teacher, I am wary since Khan was formerly managing hedge funds and also has ties to Bill Gates. I, like Captain Kirk, approach the unknown carefully.  I wish I could say it is because I am smart.  It's not. 


Khan's emergence is nothing short of amazing and it illustrates how the internet has redefined our world and access to knowledge.  When I watch some of his videos I get sort of hypnotized.  They are great.  His intellect shines through; even just hearing his voice and seeing his illustrations you realize how capable his mind actually is.  But they are videos.   A lot of folks seem to forget this. To describe them as better than lecture is like saying DVDs are better than VHS.   It is a logic that is hard to argue with I suppose.

The brilliant Sal Khan seems to best understand how to use this as a resource.  He stresses the non-profit approach and that to me is a profound fact.  The technology use is meant to free the teacher up to help kids.   These videos have tremendous potential to achieve quick concise conveyance of knowledge and empower teachers to do more.

Yet as the phrase "flipping the classroom" shows, there are potential issues with implementation.  Please forgive me and other teachers for pausing and thinking but we do so with cause.   Maybe we are wary of how powerful people are drooling over this approach to learning.  Resources such as Khan's are perceived by decision makers as more than they can possibly be.  Another latest greatest thing.   You hear the phrase "the future"...that alone makes me cringe a little.  What will be the implications of all this?  I couldn't pretend to know(actually I could but won't). 

Some issues that arise:
Should all students everywhere access the same uniform version of the same set of information?  Is that a good thing?  (I get annoyed I can't ask questions or get simple clarification.)   There are few if any teachers working to develop this stuff...from what I can tell.  Some cite the "gamification" of math skills as they work to earn "badges."  It'd be better to tie that into the reliance on standardized testing as a whole.  I could go on, but I am a busy man.  Google for yourself,  but as always be mindful of the source.  You can't trust everybody as you can trust the TU.

For now, all I know is that I have used Khan's videos with my students as well as for myself.  Maybe he could put all these videos on one of those new laserdisc or something?

Apples to Apples?

K12 Inc., the country's largest provider of online k-12 education has come under fire from several sources recently for it's attempts to turn a profit by drawing students away from traditional public education classrooms.  Just last week, the New York Times ran an article subtitled Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in the Classroom.  Sounds like a pretty bold claim, but we've argued before, with the dot.com decline and housing market bubble burst, education may be the last safe refuge for Wall Street in the 21st century.

Ron Packard, CEO of K12 Inc, issued a reply to this article yesterday in the Fordam Education Institute's Flypaper.  I'm not completely opposed to Virtual Education.  I believe that responsible virtual education within the framework of existing educational structures is vital for 21st century learning.  I do have reservations about a complete package of online education outsourced to a distant and nebulous institution whose primary purpose is maximizing profit.  This description may not fairly characterize K12 Inc., but Packard's defense of the company in response to the NY Times articles is less than convincing.  Of the several arguments presented by Ron Packard, I found number one most lacking.  I've pasted the text of his argument below:

Academic performance of virtual schools: K12 data shows that a large and growing number of students coming into virtual schools are below grade level. The high growth rate of virtual schools means that a large portion of students taking the state tests are in their first year. This makes static test scores poor measures of a school’s overall performance because students perform better on state tests the longer they are enrolled. To measure academic growth, K12 administers third party norm-referenced tests.  Data from these tests show students are making positive academic gains relative to national norms.

 This is not the first time that I've heard this argument to defend poor results of online learning or even charter schools.  So, let's look closely at this argument.  First, Mr. Packard argues that students coming into his schools are below grade level.  It stands to reason that their performance will fall below that of on-grade level students.  Does that mean it's the student's fault and not the school?  I'm o.k. with that as long as we let our "traditional" public schools put forth the same argument.  Do students matter or not?  We have to be careful not to allow student ability or circumstances to provide an excuse for poor service.  If online schools and charters are given a pass because of the population they're dealing with then let's not apply a different standard to public schools dealing with the same students in order to label them as failing.

