I always get in this reflective mood at the end of the year. I mean, I tend to do a lot of reflecting throughout the year (especially on planes), but at this point when the pace finally slows down a bit, I get to thinking about what I’ve seen, what I’ve learned, and what it means, if anything. So much of this year has been a blur that it’s probably folly to try to capture it in some understandable way. But I’ve been trying to put some form to what’s changed, both in my own practice and in the larger conversation about schools.
My year can be summed up with less blogging, less online reading, more Tweeting, more PLP, more traveling. I’m feeling less connected to the online conversation, more connected to the on the ground conversation. I’ve met amazing people this year who have shared their successes and struggles, excitement and fears in profound ways. That coupled with our ongoing work with the 800 or so teachers in our PLP cohorts has really led me to a deeper understanding of how difficult these changes are and how ingrained traditional practice continues to be in schools. On balance, for me, it’s been a healthy, albeit difficult shift at times. It’s been a very good year.
But more on my mind for this space right now is what’s changed in terms of the larger conversation in 2009. And I mean changed, not just talked about. I’m in the midst of a great book by Allan Collins and Richard Halverson titled Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology, and they spend about 20 pages writing about why the system is so resistant to change. The bottom line, they say, is that “teaching is an inevitably conservative practice.”
When embedded in institutions that protect instruction from systemic change, a conservative practice is reinforced by a conserving institution. It is difficult for teachers to implement substantially changed programs when they already have dedicated years adapting to what the traditional system of school offers (36).
They discuss three ways that schools deal with innovative technologies. First, they condemn them (see your local AUP), they co-opt them to support tried and true methods and curriculum, and, finally, they marginalize them, creating all of those “tinkering on the edges” initiatives to keep the reform minded happy. All of that resonates in the conversations I’ve had with folks this year. As much as people talk of change, the only stories that really get over the “transform” bar are what’s happening at my old school and from a superintendent in Iowa who told me he was in the process of “Napsterizing” education in his district. (I’m going to write more about both of those after the first of the year.)
So, as a way of taking stock, I’m asking, what’s changed?
I mean really changed in your school? What stories are there of moving wholesale to an inquiry-based curriculum, of real reinvention of assessments, of students participating in global learning networks, learning how to create their own personal networks around their own passions? Or even moving off of paper into a digital reading and writing space? Or moving from a teaching community to a learning community? Or other changes? My sense is that once again, there’s not all that much different today than a year ago.
Love to be proven wrong.
In general, I agree with what you say. As it happens, though, my school is at least partway down the road to genuine reform. We have a genuinely inquiry-based curriculum in our Humanities and Science courses, and I think we’re more of a learning community now than five years ago, but all that is from before this year. This year, we dropped grading and moved to standards-based assessment. We found less resistance than expected, though there are still references to “When do we get our grades?” and the like. Even then, we are finding the nature of our conversations about what is going on in class are changing. People appreciate the greater specificity of our new assessment system, both for the information it provides and for the implicit recognition that we all have things we do well and things we need to work on.
Now… would I love to see far more radical reform eventually? Well, yes, and I suspect one would need to start from scratch to get the kind of school I dream of. But that doesn’t negate the positive moves my school is making.
What has changed? It’s a great reflective question this time of year. As I listened to your presentation earlier this month at the VASCD conference in Williamsburg, I was struck by the vast opportunities that we have to truly allow students to “own†their education and how our systems are so arcaic that even pockets of individual success in our schools and classrooms gets engulfed by the old ways of doing school.
I also truly believe that we are experiencing a revolution of sorts, the “perfect storm†that Bill Daggett describes. Funding shortfalls, a country in debt, a society of consumers, along with the increasing need of accountability has put us in a place where public school education will be set back a decade, IF we continue to do school the same old way.
Which leads me to the notion that this “storm†may lead to more opportunities. I don’t think that incremental changes with the initiatives you described are going to ever get us to a place where we need to be in public education. At what costs are we losing kids along the way to slowly integrate change based on what early-adopting teachers want to play in the sand in our buildings? (and those who don’t)
When change is forced upon us through major developments beyond our control (i.e. funding, pandemics, war, etc), reformers are more readily willing to make sweeping change because they a) have an excuse now to do so, b) must deal with doing more with less, c) won’t have unions or other advocacy groups condemning their decisions (as much) and d) won’t make individuals feel as if they are being picked on from those at the top to make change. Regardless of “why†we are making change, the fact is that we now have more people willing to change based on “necessityâ€. The key, therefore, is to equip those in leadership positions with the information and tools to understand the state we are in as educators so decisions can be made that have the greatest impact on student learning. ( I would propose a 2 day conference where all change leaders spend time on Twitter, researching some of the great evolutionary practices that are best shared through how our students should be learning-social networking)
In other words, if you were going to “blow it all up and start overâ€, now is the perfect time to change how we “do†school and use the wealth of resources at our fingertips to develop learning spaces that best prepare our students and adults for a world where survival skills will be as critical as any content material taught in our buildings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-bracey/educations-baron-von-munc_b_101667.html
Will:
I think you have done a nice job of looking at the present status of education. It is difficult to imagine the amount of push back that I receive when I bring forth new initiatives that will make the educational process closer to the world our students will face when they enter the work force. The quote I have on many of my materials still fits here.
“There is a big difference between teaching thirty years and teaching one year thirty times.”
The other piece resonated with me was the “co-opting” of the use of technology in education to fit into the old model of education. “Shovelware” for lack of a better term. This directly flows into what the district policy relating to the use of technological tools in the classroom. There are definitely three distinct camps…. Toy, Tool and Terrorist. (I can’t remember if I found this someplace else or not?)
Hoping that 2010 will provide a fertile ground for the building of structures that will support the movement toward and educational system that values the growth of individuals and not just a score on a standardized test. I am also hopeful that the GTA for Administrators will be the first thing that will bring more administrators into the conversation or at least identify a group of administrators from around the country that can share strategies to move forward.
Not a whole lot has changed. Everything in your last paragraph about paperless, learning communities is a dream over in these parts. CHANGE IS SO SLOW. I am getting frustrated.
