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?

What�s Core?

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a joint effort by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in partnership with Achieve, ACT and the College Board. Governors and state commissioners of education from across the country committed to joining a state-led process to develop a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12.

As Tom Hoffman points out, we really need to take a closer look at the draft standards. Why? Here are his Top 10 Reasons:

1. Your state has probably already committed to using them.
2. The federal Department of Education is exerting heavy pressure on states to adopt the Common Standards.
3. An impressive and powerful list of partners and supporters are backing the Common Standards initiative.
4. These "college- and career-ready" standards, if implemented, will become the basis of all subsequent K-12 English Language Arts standards.
5. These standards, if implemented, will become the basis of all subsequent K-12 English Language Arts curriculum and assessments.
6. The results of those assessments will, if implemented, be used to evaluate not just schools and students, but the performance of individual teachers.
7. The creation of data systems to attach test scores to individual teachers is a basic requirement for federal Race to the Top grants and a top priority for the federal Department of Education and other powerful interests.
   
   But . . .
   
   
8. The Common Core State Standards Initiative English Language Arts Standards are not actually English Language Arts standards.
9. The Common Standards for English Language Arts are narrower, lower, and shallower than the Language Arts standards of high performing countries.
10. We are inviting testing companies to determine the future of our schools with virtually no accountability or public input.

Tom expands on these in his post, please go read it now. Tom�s also written many other posts about this (too many to link), so visit his blog and scroll down. Other folks have recently written about this, including Bud Hunt, Chris Lehmann, and David Warlick.

Now, since most if not all of those folks used to teach Language Arts, I�m not sure if I have much to add to their perspective. Instead, let me throw out some questions from a non-Language Arts teacher perspective. As always, I�m just thinking out loud here.

1. What�s Core?
   
   People use different buzzwords � some use core, some use essential learnings, your school or district may use something else, but I think this is a critical question for all of us. Tom is very concerned that these standards are too narrow and shallow and are not reflective of the fact that English Language Arts is a discipline. On the one hand, I agree with him. If you just read the list of standards in isolation, they do appear to be somewhat shallow, and I worry that the following observation from Tom might be accurate:
   

   the obvious interpretation is that they chose to define the standard as "support or challenge assertions" rather than "construct a response or interpretation," as every international example they cited did, because the former is much easier and cheaper to score reliably on a standardized test.

   When I explore the full document (pdf), I do feel a little bit better based on the examples they give, but certainly Tom makes his case that other international standards seem to go much deeper, and that it�s possible these standards are being tailored in a way that makes them easily assessed on a standardized instrument.
   
   But, on the other hand (and yes, I know, I always seem to have a lot of hands on hand), I worry about Tom�s suggestion to add more and more levels of detail into these standards. Because this runs into my own personal dilemma with standards, that in some respects they are too comprehensive, too overwhelming, too restrictive, and perhaps not wholly necessary.
   
   This is a real struggle for me, because I do think that students around the world need many of these skills, and much of this content, yet I can�t help but think that we all are so in love with our content areas that we lose sight of what�s truly essential. I say this from the perspective of a parent of a nine-and-a half-year old who wonders if �literacy criticism� or �the concept of genre� are essential. They may be, I�m not sure. But I can�t help but think of that study a few years back (sorry, can�t find a link at the moment) that indicated it would take something like 26 years to �cover� all the various standards in place at that time (and we have more now). Is this what education � and life � is supposed to be about? It just seems to me that, somehow, some way, what�s essential, what�s really core, should be a much shorter list.
   
   
2. Malleable or Inflexible?
   
   Chris makes a good point about national testing and the resultant depersonalization:
   

   Once there is a national curriculum and a national test, we will see a further blurring of the line between "education" and "training" where kids are given online instruction and online assessment that can be delivered to any student, regardless of geography.
   
   . . . It has the risk of the ultimate deprofessionalization of teachers and depersonalization of education.

   
   And the NCTE�s Definition of 21st Century Literacies state that
   

   These literacies . . . are multiple, dynamic, and malleable.

   So the literacies are malleable, yet standards are fixed and inflexible? We want all kids to flourish and live up to their individual potential, yet we�re going to achieve that by standardization? How do these things coexist?
   
