Dig Deeper into Culture and History -- Exploring the Google Cultural Institute
Being a humanities teacher at the core, I understand that there is little as fulfilling as watching kids genuinely dig into original manuscripts and source documents. There is something so rich about allowing them to authentically connect with the past. Not the Reader's Digest version of the past we endearingly call text books. No, the imperfectly perfect documentation and images of the past that can best be highlighted in the authentic, original documents and photographs.
Leave it to Google to merge the world of modern day technology with the wealth of resources that demonstrate and define our rich cultural history.
Check it out and let us know if you decide to put the Google Cultural Institute to the test with your students. http://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/#!home
Infographic to Pinpoint the Right Google Tool for the Job
I've created a flow chart for our teachers to utilize as they begin their exploration of Google Apps. It leads with the statement, "I would really like to have my students..." and then their are a series of follow-up activities that teachers may have students do. They are grouped by the Google tool that may best suit that need.
Teaching with Google Apps Infographic
We teach that, too? Clear indicators of how wrong we've gotten education!
I sat with some very smart people today, talking about some really important topics. Things like the well being, the hope, and the engagement of our students. It was in that conversation, though, that I could not help but shake my head at just how wrong we've gotten education as a country.
We collect data on kids -- lots of data. So do most districts, I suspect. With really important, but often far less practically employed, buzzwords like "data-based decision making," we need to. However, the most commonly noted and published data is the data tied to standardized test scores. There is something meaty and important sounding in the name of tests, and the data is presented in such a way that the average on-looker (and headline writer) can make some sense out of the data these standardized tests can demonstrate. And for that reason, this data is the stuff that critical measures, such as the effectiveness of an educator, are based upon. While it makes perfect sense to those who only marginally understand what these tests are really effective at measuring, for those who understand the ins and outs of our existing formalized tests (not speaking about the next generation of tests, which look to improve upon some of the failings of our existing standardized tests), we know that these tests do not measure what truly matters in preparing young people for a successful, meaningful, hopeful, bright future.
See, and that is where the irony of this comes in. Today, as we explored the data that we have gathered in our district related to student hope, student well being, and student engagement, I think most people in the room could pretty tangibly understand that this is the data that truly matters most. Without getting into a discussion about the effectiveness or quality of the measurement, the reality is that our students need to be hopeful to succeed academically. They need to have their needs met, to be well physically, socially, emotionally, and mentally in order to even be available for learning. They need to engage with the instruction, with the content, and with the teachers to learn. We understand this inherently...it is the same stuff that we argue for each time a politician or a bureaucrat gets on their misguided soapbox and suggests that standardized test scores are what matter and are what set the mark for the lousy and the great teachers. It is in these moments that educators say things like, "Education is about more than content or test scores. It is about more than what is taught in a textbook. It is about relationships. It is about providing hope. It is about teachable moments." Educators get that, most of the time.
However, today, as we sat and looked at this data, it was clear that many of us had not really engaged with the concept of making meaningful steps to ensure that hope was instilled in our students every day in a wide variety of ways. It was clear that the well being of students wasn't necessarily a part of the school improvement plan. And where engagement is lacking (one of the greatest measures to indicate the potential academic success of any student), it was clear that we have not meaningfully engaged in mandating changes in instructional planning, practice, and delivery that would universally encourage greater engagement for more of our students.
This is NOT a slam of the people I sat with today. In fact, if anything, I offer my highest regards to those who brought this data to light for discussion and exploration. Additionally, I commend our leaders who are already doing things to make marked improvements in these areas within their schools, and to our leaders who, in light of the unveiling of this data, are going to take steps to focus on these areas to improve the personal and academic opportunities and potential for their students.
This IS, though, a commentary on the power of the press -- specifically on the headlines so many educators fear that suggest that a school is underperforming on standardized test scores. Whether we philosophically believe that what is tested in those standardized tests matters, we spend a LOT of time focusing upon them. This is particularly true at our secondary level, where the focus is less on the learner, and far more on the learning that needs to happen.
