I think I’m on to something here (of course I do; why else would I be writing this?)…

A. There have been smatterings of dissatisfaction with the recently concluded NECC, particularly among the more experienced and “followed” edubloggers (see e.g. Will and Karl)

B. Great discussions about systemic educational change have been occurring in the edublogosphere, especially over at Chris Lehmann’s blog and Will Richardson’s blog.

I think part of the reason for A is a desire for what’s being discussed in B.

I say that because NECC (the subject of A) is ALL about the micro.; it’s about pedagogy, classroom tools, projects, etc.    The subject of B is macro; it’s about changing the “system.”

So, here’s my proposal.  Let NECC (and ISTE) be what it is; a place to learn about technology integration; a VERY important place for LOTS of educators.  CoSN’s annual conference, on the other hand, is the place where learning and conversations about policy, leadership, change can happen.  Apparently, CoSN doesn’t think professors (or higher ed. more generally) are worthy of attending their shindig, but I’m likely to crash their party next year (besides, I’ve been dying to go to Austin, TX anyway!).

Tags: COSN, education, NECC, policy, technology

It might just be an entrance exam for my PLN (-:, but I think that the items below might collectively “measure” something.  In social science terms, we would say that the items below comprise a scale (i.e. they collectively assess a construct).  So, I need a name for this scale/construct.  Help? (NOTE: I know there are other items that could be included, but I do want to aim for some level of parsimony.  If there are items you think absolutely should be included, I’m open to suggestions.  I could probably use a 10th question to get to a “Top 10″ list of sorts…):

1.  Do you actively maintain a blog?
2.  Have you ever contributed to a wiki?
3.  Have you ever created a podcast?
4.  Do you currently use an RSS reader/aggregator?
5.  Do you have a Twitter account that you use?
6.  Do you have a Skype account that you use?
7.  Are you currently a member of any Ning networks?
8.  Have you read any of the following books?

• The World is Flat (Thomas Friedman)
• Everything is Miscellaneous (David Weinberger)
• Here Comes Everybody (Clay Shirky)
• The Children’s Machine (Seymour Papert)

9.  Have you ever seen the following videos?

• Did you Know? 2.0 (Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod)
• Digital kids @ Analog Schools (Marco Torres)
• A Vision of Students Today (Michael Wesch)
• Creativity (Sir Ken Robinson’s TED talk)

Tags: measurement, PLN

There’s an interesting discussion happening in a comment thread over at Will Richardson’s blog.  If I could summarize, I’d say the conversation is about how large-scale, future-oriented school change might happen.  Will and others are searching for ways to make change happen consistent with what he and we know about what’s possible.  I particularly like the idea of folks like Will delivering keynotes at conferences such as AASA and ASCD.  I think the ed. tech. echo chamber needs to “infiltrate” the general ed. world.

It occurs to me, though, that someone (me?) also needs to infiltrate higher education and schools of education in particular.  I can’t speak for all schools of education, and what evidence I do have is anecdotal.  But, here’s what I believe to be happening in the places that serve pre-service teachers and school leaders:

• Courses on school change or school reform, if they are offered at all, are typically taught in departments of educational leadership.  That’s understandable, but shouldn’t pre-service teachers understand theories of change?
• The school reform courses typically focus on reform per se; i.e. how does change happen (theories of change).  However, there’s not much emphasis on the “why” or the “towards what”.  There might be some discussion of changing school climate or school culture, but I don’t know of many education faculty members who are leading courses on future-oriented change.
• The technology courses are just that, courses.  Typically, a pre-service teacher ed. program will include one (maybe two) standalone tools-oriented courses (here’s how you can use PowerPoint with your kids!).  The use of technology is not integrated across the teaching methods courses.  You’ll typically find one faculty member in each department of teaching and learning who is the “tech. prof.”  She/he teaches those standalone courses.
• I know that in the school of education in which I currently work, and the one I left last year, there are no cross-department conversations about the future of education.  Everyone is so focused on the here and now, meeting accreditation demands and other practical matters of making sure our students are prepared to work with their students.

So, my number one priority for this year is to make change happen locally.  I’m going to insist that my colleagues join me in learning about the future of education and the future of schooling.  As that happens, we’ll discuss the implications for us as professors of education.  I will argue that we are preparing educators for an outmoded system; others will push back.  That would be wonderful.

photo credit: MarmotChaser

Tags: education, future, reform, school, technology

Scott McLeod deemed today Leadership Day, and so it is!  And so I go…

If you haven’t watched the video of Chris Lehmann’s presentation at NECC, there’s no question that it’s a must see.  I’m sure I’ll have lots of occasions to use it as a pedagogical tool with my ed. leadership students, especially as a model of instructional leadership.  The reviews of Chris’ preso have been through-the-roof high, and deservedly so.  Will Richardson used Twitter to suggest that we need to clone Chris, and Bud Hunt (aka Bud the Teacher) replied that he had secretly taken a few of Chris’ hairs for exactly that purpose.

For those who don’t know, Chris is the principal of the Science Leadership Academy; a magnet high school in Philadelphia that he founded/started a few years ago.  Because he is extraordinarily transparent (want to visit SLA; just ask!) and collaborative, and for at least one other reason I shouldn’t disclose, I’ve learned quite a bit about Chris and SLA.  And, as best I can tell, we really do need to clone Chris; we can’t have enough principals like him.

THAT ALL SAID, here’s the question…what would happen if we suddenly made Chris the principal of Frederick Douglass High School (NOTE: the school doesn’t even have it’s own website) in Baltimore (the subject of a recent HBO documentary which has been written about by me and others)?

