Professional development and technology

I'm fortunate to be working in a district that values professional development, collaboration, and technology. Mesh those together and you have half of today's non-student day. Our learning centered around OneNote from Microsoft, essentially a digital version of a binder with assorted tabs. Using OneNote will hopefully allow for more transparency in collaboration, keep people engaged when they aren't able to meet in person, and increase productivity. How? Ideally your team would meet, talk about students and goals, and establish a to-do list for what you are going to implement in your classroom. From there you can revisit those goals and to-do's, and see where your team is with respect to meeting them. That is the ideal of course, and I'll be interested to see how that works out over the course of this year.

I also stumbled across this post on This Week In Education. It started me thinking about a statistic that I heard at today's training: if you were to use your Activeboard (or SmartBoard) during 70-80% of your instruction, and couple that with good pedagogy and best practices, then you'll increase student achievement. I forget how much, but I was more than a little surprised (and I'd also like to see who funded the study, always important). The statistic came from Marzano, so I'll try to find it.

On one hand I was excited. I have a ton of tech resources at my disposal such as computers, an activeboard, digital cameras, hi-speed internet access, a document camera, video cameras and my laptop. I need to find ways to better integrate technology into my teaching, and ensure that I am NOT letting the tech be the focus (Note: I use it daily, but not as efficiently as I could... lately using the activeboard to have kids highlight main ideas in texts was fantastic). But what I wonder is how much tech exposure kids need to have in order for technology to really have an impact? Would those schools with less technology, such as my student teaching site in Seattle, have the same result? Or would the lack of tech exposure (and the newness of it) circumvent those gains? Maybe it would simply slow the statistical benefit. All very interesting.

Application Happy

Now is not the best time to be completing teacher certification. Many districts have RIF'd (laid off), and jobs just aren't there to submit applications for. Nonetheless I continue to put all my stuff together, and get my ducks in a row prior to the start of summer. Summer brings uncertainty, as everyone scatters- not good for references etc.

In Seattle, like many places, there are people and organizations that are upset by how the layoffs are being done. I get that the purpose of the union is to protect teachers. Without a union, the oldest would likely be skimmed off the pool as they are the most costly (although my guess would be that it might be publicized as a skill-set issue, not purely economic). What kills me, particularly as someone that is applying now (with ZERO seniority), is that the bottom of the totem pole continually gets chopped off. I am not sure what is worse: A) being cut simply based on time worked, or B) having a job based on time worked (not because of skills).

While I see merit pay as having flaws, there needs to be a better way than is currently being used. I also truly believe that the people who need to worry most about merit pay are those that have holes in their practice. What other assessment is there of our teaching practice? Principals do evaluations, but in many cases it takes a preponderance of evidence to remove bad teachers. How else can we ensure that we are providing great instruction... and not a set of instructions?

Are Kids Widgets?

I've been thinking about kids, schools, factories, and widgets. I believe all kids can achieve. Do they develop at the same rate? No. There are many factors influencing their development. Should we hold schools and teachers accountable? Yes. The big question for me is what do you tie that accountability to? Is a teacher a bad teacher if their kids don't do well on a standardized test? Some would say yes. Personally, I disagree, as students are not widgets.

Isn't testing just like the quality control testing in factories? What happens when factories find a widget that doesn't meet their standard? They toss it, or perhaps sell it for less as a damaged/flawed version (typical with appliances... think the ones with the small ding in the side). For schools? We tell the kids that they have failed, or are a failure, and go through stages of closing schools. This makes me think of the government closing a factory because it is polluting too much. In the case of schools, it is as though the government is saying that the schools are producing a bad product that harms the environment.

The challenge ahead is changing the climate surrounding education. We need to move away from thinking of students as widgets/ovens/vacuum cleaners/TVs/cars/candy. They can all achieve, but jumping over the same bar at the same time seems incredibly silly. Worse so is then taking out our anger on schools for this failure. Additionally, how can we change our perspective from one that is penal to one that is positive?