I have been on a hiatus of sorts as I go back to school to earn a paralegal degree. My intent is to work within my state legislature to have an active role in the process of educational policy development and enactment. However, the combination of an article in USAToday, a blog post by Darren Draper (Technology Specialist in Utah), and another by Jeff Utecht (K-12 Technology Resource Facilitator at Shanghai American School in Shanghai, China) pulled me away from my practice in writing case briefs to write today.

“Teachers take test scores to the bank as bonuses” blares a headline in USAToday. The article addresses the idea of teacher pay and the ways in which different districts are approcahing the issue. Two approaches are highlighted:

• In Chicago, teachers at a handful of schools can earn up to $8,000 in annual bonuses for improved scores, while mentor teachers and “lead teachers” can earn an extra $7,000 or $15,000, respectively.

• In Nashville, middle-school math teachers can earn up to $15,000 based on student performance.

The writer then asks, “Do such plans work?” and cites research done by Vanderbilt that has found, “mostly promising, if limited, results.” This is the wrong question to ask, the wrong answer to seek. The real question begging to be asked is, “What does this approach do to the quality of education in the United States?” If our goal is to turn out good test takers who can learn and play the test question game it only makes sense that we turn the entire educational system over to a business such as Kaplan, who makes wonderful profits teaching students how to take tests.

What does such an approach to education do to the teaching professional? What does it do to the profession?

Those along with other obvious questions ran through my mind as I read the USAToday piece. As I read, I recalled a blog post by Darren Draper from this past weekend. Darren says:

“I mean, think about it. Did not we, or well-intentioned people just like us, create the policies and bureaucracies that currently regulate how things are handled within our schools? Are not we the ones that built the system, played the games, and engaged in the politics that have made schools what they are today?” (emphasis his own)

and goes on to quote Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal:

“If we tried to get better people, where would we find them? Even if found, how could we ensure that they too would not become ensnared by the political forces at work?”

But the article in USAToday suggests a vein of thought that says if you narrowly define what a teachers role is (making sure kids perform well on standardized tests) and throw more money their way we will magically have the wonderful schools we need and the worlds most accomplished students. Is a plan to reward teachers for improved students standardized tests scores going to solve the inherent problems in our educational system? No. Why? Because it fails to address the root cause of the mediocrity that is occuring our educational system. Darren makes the salient point that the system exists and was designed by well meaning individuals and Bolman and Deal support it by pointing out you can change the faces, but when the system doesn’t change it won’t matter.

“Stony River” replied to Darren and brings to the fore the real question that needs asking:

The expression ‘why fix it if it ain’t broke?’ does not answer the question ‘Who said the system ever worked?’

This is the question never asked. The idea of school reform has been around for ages. Piecemeal approaches to improvement have been undertaken. All educators have worked in a school or district where the “reform du jour” is presented each fall just prior to the start of school. Far too often those good ideas die by Christmas Break because the training was insufficient and follow-up and mentoring never took place. Reform doesn’t work, “River” identifies what would:

Re-New, Re-Invent, Re-Design, Re-Think, Re-Make, Re-Create – dead systems cannot be resurrrected no matter how much bail-out money is donated. The irony is that to bail out a sinking vessel it is best to use an empty bucket!

“River’s” comment connects well with the ideas presented by Utecht this morning in his blog:

Systematic change does not come easy. There are many factors, people, and a history to overcome. Yet educational organizations find themselves struggling with the changes needed to stay relevant in a connected, digital world.

There is the avenue, systemic change, not reforming . . . changing it. Tom Peters loves to use the phrase “Re-imagine.” It is time to move past the reform mentality and realize that all the band-aids being placed all over education in recent years can not stem the bleeding, re-constructive surgery is needed. Utecht continues with his idea:

There are many ways to approach systematic change, yet systematic change begins and ends with a vision. A vision of what your organization hopes to aspire to some day. A vision is never really meant to be accomplished, but is instead a guiding light for an organization. A statement that allows the organization and it’s employees to focus on the task at hand.

So I am left wondering at that USAToday piece . . . what is the vision conveyed by the approach it describes? Do we want kids that can innovate, creatively innovate, astound us with new ideas and unexpected twists on old ones? Is that going to happen if we continue to create systems that discourage true learning and innovation? “Jorgie“, in another reply to Darren’s post:

“. . . the reality is there is very little motivation for most people to innovate and a very big incentive not to.”

We need policy that encourages innovation, that allows it, that requires it. We need a new system, to re-imagine what school is and build something new that accomplishes what we all dream about. I hope my lane change in education will allow me to influence policy so that great teachers like Draper, Utecht, and Demitrious C. Sinor have the chance to build something we can all be proud of . . . a system that encourages our children to think, explore, and invent.

]]> http://constructingmeaning.com/2008/10/22/kaplan-to-run-us-schools/feed/ 3 akamrt 41_04_89-school-ahead_web http://constructingmeaning.com/2008/04/28/the-edtech-lament/ http://constructingmeaning.com/2008/04/28/the-edtech-lament/#comments Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:38:21 +0000 Greg Thompson http://constructingmeaning.com/2008/04/28/the-edtech-lament/ Continue reading →]]> Sitting at Beans ‘n Cream having my morning tea and a tweet came through the stream . . . @mrplough07 linked to a new blog entry decrying his experience in a class he is taking as part of his EdTech masters work. He opened with his lament:

Something has been really bothering me lately. I’m taking a college course called Introduction to the Internet for Educators. When I first saw the title I was really excited because I figured the teacher would be teaching me all about how to use the Internet to help kids learn. However, thats not quite how it played out.