   
3. Necessary, but not Sufficient?
   
   While the full pdf includes more examples that take this into account, the list of standards themselves seem to ignore the current technological world we live in. Only three of the standards (Reading #12 and #13, and Writing #12) seem to even come close to acknowledging that we live in a rapidly changing, technologically enabled, globally connected - and interconnected � world. These standards could�ve been written fifty years ago. That doesn�t make them bad, as many of these abilities are certainly still necessary, but are they sufficient?
   
   These standards don�t seem to address that reading, writing, speaking and listening are all very, very, very (did I mention very?) different in our current world than they were one hundred, fifty, twenty or even ten years ago. Yes, many of the standards apply in our world today, but I still don�t think that fully addresses how we read, write, speak and listen in a read/write, always on, always connected, participatory world.
   
   I think their definition of text is way too narrow, and way too limited. While one would hope that the more complete document would be taken into account, I could easily see the assessments targeted solely at the stripped down standards. Which then would mean instruction would be targeted only at the stripped down standards. Which then would mean our students would be perfectly prepared to graduate high school . . . in 1985.

So, as Bud points out:

The validation committee�s pretty light on language artists.

I would add that the workgroup that developed the standards also seemed to be pretty light on actual practitioners, although testing companies were well represented. In fairness, the NGA points out in the FAQ (pdf) that teachers were consulted:

NGA and CCSSO have asked for and received feedback from national organizations representing educators, such as the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). These organizations each brought together groups of teachers to provide specific, constructive feedback on the standards. The feedback was used to inform the public draft of the college- and career-readiness standards. Numerous teacher organizations are also involved with the initiative through the National Policy Forum, which provides a means to share ideas, gather input, and inform the common core state standards initiative.

I would strongly suggest that you take some time to review the standards and some of the thoughtful posts about them, and then provide your feedback. Particularly if you�re a Language Arts teacher, but even if you�re not because, as Tom points out, as they are currently worded all teachers will be responsible � and held accountable � for students meeting these standards. And, as he points out in another post, it appears as though the end goal just might be high school graduation requirements.

Where can you provide some feedback? NCTE has issued a statement and is soliciting feedback, and you can provide feedback directly to the validation committee by October 21st. If you�re a member of NEA or AFT, you might also consider letting them know what you like or dislike about these draft standards.

EduCon 2.1, Constructing Modern Knowledge, and Learning 2.0: A Colorado Conversation

If there�s one educational conference you attend this year, I think you should make it be EduCon 2.1. If I had a choice between FETC and EduCon, I�d pick EduCon. If I had a choice between NECC and EduCon, I�d pick EduCon. If I had a choice between any content-area conference and EduCon, I�d pick EduCon (it�s not a technology conference, it�s a learning conference). If I had a choice between all my students having laptops computers and going to EduCon, I�d choose . . . well, okay, I�d choose the laptops for all my students. But you get the picture.

Unfortunately, I won�t be able to go to EduCon, which is why I want you to go if it�s at all possible (and then tell me all about it). If you live anywhere near Philadelphia, go. If you don�t live near, but your organization (or personal budget) funds things like this, go. I mean, just look at the scheduled conversations. Here�s the description from Chris Lehmann:

Registration is now open for EduCon 2.1, the second annual conference and conversation on education and innovation hosted by Philadelphia's Science Leadership Academy in conjunction with The Franklin Institute. We will be convening January 23-25, 2009. During the conference, educators from around the world will descend upon Philly to teach, to think and to learn how to improve their own practices and inform the larger dialogue on education as well. Aaron Sorkin wrote, "Decisions are made by those who show up." It is time to show up.

EduCon is built on the Axioms:

1) Our schools must be inquiry-driven, thoughtful and empowering for all members

2) Our schools must be about co-creating -- together with our students -- the 21st Century Citizen

3) Technology must serve pedagogy, not the other way around.

4) Technology must enable students to research, create, communicate and collaborate

5) Learning can -- and must -- be networked.

Visit the EduCon wiki to learn about the conversation schedule. Aside from the conversations, Friday night will feature a panel discussion where deep thinkers from various non-academic strata investigate the question, "What is the purpose of school?" While the need for a new educational course is clear, the path to that shift is not as obvious. Sunday's panel will highlight those divergent paths as educational leaders for varying pedagogies engage each other in an attempt to make the case for how we should approach our educational evolution.

