When all students bring home is a piece of paper

Albemarle Maker Ed Video

Matt Caduff said (about a summer maker camp):

When all I bring home is a piece of paper and I picked B instead of C, I don’t have a lot to talk about with my parents and because I picked C and the answer was B I don’t want to talk about it. . . . If I’m bringing home something I made and it’s right because I made it – it was my plan – or I know how to fix it, I’ve got a lot to do at home.

I’ve watched kids be really successful and they’ve been successful, I’m pretty sure, in ways that they never have been at school and they’ve felt things that they have never felt at school.

via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUoVuYWNp0k

Happy viewing!

Image credit: Maker Spaces, Trevor Przyuski


4Q: The quadruple win

4Q

Four big questions to ask about a lesson, unit, or activity…

  1. Deeper learning. Did it allow students to go beyond factual recall and procedural regurgitation and be creative, collaborative, critical thinkers and problem-solvers? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be deeper learners and doers so that they can add value beyond what search engines, Siri, and YouTube already can do.]
  2. Student agency. Did it allow students to drive their own learning rather than being heavily teacher-directed? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be autonomous, self-directed, lifelong learners so that they can reskill and adapt in a rapidly-changing world.]
  3. Authentic work. Did it allow students to be engaged with and/or make a contribution to the world outside the school walls? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be locally- and globally-active so that they can be positive citizens and contributors to both their community and the larger world.]
  4. Digital tools. Did it allow students to use digital learning tools to enhance their learning beyond traditional analog affordances? Did it really? [If not, why not? Our graduates need to be digitally fluent so that they can effectively navigate our technology-suffused information, economic, and learning landscapes.]

What percentage of the learning occurring in your school system would simultaneously satisfy at least two of the above (2Q)? At least three of the above (3Q) for a triple win? All four (4Q) for the quadruple win?

If you have a 3Q or 4Q lesson, unit, or activity that you think is worth sharing, let us know below. We’d love to hear about it!


It’s time to move away from simple questions about technology integration

Adam Copeland said:

It is time for instructors to move from simple questions like, “Do you use technology in the classroom?” to the more complex, “For what purpose, and with what learning theories, should I engage digitally-enhanced pedagogies?” I have suggested a way forward that I have found useful, an initial attempt explicitly to address why, and for what reasons, I have proceeded with digital practices in the classroom. These four pillars – forming collaborative relationships with peers, preparing for citizenship, encountering difference and disagreement, and welcoming complexity – represent four possible emphases, and surely there are others. A teacher may wish to emphasize a particular pillar more than others. You and I can, together, develop practices that match with our courses, our pedagogical gifts, and our particular subject matter. Ultimately, I invite us to move away from easy answers, whether for or against technology in the classroom. The nature of these challenges still defies simple conversations around the departmental coffee pot, so let us, with digital wisdom, welcome the questions.

via http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/teaching-digital-wisdom

Our teacher discussion protocol, trudacot, can help with this!


The P in public education

Sign: Welcome to our ool. Notice there is no P in it. Let's keep it that way.

Policymakers are fond of noting that teachers are the number one school-level influence on student learning outcomes (note: non-school influences are far more significant). Despite politicians’ claims that they value and appreciate teachers, however, we are seeing the following from legislatures all across the country:

  • rhetorical attacks on teacher unions
  • rollbacks of educators’ collective bargaining rights
  • elimination of teacher tenure
  • public disparagement of educators, teacher preparation programs, and colleges of education
  • scripted lessons, lockstep behavior management techniques, and other attempts to ‘teacher-proof’ the education of children
  • underfunding of public schools
  • underfunding of public universities
  • legislation favoring of – and spending of public monies on – alternative teacher preparation programs, charters, vouchers, homeschooling, and other non-public school options
  • mass firings in so-called ‘failing schools’
  • enactment of ‘parent trigger’ laws
  • teacher evaluations based on statistically-volatile (and thus unfair) ‘value-added’ assessment systems
  • public shaming through publication of teacher evaluations
  • school evaluations based primarily on bubble test scores
  • public shaming through publication of school ‘letter grades’
  • repeated attempts to institute ‘merit pay’ systems (despite decades of research-proven failure)
  • double-standard school and educator ‘accountability’ provisions that apply to public schools but not charter or private schools
  • acceptance of policy proposals, money, and political influence from seemingly anyone other than actual educators
  • public disparagement of parents, researchers, and others who speak out against harmful ‘reforms’
  • and so on…

As a result, states now are seeing big drops in teacher morale, teacher turnover that’s even greater than historically-horrible rates, and often-severe teacher shortages. 

