Will We Really "Do What It Takes?"

This post is motivated by the numerous year-end -- new-year posts about making 2008 a good year. A couple of posts from Will created a good conversations that were related. A portion of my comment to Will's New Year post follows:

I’ve been reading several people lately, reflecting, genuflecting, and peering into the future. “Be The Change” is becoming a common theme. I like it, but I wonder how strong we will stay if being the change truly costs us something…I think I’ll make that my New Year’s post. It’s easy to say we will “do what it takes” before we understand what it’s going to take to get the job done.

People say they want change. Oh, how many times I have heard in meetings, "We have to do what it takes to get the job done." Or, "The only thing that is consistent is change." On a personal level, I accepted a job where I knew no one, left things that were familiar, and moved hours away from my family and my wife's family, based on the answer a group of people gave to the question, "Are you willing to do what it takes to make this work?" They answered, "yes" and 5 months later they dissolved the organization because the clientele was not who they had hoped to "serve."

I learned a valuable lesson that terrible, horrible, rotten, no-good year.

PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WANT...THEY ONLY KNOW WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT.

I could go on and discuss the role of leadership, but I will concisely say the difference between a leader and everyone else, is they know what they want as well as what they don't want. Further, they know how to get what they want.

There are, as I see it (and I am more than willing to hear the thoughts of others), a few things people who are quick to discuss the need for change do not consider:

1. Change requires sacrifice. Not that people will die, but some people may have to lose their jobs. That may mean principals, superintendents, board members, politicians, and teachers. Some need to lose their jobs. Some may lose jobs without wanting to, others may lose them voluntarily - as a lamb led to slaughter, so to speak.
2. Change requires an acceptance of a certain amount of injury due to "friendly fire." What do I mean? Simply that some of the friends we currently have, who are unwilling to change for whatever reason, can no longer be considered our allies. You know...the teacher who helped you get your job, but still wears out the copy machine with daily handouts of math problems...they will probably not help much in the revolution.
3. Change requires communication/reporting in the traditional mediums. We can blog, wiki, and tweet amongst ourselves, but this will not create the change we blog, tweet, and wiki about. This can create an "underground" resource for those who seek to cause change, but it is not the place that will lead the change. To create change, people will have to adopt the "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." Unfortunate, most people don't even know they should be mad (see number 6).
   
4. The change needed is revolutionary, not evolutionary. Evolution, for those who have faith in this theory, takes millions of years to see the change. Revolution, for those who accept the coup theory, is rather cataclysmic. Without someone ready to take over after the change, the situation is more unstable than before. How many teachers are really ready for that responsibility? Not just a reader of this and other blogs, but look down your hallways and answer that question. Who will remain? Who will be ready to forge ahead?
5. Change will require a true game-plan. Is there really an organizational plan for a 21st century classroom, school, or system? There are pieces, but politicians will not give up control of the Education System unless they see organization that will allow them some level of authority. They yield too much POWER to give it up. Most politicians are not in politics for the money, they want the power. It is the textbook publishers, testing agencies, and curriculum suppliers who make money (and I'm not naive to think that politicians don't get some kind of "kickback").
6. Change will require the "parents in the middle" to care about their child's future opportunities. Parents of children with special needs have IDEA and other laws to make sure their kids have individualized attention. Parents with children who are considered gifted usually have the time, resources, and clout to make sure their children are given the best opportunities. The parents of the remaining +/- 80% are the ones who have to join the conversation. How will we reach them? Probably not through blogs or school newsletters.
   

It's great that people want to "Be The Change" (ala Ghandi), but they need to truly count the cost of their resolution. With so many people unwilling to be the change in their simple "lose weight" scenario, it is hard for me to believe anyone is really willing to be the change for something as big as national education system.

That does not mean one cannot be the change in their own classroom. It likely has to be done covertly. One of the reasons, a very strong reason, I turned to blogging and networking (such as I do) with the 172 RSS feeds I follow is for the support I needed emotionally to think it is worth my time to try. The mistake I have made over the past three years is to think that those teachers and leaders I cared about, and thought would care enough about students and teaching to move into the 21st century with their practices, were not willing to give up their personal traditions and devotion to the status quo. A mistake I won't soon repeat.

So, to those who seek to "Be The Change" I will be your cheerleader. You will remain on my hero list. If you choose to be the covert, insider who seeks to assist the coup from the inside, I will be your compatriot. What I have learned from the past few years, is that we all have our own battles. When the straight-forward advance does not work, you may try to flank left or right. When that doesn't work, you try something else. What will you try in 2008?

