Drape's Takes

Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of attending EduCon, an innovative flavor for a conference, sponsored by Philadelphia’s Science Leadership Academy. In my now-traditional style of good-things-come-to-those-that-wait, I purposely delayed until now the publication of this reflection on the weekend’s events, in order to afford myself time to ruminate deeply upon the changes that were made in me and to my way of thinking.

EduCon, for me, was a liberating experience. From the informal manner of dress and attitude to the conversation-style format of sessions, I enjoyed the freedom that the conference both encouraged and embraced. Perhaps there were times when I took advantage too liberally of that freedom, as I particularly relished leaving one session to pop in on another, partaking of those ideas that best suited my interests. As most progressive (and often techno-centric) learning environments seem to encourage these days, this conference and the bulk of its participants championed student-centered learning almost entirely throughout.

SLA, itself, is a fascinating place, completely barren of desks organized in rows. Laptops for every student in an urban, chartered high school, led by one of the most capable Principals in the country and taught by a hand-picked cadre of extremely talented teachers. Located in downtown in a three-story building, I thought the environment itself was clean enough.

Being my first time in Philadelphia, I was also impressed with its history and culture. Independence Hall, the National Constitution Center, and Liberty Bell were all sites I will never forget, although now I might sympathize with any seeing fit to accuse Philadelphians of some unhealthy relationship with bells and Ben Franklin. Other than while touring D.C., I’d never felt closer to our nation’s Founding Fathers, than when walking those streets, ever thankful for freedom.


In the end, nevertheless, it was freedom – or the lack thereof – that EduCon ironically taught me about best. It began with the tour, wherein some of Philadelphia’s brightest teenagers told of how fortunate they were to be attending SLA.

“So how do your parents know if you’re ever skipping class,” I asked, curious about the technology SLA teachers used to communicate with parents.

“Well, if we miss more than a few days, then Mr. Lehmann just calls home; and we might not get to attend here anymore if there continues to be a problem.”

There’s no school like the old school, because there aren’t many attendance problems at SLA; and from all I could tell, there aren’t many other problems, either.

Except space.

Our two bright tour guides then explained how they cheerfully made the cut, and how nervous they were when applications were first submitted. For the first time in my life, I witnessed firsthand the terrifying reality that not all kids can taste of that SLA goodness, while simple economics explains that because some kids can, others simply cannot.

Let freedom ring? Why yes, well, for some.

In these times of competition and best and giving our all just to climb to the top, isn’t education one of the most liberating opportunities on Earth? Why yes, well, for some. Yet for the other 150,000 students currently enrolled in the Philadelphia School District, as well as most of our nations’ other students in public schools, the opportunities for learning aren’t always as utopian, aren’t always as polished, and aren’t always as capably hand-picked.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. No, IT DOES NOT.

With Linda Darling-Hammond, I warn that unless we, the people, return to a far greater commitment to equity for our students, our nation will continue to evolve into a monster unimagined by those who once framed its existence. With liberty and justice for all? Why yes, but only if we, the people, have the courage to look beyond the some to lift every one of the other.

Let freedom ring.

My grandfather’s passing last week accompanied, for me, several very important lessons that rarely come in any other fashion:

1. Life is short.
2. Time is precious.
3. Quite often, we don’t fully appreciate what we have until it’s gone.

As a result, I’m writing with hopes that you’ll consider carefully how precious the time is that you’re able to spend with my children. Realistically, during this time of year, you’re able to spend more time with them than I. Do you realize how lucky you are?

Like many parents, I’m not as concerned with how well you teach my kids to take tests. I’m really not. In fact, I’d rather you use each priceless minute to captivate their imaginations, guide them in deep thinking, help them to create, and cultivate a love of learning so deeply engrained that they grow to no longer need your services.

Do that, and the scores will take care of themselves.

