The Tattered Leaf

In his book, Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, Clayton Christiansen describes how the integration of technology into both our culture and our schools will change the way we all learn by offering opportunities to individualize instruction in ways that simply were not possible several years ago. Furthermore, it levels the playing field. Students in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, have access to the Great Pyramids of Egypt, the world’s greatest libraries, or news from around the world. The potential for innovation, collaboration, creativity, individualization, and customization within the classroom is growing at such an exponential rate that educators can no longer ignore the urgent cry from their students: be innovative and creative  in harnessing the power of these tools to transform learning for us!

Students should not have to “power down” when they enter a school. After all, we’re not preparing them for the world from which we came. We’re supposed to be preparing them for that unknown, uncertain future that will be “their world” long after we’re gone. They should be taught how to be problem solvers and how to apply new knowledge to real world challenges using tools we never had access to “back in the day”. Indeed, a school should provide cutting edge tools to prepare students to be productive across an ever-changing global landscape. Ultimately, our goal should be to prepare students to enter the 21^st century fully equipped to make responsible, mature choices while demonstrating critical thinking skills and collaborative problem-solving ability using the teaching and learning tools that are–and will be–available to them in the market place .

Additionally, these new and emerging tools require educators to deal with the ethical and moral issues that will undoubtedly arise. We need to learn how to address those issues within the framework of the classroom. But we would be remiss if we simply ignored technology integration because we fear having to face decisions about accountability and responsibility. We would also be remiss in failing to attempt to harness the teaching and learning potential of emerging technologies because we don’t want to deal with the disruption to the status quo. We need to –and I believe we are obligated—to create a learning community built upon emerging technologies, ethical decision-making, and the modeling of the kinds of innovation, individualization, and creativity we should be requiring of our students. We should be the leaders, but because of our own inability to make the connection sometimes, we’re trying to catch up.

As our own district moves towards greater integration at our high school through a 1 to 1 Laptop initiative, we’ve also implemented another pilot called “iPod Thursday”. Students may listen to their iPods during study halls or lunch. The only other times iPods may be used are when a teacher has a specific educational purpose and allows them to be used in the classroom. Since our first “iPod Thursday”, staff have provided excellent feedback. While most of it was overwhelmingly positive, there were a number of excellent thinking points raised which reflect typical concerns among educators seeking to determine how much—and how fast—we should be moving towards a more open campus by making these technological devices available.

My initial objective as an assistant principal was to create a school culture that would indeed be a bit more “relaxed”, inviting, and relevant to our students. By providing “iPod Thursday” as an occasional “perk” for all, students would have something to look forward to. Additionally, as the activity catches on, it could easily be developed into a privilege earned by those meeting expectations established in our schoolwide positive behavior support program. While some argue that iPod Thursday might have been motivated by classroom management concerns (e.g. just a way to keep them quiet), I see that issue as a side-benefit, but not the sole purpose for providing this opportunity. It does, in fact, serve as an audio pacifier for many kids who would be otherwise potentially disruptive. I can’t say this is a “bad” effect, but I can propose that perhaps those students who tend to be disruptive are so because of the disconnect they feel between their lives outside of school and the actual school day. Furthermore, iPod use during bus rides seems to make those hours more tolerable and has appeared to significantly reduce bus referrals. Ultimately, we simply wanted to create an opportunity for our kids to responsibly use a piece of technology they are most familiar with by allowing use in school.

There is another agenda, though: the proliferation of technology in school forces us as a group of educators to become accustomed to a culture that is looming on the horizon. The development of Apple’s iPad and the iPod Touch with its 144,000 applications is going to alter—if not disrupt completely—the traditional means of delivering and assessing instruction while providing opportunities for students to creatively demonstrate what they know and have learned. With the 1 to 1 laptop initiative building momentum within our district over the next few years, it might be quite conceivable that laptops, iPads, iPods, and document cameras will be as common place as Smart boards and projectors in every classroom. Accompanying this influx of technology will not only be what we hope are better results pertaining to student achievement, but also the legal, ethical, and moral issues that such an open campus will bring to the table. By starting small with “iPod Thursday”, we can begin to anticipate some of these issues and begin to address them.

Indeed, some questions have already been raised. What if a student captures porn and brings it in to show others on his iPod? Can they surf and use applications outside of our own district network? Do we need to police what they are listening to so we can determine if it is school appropriate? Can they access social networks , and will this increase cyber-bullying, harassment, or other infractions we haven’t even thought of yet? Will students use the technology to “cheat” (as opposed to collaborate)? Will this increase a sense of isolation and anti-social behavior? Are we contributing to poor health and social practices if the music is too loud or they are too engrossed to carry on a conversation? What if they listen to music instead of doing their schoolwork in study hall? These are all good questions and I’m hoping we’ll have opportunity to discuss and debate our way to a comfort level for all involved.

