For the Greater Glory...On Means, Ends, and Lessons Learned from Robots

There is a Jesuit catchphrase for just about everything. One of the most common in educational circles is AMDG - an abbreviation for a latin phrase which translates to "For the Greater Glory of God". Many Jesuit schools require students to write this in the header of their papers, other schools have signs and posters, our school made it the student e-mail domain.

It's a big deal...

Interlude: What's in a Name?
Two months ago, a group of students decided to form a robot club. Their goal was to have Brebeuf Jesuit participate for the first time in the Indianapolis VEX robotics championships. This event, sponsored by the Mayor's office, offers free registration and robotics kits to any school willing to field a team.

As I was filling out the online registration, i was faced with a huge question: Team Name. I felt the cold sweat breaking out. This was HUGE. We needed something that could capture the spirit of our school, the care-free but driven attitude that made up our team, with just enough nerd-cred to show that we were the real deal. After a few panicked seconds I typed: AMDGeeks.
End Interlude.

This Saturday was the two-day culmination of our Robot Team's hard work. And it was pretty awesome:

Much has been written and will be written about the use of robots and practical "real-world" problem solving (and to be fair, i want to live in a world where building small-scale competitive robots is the "real-world" -- its like pokemon, but with robots). This is what I observed:

1. Problem Identification: What is the scope of the problem? What are resources available?
2. Complex, Strategic Thinking: Given the limitations in time and resources, what will be the best solution
3. Hypothesis Testing: Build it, test it, note the results, modify, try again.
4. Research: Yes, it started with YouTube and Google. But it also included talking to physics teachers, calling in experts in fields from welding to general construction.
5. Cooperation: Each team member had strengths that were drawn upon throughout the tournament. Each team was allied with one or more other robot teams for individual rounds.
6. Empathy, Emotional Control: Students were reading feelings, supporting one another, etc. 

Quite a bit different from your typical testing environment

A collection of corporate sponsors, educators, politicians and student-coaches, some as young as ten years old, were creating an environment that was a celebration of the development of college-preparatory and 21st century skills!

What struck me as I looked in the audience of hundreds of parents, students, teachers, administrators was the lack of teacher-evaluation. Stick with me here, this might be important:

iAspire: one of numerous
Teacher Evaluation Apps

• There was no principal in the stands of the Banker's Life Fieldhouse with an iPad App that allowed her to quickly check off the common core standards that were being met.
• There was no Lexile, no Acuity, no Terra Nova pre-test of cognitive potential.
• The only analytics collected were in service to teams figuring out from one round to the next what was working and not working...how to work with one team in an effort to defeat two more.

Yet, in this environment with all of its chaos and shouting and stress and fun, real learning was taking place. Students from a variety of backgrounds and schools were learning to work together, communicate effectively, and devise complex strategies to achieve a common goal.

• It was a demonstration of student learning and real-world application.
• It was the lived experience of preparation for 21st century skills.
• It was one of the best observable environments for implementation of many of the  common core state standards.

and yet...no evaluations were made and no test score was given.

AMDG, Common Core, and the Fight for Education

Critics of the Common Core State Standards are often painted as lazy educators who do not want their work held up to the scrutiny of science and data. Accusations often imply that any who do not support the CCSS and its integrated regime of corporate testing, textbooks, computer management systems, and teacher evaluation tools must not really want kids to succeed.

The problem that educators face in discussing this issue with politicians and parents are that the CCSS has become the ultimate goal of education -- education's AMDG. Anything that works toward the #CCSS (read, anything that is "COMMON CORE ALIGNED") is automatically GOOD because it works toward the ultimate goal. Anything that criticizes that ultimate goal is automatically EVIL.

This is what leads to the shock and almost dismissive attitude in state legislatures when teacher's try to explain the flaws in the CCSS-Testing regime. Because the CCSS has the mantle of the ultimate goal, the advocates for teachers, whether they are administrators or unions, are hesitant to go directly at the issue and instead beg for more time or increased professional development.

Educators and Parents and Politicians need to step back from the CCSS-Testing megalith and realize that despite the political spin that has deemed it as the ultimate goal -- it is actually a means to an end. In Fact, built within its purpose and rhetoric are the true ultimate goals of education according the CCSS's designers, the true ends: College and Career Readiness, Development of Leadership Potential, Citizenship.

In order to have a discussion about the role of robotics and STEM or times for reflection or appropriate use of lexiles or the need to read non-fiction vs. 18th century literature, teachers and parents and educators must first have a discussion about Goals and Ends for education. We need to discuss education's version of AMDG.

The common core state standards are a politically popular and well-funded MEANS to reach the end. Yet they are discussed as if they are the END itself. Common Core and its implementation (and all of the testing and data and expense that accompanies it) is a path, an interpretation about how to reach the ultimate goals of education. 

One can believe that the Common Core and its associated baggage is not the right direction for a school or state or nation without being against education itself. One can reject a particular MEANS without rejecting an separate END.

CCSS is not AMDG.

Need proof? Watch the robots.

(More on this tomorrow...)

Competing for their Hearts and Minds -- #Digcit Thoughts from a RoadTrip Vacation

My wife and I are taking the family on one of those road trips that seem to be a necessary  rite of passage of raising-a-young-family that no one can explain. This post is a collection of reflections made on the journey -- Because you can take the #edtech geek out of the school, but you can't take the school out of the #edtech geek.

Different Tools, Different Data, Different Results
On day three of our journey, we are planning on driving from Atlanta, GA to Raleigh, NC. My wife has been referring to the 4.5 hr journey for a few days, but when talking to our relative in NC, she says it is closer to six hours. She says "But mapquest said it was 4 and a half."