EduCon will also feature a pre-conference event on January 22nd this year - Constructing Modern Math/Science Knowledge - with participants Dr. David Thornburg, Dr. Gary Stager and more.

The stage is set for an amazing conference. No vendors. No sponsors. Simply - ideas, inquiry and pedagogy.

Show up.

General conference registration is $150 and $100 for School District of Philadelphia employees and includes Friday admittance to SLA's partner museum The Franklin Institute and The National Constitution Center. Pre-Conference registration is $100.

If you have any questions, please contact Chris Lehmann.

Now, for those of you in Colorado (or close to Colorado) who cannot attend EduCon (or even if you can attend), please consider attending the 2009 edition of Learning 2.0: A Colorado Conversation (last year�s info soon to be updated with this year's info). This will be held on February 21st, 2009, at Heritage High School in Littleton, Colorado (different location than last year - mapquest), with details to follow in another post very soon.

Questions for Senators Obama and McCain

So, both the calendar and my jam-packed and very messy office tell me it�s August. In addition to the usual "It�s the beginning of the year how am I ever going to get all the stuff done that I need to get done before the students arrive?" panic attack, I had an additional panic attack. What if I bump into Senator Obama and I don�t have a good question ready?

Seriously, I�m worried about this. I live and work just south of Denver and, as you hopefully know, Denver is hosting this little thing called the Democratic National Convention coming up here at the end of August. While I know that conventions are pretty much completely scripted, Senator Obama doesn�t strike me as a man � or a candidate � who would spend the entire four days in his hotel/the Pepsi Center/Invesco Field at Mile High. So what if I�m at the grocery store and run into him, or what if he decides to visit my school? Hey, it could happen. George Bush (#41, not the current President) spoke at my school when he was Vice-President (before my time, but there are pictures to prove it � and we didn�t own Photoshop then), so I think it would be somewhat symbolic if Senator Obama stopped by.

I�m not very good at the "elevator pitch" - once a conversation gets going I think I get warmed up and can contribute, but put me on the spot for a serious and thoughtful question � not so much. So I�ve started trying to think of the one question I�d ask him if I did bump into him by the blueberries (or walking across our cafeteria).

I mean, there�s the obvious:

When are you going to name Chris Lehmann as your Secretary of Education designate?

Yes, I realize I already volunteered for this position, but sometimes you have to take one for the team.

Or there�s the standard:

Most educators think that NCLB has some serious flaws, and you seem to agree. What would you replace it with?

But then I�d just get the talking points.

Or I could reuse the question I didn�t get to ask Governor Richardson:

You have a statement in your plan about rigor, relevance and relationships. Too often in education I feel like rigor is defined as simply "harder" or "more homework." It seems like folks are saying that what we�ve been doing isn�t working, so let�s just require more of it. Instead, I think often what we should be asking is, "Are we doing the right things in the first place?" Can you talk a little bit more about how you define rigor and what are the key skills, abilities and habits of mind that our students need to be successful in the 21st century?

But I didn�t particularly like that question and it was directed specifically at a statement Governor Richardson had in his own plan.

You see, I�ve read the highlights of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain�s education stances, and looked more deeply at their web sites (Obama's Education Page, McCain's Education Page). And I�ve even listened to these three short NPR pieces on their personal tech literacy and how they would address technology in their administrations. (Apparently it�s a necessity to have a former FCC chair � from your own political party, of course - as a technology adviser. Hmm, if not Secretary of Education, perhaps I could be Senator Obama�s Technology Czar. I�ve never been a Czar.)

But I�d really like to ask that deep, meaningful, thoughtful question that gets to the heart of it all and allows us to really see his baseline, fundamental beliefs about education and what needs to change in order to meet the needs of our students. To help us understand if he thinks education is at a tipping point, and that it�s a different world out there, and schools need to adapt and change to meet it? Or if he believes that, while changes and improvements are always necessary, things are basically good as they are. And a question that gets beyond the usual talking points and helps explore all the ideas we�ve been talking about in our blogs for the last few years.

