Good conversations

This rather dull snapshot was taken with my phone at the recent NECC 2009 conference in Washington, DC.  Funny.  Sometimes it’s the non-conference things that really push my thinking forward.  EduBloggerCon was one of those, “sit around with smart folks and discuss and debate self-selected topics of interest in education” kind of days.  What, you don’t have those every day?  Ok, I’ll admit it- sadly neither do I.  One of the sessions in particular, led by Jonathan Becker was entitled: “Where School Reform Meets Madonna:  Can public schools fundamentally reinvent themselves?“  The rule in this one was that if a “tech tool” was even mentioned that the violator would have to stand on the table and sing.  EduBloggerCon is certainly an “unconference” about more than edtech tools.  Good conversations do more than stimulate your brain during the immediate time in which they are occurring.  Good conversations are those that change the way you see the world in some small way from that point on.

The building above is found in Mt. Vernon Square and has an interesting history.  A much better close-up view from Wikimedia shows that this was one of Carnegie’s libraries.  The building was also recently a City Museum and still serves the Historical Society of Washington, DC.

While walking the city with Jeanette and Luke (Principal and Asst. Principal at BHS) during lunch at EduBloggerCon, we ran across this building.  Initially, I was interested in the architecture.  However, upon closer inspection I became much more interested in the three bold words embedded into the marble front of the building:

SCIENCE  :  POETRY  :  HISTORY

These three words, especially appearing below the phrase: “DEDICATED TO THE DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE” were enough to haunt me the next couple of days.  By the way, I had probably better let you know that if you came to this post looking for answers… prepare for a 10:1 question vs. answer ratio from this point.  Sorry about that.

A light word study

Let’s talk about those three little words.  Do you have thoughts on this triplet as it was laid out so many years ago?  Truly any three words could have been chosen, yet these are the three that were cut into rock.  For one, I am a pretty big fan of all three of those words.  If you dig through the “poetry” tag here on the blog, you’ll certainly find a thing or two that relates over the past year.  Science is the obvious one.  I have been a science teacher since 1992.  Further… for me, history so often provides not only context to the world in which we live, but also connections in and amongst all fields of study.

But I live out my days in an American high school.  Where are the other two great core areas of study?  Where lies Communication Arts, or English, or Language Arts, or…?  Where do we fit Mathematics?  Perhaps the folks who laid out this building saw those as modes of communicating the ideas of science and history.  And poetry?  Perhaps this is the art that takes human communication to creative and innovative heights.

Step outside a moment

Imagine a school where the base subjects are those three: science, poetry, and history.  What would that look like?  Now of course I’m not suggesting we look away from all of the other myriad courses in our world such as practical arts, physical education, etc.  My friend and Principal, Jeanette Westfall, would be quick to remind anyone discounting the importance of the “non-core” subjects, that these courses (and their teachers) represent about 60% of our school today.  Anyone pushing this part of high school life aside would be someone with a rather narrow view of the American high school scene of 2009.

But instead of seeing a focus on science, history, and poetry as narrow…  what if we saw it as something much larger?  What if we found a way to teach all of the subjects we care about today within this framework?  Could that be done?  What if we dissolved our hallowed curricular walls and found a way to deliver all of those wonderful bits of learning through very broad lenses such as these three?

I can see a million problems.  Where does engineering fit?  Engineering isn’t really science.  It is most usually an outgrowth of science.  Engineering is science applied to life.  However, aren’t the best examples of engineering a marriage of art and science?  There are others of course.  I welcome the discussion following this post.  Writing online is great like that, right?

Insurmountable?

Perhaps the largest thorn in the side of such an experimental approach is our compartmentalized teacher certification system.  Not only that, but with most of us as products of such a linear, territorial system- could we even create a small number of schools that could do this at a high level?  I understand why this is different in secondary vs. the elementary world.  The content knowledge required in the higher grades in 2009 is daunting for sure.  I get it that most folks couldn’t deliver calculus.  Most of us couldn’t prepare teenagers for college-level physics or a journalism program either.  And yet, what percent of your student body did I just include by mentioning those two courses?  More importantly, perhaps restructuring schools toward a more integrated nature seems more daunting to the “closed four walls” of the typical classroom.  Perhaps those who have opened up the walls of their classroom to colleagues near and far can more easily imagine a new and innovative structure for schools.

