Category: Articles

I read a twitter post this morning from a teacher whom I very much admire. Though I don't want to quote directly, she said something about teachers preparing students for the past rather than the present, or much less the future. This is an accepted truth that is promoted widely in blogs, in tech conferences (including my own), and in other educational literature. Revered (by many and by me) educator Heidi Hayes Jacob often starts a presentation with the question slide, “What year are you preparing your students for?” The implied statement of this question is, “Not this year, and certainly not next year.”

I have had no problem with using this question/statement as a wake up call and a motivator, but today, somehow, it just hit me differently. Suddenly I heard the judgment behind the words, the sneer that has been in my own voice. The answer goes so far beyond saying that students are not being adequately prepared for the future. The subtext is that this problem is caused by teachers and administrators who either don't know or don't care to know that this problem exists or how to fix it.

The moral judgment of an objective truth can actually block progress. As with children, scolding is not a highly effective way to motivate adults. Yes, it's true that our current educational practices often do not prepare our students for many of the realities they will face in their professional lives. However, who's to say that our teachers prepared us for this world (or, by extension, if their teachers prepared them for that world).

With few exceptions (like Dr. Who) we all live in our current timeline. The way education has been organized, those in the current timeline create a learning environment for those on a different timeline. The dissonance is predictable, not solely because of short sighted educators, but because of the fundamental realities of time.

I am not suggesting that we stop moving forward, examining our practices, and projecting the future. However, perhaps we need to turn down the moral outrage and deal with this problem as a natural human condition rather than an aberration.

As always, I welcome your comments.

Image Credit: 'Day 214/365 – This picture is recommended+by+7+out+of+10+doctors'

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26104563@N00/3782012161

 

This post is a trial for some of the ideas I'm putting in an article. It might be a bit sketchy since I haven't thought the whole thing out yet, but bear with me…if it turns out any good, you can say, “I knew the article when it was just a twinkle in its Daddy's eye.”

Here's a news flash, education is changing. Though I continue to believe that the majority of children will continue to participate in traditional day school (where else are we going to put them?), what takes place in that traditional framework in a short time will have limited resemblance to what we have known as school.

There are numerous causes for this change, but one can't ignore the role of the growth and proliferation of technology in all parts of our culture. Given this reality (whether good or bad) it becomes more and more anachronistic to teach students in a technology-free environment. Once this technology becomes available, the entire reality of school changes from an environment of information scarcity, where a teacher is valued for what he or she knows, to an environment of information abundance, where a teacher is valued for her or his ability to curate information and provide guidance to students.

Another major shift to the education landscape is the introduction of the k-12 common core standards. Quick background for anyone unfamiliar. Each state has had a separate set of academic standards, but during the past decade, an effort was made to unify these into a single set to be embraced by all the states. Currently they are in the process of adoption by 46 states (for those who must know, Texas, Alaska, Virginia, and Nebraska). While these standards for language arts and math contain much of the same content as earlier state standards, there is a reorganization by grade level and focus on depth over breadth. In short, the grade by grade organization of curriculum is going to change for all students in all schools (except Texas, Nebraska, Virginia, and Alaska).

Unsurprisingly, these two areas of (r)evolution have not been greeted with universal joy and acclaim by all teachers and administrators. If the basic needs of the human are food, clothing, and shelter, the basic needs of the educator are stability, predictability, and immutability. This is understandable; leading a group of young people can be challenging (some would say terrifying), and the best defenses for a teacher are comfort, confidence, and routine.

Though it is not possible to put the changes back inside the box, as much as I might wish for 1988 to return, the presentation of and reaction to these twin terrors exacerbates, rather than solves the problem. We see edtech integration and common core integration as two problems, when actually it is one challenge, and a great opportunity.

To resort to my literature background (which is strongly deemphasized in the new common core standards to the great deiment of humankind), most educators see this as a Scylla and Charybdis. In the Odyssey, these were two monsters on opposite sides of the Strait of Messina. A ship faced destruction from one or the other, but could not avoid both. Similarly, many educators see edtech and common core as two opposing monsters attacking from either side, each providing a distinct and unavoidable challenge.

A better response from administrators and teachers would be to see this as one problem, rather than two. If we let go of the shore of today and fear of change, we can actually use Scylla to slay Charybdis (for the younger readers, see this as Wonder Twin power). Technological tools are well suited to present and assess the new standards, so we use one to embrace the other. Suddenly the teacher and student participate in one transformative process rather than two tasks.

