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."

Leadership is a non-negotiable

I'm working this week with the 20th different district of my 2009-10 year. There is some variance in the level of involvement I have with them, but generally it is very similar: visiting with teachers about need for change in schools, the Iowa Core, 21st century skills, project-based learning, and technology integration. Universal themes that each school is dealing with.

By asking me to visit with teachers about those things above, you can safely assume that all the districts feel they are important (that's the way I feel... I'm sure there are more jaded responses).

But, let me tell you, there is a dramatic difference in the leadership at these schools. And I don't say that as someone who has worked closely with the district or has quite a bit of data over many years to tell me that, because I don't. Here's what I got:

• At some districts, the superintendent is taking it all hands-on. They initiate the contact themselves. They have taken the pre-requisite steps and gotten key people on board. The technology coordinator is in the loop. They have a vision of where they'd like to go, what they'd like to see at their district, but are open to meshing that vision with other people's thoughts. They use the professional development opportunities to highlight successful things teachers are doing to reach that vision. They are not only at inservices, but they are fully participating, active in the small group breakout sessions, sharing their thoughts openly during discussion. And, they have a plan on how this will be implemented, with specific steps, supports for teachers, set expectations, and opportunities for evaluation.

• At some districts, another key figure has taken the initiative, perhaps a curriculum director or technology coordinator. The superintendent is on board, but the vision is shaky. They are more interested in hearing my vision for their school than they are of crafting their own vision. The administrators attend the sessions, but aren't necessarily taking a prominent role. They agree that planning for how action will be implemented is important, but they are likewise not sure how they will get there.

• And finally, at some districts, while a key figure has initiated the contact, the superintendent is absent. There is never really a desire to talk about vision, but only "could you visit with teachers about x and y?" There is no plan nor a discussion of a plan... the expectation is planting the seed will lead to magical sprouting of teacher development. And most telling, no administrator attends the session.

Even though that's all the data I see, I know which districts have strong leadership and which do not. Actually, so do you, even though you've had no contact with these districts. What's more, I know right now which districts are changing to meet the changing times, which will continue to be reactive instead of proactive (tottering with the initiative du jour), and those that my visit was a complete was of time for nothing will come of it. Note, nothing is said about an administrators actual knowledge of the initiative (in this case, technology), only their participation.

If you are a school leader reading this, here is your takeaway... leadership is a non-negotiable for change to happen. You need to take an active role in planning this before it happens. You must create a plan for afterwards. You must not only attend, you must not only participate, you must advocate.

If you cannot attend, cancel the inservice. That's right. There's no point in requiring a presenter to come in and teachers to attend if you are not there. Nothing will be picked up, and if by some chance something were to be picked up, it cannot be acted on. The message of having no administrator at the session speaks unbelievable volume about either a) the important of the topic, or b) the quality of leadership... and perhaps both.

Leadership Day, 2009

Scott McLeod issued today to be the annual leadership day, encouraging bloggers everywhere to comment on leadership regarding today's schools (and more specifically, leadership's understanding of digital technologies). For those unfamiliar with Scott's work with CASTLE, his central premise is that a) we need to change drastically to move our schools into the 21st century, and b) the ones who have the most influence to change schools (administrators) are the ones that are least knowledgeable about technology.

And, Scott's absolutely correct. In part. Superintendents, principals, and curriculum directors do have the least amount of knowledge about digital technologies in the classroom. But that's only half the problem.

The other half is that technology coordinators--those that have the most influence over technology use itself--are not leaders. And what's more, even if administrators do become knowledgeable about the use of technology, they often become deferrential to technology coordinators who have their own vision of how technology will run in the district.

This happens much more than it should. I have had four conversations in the past month with administrators from districts who were eager to help teachers teach for the 21st century. After some initial talks, I asked the question, "What is your technology coordinator currently doing to help support these goals?" And, there is some uncomfortable silence, maybe even a subtle scoff. Which is as far as the conversation goes.

