Sliced Bread

NSW DER is finalising the ambitious wireless 2009 netbook rollout involving some 65,000 Lenevo netbooks to Year 9 students and teachers. 

Important yes, but sorry to sound underwhelmed, it is only one step towards the learning revolution needed. A Pantene Moment if ever there was one.

Separating and recognising the enormity of the procurement, rollout and install is important. By and large contractual obligations have been met, well. As laconic Jack Gibson was wont to say, ”Played hard, done good” Big Tick, so far.

Now we have our little boxes of digi goodness, just exactly do we want? 

Despite what political leaders say, a 1:1 environment is far from revolutionary for learning. Unless we broach the next and far more problematical step.

Federal/State targets to improve learning via ICT’s a decade into the 21st century and some 30 years since ICT first appeared in school systems is welcomed. I question though, if it is such a big deal, why not earlier?

The techn0logy has long been available, its political where withall that’s been lacking.

As we are yet to hear to the contrary, lets also trust future government “digital revolution” funding is sustainable.

If it’s not, or if real expenditure is reduced as GFC debts are repaid, why have Rudd and Rees et al bothered?

Future edu digital policy should prioritise open source, and remove the current duplicity. We have Curls, BlogEd, CLi, Tale,

Our K-2 kids should not be made to endure a lengthy transition to digitisation as we enter the fourth decade of ICT’s in schools. It’s not new and we need to stop excusing those who think it is. 

For some, the soon to conclude 2009 rollout of 1000 plus laptops per week will be a time to reflect on any supply or technical issues. It has been a steep learning curve and, from afar, seemingly an effort all involved should be proud of.

2009 sowed the “21st century” learning seeds; L4L,CCP,wireless, commisioning, TSO’s, procurement, installations.  The DER blur has happened at a frantic state wide pace. 2010 will reap the learning crop, maybe, we trust, hope and wish.

For other technocrats, they’ll discuss high end ICT questions concerning software,virtual, online,F2F, hardware, open source, filters, Win7OS, BlogEd, Adobe CS4 or MS Office. Great, I just lost myself with that sentence.

 These experts, the providers, the framework decision makers, in this way maintain status quo control over those working within. By providing what they want, not what may be needed, results in a safe and predictable balance for systemic governance. It’s the way it has always been done, but I question if it’s correct with rapid devolution and accountability to nodes not hubs.

These too are valid discussions but often beyond the classroom teacher’s comprehension, scope or sequence. Probably also beyond our need to know.

Most of these discussions are beyond an individual’s ability to influence or change. I disagree vehemently with a minority of  L4L, ICT, CCP,IWB,filter,intranet,PD decisions but that is by definition systemic education. It matters not whether nodes disagree with the hub, the hub dominates, at present. But I question for how much longer?

You do as you’re told within what is provided (whole new post that one) We educate our DETNSW learners within that silo, albeit a rather massive one. I wonder why our learners have been served the nannified, safely sanitised, lite version of the full fat smorgasbord on offer to the rest of the world. It may not be apparent, yet, but our NSW  learners are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to best global practice, despite the infrastructure spend.

However, engaged students, collaborating, using appropriate tools and exploring new ways with ICT is certainly high on my 2010 personal learning expectation list. I’ll ask stage 5 teachers, especially, to think about the following;

As a classroom teacher of years 9 and 10, now with laptop equipped learners, what exactly do we want in 2010?   

How may our learning be improved ?

What can we do differently compared to 2009 that will result in learning improvements?

How might our netbooks make our learning more engaging, challenging, fun or productive?

I see wasted opportunities if we simply layer technology to do the same as before. Or worse, use IT sparingly for fear of mistakes or failures.

Learners need to consider carefully what it is they expect from or with their 1:1 boxes.

I trust the following questions will not gain dominance in political or administrative circles.

How will netbooks improve Schoool Certificate data ?

How will netbooks help rank schools?

How will government’s substantial financial investment be politically leveraged?

