Those Darn Eagles

Here is an issue to ponder. 

If you are unfamiliar with the Raptors Resource Project (the "Decorah Eagles" phenomenon), visit here to find out what I'm talking about.  Or… don't:

We would like to ask staff members to be please refrain from watching the streaming video from the Raptor Resource Project's eagle cam. The watching of the video has slowed down our network which is an inconvenience for everyone. Thank you for your cooperation.

I'm using some sample text that came from an internal memo within our agency, but a similar email has now been sent in many of Iowa's school districts.  Basically, when a large portion of teachers have the streaming video up the whole time, even when not at their computer, it does tend to slow things down a bit. Well actually, a lot.

The response from teachers isn't uniform by any means, but what has stood out to me is what I'd call verbal "dress-down" emails.  I've seen such emails now in three different schools, each going to the level of chastisement for IT's taking away of a once-of-a-kind learning opportunity, in perfect alignment with the Iowa Core.

I raise this as an example where things aren't always as they seem.  Sometimes, IT staff have the reputation of being more concerned about their networks than students.  But in this case, I think it is the opposite.  The IT staff is actually protecting student access.  And, I don't think the line is really that "fine" at all.

A webcam or streaming video can be a great educational opportunity.  But only for short segments at a time.  Perhaps checking in once a day to see what's happening.  Usage that is having the effect of slowing down the network means the streaming video is on constantly, on many computers in the same building.  And it demonstrates an ignorance of digital access.  One local tech coordinator mentioned that he walked in on a teacher who had each student streaming the video on their own lab computer.

What is key here is the perception of "access" to education, which is what technology is all about.  In the "dress-down" emails, the teacher was appalled at the taking access away to the learning opportunity.  But what it demonstrated was that the IT staff truly knew what access was.  All of the Decorah Eagle project is being recorded and Youtube'd.  Telling teachers to not stream the video deprives no students of learning opportunities.

The point I found most intriguing is that each email made an appeal to the Iowa Core.  The argument essentially being, how dare you limit what we do on computers, because we've connected it to the Iowa Core, and you can't argue with that.

Is that what "Iowa Core" is becoming?  A buzzword to be thrown in and win a persuasive argument?  Because, this is about as far from aligning with the Iowa Core as you can get.  It puts the resource first and puts the content, assessment, and activity afterwards.  Much like saying, "Wow, I've got this really neat link from CNN news, I'm going to have to find some lesson where I can use it".  And, it screams of inefficiency and depriving other students access to bandwidth, that could be used on other projects.

Besides, as my daughter mentioned... "Wait!  When did the eagle say it was okay to be watched 24/7?  It's like he got stuck in a constant episode of Big Brother without any say."

Foundations of the Iowa Core

The Department of Education, in conjunction with the AEAs, released over the summer an online module entitled "Foundations of the Iowa Core".  The module is to be used as a component of professional development, or simply as an information piece.  While its development began as a response to some confusion amongst educators about what the Iowa Core, where it began, or where it is heading, it has also been beneficial for parents and community members to get a sense of the initiative.

The module focuses on

• The basic features and terminology of the Iowa Core
• Understanding the 6 Outcomes
• Identifying the characteristics of effective instruction
• Discussing the benefits of the Iowa Core for students, educators, communities, and the state

The module is intended to be use either individually or in conjunction with others.  There are several collaborative learning team (CLT) activities for schools who use it as part of their face-to-face inservice, as well as individual activities if a person is looking at it alone.  In addition to activities, the module features video interviews with teachers, students, and community members.  The content itself will take about 1 hour to complete if working individually, and will take 2-3 hours if groups are discussing the CLT activities.

RELATED POSTS
Iowa Core in a Nutshell
5 Characteristics of Effective Instruction

Online Learning Initiatives in Iowa

(My presentation given to the Statewide Leadership Teams)

Online learning initiatives in iowa

View more presentations from Evan Abbey.

1. Iowa Core materials on Moodle

The Iowa Core professional development, alignment, and assessment for learning sub-committees have been placing their resources and instructor guides on the Heartland Moodle server (will soon be on the statewide Moodle server).  

2. ARRA

The state has been awarded $2.7 million for the developing our capacity to deliver K-12 online content.  This includes content development/acquisition, professional development, and technological support.  An overview of the grant can be found here

3. OLLIE

The AEA Online Council is developing a PD sequence for online pedagogy, called Online Learning for Iowa Educators (OLLIE).  There has been a proposal to offer a cohort for curriculum consultants from the statewide team this spring, with the purpose being common collaboration to create PD content, K-12 content, and prepare consultants to teach online.  If you have personal interest in this, contact me and for more info, check out here.

4. ITSI-SU

Heartland AEA is currently participating in a National Science Foundation grant coordinated by the Concord Consortium.  The grant is looking at the use of digital tools (including a portal and simulations) to enhance inquiry science.  It is entitled “Innovative Technology in Science Inquiry – Scale-Up” (ITSI-SU).  While the grant is paying for a piloting group to receive stipends and digital probes for their involvement, the online tools are available freely to all teachers.  If there is statewide interest, Evan Abbey and Rob Kleinow can train other consultants in a “train-the-trainer” model.

For more information, visit http://www.concord.org/projects/itsi-su

To see and try out the portal, visit http://itsi.portal.concord.org/signin/

 

Quick thoughts - #iowacore

I owe you a more thorough reflection on the 1:1 institute from Wednesday, which was extremely successful given the grassroots nature of its development. But for now, I see some early momentum coming out of the institute for increased Twitter usage--the bi-product of good PLN presentations (@derondurflinger, et al) and many speakers posting their username on their presentation with an active backchannel discussion... at least until the internet went down.

So, when I see many individuals starting to use the #iowacore hashtag, I believe this will be a central place for many educators to get what they've unfortunately been lacking... a good conversation around what the Iowa Core means. Join in the conversation.

A Tale of Two Teachers

Ran across an old backup disk of mine from when I was in a previous district (its a bit like Christmas for me). In there, I found copies of some emails when we asked for teacher feedback on our districts' standards/benchmarks work (which was back then in preparation for the Model Core Curriculum). There were some very interesting perspectives as you can guess. I thought two emails were worth pointing out.