Photo: http://eskar.dk/andreas/wanting_change.JPG

Educational System: Blow It Up And Start Anew

As the privatization and school improvement industry ramps up, everyone needs to think about the assumptions embedded what’s being presented. Whenever an edublogger starts talking about organizational change, as I have here, my brain glazes over with the futility of the mere suggestion. So, please excuse me. What I propose is that the “end users” begin to recognize the persuasive techniques that are being used to marshal support for various recommendations, and to feel free to stick an oar in the water every now and then as the opportunity arises to make something good happen, or to learn something that nobody else can tell us. For me teaching is a form of inquiry.

Emphasis Mine

Borderland » Blog Archive » Diagnostic Intervention

Doug Noon's Borderland blog makes for interesting reading. He discusses the limitations of textbooks as a classroom base, but argues effectively that teachers still have to provide the support to make it work, if it can work at all. Read the entire article; it's worth your time.

His final paragraph (above) Doug states the frustration of organizational change. Many edubloggers agree with his sentiment including me.

SO HERE'S MY PROPOSAL:

Why doesn't the group of international edubloggers of note stop what they are doing now, and become the faculty and staff of the International Online School of 21st Century Literacy (IOS21CL).

Here's the faculty.

IOS21CL Director - Scott McLeod
Technology Coordinator - Miguel Guhlin
Information & Media Coordinator - Doug Johnson
International Human Network Coordinator - Vicki Davis
Asian Coordinator - Jeff Utecht
European Coordinator - Ewan McIntosh
Australian Coordinator - Tom March

21st Century History Instructor - David Warlick
Read/Write eBook Literature Instructor - Will Richardson
21st Century Science Instructor - Brian Crosby
"Even Newer" Math Instructor - Darren Kuropatwa
Educational Futurist - Karl Fisch

Note: Due to the exponential growth of information in the 21st century, material prior to 09/11/01 (when USA fell asleep and missed the flattening factor of world economics and education) is unnecessary.

Students (okay parents) would have to pay tuition. But they could use the vouchers they receive because their children's schools did not make Adequate Yearly Progress under the NCLB law. International students would qualify for a scholarship - because they score higher than US students already.

There must be a board of virtual education. Regardless of the industry, boards function as the body which plays the role of the skeptic. Therefore I would nominate Tim Holt and Gary Stager. Tim's first order of business would probably be to fire my faculty because they are white males with the exceptions of Vicki and Miguel.

::Must stop - cheek hurts from tongue pressure::

Miguel Shares a Story About Teaching as an Art Form

Miguel Guhlin has become one of my favorite edubloggers. He has a humble tone, he is down-to-earth, and he has the knowledge to make his readers think. In a recent post (same day as this one) Miguel discusses the need to take action. We do indeed suffer from paralysis by analysis in the education world. More data simply postpones action, and yet we want to be able to claim that we make data-driven decisions (See Jeff's comment in my previous post).

In the midst of Miguel's commentary, he quotes an education student, Karlana, as saying,

I feel the problem educators face today is that current generations are so involved with the television, Internet, computers, video games, and anything else under the sun, that we now have to compete for that even shorter attention span than what educators had over a decade ago! Educators now have to become quite innovative, and that in itself is quite a unique challenge. You have to not only figure out what the students are involved in and interested in, but also find a way to integrate this information into using technology in order to get quality work out of the students.

I must confess, I did not want to copy the whole thing here, but Karlana has just written a piece of a conversation I had with my son less than 2 hours earlier. Brant, my son, is an education student as well. He was studying before we took our dog for a walk. During the walk, Brant relayed some general information about attention span; that it is about 1 minute for each year of age - 5 year-olds have about a 5 minute attention span.

I took the conversation as a time to impart my limited wisdom. I asked, "If that is true, then how do 15-year-olds sit for 90 minutes to watch a movie?" It was a set-up question. Brant said, "Good point." I didn't want him to cave so easily, so I led him a little. "Don't you think that's why there is a different camera angle, scene, or something visual every 2 to 3 seconds...to provide a false change so the movie keeps your attention?" Again, Brant said, "Good point." He is a math guy. Few words, just get to the point kinda guy. But I could tell the wheels were spinning in his head.

I told him the attention span issue is one of perspective. If the material is good, you keep attention longer. If the material isn't good, you have to change your angle...not camera angle, but your angle of presentation to the students. Unfortunately, in the climate of high-stakes testing, standards, and the scientific (if you do A, and then B, your students will know C) process of canned teaching, most material we present to students isn't that good...in their eyes...which are the only ones that matter.