Second, it looks like the tests are getting blamed.  In the world of public education, again this argument doesn't fly.  The tests are the tests and if you can't perform then you're not performing.  Have you noticed any of the value-added or growth model laws passing across the nation?  It doesn't matter whether students are transferring, adding, dropping, repeating, or not even in your class in some states.  If the test scores aren't good enough, you're not good enough.  That applies to schools and increasingly to teachers as well.  If the tests aren't good enough to judge online education and charters then why do we assume they're good enough to judge traditional public schools.

I suppose if you can be identified by initials and your stock is publicly traded a different set of standards apply.  That shouldn't be a surprise, we've known for a while that Wall Street standards don't apply to the rest of us.

Who to Trust? Teachers or Rupert Murdoch

In reading a recent TU post one might presume that we support or encourage protests and similar anti-authoritarian behaviors. While free thinkers, the TU is rather conformist most of the time and color in between the lines more often than not, especially professionally. We do enjoy a good Youtube riot video as much as anyone and there's plenty of videos of the protest in NYC and elsewhere.   But that's about as close as we like to get. It took a while to arrive at my point but I am heading towards proving that the TU in some ways sees things from ground level(below ground actually) and perhaps more accurately.  We are closer to education than most folks who talk about it.  That is simply something you cannot dismiss in the conversation about education and its future.  We are deeply concerned for the future of our schools.  We are not alone.

Rupert Murdoch has had a lot to say recently on this subject of education and seems to want to move his company closer to it.    He is a smart fella but I think on the subject of education...I might be smarter(I'll pause while you soak in that statement).  His view is blurred by his business mindset and motives and the highlight reel experience he no doubt receives when he visits a school.  Think for a second about why he is starting to talk a lot about education all of a sudden.    My view is blurred by where I work.  You know, in a school with kids.  Its a pretty good school and despite its shortfalls it ends up turning out some pretty amazing young people.  So who has a better feel for what's going on?   One of the most powerful men in the world, or me?  He got shouted down at a recent speech by some folks perhaps as frustrated as we are with the current direction of many reforms.  I can only speculate on their motives.   I think because they resent a lot of current change and he makes a convenient target.  I've been shouted down too(most often by an irate teenager).  I guess that's where the comparisons end.

Did he deserve it?  Well I think he shouldn't expect people to ignore who he is.   Based on his record,  we should be at least suspicious of his motives.  Those people(if they were teachers) probably got all "protesty" because we in teaching are now hypersensitive to people telling us how it should be.  Especially people from the business or political world.   I like to think if Murdoch spent a day with the average American teacher he'd realize a few things.  Not the least among them is that teachers know how it really is better than anyone else.  This that idea classrooms and the teaching in them have not changed 50 years is more than a slight misrepresentation of fact.   Of course someone must guide kids through their education...they are kids after all.  The classroom dynamic has not been as fluid as in other sectors of society like our economy and that is not all bad.  I know TU''s resident thesis man(Steve) could more successfully counter his points but I will attempt to do so none the less. This is not because we feel threatened and want to attack or justify our point of view over others(though deep down that may be why).  It is in the hope that it will foster a greater understanding of what we see as part of the problem. 

To begin, WTF?  My favorite acronym as an expression of disbelief.  (To maintain our PG rating I'll explain it as What's That For?)  Hey Rupert Murdock...WTF?  Are you living in a bubble?  How dare you try to simplify everything and reduce the mission of our schools solely to an academic pipeline of global employees.  Schools aren't companies.  The goal is not profit.  The goal is people.  That alone pokes some big hole in Murdoch's bucket.  Harlem Success is great.  Many charter schools are great.  No doubt so are the schools you mention in your speeches.  But before we go dismantling one of the most significant social and cultural institutions anywhere in the world let's give some forethought to the potential consequences.   Let's also not do so because people like Murdoch have convinced us they are all "failing." Instead consider how current top down changes are hampering efforts to do quality work in our schools. Many reform attempts have led to regulation  and "improvements" that have buckled some pretty great things schools did. Many of my colleagues will admit we do not feel the quality education we are providing today is not exactly what it was even 5 years ago. 

