Quick-hitter this morning:
From their blog, Google announced they have a safety mode for Youtube. It is an opt-in feature, sort of like "safe search" on Google images. This safety mode will not only filter out some questionable content (which Youtube already does), but will filter out profanity in the comment section (which it hadn't done before).
This is not perfect. First, it isn't permanent. You could log in to an account and keep the feature permanently on within that account. But it won't take a student long to log out. Sarah Perez from the ReadWriteWeb mentioned that it would have been better to have created an entirely safe site, which would have allowed an easier go of it for filtering at the district level.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Planning for a 1:1 Initiative
More from Livingston's 1:1 Learning - Laptop Programs That Work:
Planning for a 1:1 initiative is obviously critical, but it is complex as well. Livingston uses the phrase "not driven by nuts and bolts, but a vision of what to accomplish." Which is well said. Often schools become too focused on which type of computer and applications instead of the reason why you are going 1:1 in the first place.
Planning starts with a committee, and the committee must have a strong leader. The leader is one who is passionate about the move, dedicated to see it work effectively even if that means she will be doing the heavy lifting herself, and most importantly have the trust of the teachers. In the schools Livingston highlights in the book, that leader has always had one foot in education and one foot in technology. The lack of a strong leader (at least one dedicated to a 1:1 initiative) will be what keeps most schools from making the leap.
Next, the committee should be determined. Many schools make the mistake of putting only the tech-savvy go-getters on this committee. The committee should see representation from all viewpoints, with the possible exception of outright naysayers. One school included a teacher near retirement on the committee. She wasn't objecting to the movement, but she did raise concerns, such as "You're asking teachers to have students save their work on the server. I don't know how to do that." Having that voice on the committee allowed the committee to make sure it addressed those concerns, and it gained a lot more credence during conversations with the whole staff. And in addition to teachers, the committee should have representation from parents, community members, and most importantly, students as well. Whatever the committee is, it should not be the old tech committee.
Livingston mentions the committee will meet "to provide vision, formulate, decide, detail, market, implement, oversee, and assess." Everything the committee plans or discusses should be documented.
After the committee is created and starts their discussion, the next critical step is to survey other 1:1 schools. Livingston recommended one way of defusing the anxiety over which computer to choose is to ask current 1:1 districts a) why they chose their platform, and b) would they do it again.
Livingston's book goes into good detail about each of the next steps in planning, which we'll look at more in future posts:
Some other items for the committee to consider:
Planning for a 1:1 initiative is obviously critical, but it is complex as well. Livingston uses the phrase "not driven by nuts and bolts, but a vision of what to accomplish." Which is well said. Often schools become too focused on which type of computer and applications instead of the reason why you are going 1:1 in the first place.
Planning starts with a committee, and the committee must have a strong leader. The leader is one who is passionate about the move, dedicated to see it work effectively even if that means she will be doing the heavy lifting herself, and most importantly have the trust of the teachers. In the schools Livingston highlights in the book, that leader has always had one foot in education and one foot in technology. The lack of a strong leader (at least one dedicated to a 1:1 initiative) will be what keeps most schools from making the leap.
Next, the committee should be determined. Many schools make the mistake of putting only the tech-savvy go-getters on this committee. The committee should see representation from all viewpoints, with the possible exception of outright naysayers. One school included a teacher near retirement on the committee. She wasn't objecting to the movement, but she did raise concerns, such as "You're asking teachers to have students save their work on the server. I don't know how to do that." Having that voice on the committee allowed the committee to make sure it addressed those concerns, and it gained a lot more credence during conversations with the whole staff. And in addition to teachers, the committee should have representation from parents, community members, and most importantly, students as well. Whatever the committee is, it should not be the old tech committee.
Livingston mentions the committee will meet "to provide vision, formulate, decide, detail, market, implement, oversee, and assess." Everything the committee plans or discusses should be documented.
