I Read (?) The News Today, Oh Boy

Just a quick post to share this concept video from Sports Illustrated (digital breadcrumbs: Scott McLeod, Judy O�Connell, Daniel Pink, Apple Insider, Peter Kafka).


More evidence that the way we interact with �text� is changing. To combine and paraphrase something I�ve heard David Warlick say more than once with something Jason Ohler says:

We need to stop paper training our students. We should spend less time training our students how to use paper, and more time helping them use digital tools to interact in meaningful and productive ways with the media forms of the day.

Also reminds me of this post:

Note that this is additive - no one is suggesting that words don't matter, that what we traditionally think of as "writing" is no longer important, but that the very nature of composition is more complex now, and that our instruction, our pedagogy, our learning spaces need to reflect that.

. . . Writing (composing) is no longer exclusively a solitary activity. And we need to expand our definition of composition beyond only text and beyond only a specific medium (book, research paper, academic journal).

"Text" is changing. Is your classroom?

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.

What's the Purpose of School?

While I've certainly blogged about and around this topic before, I've run across a couple of interesting posts in the last few weeks that both address this question directly. I'm going to quote liberally from both posts, because I think it's useful to see them both on the same page.

First, David Warlick wrote after watching - and participating - in our videoconferencing with Daniel Pink:

On several occasions, lately, when working with teachers and administrators at independent schools, I�ve been asked, �What is the purpose of education?� It�s not a question that comes out of public school conversations very often. We already know what education is for. The government told us.

Education is about:

• Covering all the standards
• Improving performance on government tests
• Meeting AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress)
• Producing a competitive workforce

We don�t even ask any more � and even in this season of Change (http://change.gov/), we�re still not asking that question.

Now I generalize when comparing different types of schools, and to be sure, independent schools are also governed by testing, as many of their students attend so that they can get into Harvard, Yale, or Duke (Go Blue Devils). But, again, there is a palpable sense of confidence in the conversations I witness when away from public schools � a willingness to ask tough questions.

I�ve had a ready answer to the question.

�The purpose of education is to appropriately prepare our children for their future.�

There are some implied, but essential questions in that answer:

• What will their future hold? What will they need to know?
• What are appropriate method, materials, environment, activity?
• Who are these children? What is their frame of reference?

Today, I have a new answer. My old one is still good. I�ll continue to use it. But if you ask me, �What is the purpose of education?� today, I�ll say,

"The purpose of education is to make the world a better place!"

What drew me to this answer was Karl Fisch�s teleconferencing activity last week (see A 2.0 Sort�a Day: Part 2). As I thought more about the experience, it occurred to me that this was an almost singularly unique activity � beyond the fact that students were interacting with an internationally renowned writer, exchanging thoughtful insights, and the really cool use of technology.

What struck me in hindsight was that these students were earning respect. They were respected by each other, by their teachers, by the instructional support professionals, and by the internationally renowned figure, Dan Pink. Their engagement in that activity will continue to be respected by people, young and old, who will read the archive of those multidimensional conversations.

Those students were full partners in their learning, and they were entrusted to go beyond just what was expected. They were encouraged to freely extend and develop their own thoughts, skills, and knowledge, building on their own frame of reference, pushing and pulling through conversation, and being responsible for their part of the endeavor.

Then yesterday Seth Godin wrote:

So, a starter list. The purpose of school is to:

1. Become an informed citizen
2. Be able to read for pleasure
3. Be trained in the rudimentary skills necessary for employment
4. Do well on standardized tests
5. Homogenize society, at least a bit
6. Pasteurize out the dangerous ideas
7. Give kids something to do while parents work
8. Teach future citizens how to conform
9. Teach future consumers how to desire
10. Build a social fabric
11. Create leaders who help us compete on a world stage
12. Generate future scientists who will advance medicine and technology
13. Learn for the sake of learning
14. Help people become interesting and productive
15. Defang the proletariat
16. Establish a floor below which a typical person is unlikely to fall
17. Find and celebrate prodigies, geniuses and the gifted
18. Make sure kids learn to exercise, eat right and avoid common health problems
19. Teach future citizens to obey authority
20. Teach future employees to do the same
21. Increase appreciation for art and culture
22. Teach creativity and problem solving
23. Minimize public spelling mistakes
24. Increase emotional intelligence
25. Decrease crime by teaching civics and ethics
26. Increase understanding of a life well lived
27. Make sure the sports teams have enough players

Both David and Seth, coming from different backgrounds, have some fairly negative views of what some folks think school is for, as well as some more positive views of what school should be. If you've read my blog for any length of time you most likely know the general trend my thoughts take on this, so I'll spare you my own ranting and raving (for now, anyway). But I thought these were worth posting on the same page as a good starting point for discussion, as Seth suggests:

If you have the email address of the school board or principals, perhaps you'll forward this list to them (and I hope you are in communication with them regardless, since it's a big chunk of your future and your taxes!). Should make an interesting starting point for a discussion.

Please leave a comment or do as Seth suggests and contact a school board member, superintendent, school administrator, teacher, student, parent, state legislator (Colorado), community member, congressperson (Senate, House, or possibly this link for both), or President Obama and ask them for their thoughts, without the spin.

What's the purpose of school?

Sharing Our Staff Development � Session 2

Earlier I blogged a description of our first staff development session of the year. Last week we had our second session, so I thought I�d share what we did. First, please note that this time we did not meet as one large group, but rather as three smaller groups. Cohort 1 (16 teachers) met last Tuesday, and Cohort 2 met in two different groups of 15, one in the morning and one in the afternoon last Thursday. This allows for better sharing, for groups to bond together, and � in the case of Cohort 2 � for subs to be shared to cut down on the costs.