I will admit some of my objections to his and similarly framed ideas were originally based on their potential impact on my profession.  But with careful consideration I object on a far deeper level.  The idea that learning can be so easily manipulated and controlled is a dangerous one.  If I learned anything as a teacher its that things are usually more complex than they appear.    Demanding more from everyone does not equal an increase in quality output.   Programs and results may at first appear valuable and look good on paper, only to yield under closer examination or when implemented.   I have seen this firsthand with numerous online learning programs. 

The intent to profit should never be a consideration in our decisions on education.  But it has crept in slowly and as such we should place more scrutiny on reform ideas that involve public funds to private enterprise.  One approach being pushed from the Murdoch camp is to use technology to remedy our ills and make things better.   Education is far too complex a process to digitize and then plug a child in to some software.  That is information, not education.  Standardized test may show acquisition of knowledge but what has been lost?  Hard to tell as most modern measures of learning are subjective.  What's being measured?  How? Under what conditions?  Using a test?  Are the measures fair and equitable?  What's the wisdom in that?   Bottom line is this:  What motivates Murdoch and Newscorp is clearly making money.  What motivates teachers is what is good for kids. 

At 6:20 he starts to lay out main ideas.


Specifically Murdoch contentions are that "The Key is Software" and we can do better by creating a "More Personalized Education."     I wasn't as sure about his 3rd point since he is boring but it seemed to be simply using analytics to give kids access to limitless resources catered to best suit them. Thus they wouldn't be stuck learning at the same pace. I suspect it was something about how asynchronous education is the key.   Sounds great.  Who could argue with those ideas?  Me.

Distance Learning, Virtual Classrooms or whatever they go by have obvious advantages.  I sat so far back in one survey class in college it could have been considered distance learning.  I've also taken a few real ones and they served their purpose.  Can't say I learned a great deal that stuck with me though.  Their growth in recent years has been exponential.  Driven in part by the spiraling costs of higher education. While quite different in business approach and market, for profit higher education like the University of Phoenix illustrates how such an concept has supporters and detractors.  I remember a piece PBS did on Michael Clifford a while back that I found very informative.

But do not mistake access to information for a learning community.  There are problems with the any technology. On the front end there are always going to be kinks and bugs or issues with the transition.  Is the infrastructure in place in many of these locations to support the volume of traffic?   There are issues with the access, maintenance and reliability.  These will be less significant as schools integrate more and more digital resources over time.  The trend is for high ranking administrators and those at the top to view technology as the perfect solution.  It becomes a symbol for a "quality" education.  Teachers and learners more often think that while useful, these experiences are no substitute for face to face interaction.    In business terms a shift in this direction would be akin to expecting online shopping to replace brick and mortar schools.    Over reliance of technology can be problematic.  Forgive me for not trusting a billionaire but is it truly cost effective in the long term for our society?  This Education Marketplace mentioned by my colleague what's being sold here?  I fear it is our future. 

Once we are reliant on these technologies and systems, who controls the curriculum and any needed shift?  Who is held accountable for the quality?  A test might tell you whether a kid "learned" but what if they didn't?   Experience tells me that the under-performing kid in a traditional classroom might encounter even more issues in a virtual one.  Not all kids are motivated or mature enough to go this route.  One of the biggest hang-ups with our neighboring district's BLAST initiative has been parental approval and sign-off.   These issues were unforeseen by planners.  Not so for those with daily interactions with the learners and their parents.  We see things.  One advantage to synchronous learning is that it allows students to collaborate and support each other. This builds a sense of community with their peers, teachers and school.  Skilled individuals can yoke this and use these communities as a source of motivation and pride(just read the last post if you don't understand).  One can create online communities.  Its just that they not the same.  Part of the equation maybe but not the answer.  They should not be elevated to anything more than just a tool to help improve education.
 

Should computers replace people in learning?  In a normal environment computers are usually powerful tools.  The one thing schools are not is normal.  In this landscape teachers and people are more reliable than technology.  When problems occur I trust people.  When kids act up you need people.  When a kid needs encouragement and support you need people.  Murdoch is wrong to think that companies or software can do better with all of our children.  Most young people are significantly more dependent on adults than what those who don't deal with them everyday think.  They need people they know to help guide them.  Children need adults to learn from and they need relationships with these people to apprehend their world.  I don't really want to send my kids to an Apple store for their education and that seems to be the promise being extended here. We should approach with caution the Walmart of Education mentality as the cost vs quality balance should be important but shouldn't tip too far towards reducing costs.   A "one stop select what you want digital world of learning" isn't that far off.  But it would be a sad shell of what we could do. 