There is one question I would like to address, and it touches upon a real need for allowing a gradual release of responsibility for iPod use in school: the question asks if listening to iPods usurps the place of accomplishing school work in study halls (or school, for that matter), and if so, should we be providing that temptation to kick back to some tunes instead of doing homework? My response is to ask more questions: why does iPod use exclude the possibility of doing school work? Why not integrate the two so the iPod is providing access to supplemental school work during study hall?

If we merge the purpose with the tool, we should not only encourage the use of iPods, but also expect to see a measurable gain in student achievement. And that, folks, is what we’re really after—the use of current and emerging technology to access learning opportunities for students. Yes, they are listening to music now. But in the near future, they will be listening to

• your digital quiz on Pickett’s Charge in preparation for the next exam
• they will be using an iPod Touch App called “Collision” to develop a hypothesis regarding what happens when certain elements of the periodic table are combined, then testing that hypothesis using the virtual simulation and texting the results to your email address
• they will be reviewing for a grammar and punctuation quiz using the App called “Grammar 1” and listening to podcasts in Spanish to improve their fluency
• they will use the iPod to download the video clip you placed on the server for them highlighting an interview with Maya Angelou
• they’ll be watching a BBC production of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” along with your audio or visual annotations so they know what was important in each scene
• they’ll be using a tutorial application on solving algebraic equations while completing their Algebra homework
• they will be taking a Geography quiz by matching major land and sea features to locations on a map using real photos and Google Earth. Better yet, they will upload their own photos
• they will be watching an animated map from the History Channel, narrated by you, highlighting troop movements during the initial phases of World War II
• they will watch a video cast about the elements of Shakespeare’s tragedies you uploaded for them to watch because you are absent from class that day. Sound likely? I did it two years ago, and my students loved it.

You see, there is a much larger vision beyond merely listening to music as a privilege. While the short term effect is to create a more palpable school climate for our kids, the long range mission will be to acclimate to an environment where emerging technologies unleash the creative potential of both our students AND our educators—all the while increasing student engagement, providing multiple options for delivering standards-based content, and differentiating to individual student needs.

Tags: education, Educational Leadership, educational technology, Instructional Technology, ipod, ipods in school, teaching

(NOTE: The following blog post was originally posted in August of 2008 and has been reposted here as I move from the “old” blog to the new site.)

I recently read about a new piece of legislation that will enable public schools to hire additional guidance counselors and other student support staff. The rationale, as indicated in The Principal’s Policy blog (http://p8.hostingprod.com/@www.principalspolicyblog.org/blog/) is supported by studies that demonstrate how student achievement is positively affected when students’ emotional, social, and behavioral needs are met. In other words, kids are not merely automatons who represent test scores on AYP reports under No Child Left Behind. The research is out there demonstrating that teachers who attempt to build rapport with and reach out to students beyond just merely “teaching the content” actually produce better results than teachers in classrooms that are bereft of the human touch. Common sense would seem to dictate so. Certainly, teachers who demonstrate a level of care and respect for kids as more than mere “pupils” would seem to have fewer disciplinary problems. Common courtesy, encouragement, coaching, and listening skills would also seem to promote a more conducive learning environment. But as the needs of our kids grow deeper and more complex, we seem more reluctant–and almost afraid–to reach out to them. Yet, those are the ones who need us the most. There are times when a reassuring word, a note of encouragement, a nod of understanding, or even a handshake will mean more to a kid than a whole year’s worth of content in that class. These are the intangibles that a state test will never measure, yet they can foster a sense of value, worth, and dignity far better than any test score. Indeed, both academic achievement and the growth of the human spirit need to go hand in hand, and I am willing to bet that the best of the best teachers out there already knew this.

Tags: "educational administration", "teacher rapport", character, education, school climate, students, teaching

Did you ever notice how our culture admires heroes–those who have overcome incredible challenges and adversity to accomplish some extraordinary feat? We particularly admire athletes–those who subject themselves to a wide diversity of challenges only to overcome extraordinary odds to achieve victory. The media is filled with special interest stories about those who, despite conditions of depravity, rise up to become successful. We also admire heroes who risk their lives, endure incredible hardship, and demonstrate extraordinary effort to overcome obstacles.

The one constant in our admiration of these people is that they all possess some shining distinction that was revealed by the hot furnace of adversity. In fact, without adversity–whether artificially created by the rules of an athletic contest or presented by some overwhelming or traumatic circumstance–there would be no heroes. There would be no example of the kind of character we all desire to possess or wish our children to cultivate. From the quarterback who leads his team to a come from behind victory to the Army private who drags two wounded comrades to safety in the face of withering fire, the admirable character qualities that emerge would never have been visible without the trials of adversity.