Of course this couldn’t really fly in a public school today, could it?  But then again, how is what are are doing right now working for us?  Many universities have “honors” programs within the normal school.  These programs are often about collaboration and integration of subject matter to create a more relevant and rigorous environment.  The same goes for gifted ed classes.  It seems that we continue to create opportunities for both our most talented kids as well as those who display “buy-in” to the system of schooling as it is today.  Of course I think this is a great thing.  But, what about the massive chunk of the teenage populace who see school as not immediately relevant to their lives?  What needs to happen for us to imagine a learning environment that is chunked up in some way different than we have already tried?  The huge numbers of disaffected or otherwise uninterested teens can’t wait much longer.  I wonder if their vision could be any more comprehensive.

As is often the case…  far more questions than answers here today.  Once again, I’m appreciative for the ability to think aloud in a loose forum full of smart and enthusiastic people.  What about those three overarching “subjects” mentioned above?  Are there three you’d propose alternatively?  Hopefully an idea or two will be left stirring in your head.  Feel free to share below if so.

Artwork

Give me potential or give me death.

~Sean Nash

A Patrick Henry moment

Yep, I just quoted myself.  It’s OK, I’ll take that one.  In fact, I think I’ll take it and run with it for a bit.  Check it out.  See, I don’t deal well with what one of my science department colleagues refers to as the “Negative Nelson.”  These are folks who jump quickly to the most negative outlook possible to begin any task, discussion or debate.  Now I’m certainly not talking about people who exhibit the valuable skill of being able to ferret out potential pitfalls in any new endeavor.  Karl Fisch, in a recent workshop at MICDS in St. Louis, referred to those elements of a system as the “yeah, buts.“  His willingness that day to confront potential snags head-on is one of the marks of any successful project manager.

That said, negativity used as a strategy to push back from the table (whether conscious or unconscious) in order to avoid change or conflict is a very toxic thing.  Life is too short and too difficult as it is.  Stirring up extra negativity in such a challenging career field is more than a waste of time.  In my 18 years as an educator I have had the benefit of working in environments that were so positive and supportive that I was constantly inspired.  I have also had my years where “clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right” is about the most polite way I can put it.  Negative Nelsons. Thanks, Jennifer.  That one is elegantly simple.  It made me laugh, and it made me reflect.  So obviously, I haven’t been able to get in here to write very much as of late.  Please excuse the rapid-fire unloading of thought here.  I’ll get back to succinct when I get more time.

“I would have written a shorter letter if I had more time.”

~Blaise Pascal

Why the “2.0?”

Now that I think of it, I probably could have just entitled this one “2.0″ because this is now what this phrase means to me.  I’m not going to go off into the history of the quirk of using “2.0″ to signify the newest iteration of…..  something.  Heck it is now used for pretty much anything:  Web 2.0, School 2.0, Library 2.0, Government 2.0, and on and on and on.  Tack a two at the end and instantly whatever you are talking about, planning, or selling becomes better, newer, shinier.  From my personal perspective, what at one point meant something to those pushing the envelope of using the Internet in education, now means means less.  The more you use something, right?  I get it.  I know.  After a while of having “2.0’s” ping-ponged about in the echo chamber of online communications… the meaning does tend to get stale.  If you subscribe to the tweets of some of the more connected edtechers out there, you’ll find more than a few who are just plain ol’ sick of the term.

Why it doesn’t bother me

Let’s just get this out of the way first:  According to Global language Monitor, “Web 2.0″ is the  1,000,000th word added into the English language.  So there.  It means something.  For the “How’d they figure that?“, click here.

I’ll be honest.  I hate it too by now.  It is the height of cliche’ in my head.  However, I think I am just sick of it considering how much I actually feel the need to use the term in my current job as an instructional coach in the middle of a constructivist reformation/technology integration pilot.  I try to use a ton of helper phrases to describe this entity as well: read/write web, social web, participatory web, and other.  Those are great, and do help, but I still need two-oh.

In a recent technology summit in our school district, an administrator actually started out one of the segments declaring that in terms of education, Web 2.0 “doesn’t really mean anything,” and that people really can’t agree on whether it will have an impact or not.  This is one statement I had to disagree with point blank that day.  Really, I get why it might seem less-than-concrete on the surface.  With utmost respect, to an educator not using the participatory web in the classroom (or anywhere else professionally) “Web 2.0″ must look a bit like the wild west compared to the pricey and packaged comfort of a content management system like Blackboard, WebCT or E-Companion.  But think about it-  a constructivist classroom probably does look like Dodge City to the vast majority of people who were educated in the neat and tidy rows of desks in the American schools of our past.