All of this is simple, really. If we keep pissing in the public education pool, don’t be surprised when no one wants to swim in it.

Image credit: Welcome to our ‘ool, Delwin Steven Campbell


Notice the emphasis on ‘feeding them content’

Christine Willig, President of McGraw-Hill Education, said:

There’s a difference between educational technology – a single video, a single interactive, a single app – and learning science, in which we’re investing in the small pieces of data that show us where a child is at in their learning trajectory, feeding them content in a way that’s powerful and effective for them to move to the next level. 

via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYR47-XJq64#t=01m55s


Summer school for kindergarteners

Kindergarten

Valerie Strauss said:

curriculum has been pushed down so much that kindergarten is no longer a time for kids to learn and socialize through play but rather for a lot of desk time with academic assignments. Sure, some schools break up the time so kids don’t sit there hour after hour, but the pressure on young children to learn to read and do math – even if they aren’t developmentally ready – and on teachers to ensure that they do learn – has become extraordinary.

Providing quality summer programs for young children is a laudable goal – and something school systems and city governments should offer. But requiring 5- and 6-year-olds to go to summer school so they can labor over academics is something else entirely.

via http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/13/and-now-mandatory-summer-school-for-some-kindergartners

Image credit: Kindergarten, Here We Come, Howard County Library System


That bonus you didn’t get at work (aka Iowa education reform in 2015)

State Flag of Iowa

Imagine that your bosses come up to you one day and say something like this…

Hey, I know that we’re a year and a half late on this but we’re trying to take care of you. It looks like the company’s profits are solid but we’re just not sure right now. At this point all we can offer is a 1.25% raise for you and your co-workers. I know that’s below inflation and you’re going to have cut back at home but that’s all we’re comfortable with given our uncertainty about the financial projections. We have to keep this company in the black. We can’t revert back to past years when we operated at a loss, particularly given our new employee compensation system in which a few high fliers get a little extra in their paycheck.

At this point you’re thinking…

Okay, this isn’t great but at least they’re being up front with me. Next year is going to be a really tough year, particularly since I’m already behind given less-than-inflation-rate raises in past years. My peers and I will try to tough it out and hope for better years ahead. [sigh]

Later you hear that the company’s profits are estimated to be 6% this year. You wonder a little bit about where that money is going but your bosses come back to you and say…

Hey, remember that 1.25% raise? We’ve got good news! We know that it’s taken us months to decide but we think we also might be able to squeeze a one-time bonus for you and your fellow employees. It won’t be much but we only have so much money. I know you’re hearing about some profit projections but they’re just estimates, not just actual numbers. Given our need to be fiscally accountable to our stakeholders, we can’t engage in deficit spending.

You’re a little more skeptical this time around but you’re grateful that some additional monies seem to be available. You’re thinking about those college tuition expenses for your kid, the increased gas tax that your state just passed, that old clunker that you’ve been driving around on your barely middle class salary, your ever-growing utility bills…

Not great news but a little better than before. I understand our need to stay out of the red, even though it’s getting harder and harder to take good care of our customers. My co-workers and I will keep on keeping on. Hopefully next year will be more positive. [ugh]

Your bosses come back to you one last time…

Fantastic news! We figured out both the 1.25% raise and the additional one-time bonus for everyone. We greatly appreciate all that you and your colleagues do for us. Your work is SO important to our success and to our customers. All we have to do is run this by the CEO for his approval. Shouldn’t be a problem.

You sit back and wait, fingers and toes crossed, week after week. The bills keep mounting and you’re waiting to decide whether to make some key spending decisions at home for next year. You’ve already been putting them off for months. The longer the CEO takes to decide, the more nervous you get. You’re still hopeful but you can’t make any firm resolutions until you hear for sure.

