The Results Are In

There are good and bad urban public charter schools and there and good and bad urban non-charter public schools. Profound! Regardless of reformer and transformer interventions, mayoral control or not, instant principal and teacher schools, more money spent per student, more hours in the classroom, more alternative schools, less bureaucracy, less union interference, more firings and hirings, more school turn-arounds, closures and openings, and Arne's focus on whatever works, the infamous "gap" continues, whether it be the real or perceived gap between the our and other advanced nations' students or between disadvantaged and not-so-disadvantaged students. (Phew, and I surely missed a number of experiments.) So what does work? Why exactly do some school do better than others that yields significantly better test scores? And should the goal be to equalize test scores, assuming that tests are good indicators of student potential as well as current knowledge? Probably not. I think the best we can do is strive to equalize education opportunity.

It could be that the "no excuses" schools are on the right path but I'm also inclined to agree with the notion that "our urban public schools cannot succeed unless health, social and employment issues are addressed" (see Jay Mathews blog). My thoughts on this turn to basic management theory. Many will remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid: simply put, the majority of lower level needs (physiological, safety, love/belonging and esteem) must be met before one can experience self-actualization. As Deborah Meier observed

The poor kids I encountered in kindergarten were accustomed to more formal and more consistent good manners—whether it was in how to address their elders or how to dress properly. They were less whiney and more obedient.

Children of the poor get tougher and more unmannerly slowly. In time, they lose respect for authority. Perhaps because adults are rarely able (or willing) to protect them. Maybe because many public authorities quite openly treat them and their families disrespectfully. Over time, they come to depend on “the streets” and their “peer culture” for safety...

When children of the poor realize that their lower level needs are not being met, they begin to seek satisfaction elsewhere, usually from within a culture that does not place much value on education. Obviously a small percentage of urban poor children achieve educational self-actualization in spite of their communities and economic circumstances. I will bet that these children are somehow experiencing a greater degree of basic needs satisfaction than the majority as well as being indoctrinated with the no excuses concept.

How important is technology in the educational setting?

I was recently asked that question. I stumbled. I know I should be able to answer it; no, I know the answer. But I just could't seem to filter and organize the billions of synapses that were firing to form a concise response. I mumbled something about the ubiquitousness of technology and the skills and knowledge needed to perform successfully in higher education endeavors and the after-education environment. In retrospect a better response would have been to narrow the question to something like, "How important is technology in facilitating the learning process?"

I categorize educational technology into five general processes, mostly for my own use in setting priorities for providing service and support (numbering not necessarily indicative of priority):
(1) interactive education process (core subjects teaching-learning primarily within the classroom);
(2) unilateral learning process (students using technology not under the direct supervision of a teacher);
(3) technology as a separate subject area (e.g. computer courses);
(4) school administration and management (school information/management systems, course/learning management systems, routine administrative and management functions; and
(5) faculty/staff technology professional development.
To refine the question a little further, we'll remove numbers 3 through 5 from consideration. Now the answer leaps to mind--it's that tried and true buzzword, "engage". Whether or not you agree with Mark Prensky's digital native-digital immigrant concept, we can all agree that K-16 students have access to and have used a hell of a lot of digital interactive stuff. They are comfortable in that world and they bring that world to school with them, whether we allow them to do so or not. At least outside of school they operate in that world. If you are a proponent of the constructivist or constructionist pedagogy and agree that engaged students learn faster and deeper, you will allow, even encourage, them to bring their digital world into the learning process and you will use those tools to guide them.

The answer then should have been, "Kids are immersed in technology and technology is indisputably in their futures. It follows, then, that if we intend to engage them fully in the learning process, technology most be a major ingredient in the educational environment."

FAIL - Individualized PD Plans

Reading Will Richardson's recent post, "Personalizing Education for Teachers, Too," brought me to a time about a year ago when in my role as technology director, I felt that our schools had stagnated in moving toward our goal of enhancing student achievement by adopting and implementing engagement and contructivist learning practices. A major objective within the goal was technology integration.

I addressed the stagnation issue to the Director of Schools and we agreed that I should present a "straw man" concept plan to the administration so as to get the discussion going. The day of the presentation came and we soared through the slides on engaging students, pedagogies, curriculum changes, and technology department reorganization. The administrators were obviously enthused and were offering insights and methods for consideration. Then we got to the keystone of the entire plan, an individualized professional development program.

I conceived and proposed an individual program that included multiple methods from conferences and eLearning to one-on-one to accommodate learning styles and broad content choices (unspecified) to accommodate teacher interest. I emphasized that all we had discussed to this point was dependent on an aggressive, multi-faceted PD program. As with previous talking points, I paused for reaction. Silence! It seemed to me to be an awkward silence. You know what I mean--no one in room even looks toward another. Rather, they look down at the table top. Seconds like hours pass and I click to the wrap up slide. "Thank you, Bill. You've given us a lot to think and talk about."

