Thanksgiving policies, technology, and higher education

This week is Thanksgiving in the US. In the past, Thanksgiving had a special place in the hearts of Americans, especially as we became a mobile nation. It was the day when people would go back to their hometowns, families, and communities. But last year, the envelope was pressed and Thanksgiving became a day when retail establishments decided they could force workers to report to work. This year there are even more. However, for college students, higher education policies over the last decade has slowly been disintegrating the importance of the holiday also.

Higher Education and Thanksgiving in the Past

Some might contend that there has been no change in the policy for attending classes the week of Thanksgiving. Yes, as an undergraduate, I had classes until Tuesday (although it was usually Tuesday at noon). But to understand the current issues, it is important to understand the changes to Higher Education since the 1980's.

During the 1990's two things changed in Higher Education: the merging of "continuing education" or "night school" with the traditional undergraduate schedule and the "nationalization" of higher education. The impact of allowing traditional students to take courses at night and soon the desolving of two different systems (one for "working" students and one for "full-time students" meant that now there were night classes ending at 10:00 PM. In the past "commuter" or local "continuing education" students would be available for Tuesday night classes while traditional students who may not be local would have travel time.

Another thing that impacted the educational system was the recruiting of students from outside of the local market. This happened in the 1990's when the demographics of college age students changed to a smaller population to draw from. In addition, US News and World Report changed the basis for assessing and categorizing colleges. Now smaller colleagues could gain status by drawing students from around the US and internationally, moving from "Regional" to "National" colleges. National colleges continue to have more status than regional. However, nationalizing your student population means that students need more time to get back home for holidays such as Thanksgiving. Many of these colleges, however, have not made adjustments to their policies or schedules that consider the new profile of their students.

Problems and Solutions

How did (does) this affect Thanksgiving? It used to be that classes ended in plenty of time for students to travel back to their home towns. However, when night classes were opened up to traditional students a number of problems resulted.

These problems can be resolved with some simple policy changes:

1. Problem: Tuesday classes that meet once a week. If students miss the class they miss a week's worth of instruction. There is a real problem with accreditors and even some students that want their money's worth.

Solution 1: Schedule classes to end for Thanksgiving on Monday. There are plenty of Monday holidays that this will not result in too many Monday classes if the school year is extended to add a Tuesday class at the end of the schedule.

Solution 2: Allow for alternative instruction. I usually have an online class the week before Thanksgiving. My students who are on a train (and soon on a plane) or waiting for transportation, many of them with G5 mobile phones with access anywhere, can participate live. Those who don't have access during class time can go to a library and participate before or after the class. I have a colleague that has one on one meetings with students during the week of Thanksgiving. If students need to leave earlier, they can make an appointment for that meeting the week BEFORE Thanksgiving during her office hours. There still is the same amount of contact hours, however, it is not in a classroom. These are very useful for her students because they discuss research work they are doing. In both of these cases, it is important that an instructor document (i.e. save online interactions, save sign up sheets for "tutoral") that the same time was spent on instruction.

2. Problem: Students who have to leave early due to travel will miss classes. Other students will take advantage of it and it means the professor is teaching to an empty classroom.

Solution 1: Allow for alternative instruction (see above). Online classes that are set up well can have just as much of an impact as face to face and requires the same effort by an instructor.

Solution 2: Institute a policy in which students CANNOT be penalized for missing class the week of Thanksgiving. This means no tests can be administered and credit cannot be taken away due to absence. My daughter had a letter grade taken away from her final grade because she had to be picked up early due to the storms this week. My son received a 0 on an oral test which he was not allowed to make up because the only ticket he could be home before dorms closed was during the class where the oral exam was being given. I have heard faculty brag that they had almost full attendance except for the students who lived in the snow belt of upstate New York. It was too bad that they missed the exams, but they made the decision to leave early (despite the closing of roads later that night)so would not be allowed to make it up.

Solution 3: School has a process to get clearance for travel during this week. Students that live far away which requires travel earlier in the week or road conditions that will be unfavorable will be cleared by an administrator.

Solution 4: Students can be rewarded for attending classes the week of Thanksgiving. I know of many teachers who will give the answers to exam questions on the day before Thanksgiving or students get extra credit for the assignments they do in class during the week of Thanksgiving. This puts the responsibility of attending on the student. While the student is not penalized for going home early, the student that stays is rewarded.

3. Problem: Students need to leave less than 24 hours after their last class. This is especially problematic for those who have night classes as they may need to travel during the night when driving difficult or they may not be able to get a ticket for mass transportation because of the demands during Thanksgiving.

Solution 1: My son goes to a Big 10 school (which like all Big 10 schools are in the middle of nowhere with limited transportation options) a 6 hour drive away from our home. He had a choice of leaving before his exam (which he was not allowed to make up) or leave the next day by 10:00 AM. The problem was that would not give us time to pick him up. He also would have to wait outside for 5 hours between the time his bus left and he had to be out of his dorm. Last year the policy changed because there was a football game scheduled. Students had until 5:00 the next day to leave their dorms. The solution then should be to either give students 24 hours after the last class has ended to get picked up or find a common area where students can wait/get food/go to the bathroom before they need to leave.

Solution 2: End classes on Monday or the Friday before Thanksgiving. This makes it possible for families to pick up children without taking time off from work and/or more options for traveling. Likewise, dorms should open on Saturday afternoon to allow for students coming from long distances to return in time for classes on Monday. Giving a small window to return means students may not be able to make it back to campus on time.

Impact on Change of Policy

The goal of these changes are to reconcile the needs of administrators, faculty, students, parents, and accreditors. Colleges and Universities need to stay current to the changes in their environment and demographic make up. Parents don't want to get involved, but they are a factor in many undergraduates' lives. Many help pay the bills, pick up students or make travel arrangements, and need to coordinate their own schedules with that of their children. Likewise, faculty and administrators need to deliver instruction being accountable to accrediting organizations, government, parents, and students. With some tweeking of policies, all stakeholders can be accommedated.

Finally, Thanksgiving, more than any other holiday, has a great impact on students. This is a time to reenergize, reconnect, and prepare for the transition back home for the Winter Break. For many students, it will be the only vacation they have as they will work or study during the 4-5 weeks of Winter Break. For the family, especially those who live a considerable distance from their children's colleges, this is the first time they will have been together as a family. While there are those who would like to minimize the importance of Thanksgiving to just the day before Black Friday, the majority of the country still values Thanksgiving as a day for family, however you define family.

Happy Thanksgiving.

The Mobile Professor

One thing that #acwrimo has done is to remind me to blog my research ideas and insights as I'm developing them. With that in mind, I've decided to talk about some new research I am considering. Many of the ideas are still in the early stages, but the more I read and participate in online groups, the more I'm convinced this is research that needs to be done.