The 6% profit projections get confirmed so you figure that’s good news, particularly since you know that the company’s rainy day fund also is flush. But then you hear that one of the reasons that there isn’t enough money for you and your fellow employees this year is that your bosses have been giving away huge chunks of the company’s profits to folks who don’t really need it, including other companies and a billionaire businessman who is the richest man in Egypt. And your bosses plan to continue to do so for the next decade with the hope that those folks will keep investing in the company. Now you’re angry but you’re also still a wee bit hopeful…

This stinks. Those funds could have helped me and my family. And my co-workers’ families. And our customers. Instead, we’re being sold a line about fiscal austerity when profits are high. But I really need the money, so I’m not going to make too big a fuss. Hopefully the CEO will come through. [please, oh please, oh please]

Finally, the day arrives. The CEO makes a major announcement moments before everyone heads out for a long vacation weekend. Unfortunately for you and your colleagues, the company is NOT going to pay for the one-time bonuses, leaving you with measly 1.25% raises. Speaking with great conviction, he offers numerous reasons for his decision, including finger-wagging dissatisfaction with your bosses’ budget negotiations, past accounting practices, the company’s investments in other areas, the economic crisis in Greece, and avian flu, even as the profit projections for next year roll in at an additional 6%. Of course the negative impacts of the decision are borne by you, your co-workers, and your customers, not your bosses or the CEO. As you walk away, head in hands and tears of disbelief streaming down your face, you think to yourself…

I hate this. My colleagues and I are going to have to cut back at home yet again, simply because of our company’s unwillingness to invest in us and our customers. They say that they want a world class workplace but they’re not willing to pay for it. No wonder we’re 34th compared to our competitors. I love the people that we serve but I’m underpaid, underappreciated, and the people in charge don’t seem to care one whit. Maybe it’s time to take this job and shove it.

What are you thinking right now? Got a little glimpse of how Iowa schools and area education agencies felt last week after Governor Branstad’s veto?

Hey, quit your whining.


7 questions after Governor Branstad’s school funding veto

A few folks know that I was one of the three finalists to be the next Director of the Iowa Department of Education. It was an interesting process (e.g., just two 30-minute interviews is apparently all that it takes) but I did feel that I was able to present my best self. I discussed how we won’t see desired changes in student learning outcomes until we change what students experience in their schools on a day-to-day basis. I talked about how investment in deeper learning also is workforce development. I shared some big ideas about where I thought Iowa education could / should go. I highlighted my work with 130+ Iowa schools and other organizations and my strong networks across the state and planet. And so on. Ultimately they decided on the in-house candidate, former Deputy Director Ryan Wise, who is sharp, talented, and knows how both the Department and the politics work. I think Ryan was an excellent choice and wish him all the best in his new role.

One of the obligatory questions in the interview process is What will you do if you disagree with the Governor? After last week’s veto of school funding by Governor Terry Branstad, I’m really happy that I’m not the one who has to stand in front of educators over the next few months and defend that decision. I blogged in March that it was really tough to feel positive about education politics in Iowa this year and I was proven right. The Governor waited until just before the July 4 vacation weekend to make the announcement that 1) he was willing to increase school funding next year at only 1.25%, a rate that comes nowhere near inflation, and 2) he wasn’t willing to sign off on $55+ million in one-time funding that at least would have stemmed some of the losses that schools will face next year. School districts estimate that this fall they will have over 1,000 teaching positions unfilled or terminated across the state as they struggle to pay the bills. Every major newspaper and educational organization has come out in opposition to the underfunding of schools by the legislature and Governor, noting also that our policymakers were a year and a half overdue with their legal obligation to set school funding. Adding potential insult to injury, the Governor’s first press conference after his school funding veto began with a 5-minute shout-out to the tourism industry and a claim that the school start date ‘compromise’ legislation that was opposed by essentially every school district in Iowa was a ‘win-win.’

