Last night, I watched and recorded the HBO documentary, Hard Times at Douglass High: A No Child Left Behind Report Card.  Hard Times is essentially a “year-in-the-life” cinema verite type film that “documents” the inner workings of one high school in Baltimore, MD that serves only African-American students (as a result of de facto segregation).  I’m recommending the documentary, with lots of caveats.  My greatest concern is that the film will feed streotypes about urban high schools.  My greatest hope is that people will watch the film and wake up to the reality that schooling, particularly in urban areas, is a difficult and complex institution that does not work for too many young people.

Though I’ve never taught in an urban high school, my research projects have allowed me to spend a LOT of time in various urban schools all across the country.  I’ve also taken courses on urban education, read all of the classic books about urban education, etc.  So, nothing in the film surprised me and I learned nothing new.  So, I’m guessing the film was not made for people like me.

However, for those who’ve only “heard about” schools like Douglass High (even writing “schools like…” is value laden and probably not my best choice of words), I imagine the film is pretty startling.  There’s a real sense of hopelessness, indifference and/or resignation that permeates the film.  There are a couple of nice stories about a few of the students, but mostly the statistics cited throughout the film are terrifyingly bad and the negative stories certainly outweigh the bad.  The images of students sleeping through the administration of the state tests are disturbing.  The “so be it” attitude of some of the teachers is really upsetting.  This is not a film to watch if you’re looking for a pick-me-up.

My own takes?  As a professor of educational leadership, I was wholly unimpressed by the principal.  She seemed kind and well-meaning, but she was not at all inspiring or personable.  I believe that school would be better served by someone with tons of energy, ideas and enthusiasm.  Also, I don’t understand the use of NCLB in the subtitle of the film.  Other than the frequent citing of statistics about outcomes, the film is NOT about NCLB; it’s simply an ethnographic look at one urban high school.

Having watched the film in the week leading up to NECC, I’m left conflicted.  On one hand, it feels like going to a conference with a massive exhibit hall loaded with glitzy, expensive products sold by many lucrative companies is so wrong-headed. How can interactive white boards and Google Earth, for example, help the kids in Douglass High, many of whom worry about where they will get their next meal?  Or, how can I concern myself with “big ideas” about the future of schooling and tech.-driven learning theories when there are so many schools like Douglass High where the status quo is simply unacceptable?  On the other hand, I wonder if discussing and thinking about “big ideas” like Classroom 2.0 or School 2.0 might help me think about ways to blow up the status quo.  I mean, what if “the best and brightest” thinkers at NECC were to be given the power to convert Douglass High into School 2.0?

A while back, David Jakes laid down a gauntlet to edubloggers and asked if we were ready to “earn it - really earn it” at NECC.  Well, I challenge those same folks to “step up” and figure out how the issues and ideas discussed at NECC (especially NECC Unplugged and Edubloggercon) can be used to serve those most in need of school reform.

Tags: necc2008, reform, urban education

photo credit: Nathan Y

Recently, on Darren Draper’s blog, I commented on the sort of “invention sessions” that Malcolm Gladwell wrote about and that Darren suggested would be an interesting addition to the field of education (I agree completely, BTW).  I wrote: “I wonder if electronic communities are sufficient. Classroom 2.0 is a wonderful resource, but do ‘invention sessions’ necessarily require prolonged f-2-f interactions among a small group of smart people? I think this is an empirical question.”

In response to my comment, Darren wrote, “Strange, but you’re right about the f2f interactions. There is something about having a face to face relationship with someone - and the power that comes from bringing it to online settings. It’s as if one without the other isn’t quite as effective. I know that as I’ve met people f2f, our interactions online become more rich…That said, I think many would argue that f2f interactions aren’t required for effective ‘invention sessions’. This topic needs to be addressed further.”

I henceforth address the topic further, and I respectfully disagree (though maybe it’s just a matter of how we interpret Gladwell’s writing about invention sessions). Please don’t get me wrong…I think there are incredible opportunities and ideas to be pursued through the use of networking sites such as Ning, and the learning opportunities afforded by the combination of networking tools such as Ning, Twitter, UStream, Elluminate, etc. are endless.

However, I think what we are doing by collectively using those applications is creating individualized yet overlapping learning communities.  And, with NECC 2008 approaching, I will meet (with) many of those within my learning community and add face-to-face communication to that community.  I believe this is ideal for two reasons.  First, my own learning is aided because growing evidence suggests that e-learning is best when supplemented with f-2-f interactions (i.e. “blended” learning).  Second, as I’ve written about before, based on the work of Etzioni and Etzioni (THE experts on “community”), the ideal form of community is a hybrid one. Communities that utilize hybrid systems “would be able to bond better
and share values more effectively than communities that rely upon only one or the other mode of communication” (Etzioni & Etzioni, 1999, p. 247).  Thus, adding Web 2.0 tools to traditional learning spaces such as presentations, conferences, etc. creates perfect personal learning communities; the learning is better and the community is better.  PLN/PLE + F-2-F = PLC [NOTE: I believe the PERSONAL learning community is distinguishable from the PROFESSIONAL learning community made famous and popularized by Rick DuFour and others.  But, that's the subject of another blog post...].

