For months now, I’ve been trying to figure out how to develop an online community to enhance our programs within the Department of Educational Leadership at VCU.  Currently, each course has its own Blackboard space.  We also send lots of e-mails to students, though sadly we don’t even have good e-mail groups in our e-mail client (that’s pathetic, I know).  So, communication across courses, across programs, and across the years is impossible.  It’s a sad state of affairs, and I’ve spent way too much time trying to figure out the best way to establish an online community for all of our students, faculty and even alumni.

I suppose my biggest problem is that I’m looking for the perfect one-stop solution.  I’m very familiar with Ning and I’ve been playing around with various wiki systems that work nicely as places for collaboration and communication.  Those are fine ways to create a single online community.  One problem for me, though, is that our department consists of many different groups, cohorts, etc. Here’s a graphical representation of our department:

I want each group, cohort, etc. to be able to communicate privately with each other, but to also be a part of the larger community.  So, I could, for example, setup a department-wide Ning and then setup each cohort as a group.  However, the groups within Ning don’t have the full functionality of Ning (e.g. they can’t setup their own document repository or a separate page for anything, really).  And, the groups are not private.

A second problem is that I want to be able keep track of activity with an RSS feed.  But, as you may know, private spaces (Ning, Wetpaint, etc.) don’t allow for RSS feeds.  This limitation also stops me from setting up a Ning or Wetpaint for each group, cohort, etc. and then setting up a department-level aggregate page via NetVibes or Pageflakes (a la Steve Hargadon’s approach here).

So, where am I?  Right now, I’m leaning towards a department-level Ning as the hub of our online community.  From there, I could setup groups for each cohort, group, etc. with a link to a private wiki for each cohort, group, etc. (leaning heavily towards WetPaint for that).  In the absence of RSS feeds, I’ll have to subscribe to each site via e-mail and then setup routing rules so that my inbox doesn’t get flooded.  It’s also going to be a naming nightmare.  But, that’s my best current solution.

If any of you smart people have better ideas, I’d be more than happy to hear them.  Thanks in advance!

Tags: community, leadership, network, Ning, VCU, Wetpaint

In the not-too-distant future, LeaderTalk will transition to Education Week.  In other words, the blog will become part of the growing family of blogs under Education Week’s umbrella.  As an original contributor to LeaderTalk, I’m struggling with that transition.  The text of the e-mail I sent to LeaderTalk contributors is below.  If you, my dear readers of Ed. Insanity, have additional thoughts to help me think through my struggles, I’d appreciate it.

All,
Let me first echo Scott’s congratulatory remarks.  LeaderTalk has become an incredible communication space by and for educational leaders.  I’ve been proud to be an original contributor, though I haven’t written there lately.

That said, I have a philosophical conundrum that you smart people could surely help me think through.

I have always believed that there are too many educators (unlike you all) who are too locally focused and who would do well to consider their position within the larger world of public education. To that end,  I have always thought of Education Week as an incredible publication uniquely positioned to inform educators about important state, national and even international issues in education.  To me, they have always been THE trade publication in education.  When Al Gore invented the Internet…er, once Internet access became nearly ubiquitous, edweek.org was one of my very first stops for my daily reading.  I learned gobs by surfing through edweek.org on a daily basis.  However, some time not too long ago, edweek.org made a decision to go to a subscription service.    They have a few different access plans which you can see here: http://www.edweek.org/offer.html.

So, what’s my problem?  Well, I hate that I can’t read edweek.org fully without paying.  In fact, I think it borders on criminal that they charge for access.  There’s still plenty of content that’s available for free, but there’s lots of really good stuff that’s not.  And, if you play around on edweek.org for just a short period of time, you can’t help but notice the advertising on there. [NOTE: this week is not a good time to explore this issue b/c Ed Week is having a free open house; they've opened their site to everyone for a whole week...gee, thanks for the tease.]  I have no problem with ads.  Actually, the advertisements themselves are what should make edweek.org completely open access.  The cost of the top level of access to edweek.org is not enormous; it’s basically $80/year.  But, why should I pay that?  Couldn’t they pass that very minimal cost on to their advertisers who are making money hand over fist?  Shouldn’t they?