Now, I don�t mean to be partisan about this, I�d want to ask the same question of Senator McCain, but I just figure that�s it�s more likely I�ll run into Senator Obama here during the Democratic Convention than Senator McCain. (Although Arizona is just a long day�s drive southwest of here, perhaps he could come up for the day.) So, I said to myself, "Myself, you have a blog. Why don�t you ask for some help?" If you�re so inclined, please leave a thoughtful question in the comments for Senator Obama, Senator McCain, or both of them.

This is not a political blog, and I don�t want your "question" to really be a statement of political beliefs. So, if you comment, please honor this post in the spirit in which it's intended. I really want to know the one question you would ask either of these gentlemen that might help us better understand their beliefs on education. A question that hopefully gets away from the talking points and gives us a glimpse of the vision they have � or don�t have. This would help me out if I happen to run into either of them and, frankly, would help me out in case I find myself in an elevator with other important folks. (I�ve been having more of these "opportunities" than usual in the last few months, and have a few more coming up, it�s kind of weird - and I don't think "Hi, how are you?" is quite cutting it.)

Finally, if either Senator�s campaign staff stops by, I�d also like to formally offer to host a conversation between the two Senators regarding education. (Come on, staffers, Colorado may be the swing state, it's the perfect place to do this.) And I chose the word "conversation" very deliberately. I don�t really want to host a debate, at least not what passes for political debate these days � where each candidate takes whatever the question is and morphs it into the same old sound bites. I really would like to see both of these men have a thoughtful conversation about education. A conversation where, yes, we would indeed see the differences between them. But also a conversation where we could see the similarities, the common ground where we are most likely to be able to move forward together. A conversation where they were genuinely looking for solutions, not just trying to score points off one another. And, while I know this is terribly na�ve of me, a conversation that perhaps actually generates some new ideas of how we can move forward together. Wouldn�t that be something?

(As a mostly irrelevant side note, I happened to mistype a URL on Senator Obama�s site while testing a link in this post and got the image below, embedded within the frame of his site. I gotta say, it seemed consistent with his campaign and made me smile a little. For the record, Senator McCain�s site gave me the standard 404 Page Cannot Be Found page, without the frame of his site around it.)

How It All Ends: YouTube, Climate Change, and Inquiry

Thanks to Chris Lehmann and Will Richardson, I came across this video (well, actually, multiple videos). As Chris said, "This is one science teacher's attempt to influence the way we talk about the issue of climate change. Pass it on."



I find this worth blogging about for two reasons. First, full disclosure, I am concerned about climate change. But second, even if I wasn't, I find this approach very interesting and would like to explore the educational possibilities.

This teacher has taken an important, controversial topic, and attempted to start a global conversation. He started out with an earlier video titled, "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See!" It got a lot of views, and also a ton of criticism (hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar). He then acknowledges that he had a giant hole in the original video, and then created a series of videos attempting to address every criticism of the original, with the How It All Ends video being the jumping off point.

He provides an index of all the videos and a suggested order of viewing in the "About This Video" section next to each of the videos on YouTube, but easier access can be found on this site. He provides some links at that site as well.

I think this is a very interesting approach, even if the topic wasn't so huge or as controversial as climate change. Lay out an argument, address and attempt to refute all the criticism, put it all out there on YouTube to be freely distributed, commented on, criticized, discussed, and generally put through the wringer, and then also provide some next steps for those interested in doing something about the issue.

I think this holds a lot of promise as an example of an inquiry approach to learning about climate change. I could see a science class taking this on, watching and discussing all the videos and investigating the related links. And then investigate the other side of the argument thoroughly, generate a list of links and resources, and then presenting them in one, unified "space." This would involve looking deeply at the science - as well as the related social issues - and I think would offer many possibilities for learning and doing science along the way. The students would learn a whole lot of science concepts in context - in relation to the bigger picture issue of climate change. Then each student (or perhaps group of students) would have to take a stand and make a persuasive argument using all the evidence collected, and present that argument both digitally in some form and in person to their peers and/or their wider community. Invite others in to critique (including Greg, the creator of How It All Ends.)

For me, this big picture approach would not only be more engaging for students and would be more likely to lead to more enduring learning of science concepts, but it would also immerse them in the scientific process itself. Not just the scientific process as applied to science - which I think most folks would agree is pretty significant in and of itself, but also the larger scientific process as it relates to politics and policy. As we've seen with so many issues (AIDS, evolution, stem cell research, climate change, etc.), you really can't separate the science from the politics and the policy when it comes to actually addressing the issues and attempting to solve the problem. What better way to show the relevance, the social impact, and the sheer beauty of science?

