Who needs data?


Next week, I’ll be flying to Denver to present Phoenix’s story along with our new principal and the director and supervisor of Professional Development for the district. We 4 will be telling our story at the National Staff Development Council’s annual conference.
In looking at the session descriptions when registering a few months ago, I was struck by the lack of variety. With perhaps 4 (and that could be pushing it) exceptions, every breakout and keynote session is centered around data and the amazing things different districts, schools, departments and teachers have done with it. Data, I’ve realized, is the Silly Putty or Little Black Dress of education.
Our presentation will not be about data. It will include data. To be sure, data has its place in the structure of success at Phoenix. We use it to inform our instruction. We use it calculate projected success on the FCAT. We use it to understand “academic needs.”
Data will not drive our presentation. It does not drive our school. I should clarify my use of the term “data” here is meant in its clinical sense.
What drives our school and will, in turn, drive our presentation are relationships.
Formative and summative, high-stakes, formal and informal – assessments in the hands of teachers will not decide the success or failure of that teacher’s students in the academic year.
Relationships are key.
As such, our presentation will reflect this.
Here’s the funny thing. As I write this, there’s a tinge of wonkiness at the thought of the heresy of downplaying the importance of data. My first experience with PD as a professional teacher were on things like data walls and the drafting of common assessment meant to synthesize the state assessment. My indoctrination started early.
Let me put the argument to you another way: Do you want teachers who know data or teachers who know kids?
“This is Mr. Chase, he can compile interpret a great Data Wall.” vs. “This is Mr. Chase, he finds ways to reach and motivate some otherwise lost students.”
I know my argument has holes. Poke at them. Push this. Push me to think. Anyone?
More later.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixieclipx/414065100/

Facebook/Myspace = Haves/Have Nots?

In running a technorati search for one thing, I stumbled upon something else. This Live Journal post points to an Information Week article that reports on an informal ethnographic study’s findings that “MySpace and Facebook have come to reflect class divisions in American society…”

According to the study by Berkeley Information Sciences Ph.D. student Danah Boyd, Facebook is home to kids whose paths point them to toward completion of a college eduation while Myspace is the refuge of those whose paths are much less conventional.

According to Boyd’s study:

The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other “good” kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college. They are part of what we’d call hegemonic society. They are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.

MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, “burnouts,” “alternative kids,” “art fags,” punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn’t play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn’t go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. These are the teens who plan to go into the military immediately after schools. Teens who are really into music or in a band are also on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.

While these informal findings are of interest, more compelling are the author’s own thoughts:

I have been reticent about writing about this dynamic even though I’ve been tracking it for a good six months now. I don’t have the language for what I’m seeing and I’m concerned about how it’s going to be interpreted. I can just see the logic: if society’s “good” kids are going to Facebook and the “bad” kids are going to MySpace, clearly MySpace is the devil, right? ::shudder:: It’s so not that easy. Given a lack of language for talking about this, my choice of “hegemonic” and “subaltern” was intended to at least insinuate a different way of looking at this split.

I need to read Boyd’s findings again to try to place her findings in proper perspective as they relate to the larger picture for education.

The results got me thinking about Brian Grenier’s survey results and the discussions of diversity they led to. Much of what charms me about the playing field offered by the digital world is its potential to offer a level environment for all participants. Is that flattened field still possible?

More later.

technorati tags:, , , , , ,

Wiki for Thought

I put it down about a month ago and hadn’t had a chance to pick it up until this weekend. That said, I just finished Wikinomics by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams. A chunk of the information was not new and had been encountered in Henry Jenkins’ Convergence Culture and other readings, but there is something to be said for ingesting these ideas on the heels of finishing Pink’s A Whole New Mind.
As per usual, I read pen-in-hand marking the margins as I went. Though the book touches only briefly on education (and even then only to speak of university research), it’s implications for education are far-reaching.
More importantly, it’s expectations and assumptions of education are universal and flawed. Tapscott and Williams make statements about the Net Generation that leave out variables like access and experience, claiming Net Genners are entering the workforce with expectations based upon their time using and exploring the tools and tactics allowed to learners through web 2.0 access. Unfortunately this is not the reality for many.
At the risk of sounding as though he’s the only blogger I read, I point to David Warlick’s comment that [c]hildren without personal and unfiltered access to contemporary technology are alone — and there is no power in that.”
While the truth of this statement is a sad one, that sadness is only compounded farther down the road for those children.
They will not have the tools to connect to the world Tapscott and Williams describe without serious effort and a presumably monumental learning curve.
In describing the “perfect storm” leading to a collaborave world, the authors count “a generation that grew up collaborating” as one of the contributing factors. What of the members of that generation who did not grow up collaborating or who were part of an educational system that was not yet plugged in to the flattening world?
I realize I’m making the case for the need for expanded collaborative efforts. Before that case can be made in full, educators must be mindful of those students standing at the edge of the digital divide.
More later.