After the committee is created and starts their discussion, the next critical step is to survey other 1:1 schools. Livingston recommended one way of defusing the anxiety over which computer to choose is to ask current 1:1 districts a) why they chose their platform, and b) would they do it again.
Livingston's book goes into good detail about each of the next steps in planning, which we'll look at more in future posts:
- Professional Development
- Implementation Logistics
- Pedagogical Theory
- Classroom Management & Policies
- Communication with the Public
Some other items for the committee to consider:
- Keep in mind the educational age and SES of the students who will receive the laptops. One of the most common questions is whether students would have internet access outside of school, a must to fully tap the potential of a 1:1 environment.
- Think about how technology integration has worked or not worked in the past. Those mistakes will be magnified when every student has a laptop.
- Consider how other change initiatives were addressed, and why they were successful or not.
Monday, February 8, 2010
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.
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:
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.
...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.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Two Good Reasons to Go 1:1
From the introduction of Livingston's 1:1 Learning - Laptop Programs That Work:
How effective is a classroom set of textbooks, that students couldn't take home or to study hall to read? That had to remain in the room so that the next class could use the same resources? It isn't, other than to save money. It interrupts the learning process so much, we can't call it a learning process anymore. Leaving the books behind would be a workflow.
We have no problem making sure we are 1:1 with textbooks (in all subject areas, nonetheless), but isn't it just as absurd to leave the access to computers behind?
Our world in now open to our students; through the portal of the internet, they can connect to people around the globe to learn from and share with. Never before have we had this learning potential before. And yet, we use fear of the world as a reason to shield them from technology. What favors are we doing them? If we don't give them ubiquitous access--if by denying them access, we deny them the opportunity to learn--then we aren't doing everything we can to help them.
Because we've long known that students need to work at their own pace and in their own way, both school and at home, no one expects students to stand in line or adhere to a schedule for using technologies such as books, pencils, or calculators. However, that's precisely what we've asking them to do with computers."
- Mark Weiser
How effective is a classroom set of textbooks, that students couldn't take home or to study hall to read? That had to remain in the room so that the next class could use the same resources? It isn't, other than to save money. It interrupts the learning process so much, we can't call it a learning process anymore. Leaving the books behind would be a workflow.
We have no problem making sure we are 1:1 with textbooks (in all subject areas, nonetheless), but isn't it just as absurd to leave the access to computers behind?
We need to get past the fear factor that is associated with the web, and I'm not just talking about the safety issue. We're scared of bad information and that children will plagiarize and cheat and that people will lead them astray, and so our reaction is to block it all. That doesn't protect them. It makes them less safe and more ignorant."
- Will Richardson.
Our world in now open to our students; through the portal of the internet, they can connect to people around the globe to learn from and share with. Never before have we had this learning potential before. And yet, we use fear of the world as a reason to shield them from technology. What favors are we doing them? If we don't give them ubiquitous access--if by denying them access, we deny them the opportunity to learn--then we aren't doing everything we can to help them.
Friday, February 5, 2010
1:1 Learning - Laptop Programs That Work
I mentioned one of the best resources we have on 1:1 computing is a book in our professional library by Pamela Livingston. Pamela Livingston, who has served in many technology roles both in schools and the private sector, was the technology coordinator of the Peck School in Morristown, NJ, one of the first school districts to roll out a 1:1 initiative.
Livingston puts together not only her experience, but also the existing research and experiences of other pioneering schools, and statewide initiatives. I'll highlight some of my favorite sections of the book in some upcoming posts.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
Section 1 gives a narrative of the process Peck used to roll it out, from idea, to common vision, to logistics and budgeting, to implementation, and then to evaluation. She also compares it to the work in San Francisco's Urban school, St. Louis' Whitfield school, Denver School of Science and Technology, Henrico County (VA)'s initiative, and the statewide middle school initiative in Maine.
Section 2 gives more details on the aspects of leadership. Specifically, it shows what worked and what did not with planning, professional development, and implementation logistics.