This IS is a commentary on our inability to focus first on the personal growth and overall improvement of the people that sit in our classrooms each day. We challenge them to grow academically, as students, but tend to forget just how important it is that we focus first on their needs as human beings. Not because we don't value them as such, but because we tend to be blinded by what everybody else tells us is important. This is additionally illustrated in our lacking emphasis on iimmediately focusing our curriculum in what are now being called 21st Century Skills. These are skills that our employers have told us are necessary in the work force. These are skills that we know are valuable for individuals to grow and prosper and respond appropriately throughout their lives in almost every aspect of their lives. Yet, I struggle to find many examples of schools that are meaningfully providing opportunities for students to experiment with these skills, to grow in them in a systematic way, or to receive regular, immediate, and valuable feedback on these skills. It is just another example of how we, as educational leaders, allow others to influence our focus and aim it in the wrong direction.
Perhaps the saving grace will be when we realize that an intentional emphasis on things like hope, well being, and engagement in our schools will be valuable parts of the formula that will ultimately result in an improvement in those test scores that tend to make the front page.
To start with the teachers, or to start with students? That is the question!
There are some ongoing "chicken and egg" questions that technology integrationists constantly wrestle with. Well, some of us wrestle with these dilemmas -- others, who are far more in the know, seem to smugly look down their beaks at us, puzzled as to why we haven't come to the same hard realizations that they have.
The "meaning of life" question for most interested in educational technology integration is this:
For meaningful integration of technology to occur, what must come first? The identified and justified need for technology, or the availability of technology that eventually fills a previously undetermined need.
Another question of equal importance, though, is determining which group of end users to start with. In the event that your district has a finite amount of financial resources, should those dollars first be spent by putting devices in the hands of teachers, who, in turn, will use them to instruct students in meaningful ways? Or, should those resources be spent to first outfit students with devices, who, in turn will use the devices to demonstrate learning in new, meaningful, and possibly even innovative ways?
Obviously, this is more of a philosophical discussion than a discussion on how to properly implement a 1:1 program. There are many alternative implementation plans that do not involve an all or nothing approach when it comes to giving students and staff devices. The core of the philosophical portion of this, though, focuses on which player (either the staff member or the student) would have a bigger impact on transforming educational practice and learning outcomes if they were given access to the device before the other player.
I was engaged in a conversation today that led me down this philosophical path again. Of course, there are valid points that exist on both sides of the issue that can influence somebody's personal philosophy. I, though, am going to explore my "gatekeeper" theory of education here, though, to see how it stands up. I appreciate any comments and attempts to blow holes in the theory...I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this either. I just need to flesh out the idea.
Imagine that 118 Fremont Street is the darling house of the neighborhood. Passersby respect the look and feel of the home, based upon the outward appearance. Craftsmen comment on the quality of the work, based upon the details that demonstrate themselves from the outside. Young women in the neighborhood dream of one day buying the home and raising a family of their own in the quaint little dream of a home.
Depite all of the whimsy the house promotes, there is only one entrance/exit to the home. And oddly, the entrance to that home is constantly guarded by a single gatekeeper, assigned solely to this home for the life of the home. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining the home, for protecting it, for furnishing it, for promoting order in the home, for serving and assisting the stream of temporary inhabitants and visitors to the home, and for assuring that the status of the home remains elevated in the surrounding community. Undoubtedly, the gatekeeper has one of those unique jobs where he/she must rise to a challenge that his bigger than himself/herself. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining both the actual and the perceived quality of the home. In doing so, the gatekeeper must constantly consider and balance all of his/her responsibilities before making any decisions that will impact the home and its temporary inhabitants.
Each day many salespeople come to knock on the door of 118 Fremont Street. Some peddle simple goods. Some peddle new local services. Some peddle ideas. Some peddle support organizations, while others peddle new faiths. It is a constant barrage of sales pitches, each with its own unique benefits (and unmentioned downfalls). Each of the salespeople are the best in their profession. They are genuine, convincing, and each salesperson has an ability to truly connect with the gatekeeper in a meaningful way. All of the salespeople purport that his/her product, service, idea, or organization will somehow improve the quality of the home, better meet the needs of the people presently living in the home, and lessen the burdensome, weighty responsibility of the gatekeeper in the process.
From within, though, the gatekeeper answers each knock with one eye focused on his/her personal responsiblity to the home (and its temporary inhabitants), and the other eye searching for something that can elevate the quality of the home (thus raising its perceived status within the community).