A Whole New…Everything

I’ve just finished reading Dan Pink’s A Whole New Mind. My read before that was Chap Clark’s Hurt. Add to that the 200+ posts I’ve read from edubloggers across the world and my head is full of new thoughts and new versions of old thoughts.

In his Afterward, Pink writes:

Individuals and organizations that focus their efforts on doing what foreign knowledge worders can’t do cheaper and computers can’t do faster, as well as on meeting the aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual demands of a prosperous time, will thrive.

Scott McLeod issued a recent challenge to educational technology advocates to “…articulate in a few short sentences or paragraphs what the end result looks like.” As educators, advocates of embedded technology or not, our responsibility is to create an end result that applies Pink’s guidelines for success to education.

According to Clark, the largest problem facing adolescents today is a “systematic abandonment.” The answer to what we must do, to the end result, is a reversal of that abandonment. Technology is a piece, but countless posts from minds I’ve come to respect show that the places where technology has had the greatest effects have been where it connects students to other students, to other teachers, to other learners.

The end result is greater personal connection. Access to information is important, yes. Access to others is key.

The end result is a classroom in which students’ personal needs are first recognized and valued by a teacher who takes the time to learn who each student is as an individual and then uses the limitless reach of tools, 1.0 and 2.0, to create a learning experience that encourages shared ownership and elevated expectations.

I read with great interest the dispatches recounting the learning going on in Darren Kuropatwa’s classroom. Technology has had an amazing impact on Darren’s students.

I argue, though, that it is his level of respect and caring for his students’ opinions and needs that has garnered him them such results. His willingness to allow his students access to a global stage and show them his faith in their ability to guide and sculpt their own learning have filled a gap left by, if Clark’s claim holds true, societal abandonment.

Will Richardson’s recent posts about spending time with his kids, Miguel Guhlin’s posts about his time in Panama, David Warlick’s twit about shopping for a bird bath, Paul Wilkinson’s admittance that web browsing and video watching are helping him procrastinate – these are not high-minded intellectual posts. These are asyncronous social connections allowing others (many anonymous) a feeling of connection.

McLeod’s post points to one by Warlick where Warlick states: “I think that the real story is that our schools are not connecting to (relevant to) their own goals, preparing children for their future.” I offer a slight but imperative amendment: The real story is that our schools are not connecting to their students and their goal of preparing them for their futures.

More later.

technorati tags:, , , , , , , ,

L.A. Again

For the first time ever, I was on a plane that arrived early to its destination. I’m still a little shocked. Not only that, in my first 20 minutes in L.A., I witnessed three separate incidents of strangers performing acts of kindness for each other. I’m in a good place.

I read the entire flight. My mind’s wrapped up in Chap Clark’s Hurt.

Clark does a fantastic job of reporting the findings of his study of the history and world of emerging midadolescents.

The most impress part for me so far is Clark’s willingness to approach all subject areas (schoool, family, sex, etc.) from teens’ perspective rather than that of an academic, parent, youth minister, or any of his other roles in life.

Clark has an impressive resume’:

Clark is associate professor of youth, family and culture and director of youth
ministry programs at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. As well
as being a two-degree seminary graduate, Chap holds a Ph.D. from Denver
University in Human Communication specializing in relationships, teams, and
organizational and family systems. His responsibilities at Fuller
include chair of Practical Theology Division (School of Theology), Director of
the Doctor of Ministry in Youth, Family and Culture, and Director of the
Institute of Youth Ministry. Dr. Clark also oversees the Ph.D. youth and
family ministry track.

To keep his research open to readers with world views other than his own, Clark includes an appendix in which he examines the implications of his findings for Christian youth ministry.

What never gets left behind is Clark’s obvious love and concern for today’s youth.

More later.

Success (x2?)

Yesterday’s presentation at the district’s differentiated instruction conference felt as though it went very well.

I knkow from experience in the audience that teachers are a tough audience. For that reason, I’ve tried to pack my presentation full of as much relevant information as possible. From Clark (Ron and Chap) to Warlick, it’s all in there.

I’ve divided the presentation into three parts – Social, Academic and Professional Development. You can view it below as well as look a the notes and accompanying files at the session’s wiki.

Two pieces of this experience have been extremely worthwhile.

First, the reflection I’ve had to go through to put what I do in my classroom into perspective. I know I do all of the things I do for a reason, but presenting those practices to a larger, critical (in a good way) group of professionals requires me to finally do explicitly what I’ve been doing implicitly – connect the research with the practice. The rationale for me is inherent in the practice. To show others and pull back what is to me a fairly uninteresting curtain requires that rationale to be systematically connected. I’ve got to admit, the temptation was certainly present to say, “I just do this because I know it’s what’s best for kids!” I tried to stay away from that one.

The second benefit of the presentation thus far is finally getting an initiated audience involved in the conversation. Part of the frustration of participating in teaching 2.0 is the passive nature of our discourse. The people who read this blog are, I would imagine, largely people who have their own blogs. If we want to influence true, system-wide evolution, we (read I) must be better advocates for that evolution outside of our comfort zones. Scientists don’t just publish their findings in an e-mail to the scientists who work in the lab next to them.