What Will You Learn Today?

Just having some fun here today (via Chris Lehmann).



Although it could be an interesting assignment - having to figure out what you could say well in a limited amount of words per "slide" and in this format.

Bill Richardson 08 Education Question

I was contacted today by the Richardson campaign (that would be Bill, not Will, although I�d definitely sign up for Will�s campaign) and asked to participate in a conference call with Governor Bill Richardson today about his education plan. Well, okay, participate might not be the right word, as I never got to ask a question and it didn�t feel too much like a conversation. (Chris Lehmann was similarly frustrated, as we Skype-chatted during the call.) I know, probably awfully na�ve of me to assume it would be any different, but sometimes you gotta have hope.

But then it occurred to me, �Hey, I have a blog!� I can still ask my question (see below). Or, better yet, maybe a bunch of us could ask some questions. So, faithful readers (I always wanted to keyboard that), the challenge has now been issued. Read through Governor Richardson�s speech about his plan (or read the PDF summary they emailed us when we were contacted about two hours before the call), and come up with a meaningful question. (Oh, you also only get an hour to work on it - that's when I got to the email - and have to be doing your regular job at the same time, just to be fair.) If you blog about it, consider tagging it with BR08EDQ (Bill Richardson 08 Education Question) so that they can find it, and leaving the URL in the comments to this post. I�m going to email the URL of this post to the �Director of Online Outreach� at the Richardson campaign to see if we can continue the conversation.

I had a hard time coming up with a question in that short amount of time (while doing other things � I know, excuses, excuses) that would work in this format (non-conversational), was directly related to his plan, and really got at some of the 21st century learning issues that we�ve been thinking about. So, I came up with one that sort of sideways came at it, but I didn�t like it that much.

Governor, you have a statement in your plan about rigor, relevance and relationships. Too often in education I feel like rigor is defined as simply �harder� or �more homework.� It seems like folks are saying that what we�ve been doing isn�t working, so let�s just require more of it. Instead, I think often what we should be asking is, �Are we doing the right things in the first place?� Can you talk a little bit more about how you define rigor and what are the key skills, abilities and habits of mind that our students need to be successful in the 21st century?

I was also ready with a brilliant closing after he answered my question. In the conference call he stated that he would name a �teacher as Secretary of Education.� So, my closing was going to be (if I didn�t chicken out),

Thank you, Governor. And I�d be happy to volunteer to be that teacher who�s your Secretary of Education.

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Chris�s first question was about alternative assessment, but someone asked a very similar question (a real-live educator, although I didn�t catch his name � I think all the other questions were from reporters). So he scrambled and came up with this one (I helped a little bit with the end of the second sentence).

With the One Laptop Per Child mission, we are soon to see millions of students in the developing world use laptops in their learning every day. You want to see American education move into the 21st Century, what would you do to provide American students with the same opportunities for connectedness and collaboration?

I think I like Chris�s question better. Too bad he didn�t get to ask his either. Of course, I�m not sure either of our questions aren�t fairly easily talked around by an experienced politician. I�m not trying to be overly critical here, I can�t imagine what it�s like for these candidates, but I wish there was a better way to get straightforward, fairly specific answers to some of these questions.

I�m not sure how I feel about this experience. Should I feel flattered that they picked my blog and invited me? Should I feel frustrated that I didn�t get to ask my question? Should I demand to be Secretary of Education as compensation? OK, probably not that last one. But I do find it interesting that the campaigns are trying to reach out in some way to our network, even if they haven�t quite figured out the best way to do it. It will be interesting to see if (and how) they respond to my/our questions. Maybe we can start an Election �08 Edublog Debate (trademark pending) . . .

NECC Reflection #2: Do We Need NECC?

(Note: I was composing this post in my head � a vast wasteland � and lo and behold Chris Lehmann posts something similar yet infinitely more eloquent on his blog. I�m going to ask those of you who haven�t read his post yet to read through the next few paragraphs before going to his post, that way you can see how my thinking was progressing, and then I�ll link to him below when I bring his thoughts back in.)