...I'm not saying that standards and benchmarks are unimportant. However, we spent quite a bit of time three years ago working in our committees on standards and benchmarks. And before that, we spent quite a bit of time developing standards and benchmarks 6 years ago. Now, you are having us examine them again. Will this ever end, or will we be working on the same standards and benchmarks forever? When will we actually have time to work on our classes and what we are doing in our classroom right now? This is not the best use of professional development time."

Keep in mind, this individual is a good teacher. And certainly the feeling that spending time over and over again on something without any end in sight is frustrating. So I understand where this teacher is coming from. And since I was in my second year in the district, I don't know the whole story. Perhaps the work that was done in the past was completely ignored.

However, what upset me then still upsets me today. There is this perception with the teacher that the standards/benchmarks you teach... the "what" you teach... doesn't have to be looked at. Once you have it determined, you shouldn't every have to re-visit it.

Teaching is a profession requiring a professional attitude. Imagine a doctor saying, "I know everything there is to need to know about the human body. I don't need to improve my knowledge of it." Or a lawyer who says, "I know the law inside and out. I'm going to spend all of my time in the courtroom as opposed to the library, because that's just a waste of time."

It is frustrating to have to continuously improve, to continuously have to look at how you do things and continue to tweak them. But you have to do it. The world changes. Schools need to change too, even if what you had worked find.

This is the similar anxiety I see among many teachers regarding the Iowa Core. They will say "here is the latest round of the same ol' stuff we've had, forcing us to adopt new standards and benchmarks (and now I hear there are national standards coming down the pike)." And I understand the frustration. But the attitude that we have to wait for the department of education (or for any body of authority for that matter), before we will actively look at what we teach will only lead to acting out of compulsion. And if you are acting out of compulsion and not because it is the right thing to do, of course it will have no effect on your teaching.

Another email that was compelling:

...I'm not sure looking at our standards and benchmarks is what we should be doing now. Maybe there are some things we need to change on them. But, what we really need to do is look at how well we are actually teaching those things. You and I both know there are teachers who list off they do everything in that list, but are doing a crappy job at it. That's really where we should start."

This teacher, like the first, is not a "change agent" in the school and tends to look pessimistically at professional development, despite doing a good job in the classroom. Teacher B's complaint is typical of the other set of complaints that I receive with the Iowa Core. I really can't argue with what this individual said... I think it is spot on. It is looking for fidelity in what we teach. We say we teach the standards and benchmarks, but do we really? And how thoroughly? This is the heavy lifting of the Iowa Core's alignment process.

Iowa Core, in a Nutshell

I've had this conversation enough that it is time I posted it. For many educators, the Iowa Core Curriculum comes across as more confusing than it really is. Partly, that is due to problems with a roll-out, and another part due to questions about mandates and timelines. With non-educators (and many educators would openly admit, with them too), there is too much jargon that comes across as fluff, the eduspeak of those of us who have worked in education for a long time.

But at its heart, the Iowa Core Curriculum is really simple. Its really solid. And, there's little argument about it, even though there is consensus we could do a better job on these things. Here is the Iowa Core Curriculum, boiled down to seven basics:

1. We have to always be changing.
Because, the world is always changing. And we have tended to say that we're pretty good at what we do, which can create complacency. Eduspeak calls this the culture of continuous improvement, but basically it means we can't rest on our laurels. We have a process where we get better, going on all the time.

2. Change has to be based on data.
We can't make changes willy nilly. We have to seek data so that we can make a good decision. And most importantly, we have to know what kinds of data we seek. It isn't always the ITEDs. In fact, it usually shouldn't be. As schools, we have to be better at a) defining what we're after, b) knowing how you measure that, c) actually going out and measuring it, and d) interpreting it to make a decision... as opposed to twisting it to reinforce the decision we have already made.

3. We teach what we should be teaching.
The word thrown out here is alignment. The Iowa Core gives us essential skills and concepts for students to master. The problem is not that those are different than district's written standards and benchmarks... they usually aren't. The problem is, a district's standards and benchmarks are different than what actually goes on in their classrooms. We need to actually look in our classrooms and determine what is actually taught, what is "covered", and what is assumed to be covered by a different grade level.

4. We have good instruction and assessment when we teach, and we know what that means.
The Iowa Core identifies 5 characteristics of effective instruction. But even here, there isn't anything magical about these terms. They refer to teaching that is constructivist in learning. Deep learning. Less topics, higher-order thinking. More focus on analysis and creativity, less on rote memorization. Ongoing feedback, students driving the learning. Authentic learning environments, activities in the real world. And differentiation around a student's abilities, interests and prior knowledge.

Teachers have heard these buzzwords for years... the Iowa Core isn't new here. What's key is calibration. Can teachers look at a lesson being taught and identify if it is higher-order or not, how it can be more authentic, etc.

5. We develop 21st century skills in all that we do
Perhaps the biggest of buzzwords with the Iowa Core -- 21st century skills -- are actually well known. Show teachers a clip of a good lesson and they'll be able to identify the skills taking place, be they creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, innovation, etc. The problem is we see them as a discreet skill, as though we need a separate lesson on creativity in our curriculum.

Rather, they should be the lens by which we look at all that we do. You've got a unit on polynomials, or structuring a paragraph, or the process of osmosis. Great. How good is that unit at developing creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, etc? How can you make it better at those? Each lesson, regardless of content area or age level, should have that as the implied focus, the universal outcome.

6. We need to work more closely with those outside school
And, that's not just communication. Are we actually collaborating with others, partnering with others? Parents, community groups, local businesses, other schools, government institutions, the list goes on and on. We need to admit as educators that we can't teach students the best by creating an insular environment. We teach better when we bring in external "teachers".

7. We need good leadership
None of the other things happen without good leaders. And leadership doesn't always come solely from administration. We need to be systematic about building leadership... it won't happen just on its own. We need to adopt attitudes of balanced leadership, giving other people the chance to lead in the areas of their strengths.

No one is saying we need poor leadership in schools, of course. But when we talk about a district that doesn't have quality leadership, we tend to throw up our hands. Not much we can do there.

