Month: October 2005

Before you read this, understand that I am neither a lawyer nor a philosopher, and the information here should not be construed as expert. Weigh it on its own merit. I’m just someone who likes to think about stuff.

I got up early this morning to respond to a comment I received many days ago, replying to my September 26 article, Code of Information Ethics. The author wrote:

I’m wondering about the last point: Be Accountable. Does this imply that blogs shouldn’t be anonymous? So many of the educational blogs I read are written under pseudonyms, obviously to hide the identities of teachers who don’t feel like they can voice their opinions otherwise. It seems that it would be more tempting for a person to shirk the first three points of the SPJ Code of Ethics if they knew they could not be identified. Just something that has been on my mind as my school faces two lawsuits stemming from teachers’ (unrecorded) in-class comments, while I write a (very printable) blog with my name on it.

Coincidentally, the one e-mail that I read during a brief scan of what was pouring in from 7:00 PM last night, was a report from Andy Carvin on the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday, that anonymity should be protected. Carvin goes on to report in the WWWEDU posting that…

(the court) determined that the statements in question weren’t construed as defamation because online forums and blogs are less credible than online content posted by mainstream media outlets.

You can read Andy Carvin’s (his real name) complete analysis of the ruling in his recent blog article Online Anonymity at the Expense of Blog Credibility?

I fully understand the author who questioned the place of anonymity within the context of the Student & Teacher Information Code of Ethics, which was adapted from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. To consider this question, I think that we’re going to have to do something that we’re going to have to do a lot of in the coming years — think about things differently.

Several days ago, I was delivering a workshop on contemporary literacy. At the end of one of the discussions, someone asked, “Does this mean the end of expertise?” I suggested that the new information environment may not mean the end of expertise, but it may mean the end of credentialed expertise (with obvious exceptions).

First of all, we receive credentials and diplomas based on containers of information. We read the right books, attend the right lectures, write the right papers, and are evaluated by the right experts, who have read the right… and we become credentialed experts. Increasingly, though, so much of the information is out there for the taking, flowing independent of containers, that people can make themselves an expert on their own efforts to research, reflect, share, and respond — and serve.

Admittedly, the world is a whole lot more complicated by exceptions than I imply. But my point is that it is in our interest to pay much more attention to the information, and concern ourselves less with its authorship. In a time of rapid change, the best ideas and solutions may not wait for people who have followed the maze of containers, but from the free thinker who has mined the free flow of information, reflected, shared, and responded.

All this is to say that having the documented name of the author is not as important as the reader’s responsibility to weight the information’s value in terms of the goals we are trying to accomplish and within the context of a code of ethics (is the information true, reliable, harmful, etc.). We are responsible for our actions, and our actions are increasingly based on the information that we use. It is the readers responsibility to assure that the information they act on is true, and the degree of responsibility is in direct relation to the consequences of the action.

As teachers, it is our responsibility to turn all of this into common sense. But common sense is rarely intrinsic. It is common sense not to aim a bow with a notched arrow at other people. But that common sense comes from a knowledge of the killing power of a bow and arrow. We must teach our students the power that information carries to build and to destroy, so that it becomes their common sense to:

• Seek out information that can be relied on, not just that which agrees with our own world view
• Always ask questions about the answers that we find
• Be responsible for our actions and the information that drives our actions
• Love and protect the truth

Finally, we do not have the luxury of perfect freedom. We, here in the U.S., have a Bill of Rights. But we live in a time when many would weaken this aspect of our constitution. In addition, the Bill of Rights protects us from government action, not from those who have economic power over us, our employers. So as long as we must struggle in our efforts toward enlightened self fulfillment, then we should have to the right do so anonymously, so long as we do so responsibly.

I have spent a good part of the last few weeks on the road working with educators from eastern North Carolina, to several locations in New Hampshire, to Texas, and back to NC. Each of these events has been extended workshops, rather than short addresses or presentations at conferences. As a result, they have been an opportunity for me to learn from teachers about their world of the classroom, and their insights about teaching in a time when information and communication are changing so rapidly.

Here are just a few reflections on what I am learning.

First of all, I am both reminded and surprised at the amount and consistency of frustration that teachers and administrators across the country are experiencing with high stakes testing. They see many elements of NCLB as barriers to their personal goals as educators and their vision of the profession.

It is important to note that these are teachers and administrators who have selected themselves to attend workshops called “Integrating Contemporary Literacy into the Curriculum”, “Blogs, Wikis, & Web 2.0”, and “The Three-Ts of Teaching in the 21st Century”. But I ask you, are these the educators you would want for your children, or the ones who remain in their classrooms working hard to assure rising test scores. Still, the extent of their frustration and their willingness to express their frustration surprised me.

Another thing that has given me pause to think came out of a recent set of workshops I facilitated on Video Production. As part of the workshop, I asked the participants — elementary school teachers, in an extraordinarily technology-rich school — to interview each other with video cameras. They were asked to pretend that they were teachers in the year 2015, and to talk about how the job has changed since back in the year 2005. Almost without exception, the teachers described schooling as something where learning happens independent of the teacher — literally and geographically. The teacher works in Utah, for example, while students can be all across the nation.

Now I know these teachers, and I know that given more than 2 minutes for such an interview, their vision would extend far beyond notions of distance learning for 4th graders. Yet it disturbs me a bit, as an old school teacher with admittedly romantic notions of what teachers and students do, that all of this technology is leading people to think of education as something that involves plugging in. I personally do not think that this is where formal education is going, though certainly a large part of life-long learning will be virtual, in all its degrees.

But teaching children involves adults leading them by the hand into their future, fully aware of the the tools and times that we live in, and availing ourselves of all the opportunities and responsibilities.

I recently heard a quote that I’ve taken to heart. Ray Kurzweil said…

I am an inventor.
As an inventor, I am interested in long term trends.
Because an invention must make sense in the world in which it is finished,
not the world in which it is started.