I pull out my Nexus 7 and ask Google Now for a map to Raleigh: Six hours and 15 minutes.

My wife (annoyed): "But why would it change? I Googled it just a few days ago!"
Me (in interesting-conversation-about-tech-mode when I should have been in husband-consoling-wife-who-has-had-her-plans-derailed-mode): I thought you said you had used Mapquest?
Wife (now annoyed at me): I used something. Why would they be different?

...and while i could think of all sorts of reasons for differences including accuracy of routes, real-time information (those cool Google cars), differing calculation methods, real-time traffic or construction updates (not to mention any number of human error issues), I had picked up on the fact that this was NOT the conversation my vacation planner and mother of my children wanted to have...but it got me thinking.

The Information Conundrum

Waze Crowd-sourced mapping

What my wife experienced  is an increasingly common occurrence  People in stop-and-go traffic who pull up
a traditional GPS will often be frustrated by a red (slow) traffic line, but little information. But if that same person is using an app called WAZE, they can get minute-by-minute updates from real users, including the guy 2 miles ahead saying "they have the semi off the road now. traffic should start moving any minute." And while mapping and travel seem to be one of the easy highlights (Apple's early foray's into maps was well-documented as one of the companies few but often entertaining stumbles), there are a number of areas where we are beginning to see this issue arise for our students.

The internet houses websites and blogs galore which at first glance can appear to have valid information. However, as the ease of creating and distributing information has increased, we have not had a corresponding rise in our capacity as humans to filter through this information and distinguish bad information from good. And this is not just a situation created by the rise of the blogosphere.

Billboards and Displays of Competing World Views
As we are travelling down the highway on the way to Raleigh, I see a billboard that shows a caveman fighting/running from an old-style Tyrannosaurus Rex (you can tell older depictions from the positioning of the tail. If it drags on the ground Godzilla-style, its based on older anthropological models). It is an advertisement for a Creationist Museum - a concept I am familiar with due to our proximity to one in Kentucky -- I just didn't realize that they had franchised.

The newest creation museum advertising eliminates the "controversy"
in favor of the draw of Dinosaurs. Thunder lizards are cool.

There are currently 16 Creationist Museums. These museums are typically privately funded with a

combination of models, animatronic displays, professionally produced videos and interactive activities typical of the modern museum experience. In fact, the many of the museums get high reviews from visitors and have been featured as tourist destination highlights. What is noteworthy about these museums is that the exhibits are based on young-earth/creationism interpretations of the origin of life and the planet.

The "Come Meet Your Relatives" sign outside the
Mammal wing of the Museum of Natural History

Either the Earth is 4.54 Billion years old or it's 6,000 years old. Relativism, while popular as a moral stance (that will be a rant for another day), is not as easily applied to geology.

But thousands of people a year visit these museums that cost millions of dollars in order to learn from what National Center for Science Education director Eugene Scott called " the Creationist Disneyland". The discussion that ensued in the car-ride ranged from young-earth positions, to carbon dating, to evolution and catholic teaching. It led to one of our daughters pointing out the number of evolution references made at the Smithsonian Museum for Natural History (although the Gem displays were the biggest hit).

The point here is not good science vs. bad science. (see the original #savethedinosaurs post for some of that). There are two highly funded competing world views fueled by scientific method, research, religion, morality and money that are vying for the eyes, hearts, and minds of our students.

• What are the specific skills that students need to develop in order to function in this world of competing information and data?
• Regardless of the status of the Common Core and its corporate sponsored testing offspring, what should schools be doing to put in place the development of these skills and habits-of-mind? 
• At what age do our students have to develop the capacity to use their skills and capacity for rational thought to determine which of these world views they will subscribe to and follow?

#Edtech, #Digcit, and #BYOT -- Identifying the Essential Skills
1. Claim and Analysis: Students must be able to find factual claims within a piece of writing, be it a tweet, Facebook vanity card, news article, or research paper. They should be able to identify and evaluate the supporting evidence (or in most cases lack thereof) which supports the claim.

Practically Applied: We use the student newspaper. Preliminary questions we ask are:

• Do you trust this source? 
• What reasons do you have in-source for this trust? 
• What reasons do you have beyond the source for this trust?

2. Identifying Assumptions: World views are loaded with assumptions of truth. Identifying these assumptions and treating them as claims that can also be analyzed for support is a key activity in the high-data, conflicting conclusion modern age. The process of uncovering assumptions can be difficult to teach/learn, in part because human brains use assumptions to process data efficiently in the best of situations (and with all of the data produced in the world today, it is NOT the best of situations.

Practically Applied: Use a series of regressive questions as part of the research process when students are beginning to identify primary research questions and problems:

• What is the problem that you have identified?
• Why is that a problem?
• What information do you need to formulate a solution?
• What sources can provide that information?
• Are there experts in the area who believe that it is not a problem?
• What are their reasons for believing it is not a problem?

3. Closed Systems of Information, Silo Thinking, and Confirmation Bias: The goals of hardware, software, and information providers in the modern business-oriented world is lock-in. This is the tendency to go to the same well for information and solutions. Again, this is an aspect of human nature - habits help solve recurring problems efficiently. Thus, Google wants you to constantly go to its website for the answer. Apple and Amazon are both creating stores of information and data access so that you never have to go to the Big-G for an answer. Fox, MSNBC, CNN are all competing for your eyeballs, your homepage, your attention and your trust. As you spend more time within one system, you find that the answers reinforce eachother on two levels: All of the answers seem to tie together, painting a coherent view of reality and all indications then seem that this source of information is a good source to rely upon in the future.