That's the wrong attitude to take. Every school needs quality leadership. Therefore, we need to not just pay this lip service, but actually invest time and money into leadership development. Administrators and teachers alike. The Iowa Core emphasizes to districts that this is a priority.

Mt. Washington is 6288 feet tall

Or so I learned this past week.

Today, my daughter takes her social studies test over the northeast states. I helped her study this week for the test, and I'm glad to say I see a perfect score on the horizon (not due to my tutorage).

The format for this unit, at least how it was reported to me by my daughter (and this is often at variance from the truth), leaves much to be desired however. Students have a thick social studies book filled with facts galore to cover every possible standard, benchmark, and performance indicator of all 50 states (to make the book marketable). But they don't really read the book; there is a CD audiobook of the text that is played at the beginning of the week.

The next day, they are given a worksheet packet with 15 questions on it, fill-in-the-blank style. The teacher reads question number one, which reads Mt. Washington, which is in _________, has a height of __________ feet. The teacher asks if any students know the answer, and students try to remember what they heard the previous day. The teacher then gives the correct answer (or confirms it), and the class moves on to question #2.

That's it. Test given out today.

OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE TEST
• There are _____ states (number). Name them.
• _________ is an important industry in the northeast because the coastline has many harbors.
• The type of government in which all of the people vote for laws is called a ___________
• When the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, they drew up an agreement that would help them to make laws called the __________
• A ditch dug across land to connect one waterway to another is called a __________
• The _______ _________ built in 1817, is a long ditch that connects the Hudson River with the Great Lakes
• A way of making large quantities of the same product is called ___________
• In the U.S., your rights are made possible because of our plan of government called the _________
• Our national government has 3 branches, known as _________, __________, and _________
• The place where Congress meets is in the _________ building
• NYC is also known as the city of ___________ because people from all over the world live there.
• The reasons that our nations first factories started in the northeast was because of _______ power and __________ power
• List the state capitals from each of the northeast states.

Note a pattern to the questions? If so, you are better than me. These are knowledge-level questions about geography, economics, government, and history. And there are several questions that aren't about the northeast.

LET'S EXAMINE OUR CURRICULUM
This isn't to pick on my daughter's school or teacher. I think what I see here is an anomaly, and that literacy and math are not taught this way. It's more to pick on the lesson design, which I feel is unfortunately typical in elementary social studies curricula.

1. There is too big of a dependence on the textbook.
2. There is too much information covered, given the little time spent on it in class, and the information is incoherently jumbled together.
3. There is a missed opportunity to work on reading skills embedded across the curriculum
4. The information covered is too low-level, factual-based, and doesn't lead to higher level thinking
5. The assessment is non-authentic recall
6. The information is, for the most part negligible (this will be the last time in my daughter's educational career she will be expected to know how tall or in what state Mt. Washington is)

Here's the scenario of what this leads to: I started reading the question "this is an important..." and before I could get to "industry", my daughter shouted out the word "fishing!" I asked her an application question "Where else is that industry important in the United States?" and she responds "That's not on the test." "I know, but where else it is important"? "Dad, I don't know, we haven't gotten to the other parts of the United States."

You never will. There is too much in social studies to cover everything.

What I want her to know is that, being by a coastline, it is logical that fishing will be an important industry. Therefore, other states/nations with coastlines will also have a significant fishing industry. Even if we haven't heard the official textbook CD. The lesson design precludes her from making associations like this.

If you look at the questions in the list, they are not all equal. The state capital knowledge is beyond negligible (how many of the 50 do you know, and has that had any impact on your life?). Some other questions could lead to deeper learning (like the Mayflower Compact or Erie Canal), but listing it in a factual method and then moving on makes them irrelevant as well. Meanwhile, perhaps two of the most important concepts of social studies, worth an intensive unit all in of themselves, democracy and the constitution only get one question devoted to them. In the midst of everything else. Very much, a mixed message to students.

When we discuss the Iowa Core, this is an example of what we need to do. Get rid of the rest of that stuff. Determine what is important. And then have a deeper lesson, leading to deeper conceptual and procedural knowledge, with authentic and formative assessment. Which will lead to permanent learning.

I give my daughter 5 months to forget that Mt. Washington is 6288 feet tall (she does have a good memory).

Nate Silver, Math, and Quadrant D

The big mistakes we make with the rigor and relevance framework is that we assume higher-order thinking is "tougher" and that more relevant means a story problem from a 2nd-person perspective. And, neither are the case.

Math is a great example. If you were a math teacher, and you were asked to make your curriculum more rigorous, you would probably eliminate some of the easier skills and replace them with skills that are tougher. Or given that math often works sequentially, eliminate chapters 1-4 and replace them with chapter 21-24 in the textbook.

You'd definitely be upping the difficulty, but would that result in students having more rigorous thinking skills? Not if the replacement skills are taught the same way, it wouldn't be.

In that same vein, traditional math instruction is definitely analytical, I'd say more so than traditional language arts or social studies curriculum, and analysis is a higher-order skill. But is it critical thinking? How much do students actually critique what they are learning? Even the best math instructors struggle with that... it's hard to critique something as black and white as mathematical theorems.

NATE SILVER
One of the biggest names in math today is that of Nate Silver, the founder of the popular political statistics blog FiveThirtyEight.com as well as the inventor of the sabermetric statistical model for baseball PECOTA. Silver's use of statistics and mathematical logic, both in baseball as well as in politics, ranges from the simple to the extremely complex.

But above all, it's very accurate, as PECOTA was the gold standard in predicting player performances and team results for years (other mathematical models have now caught up to it), and 538 successfully predicted 49 out of 50 states from the 2008 election with an algorithm of polling data.

There are two ways teachers can use Silver's work as the basis for quadrant D math activities (and no, one of those is not to do a biographical report on him... the biographical report on the "famous mathematician" or "famous chemist" or whatever being one of the worst ways for a student to learn more about that subject). One is to look at how to mathematically determine an otherwise non-mathematical quality. Silver asked the question "How can we predict the success of a baseball team or a presidential candidate?" and then developed the mathematical model to do so. But that question could just as easily be to rate the "best" musical act of all time or the most influential president of all time.