There was some conversation in the blogging community at NECC, and even more so on the blogs after NECC, about whether NECC was the best way to accomplish what we need to accomplish. A lot of bloggers specifically mentioned the Bloggers� Caf� and how they often found that environment more conducive to their learning than the formal sessions (more than one person noted they didn�t attend a single formal session).

Now, I didn�t spend too much time at the Bloggers� Caf�, perhaps 45 minutes one day and maybe 25 minutes another, but I did find the environment very stimulating and thought provoking. And when you contrast that with the formality (for lack of a better word) of many of the sessions, it was clear that there were at least two very different learning paradigms occurring at NECC. I know that conferences have always had informal learning going in between and around the sessions, but somehow by setting up a physical space devoted to that purpose (for at least one small subset of attendees), it seemed to shift that into overdrive (at least for me).

But that�s part of the problem � it was a very small subset of attendees that used that physical space. And all four of the teachers that went with me had an outstanding conference attending formal sessions � with almost all their sessions being very good to outstanding. They left excited, motivated, and with additional tools and techniques to try.

So what I�m struggling with is my very strong belief that ongoing, sustained staff development (which is what we presented on) is the key to long-term change and improvement in schools, yet a one-time conference � even one as large as NECC � doesn�t fit that model. How best can a conference like NECC be part of an ongoing, sustained staff development effort in my (or anyone�s) school? So, do we need NECC? My answer would be yes, but perhaps with some changes. I guess I have a couple of thoughts surrounding this. Perhaps the format of the sessions at NECC can change, and perhaps we need some more informal, �un-conferences� to meet the ongoing, sustained piece.

The first thing I'd suggest changing at NECC would be the session length. In our debriefing sessions, my team of teachers and I all agreed that an hour seemed too short for sessions. A couple of us had attended our state technology conference the week before, where sessions are either two or three hours long (and usually hands-on), and felt like that provided much more opportunity for conversation. After some discussion, we decided that 90 minutes might be a better length for most sessions at NECC (one hour is too short, but two is perhaps too long). For our session, we basically threw out our plans the night before. We had about five hours of content to �deliver� in sixty minutes, yet also wanted to allow time for conversation. As we have seen in our own staff development efforts, it�s from the conversations that we learn so much. And that had been duplicated at NECC at the sessions we had been to that allowed for conversation. So, we shortened our formal presentation to 30 minutes (minor miracle for us) and then left 30 minutes for conversation. We were very nervous because, like most teachers, we dread silence. What if no one asked any questions or contributed any ideas? Luckily, that didn�t happen, and it appeared to work very well. (whew!) But if we�d had 90 minutes, we could�ve shared a few more examples (well, if our Internet connection had worked � neither wired or wireless worked for us � arghh!) and had even more time for conversation.

The second thing I�d change (if I was King of NECC � I�m trademarking the t-shirt right now) is the seating arrangements. Row after row of chairs, crammed together with no leg � or computer - room is just not conducive to conversation (much like we�ve argued about our classrooms, but I digress). Particularly at a conference where quite a few attendees (and even more next year) bring laptops, I think some kind of table arrangement makes more sense. The few sessions I was in that had tables were much more favorable to learning. I know that causes problems with space (you can cram more folks into chairs in rows), but tough � we know the other way doesn�t work well, so why do we continue to do it? Somebody smarter than me - and there are bound to be at least one or two :-) - at NECC can figure this out before San Antonio next year.

The third thing I�d change is size. While it�s great that there are so many things to attend at NECC, I also think it ends up being somewhat overwhelming and something is lost because of that. The research tends to indicate that smaller schools are more successful, even though they may not be able to offer as many choices. I wonder if the same is true of conferences? I�m not sure I even agree with myself on this one, but this is my reflection so I�ll put it out there.

The last thing I'd change I've already blogged about - include students.

The second thought I had was about how to make the excitement and energy of NECC more of an ongoing, sustained event for educators � one that doesn�t culminate at the closing keynote and slowly dissipate over the rest of the summer. (I�m not saying that this is true of everyone, or that folks don�t get a lot out of it, but I think I�m fairly safe in assuming that this applies to more than a few folks.) So I thought about the idea of some kind of �un-conference,� that takes the best of the Bloggers� Caf� and edubloggercon, throws in a little bit of the formal session nature of NECC, and happens throughout the year in locations around the world.

