Educational Insanity

Something (perhaps some thingS) is (are) rubbing me the wrong way about NECC.  I’ll reflect a bit more over time, but for today I want to write a bit about a related set of issues about which I am incredibly passionate.  My ed. leadership professorial friends/colleagues and I joke about what we perceive as an over-emphasis on issues of “social justice” “equity” and “diversity” at the annual conferences we attend.  Please understand that we all care deeply about those issues; it’s just that it’s gotten to the point where it seems like it’s all that gets discussed at a comprehensive conference. Well, after being at NECC for a few days, I long for some conversation about…”social justice” and “diversity” and “equity.”  Hang around the blogger’s cafe for a bit and tell me how much diversity you notice.  Sure, there are international folks and that’s awesome.  But, racial diversity?  Forget it.

I did a keyword search of the program and came up with the following results:

EQUITY – other than the Digital Equity Summit (which I’ve written about before), there are only two other instances of the word “equity” in the program.  One is for a session about “[r]ole playing a seventh to ninth grade student, participants will complete an inquiry activity using technology for supporting diverse learners.”  The other is about how the addition of interactive white boards have promoted classroom equity in one school district.  This is a joke and a crime.  Sorry.  That’s how I feel.

DIVIDE (looking for references to the digital divide) – appears two whole times in the program.  The first reference is for a session about the “digital divide” between what teachers and students can do with technology.  Give me a break.  The second reference is for a session I’m sorry I missed.  The session was about research showing what works for disadvantaged students.  Hooray for Dennis Harper, Generation Y with Trina Davis, Susanna Garza and Martha Peet.

JUSTICE (looking for references to social justice) – shows up twice but only because one workshop is being run twice.  In what sounds like a really interesting session, participants are asked to “[e]xplore the merger of social justice and technology by creating a podcast on the Civil Rights Memorial Center and learning from student producers.”  Nice.

DIVERSITY – Zero.  Zilcho.  NEVER appears in the program.

I’ve asked quite a few people I’ve spoken with either at the conference or out on the town if they watched Hard Times at Douglass High, the documentary that was all over HBO last week.  Not a single person I asked had seen the film.  How could that be?  How could there be so much attention on books like Here Comes Everybody and Wisdom of the Crowds (the author gave the keynote) and virtually no attention to an important film like Hard Times (and I don’t mean the Ridgemont High version)?

I DARE YOU to watch Hard Times (see preview below) and then to walk through the exhibit hall at NECC.  The conditions and consequences of poverty documented in the film stand in complete contrast to the glitz and excess of the exhibit hall.

Please people, how can we continue to talk about the pedagogical applications of Google Earth and how much we need to talk about how to do good presentations and, and, and?   And how can we continue to soak in the excess and the free giveaways when so many young people don’t have basic necessities of life.

Hanging out at the blogger’s cafe this afternoon, and this is more what I expected from yesterday.  Lots of people pecking away at their keyboards and chatting away.  Jeff Utecht is live streaming in one direction, while people in the cafe are watching the feed of an area 5 feet away.  People are chatting, tweeting, etc. with people 4 feet away.  But, there is actual f-2-f communication going on.  It’s a little hybrid community right here.  Pretty cool.  Here are some other random thoughts:

• I couldn’t agree more with Ewan McIntosh about Edubloggercon.  Through no fault of anyone, I think EBC got away from everyone.  Over 200 people showed up and nobody could know that would happen.  If EBC is to continue beyond this year, those involved in planning it need to figure out ways to allow serious and intimate conversations to happen.  I think there’s real value to blocking out time among like-minded folks to converse before the madness of NECC proper kicks in.
• Compared to the academic conferences I usually go to (AERA, UCEA, etc.), NECC shapes up to be a relative rock concert…almost literally.  As one example, there’s a stage being built that resembles the stage you might find at a top concert venue.  Supposedly there will be a band performing after the keynote tonight and they’ll be streamed live into Second Life.  So, I guess you’d say NECC is the geekiest rock concert you’ll ever see.  I’ve been to ASCD and AASA conferences; those are big and fun, but no comparison to NECC.
• I don’t yet have a read on how many principals or APs are here.  Met one principal and one AP yesterday at EBC.  I did note that there are 13 sessions designated in the leadership strand for the conference.  Paltry.  Also, a search of the whole NECC program yielded 4 hits for the word “principal.”  Really?  4?  Oy.
• San Antonio is hot this time of year…but you knew that.
• Being here, hearing/seeing/thinking about what’s possible, my attitude about the institution of public schooling is only getting worse.  My poor wife and kids.

Look for a special blog post tomorrow about breakfast at La Quinta Inn.

In the year 2000, the literary rage was all about Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone. Today (2008), the “must read” book is Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody. Shirky’s premise is that with the development of advanced networking technologies (Web 2.0?), group formation and collaborative action are happening rapidly and abundantly (i.e. everybody is coming…). This comes a mere eight years after Putnam’s book. I wrote about Putnam extensively in an article published in a peer-reviewed (not open access, UGH) journal so for the purposes of making my argument about community and social capital, I’m copying what I wrote below, with irrelevant parts deleted (I don’t have to cite myself, do I?):

Based on analyses of large datasets and evidence from nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century, Putnam (2000) concludes that our stock of social capital – the very fabric of our connections with each other, has dropped dramatically, thus impoverishing our lives and communities. He documents that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. We are even bowling alone. More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues. In other words, we are increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our democratic structures.

Putnam (2000) offers a number of reasons for this collapse of community in America. Among those reasons, time pressure, especially on two-career families, is considered one of the primary suspects., changes in family structures mean more and more of us are living alone and conventional means to civic engagement are not designed around single and/or childless people. Also, suburban sprawl is an important contributor to the loss of community as we live further away from one another and further away from cultural and civic centers…

The next paragraph that I wrote is the kicker here:

Putnam (2000), in his writing about the collapse of community, does address digital communications and argues that electronic entertainment, especially television, has severely privatized our leisure time and, therefore, has become a major contributor to the collapse of community. However, Putnam (2000) also admits that the verdict on the Internet is still out. That is, it may be that the primary effect of the Internet will be to reinforce existing social networks, as the telephone has done, or the Internet might become a virtual substitute for them.

So, has the Internet reinforced existing social networks or has it become a virtual substitute for them. Or, perhaps, Putnam’s binary choice was false. Maybe the Internet has had a different effect on social networks? Either way, I would argue that a LOT has happened in just 8 years. I don’t quite yet know what it is that we are doing with our social networking technology, but we are NOT bowling alone anymore.

Just sat through most of the “discussion” on filtering policies.  Good/interesting discussion.  My take:

• “Policies” vary across districts.  Some have very stringent AUPs that go well beyond CIPA (for example).  One participant spoke about a “mature” AUP that trusts kids and teachers to do the right thing.  They treat “bad” sites like bad books or posters.  Those are individual situations to be dealt with when they happen.
• Lots of frustration.  Many LEPs block social networking sites because they are “open.”  From a leadership standpoint, that’s an understandable approach even if it’s not the most pedagogically sound.
• Conversations need to happen between leaders, teachers, community, etc.  I believe everyone can get along as long as the dialogue is ongoing and educators are treated like professionals.  There ARE ways to keep kids away from “bad” stuff and to also allow teachers to work with the kids to get where they need to go.

Good start to NECC and EBC.

I’m not making this up and I’m not a fatalist, BUT..

I was LITERALLY putting together my packet of articles to send to the external review team for my tenure candidacy when I opened up a fortune cookie that came with lunch today.  I only had my camera phone to work with, so I don’t know if you can make out the picture below.  It reads:

“You are next in line for promotion in your firm“

Really?  Awesome!