Earlier this week, I wrote a post bemoaning the ways in which the system treats teachers when it comes to technology and I hinted at a different reality for one school I’ve been working with. Well, that school happens to be my old school, the place where I worked as a teacher and an administrator for 21 years before setting out for my current very different existence. And now, due to a somewhat sudden, imminent move to a new house, the place where in all likelihood my own kids will go to high school.
While I love what Chris Lehmann is doing at Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, the problem with the SLA story has always been that it’s hard to replicate. Chris is a visionary who was given the chance to build a school pretty much from the ground up, and I think just about everyone would agree that he has done an absolutely amazing job of it. If I could take SLA and clone it, I would. But that’s not possible. So, the tougher question has always been how do schools that have been around for 50 or 100 years begin to undertake the real shifts and real changes that are required if they are to move systemically to a point where inquiry-based, student-centered, socially and globally networked learning becomes just the way they do their business? In all honesty, I haven’t seen many schools that have fundamentally set out to redefine what they do in the classroom in light of the affordances and opportunities that social technologies create for learning. (If you know of any who have a plan to fundamentally redefine what they do, please let me know.) There is a great deal of “tinkering on the edges” when it comes to technology, districts that hope that if they incrementally add enough technology into the mix that somehow that equals change. I can’t tell you how many schools I’ve seen that have a whiteboard in every room yet have absolutely nothing different happening from a curriculum perspective. Old wine, new bottles.
That fundamental redefinition is hard. It takes an awareness on the part of leaders that the world is indeed changing and that current assessment regimes and requirements are becoming less and less relevant to the learning goals of the organization. It takes a vision to imagine what the change might look like, not to paint it with hard lines but to at least have the basic brushstrokes down. It takes a culture that celebrates learning not just among students but among teachers and front office personnel and administrators alike, what Phillip Schlechty calls a “learning organization.” It takes leadership that while admitting its own discomfort and uncertainty with these shifts is prescient and humble enough to know that the only way to deal with those uncertainties is to meet them full on and to support the messiness that will no doubt occur as the organization works through them. It takes time, years of time, maybe decades to effect these types of changes. It takes money and infrastructure. And I think, most importantly, it takes a plan that’s developed collaboratively with every constituency at the table, one that is constantly worked and reworked and adjusted in the process, but one that makes that long-term investment time well spent instead of time spinning wheels. And it takes more, even, than that.
I’m seeing a lot of that happening at Hunterdon Central, my old school. And you can take this perspective for what it’s worth since I feel like I played some small part in this process five years ago when we formulated a long-ish term plan for technology that started with piloting a teacher/classroom model for technology when I was there to today, when they are piloting a student 1-1 model (netbooks) for technology this fall. My good friend and former co-conspirator Rob Mancabelli is guiding the work, and he’s had amazing success in bringing teachers, supervisors, upper administration, community, students and others into a really “big” conversation about what teaching and learning looks like today, how global and collaborative and transparent it is, and what the implications are for the curriculum and pedagogy in classrooms. This is not tinkering on the edges; this, instead, is a deeply collaborative and reflective process for a small cohort of 30 or so teachers whose kids this fall will all have technology and a ubiquitous connection in hand, a process that encourages them to be creative, to take risks, to make mistakes, and to pursue their own personal learning as well. All of it as a first building block for the systemic, culture change that is hopefully to come in the next few years.
Tuesday, I had the chance to spend a few hours with a part of this group, and I came away just totally energized by the experience. The main reason? Lisa Brady, the superintendent. The cohort group had been meeting throughout the summer, focusing on learning about social networks, on making connections, reading blogs, trying Twitter and Facebook, and thinking about social tools in the context of their curriculum. The teachers come from every discipline, from math to special education to media specialists. And on Tuesday, now as the school year begins to loom large, Rob asked Lisa to address the group and make sure they understood their efforts would be supported. Lisa started by asking everyone to read Margaret Wheatley’s “Willing to be Disturbed.” I’d urge you to read the whole thing, but the first graph gives you the gist:
As we work together to restore hope to the future, we need to include a new and strange ally–our willingness to be disturbed. Our willingness to have our beliefs and ideas challenged by what others think. No one person or perspective can give us the answers we need to the problems of today. Paradoxically, we can only find those answers by admitting we don’t know. We have to be willing to let go of our certainty and expect ourselves to be confused for a time.