The Mobile Adjunct

Currently, I am involved in #adjunctchat, a community that meets on twitter at Tuesdays at 4:00 PM, New York time. This is open to anyone in the world who is interested in contingent faculty issues, either as a researcher, an administrator, faculty friend of contingent instructors, or (of course) an instructor that works in a temporary position, full-time or part-time, long-term contract or short-term contract, for one university or multiple, by choice or by necessity.

Recently, we had one of our followers suggest that we discuss online contingent faculty issues. We also have discussed controlling the adjunct's work environment. In many cases, adjuncts either share office space, don't have office space, or work in a virtual office, connecting with colleagues, administrators, or students online.

My own officemate teaches at two different universities, resulting in managing her resources, physical and virtual, between two distinct university cultures (one school is a large public research university with a high level of diversity, the other is a world renowned technical university with many international students, but little diversity). At times, there have been some comical mix ups as she has arrived at school with the wrong resources for the class she is about to teach. She is not as open to new technology, but she does rely on a netbook to access student records, courses resources, and student communication.

The Personal Communication Society

Yesterday, while reading an article I am writing for contribution to a book a colleague is working on, I came across Campbell and Park's (2008) idea of personal mobile communication. They point out that research indicates that people communicating using mobile devices in a public place, in fact don't necessarily perceive the conversation private (they are in a public place), but rather as personal.

This distinction is important because people become uncomfortable if they are forced to hear a personal conversation in a public place, trying not to ease drop or infringe on those who are in the middle of a personal conversation in a public place. In addition, Rettie's (2008) research suggests that there are different ways in which devises are used depending on the level of intimacy between people using mobile devises. The deeper level of intimacy, the more likely communication in a public space and time will be disguised.

In other words, communication perceived as deeply personal can still be conducted in public spaces, but some type of code will be used to allow for personal interaction (e.g. teens using texting and abbreviations when parents or other friends are in the room). There may also be signals given that an interaction should be conducted in private (i.e. change in location or devise) in which the interaction may not be personal. An example of this would be taking a business call in a restaurant.

By separating personal from private, I was able to understand a phenomenon my students and I noticed last year. My students interacted on facebook differently depending on what devise they used. While the privacy settings were the same for computer and mobile technology, they were more familiar (slang, communicated on topics in a way that was less socially acceptable, swearing)on mobile devises than when they communicated on a desk top computer.

It is possible that young adults perceive mobile technology, as Campbell and Park suggest, as more personal, resulting in a more intimate register. This would also explain the dichotomy between published incidences of sexting, uploading of socially unaccepted behavior on youtube, and cyberbullying against Pew's findings that American youth are concerned about their privacy. Pew pointed out this dichotomy in their report saying to teens managed their privacy while also sharing more personal information online.

While I have been looking for data (primary research reports and journal articles) on mobile technology use that supports Campbell and Park's theory, Rettie is the only one that I have found so far that begins to address this dichotomy. One reason is that it may be difficult to operationalize private and personal.

Researching the Mobile Professor

So, combining my interest in contingent and temporary employees, and my current interest in mobile technology, I have decided to create a research agenda looking at mobile devise use of adjuncts/contingent faculty. My first research will be on private, public, and personal in mobile communications. This is especially important for adjunct faculty who may have to use their own personal devises to communicate with students, and at the same time have federal laws that require their interactions be private. However, faculty that do not have private physical spaces to interact with students will need to carve out a public space that allows for personal interaction or personal interaction that needs to be conducted in private spaces such as a car or online space.

Part of the conditions that add (or negatively impact) an adjunct is his or her social network. Therefore, it would be interesting to understand what social networks adjuncts create and how they maintain them. For example, now with mobile technology, adjuncts can create more permanent relationships with their students without a close intimacy. Likewise, as an adjunct leaves a position for a semester, are they better able to maintain professional relationships with administrators? With the potential of mobile technology creating sociomental communities (Chayko, 2007), why aren't adjuncts better socialized within departments or the universities? Are adjuncts now being heard because they are creating sociomental communities because they are being forced to interact with mobile devices? Related to this would be determining how adjuncts find each other (which has been a problem with unionizing specific campuses).

By starting with these questions in looking at contingent faculty and mobile technology, I will be able to then extend this research into all types of temporary and/or contingent workers including consultants (private and government), emergency workers (including local government, hospital, utility, national guard, first responders), temporary or seasonal workers, and per diam workers (nurses, teachers, laborers).

Resources

Mary Chayko (2007). The portable community: envisioning and examining mobile social connectedness. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3 (4), 373-385.

Scott W. Campbell and Jong Jin Park (2008). Social Implications of Mobile Telephony: The Rise of Personal Communication Society. Sociology Compass, 2 (2) 371-387.

Ruth Rettie (2008). Mobile Phones as Network Capital: Facilitating Connections. Mobilities, 3(2), 291-311.

No child left behind, but the teaching profession trashed

Imagine being an oncologist or hospice healthcare provider and being told that you will be evaluated on how many patients die. If many die, you will be fired.

What does this have to do with education? Well, according to NPR, the president wants to extend no child left behind legislation and to include a provision for states to develop ways to evaluate teachers.

Let's begin with the NCLB. This was legislation that, while good intentioned, changed our educational system from one of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking to one of testing and numbers. As long as your children "pass the test", they have been educated. Likewise, students that can't pass the test are not educated. As a college professor, I can't tell you how many of my students have high SAT scores, test well, and yet flounder in my class. My teaching style is strong on analysis (many have not been taught how to analyze, come to their own conclusions, support their analysis, and--where they really fail--convince others of their ideas). In fact, some of my brightest students have entered college using an alternative method (starting non-matriculated, excelling in their profession and then going back to college, or community college first) when they did not "test" well.

In 1968, France was finally pushed to move from an educational system that tested from the cradle as it was found to be ineffective and unfair. It put too much stress on young children and made education elitist so that those with the means would rise to the top. How many innovations do you think came out of France in the 1960's. How many innovations came out of the US from the educational system many felt was too "touchy/feely" (think of the high tech industry and when those innovators were educated in the 1960's, 70's and early 80's)?

If NCLB is passed, however, (which will be the only way states can get federal dollars for education), the new provision for teacher evaluation will go into place. Which leads me to wonder where politicians have been for the last century. Have you never heard of teaching licenses? How is this different than a doctor's license? If a teacher has been found guilty of an impropriety, their license is taken away!!!!!!!!!!!! So why must we now put an additional "benchmark" on teachers? Children are people, just like patients are people. Some people die because they are sick and no medicine will help them. This does not mean that healthcare providers aren't trying to make them well. Likewise, some students will not achieve the lofty learning goals especially when a child may not have hit the maturity to reach those goals or they are dealing with issues such as malnutrition, poor healthcare, and lack of housing. This does not mean they will not make progress, just that they won't achieve the "benchmarks" outlined by politicians that know nothing about child development (or poverty or homelessness for the most part).