I’ve done my best to provide an energetic learning environment in our home, but am desperately relying on you, your skills, and the time you have to spend with my child to fill in any holes I might not even know exist. Because my kids have grown comfortable using technology when they learn (and they gravitate toward anything with a screen), I think you’ll have the best luck in leveraging technology’s potential for instruction. Nevertheless, I’ll also trust your judgment in determining how best to reach my child; and hope – earnestly hope – there’s consistently constructive purpose behind the ways you choose to spend the time that you’re given.


I’m counting on you like no other, and want you to know how deeply grateful I am for your meaningful efforts. Yours is a difficult job, I know, but unquestionably invaluable. If there’s ever any way I can help in your classroom, I’ll jump at the chance to work by your side. I love my children, and will do all that it takes to prepare them for their future.

All that I ask is that you do the same.

Today I had the opportunity to moderate a session during the Global Education Conference. Given completely in Spanish, Diana Rojas Caballero spoke to us about her experiences regarding education reform and the improved teaching practices her organization (Comunidad Escuela Nueva) is attempting.

I think the possibilities for learning that technology brings us really are still in infantile stages, as we're only just beginning to open up increased collaboration between cultures and learning customs world-wide. This conference, nevertheless, demonstrates some of the potential (370 sessions from 62 countries, wow!).

Kelly Christopherson has done an excellent job in articulating exactly what I've been trying to say for months now about social media participation.

From my experience, if you can sum up your contributions to the school and learning in quaint little anecdotes, little stories about touching tales and quips about snippets of days, then you really don’t get it. See, for the most part, I can’t share what happens in my days because it’s confidential, too difficult to describe and, really, there’s no quaint way to tell the story. It’s about the lives, spirits and souls of the people in the two buildings as we begin to forge a new direction and the interconnectedness here.

I guess I find that many of the things that others write about to be, well, common sense and something that is within my realm of experience for too long to be thought of as actually unusual. Whether it’s talking with parents about a student with learning needs, helping parents with students with special needs, creating learning spaces for students, finding supplies and supports for teachers who need them or questioning people in positions of responsibility about programming and support, it’s what an administrator does because it’s what’s best for children. And I believe that is what defines my job – doing what’s best for children.

As I wrote (and for which I've since been scolded):

The fact of the matter is that there exist a very large number of effective educators that are simply not able to contribute in any significantly recurrent amount to online discussion. All told, it's not that they're incapable of participating and it's not that they're unwilling. Rather, this group maintains perceived silence online because their professional priorities prohibit them from spending the time or energy required to provide plausible contribution.

Now, I realize it would be nice if we had genuine, original online input from every educator. In fact, I'm still surprised by how exciting things get when technology facilitates a global conversation. (Just look, for example, at the quality and range of keynotes that will be presented next week at Steve Hargadon and Lucy Gray's Global Education Conference!)

Nevertheless, like Kelly, I've learned that as an administrator that are definitely times when participating really isn't appropriate - and when an educator's greatness might just be measured in how well they refrain from participating, rather than by how witty they're able to be while distributing dirty laundry before strangers. Along those lines, I've also found that there are even appropriate times when a mere retweet is all you're gonna get. You can tell a lot about a person by the articles they pass along (we are what we share), and some online interaction can be a lot better than none.

For what it's worth.

Further response to Stephen Downes and the idea that we might accomplish "school" without "institutions":

So Stephen,

Offended probably isn't really the right word for how I'm feeling. As I've been discussing here, I wonder if we aren't bumping into a clash of cultures regarding the actual purposes of schooling.

If you believe that the chief purpose of schooling is to simply acquire academic-related knowledge, then I suppose that an institution wouldn't be required to facilitate such an education. Nevertheless, I think there's far more to a well-rounded education than mere knowledge acquisition. Moreover, I think our schools do far more (good) for kids than provide them with academic instruction.

I'm interested in learning more about your ideas regarding changes to the system that might improve the educational process for our students, but am afraid it's going to take more - a lot more - to convince me that we'd ever be able to provide our students with a well-rounded education without also relying on the structure that institutions can provide.

