I apologize that I have been away for awhile. The 4th quarter of the school year got away from me. However, now that summer is officially here, I am going to try and get back to regular posting. The push I needed to get back to my blog was a recent article I read in the latest edition of Scholastic Administrator called "Reboot Education". The article summarized the ten innovations that will change the future of education, and I found it fascinating. Instead of summarizing the entire article, I have hyperlinked the article for you so I can focus on the innovations that I found to be most interesting.
I've heard it said that teachers are a group of independent contractors connected by a common parking lot. This reference emphasizes the isolationism in which the vast majority of our teachers work. Not only do we do a poor job of collaborating with our colleagues within the same school district, but the opportunities to collaborate with peers in other school districts is virtually nonexistent. As a result, our professional misses out on the impressive collective knowledge that exists within it. We have always lacked the means to engage in meaningful and productive collaboration on teaching and learning. Fortunately, technology is providing the avenue to change this long-standing impediment to the continuous improvement of our classrooms. Websites are springing up which allow teachers to share online curricula and lesson plans. A great example is Curriki, which is becoming known as the Wikipedia of online curricula. Furthermore, teachers across the world are setting up their own professional communities through social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The article quotes a teacher as saying "When we find something worthwhile, we share it, because there's no point in wasting time working in isolation." The potential power of harnessing and sharing the collective knowledge of educators across the United States, and the world, is exciting to think about, and for those teachers who choose to take advantage...the possibilities are endless.
The article also highlights how teachers are getting incredible results by moving towards the development of individualized education plans for each student. In this type of system, instruction is differentiated to meet the individual learning needs of each child in the classroom. The result is a dynamic classroom in which students are receiving very different instruction, which is aligned with the way each individual student learns best. In this type of system, teachers work in teams to continually acquire and analyze assessment data and then adapt their lessons accordingly. Each student's individual learning needs are considered when designing learning opportunities. The key to successful implementation is providing teachers with the time to analyze their data and to work collaboratively in creating these individual learning opportunities for students. If properly implemented, the potential results of this effort could be astounding.
The article contained many innovations that have the potential to significantly impact student learning. However, the one that really hit home with me was the idea that "emotional learning has to come first." Schools across the country are seeing an increase in reports of school violence and aggressive behavior, and to combat this, many schools are focusing on the social-emotional learning of their students. In the article, Maurice Elias, is quoted as saying, "There is now a growing realization that student learning depends on the climate and culture of the school and the extent to which schools promote students' social-emotional and character development." In other words, all educators are starting to understand what early childhood teachers have known and practiced for years, which is that learning cannot take place if a student's social-emotional needs have not been met. If the student does not feel safe, cared about and nurtured by those adults in his/her school, then the student will not perform academically to his/her potential. Robert Marzano has always maintained that meaningful school improvement cannot occur without the presence of a guaranteed and viable curriculum. However, we also now are beginning to understand that the absence of meaningful relationships between students and those responsible for educating them significantly inhibit the chances of successful school improvement.
This is a challenging time in education, but those challenges are opening the door to opportunities for innovation like never before. I recently read Dan Brown's latest book, The Lost Symbol, and towards the end of the book, one of the protagonists stated "There are those who create, and those who tear down." Although it seems en vogue to tear down the institution of public education, I believe that current challenges have provided unprecedented opportunity for those who are willing to create. The future of education is full of opportunities for those educators willing to challenge the long standing status quo and harness this unique opportunity for substantive change.
As always, I would be interested in your comments on this information. I would also encourage you to read the full article referenced above.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Rigor, Relevance & Relationships
I have recently become intrigued by the work of the International Center for Leadership in Education on the importance of "Rigor, Relevance and Relationships" in our public schools. Their basic premise is that a focus on these new "Three R's" is the key to lasting and substantive school improvement. The more I read and ponder this model for school improvement, the more I believe in their simple, yet powerful, premise.
As an administrator, I have been in the classrooms of teachers who had a complete grasp of their subject matter, and took great pride in the fact that their classes were quite rigorous. I have also been in classrooms where the teacher had a tremendously positive relationship with the students, and the kids seemed to enjoy being in the class, but very little learning was going on. However, neither of these classrooms were optimal learning environments.
The optimal learning environment is when "Rigor, Relevance, and Relationships" are all accounted for and appreciated within the classroom. Let's take a moment to examine each of these variables and how they might look in the classroom.