On the surface, this evaluation sounds good (again, why do we need it when we have licenses). However, in NY state, the teacher's union, administrators, and general public negotiated a formula in which test scores were included but did not amount to a major percentage. The board of regents, which overseas educational policy in NY, totally ignored this and set their own policy putting a substantial weight on test scores.

So why would I want to be teacher in NY state? Teachers in NY state make less than stockbrokers, nurses, lawyers, engineers, and many entertainers, yet they are responsible for raising our children, many times from before age 5 and after age 16, the required legal age for children to attend school in the US. They currently are required to have 2 masters in order to teach high school (one in their subject area and one in education) along with 200 hours every two years in additional training. They are not allowed by law to strike so many times they are forced to work without a contract. They are, in essence, powerless. And yet, when there is a raise in taxes, the teacher's union is blamed for the cost of education. How can that be? Isn't it possible that it is the unfunded mandates that push up the price of education?

It is time that we start looking at our society and stop trashing the profession of education. We have mechanisms in place (licensing requirements) that should be enforced for teachers that are not working. I don't always agree with my daughter's teachers, and I need to negotiate/speak to them to understand the situation. There does not need to be law for that. Please repeal NCLB and stop "evaluating" teachers who are evaluated on a daily basis by administrators, colleagues, parents, and students.

Knowledge as currency

I currently am working on the theme that knowledge and expertise is used as currency within the workplace (as part of my dissertation). As I have been analyzing the data from my study, I realized that knowledge and expertise used as currency needs to be identifiable.

This got me to thinking about "identifiable knowledge." Notice I don't say tacit or explicit knowledge. The reason is that knowledge that can be turned into currency might be explicit, but expertise can be identifiable, yet be based upon tacit knowledge. So, by identifiable, knowledge and expertise needs to be identified by both those who have and don't have the knowledge or expertise, need to take a form (finished product, process, written documentation, behavior) that both tracks and measures the knowledge and expertise, and needs to be located in a central place or depository (i.e. computer, file cabinet, employee, group, or department) where it can be accessed.

The value of knowledge

As I mentioned before, I am still thinking through many of these ideas for my dissertation. One factor that keeps coming up in my analysis of this theme is the value of expertise and knowledge. There might be expertise, there might be knowledge. However, when knowledge and expertise is being used as currency, then there needs to be value attached to it by the "consumers" of knowledge and expertise. In the US, that currency has become even more important as the current intellectual property laws place a great economic focus on expertise and knowledge.

Who values the knowledge and expertise? According to Friere, that would be those in position of power. And as long as they are able to devalue knowledge and expertise that might threaten their authority, valued knowledge and expertise will be the currency of education.

What does this mean? It means that concrete knowledge, concrete processes, and knowledge and expertise that is sanctioned by those in power will be the basis for someone to be successful in our culture. Thus, welcome the testing and standardized educational system. As much as the media, policy makers, and politicians extort the "new skills" businesses need for our country to continue to improve in the world economy, what they are really saying is that they need a different currency (different knowledge and expertise than what is already out there). That currency will constantly be changing depending on the needs of the economy. But the system will still be the same in which those with valued expertise and knowledge (at the time) will have the ability to use that currency while those with devalued knowledge and expertise (outdated, undervalued by those in power) will need to follow the dictates of those in power (the market).

New educational model

So as I play the currency game and get credentials that I hoped would be valued, I now find that (as has happened my whole life), my expertise now is no longer valued in our economy/culture. There are no jobs for those who have an understanding of the international knowledge economy, that can teach foreign language and cross cultural communication skills, that can improve team management skills, no jobs for those that can teach better communication or writing skills, no jobs for those in adult and online instructional design (as opposed to technical jobs for elearning of which there are many jobs), and no jobs to create a new educational system.

Whereas my expertise 7 years ago when I started the Ph.D program was in demand, now it is assumed that all faculty are able to integrate technology into their teaching.

But here is the rub: there is a lot of knowledge and expertise that 1)cannot be measured, 2) is lost when it is made into something identifiable, 3) does not ad value, 4) exists but has yet to find value, and 5) is distributed.

This means that the classes that I planned for this week (as I do every week) does not have perceived value, especially in this point in time. My students don't see the amount of preparation I put into the planning of the class, aligning learning goals with class activities. It is hard to measure the amount of time I take thinking about my course and how I can teach it so the students may be able to use the skill and their experience in the future when they are faced with a similar situation.

I have also found that those within my study group who are the most successful are those that know how to identify valued knowledge to multiple groups, how to access resources, knowledge, and expertise when needed, and are flexible in the way in which they align their work with others goals. These are the skills we should be teaching our students. If we continue to focus on the currency of their future rather than how to create currency and use it, then we will end up with a stagnant economy. We will also continue to lose expertise and new knowledge as has happened throughout the ages to those with ideas before their time.

A new model for Higher Education

I recently read two good blog posts about higher education: one by Clark Quinn and the other by Andy Cloverdale. In both posts they point out the need for change in the way that education is provided at the University and the way instructors/professors are trained to teach in the University.

This and the extreme budget cuts to our university in the face of rising enrollments got me thinking about the call for "reform" in how our universities are run in the US today.

Current system in the US

To understand what we are up against in the US, it is important to understand the model of education as it currently stands in the US. Our current system is based on a belief that the ultimate goal of education is to become an expert (which was redefined as "specialist" in the 1980's) in a specific field of study. In other words, the Ph.d. holds all knowledge about a content area, thus making them an "expert".

After a broad basic education at high school (secondary school), a person is expected to learn the basic requirements of functioning in our society (through understanding our culture through the study of history, literature, and social studies, to basic written communication skills through the study of language arts, to basic calculation skills through the study of math, to the understanding of our environment, health. and work processes through the study of science). This is the ideal.

What used to be called Junior College but is now called Community College has developed into two tracks: the first is vocational and advanced technical training to meet the needs of an educated workforce (but not management), especially those in manufacturing and the service industry, whereas the second is the preparation for those underprepared or not able to afford a university or college education. In the second case, students are expected to take a broad range of courses across disciplines. In the first case, students are expected to become proficient in a given skill or discipline. However, in our current model of community college education, those that finish community college (usually with an associate's degree) do not hold expertise even if they have specialized in an area. Rather, they are able to work with the experts and/or gain expertise as they work within the discipline.

The current model for undergraduate education is 2 years of general education courses (also known as gen ed or core courses) from categories of disciplines (i.e. quantitative studies, language and arts, culture, social sciences, man and environment, etc...). Then a student will specialize or "major" or "minor" in a field. The traditional majors and minors normally fall into humanities, social sciences, applied sciences, natural sciences, liberal arts, or professional schools (pre-law, pre-med, education, accounting, etc...). Each major normally has a dedicated faculty consisting of tenured and/or full-time professors and adjunct, part-time, or student instructors. In the last two decades, "interdisciplinary" majors consist of faculty drawn from different majors. Tuition flows into the traditional majors to sustain faculty positions and support staff. The interdisciplinary major ends up being "gravy" (extra money) as there is no support staff or dedicated instructors for these majors.

