No One Right Way

(I apologize in advance if this comes off as more rant-y than usual � if that�s even possible. This is very much thinking out loud, so take it for what it�s worth. It's certainly not intended to be directed at anyone, the people I mention are all helping me think through this. And, of course, I very well may be completely wrong. On to the post.)

As happens every so often, I was involved in a briefly intense Twitter discussion yesterday where I followed my usual habit of pushing (provoking?) hard just to explore my own (and others�) thinking. This one, however, I felt sort of deserved a follow-up, so here�s my attempt to summarize my current draft thinking.

The genesis of the discussion was a tweet by Will Richardson:

 I pushed back a little with:

And away we went with lots of other folks chiming in along the way.

I understand the basic criticisms of calling these 21st century skills, namely that we�re ten plus years into the 21st century already and that many (most? all?) of these skills were important before the 21st century. And I also understand Will�s basic premise that, as crucial skills, these shouldn�t be taught in isolation in a separate course, but should be embedded � and modeled � in all of our classrooms.

But here�s the thing. I think there�s no one right way. I think in our passionate desire to effect the changes we think our students need, we sometimes fall into the same trap as many of the so-called reformers that we daily deride. Would it be so horrible to have a 55-minute-(or whatever)-a-day course called �21st Century Literacy Skills� taught by someone who�s pretty immersed in this arena? (For those of you who have heard Will passionately speak about these literacies, would you be averse if he was available to teach that to your students?). And, yes, these ideas should be talked about, explored, and modeled in all classrooms in addition to that one course, but if a school decided to dedicate time for that course, would it be so bad? (As Chris Lehmann has often said, if you value something let me see where it lives in your schedule. I think a case could be made that having a course in every kid�s schedule dedicated to this would show that you very much value it. Although it�s not the only way.)

But I also think it�s okay if a school decides that, no, these should be embedded in all of our courses and we�re not going to teach a separate, pull-out course specifically about these skills. There�s not one right way to do this and, if we insist there is, then we take away something I think is vital to making this whole school thing work: flexibility and personalization. (I think perhaps the only good thing I said at EduCon was that all education is global, but it�s also local.) The teachers in the classrooms with their kids, with their very individual students, with specific backgrounds and learning conditions, and very specific wants, needs and passions, need to be able to address those needs as they see fit, without folks criticizing that that's "so 2005." (And, yes, I�m as guilty of that as anyone. Mea culpa.)

I also think that much of the angst over the �21st Century Skills� label is misplaced. While I agree with folks who say that many of these skills were important pre-21st century, I disagree with some of their conclusions. First, I think that while many of these skills (collaboration and communication immediately come to mind) were very nice to have in the 20th century, I think you could often get by without them. I would suggest that for most of the professional jobs that many folks aspire to these are now necessary and prerequisite skills, not just �nice-to-have� skills.

Moving beyond employment, I also think they are necessary skills to be effective citizens in the 21st century. As the Twitter discussion unfolded, Zac Chase, Laura Deisley and I broke off into a side discussion around being an informed voter in the 21st century. Zac pushed back suggesting that really today isn�t all that different in terms of being a voter, saying that sure there are a lot more people talking about stuff, but in the end are they really saying anything that�s changing the process? (More from Zac around these ideas). Laura and I, representing the � ahem � older crowd, suggested that based on our experience, we feel it really is different. That the wealth of information available about candidates and issues, the various forms of media used to convey that information, and the ability to interact socially and at a distance around them makes being a voter/citizen much, much different today.

This is different, and it requires different skills.

And while I understand and partially agree with the argument that �Hey, we�re eleven years into the 21st century, shouldn�t we already be teaching these skills and let�s just get on with it instead of talking about them like they�re new,� I also think that some are overlooking one pretty important point: we still have eighty-nine more years left in the 21st century. I think too many folks hear �21st Century Skills� and think of a fixed, standard set of skills that are settled and clearly defined. But I think they�re still evolving, and will continue to evolve (transform?) in ways that are really hard to imagine at this point. Is it so bad to use a label that forces us to look forward? (Did educators in 1911 know what the next eight-nine years were going to bring? Would it have been bad for them to be talking about 20th Century Skills?)

That was one of the essential ideas of the presentation that shall not be named � that we live in exponential times. If Kurzweil is right in his prediction that by mid-century a $1000 computer will exceed the computational capability of the human race, then life is going to be radically different, and our brains have literally not evolved in such a way for us to truly understand that. Our brains do a pretty good job of projecting things out linearly, but we suck at exponential (which is a really important point that Kurzweil makes several times).

Here�s the example that I use with my Algebra class to demonstrate this. Take a standard piece of Xerox paper and fold it in half. Then fold it in half again. And again. And again. How many times do you have to fold it in half until the thickness equals the distance from the Earth to the Moon? (Yes, understanding you couldn�t physically fold it in half that many times, but assuming you could.) Go ahead, take a gut-level, intuitive guess of how many times. Answer below.

Richard Miller, chair of the English Department at Rutgers, says that

We're living in the time of the most significant change in human expression in human history

 and that

We are no longer grounded in the printing press; what you see before us is the networked world.

The networked world is different than the world in the previous centuries. Yes, we�ve always had networks. The cavemen had learning networks. They knew who to go to learn about hunting, and who was the expert on gathering, and who to learn from about how to defend the tribe. And our networks evolved and expanded over time, and include our extended families, and our neighborhoods, and our places of employment, and often a professional community. And they includes books, and 20th century media like radio and television. But I still don�t think that compares to the potential (realized by some, not by others) of our learning networks today. I have teachers on six continents that I learn from every day. Many of whom I�ve never met face-to-face.

This is different, and it requires different skills.

Miller goes on to say,

To compose, and compose successfully in the 21st century, you have to not only excel at verbal expression, at written expression, you have to also excel in the use and manipulation of images. That's what it means to compose . . . All of our students, regardless of discipline, regardless of major, can come together and work on this central activity of multimedia composition. That�s writing in the 21st century. It�s multiply authored, it�s multiply produced.

I think that if you agree that multimedia composition is a �central activity� of communication in our current time, then that requires some things to change.He also says,

We do not have a pedagogy on hand to teach the kind of writing [composing?] I'm describing. It needs to be invented.

Invented certainly suggests there�s something new here.