I have become a year more frustrated with the lack of change. There has been some positive progress though. We have implemented a program (an alternative school if you will) where students can recapture lost credits as well as accelerate their progress towards graduation using an online curriculum supervised alternatively by teachers from all the different disciplines. The greatest outcome is how the students and teachers have formed a learning cohort where they collaborate and share resources. The waiting list is full! I have a department of teachers who are using Ning and Twitter for sharing resources. They have implemented a few of these practices with their students. The most exciting was the combination of 8 different freshman classes sharing a common assignment on a ning where they had to interact with one another using online collaborative skills! I have come to the conclusion that being the pied piper of web 2.0 in my building is not the best approach. I need to focus on student learning and the evidence of achievement and then show my staff great examples of student learning using all different kinds of technology. That Sancho Panza is my quest for 2010!
‘What stories are there of moving wholesale to an inquiry-based curriculum, of real reinvention of assessments, of students participating in global learning networks, learning how to create their own personal networks around their own passions? Or even moving off of paper into a digital reading and writing space? Or moving from a teaching community to a learning community?’
Your questions deserve to be repeated. Inquiry based learning within digital collaborative networks is the school built under a rainbow with a spectrum of literacy rich possibilities.
In our school, small changes. I think the copier is getting less of a workout — more stuff is moving between teachers and students through Moodle, Dyknow and e-mail. A little movement toward thinking inquiry-based. Most significant, I believe: teachers being asked by administration to include development of a PLN as part of their goals for the year. That’s got to spark some more change for the future.
Education is a massive institution. It is not going to move quickly.
I think it is a terrific idea that teachers need to create a Personal Learning Plan and have it available. Whether it is followed up or not is another step but it is certainly a move in the right direction I believe.
In my small corner there have been incremental but important changes. For me personally I started a “23 Things” class at this time last year. Before that I really had no knowledge of web 2.0. I did not read blogs, tweet, or have a PLN. I had never heard of RSS, Will Richardson (or any other edu-blogger), or a reader.
Now I am active in Twitter and blogs building a PLN. I have students blogging, skyping, using wikis, and connecting with far away places. I am working on a paperless classroom. We use Google Docs and post our work on YouTube. My principal has given me one hour a day second semester to help other teachers in my building integrate technology. I have also helped every teacher in my building create either a blog or wiki to communicate with students and parents.
Are these changes systemic in my school or district? No, but it has to start somewhere. I believe that the head of our technology department has a good vision to change, but will pace it slowly. The filter was opened up for teachers this year. Sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Second Life were unblocked. The district also created three tech integration specialist positions, one of whom created a ning for the district.
Many teachers still teach the same way, but I can feel a small shift towards changing practices. I am discouraged by “Race to the Top” and the over-testing. Please continue to be a voice that challenges the status-quo for the everyday teachers. We need people like you to get the ear of this administration to get federal support for change. (I know that is opening up a whole other can of worms.)
I work in the International School system in Beijing and I am wondering whether true international schools are more open to change than the schools back home? I don’t have an answer as I have been over here for six years and have been involved in tech for three years.
I am certainly alone in my school though there is some interest. We still seem to be focusing on the hardware rather than changing the nuts and bolts. All of our classrooms have IWB’s and yet I am not sure how much they are used as the training to embed them into the curriculum is very limited. I am realizing that teachers must be proactive and often willing to put out the money for training if they are going to learn new things. At least that is how I have had to do it.
On the other hand I read about other international schools that are genuinely moving forward with 21st century initiatives.
Perhaps IWBs aren’t used because they have little value and a are a costly placebo.
I’ve seen no evidence that infinite amounts of “training” (a term more often applied to circus animals) will change that situation.
IWBs are a pre-Gutenberg technology. The priest chants while the monks take dictation on their slates or tablet PCs. Reinforcing the dominance of the front of the room and confusing fidgeting with interaction or engagement do not represent educational progress.
What sort of moving forward have you seen or read about?
Actually, I love my IWB and what it has done for my teaching in the classroom. Of course, I am fully trained now and can easily make flipcharts that involve my students in learning. My students love them and so do I.
My point was that hardware is never the answer but that there must be training provided until a teacher is comfortable with the technology before it can make a big difference.
My students are much more hands on.
I started teaching when there was a blackboard and chalk, moved into the days of overhead projectors, VCR’s, DVD players, Whiteboards and coloured erasable pens and the beginning 10 years ago of computers in the classroom. Now I have all of that at my fingertips including a new tool the IWB. Are things better? Definitely, Is it easy to change to IWB? No there is a lot of time that needs to be spent learning the process.
Is it the answer to everything? Of course not…no one says it is but it is a terrific tool that when put in the right hands provides a strong platform for the students to learn and investigate.
I frankly find your reference to training and circus animals demeaning to teachers like myself who spend hours and hours attending training (what that has to do with being an animal totally misses my understanding) and leading the training. I am a professional educator who actively works at learning the tools I am given. That involves training but certainly not jumping through fire hoops.
If you are seeing the IWB as a stage for the sage than I can understand your disenchantment as you have obviously not been part of an active involved class where the students run the board, create the flipcharts and integrate many of the concepts.
My original point had been that schools are using IWB in the same way they are providing endless computers hoping by throwing enough hardware at the situation will take care of everything and settle everyone down. It takes practice, determination and proactive spirit and a willingness to ignore the naysayers and go forward.
As a “professional,” perhaps you should find the use of the term, “training,” to be offensive.
I’d love to hear more about your flip-charts.
This sounds more to me like justifying the technology than powerful learning practice.
But, heck I could be wrong.
Happy holidays!
Gary
The more I think about change in education, the more I’m convinced that it’s going to happen in Christensen’s Disrupting Education model.
http://tinyurl.com/ya83fjz
The system is too entrenched in the minds of administrators, teachers, and students. Regardless of the strategies we develop, too many kids think of school as a GPA based hoop to jump through on the way to real life. By the time kids get to high school, they too often believe that their learning experience at school is irrelevant, so they simply do the least amount of work possible to get the best grade. We need to decolonize minds about learning before we start really learning.
I may be wrong, but I think a true model of inquiry based, student learning is going to have to continue to develop in the margins and slowly win over students as a more legitimate and exciting form of learning. There are too many constraints for widespread radical change to occur in mainstream schools.
First of all Will thank you for engaging so many of us in thoughtful, reflective & hopefully productive communication regarding what we do as educators & why we do it!
Sometimes large gifts come in small packages. While I have been frustrated by the lack of immediate or instrumental changes within our high school, this year we began to-
-offer blended online courses
-allow students to utilize classroom blogs & stop trying to “block everything from the outside”
-once again discuss & research as a staff new & better ways to change our schedule away from a “traditional factory model” school to better meet the needs of students
So are these small gifts? Yes, certainly…but perhaps small steps will someday lead to great gains…(on more than standardized test scores!).