Is our nation doing as well as it can?  Certainly not.  But I don't so much worry about that.  Parents don't worry about that.  We worry about our own kids in our own communities.  I worry about how ideas hatched by those who don't teach real people could affect what we are all trying to accomplish.  Comparisons to Asia or elsewhere are thus less relevant to most of us normal folks with our feet on the ground.  Murdoch and others explain away the difference in achievement as simply a product of the school and education.  All responsibility lies with the schools.  Well when no one else takes on the responsibility for kids schools I guess should.  But be careful about how then you judge the result.  

Murdoch's Motives
I am more than a bit curious about why Mr. Murdoch has turned his attention to the plight of poor schoolkids.  We are after all talking about the same guy, head of Newscorp responsible for the British phone hacking scandal. A ruthless corporate pirate with billions to show for his efforts.  But also a charismatic convincing guy and if I wasn't a teacher I think I'd listen to what he had to say.  That thought frightens me.    He lists examples of innovation and suggests and path to the future.      Enter "his company" as a medium to access this.  See the problem? 

I think Murdoch thinks of education as a cash cow.  I just have an ideological problem with the idea that knowledge is proprietary.  And make no mistake that is the backbone of this idea Murdoch is talking about.  Competition instead of collaboration.  For profit and education...those two concepts are irreconcilable.  When push comes to shove Return on Investment will be factored in above learning when decisions are made by businessmen and not educators. 

Even more disturbing is how people can misrepresent what is taking place.  It has become a cyclical blame game where the most influential carries the least blame for under-performance. I suspect no one is entirely correct in what they think is happening since most views are either too global or too local to know the reality.  I know that some kids just aren't learning.  I'd argue about why.   Here's more reasons to be wary of Murdoch.  What works in some places won't work or even be able to be replicated everywhere.  Education is only as important as any individual thinks it is. 

Where do we agree?
Schools have to adapt, change and improve.  Technology will and should be part of this.  Too many kids aren't getting what they need.  So we can and must do better.  But it doesn't start at 5 years old or end when they graduate or even end when the bell rings to dismiss for the day.  It doesn't simply entail giving them access to knowledge.  Technology will never replace a teacher.  It is a tool and in the right hands empowers individuals to do and become more.  Both student and teacher.  It can also alter things in unforeseen ways.  At my 4 year old's soccer game this weekend I watched at least 3 parents engage with their I-phones  more than their kids.  Sad.  Does Murdoch throw this little tidbit in his speech about "human capital" and teachers to disarm us or does he really mean it?   Who knows.  All I know is that if the choice is that every kid is indeed a valuable and unique individual.  To truly educate a kid you have to get to to know that kid.   All I can do is try to remember that on a daily basis and whenever and wherever I can try to inject some sanity into the conversation about how we ought to be teaching our kids.

In a future post maybe I'll attempt to knock Bill Gates off his educational pulpit.  Whatever the subject the one thing I think the TU prides itself on is the ability to conduct civil discourse.  Disagreements today seem so polemical that the ability to talk freely with someone who disagrees seems a lost art.  Especially when they stand to realize we are right.  :)

Best and Brightest

My colleague and I write a lot about education reform here on the TU.  It may seem like we oppose much of the current reform. We do.  Not because we are obstructionists.  In fact it is obvious that our nation's education system needs continual improvement and we welcome positive changes.  Less obvious is which if any of these reforms have merit.  The one size fits all systemic changes that are being pushed by major players will do little to affect positive change in the average classroom.  They may in fact do the opposite.  What is certain is that the focus of many of the ideas and measures is the quality of the teacher.   Many profess that an influx of the nations “Best and Brightest” to the teaching profession will do much to fix all that is wrong.
 