Jason Ohler defines literacy as �being able to consume and produce in the media forms of the day.� Is anyone going to argue that the �media forms� of today are not significantly different than media forms previously? Or that our ability to not only consume, but produce them, is not significantly different? Different not only in form, but in ubiquity, presence, function, and impact? As the National Council for the Social Studies says,

We live in a multimedia age where the majority of information people receive comes less often from print sources and more typically from highly constructed visual images, complex sound arrangements, and multiple media formats.

This is different, and it requires different skills.

The National Council of Teachers of English says,

Because technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate environments, the twenty-first century demands that a literate person possess a wide range of abilities and competencies, many literacies. These literacies are . . . multiple, dynamic and malleable.

21st Century Skills, however you define them, are not static. They are �multiple, dynamic and malleable.� If folks want to use "21st Century Skills" as a catch-all label, I think that�s fine. If folks don�t want to use that label as a catch-all, then that�s fine as well. I think we need to move beyond arguing about the label, beyond saying there�s one right way to do this. If �literacies� is an accurate description, then it�s a core set of skills that all students (people) need to have, and I suspect having a course dedicated to it and/or embedding it in all classrooms are both better approaches than dismissing them because of the label.

Today is different, and it does require different skills. So what�s so wrong with having different approaches to help students learn those skills? There's no one right way.

Oh yeah. 42. Forty-two folds for the thickness of the paper to equal the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Most folks� intuitive guesses are five or more orders of magnitude off. We suck at exponential. If we�re so bad at imagining that, then what else do we lack the capacity to imagine?

Who's the Teacher? You're the Teacher.

Watch this TED talk from TED founder Chris Anderson. Go ahead, I'll wait.




I'm not going to say too much about this other than I'm just going to pull a few quotes from this to ponder.

Crowd accelerated innovation.
(Or, perhaps Crowd Accelerated Innovation, deserving of capital letters?)

It's the crowd, that shines the light, and fuels the desire . . .This is a model that pretty much any organization could use to nurture its own cycle of crowd accelerated innovation . . . Invite the crowd, let in the light, and dial up the desire.
(Schools? Education? Individuals? Learning?)

You have to show your stuff to the world . . . Radical openness.
(Radical. Openness. Is there anything more unlike what most schools/classrooms look like today? And do we think programs like Race to the Top are going to make things more open, more collaborative? Or less?)

We�re a social species. We spark off one another.
(Oy. Back to the drawing board for my Algebra class. I have to do better.)

We watch 80 million hours of YouTube every day . .. Cisco predicts that in 4 years, more than 90% of the web will be video.
(And more video has been uploaded to YouTube in the last two months than has been broadcast by ABC, NBC and CBS combined since ABC started broadcasting . . . in 1948.)

It�s in that non-verbal portion, there�s some serious magic.
(I like to think my writing is sometimes good, and I don't think anyone is saying that writing is going away, but he has a point.)

Reading and writing are actually relatively recent inventions. Face to face communication has been fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution . . . This is the connective tissue of the human super-organism in action.
(I have to think about the idea of "connective tissue" a little bit more, but shades of Clay Shirky here - both Here Comes Everybody and Cognitive Surplus.)

Print scaled. The world�s ambitious innovators and influencers now could get their ideas to spread far and wide. . . But now, in the blink of the eye, the game has changed again. . . . what Gutenberg did for writing, online video can do for face to face communication . . . that primal medium which your brain is exquisitely wired for just went global. (Wow. Shades of both Shirky and Steven Johnson here.)

For the first time in human history talented students don�t have to have their potential and their dreams written out of history by lousy teachers. (I, of course, don't love that line, but I get the point. I would say it more like, "For the first time in human history talented learners don't have to have their potential and their dreams written out of history by lousy circumstances," but, yeah, okay. Also see Disrupting Class.)

Who's the teacher? You're the teacher. ('Nuff said.)

NCTE is Beginning to Shift

(Warning: There�s some shameless self-promotion in this, but I think the content is still worth your time.)

As I wrote back in February, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) is really beginning to focus on 21st century literacies. I�ll be heading off to their annual convention, Because Shift Happens: Teaching in the 21st Century, in San Antonio this weekend where I�ll be presenting with Anne Smith, Kristin Leclaire and Mike Porter. NCTE has a Ning setup for the convention, are running some sessions in an area called the New Media Gallery, and have Tech to Go Kiosks organized by Sara Kajder with some help from Bud Hunt.

The November issue of the NCTE Council Chronicle (pdf) also has several articles (The �C�s of Change� (pdf), Widening the Audience: Students Reading and Writing Online (pdf), and Reading and Writing Differently (pdf)) that focus on trying to get our heads around what 21st century skills really are, and what it might mean to be literate in the 21st century. They also have an online �extra�, More Thoughts on 21st Century Literacies.

I think all these articles are worth your time � and are worth sharing with any teacher in your building that works with literacy (which is hopefully every teacher in your building). And then encourage those teachers to get involved in the conversation. As Bud Hunt says in one of the articles,

I�ve probably learned more about teaching and learning as a result of being engaged in professional discussions online than I�ve learned in any meeting or class or directive from an administrator.

This is too important for your teachers not to be involved in this discussion.

Presidential Ads Embedded in Video Games?

This definitely qualifies as "unconfirmed," but it's highly intriguing nonetheless. According to this post on GamePolitics.com (Where politics and video games collide) (via a tweet by Andy Blanco):

We've only gotten one report of this, which seems a bit odd, but an Xbox Live gamer who goes by Dragunov765 has posted photos of what appear to be in-game ads for Barack Obama.

Dragunov (we know his real name, too) says he came across the ads while playing Burnout Paradise earlier this week . . .

Very interesting. As GigaOM asks:

Its veracity aside, the virtual billboard raises an interesting question: Are political ads in video games a good idea? In terms of eyeballs, I�d have to say yes. Roughly one-third of American households own an Xbox 360, Sony PS3 or Nintendo Wii. In terms of effectiveness, Brandweek recently detailed a survey undertaken by its fellow Nielsen Games division in which 11 percent of gamers said they bought a brand after seeing it advertised in a game.

Some folks will ask how effective this is when so many gamers can't even vote yet. While there are many gamers that aren't yet 18, the average age of gamers is 30, and 37-year-olds buy the most games (as of February 2006 according to David Perry in this TED talk, statistics at about the four minute mark).