Surely, the vast majority, if not all of Education Week’s readers are educators.  And, quite frankly, I’m sick of private vendors taking money from education in this country.  Think about all of the hard-working public school educators who are probably underpaid to begin with who spend their own hard-earned money to equip their classrooms each year.  Now, to have access to THE premiere publication in the field, they have to pay Education Week.  Also, I believe that charging for access online is out of touch with the realities of the modern publishing world and also poorly models the idea of open access to information. eSchool News, easily the premier publication specific to the field of education technology is completely free in print form and online.

If you all can help me understand why I shouldn’t be bothered by Ed Week’s policies, I’d be happy to join you in the transition to becoming one of Ed. Week’s growing number of good blogs.  If not, I’ll have to bow out.  So, thanks in advance for your help.

Best,
JB

Tags: blog, commercialism, Education Week, LeaderTalk, open access

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

There’s quite a bit of really good edublogging and commenting that lies at the intersection of “change” and “21st Century Schools” (see e.g. Chris Lehmann’s blog and Will Richardson’s blog).  As one who has studied extensively the research and literature on school reform, school change, policy implementation, etc., I’m having a hard time with a few aspects of the conversations that are going on.

First of all, what are we changing?  Are we talking about a classroom (i.e. changing one teacher’s pedagogy?)?  Are we talking about changing multiple classrooms?  Are we talking about changing a whole school?  Are we talking about changing the whole institution of public schooling?  Those are all very different scenarios and require very different approaches.  And, it gets back to the macro vs. micro distinction I made in my last blog post.

More importantly, though, let’s please consider that there is a HUGE, DEEP pool of research and literature on school change. There’s not a huge need to re-think this stuff; there’s a lot to be learned from what has already been learned.

In the mid 1970’s, the Rand Corporation conducted a national study of four federally funded programs “intended to introduce and support innovative practices in the public schools.”  The Rand researchers examined a sample of 293 local projects funded by these four federal programs in 18 states.  This so-called “Change Agent” study remains the paragon of all “implementation” studies.  According to Milbrey McLaughlin (1990), one of the principal investigators on the Change Agent study:

“…the following strategies generally were seen to be ineffective:

• reliance on outside consultants
• packaged management approaches
• one-shot, pre-implementation training
• pay for training
• formal, summative evaluation
• comprehensive, system-wide projects

The following strategies generally were effective, especially when applied in concert:

• concrete, teacher-specific and extended training
• classroom assistance from local staff
• teacher observation of similar projects in other classrooms, schools, or districts
• regular project meetings that focused on practical issues
• teacher participation in project decisions
• local development of project materials
• principals’ participation in training (p. 12)”

Since the 1970’s we’ve learned even more about change and policy implementation.  McLaughlin revisited the study in an article in 1990.  Her main conclusion there was that some of the findings of the original study needed to be reconsidered, but mostly, things remained the same.  “A general finding of the Change Agent study that has become almost a truism is that it is exceedingly difficult for policy to change practice, especially across levels of government (p. 12)”  In one study I conducted, I was able to determine that of all the variance in student computer use across the country, less than 2% could be accounted for by differences in state-level policies.  An additional study of the effects of state-level policies on pedagogy showed that 3% of the variance in teaching practices could be attributed to state-level polcies.  As the Change Agent study taught us, effective change in schools doesn’t happen by “adoption,” it happens by mutual adaptation; the adaptation of a project or policy and the organizational setting to each other.

So, what does this all mean?  Well, I think we’d all to well to internalize the bullets above as a list of what works.  First, one-and-done, sit-and-git PD doesn’t work; it has to be ongoing and as close to the classrooms/teachers as possible.  Second, teachers must be included in the change process, especially as learners.  Third, leadership must be involved at all stages and at all levels.  Finally, change is interpreted locally and the context of the institution adapts along with the change.

I also want to bring our attention to the final bullet in the list of ineffective strategies: comprehensive, system-wide projects don’t work.  We can’t change the system all at once.  So, it seems to me that School 2.0 is going to have to come about in one of two ways.  Either we get enough teachers and leaders to understand why change needs to happen in their schools and HOW that happens effectively (and what not to do).  Or, we go outside the “system.”

Tags: change, Rand, reform, school, systems

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