Too often, rigor is viewed through the lens of how much homework the teacher requires and how many hours the student has to study to prepare for a test. However, it doesn't take a master teacher to have a "hard class" (anyone can do that), but it does take a master teacher to have a truly rigorous class. Rigor should be thought of in terms how often we require our students to solve complex problems, apply what they have learned, and critically analyze the results. The focus of rigor should be on helping the students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter that goes beyond memorizing, reciting and restating. The development of critical thinking skills is paramount to "rigor". Teachers shouldn't take pride in the fact that a student has to do two hours of homework per night and study three days for tests in order to pass their class. In fact, absent the true "rigor" of higher-order thinking skills, this could be considered poor teaching practice.
All educators have heard the phrase, "Why do I have to learn this? I'll never use it again." If students have to ask this question, then "relevance" is missing in the classroom. Relevance refers to how the subject matter relates to the student's interests and needs. Real relevance cannot be developed unless students are allowed to utilize their learning in real-life situations and contexts. When this is considered, it is easy to see how "rigor" and "relevance" begin to overlap. When students are allowed to apply their learning to real-world situations (relevance), they are required to use higher-order thinking skills (rigor). Therefore, true rigor is very difficult to attain in the absence of relevance, and vice versa.
Although "rigor" and "relevance" are keys to meaningful student learning, this learning cannot occur in the absence of "relationships" in the school. Kids cannot learn if their social and emotional needs have not been satisfied. We can have the most rigorous and relevant classrooms in the country, but if our kids' affective needs are not being met, we will not be successful. In a school focused on relationships, there is a caring, student-centered environment where students feel a sense of connection to their school. Many schools have realized the importance of this variable, and have tried to account for it through the development of the "school within a school" concept. In this structure, interdisciplinary teams are developed and groups of students are assigned to each team. Others have adopted an "advisory" structure, where each teacher is assigned a small group of students. Other schools have not adopted a new structure, but instead have simply determined that the development of meaningful relationships with students would be their focus. In response, their teachers have tried to attend more student events, eat lunch with the students, open their rooms before and after school, start new clubs/organization, etc. These schools understood that all the "rigor" and "relevance" in the world would not make a difference in the absence of meaningful "relationships."
If the model of "Rigor, Relevance and Relationships" was applied to District #1, how do you think we would measure up? In what areas are we strong? In what areas is there room for improvement? What needs to be done to improve? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
As an administrator, I have been in the classrooms of teachers who had a complete grasp of their subject matter, and took great pride in the fact that their classes were quite rigorous. I have also been in classrooms where the teacher had a tremendously positive relationship with the students, and the kids seemed to enjoy being in the class, but very little learning was going on. However, neither of these classrooms were optimal learning environments.
The optimal learning environment is when "Rigor, Relevance, and Relationships" are all accounted for and appreciated within the classroom. Let's take a moment to examine each of these variables and how they might look in the classroom.
Too often, rigor is viewed through the lens of how much homework the teacher requires and how many hours the student has to study to prepare for a test. However, it doesn't take a master teacher to have a "hard class" (anyone can do that), but it does take a master teacher to have a truly rigorous class. Rigor should be thought of in terms how often we require our students to solve complex problems, apply what they have learned, and critically analyze the results. The focus of rigor should be on helping the students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter that goes beyond memorizing, reciting and restating. The development of critical thinking skills is paramount to "rigor". Teachers shouldn't take pride in the fact that a student has to do two hours of homework per night and study three days for tests in order to pass their class. In fact, absent the true "rigor" of higher-order thinking skills, this could be considered poor teaching practice.
All educators have heard the phrase, "Why do I have to learn this? I'll never use it again." If students have to ask this question, then "relevance" is missing in the classroom. Relevance refers to how the subject matter relates to the student's interests and needs. Real relevance cannot be developed unless students are allowed to utilize their learning in real-life situations and contexts. When this is considered, it is easy to see how "rigor" and "relevance" begin to overlap. When students are allowed to apply their learning to real-world situations (relevance), they are required to use higher-order thinking skills (rigor). Therefore, true rigor is very difficult to attain in the absence of relevance, and vice versa.
Although "rigor" and "relevance" are keys to meaningful student learning, this learning cannot occur in the absence of "relationships" in the school. Kids cannot learn if their social and emotional needs have not been satisfied. We can have the most rigorous and relevant classrooms in the country, but if our kids' affective needs are not being met, we will not be successful. In a school focused on relationships, there is a caring, student-centered environment where students feel a sense of connection to their school. Many schools have realized the importance of this variable, and have tried to account for it through the development of the "school within a school" concept. In this structure, interdisciplinary teams are developed and groups of students are assigned to each team. Others have adopted an "advisory" structure, where each teacher is assigned a small group of students. Other schools have not adopted a new structure, but instead have simply determined that the development of meaningful relationships with students would be their focus. In response, their teachers have tried to attend more student events, eat lunch with the students, open their rooms before and after school, start new clubs/organization, etc. These schools understood that all the "rigor" and "relevance" in the world would not make a difference in the absence of meaningful "relationships."