Starting off with a theoretical question, and then looking at the math that could help you support the answer uses a higher order skill not often associated with math: creativity. It also is relevance... true relevance. Not just take my problem and make it a problem that involves money. But rather, actually look at how real mathematicians in the world would use the content and skills to solve a real-world, unpredictable problem.

The other way would be to look at the ethics behind math and statistics. As we mentioned earlier this week, Silver questioned the methodology of the polling company Strategic Vision, which has been producing some shaky polls used to advocate for certain political causes. The method he used is to look at the trailing digits used by the polling company, which shows a non-random pattern. Silver then concludes the company was fabricating the polls, quite the claim.

Not only has this episode been relevant in terms of its impact on the world we live in, but it also has unfolded before the viewers eyes through an ongoing blog (Silver does a fairly good job of explaining some very abstract patterns). Again, you have the task of working through some unpredictable situations (proving a statistical polling company is lying is not a predictable part of any curriculum). And oh by the way, Strategic Vision hasn't polled since Silver's inquiry.

Now, this comes from a non-math teacher's perspective, but this is what the Iowa Core is getting at. The counter argument to doing this quadrant D work would be 1) it's time consuming and 2) takes us away from the mastery of essential skills and concepts. But that's actually its strength. It does take a student away from the collector of formulas and theorems to becoming the critical thinker in an inquiry-based setting, and it gives the student an appreciation for how math is relevant in the world around them.

Arthur Benjamin talks about statistics (and how it is overlooked in American curricula) with this short TED talk.

Other links
An explanation of PECOTA
The methodology behind 538

Wagner and the Flip Camera, part 2

Yesterday, I looked at the use of videotaping of instructional lessons for the purpose of calibrating teacher understanding of effective instruction, and Tony Wagner's advocation for this process.

For the record, I'm a huge advocate for exactly this. But I don't want to oversimplify the issue. There are some problems with video that has to be overcome.

1. There has to be clear distinctions between professional development use and evaluation use. This is the same issue teachers had with me when I conducted walk-throughs. No matter how much an administrator says, "this is not for evaluation... it's just to gather data to help you reflect later," teachers are not comforted. And for good reason. There were several times when I made a walkthrough visit where I saw bad instructional practices going on that I had to address. If I enter a classroom and videotape a teacher who is sarcastically putting down a student, that has to be addressed, videotape or no. For this reason, teachers (and teacher unions) are naturally apprehensive. Where's the line?

A successful administrator will make that clear up front, that yes, there are some non-negotiables that will be addressed, video or no. And, a successful administrator will help facilitate a staff discussion about what those instances are, so it truly is a staff norm and not an administrator-created expectation.

2. The elephant in the room is time. Flip helps, but it still requires time to 1) know when a video opportunity exists, 2) capture video, 3) watch video for the opportune moments to share with teachers, and 4) then package the video so that teachers can effectively learn from it. And, time is exactly what administrators don't have. They will need to make time, emphasizing this over other things.

As an administrator, my walkthrough trainer had a good perspective on this. She mentioned that a successful administrator will clearly state to parents, teachers, students, or even their superintendent: "Yes, I'm looking forward to meeting with you. And I'll do that as soon as I am finished visiting teacher classrooms, to help our school become better." In other words, the principal needs to communicate to everyone that this is how their school gets better, and therefore, this is where my priority is.

3. Another problem, but one that will go away quickly, is the disruption videotaping causes. Simply put, turn on a videocamera and a class doesn't function the same way it normally does (which is great for a rowdy classroom).

But like walkthroughs, this goes away with repeated exposure. Once students get used to the practice, it becomes invisible. In fact, when I ramped up my walkthrough usage to "each class, 3 times a week", it took 3 weeks before students didn't give me a second glance. UNI's Price Lab is a testament to this, as their students are more than accustomed to visitors and outside eyes on a regular basis.

2 OTHER THOUGHS ON VIDEO
• Wagner didn't stop at videotaping classrooms, however. Another big use of videotaping is with student focus groups (especially graduated students... or students who dropped out). A pointed interview with students can get right at what they see as working well and not working well in school. We'll touch on this in a later post.

• Schools shouldn't (unless rare exceptions) show the entire staff the video footage of an individual teacher. That should be reserved for a more safe setting like a PLC. But the whole staff can still benefit from watching video from external teachers. Just as with evaluator training, there are video clips available that can be used (check with your AEA). And Angela Maiers regularly posts video lessons on her website along with a written post of what she is trying to accomplish in her lesson. Those are great places to start.

South Dakota Testing 21st Century Skills

Busy time of year for me... only day not at an inservice for this week and next.

THE Journal reports on South Dakota mandating statewide testing in 21st century skills, becoming the first state to explicitly do so. They are using the assessment created by Learning.com, which is specifically aligned with the NETS standards.

Some quick thoughts:

• In general, I applaud the move. In the words of Tony Wagner, what gets tested gets taught. In Iowa, while we will push the concept of 21st century skills in the rollout of the Iowa Core, unless there is a test, it will remain a secondary concept to specific skills on the ITBS.
• The fact that "21st century skills = NETS standards" will raise some eyebrows. It's to say that technology literacy is the only literacy in 21cs. Financial literacy, civic literacy, employability skills, health literacy...? But, if you dig deeper into the NETS standards, you find there is some general overlap with other areas. At the very least, you have to start somewhere in assessment, and the NETS standards looks the best place to start of any.
• The test is a coupling of multiple choice and performance based tasks. Not the ideal, but impressive given the logistical challenges that any performance-based tasks provide. I am curious to see how "communication and collaboration" is assessed.
  
• The test does have problems assessing one of the standards. From THE Journal:

  A sixth category, Creativity and Innovation, is also included in the assessment, although this area is not a "skill" per se, and there has been some controversy within the education community over how the category might be standardized and assessed.

I would counter that "creativity and innovation" is most definitely a skill, one that some people are more gifted than others, but a skill that can be developed nevertheless. Gifted education researchers have used tools to measure creativity before, usually along the lines of finding the number of different solutions to a task, the number of original solutions to a task, and then a subjective valuing of the originality of the solutions.

Iowa should do the same as South Dakota, but should look for a different assessment product, one that gathers significant data about creativity.