Below is a repost of my analysis of the issue, originally posted on 11/22/08:

WHAT TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP IS NOT
The first thing to make clear is that, by and large, technology coordinators are doing a good job. From first-hand experience, I can vouch for the never-stop responsibilities of maintaining a district's technology. A colleague of mine said "You can throw many changes at teachers on a continual basis, but if you truly want to bring the system to its knees, take down the email server." Or as another one mentioned, "When hard drives crash, I truly get to see people at their worst."

There also are teachers doing a great job in the classroom, many taking it upon themselves to research the technology and experiment with ways to better use it to enhance learning. Some take it upon themselves to write grants for their classroom to add technology.

Neither of these are leadership. And, this is where most districts get stuck. This is isolated pockets of excellence, but without a central vision and leader to ensure the whole group is moving forward, these pockets won't go anywhere.

A TYPICAL COORDINATOR'S RESUME
There are often two different technology coordinators that you will see in districts. When technology first emerged, there was one teacher who worked a little bit more with technology than others. As the district grew, the technology demands required time spent outside of the classroom to manage it, and the district often grabbed the one who dabbled the most with it. In many of our smaller and more rural districts, the technology coordinator is in this mode, a former teacher who has morphed into the manager of hardware and software. In addition, some larger districts have had the resources to fund a different type of position, an integration specialist. Once again, the premier technology-integrating teachers gravitated into those positions.

But larger districts reached a threshold when networking and database management became significant. It required specialization. And much like other companies, districts have been hiring network specialists to manage this sophistication.

Neither of these two groups, despite their talents, have been trained in leadership. And when there are some rare cases where technology management is naturally talented in leadership (Pella or Jefferson-Scranton, for example), those districts become leaders in the state.

Another way to look at it: when I went through my administrative graduate program through Viterbo, I was the only technology coordinator in the state doing so. My instructors were, for good reason, quite surprised to see someone like me, as were districts looking to hire an administrator.

CONTROL VS. INFLUENCE
A dynamic that is present in education is the one of control vs. influence. Take away for a second the negative connotations of the word "control". As people move out of the classroom into the realm of administration, they notice the control they had of managing every item that took place in their classroom was now sacrificed. Principals don't have a corresponding level of control in every corner of their building. They do, on the other hand, have influence. It becomes even more pronounced as one moves to superintendent. Good administrators understand this dynamic. They understand they have to sacrifice the control they once enjoyed to greater influence the learning community.

Both network specialists and integration specialists have great influence. Unfortunately, most see their job as one of great control. They don't have the skills to build consensus and human capacity the way an influential leader does.

SO WHERE ARE WE IN IOWA?
The Iowa Core recommends that technology staff are part of the leadership teams planning the district's deployment of the core. I can say, both as someone who is working with Core leadership and technology staff, this isn't happening. With the Iowa Core, we have the capacity to bring about an avenue for digital curriculum adoption. But, imagine the roadblock when the leadership team determines it would like to go there without the technology coordinator at the table.

If a district is going to get to the digital curriculum, it would be truly beneficial to require administrative certification of its technology coordinator. This means we need a leadership academy to get them there. Even if it doesn't mean administrative certification, a CASTLE-type program for technology coordinators, possibly building off of the programs at UNI and Iowa State, but more geared for the district-level rather than the PhD.

Reflections on Technology Coordinator Meeting

One of my duties with Heartland is to facilitate the technology coordinator group. The core group of tech coordinator from central Iowa who comprise these meetings are a fun group to be with. We had our quarterly meeting yesterday, getting a chance to look at Ames' new middle school.

A couple of interesting thoughts from yesterday's meeting:

We had a vendor present on a filtering product, which is certainly more sophisticated than the products I used several years ago. What interested me was the tone of the presentation, as the vendor emphasized the ability to allow more than the ability to block. For example, it had the ability to block only specific inappropriate images appearing in appropriate searches in Google Images, thus allowing you to open up the entire site. Similar features allow you to open up other web 2.0 content and strip objectionable content out.

