The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred.

In an opinion piece in the New York Times, Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, argues that President Obama has failed to tell the story he needed to offer in order to effectively lead the country through these turbulent times. Obama, according to Westen, campaigned under a pretty clear narrative of “hope,” but has never really fully developed or told the story that “…would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative…”

With the Iowa-tailored version of the widely viewed Did You Know? videos, Scott McLeod (with some help from XPlane and others) is trying to re-frame the dominant narrative around schooling through a modern lens. Scott’s a highly-respected colleague and a dear friend. But, while I’m on a roll in airing professional disagreements with dear colleagues/friends, I thought I’d offer a critique of the video.

Here’s the logic of the video, as best I see it:

• Computers were invented; EVERYTHING changed.
• There are a ton of cell phones being used in the world.
• There are a whole lot of people using social media (babies are tweeting in utero!).
• There’s a lot of information online.
• A lot of people own a lot of gadgets.
• Iowa is struggling to keep up.
• Lots of kids are graduating high school, but not college.
• Jobs, especially in growth areas, will require a college education.
• Iowa’s schools are struggling to keep up, too.
• Lots of low-level mental work; i.e. basic skills instruction.
• Not many kids in Iowa are taking online courses.
• Technology expenditures are down.
• Some Iowa schools have made some significant changes (1:1 computing  + virtual reality technology?), but we can do better…

More succinctly, the narrative of the video boils down to:

Lots of people are using lots of technology –> Our world is increasingly connected and our economy is increasingly “global” –> Therefore, our schools need to integrate technology more and focus on “higher-level” thinking skills.

(NOTE: that last part is admittedly sketchy; the “shift” that should “happen” is a little unclear)

I think there’s a huge gap in the logic. That is, the emphasis of the first part of the video is on social media usage and information abundance, but the second part jumps immediately to issues of education with a focus on outcomes. That Iowans are disproportionately not graduating college is evidence that Iowans are not keeping up with societal changes (with an emphasis on social media usage and information abundance)? Really?

I could nitpick various statements throughout the video, but my critique is more macro. I’ve written about this before, but, to reiterate, I think the gist of the argument is misguided. It’s the wrong story…

IF our schools need to “shift” (again, we’re left to assume that the “shift” means something much more technology-centric?), it is NOT because that will help us be more competitive in a global economy. As I wrote earlier, “If you make that argument, you have to believe that one of the fundamental purposes of schooling is, in fact, to prepare kids for the workforce.  That’s not at all something I believe.” Furthermore, this “global competitiveness” argument doesn’t resonate with the public, let alone educational policymakers. These days, I’m not sure anything resonates with educational policymakers beyond test scores, but what about something a little more immediate and obvious? What about learning? Gosh, we can all get behind learning, can’t we?

So, with learning as the focus, why do our schools need to “shift?”:

1. Because public schooling exists to prepare young people to be productive and engaged citizens in a deliberative democracy, and, increasingly, civic engagement happens in “hybrid” spaces. Despite what Malcolm Gladwell would have us believe, social media has fundamentally changed the nature of political engagement. One need only look at how the Obama campaign leveraged social media in winning the 2008 presidential election and, of course, at how social media has played a major role in political uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, etc.
2. Because computers allow young people to learn in a more integrated way through, well, computing. Want kids to learn math? Have them take a real computer science class. As Gary Stager wrote, “If mathematics is a way of making sense of the world, computing is a way of making mathematics.” Teach kids programming, and they necessarily learn logic and argumentation and math. As they improve their logic and aptitude for argumentation, watch how their writing improves. Furthermore, logic and argumentation are the basic competencies needed for deliberation. Again, from Gary Stager, “[c]omputer science should be taught as a basic skill.”
3. Because learning has ALWAYS been social and collaboration has ALWAYS been an important skill (or, more accurately, IMHO, a set of skills), but the modern Web exponentially amplifies the possibilities for collaboration and social learning.
4. Because now learners don’t always have to go to schools or libraries or anywhere specific to learn. Actually, that’s always been true, but the modern Web does change our assumptions about time and space for learning.