Politics in Developing Standards

If you ever feel frustration at how you perceive the Iowa Core was developed, it is good to consider a state like Texas, and then reconsider. After making news in appointing a creationist to head the state's educational board, the state continues to look for outside influences for its schools.

Recently, they asked 6 individuals for their thoughts on the state's history curriculum, which they will use to revise the standards in the coming year. Out of those 6 are David Barton, a founder of WallBuilders, a "group that promotes America's Christian heritage", and Reverend Peter Marshall, a pastor who "preaches that Watergate, the Vietnam War, and Hurricane Katrina were God's judgment on the nation's sexual immorality".

Some of their suggestions, from the Wall Street Journal:

• Multi-culturalism and diversity awareness should be pared back. According to Barton, "Reaching for examples of achievement by different racial and ethnic groups is divisive and distorts history."

• Delete Anne Hutchinson from a list of colonial leaders. According to Marshall, "Anne Hutchinson does not belong in the company of these eminent gentlemen. She was certainly not a significant colonial leader, and didn't accomplish anything except getting herself exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for making trouble."

• Include the study of America's Religious Revival Movement. Or as they state, "Evangelist Billy Graham should be included on a list of transformational leaders of the 20th century and students in fifth and eight grades should study the colonial-era religious revival known as the Great Awakening as a force in shaping a national identity."

• Replace Thurgood Marshall with Harriet Tubman or Sam Houston. Marshall described Thurgood Marshall as a weak example of someone who has influenced the course of history. He suggested Tubman or Houston as better examples.

• Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process. "He's hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," Rev. Marshall wrote.

and my personal favorite...

• Replace references to America's "democratic" values with "republican" values. As Barton explains: "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands."

The process was not without political balance, as university history professors "representing the liberal to moderate view" also expressed some suggestions as well, which can be argued, show as much political influence in the shaping of curriculum as the conservative viewpoints.

That Barton and Marshall, as well as the others expressed their viewpoints with obvious political slants is not that troubling. What is troubling is the state's desire to have those slants have such a large influence over their curriculum. Given that Texas has a very large textbook market, if the proposed changes find their way into textbooks, they will have an influence over other state's curriculum as well, including Iowa.

Jeffrey, Davidson on 21st Century Skills in the Iowa Core

For schools and educators looking for more guidance on what the role of 21st century skills plays in the deployment of the Iowa Core...

Judy Jeffrey will speak on "Iowa's Path to 21st Century Learning" at the Cyber Summit for 21st Century Skills, tomorrow at 1:00 (Central time). The Cyber Summit, organized by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, is done solely online from June 1-12, and will bring an array of different presenters on 21st century skills in education. You will need to register at their website to attend virtually.

Dr. Z (big hat-tip) also highlights a presentation by Dr. Nadene Davidson, who co-chairs the Iowa Core's workteam on 21st century skills. In the presentation, Davidson gives not only a discussion about the role of 21st century skills, but also gives some historical background on the development of the Iowa Core.

Diigo group on the Iowa Core Curriculum

Russ Goerend has set up a Diigo group on the Iowa Core Curriculum, located here. This is a good way to share resources and thoughts about the Iowa Core. Halfway down the screen, you'll see an orange rectangle to click to join the group.

For those that haven't used Diigo before, it's a social bookmarking and annotation tool (an enhanced Delicious). Here's an overview.

Determining the Purpose Before Integrating Technology

As we mentioned yesterday, you must start with the purposes of your curriculum in mind before integrating technology. By "purposes", I mean the necessities that go way beyond the specific outcomes or benchmarks of a particular lesson. Think bigger picture: what are you trying to do to enhance learning and build the complete student? Or in the case of this discussion, what is your purpose for using technology?

A QUICK NOTE
Not all purposes are geared towards technology. Consider enhancing logic and reasoning. Or building self-worth. Could a lesson involving technology also help with those purposes? Yes. But those would be tangential benefits. And, could a purpose be reached without using technology? Again, yes.

Therefore, keep in mind the 12 purposes listed below are a list that make it easier to see where you would integrate technology into your curriculum. They are not an all-encompassing list of what is important in education, nor do they mandate using a computer to achieve them.

12 PURPOSES
• Writing Literacy - One of the 5 literacies listed in the Iowa Core, writing can be greatly enhanced via technology, as tech gives students the ability to write more, share with larger audiences, and receive more feedback during the process.

• Visual Literacy - Another of the 5 literacies, it is important for educators to know how much today's student thinks and understands with visual images. Tools that provide visual images in conjunction with concepts help firm learning and build on student schemas.

• Oral (and Aural) Communication - Two more of the literacies are speaking and listening. Much like written literacy, technology can enhance the way we speak and listen by giving us a multitude of different media and audiences for which to communicate. And, they give students a chance to dissect their own communication skills, which is near impossible to do in a live setting.

• Collaboration - The Iowa Core emphasizes that 21st century teaching and learning is a collaborative process. Several tools give more sophisticated collaboration forums, allowing it to happen at a distance in both space and time, and giving everyone access to the same workspace. Try having 4 students write an essay with one piece of notebook paper and see how "collaborative" the process is.

• Networking - Using the modern day learning theory of Connectivism, as Alan November mentions, a major part of teacher's work in the future will be networking them with people outside the classroom, school, community, and country. Technology gives teachers the tools to connect students with millions of other teachers and colleagues that are out there.

• Data Collection and Interpretation - An absolutely critical purpose of education, students need to understand how to access data in different ways. Be it temperature probes, digital cameras, heart-rate monitors, spreadsheets, or more, through technology there are ways to access the variety of data out there, for each content area. And, giving students access to collection of data is a pre-requisite to having them interpret it.

• Critical Research - Much like data, the process of finding and analyzing information is paramount in this age. Tools that help students filter the process of finding information, as well as knowledge of how to critically judge information are vital.

• Formative Assessment - A key component of the Iowa Core, so many tools out there now can give a teacher a better glimpse of what the student has learned, what they are ready to learn, and what they are struggling with. Be it diagnostic assessments or tools as simple as Clickers or PollDaddy, the teacher can differentiate, remediate, or eliminate content and be much more systematic about their instruction.

