Been blogging less frequently lately, mostly because the tenure application deadline looms LARGE.  But, I got a bit riled up after reading an article that Kevin Jarrett pointed out via Twitter.

Blogging under the auspices of The Wall Street Journal (a highly respectable publication), John J. Edwards III wrote about a forthcoming book by two sociologists at the University of Texas-Arlington.  He surely learned of this book through a press release issued by the Office of Media Relations at UT-A.  I think it’s great that the folks in that office are promoting this book.  In fact, the public relations guru that works in my unit at VCU will be publishing an article about me and my blogging/professional networking in the next issue of our alumni magazine.

I do, however, have a couple of problems with this press release and the associated blog post by Mr. Edwards.  First, Edwards notes only that the book is “forthcoming.”  The press release says that “[t]he book is being published…with the release date to be announced.”  So, not only is the book not available to the public yet, but there isn’t even a date for release yet.  I don’t have a ton of experience with book publishers, but I have plenty of data from experiences with colleagues.  And I’m guessing that without even a date for release, we won’t see this book for a while.

That’s highly problematic.  When I read articles about educational research in the popular media, I’m instantly skeptical.  Not skeptical as in doubtful; but skeptical as in “I’m going to have to see the actual text of the report/article/book myself” so that I can make my own meaning of it.  Here, all I’ve got to go on is one blogger’s account of the book.  Furthermore, there’s no indication that Edwards read the book himself.  He quotes directly from the press release.  YET, amazingly (maybe not considering the usual credibility of the WSJ), there are dozens and dozens (I couldn’t count) of comments to the post.  I understand that Edwards used the press release to ask a couple of otherwise banal questions to his readers, but wouldn’t we all be better served if we had access to the book itself?  Wouldn’t the discussion within the comments be a more interesting and more informed discussion?

My department is launching a new Ed.D. program in educational leadership this coming fall semester.  In planning the program, we’ve had some really good and really important discussions about the sorts of skills and dispositions school leaders need to have.  I’ve been most interested in our conversations around “inquiry.”  There, we’ve concluded that school leaders need to be informed and critical consumers of research.  In fact, we’re working on a case/module where the doc. students will be asked to consider, for example, new math software.  There will be various activities built into that case/module, and among them will be an exploration of the research base on math software.  In an era where schools are mandated to implement only research-based programs, it’s crucial for educational leaders and policymakers to not just accept what others say about the research base for a given program.  They need to know how to find and critique the research base themselves.  This becomes particularly important in the digital age, where access to information is not bounded by space or time and where anyone with an Internet connection can provide information.

I recognize that the media relations folks at UT-A were doing their jobs by creating advance buzz for a book to be published by two of their faculty members.  And, I realize that there’s nothing inherently wrong with using a press release as a departure point for a blog post.  But, I just think a disservice has been done to the educational community here.

My second problem has to do with the book itself and the way it’s portrayed in the news release and the blog post.  The language used suggests that these researchers have devised some kind of novel argument.  Consider: “The authors explore topics like time-use in schools; the confinement and physical disciplining of young bodies as they carry backpacks and sit at cramped desks; the stress on fine motor skills; the performance principle and grading; the performance principle and testing; the disunity of mind and body; vocationalism; a fetish of facts and factoids; rote learning and regurgitation; worksheet-driven learning; classroom authoritarianism and competitive school sports.”  Isn’t the verb “to explore” usually associated with charting new terrain?  Perhaps this stuff is new to the researchers, but haven’t they ever read anything by the likes of Alfie Kohn?  Even Gary Stager?  According to the UT-A website, Dr. Agger is a professor of sociology and the humanities housed in the Department of Sociology.  Same with his co-worker and wife, Dr. Shelton.  They are sociologists and apparently not especially sociologists of education.  So, maybe they are not as versed in the literature on progressive education.  Maybe they do reference that literature.

And, is their argument/contention based on new data they’ve collected and analyzed?  Or, are they synthesizing others’ research?  Or, are they simply theorizing?

But, see I can’t know any of this for sure.  And, apparently I won’t know for sure for a while because it’s not clear when the book will be available.  That’s what’s so infuriating here.  Rather than creating advanced buzz, the fine folks at the Office of Media Relations have just thoroughly annoyed me.  They’ve treated you and me as uncritical consumers of information.