One problem with the interdisciplinary majors (which I suffered at both the undergraduate and graduate level since both of my degrees were interdisciplinary) is that many of the required courses for these interdisciplinary majors are cut during budget crisis because they are perceived as "electives" within the traditional majors. The result is that required courses for interdisciplinary majors are cut and students in these majors are unable to complete their course work in a timely manor. This has just happened with a course I have taught in our major. It now is a part of Public Policy, an interdisciplinary major. Normally the course is offered either every 2 or 3 semesters, depending on the faculty interest. But now that it is part of another major, the demand for the course has increased. It is possible that I will need to teach it more often or if I leave, it won't be offered at all (we are short staffed within the Communication Dept. for our department's required courses as it is).

Once students leave with a Bachelor's degree, at the end of their college experience, they are expected to have a certain cache of skills and abilities that will make them employable. As a result, more and more colleges are basing their curriculum on employer needs (i.e. computer program specific, accounting law specific, ability to be licensed or certified in a field). The college graduate, in other words, will bring away from the college, the content they will need in the work place.

At the Master and Ph.d. level, students are expected to drill down to one area of expertise, that area being specific to the field of study they are pursuing. Graduate studies are based on the expertise of the faculty in a program/ field of study. In our department (Communication), for example our programs focus on Healthcare communication, political communication, and interpersonal communication. Other schools of communication might focus on mass communication, written communication, speech communication and disorders, intercultural communication, communication strategy, organizational communication, communication technology, etc... Many graduate schools try to build up a reputation in a marketable area. They will hire new faculty to reflect trends in specialties and encourage tenured faculty to change their expertise through grant writing support and research funding. A department that does not bring in funding (either through research, grants, or student tuition) usually will have programs or entire departments cut from the university.

Impact of this model on the Current Higher Ed System

This business model of Higher Education does not connect with the educational needs of the 21st century. As our economy and society moves into the knowledge economy, CONTENT is not as important as understanding how to find, interpret, analyze, and update content/expertise. Companies may be looking for specific content from their graduates, but what they need are employees that have critical thinking and reading, communication, analytic, information literacy, technology literacy, creativity, and collaboration skills. These skills might manifest themselves in different ways within different disciplines, but for the most part they can be found in all fields. As a result, it is important that those at the upper end of higher education (Master, Ph.d.), be prepared to cross the traditional disciplines to understand how each functions within a certain field of study.

Likewise, the internet has made content available on a mass basis, whereas it was limited to the university, publishing houses, depositories (such as libraries), and management before social networking. Access to information is not as important as knowing how to find that information and what to do with it when it is found. "Expertise" can be found outside of those trained and educated in the discipline, thus making the expert professor obsolete. The result is a need for professors that can teach, mentor, and develop life-long learning skills, something that was limited to graduate students in the past.

With the focus on new skills over content and access to expertise and content outside of the university, the current system of testing for content and expertise is lacking. There needs to be a deeper level of assessment that objective tests don't access.

Finally, the current process of appropriating funding based on a major or program will limit education to those areas dictated by market needs and tradition. New ideas will not be funded nor will more imaginative, ground breaking approaches to learning and application of student learning. As education becomes more costly, students and stakeholders expect more with less resources, and education is in greater demand from populations that would not have thought of higher education a generation ago, the current system is not meeting the needs (economically or educationally) of the US society.

A new model

With this in mind, I'd like to propose a new model for higher education in the US.

1) The curriculum of higher ed should change focus from general to specific to one of having students work on a specific area they are interested in in order to learn life long learning skills such as critical reading, self-direction, information literacy, technology literacy, communication skills, and collaboration skills. What if freshman were to start their education with a research project, rather than waiting at the end of their 4 years to bring everything together. They would learn the basic skills needed to learn in any profession. This would allow them to work in smaller groups, to be mentored by an educational specialist, and given the ability to work on those areas where they might be lacking. At the Master and Ph.d level, students would be expected to move in and out of various disciplines, learning in a complex system rather than limiting their learning to just one area. There would not be Ph.d. departments but rather one Ph.d. program in which students worked with faculty in multiple settings doing research in multiple disciplines. This would require a much higher level of thinking and abstraction, creating Ph.d's that could work solving society's problems outside of the unnatural boundaries of academic departments. Many are already doing this.

2) Funding would be a combination of educational professionals (with Ph.d's in a variety of disciplines, but training in learning theory for adults), learning centers, research centers, and learning support services (i.e. collaboration, written and spoken communication, critical reading and writing skills, quantitative research methodology and analysis, project based learning and scientific problem solving, etc...).

3) Learning and degree granting would be based on a portfolio of work and oral examinations rather than a testing of "content". In fact, the use of computers to identify content would be encouraged for the assessment tests rather than excluded from the process. My Ph.d. program does this now. We are given some articles to analyze and then given an oral exam based on our analysis. The topic can be anything related to education whether we are interested in it or not, have learned about it or not. We are given 3 weeks to prepare a paper and then defend it to a committee. Not only are they testing our understanding of the field, they are testing our ability to learn something new in a short time, to find resources to support this learning, to collaborate with colleagues when we don't understand something, and then to present a view point and support it appropriately.

These are just some ideas I have been kicking around. I am sure there are others who have better and more creative ideas. But one thing is for sure, the system will need to change if we are going to keep up with the changes and needs of society.

The discussion about US education

Recently, there has been a national discussion of education in the US within our media. NBC and the Oprah Winfrey Show both had programs about education in the last two weeks. The final verdict: tenure is the reason our schools are failing and the responsibility of education is in the teachers' hands alone (they must be accountable for failing schools).

I look at part of this as a result of the charter school movement and a movement to break up teachers unions to bring down costs of education. After watching programs on NBC and the Oprah Winfrey school, I think it is important that misinformation that was spouted by such experts as Bill Gates and Mayor Bloomberg (both businessmen first) need to be addressed.

1) Tenure is NOT automatically given to teachers, as both of these men contended on TV. First, tenure requirements vary from state to state and even school district to school district. In New York State, a board of education needs to grant tenure to a teacher. Some school districts won't look at tenure until someone has worked for 4 years. Others will grant tenure after a year. Many of us know of teachers that have not been granted tenure, sometimes even for just political reasons. The purpose of the tenure system is to ensure academic integrity. I find it ironic that Oprah's program discussed with horror the difficulty of firing a teacher who was incompetent (who was eventually fired once she went through a set out process, but that took about a year) while about 10 years ago she had a program about a teacher who was forced to change a failing grade to students who had blatantly plagiarized. The threat of being fired because someone in power has his or her own agenda means that a teacher could be forced to teach something that might be scientifically unbased. This happened to teachers who refused to teach a curriculum they believed was religiously based rather than scientifically based. Because of tenure, these teachers had the ability to keep their jobs and fight a small group of powerful people in their community.