Practically Applied: Teach social media as a tool and not a distraction. Students should be working from a young age to a) question the reliability of information sources and b) build a system of information sources that intentionally have multiple viewpoints, biases, and information.

An early social network activity we use is to identify social media sources within a student's personal network. Count the number of friends, relatives, celebrities, news sources. Then rank those sources along different perspectives such as politics (conservative/liberal, Big/Small government), religious perspective, value of formal education, etc. Many of our students find that they are likely to have a network that feeds their own pre-existing world view and that the ideas presented are strikingly similar across social media.


4. Variety of Tools and Sources. An unanticipated side-effect of the 1:1 BYOT implementation at the school is the in-depth discussions about methodology, whether it is for creating a presentation or finding information. In a world where each student brings a device and the device is the choice of the family/student, there are a lot of tools in each classroom. Students begin to discuss and share problem-solving strategies naturally and teachers can foster this sharing with directed activities.

Practically Applied: Focus on process over product. Have students keep a process journal as part of each major assignment. Use the journal as a part of reflective and sharing activities. As different conclusions are reached, the student's become better equipped to un-pack how they reached a specific answer and why that answer was different from the conclusion of another member of the class.

On Reflection
None of these applications are easy and very few of them can be answered with a click or a filled-in bubble.We have found that the amount of time we spend on individual projects grows as we add in time to use regressive questioning in the beginning and time to pair-and-share process reflections in the drafting stage of papers and presentations.

But this is a part of the answer to the issue of information overload and over-reliance on data-without-depth.

Our call as educators is to helps student identify not just the correct answers to the questions on a test but the underlying systems that produced those questions-and-answers in the first place. Corporations  governments, and organizations are all to willing to have reliable consumers and followers.

We should accept nothing less than independent thinkers.
Our children deserve it.

More than just a consumer and political pawn

Answering "What's Next?" - Classroom Technology Beyond BYOT (with pictures and bullet-points)

One of the problems with pulling off an important (if small) Educational Technology revolution is the inevitable questions from excited faculty, students, and trustees: "What's Next?" While the temptation is strong to answer, "reading some comic books and 3-starring every level of Angry Birds", that is not acceptable and probably not good for student learning.

Thus, we began to embark on our next level of technology integration: What should a classroom look like in a BYOT environment.

We began in similar fashion to what eventually became our 1:1 BYOT solution -- we asked the teachers and students:

1. What is the most frustrating thing about teaching and learning in your classroom right now?
2. What would make you a more effective educator if we gave it to you next year?
3. What would the ideal learning environment look like?

And boy did we get answers!

Flexibility:
Whether it was from teacher-teacher or from activity-to-activity, teachers wanted the ability to change the layout of a classroom quickly, without a lot of effort. This came from Social Studies (Harkness table configuration with Primary Source discussion), World Language (quick changes from pairing to small groups to teacher-centered instruction and back again within the same period), to Math (we like our rows, but it would be nice if we could get in between them faster without tripping over bags -- you have to stay mobile when ever kid has a device).

Collaboration:
While the standardized testing advocates get a giddy little thrill every time they release a document that pretends learning is an isolated experience between the student and the electronic equivalent of a bubble sheet, learning is about engagement -- engagement with material, engagement with the teacher, engagement with each other. Teachers and students alike wanted a classroom where collaboration did not feel like a tacked-on after thought.

Space to Write, Tools to Share

Who needs an Interactive Whiteboard? Just give us colors!

After flexibility, the number one request was MORE WHITEBOARD SPACE. Three walls, paint the walls with whiteboard paint, get individual boards around the room. -- It was really a dream come true for a whiteboard aficionado like myself (totally had to look up that spelling).

As teachers begin to move from experience to reflection, sometimes the process of sharing that reflection is best written down where others can see (Think-Pair-Share and Gallery Walks are good examples of this). As the front of the classroom diminishes and students take more ownership in the classroom, a natural outgrowth of this is the need for more surface area capable of capturing ideas.

...and then there is technology
Ever try to have a beyond 1:1 discussion about technology with the interwebs? It is NOT pretty. It quickly degenerates into camps based on Android or iOS, or it becomes "Walls? Where we're going, we don't need walls!" from the blended-distance learning camps.

So here is our context:

• We already start with learning objectives and student engagement in mind. Technology is a tool that gets us to stronger relationships, better (read more authentic) experiences, and opportunities to engage in personal and collaborative reflection (what Jesuits call LEARNING).
• We already have a device in each student's hands and the device is one that they chose based on personal experience, reflection, and context.
• We are working to create a learning environment that is flexible and student centered, focusing on the learning activities that maximize our mission and pedagogy.

Our thoughts so far:

• Maximize flexibility and sharing with Multiple Displays and Student Device Connections
• Create simple control systems that allow teachers and student to quickly do what they want
• When possible, hide wires and connections and make the systems tamper-proof
• Use Document Cameras and Classroom Recording technology to make access to notes and activities flexible in time and space.
• Even when items must be fixed for electricity or network, give a teacher the option to clear the space for other activities

Our Teacher Resrouce Room -
Brainstorming Central

Over the next few weeks, teachers will begin to give feedback on the tools that they would like to see in their classroom and we will begin the process of designing our next generation BYOT classrooms. Feel free to peruse the document below. We will be hanging it in our Teacher Resource Center for discussion and feedback and finalizing the look and feel of our next iteration of the classroom.

• What did we miss?
• What do you like?
• What will transform teaching and learning in your classroom AFTER you are 1:1?
• What are the goals that you have in mind when considering classroom technology?