I think that there are some big questions that we have to ask as a state after the Governor’s school funding veto. Here are a few that currently are on my mind…

1. Budgets reflect policy priorities. How big a priority are our public schools?

School funding tweet 02

Belying the rhetoric about wanting ‘world class schools,’ over the past few years we have witnessed Iowa policymakers’ willingness to decrease the money allocated to our schools and universities, despite a strong state economy and full reserves. Iowa’s spending per pupil is well below the national average and the percentage of the overall state budget allocated to education is several percentage points lower than it was just a few years ago, causing the Iowa State Education Association to say, “We haven’t seen this dramatic a lack of funding ever.” This year we were willing to fund only a 1.25% increase for schools, despite net tax receipts this year that were 6% higher than last and projected 6% growth in revenue for next year. Yes, some of our districts have teacher leadership monies in addition to the 1.25% allowable growth funding. But those teacher leadership funds were supposed to supplement, not supplant, the dollars needed to keep school buildings running and only a few teachers are benefiting from them. So while education continues to be the biggest part of the state budget, it seems that all of the funding trends are negative, not positive. We are falling further behind rather than catching up. Are we only willing to fund schools’ basic operations at below inflationary rates, even when our revenues and economy are strong?

2. Are we willing to trade tax cuts for education (and other) funding?

Iowa tax cuts

Some of the monies that could go to schools instead seem to be going to tax cuts. For instance, next year our recently-passed commercial property tax cuts will remove an estimated $278 million from the state budget. Tens of millions of dollars are going to companies like Iowa Fertilizer (a subsidiary of Orascom, the CEO of which is billionaire Nassef Sawiris, the wealthiest man in Egypt), which just requested additional tax breaks despite already receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from local, state, and other sources. The Iowa legislature is talking about trying to reduce income tax revenue too. In response to schools’ requests for more funds, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen said, “This is a mathematical problem: The state only has so much money.” But we’re giving away revenue and then saying that we don’t have the funds for our schoolchildren. It seems that the tax cut monies alone would have funded increases in education and other basic services several times over. I’m not anti-business by any means and am in full support of job creation initiatives but our overall business tax levels already are below the national average. Maybe we could do less of this? Or is Iowa trying to become a low tax, low revenue, low education state like Kansas or Louisiana?

3. Do we have any other options besides trying to cover?

Iowa has the top high school graduation rate in the country. We have the third-highest average ACT score of states that test at least half of their graduates. These, personnel sharing arrangements, and other successes are a testament to the efforts of our educators, school systems, and communities to somehow make it all work. But our ability to make do with less makes it easier for Iowa policymakers to continue to starve our schools. At some point the stresses on the system will cause it to break but for now they can continue to push on the edges, knowing that our schools’ eventual failure will occur during someone else’s political cycle. I don’t know what the answer is, particularly since educators in Iowa can’t strike and don’t want to put policy interests above the day-to-day needs of their students. What options do we have besides trying to continue to cover?

4. Are our representatives actually representing our wishes?

One option we all have in our democracy, of course, is voting and participating in the political process. Although social media was a big part of this year’s school funding dialogue, slacktivism can be a fairly easy trap to fall into. Tweets and pins and blog posts and Facebook ‘likes’ are fairly easy to ignore, particularly by policymakers whom are less technology-knowledgeable. We will never know how much pressure to adequately fund schools the Iowa legislators and Governor received from parents, community members, and educators via phone calls, letters, in-person visits, etc. We do know that those requests were unsuccessful.

This year I’ve wondered about the involvement (or lack thereof) of the educators and communities represented by those policymakers who voted against more than minimal school funding. It’s difficult to believe that those families and teachers weren’t concerned about the lack of funds that would be going to their local schools and the impacts on their classrooms and educators. Regardless, their concerns (if any) weren’t powerful enough to dissuade their local representatives from the course that they took.