However, I understood the “invention session” to be an action/change-oriented, synchronous interaction between a small group of really smart individuals with very different personal and/or professional perspectives.  I suspect that those in the sessions of which Gladwell wrote extended their discussions with computer-mediated communications (CMC), but I think the initial brainstorming needed to be done together, in the same room at the same time for an extended period of time.  I’m as much an advocate of CMC as anyone, but things happen f-2-f that cannot be replicated digitally.  I also think the action orientation of invention sessions necessitates limiting the number of participants.  If you’ve ever chaired a committee or a task force, you can probably appreciate such a limitation.

If someone can offer an example of a major “invention” or “innovation” that was developed purely through CMC among a large group of individuals, I’d be willing to reconsider my argument.  Until then, I throw out two questions:

1. What do you think?  Can an invention session be held solely online?
2. If there were to be an invention session to. let’s say, eliminate the achievement gap, which 5-7 living individuals would you want to be involved?

Tags: education, Gladwell, invention session, learning, necc2008, networks, PLC

For a few different purposes, I’m working on a “manifesto” of sorts and could use some help.  I suppose it’s not a coincidence that I’m using a blog to ask for guidance/assistance in my own learning and knowledge creation.  But, I’m looking to produce a narrative (a white paper?) that synthesizes the information that is “out there” related to my own understanding of Learning 2.0 and to advocate for a new teaching/learning paradigm for Schools of Education.  Thus, I’ll be bringing together ideas and information such as, but not limited to, connectivism, personal learning networks/environments, rhizomatic learning, etc. and then posing challenges to and recommendations for Schools of Education.  I suppose the question I’m attempting to answer is “What is the place and/or role of Schools of Education in the face of new learning paradigms?”

If you have any ideas, thoughts, comments. resources, links, etc., I’d be GREATLY appreciative.  Thanks in advance!

Tags: learning, learning 2.0, schools of education

Other than the bits and pieces I’ve read in various places, and other than what I learned from the related Wikipedia site, I don’t know a whole lot about “Attention Economics.” However, the Herbert Simon quote below that I got from the Wikipedia site resonates with my current (probably mostly personal) concern:

…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it (Simon 1971, p. 40-41)

You see, I’m smack in the middle of reading “Everything is Miscellaneous,” one of the many books I have on my personal and professional summer reading list. I think it’s a really important book, but I can’t shake this feeling that it could have been written in about 15 pages. I get the main ideas; I really do. But, to me, there’s a lot of filler material that may be interesting to some, but not so much to me. Yes, Universal Product Codes (UPC) were an important way of coding and categorizing products, but do I need to know the whole history of UPCs? I suppose Linnaeus was an interesting guy, but I don’t feel a need to know his whole life history. Etc.

It’s very possible that this is just me and my own personal reaction to the book, but I fear that having immersed myself in this whole Learning 2.0 paradigm, I’m cheating myself. I’ve become what Will Richardson called a “nomadic learner…I graze on knowledge. I find what I need when I need it.” That such learning is possible and that I can find what I need when I need it is awesome (and one of the main points of Everything is Miscellaneous. But, have I become so nomadic that I don’t stay and graze in any one place for long enough to really, truly learn? Am I compelled to just nibble here and there without really digesting what I’m taking in?

Perhaps this is all part of my compulsion to understand what learning really is and means. I’ve said elsewhere that in my next lifetime, I will be a learning scientist. For now, though, I believe that learning has something to do with the collection and/or accumulation of data, the processing of it into information, and, finally, the logical sequencing and application of that information to form knowledge. If that’s learning, I fear that I’ve become too concerned with data collection; that I need to spend more time data processing. In Simon’s terms, maybe I’m not allocating my attention efficiently.

Tags: attention economy, everything is miscellaneous, learning

In the weeks leading up to Fathers Day, I was asked multiple times (mostly by my dear wife) what I “wanted” for Fathers Day.  I always struggle with such inquiries, but here’s what I came up with this year:

• I want tenure.  I’ll be submitting my portfolio in August and crossing my fingers/toes after that for the rest of the year.
• I want an iPhone.  However, I’ve been a Verizon loyalist for years and I’m currently locked into a contract with them for a while longer.  I’ve been loyal to Verizon because their service is the best, but also because their CEO is my former little league coach!
• I want to lose weight.  Problem is, I also want a large chocolate milkshake.
• I want an innovative and inspiring leader as the new Superintendent of the Richmond City Schools.
• I want opportunities for my son.  That’s my top long-term priority as a parent.  I want him (and future one(s)?) to have as much opportunity as possible.
• And, finally, on (the day after) Fathers Day, I want the world to know what a wonderful father I have.  So much of who I am is because of who he is, and I’m a lucky man for that.

Tags: fathers day