When the gatekeeper is first hired for the position, each knock at the door, each salespitch, each interaction is an opportunity to improve the quality of the home in a meaningful way. While the gatekeeper's responsibilities remain the same, throughout his/her career, in the earliest days the gatekeeper has little history to draw from as he/she answers the door and interacts with the salespeople. In these earliest days, the gatekeeper makes choices that are not blushed with actual experience, as there is little experience to draw from. Some decisions made by the gatekeeper elevate the status of the home, others detract from the quality and perceived status of the home. Despite the outcomes of these decisions, though, the responsibilities remain. They never waiver. The salespeople and the pitches and the products never stop either, although they change and morph.
As years pass, though the responsibilities do not waiver, the gatekeeper grows and changes. With each salespitch, with each product, with each decision, and with the ever-changing clientelle that temporarily inhabit the home, the gatekeeper forms an understanding of what works and what doesn't, based upon history and personal experience. Increasingly, the gatekeeper finds himself/herself basing decisions about the best/worst investments for the home based upon his/her personal experience as much as on the actual needs of the home. The gatekeeper becomes more wary of the less tangible pitches and products, as they are the ones that have been the least likely to positively impact the home's quality or value. Even as the inhabitants of the home begin to express an interest in products, ideas, or services, the gatekeeper has to weigh the needs of the present inhabitants against all of the other responsibilities the gatekeeper holds, and against his/her own experiences (especially considering that the inhabitants of the home will move on, to be replaced by new inhabitants with different needs or interests). Needless to say, over time salespeople are having a more difficult time selling to the homes with the most experienced gatekeepers.
On the other side of the door, though, clever salespeople have noticed this trend. With the goal of selling goods, services, ideas, or support to the inhabitants of the home, salespeople begin to try a new strategy. They begin to forego the gatekeeper by offering the goods, services, ideas, and support to the temporary inhabitants of the home when they are outside of the home. The goal, of course, is to encourage the inhabitants to take the items, or more importantly the need for the items, back to the home to do the difficult work of selling the product, service, or idea to the gatekeeper from within.
Remember, though, that there is only one entrance to the home, and everything that exists within the home is under the watchful eye of the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper ultimately understands and accepts that the overall quality and the perceived quality of the home is his/her responsibility. No matter what those temporary inhabitants say, want, or bring to the home, the gatekeeper has a larger responsibility than temporary needs or wants, and for that reason alone, the gatekeeper is unlikely to allow these "gifts" from the outside to enter the home with any regularity. The risk to the gatekeeper is just too great.
For the salespeople, this leaves only one reasonable option, if the goal is to convince the homeowner to buy the product. When the gatekeeper answers the door, they must be willing to provide tangible products, ideas, or services that the gatekeeper can experience. Personal, hands-on experience with the merchandise is the one selling point that allows the gatekeeper to overcome his/her history --which is ultimately the reason the gatekeeper has been more hesitant in his/her willingness to purchase from the salespeople to begin with. This approach allows the gatekeeper to evaluate the product upon its merits, rather than upon the sales pitch or the believability of the salesperson. It honors the unique responsibilities the gatekeeper is charged with, by allowing him/her to assess the product to determine if it suits the unique needs of the home. And, ultimately, if the product is worth its salt, it becomes obvious to the gatekeeper that the good or service is invaluable to improve the quality of the home, and it becomes a fixture of the home.
For those of us out here peddling the idea that technology is an invaluable change agent in education, we have to be willing to let the gatekeeper of each classroom "handle the merchandise." That means allowing them to try out our new devices and concepts and sites and tools before we put these things in the hands of kids. We all know that for technology to have any meaningful impact on learning outcomes, it ultimately needs to be in the hands of kids. However, if we want students to have consistent access to that very same technology, it is my contention that we better convince our gatekeepers of the classroom that technology can deliver on the promise of improving both the real and the perceived quality of that classroom. And the only way to do so, allowing us to circumvent the natural inclination of most educators to see educational technology as just another buzz word in a never ending stream of short-lived ideas and innovations in education, is to put it in the teachers' hands first! Let the product sell itself, and trust that our teachers respect their personal and professional responsibilities to students enough that they will make it a pillar of their classroom instruction because it does improve the quality of the learning that happens in their house.
Essential Skills Taking Hold
I had a very uplifting pair of meetings this morning... and if you know me, you know that runs counter to my normal feeling about meetings.