If the model of "Rigor, Relevance and Relationships" was applied to District #1, how do you think we would measure up? In what areas are we strong? In what areas is there room for improvement? What needs to be done to improve? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Role of the Teacher in the Web 2.0 World
Whether or not we educators have embraced it, Web 2.0 is here. Not only is it here, but it has the potential to fundamentally change the landscape of learning in our schools...if we allow it to happen. In previous posts, I have referenced Clayton Christensen, who argued that technology will be the "disruptive technology" that causes a paradigm shift in teaching and learning in our schools. He also posited that if public schools do not embrace this "disruptive technology" then our consumers will look outside of our system for the services they are demanding.
Such discussions are understandably uncomfortable for those of us in public education. We wonder what our role will be in this new paradigm? If kids have access to the information we used to teach them, then what will they need us for? How can we successfully teach using Web 2.0 tools when the kids know more about them than we do? How can I use Web 2.0 tools in my classroom when my administrator doesn't see the value? How can I justify the use of these technology tools to parents who want their kids taught as they were? All of these questions make us justifiably uncomfortable. However, as I recently read, "If you aren't uncomfortable in education right now, you aren't paying attention."
One of the blogs I follow is Dangerously Irrelevant, which focuses on issues surrounding technology, leadership, and the future of our schools. One of his recent posts was a summary of three sessions spent at a conference where Will Richardson was one of the featured speaker. Will Richardson is a well-known presenter who focuses on 21st century learning skills and how they are impacting student learning. In perusing the author's notes from this presentation, I discovered a YouTube video that Richardson used to illustrate how Web 2.0 is changing education and the role of teachers.
In this video, there is a twelve year old boy who has unsuccessfully been trying to make a bow drill set. He decides to make a YouTube video asking for help. In his video, he shows how he is trying to accomplish this, and then openly asks for people to identify what he is doing wrong. As Will Richardson stated, here is what this twelve year old understands.
Because we no longer need to be the disseminators of information, we can focus on the development of application, synthesis and evaluation skills with our students. We can work alongside them in inquiry and problem-based learning opportunities. We can assist them in learning to evaluate and categorize the vast information available to them. We can help them to make global connections via Web 2.0 to enhance and reinforce their learning opportunities. We can facilitate their use of Web 2.0 to collaborate meaningfully with their fellow students outside the four walls of the classroom. The possibilities are endless...if we are open to our role changing. Instead of delivering information, educators can become invaluable in our new role as facilitators of learning.
As always, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject.
Such discussions are understandably uncomfortable for those of us in public education. We wonder what our role will be in this new paradigm? If kids have access to the information we used to teach them, then what will they need us for? How can we successfully teach using Web 2.0 tools when the kids know more about them than we do? How can I use Web 2.0 tools in my classroom when my administrator doesn't see the value? How can I justify the use of these technology tools to parents who want their kids taught as they were? All of these questions make us justifiably uncomfortable. However, as I recently read, "If you aren't uncomfortable in education right now, you aren't paying attention."
One of the blogs I follow is Dangerously Irrelevant, which focuses on issues surrounding technology, leadership, and the future of our schools. One of his recent posts was a summary of three sessions spent at a conference where Will Richardson was one of the featured speaker. Will Richardson is a well-known presenter who focuses on 21st century learning skills and how they are impacting student learning. In perusing the author's notes from this presentation, I discovered a YouTube video that Richardson used to illustrate how Web 2.0 is changing education and the role of teachers.
In this video, there is a twelve year old boy who has unsuccessfully been trying to make a bow drill set. He decides to make a YouTube video asking for help. In his video, he shows how he is trying to accomplish this, and then openly asks for people to identify what he is doing wrong. As Will Richardson stated, here is what this twelve year old understands.
- He assumes there is an audience and they will respond.
- He's comfortable asking for help.
- He views YouTube as a learning tool.
- After only 101 views, he had 10 comments giving specific idea/suggestions to help.
- He knows that YouTube gives him the ability to send his question out to 1.7 billion people.
