My perspective is that leadership in corporations is highly-tuned to staying competitive, and that leaders are constantly looking for methodologies to achieve that, technology included. A job requirement for success is understanding the role that technology plays and can play in that quest.
In education, I believe that leadership generally regards technology as something that is not necessary for success. It’s nice, and if some can find a use, good for them. But understanding technology and the role it plays, and can play, in learning is simply not a priority for most K-12 administrators. Just take a look at their personal knowledge of, and ability to use, different technologies. Generally, it’s pretty low. Unfortunately, I do not look for this to improve any time soon, as the focus of most administrators in K-12 education is now NCLB and AYP. Meeting AYP is what it means to be competitive in schools today, and it is unlikely that technology will be a partner in that process.
Or, it’s like someone recently said, and I’ll have to paraphrase, “It’s not the job of the school to open up the world to the students; it’s to protect them FROM it.”
Lawyers and laws and paranoids and Chicken Littles have created this situation. CIPA and maybe soon the new DOPA have made it so that it’s NOT about what good we can do with technology and the Internet, but rather what we must NEVER allow to get through. So, rather than risk a situation where something gets through that someone may take exception to, they block it all.
I know schools that block flickr, del.icio.us, bloglines – ANYTHING with the word blog in it, google docs, and even Google Earth. Since lawsuits have caused this situation, perhaps a lawsuit from a parent who is outraged that the Internet is so restricted may help to bring things into balance a bit more.
I’m not so sure that schools “don’t see” the effects and possibilities of technology. In fact I’m relatively certain they *see* them. The question is, why don’t schools act on what they see? Why do schools seem to react to technology rather than act on it?
I think that’s the right question, but I don’t know the answer, or else there are so many answers I don’t know where to start. Part of it has to do with the fact that nobody is really quite sure how to incorporate technology in a way that really works for a school population that is hugely varied in its comfort level and aptitude with technology. Another large part of it, for the public non-charter schools at least, is that the schools themselves are bloated and inefficient, constrained by government on the one hand and teacher unions on the other to the point that the kind of flexibility and autonomy that teachers need to use technology well in their classes — really, just to teach well at all in their classes — is just a distant dream.
I think schools probably see the effects and promises of technology just fine, but view engaging themselves with it as a monumental hassle that’s just not worth the effort.
It is very sad that your post rings true. Schools seem to be the last to catch on, almost like they have a constituional obligation to be the anchors of innovation. The last to move forward, slowing progress.
This position didn’t seem to matter years ago when technological innovation was typewriter and OHPs but the fast the Net Gen go the further behind the school system lags.
Schools need to be upfront, the place where kids are educated about emerging technologies, where experimentation which Web 2.0 is encouraged and refined. Currently the schools (broadly speaking) are way behind, doing no favours to the Net-Bust generation.
Tom, that was rhetorical. I don’t think schools are dunderheaded or incompetent. I do think, however, that we need to critically examine the cultural, structural, technical, pedagogical, and other factors that are slowing schools’ transition into the 21st century. Sorry you misinterpreted my post.
Scott, I understand the intent, and get that it is rhetorical, but the tone is condescending and frankly, insulting. I think you go too far in attempting to provoke your readers. At times you present an “Us vs Them” mentality; we, the enlightened trying to bring the “word” to the Luddite heretics. I question whether it advances the cause.
I’ve been thinking about Scotts question, and have discussed this with some colleagues.
Warren has been supporting educators in their use and implementation of ICT for more years than I can remember.
Let me quote Warren.
“I have always found it effective to consider the “adopt and adapt” approach to professional learning. I find that when we are able to *adopt* technology for our personal needs, we very quickly *adapt* the technology for use in other areas of our life – eg the classroom.”
When I got involved in the computer industry in 1980, people who had been around the technology up to that point were the most knowledgeable and the most valuable. Loading software and repairing systems back then often required “loading registers” and “sysgens” and soldering tie-connectors on the back plane.
With the advent of the PC and the compression of time between advances, all of a sudden the “older, experienced” folks were not the most knowledgeable and they were not quick to embrace the newer technologies. They were passed by the younger technicians on the relevant knowledge plane and on the job plane.
The time compression between technology advances now is several orders of magnitude different when compared to tchnologies of the 1960’s with slide rules, 1970’s with calculators, 1980’s with PC’s and word processors and so on, 1990’s with Windows and fabulous software, 2000’s with web 2.0 and personal computing devices.
My point is those in charge of school systems probably are not the best ones to be making decisions regarding which technologies to be adapted and utilized. It is safer to block and ban sites and new technologies. This phenomenon needs to be understood and should not be a surprise.
It seems to me our role should include educating decision makers to understand the technologies and to appreciate the difference between technology for technology sake and technology for education sake.
My perspective is that leadership in corporations is highly-tuned to staying competitive, and that leaders are constantly looking for methodologies to achieve that, technology included. A job requirement for success is understanding the role that technology plays and can play in that quest.