Tags: blogging, digital, educational research, information

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

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.

Tags: edubloggercon, necc08

OK. This is getting downright odd. I posted a couple of days ago about the Broader/Bolder project/movement and how the core ideas in that manifesto overlapped with many of the statements I made in my “This I Believe” post a while back. I even jokingly accused them of ripping me off.

Well, today we got another “manifesto” from a group led by NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and Reverend Al Sharpton. The Education Equality Project does not have as many initial signatories as the Bigger/Bolder folks, but those that did sign on originally are HEAVY hitters. I do like what I read in their Statement of Principles, but my point today is not to reflect on those. I only point you to this additional manifesto to point out #4 in their Statement of Principles. With emphasis added, it says:

We must have an honest and forthright conversation about the root causes of this national failure. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That is the trap we must avoid or risk losing another generation of our children.

So, the Bigger/Bolder group stole my ideas. The Education Equality Project stole the TITLE AND FOUNDATION OF MY WHOLE BLOG (see my header)!!!

Anyone know a good lawyer?  (-;

Tags: education, equality

I’m sure I’m not the first to write about this, but Scott McLeod delivered his latest list of the (potentially) top 50 P-12 education blogs and he got me thinking. The list is what it is…a ranking based on one metric: how many other blogs (and blogs only) have linked to a given blog. As long as Scott’s clear about that, which he very well is, then readers can make what they want of the list.

I commented, noting first that the list overwhelmingly consists of ed. tech. focused blogs. There are many reasons for this, most notably that blogging requires some technological awareness and a little bit of tech. savvy that ed. tech. folks are most likely to have. I also noted my surprise not to see certain educational policy bloggers on the list, such as Sherman Dorn, Matthew Tabor, Alexander Russo and Gary Stager (who I see as more of a bridge blogger). Dorn’s been blogging practically since I was born, and I learn more from him than just about any of the other bloggers I read.

I’m still searching for the right metaphor, because I don’t know that “echo chambers” is quite right; maybe it is, though. According to Wikipedia, “[m]etaphorically, the term echo chamber can refer to any situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an ‘enclosed’ space.” I’ve gotten myself in trouble in the past for suggesting that the edtechblogosphere is a closed space, so I have to be careful here. But, I’ve noticed that the ed. tech. folks on Scott’s list all tend to comment on each other’s blogs and they all tend to communicate with each other via Twitter and other communication media. There are LOTS of REALLY valuable reasons for that, mostly that there is lots of co-learning going on that way. [NOTE: I've noticed that the same sort of "echo chamber" exists for the ed. policy bloggers, although the echoes there are less frequent and more muted (IMHO), and I don't know that there's much electronic communication going on between them beyond the blogs].

So, maybe rather than a closed space, then, a problem as I see it is that there are very few nodes connecting the unfortunately and unnecessarily distinct networks (i.e. the ed. tech. networks and the ed. policy networks). When Gary Stager called out the ed. tech. bloggers for failing to write about the Reading First study, he (purposefully or not) served as a node/bridge but also pointed out just how little overlap there is between the tech. and policy networks. A few commenters thanked Gary for pointing out the “story”.

I’m problematizing this disconnect because, for me, it is symptomatic or an extension of the sort of compartmentalization that plagues the education sector generally. I believe that one of the reasons our public schools have not experienced rapid technological change is because the ed. tech. folks are treated as separate. Leaders and decision makers don’t really understand the issues, so they delegate it to the geeks and wireheads (I use those terms lovingly). It’s the same way with, for example, special education. Leaders and decision makers don’t really understand all of the laws, regulations, etc., so they delegate authority to THAT department and THOSE educators. We have the same problems in schools and colleges of education. For example, I work in a department of educational leadership. Separately, we have a Department of Special Education and Disability Policies. So, let’s say an educator wants to pursue a doctorate with the idea of serving as a special education policymaker or an assistant superintendent for special education. To which program does that educator apply?

We need more integration in education and less compartmentalization; fewer echo chambers. After all, everything is miscellaneous, right?

Tags: blogs, echo chamber, education, networks, nodes, policy, technology