In other words, IF we are going to rethink schooling in and for the 21st Century, it should be based on what technology affords for learning. It’s that simple.

I understand that the Did You Know? videos are intended to be conversation starters. But, I think they tell the wrong story. Instead of negativity or even fear mongering (“We’re not keeping up!”), let’s tell a more positive story about affordances and possibilities.

Rupert and James Murdoch:

Asked by one lawmaker, “Do you accept that ultimately you are responsible for this whole fiasco?” Rupert Murdoch simply responded: “No.”

Dr. Beverly Hall

While on vacation in Hawaii, former Atlanta Public Schools superintendent Beverly Hall told WXIA TV on camera Wednesday that she “absolutely knew nothing about the cheating.”

Oh, and one more…

Quick, tell me how much you know about the people in the following list:

Maybe you recognize a few of those names? None? Well, those are the most recent recipients of the Roald F. Campbell Lifetime Achievement Award, an award given by UCEA “for the purpose of recognizing senior professors in the field of educational administration whose professional lives have been characterized by extraordinary commitment, excellence, leadership, productivity, generosity, and service.”

I know many of those folks personally. They are some of the brightest, most dedicated educators I could ever know. They are incredible scholars and thought-leaders in the field of educational leadership. They are VERY deserving of that award. But, let me ask you this…Have YOU ever heard them speak? Ever read anything they wrote? If not, why not?

In 2003, the National Football League instituted the Rooney Rule which dictates that all professional football teams must interview at least one minority candidate for an open head coaching position or any open senior football operations position.  The rule came about because Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, lamented the lack of minority head coaches throughout the history of the league.

There has been much discussion about the efficacy of the rule, especially lately.  And, there’s no way to attribute causality, but currently, 6 of the 32 teams have African-American head coaches (and, as of the writing of this post) there are rumors that Leslie Frazier may become the head coach of the Buffalo Bills).  That’s progress, but there is still disproportionality in a league where a little more than 3/4 of the players are African-American.

In education, as of 2007, approximately 45% of all public school students were categorized as a race other than Caucasian (SOURCE). As of 2007-08, approximately 16.9% of all public school teachers were categorized as a race other than Caucasian (SOURCE). Furthermore, as of that same year, 19.1% of all public school principals were categorized as a race other than Caucasian (SOURCE). Looking specifically at African-American students and educators, 15.3% of the students are African-American, 7% of the teachers are African-American and 9.6% of the principals are African-American.  We’re quickly approaching a day when the public schools in the United States serve more minority students than Caucasian students.  Yet, we’re nowhere near that with respect to teachers and especially leaders.

At the highest levels of school leadership, the numbers are even more disproportionate.  Reliable statistics on the superintendency are even harder to come by, but one estimate holds that 2% of all superintendents in the United States are of African descent.  Another estimate puts that at 5%.

I don’t want to go too much further here as my intent is to be mostly descriptive so as to raise questions.  I will, though, gladly point you to work done by colleagues of mine.  The paper to which I link here is based on a series of studies including the dissertation by the lead author.  Drs. Jackson and Shakeshaft reach some interesting conclusions, including discrediting the myth that there are too few African-American candidates in the pool or pipeline for superintendent positions.  I also note the conclusions about African-American superintendents in predominantly Caucasian districts. Their conclusion is essentially that African-Americans, especially males, need not apply. How many of YOU know an African-American superintendent leading a school system that serves mostly Caucasian students?

I urge you to read the Jackson/Shakeshaft paper, and even the small body of literature to which they offer citations.

So, what do you think? Do we need a Rooney Rule in public education?

[NOTE: don't bother with any legal mumbo jumbo about the current jurisprudence on affirmative action and/or equal protection. I know where we stand there. I'm just raising some issues here...I think.]