• Graphical Representations - Given the body of research that indicates humans think in graphical representations, there is a mismatch of best practice and instruction if a teacher does not use those in the classroom. This is a somewhat of a catch-all category, as the charting, mapping, and drawing tools out there actually have a variety of different uses. But it all starts with a teacher focusing on the purpose: I need to better utilize graphical representations in my classroom.

• Presentation - Don't let the name fool you, this purpose is not just about Power Point. Rather, it is the process of sharing one's learning with someone else. Which, makes this a category that includes technology you'd see in many other categories, be it an Inspiration chart, a word processed essay, or a spoken voicethread. Still, even if you ended with the same tool, the key is to know what your purpose is.

• Organization - Probably the primary use of technology among adults is to help organize our lives. Why is it a forgotten purpose in education? When given a project to do, students need to find ways of organizing the task to make it do-able. And more and more, there are a variety of tools that can help them with that process.

• Enhanced Opportunity to Learn - One important component of the Iowa Core that isn't discussed is the need to extend learning beyond the time and space confines of the classroom. Portal and content management technology allows learning to happen during study hall, lunchtime, or after hours.

I find this list makes sense to educators. They can look at this and agree that A) all of these things are valuable, B) all of these things are enhanced with technology, even if I don't currently know the tools, and C) all of these things have bearing in my class. I should be enhancing all of these. But at the very least, I can see 1-2 immediate ones that, with some direct focus and planning, will make my classroom more effective.

And, that's where we start. With understanding and agreement of this list. Once we say "I need to better graphical representations" and we find the specific lesson which is our greatest need, we'll find the best fit of technology to use. And, we won't waste a teacher's time learning how to blog if that isn't the best fit of technology. This is the way to conduct focus technology professional development in your school.

Technology Professional Development: Do This, Not This

Perhaps the quickest way to improve your professional development is a simple change in sequence.

Consider 3 attributes: 1) learning how to use the technology, or the tool, 2) finding your overall purpose in your unit, and 3) looking for the specific place in the curriculum where to integrate technology.

"Specific Place" would be the outcome, say learning about double-digit multiplication or the effects of the Civil War. The "Purpose" would be the broader aspects of the Iowa Core, such as enhancing written literacy or developing collaboration. Not all "purposes" would lend themselves to technology integration, but there are quite a few universal ones, applicable for every classroom, that do. We'll analyze those purposes tomorrow.

INSTEAD OF DOING THIS...
With those 3 attributes, most technology professional development follows this sequence:We start with "This is what a blog is", or "Here's how to operate the new Elmo we got". We probably make a mention of "a blog will help create collaboration" or "a blog is a 21st century way to develop writing skills", and then it is up to the teacher to look at their curricular objectives and "fit" the technology in.

Another typical sequence is:
where the deeper purpose drops out altogether. "Here's podcasting, now go use it in your classroom", without nay discussion as to why you'd use it.

No matter the sequence, whatever you start with (whatever is furthest left) will receive the most attention, and then it will diminish as you progress to the right. In other words, if it starts with the tool in the professional development sequence, it will be all about the tool in the classroom. And, that's not what you want.

DO THIS...
Shifting the sequence puts the focus where it needs to be:Start by having the discussions about what we need to do more of, what we need to emphasize, in our classrooms. And, this will be different for different teachers, where in physical education there might be a need to analyze your personal fitness data, in social studies, it might be to utilize visual literacy for meaning.

Then, go to the curriculum. "I teach a unit on cultural awareness, and given that students are visual learners in today's world more and more, I need to incorporate better visual literacy elements during my unit." Find the specific places to target.

Then find the tool. Here's where the tech integrationist can come in and work 1:1 or 1:small group and help them find the tool that is specific to their curricular need.

THE SIGNS
There are tell-tale signs if you are doing this effectively or not. If you are saying comments like "How can you use blogging in your classroom?", you are starting with the tool. Your focus is on the tool.

Moreover, there should always be the option of "no technology" if the sequence is set up well. In the last sequence, after analyzing the overall purpose and the specific place in the curriculum, you might conclude that the best tool in this case is plain old paper and pencil, or maybe dramatic theater, or a kinesthetic activity. "No technology" is never an option with the poor sequences.

5 Characteristics of Effective Instruction

In addition to the 5 content areas in the Iowa Core, the Iowa Department of Education has identified 5 characteristics of effective instruction, or in other words, "what good teaching looks like." So not only will Iowa's high schools develop implementation plans for the content next year, they will also conduct a self-study to determine which characteristics need attention and put forward a professional development plan to improve in that area(s).

From the DE, here are the descriptions of the 5 characteristics:

TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING
Teaching for Understanding is leading students (to engage in a variety of thought-provoking activities such as explaining, finding evidence in examples, generalizing, connecting, applying, making analogies, and representing the topic in new ways. Teachers assist students in making connections between prior and new knowledge to develop deep conceptual and procedural knowledge. Teachers who teach for understanding 1) make learning a long-term, thinking-centered process, 2) provide for rich ongoing assessment, 3) support learning with powerful representations, 4) pay heed to developmental factors, 5) induct students into the discipline, and 6) teach for transfer.

ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING (FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT)
Formative assessment is a process used by teachers and students as part of instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of core content. As assessment FOR learning, formative assessment practices provide students with clear learning targets, examples and models of strong and weak work, regular descriptive feedback, and the ability to self-assess, track learning, and set goals. (Adapted from Council of
Chief State School Officers, FAST SCASS).

RIGOROUS AND RELEVANT CURRICULUM:
A rigorous curriculum is one that is complex, provocative, and personally or emotionally challenging. A relevant curriculum requires students to use knowledge to solve complex, real-world problems, and to create works to use in real world situations. Rigor and relevance is represented by challenging content that is significant to a topic, includes authentic work, and the application of knowledge and skills to complex problems. It also entails the use of prior knowledge, the development of in-depth understanding, and the ability to develop and express ideas and findings through elaborated communication. The content is not just interesting to students, but involves particular intellectual challenges. When students successfully meet these challenges, their new learning will have meaning and value in contexts outside of the classroom.