Furthermore, the difficulty is compounded upon realizing that "well-rounded" is locally defined and credentialing is expected to transcend borders.

Via San Pedro de Alcantara (1499-1562):

The trouble is that no one wants to correct himself and everyone meddles at correcting others. Thus, everything stays as it is.

Quit blaming others, roll up your sleeves, and dig in.

Leigh,

To begin with, I really appreciate the zeal and effort you've already demonstrated in identifying the process you hope to follow in order to earn a Ph.D. Clearly you've done a little homework already and put forth significant thought toward the related issues.

Nevertheless, I have some questions:

1. How do you plan on replicating the bureaucracy and tenacious hoop-jumping that it normally requires to complete a graduate degree?
2. Will any face-to-face rigor be included in your pursuit?
3. How long do you anticipate taking and how will you really know when you're finished?

Now, I think I get that you believe in open education, that you probably want to stick it to the Man, and that you'd probably love to de-institutionalize planet earth. Edupunk lives.  However, I also think that your proposed plan for "earning" a Ph.D. will deny you of the best and the worst aspects of the traditional process.

To me, it looks like you really only want to partake of the goods, while bypassing completely the hell required to finish a terminal (or any legitimate) degree. In my opinion, you'll have "earned" nothing without having also busted your butt through the same kinds of experiences that have made my experience difficult. At that point, I'll be willing to welcome you to the club (of which, I'm not yet even a member).

For what it's worth,

D

I'm half-way through Linda Darling-Hammond's The Flat World and Education: How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. First, I agree with Darling-Hammond whole-heartedly:

As the fate of individuals and nations is increasingly interdependent, the quest for access to an equitable, empowering education for all people has become a critical issue for the American nation as a whole. As a country, we can and must enter a new era. No society can thrive in a technological, knowledge-based economy by depriving large segments of its population of learning. The path to our mutual well-being is built on educational opportunity. Central to our collective future is the recognition that our capacity to survive and thrive ultimately depends on ensuring to all of our people what should be an unquestioned entitlement - a rich and inalienable right to learn. (p. 328)

The experience of [high-performing] school systems suggests that three things matter most: 1) getting the right people to become teachers; 2) developing them into effective instructors and; 3) ensuring that the system is able to deliver the best possible instruction for every child. (p. 5)

1. Technology

1. Personal technology (computer, mobile phone, iPad, etc.) in the hand of every student, teacher, administrator, support staff
2. Ubiquitous access to the Internet for every student at school and at home
3. A robust network infrastructure at school that permits real-time access for all students simultaneously
4. Excellent real-time support
5. Responsible Use Policies that encourage technology use

2. Curriculum and Instruction

1. A deep understanding on the part of every staff member of how to use technology, and specifically the Web, to learn
2. Sustained, continuous professional development
3. Performance-based assessments
4. Teachers fluent in how to translate their personal understanding of technology into the classroom
5. Personalized learning opportunities for students
6. Student centered pedagogy
7. Inquiry-based curriculum
8. A balance between meeting the requirements of state testing and reshaping learning to teach students the skills they need
9. Instruction for teachers and students about web-safety

3. Change Management

1. A shared vision for modern learning in the school
2. A shared vocabulary to facilitate conversations around change
3. Support for trying (and failing) when implementing changes in the classroom
4. Teachers working with each other across disciplines
5. Common planning and discussion time for staff
6. Community education around the new vision and how change will take place
7. Measurement of progress and adjustment along the way

4. Leadership

1. Making a strong case for change with every constituency including students, parents, teachers, staff, administration, board of education and community
2. Leadership that encourages modern learning among teachers and students
3. Teacher leaders that embrace and extend the vision
4. A innovative budgetary approach

Seriously.

Reading this list alone, is it any wonder we've had such a struggle?!? Truthfully, isn't it actually more of a miracle that we've experienced the kind of success that we have?  Sometimes I think so.