[NOTE: thanks to Scott McLeod for dreaming up this idea three years ago.  This is my contribution to Leadership Day 2009.  The Leadership posts I've already seen are great, and the collection of posts will ultimately make for an important and interesting contribution to the field of educational leadership.]

I have a doctorate in Politics and Education and when I’m asked what that means, I usually speak to a definition of politics I’ve “borrowed” (re-mixed?) from an adjunct professor with whom I took a course while in graduate school.  Dr. Dale Snauwaert, an adjunct professor at TC at the time, wrote about politics as the intersection of power and justice.  Combining my interests in the politics of education and educational technology, I’ve written much about justice and educational technology (see e.g. this article).  I have not, however, written much about power and educational technology…until now.

In my courses on the politics of education, I guide our exploration of power with two questions: (1) who has power? and (2) how is power organized/distributed?  Much has been written about who has power in the area of educational technology, though there’s more that needs to be written.  Today, though, I explore what I believe to be a major obstacle to school reform through the lens of educational technology: how power is distributed around educational technology.

Educational governance is ultimately about control and how that control is (or is not) partitioned among the various stakeholders matters immensely. I argue that in education, the system is multi-layered and overly partitioned.  I compare our educational system to onions and silos.

“The way authority is structured and exercised shapes the intellectual and moral character of the school, thereby profoundly influencing student development” (Snauwaert, 1993).

ONIONS

The U.S. education system is like an onion in that it has many levels and the more you try to peel away at those layers, the more you start to tear up.

Policy decisions are made by federal, state, and local education agencies.  Even locally, decisions are made at the district, school, department and classroom level.

In addition to aiding or hindering quality education, there are many consequences to the multilayered system, including the phenomenon of mutual adaptation (which I’ve written about here).  As McLaughlin wrote in an article in 1990 about school reform, “…it is exceedingly difficult for policy to change practice, especially across levels of government” (p. 12).

I was reminded of the onion last week at NECC, and my reflections from the conference reinforced my thinking.  The largest ed. tech. conference in the U.S. is nearly entirely classroom-focused and the conversations are nearly totally absent of policy context.  Yet, alongside NECC proper, SETDA (the umbrella organization of state education technology officers) was holding their Emerging Technologies Forum & Annual Convocation.  There was some overlap between the two events, but from my perspective, the state-level policy makers were meeting in parallel with the school and district-level folks at NECC.  Similarly, shortly after NECC, the Education Commission of the States held their annual National Forum on Educational Policy.

This sort of parellel play doesn’t advance anyone’s cause.

SILOS

Even within the same levels of decision making in education, we have a serious silo problem.  Like policymakers across levels of governance, educators within any given level exist and work within separate silos; i.e. they play in parellel.  Think of all the silos: subjects, grades, departments, etc.

One silo problem that is particularly problematic is the curriculum vs. technology distinction.  I’ve long wanted to do an examination of school district organizational charts to see how technology is related to curriculum.  I know that in some districts, they are separate departments, each with its own director.  In some districts, there is an IT department (hardware, networking, etc.) that is separate from the instructional technology folks who may or may not live/exist under the direction of the curriculum folks.

I used to do evaluation research for education technology vendors who would often tell me stories about the “curriculum witch.”  They would usually pitch their solution(s) to the technology department and come very close to making a sale only to have the “curriculum witch” show up at the 11th hour and declare the program/software/etc. inconsistent with the curriculum goals of the district.  I’m certain there has been wasteful spending across numerous districts because the “curriculum witch” never did intervene.

In Virginia, our ISTE affiliate is VSTE.  They recently moved their annual conference to an early December date.  In fact, their conference is November 30-December 2.  From December 2-December 4 is the annual conference of VAASCD, the Virginia affiliate of ASCD.  That organization is focused mostly on issues of curriculum and professional development.  That these conferences are back-to-back in different parts of the state makes it nearly impossible for anyone (myself included) to be able to attend both.  So, the technology people will meet with the technology people and the teaching/curriculum people will meet amongst themselves.  I know people who I respect greatly that lead each of these organizations and I’m not at all blaming anyone for this situation.  I’m only pointing this out as a situation that reinforces the silo problem about which I am writing.