Because we no longer need to be the disseminators of information, we can focus on the development of application, synthesis and evaluation skills with our students. We can work alongside them in inquiry and problem-based learning opportunities. We can assist them in learning to evaluate and categorize the vast information available to them. We can help them to make global connections via Web 2.0 to enhance and reinforce their learning opportunities. We can facilitate their use of Web 2.0 to collaborate meaningfully with their fellow students outside the four walls of the classroom. The possibilities are endless...if we are open to our role changing. Instead of delivering information, educators can become invaluable in our new role as facilitators of learning.
As always, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Coaching vs. Mentoring
When I became the Superintendent of District #1, one of my first priorities was to develop a formalized teacher mentoring program. I had read the disturbing statistics showing that up to half of new teachers quit the profession within the first five years. As a building principal, I had also witnessed the trials and tribulations of first year teachers, and most importantly, I remember the feelings I had as a first year teacher. Therefore, I believe strongly in the value of providing these new teachers with a mentor.
Mentoring provides new teachers with an immediate relationship with a colleague who is considered to be an expert in his or her field. This usually means the mentor is older and more experienced than the mentee, and during the process, the mentor bestows their knowledge and wisdom to the mentee. In return, the mentee usually looks up to the mentor and seeks his or her guidance and advice during difficult times. The desired result of this relationship is that the mentee has the necessary support to successfully transition into the teaching profession. In our District, I have personally seen the positive effect this relationship has had on our new teachers.
Although I am happy with the success of our mentoring program, I am always searching for opportunities for continuous improvement. Recently, I have been participating in a training that has me questioning if there may be a better way. The Illinois Association of School Administrators is sponsoring an intensive training on "coaching". Prior to the training, I was really unsure of what coaching was. However, the more I learn, the more excited I am becoming about the possibilities coaching has for the teaching profession.
As stated earlier, the mentoring relationship is based on the assumption that the mentor has the knowledge and must impart it upon the mentee. The coaching relationship is much different, because there is not necessarily a higher or lower relationship between the coachee and coach. In fact, the coaching relationship is more of a partnership where the coach walks side by side with the coachee. The coach supports the coachee in drawing on his or her own wisdom and following their inner guidance. In short, the coach does not necessarily have all the answers. Instead, they have the questions that lead to the coachee finding his or her own answers.
Why does this coaching relationship excite me? I think it is because it's goal is to create a coachee who becomes an independent thinker confident in his or her abilities. The mentor relationship works under the assumption that if you just do what I do, then you will be successful. The coaching relationship assumes that you already have the ability to be successful, and the coaches job is to assist you in discovering your personal pathway to success, which might be very different from the path taken by the coach. In short, the coaching relationship allows the coachee to find his or her own answers.
How could this type of relationship be helpful for new teachers? I can give you a personal example. My wife is a high school teacher, and we met during my first year as a teacher at Reed-Custer High School. Her classroom style is "entertainment" and she gets wonderful academic results. She has a great sense of humor, and her kids thrive on her energy, creativity and fun. When I saw how successful she was, I attempted to mimic her style. However, as a new teacher, I quickly realized that I lacked the proper character traits to successfully emulate her teaching style. Had I continued trying to do so, I would have failed miserably, and probably would have been one of those who quit teaching within the first five years.
I was assigned a mentor teacher, but the purpose was focused more on procedures than pedagogy. Therefore, I had to find my own style that was congruent with my personal strengths and character. Fortunately, I had wonderful colleagues who supported me in this professional endeavor, but it took about three years before it clicked and I discovered a style unique to me. I can't help but wonder if a formal coaching relationship would have helped me to discover my own style more quickly.
As previously mentioned, I am still a proponent of the mentoring process, but as I learn more, I believe the coaching relationship has real possibilities for enhancing the teaching profession. If you are interested in learning more about coaching, I would highly recommend "Co-Active Coaching" by Whitworth, et al.
Mentoring provides new teachers with an immediate relationship with a colleague who is considered to be an expert in his or her field. This usually means the mentor is older and more experienced than the mentee, and during the process, the mentor bestows their knowledge and wisdom to the mentee. In return, the mentee usually looks up to the mentor and seeks his or her guidance and advice during difficult times. The desired result of this relationship is that the mentee has the necessary support to successfully transition into the teaching profession. In our District, I have personally seen the positive effect this relationship has had on our new teachers.
Although I am happy with the success of our mentoring program, I am always searching for opportunities for continuous improvement. Recently, I have been participating in a training that has me questioning if there may be a better way. The Illinois Association of School Administrators is sponsoring an intensive training on "coaching". Prior to the training, I was really unsure of what coaching was. However, the more I learn, the more excited I am becoming about the possibilities coaching has for the teaching profession.