To continue, nevertheless, other scholars have identified a wide array of specific obstacles to making appropriate technology integration* a far more widespread reality than current practice. In 2006, for example, Hew and Brush researched this topic heavily, identifying 123 different barriers in a review of past empirical studies. Their classification consisted of six main categories: resources, knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes and beliefs, assessment, and subject culture. Similarly, Ertmer (1999) presents these barriers in two distinct categories: external (first-order) and internal (second-order). I think that delineating the list of obstacles following Ertmer's approach should make pinpointing potential solutions a little easier.

External Obstacles to Technology Integration. First order (external) obstacles are generally described in terms of the types of resources (i.e., equipment, time, training, support) that are either missing or inadequately provided in teachers' implementation environments. Ofttimes, first order barriers are resolved by simply throwing more money into the equation. Nevertheless, when these barriers are present, it can be nearly impossible to even talk about technology integration. Interestingly, the absence of many of the items in Will's list - in traditional educational environments - constitute external (rather than internal) obstacles to technology integration for teachers in those environments.

Potential External Barriers From Will's List (Why Some Teacher's Can't/Won't Use Technology To Teach):

• Not every student, teacher, administrator, support staff has personal technology.
• There is not ubiquitous access to the Internet for every student at school and at home.
• There is not a robust network infrastructure at school that permits simultaneous, real-time access for all students.
• Excellent real-time support is nonexistent.
• "Responsible Use Policies" are nonexistent, overly restrictive, or fail to encourage technology use.
• The quantity of professional development is inadequate.
• Instruction for teachers and students about web-safety is nonexistent or inadequate.
• Support for trying (and failing) when implementing changes in the classroom is lacking.
• Teachers do not work with each other across disciplines.
• There is no common planning and discussion time for staff.
• Community members are not educated around the new vision and how change will take place.
• Progress is not measured or data about progress is not shared and does not influence direction.
• A strong case for change is not made with every constituency (including students, parents, staff, administration, board of education and community).
• Leadership doesn't encourage modern learning among teachers and students.
• There is no innovate budgetary approach; therefore, funds remain tight.

Adding to Will's list of potential external reasons that teachers may not be able to use technology to teach:

• Teachers lack effective technology-related professional development.
• The design of PD programs doesn't identify teachers' beliefs about effective teaching and strategies for using technology within the context of those beliefs (Windschitl and Sahl, 2002).
• The proper amount and right types of technology are not found in locations where teachers and students can use them (Fabry and Higgs, 1997).
• Teachers lack technology-supported pedagogy knowledge and the related skills base (Hughes, 2005).
• Teachers lack technology-related classroom management skills (Lim et al., 2003; Newhouse, 2001).
• School policy does not promote technology as a viable tool for learning (Tondeur et al., 2008).
• Teacher needs in anticipation of the instructional use of technology, aren't always met.
• Formal training isn't provided at an early stage of new classroom experiences with technology (Levin and Wadmany, 2008).
• Educational opportunities that facilitate collaboration with colleagues on authentic routine classroom issues are inadequate in subsequent stages of professional growth. Moreover, collaborative opportunities devoted to personally-directed inquiry aren't available (Levin and Wadmany, 2008).
• Feedback on instructional technology use isn't customized for individual circumstances (Levin and Wadmany, 2008).
• Mentorship isn't adequately or appropriately provided, particularly in later stages of professional growth (Sahin and Thompson, 2007; Di Benedetto, 2005; Sherry, Billig, Tavalin, and Gibson, 2000).
• Teachers lack adequate time to acquire and transfer to practice the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively and completely infuse technology into their curricular areas (Brand, 1998).
• Teachers lack time to prepare technology-facilitated resources for lessons, experiment with technology as a learning tool, and create technology-related assessments (Preston, Cox, and Cox, 2000; Butzin, 2001; Karagiorgi, 2005).
• The focus of technology use in K-12 education has been on computer-based testing instead of teaching and learning (Bichelmeyer and Molenda, 2006; Education Week, 2003).
• Feasible examples of effective technology integration aren't readily available to teachers (Bitner and Bitner, 2002).