As to the future, we will see what happens…the past is the past. As for the present, well as they say- every day is a gift, that is why they call it “the present”!
Will,
It’s still change, even if it happens slowly. To say that there hasn’t been a transformation and then use that statement to assert that nothing is changing is a mistake, I believe.
Happy holidays!
Mike
Hey Will – Kudos to you for your foresight, dedication and effortless time spent as a role model and mentor to all us educators. Your determination (and that of others) is a huge contribution to what is a major move to transform education (the system) to the next level. Change takes time. 2010 – bring it on. It’s comforting to read that some schools are finding ways to work the filters to allow sites like YouTube, wiki’s and ning’s.
So what’s changed in my school? The mindset of those teachers who have a passion to grow and learn beyond traditional. The main obstacle is the lack of support and professional development offered by our leaders who talk the talk, but don’t follow through. Today’s educators need professional development more than ever before.
Last year my school participated in the NJPLP (and spent a lot of money). I was fortunate to be part of the opportunity and for the experience gained. The team had first hand knowledge and innovative ideas to move ahead. I envisioned professional development workshops for the staff; collaboration, curriculum development using nings, wikis, etc. Administration, however, dropped the ball and had their own ideas.
So, if you live in a system that is “survival of the fittest”, it’s up to each one of us to be life-long learners in a world that changes every second.
My response is available as a blog post at:
http://markcarbone.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/2009-whats-changed/
~ Mark
What has changed at my school in the last year? in terms of language of teachers they all know what Web 2.0 is probably thanks to twitter, which has really taken off. We use skype to do our monthly meetings, and a small portion fo teachers use it to connect with other teachers and the larger community. more blogs, I think in a small school we have about 40 or so. almost everyone uses Wikipedia to support instruction, and many other online sources.
But I work in the NYCDOE where they are always changing the horses midstream for billions of wasted dollars (even in this economic clumate) Constantly coming up with their version of Kranmars delicious mystery appetizer ( “something new and different.) And let us not forget they are driven by the Data nazis or numbers gestaspo, so thoughtful sustainable change is very hard for a principal to plan for, as she has to recount the same beans in 1000 different ways to feed the beast.
However really good tools like twitter, Skype, Wikis and smartphones,
and blogs have become part of the larger culture and in that way some of them are slipping past the metal detectors and into the classroom use.
But this is a natural part of a culture that is shifting and the leadership in my school is kept to busy with pure nonsense by the district and central to effectively “plan” change.
This is the exact conversation I just had with a fellow co-worker. Our last high school principal was in “reign†for 5 years. She really pushed innovative thinking. She was sending us to all sorts of professional developments, bringing in speakers, forming committees, and challenging us to step up.
My co-worker and I were discussing what has really changed. Were we doing anything different? Unfortunately the answer was not really. There were definitely protocol changes, better communication, but for the most part teachers kept teaching the way they were comfortable with.
I believe time is an issue at hand. It seems teachers are constantly being asked to do more and more, while class sizes increase. It takes a lot of time to develop new, innovative lessons. I am not sure how to get around this, especially with current budgets. I do believe it is an issue though. There are so many good teachers out there that are trying everything possible; unfortunately these teachers are getting burnt out because of everything asked from them.
I love thinking about education as an inherently conservative practice, and find it somewhat ironic considering how many teachers (at least in my school and area) consider themselves to be liberal. Yet the ideas of what schools and teaching do, and should, look like are rather static in our society. We see chalkboards (maybe advanced to a white board), desks, paper, pencils, erasers and now occasionally an LCD. I think there has definitely been growth, but the system has remained the same. We still view teachers at the front of the room, and students sitting quietly at desks. We see loud classrooms as chaotic and poorly managed, rather than as students buzzing with excitement over the content and opportunities to collaborate.
We’re not used to seeing computers, other than the teachers, and when we do we assume they’re playing typing games or typing up papers. When I used to teach many observers would visit our school, look in my room, and quickly leave. They saw computers and did not equate this with teaching, as a teacher wasn’t at the front talking, and students weren’t writing or completing worksheets. Only once did a teacher ever stop to look at what the students were creating, who they were collaborating with (using wikis and online networking), and what kind of conversations were created through their blogs.
This tells me that as ‘liberal’ as we think we may be, we do in fact still have a conservative mindset around what a classroom should look and feel like.
This question prompted me to look up the definition of conservative. Conservative can mean politically conservative, as well as “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions†or “marked by moderation or caution.†I don’t believe that teaching is an inevitably politically conservative practice, in fact, I believe that teaching should help children develop their own ideas and opinions. Furthermore, when I think about this question, I think it is important to distinguish teaching from school institutions. Most teachers are paid and under the supervisions of the institutions where they work, however teaching and schools are not the same thing. Teaching can happen between teachers and students (or between students and students) in a classroom, between a parent or child in a home, between a coach and players, between a guide and hikers on a trail. Teaching can impart skills, attitudes, content, and traditions. A teacher’s job can be conservative, if he or she is passing values or skills from generation to generation; however teachers can also inspire and incubate students creativity and provide a platform for students to reinvent and exceed what past generations have achieved.
For me, some differences between my experiences in school and my experiences teaching are tied up with race and class, as I am a white woman from San Francisco who attended to private school for K-12, and I currently teach in a majority Black, Caribbean and Latina public charter school in New York City. For example: I went to a school with a computer lab that all students and classes could (and did) access. There were also computers in the library that middle school students could use for school. The school where I work now has a laptop cart which teachers can reserve and bring to their classes. However, the potential of that computer is totally different. In 1993, we were not accessing the internet in school, and many of the computers didn’t even have color! Now, my students can access the internet, but they are not spending as much time learning skills like typing, which have been very useful to me as I’ve grown up using computers. Also, when I was growing up the biggest draws of the computer were playing games or “drawing†or “painting.†Now, when my students think of computers they are drawn to the facebook, youtube, email, and of course, games. I think that when I was in third grade, computers were an electronic version of things you could do on paper. Now computers and technology have defined their own versions of communication and creation. Computers and technology hold a much greater potential now as education tools in themselves, rather than when I was in third grade, and technology and computers were a means to the same end as pencil and paper.