As stated earlier, the mentoring relationship is based on the assumption that the mentor has the knowledge and must impart it upon the mentee. The coaching relationship is much different, because there is not necessarily a higher or lower relationship between the coachee and coach. In fact, the coaching relationship is more of a partnership where the coach walks side by side with the coachee. The coach supports the coachee in drawing on his or her own wisdom and following their inner guidance. In short, the coach does not necessarily have all the answers. Instead, they have the questions that lead to the coachee finding his or her own answers.
Why does this coaching relationship excite me? I think it is because it's goal is to create a coachee who becomes an independent thinker confident in his or her abilities. The mentor relationship works under the assumption that if you just do what I do, then you will be successful. The coaching relationship assumes that you already have the ability to be successful, and the coaches job is to assist you in discovering your personal pathway to success, which might be very different from the path taken by the coach. In short, the coaching relationship allows the coachee to find his or her own answers.
How could this type of relationship be helpful for new teachers? I can give you a personal example. My wife is a high school teacher, and we met during my first year as a teacher at Reed-Custer High School. Her classroom style is "entertainment" and she gets wonderful academic results. She has a great sense of humor, and her kids thrive on her energy, creativity and fun. When I saw how successful she was, I attempted to mimic her style. However, as a new teacher, I quickly realized that I lacked the proper character traits to successfully emulate her teaching style. Had I continued trying to do so, I would have failed miserably, and probably would have been one of those who quit teaching within the first five years.
I was assigned a mentor teacher, but the purpose was focused more on procedures than pedagogy. Therefore, I had to find my own style that was congruent with my personal strengths and character. Fortunately, I had wonderful colleagues who supported me in this professional endeavor, but it took about three years before it clicked and I discovered a style unique to me. I can't help but wonder if a formal coaching relationship would have helped me to discover my own style more quickly.
As previously mentioned, I am still a proponent of the mentoring process, but as I learn more, I believe the coaching relationship has real possibilities for enhancing the teaching profession. If you are interested in learning more about coaching, I would highly recommend "Co-Active Coaching" by Whitworth, et al.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
21st Century Learning and the Future of Public Schools
As you know, I have become very passionate about the impact of technology and the skills our students will need to be successful in the global economy of the 21st century. The September edition of Educational Leadership magazine devoted their entire issue to exploring "Teaching for the 21st Century".
The "Partnership for 21st Century Skills" has been one of the leaders in advocating for the incorporation of 21st century skills into our public education system. They have developed a "Framework for 21st Century Learning" which identifies the skills and knowledge students will need to be contributors in the global economy of the 21st century. There are four components that describe these skills and knowledge:
1. Core subjects and 21st century themes
--such as language arts, science, math, global awareness, and financial literacy
2. Learning and innovation skills
--such as creativity, innovation, critical thinking, and problem solving
3. Information, media and technology skills
4. Life and career skills
--such as initiative and self-direction
In one of the articles, Peter W. Cookson Jr. stated that to meet these needs, "we must think outside the box of conventional schooling." He follows this with a very powerful paragraph about school reform.
"To start, we must overhaul and redesign the current school system. We face this great transition with both hands tied behind our collective backs if we continue to pour money, time, and effort into an outdated system of education. Mass education belongs in the era of massive armies, massive industrial complexes, and massive attempts at social control. We have lost much talent since the 18th century by enforcing stifling education routines in the name of efficiency. Current high school dropout rates clearly indicate that our standardized testing regime and outdated curriculums are wasting the potential of our youth."
He goes on to state,
"If we stop thinking of schools as buildings and start thinking of learning as occuring in many different places, we will free ourselves from the conventional education model that still dominates our thinking. Socrates did not teach in a conventional classroom; his classroom was wherever he and his students found themselves." Those are very powerful statements that should cause us to pause and critically reflect on our current practices. Specifically, it makes me ponder to what extent our current philosophies, practices and structures are preparing our students for the complex and challenging world they will face as they enter the global economy of the 21st century. However, it also raises some very difficult questions.
How do schools meet these challenges while under the thumb of NCLB requirements and standardized testing?
Can NCLB and teaching for the 21st century co-exist in a meaningful way?
How do we make legislators and parents understand that education does not have to look like it did when they were in school?
How and when do we provide opportunities for kids to experience "schooling" outside the four walls of the school building?
How do we make legislators and parents understand that the traditional agrarian calendar followed by public schools is antiquated and no longer meets the learning needs of students in today's information-rich society.