Internal Obstacles to Technology Integration. Typically rooted in teachers' underlying beliefs about teaching and learning, second-order (internal) barriers can be far more difficult to overcome. Ertmer (1999) and others have illustrated that even when first-order (external) barriers are addressed, teachers do not automatically use technology to achieve advocated meaningful outcomes. Using Will Richardson's list again as a starting point, there is a wide range of internal barriers that keep teachers from integrating technology throughout their curriculum.

Potential Internal Barriers From Will's List (Why Some Teacher's Can't/Won't Use Technology To Teach):

• A deep understanding has not yet been acquired by every staff member regarding how to use technology, and specifically the Web, to learn.
• Teachers are not fluent in how to translate their personal understanding of technology into the classroom.
• A shared vision does not exist for modern learning in the school.
• A shared vocabulary does not exist to facilitate conversations around change.
• Teacher leaders do not embrace and extend the vision.
• [Teacher beliefs regarding curriculum and instruction do not allow for technology integration.]
• Teachers do not feel the need to create personalized learning opportunities for students.
• Student centered pedagogy has yet to be adopted.
• Inquiry-based curriculum is not the norm.
• Assessments stress fact memorization, rather than performance.
• There is no balance between meeting the requirements of state testing and reshaping learning to teach students other skills they might need.

Again, adding to Will's list of potential internal reasons that teachers might not be able to use technology to teach:

• Teachers lack “an attitude that is fearless in the use of technology, encourages them to take risks, and inspires them to become lifelong learners” (Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education, 1997, p. 11).
• Help for teachers is inadequate in overcoming feelings of anxiety on the part of teachers and a genuine fear of technology (Li, 2007).
• Teachers lack confidence in the use of technology and in incorporating new innovation (Hardy, 1998; Dawson and Rakes, 2003).
• There is no adequate mechanism for overcoming feelings of intimidation, in light of the possibility that students might know more than them (Fryer, 2003).
• The pressures of high-stakes testing inhibits technology integration (CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2001; Fox and Henri, 2005).
• Some teachers have little ability in dealing with the changing nature of technology itself (Zhao and Frank, 2003).
• Teachers are hesitant to adopt technologies that seem incompatible with the norms of a subject culture (Hennessy, Ruthven, and Brindley, 2005).
• Teachers lack an adequate understanding of the advantages that technology integration can provide (Hermans et al., 2008; Scrimshaw, 2004).
• Some teachers believe that technology integration will not lead to better understanding or faster learning (Newhouse, 2001; Karagiorgi, 2005).
• Teachers lack a deep understanding of the purpose of technology before being required to make more substantial changes in their practices (Park and Ertmer, 2008).

Finally, I often think that teachers simply need a better reason to change:

Simply imposing reform-based ideas on schools and teachers will not result in substantial change in instruction. Educational reform may encourage teachers to integrate technology to engage students in activities of problem solving, critical thinking, and collaborative learning, but a culture emphasizing competition and a high-stakes assessment system can strongly discourage teachers from undertaking such innovative initiatives. (Chen, 2008, p. 73)

Upon obtaining an overall view of the obstacles we're dealing with, I'm hopeful that solutions will further present themselves (see, for example, the list compiled by Hew and Brush, 2006) as we continue to mull these things over. To that end:

• What solutions can you recommend?
• What obstacles are there that I may have missed?
• Is all of this really worth the effort?

As I consider solutions to our problems here, I am cognizant of one fact: The David Jakes of the world are extremely important. It seems to me that they can play an integral role in helping us overcome those difficult second order barriers.

For what it's worth, I'd love your feedback on this.

---

* For the purpose of this post, I have defined technology integration as the process of "enabling the kinds of learning experiences that even Will Richardson would be proud of." No ponytails were injured in the creation of this post.

