 |
|
|
Educon 2.1 is over and I have so many regrets — so many people I did not get to talk with. Entirely unsatisfying. Next year, I’m there for three-days. I sat in on some fabulous sessions, and they were conversational in nature — as advertised. I did hear that some of the sessions ended out being presentations, and I suppose that’s fine as long as it was clear from the start that folks were there to listen and pay attention.
I guess that the greatest “aha!” realization to me happened with the early morning panel discussion. I live blogged my notes here. First of all, Chris Lehmann “gets it.” I knew he “gets it” before the panel. He’s not the only person I know who “gets it” and he wasn’t the only person on the panel. But I can’t think of anyone who is in such a perfect position to test “it” and demonstrate what he gets. There are folks I know who are cultivating similar situations, and they are going to be worth watching, but SLA is there..
However, there were two elements of the panel’s conversation that — quicken my heart. One was Gary Stager’s opening and the list of what he believes — and just about everything else he said. I was especially taken with his demand that reform needs to happen locally. I didn’t realize the importance of this statement until a conversation that I had with Steve Hargadon at the end of the day. Stager questions a lot of what I say and write, and I learn from his challenges, but he sees the evils of what has happened to education during the past several years, and he hammers it ruthlessly — and I thank him.
On the other hand, there were two other panelists who stirred my soul a bit, and in the other direction. I do not clearly remember which of the panel members they were, so I’ll not use names here. But on several occasions during the conversation, the importance of “data” to education today was expressed. Now I get data. I understand its value under some circumstances. Yet when I hear people exulting data collection as a principle way of educating children, I feel that we are being drawn away from the things that I truly value in teaching — in being a teacher. It’s because I am, admittedly, a romantic when it comes to education. It’s about relationships, environment, and activity. I know that disaggregated data can help, but there’s something about the scale that bothers me. Enough said…
 |
|
|
My main point is, “Should it matter?” When I try to think about and try to visualize learning 2.0, I’m still getting a fairly blurred picture. It’s the purpose of these conferences, to clarify that image. But I am fairly certain that in the classroom that effectively leverages the contexts and opportunities of our times, our students and their native information experience, and today’s dramatically new information environment, I can’t see that it would matter if the students are tested at the end of the year, or that data is constantly being extracted about their learning.
What will be happening in that classroom will be so exciting and so compelling that tests and data will be nothing more than mist on the breeze.
Powered by ScribeFire.
@David
I like your take on the secondary role of data. I think we all know this intuitively and if we examine our own educational experiences we know this. When I think back on all the teachers I have had and the ones who have impacted my life, the ones who stand out cared about me personally, pushed me to think and then think some more, and helped build within me the courage to always push. I don’t remember one ounce of that experience being made worth it because of a score on a test or some standardized fill in the bubble activity.
I would agree that there should be some set of base knowledge that is worth assessing if the outcome of the assessment helps shape the instructional strategies and responses we use to teach. But looking at a number on a sheet of paper as the prime way to judge a school’s effectiveness misses the point.
Yes, David, Educon 2.1 was a great conference. It was nice having you in Alec Couros’s session on Open Pedagogy.
On Friday night they asked the panel of distinguished people, what the purpose of education is? You name it here, David, “It’s about relationships, environment, and activity.”
The relationships with students are the most cited motivation for learning by the students themselves. “I want to learn from someone who knows and cares about me.”
The learning environment, the learning landscape shapes the minds of students forever. Thirteen plus years, 6 hours a day, 180 days a year will have an influence. How you design that environment will leave a lasting impression.
The activities/assignments we give students, the story of learning they experience can be generative, integral and sustainable or they can what it is in too many classrooms, static, disjointed, and unsustainable.
There is hope. Now is the time to speak out like twenty-five superintendents who just declared independence for the students and adults in their charge, “Creating a New Vision for Education in Texas.” Why might Texas be an appropriate place to “begin the change” supportive of a global, children-as-learners movement? You can download the report from my blog; see January 28th post.
Regards…
Dennis, Thanks for the comment. I would add to the mix, on reflection, “Conversation.” I suspect that the relationships, environment, and activity provide the railing (and the side trips). But conversation is the fuel…
Thanks again!
What concerns me as a high school teacher is getting the content into the class. I think the tools the new technology offers are impressive and do enable me to expand the boundaries of my class room. But I have difficulty with those that think the technology by itself is going to make a subject interesting. It is like trying to get someone who does not like baseball to like baseball by changing the rules of baseball to make the game look more like football. It is what it is and must be appreciated on its own terms. Students who dislike Chaucer (I am an English teacher) are not going to like Chaucer just because he is being studied using social networking tools. I struggle with maintaining the rigor while trying to make the material as interesting as I can.
I agree that a teacher cannot do any more than the community in which she or he teaches will accept and most communities seem to be more interested in talking about reform than in doing the very hard work that reform requires. I think as a culture we have bought into the idea that there are simple solutions to every problem and that is rarely true.
It is my experience that modern education is becoming more about documenting what we do than about doing anything. I think the definition of a public school teacher is becoming someone who documents in great detail what they would do if they had time to teach.
Cordially,
J. D.
This comment challenged me a bit, J.D. Some of what you say, I believe is wrong, or only part of the way there. Much of what you say, I agree with 100% and more. I believe that I am going to elevate this conversation out to a new blog post — when I get to it 😉
I look forward to the day when, “What will be happening in that classroom will be so exciting and so compelling that tests and data will be nothing more than mist on the breeze.”
David
Gary’s assertion “local reform” is fine for autonomous systems. Classroom innovation is how I prefer it for individuals playing with the shifts. That requires local leaders who allow the freedom of “less you use your reigns the more we’ll use our brains” so we feel supported in what we try. Luckily I have both in our Principal and district.
At the same time our State wide DET is centralised(NSW Aust, 2nd largest in the world, 1.4 million in the network)so waiting for that elephant to shift, co-ordinate and budget on major changes is time consuming and frustrating. It takes 3 years for one program to roll out across the state with 2200 schools involved.
We need supported micro innovation at the local level combined with macro big picture support. NSW’s stamps kids with high stakes data 6 times in 13 years, so to stay on that tight track means any innovation can’t waver far from the testing tree or you will be brought to question why? if scores are trending incorrectly.
Accountability,transparency and relevant quality data is manadatory but the gathering tools are broken (or not yet invented) for the skills we need to assess.
Maybe Barry McGaws etal 3 year international assessment study will clarify the current learning 2.0 haze and focus more attention on the appropriate measures for collating, replicating and embedding these 21st century skills so many talk about.