(Okay, this is where you might want to read Chris Lehmann�s post, as he�s got a much better handle on this than I do, and in fact is actually hosting one in January.)

A big problem with NECC is the expense. Before last year I had never been to one, and it�s only because of some grant money and the generous support of my superintendent that I�ve been able to attend the last two years. We can argue all we want that in the scheme of things it�s money well spent, but it�s still darn expensive. My district doesn�t have $800+ each to send a bunch of folks to this conference year after year. So, no matter how good the conference is, it�s not particularly good for those that can�t attend (podcasts, vodcasts, blogs and twitter help, but that won�t reach most of our educators, much less our communities).

So, it seems like we need a series of conferences, perhaps regional in nature, that allow us to extend the energy and ideas of NECC throughout the year. Something that is much less expensive (I�m thinking free, perhaps with donations accepted for food or something), much more informal, and perhaps much less intimidating for most educators. Initially I was thinking of replicating something like edubloggercon (which, since I didn�t get to Atlanta in time for that, might be hard for me to do), but now I�m thinking of more of a hybrid model. In a recent podcast, Bud lamented the fact that at a recent conference he was at so many of the folks didn�t know what they didn�t know, and that it was very hard for them to see the possibilities of some of these technology tools because they were unaware of what�s out there. So I�m thinking of some kind of hybrid cross between folks that are fairly savvy technology users, interested teachers, school and community leadership, and students. (It wouldn�t be a requirement, but perhaps we�d ask everyone to bring at least two others along � a teacher that�s interested but not very knowledgeable on the tech piece, and a school leader � building or district administrator, school board member, etc. And, if possible, one or more students as well.) A way to bring all those folks Bud was talking about together in an �un-conference� to learn and explore ideas. A conference where folks can become educated to a certain level about some of the tools, but then have rich, deep conversations about what school could � or should � look like in the 21st century. A conference where conversation and reflection were built in.

This would most likely be hosted at a school, for reasons of cost, space, equipment and the very fact that being in a school just might remind us of what we�re all about. It would be regional in nature, so that folks could drive to it to keep expenses down. It would probably be one day (perhaps repeated four(?) times a year), so that lodging cost wasn�t an issue (although folks that drove a long way could perhaps be hosted by teachers at that school for one night). It would have some kind of a formal schedule, yet be flexible enough for folks to reconfigure somehow on the fly. It would foster learning and conversation and connections, and it would share the results through the web through a variety of means. It would attempt to connect and build off the other regional conferences that had recently occurred. Each conference would have a fairly specific purpose and some goals � there would be an expectation of change when people left for the day, not just a hoped for change. (I think this is critical, imho.)

Now, Chris is hosting something similar in January in Philadelphia. He has some advantages, notably that he�s brilliant and he also has a very large population within driving (or shuttle) distance of Philadelphia. I�m wondering about trying to host a Mountain West EduCon at my school. We�re in the Denver metro area, so we have a fairly large population base to draw from (although it pales in comparison to the Philly area), and we could possibly attract folks from nearby states as well (parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, Texas . . . are reasonably short drives) � but that might be tough for some of them. Perhaps a regional conference works better back East (this is referring to the Eastern U.S.) with large populations close together, but out West we may have to settle for a much smaller �region,� I�m just not sure. And, of course, there�s the matter of picking dates. (I think Chris had the right idea by just picking a date and saying �come on down,� but I�m thinking about weather and state testing and . . . the list is endless.)

So, this brain dump is posted to hopefully elicit some thoughtful responses that will help me out with this idea. I could be very, very wrong with some (or most) of this, but I hope to at least get the conversation started and see if this has legs. I have a few folks in my school and district that would love to help with this, but we would need additional help. Bud? Ben? Other front range folks? Anybody out there think there�s even a little bit of a good idea here? Even if you don�t want to help, is there anyone in my �region� that would be interested in attending such a beast at my school? (Umm, I�ll ask my principal later if this is okay . . .) If the answer to any of the above is yes, please leave a comment and possibly add to the wiki (anyone can edit). This may not go anywhere at all, but I wanted to put it out there. What are your thoughts?