I hadn’t expected to try to capture any of what Lisa said next, but as she talked to the teachers, I started writing some of it down. And I started imaging what it would be like if every superintendent walked into a meeting of teachers who are engaged in reaching beyond their comfort zones and learning something new and said things like:
My question to you is how willing are you to be disturbed?…We have to be willing to examine our practice, to be disturbed about what we think we know about teaching and learning…We don’t really know what we’re doing; we’re teachers, we’re supposed to know, but we don’t know everything…I’m as unsure about all of this as you are unsure, but I believe we are doing the right thing. It is of critical importance to this organization, of critical importance to our kids…Your classrooms are learning labs; we want you be exploring, looking, analyzing…You are fully supported in this work; don’t be afraid of what you are doing…at this school, we don’t change easily, but we change well.
It was really powerful stuff, the superintendent of schools encouraging teachers to take risks, to think differently, to be okay with not knowing, and to know that it’s a process, that it’s not going to happen overnight. And this is the same type of message Lisa plans to deliver to the full faculty on the first day of school. (The Wheatley piece is being sent to all staff this week.) Already, Central has decided to end the practice of monthly full faculty meetings this year and instead engage in professional conversations around the question “What does teaching and learning look like in the 21st Century?” Since May, all of the supervisors have voluntarily been meeting on a regular basis to study and discuss the shifts around an inquiry/problem based curriculum delivered in networked learning environments. And the teachers in the cohort are archiving and communicating on a Ning site specifically for the work.
Now I know there are some caveats here and not all of this is replicable either. For the last two years, 99% of teachers at Central (3,200 students 9-12, btw) have had their own Tablet PC (for personal and professional use) with wireless connection to an LCD and wireless Internet in every classroom, part of the teacher model that Rob and I started before I left. I would defy anyone to show me a school that has a better customer service oriented technology support plan for teachers and classrooms to make sure everything works. The school has made a fairly substantial financial commitment to the work (with the support of the community…budgets pass). And, 99% of kids in the district have Internet access at home.
But despite all of that, what interests me more is the stuff that they’re doing that just about any school could do right now: have the conversations, begin to build a culture around change, encourage learning on the part of every segment in the school, and create a long term vision and plan that attempts at least to account for whatever deficiencies or roadblocks currently exist. I see so many schools (SO many) where huge sums of money are spent on technology without any thought of professional learning or thinking about what changes. It’s all haphazard, unplanned, unsupported. I talk to so many teachers who just roll their eyes at the newest initiative because a) they haven’t had a voice in the process and b) because they know the next initiative is right around the corner. There’s no thread that binds all of it together, that congeals into a fundamentally different vision of teaching and learning. As Chris often says (channeling Roger Schank) “Technology is not additive; it’s transformative.” But that transformation doesn’t come on its own. It comes only when the ground for transformation has been well plowed. Whether we have the budgets or the technology in hand right now, there is little externally, at least, that’s preventing these conversations to start, assuming we have real leaders who are willing to be disturbed at the helm.
I’m hoping to follow this story pretty closely this year, but I’m sure it’s not the only one. Would love to hear your take on what Central is doing and on other attempts at moving old schools systemically into new places of learning.
(Photo “Do Not Disturb” by Sue)
I dream of working with people who are willing to be disturbed.
It’s easy to find “leaders” who are confident because of the have the ability steamroll over (or just get rid of) the teachers or students under their control. I want leaders who are confident because they’ve honestly investigated and know they’re making the best choices, and that means they have to be willing to be disturbed.
Will,
Why do you think that SLA is not replicable?
Couldn’t others claim that Hunterdon Central is not “clonable?”
We really really really need to move past the idea of replication. It always results in replacing one inflexible model with another. When you shrinkwrap an educational idea, you kill it.
What if your former school doing with computers beyond communication and information access? That’s where “real” transformation begins in my humble opinion. I’ve been thinking about these issues a lot recently and just published some reflections on my work with laptops 19 years ago at http://stager.tv/blog/?p=560
Also, isn’t all technology adoption haphazard and unplanned by its very nature? Isn’t just the sort of emergent network learning you so often tout? What district workshops did you attend to learn to blog?
i have a question – huntingdon central – netbooks vs laptops…i’ve been pushing laptops for highschool – thinking we needed that for making videos and voicestreaming, etc.
no?
please advise – on here or on twitter.
thank you.
Your words are helping me rethink what it means to be a teacher and the qualifications of being a good teacher.
Was surprised when I watched a Cine de la gente video, produced by Marco Torres, that one of the key characteristics of being a good teacher is that they are “Creative, risk-taking individuals.”–School Builders
I definitely don’t remember hearing that good teachers are creative, risk-takers in my undergrad education courses1
If you had to choose, which would you change first: the community or the teachers? I know they are not mutually exclusive, but if you had to pick one, which would you choose and why?