When the historians write the history of this election, how big of a feature role will technology have? Internet fundraising and recruiting. YouTube (Obama Girl, clinging to guns and religion, Reverend Wright, a more perfect union, Tina Fey, . . .). Email organizing, energizing, pushing the current campaign message, and rapid response. Social networking and community building. Voter registration. To name just a few aspects.

Meanwhile, back here in K-12 Land . . .

Update 10-14-08: Thanks to BenH in the comments, this story is now confirmed.

No More Librarians

Dan Maas, my district�s CIO, has a new post titled Sunset for the Librarian:

So what's in a name? Well, everything. A name conjures an image, a shared understanding and it is from these understandings that we begin to do the work at hand. The term library is rooted in the latin word libri which means paper or books. The very terms library and librarian are obstacles to the future of this critical school service because the business is no longer based in the media of paper and the book. In fact, I don't even like the term media center because the emphasis is still on the containers of information...

He goes on to suggest some possible new names for the library and the librarian (Scholar Center and Scholar in Residence). I�m not sure he�s quite nailed the right name yet, but I do think it�s an interesting topic to think about. He goes on to ask:

So, if we were going to write a new job description for the Scholar in Residence at your school, what items would you include?

If you have some thoughts, head on over to his blog and leave a comment.

Intellectual Freedom: Where Do You Stand?

This week is banned books week. From the ALA website:

BBW celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one�s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.

Courtesy of Doug Johnson, we also might want to celebrate Blocked Bytes Week:

As Doug says:

Americans need the freedom to read more than just books.

As Doug has suggested before, I think many schools interpret CIPA incorrectly (read: too stringently). (Also see these three earlier posts on The Fischbowl.) He then shares some very interesting information in the comments:

Yes, we do block some sites - those specifically required by CIPA - basically pornography. We trust our filter settings to make accurate judgments about this.

What keep us from being "censors," I believe, is that for any non-pornographic site to be blocked requires a formal process be followed similar to a reconsideration process for banning a book.

Ahhh, now that�s an interesting idea. The default in Doug�s district is that a non-pornographic site is accessible, and they have to go through a process to block it. In other words, somebody in the district has to show cause and make a case for blocking a particular site, as opposed to allowing a filtering company to make that judgment (typically based on categories) from afar. That lines up pretty well with what I�ve said before about my own school:

Our philosophy is to have high expectations for our students, to educate them to behave ethically, responsibly and safely and then expect that they will do the right thing. When they don�t, they know we�ll have a conversation and try to learn from the mistake, but we don�t assume they are going to screw up. In other words, our philosophy has been to educate, not ban.

This filtering approach is the opposite of most districts and brings up an interesting philosophical discussion: should access to information generally be considered a good thing and therefore the default status is allowing access? Or should access to information be considered a bad thing and therefore the default status should be to block it? How much power should schools have to "censor" information and prevent students from accessing it? And who makes that decision? What are our schools' core values regarding intellectual freedom?

And, no matter where you fall on those questions, how do we best prepare our students for the unfiltered world they live in when they step off the bus? (Or open their cell phones? Or pull out their laptops with their own unfiltered connection to the Internet?)

(For the record, my district has a relatively open filter compared to most school districts, and we have a clear process where we can request that sites be unblocked. We also have a teacher override that gets teachers to many - but not all - blocked sites. Of the sites listed on Doug�s graphic, only three of them are currently blocked for students: Twitter, Ning and Second Life. Other sites that are blocked include YouTube, Google Video, MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, and all sites deemed pornographic by 8e6, our Internet filter company.)

Update 9-30-08: Heard this related story on NPR this morning. Talks about the intial banning of The Grapes of Wrath, so more about books and less about the Internet, but interesting nonetheless.

Texting, tapping, clicking, tweeting, filming: The Rocky Covers the DNC

I've written several times before about how I think one of my local newspapers, the Rocky Mountain News, seems to be doing a fairly decent job trying to transition a traditional newspaper into the digital age. The first part of the title of this post is the headline for John Temple's article from Saturday's paper on covering the convention:

For Sen. Barack Obama, this could be the pivotal week of his long campaign.

We hope the same holds true for the Rocky in what has been a long journey from being just a newspaper to becoming a live source of news and information.

For the first time in planning for a major news event - and we've prepared in the past for everything from the pope's visit for World Youth Day to the Summit of the Eight - our focus has been first on what we would do on the Web, on how readers would experience our work on their computers and cell phones.

I find that an interesting choice of words, "just a newspaper." And while it makes perfect sense, I also find it interesting how they are acknowledging that they are producing for the Web first, and the paper second. And given schools' almost universal ban on cell phones in the classroom, it will be interesting to see how policy clashes with practice if major news organizations start producing for the cell phone first.

For us, the change is exciting. But it's also challenging. It's required many of us to learn new skills. We've been training for months, testing our new approaches to make sure we're ready to give you something different, something you'll value not just in the morning when your paper lands on your doorstep, but all through the day and night.

The Rocky will have about 150 journalists on the street covering every aspect of the convention. Their work will be featured on RockyMountainNews.com and on our mobile Web site, TheRocky.com. If you want to follow what they're reporting, you can sign up to receive their Twitter Tweets by going to RockyMountain News.com/twitter. If you want to see what's going on all over Denver, you'll be able to watch their video clips and see their still photos posted almost instantly on our Web site. If you want to comment on our Web site about what's happening, you'll be able to do that, too.

It's going to be a rich stream of content that we'll organize for you in real time to keep you atop everything from what the candidate is doing to which celebrities are in the Mile High City.

So a newspaper is going to be tweeting the convention.

The Rocky Mountain News uses Twitter in several different ways. Each reporter has a Twitter account they use to communicate breaking news from the field. When you see a Twitter feed embedded with a story, those updates are live and immediate. The Rocky also has Twitter accounts that act as news feeds.

If you go to their DNC page you'll see their embedded live twitter feed.

And posting videos. And allowing - and encouraging - comments. And providing a "stream" of content.

We'll have more people with cameras on the streets than any other news organization, from reporters with cell phone video cameras to sophisticated, award-winning videographers. Our goal is to immerse you in the scene.