I know there is an interest in moving our practice and pedagogy forward in a meaningful manner, I hope I’m doing my part.

More later.

Stressed? Maybe a little


Since school let out, I’ve been uber-busy. I know, I know, the busy-ness is supposed to slow down when the year’s over, but it hasn’t. I’m a different sort of busy now.
I’ve three presentations to prepare for this summer.
First up is next week’s district conference on Differentiated Instruction. My presentation is on building community and an environment for risk-taking in the classroom. I’ve been whittling away at an outline over at my wiki, but hadn’t realized the true work ahead until I sat down to put the actual presentation together. I’m facilitating the session once each day of the conference and a little tense.
I don’t want to be that guy at the conference who gets people to say, “Oh, don’t worry about that one, I went yesterday and it’t not worth your time.”
The main source of stress is finding a way to put everything together in a way that’s accessible and succinct. I called Ms. Dunda after one long go at putting the presentation together and voiced my frustration at wanting to show how all of the pieces fit together but also feeling like I have to introduce all of the pieces.
I also want to truly facilitate and not merely present. I value the experiences of each teacher who’s going to walk through that door and want those experiences to be shared and incorporated.
I’ve set the bar mighty high for myself. I’ve got a few days to prepare to reach it.
As for the other two conferences, they can wait until this one’s done.
More later.

Photo from www.psychologycoach.com/stressanxiety/4515800867

Finals

I’m sure I’ll have more to say on the subject later, but I’ve got to get this out there.

My students are in the middle of their final exams. Mine is an essay exam. The prompt this go ’round asks the students to write about one important lesson they have learned this school year and explain its importance.

We’re about 25 minutes in and every student is brainstorming, planning, revising.

Now, bear in mind that these students came to Phoenix and 25 minutes in to our first writing assignment had been “done” for about 10 minutes.

Students are looking up words in dictionaries, crossing things out, balling up paper and throwing it away when the words don’t come out just right.

Conscious or not, these students have become writers. They have started to care enough about their work to want to get it right. That comes only with a sense of self-worth.

At the beginning of the year, they didn’t write because they didn’t care, didn’t think they could, any “didn’t” you can think of.

I am tremendously proud of the writers they have become.

More later.

technorati tags:, , , , ,

IWBs as a Panacea?

In the rush to prepare students for finals and make sure everything is in order for end-of-year celebrations, I’ve been inattentive to the blog. The number of posts waiting in Google Reader from Miguel Guhlin is mind-boggling.

Still, a story appeared in our local paper a bit ago and it worried me a bit. You can read the whole story here.

Two aspects of the story me worry me.

Sarasota County has spent an estimated $12 million on purchasing an interactive white board for every classroom in the county. The intent was to roll out the first wave of installs to those teachers who most wanted the boards so that they could then assist those teachers who were more resistant to the new tool. This was mostly how it worked out. To be sure, there are some boards out there in the classrooms of teachers still hesitant to post their attendance online let alone give up their overhead projectors.

The fact that the newspaper took notice of what’s going on in the classrooms excited me.
What worried me, made me cringe really, was this:

What is not clear is whether the Activboard will be a panacea for public schools, boosting the graduation rate or closing the achievement gap.

Let me solve the puzzle. Under no circumstances will the mere presence of ActivBoards act as a “panacea” for lagging test scores or troubling graduation rates. That is similar to implying that students’ ability to read will improve simply because there are new books in the classroom. As with any other tool, the ActivBoards’ potential will only be reached when teachers explore their own potential to utilize the boards as educational tools. Implying otherwise is frighteningly wreckless.

More frustrating still was our union exec’s quote a few paragraphs later “…the fact of the matter is, technology so far has not been shown to have a tremendous impact.”

I’m fairly certain we can’t blame the technology.

Doug Gilliland, a tremendously inspiring high school science teacher and a colleague of mine, is quoted later in the article saying, “How well will they use it? I don’t know. I think it will be like other teaching tools. Some teachers will grab on and run with it, and others will do the bare minimum.”

This too worries me. It worries me because we are part of a system where Mr. Gilliland’s prediction can come true.

The answer is an uncomfortable one for those in education who see the roles of teacher and student as mutually exclusive – we must raise the expectations for teachers.

Expectations for teacher, not just student, achievement must be higher than ever before if we are to serve our communities well.

I do not mean this in the context of standardized testing or any of its ugly stepsisters. I mean this in the context of personally guided exploration. Or, as Will Richardson put it a while ago, “It’s the Empowerment, Stupid!”

Teachers must take the reigns and begin to direct their own learning. While it would be easy to let an IWB sit in a classroom unused and complain about a lack of training, it is also lazy.

How do you motivate teachers to own their learning? Anyone?

More later.

Frustrations

Videos like this and the power it could have are why we shouldn’t be blocking YouTube.

technorati tags:, , , ,