How will governments, current and future, evaluate their return on expenditure to either sustain, increase or decrease real dollar commitments to future digital learning? If they get no political bang for their buck, why would they continue?

Are our politicians and educrats expecting a learning panacea, a magical wand to add further value added data to 2010 School Certificate results?

A while back now I posted 4 essential questions for learning, especially within the context of web2.0 educational hype.  

What exactly is the educational problem we are trying to redress, if any?

What value does this bring me and my students?

Is this really doing anything new and worthwhile? 

After applying, how are we going to measure improvement?

I’m happy to report these questions remain, and probably always will.

However, what has changed in the preceeding 16 months is the addition of an important new question. 

Now that NSW year 9 DET students have been issued wireless netbooks and will use them daily throughout the School Certificate 2010, I’m interested in your answers to this newest question.

Well just exactly DO we want?

In a little over 12 months, our netbook equipped 2010 Year 10 students will be required to sit the same 5 standardised exams in Maths, English, Science, HSIE and ICT. 

Will netbooks improve the summative data? Does your school expect to see value added above the norm?

Quandry number 1.

Do staff pursue the olden golden goose of improving value added data and receive the summative ‘head pat hat tip’ in January 2011?

“Good work faculties, look at the school’s excellent data. Some real learning took place, the figures tell us”

Or do learners actually integrate the netbooks to change learning so it aligns with the digital world we now live in.

I suspect most faculties will find these conflicting demands challenging.

Unfortunatley the reality is this quandry will also provide convenient excuses for teachers to NOT integrate laptops. “We have a public exam on which school data is collated,  my teaching is assessed and these results posted on the new MySchool website.

Yet we also have shiny new toys they want us to learn with on the job?”

DETs own assessment support site states;

we need to transform the structure and delivery of  current assessment processes and consider the possibilities which the laptop program affords.

I wonder how quickly this may occur? What difference will/should netbooks make?

On the one hand teachers are being asked to “consider the assessment possibilities” and yet concurrently we are accountable for school data results using superceded standardised exams that no other State retains.

Yes a major quandry IF learning is to seriously become the core focus within DER.

Well just exactly DO we want?

My 15 & 16  year olds  will be offered DET NSW’s BlogEd, an apache blog platform within DET’s intranet bubble. I know why the decision to keep blogging in house was made but I still question the authenticity of future learning experiences. If we continue to exist in a cloister will learners ever be prepared for the real world?  

Well just exactly DO we want?

My Stage 5 compulsory attendees, now netbook equipped, will be told the School Certificate test matters (for state data collation), “put that away, we have real work today”. Who does the antiquated SC really matter for?

The School Certificate is not a pre-requisite to continue with their now compulsory “learning” attendance until age 17. These standarised tests, that every other state has abandoned, are today rarely used as qualification once higher certification is reached.

Well just exactly DO we want?

If the new National Curriculum does not integrate K-12 digital citizenship and embedd future Federal/state DER investment accountability, then really what are our newest, possibly one hit, shiny baubles good for? Hopefully not what Edwin Starr’s seminal song asks, What is it good for?

Well just exactly DO we want?

Talk about raising learning expectaions and setting the bar higher will remain just that. Leaders at all levels, including the classroom, need to consider and articulate their answers on this newest question.

Well what exactly do YOU want?

Now government largesse has landed, how will this change learning?

Despite using US statistics, you’ll get the idea. Same same, BUT new new for 2009.

For a full history of Shift Happens, now with 20 million plus hits, head over to Karl Fisch’s eloquent summary.

 

If you are familiar with the numerous past Did you Knows? note the many  differences since 2007, a short 2 years ago.

Message to you Ruby? Are you really a learner? or do you say you are. If you WANT to answer affirmatively then have the courage to get out from under our excuse rocks, make even more mistakes, experiment and forget the teaching to the test.  That is providing my employer shows the requisite trust in return.

Nothing in Did You Know 4 is particularly cutting edge, it is however a timely and valuable update. The statistical summation is now contemporary but fundamental school technology has not had any seminal breakthroughs since 2007. It’s just all got faster, cheaper, easier.