2) Charter schools vary from state to state. I am actually a supporter of charter schools, as long as they must follow the same rules as the public schools and they offer something different to a population that cannot be met in a traditional public school. There is research that some states have a very effective charter school system that has improved the overall state education system (Wisconsin and Oregon). However, I do not believe that ANY company should be profiting from the government (charter schools should be non-for-profit). Also, charter schools should not have a religious or political agenda (they need to follow the same rules as a traditional public school). On Oprah, charter schools were touted as THE cure for education. However, I see this as throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are some good schools and some bad. We need a variety of models that will fit different communities, cultures, resources, and values.

3) The fact is that a smaller class size will result in more effective learning. Likewise, students who do not live in poverty and/or have literate parents do better in school. The current No Child Left Behind "accountability" focus on standardized testing in which a teacher is responsible if a child does not pass a test is an inaccurate measure of effectiveness.

In a report by Al Roker on Elementary Schools, the school that was highlighted had the average class increase from 20 students per class a decade ago to 32 students per class today. I know of a kindergarten teacher (1st year of school in New York State) who is expected to teach 25 5-6 year olds (usually with no previous education such as pre-school or even at home help from parents) how to read by the end of this school year. All without help in the classroom. Last year she was successful as she only had 16 students.

We need to look at student improvement from their starting point to their ending point (rather than measuring them against students from more privileged backgrounds). We need to put resources into the needs of the school based on their community, not a standard formula. And we need to find new ways (besides testing) to measure student performance.

4) We are not China, Switzerland, Japan, or South Africa. What works in their countries might work here in the US, but perhaps not. We need to develop an educational system that works with our communities, culture, and values. To do this, we need to move away from the industrial military complex attitude towards education that we are developing workers. When I went to school, schools were developing citizens that could make informed decisions. However, even as a student that began to change and we were told that education was to prepare us for a job of the future. This streamlining was used in France up until the 60's at which time Europe began to see that education was more than creating workers.

The current focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) has wiped out what made the US successful: creativity. A colleague of mine from Hong Kong was disappointed in her University Program in the US because there was no creativity allowed. My daughter's school, which was designed with STEM in mind, ended up being more important as a school that allows students with creative minds to succeed in STEM courses. A project based curriculum based on group work develops communication, problem solving, and creative skills for students that normally would have difficulty in learning math and science. What is interesting is that students that were especially gifted in math and science, in fact left the school or had the hardest time to adapt to this style of learning.

The fact is the US is loosing its place in the world because of lack of innovation. Innovation comes from creativity, not fitting a static mold set out by standards.

5) Finally, education is a joint process between the administrators, teachers, students, community, and parents. All are equally important and responsible. Until we use a model of community education building rather than competitive education, we will not have an effective educational system in the US.

I applaud the media for at least discussing education in the US. I just wish they would present a more informed and balanced discussion. The fact is that in some places, the educational system is working. In others, people are working hard to improve the process (but with mixed results) and in still other places the system has broken down. The biggest mistake we could make is to fix that which is working well, not giving those working on change the time and resources to succeed, and trying the same old policies in those areas where those policies have not worked and probably will never work.

Are there differences in learning at different educational levels?

I have addressed this issue in the past in which I find many people at different educational levels (primary, secondary, higher ed, adult/training) differentiate the learning at different levels. What I always find interesting is that K-12 teachers discount me because of my limited experience in formal primary and secondary schools (although I have extensive experience in informal learning at these levels) and training professionals discount much of what I say as not being relevant for the workplace (despite the fact I my first 5 years of teaching was at the corporate level).

Recently, I commented on another blog in which many of the blog basically discounted what I had to say because they labeled me an "educator" rather than a "trainer". One person commented that because I used "student" instead of trainee, that I really was speaking from the traditional "education" sector (as if this were different than corporate training). This has been bothering me for a while and I finally tried to reflect on what the differences might be.

In my experience (informal education at the k-12, formal education in higher ed, and formal and informal education at the organizational level) basic learning concepts are the same. I try to be student centered, while at the same time maintaining a "teaching presence" and being aware of the technology, social and cognitive presence of the content and learning environment (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). I feel Garrison and Anderson's model is universal in today's learning, regardless of mode of delivery, content, or level of education (even though the model was developed for elearning).

HOW a teacher, instructor, or trainer makes their presence known and the amount of support a student or trainee might need in learning IS dependent on the level of knowledge the student/trainee already possesses about the topic/content, their motivation in learning, the amount of time they have to learn something, how they will be assessed in their learning, and their expectations for instruction.

For example, my daughter goes to a school that is based on experiential and cooperative learning methods. Most of the students who go to the school come from traditional educational environments. It takes the students about half a year to become familiar with these methods. By sophomore year, they need less direct teacher instruction, and thus less teacher presence. However, newer teachers have difficulty balancing student need with teacher instruction. It takes a new sophomore or junior level instructor about half a year before they become comfortable allowing students to come to them. This, in fact is no different than a trainer understanding when to direct trainees and when to react to their questions.

Suddenly, as I began to work through this difficulty I had with different levels of education thinking that they are different in their approach to teaching, I realized that the 21st century needs a new model that will follow through all levels of education. I saw a model on a blog this year (I can't remember whose or where it was...let me know if you have the post so I can bookmark it!) that was a grid of formal and informal learning and on the other axis, the level of complexity of the content. The intersection resulted in different categories of learning objects. I could see this adapted so that there were different categories of syllabi or curricula based on the level of formality of the learning and the complexity of the content.

All of this points to me the need to train teachers and trainers in the art of developing a flexible curriculum and syllabus. My point in the comment in which the trainers did not like what I posted was that sometimes there needs to be a more rigid structure for training (i.e. to comply with professional laws, such as CPA's, healthcare providers, or lawyers) and other times there can be more flexibility. However, there should always be structure. Just like an open amphitheater can deliver the same service as a music hall or arena (a venue for concerts for example), to do so there has to be some structure (seating area, performance area, acoustics). But definitely it's structure is much more open and less formal than the other two venues, so some concerts will have different "feeling" in an amphitheater than in a small concert hall or a large arena . Likewise, the "feeling" of learning will differ with different learning structures.

Resource: Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003) . E-learning in the 21st Century. London: RoutledgeFarmer

Toys, games, and education

I was watching a new report yesterday where they were mentioning that children all around the world would be receiving toys thanks to the generosity of donated gifts. My first thought was, "Isn't it more important that they be fed and have access to healthcare (including immunizations and medicines that will keep them alive)?" My next thought was that toys really weren't necessary, and how did we get to the point where a new toy was so important.