As always, I invite your comments.

Image credits: 'Scylla, Charybdis and their neighbor Sylvia'

 

Editors Note: Yes, I know that my goal is in great jeopardy….going to need to write almost every day in August to make it.

I love presenting at workshops and conferences. As difficult as it is to write a new presentation, and as nervous as I get prior to the date, once I get going and interacting with the audience, I'm in heaven. It is the type of thrill that I haven't had since I was in the classroom.

Right now I have about 5 active presentations, and I'm working on 2 more. Three others have fallen out of date or have been overexposed. I have PowerPoints or Prezi's for each, and I have outline notes, but I never write out the entire presentation. I don't want to feel like I'm delivering from a piece of paper (I seldom look at my notes), and I want each presentation to change with the place, the time, and the people. I watch the audience carefully so I can know what to emphasize, what to explain, and what jokes are working.

The most gratifying thing is to receive further invitations at the conclusion of a talk. A few weeks ago I gave a talk and I had several inquiries about talks in the coming year. We'll see how many of these materialize (sometimes immediate ardor wears off during the trip home); but I had request that I hadn't heard before. A gentleman from Florida asked if I could present to a workshop in his diocese via Skype.

They say that the first rule of improv is to say, “Yes, and…” so immediately I said, “Sure, I'm sure that we could do something great for that.” However, once I returned to my room, I immediately started to ask, “What have I done?” How am I supposed to create the same experience for them (and for me) sitting at the desk in my office 3000 miles away?

So, I guess that is my question for the day for myself (and for you). How can I maximize the capabilities of Skype to give an audience I will only see in a small screen a worthwhile presentation? Clearly this has to be different from a live workshop, but I don't want it to be a movie of me presenting. I need to build some direct regular integrations with audience members to build a connection that I usually have when I walk down the aisle. The technology challenges are also daunting. For this to be at all effective, there needs to be a screen of me and another of the slides…this is partially their issue, but if it goes wrong it will be me who looks bad.

Finally, and most mercinarily, I don't want this to be a substitute for a live presentation because I want people to keep inviting “analog” me to their conferences. If I share my ideas too broadly (start doing webinars…ugh) I'll get used up too quickly, and this may end as quickly as it began.

As always, I welcome your comments.

Image Credit: 'Lassen Sie mich durch, ich bin Arzt.' http://www.flickr.com/photos/67715696@N00/462040233

 

I am attending the Riverside Leadership Conference in Chicago this week. Riverside is the company that produces and grades the Iowa Test, the standardized testing system that we use in California Catholic schools. State standardized tests that are used in public schools are not available for use in private schools, so most use tests from Riverside or other companies to measure student achievement and growth.

Now, let me be careful here. Unlike many other education critics, I don't completely discard standardized testing as a valuable part of a comprehensive program. Some skills can be measured in objective, standardized testing, and charting student growth in these areas can supply information about a school program or an individual student (though I don't disagree with those who claim that standardized testing is the best predictor of the income level of the student's zip code).

However, the obsession with standardized test scores that drives the public (and to a great extent private) education is an enemy of true education. I understand why these scores have become sacrosanct; within the fuzzy world of assessing students' abilities, these tests provide a numerical certainty. I know that my child is a 79, that my child is stronger this year than last, that my child is smarter than your child. What is lost is that this testing is only one part (and not the largest part) of an entire student profile. Other parts can be measured through performance and other assessments, but despite efforts of standardization through rubrics, there is an unavoidable subjectivity and not a simple, easy-to-grasp number. Public discourse in our polemical society abhors subjectivity and needs the black and white, thus the small portion of student profile assessed well through standardized test has become the sum of education. Incentives, funds, and, most tragically, time are shifted to this portion of the picture, neglecting the rest of the student development.

The skills assessed in standardized testing are not the most essential life skills. The reliance on objective multiple choice questions, rules out significant critical thinking. Performing objective operations in a limited time frame is not a life skill, it is a testing skill. I have yet to come to work only to be handed a #2 pencil and a bubble sheet, and the majority of the issues I face do not have one solution. Again, I am not ruling out this type of testing nor am I discounting the importance of developing base skills that operate below the surface in the more complex operations of my life. However, my overall success in life is based on more complex operations that I never saw on an Iowa test (I scored very well on testing through school, so this is not an opinion based on sour grapes).

So attention to the tires is driving the school bus.

As always, I welcome your comments.