On top of that, the filtering database (running on a SQL server) had the ability to merge with student information systems of all flavors. This allows parents to access the records of where their children have been by the same login they would check their online grades. Which, I'll admit, I hadn't seen before. Given the nature of filtering with blocking, and the resulting game of proxies and executable files via flash drive that students get to play (what is more fun that defeating the system, after all?), you have to wonder if this is a more effective alternative. It would give parents a new perspective on their home computer.

The last feature of the filter to grab my attention was the ability to prioritize certain sites. In effect, you wouldn't block Facebook, but you'd make it perhaps a low priority, so that if another person was trying to access a higher priority site, they'd have full bandwidth needed and Facebook access would slow down.

In our "round table" discussion at the end of the day, the issue of filtering priority came up again. It surprised me to note that a majority of the coordinators there did not block Youtube, a measuring stick of sorts. And those that did emphasized it was not the content that they objected to, it was the bandwidth consumption.

As one technology coordinator noted, the tone of the groups discussions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years, as the group used to be focused on what to block, but now are focused on what they can allow. Or in other words, how the technology can help students learn rather than how we must shelter students. Perhaps this trend is isolated to central Iowa, but perhaps is representative of a bigger shift. One that is most beneficial for schools.

Newell-Fonda - 1:1

Today, I had the chance to visit Newell-Fonda High School in Newell, Iowa. Superintendent Jeff Dicks and Technology Director Tim Limbert were very generous in showing a group of educators their 1:1 initiative in action.

Newell-Fonda is a small, class-A school with a graduating class of 34 this year. The building itself is typical of what you would see in small rural districts, an older construction with many asymmetrical expansions.

But, their classroom instruction is anything but typical. With each high school student possessing a Macbook, they have several features of a digital curriculum taking place.

The interesting part of the story is the speed of adoption. Dicks mentioned it started with a call from Apple last January, and within 3 months, the superintendent, the tech team, the teachers, and the school board all got on board. In addition to adding Limbert's position, they agreed to a $64,000/year lease, which is quite a considerable investment for a small district.

Yet, you cannot deny it has transformed the school. There wasn't a student I visited with who didn't think that the program a) made them like school more, and b) had a positive impact on their learning. Classes were using a variety of instructional strategies, be it digital storytelling with the iLife suite, Geogebra and spreadsheets in math, Sketchup for computer-aided design, or an eBoard for posting assignments.

Several points made by Dicks and Limbert during the presentation jumped out at me:

• They held deployment (=handing the computers to the students) a week before school started to familiarize students with them. One parent had to attend the deployment.

• In many households, this was the family computer.

• On several occasions, they mentioned that students played games, and that was okay. As advice, Dicks said a district would have to reconcile themselves with that fact before they should go ahead with a 1:1.

• The key, they mentioned, was four days of Apple training that the staff had. Of course, Alan Hansen from Apple countered by saying that the key was the strong leadership the school had.

• They worked with a local insurance agency to develop a plan where families would pay $35 voluntarily and then have a $100 deductible on any damage (which was important because they had some broken screens the first week).

• Discipline referrals had been cut almost in half from the previous year.

• Students were not only allowed, but encouraged to use iTunes. When students built their own music libraries on the computer, they built a sense of ownership of the machine, which mant they took better care of it.

• Limbert had organized a "student tech team" to help troubleshoot computer issues... a first-line of defense.

Now, they still have some room for improvement, but the amount/depth of integration I saw today was way ahead of where I'd expect teachers 5 months into the adoption to be. They, like Central City, have the advantage of being a small district, which makes deployment easier. And, they have a very supportive board who sees the changing needs the 21st century brings.

My favorite part of the day had more to do with the issue of technology leadership than it did with a 1:1. Limbert shared this story (twice) with the group. When he was hired, Dicks said to him that his top priority was not to make sure the computers were fixed or the network was working. It was instead to make sure the teachers weren't frustrated. Words every superintendent should share with their technology coordinators, and every technology coordinator should live by.