As usual, my brain made links that for others might be a stretch. I was reading about a new school in New York City called Quest to Learn. In the article I read, they spoke about this school being a "games-based" curriculum. Well, after researching it a bit more, I realized there was more to the curriculum than games (in fact, it is very similar to my daughter's school). However, the connection I made was the role that "play", "toys", and "games" has in our society.

It used to be that toys and games were used to help develop skills in children. When the US was basically an agrarian economy and before universal education, kids learned to read using the bible or other books a family might have (which often was limited). They would learn skills such as eye hand coordination using toys. Toys also tended to be gender specific which helped teach a child's role in society (i.e. toy soldiers for those who would grow up to "lead" and fight in wars, dolls to help develop child rearing skills).

However, as toys and games, just like everything else in the industrialized world, began to be mass produced, the role of the toy changed from a "learning tool" (after all, children began to attend schools at the same time that the economy became industrialized) to objects of leisure. Leisure time was a result of the industrial revolution, but also helped to fuel the revolution. The age of consumerism was born. The more "things" you have, the higher your status in the consumer economy. As a result, toys also became a symbol of status.

Now, how does this relate to the game based curriculum? For thousands of years, games and toys were learning tools. So why shouldn't there be an element of games in a curriculum? Games and toys help develop critical thinking skills, strategy, creativity, and problem solving skills. If integrated into a curriculum correctly, it also can be a catalyst for learning motivation, team building, and self direction/discipline.

The fear I have is not the Q2L curriculum being one that is too "fun" or not providing enough content, but rather the misuse of this curriculum by teachers and schools who do not understand the underlying principles used to create the curriculum. Namely, I have seen some teachers who use gaming as a "down-time" activity in which teachers can have a break during the day. This is not good education. In fact, I suspect the teachers at Q2L put in a lot more time preparing and facilitating learning than the average teacher.

I am also concerned that students are not learning how to be bored (work is not always exciting and it is important to learn what to do during those down times), nor are learning how to interact with each other to resolve problems (rather than interacting with the technology). This is the only misgiving I see with this new school. My daughter's school does everything in groups, but it is off set with individual assessments. Likewise, while the curriculum is project based, the class does have more traditional learning/lectures when it is necessary for students to interact with the teacher and content. These are not the teacher lecturing the students, as much as group discussion where the teacher follows the lead of the students in answering questions or giving guidance in how to approach a problem.

So perhaps the "toys" and "games" going around the world, if perceived as a way to educate children in a more non-traditional way, will be more than a symbol of status and consumerism. Of course, I still think that alleviating poverty should be our first goal and children can't eat games.

The best teachers don't give you the answers

My family likes to watch the new series "Glee", usually on Sunday mornings on the internet. Since they need to get up early in the morning for school, the 9-10 PM time period is a bit late.

I think what has struck a cord for them in this program is that they bring up issues that are relevant to all high school students, often in a humorous way. In this week's episode, the teacher for the Glee Club has been suspended and cannot accompany the group to the Sectional competition. The students are upset as they complain that they won't be able to do well without their faculty adviser. However, he replies that he has every confidence they can do it without him. "The best teachers don't give you the answers."

I was surprised when my daughter whole heartedly agreed with this. She goes to an alternative school which is project based learning, using groups. "That's how it is in my school," she commented to her brother, who also agree with her. Perhaps there is hope for the future of education if society begins to understand this.

Dumbing down in the World? Defining "smart"

Let me start with a question to reflect on. Make sure you think of this before you read on. Think of the teacher that had the greatest impact on your learning throughout your life. How did they influence you? What did they do to influence your learning? What characteristics did they have?

Now read on.

I recently had a conversation with my adviser about "good teachers." He begins his introduction to teaching course asking his students to reflect on these questions. This conversation came back as I read a post by Ken Allen on "Is the world dumbing down?".

In the post, he has a clip of Branford Marsailis who speaks about what he has learned from his students. Basically, he says he has not learned anything, as his students just want to be told they are good, and don't want to work hard to learn. My adviser also mentioned how one of his students felt that much of teaching education focuses on the "touchy-feely stuff" and not on the learning outcomes.

This got me to thinking about which teachers had influenced me the most. There were four teachers who had the greatest impact on my learning. One thing that they had in common was they challenged me, but always let me know that they had confidence that I would meet any challenge.

Miss Relation was my reading and 3rd grade teacher. I can still remember when she was so impressed with how well I did with multiple digit multiplication and complex math concepts (such as sets). As I learned to read, she would always re-enforce it with, "I knew you could do it. See?" But she would never take, "I can't" as an excuse. She was in it with me, guiding me, having confidence that I could do it.

Miss McDonough was one of the toughest teachers I had (5th grade), but when I accomplished something, she would let me know how proud she was that I stuck with it and was able to master it. At no time would she give up on any student. You would achieve her high standards or she (and possibly you) would die trying. Her utter confidence in every student (I never heard her say a negative thing about a student...they weren't smart, they were lazy, what were they thinking?) made you want to show her you could do it.

My middle school math teacher was the first to let me know that I was really good in math...during a time when women were not expected to be good in math. Everything that we did, he would point out the good job I did. This confidence in me, made me confident in myself and I excelled in math as a result.

Finally, one of my professors in graduate school, allowed us to co-create our own curriculum. I loved this class as the students found the readings, presented the content, but were guided by very insightful questions from the professor. He treated us (master and Ph.d students) as knowledgeable students that he could learn from. Some of his questions would make you stop and think (and sweat if you weren't prepared). He was very low key and respectful of the students, which made you want to do the best you could. I still remember many of the discussions we had in the class, and the project I worked on (tariffs and counter-tariffs for the Steel Industry).

Another trait that all of these teachers had was that they knew ME and what I needed to learn. They did not use a cookie cutter approach to teaching and took time out to know what I knew and how I thought. They then used this to help me learn better.

What I learned from poor teachers

Likewise, the teachers that I look on with humiliation and anger, even to this day, taught me what a good teacher does not do.

As I mentioned in my comment to Ken:

"Dumbing down" is in the eyes of the beholder though. What is important is that in the US at any rate, we have begun to classified "smart" or "knowledgeable" as being able to take standardized tests about basic facts (i.e. math formulas, defining terms, and writing in a standard format regardless of audience or purpose). We have also relegated anything outside of math, science, and technology as "fluff" and not real knowledge.

The teachers that impeded by learning only looked at the standards and never bothered to look at what I actually knew. They also had a very narrow view of what "learning" and "knwoledge" was, then labeled those outside of those norms as "not quite smart". I can remember being moved from the "smart" reading group to the "slow" reading group in 1st grade. The major problem was that the teacher taught reading in one way only, and those that did not learn that way were then labeled "slow". It was humiliating for me and I lost all confidence in my studies. She always made it know who the "good" students were and who the "bad" students were.