Unfortunately, I do agree that “teaching is an inevitably conservative practice,†mostly because it is controlled by so many people at so many levels of government that it is difficult for widespread, meaningful changes to occur. When I think about my own professional experiences thus far, I think about my time working in corporate America – an industry that is widely considered to be “conservative,†but was actually so much less so than the portions education I have encountered. Because I worked for a company that was lead by forward thinking, open minded leaders, the company changed and adapted to the times. Because the portions of education I have seen are lead by people who have been in education since before I was born, and are unwilling to change their own thoughts, education does not change. When considering the school where I teach, I am saddened to realize that although I have a smartboard in my room and use it on a daily basis, my students themselves interact with and use technology less than I did in first grade 20 years ago.
Sadly, I do agree that teaching is an inevitably conservative practice, at least in my own experience in the urban charter school world so far. Our network of schools is built on one model and the goal is that this model remains consistent across the network. The ideal classroom in this model, at least through my perception, is quiet 95% of the time. Students are sitting neatly at desks or neatly in carpet squares. The energy never becomes too loud or too excited. In addition, teachers definitely take harsh tones or yelling tones on a daily basis. This management style does not allow for a lot of creative freedom or expression for the students. However, it does allow the teacher to have the maximum amount of control. Whether or not this is the “best†way for students to learn is the question.
Our school has tried to deviate from our rigid 6-week interval testing cycle by employing backward planning and understanding by design. However, it seems that it is virtually impossible to use the two in conjunction with one another. Therefore, creative approaches to unit planning, lesson delivery, and assessment are not the priority. They lose out to ensuring that all students are adequately prepared to achieve high scores on our network’s standardized tests. There is less focus on inquiry and more of an emphasis on a stringent I-We-You lesson format.
I think that there does not appear to be a great difference in teaching practices between the school that I attended as a child and the school that I currently teach in. However, I think the difference is that teachers are certainly aware now that teaching practices could be different. I believe change is gradual and it can be difficult for people to move past their fear of the unknown.
Like many of the posts before mine, I too agree that teaching tends to be a conservative practice. Because education is largely dictated by the federal government, wholesale change is understandably hard to enact. No two school districts are the same so any policy change is bound to impact different schools in different ways. I also think that the risks involved with innovation in our schools are viewed as too great by those who can spur that innovation. That is, there is too much at stake to risk changing too much. At the charter school where I teach, my students’s goal from the first day of kindergarten is to get into and graduate from college. There is simply too much at stake to risk changing from a system that has proven success.
With that all being said, I do think there is more all of us can do to integrate technology into our students’ learning–even if it is giving parents the skills they need to effectively educate their children. When I step back and look at my students, I realize that they interact with technology in school far less than I did when I was their age over 15 years a go. That realization makes the problem even that more scary.
I think many teachers share in our students’ media and technology consumption practices. Though even I am outdated compared to my teenaged younger brother, whose texts I can barely decipher…
The point is so many people are willing and wanting to change – shift to a discovery-based learning style, encourage and cultivate tech saavy students, engage learners in the interconnected world at large…
I know my own reality, however, involves me toting my personal laptop to school if I need computer access, and often showing youtube videos on my iphone to my class. My overhead projector (the VERY SAME technology from my own elementary school years) is the extent of media in my room. I do not even have a single computer, and the only working ones in the school are housed in a 20-computer “literacy center†that remains in use or locked during every hour of the day.
Like Robby said, considering the fact as a student in the 1990s I had more access to technology…laser disk and Oregon Trail though it was…than my low-income students in the Bronx do…is ridiculous.
Teaching is conservative in the sense that it is a huge machine with many moving parts. For schools strapped for cash, failing state standardized tests and dealing with high levels of student and teacher mobility, adopting/purchasing/implementing the newest technology is not always high priority. And as a society, where cities look to school budgets first when facing deficits…certainly my school cannot even afford printing paper for the worksheets that could be replaced with computers…if we could afford computers…well, we know where that has gotten us. Limping to catch up with other industrialized countries and leaving our little ones without the thinking abilities and technology skills that will be essential for the jobs of tomorrow. It is certainly frustrating.
How unfortunately true it is that teaching is a conservative practice. This rings true especially with the political resistance to potential education reforms occurring in the country right now. I believe that teaching is a conservative practice because teacher training programs are (for the most part) also conservative programs. Traditional schools of education are non-rigorous factories that produce teachers that can teach reading, writing, social studies, and science, but do not think about how their students are actually accessing the information. Students are not given the opportunity to interact with technology during the school day, which holds them back from succeeding in today’s technologically connected world.
This is reinforced with I compare my school experience to the experience of my own students. Though I was not using a computer daily, I was still exposed infrequently to technology (through computerized book quizzes in the library, laser discs in science, etc.). My students today have the same infrequent experience with technology. I use podcasts to dramatize reading class for my 2nd graders, and students have the opportunity to play academic games online throughout the day, but I’m not allowing them the chance to genuinely interact with technology and learn how to gather, synthesize, and utilize information. Thanks for a thoughtful post that has made me reflect on how I can help my students each day!
It is amazing that teaching is so conservative – given the very creative teachers that I have encountered all over. Are teachers simply stifled by the bureaucracies that surround them? Clearly, there is no simple answer. I am left to wonder why my own classroom is so conservative. Sure, if I want my students on computers I either have to bring in my own or tap my thumbs for several minutes while our school’s “wireless” system loads a single page. And my overhead projector is ancient. And many of my students are high-need and at-risk, demanding a lot of structure and predictability. But that shouldn’t be an excuse, right? I could still foster independent thought and creative projects. In my own world, the only answer I can come to is “I just don’t have the energy!” After the paperwork and incident reports and health issues that happen daily, there is so little left in my energy reserves to reform my own classroom.
Do other teachers have this issue? I have the drive and ambition to make my classroom a better place for my students to express themselves – a less “conservative” environment if you will. But I just don’t have the energy or support.
Alyssa,
Thank you for your honest reflection on your own teaching. My answer to your question is YES! I have this issue too. I have found teaching to be an incredibly conservative practice and, though I realize that it shouldn’t be, I am, so far, a teacher who conforms to the conservative practices. I agree with earlier posts that suggest that the conservative nature of teaching stems from the immense amount of bureaucracy involved in reforming education. However, I am conservative largely because it is only my second year teaching. While I started teaching hoping to be a creative, innovative teacher, I found myself so overwhelmed with learning how to teach at all that I clung to the methods used by the veteran teachers around me. They had had success, so why not try what they were doing? While I hope to integrate more technology and inquiry-based learning into my classroom, I find it intimidating to do so when there are no existing models to learn from in my school. As a person with little technological-know-how, I wish I had more professional development in how to create a classroom that follows a less conventional model.
Richardson is right. Not much has changed, at least not at my school. My students have had “computer class” twice so far this whole year, and while I use the four computers in my classroom for an hour or so a day, I’m not quite sure how to best use them to enhance my 25 students’ learning. While instead of the typing games I played as an elementary school student, my students can access and play a variety of math games through an online portal, I wish that I had the energy and knowledge to use technology to really change my students’ learning experience from the “conservative” model.
Teaching, by nature, is not necessarily conservative. Teaching, at its core, is about exploration, growth and change–ideas that are all at odd with the principles of conservatism. In practice, however, schools often do serve as institutions that work to reinforce rather than challenge the existing status quo in multiple ways. I work in a school that is extremely self-reflective, is constantly trying to self-assess and come up with newer, more efficient, more inclusive systems and instructional best practices, and yet we are still clearly struggling to create the school our imaginations and our intellects tell is possible.
There have, however, been important changes. The way that my school uses data, alone, is a revolutionary change. We are tracking student growth across skill sets and disciplines in a way that simply wasn’t being done 5-7 years ago, let alone when I was in middle school. Additionally, while the number of hours that my students spend in front of a computer during the school day is not much different than when I was growing up, the way we are using technology has become way more inclusive and inquiry based (read: less mind-numbing typing games and more using computers to communicate with kids all over the world). My students are already reading relevant blogs written by other young people. In the Spring our kids will record short videos to be posted on and then reviewed by other students, on Youtube, and later this year my students will use smartboards to have a Socratic Seminar with students in Boston in which they discuss the origins of slavery and the prevailing legacy of racism. While we still have a ways to until we are “moving off of paper into a digital reading and writing space,” we are slowly becoming a learning community.
The manner in which most schools respond to creative technology innovation is depressing. When I started reading that sentence, I felt optimistic that at least one of the alternatives (albeit likely not the most prevalent ) would manage to incorporate technology in a productive and effective way. Sadly, it appears all three “ways of dealing” are failing our students.
As a teacher at a school where most of my students do not have access to the Internet at home, it strikes me as inherently unjust for schools to deprive children to innovative technology. If we want to close the rampant academic achievement gap and propel children from low-income communities into the best colleges and careers, we must provide them with the same access to technology as their more affluent peers. In denying them this education at school, we are failing as teachers and administrators.
I write this response after coming home from a Professional Growth Plan conversation with my principal and teaching coach. As this is my second year at the school it is the second PGP conversation I have had with these 2 women. What struck me this year (as a second year teacher) that didn’t even occur to me last year is how much control I have over my own learning and my own growth. I do not think that change happens over night, especially in as massive and intricate an institution as education but I can change and help others to see my point of view.
Unfortunatety, I agree ‘teaching is an inevitably conservative practic.’ When I look at the school I taught at last year not much as changed. In fact, I would say my teachers and school had greater progress and strides in using an inquiry-based learning cirriculum than where I was taught. Yet as one blogger mentioned, there are pockets of success as in my first school I taught at as first year corp member at Teach for America. In the macro sense of public education, change is incredibly slow because of a system designed to maintain the status quo.
Like many of the posts before me, I do think that teaching is a conservative practice, not only in terms of innovation of technology, but also in the flow of information. Teaching, as presented most often, is fundamentally a one-way flow of information from teacher to student. However people don’t learn that way. People learn from experiences, conversations, shared-experiences and discovery. However, in order to manage knowledge being shared, I think schools feel the need to stay in “control†by keeping the flow of knowledge one-way. I think it is daunting as a teacher, especially elementary, to let your students lead discussions, design their experiments and take charge of their learning. You have no idea whether they will master the skills you need them to in order to pass a test or learn the information required by the state. Until we are comfortable “losing control†and believing that our students are actually capable of being great thinkers and leaders, I think teaching will continue to be a conservative practice.
Growing up, I was fortunate to attend a school district that was very well funded and allowed students to explore and have shared-experiences in learning. Especially in upper-elementary school, I do remember feeling like it was more of a learning community. Right now in the school I teach at, we are making changes to push ourselves to shape our children into great thinkers, not just great students. I try to push my students to have conversations about books, instead of me just asking inferential questions to them during guided reading. I am implementing more partner work so that they can learn from each other, not just the content but also social skills. In terms of technology, I would definitely say I am on the less advanced side. We don’t have computers in our classroom, though we will occasionally throw on a YouTube video or DVD on a projector to help our children see a concept that we are learning about. It’s actually quite similar to my childhood education.
In some ways, I agree that teaching is an inevitably conservative practice, while in other ways I see progress in the field of education. When I reflect on my own time spent as a student and my career as a teacher, there are striking similarities. My students spend a lot of time listening to me teach while they sit quietly, doing work from a textbook, and completing some type of quiet activity based on their learning. While I want to try innovative techniques in my classroom, I often fall back on what I am used to due to lack of resources, administrative pressure, or just a tendency to stick with what is comfortable. One change that I do see in the field of education is an attempt to gather more data on students and use this data to drive everyday instruction. I think as educators our job is to try to bring positive changes to the entire system instead of just individual classrooms or schools.
As I reflect on my pedagogy, I do believe ‘teaching is an inevitably conservative practice’ as Will suggest, but for as long as you the educator want it that way. When I first interviewed at my school I was immediately drawn to the culture because it resembled the setting I experienced as a child. It felt like I could now play the role my teachers played in my life in the lives of my students. A lot of teaching comes from the self and as educators we try to impart knowledge to our students in the ways our teacher taught us. Bottom line teachers teach the way they were taught, but I soon realized this generation of students march to the beat of their own drums. They are nothing alike the students of my time. Everything is fast paced for them yet they are confined in an environment that is not reflective of their experience. As educators we have to make a conscious effort to bridge traditional and progressive school of thoughts to ensure that we are sending out well rounded individuals into the world.
Reflecting on the idea of radical reform taking place across the year seems to be novel while in my school environment where I wish I could rely on necessities such as access to a working copier. Granted many expectations have changed in the space of a year but, they mostly concerned implementing practices in the conservative manner of teaching. We now have smartboards and there is a mild push to increase the use of technology, but it’s pretty much left up to the teacher’s discretion.
In my humble opinion, teaching is often conservative, but I dont believe it has to be inevitable. Perhaps the more successful models that exist of how to create working innovation, the more likely it will be for the profession to keep up with the times.
Emily Fernandez
Considering the conservativeness of teaching is an interesting mental discussion for me. On an institutional level I do agree with the concept of teaching or education as conservative as any other large institution is. Yet on an individual level as a teacher myself teaching has been inherently dynamic and growth oriented and liberal. Often against my own wishes! I rarely am able to use a material or text or strategy more than once in the same way as I am constantly exposed (or exposing myself to) new and better ways to teach and learn, be it a different way to think about the main idea of a text or a different way of sharing that text with my students. On the teacher level I believe the degree of conservativeness varies greatly and is directly correlated to the teacher as a learned himself.
Certainly my school is drastically different from the school I attended. Smart boards and LCD projectors are gaining a near majority in out projection methods. Textbooks have been thrown out and replaced with newspaper articles, short stories and even blog posts ïŠ. Instruction focuses on strategies that can be applied beyond the content of one class and one subject area. And yet we have a great deal more change to go if we are to meet the needs of our students, whose worlds are certainly changing more rapidly than we are.
Richardson suggests that “teaching is an inevitably conservative practice†and I agree that it is highly resistant to change. Yet, I disagree that it is inevitably so, or that very little change has taken place. On the one hand, it appears that the teaching that occurs in most classrooms reflects more the “tried and true methods and curriculum†than a new and innovative implementation of today’s technology. On the other hand, this reality varies drastically across schools and districts, and often comes down to funding and the availability of resources. I think much of the innovation and use of technology has really been concentrated at the top, in higher education—college courses offering graphic design or PowerPoint science lectures and even some high schools classes offering computer programming. It is the primary schools that lag much farther behind. Yet some changes have been made at the primary school level, albeit slowly over time since I attended school. When I was in school, we had access to the computers in our school library perhaps once a week. There were no computers in the classroom. That was the extent to which technology was incorporated in school instruction. Nowadays, there are more often than not several computers in the classroom. Teachers more frequently and more meaningfully incorporate media in their lessons – from audio clips, video recording using Flip cameras, to Bill Nye science lectures on Youtube, PowerPoint and interactive SmartBoard lessons. These changes have been moderate, and slow, but they are real.
I agree with Richardson’s comment, “Teaching is an inevitably conservative practice.†I was particularly struck with his discussion of the ways that innovative technologies are disregarded. My experiences make me believe the arts disciplines experience the exact same cycles of condemnation, marginalization, and “tinkering on the edges.†Core curricula have been canonized in a manner that is far too strict, and it is an unfortunate reality that only the most skilled and experienced teachers consider themselves ready to integrate “outside†disciplines.
Teaching at a charter school is in many ways an exercise in contradictions between progressive and conservative, so I find that there are an equal number of similarities and differences from the schools I attended. I work at a homogeneously populated school on a progressive mission—to make sure that all our primarily African-American boys enter into, succeed, and graduate from college. This is dramatically different from my heterogeneously-populated elementary school in Wake County, NC, where busing for socioeconomic balance in schools has been common practice since 1976. However, our teaching methods are conservative, many of them comprising a “back to basics†approach involving a significant amount of direct instruction, certainly more conservative than my own elementary school was in 1990. Scarily, our school is behind my elementary experience in technology. We offer no computer experiences for our students now past 1st grade—I began typing classes in 3rd grade and continued my technological education through high school.
In general, teachers, especially in the KIPP, AF and Uncommon network of schools are extremely innovative, creative and motivated to inspire change. Our network of schools is leading the charge when it comes to school reform. Because of this I can’t say I completely agree with Will Richardson’s statement that “teaching is an inevitably conservative practice.†Although some individuals and schools perpetuate this practice, there are others who are working for change and have done so successfully.
The basic structure of school has not changed that much since I was a child. Teachers worked incredibly hard to meet the needs of all the students in the classroom and provided thoughtful and meaningful experiences. Teachers and students did not use too much technology. When I was in high school we had a computer lab but it was not used much by the students. Today, the students in my classroom have limited exposure to computers, however do receive more technology based teaching – use of document cameras, VPUs and iTunes.
I wish I could report about a change but unfortunately all I can say is – “Not yet”. However, I think that something that has changed is the opportunity for change. I work for a charter school and am embedded with a culture of “no more”. No more of the old, no more failing students, of not sending kids to college, of using things that don’t work, etc. etc. However, I must agree with this idea of the education system being conservative. But this doesn’t come from the teachers. We get involved to change things. We aren’t in it for the money, few people respect us except for the students and if it was just about being around kids, we’d be in the circus. No, teachers are not part of the problem. Government officials, chancellors, superintendents, and even principals are causing things to remain stagnant. They are uncomfortable with change because they are afraid of things going bad on their watch. So the push for the status quo to remain in our school even when they are failing because failing school in East New York ARE the status quo and no one is going to raise hell about that. So the archaism of school will remain until teacher, parents are students can take hold of the reins. They are ones active in the trenches. To some degree, I have seen it happen and felt that shift of power. It means more work for me but a lot more autonomy. And my principal is getting more autonomy and it turns out that the right ones are not pushing for the status quo. Maybe this will trickle up through the ranks and the status quo will be a system of change.
Last thing. When I was in school we had computers – 2nd generation Apple computers (remember the ones that were all screen and key board?). We used to play number munchers and other so-called learning games. Not much has really changed. Kids are using computers in our K and 1st grade classrooms and I have a pair of brand new ones in our class. They are used for games though or fillers for time between guided reading rotations. How can we use them better? Apparently that hasn’t been figured out yet. There is a thick coat of dust on the key boards of my computers in my classroom.
Teaching, to some degree, is an ‘inevitably conservative practice.’ I’ve been teaching for four years and haven’t seen many technological changes within that time. I can’t say nothing has changed. The number of computers per classroom has risen and the amount of time spent on the computer has gone up slightly. At this rate, though, schools will never catch up to the rest of the world. Since I attended school, plenty has changed. Computers are updated, new programs have been introduced, and new technology (smart boards, elmos, etc) have entered our schools. However, there still isn’t much explicit teaching about how to use a variety of technology. What students are learning mainly comes from home.
I teach Kindergarten at an all-boys charter school in Brooklyn. In response to your question I can tell you about my school. As far as technology goes, our K-2 classrooms are each equipped with 9 computers. Everyday scholars spend 45 minutes on the computer, using a program called Waterford, which provides them with basic computer skills while simultaneously teaching them how to read. Each classroom has a pull down screen so that we can show clips with a projector and many teachers do so to supplement our curriculum. In addition, every Friday, we have a school-wide community meeting where technology is definitely present. Videos, pictures and music are used to enhance the weekly plays that get put on by the children. Despite all this, I wish there was more. I am hoping that we will soon have Smartboards, which would increase the students’ exposure to technology and make it easier for teachers to use technology. As of yet, there is no explicit teaching of technology.
The question of “how do our students learn” is important because as Warlick points out, “learning, is at the core of teaching today” in today’s “information environment.” With technology’s rapid advancement, it’s either learn how to take advantage of it or else be left behind and therefore at a disadvantage.
It makes sense that many educators are still focused about WHAT students learn, rather than how they do it. Focusing on content rather than things like collaboration, critical thinking, etc. has been going on for centuries in most schools. I think that many of our standardized tests make focusing on content almost a necessity (think about state regents exams and even the SATS). Scholars must memorize math formulas and tons of vocabulary words in order to be successful on these exams. Some could also argue that it’s easier focusing on content. For example, having students learn about biology via a textbook is easier than having them “discover” the material themselves through a variety of hands on/ technology-related resources.
Based on my experiences, I believe that students must be taught content via a variety of ways and some of these should definitely be technology-related to ensure that students are being prepared for today’s world. Students should definitely be taught in school how to utilize today’s technologies to find their own answers to questions and they should be taught how to collaborate, analyze and critically think about the content that they learn. I do not believe that everything needs to be taught via technology, but to not provide students with a basic understanding of things like the internet and all it has to offer (as well as it’s flaws/limitations) would be putting them at a major disservice.
I agree that teaching is inevitably conservative, particularly when I think of the school that I teach at. While successful, our school has a very rigid model and it not too converned with investigations-based learning. Structure lies beneath everything we do in our school. It is very different from the school I attended as a child, but only in superficial senses- uniforms, population, family structures. The curriculum is probably similar, if not a little bit more fun. Having taught for several years now I am noticing that teaching does change often, but only so that the pendulum can eventually swing back to a curriculum that looks the same as before, with a different name. It seems that everyone in education is just looking for a way to “perfect” the system and it therefore it ends up going in circles. That being said, who’s to say that investigation-based learning, technology, and other implementations ARE the way to advance education and become less conservative. Change happens in different ways and it’s effectiveness can be seen differently through different eyes.
There is an interesting debate in my head right now going back and forth between, “teaching is a conservative practice and that is a good thing,†and, “teaching is a conservative practice and that stops us from improving quickly.†Obviously, I do believe that it is conservative, but I do think that it is good not to be too quick to change. I don’t think that schools should immediately hop on bandwagons of new programs and ideas (such as Saxon Math or Reading Mastery). I think every curricular change does need to be researched and completely thought out from its implementation to its evaluation. Not doing so could be detrimental. Teachers often complain about districts switching up curriculums ever 2 – 3 years, because they haven’t thought through all of the details. There are ideas, however, that can improve teaching and be implemented quickly. Some of the biggest changes that I’ve seen from the days when I was in school to now have had a huge impact on instruction and teaching and do not take much time to implement—using data to drive instruction and using video to improve instruction. Even the most conservative school can use these concepts to improve their teaching.
There is an interesting debate in my head right now going back and forth between, “teaching is a conservative practice and that is a good thing,†and, “teaching is a conservative practice and that stops us from improving quickly.†Obviously, I do believe that it is conservative, but I do think that it is good not to be too quick to change. I don’t think that schools should immediately hop on bandwagons of new programs and ideas (such as Saxon Math or Reading Mastery). I think every curricular change does need to be researched and completely thought out from its implementation to its evaluation. Not doing so could be detrimental. Teachers often complain about districts switching up curriculums ever 2 – 3 years, because they haven’t thought through all of the details. There are ideas, however, that can improve teaching and be implemented quickly. Some of the biggest changes that I’ve seen from the days when I was in school to now have had a huge impact on instruction and teaching and do not take much time to implement—using data to drive instruction and using video to improve instruction. Even the most conservative school can use these concepts to improve their teaching.
There is an interesting debate in my head right now going back and forth between, “teaching is a conservative practice and that is a good thing,†and, “teaching is a conservative practice and that stops us from improving quickly.†Obviously, I do believe that it is conservative, but I do think that it is good not to be too quick to change. I don’t think that schools should immediately hop on bandwagons of new programs and ideas (such as Saxon Math or Reading Mastery). I think every curricular change does need to be researched and completely thought out from its implementation to its evaluation. Not doing so could be detrimental. Teachers often complain about districts switching up curriculums ever 2 – 3 years, because they haven’t thought through all of the details. There are ideas, however, that can improve teaching and be implemented quickly. Some of the biggest changes that I’ve seen from the days when I was in school to now have had a huge impact on instruction and teaching and do not take much time to implement—using data to drive instruction and using video to improve instruction. Even the most conservative school can use these concepts to improve their teaching.
It’s funny how education and technology really do seem to oppose on another; educational technology is almost an oxymoron. This rings true especially when I think of my 1st graders, and lower-elementary instruction in general.
We are so preoccupied with the skills of teaching our young ones to read, we either forget or ignore, or cannot make time, or do not have resources (or most likely some jumbled mess of all the above) of penetrating the other skills deemed necessary for success in College and beyond. And furthermore, who says technology and reading have to remain distinct? I my use of technology, I depend on my skills or reading and writing. Couldn’t we teach kids how to read by exposing them to phonics flashcards from computer screens, and teach writing by introducing them to tweeting/blogging to their readers?
Computer literacy has become almost as important to us as literacy literacy (as in, the skills of reading–phonics, decoding, comprehension…etc.). I say almost, because the traditional literacy skills must be intact to be able to use mainstream technology effectively . However, this is in the way I know computers and the way I use technology (I can’t tweet if I can’t read and write). However, as we know from our experiences over the past 10, 5, even 1 year–this is constantly, rapidly evolving. I’d bet on technology when it comes to which skills precede which by the times my kids are applying for jobs.
Still, I don’t see this happening anytime soon for my school or those near me. The hurdle of capital is just too great right now. Even the question of expertise. Almost all of us are experts on reading and writing words in books, but how many of us can utilize computer programs that do the same?
Much of what I was left it after reading this interesting post were questions; the most salient being how do we make PROGRESSIVE education a reality for low-income schools?
I do not think the practice of teaching is inevitably conservative. I think that educators are extremely dedicated and would do more if they knew how to do more. The question to me is one of training and coaching. For me to successfully meet the technology needs of my students, I need more training and ongoing coaching. It will be up to me to get that training and use it. Teachers are some of the most progressive people that I know. To me, it is the educational systems that are slow to change. Like most lasting educational reform, I believe that the movement of technological innovation in the classroom will prosper with the hard work of creative teachers. As more teachers become aware of the urgency, and develop and share sound practices around the technological needs of students, the wheel will turn.
Where I currently teach, technological innovation is beginning to blossom. Unfortunately, not much is different from when I was an elementary aged student 30 years ago. One reason technologic innovation in education is slow to blossom is New York City public schools is economics. When we consider the question of technology in education, I think we must simultaneously ask WHICH children are receiving rigorous instruction in this area. Given that the resources are not equally accessible, how can we ensure that no child is left behind when we consider the important question of how to use and teach technology in our schools?
To a certain extent, I do agree that, “teaching is an inevitably conservative practice.” Yet, I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing. For example, I think it is incredibly important that we are still teaching our students the value of reading and writing on paper. Our students need to understand the permanence and historical value of the written word. Similarly, I think our students must be able to participate in classroom discussions and community discussions before they are able to participating in global discussions. There are certain foundational skills that our students either will or will not learn during their elementary years, based on our instruction.
With that being said, I certainly agree that it is important for us to prepare our students to be successful in the modern world. I wish my 2nd Graders had more opportunities to research topics at a computer lab, or to practice typing on computers at school. I can remember doing both of these when I was in school, and yet my students today don’t have the opportunity. Similarly, I wish it was easier for me to show my students photos on a slideshow, or to screen video clips for them during Science. I believe our schools need to make these resources more available to our students, but an overall lack of funds often gets in the way. Also, there is a time crunch. At the urban schools that so many of us teach in, we’re already trying to play catch-up with our students. Many of our students already spend 9 hours a day with us. If extra time was built in for trips to the computer lab, it would most likely come at the expense of art or PE–which are also so vital to our students’ development.
I agree with Jennifer Q.’s opening statement regarding teaching being conservative and personally not actually finding that to be something negative (in full). I think educators should have the freedom to play on how students learn and incorporate new practices that with maximize student achievement. There should be a balance of new and old practices and a willingness to try and expand ideas on a continuing basis, as long as the changes bring achievement and engagement to the learning atmosphere.
As an educator in a “warm but strict” and “back to basics” type of atmosphere (a high achieving charter school strategically positioned in a low achieving city school district), I fully understand the hesitations and hardships of integrating technology and non-conventional or nontraditional means of instruction into daily instruction. Once we fill in the gaps and get our students on grade level, we push for expanding student knowledge and engagement in alternate forms of instruction.
Where I work, there is such a need for strengthening basic skills and improving students’ understanding of concepts in a “board-to-paper†and more traditional type of learning setting. It works for our students, and we have become a high achieving school with an outstanding reputation in the area. We also incorporate engaging instruction and are open to new ideas, we chant, we provide students with access to technology and knowledge that will help them become successful and marketable in an ever changing, urban community.
I think there is a greater need for change as students get older and as our middle school builds. I think the key to maximizing student achievement is molding to students’ ever changing and diverse needs and preparing them for an environment which expects them to be well-rounded, technologically advanced, and intelligent simultaneously.
I have to agree with Jennifer as well when she states the idea that teaching is an inevitably conservative practice isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I agree that our students still need to find value in a novel and joy in creating their own stories. I don’t want my students to skip that important step in their development as learners. I also believe that these skills will help our students to become successful in their future.
With that being said, I am struck by Janna’s comment that as a teacher she needs more training to be able to use technology in the classroom. I immediately think to my classroom with a SMART board mounted to the wall and a laptop and projector all provided for me on my first day. This is the scene in all of the 50 plus classrooms in my school. We have more technology than most skills yet we haven’t been given training to use this equipment to the fullest. It frustrates me that our school has the appearance to the outside of being so technology savvy yet when you step in to over half the classrooms SMART boards are only used to project the morning problem of the day. I wish I knew more ways to use what has been given to me to help my students. So I agree, I need more training and coaching in order to help my students. Sadly, not much has changed since I was in school. Sure I can now project my problem of the day on to a SMART board for my students but how is that much different then just writing it out on a chalkboard? I know that many other teachers feel the same way; I would love to find a better way to incorporate technology into the lessons, but how? I have this technology; I just need an administration to see the value in teaching its staff how to use it!
I do believe that in general teaching is an conservative practice. The idea of drastically changing things is scary. We have a system that for a really long time has worked to create a strong public school system of the past. Some mistakes can be costly. When schools decide to teach reading using whole word, rather than phonics. When schools made this radical move, how many students were left as struggling readers? Is education conservative? Yes, and I believe it has the right to be hesitant about dramatic changes. NCLB has radically shaped our school systems and we have made conscious choices to put test scores before creativity, problem solving, and innovation. One huge change has radically shaped the field of education, for better or for worse.
In my school I have been met with nothing but support for my goal of integrating more technology, more problem solving, and more differentiation of learning styles. I am pushed by my principal to work towards improving the way we instruct, but I also think that I am able to have this freedom because I have proven myself on testing. At the end of the day we measure learning by performance on a test, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
I agree that teaching is “inevitably a conservative practice.†I think as teachers we tend to fall back on the teaching practices that we grew up with and that we have seen the most. Teaching is a unique profession in the fact that most people have spent a lot of time in classrooms as children and young adults by the time they become educators. Although we went to college and we studied inquiry-based methods of teaching and using technology in the classroom, we don’t actually see it in practice on a daily basis. It is hard to put into practice something that you haven’t really seen in action, so we tend to fall back on the teaching methods that we know best, the ones that we grew up with and were taught with. I definitely thought that when graduated from college that I would have a democratic-style, inquiry-based classroom where students and teachers worked together to design the classroom community and curriculum of study. During my first few weeks, when the management problems hit, I abandoned my idealistic classroom for what I knew best, an authoritarian, traditional-style classroom, just like the strict Catholic school that I sat in for 12 years. As I reflect and grow as an educator I have slowly tried to integrate the ideas that I graduated with, but it is a slow evolution.
I also think that teachers would be open to using more technology in the classroom if it were more available. Many of our classrooms still physically look the same as the ones that we attended as children. Now white boards have replaced chalkboards, but the extent of technology at our school is the overhead projector and a few LCD projectors that the whole school shares. If we want more teachers using technology to prepare our students for the future world that they will be living and working in, we need to ensure that all classrooms have access to different kinds of technology in our classrooms. Making technology readily available is the first hurdle. Teaching teachers how to integrate it and use it to enhance their students’ learning is the second.