I could go on, but I need to bring this around to Leadership Day 2009.  For me, true school reform will not happen until leaders at all levels and across the many silos get together to think about governance arrangements. Especially at a time when collaboration and communication are easier than ever, we need to work together across levels of government and annihilate the silos in our education agencies.  Tha t is a huge leadership challenge.

“The real work of learning happens in the classroom, in the interaction between teacher and student.  This interaction is affected by innumerable large and small decisions made by principals, school boards, superintendents, state legislatures, education department officials, and the federal government.  These decisions and their implementation can either aid or hinder quality education in the classroom.” (Committee for Economic Development, 1994, p. 2)

Photo Attributions:

• Leadership Day: Scott McLeod
• Onions: Darwin Bell
• Silo: Chris Knight

I am so very excited to use this space to recognize a woman who embodies leadership, humanitarianism and mentorship.

This week, at the annual convention of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Dr. Charol Shakeshaft was honored with an Effie H. Jones Humanitarian Award.  According to AASA, “[t]hese awards…recognize AASA members who exemplify the professional qualities of advocacy, support, mentorship and encouragement of diversity in educational leadership.”  The page announcing the 2009 winners does a decent job of describing Charol’s contributions to the field of educational leadership.  I would add the following:

• Charol wrote THE seminal book on women in educational leadership.
• Charol has DEEPLY and positively impacted the personal and professional lives of dozens of school leaders directly through her work as a professor and mentor.
• Charol is most recently advocating for a profoundly underrepresented group; young people victimized by educator sexual misconduct.

And, personally, I consider Charol to be my primary mentor.  She has been a dear colleague and friend for over a decade, and I look forward to continued collaboration and friendship with her moving forward.

I commend AASA for recognizing Dr. Shakeshaft.  Please join me in congratulating Charol and in thanking her for all that she has done as a leader, a mentor and  humanitarian.

This past weekend, I had a wonderful opportunity to lead a conversation/session at Educon 2.1.  I had planned a 20-25 minute presentation to be followed by small-group and whole-group discussions.  But, at the last minute, I decided to scrap the presentation part and let the folks in the room talk.  At the wiki developed for the session, you can see the premise of the discussion.  The conversations were really good, though we never really got beyond the first question.

Using my Tablet PC, I recorded some of the ideas that seemed to resonate with the folks in the room and that struck me as particularly interesting.  Here are those ideas:

Additionally, one of the attendees was using Inspiration to document the conversation at her table.  Here’s what she came up with:

I’d love to get your thoughts.  Please comment here and/0r (if you really want to be 2.0ish) add your thoughts to the wiki.

For months now, I’ve been trying to figure out how to develop an online community to enhance our programs within the Department of Educational Leadership at VCU.  Currently, each course has its own Blackboard space.  We also send lots of e-mails to students, though sadly we don’t even have good e-mail groups in our e-mail client (that’s pathetic, I know).  So, communication across courses, across programs, and across the years is impossible.  It’s a sad state of affairs, and I’ve spent way too much time trying to figure out the best way to establish an online community for all of our students, faculty and even alumni.

I suppose my biggest problem is that I’m looking for the perfect one-stop solution.  I’m very familiar with Ning and I’ve been playing around with various wiki systems that work nicely as places for collaboration and communication.  Those are fine ways to create a single online community.  One problem for me, though, is that our department consists of many different groups, cohorts, etc. Here’s a graphical representation of our department:

I want each group, cohort, etc. to be able to communicate privately with each other, but to also be a part of the larger community.  So, I could, for example, setup a department-wide Ning and then setup each cohort as a group.  However, the groups within Ning don’t have the full functionality of Ning (e.g. they can’t setup their own document repository or a separate page for anything, really).  And, the groups are not private.