In the past, we've published instant books to commemorate the most dramatic events in this city. Well, this time we're going to produce something we'll make available to a global audience - an instant multimedia retelling of the events of the week. Working in collaboration with MediaStorm, an Emmy Award-winning multimedia documentary company, the Rocky will have on its site next Saturday what we hope will be the definitive interactive account of an event that will be talked about for generations.

Their goal is to "immerse" us, and then they'll provide an "instant multimedia retelling" of the events of the week that they're going to make available to a "global audience." (Okay, could that have been written by an edublogger?)

Now, contrast all that with what's happening in many classrooms around the country this week. Anyone else see a disconnect? I'll close with John Temple's last paragraph (emphasis added by me):

You won't be able to be everywhere this week. We will be. I hope you'll join us.

"I Already Have"

Just a quick post to point out this blog post by Terry Sale:

On many Fridays, for our warm up, I give the class what I call a poetry song. Today the song was Vertical Horizon�s �Everything You Want,� which I like to use because its ambiguity usually sparks some discussion. Today the class stared at the lyrics mystified for a long time. Nothing. I finally asked, what sort of song is this � is it about politics? Relationships? Sports? A couple of brave souls ventured guesses: yes, it�s about a relationship. Maybe it�s about God. A brief discussion, then more silence. I asked, How could we figure this out? Their answer: Google. Meanwhile, I had a Macbeth assignment for them to work on, so I said, Maybe we can google this later in the class.

And then, from the back of the room came the voice of Steve saying, �I already have.�

Steve had fired up his iPhone or equivalent and searched for the song. He said he only found a couple of comments, and they just seemed to be someone�s opinion, not a definitive answer (such as, say, the band itself revealing what they really meant).

Read the rest of the post for some of Terry's thoughts on the matter. I also love the comment on the post by Steve himself:

Wow, that was quick! Strangely enough, I read that with my iPhone during the passing period (I subscribe to this blog on Google Reader).

Teacher Magazine - Are Teachers Ready for 21st Century Learning?

Well, thanks to Jim Gates, I discovered why I was suddenly getting new comments on my shouldn't-have-been-award-winning-but-was post about being a technologically illiterate teacher. It turns out that Teacher Magazine has an article referencing it (free registration required):

An unprecedented level of discussion about 21st Century learning and its impact on teachers� work has taken place in the Teacher Leaders Network discussion group recently. Among the many topics covered: Internet safety and cyber-bullying; growing up online; the risk of teachers becoming �irrelevant�; the frustrations caused by school firewalls; and the distinction between digital tools and digitally-infused learning. We can only offer a small sample of our community dialogue here. If you�d like more, download this transcript.

We think these are important conversations, and they are taking place more and more frequently in our Network, in other online teacher communities and, most importantly, in schools across the nation. If they are not taking place, they should be. The rise of the Internet, Web 2.0 tools, and instant global communication� and the demand by powerful lobbying groups for more focus on �new skills�� is going to change teaching and learning in profound ways.

Bill posed a provocative question to the TLN discussion group: �Are you technologically illiterate?�

I'm catching up on a bit of my professional reading, and I finally had a chance to read Karl Fisch's "Is It Okay To Be a Technologically Illiterate Teacher?" post, which was voted the "Most Influential Blog Post" in the 2007 EduBlog awards.

It goes on from there, quoting some of the responses from the discussion group. This apparently is a web-only feature, not part of their print magazine, but has already generated a few comments. I would suggest that if anyone is interested, you should head over there and add a comment - since the people having that conversation may not always be the same folks who are typically having the conversation here.

NCTE - "Shifting" Toward a New Literacy

A post by Will Richardson led me to this from The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Executive Committee (quoted in its entirety for your convenience):

Literacy has always been a collection of cultural and communicative practices shared among members of particular groups. As society and technology change, so does literacy. Because technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate environments, the twenty-first century demands that a literate person possess a wide range of abilities and competencies, many literacies. These literacies�from reading online newspapers to participating in virtual classrooms�are multiple, dynamic, and malleable. As in the past, they are inextricably linked with particular histories, life possibilities and social trajectories of individuals and groups. Twenty-first century readers and writers need to

� Develop proficiency with the tools of technology
� Build relationships with others to pose and solve problems collaboratively and cross-culturally
� Design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of purposes
� Manage, analyze and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information
� Create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multi-media texts
� Attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments

Let me highlight a few phrases:

• "Malleable" literacies
  
• Build relationships with others . . . collaboratively and cross-culturally


• Global communities
  
• Multiple streams
  
• Multi-media texts
  
• Ethical responsibilities . . . complex environments

Now some folks have argued that these aren't really new literacies and, in one sense, I suppose they're right, but it seems to me they're missing the point. Previously most folks haven't included these ideas when they talk about literacy, it's new to them, so I agree with Will (I'm sure he's breathing a sigh of relief) - these are some significant "shifts" in thinking about what it means to be literate.

Due to a comment on Will's post and a subsequent email to me, I discovered that NCTE's Annual Convention coming up in November has the tagline:

Because Shift Happens: Teaching in the Twenty-First Century

NCTE President-Elect Kylene Beers has an article explaining the choice of that tagline. Now, I realize that she mentions me, so this link could be seen as self-promotional on my part, but that's really not my intent here - please ignore that part of it and read the rest of what she wrote, including this part:

Yet, in relation to our hurtle through change, our schools seem to be moving more slowly. We still move large groups of students from class to class with a shrill bell (reminiscent of the factory whistle during the Industrial Age). We still group kids by age and label them with As or Bs, though few can articulate what differentiates them. We�ve added technology�but it�s in a lab down the hall where only certain websites can be accessed. We�ve said we want kids, the kids of the only nation that has put a man on the moon, to use technology in the classroom, but for students in a remedial class, that might be only an electronic workbook, and for those in a gifted class, a PowerPoint presentation instead of a poster.

. . . We�re teaching the Millennium generation, that group of kids who arrived at school as �digital natives� who have a new set of 3 Rs in mind: Relevance, Relationships, and Responsiveness.

. . . At NCTE 2007, we explored the topic of diverse literacies in the twenty-first century literacy; now, for the 2008 convention, we invite you to push this thinking even further by joining the national conversation about how to juggle those diverse literacies while addressing current technological, political, social, and cultural shifts . Do this by explaining how you�re effectively working with English language learners, coping with political pressure to pass high-stakes tests, addressing the ever more diverse student populations, and teaching with and through technology to all levels of students across all the language arts. Explain how you use technology to enhance your own learning and how you use it to communicate not only with colleagues, but with parents, politicians, and administrators. Share how technology has affected assessment of students and of yourself.

