And then there is this: “But today is great day… a day to celebrate… the perfect storm for reform… We have the resources at the federal level to drive reform… and reach the educational equivalent of landing on the moon…”

Then I hear this:

“Tools to capture their imagination…” Tools and opportunities to engage and empower students – to make learning meaningful, relevant,… to encourage creativity, joy, problem-solving,… Thinking differently and bringing out the best in every student [and teacher]…

With all due respect, Secretary Duncan, the only Top that we are racing to is the Big Top… the federal circus that you are orchestrating – a circus that many cannot even afford admission to. I guess those that can’t make it under the Big Top will be left to wither and die, just like the schools in our nation’s capital that have been closed down to be sold to charter operating companies or to condo/hotel developers…

As Klonsky says in his blog post, “the real losers are kids, parents and communities…”

~

The answer isn’t PowerPoint, digital whiteboards, blogs, wikis, PRS systems, high-speed Internet, Web2.0, … But, they can be part of a solution. [Generalization coming...] Why are we not pushing many of these attributes presented in the video with the same passion that we are pushing (and adopting) new technologies? As a geek-at-heart, it sure is much easier to get excited about “potential” or promise of new technologies rather than focus what we already have that is not working. Much of the time, things are not “working” because of much bigger issues than old technologies or technical support (don’t get me wrong… technical support is crucial). So, if your students are not excited about your language arts (math, science, social studies…) program, ask yourself “Why?”. My guess is that it’s not mostly because they are not using the aforementioned technologies.

I would encourage you to read one of David Warlick’s recent posts titled, “If it’s not about technology, then what is it about?“. Be sure to have a look through the comments as well. Lots of food for thought. (It’s where I discovered this video, too.)

• 83% of educators report having 5 or fewer computers in the classroom; > than half report no more than 2.
• > half surveyed use computers for daily administrative tasks
• about half use them to daily communicate with other educators (communicate what?)
• about 40% use technology to monitor student progress (electronic gradebook?)
• about 37% use technology for research and information gathering
• about 32%  use it to teach lessons
• < a fifth of teachers surveyed use technology daily to post student and class information online or to communicate with parents electronically.
• a majority feel that professional development that they received was most effective for noninstructional tasks (hence, the second bullet point here)
• a majority were “highly optimistic about the impact of technology on their jobs and on their students” and that technology positively impacted student motivation

Yet…

• 89% said they view technology as essential to teaching and learning.

What’s missing here?

• No mention of teacher personal learning networks to share and collaborate
• No mention of teachers using technology to further their own professional development
• No mention of students using computers for learning in powerful ways
• No mention of students using networks for collaborative learning

What I find most curious is that the survey itself is so minimalistic in terms of what technology can bring to the teacher-learner. If focuses on access and administrative tool use, research, and teachnolgy as a teaching tool. It does not see the larger picture of the need for systemic change, the need for lifelong teacher learning and growth, and the full potential of networks and computer technologies. What is sad is that it would appear that we, in general, are failing at such a basic level. Although there are certainly pockets of innovation and change, they are not sweeping in scope. Here is a quotation from the report’s executive summary:

“The findings of this study reveal that although all educators and students in public schools
have some access to computers and the Internet, we have few assurances that they are able to
use technology effectively for teaching and learning.”

Well, that’s certainly less than encouragine, isn’t it.

So, we have schools lacking in current tools, lacking in networked access, lacking in professional development, lacking in vision, lacking in systemic change, and overwhelmed with the incredibly diverse burdents placed upon them. What do we need then? Leaders. We need leaders who are willing to put their necks and reputations on the line district by district, building by building. We need leaders who have a powerful vision of what learning can and should be and who can effectively communicate it to others. We need leaders who can inspire by example. We need leaders who reward risk-taking. We need leaders who understand the learning potential afforded by new tools and learning networks. We need leaders who understand what meaningful learning is and looks like. We need leaders (at all levels, including governmental) who value all forms of assessment – not just formal standardized assessments. We need leaders to support urban schools. We need leaders who understand the value all pedagogies. We need leaders who help their teachers be all that they can be.

We need LEADERSHIP. Without it, we will continue fulfilling this report’s outlook – “The findings of this study reveal that although all educators and students in public schools have some access to computers and the Internet, we have few assurances that they are able to use technology effectively for teaching and learning.”

“25 years after the seminal report, A Nation at Risk, American education remains in a state of crisis.” (source)

Information on this issue is not new in the news (here (2008), here (2006) and here (2003) but the recent report released by Strong American Schools (a nonpartisan awareness campaign aiming to bring education to the forefront of presidential campaign discussion and supported by the broadfoundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation) titled, A Stagnant Nation: Why American Students are Still at Risk (Gerald Bracy in Huffington Post … and again here… warns to interpret with caution) about the current state of education in the US and some information that revisits the federal report “A Nation at Risk” (1983) released some 25 years ago has led ABC news to do a short spot on our underachievements. Here are some of the statistics presented in the news report (embedded below):

• 40% of high school seniors do not understand 8th grade math
• 23% of seniors cannot identify Adolf Hitler
• 57% of seniors cannot place the Civil War in the right century
• 33% of seniors do not know the Bill of Rights guarantees free speech

This all brings new meaning to the old addage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” They also fail to get to the heart of the issues that have long plagued education and democracy in this country. Take a look at the news spot below and let me know what you think needs to be done after seemingly little progress over the past 25 years to stop this old addage.