It would seem to follow, then, that adversity isn’t always a “bad thing”. Sure, no one likes adversity. But if the rare gems of character such as patience, compassion, fortitude, wisdom, humility, strength, persistence, empathy, and leadership can only be forged by or revealed through adversity, then why do we insist on shielding our children from any relatively minor discomfort or disappointment and deny them the opportunity to develop adaptability and flexibility? Why do we seek to get our kids out of the consequences of poor decisions? Why do we threaten coaches who don’t give our kids enough playing time or bitterly condemn the teacher who gave our child a low grade or even a reprimand? Why do we teach our kids that they are “entitled” to something which they have not earned?

It seems we want our kids to demonstrate character, yet we will go to great lengths to teach them that adversity is something to be avoided rather than to be confronted and navigated. When we would rather make a spectacle of ourselves trying to defend, absolve, or seek exception for our children, we deny them the opportunity to develop those long-lasting qualities that will bring far greater value–and skill– to their lives over the long run.

Tags: "character building", administration, character, education, parent, parenting, school climate, students, teaching

I think I’ll go easier on Donovan McNabb this year. I mean, I rant and rave as well as any Philly fan while watching my beloved Eagles. And like most fans, I agonize and hiss when the guy makes some mistakes, despite the fact that he might otherwise be playing superlatively.

Thing is, I think I understand his frustration now.

You can throw 50 passes a game and complete almost every one of them. But throw one interception–just commit one mistake–and the boos echo across the stadium and it becomes fodder for newspapers and magazines all week long. Your critics take the opportunity to point fingers, shots are taken over the water cooler, and speculation about your ability abounds.

I earn much less than Donovan McNabb, and what I do for a living is no game. But whether one makes 100 million playing football or one makes a respectable income trying to influence kids’ lives, throwing that interception to a rousing chorus of boos still hurts. And for that reason, I’ll be far more understanding of the guy this upcoming season, and I’ll try to focus on the completions instead of the interceptions.

Tags: Educational Leadership, faculty meeting, principal, staff development

   I have a serious question, and I don’t mean to upset the apple cart here, but does anyone else sense the strong undercurrent of resistance and the apparent disconnect our kids have in our school? Granted, in my position, almost all of the kids I see everyday are the ones with whom I have to fight to keep in school when they can see little reason for wanting to stay. And it leads me to wonder if I can’t be doing something differently to bridge the gap between what our kids need to know and the things our kids need to experience in order to develop a larger sense of community and belonging within our high school. Is it possible to have a climate where the majority of students perceive school as a stimulating place of encouragement, excitement, discovery, risk, trial, and collaboration? Is high school doomed to be nothing but drudgery, an experience in confinement, a march of the dreary and a conformity of the regimented? All in all, must this be another “brick in the wall”? 

   There’s no doubt in my mind that we need to somehow demonstrate why school is relevant to them. For too many students, school is a compulsory obligation equivalent to military conscription, juvenile imprisonment, or indentured servitude (do what I say for four years and you can be free!). I doubt things were much different when my parents went to school, but the disconnect I am referring to is more serious, because I believe that our status as a world power is at stake. I think our future as a democracy is at risk. I believe our competitive edge in the global economy is eroding quickly. Furthermore, I lament what I perceive to be the deterioration of character, ethics, and moral development among our students. This is certainly a reflection of our society as a whole, and the lack of accountability and responsibility found within the media, entertainment industry, and the internet now provide instant and accessible modeling of all the ways evil and rebellion can manifest themselves. 

   This is not a post meant to depress the reader. But it is a sobering thought to think that if we take our responsibility to educate seriously, and if the future health and vitality of our nation hinge upon our ability to educate the masses, then I have to say that I’m not sure we’re firing on all cylinders right now. Somehow, we have to make the connection between what has to be learned to pass the PSSA and how that knowledge or skill is applied in real life. Not every kid in our community is college-bound, so how do we define the best way to prepare 21st century citizens to function within a 21st century economy and provide authentic opportunities to demonstrate that what they are learning will indeed prove beneficial to them in “real” life? Is there a way to make the classroom more like “real” life? What goals and options do our kids have if not college? And if not college, then what, and how do we get them there? 

