Global Education and Technology

"Our national goal should be that all students must graduate from high school college-ready and globally competent, prepared to compete, connect, and cooperate with their peers around the world." (p.101) 

These two chapters made me immediately think of the examples of this type of learning that I know are already occurring right here in our own state. At the Maine Council for English Language Arts conference this past March, I saw two teachers from Belfast Area High School presenting on their creation of a Global Classroom. This course combines World Geography and World Literature and the internet to offer an incredible experience for ninth graders. These two gentlemen could have written these two chapters about how necessary it is for our students of today to have a global mindset and to use the technology in ways to advance their own thinking, growth, and learning. The course combines readings that are all online along with connections of classes within multiple countries.  The students get to Skype with the classes in other countries, have email pen pals, and actual classmates doing similar work in other countries to exchange with feedback. The teachers have both traveled extensively and have been Fulbright Scholars as well as a part of iEARN, a global network of teachers and online projects. If you'd like to take a peek at their work, it is all set up using a moodle at globalclassroom.rsu20.org .  It's well worth a peek and a great example of how to combine global education and technology! 

I also learned about The Telling Room out of Portland that offers a nonprofit writing center to children and young adults. They offer after school and online services to students, not only in writing but in audio production and video production. The two presenters walked us through an activity creating "Vox pops" which are short for vox populi, or "voice of the people"  or  'man on the street' interviews.  They explained how to capture some great impromptu responses, combine and edit them into some wonderful radio shows! You can find them at the tellingroom.org.

Zhao article

I have to say that usually I do not care for interview articles as they do not seem to give much depth of information, but this one most certainly did. Zhao is an extremely eloquent person and there were some statements that he made that I found very profound as we consider how to 'improve' our curriculum and scores in the U.S.

On page 18, he states, "When too much is attached to one single criterion, people will always try to figure out how to appear superior to others.", and "Equity is ensured more by teachers, by the classroom than the standards."   I think these statements say a ton about the educational system in the United States right now and also how we need to return to the power and strength of the teacher. I found it interesting in the Darling-Hammond article that Finland has become number one by putting their money and time into supporting and training their teachers instead of buying a new testing system. If it comes down to how well the teacher can present the curriculum in an equitable way for all the students in his/her care, then doesn't it make sense to focus our efforts as a state and a nation there??!!

His last statement truly summarized this article and the state of our union:

"American education is at a crossroads. We have two choices. We can destroy our strengths in
order to catch up with others on test scores, or we can build on our strengths and remain a leader in innovation and creativity. The current push for more standardization, centralization, high-stakes testing,
and test-based accountability is rushing us down the first path. What will truly keep America strong and
Americans prosperous is the other path because it cherishes individual talents, cultivates creativity, celebrates diversity, and inspires curiosity." (p. 20)

Isn't that what the school models and innovative curriculums we have looked at to date seem to do?! What would happen if we became leaders in our schools to create these types of environments for students?

The real truth about charter schools!

      I have to admit that I had not yet seen Waiting for 'Superman', even though it was so highly acclaimed, and yet promoted in our area. It along with The Cartel must be what our current governor and politicians have seen in their movement to push charter schools into Maine.  I am always appalled at the claim that schools [public schools] are to blame for all the troubles that face society! Isn't it that we are dealing daily with the results of those political ramifications and are trying in some small way to HEAL those wounds?! Isn't it schools that are offerring free breakfasts and lunches to families that qualify- even through the summer?!! I sometimes wonder how people can live in a bubble! Also, consider those statistics.. only 17% of the charter schools scored higher than the public schools! 46% were equivalent and 37% were WORSE!  Now I always wonder where statistics truly come from, and let's note, that is only in the area of math.. not other content areas, or demographics of the schools, or educational background of the teachers, all factors that I feel should come into play when you start comparing schools, along with many others.  These stats are just about as absurd and bias as the grade ranking system our state imposed this past spring, and that now Ohio is considering!
     There was one quote that truly stuck out for me on page 2, "...the idea that teachers are the most important factor determining student achievement."  While I do strongly feel that what we do individually and collectively deeply impacts the achievement and school attitudes in our students, we all know it is NOT the only thing. Many of our students come from families where the meals they receive at school are their major nourishment for the day; many of today's parents or guardians are working two  jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, let alone other necessities; many of our students have received interventions in their learning too late and so changing their paradigm to find success is difficult if not impossible; and as we all know, our schools nationwide are attempting every day to do more with less.  Interestingly enough, I wonder if the statement I just made is a timeless one. We created a system of education to reach the masses and try to equal out the possibilities for all citizens. In the end, we may have created a wider gap in the haves and have-nots. Yet we have seen here and hear about all the time, those teachers or schools that rise above all that and create incredible learning situations for their students.  The difficulty I see with charter schools is that many of them are funded by organizations with a motive to promote their way of thinking or learning and so you wonder how much those teachers have a say in developing their own curriculum to meet the needs of their students, whomever they are.   It brings up the age old debate of whether we should allow businesses to have an influence in our educational systems, or not. There are many pros and cons to consider. I myself have not decided if the influence or choice of a charter school is a good move. I do understand the desire, at times, to take a few strong, well educated, visionary teachers and go build a new way of learning. I think many times in  the course of my high school teaching experience I have said that we should scrap this HS model and try again.. but then, I'm not sure what it would or should look like in order to truly meet ALL needs.. so maybe that would mean 'charter' schools that have a specialty like in some of the European models. Maybe you go to this school is you want a vocational trade track; this school for a competitive college track; or this school for those yet undecided.  This article certainly makes one think and I applaud her for speaking against a very intense movement with such strength and evidence-based arguments.  Unfortunately, like most things in education... it just raises more questions for us to ponder!      