What has developed substantially since 2007, with considerably more urgency attached, is if you, your place of learning or your systemic goverance  has failed to move, you may well find yourself all sorts of trouble in the next 12 months. Today playing edu catch up is no longer the option it once was.

Have a look at traditional media to see their reactive doom & gloom nonsense many have been trotting out. They didn’t see the social media freight train arriving and now they are trying to play catch up or, even better lets ban and/or control social media and certainly make it hard for consumers to access.

The rate of change means today’s learners need to be fluid, shifting, agile and moving, not locked down with predetermined staid “thats how we’ve always done it” answers. Feeling “loose”, opening doors, trying new ways and ceding control is an antithesis for manylearners, especially with 20 plus time on job. New scheme teachers & interns should not be exposed but many still are mentored towards these “tried, tired and proven” ways. 

Daunting? not really. The alternatives, especially irrelevancy, are far worse. 

Accelerating change is happening;

a) despite what you or I want

b) despite what you or I are willing to accept

c) despite what closed walled bureaucracy believes

Not sure if I’m saddened or gladdened by this jazzed up Shift message, especially when placed in the context of are teachers REALLY doing the right thing by the 2022 graduates, today’s Kindy kids?

For one University’s practical response to issues raised in DYK4,  have a look at what UNSW is doing. Despite targeting an older student base, arguments raised around social media use are also valid for other age groups.

Feeling a little torn between “yay” and “oh dear!” today.

Did we just belly flop in the shallow end or have we launched a 10 metre 3.9 degree of difficulty, with pike? Quality learning style that is.

Sitting here on Saturday and reflecting on the past 48 hours of Quality Teaching and Professional Learning, I have mixed feelings on the experience. It was mostly positive of course, but I also sense the lost opportunities when my employer still delivers 20th century PD almost a decade into the 21st.

The 70:20:10 rule is also still alive and well but I sense our leaders are aware of, if not yet on top of, the dilemna this causes. One of my concerns is articulated by a valuable presenter we had the pleasure to work with. Tony Ryan says;

Many annual conferences are designed predominately as an entertainment and social function. Naturally, this is an important focus for that vital time-out every year.
Unfortunately, the quality of learning that takes place is often much less effective. Delegates regularly leave the venue and remember little of the necessary information that has been shared with them.

Tony Ryan has some thought provoking ideas on future learning when he says;

who we are as educators will be more important than what we teach.”

Energisers, ethicists, entrepreneurs and environmentalists”

You’d think I’d be as happy as a pig in the proverbial having just spent 2 days here, with 500 colleagues from NCR schools, all fabulous teachers I’m sure, doing amazing stuff with students.

The venue, social do, collegial conversations and food were all first class. But I still feel flat, as if I wanted more.

The distinct lack of authentic and meaningful cross delegate connectivity, even in face to face seminars, let alone any back channel amplification of our learning was probably what disappointed me the most.

The cliques of schools and colleagues who siloed without expanding their professional learning horizons was an opportunity lost. The convenors could expedite these connections, even if it is contrived.

The chance to experience and learn from others is what excites me about conferences, not the “hired gun” keynoters or experts dished up the front. As gifted as they may be, their impact is fleeting, my 500 colleagues are here to stay and do their great stuff in regional classrooms from every Monday.

It is these people who will help me become a better teacher, not some handout or website or fantriffic kit or book for sale at key note prices. PLN growth, developing real human connections and expanding our authentic local and global networks should be seen as critical learning at such f2f conferences.

A simple 20 minute formalised meet and greet was needed. Sure it is contrived but to connect face to face with fellow emailers, twitterers,bloggers or users of web2.0 or like minded curriculum collaborators or subject specialists or uses of IWB’s or connected classrooms would have established many diverse future conversations and added to our PLN’s substantially.

If I’d stated my professional interests on the conference enrollment, connection lists could be publically viewed over coffee as a 30 minute ice breaker. I would have immediately made connections with those with similiar educational goals allowing us the time to discuss ideas during the conference. Sure I eventually spoke to others and found some likemindedness, but I’m still thinking I missed more opportunities than I found.