   I’m not sure our kids see school as a means to an end. I think it is viewed as a necessary obstacle to be either overcome or disrupted every step of the way. We need to find a way to develop our students’ opportunities to become stakeholders in school. We need to clearly define high interest, motivational goals and then find ways to support students in their pursuit of those goals. Whether a student is bound for college or for occupational fields in technology, medicine, communication, entertainment, customer service, agriculture, and so on, perhaps we need to rethink how to shape high school so that what our kids do and learn each day has a recognizable, practical link to the real world. One example might be to develop technology courses that result in actual Microsoft certification levels so a student who graduates with an emphasis in that field would have an edge when seeking to become employed in that area. Students seeking to become anything from a brain surgeon to a radiological assistant would take a concentration of science classes like chemistry, anatomy, and physiology with required job shadowing in the field as part of the graduation project. If a student seeks to major in communication or wants to find an entry level position in the entertainment or communication fields, then why can’t we establish a well-equipped studio for audio and video production and broadcasting across the local cable network? 

   Again, I ask: am I the only one who senses a disconnect? Are there ways to move students from an adversarial perception of “school” as a confining institution to one where interests are explored, skills are developed, and hopes and dreams can be realized because links to authentic, real world applications are evident in what we are teaching our kids each day? 

Tags: Educational Leadership, principal, school climate, school environment, student disconnect

I recently had the privilege of attending a Collins Writing Workshop with several of my English department colleagues. I had first heard about Collins’ methods from other educators at least 15 years ago, and I was intrigued. What little I was able to absorb from them quickly translated into several effective writing assignments in my own classroom at the time. I am pleased to note that these many years later, Collins’ framework exceeded my expectations. The Collins method encourages both higher order thinking skills and more effective writing. What’s more, the Collins framework is applicable to any subject at nearly any grade level, and it is exceptionally practical.

When one looks closely at the foundation for the Collins writing approach, one finds that it combines several key principles found to be among the most effective for eliciting higher quality work from students (remember, “don’t clap for crap!”). First of all, it turns nearly any question-answer session into a writing session for students. Using Type I or Type II writing assignments, teachers can quickly shift from trying to sustain momentum as the conductor of reluctant participants to requiring all of them to respond–in writing–to a prompt. The responses can be shared for any number of purposes, from further discussion that same day to the foundation for a future essay. The questions framed by the teacher (prompts, if you will) can be written to encourage thinking skills ranging from the lowest levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy to the most sophisticated thinking skills. The real beauty is found when one discovers that despite having the students write more,  the burden of grading these written responses is virtually nonexistent. In Collins’ method, students work harder than the teacher. Amen, right?

So students are writing more, and teachers are grading less. Does the quality of work suffer? This is where the second principle of Collins’ writing approach kicks in: the development of focus correction areas. Focus correction areas allow both student and teacher to focus in on several key components of each writing assignment as opposed to trying to “grade it all”. Focus correction areas not only enable the teacher to zero in on specific skills within a piece of writing, they also enable the student to explicitly understand what is expected of them in a given piece of writing. Clear, focused, explicit expectations can be made to be very rigorous, and because they are clear, students will achieve a higher standard in their writing (especially after modeling and practice) when they understand what is expected of them. By using focus correction areas, a teacher is able to cut down on the time it takes to grade a paper and because grading takes less time, students can be encouraged to write more frequently. Over the course of an entire school year, a number of FCA’s are taught so that a wide range of writing skills are introduced, modeled, practiced, and mastered until significant gains are made in writing competency.

Finally, the third principle of Collins’ approach (which seems to receive little press but is effective nonetheless) is the use of metacognition, or the development of a student’s own ability to think about the processes he or she is using. By requiring students to zero in on focus correction areas, then requiring them to identify the FCA’s in the actual composition by highlighting, circling, numbering, or otherwise labeling them, students develop an awareness of the skills necessary for effective composition. They become more adept at looking at their writing to identify key components to effective composition, and as a result, they become more proficient at editing and revising. One added benefit to having students label their papers to identify where they have met the FCA goals is that it aids the teacher in–you guessed it–grading the paper more quickly and more efficiently. Again, the students work harder than the teacher.

The skills a teacher needs to develop mastery of the Collins approach are very “do-able”; however, it does take practice to develop prompts that lead to higher order thinking skills. It also takes practice to hone FCA’s down to clear and explicit statements which are then assigned a point value within a paper. Furthermore, Collins identifies 5 types of writing which essentially move a student across the spectrum from very informal to formal composition pieces.

I am so encouraged by what I’ve had the opportunity to learn that I would be willing to say that our content area teachers should want this training as soon as they can get it, because I believe they will see better results almost immediately. Writing is linked to thinking (as it is to reading), and Collins seems to have one of the best approaches to increasing rigor and relevance by increasing writing across the curriculum without burying educators in mounds of endless essays and paperwork.

No more of this (GREAT video):

Higher Order Thinking?

Tags: Collins writing, professional development, teaching, writing, writing instruction, writing methods