Image credit: Image: 'the professor is six minutes late' http://www.flickr.com/photos/55779593@N00/127023370

I'm waiting in the airport for my flight to Chicago which has been delayed an hour…just about enough time to get this post done. While in Chicago I will be presenting my talk, “10 Technology Trends that Will Change Education (and the World in General)” for the Riverside Leadership Conference. I'm looking forward to everything except the anticipated weather of 95+. However the conference and my talk are not really the theme of this post.

Generally when I go to present, I take a netbook,which I use to show the PowerPoint or Prezi, and my iPad, which I carry around the room with my notes. This is the first time that I've left the laptop behind and am going iPad solo. While the weight and logistic advantages of carrying only one device are obvious (little known fact, you don't have to take an iPad out of your luggage at security check), I have always worried about giving up the full editing capability of the netbook. However, three factors have changed my thinking.

1. There are presentation programs for PowerPoint and Prezi that are dependable and don't force me to give up features as much as the early ones did. Currently I am using Slideshark for PowerPoint and the Prezi Viewer. These two programs work with high dependability while maintaining animations and slide builds.
2. Sometimes I've needed to make changes in a presentation the night before which was impossible in the past. However, new features in the Prezi Viewer allow basic editing, with growing options with each new release. For PowerPoint, the Cloudon app gives me the ability to edit my presentation in a full MS Office interface, again, not perfect, but consistantly improving. So I'm not stuck if I come up with a great idea at the last minute.
3. I have also observed that though I carry the iPad with notes, I seldom, if ever, refer to them. I've done most of my presentations enough that I can work from the slides, and if I am working on something new, it's just as convenient (and significantly lighter) to carry a pad of (dare I say it) paper.

Currently I use an adapter to connect the ipad to the projector, so i need toelevate the iPad on the podium. But I am also looking forward to a time when I can go wireless and connect to the projector with Apple TV or another protocol so I can carry the iPad around the room as I talk.

So my travel becomes significantly streamlined, with little to no loss of ability.

I'll let you know how this all works out.

Image credit: Image: '365:244' http://www.flickr.com/photos/25188624@N02/4659896893

If I am going to make my summer goal of 30 posts by September 1 (I know that I'm already behind…wait until late August when I'm writing putting my shoes on …one post for each shoe), I will need to employ all types and topics of posts. So today I will be writing in the tried and true blog genre of the consumer rant.

In my sights today is the Apple Computer Company. “Ah, finally a return to the Apple hating Greg that we all know!” Well, yes and no.

This past March I purchased the new iPad (the iPad 3). With it I bought the “Smart Cover” that has been available for both models 2 and 3. In case anyone has not seen one of these covers, it attaches to the device with a magnetic hinge and the cover folds over the screen in segments. The cover is “smart” in that the device automatically powers on when it is folded back and the segments form a supporting triangle to prop up the screen for use. In my early use of the cover, I was very impressed that the magnets snapped into place automatically and held very securely.

However, about three months later I started to notice that occasionally as I held my iPad, the cover would snap off. At first I attributed it to an incidental hit, but over the past month it began to happen more often and during regular use. If I hold the iPad by the cover in portrait mode for reading, I will often be annoyed to have it suddenly dropped on my chest (the metal corner can make a reasonable dent and certainly break concentration). I had to conclude that my Smart Cover was losing its magnetism.

I looked online and quickly found several forums (including Apple Forums) that mentioned this. I also asked my wife about her cover which she has used for about 6 months. She confirmed that she also had noticed a fading attraction…with the iPad cover.

Armed with this information and my iPad, I visited the Apple Store. I approached one of the blue-shirtted minions, explained and demonstrated my problem. His first reaction was , “Hmmm I've never heard of that before, let me ask.” I waited while he consulted with his superior. In a few moments he came back and informed me that the store does not service or support the cover and that a cover can only be replaced in the first fourteen days. In other words, tough.

My rage over this situation is threefold. First, I'm irritated that this product is failing. Apple products are premium priced because they offer a certain level of user experience. If the iPad works perfectly, but the cover falls off, this hurts an otherwise excellent experience, an Achilles Heel to the flagship product.

Second, I HATE it when employees say, “I haven't heard of that happening before.” A cursory search on Google yields several discussions of this issue, and in my house the occurrence is 2 for 2. However, even if this blue shirt had not experienced this before, this type of accusatory statement is inappropriate. Frankly, I don't care whether you have heard of this before, if it is happening to me, it is happening.