His post struck a chord that is constant with me so I had to reply (not to mention I appreciate @mrplough07‘s Twitter stream and blog)

Cory,

You are spot on! This is one of the main reasons that technology continues to have little impact on education. It may empower tiny enclaves here and there – but it has not had the massive impact that it should. Your experience identifies one of the major reasons.

EdTech isn’t about coding, it’s about taking what coders have already done and empowering student learning and teachers professional growth. There are plenty of people out there already creating new and usable applications every day – teachers don’t need to worry about this. It is incumbent on EdTech leaders, like yourself, to continue to push the envelope and wildly imagine ways that these tools can open the learning architecture in your classroom.

True, it is beneficial to know the underlying ideas of coding and design – it’s even fun to play with on the side (and may help you see its power more clearly). However, it does not create a new vision of education and THAT is what your class should be doing, creating vision, opening new windows.

Here is the dichotomy, your in the choir and within this space are mostly choir members. How do we stop singing to the choir and go about creating a voice outside that will foster and nurture change? How do we release the potential energy of technology/the web so that it becomes a viable vehicle for true educational reinvention?

I found a simple definition of inertia , “An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant velocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path.” Tech/the web is moving along slowly because so many are trying to “fit it in” or use it to simply to do what they are already doing, just differently. The power of Tech/the web is that we can use it to re-conceptualize our learning architectures so that they become powerful and visionary – creating what now doesn’t exist.

You are in a position to do that, to make a change where it is needed – be a revolutionary in your class . . . sing outside of the choir. And, not to sound too grandiose and melodramatic, then go on to teach these possibilities to those around you.

- Greg

Powered by ScribeFire and Beans ‘n Cream.

Who participates? What defines the participation in school? In the model that currently pervades, the participants are the teachers and administrators. These individuals do the planning, the administering, the teaching, the grading, the assessing . . . and students attend and simply follow and do as they are told. Okay, maybe it isn’t that simple and maybe far too many students don’t even engage to the point of “following and obeying,” but the fact remains that there isn’t much participation on the part of students.

Participation requires some level of control by all the parties involved in an endeavor. In school, administrations decide what will be taught and by whom. In the classroom teachers decide the flow of curriculum and implement the directives from above. Students only control is to buy into the plan and then learn what is “taught”, prepare for and perform well on tests, and do it all in the way prescribed by teachers and school administrators (this includes administrators all the up to the US Secretary of Education).

What I hope to outline in this series of posts is way to more evenly distribute control of the learning experience among the individuals involved. The solution, as I see it, to improving the educational experience and results in the US is not going to be found in more dollars. Sure, more money would mean more “things” to teach with – but if there is no concrete plan on how the “things” are used, no vision for a different way of “doing school” . . . then the money will be spent, but never lead to anything better. One of the first steps to a new vision of education is to redistribute power/control over the experience and let it evolve.

Education isn’t about proprietary thinking and behavior, it’s about thinking. I recently twittered, “TWIT [This Week In Tech, a podcast by Leo Laporte and friends] is talk about tech for tech/business, they
ignore edu because by its actions edu has asked to be ignored, demanded
as much, too bad.” My friend, and fellow edtech evangelist Joe followed that with a blog post extending the lament. The problems with technology never truly gaining traction in education is not because it doesn’t fit – it is because it is eschewed. There are a variety of reasons for this, but I would argue that the one at the heart of the matter is a belief that the methods of education are not broken, so, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Education continues to increase the amount of content required to be covered, demands more standardized testing to gauge improvements, and bellies up to the cash bar with the textbook publishers and curriculum mills. Folks, it is broken, but it doesn’t need fixing.

You don’t fix things that have obviously been replaced by innovation. For instance you won’t fix a old IBM Selectric typewriter unless it is for nostalgic purposes or to re-purpose it (such as using it as a “guest register” at home for visitors to leave a little note when they visit). There are a myriad of other innovative options for writing. Education needs innovative thinking, thinking that goes past the “How do we use this new stuff to keep doing what we have always done” attitude. What is a new picture, vision, concept of education . . . how do we innovate education?

I think students today already know how. The problem is they have little if any control over their education and have to leave their tools behind as they enter the school each day. “There is a forceful interplay between society and its technologies. Society creates technology, but society is also created by technology.” says Lloyd Morrisett in a paper titled “Technologies of Freedom?” So how can students and technology innovate education today? How can teachers, in concert with students, use technology to innovate education? They can’t unless the administrations that oversee the process are not willing to give up some of their control to allow for innovation to occur.

No, not an overthrow of the administration building or a peaceful sit in. “Innovation is the ability to see change as an opportunity – not a threat.” Administration needs to see teachers and students as partners in the process of education and allow these “in the trenches” partners to have control over designing how to meet the expectations set by administration.

In the next six “chapters” I want to begin laying out the seeds of a vision for innovating education, hopefully to start a rapidly increasing dialogue and subsequent action toward innovation.

In the mean time, you might want to check out what Abilene Christian University is trying to do with iPhones in education. It is a nice step in the right direction.

Powered by ScribeFire and Beans ‘n Cream.

The points in this slide show are a good starting point for a discussion about a new form of education – a rethink exercise about how we design new educational environments. Any serious learning environment architect (teacher) needs to address these ideas as they move their practice from the status quo to what is needed. Thanks to dharm for bringing together these points from Will Richardson‘s book, Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms.

Powered by ScribeFire and Beans ‘n Cream