Common Core State Standards- help or hurt?

     So I've been following a lot of the blogs and discussions on ASCD, Curriculum Matters and Education next on how various people see the Common Core. Many seem to think it will force a national curriculum. And I just finished reading this article: http://educationnext.org/despite-common-core-states-still-lack-common-standards/ and it's most recent response about what proficiency means in various states. It all has been truly wondering if this another idea with good intentions, but with negative outcomes! The standards- no matter what group of them of which we speak- are always contentious. We saw the same situation in Maine in 1997 when the original MLR's hit schools. The movement for Mass Customized Learning schools in our state is a push to beat the bandwagon to the standardized punch.  Having spent much time with the CCSS since their early drafts, I find that it will drive some good changes in our educational curriculum, like teaching students to be more critical readers and writers in all content areas, or like asking students to explain their thinking (metacognitive processes) or describe how they accomplished a goal and determine if it was a productive process for them. Some areas of curriculum, like the aesthetic value of reading may very well be lost, which will unfortunately not create the outcomes we desire from these standards. These external drives, in my opinion, are given far too much power over the true expertise of a professional teacher, but then, would we know where to go if we didn't have these guides to direct us? How many of us would be able to go out into the work force, ask employers what they see our students in need of for skills and then backward plan that work from grade 12 to K? And since that seems impossible, how else would I know as a new teacher in any grade what I was supposed to teach my students? I have some ideas on that, but I wonder, what do you think?

Sustaining old ideas in a world of NEW!

     I have to admit that after reading ch. 10 and 13 about how sustainable we are creating our educational systems, and how habits of the mind need to be integrated into the curriculum, I felt a bit ho-hum, for lack of a better word.  Since my organization, Delta Kappa Gamma Society International is a liaison to the UN, I had heard about the Education for Sustainability (EfS) before and some of the great work it has driven over the last 21 years. I also can't recall exactly, but I believe it was when I started teaching in Vassalboro, when I was introduced to the Habits of the Mind. This came along with Jim Fitzpatrick's behavioral models we were looking at as well as Jay McTighe's Understanding by Design model.  Though they were not 'new' ideas to me, it was great to be reminded of their strength and potential impact on education.  I believe that programs or models for thinking like these make us truly rethink why we do what we do each day, as well as how.  But in the end, I get frustrated that we are still reading about only a few wonderfully inventive places that have incorporated these models, rather than the few schools that have yet to get there. It seems that educational change is slower than the worst diet/ exercise plan out there, and yet we still keep getting up every day and doing it the same.  Isn't that the definition of insanity? - To continue to do the same thing in the same way and expect different results.                                                                                                                                                                    
     I also read a few blog entries from Curriculum Matters  that talk about how the talk and the discussion around the coming Common Core State Standard Assessments has changed, and how these might need to be considering as a starting point for a new dimension in education rather than the end result. Interesting thinking that I hope the author will expand on further.  We certainly need to be educating ourselves as teachers and teacher leaders about ALL the potential options for our students. Then we need to consider how to implement these or some of these or even parts of these into our schools.  Years ago the discussion of whether there should be day cares and medical services and other services available at schools was a huge debate. Many argued that the school had become the heart of a community and so it made sense to offer the services to the community in one place where all had to go. The louder voices it seemed were angered by the notion that schools should offer all kinds of social services, that somehow this would disrupt the learning process and take away from our schools.  Now with the rising numbers of poverty-stricken families in all of our communities, we have once again returned to this discussion and some schools are even offering free breakfasts and lunches during the summer break for those families that qualify.              
     I suppose it all comes back to determining how we define school in our communities. Unfortunately, there are many federal, state and local pushes that force parts of that definition, particularly in regards to money, but what would happen if our state or our regions or local communities pooled their resources to serve all the people within that community better- wouldn't we then be creating a more sustainable future and quality of life for all people?!                                                    

How do we define intelligent?