What it means for me is that frankly…  I don’t have to wait for anyone any longer.  When I want to go, I go.  When my students are ready for something better (that fits good pedagogy) we go.  With a robust and lightly filtered network-  no longer did I have to wait for more software to be decided upon, purchased, server space to be allocated, or passwords to be doled out.  With Web2, I was able to immediately make a go at what I, my administrators, my students, and my parents thought was the right path to follow.  I could hone a web tool to my liking in a weekend.  I didn’t need to wait for a comprehensive plan filled with multiple opportunities for job-embedded professional development and one-on-one coaching.  I was ready, and I rolled on.

All of a sudden, more than at any time previously in my career, I was able to model myself as a learner in the classroom right alongside my students.  I was able to show them what it looked like to be a connected learner in the digital world of current information and communications technology.  Now I am ready to go back and help build that comprehensive implementation plan for our teachers and students.  I hope I am continually able to model those experiences in the other direction as well…  still as a learner modeling the navigation of our newly-digital terrain, though not only for our students but also for those who make far-reaching decisions for each of the students in our town.

Positivity and possibility

I need positivity.  My engine thrives upon it.  I need open potential.  I need new possibilities.  Here’s why I decided today to “re-like” the terminology of 2.0:  It is just so full of possibility.  School 2.0?  Seriously, who isn’t interested in reforming the future for the largest open-schooling system in the world?  Don’t answer that.  Good point.  I’m sure there are plenty who aren’t.  But look how many really are.  Because of Web 2.0, the folks who want to step up and have a hand in the remaking of our outmoded schools, libraries and governmental participation models…   can.

Web 2.0 is still a novel and effective tool for democracy.  It is still a new way to interact via the Internet.  Why not let it remind you of the shiny possibility of doing something better the next time you try?  Sticking a two at the end of something doesn’t automatically make it better.  However, possibility is as contagious as negativity.  Spread some love, will ya’?

Artwork

This post begins with a bigfat pointyfinger toward a recent post on Dean Shareski’s blog: “Ideas and Thoughts.“  The title was so fitting that I couldn’t bring the idea without it somewhat as well.

Nuts & bolts

Though I took the post pretty lightly through the first paragraph, I then started seeing the relevance of this in my world.  The post rants away at the fact that so many people take technological tools at face value-  rarely digging down beyond default settings to see what all the tool might actually be able to do.  By actually changing each potential setting to fit the needs of the user, the device becomes a much better tool in the hands of the owner.  Always seemed pretty simple to me.  In fact, at one point in the post he describes working with students who were all using smartphones.  He noted that the students in that setting who were familiar with the customization of the device were much more satisfied users.

“I told them to start thinking like hackers. I asked them to think of their devices in terms of what it should be able to do rather than only what it does.”  ~Dean Shareski

These stories made my brain go in two directions, really.  One was a nuts & bolts connection where I realized how purposefully I take teachers new to the MacBook Pro (our weapon of choice) almost directly to the System Preferences pane before beginning any real work.  In my comment on Dean’s blog I spoke of this in a bit more detail.  Towards the end of my rather lengthy comment, I took the idea of defeating default settings (much as Dean vaguely suggested at the end) to its other destination in my brain.  That is, when we as teachers immediately jump purposefully and directly into a new world with new possibilities that we truly feel control over, then we can move into new dimensions.

And beyond

The next pointyfinger goes here.  By the time I read this post, Will Richardson had just dropped a post that seemed to take the seeds of that idea into full-blown question.  Entitled “If We Could Start Over, What Could We Build?“, the piece references a 2000 CITE article and looks at how nearly true reform is when it is retrofitted over the top of what we are currently doing.  To me, the difficulties of this are immediately apparent.  In fact, a book I am reading right now speaks, at least metaphorically, to the problems with building cumbersome entities on top of existing ones as a quick fix for the immediate moment.  While the book, (Kluge by Gary Marcus) speaks about the human brain’s construction and modification throughout evolution, school leaders at any level will likely be able to draw parallels with their situation.