Tech coordinator on your Iowa Core Leadership team?

Does your district have its technology coordinator on your Iowa Core Leadership team? Shouldn't it?

Considering the power the coordinators have, it would be a good idea to make sure they are a proponent of the best interests of the student.

Call For Action: Technology Leadership Academy

There is no disputing the role of leadership on student achievement. Strong leadership always improves it while poor leadership (or no leadership) lowers it. Those in charge of the Iowa Core are starting with district leadership teams first, recognizing that the leadership teams will effect change the most. Thus, the first Iowa Core meetings are solely focused on leadership development.

This is where we are missing the boat, though. To implement the digital curriculum, a district will have to have strong leadership. Leadership is needed to:

• Craft a vision
• Streamline and make viable a curriculum
• Put in place hardware, software and infrastructure
• Train teachers
• Provide support
• Assure accountability
• Communicate and partner with the greater community

And in a large portion of our districts, leadership is not strong in the field of technology integration. It becomes a hot potato... the onus of responsibility falls in between the IT staff and the administrators. Project CASTLE is focusing on building administrative leadership with the digital curriculum. We need to do the same with technology coordinators.

WHAT TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP IS NOT
The first thing to make clear is that, by and large, technology coordinators are doing a good job. From first-hand experience, I can vouch for the never-stop responsibilities of maintaining a district's technology. A colleague of mine said "You can throw many changes at teachers on a continual basis, but if you truly want to bring the system to its knees, take down the email server." Or as another one mentioned, "When hard drives crash, I truly get to see people at their worst."

There also are teachers doing a great job in the classroom, many taking it upon themselves to research the technology and experiment with ways to better use it to enhance learning. Some take it upon themselves to write grants for their classroom to add technology.

Neither of these are leadership. And, this is where most districts get stuck. This is isolated pockets of excellence, but without a central vision and leader to ensure the whole group is moving forward, these pockets won't go anywhere.

A TYPICAL COORDINATOR'S RESUME
There are often two different technology coordinators that you will see in districts. When technology first emerged, there was one teacher who worked a little bit more with technology than others. As the district grew, the technology demands required time spent outside of the classroom to manage it, and the district often grabbed the one who dabbled the most with it. In many of our smaller and more rural districts, the technology coordinator is in this mode, a former teacher who has morphed into the manager of hardware and software. In addition, some larger districts have had the resources to fund a different type of position, an integration specialist. Once again, the premier technology-integrating teachers gravitated into those positions.

But larger districts reached a threshold when networking and database management became significant. It required specialization. And much like other companies, districts have been hiring network specialists to manage this sophistication.

Neither of these two groups, despite their talents, have been trained in leadership. And when there are some rare cases where technology management is naturally talented in leadership (Pella or Jefferson-Scranton, for example), those districts become leaders in the state.

Another way to look at it: when I went through my administrative graduate program through Viterbo, I was the only technology coordinator in the state doing so. My instructors were, for good reason, quite surprised to see someone like me, as were districts looking to hire an administrator.

CONTROL VS. INFLUENCE
A dynamic that is present in education is the one of control vs. influence. Take away for a second the negative connotations of the word "control". As people move out of the classroom into the realm of administration, they notice the control they had of managing every item that took place in their classroom was now sacrificed. Principals don't have a corresponding level of control in every corner of their building. They do, on the other hand, have influence. It becomes even more pronounced as one moves to superintendent. Good administrators understand this dynamic. They understand they have to sacrifice the control they once enjoyed to greater influence the learning community.

Both network specialists and integration specialists have great influence. Unfortunately, most see their job as one of great control. They don't have the skills to build consensus and human capacity the way an influential leader does.