Feel free to leave comments down below or on social media. We appreciate the feedback and will use it in our decision making process (which the Jesuits call Discernment - they have a word for EVERYTHING)

Classroom Technology - Beyond 1:1 by jdferries

Ten Rules for a Successful #edtech program that have little to do with technology

Zooming out to see the big picture:
The @40ishoracle and I have spent a lot of time travelling and talking about BYOT and Digital Citizenship, and professional development techniques (including free coffee, comfy chairs and Twitter chats). In the last few trips, we have been asked to modify some of our presentations to focus on something that we constantly touch, but very seldom present on specifically: How did we get ourselves into the position as a school to be able to do some of the cool things that we have done?

It's an intriguing question, particularly as a school that went 1:1 BYOT but often recommends other solutions for schools based on their mission, school population, infrastructure and student needs. The more I thought about it from the head-geek standpoint, the more I realized that, while there is not one-size-fits all magic device or magic LMS...That doesn't mean that there aren't some nearly universal mindsets that will help a Information Technology department work effectively within a school and in partnership with teachers and students to make learning awesome. Thus, I humbly submit:

JD's Ten (or so) Rules of a Technology Department that have Very Little to DO with Technology!
(Ta-da!)


1. Form Relationships

The six months that I spent at Brebeuf Jesuit was an interesting time for me. I was hired to make significant changes in the way that educational technology was used in the classroom and the school and some administrators were waiting for me to wave the magic wand.

The Teacher Resource Room is one key to keeping the
conversation going about tech and education

They became frustrated because I spent most of my days walking around the school, watching classes, having conversations with teachers. I was learning about the school, its mission, and its people. While this is difficult and draining for severe introvert, it was the key to identifying problems (with the computer networks and the human-communication ones), beginning to plan, and getting people to see what was possible. Ten years later, this basic maxim is still true. The most important network the technology department can have are the teachers who leverage the technology and the students who use it as an extension of their being.

Practically applied: We created a space for teachers to meet, gather and plan called the Teacher Resource Room. We stock it with free coffee, bring in donuts on Thursday, and use it for informal gatherings, idea sharing (the brown-bag lunch), and brainstorming (whiteboards!).

2. Find People and Processes to Bridge the Gaps

This nameplate sits on @40ishoracle's Desk

The most important role in a school that wants to expand its educational technology program is the #edtech coordinator. This role became so vital in our school that when it became time to reorganize the Principal's office the natural person to help with faculty development, evaluation, and curriculum was the #edtech who had been informally doing that job for five years.

The key to the #edtech role is not based on an expansive knowledge of educational gadgetry or lists of links to include on the ubiquitous "Website Wednesday" Newsletter. The best #edtech is an educator who is capable of discussing learning objectives with teachers and then translating those objectives and dreams into concrete work orders that can be understood by techs. They serve as the bridge between two very different types of personalities (for a tongue-in-cheek look at Tech-Geek and Teach-Geek personalities, check out this post).

Practically Applied: Processes can also help to alleviate tensions between the classroom and the technology-cave. One simple method that has immediate impact is a triage system of tech issues that prioritizes classroom issues. If teachers have confidence that issues in the classroom are going to be solved quickly, they are more likely to devote class time to integrate technology.


3. Start with Learning Objectives 

Our BYOT reflections during "Boot Camps" began
with learning objectives, not tools

Want a quick test to see if a the latest cool new thing was designed by teachers or test-them-all advocates? Count the number of minutes before the sales person refers to a practical and specific student-base learning objective. If they generically refer to "personalizing education", "appealing to learning styles", or "providing data driven solutions" then it is likely that this device has never been seen in a regular classroom.

At the #edtech and brainstorming level (note: this means in the TRC, not the tech room :) ), we start almost every conversation with a teacher, "what are you hoping to have your students learn?" -- When the initial focus is on the content or the skills of the students, then it becomes difficult to derail the activity with shiny-pretty smokescreens.

Practically Applied: The grand design for our BYOT initiative started with focus groups of teachers and students: "What would you like to see in your classroom in the next 3-5 years that would transformational to the way students learn and the way you teach?" Questions like these began students and teachers thinking about how the most basic things they do in order to learn.

4. Think of the Use Case

ASUS VivoTab: Full Win 8  w/
SmartSleeve Keyboard, great on table

Similar to starting with learning objectives, we often evaluate new tools or initiatives at the most basic level of Use Case, namely, "how will this be used day-to-day." This seems to particularly apply to large implementations. Rather than being dazzled (or from the teacher point-of-view, overwhelmed) by a piece of technology, run it through paces. This can be done as a mental exercise or ideally as a pilot.

When the test of technology is use-case and not the spec sheet that is provided by vendors, the way the data is interpreted becomes different. The Learning and other

...but a laptop fail

Practically Applied: I spent two weeks playing around with an ASUS VivoTab. It was one of the best Windows 8 (not RT) tablet experiences that I have had (yes, I am working on a review). BUT, on the most practical level, it was nearly impossible to use the tablet/keyboard combination comfortably in my lap -- a requirement when trying to send out snarky tweets about a keynote speaker.

5. Build it Before They Come
Most teachers can describe a training initiative in technology that failed miserably. Often, if you listen closely, there are certain similarities to the tales. One of the most common occurrences is a promise of a technology, or tool, or method that either a) never materializes or b) shows up so far past the training, that teachers have moved on in both practicality and enthusiasm before ever integrating the tech.

Practically Applied: Tech departments should begin to speak of initiatives in very consistent and easy-to-understand terminology outside of the technology room. In our school we talk about "Investigations" (surveying technology, gathering ideas, tweeting), "Pilots" (limited tests by people who are giving feedback about classroom impact, stability, etc.), "Burn-in" (Technology is available but glitches are still being worked out) and  "Rollouts" (technology is available and ready to use).


