New Year Resolutions 2011 - cartoon blog post
Google & Verizon - in our best interests?? http://branzburg.blogspot.com/2010/08/follow-money-part-ii.html
My blog with educationally-related cartoons is located at branzburg.blogspot.com. Check it out!
My blog with educationally-related cartoons is located at branzburg.blogspot.com. Check it out!
My latest graphic post (formerly called a cartoon) - http://bitstrips.com/read.php?comic_id=514128
I was just reading an older post on Kim Cofino's blog
(http://mscofino.edublogs.org/2009/12/10/making-the-implicit-explicit/);
she mentions learning tech "Just in Time" (when you need it) as
opposed to "Just in Case" (learn it now whether or not you need it
now).
Just in time works better for most people. One will remember a skill
better if learned when it serves to help solve a real problem one has.
It's a tool.
I was able to participate in Educon 2.2 this weekend remotely through Vokle and Elluminate. Although not at all the same as being there, it did enable me to see some sessions live, and chat with others doing the same. It was also the first time I have used Twitter productively. Although I wouldn't replace note taking at a conference with tweets, it did enable me to add to the flavor of the weekend and amass a number of 'sound bites' of interest:
There are many people who work at infusing digital technologies into schools and districts. Over the years many of these instructional technology leaders have left school systems to become consultants, full time speakers, writers, etc. Many others have left schools to become district office administrators. In these roles, they all perform an important service as we continue this effort to infuse digital technologies into K12 education, and deserve to be lauded. But the people who still work directly in schools (e.g. David Jakes, Chris Lehmann, Vicki Davis, Jason Levy, etc.) are the ones who are really on the front lines of this effort. The past 4 months have reinforced this to me. Even though I am a 'consultant' and not a full time school employee, for the first time in over 20 years I have been working regularly (three days a week) in a single school. It has totally increased my appreciation for what the people on the front lines try to do on a daily basis. (And I am not equating what I do with what they do. They have the full day-to-day responsibility. I am like the grandparent, who can give the kids back.) As I read various practitioners' blogs and wikis and learn about their experiences and views, I frequently think about the differences between schools - rich, poor, urban, suburban, rural, etc. Some innovative schools are located in supportive, suburban communities with comparatively low numbers of students who receive free or reduced lunch (that is, compared to a large inner city), schools that have funds to renovate and improve school libraries, purchase hundreds of netbooks for student on-demand use, and add physical innovations such as informal work spaces for students so as to maximize collaborative possibilities. Some schools have admissions policies that include factors such as interviews, portfolio submission, student presentations, strong standardized test scores, good grades, teacher recommendation and good attendance. There are schools with the luxury of funding and resources acquired through partnerships with museums, nonprofits, and foundations. Then there are the schools in which there are not admission criteria for their students, who must take all comers who apply. Schools in which the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch is close to 100%, with parents who are working 2, 3 and 4 jobs to earn a living, who have fewer resources for their children - computers and Internet access, for example. Schools without outside support, with falling budgets, with little in the way of grants and special programs. I often find myself wondering about the differences in instructional technology implementation between the more affluent, selective schools and the typical public school. The Bronx school in which I am consulting is trying a number of methods to bridge some of these gaps. For example, as a pilot project last year parents of one grade's students were given (at school expense) inexpensive portable email devices that allow them to communicate with their children's teachers. (The school also provided email accounts for the parents.) Communications were helped, given that most of the children's homes did not have a computer, and of those that did many did not have Internet access. The program is being expanded to another grade next month. The school has an active and committed parent coordinator, a community member who acts as a liaison between parents and staff. Another major effort is a netbook implementation project, in which every student in 3 grades has a netbook to use all day in class. This project is being expanded to another grade shortly. Both the netbooks and the email devices were grant funded.
Providing this kind of computer access in school (1:1) is especially important for a typical school in a higher poverty area. A recent Pew Internet study showed that children in more affluent homes have access to computers and the Internet to a greater degree than those in less affluent homes (see http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/10-Home-Broadband-Adoption-2009.aspx?r=1). As such, these children come to school with an average comfort level exceeding that of kids whose homes do not have ready access. Programs such as this netbook project try to help bridge that gap a bit.
Student selection and admissions is also a difference. Taking all comers means some kids are more motivated, and some less motivated as students. having a selective admissions process increases the percentage of the more motivated, and lowers the percentage of the less motivated. That is not to say that interesting, innovative instructional technology implementation cannot be achieved even in those circumstances. For example, one good model we have in the Bronx is IS 339X, headed by Jason Levy. They do not choose their students, but have implemented a philosophy and structure that sets them apart from most middle schools.
I am currently reading "Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns" by Clayton M. Christensen (http://bit.ly/77FWBx). The thesis of this book seems to be that innovation cannot really occur within the defined structure of an institution; that within a defined structure the tendency will be to adapt the innovation to the structure, not to restructure the institution. The author gives many examples from the world of business, as well as applying it to schools, It seems to me to be saying that ideas such as charter schools, or schools built from the ground up with a philosophy (like Science Leadership, iSchool in NYC, and the School of One) will grow in a system parallel to the current educational system and if successful, will become the system of the future. The more I am in schools and visit schools, the more I do believe that true innovation needs to come from the ground up. Innovative leaders with committed and innovative staffs co-designing new systems in which students can learn.
So, can typical schools really change? I think it is hard. But given an innovative leader and a creative, committed staff, just maybe. Probably easier to start from scratch, but that's really way too impractical, given the number of schools in the the country.