TEACHING FOR LEARNER DIFFERENCES:
Teaching for Learner Differences requires teachers to understand essential concepts and skills, to identify the contributing factors affecting the desired outcome, and to utilize a variety of methods to teach and reinforce the desired concepts and skills. It includes providing access to the general education curriculum for all students. Teaching for Learner Differences can best be accomplished by engaging in a process which has teachers using student and instructional assessment data to make sound instructional decisions to meet the needs of individual students.

STUDENT CENTERED CLASSROOMS:
In Student-centered Classrooms, students construct their own knowledge based on experiential, holistic, authentic, and challenging experiences. Teachers take the skills, knowledge, and concepts that the curriculum requires and connect them to students’ experiences, interests, and environment. They provide opportunities for students to communicate their understandings, reasoning, solutions, and connections. Teachers encourage students to reflect on their own
thinking and learning. Curriculum and assessments are centered on meaningful performances in real-world contexts. Classroom learning experiences are intentionally designed for collaboration.

One of the tasks of the Department of Education's Iowa Core lead team, as well as its network of trainers for each AEA, is to develop training on these 5 characteristics, starting in the 2010-2011 school year for schools. One exciting aspect of this is both the DE's and the AEA's desire to make some of that training available in a range of flexible online formats, such as ongoing online courses, online communities, and self-paced online modules.

What's important to note is that, while these 5 characteristics are essential to a successful school, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. There will be elements of each that overlap. Even more important, they don't necessarily replace the initiatives that Iowa schools are already working on. An initiative like Authentic Intellectual Work, for example, makes heavy use of a rigorous/relevant curriculum, formative assessment, and a student-centered classroom, while including elements from the other two as well. Therefore, schools will need to look for the match in what they are currently doing with the 5 characteristics, and then be cognizant of what they are not addressing from each.

Eliminating Silos

Imagine the irony. We need to eliminate silos in Iowa.

Of course, that isn't the building landmarks that paint our countryside. It is rather the separation of content areas that is often seen in high schools. Math kept in the math room, science in the labs, PE in the gym... well you know the drill.

Visiting with Jim Reese from the DE recently, I'm reminded by something he mentioned:

Our biggest challenge with rolling out the Iowa Core Curriculum is to get districts out of silos.

Unpack that for a second. The Iowa Core gives schools core content in the core subject areas of math, literacy, social studies, and science. In essence, it puts us further into silos, sending each content area off to work with that core content away from everyone else. This is not best practice... in fact, it is far from it. It is exactly what we have to avoid with 21st century skills.

ONE IDEA
Getting rid of silos is a challenge mainly because it goes against the rigid tradition of content separation in the high school. And it doesn't work to say "we're all teaching math now" for 2 reasons. 1) Not all subject areas work as smoothly with math, and it becomes a contrived solution, and 2) There still is a hierarchy; there are the math teachers who are the experts in the content and the other subject areas that are the novices... not an environment for change.

So, here's one idea to de-silo. The Iowa Core identifies content and there still are content experts who will work with the material. But let's shift thinking on the basis of 21st century skill outcomes. And then, let's build teams within our staff whose goal it will be to ensure students reach competency (or literacy) in that area. Teams that cut across curriculum areas, so there are no "experts" and "novices", but only team members. Team members with a natural tie in with the skill, not contrived.

The result is an articulated curriculum, where teachers are adapting and tying into other content's lessons. And these teams lead authentic cross-curricular projects that transcend the traditional class structure, as well as authentic assessments to measure proficiency. And these teachers become the lead for how that skill is infused across the curriculum, helping others tie into the main thrust of the school. What do I mean?

1) Skill #1: Logical Reasoning. How do we develop students' ability to gather and interpret data, using logical reasoning skills? Imagine math, science, and social science teachers working together to see how this skill can be developed across algebra, psychology, chemistry, and more.

2) Skill #2: Humanitarian (Empathetic) Thinking. Including ethics and philosophy, I've already mentioned the need to have students understand other people and the humanitarian condition. There's a natural fit here with social studies, foreign language, and language arts instructors. I've seen this in action with Grinnell's team-taught Humanities course.

3) Skill #3: Health Literacy. Getting health teachers, physical education teachers, family consumer science teachers, and counselors together to have a full discussion about what does it mean for a student to be health literate? That's the way to go to get to the whole child.

4) Skill #4: Financial Literacy. This is where I've seen "contrived" curriculum at its best (let's do a random "credit lesson" in the middle of our gym class). That doesn't help a student become literate. There are places where this skill fits better with curriculum and teachers can work together much better. This includes all the vocational areas (business, industrial technology, agriculture, etc.) and economics. The state's emphasis on "All Aspect of the Industry", which require schools to develop authentic projects in the vocational areas, help students understand how financial manangement fits in to the bigger picture.

5) Skill #5: Creativity. Some will disagree with this skill fitting into this framework. Surely this is an area that, unlike the others, does fit across the curriculum. Still, I feel it is best developed and enhanced in the visual, vocal, instrumental, and dramatic arts. And this is not a catch-all category or some bone thrown. As Sir Ken Robinson's The Element attests, creativity is as much of a core skill that should be developed in students as any other in the Iowa Core, perhaps more so. Imagine the arts teachers given a prominent leadership role in a school's instruction, helping other teachers understand how to develop creativity in their curriculum.

SOME OTHER THOUGHTS
There are some notes of course. Special education and talented-and-gifted education teachers would work with these teams, having a different role, that of Teaching for Learner Differences advisor. Not on this list are a couple areas, reading and technology, that I do feel are truly cross-curricular and require the whole staff working as a team. All of these skills are undeniable important, and they give staff a rejuvenated focus on their profession. Whereas I might have taught language arts for 15 years before, what has my focus been on humanities? Or for the geometry teacher, logic? It provides an avenue for discussion and teamwork among our staff.

Most of all, it will lead to better learning. A student might be likely to forget math concepts having learned them in isolation only in the math room, but learning logical reasoning skills in a variety of contexts, all of which building off each other? That's where connections are made. And of course, I've got a spiffy graphic on the back of a napkin sitting in front of me... perhaps when I get a moment, I'll whip out Adobe Illustrator and make a jpg to share.