You see, Chris admittedly had the luxury of starting a brand new school according to his (and presumably others’) incredible vision.  He got to self-select a whole faculty.  The school’s magnet status means that the students that attend, at some level, want to be there.  in fact, according to the school’s website,  “[a]dmission to SLA is based on a combination of a student interview at the school with a presentation of completed work, strong TerraNova scores, As and Bs with the possible exception of one C, teacher or counselor recommendation and good attendance and punctuality.” I know many, many principals who would drop everything to be able to select an entire faculty and work with already accomplished students.

But, there’s another thing that separates Chris from the vast majority of his principal peers.  Chris is an unrelenting progressivist and he has a true global, future-oriented vision.  Just read his recent blog post about progressive pedagogy for 21st century schools.

I know that not all schools like Douglass High are destined to fail.  I’ve seen and read parts of this book.  And, I know about the Achievement Alliance’s efforts to document success stories.  But, even there, if you read about the high school they spotlight, the school is unique in its geography and the “success” is having gone from 26% proficiency in one subject (ELA) to 42% proficiency over the course of 6 years.  That’s steady, but slow, improvement; but 42% is not exactly superior.

I’ve also followed closely the research and documentation of the 90/90/90 schools (90% low income, 90% minority, 90% proficiency).  Just about everything I’ve read about those schools (including this by Douglas Reeves) points to a blinding focus on standards, assessment, data-driven decision-making, etc.  For better or worse, there’s NOTHING progressive about those schools.

So, I wonder what would happen if we put Chris Lehmann in the hardest-to-staff schools; schools consistently failing to make adequate yearly progress.  I guess the question I’m asking is: Who wins?  The extraordinary progressive leader or the system?  Can a brilliant, extraordinary leader WITH A PROGRESSIVIST BENT truly reform a severely struggling school within the existing system of public education?

Personally, I think Chris, or someone like Chris, would do wonders in a school like Douglass High.  But, unfortunately, I think that remains an open (empirical?) question.  And, I’d love for us to be able to do that empirical work.  I would love to document the experiences of bright, extraordinary, progressive leaders who have proven successful in more comfortable situations attempting to completely turn around a failing school.  Please note, my interest is not how “good” someone like Chris is.  I want to know what effect “the system” has on someone as “good” and particularly as progressive as Chris.  If you know of any such experiences, let me know.

Tags: education, equity, leadership, leadershipday2008, progressivism, schooltechleadership

Lots of folks are reflecting on their NECC experiences.  The reactions vary.  Scott’s bullish, while Sheryl is not so sure.  Also, towards the end of the conference, there were LOTS of tweets about brains hurting and brains shutting down.  Ewan, using the work of Chris Craft, even wrote about this seeming cognitive overload.

My guess is that we’re all struggling with living and learning in an attention economy in the digital world.  As I’ve written before, I don’t know a whole lot about “Attention Economics,” but according to Wikipedia, Herbert Simon wrote that:

…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)

Let me repeat that one part: a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information…

Simon wrote that in 1971; a very different time.  So, further down on the Wikipedia site, it says:

According to digital culture expert Kevin Kelly, the modern attention economy is increasingly one where the consumer product costs nothing to reproduce and the problem facing the supplier of the product lies in adding valuable intangibles that can not be reproduced at no cost. He identifies these intangibles as:^[1]

1. Immediacy - priority access, immediate delivery
2. Personalization - tailored just for you
3. Interpretation - support and guidance
4. Authenticity - how can you be sure it is the real thing?
5. Accessibility - wherever, whenever
6. Embodiment - books, live music
7. Patronage - “paying simply because it feels good”, e.g. Radiohead
8. Findability - “When there are millions of books, millions of songs, millions of films, millions of applications, millions of everything requesting our attention — and most of it free — being found is valuable.”

Undoubtedly, much of the information was immediate, accessible, and findable.  Ustream, CoverItLive, etc.;I mean the backchannels seemed to begin before the conversations/presentations started.  Thus, there was value from that standpoint.

For me, though, the personalization aspect was missing.  I’ve written about how little focus there was on educational leadership and the nearly complete absence of dialogue on issues of equity and social justice.  Thus, ISTE, as a supplier of a product, did not provide those intangibles for me through NECC.  This detracted from the total value of NECC for me.

Also, I think the spector of consumerism made it all less authentic than it needed to be.  At our hotel, each day, some vendor dropped off at our rooms a copy of something called “The Ed Tech Show Daily.”  It was not much more than a glossy accumulation of very large advertisements.  Each ad promoted the “program” or “product” that’s the “best.”  “Company X is the nation’s leading XXXX…”  “Product Z is the #1…in schools…”  I can’t even begin to comment on the exhibit hall.  As Kelly writes, with language like that, how can we be sure it’s the real thing?  With so much promotion going on, authenticity is hard to find.

Finally, I think we’re all having to do our own interpretation of the product that is NECC.  ISTE did not really provide that intangible along with its product.

For me, then, I’m interpreting NECC as a product that ISTE offers along with the intangibles of immediacy, accessiblity and findability.  But, the information was so immediate and accessible that I, for one, did not allocate my attention efficiently.  Furthermore, now we’re all having to personalize and interpret it for ourselves (what does ALL this MEAN for ME?).

I’m wondering now, given all of the critiques of Edubloggercon, if we might consider holding something of that sort (something more unconference-y) AFTER NECC as a space for reflection, interpretation and meaning-making.  I suppose many of us are doing that through our blogs, but I crave some unplugged f-2-f time with edubloggers in particular about all that went down at NECC.  What about you?

Tags: attention economy, ebc08, necc08, wikipedia