Third, I am frustrated that the answer was to provide no resolution whatsoever. I'm left with the problem and no clear solution. I'm thinking about trying to “recharge” the magnets by rubbing them with a stronger magnet as I did in my 4th grade science class. I don't want to buy another cover, particularly since all the evidence indicates that I'll be having the same problem in three months. I could “baby” the cover, trying hard not to put strain on it, but again this takes away from the overall experience.

I know that I will complain on the Apple site, and I ask any of you who have experienced this to do the same until they provide a solution as elegant as the iPad itself.

I welcome your comments.

Image Credit: Taken from the Apple site without permission, but they owe me this much

 

I’ve been using the iPad for nearly two years now, and with all the talk this week about an upcoming Microsoft tablet, I took a few minutes to take stock of where I am with this product. Though (for those who remember that far back) the iPad was more or less forced on me in the midst of my skepticism (read paranoid hatred) about the product and the tablet in general. Now two years later, would I still choose this platform if offered another choice.

The simple answer is yes. I remain completely attached to my iPad. In fact, when the new iPad came out, I purchased one with my own money, so I could no longer be considered a, unintentional user. I take it with me everywhere, and I use it daily (understatement). In almost all cases I love the interface, and I particularly like how the compact device contains so many parts of my business and personal life. Sitting with my iPad in an airport (as long as I have wifi…another post) I can work on a blog post, answer email, watch Netflix movies, read a novel (I’ve really become addicted to reading on the iPad…recently while reading a “retro book” I found myself touching a word on the page to get a definition), or dozens of other uses.

Broader than this, I have found that my basic tech orientation has changed (please don’t rip from this post, “Greg has changed his orientation”). I used to sit at my desktop at home for hours daily, now weeks go by without touching it. This is similar to work, where I often sit with my iPad on the desk, ignoring the machine right beside me. My netbook has been relegated to the machine I hook up to projectors when giving a presentation. I am about to write an inexcusable phrase…the iPad is my lifestyle device (please, don’t hate me).

Now, I can’t say that I love to do everything on the iPad, when I have to make a complicated PowerPoint or Prezi presentation, I still use a desktop machine. I am looking forward to full integration of Office into the iPad, though I still am unsure whether it will be easier than to have the multi-tasking environment and load screen of the desktop. Probably most frustrating for me is that I’m still taking two devices with me when I do a presentation, my netbook to hook up to the projector and my iPad for my notes. I hate taking two devices on a plane. This is a problem of my own creation. When I used only a netbook I always kept my notes on paper, and I could still do this with the iPad, but my desired for self-contained presentations still outweighs my hatred of carrying two computers.

With the announcement of the Microsoft Surface Tablet this week, I’ve been asked whether the Surface may become the iPad killer. Though I am tempted to say no, I don’t see people moving to a different product at a similar price for a long time, I think it is safest to say that I don’t know. I certainly have been proved wrong more than right in my prognostications. However, in either direction, I am fairly confident that for the the next period of time, I will be using (and loving) my iPad.

As always, I welcome your comments.

 

Photo credit: iPad http://www.flickr.com/photos/36234195@N04/390

 

This is the first week of “school summer.” The majority of the schools are out, and aside from a few panicked calls from parents and principals, things slowly transition into their summer pace. In many ways the next two weeks are the best part of the summer. I was remarking to someone that I always feel the turn immediately after the fourth of July; suddenly summer is not that new, and the coming year is on the radar…already presaged by Back-to-School sales!

As I started to sort out my office, I found some notes for blogposts that never were written, many of which are far past their relevance. Hesitantly, I logged into the blog itself to see its very neglected condition. Despite my yearly promise to post at least twice a month, I see that I’ve only written four times through nearly half a year. Though I know my readership is not large, I can’t see how anyone can follow a blog with posts that are rarer than sightings of Bigfoot.

Looking back on last year, I saw that I was most productive last December when I created the artificial “24 Days of Blogging” challenge (obviously I can’t be disciplined, but I can trick myself). Though I don’t want to match the craziness of that marathon, I thought I’d try again during the summer.

So beginning this week, I will write at least 30 blog posts (not counting this one) prior to the end of “school summer” on September 1. That’s about one every three days. I don’t know what I’ll be writing about (if you want to send suggestions, I would love you), but I will try to comment on a wide range of education, technology, life, and cultural topics (I’ve noticed in my writing that I’ve become much less of a tech blogger and more a life blogger…sounds like the beginning of a post).

Anyway, grab your surf board and here we go! As always, I welcome your comments

Image: ‘End of summer / Fin del verano‘ http://www.flickr.com/photos/8991878@N08/3353864563

 

Apologies for being away…wish I had a legitimate excuse.