Again, repeating my deeper connections to some of these ideas here seems silly when reading the referenced post/commentary in context makes better sense.  So therefore, I won’t do a repeat here.  But suffice it to say, I state my quite practical belief in finding ways to make this sort of “system redo” possible.  To me, the only practical way to hit reset and start anew within your own complex system today, is to build a pilot.  Pilot programs that are allowed the charge of innovation can truly create a fishbowl of study in your neck of the woods.  Do it differently.  Do it now.  Think hard, set something up…  then set about doing it.  Don’t just talk about what it would be like if you followed another approach, actually find out.  In science, we call this a controlled experimental setup.  In the rest of the world, we just call this smart practice.

“Pilot programs that are allowed the charge of innovation can truly create a fishbowl of study in your neck of the woods.”

Read both posts/comments.  And if you’re really adventurous, get the book.  Think of starting from scratch.  Think of rebuilding your system.  Think of rewiring your brain.  Hey…  if that all seems a bit much to you, at the very least think of changing the settings on your iPhone.  You might be surprised what all it can do!

Artwork

What highway?

Just what does the “21st Century classroom” actually look like?  Do you even know?  What do you actually picture when you close your eyes and imagine?  Does your classroom reflect this ideal?  What is the divide between the ideal and the reality in your school or district?

Here’s betting that these two classroom images are far from your vision.  Allow me to set these up for you a bit…

Ever so slightly more green

My district has an interesting embedded program known as Crayons to Computers.  A significant chunk of space is devoted to warehousing and categorizing materials donated from businesses and individuals that might have otherwise ended up in a local landfill.  While seemingly little more than a room of junk to the uninitiated visitor, in the hands and mind of a creative teacher, this program can be a godsend.  From notebooks, pencils, and crayons to beakers, books, and computers, this nifty little depot often has just what the resourceful teacher needs to complete a classroom project.   And perhaps even more importantly, every single instructional use of these items helps to turn a portion of the community’s refuse into educational treasures.

This past August, in the midst of our “New Teacher Institute” in the days before school started, the district’s instructional coaches took our bright eyed new hires on a tour of some of the more crucial components of daily operation in our world.  Sandwiched between mini-seminars on best practices, practical tours and nuts & bolts introductions done to help acclimatize our new blood to their new surroundings.  One stop along the way was C2C.

That day, while new teachers perused the bins, boxes, and shelves of our depository of donated items, I decided to play along.  Longtime teachers have had years to collect resources and to craft an environment for learning to their liking.  However, to early service teachers -with far less time under their belt-  this storeroom is a place to stock up on consumables among other things.  In a town that battles significant socioeconomic stressors, this storeroom is celebrated by many.

I picked up one item to keep that morning.  While rifling through a poster bin with one of my former students -now a biology teacher- I found a…   what might be the opposite of gem?  Turd, you say?  Ok-  fine by me, let’s go with that.

This poster, entitled:  “Millennium 2000,” reads:

Gone are the days of the one-room schoolhouse.  During the second half of the 19th Century, kindergarten was established and school criteria were changed to educate children as individuals.  The superhighway now passes through most classrooms, allowing children of the 21st Century access to the entire world.

Now there’s a sentiment worth repeating…  reform.  Change in what we do.  Change in the tools, the access and thus the mission of our schools.  Access to a potential global perspective.  Who doesn’t believe in this as a good thing?  In fact, such a change in access, coupled with reform, should produce profound differences within the classroom.  Right?

Poster study

Now study the poster.  What exactly are the differences depicted here?  The inset image should show the shift in reality in our schools.  Does it?  What is really different here?  Where is evidence of a change in curriculum?  Where is the evidence of the “superhighway?”  Which classroom is more inspiring?  Which is warmer?  Which is more engaging?  Which is more teacher directed?  Which is………..

Funny stuff, huh?  I thank those who have come before me in our district.  We have been blessed with a robust pipeline of digital data since before we knew what to do with it.  Though we are still mere babes in the woods of the read/write web, we are beginning to establish a long-range study and planning group.  We recognize the realities of a world that is changing faster than we can even measure.

Real plans

I am excited for the future of schools in our little Midwestern outpost where the Pony Express began.  I’d like to think that we could recreate our vision and purpose along the same lines as this historical entity.  I would love to think that we could envision our local schools as the starting point for an epic journey of learning through rigorous, and often unknown challenges.

We might smirk at the poster mentioned above today, but are we planning to become the “Pony Express” of learning for the future -both locally as well as nationally?  I certainly hope so.

Artwork thanks: