Steve Hargadon held an interesting interview with Linda Darling-Hammond last week that covered, for the most part, the ideas in her new book “The Flat World and Education” as well as some of her earlier works like “The Right to Learn.” While I was hoping to hear her go a bit more into depth about the role of technology in the reform or transformation of schools, and to also be more specific as to how to get to reforms she says we need, she did articulate a number of compelling ideas around why change is so slow and why it’s so difficult to move the needle on schools here in the US. I’ve snipped three fairly short segments from the full interview that I want to touch on in three separate posts. (Full recording here.)
The first discusses the idea that reforms are hampered by the lack of teachers who can teach in progressive ways, and that replication of successful school models is extremely difficult due to diverse circumstances (some have leadership, money, infrastructure, others don’t) and a political reality that forces us to change course every few years while other countries are going through a steady process of “continual improvement.” She says it’s hard to build a “system of good schools” here. Take a listen:
Here is one quote that’s worth mulling over.
“Progressive educational philosophies, that is approaches that are child-centered, that are really focused on empowering forms of learning that allow people to inquire for themselves and pursue knowledge in self-initiated ways as well as in other ways, those kinds of reforms demand infinitely skilled teachers, and our system has never been organized to produce infinitely skilled teachers in sufficient qualities to fuel those reforms over the long haul.”
The other day I Tweeted the question “What % of teacher ed programs prepare teachers NOT to be the focal point of the classroom?” and the responses were telling. Most said 5-10%, and my sense is that’s pretty accurate. No question, we’re not producing “infinitely skilled teachers” who are also “infinitely skilled learners” as well, and that’s exactly what we need to make these progressive philosophies happen in the classroom. It’s not rocket science; if we want students who “pursue knowledge in self-directed ways” and flourish in an inquiry driven environment, we have to prepare teachers to do that for themselves. And we’re not. We prepare teachers to teach, not to learn.
But I also found it striking that she connected our difficulty in sustaining change with what she termed our “disposable culture” here in the US. We try one reform and dispose of it, then we try another and dispose of that one, and then we try yet another. And I can’t help ask, whose fault is that? Throughout our education, we’re give out disposable assignments, have kids work on disposable projects that lead to disposable tests. I mean really, how much of what we actually have our kids do in school is really worth hanging onto in a “change the world” sense? I don’t mean to saddle the current system with causing everything that ails our society, but you have to admit, we own some of that…we reap what we sow.
Over the next couple of days, I’m going to put some thoughts together on two of the other topics she brings up, professional development and assessment. Regardless the lack of a discussion around technology and learning networks in much of her writing and discussions, there is no question that Darling-Hammond has one of the clearest voices in articulating the issues we’re facing in education today. Definitely worth listening to.
I respond to Darling-Hammond’s, “…our system has never been organized to produce infinitely skilled teachers…” with this thought:
Our system is organized to systematically de-skill teachers. 29 years of being de-skilled, and still kickin’… – Mark
“…our system has never been organized to produce infinitely skilled teachers…â€
I think the key word here is infinitely. That to me means are not done learning, improving, changing and evolving with what’s best for a learning environment.
We have hundreds of thousands of teachers who may be a FINITELY good teacher. Was good at what they did and is still doing it despite best practice efforts to change them.
They survive 10, 15, 20, 29+ years producing what the post-secondary educators want. Someone who will listen to their professors drone on.
Well, look at the online revolution that is just starting, the enrollments that are down and the shift even the Harvards of the world are feeling.
De-skilled teachers look out, you bought into a system that is about to change
While LDH doesn’t write about technology’s role in ed reform specifically, I think one could argue that her commentary on the lack of high-quality teachers in the US is extremely relevant. Replicating school environments that effectively take advantage of web 2.0 and other digital tools, with a progressive philosophy, must be extremely difficult due to the diversity of circumstances cited in your post. Besides roadblocks in some districts with infrastructure and access to technology, a huge obstacle with technology successfully transforming schools is lack of high-quality teachers. LDH has written extensively on this and how districts with minority/low socio-economic student populations are more likely to have uncertified teachers with minimal/no training. She also bashes Teach for America as an ineffective way to close this inequity gap considering that most participants leave the field within three years and continue the revolving door of staffing in these schools. Technology’s success in taking a role in transforming schools is chiefly reliant on teachers who are skilled and knowledgeable at their craft.
Thanks for the comment, Tom. I think her ideas are totally relevant as well, lack of tech nonwithstanding. But I wonder, and I push the edges of my own brain when I say this, I wonder if technology may not be a vehicle, especially in those minority/low income districts, that would allow teachers to focus on mentoring and modelling rather than making sure all 35 kids in her classroom are reading at grade level. We can teach kids to read, do basic math, etc. with engaging software, one on one, not as a stand alone activity but one coupled with a teacher then supporting the process, not delivering it. I constantly think of the Hole in the Wall experiments that Sugata Mitra is doing in Indian slums and the ways in which kids self-teach WITH the support of a nurturing, guiding adult. Not that technology will solve all of our problems, but I wonder if LDH has a context for what technology might be able to do. If so, she doesn’t articulate it at all.
“Technology’s success in taking a role in transforming schools is chiefly reliant on teachers who are skilled and knowledgeable at their craft.”
Here is my question: is a teacher who is “skilled and knowledgeable at [his/her] craft” one who is skilled at being a teacher, or one who is skilled at being an historian, or chemist, or writer/publisher/editor, researcher (in any discipline), or end-user of modern technologies relevant to the field?
I came to teaching after 10 years spent in business and industry as a project manager, writer/editor, and “jane of all trades” when necessary. I was in a sink-or-swim situation most of the time, when learning new software and applications and how to adapt to the different personalities present on any given team taught me things that school could never do – at least not the school of my past. Perhaps the school of the future will address the hard and soft skills that people will need to be successful anywhere.
I’ve found, however, that because I did not attend a traditional teaching-college or go the CEAS-route for my license, I have unconventional and sometimes unwelcome (and admittedly economically conservative but socially liberal) views on the 21st century, I am not frequently welcome in the lounge. I keep my comments to myself after more than a few odd stares and glares given by colleagues. In short, my professional experience; knowledge of technology, business practices and realities; non “warm-fuzzy” views on competitiveness; and ability or desire to stay ahead of the curve and figure that students not only need but deserve to know about the realities surrounding x,y,z issue serve as a hindrance to my career.
I find that, as a motivated autodidact who is committed to getting kids outside the bubble of school walls, I am being caged by a walk-the-line mentality that inhibits and prohibits some of my ideas and practices.
It is making a return to the private sector incredibly appealing, if only for the relative sanity of being able to use my own creativity to solve a problem. Administrators say they want and even demand this of teachers, but sometimes the creative solutions they get don’t fall in line with the doctrine of the district. It is a tricky road to navigate.
Thanks for the comment Amy. I hope you are an exception, but I fear you are the rule here. And I think in many ways it’s just your misfortune to teach at this particular moment. The “school of the future” would hopefully appreciate you more. I do hope you hang in there and solve problems with your students, expand their global horizons, and get them out of the bubble every chance you get regardless of the expectations in the lounge. I know it’s not easy, but it is worth it for those students (until you get so fed up that it’s not.)
Thanks for the perspective.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the fact that technology is really not mentioned in either of the two books mentioned above. I was tempted to bring it up in the interview, and then felt that I didn’t want to dilute her story.
My tentative conclusion is that, in truth, we know what ails schools and it’s not the lack of technology… To wit, if we outfitted every classroom we know with all the relevant technologies, it’s not likely that most teaching would actually change. But I do see technology dramatically impacting education in three very significant ways.
First, it’s allowing for an incredible level of grass-roots involvement by educators in their professional development and in their empowerment in the larger discussion of educational policy. This does not, however, require a technology-rich classroom.
Second, the cultural changes around information are becoming so pervasive (Wikipedia toppling Encyclopedia Britannica, for example) that it’s hard to imagine teaching and learning remaining solely the domain of the formal education institutions we’ve been accustomed to. This outside pressure for change is likely to have the direct result of bringing more technology into classrooms in order to access and interact with that outside world. The new order of the world is engaged participation and conversation, and if we don’t start teaching students how to do that well, they will be at a great disadvantage. This does require a technology-rich classroom, but only when we have a model for how to teach this that is generally accepted… which I’m not sure will be an easy task, as it relies much less on traditional models and much more on student-driven pedagogies.
So far, no compelling reason to see technology as the immediate need. You surely know this is an interesting position for me.
Third, while I don’t think we’ve seen the educational equivalent of what the spreadsheet and word-processing did for the business world, I’ve got to believe this will come. Once available, these programs made such a huge difference in what could be accomplished that it was impossible to imagine a company not utilizing them. It could be argued that Learning Management Systems are or will play that role, but I haven’t seen the “can’t live without it” effect yet. I think it’s more likely to be the handheld/pad personal learning device, or the ability to connect to online/remote education. It might also be more robust student information systems. In any case, not today. Soon? Maybe.
So I ended up in the interesting position of agreeing with Linda’s omission. And while I disagreed with her abbreviated discussion of national policies (in all fairness, we didn’t go too deeply here), I came away from the interview with a keen sense that the revolution is more about ideas than tech. The interviews that are really lighting my fire are now less about the technology and more about models for individual participation, engagement, and passion–that the Web has released for a much greater number of us than ever before, which are significantly helped by the Web, but which do not necessarily solely dependent on the Web. These interviews are more about how local communities can work together to establish educational goals; about how we might, from that same grass-roots position, help change the model of the teaching profession; and about how we might allow students to be more self-directed in their learning.
Hmmm….
Thanks for the extended thoughts, Steve. Always great to have you participating here.
So let me push back a bit. I disagree that there’s no compelling reason to see technology as the immediate need in the first two points. It’s a chicken and egg kind of question isn’t it? How can we get to that model (or many models) of teaching effectively with technology unless we infuse technology into the system? I’m constantly amazed of late by the innovation and contributions of people in my network today who weren’t even a blip on the radar six months ago. I think we need to have a similar type of exploration going on at scale in the classroom. Our classrooms, right now, need to be laboratories for good teaching and pedagogy with technology. I fully realize that takes money and time and leadership, but I can’t imagine trying to improve what happens in classrooms (adding inquiry, self-direction, etc.) without making technology a fundamental piece of that. Doesn’t mean we do everything with tech, but it does mean it becomes one of the fundamental vehicles for learning in the classroom. And, on a side note, I wonder to what extent good software can ameliorate some of the big problems the low income districts that LDH speaks so passionately about. (See my comment to Tom just above.)
I think the revolution is about ideas AND tech. You look at the National Council Teachers of English literacies for 21st Century readers and writers and I just don’t see how we get there without technology. “Share information with global communities…”, “manage, analyze, synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information…”, “create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multi-media texts.” If that’s literacy today, and I agree that it is, then most of the kids we’re graduating from our schools are illiterate. How can we change that without putting the tools and access into kids’ hands?
My sense is that LDH has very little context, and perhaps, little interest in this part of the discussion. I’m the first to admit that my own lack of context for the history of education and the foundations of progressive thinking in education left me without a greater appreciation for the non-tech side of this conversation, but over the years, I’ve developed a much better understanding of it, thanks in large part to the people and teachers in my network who have pushed me toward it and helped me understand the importance. I don’t think you can separate the two parts at this point, and I guess I’m waiting for LDH to make that similar move in the networked online learning direction.
I really agree with yours and Linda’s analysis of the problem. I was lucky enough to be in the 5-10% of teachers who were trained to facilitate student-centered classrooms. After working in a traditional school in Virigina, I moved to NYC and joined a small progressive high school in the Bronx its 2nd year. We were doing amazing student-centered work for a while, but as the original group started to leave, we have found it very difficult to find more good progressive educators to replace them, and our schools has begun to suffer for it.
I think the question that needs to be answered is how do we get teachers to change their view of the their role in the classroom? If ed schools aren’t preparing teachers to help students be self-directed, what do we do in schools to change that? I’m lucky enough to work at a school with 2 hours of staff pd time each week where we feel we actually can change that.
I think this questions HAS to be answered before we talk about adding more technology into schools and classrooms. Any piece of technology in the hands of a teacher-centered teacher will be used for teacher-centered activities. Unless we first get teachers to re-evaluate their relation to their students and knowledge production in their classrooms, any technology will merely be co-opted for anti-progressive ends.
We can’t underestimate the powerful conditioning preservice teachers are receiving in their own elementary & secondary educations as a result of NCLB & high stakes testing. They come into teaching using these as touchstones for their own teaching. Seems to me that any leader or educator has to consciously plan in order to disrupt this.
I’m an instructor in an an M.A. program in the teaching of English. With each new cohort of students entering our program, and one of my classes, I have taken to asking how many of them have any recollection of school without high stakes standardized testing. Last fall, not one student raised his or her hand.
What ensued was simultaneously fascinating, frustrating and downright upsetting: Anxiety about grades (theirs, not mine). So I stopped grading. Everything. “But how will we know how we’re doing?” one student asked. “You mean, you really won’t be able to determine the quality of your work, why you’re learning, what you want to learn, and how you’re progressing, by yourself?” I replied. What came next? Stunned silence.
Among other observations: often, almost unquestioning expectations that I be The Source Of All Knowledge. Genuine confusion that I expected independent thinking, curiosity, taking initiative, which I had to embed in everything we did.
A couple of things helped. My own comments about what I was observing got many of them thinking. But I think the most significant was an active social networking site that was the hub of the class. It got me out of the center of things *fast*. It also became a place where they could experiment with finding/creating their own teacher voices & philosophies.
I tell my students I’m preparing them to conduct guerilla warfare in their schools. Out of the box thinking, unconventional approaches– which these days seems to mean student-centered, inquiry-based learning–but some days it feels like an uphill battle.
I don’t think technology is *the* answer– there isn’t going to be just one– but I am convinced that web-based programs and tools are powerful, powerful instigators of profound change in people’s experiences and the feelings and shifts in thinking that can result.
@Karen – thanks for having the courage to get rid of grades in your graduate classes and forcing your students to become better self-evaluators. I wish more professors would do this.I was lucky enough to have a mentor like this as well, and it’s the primary reason I’m a successful teacher: I know how to tell if what I’m doing is effective or not, and them how to improve. These are the same skills I try to help my high school students develop.
Both of you seem to recognize the problem and then deny it all in one breath. So we need infinitely skilled teachers to teach progressive education. Doesn’t that pretty much answer itself? Infinite skills are impossible and thus, teaching purely progressive education is impossible. Of course you guys are using hyperbole but it does rub up against reality in that public education is a system and we have to deal with the real variables that govern that system. As much as we hate bureaucracies education is one and that fact has to be dealt with. That means there will be some top-down decisions being made that thwart progressive agendas. That is a reality and the best we can do is deal with them and try to preserve some autonomy in the class room. It is confusing to teachers to tell them autonomy is the ultimate goal and then place them in the system where autonomy is not possible. Progressive ed is Utopian and while it has many excellent characteristics lets stop whining about the lack of it in education because then we never deal with what we can control.
my current thinking on this…
we can change ed with tech:
tech tools/apps make things (some learning and management) more efficient. so that’s cool.
we can change ed without tech:
i really believe that community is the curriculum.. and if we can get schools involved in their communities and communities involved in their schools, ed will change. that’s real cool.
but i don’t think we can make social change without web access to people per passion. by social change i mean – nclb.
the web coupled with digital equity finally let’s us get to the no child part.
and the web coupled with people per passion – let’s us get to a left behind that actually matters to people. no one will be trashing it – but rather living it as we make school real life – and remixing it – daily.
i love this artwork my Meek http://screencast.com/t/MjNmN2E2 – i see the coins as tech and the change as web access.