Both would eventually drive the other one into reform, but which would you choose to make the greatest impact?
Thanks for the push, Gary. I agree that replication has been the bane of education for 100 years now. That’s what has led us to the point we’re at. And you’re right; schools in general should be diverse as they try to do what’s best for the unique mix of kids that they serve. And on balance, I think choice of education at the K-12 level is a good thing. But wouldn’t you want to replicate a culture of learning in schools where exploration and creation and connection are at the heart of the process? (And I know in that regard, you’re right…SLA is replicable.) Aren’t there some ideas and practices worth replicating?
Central is on the road to the “real” transformation you speak about if they allow students to find their own entry points into the curriculum and create quality artifacts that extend the ideas, create new thinking, and potentially engage and teach other people outside the box. The constructivist philosophy they are trying to embrace is key.
And yes, technology adoption is haphazard on the personal level, but on the organizational level I think there has to be some guidance and structure to meet people where they are at and help them find new ways to implement in their personal learning.
Hi, Will!
Thrilled to read your blog post! Mary, Cathy, Marci, and I were trying to extend this “culture of learning” beyond the laptop pilot this past week when we facilitated a 21st Century Skills Discussion course. We tried to emphasize the importance of change, risk-taking, reflection, and collaboration. In fact, we shared “Willing to be Disturbed” with the group. I am going to email the participants your post in the hopes it will move what we said beyond just pretty words.
When we originally wanted to start a study group of this type, we wanted it to be a grassroots-based movement so it didn’t seem like a directive from the state (even though it is) and from the administration (even though it is). We emphasized repeatedly that we were having these conversations for years…before the buzz of 21st CS began. However, the hesitation of folks made me wish that Lisa could have been there to share her thoughts like she did with the pilot team. In some ways, I worry that we did more harm than good for some staff members. We will see what happens during the first day of school address. I still remain hopeful 🙂
Thank you so much for sharing your reflections. Looking forward to seeing you this week!
Sincere thanks for the comment, Heather. The discussions aren’t easy, nor should they be. You know you’re getting somewhere when people resist. You just have to keep advocating for kids and modeling your own practice as a way of making these shifts accessible for people who may not have much context.
Will, this is fantastic! After the discussion with more folks last week, I know that despite any hesitation to implementing school-wide change, there is at the very least a new opportunity for dialogue about pedagogy, current practice, and possibilities in education. And that’s a pretty amazing first step, especially because we have the support of our administration to work this out together. Like Heather said, even without the technology aspect of this movement, I think a change in the way we approach education is absolutely necessary right now, but she, Mary, Marci and I have been meeting to chat about our own practices for years. We have learned and grown as educators through the process, and we were able to see how much we need fundamental change in the way we teach. When given the same opportunity at our redesigned faculty meetings (thanks to a very supportive administration), I am hopeful that the rest of our staff will learn and grow just as much as the four of us have and that our students and our community will really flourish as a result.
I cannot wait to start implementing some of these changes this year through more formative assessment strategies and inquiry-based units. Imagine how much kids could take away from their high school experience if they had a real say in and a real responsibility for their education! Even moreso, though, I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation with other staff members at faculty meetings.
I’ll be honest, part of this terrifies me because I will have to critically assess my previous practice and rethink a lot of what I have done in the past, but I am so ready to be disturbed. I plan on sharing the Wheatley article with my students on the first day to let them know that they will have responsibility in our class, that they will need to take risks with me, and that they will need to think and learn (something that, I fear, for some of my previous students, I didn’t require).
Thanks, Cathy,
It’s been really fun sitting in the last couple of weeks. Almost makes me want to take back my desk job. ;0) It is all about the conversation, and as I said above, the very cool thing is that Central has decided to engage and prepare for a future that is quickly arriving, one that I don’t think most schools will be adequately prepared for. What I do wonder, however, is how many schools really have the appetite for change (or at least the potential of change) that Central does. There is just such a high quality of leadership there right now and they are seemingly at least all playing the right notes together. That’s just not happening many other places.
Can’t wait to see how things go.
I’m so glad to hear that Central is encouraging teachers to take risks and learn from their mistakes. Many teachers are afraid to try to use technology and employ student-centered pedagogy because they are afraid of failure and repercussions from the administration. Teachers should get acknowledged for their willingness to try and not be penalized if their efforts are not perfect. If they are reflective, they will learn and improve with time.
Hurray for Central!
Will,
One of the few things that stood out to me was at the end. While I applaud this great transformation effort, I don’t think having a discussion without the technology would be effective or empowering.