Teen Dating ‘08: Nude Pix On Cell Phones

The CBS news article describes unabashed teens sending sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves to others. A psychology professor at San Diego State University who studies young people’s trends, is quoted as saying:

“Adolescents are not known for thinking things through – that’s a generational constant,” she said. “Now, with the technology that is out there, instead of taking a picture and passing it around the classroom, it’s online, which is a whole different ball game. (Teens) don’t see it that way.”

It reminds of the video series on YouTube, Think Before You Post. There is absolutely no control over the content once it is sent, as the article briefly touches on.

Where are the parents in all of this? Where is the village that is required to raise a child? It would seem like there are a large number of children raising themselves in these digital times. Kids, more than ever, need involved and caring parents, teachers, and significant others in their lives like never before. Peter Benson, from the Search Institute, has a short article with some great information titled, “What Happened to My Little Angel”. See also the document, Building Assets for Youth. Kids need us more than ever! Here are a few of the Search Institute’s findings when it comes to adult responsibilities for growing healthy children:

• helping young people feel loved, supported, and accepted;
• giving young people appropriate boundaries and structures;
• providing constructive, healthy activities for young people;
• helping young people stay committed to education and learning;
• nurturing positive, caring values in young people;
• building basic life skills and positive views of themselves and the future.

These are things that happen week after week and year after year in families, congregations, schools, and communities. These are the things that make a difference! It makes a real difference when . . .

• parents make it a top priority to spend time and talk with their teenagers;
• adults in a congregation or from the community volunteer to be mentors for youth;
• youth ministry programs provide positive activities that involve youth;
• young people learn how much they have to contribute to their community and world through volunteering to serve others;
• teenagers get involved in positively influencing public policy;
• schools learn about assets they can offer youth and seek to strengthen those assets for all students.

We can’t abandon kids. We must engage them in positive and healthy ways, in the classroom, at home, and in the community – this includes the digital community (see Freerice.com or GlobalNomads). We must empower them and equip them for success in a highly connected, complicated digital age.

What does this tell you?

It is also quoted as saying,

“Eighty-eight percent of voters say they believe schools can, and should, incorporate 21st-century skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, communication and self-direction, and computer and technology skills into the curriculum.”

I don’t disagree at all, but this rhetoric is getting annoying. Since when are critical thinking, problem solving, communication skills, and self-direction only 21st century skills? This has been our whole problem – that in the 21st century, we are still struggling to include 20th century learning skills. Of course, this information/2.0 age demands more of us all in these regards and increases the urgency of such pedagogical shifts. But, I think we are where we are due to our complacency prior to the 21st century. Dewey, Vygotsky, Bruner, von Glasersfeld, Jonassen, Papert, Montessori, and a number of others have made sound pitches to this end over the past century. Why has so little change happened in classrooms across America? Yes, it is great that these principles are being brought into the conversation again, but it didn’t really happen then. Why will it happen now? Historically, the change pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other, yet little substantive change has ever been achieved. The article attributes this renewed interest and dissatisfaction with economic anxiety (fear). They mention China. India… Sound like Sputnik to you?

The article concludes with this quotation:

“This is a moment in both the economy and the upcoming election where Americans are looking for hope,” said Garin. By focusing on education and the teaching of 21st-century skills to the nation’s students, citizens and their elected officials can “help lead the country to a promising future.”

Hope. I hope things change. I have been hoping for a long time. Hope is good. But not enough. Change is happening, but in a haphazard and inconsistent manner. Of course, we must respond to economic, cultural, and social influences, but let’s not be fooled. That which is being called for now is nothing new. The tools to achieve it are new. There are new possibilities and mediums – but there will always be such. The urgency is now greater, for sure, but the pedagogical foundations remain. Will we finally begin to embrace them on a national level? Will we follow history and once again allow the pendulum to swing to the extreme? Is a balanced approach still out of our reach?

“a disorder affecting publicity-obsessed school administrators nationwide that manifests itself in an insatiable need to acquire the latest, fastest, most exotic computer gadgets, whether teachers and students need them or want them.”

Teachers being told that they cannot use more traditional technologies (i.e. overhead projectors, chalkboards…). Technical problems continually interrupting learning. The mourning of face2face socialization and increased depersonalization. I love this one quotation from a student who admits that his favorite teacher

“isn’t into all this computer stuff. All he uses is the board — the whole board. He’s lively, energetic, witty and really knows his math. He forces you to pay attention; you can’t drift off even if you want to.”

I love that. It brings a balance to the conversation about 21st century teaching – that good teaching must precede effective technology use.

Now, there are so many issues to address in all of this – technology before training, unsupported infrastructure, mandated teaching styles, mandated tools, lack of mentorship, technology for technology’s sake, technology as magic bullet, technology diversion, poor leadership, and more… I think this might be the first article that I have read that includes so many illustrations of poor technology implementation. It also brings some insights into the great conversations that happened over on Scott McLeod’s blog Dangerously Irrelevant and Pete Reilly’s blog, Ed Tech Journeys, about whether technology should be mandated or not. And, in all fairness, it is one highly publicized article that I am sure does not capture the situation in a totally unbiased and objective manner.

Anyway, read it for yourself. How did it make you feel? Let me know.