Of course there are bad teachers out there and a growing number of initiatives seem focused on identifying and then purging them from the profession.  I have no problem when bad teachers leave.  I have a problem when good teachers leave.  That is happening with greater frequency.  I also have a problem with how these efforts to root out bad teachers affect what I do in the classroom.  Some cite the lack of teacher dismissals as evidence that bad teachers are protected by tenure and that it seems anyone can keep a teaching job. But they forget that many self select and quit. They also underestimate the complexity of judging quality teaching.  It is true anyone CAN teach under ideal conditions.  But there is much facing schools and done by today’s students in those classrooms to prevent such ideal conditions from materializing.  When people realize how hard it can be many there including these Best and Brightest will say in effect “I’m out”, and head for the door.  Knocking many of us regular teachers over as they rush past. But people teaching for the right reasons stick it out.  That should matter.   They find ways to improve or ask for help.  They do a lot more for kids than what happens between the bells. To me it is far more important WHO a teacher is as opposed to WHAT they are. 


As the focus shifts to those actually doing the instruction efforts are made to ensure all students have access to quality teachers.  How could anyone oppose such a thing?  But these efforts to identify bad teachers and standardize curriculum hurt me in a variety of ways.   Couple that with the promotion of common techniques from the edgurus or edupreneurs of the day and you’ve got a tangle of adverse affects. These hurt quality teachers.  Those that have control over what I do see teaching as a science.  Where a variable can be altered and it will reproduce a desired outcome. Those who teach know it is an art.  This disjoint lies at the heart of many issues and is in part a reason why we created this Teaching Underground.  Those who have survived the first few purgatory like years that weed out people in teaching for the wrong reasons or those who do not possess the necessary skills know there are no shortcuts and there are no easy years.

Those promoting B and B talk miss many key points.  Chief among them is the fact you can have all the degrees in the world and still suck.  Drop a Harvard law grad or Wall Street CEO in some of the classes I’ve taught and the kids will sniff them out and eat them for breakfast. Educational success is not a guarantee of success in life.  Especially not the life of a teacher.  I’m proof of the opposite since I am still working despite my unimpressive academic record.    A review of this might lead one to conclude I am unfit for every job. But there is no substitute for experience.  I learned much from mine.  Lessons I will not soon forget.  Lessons that I use daily.  One of those is that even smart people can be dumb and lazy.  Nothing against smart folks joining up, just cautioning that they do so for the right reasons.  That they understand there is no playbook or model for what happens every day.  They better be child-centered and not self-centered or they won’t make it.   Three years does not an expert make.  And to think they’ll remedy everything might be short sighted. 

So take for example Mr. Mortimer Zuckerman.  A bright fella who says in part “America has to rethink how to attract, employ, retain, and reward outstanding teaching talent.”   What Mr. Zuckerman forgets while he pounds away in one of his 4 houses or his 100+ ft yacht, is that teaching at Harvard and Yale and publishing magazines differs a great deal from teaching in a public school.      Teaching is a human endeavor.   What people say does in fact matter.  Calling for more Best and Brightest hurts.   A  Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind continue to have unintended consequences. Throughout, one constant is that we are not all motivated to work harder and longer solely by money.

What else he does in the article does is tougher to discern.  I’m surprised I even picked up on it given I am just a teacher.  He starts with pointing out the “Educational Crisis”…then moves on to criticize tenure and I think the overall nature of our educational workforce lowering the crosshairs directly on teachers. (Allow me to return fire)  Catch phrases like digital learning and concepts like having kids learn by watching DVDs of top teachers reveal that the view from the top is not what I see everyday.   Will it work?  Maybe with a small percentage of our kids who are self motivated.  “In fact, the new methods could reduce the longer-term need for mass teaching manpower”  Really?   Over-reliance on technology is dangerous.  It shouldn't replace teachers, it should empower them.   As good as it sounds having a kid in California watch a teacher from North Carolina using technology ain’t exactly gonna work for a lot of kids, and it doesn’t work for teachers either.  You can’t simply watch a good teacher and then repeat what they do.  Authentic assessment is what many of us do every day.   Intentional or not Zuckerman’s ideas further erode understanding of what good teaching really is and how valuable those people are.  It is not teaching to the test, it is teaching the kid.   There's no rubric for good teaching. 