Leadership, in both pedagogy and technology are required to make this shift. While reaching beyond the old model of education is very hard and requires great leaders who support and engage, doing it without technology is a recipe for failure.
Where I am from, schools with a campus wireless deployment are the exception, not the rule. While internet access is omnipresent, easy connection is not. We have a long way to go in infrastructure, in both money and knowledge. Many technology leaders are also very protective of equipment and don’t allow teachers to use laptops as their own, locking them out of the control panel, and precluding them from installing software or connecting to home networks.
We have some districts on the edge of 1 to 1, but the high cost of getting in the game is closing the door, as well as the reluctance of schools to support such an endeavor.
I really question, can we really have the discussion about the 21st Century school without the technology in the background. Can we make the change without what the web has to offer open for every student in every class, or are we selling a pipe dream that will become another failed school improvement plan?
Thanks for the comment, Ty,
I agree that doing this without technology is difficult, but it is the reality for many schools. That does not, however, prevent them from reading and talking and thinking and planning. The cost of technology is going to continue to drop. Should schools wait for the $99 laptop (3-4 years away) to start talking about what they are going to do with that $99 laptop? I don’t think we can wait to start the conversation. Change may not happen until with have the technology in hand, but it will happen more slowly if we wait for that day to consider what it might mean.
Wow, I’d like to work with some school administrators & leaders like Will mentioned here in this post- Unfortunately most school adminstrators & school “leaders” still seems intent on “blocking out the world” from BOTH the staff & kids….even at the HS level! Some of us do what we can to try to educate & enlighten our esteemed school colleagues that we are doing our students a great disservice by staying in the “Dark Ages” of the “block it” philosophy!
I found this article to be very thought provoking. Our district is faced with many changes this year. For years our technology initiatives were halted by “security”. However, we hired a new IT Director a year ago and she has a wonderful vision. She is pushing many of us past our comfort zones – I can only hope she pushes some administrators past theirs. I will surely share this article with them.
Will, hadn’t stopped by your blog in a while, and i am glad I had the opportunity to read this post. Great to hear that your early efforts and the continued work and imagining at Central is paying off.
It is good to read the story of an established school transforming itself. For most of us, that is where we find ourselves.
Looking forward to PLP year 2!
Will, your statement that you’ve visited many schools with “a whiteboard in every room yet have absolutely nothing different happening from a curriculum perspective” is what really grabbed me from this extremely thought-provoking post. In my district, many of our Title 1 schools are using some extra $ to purchase IWBs for some or even all of their classrooms…and I’m not too sure the purchase includes the accompanying PD (I think Marzano suggests 80 hours of teacher training in order for students to benefit from the addition of IWBs to their classrooms). So I’m hoping that in reconnecting to Hunterdon Central, you’ll provide some windows in powerful teaching practices.
Any change requires planning. A change in culture encompasses significant change in all areas therefore the plan must be not only involved but also long term. To omit this vital 1st step is akin to jumping on a ship, heading out to see when neither the captain nor anyone on board has any navigational equipment, including a map. As you can imagine this would be a perilous journey as would attempting to change a culture when people have no clear idea of the direction they are heading or what they have to do to get there.
Will,
Your concern about our future with Web 2.0 I find both precise and eloquent. Although I’ve only taught for the past 5 years, my gut has been churning for some time about our educational system and its lack of “doing things differently.” When you speak of few schools making “fundemental changes” I think of my school. Yes, a few of us have some technology, but I also see the “haphazard, unorganized, unsupported” lack of planning that you speak of. Both as an educator and a citizen it terrifies me that the “greatest country in the world” has become so lackadaisical about education and progress. It’s no wonder the economical issues we are having right now. Where is our drive, our passion to move forward? I can just see my co-workers rolling their eyes with changes such at those at SLA and Central.
I appreciate your concern, hard-work, and vision. May that vision come to fruition sooner rather than later.
Stephanie
Stephanie,
I must say I agree with a lot of the comments you have posted. Why is it that most teachers who aren’t familiar with new and better technology the first ones to revert to their antiquated teaching methods that only seem to have been effective over 30 years ago? Why is it that there is so much opportunity for a better change and not enough action? I feel that this may be one of the biggest problems educators are facing today. I am currently in school getting my masters in education and after reading this article and the responses, I feel inspired to try and help make sure the up and coming generation of students have a better chance at learning properly and being equipped with the best education they possibly can have. Where is all the motivation that is supposed to be coming from teachers, faculty and super intendants??
Would you use any of the new technology which is being offered today, or the way teaching was done 20 years ago fit you better?