And her last sentence:

Join us there, where together we�ll discuss all that it means to teach toward tomorrow�something we must do, because, after all, shift happens.

Let me pick out some phrases again:

• Our schools seem to be moving more slowly


• Relevance, Relationships and Responsiveness


• Explain how you use technology to enhance your own learning
  
• Share how technology has affected assessment of students and of yourself
  
• Teach toward tomorrow . . . something we must do

Now, I know some folks will cheer when they read these, and others will vehemently protest. I think it's important to remember that they aren't throwing away the "old" literacies, they are just expanding what it means to be literate. But what I think is most important about this is the fact that NCTE is apparently basing their convention around these ideas. I think this is a major shift. This is not ISTE promoting NETS, or a coalition of folks from corporations wanting better prepared employees, this is NCTE - perhaps fundamentally redefining literacy and how we teach our children. Perhaps I'm reading (pun intended) too much into this, but I think this is huge.

Why Wireless?

As I�ve blogged about previously, my school recently opened up our wireless network for personally owned devices to access the Internet. Students, staff, parents, and community members can connect to the Internet with any 802.11 a/b/g device Monday through Friday at my school (turned off on the weekends for security reasons � I hope to eventually get it turned on on at least Saturdays since the building is fairly heavily used that day as well).

As some folks in the community might have concerns about this, my principal asked me to write up something for our school newsletter about the rationale of why we were offering wireless at AHS. I started off just writing about the obvious reasons (access to teacher web pages, databases, other resources on the web, etc.), but then couldn�t help myself, and found myself launching into a mini Fischrant. Because I didn�t just want to talk about the obvious reasons, I wanted to talk about the philosophy and the vision. I wanted to be transparent about what we were doing, and try to get folks more involved in the discussions we are having about 21st century education.

When I was done it was about three pages, which is probably just a tad bit longer than he wanted for the newsletter (regular readers of this blog might have noticed that I can be a bit wordy) and probably a little bit �different� than what he had asked for. I figured he would edit out most of the ranting and make it much shorter. To my surprise, he ended up running almost all of it, only editing out three or four paragraphs to shorten it up a bit. It gets mailed out today (we also post it online as a pdf), so it will be interesting to see what � if any � reaction we get to it.

So, I figured if my principal was willing to run my rantings in our school newsletter, then I should probably put it on the blog as well. So here�s the full rant - before the editing - in case anyone can use any of it.

Why Wireless?

As Arapahoe High School begins to offer wireless Internet access for personally owned devices, one of the questions that some folks have is, �Why? Why would you give students one more way to be off task when they are at school?� The answer to that question is not simple, but we�d like to take a few minutes to talk about some of the reasons we view this as an extremely positive development for our students.

The most obvious reasons are rather straightforward. There is a wealth of information and resources available to our students via the Internet, and online resources are an integral part of many of our classes. This includes resources that Arapahoe and/or Littleton Public Schools creates and provides for students online such as:

• The Campus Portal, which gives students real-time access to their grades and assignments.
  
• Teacher Web Pages, which can include assignments, notes, worksheets, presentations and links to additional resources.
  
• Electronic Databases � online, subscription-based services such as Ebsco and ABC Clio that Arapahoe pays for to bring the best reference tools possible to our students.

Then there are the vast resources of the open web, which include not only sources of information and knowledge but communication tools and practically unlimited storage capabilities. AHS teachers utilize blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 tools to enhance and extend their students� learning, to knock down the walls of our classrooms and the idea that learning only takes place in classrooms, with desks that are in straight rows, and only happens between 7:21 and 2:16 each day.

There are other reasons that may not be so obvious, but are perhaps more important in the long run. Our students will spend the rest of their lives in a multi-tasking, technology-driven world and will need information and communication technology literacy in order to be successful � in both their professional and personal lives. They will need to be continually learning throughout their lives. �Lifelong Learner� will not be an educational buzzword for them; it will be an economic and personal necessity.

The world our students are entering is a much different world than the one in which most of us (their teachers and parents) grew up in. In a flat world, in a constantly connected world, in a world where the answers one needs may be found from the teacher down the hall, from a server in Indiana, or from a blogger in India, students need access to the tools of the modern learner. We feel that to be successful in the 21st century, our students are going to need different skills, abilities, and habits of mind than we did in the last century. They will need to know how to create and maintain their own Personal Learning Networks. Our students must know what to do when they don�t know what to do. They will need to know how to learn how to learn.

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.
- Alvin Toffler

In times of rapid change, the learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.
- Eric Hoffer

Our students are the ultimate knowledge workers � their primary �job� is to learn � and we need to make sure they are able to take advantage of the resources available to them. By offering wireless access, we are allowing them to practice �just in time� learning, whether they are in the classroom, the library or the cafeteria.

We are moving from:
�do your own work� to �work with others�
�just in case� to �just in time� learning
�hand it in� to �publish it.�
- Will Richardson

We need to engage our students through relevant, timely and meaningful activities. We cannot limit them just to the knowledge available to them within AHS, they need to explore and interact with the global society of which they are a part. Technology is not the goal, but rather it is the enabler that allows us to achieve our goals.

These are just technologies. Using them does not make you modern, smart, moral, wise, fair, or decent. It just makes you able to communicate, compete, and collaborate farther and faster.
- Thomas Friedman

We are trying to foster a collaborative environment among students � sharing not only with other students in the classroom, but with other classrooms around the world. Students need not only to be able to present information to their classmates, but to share their work with the much wider � and often more authentic � audience that the Internet provides. We need to move from an isolated to a connected classroom.

The best companies are the best collaborators. In the flat world, more and more business will be done through collaborations within and between companies, for a very simple reason: The next layers of value creation � whether in technology, marketing, biomedicine, or manufacturing � are becoming so complex that no single firm or department is going to be able to master them alone.
- Thomas Friedman

None of this can happen if technology and access is an �add-on.� Students need ubiquitous access to these 21st century technology tools.

The computer is the primary instrument for intellectual and creative work in our society.
- Gary Stager

Wireless access to the Internet is a force multiplier; it allows students to leverage the knowledge of folks all over the world.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Are you ever going to be 18 again?