Teachers, good teachers anyway, must be able to change their angle of presentation for their students. That, my friends, is an art form. It is akin to the director getting 20 shots of the same scene to tell their story. Then the producers choose which scene is the best.

Karlana and Brant will have numerous exposures to the science of teaching. Karlana and Brant, I think, are both asking the question (though they may not know how to word it), "What I'm learning in my ed-prep program may not be enough to keep the attention of my future students...heaven knows it didn't keep my attention. I want to be a good teacher for my students. What is it that I am missing?"

Karlana and Brant - you aren't missing much. Know your material. (You probably already do.) Keep in touch with the youth culture as you get older. What motivates them? What keeps their attention? Why is it that they can play Guitar Hero for hours - what is it about the game? You know what motivates you, and you're not too far removed from the K-12 classroom that it won't work in the beginning of your career. Take the curriculum you are given to teach your students, find the methods that your students will stay attentive to (the art form), and plow forward. You will not learn this in your ed-prep program.

By the way, thank you Mr. Stein for teaching me how to calculate percentages, change them to decimals, and have a clue what that all meant, by using the backside of baseball cards in 8th grade. He wasn't my math teacher...he taught science. I don't think I ever learn math from a math teacher.

Intentional Absence

For my three readers, I have taken an intentional absence from blogging. I have been reading, thinking, and organizing my thoughts -- but not writing. Why? Because I needed the break. But I'm back, and I want to change my focus a little. Last year I spent most of my time reflecting on the works of other bloggers. I have learned much from their writing. I have entered the conversation on many issues. My primary rant has been on leadership by fear when it comes to technology use in schools. The truth is, I don't think it will change because bloggers gripe about it. I think it will change like most things in education...a new generation takes over and adopts the tools created a decade earlier. In education, there really is no cutting edge, no matter how much we want to think we are sharp. We seldom find ourselves on the crest of the wave, rather we struggle against the undertow.

I am making a shift in the things I choose to care about. For now, let me say that I believe until the foundation of educational philosophy and training are changed, the use of technology is not that important of an issue. "It is not about the technology," say a plethora of bloggers. That's right. Technology is not even close to the most important issue in educational practice. It is much more basic than technology. It is an issue I am calling Science vs. Art.

Briefly, I believe we are amiss in our educational philosophy in the current age. We are believing that educating children is a science. Most ed.prep. programs are Bachelor of Science degrees. The approach most colleges of education take are scientific in nature. They seek to present formulas to instruct students. They tell students to start with Standards or curriculum. Construct a lesson plan, and make the student fit the curriculum at a particular level and at a specific age.

I do not think educating children can be scientific. Teaching is an art form. Great teachers don't start with standards or the curriculum they are forced to teach. They start with the students they find in their classroom. It is more important to know the children than to know the curriculum. [I know that is not a popular thought, and likely considered erroneous.] Good! Because if most educators disagree, I might be on to something valuable...because what we are doing now does not work! It's not about "reverse planning" or "designing a lesson" based on standards. It is about knowing your students, their interests, their abilities, their skills, their hopes and dreams, then figuring out how to get the information they need to become successful in their pursuits.

Does this mean teachers shouldn't know their curriculum or standards? No. They should learn their content in college, and continue to learn throughout their life. Standards change as politicians seek re-election, so relying on standards is building your house on the sand. Teaching is not a science, wherein our students are experiments to see if a canned program can work on the masses. Shame on us for accepting that approach to our profession.

Teaching is an art that takes the various "colors" of each student [nothing to do with race] in our classroom, mixes them on a canvas, with the intent of creating a masterpiece in each child's life. This is what I will be discussing for a while. I have tried to understand what has been missing in the conversation in the edublogosphere, and I think we are missing the foundation upon which we want to build a 21st century school. I'm weary of missions, visions, goals, and plans. They mean so little in the life of a school. I had to bite my tongue as I wrote this, because I want to keep from offending potential readers. But the truth is, many educational types need to be offended. Perhaps another time.

A Better Cynic Than Me!

Roger Skank posted a cynic's dream post about education reform over at Education's Place for Debate. Even the title is terrific: One More Time: Rich Folks Misunderstand Education Reform.

He lists and supports five reasons why politicians will never seriously tackle education reform:

1. Teachers
2. Publishers
3. Testing companies
4. Universities
5. Parents

Must reading for the educational curmudgeon in all of us.