A second problem is that I want to be able keep track of activity with an RSS feed.  But, as you may know, private spaces (Ning, Wetpaint, etc.) don’t allow for RSS feeds.  This limitation also stops me from setting up a Ning or Wetpaint for each group, cohort, etc. and then setting up a department-level aggregate page via NetVibes or Pageflakes (a la Steve Hargadon’s approach here).

So, where am I?  Right now, I’m leaning towards a department-level Ning as the hub of our online community.  From there, I could setup groups for each cohort, group, etc. with a link to a private wiki for each cohort, group, etc. (leaning heavily towards WetPaint for that).  In the absence of RSS feeds, I’ll have to subscribe to each site via e-mail and then setup routing rules so that my inbox doesn’t get flooded.  It’s also going to be a naming nightmare.  But, that’s my best current solution.

If any of you smart people have better ideas, I’d be more than happy to hear them.  Thanks in advance!

In the not-too-distant future, LeaderTalk will transition to Education Week.  In other words, the blog will become part of the growing family of blogs under Education Week’s umbrella.  As an original contributor to LeaderTalk, I’m struggling with that transition.  The text of the e-mail I sent to LeaderTalk contributors is below.  If you, my dear readers of Ed. Insanity, have additional thoughts to help me think through my struggles, I’d appreciate it.

All,
Let me first echo Scott’s congratulatory remarks.  LeaderTalk has become an incredible communication space by and for educational leaders.  I’ve been proud to be an original contributor, though I haven’t written there lately.

That said, I have a philosophical conundrum that you smart people could surely help me think through.

I have always believed that there are too many educators (unlike you all) who are too locally focused and who would do well to consider their position within the larger world of public education. To that end,  I have always thought of Education Week as an incredible publication uniquely positioned to inform educators about important state, national and even international issues in education.  To me, they have always been THE trade publication in education.  When Al Gore invented the Internet…er, once Internet access became nearly ubiquitous, edweek.org was one of my very first stops for my daily reading.  I learned gobs by surfing through edweek.org on a daily basis.  However, some time not too long ago, edweek.org made a decision to go to a subscription service.    They have a few different access plans which you can see here: http://www.edweek.org/offer.html.

So, what’s my problem?  Well, I hate that I can’t read edweek.org fully without paying.  In fact, I think it borders on criminal that they charge for access.  There’s still plenty of content that’s available for free, but there’s lots of really good stuff that’s not.  And, if you play around on edweek.org for just a short period of time, you can’t help but notice the advertising on there. [NOTE: this week is not a good time to explore this issue b/c Ed Week is having a free open house; they've opened their site to everyone for a whole week...gee, thanks for the tease.]  I have no problem with ads.  Actually, the advertisements themselves are what should make edweek.org completely open access.  The cost of the top level of access to edweek.org is not enormous; it’s basically $80/year.  But, why should I pay that?  Couldn’t they pass that very minimal cost on to their advertisers who are making money hand over fist?  Shouldn’t they?

Surely, the vast majority, if not all of Education Week’s readers are educators.  And, quite frankly, I’m sick of private vendors taking money from education in this country.  Think about all of the hard-working public school educators who are probably underpaid to begin with who spend their own hard-earned money to equip their classrooms each year.  Now, to have access to THE premiere publication in the field, they have to pay Education Week.  Also, I believe that charging for access online is out of touch with the realities of the modern publishing world and also poorly models the idea of open access to information. eSchool News, easily the premier publication specific to the field of education technology is completely free in print form and online.

If you all can help me understand why I shouldn’t be bothered by Ed Week’s policies, I’d be happy to join you in the transition to becoming one of Ed. Week’s growing number of good blogs.  If not, I’ll have to bow out.  So, thanks in advance for your help.

Best,
JB