• Are your students ever going to be your age?


• Should we be preparing students for the world as it was when we were 18, or for the world as it will be when they are our age?

As far as students being �off-task,� our philosophy at Arapahoe is to have high expectations for our students, to educate them to behave ethically, responsibly and safely and then expect that they will do the right thing. When they don�t, they know we�ll have a conversation and try to learn from the mistake, but we don�t assume they are going to mess up. We give our students responsibility, and then help them live up to that.

We have created an environment where students are both respected and nurtured, where they are treated as professional learners, where they are seen as individuals that can contribute to the common good. An environment where they are viewed not just as passive consumers of information, but as active producers, who add meaning and value to the information. An environment where students are encouraged to interact, not only with others in their classroom, but with others in their community - and in communities around the world. Our students need to learn in a responsive information environment, where they are able to ask questions and seek answers, not just from their teachers but also from the vast information and human resources that the Internet enables.

Our students are facing an unpredictable future, much more so than any of us faced. Yes, we didn�t know exactly what our future would hold, but this generation is the first generation in history to really have no idea what the world is going to look like when they are adults. They need to be continual learners, to be able to teach themselves, to seek out and refine their own learning networks so that their learning doesn�t end when they walk across the stage at graduation.

In order to do this, they need practice. We are offering them that opportunity, as well as our guidance.

We can�t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
- Albert Einstein

Why wireless? Because their century demands it.

Two More Conversation Starters

Thanks to an email from Darren Draper, who pointed me to this post on Jeff Vandrimmelen�s blog, and then a reminder from an all too rare post from Bud, I wanted to share these two videos from Michael Wesch.

You can read much more about the first video, including how they created it:

This video was created by myself and the 200 students enrolled in ANTH 200: Introduction to Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University, Spring 2007. It began as a brainstorming exercise, thinking about how students learn, what they need to learn for their future, and how our current educational system fits in.

The second video

. . . explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively.

Sorry LPS students, you�ll have to watch these from home because they�re blocked by the filter. LPS teachers, you can use your filter override to watch these. Click on either of the following links, which will give you the access denied screen, then use your override (if you haven�t done this yet, I can show you how). Once you override the filter to watch the first one, you should be able to watch the second one right after it without typing in your override again. (BTW, when the override is in effect, you should also be able to see the embedded videos above, although you may have to refresh the page before they show.)

Direct link to A Vision of Students Today

Direct link to Information R/evolution

Two Steps Forward . . .

It seems like a recurring theme in my school and district, two steps forward and one (or sometimes 1.8) steps back. By the end of this month, my school will be offering access to our wireless network to �personally owned devices.� Anyone who owns a device that uses the standard wireless protocols (802.11 a/b/g right now) will be able to connect to our wireless network and access the Internet (although not our file servers and printers). This access is still filtered by the same filter that school computers use, but is not password protected or restricted in any other way. Users have to accept an agreement each time they launch their browsers, and teachers have full discretion over their use in classrooms (much like we handle cell phones and iPods right now).

For those of you paying very close attention, you may recall that we had this briefly last fall until we realized that the licensing for our Internet filter did not cover these personally owned devices so it was switched back off. Over the summer the district purchased a new filter (8e6) and this was part of that agreement. This means that our students (as well as staff, parents, and other visitors to the building) will be able to bring their laptops, or iPhones, or Palms, or iPod touches, or whatevers and be connected. We have theoretical wireless coverage for about 95% of the footprint of the building, although I suspect that we will find quite a few dead spots as students start bringing more and more devices. We may also have density issues, although we did put extra wireless access points in our media center and cafeteria, figuring those areas would see heavy usage. (Because of our variable schedule, our students have a fair amount of unscheduled time at school to work on assignments, seek out teachers for additional help, meet with counselors, and use our media center � including the computers. While we currently have 35 computers available in our media center, they are still often all being used, so this will begin to help students have access whenever they need it, not just when the computers are available.)

The second step forward has to do with the filter itself. One of the reasons my district chose 8e6 was because of its ability to include overrides. There are actually two levels of override, an Active Directory override and a Building Level override. The Active Directory override allows all staff members to enter their login credentials and override many of the sites that the filter blocks. This allows them to use their discretion about using a site that may be blocked but is still educationally appropriate, and also allows them to get to a site to evaluate if it is appropriate. The Building Level override then gives an even higher level of access. I�ve questioned whether there is a need for two levels of override, using the seemingly incontestable argument of why would they trust me more than my staff. Those discussions are still ongoing, but I�m hopeful that they will eventually give all staff the same override rights as the building level override.

This is a huge improvement over last year, where we did have a building level override but no individual overrides, making it much easier for teachers to do their jobs �just in time.� If you are using 8e6 in your district and don�t have these overrides, you might ask (nicely) why not. This is built-in to 8e6, so I don�t think there�s a huge technical hurdle to implementing it. Keep in mind that it does keep a log of all overrides, and that log is attached to the login override that�s used, so there is still some �tracking� that can be done.

So, what�s the one step back? With the implementation of the new filter over the summer, they had to re-setup the categories of what was blocked and what was allowed. As part of that process, we now have lost access to YouTube, Google Video and other similar video sites. Previously we had had full access to those sites, and many teachers and students had used them effectively. Now, they�re somewhat crippled. Yes, teachers can access them with their override, which is annoying but still workable if they want to show a particular video to their classes. But what they can�t do anymore is have their students watch videos on their own, or find videos, or work on presentations that include videos, or upload their own videos. With our variable schedule, this is something that teachers had asked students to do in the past, but now we can�t.

I�ll spare you the long, drawn out arguments I made, as most of you can probably make them better than I did. But I will say this much. This completely contradicts the philosophy of my high school (and I thought my district). Our philosophy is to have high expectations for our students, to educate them to behave ethically, responsibly and safely and then expect that they will do the right thing. When they don�t, they know we�ll have a conversation and try to learn from the mistake, but we don�t assume they are going to screw up. In other words, our philosophy has been to educate, not ban.