This isn't to say my idea is the end-all in this discussion. No school should feel it has to follow one model. There are many other ways a school district can break down silos and get teachers to work with other teachers in non-alike content areas. The key is to do so in a way that works for your school.

Exploring 1 to 1 Learning: Success Factors

Heartland hosted Apple's "Exploring 1 to 1 Learning" seminar on Friday. Apple of course has quite a bit of success receiving bids and working with schools on 1:1 initiatives, with many in Nebraska and Kansas (not to mention the Maine middle school initiative). But now, they are looking to make a serious effort to expand into Iowa, timely coinciding with the Iowa Core.

The day featured Barry Sevett and Brent Hayward from Apple to demonstrate the features of the computers themselves, but more importantly, they had presentations from 5 different school districts who are implementing 1:1. This included Jeff Dicks and John Dotson, superintendents from Newell-Fonda and Central City respectively, as well as Kirk Magill, the technology director for Cardinal, 3 districts in Iowa that have implemented within the past year. It also featured Dr. Milt Dougherty (superintendent, Little River, KS) and Katie Morrow (technology integration specialist, O'Neill, NE), which have been implementing for several years.

It was what you'd expect; a well-put-together presentation with good discussion. When Katie mentioned how O'Neill was a pilot school for Apple's Challenge Based Learning project, the room perked up. Coupled with Apple's Classroom of Tomorrow, Today, they have put together two concise frameworks for designing a "21st-century-infused" lesson. And most importantly in both, technology is not the main focus. It is the tool to move the curriculum forward.

I've been troubled in the past few weeks with the amount of criticism the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has received nationally. One of the central barbs is the backing of technology corporations behind the movement--Apple and Microsoft being two prominent ones. The thinking is the movement loses its legitimacy because of corporate sponsorship, much the same as the supposed "grass-roots" tea parties.

What troubles me is that, it is apparent to me that Apple has a lot to offer education, despite the reality that they stand to profit off the arrangement. Barry and Brent know a lot about how to use computers in schools; let's not minimize that. And, it is a partnership. They know that excellent instruction with technology leads to customer satisfaction, and therefore more computers purchased.

Let me suffice it this way. Apple understands how to implement the Iowa Core better than many school districts do, and actually offer the state quite a bit to help schools get there. Blasphemous? In bed with corporate influences? Whatever. I have our schools' best interests in mind. There were many superintendents in that room that agreed with me. Jeff and John being two of them.

Assessment for Learning and Student Information Systems

Interesting question that was discussed in an Iowa Core conversation.

How will our emphasis on student information systems in our school districts mesh with Assessment for Learning (1 of the 5 characteristics of effective instruction identified in the Core)?

To break that down a bit, when we moved to online accessible grades through our student information system (JMC) five years ago, it was the greatest thing for parents. Literally. The community survey, the parental committee at the site visit, SIAC, every chance for community input, they loved being able to access grades online.

Some took it to extremes of course, taking away their child's privileges for the weekend on the basis of what the Friday's grades were. And of course, each teacher was expected to turn in two grades a week because of this feedback. But generally, the teachers felt it was a good thing, since parents were getting on their kids' case early and often. And if the teacher and the parent is happy, the principal is ecstatic.

Problem is, grading is counter-productive in assessment for learning. There are stages to the process that should never be graded, such as rough drafts or trial runs on experiments. Students are encouraged to give critical self- and peer-feedback to improve learning. That's not going to happen if there is a grade hanging over it. The work of Popham, Heritage, and Wiliam all suggest that grading should be de-emphasized for more standards-based reporting.

This becomes an interesting quandary for schools to navigate.

Don't Fit It In

This is the message from a recent post of one of my favorite blogs to read, Teach Paperless, by Shelly Blake-Plock. In this post, he critiques the nature of technology integration in schools, including many teachers who often wonder where they are going to find room to fit in technology. In four words, he does a good job sufficing what I described about integration.

The words "Don't fit it in" work well for all the 21st century skill areas, though: health literacy, financial literacy, civic literacy, employability skills, as well as technological literacy.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT INTEGRATING THE 21C SKILLS
There seem to be 2 big misconceptions with 21st century skills adoption and the Iowa Core. The first is that you need some sort of class that covers these skills. Schools that are only looking this route are being foolish. The 21st century skill areas are not set chunks of information you teach in one unit and then have mastery, like say, the process of photosynthesis. They require ongoing exposure, integration, and practice, all to create a mindset of literacy (just as reading literacy does).

That's also the problem with the second misconception, that I'll find some place to fit in some financial literacy components in my course. That I will take 5 minutes out of my choir lesson and talk about healthy care of vocal chords, or I will have students take a class period to make a running budget of Holden Caulfield's expenses. Students are savvy enough to know when lessons are contrived, and they are savvy enough to discard contrived learning as soon as that information is not needed for an upcoming test.

THINK OF READING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
Infusing the 21st century skill areas takes a broad, multi-disciplinary approach, spearheaded by curricular leaders. It is just like reading literacy. In good schoolwide literacy instruction, the outcome is to have a literate student, one who knows how to read, can read on their own, does read on their own, and uses reading to meet other purposes. Its primary focus might be in language arts classes, but through good communication, teachers in other disciplines are aware and can build off of what the main reading thrust is. It includes activities that extend outside of the school day and the classroom, like "reading drives for charity" or student book clubs. And, reading teachers serve as coaches for the professional development of other teachers.

Good schoolwide literacy instruction is not "I've got to do 1 reading strategy per 3 weeks via PD quota, so I'm going to fit in an article on how to run the mile".

The same is true for the 21st century literacies. Your school might have an extra-curricular "know your credit score" or "get involved in the community" drives that all students participate in. These drives have as a purpose to get students exposed, infused with, and practice with the financially literate and civic literate mindset. These would be extensions of what they learn in classes such as economics or social studies. But because they are schoolwide, other teachers can relate their curriculum to that bigger picture without contriving it.

It has to be organized, stemming from good leadership. And, it has to be a team approach amongst your faculty. We, not me.

So, we have to challenge ourselves when we hear ourselves when we say "where do I fit this in?" It is not "fitting", and it is not I.