How do we provide Web 2.0 access for our students, while at the same time upholding our legal and moral responsibilities to ensure student safety?
How do we give teachers the tools, training and freedom to teach the 21st century skills of inquiry, innovation and critical thinking?
As Cookson stated in his article, "Just as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the wall of conventional schooling is collapsing before our eyes." My hope is that instead of stubbornly clinging to the past, public education will react in a proactive manner so that we can participate in and help to create the structure within which we will meet these challenges. If not, I am worried these changes will be done "to us" as opposed to "with us".
The "Partnership for 21st Century Skills" has been one of the leaders in advocating for the incorporation of 21st century skills into our public education system. They have developed a "Framework for 21st Century Learning" which identifies the skills and knowledge students will need to be contributors in the global economy of the 21st century. There are four components that describe these skills and knowledge:
1. Core subjects and 21st century themes
--such as language arts, science, math, global awareness, and financial literacy
2. Learning and innovation skills
--such as creativity, innovation, critical thinking, and problem solving
3. Information, media and technology skills
4. Life and career skills
--such as initiative and self-direction
In one of the articles, Peter W. Cookson Jr. stated that to meet these needs, "we must think outside the box of conventional schooling." He follows this with a very powerful paragraph about school reform.
"To start, we must overhaul and redesign the current school system. We face this great transition with both hands tied behind our collective backs if we continue to pour money, time, and effort into an outdated system of education. Mass education belongs in the era of massive armies, massive industrial complexes, and massive attempts at social control. We have lost much talent since the 18th century by enforcing stifling education routines in the name of efficiency. Current high school dropout rates clearly indicate that our standardized testing regime and outdated curriculums are wasting the potential of our youth."
He goes on to state,
"If we stop thinking of schools as buildings and start thinking of learning as occuring in many different places, we will free ourselves from the conventional education model that still dominates our thinking. Socrates did not teach in a conventional classroom; his classroom was wherever he and his students found themselves." Those are very powerful statements that should cause us to pause and critically reflect on our current practices. Specifically, it makes me ponder to what extent our current philosophies, practices and structures are preparing our students for the complex and challenging world they will face as they enter the global economy of the 21st century. However, it also raises some very difficult questions.
How do schools meet these challenges while under the thumb of NCLB requirements and standardized testing?
Can NCLB and teaching for the 21st century co-exist in a meaningful way?
How do we make legislators and parents understand that education does not have to look like it did when they were in school?
How and when do we provide opportunities for kids to experience "schooling" outside the four walls of the school building?
How do we make legislators and parents understand that the traditional agrarian calendar followed by public schools is antiquated and no longer meets the learning needs of students in today's information-rich society.
How do we provide Web 2.0 access for our students, while at the same time upholding our legal and moral responsibilities to ensure student safety?
How do we give teachers the tools, training and freedom to teach the 21st century skills of inquiry, innovation and critical thinking?
As Cookson stated in his article, "Just as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the wall of conventional schooling is collapsing before our eyes." My hope is that instead of stubbornly clinging to the past, public education will react in a proactive manner so that we can participate in and help to create the structure within which we will meet these challenges. If not, I am worried these changes will be done "to us" as opposed to "with us".
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
YouTube and a 1925 Ford Model T?
In a previous post, I paid tribute to my grandfather who recently passed away at the age of 95. He had a very fine collection of vintage cars, and when he passed, many of them were scheduled to be sold at auction. He was particularly fond of his 1925 Ford Model T, because that was the same make and model that he drove to high school as a kid. Due to his affinity for this car, I did not want it to leave the family. Fortunately, I was able to buy the car at auction and keep this heirloom within the family. I look forward to the day when I can show my grandkids the car their great, great grandfather drove as a high school student.
Although I was euphoric that I was able to obtain the car, I soon realized that with this purchase came some interesting challenges. First, when I encounter engine trouble of any kind, I am one of those guys who opens the hood and looks inside even though I have absolutely no idea what I am looking at. If being mechanically challenged were a disability, I would be the poster child!
First, I didn't even know how to start the "Tin Lizzy". I turned the key, but nothing happened. Hmmmmm.
Furthermore, when you sit in a Model T, there are three very confusing pedals on the floor and two even more confusing controls on the steering wheel. I quickly found myself wishing that I had asked grandpa how to drive this thing!
So here I was with this beautiful antique car that we had pushed into my garage (because I couldn't drive it!), and I had absolutely no idea how to start it; let alone drive it. What to do? YouTube of course.