It appears to me that the basic problem is that the filter, as much as I like some of its features, still cannot do what it purports to do � which is block inappropriate content (however that�s defined and whoever is doing the defining, which is a whole different rant). As it is, the filter is only capable of blocking categories and all of YouTube, not just inappropriate content on YouTube. While I understand that that is technically daunting, I don�t really care � that�s not my job, that�s the filter company�s job. Until they can do that, I think we should stop calling it by the euphemism �Internet Filter,� and instead call it what it really is, an �Information Censor.� It still amazes me that schools are so willing to abrogate their responsibilities and turn over control of the resources their students are allowed to access, the information and ideas their students are exposed to, to a third-party, for-profit company that does not hold education as its primary mission. What's next, are we going to start buying textbooks? OK, so maybe I shouldn't be so amazed.

So, as one example, our students won�t be able to learn from and participate in Pangea Day while at school. From the TED blog:

On May 10, 2008, Pangea Day, sites in New York City, Rio, London, Dharamsala, Cairo, Jerusalem, and Kigali will be video-conferenced live to produce a 4-hour program of powerful films, supplemented by visionary speakers, and global musicians.

The purpose: to use the power of film to promote better understanding of our common humanity. A global audience will watch through the Internet, television, digital cinemas, and mobile phones. Yes, of course, movies alone can�t change the world. But the people who watch them can.

To start the process, a short Pangea Day trailer (2:30 min) has just been given front-page exposure on YouTube, inviting anyone to submit their films. Pangea is seeking films "that provoke, entertain and inspire". "Images are powerful to divide, but also to unite", says the trailer.

Here�s the trailer. Note that while the trailer can be viewed on the Pangea Day website, films are submitted to a group at YouTube, meaning our students won�t be able to view them, or submit their own.



Sorry, LPS students, you won�t be able to view this at school. Please go learn � and change the world - at home.

Is It Okay To Be A Technologically Illiterate Teacher?

Update 12-9-07: I'd like to thank the Academy . . . this post won for most influential post of 2007. I'm not sure I agree (no, I didn't vote for myself), but I guess the voters have spoken. I think this really is a case where it's more of an honor to be nominated (because several somebodies noticed and nominated the post in the first place) than to actually win. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I know the Edublog Awards folks put in a lot of time and effort, but I guess what I like the best about the awards is all the new (to me) blogs I get to go explore.

If you're visiting this post for the first time, please read the comments as well - that's where most (all?) of the good stuff is.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update 11-26-07: This post has been nominated for "Most Influential Post" in the 2007 Edublog Awards. Thanks to the folks that nominated it, whoever you are. For my thoughts on the nomination, read this post.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: Grumpy blogger alert. Do not read the rest of this (especially if you�re on my staff) unless you�re in the mood to be provoked.

One of the things I love about the edublogosphere is that when I really annoy my staff with something (which is pretty much daily, if not hourly), I can rest assured that there�s an education blogger out there that�s written something recently that will probably annoy them more. I ran across this post today by Terry Freedman over on the Tech Learning blog where he talks about whether it�s acceptable for teachers to be technologically illiterate and lays out a set of proposed �standards� for teachers.

Before I give my list, I should like to say this. The first step in establishing a standard is to state what that standard is, and/or what it is not. Just because you may not know how to go about achieving it is certainly no reason not to state it. For example, in my classes I always had expectations in terms of acceptable behaviour. It would sometimes take me three months to achieve them, despite teaching them every single day, but that's besides the point.

Here is my list:

1. All educators must achieve a basic level of technological capability.

2. People who do not meet the criterion of #1 should be embarrassed, not proud, to say so in public.

3. We should finally drop the myth of digital natives and digital immigrants. Back in July 2006 I said in my blog, in the context of issuing guidance to parents about e-safety:

"I'm sorry, but I don't go for all this digital natives and immigrants stuff when it comes to this: I don't know anything about the internal combustion engine, but I know it's pretty dangerous to wander about on the road, so I've learnt to handle myself safely when I need to get from one side of the road to the other."

The phrase may have been useful to start with, but it's been over-used for a long time now. In any case, after immigrants have been in a country for a while, they become natives. We've had personal computers for 30 years, and I was using computers in my teaching back in 1975. How long does it take for someone to wake up to the fact that technology is part of life, not an add-on?

4. Headteachers and Principals who have staff who are technologically-illiterate should be held to account.

5. School inspectors who are technologically illiterate should be encouraged to find alternative employment.

6. Schools, Universities and Teacher training courses who turn out students who are technologically illiterate should have their right to a licence and/or funding questioned.

7. We should stop being so nice. After all, we've got our qualifications and jobs, and we don't have the moral right to sit placidly on the sidelines whilst some educators are potentially jeopardising the chances of our youngsters.

I had to smile because it reminded me of something I wrote in February of 2006 � wrote, but decided not to post on the blog. At the time, I felt like it wasn�t the right time for my building to post it, and that it would be counterproductive. But, after reading Terry�s post today, I think it might be time to let it see the light of day. Here�s what I wrote on February 10, 2006 (it was part of a longer post, but this is the part I edited out):

Some of the tech questions I answer from staff members are really rather depressing. But it's the bigger picture I'm more concerned with. I think there's a general feeling among teachers (not all teachers, but many) that it's okay to be technologically illiterate. It reminds me of when I was a math teacher. In about 80% of the parent conferences I had with students who were struggling, at least one of the parents would say "I was never any good at math either." While I don't doubt the truth of the statement, it was the fact that they said it and almost seemed proud of it that bothered me (and of course the message it sent to their student). I can't imagine a parent saying "Oh, yeah, I never learned how to read" and being proud of it. It seemed like there was a different standard for math - not knowing math was socially acceptable, not knowing how to read was very unacceptable.

I sort of get the same feeling today about technology. It's acceptable to say "I don't really get computers" - and many people appear to be rather proud of their technological ignorance. And let me be clear, I'm not saying that technology is the end all and be all of education. As I think I've always tried to say, it's just a tool to help us teach and learn and grow - but an indispensable tool. Technology is the underpinning of just about everything we do today - and especially so in relation to how we communicate with each other. And isn't communication one of the essential ideas that runs through all of our disciplines? The fact that a large percentage of our staff is not only fairly comfortable in their ignorance, but apparently unwilling to make any effort to learn new things (I'm not just talking about Infinite Campus, I'm talking instructionally - and even personally), is really worrisome to me. So let me make a rather extreme statement for you to comment on.

If a teacher today is not technologically literate - and is unwilling to make the effort to learn more - it's equivalent to a teacher 30 years ago who didn't know how to read and write.