6. Avoid Myths and Hype

Giving up on the One LMS Myth

There is no one gadget that will fulfill the needs of every student and every teachers
There is no one technology that transforms every lesson to a multi-variate experience that meets all students learning preferences
There is no Learning Management System that makes every teacher a data-driven-decision-making automaton capable of raising test-scores with the blink of a mentor-camera's electronic eye

Technology tools are designed to accomplish specific tasks in specific ways. Leveraging those tasks and methods into a learning experience takes experimentation by teachers and students. The more experienced the teacher, the more willing the students, the more focused on the learning objective, the easier it becomes to evaluate specific technologies for their educational impact.

but there is no magic wand. Period.

7. Deal with Conflict Openly and Honestly
The best of technology departments are servants to a variety of people, including students, teachers, administrators, parents, and Departments of Education. Any one of these constituents may be able to play a trump card that can frustrate another group. This can happen when the Testing Overlords declare that no device that cannot be managed can be used for high stakes testing. This can happen when parents demand online grade-updates as a matter of competition within the schools. This can happen when teachers insist on a specific program regardless of compatibility with student devices.

In these cases, it is best to let those who disagree have the conversation. Parents and Administrators, Teachers and Students, etc. can have productive, student/learning centered conversations about what system will ultimately meet the mission and student objectives of the school. Note: Technology has almost no dog in these races. Outside of network integrity, data security, and a few other practical matters, technology (see #2, Relationship Manager) serves as an implementer, not a decision maker.

Practically Applied: During our BYOT implementation discussions, the math department, a high-functioning technology department, had an extended discussion about requiring all devices to be pen-based, preferably digitizers and even more preferably windows-based tablet PCs (the device of use for all math teachers). This conflict had the potential to sidetrack the entire initiative. As the discussion progressed, math teachers and techs began to isolate the underlying student-based needs of the class apart from the technology:

• the need to take notes that included drawings. 
• the need to have access to digital notes. 
• the need to turn in assignments for homework. 

Experimentation and conversation about learning objectives showed that while some technology may better enable student learning, no specific device or technique hindered the learning irreparably.

8. Acknowledge Non-negotiables, Plan Accordingly
Occasionally, there will be non-negotiables. They are becoming increasingly rare in a world where BYOT and consumerization are impacting the classroom so strongly, but they do exist. Again, the best approach to a non-negotiable (examples include caps on bandwidth, requirements to post grades, forced authentication to wireless networks, etc.) is to be honest about it and let it frame the discussion.

A non-negotiable should be:

• explainable in terms of student learning or some other mission-based part of the school (we have to cap individual student bandwidth to ensure that classrooms have access to enough of the data stream).
• agreed upon by a variety of constituents (we usually use tech, teachers, admin, students or some combination) as a necessary if not preferred course of action
• able to be reviewed as technology, classroom methods, demographics, etc. changes.

Practically Applied: The transition from a command-level wireless network to an open wireless that allowed student devices was a study in "what are the non-negotiables". This included discussions of mandating virus protection (ultimately we decided to not to require) and authentication (we require students to use a name and password so that if they engage in inappropriate activity we can have that discussion with the student as a learning opportunity).

9. Lead as Required

Excellent leadership position: sitting at the table

Rule number nine has gone through a number of drafts. It included "don't lead from the top-down" and "don't lead at all". Ultimately, the technology department operates best when its primary goal is to facilitate learning and teaching to the best of its ability. Because a well-run technology department has time to explore new ideas and new techniques, it is often in the position of recommending methods that some teachers may not have seen.

Leadership then becomes a hybrid of many of the rules discussed. It is a system of using personal relationships to identify needs and desires and frustrations. It is putting in systems that address student needs quickly and thoroughly. It is running a technology plan that is driven by learning objectives, clear in its goals, effective in its implementation, and open for review as times change.

It requires openness and flexibility and patience and a lot of caffeine.

10. Respect the Classroom as Sacred Space

Its not about the robot

When we put away silly debates over test scores and manufactured crises in order to increase sales of testing materials and test-prep textbooks, we remember something important: Classrooms are sacred. More specifically the learning that happens when a student and a teacher are engaged in a give-and-take that opens the mind to new experiences and lets a student authentically reflect on that experience -- that is a magic that I would put above any unibody construction with a glowing piece of fruit (heck, I would even put it above a lime green robot).

Any technology department in any school should begin and end with an understanding of how learning works. Without this foundation, programs will miss the mark and teachers will be frustrated because they do not understand how decisions are being made or what is truly important. Does this mean every tech has to be a former educator? That might not even be ideal. But the department as a whole should understand its position in the school is one of serving the greater mission of the school. It is less about authority than it is about facilitating. Less about command and more about service.

- - -
So there you have it. An attempt to distill our secret formula for running a technology department. Would love to hear your thoughts and ideas, additions, or changes to the departments that you run or have encountered. Drop a comment down below or reply to us on social media.

All your BYOTChat are belong to JD

This cheesy Kevin Costner flick that tends to make all humans with a Y-chromosome weep like children has this great line in it: "I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter." 

Whoops. Wrong one. I meant:

"If you build it, [they] will come"

During the movie, most people focus on the "...He will come" part, what with the ghostly baseball players and unresolved daddy issues. 