These teachers also tended to have only the curriculum and book learning, with no abstract or creative activities in the classroom. Students did what the teacher wanted them to do ONLY or else you were a poor student. I remember a home economics teacher telling me how disappointed she was in my cooking class because I didn't follow the recipe exactly. My classmates all liked my changes (for the most part, sometimes they ended in disaster though), but I did not "follow directions."

Finally, the most difficult teachers that really turned me off to learning were those that seemed to exert their power over me as a student. They always had a way of making sure I knew they were in control and knew more than I did, so I should not ask questions of them or interrupt their class flow. In fact, years later, I realized that they did not like me to ask questions because they probably did not know how to answer them.

Dumbing down the World? Or a new way to assess learning?

In some ways, I do think that we are "dumbing down" in the world. But not in the traditional sense. I don't think that a grade these days is complex enough to assess a student's learning. I don't think that many of the teachers from which I learned the most (I still can remember many of the lessons 30-45 years later) would be able to keep up with the "testing". In fact, some of my daughter's teachers that had the qualities I look for in a good teacher were considered "poor" by some parents because their students enjoyed school and the kids did not have enough homework at night! (Even though their students tested high on standardized tests).

The new educational reforms in the US still focus on these simplistic quantitative tests and pitting teachers against students and parents. I have just read about community schools, however, which I hope with create a new educational environment that is based less on numbers and more on learning.

Creating standards and assessing learning

Results of the New York State Math test, a standardized test given to children in grades 3-8 (8-14 year olds), was announced yesterday. What was amazing was the analysis of what these test scores meant and why students in the NY City area had done so well. Theories included that the test was too predictable to the fact that New York City schools were now under control of the Mayor. Surprisingly, the fact that a new formula to calculate state aid and greater investment into urban schools was never mentioned! This despite the fact that grades increased in all urban areas.

What this demonstrates is that it is difficult to assess learning solely on the basis of a standardized test results. Even more important, there was no analysis of what standards students were meeting and the impact that would have on higher ed and workplace readiness. Instead, Merryll Tisch, chanceler of the New York State Board of Regents announced that perhaps the passing score should be raised.

What do standardized assessments really measure?

A standardized test if designed correctly, measures the retrieval of information set out by the curriculum. In some cases, it may measure performance of a standard (i.e. the lab section of the NY state science test). However, often it measures the knowledge of processes rather than a level of understanding in performing a task.

For a standardized test to be successful, it should:

1) Be aligned with the stated standards
2) Have some sort of mechanism to ensure consistent evaluation and grading
3) Ignore other learning or knowledge that has not been defined in the standards

Standardized tests do not always have to be an objective test. For example, the GRE has a critical writing component in which evaluators are trained and each written answer is evaluated by 3 different people to ensure consistency in grading.

Standardized tests therefore do not grade a student's learning, but rather if they are familiar with the intended material, content, or curriculum the standards reflect. They also do not measure if the standards will prepare a student for college or the workplace if the standards do not reflect the skills needed. (See the related article on the White House push to improve curriculum to prepare students for the 21st Century).

Finally, I would think that the goal of assessment would be to have a high maintained level of passing as it demonstrates that more and more students are achieving the stated standards. However, from Chancellor Tisch's comments it would appear that either the standards are inadequate (which is why students need remedial classes) or it is being used to rate students, excluding a certain % (which is why the passing score would be raised). Standards should be changed if they no longer are aligned with the needs of the learning outcomes, not because "too many passed the test."

Choosing a better way to assess

It seems that there is a disconnect between

1) learning standards and learning outcome needs
2) what is methods of measuring learning and instructional design
3) knowledge and application of that knowledge in multiple contexts
4) having content and understanding the content

The first step in any instructional design should be to establish learning goals and develop measures to assess learning outcomes. In developing these learning goals, it is not enough to identify what someone should "know" or be "familiar with" unless these are aligned with how learning will be used.

For example, training for new regulations in the insurance industry can use standards such as "know" or "be familiar with" because it is knowledge of the regulations that is important to regulatory agencies.

However, training for FERMA personnel in procedures for first responders for a natural disaster will need to have an understanding of the context and environments in which they will be working. In addition, there is a level of tacit knowledge which will need to be used (they need to know the practice of disaster relief, not just the process).

A good example of melding these two types of assessment can be found in the driver's test. The first stage, getting the learner's permit, requires a written test about the laws required for driving. The road test, taken after practical training, looks at a driver's ability to assess the driving conditions, react to changes in the driving environment, and showing judgment in using certain driving skills based on environmental conditions. A student who is driving too closely so that they need to slam on their breaks when someone in front makes a quick stop is assessed differently than someone that slams on their breaks when ever they are startled. Both are slamming on the breaks, but in the second case, when there is no environmental reason, there would be a perception of less driving skill and knowledge.

School of the Future

As my daughter enters high school, she will be transitioning into a new way of learning. Especially important is the way that Math and Science will be taught.
Among the differences between her current school and new school:

• Projects as a source of learning
• Interdisciplinary curriculum and integrated learning (i.e. math and science are taught together and writing is taught in context across the curriculum)
• Integration of technology within the curriculum
• Technology is used as a tool for learning, not learned as a tool
• Group work
• Parental and community involvement
• Focus on learning, not on "tests"
• Student accountibility for their own learning (assessment is much more involved)
• School to work, high school to university transition

For the first time in a long time, my daughter is excited about science and math class. In addition, she will be learning Chinese. The only misgiving she has (which is the same for all those entering high school) is the social climate. As the year goes on, I will be blogging about her experience, especially in the context of my work at the two colleges/universities where I will be teaching business and communication courses (the transition into the workplace).

I just wish that all disciplines would begin to use these same principles in their teaching. I am hoping the Chinese instruction will make the real life connection like science and math. It would be nice if a push were made to improve teaching in all disciplines and new forms of assessment were created as this administration begins to take up the topic of educational reform. I have seen to progress science and math has made with the investment made during the last administration. Now lets improve creativity and innovation with the same investment in the arts and humanity.

A new era

Last week, in between my work, I went on line to check out the virtual home town meeting run by the White House. It worked this way: people submitted questions for the president to answer. These questions were posted and the most popular questions (through voting) where chosen for the president to answer at a "home town" meeting video streamed through the internet. The audience included people that had submitted the questions.

What was interesting was the difference in popular questions from those asked by the press. This was even indicated on the home town meeting site. In fact, I believe that the president did not answer the questions as well as those the press presents him, maybe because he was not as prepared to answer those questions.

For education and the economy, the most frequent question was one I hear on campus more and more as graduation draws near. How will students who have racked up thousands of dollars in debt, going to pay back these loans when there are no job prospects for them? What programs are in place so these student loans don't default?