What do you think?

1. I think that great teaching can occur without the use of technology. I've written:

In light of the fact that I don't think language is a technology, I can confidently argue that teaching can effectively take place without technology. Furthermore, I don't believe the statement that "technology is what allows us to socialize learning," is entirely true. Technology *can* aid in socializing learning, but learning can be social without any technology at all (haven't you ever sat in a face-to-face idea exchange?).

And:

I guess what I'm really learning through all of this discussion is that even though I love technology and firmly believe in its transformational power in educational practice, I'm also increasingly learning to love - and even to crave - those moments of brilliance when a teacher is able to motivate, captivate, and mold the minds of their students without the use of electricity. I know that some of the most powerful and memorable lessons I've ever experienced took place without any technology - and to ignore this fact (and the power of pure teaching) would be the real travesty.

2. I think we need to be careful.  With Jennifer Jones, I wonder about blogging, social media, and all that it entails for educators.

I question power and influence, as well as quality. I question if we’re developing systems that provide emotional rewards for blogging, and no rewards for people who do other important work, like making a difference locally. 

I also wonder if we're creating a new elite.

3. Still, and probably more importantly, I think that great teachers share. Dean Shareski, for example, is spot on here. If you haven't taken 20 minutes to watch this, you should. Seriously.


To be clear, I think that the majority of educators reading this post (and those with whom we locally work) have a moral obligation to lift those unable to lift themselves. With David Wiley, I assert that:

we [educators], who live rather privileged lives relative to the vast majority of the planet’s population, have a moral obligation to make our teaching efforts as broadly impactful as possible, reaching out to bless the lives of as many people as we can[.] Especially when participatory technologies make it so inexpensive (almost free) for us to do so[!]

Therefore, although our motives might differ, I'd like to reaffirm my agreement with Scott McLeod when he stated:

Sure, lots of good teaching and learning occurring without technology. That doesn't mean the technology isn't still extremely important. Just because good stuff can and does happen without tech doesn't remove our responsibility to also do tech in large quantities (and at high quality).

4. In fact, I think that if we don't continue to fervently push forward in advocating a technology-rich curriculum, our beloved public school system will likely suffer the same fate as... Blockbuster Video. Take a minute to read this recent Time magazine article. Replace "Blockbuster" with "The Public School System" and see if you get the same chills that were sent down my spine.

"It didn't have to be this way," [David Cook, Blockbuster founder] says. "They let technology eat them up..."

There are few aneurysms in American business. Few companies drop dead. Instead, most endure a long slide into the grave. Harvard professor Clayton Christensen, who has studied technological change and its effect on large companies, says many of the decisions that led Blockbuster to bankruptcy might have appeared rational at the time. "But when faced with a threat by disruptive competitors like Netflix, the circumstances were different," says Christensen. "Decisions that in other circumstances would have made sense, instead drove the company into the ground." Into the ground Blockbuster went. In 2002 it had 8,000 stores and a market value of $3 billion. Today, movie-by-mail Netflix is worth nearly three times that much. And Blockbuster is broke.

5. Does this mean we need need "a complete redesign of the system, from the ground up, using new technologies and new ideas"? I don't think so, although I do think open education philosophies - like those described by Stephen Downes - have a lot to offer and should must be more widely embraced by inhabitants of all education systems, if those systems are to survive.

What do you think? I mean really?

Is public education in the same Blockbuster boat?  Are there better options out there for education's customers? If ignored in traditional education environments, will technology provide students and their paying parents with a better way to obtain the kinds of learning opportunities they crave? Are the bureaucratic wheels that turn current systems of public education flexible yet sturdy enough to enable change? Might that change come quickly enough? Or more importantly, do public schools today provide sufficient educational benefit that can't be obtained through ethernet? Do they succeed at grooming a citizenry, preparing children for college and careers, and building social capital?

What do you think?