In education, I believe that leadership generally regards technology as something that is not necessary for success. It’s nice, and if some can find a use, good for them. But understanding technology and the role it plays, and can play, in learning is simply not a priority for most K-12 administrators. Just take a look at their personal knowledge of, and ability to use, different technologies. Generally, it’s pretty low. Unfortunately, I do not look for this to improve any time soon, as the focus of most administrators in K-12 education is now NCLB and AYP. Meeting AYP is what it means to be competitive in schools today, and it is unlikely that technology will be a partner in that process.
Or, it’s like someone recently said, and I’ll have to paraphrase, “It’s not the job of the school to open up the world to the students; it’s to protect them FROM it.”
Lawyers and laws and paranoids and Chicken Littles have created this situation. CIPA and maybe soon the new DOPA have made it so that it’s NOT about what good we can do with technology and the Internet, but rather what we must NEVER allow to get through. So, rather than risk a situation where something gets through that someone may take exception to, they block it all.
I know schools that block flickr, del.icio.us, bloglines – ANYTHING with the word blog in it, google docs, and even Google Earth. Since lawsuits have caused this situation, perhaps a lawsuit from a parent who is outraged that the Internet is so restricted may help to bring things into balance a bit more.
I’m not so sure that schools “don’t see” the effects and possibilities of technology. In fact I’m relatively certain they *see* them. The question is, why don’t schools act on what they see? Why do schools seem to react to technology rather than act on it?
I think that’s the right question, but I don’t know the answer, or else there are so many answers I don’t know where to start. Part of it has to do with the fact that nobody is really quite sure how to incorporate technology in a way that really works for a school population that is hugely varied in its comfort level and aptitude with technology. Another large part of it, for the public non-charter schools at least, is that the schools themselves are bloated and inefficient, constrained by government on the one hand and teacher unions on the other to the point that the kind of flexibility and autonomy that teachers need to use technology well in their classes — really, just to teach well at all in their classes — is just a distant dream.
I think schools probably see the effects and promises of technology just fine, but view engaging themselves with it as a monumental hassle that’s just not worth the effort.
It is very sad that your post rings true. Schools seem to be the last to catch on, almost like they have a constituional obligation to be the anchors of innovation. The last to move forward, slowing progress.
This position didn’t seem to matter years ago when technological innovation was typewriter and OHPs but the fast the Net Gen go the further behind the school system lags.
Schools need to be upfront, the place where kids are educated about emerging technologies, where experimentation which Web 2.0 is encouraged and refined. Currently the schools (broadly speaking) are way behind, doing no favours to the Net-Bust generation.
That’s it. We’ve been exposed. We are “just incompetent, dunder-headed organizations.”
I’ve read my last Dangerously Irrelevant post. As far as I am concerned, you have become Completely Irrelevant.
Tom, that was rhetorical. I don’t think schools are dunderheaded or incompetent. I do think, however, that we need to critically examine the cultural, structural, technical, pedagogical, and other factors that are slowing schools’ transition into the 21st century. Sorry you misinterpreted my post.
Scott, I understand the intent, and get that it is rhetorical, but the tone is condescending and frankly, insulting. I think you go too far in attempting to provoke your readers. At times you present an “Us vs Them” mentality; we, the enlightened trying to bring the “word” to the Luddite heretics. I question whether it advances the cause.
Tom, thank you for reinforcing Scott’s point. Get your head out of the sand and engage in a healthy debate on how to make education better.
If you’d like to argue how schools’ technological leadership is in the same league as corporations’, I’m listening.
Scott–it’s not schools! Well, in some cases it might be, but it’s what I call “the 1995 problem”: http://ChitCh.at/?p=30
I’ve been thinking about Scotts question, and have discussed this with some colleagues.
Warren has been supporting educators in their use and implementation of ICT for more years than I can remember.
Let me quote Warren.
“I have always found it effective to consider the “adopt and adapt” approach to professional learning. I find that when we are able to *adopt* technology for our personal needs, we very quickly *adapt* the technology for use in other areas of our life – eg the classroom.”
full post at
http://c21skills.blogspot.com/2007/05/does-technology-make-good-teacher.html
When I got involved in the computer industry in 1980, people who had been around the technology up to that point were the most knowledgeable and the most valuable. Loading software and repairing systems back then often required “loading registers” and “sysgens” and soldering tie-connectors on the back plane.
With the advent of the PC and the compression of time between advances, all of a sudden the “older, experienced” folks were not the most knowledgeable and they were not quick to embrace the newer technologies. They were passed by the younger technicians on the relevant knowledge plane and on the job plane.
The time compression between technology advances now is several orders of magnitude different when compared to tchnologies of the 1960’s with slide rules, 1970’s with calculators, 1980’s with PC’s and word processors and so on, 1990’s with Windows and fabulous software, 2000’s with web 2.0 and personal computing devices.
My point is those in charge of school systems probably are not the best ones to be making decisions regarding which technologies to be adapted and utilized. It is safer to block and ban sites and new technologies. This phenomenon needs to be understood and should not be a surprise.
It seems to me our role should include educating decision makers to understand the technologies and to appreciate the difference between technology for technology sake and technology for education sake.