For education, from all sides, repeal or modification of the No Child Left Behind act seems to be the biggest question. In fact, the president did address this. However, he made on comment that I have to disagree with as a teacher and parent. He said the the teacher is the most important person in each child's education. In fact, I feel that with out a teacher/parent partnership, a child is at a disadvantage as a life long learner. Parents need to support children's learning at home, reinforcing concepts. But this can't be accomplished if they are left out of the loop. Parent's know their children better than any teacher could (except perhaps in Sweden where the student stays with the same teacher throughout primary school). On the other hand, the teacher needs the support of the parent because without it there teaching is no more than throwing felt pieces on to a piece of velcro with hope that something will stick. Teachers need to be respected by students and this can't happen in Parents don't show that respect. Teachers know what is expected of students, spend more time in many cases, than parents with the students, and for the most part really want their students to succeed. NCLB pitted teachers against parents and our educational system as suffered as a result.

I would recommend looking at the White House web site and starting to participate in democracy using the new tools available to us. It is very exciting to be a part of this effort!

why I'm not blogging as often

Many of my regular readers will notice that I'm not posting as often. I have decided that I need to complete my dissertation this year. This means focusing on transcribing tapes of interviews (about 10-11 hours worth still to go) and then analyzing the data. Things are shaping up nicely from the data, but it will take a lot of time along with my teaching and family life. In addition, my daughter will be graduating from middle school this year, and both she and my son will be preparing for a number of required standardized tests. This means a lot more driving to pick them up after school, taking more time out of my life.

I will try to post at least once a week, because the blogging does help me with sorting out ideas that come up from my data as I work on the dissertation, my teaching as I experiment with things in the classroom, and my family. In fact, Ken Allen just had a posting that I would like to respond to when I have the chance. But I need to set my priorities, so I am going to limit myself to one post a week.

Response to Ken Allen's post

Ken had a post about the educational system and the tendency to blame educational woes on the teachers. I find too often there is finger pointing from parents, administrators, teachers, and even the students without any dialogue when something goes wrong.

A recent incident with my daughter's school trip is a perfect example of what is happening in the US educational system. The trip was changed because of the economic downturn and some changes in available accommodations.

A couple of weeks before, there was an incident in physical education class when a substitute teacher (who also happens to be a parent) had the group of 13-14 year olds play tug of war. Now, even I know that was a recipe for disaster. However, when a couple of the girls were hurt during tug of war, this teacher told the administration that the class had deep seated problems because the yelling match that resulted could not just because some of the girls were hurt. Any of you who have 13-14 year olds know that this teacher was either trying to take the pressure off himself or really doesn't "get" teens.

As a result of this incident, when the class trip needed a change, the administration decided it would make the decision without discussing it with the parents or students because the class "had issues" that they didn't want to irrupt again. They told students during recess of the change then sent a letter home to the parents. The implication, of course, was that the parents would act like a group of 13-14 year olds and that we could not be trusted to discuss the situation (although we are supposed to chaperon and shell out the money for the class trip).

Needless to say, the parents were upset. The teacher, who did not really have a say in this, was the contact person between the children, the administration, and the parents. However, she could have been more forceful in insisting there be a parent meeting. Nor have any of the parents ever been consulted about the "incident" (perhaps because then the administration would need to justify having a substitute teacher who is not certified and obviously has no real understanding of "safety" in the gym class.

So who is to blame? Everyone. Parents don't push for the meeting (as a group) with the teachers and administrators and rather allow for any problems to be resolved "privately." We are better off than some classes because my daughter's class does tend to share information amongst each other. Our kids are to blame for expecting their parents will resolve any problems they have, rather than working with the teacher and administration to resolve differences between class members. Administrators are to blame for pitting parent against teacher, teacher against parent, parent against parent, anything to take the pressure off of having to facilitate some difficult and long conversations. And the teachers are to blame to think that the classroom is their domain so therefore, parents should have no say. I have worked and dealt with teachers who feel superior to a parent because the teacher is a trained pedagogist. While a parent might not know pedagogy, they do know their child. Working with a parent, sharing each others knowledge (the teacher of what is "normal" at a given age and different ways to address it, and the parent who knows the child) a teacher can be much more effective.

So let's stop finger pointing and start talking. Let's look for the long range solution that will need contribution from all parties.

The silver lining

I've been reading a lot lately about the impact of the economic downturn on training and education. Michael Hanley had a great post about the response companies are having to the economic downturn, with less investment in Training and education, and marketing. It is interesting that these are the two areas most likely to use social networking within a company. My own university, in feeling the pinch, has created larger classes (without corresponding classroom space) and a drive towards using distance education with a minimal amount of investment.

While all of this might sound like the death knoll for e-learning or distance education, the fact is that I see it as a great opportunity for instructional design, e-learning, and educational technology. With that in mind, these are the opportunities I see for the next two years:

1) More training for telecommuters. As companies cut their training budgets, they will want a cost/benefit analysis to justify training. Creating training programs that will orient workers to become effective telecommuters (including communication structures and procedures, distributed team building, online supervision, management, and performance evaluation, and new technology skills) will help companies that are closing brick and mortar spaces to be replaced by telecommuters. One of the options that SUNY has identified to cut costs is to either shut down buildings during low demand and allow workers to work from home, or closing building for administrative offices, combining departments and having workers share desks, with telecommuting.

For this to be effective, there needs to be more research on collaboration, distributed teams, and information literacy.

2. There will be a greater need for new technologies, new instructional designs, and new means of assessing learning. History has shown that recessions and depressions create a greater level of innovation and entrepreneurship. Of course, this innovation will come from outside of a firm. I think there will be a greater level of innovation as people lose their jobs and are no longer constrained by the big business fear of risk-taking. Although terrifying, many unemployed will take the opportunity to start their own companies. The use of new technologies are not going to go away, so those that can take advantage of this time to create something useful, will prosper in the long run.

3. The new US administration is committed to connecting the country to high speed internet, creating lifelong learners, and supporting the development of innovation. If the new economic stimulus package is passed, there will be access to grants and tax credits for the development of new technology, wireless and broadband structural improvements at the community level, and education at all levels (children to adults). It is important that we all take advantage of this opportunity to develop new approaches to learning using educational technology.

4. We are currently in the midst of a change in generational power. As such, I see a shift in the way business and education is conducted within the next decade. It is important that we take this opportunity to become involved in the planning process, bridging the gap from the computer (computation) based business practices to the web 2.0 ("connected" and information based) based business practices. This will require the transition of top management into networked communication, a structural change to the organization, and a change in the educational system from information transfer to information analysis to prepare workers and citizens of the future. I think also there will be a new push towards integrating creativity into the curriculum as new solutions are needed for the developing world problems.


As the eternal optimist who survived the 1982 recession (although at the time it was never acknowledged that there was a recession, I think we have a great opportunity to become phoenixes rising out of the crash and burn economy that was really in a downward spiral for longer than many wanted to admit.