In Educational Technology circles (the general ones, not the Google+ variety), we know that the most important part of that phrase is "If you build it" (along with its corollary cousins "how you build it" and "when you build it")

In educational technology, getting it built sometimes seems like everything....but don't forget these too:

• We have to build our systems in such a way that we minimize downtime, attempt seamless transitions, but still account for the "burn-in" period that you have to use in order to make the necessary adjustments for a new network, wireless, phone, or other complex hardware function for all the users.
• We have to create systems that strike a number of balances: safety and ease-of-use, filtering and access, features and intuitive controls, speed and affordability, quality and affordability, usefulness and affordability. 
• You don't want to train people on a system that will not be implemented for a long time: you'll burn away all the excitement and end up retraining during after it is built since no one remembers anyway.

Ultimately then, we geeks of the educational technology set, are tasked with making a promise, either explicitly or implicitly, with our teachers: the technology that we provide will: 

a) make the job of teaching easier or 

b) significantly improve student learning, or 

c) on rare occasions, both.

Each time we fulfill this promise, we build up our savings against viruses and bandwidth shortfalls and software incompatibility. Each time we break that promise, we give that small subset of teachers one more reason not to try, not to risk, not to use.

Join me as I hang-up my snark hat for an evening and take up the moderating duties for #BYOTchat on Twitter this Thursday at 9pm EST where we will discuss: "Getting your Network BYOT Ready"

Bring your questions about bandwidth, filters, authentication tokens, app management, layer 3 traffic....or planning the buildout, generating support, selling the idea to admins and trustees...or anything else you are interested in discussing. The team is great at handling a range of thoughts.

Already have questions in mind? Help us get a head start by asking your question here! (fill out the survey as many times as you'd like - all questions optional)

Never been in a twitter chat before? The folks at #BYOTchat are friendly and love to greet new people. Simply search for #byotchat in a column-friendly twitter app like Tweetdeck or got to tweetchat.com and type in the hashtag you want to follow.

Note: Brebeuf Jesuit was named the eSchoolNews "eSchool of the Month" -- Congratulations to all of our teachers, students, and Tech-Geeks who made this possible! You all rock!

BYOT 101 - A Photo Series

The @40ishoracle and I have been discussing our lack of postings recently. Its not that we don't have a lot to say but that we have been exhausted by two months of traveling. As we recuperate, we have been talking a lot about operating our of a sense of mission instead of a sense of fear (more on that later).

but...

Sometimes, you just want to confront those fears head-on. Hence:

BYOT 101 - A Photo Series (by jen and jd)

Have a concern about 1:1 or BYOT that you need us to tackle? No problem too big or too small that we won't attack with PicSay Pro, a phone-camera, and an attempt at wit.

Post comments below or tweet us at @40ishoracle and @jdferries

Indiana Education Politics: Explanations & Predictions, Part I

I'll preface this by saying that I am stripping out sources from this article, particularly the predictions section (which I will post in part II). I don't feel comfortable naming people who talked to me as a friend and I don't want them in hot water with politicians. I’m aware this hurts the overall credibility, so apply grains of salt as needed.

Tuesday night was a great night for classroom teachers.

Glenda Ritz, a veteran classroom teacher and financial underdog, was able to oust Tony Bennett, a nationally known advocate of the #edreform movement that is characterized by high-stakes testing of students, evaluation of teachers based in part on those same tests, and school choice in the form of one of the strongest voucher programs in the nation.

As I watched the early results and continued watching through the night, the various local political pundits were scrambling. Despite their claims of social media savvy and clear understanding of the minds of Hoosier voters, not a single one seemed able to explain what was happening or why. They went to stalwart cliche's involving words like "grassroots" or "union-influence" depending on the side of the aisle from which they were stammering.

It was a lot of fun.

Now it is two days later. Educators: You had a win, and it was the first when you’ve had in a long time. That victory is going to leave a bitter taste in your mouth if you think that this battle is over or that you can go back to teaching your students, secure in your Tuesday night victory. I hate to say it, but your work has just begun.

Interlude: Setting the Context

Parents: Does this make you feel informed?

The other night, Undivided Middle, my 8 year old, brought a stack of papers home to review.
This is a frustrating time as a parent. The majority of the week's "work" does not look like traditional homework as pre-test-craze adults might remember it. There were few pages with spelling words or math problems. Few red X's that could be discussed with the child to begin remediation.

The majority of the work consists of printed pages with a single column on the left hand side. The column is numbered 1-17 and next to each number is a circle (good) or an "X" (bad) -- 3 Xs is a C+. 4 is a D. On the left hand side of this paper is a list of key words, presumably the content or skills that were tested by this mysterious computer program with a hyphenated name. The words might be "Setting" or "Plot" or "Simple Division". -- There are no problems to work through. There is nothing to correct. There IS an expectation that we, as parents, sign the sheets so that we can acknowledge that our child has been adequately tested and that her knowledge (or lack thereof) is well documented and communicated.

Welcome to modern education.
End Interlude

I have talked about these issues a lot, most recently discussing parents getting tutors for their kindergarten children and analytics/data experts admitting that the field is in its predictive infancy and not the great evaluator that is claimed by charter-school/textbook sponsored educational reformers. While Indiana is not as bad as some other states (a friend of mine describe 40+ days of standardized testing complete with audits from state officials - cringe), the entire enterprise of education is now dictated by A-F ratings for schools, standardized outcomes on assessments, dehumnaizing software that "individualizes" for students while removing that messy contact with other human beings, and using the disparate systems to pass judgement on the effectiveness of individual educators without much care toward the impact of poverty, parents, or other causality.

When I was able to meet Tony Bennett at a parent education meeting, he was open to discussing teacher evaluation by student test score, but ultimately ended the discussion with "well, we have to do something" -- it was an odd acknowledgment that there were flaws while simultaneously holding onto this particular idea as the last hope.