However, first thing this morning I sat with teachers who were given license to re-envision some of the "exploratory" subjects taught to students at one of our middle schools. These teachers were in the process of re-working the second version of a concept that they started using this year. Simply put, they are providing a structure for students to learn entrepreneurship, business, art, engineering, and some technical education concepts in one cross-curricular course that focuses on authentic, project and process based learning opportunities for the students. If that wasn't enough to knock my socks off, the teachers suggested that they were ideally hoping to use the Essential Skills our district has outlined as the primary learning targets for the class. (Essential Skills is representative of what is commonly called the "21st Century Skills" in popular educational buzzword lingo...an improperly coined term if only because we are more than a decade into the 21st Century and most of these skills are representative of skills that have been consistently important up to and long after this date.)
The piece that was most fulfilling, though, was the general agreement between teachers that the "content" of their particular disciplines would roll up easily into the seven identified Essential Skills. To me, that was the absolute break-through moment of the conversation that I witnessed. To them, it was just a common understanding. Can we really grasp how earth-shaking that is? Secondary (okay, middle school, but they were dealing with kids in grades 6-8) teachers were willing to set aside the central focus of content, specifically the argument that good teaching is measured by our ability to teach and to assess content learning for the sake of learning content. Instead, they agreed that content was the means by which skills would be practiced and assessed. I can only compliment the forward-thinking teachers in that room today -- I hope this was a glimpse into a much wider series of conversations that happen naturally across the profession. (Oddly, the most frustrating part of it was the structure of grades, reporting, and teacher accountability that were once again the 50,000 lb. gorilla in the room standing in the way for well-intentioned educators trying to find a new path for educational innovation.)
I rushed in late to the next meeting -- the focal point of this meeting was also the Essential Skills. We've recently unveiled two tools in the district that would reasonably support the adoption of an electronic portfolio for students. We needed to discuss if an e-portfolio was truly a route worth exploring -- a route that we were willing to invest time and resources to achieve. There were conversations leading up to the meeting that dealt with the question of how to best assess student growth related to the Essential Skills. It has been fairly apparent to me that the only meaningful way to assess skills such as Communication and Collaboration, Creativity and Innovation, and Digital Citizenship was to turn to an evidence-based (artifact that represent the learning) reflection portfolio. What wasn't apparent to me, though, was that others so agreed with that thought. Those that surrounded the table were whole-heartedly in favor of a student-owned, evidence-based e-portfolio that could be used to assess growth related to the Essential Skills. So in favor of the idea that they were seriously invested in figuring out a way to put our efforts and resources behind the project. Perhaps I have not given my peers in education enough credit to this point, but I truly thought that movement in this direction would be more of a sales pitch than a campfire sing-a-long. Admittedly, the folks at the table were some of our most forward thinking (I'm fortunate to work with people who are able to see beyond the educational status quo) in our district. However, the fact that there was little question if this was a good step, and a lot more emphasis on the details of what it would look like and how it could be achieved, was a sign that the mountain I was anticipating we'd need to climb may be more of a foothill.
So, to recap what I saw today --
1) Teachers at a middle school are eagerly planning a cross-curricular, project/process based learning opportunity for students to demonstrate learning that is focused on teaching skills that kids will need for the rest of their lives
2) A group that openly embraced and supported the concept of a student-owned portfolio that focuses on students taking responsibility for showing their growth in the various Essential Skills, potentially in grades K-12.
Yeah, I'd say it was a pretty good day. And yeah, I would say that innovation in education has taken hold. I guess it is fair to say that the idea that the Essential Skills matter is truly taking hold.
Reaction to Karl Fisch's "Things I Want My Future Principal to Read"
Pinterest - Social Bookmarking That is Both Graphic and Easy!
So, I'm not really sure where I learned about Pinterest, but thanks so much to whomever it was that pointed it out to me. I dig the concept of social bookmarking. It's a great idea conceptually. However, when it comes to actually digging into all that text -- well, the urge to back away quickly without taking time to actually read the content is often stronger than my desire to will myself through it all.
That's really why I like Pinterest. It's a graphic version of the links that I love from social bookmarking. Way more manageable and digestable than so many of those other biggies. It doesn't have everything I'd love in a social bookmarking site, but it is definitely worthy of a look from anyone who is just overwhelmed by all of the text and minutia of those the other social bookmarking biggies.
Here is the link to my first Pinterest Board: Ed Tech Books Worth Reading
Disclaimer: I KNOW they are not all "technology" books, but they are truly books about the elements needed to change any organization (specifically education), which means a move to more seamlessly integrated technology use by students to complete authentic tasks...so I think that should qualify!