This simplistic approach to educational issues reveals the divide between those that teach and those that “know” about teaching. Among the most asinine of ideas are many coming from  “reputable” educational researchers who hide behind mountains of data.  Too many of whom inexcusably fail to even talk to teachers in any of what they do.  The Best and Brightest should follow the same path to the profession as the rest of us, not get short tracked.   I frown upon alternative licensure not because I am threatened by it but because it makes a mockery of the requirements and processes in place as part of preparation to become a teacher. Not the least of which is the professional semester or student teaching.  Forgo it and you have no idea what the job is really like.    Kinda like many writing on education reform.

Those who seek to break down some of these regulations and “judge” teachers objectively put all of us who care about quality teaching in peril. Would we do the same for doctors and pilots?  They often blend anti-union and anti-tenure ideas and propose annual contracts.  Remember the origins of tenure.  Without tenure I might be less likely to take risks, take on a student teacher, share ideas, be innovative or take on some of our more challenged kids.  You cannot on one hand stress the importance and impact a great teachers then totally discount everything they say.  We do not choose our “clients” and we are subject to a slow erosion of our autonomy within our workplace  But still many teachers endure.

Best and Brightest talk does much to demean those of us who labor every day to help kids learn.   I know many great teachers whose SAT scores eliminated them from the most prestigious learning institutions.  But they know their craft well and in front of kids they transform into the most brilliant professional you’ll ever see. These three simple words subtlety imply we who are teaching are not smart  Sure I was just happy to get into college and I work with some of the folks who taught me when I was in High School.    I can only imagine what they think of me and purposefully avoid asking what I was like in High School.  But I do ask them how I can do better on occasion.   I am not the best at much of anything and I am smart enough to know I am far from bright.  Still I know a good teacher when I see one.

I’ll even admit I might be counted among the bad teachers by some measures.   Some of what I say here may sound a bit "holier than thou" but it is only meant to awaken the common sense among us.  I don't give much advise on investing or campaign strategy.  But I’d advise people who don’t face 14 year olds each day listen none the less.  Let’s not get hypnotized by the sheepskin shingle on someone’s wall and instead measure WHO people are as much as WHAT they are.  Listen to the professionals in the job when they say things are bad ideas.  Absolutely look for the best teachers we can but do not exclude those who can excel at the job because they didn't end up at an Ivy League.  Let’s remember that these efforts here to identify and remove those who are not good teachers do much to impede and frustrate good teachers.   As a result I have seen too many join those exiting on their way out the door.  In part since they can no longer excel and enjoy the profession and teach the kids the as they once did.  Ultimately this Best and Brightest approach might leave us worse off than we were are now.   Making the job of those of us who are crazy enough to endure for the right reasons harder.  Whatever the case it doesn’t help us teach the kids we’ve got much.

Five Technology Tools You Can Use Tomorrow

So we've touched on some thoughts classroom teachers have regarding technology. The last post left you with Larry Ferlazzo's checklist of whether a technology was worth using. Since we can't share I-pads or laptops with anyone we thought we might offer a few suggestions and links to some tools we have found useful. You are welcome. Every time you click these we get $1 and also can count the time towards out PLC(PLN) goal. Seriously though I sometimes wonder how these business models are set up and how they make any money. These are all quick and easy things that you can easily start using in some fashion with minimal effort. And based on much of what I read...we teachers are all about minimal effort ...right?

www.quia.com
Quia Intro/Tutorial
A site I started using about 6-7 years ago mostly for test and SOL review and as I understood more I realized its potential and power. I get a lot of positive feedback from parents and students on this one. It is a simple "create your own" site that most importantly allows you to "steal" from other teachers and quickly use their stuff and make it your own...like a virtual walk down the hall. So day 1 you could be up and running in a few minutes with access to huge amounts of content you can actually use with kids. And they like it. You can give quizzes, play review games, give surveys, share files, post HW...pretty powerful. Most important to me is that it was created with the classroom teacher in mind. very helpful for assessments in or out of class. It is a paid site.


www.quizlet.com
Quizlet Demo Video
Quizlet is something I am using only recently but it is easy to learn and intuitive. Good for basic review of information and another example of a way to extend the classroom. Nice because it tailors to where the kids are weak and is pretty simple. Again easy to start with nothing and quickly get to something.


www.edmodo.com
I describe it as the Facebook for school. Kids like the basic format and it opens the door to extending the classroom virtually. You can do all the usual...assign stuff, have stuff turned in, grade it, etc. I like the layout and ability to use it without much appreciation for its power. In a sense it does what Facebook does and helps create community. They have the coolest music with their tutorial as well. Oh that matters...


