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

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?

Tags: education, Gladwell, law, research, Sports

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

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