What happened? An Outsider's Explanation

Bennett had more name recognition, more money, and was a republican incumbent in a Republican state. Simply, this was no contest. And for the better part of the election season, that is how Ritz played it.

There were no TV commercials. Few ads in general. Just a teacher visiting schools. Meanwhile, Bennett played a completely positive in-the-spotlight campaign right out of the front-runner playbook.

What I noticed was that about two weeks before election day, teachers began flipping profile pictures to the "Ritz4edu" logo. The other thing that I noticed was that teachers were talking about what was happening in the classroom. They were sharing the pressure of a looming school letter grade that led administrators to remove project that encouraged collaboration or critical thinking -- those things aren't on the standardized test. They shared the evaluation systems that looked less at how a teacher interacted with a struggling student and more about whether the state standards of the day were written on the board. They shared the obscure use of single-data-points to draw conclusions about students as if they were scores in a video game and not snapshots of the responses of a human being.

They shared with friends and family, people who had kids in school and people who's kids went to school before test-prep had become the watchword.

...and people listened.

The conservative pundit on WTHR quickly fell to an attack on the Indiana teacher's union. "They want this bad," he grimaced. But this wasn't a movement of union drones -- public and private teachers, union supporters and people who had burned by the unions' classic last-hired/first-fired policies, even conservative teachers -- it was a compelling stand. Because of the timing of this move and its truly grassroots, social media nature, there was neither the time nor the inclination to bring more outside money to bear. Even news stations who were all too willing to proclaim the number of tweets-per-minute the election generated seemed absolutely unaware that this ground campaign was being conducted.

When the final numbers came in, it was clear that this was not just a teacher revolt (although, to be fair, if there were THAT many teachers, we would not have any issues with class size). People who voted for Romney, and Pence, and maybe even Murdock were splitting off the ticket to vote for Ritz.

Tuesday night was a great night for classroom teachers.

But three days have passed...

(Part two will be posted tomorrow with predictions, warnings, and a call to action)

Designing for #DigCit -- an #ICE2012 Presentation

What a great conference. Indiana Computer Educators is an annual gathering of tech-geeks and teach-geeks from around the state and elsewhere. I will probably blog some reflections soon, but first I wanted to get this posted.

The @40ishoracle and I presented on Professional Development, specifically our open, education centered format in the BYOT environment.

We also presented on the Digital Citizenship program that is our required Freshman Computer Applications Course. The presentation that we used is here:

As always, we welcome your feedback and questions. This was new presentation for us and we are always looking for ways to improve. Don't forget to leave feedback, follow the blogs, and say "Hi" to us on Twitter :)

On stopwatches, Fairness & Testscores: We Trained Them Well

Student: "Can you just give me the 'book' answer?"
Me: "We don't use a book in this class"
Student: "You are exasperating."

The @40ishoracle and I have had an running theme for the last few weeks. My approach from the student perspective and hers from the teachers. We have decided to write duelling blogs on the topic of "We have trained them well." Read her reflection on teachers here.

Vignette 1: Missed Opportunities

I want to start with one of my favorite teachers. He is a strong presence in the classroom who creates an environment where students feel comfortable exploring complicated questions of faith, justice, and religion. He is typically recognized by excellent students as one of the strongest teachers they have had.  He sees his calling as one of planting seeds, equipping students with thoughts and skills that may be used years down the road.

During lunch one day, he described a day in his classroom. A student was sharing a reflection, showing a video. The teacher said the context, presentation, and subject matter were visually and emotionally moving. Yet as he looked at the classroom, his students were disengaged. They were not being rude. There was no doodling, or sleeping, or gaming, or surfing. Just a strong detachment from the moment and the opportunity they had been given to experience something profound. It was disappointing for this teacher who has had a rough time with freshman this year.

Vignette 2: Claim Analysis Project

Students use collaborative notetaking to capture ideas
from discussion  complete with comments

One of the primary skills in the Digital Citizenship class (#digcit) is the development of information analysis skills. As the media becomes more and more biased and social media allows us to live in echo chambers of our own making (see the original post on the PLNs or the #theatershooting analysis), it is important for students to be able to dissect news and opinion pieces for grains of truth and boulders of bias.

Assignment: Students took two articles from the first issue of the student newspaper: one news, one op-ed. The students were given five minutes to read one of the articles and reflect on the following:

• do you believe the information given in the article?
• what is it about the article or the context that makes you trust (or distrust) the information?

Students were then put into groups of three to share their reflections. It was at that moment that I began to notice that this lesson was not going to go as planned.

One group, the most vocal and active, sat in a straight line. They were discussing, but clearly not engaged in the assignment. It was a factual exchange of information that scratched the surface. More disturbing was the group of students who sat silently with their heads down staring blankly at the news-article. -- silence.

When I prompted them to interact, "The next step is to share what you three are discussing...you might want to, you know, discuss", one of the students looked at me and said, "I don't understand."

"Did you believe what is being stated in the article?" [Task Comprehension]

"I don't know"

"Ok. What is your gut feeling? Accurate or not?" [Start at the basics and build]

"I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think the article is accurate?"

"Why does that matter? I want to see how you processed the information." [Technically I should have gone with another question, but I was getting a that tickly feeling teachers sometimes get -- this could be important]

"I don't want to be wrong. It is not fair for you to ask us a question that we do not know the answer too. You already know the answer. You are just being mean."

There it was. 

And two other students nodded.

The lesson went...ok. By the end of class, students were able to identify the difference between a CLAIM being made and the DATA or ANALYSIS that might show that a claim is indeed true. But that look of helplessness stuck with me.