The first 90 minutes or so of the session was spent discussing Chapter 4 of the PLC book, focusing on mission and vision, both for our school and specifically for 21c (what we call our staff development effort). That discussion was facilitated by two members in each of those groups who had volunteered ahead of time. All six of them met ahead of time to discuss what they were doing in their three separate groups, but there was no requirement that they do things exactly the same way. We feel it�s important for the staff development to not always be led by me, or by members of my planning team, but that the participants take control of it. We�ve had mixed success with that, as intellectually they mostly agree but when it comes down to actually volunteering to do that they are somewhat reticent. This appears to be mainly for two reasons � being uncomfortable teaching their peers and simply a lack of time to prepare and do it well. We'll continue to work on this.

The mission and vision discussion seemed to go well in Cohort 1, although I missed the two Cohort 2 group discussions because I was chaperoning 41 second graders on a camping trip (I heard the Cohort 2 sessions went well). As most folks do, we struggled a lot with differentiating between mission and vision, but also between mission and values/goals. I certainly am not an expert on this, but it sure appears as though a lot of the ideas included in mission statements are really values or goals, not mission. For the group I was in, I encouraged them to really think about purpose, about why we exist (as a school and as 21c). And I suggested that a short, concise mission was necessary if it was going to be a successful mission statement - a mission statement that helps define who we are. I think we�ll get there with our 21c group, but I�m not so sure as a school.

We will continue to work on mission and vision in our next two sessions, with the next session spent actually writing a mission and vision statement (in our 3 separate groups), and then the following session trying to mesh the three mission/visions together. I worry that we�ll burn people out on this, because many people do not like this kind of activity and think it�s pointless. And, to be fair, it often is. But when done correctly, it helps define everything that comes after, so I hope we�re successful. That�s one of my big concerns with my school�s mission, that we�re not taking adequate time to really work through it and that we�ll end up with something that sounds good, but really won�t help point the way for our school.

We didn�t spend as much time on vision (at least in Cohort 1) because we need to get mission down first, but I think we�ll have some hurdles there as well. The main hurdle is getting folks to toss everything aside and really focus on what our school should like in five to seven years. What should it look like to best meet the needs of our students, without all the �yeah, buts� that typically get brought up. I framed it this way,

Think about what you would want this school to look like if you were designing it from the ground up today, with no limitations. Don�t settle for what you think will be "acceptable" or "uncontroversial" - design a mission and vision that will meet the needs of our students.

I really, truly, passionately feel we need to define what that looks like first, then deal with the obstacles. As opposed to artificially limiting our vision by assuming the obstacles will triumph and compromising our vision. Isn�t that what we should be about, figuring out what's best for our students, and then designing the best possible learning environment and experience to facilitate that vision, and then figuring out a way to make it work? Perhaps I�m tilting at windmills here, but I�m really tired of the �yeah, buts� getting in the way. If we know the right thing to do for our students, and then don�t do it because it might be difficult or controversial or a lot of hard work, then I don�t know why were here anymore.

After the mission/vision discussion, we spent a little bit of time with some �tech tips� that some of us brought back from NECC. These weren�t any great instructional ideas or anything, just some simple programs or keyboard shortcuts that could help out some folks and then they could adapt for their classes. This was inspired by Frank Miracola�s Free is Good session at NECC (I didn�t attend that session, but two others from my planning team did and thought it was great). They focused on a few of the photo applications (pun intended), but you can view all of Frank�s resources (Word doc).

We then closed with providing them time to explore their own personal learning networks. To read each others� blogs, or blogs from elsewhere, or write in their own blog, or start on their �assignment� for next time. Their assignment was:

1. By 9-15, watch the David Warlick presentation Contemporary Literacy in the New Information Landscape. Scroll down to 2 pm on Tuesday, June 26th, then click on stream. It�s worth watching the entire thing, but if you don�t want to devote an hour to it, scroll over and start at either the 11 minute mark or the 31 minute mark. Please at least take the 30 minutes necessary to watch from the 31 minute mark to the end. The slides don�t display well on the stream, you can get a better view of his slides here � scroll down to Redefining Literacy 2.0
   
   
2. Then read the Teacher as Network Administrator article.
   
   
3. Your focus for both the Warlick Presentation and the article is: What does it mean to be literate in the 21st Century? How can we help our students � and ourselves - become literate? How do we help our students � and ourselves � develop Personal Learning Networks?
   
   
4. For our next session, think about mission and vision. While our primary focus is a mission and vision for 21c, also think about AHS�s mission and vision as well as your own personal mission and vision. Think about what you would want this school to look like if you were designing it from the ground up today, with no limitations. Don�t settle for what you think will be �acceptable� or �uncontroversial� - design a mission and vision that will meet the needs of our students.
   
   - From Brian and Jessie [led the Cohort 1 discussion]: For our next session (9-25 or 9-27), blog/reflect on the four questions at the bottom of p. 78 and top of p. 79 [from the PLC book].
   
   - From Micki and Andrea [led one of the Cohort 2 discussions]: Five years from now � Imagine there are no barriers, in what ways would we be different? Consider the following � practice, procedure, relationships, results, climate�

So, again, I�m not saying this is anything spectacular, but just trying to share out some of the things we are doing in our staff development. I think the mission and vision stuff is important, as are the values and goals that we�ll get to next, but it�s not as interesting to blog about (perhaps) as some of the things we�ve done in the past. But hopefully somebody out there will find it useful or get one good idea they can use.