Battles over school funding will continue. If we like the current path that we’re on, so be it, but if we want different decision-making by those whom we elect to represent us, we must make our voices louder and our votes count. Midwest educators are doubly nice, both because of the culture of where we live and because of our profession. We trust our representatives to represent us and then ever-so-quietly express our concerns when they don’t. We rely on the small handful of statewide organizations to speak for us rather than recognizing that our own individual voices are important (other than Patrick Kearney from Johnston, how many educators were writing regularly and publicly, expressing their concerns in formats longer than 140 characters?). Roark Horn, Executive Director of the School Administrators of Iowa, reminded us this week of the difference between reacting and responding, noting that “it is natural to want to react with the anger and frustration that we feel” as classroom teachers and school leaders. Roark is correct about our tone but I will also note that educators’ current policy advocacy is not working. Politics often requires a bolder voice than we educators are accustomed to exercising. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” At the recent ISTE conference, Pernille Ripp reminded us that we can’t stop fighting for what is right for kids. Will Iowa educators shrug their shoulders and roll over (yet again) or will they do what’s necessary to effectuate the changes that they’d like to see? Maybe it’s time to ask every educator in Iowa to pledge to vote in the next election? Will Iowans hold their representatives accountable next election year for their school funding decisions over the past few years?

5. What behavioral expectations should we have for our representatives?

It was a frustrating year on all sides of the school funding debate. But that doesn’t mean that we get a free pass on how we treat each other, even in the often rough-and-tumble, bare knuckles environment that is politics. Should we expect rooms for public hearings to actually be big enough to hold the public? Should we expect our legislators to actually listen (and maybe respond) to the concerns that we express? Should we expect better than this from our representatives? Or this? Or this?

6. What messages are we sending our young people?

Earlier this week Governor Branstad said, “The only way that we’re going to be able to keep our smaller school districts alive and successful is if we’re able to attract young families that have children.” and “Every child in Iowa [should] have the opportunity to get a quality education.” It’s hard to see how our recent educational funding decisions accomplish this as schools across the state now have to fire teachers or leave positions unfulfilled.

College graduates continue to leave our state, contributing to Iowa’s ‘brain drain’ (which was noted at least ten years ago). The Governor rightfully notes that we need to attract young families to our small towns. What messages do our disinvestments in schools send them as they consider where they want to live and raise their children?

7. What does our new Director think?

School funding tweet 01

The Director of the Iowa Department of Education is a political appointee who serves at the discretion of the Governor. But hopefully he or she also is an advocate for children and teachers and schools, not just a puppet or mouthpiece. Hopefully he or she is a fierce proponent of schools getting the resources and autonomy that they need to be successful. So with that in mind, does Ryan Wise agree with the veto? (will Mackenzie Ryan or someone else ask him on record?)

Patrick Kearney rightfully asked, “How does losing 1,000+ teaching positions make Iowa schools better?” I think that’s a good question for Ryan too…

As always, feedback and pushback are welcome. Your thoughts?


5 minutes about transforming schools

Bob Greenberg has been videoing some amazing thinkers for his Brainwaves YouTube channel. People like Mitch ResnickAlan Kay, Jerome BrunerNicholas NegroponteNoam Chomsky, and Eric Mazur. I’m not exactly sure why Bob asked me too but I got to spend a few minutes with him at the recent ISTE conference in Philadelphia and of course was absolutely delighted for the opportunity…

The video is titled Transforming Schools. Happy viewing!


3 kinds of ISTE sessions

Iste

Not including the more informal networking events, there generally are 3 kinds of ISTE sessions:

  1. Tools, tools, tools! These sessions focus on software, apps, extensions, productivity and efficiency, how-to tips, etc. Little emphasis on learning, heavy emphasis on how to use the tools.
  2. Technology for school replication. These sessions focus on the use of digital technologies to replicate and perpetuate schools’ historical emphases on factual recall and procedural regurgitation, control and compliance, students as passive learners, etc. Behavior modification apps, teacher content transmission tools, flashcard and multiple choice software, student usage monitoring programs, and the like.
  3. Technology for school transformation. These sessions focus on deeper learning, greater student agency, and perhaps real-world, authentic work. Learning technologies tend to be divergent rather than convergent, foster cognitive complexity, and facilitate active, creative student-driven learning.

We need more of #3. Lots more. Right now these sessions are still a significant minority of sessions at ISTE (and most other educational technology conferences).

Which kinds of sessions did you attend? What does that mean for your ability to effectuate change back home?

Which kinds of sessions did you facilitate? What does that mean for your responsibility as a presenter to help others effectuate change back home?

We’re wasting opportunities to move our systems…


Switch to our mobile site