Educational Insanity

Had to “pitch” my ideas for an ed. tech. leadership institute here at VCU today to the university officials who schmooze the corporate and philanthropic folks.  I pitch to them, they pitch to the money.

Anyway, I spent much time last night figuring out the logic of my argument.  Here’s what I came up with: 

• DIGITAL KIDS: Our nation’s youth have been described as “digital natives;” with their iPods, cell phones, and Internet-connected computers, they live in a digital, cyberworld.

• ANALOG SCHOOLS:  Educational technology policymakers tout the fact that the student-to-computer ratio in our nation’s public schools now stands at 3.8:1.  Yet, a 2003 Department of Commerce study ranked 55 industries with respect to information technology (IT)-intensity; education ranked dead last.

• OVERSOLD AND UNDERUSED:  Even within this industry that is the least IT-intensive, an enormous digital divide exists between the degree to which schools have built a technological infrastructure and the degree to which educators are using those resources to advance teaching and learning.  To use a line from a popular movie, schools have built IT (though less so than other industries), but educators have not come.

• THE WORLD IS FLAT; OUR SCHOOLS ARE BOXY: This access vs. use divide potentially renders our public schools irrelevant to the digital natives they serve; student engagement, an important predictor of student learning, is imperiled by analog schools.  Furthermore, as the United States continues to lag behind other countries in math and science achievement, analog schools and the access vs. use divide pose a serious threat to our position in an increasingly technologically driven global economy.

• TEACHER-CENTRISM:  This lack of technology integration comes despite enormous investments in software, hardware and especially professional development for teachers.  In fact, nearly all of the research and (professional) development in the field of educational technology is exclusively focused on the teachers.  For example, of the 125 concurrent sessions at the 2007 annual conference of the Virginia Society for Technology in Education (VSTE), only 11 were dedicated to the leadership strand.  Of those, only 1 (one!) had any form of the verb “to lead” in the title; the word “principal” does not appear anywhere in the 84-page program.  The educational technology research base is equally teacher-centric.

• THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE:  Decades of research point to the centrality of leadership to school change/reform/improvement.  Yet, increasing empirical evidence suggests that leadership in and for technology in education is diffuse, ill-defined and most often foist upon educators with no formal leadership or power.  Distributed leadership does not mean delegated leadership.

From there, I went on to talk about how we can meet the leadership challenges.  I think the meeting went pretty well (my pitch was in the strike zone?).  But, I’d love to hear your feedback (hello…are you out there?…) on my logically-reasoned pitch.

Much of my current research agenda has me studying and thinking about how we can best facilitate technology integration.  It’s a leadership question that is understudied (IMHO).  There’s plenty of research about what’s being done in pre-service teacher ed. programs, but not enough contemplation, formal or informal, of how to best facilitate adult learning to support technology-infused teaching and learning.  I’ve studied a statewide effort in West Virginia, and I’m in the process of getting that work formally published.  I will certainly share some of those findings here in a much less academic way.  For now, though, I was reminded of this YouTube video that a friend sent a while back.  I’m sure many of you have seen it already (heck, it’s got over 228,000 views), but I thought I’d embed it into my blog to begin my blogging on this particular topic.  Enjoy!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX0-nqRmtos&rel=1]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bTvWy7mxTw&rel=1]
I missed this event in my newly adopted hometown of Richmond, VA, but Google CEO Eric Schmidt was the keynote speaker at the Virginia Business Higher Education Council meeting a week or so ago.  I think it’s interesting and quite politic of him to applaud Governor Kaine and the folks in the audience for how much they get it (i.e. the integration of technology into teaching and learning) and for what a good job Virginia is doing.  Then, he goes on to tell them how much more needs to be done. 

He was speaking to lots of business types and a number of educators.  Nonetheless, he did ultimately say, “Education – I don’t mean to offend anyone – is the slowest business I’ve ever had to work with.”  Amen and no offense taken.

Some other statistical goodies Schmidt threw out:

• Ninety-five percent of college students don’t have regular phone lines – just cell phones.
• Many college students are using the Internet as their sole source of news and opinion for this year’s presidential election.
• Forty-five percent of college students watch TV shows online.

Why DO I continue to maintain a landline with two cell phones in my house???

Technology – “Future Vision”Originally uploaded by $ydney

*I have a class full of sitting and aspiring school leaders and I don’t have to worry about issues of technological access, fluency, etc.?

*I can whip out a mobile computing device and access the Internet anytime, anywhere without worrying about “minutes” or without having to pay for WiFi?

*We’ll be reminiscing and laugh at the idea that we used to learn in “classes”?

 One of my mentors and now good friends is Dr. Dale Mann, Professor Emeritus at Teachers College, Columbia University.  Dr. Mann got me interested in ed. tech. and I was recently reminded of an incredible article he wrote 12 (twelve!) years ago called Serious Play. 

I returned to the article because my wife and I are currently involved in trying to figure out an appropriate preschool program for our son.  We found a school that espouses and very clearly practices according to the Reggio Emilia philosophy.  Like the Montessori or Waldorf approaches, play is an important aspect of the experience.  However, at the core of the Reggio Emilia orientation (and explicitly mentioned by the Director of this school) is the idea of learning through play in relations with others and the environment.  In Mann’s language, the emphasis is on the last two developmental stages of play: associative and cooperative play.  That’s what I want my son to be doing and how I want him to be learning in preschool.

This preschool is in the process of merging with an existing K-8 independent school and they say they will be implementing/integrating the Reggio Emilia philosophy in those grades over time.  I don’t know that we’ll enroll our son in the school beyond preschool (who can afford private school anymore?), but it will be interesting to see how the school develops.  The question Dr. Mann asks in the article is: “Play is a serious activity with wonderful developmental benefits.  But if play serves so many purpose so well, why is it not deployed more systematically in the attempt to improve education?”  It’s a great question.