Excitedly, I went inside and began searching YouTube for videos. I quickly found a video explaining how to prepare the car for starting and how to work the unique crank start system. I watched the video and then went right out to my garage, and the car started like I actually knew what I was doing.
Then I watched another video showing how to work the various controls so I could actually pull the car out of my garage. I then watched another video just to make sure the two gave consistent instructions. After this, I was ready to put my new learning to work, and believe it or not, my daughter actually witnessed me drive it around the block.
After basking in the glory of my modest success, I starting thinking about the irony of using a Web 2.0 tool to learn to drive a car that is nearly 85 years old. It also reinforced much of what I have been reading regarding the value of YouTube as an instructional tool. With the vast array of information being posted on a daily basis to YouTube, we educators can find video to support nearly any classroom topic we discuss. Say you are looking for video to support your classroom study of "To Kill a Mockingbird", the Pythagorean Theorem, the Theory of Relativity, the Gettysburg Address, or the proper dead lifting technique, you can find it all on YouTube.
The plethora of free multimedia information available via Web 2.0 makes me believe that the classroom videos and DVD's we used to show will soon be considered ancient relics of the past. Instead, the multimedia we use in the classroom will be "just in time" via the web, which will provide a richer and more meaningful learning experience for our students.
Web 2.0 is rapidly changing the classroom as we remember it. Technology is quickly replacing the textbook as well as the support materials we have traditionally used. If I can learn to drive a 1925 Model T via YouTube, don't you think kids could benefit from this learning tool as well? The kids are ready for us to move to Web 2.0, because most of them are already there. The question is, will public education lead the way or follow?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Making of a Prodigy...At What Cost?
I recently had a friend share a Nightline news clip with me which focused on a book titled "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle. The author of this book argues that talent is not innate, but rather is developed through intense practice, superb coaching, and intense concentration on the task at hand. As I watched the video clip, I found the arguments to be very similar to those made by Malcolm Gladwell in "Outliers", where he argued that talent is is not necessarily innate, but rather a result of opportunity. As I watched the video it caused me to reflect on the message being sent by both authors.
First and foremost, both authors advocate for the importance of the teacher. Whether a child is learning science, baseball, or the cello, outstanding coaching is the key element to success. Coyle found various places throughout the U.S. where an inordinate number of "prodigies" had been developed. He found a singing studio, a quarterback camp and a stringed instrument school where an inordinate number of students seemed to thrive. Each of these schools had the identical variable in common--one outstanding instructor. Interestingly, he also found that each of these instructors had the same characteristics. They were organized, perfectionists, and most importantly, they were not yellers and screamers. Instead, they were very matter-of-fact in their corrections, and always respectful of their students.
What does this teach us? It reinforces what educational researcher, Mike Schmoker, has been preaching for years. In his book, "Results Now", he stated that "the best teachers in a school have six times as much impact as the bottom third of teachers." School improvement is not some mysterious magic formula. The best way to ensure student success is to hire the very best teachers, provide the structure for their success, and support their continuous improvement.
However, the most salient message being sent by both Coyle and Gladwell is that childhood prodigies are not born, but rather made. They both send the message to parents that if you are willing to put in the necessary time, find the right teacher, and have a child who can intensely focus on the task at hand, you too can have a prodigy on your hands. However, what concerns me is the potential cost of this philosophy.
One of the goals of the K-12 school experience is to send out well-rounded graduates who have the ability to pursue a variety of career options. Over the past few years, I have become concerned that many of our students are missing the complete school experience. Immersion in both academics and co-curriculars is an integral part of this complete experience.
I went to a high school that only had about 125 kids in the entire school, and it doesn't even exist anymore. However, we had 83 kids in the marching band, 15 jrs. and srs. on the varsity athletic teams, a JV and varsity scholastic bowl team, an active FFA and many other activities. Many of those who participated in athletics also participated in the music and scholastic bowl programs. In short, we stayed active and experienced all that high school had to offer. However, that was 25 years ago, and things seemed to have changed dramatically today.
Now, public schools have kids who don't play basketball because they are playing club volleyball. They have elementary school kids who play baseball for eight months out of the year, so they can't go to basketball camp. They have kids who participate in wrestling clubs, so they can't go out for track or baseball. They have kids who lift weights for football, so they can't go out for wrestling. We see baseball and softball academies opening all over the state, so that in the four months kids aren't playing organized ball, they can still practice their skills. We see speed and agility clinics opening all over the state so our kids can get bigger, faster and stronger. With all of this scheduled time, how could a kid possibly be in athletics and also experience the joy of the fine arts? It's impossible.