Extreme? Maybe. Your thoughts?

Keep in mind that was written after a particularly frustrating day. I�ve gone back and forth on this issue myself. At times completely agreeing with Terry (and myself above), and at other times stepping back and saying that there�s so much on teacher�s plates that it�s unrealistic to expect them to take this on as quickly as I�d like them to. But then I think of our students, and the fact that they don't much care how much is on our plates. As I've said before, this is the only four years these students will have at our high school - they can't wait for us to figure it out.

The more I think about it, the more I think it�s analogous to the 20th century. In the early 20th century, people who couldn�t read or write could be pretty successful. By the middle of the 20th century, that was still true, but it was getting harder to be successful (and certainly those that could read and write had much more opportunities available to them). By the end of the 20th century, there was very little chance of being successful if you couldn�t read or write. (Note that I�m defining �successful� both in economic/employment terms, and in terms of citizenship/personal fulfillment.)

Now at the dawn of the 21st century, I think the same can be said of technological literacy. And � since we�re living in exponential times � I think the timeline compared to the 20th century is very much compressed. In the late 1990�s (I know, still 20th century, but go with it), you could be successful if you were technology illiterate. In the first few years of the 21st century, you can still be successful if you�re technologically illiterate, but it�s getting harder (and those that are literate have many more opportunities available to them). And by the end of the next decade, I think there will be very little chance of success for those that are technology illiterate. (Don�t forget, those Kindergartners that started school in the last month or so are the Class of 2020 � we need that 2020 Vision.)

I go back to my rant from our first staff development session of the year, where I talked about developing personal learning networks (for both ourselves and our students). One of the things I said was basically:

In order to teach it, we have to do it. How can we teach this to kids, how can we model it, if we aren�t literate ourselves? You need to experience this, you need to explore right along with your students. You need to experience the tools they�ll be using in the 21st century, developing your own networks in parallel with your students. You need to demonstrate continual learning, lifelong learning � for your students, or you will continue to teach your students how to be successful in an age that no longer exists.

Or something like that.

So, let me repeat the last part of what I wrote back in February of 2006:

If a teacher today is not technologically literate - and is unwilling to make the effort to learn more - it's equivalent to a teacher 30 years ago who didn't know how to read and write.

Extreme? Maybe. Your thoughts?

Is Balance Always a Good Thing?

Amanda had an interesting post recently where she said (among other things):

The thing I like best about constructivism is that class is more interesting because each period is different. The biggest struggle I have is making some lessons (especially those involving very difficult and intricate material) constructivist. But at the same time I am fine with not being constructivist all the time. I think it is all about balance.

After I read it the first time, I commented:

I agree for the most part, but I would quibble with "it is all about balance." I think it's all about learning. As long as you are doing everything possible to help the actual students that are in your classroom learn (whether that's "constructivist" or not), then we're on the right track. But I don't think "balance" is always the best way to accomplish that . . .

I�ve been thinking about this post a lot since then. (Thanks a lot, Amanda!) I�m not picking on Amanda (as if I could), because as I said in my comment I think our thinking is pretty similar here, but she really got me thinking about the word �balance.�

Many folks in both cohorts one and two have said essentially the same thing about balance, and I�m pretty sure I�ve said it a few times myself. I think this is a natural reaction among educators who�ve been around for awhile. We�ve seen different ideas come and go and have learned to distrust anything that seems too far from the norm, to reject �radical� ideas because they are �extreme� and not �balanced.�

But I wonder if balance is really what I�m after? When I look at folks that are held up as leaders in their fields � from politicians to religious leaders to civil rights leaders to athletes to authors to whomever � rarely can I think of a case where their approach was a �balanced� approach. It seems as though the people that have really made a difference, who have really impacted the world around them, are people who tossed balance out the window. I�m sure there were many contemporaries of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, William Shakespeare and John Steinbeck, Albert Einstein and Marie Curie, Tiger Woods and Jackie Joyner-Kersee, who counseled them to not be so single-minded in their approach, to not ruffle so many feathers, to be �balanced.� The teachers that most folks remember aren�t the ones who took a balanced approach, but the ones that were most passionate about their subject matter and teaching and learning. And I certainly want the folks who are currently trying to cure cancer, or make solar power more practical, or figure out how to build levees that will hold up to the next major hurricane to be �extreme,� to push possible solutions to their limits if they feel they are on the right track. If they find a cure for cancer, I don�t want a balanced approach; I want them to carpet bomb the planet with it.

Now I�m not saying that I feel there is only one right way to teach or learn. I value a variety of approaches, and I think different students learn best in different ways (and even the same student learns different things best in different ways). But I�m hesitant to equate that with the word �balance.� If, for example, we found that a particular method (be it �constructivist� or otherwise) was really making some headway in a class, why wouldn�t we go for it? That if we feel like we�re finding a better way, that what our students need in the 21st century really is different and therefore requires different approaches, why wouldn�t we toss the current definition of balance out the window and move forward? We would probably ultimately come to some new ground where we would find a new balance, but that might look extremely unbalanced through the lens of current expectations and practices.

I sometimes worry that �balance� is another safety net for teachers. That it�s a built-in braking mechanism, a self-induced friction so that we don�t have to ask and answer some of the hard questions before us. That it allows us to shy away from some controversial issues in the name of harmony and stability. That we are confusing complacency with balance. Again, I don�t think I have all the answers (really, I don�t think that, honest!), but I�m not sure that an incremental approach is what we need at this time. You can�t leap a twenty-foot chasm in two ten-foot jumps.

If we�re not happy with how we�re doing, if we don�t think we�re adequately preparing students for the 21st century, if we�re not being successful with the students that in our classrooms right now � then maybe we need to occasionally �lose our balance� and take a few 20-foot leaps of faith. Because it should be about the learning. The learning of the flesh-and-blood students actually in front of us in our classrooms, not some theoretical notion of balance for the average hypothetical student.

As always, I�m mostly processing and thinking out loud here. Besides, it�s been awhile since I posted something that I knew would get everyone all fired up, and I figure this might do it. So please add your thoughts to the conversation, maybe provide some balance to my thinking . . .

Image Citation 1: .Balance_, originally uploaded by Diana Madrigal
Image Citation 2: Balancing on the Invisible, originally uploaded by Drew Brayshaw