I read with interest about the purchase of Instagram by Facebook last week for 1 BILLION DOLLARS. Whether or not Facebook overpaid for this property (they did), one cannot deny that this latest Internet fad had a meteoric rise in popularity (and price). As I read the article, while I meditated on the unreality of a billion dollars, my eye was caught by another, slightly smaller, number.

Instagram has 14 employees.

14

While it is easy to see this as a lottery situation with 14 lucky winners, I see the number in a different business sense. If we take the economy of the world as a limited number, then 1 Billion of the total worth employs 14 people.

Kodak, a more traditional photo company, has hit financial hard times. Though valuation estimates vary, the company is estimated to be worth between 2-3 Billion, and this does not truly reflect what the purchase cost of the company might be. Given its current Chapter 11 bankruptcy status, many suggest that that purchase value might be quite less. The company employes over 17,000. So, even using the most generous valuation figures, in this company 1 Billion employs over 5000…in a failing company.

As I looked at these numbers I was struck again by a concern that has been gnawing at me. If more and more value is attached to companies with fewer and fewer employees, where will everyone work? It would take over 1000 Instagrams to employ Kodak, and even with the explosion of Internet business, there is no way that this area can accommodate the employees of the companies that are currently threatened by new models.

Now, I’m not trying to go “grumpy old man” on this. I’m not nostalgically trying to hold on to old models, and I recognize and encourage schools to embrace new models of distribution and instruction. However, behind this evolutionary movement is a belief that when the music stops, there will still be enough chairs for all of the players.

When I talk about this to others, I’m often reminded of the employment changes of the Industrial Revolution. Though I wasn’t there to watch, my sense over time was that the workforce adapted to these changes and people were by and large able to find work and build lives within new realities. Maybe the same thing will occur and we will find new ways to employ people. However, in a market driven economy, I don’t know how the motivation to create a billon dollars through 5000 can beat creating it through 14.

I don’t think we can (or should) artificially retard the pace of progress, but as I keep running by as chairs are yanked away, I hope that there will be seats for my daughter, and for the sons and daughters of others.

As always, I welcome your comments.

 

This post started to be about a huge topic, but I kept getting bogged down. So I decided for a bite of the elephant instead of the entire beast.

A friend of mine (and by friend of mine I do not mean myself) whom I’ll call Maynard, recently found himself in an uncomfortable position with a third friend, whom I’ll call Clarice, caused by changes to Facebook privacy settings.  Maynard made a comment on one of his Facebook friend’s posts, not realizing that current settings cause the original post and his comment to appear on the pages of all Maynard’s friends.  Luckily the comment was not toxic, just teasing, of Clarice, and after a few awkward moments the kerfufel resolved itself into an uneasy truce.

One doesn’t have to look far in their own lives or the news to find dozens of similar stories.  Whether deserved or not, Congressman Weiner’s career was abruptly ended by unintended sharing.  Pro athletes have shared information about their injuries that teams have wanted to keep private. Even Leo Laporte, the self-proclaimed “Tech Guy,” accidentally shared private posts during one of his podcasts at the end of last year, causing him embarrassment and perhaps other trouble.

While it is easy to point the finger and snicker, we are all vulnerable to similar gaffs.  We don’t understand the privacy settings on Facebook and other social media, and we electronically communicate things when we shouldn’t.  For most of us, this can cause a bit of social embarrassment, for others a major, life changing crisis, but the source of the problem is the same.

Which leads to the the point I want to make, why is online privacy not part of the new Common Core standards?  If these standards are what we expect a young person to know and be able to do by the time he or she finishes twelfth grade, isn’t knowing how to communicate effectively and appropriately part of this?

I was looking through the standards (currently available for language arts and math), and I found no mention of online privacy.  A student leaving high school is supposed to know and understand the quadratic equation, but they are on their own when it comes to Facebook.  With no intended insult to the math cartel (OK, I suppose calling them a cartel is sort of an insult), the number of people who use the quadratic equation after leaving school is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

While I recognize that there are technology standards that address this issue, these are not part of the sacred common core.  Thus they will be addressed or not to the extent they are a focus for a teacher and school, and they will not be part of national standardized exams which is the chief driver of classroom time.

Whether or not we teach the higher level maths is a discussion for another day, but if education is to prepare students for life and not some theoretical semblance of life, it should do just that. 

As always, I welcome your comments.