I still don't know why the cold shoulder. When I asked, the "awkward silence" was denied. "Really, do you think so? I thought your ideas were well received." I imagine that I had ventured into an off-limits subject area. One reserved for senior administrators. Almost all the teachers (92%)I had collaborated with in preparation for the presentation indicated that they desired more control over the what and how of their technology PD. In anonymous surveys, all were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with the current PD program. And in group and one-on-one discussions on the subjects, teachers appeared willing, even eager, to discuss and work with me on the concept. It's got to be an administrator thing.

Technology Integration Model

I've been wrestling with developing a comprehensive yet simple to present/explain model for technology integration. I was initially attracted to the Mishra-Kohler Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) model. It says a lot but because it was developed in a pre-service environment for the use of pre-service practitioners, it may not address all the elements necessary to actualize the model in a K12 environment. For example, it assumes that the infrastructure, hardware, and software are already in place. And I wonder if such other factors such as space, place, time, communities, and administrative/board commitment should be integrated into an application model as "essentials" to tech integration. I'm working on what else and I suspect that many of these can be subordinated to the three types of knowledge (TPC) and infrastructure-hardware-software.

No More Teachers' Dirty Looks

Jeff Utrecht, The Thinking Stick, recently blogged about virtual high school initiatives in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Very enlightening in view of what else I've been reading about advances in school architecture designed to be more in line with new pedagogies and collaborative environments. The blog also got me to envisioning the complete disappearance of schools--not schooling, but the physical buildings, and local, even state educational bureaucracies. Not only will the walls come down but political/educational boundaries will be eliminated and students will no longer be grouped, by age or otherwise. Initially, the new schooling systems may be commercial and competitive under the auspices of a federal department of curriculum compliance and assessment. How will students, parents, teachers and bureaucrats know when a student is ready to what? Matriculate? Graduate? What? Or could we leave the "what?" up to the business employment market? How could we handle social activities like sports, plays and concerts? Interesting.

Didn't Get the Job

What made the difference? I was afraid to ask. Was I afraid of the answer? Of the two finalists for a K8 school district technology director position, I was the one notified today that the other candidate was selected. "It was an extremely difficult decision to make, as both candidates possess..." blah, blah, blah. Never able to accept rejection well, I didn't hear anything after "possess."

Having been laid off as of the end of last July from a director of information technology position (eight years) for a upscale independent school, I wasn't just looking forward to employment, I was getting (am) desperate. I need the money! Why was I laid off? A department reorganization and job description redesign left me in philosophical opposition to the reigning administration. Really though, I was being asked to accept more responsibility for less money.

So, again, why wasn't I the chosen one? Age? Possibly. The demands of the online application make it impossible to avoid indirectly admitting age. I'm 67 now and that, coupled with my 20+ years of technology executive and manager experience, would surely have given the search team reason to expect that I would accept the position only if compensated at the upper end of the range or beyond. Should I have made it clear during the interviews that I would be satisfied at the mid-range?

Could it be because I am white? Maybe, but probably not. Although, the district is 60% Hispanic and 25% African American with the rest being white and a small percentage of Asians, the four members of the search team were white so.... I wonder if the other candidate was Hispanic. I would feel better if he/she were.

Ah ha, it was because I am a male. Right? After all, three of the four members of the search team were female. Could be but I don't know that other candidate was female.

I would like to think that any of the aforementioned reasons, or combinations thereof, would be beneath the search team members. So, I've come to the elevated conclusion that I was overqualified for the position. My resume cover letter reads, in part, "I believe that the key to enhancing student achievement lies in the confluence of curricular content, construtivist pedagogies, and technology integration--that the interoperability of these three elements will foster engaged learning, encourage students to accept accountability and responsibility for their own education, and consequently prepare them for success in the 21st Century." Was that too much education jargon for a technology director? Yea, I'm competent in the technical aspects of being a managing technologist, but, as most of us have come to realize over the past two decades, infrastructure, hardware and software, no matter how abundant, will do little to promote enhanced anything, much less, learning. And during the interviews I repeatedly emphasized my interest in technology integration, developing new and supporting curricular content, technology professional development, advanced pedagogies, eLearning, acceptance and promotion of Web 2.0 and the need for schools to revisit post-industrial place, space and time constraints to teacher and student collaboration and communication. Could I have gone so far as to suggest that students might be allowed to use certain personal collaboration tools--in school? I suspect that I should not have strayed so far from my technology roots. Hell, I even mentioned multi-discipline, vertical and horizontal co-learning, co-teaching, mentoring and broader external community learning environments.

Of course, this last may not have been the reason I wasn't selected, but I don't want to hear it. I do not want to believe that the other candidate was simply more qualified than I or even that she/he was a "better fit." Don't you love that phrase--don't rock the boat!

I'm changing my cover letter and my resume and if I ever get another interview opportunity I will stick to topologies, servers, help desks, database management, E-rate, hardware and software installations and troubleshooting/fixing, telephony, operating systems, web design/development, and other stuff like that.