It would be so easy to ensure NOT one possible face to face connection was missed by posting like mindedness on a pre conference wiki. This resembles the back wards planning, one of the QTL dimensions covered.

Face to face like mindedness would be established from the conference start; email, blog, connected classroom or twitter contacts could then be shared and deeper professional networks established for future reference. It would also be less embarrassing than me walking around with a sign saying ‘I Twitter, Do you?” a la the chauffeur airport greeters.

Of course I still inefficiently sought out people I know have regional responsibilities aligned with my interests.

A senior regional director, responding to individual connection requests, acted as maitre d’ at most morning teas, introducing like minded people. It was not a good look as he sprinted from each individual introduction to the next, highly wasteful of his talents and yet it would be so easy to improve and overcome.

Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciated the connection help and received answers to now follow up on, but witnessing senior leaders being used as the proverbial blue arsed fly was not a great use of human capital. This old school networking should by now have changed. A lost opportunity.

My colleagues could also have been introduced to fabulous English, Science and LOTE teachers in our regional schools who have similar professional interests to them. Their PLN would have grown substantially. This would take 15 minutes on day one to do. Another lost opportunity.

Instead we got the traditional sardine tin approach. 500 sit down, listen to lectures compliantly, turn off phones and watch the range of key note performances from engaging, adept and amusing to boring, boastful and almost belligerant.

The excellent fonts at the front, demonstrating their own mastery of QTL, even provided mild break outs for a “2 minute speed chat” or a kinesthetic “stand up sit down” game, if we were lucky. The best of the best gifted presenters who know their stuff are still great, but it’s now NOT enough. I wanted more bang for our DET learning buck and connected learning should be delivering it by now.

Unfortunatley I saw few laptops in use, phones were verboten, switched off and disconnected so twittering was minimal at best and not mentioned, let alone encouraged. The one lonely lady capturing video, I assume to podcast later, looked mighty lost most of the time and was not the example of core powerful learning visuals should be.

The 21st Century reality, when all seminars, all keynoters, all tutorials are captured and live streamed should by now be used at Regional level of NSW DET. They should set and show the connected learning agenda for others to follow.

All participants should be encouraged to connect via the new tools of learning and back channel chat should be encouraged, not forbidden. The quality of the content should be utilised by a far larger audience than the 500 physically present.

21st century learning opportunities, such as this QTL conference, should explicity demonstrate connected learning at Regional level. The 500 teachers present should have been shown our regional priority of connected learning, in action.

This slideshare shows us the power of humans, especially slide 45.

Technology is NOT, or should not be, the principle focus of connected learning futures. In places that deeply understand the changes facing networked learning, technology does not habitate the same pedastal DET NSW elevates it to. To place connected learning under a regional ICT umbrella, does the power of future human networks a grave disservice.

Connected learning should equal integrated mandatory learning. It is not an ICT appendix that learners, leaders and others then chop out if they feel a pain or they do not engage in it themselves. Of course if the current ICT appendix turns septic and explodes in our system due to ignorance, we will all face a far more major problem.

Imagine the ripple effect that would have back in their schools?

Participative use of modern tools should be integrated at all learning levels, starting with lead learning at conferences such as these. Imagine these 500 teachers, wirelessly connected, twittering, and networking in real time with each other and their remote colleagues. Some say disruptive, I say powerful collaboration.

All 500 report back in real time on what they are being shown and taught by their own lead learners on exactly what a 21st Century networked teacher is. Don’t dare say it’s an ICT/technology responsibility for that defeats any understanding of what the future of connected learning holds.

Maybe next year our key Quality Teaching and Learning conference will be substantially different. I hope so for it is always good, it just needs to lead by example. Shanghai08 and BECTA may be two such conferences we can learn from and model on.

Hope to see you at Coffs Harbour for Regional QTL in 2010. These 25 tools might be a common language we share by then.