Googledocs
If you are looking to promote the cooperative work projects this is where it is at and it has 2 turntables and a microphone(See artist known as Beck) My kids use this more than I do but it is a very effective way to have kids work on projects and avoid having situations where one kids does all the work. You can track edits and actually see who did what when. Likely the most flexible and powerful if you know the ins and outs. Many teachers in my building are awesome at this.Admittedly I do not...but I still use it now and again to share stuff.


Jing
Jing Overview Video
Jing allows you to share information from your computer. PowerPoint Presentations with narration are the easiest example but you can do so much more. You can share what you see on your screen and make short videos to help others.

HONORABLE MENTION
Discovery Education
My school has a site license and I mostly use this to access video segments to use with my PowerPoint notes. In more recent classes I have have kids use this to research and find suitable video clips for projects.

Crocodoc
Easily allows you to upload/correct documents and then you can download PDF versions Good for peer reviews for students(though trading actual pieces of paper still works believe it or not)

Are Teachers Anti-Technology?

Are teachers anti-technology?  I don't think so.  One of the primary responsibilities of teaching is to relate to students in your classroom.  If you think those earbuds in your student's ear are plugged into a magic little box that creates music out of the ether, well, you might not make it as a teacher.  My four year-old demonstrated the other day that he knows enough about computers to exit the Word document that I've failed to save in order to find his favorite games website for a little "Uphill Rush" in the afternoon.

My point is that a teacher who doesn't get technology is akin to the teacher who lets ink stain his or her shirt pocket, the one who still says "that's the bomb" when they want kids to think they're "hip", the male teacher who still wears mid-thigh shorts in the summer time.  Teachers must understand the world their students live in.  This doesn't mean yielding to every fad or fashion of the day, but if we are not at least involved enough to understand what influences our youth, we're likely not concerned enough about them to teach them well.

Still, we aren't the trendsetters.  Kids aren't taking their fashion cues from us.  Several years ago, students started prefacing every statement with the phrase "not gonna lie."  It was the new "like."  I thought it would be cool to start my own trend so I started saying things like "NGL, this is going to be the hardest quiz you'll ever take" and "you've got a low B right now, but NGL, if you get a good grade on this test it might bring you up to an A-."  I think they made fun of me for that.  I tried to tell them that everyone was saying it now because "not gonna lie" just took too long to get out.  They didn't believe me.

What does this have to do with anything you say?  Well, as a teacher, I must be immersed in the culture of technology as much, nearly as much, or maybe slightly more than my students.  If I'm too far ahead of the curve, most of them aren't going to follow.  A few months ago, I laughed with a colleague over the fact that when we were in high school, shorthand was still a class.  Our last post mentioned the Apple IIe from the 1980s.  Most adults, even as young as twenty years old, can look back with a little humor at how far we've come with technology since their high school days. 

So are teachers, anti-technology?  I don't think so.  I think most teachers are very willing to engage learners in new ways, taking risks from time to time for the sake of better teaching.  I think we're a little put out when our leaders promote the myth that technology will save money and solve so many of our problems in education.  We get tired of seeing that money is always available for new technology, but scarce in other areas.  We don't jump to use technology that just does what we've always done, except maybe a little faster or fancier.

Teacher/blogger, Larry Ferlazzo wrote a piece for Education Week earlier this week suggesting a checklist of sorts for whether he would consider using a particular technology in his classroom.

1) Does it take me less than one minute to learn the basics on how to use it?

2) Will it take less than one minute -- with guidance -- for my students to learn to also learn the basics on how to use it?

3) Does it provide a value-added benefit to student learning over a similar activity using basic classroom tools?

4) Is it a tool that I believe can be used regularly in class?

 

5) And, lastly, though being able to answer yes to the previous four questions usually outweighs a negative response to this one -- Can it make my life a little easier?

I like it.