A Reflection

This year's Freshmen were in kindergarten one year after I left the public school system. While there were a number of reasons I left (one of which was a starry-eyed dream that I would be a stay-at-home Dad and read comicbooks to my baby all day long), part of it was a growing dissatisfaction with test-culture. I taught remedial English to students who had already failed the state exit exam and where preparing to take it a second, third, or fourth time.

Students in the #digcit class due a sorting activity to
identify best sources for  research

I remember long discussion with my wife (then in medical residency) about the dichotomy of this teaching assignment. If I could teach them to think and communicate effectively, to provide a base-level of understanding, they would have a good shot at passing the exam, but there were years of apathy and a ton of factors beyond my control. However, if I went straight for the test -- drilled vocabulary, taught a formulaic writing system that graders (or auto-graders) would be able to checklist through quickly, taught ways to game the natural flaws in a testing system -- I was pretty sure most of the kids would have a good shot at passing.

I tried it both ways. At the end of the "test prep" semester, I was told by the administration that they wanted me to have a training session with other teachers on how I had taught so many kids so well -- 80% pass rate. That was the writing on the wall for my tenure in public schools

Vignette 3: The Magic Formula

A student working on an essay assignment had gathered all of the information for the paper. As students began writing rough drafts, a number of hands went into the air:
"How many sentences have to be in a paragraph?"
"Does the thesis have to be at the end of the third paragraph?"
"I am writing my outline first. What do you want to read in paragraph two?"

The communication aspect of the essay was lost. This was not informative or persuasive. This was writing by formula. As the questions continued and the answers were clearly not "8 sentences" or "Yes", the students began sharing their experience in other classes and at other schools. They described teachers who set arbitrary minimums as a quick way to encourage depth and critical thinking or a formulaic structure as a surefire ways to pass the standardized test (cold chills went through my spine). What struck me was that students had internalized the rules without understanding the reasoning -- the goal was to think deeply, not to churn out eight complete phrases.

We have trained them well

The mantra for the last few weeks as @40ishoracle and I have been discussing with teachers, students, and our twitter PLNs is, "We have trained them well"

• We have trained students that there is one correct answer
• We have trained students that the one correct answer is known by the teacher and/or the test grader
• We have trained them that there is (usually) a simple formula for determining that answer - a process to solve the problem, a structure for an essay, a list of terms to memorize.

We train them by showing them a video that walks through the steps of solving a problem but does not explain why those steps lead to the solution. We train them when they are taught that a science experiment is following the step-by-step guide of a demonstration. We train them with worksheets, one-answer textbooks questions, and tests...lots of tests.

The stopwatch is not the race. Certainly not the runner. Test Insanity #edchat #antitest - Tutors for kindergartenerswashingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-s…
— JD Ferries-Rowe (@jdferries) September 21, 2012

At the point that parents are hiring tutors to help kids with the testing in Kindergarten, the time has come to revisit the system. One of the businessmen that we work with has recognized this need as well. He puts it succinctly: "We are reaping what we have sown". 15 years ago businesses were calling for graduates who could communicate effectively, work well with teams, and work independently without a heavy hand guiding them each step of the way. 15 years later, the American Associations of College and Universities points out that things have not changed all that much:

1. The ability to work well in teams—especially with people different from yourself
   
2. An understanding of science and technology and how these subjects are used in real-world settings
   
3. The ability to write and speak well
   
4. The ability to think clearly about complex problems
   
5. The ability to analyze a problem to develop workable solutions
   
6. An understanding of global context in which work is now done
   
7. The ability to be creative and innovative in solving problems
   
8. The ability to apply knowledge and skills in new settings
   
9. The ability to understand numbers and statistics
   
10. A strong sense of ethics and integrity 

What has changed is our approach to education. In pursuit of these goals (or in pursuit of unstated goals such as cost-savings or opening the educational marketplace), we have developed a system that substitutes opportunities for reflection and teamwork with additional assessments. These assessments to not promote problem analysis or creative solutions -- they look for formulaic methods that give a single scorable answer.

Just read number 8 and think about the student who called lesson was "unfair".

When Yong Zhao presented to the educators and technologists at the  ISTE12 Keynote, he noted that while America obsesses over global test scores, the rest of the world is busy working on creating innovated geniuses: problem solvers, creators, communicators -- those things that have traditionally kept the U.S ahead of the technology and industry game despite high labor costs, lower population numbers, and bad test scores (remember, the US has never excelled in standardized testing worldwide).

But there is hope:

• Math classes that give the answers to the homework but look to the students' process to arrive at that answer.
• #Flipclass and No-homework programs that de-emphasize content transfer and emphasize the rich interaction that are capable in a classroom the individualizes and provides opportunity for collaboration
• The growing number of #digcit and #byot programs that emphasize processing and problem solving as well as information literacy and communications. As these systems replace push-button training classes, students are exposed to more opportunities to identify and solve problems rather than follow a pre-selected path to a single answer.
• History and Social Studies classes that are rejecting textbook summaries of events in exchange for time spent interpreting and analyzing history through primary source and historical documents.
• Schools with a mission to educate and form the whole person rather than force an unnatural separation by subject areas.

But these hopeful techniques and movements are a gamble. Because if "success" is designated by a score on a standardized test, rather than the development of creativity and innovation, then we run the risk of denigrating the best programs in favor of "test-prep" environments. Worse, we are creating a system that measures students, rewards teachers, and honors school systems for creating students that do not have the skills that we want in either our well-informed citizenry or our innovative workforce.

Its time for the student-based-objective to focus primarily on the student.

Its time to focus on the race and runners and not the stopwatch.

Its time to stop training and start teaching.