SO WHERE ARE WE IN IOWA?
The Iowa Core recommends that technology staff are part of the leadership teams planning the district's deployment of the core. I can say, both as someone who is working with Core leadership and technology staff, this isn't happening. With the Iowa Core, we have the capacity to bring about an avenue for digital curriculum adoption. But, imagine the roadblock when the leadership team determines it would like to go there without the technology coordinator at the table.

If a district is going to get to the digital curriculum, it would be truly beneficial to require administrative certification of its technology coordinator. This means we need a leadership academy to get them there. Even if it doesn't mean administrative certification, a CASTLE-type program for technology coordinators, possibly building off of the programs at UNI and Iowa State, but more geared for the district-level rather than the PhD.

Will Richardson

If you are excited about the new world of technology in education, and you are unfamiliar with the work of Will Richardson, I apologize for not posting this sooner. I've mentioned before that Will Richardson is one of my favorite authors and bloggers, one whose thoughts on the read/write web have had a profound effect on my own classroom.

In the discussion about the concept of literacy, Richardson is one of many to point out that we are facing new literacies in our world. He identifies huge shifts the read/write web is bringing about:

1. Content moving from teacher-controlled to student-controlled
2. Classes moving from 1 teacher and time-slot to many teachers available 24/7.
3. Class structures moving from individual work to collaborative work, even outside of the building walls.
4. Teaching moving from lecture to conversation
5. Skills moving from "know what is important" to "know where to find it"
6. Students moving from readers to contributors
7. The medium for student work moving from paper to electronic forms
8. The format for student work moving from text only to multimedia
9. Mastery moving from the test to the product
10. The goal moving from completion to contribution

When I work with educators or teach graduate courses on technology, one of the crucial things for me is the level of acceptance in the truth of these shifts. I have struggled as a professional development trainer in that I can easily provide teachers the "wow" of technology integration. In fact, I rarely fail, and that doesn't say anything about me... it says everything about the natural draw to human interest that is technology. But, I haven't as easily made this connection, that the world of teaching and learning is fundamentally changing, and we as educators have to change with it. Rare is it that I find a teacher willing to admit that the way they currently teach--which admittedly might be very good--will be completely outmoded in a matter of years.

As sincere as I can be, I say to you that these shifts are real, and I see no way a school without a quality digital curriculum meeting the needs of our students much longer, despite the quality of teacher in the classroom. I have to make my move from "trainer in technology" to "trainer in pedagogy". Or, I too will be outmoded as an educational technology specialist.

A note on technology leadership

A nugget I haven't mentioned before from ITEC 2008 came from a session for technology coordinators, where the presenter, Rich Molettiere, who echoed a statement I have believed in for years. He mentioned that if he had a new piece of technology (let's say Program X), the best way to bring about X's use in the district is to find your go-getters and work with them individually.

The thinking here is that a professional development session for all teachers will result in some getting lost, some getting mad at the program, some getting mad at having to do the initiative, and those who are truly going to benefit from it will be bored by the watered-down session tailored for everyone else.

As a technology coordinator, this was my mantra. Avoid the "shotgun-style" training. When we got Elmos for the first time, I picked four teachers to use as guinea pigs and had them try out the devices. It helped me learn the way to teach them (and others), and it let them know there were benefits to being a go-getter (first crack at the new technology and individual attention from the tech coordinator). I did the same for Smartboards, blogging, InspireData, and every other new item to come. Some, like Elmos, caught on like wildfire, where teachers were literally peering into their neighbor's room to see what the hubbub was, and next thing, I had an email request from another who wanted in on the act. Some, like InspireData, did not spread beyond the go-getters. But regardless, this was the way I facilitated change.

Looking to move your district into the 21st century? You need 2 things. You need a leader who is willing to sacrifice their own time to go out individually and meet with teachers, who takes pride in seeing everyone else succeed. And you need to bury the egalitarian shotgun-style approach. Todd Whitaker made it one of his 15 things that great principals do differently: "Base all your decisions on your best people. What will your best teachers think?" The same should be done with technology.