"Whereas before we gathered knowledge to become intelligent, now intelligence is measured by how well we apply knowledge to ask the right questions about how to solve the world's problems" (p.208-209).
    I was a student rewarded for memorizing my multiplication tables first, for spelling correctly under pressure, for memorizing the steps of the water cycle, for reciting back every state and its capital, and in general, certain rote knowledge. I found success in that form of education. I was lucky that I learned early how to study to memorize and had a pretty strong memory.  However, in sixth grade I was asked to join a Junior Great Books group. The teacher in this group did not want the dictated back answer from the text, she wanted us to think. (We were still supposed to agree with her, but she was curious what we thought!) Later in my undergraduate classes at Gordon, especially in psychology, my professors expected that we would read, analyze, integrate and think about how that concept or theory applied to us, to life, to faith and to the world in general. We were expected to not just read and spit back the answers, but take the knowledge beyond the text.  Then I took a course at another unnamed university during the summer to help complete my minor in psychology. The professor had written the text, assigned us chapter to read each night, and then dictated them back to us the next day in class. He left only the last two minutes for questions and was obviously annoyed by this student, who often interrupted him and asked questions anyway. I never really got any answers, and the tests at the end of the week could have been completed by a robot that had speed read the book. Needless to say, I had to reread the text on neurological psychology before going back to Gordon to share it with my professor. When I returned there, we had long weekly conversations about the text and the theories within. This is when I finally learned how this might help me become a better person and teacher, and it was certainly more enjoyable. It was not always easy though, as my professor would ask very deep, provoking questions that you really had to think about before answering. The class for some might have been an easy A, for me it was a grade, but a waste of my time.  I relay this because I do know I gathered strength as a child in being able to immediately respond when someone asked, 'what is 9 x 6?", but that was not a skill that the world would ask of me when I was 25.  In this world where students can google anything to find an answer, I wonder if we have forgotten all those lessons about how to write good questions. The better our questions are, the more effective and less time-consuming are our searches for answers. The other piece that I see missing is teaching students to be critical consumers of knowledge. If the definition of intelligence is more about where to find the answers, then the more aware you are of the source of your information is also important. One area of the Common Core that I do like is that it forces us to create critical readers and writers of knowledge. Students today seem to be very willing to accept anything on the web as true, without ever considering the biases or the background of the person or group sharing that information.  I am all for including as much of the new technologies as we can make safely available to our students, but we also need to be guiding them in ways to determine the source and to understand why that is important to know.   I agree that intelligence is often about knowing where to find the answers, but it is more about where to find the good answers, or understanding the answers and applying them to yourself, your current project and the world.

Form should follow function!

     In Chapter 4, Heidi Jacobs makes excellent arguments for 'dumping the box' of our current schools and creating new learning environments. I think it only follows if we constantly say our learners of today are different (digital natives) and that they actually think differently than most of us 'digital immigrants'. Often the design of our schools today make me feel as though we are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Most of our students are much more tech-savvy than we are and I would certainly not know about Instagram, Snapchat, or other popular apps if it were not for my high school students keeping me up to date.  That said, I do also think it is our job to teach them ways to be ethical and appropriate with their digital footprint. Perhaps this is where the tech generation can learn from the etiquette generation. We were taught how to politely answer a phone, properly shake a hand and look someone in the eye as you greet them, and wait your turn in a conversation. All these things are still important in this very tech-savvy world and I find that it is no longer taught at home around the dinner table (perhaps because even the concept of the whole family sharing a meal together is rare too.). But I digress...

     "To move our school structures into more open, fluid, and correspondingly inventive forms, we need new forms, not reform. ...Arguably, a pivotal reason why schools have such difficulty functioning is because decisions regarding any one of these factors are made in separation from the others" (p.62). This seems to be the greatest hurdle in education- the people that need to be talking to each other and making these decisions are NEVER at the table together! And I mean that as a proverbial table if need be- in this day and age there is no reason that group from even different countries can't be 'at the same table' via Skype, Google Hangout or Go-to-Meeting. It seems to me that our state and federal laws are still from the original industrial age where educating the masses seemed a daunting task. Well, we are far beyond that ladies and gentlemen, and it is time to find a new 'box'. It seems that there is a disjunct between the institutional grouping designs and the instructional grouping designs. I wonder how different our schools might look if we asked teachers how they would love to teach if they could, if we asked students how they would like to learn if they could, and then designed the structures based on that information? I imagine, the 'walls' would be very different, if they existed at all. Unfortunately, our state laws will only pay for certain footage of a room based on student enrollment, and our graduation rates are determined by those students that actually enter high school and graduate within exactly four years. These boxes needed to be scratched and as Heidi Jacobs says, we need to find NEW ones! 

    However, I do recognize after over 20 years in and around education, change comes all too slowly. And while I believe there are changes that need to be made, there are some very effective and successful programs working within our current structures.  Those need to be maintained or carried along to new designs. So, like yoga, I guess there needs to be a balance- hold onto to the parts, like hands-on educational designs, dynamic grouping in elementary and middle school, career development, and many others, while we consider what the future 'school' might be.