Well, other than “technology,” if I had to choose five tags to describe myself, sports, education and law would be in the top 5.  So, imagine my surprise when I was pointed to this video of a Malcolm Gladwell speech/presentation (what is it that he does exactly?) covering those three areas.  The main topic of his speech is the mismatch problem; the idea that in making hiring decisions employers regularly use metrics that are very poor predictors of success within their particular area of employment.  The substance of the presentation is certainly interesting, but here’s what I want to do with this video:

I want to use it as part of a major project for a doctoral level educational research course.  It’d be like a fact-checking exercise.  Students would have to listen to/watch the segment about hiring teachers and note each claim that Gladwell makes which is presumably research-based (i.e. that reducing class sizes from 22 to 16 will lead to increases in achievement of 5 percentile points).  Then, for each claim, they would have to find the research that either supports or refutes his claim.  The students would synthesize the research and write up their findings.  That would be fun/cool, right?

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.

On occasion, I find myself itching to compose a post for this blog relating to some aspect of my work. Often, I end up stopping myself because…well…umm…because I’m scared. You see, I’m an untenured professor in a world (academia) that largely doesn’t get this whole blogging thing. It is (I’m afraid to say) still a fairly traditional space where hierarchies and bureaucracies abound. The politics of higher education are not a whole lot different than the politics of P-12 education. So, I’m extremely cautious so as to not speak badly of anyone or to write anything that might get back to anyone important.

So, I was particularly interested in Vicki “CoolCatTeacher” Davis‘ comment on Gary Stager’s blog. She wrote, “Classroom teachers in the public school system who blog are on a ‘short leash’ if any and do not truly experience freedom of speech, as you could well imagine.”

Then, Will Richardson posted today about a similar topic. According to Will, “…the New York City Department of Education has laid down the law about employees referencing their blogs in their e-mail signatures…the city is providing disclaimer language for anyone in the department who blogs and who comments on other’s blog.”

As you might imagine, this is all very troubling to me. I have academic freedom and so do K-12 educators. There are laws about that. I even JUST presented a paper about free speech rights of K-12 educators. Here’s the legal standard in a nutshell: First, is our expression (blogging is certainly a form of expression) a matter of public concern? In almost all cases, the answer to this is yes (if not, there are no First Amendment protections for purely private speech). In the Gary Stager case, writing about Reading First would be a matter of public concern. The second step in the analysis is the “disruption” test. Does the individual’s interest in expressing him/herself outweigh the disruption caused to the school environment? In other words, did the expression interfere with teaching, destroy morale, create lots of negative chatter, etc? Negative publicity has been deemed to be NOT disruption in at least one instance.

So, I think I need to reflect a bit and find my voice again. And, I hope the teachers Vicki commented about can find theirs as well. They and I have rights.

Having just taught a class last night on tort liability in education, I thought it’d be fun to construct a hypothetical argument for a class-action case of educational malpractice [NOTE: I am fully aware that educational malpractice has been argued successfully in an actual court of law once, maybe twice, over the course of American judicial history].  Ed. Mal. is essentially a special class of negligence claims, and the elements of a negligence case are (c’mon Scott, Justin, etc…sing along with me!): duty, breach, cause harm.

DUTY: “Reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances…”  That’s the legal mumbojumbo.  The specifics here?  I’d argue that the standard of care owed to public schoolchildren these days is to provide learning conditions and practices that best develop (quoting language from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills) the “skills, knowledge and expertise necessary to succeed in work and life in the 21st century.” 

BREACH: Are those conditions and practices in place?  I’d say “no.”  Conditions?  Maybe.  Student:computer ratios are lower than they’ve ever been (in the aggregate), but I would say that teachers (again, in the aggregate) are not prepared to teach 21st century skills and dispositions.  Practices?  Well, there’s plenty of empirical evidence of how little time the average U.S. student spends using computers in schools.  Try these data on for size:

But, computer use, in and of itself, is not a singular indicator of 21st century schooling practices.  So, here’s some more data:

HARM: I’ll skip “cause” for now…if we can successfully argue that there has been a breach of duty, what (concrete, quantifiable) harm has been done?  Tough to prove.  But, what if the plaintiffs were a group of recent college graduates who were having trouble obtaining competitive jobs in the technology sector; they were regularly being beaten out by recent immigrants who were deemed to be better educated and prepared in their native countries?  It seems to me that we wouldn’t have a hard time finding such plaintiffs.

CAUSE:  Negligence plaintiffs carry the burden of demonstrating “cause-in-fact;”  that is, but for the breach of duty, the harm would not have occurred.  I guess this boils down to a question of whether the institution of public schooling is solely (largely? mostly?) responsible for the plaintiffs lack of competitiveness.  There’s also the element of proximate cause…was the harm a foreseeable consequence of the nonfeasance (i.e. failure to affirmatively offer proper conditions and practices)?  I would say that proximate cause is easier to demonstrate than cause-in-fact; there’s been plenty of rhetoric around the consequences of sticking with the status quo in education.

This is all, obviously, meant to be hypothetical and somewhat playful.  But, I hope this post does cause (pun intended?) some discussion about what standard of care our public school students are owed?  And, what are the consequences of failing to uphold our duty?

I teach a research design course to a group of doctoral students in a local middle school.  I wanted to demonstrate Google Docs to them and encourage them to use it since they’re working in small groups on a research project.  4 people, 1 report; perfect situation for Google Docs.  But, sure enough, when I went to demonstrate it during class…denied/blocked.  One of my students asked her IT dept. why.  She was told that Google Docs is blocked because “it is an online file sharing service that is outside the district and on the web…We have to be careful to protect student data and information, and cannot do so outside the confines of the [district abbreviations] domain.”

Really?  If a student created a “work product” with Google Docs, it would only be visible to invitees unless the student publishes the work to the web.  I guess that’s potentially a problem, but how is that different from posting student art work all over the school or around the community?  In the university building in which I work, there are paintings on the walls all done by local school children with their names, grades and school names. 

Believe me, I understand privacy concerns.  I do.  But, isn’t this a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water?  Don’t the potential benefits to students and especially teachers and administrators strongly outweigh the costs?  Isn’t there a more sensible approach here?

I sure would like to know more about this story.  The way CNN reports it makes it all seem harmless to me.  What’s wrong with a little digital ingenuity and the creation of an online study group?