In "Outliers", Gladwell stated that in order to have a chance at "prodigy" status, a person must practice a skill for 10,000 hours. That is nearly 417 full days. To reach this goal by the age of 18, a child starting at age five would have to practice their skill 769 hours per year! In reaching this goal, what is the child giving up? Is it worth it? By driving our kids this hard, are we helping or hurting their futures? Most importantly, whose goals are we trying to reach by driving our kids this hard: the kid's or their parents'?
Due to the rapidly rising expense of post-secondary education, I understand and appreciate the value of the college scholarship, but how do you put a price tag on the value of a well-rounded student? How many times have we heard stories about the child prodigy who became the maladjusted adult? What happens to the child prodigy-in-training when they don't succeed at their chosen skill? What skills do they have to fall back on?
I recently read a blog posting entitled "The Death of the Three Sport Athlete", which alludes to the dangers of this single-minded focus parents have for their kids. I hope the idea of the well-rounded student has not been lost forever, because I believe society will miss the creativity and leadership these students have historically provided.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this issue.
First and foremost, both authors advocate for the importance of the teacher. Whether a child is learning science, baseball, or the cello, outstanding coaching is the key element to success. Coyle found various places throughout the U.S. where an inordinate number of "prodigies" had been developed. He found a singing studio, a quarterback camp and a stringed instrument school where an inordinate number of students seemed to thrive. Each of these schools had the identical variable in common--one outstanding instructor. Interestingly, he also found that each of these instructors had the same characteristics. They were organized, perfectionists, and most importantly, they were not yellers and screamers. Instead, they were very matter-of-fact in their corrections, and always respectful of their students.
What does this teach us? It reinforces what educational researcher, Mike Schmoker, has been preaching for years. In his book, "Results Now", he stated that "the best teachers in a school have six times as much impact as the bottom third of teachers." School improvement is not some mysterious magic formula. The best way to ensure student success is to hire the very best teachers, provide the structure for their success, and support their continuous improvement.
However, the most salient message being sent by both Coyle and Gladwell is that childhood prodigies are not born, but rather made. They both send the message to parents that if you are willing to put in the necessary time, find the right teacher, and have a child who can intensely focus on the task at hand, you too can have a prodigy on your hands. However, what concerns me is the potential cost of this philosophy.
One of the goals of the K-12 school experience is to send out well-rounded graduates who have the ability to pursue a variety of career options. Over the past few years, I have become concerned that many of our students are missing the complete school experience. Immersion in both academics and co-curriculars is an integral part of this complete experience.
I went to a high school that only had about 125 kids in the entire school, and it doesn't even exist anymore. However, we had 83 kids in the marching band, 15 jrs. and srs. on the varsity athletic teams, a JV and varsity scholastic bowl team, an active FFA and many other activities. Many of those who participated in athletics also participated in the music and scholastic bowl programs. In short, we stayed active and experienced all that high school had to offer. However, that was 25 years ago, and things seemed to have changed dramatically today.
Now, public schools have kids who don't play basketball because they are playing club volleyball. They have elementary school kids who play baseball for eight months out of the year, so they can't go to basketball camp. They have kids who participate in wrestling clubs, so they can't go out for track or baseball. They have kids who lift weights for football, so they can't go out for wrestling. We see baseball and softball academies opening all over the state, so that in the four months kids aren't playing organized ball, they can still practice their skills. We see speed and agility clinics opening all over the state so our kids can get bigger, faster and stronger. With all of this scheduled time, how could a kid possibly be in athletics and also experience the joy of the fine arts? It's impossible.
In "Outliers", Gladwell stated that in order to have a chance at "prodigy" status, a person must practice a skill for 10,000 hours. That is nearly 417 full days. To reach this goal by the age of 18, a child starting at age five would have to practice their skill 769 hours per year! In reaching this goal, what is the child giving up? Is it worth it? By driving our kids this hard, are we helping or hurting their futures? Most importantly, whose goals are we trying to reach by driving our kids this hard: the kid's or their parents'?
Due to the rapidly rising expense of post-secondary education, I understand and appreciate the value of the college scholarship, but how do you put a price tag on the value of a well-rounded student? How many times have we heard stories about the child prodigy who became the maladjusted adult? What happens to the child prodigy-in-training when they don't succeed at their chosen skill? What skills do they have to fall back on?
I recently read a blog posting entitled "The Death of the Three Sport Athlete", which alludes to the dangers of this single-minded focus parents have for their kids. I hope the idea of the well-rounded student has not been lost forever, because I believe society will miss the creativity and leadership these students have historically provided.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