And section 3 delves into the teaching pedagogical differences that ubiquitous computing affords a school. Livingston does a nice job of touching on the differences in learning theory and some important aspects to remember about use of web 2.0 tools. She also provides a model lesson and classroom management advice.
Finally, there are excellent resources in the appendices, including Peck's sample policies, a collection of FAQs from students, current research and resources, as well as a scenario-starter for how you would implement different technologies into language arts, math, science, and social studies classes.
By the way, Livingston also guest blogs on the 1:1 blog run by CASTLE.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Heartland AEA 1:1 Resources
I am at the Heartland area superintendents' monthly meeting this morning, where there will be a large focus on 1:1 schools and the process involved. Van Meter's superintendent John Carver and high school principal Deron Durflinger will be presenting about their district's initiative, and later Jeff Dicks, superintendent from Newell-Fonda, will be discussing some of the growing pains involved with a district going 1:1.
For those in the Heartland area, or in Iowa for that matter, here is a quick look at the best resources we offer for schools looking to go 1:1.
For those in the Heartland area, or in Iowa for that matter, here is a quick look at the best resources we offer for schools looking to go 1:1.
- 1to1schools.org is a blog coordinated by Scott McLeod, director of Iowa State's CASTLE institute
- CASTLE is partnering with the AEAs to put a wiki of information on the 1:1 process
- On that wiki, there is a listing of other 1:1 schools in Iowa with contact information
- Also on that wiki is some information about the upcoming spring conference for Iowa 1:1 schools
- The Digital Curriculum (pdf) is a framework for how to teach with ubiquitous access
- From our professional library, Pamela Livingston's 1-to-1 Learning: Laptop Programs that Work (2nd edition) is a must read, detailing not only the necessary steps for schools, but also highlighting some of the pioneers in 1:1 use.
- SAI is in its second year of offering leadership training in transitioning schools to the 21st century. Heartland also offers leadership training in the form of an online course/community on how to lead schools in a 21st century tech-infused school.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Data points that maybe only I'm interested in
My kids point out that we would have been at the 100th day if it hadn't been for snow days (which I believe means we are in the mid-60s now...). Good time to look at some data and draw some conclusions.
Here's a couple data points for you to consider:
With the exception of a few schools who truly value collaboration, we live more isolated than any other profession. Professional development does not work in isolation.
Tony Wagner, in his visit to Iowa, used the analogy of the tennis player who was trying to improve her game by only email interaction with a coach. The coach was not allowed to see her practice or play, but could only offer vague advice on the fundamentals of the game. The player was also not allowed to see herself via videotape or to watch other players for comparison. And she wasn't allowed to discuss the score of any match to measure the effects of any efforts she made.
How well would the tennis player improve in that isolated of a situation? How well do you?
Here's a couple data points for you to consider:
- How many times this year has your principal been in your room to observe a lesson, other than formal district-mandated observations?
- How many times this year has your technology coordinator observed your lessons? Or curriculum director? Or department head?
- How many times have you observed another teacher teach this year?
- How many other educators in your district know what you are currently looking at in your curriculum? And, how many of those only know because they have children who are your students?
- How many times this year have you had a discussion with another educator about student data, not including the ITBS/ITEDs? How many of those led to you altering your teaching?
- How many articles, books, or blog posts have you read this year that have transformed your teaching? How many of those did you share with your colleagues?
With the exception of a few schools who truly value collaboration, we live more isolated than any other profession. Professional development does not work in isolation.
Tony Wagner, in his visit to Iowa, used the analogy of the tennis player who was trying to improve her game by only email interaction with a coach. The coach was not allowed to see her practice or play, but could only offer vague advice on the fundamentals of the game. The player was also not allowed to see herself via videotape or to watch other players for comparison. And she wasn't allowed to discuss the score of any match to measure the effects of any efforts she made.
How well would the tennis player improve in that isolated of a situation? How well do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)