As I was going through my reader I began reading Doug Johnson's post . Boiling Frogs, Google Apps and School Change.
Doug very nicely tells the story of the work being done in SE Wisconsin. We are working on incremental change and working collaboratively in order to construct change that is meaningful and scales.
There are many things that are parallel in his story and our work. The incremental changes happen more quickly and get to change. Rapid prototyping, starting and also knowing you can change direction or try something different right away instead of staying a course that doesn't work.
Really is exciting that we are finally getting smarter about doing things. I love the work, the individuals who are invested and the journey. Wisconsin is on a good track. Come ride the train with us.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Transformation Stakeholders Mtg - Great Things ahead!
Awesome conversation today with district leaders in SE Wisconsin involved in Transforming Public Education.
We looked at the successes and challenges of the last year, set some targets and benchmarks for this year - had some real conversations AND - validated working collaboratively and regionally, not competing, but building makes sense. I was very proud to be an observer and one who has the charge of listening and supporting forward movement.
One of the personally connected successes and challenges discussed was the use of technology. We put some great things in place = success. But - they were not utilized because we still have a ways to go to change the way we work and have it be something that is not an add on. This is great progress. We are no longer admiring the problem, but looking at how we can make them happen.
Our districts are ready. We will do some capacity building and some specific targets to build new communication and sharing - plus ways to make it embedded in our work.
Our first challenge will be a convening on November 1. Moving to live broadcast, back channels and chats to supplement the face to face.
Video and digital stories - short and to the point on a regular basis.
Connecting when appropriate via desktop conferencing and webinars for information sharing when it is awareness or knowledge building.
A short afternoon that left me with a lot to put in place.....but oh so exciting!!! YEAH!
We looked at the successes and challenges of the last year, set some targets and benchmarks for this year - had some real conversations AND - validated working collaboratively and regionally, not competing, but building makes sense. I was very proud to be an observer and one who has the charge of listening and supporting forward movement.
One of the personally connected successes and challenges discussed was the use of technology. We put some great things in place = success. But - they were not utilized because we still have a ways to go to change the way we work and have it be something that is not an add on. This is great progress. We are no longer admiring the problem, but looking at how we can make them happen.
Our districts are ready. We will do some capacity building and some specific targets to build new communication and sharing - plus ways to make it embedded in our work.
Our first challenge will be a convening on November 1. Moving to live broadcast, back channels and chats to supplement the face to face.
Video and digital stories - short and to the point on a regular basis.
Connecting when appropriate via desktop conferencing and webinars for information sharing when it is awareness or knowledge building.
A short afternoon that left me with a lot to put in place.....but oh so exciting!!! YEAH!
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Google as a Bridge?
I have been in ed tech longer than I care to admit. One of the constants I have experienced is the factor of change. I have always worked with visionary and dedicated individuals who have the best interest of students and staff as their mission. Over the years as new technologies or systems have come about and been the charge for me or my workgroup to roll out, it has always been walking on the fine line of not falling into the trap of "us against them" or "telling someone, who is an expert in their own field, to "work differently". Those of us in tech and change have had to try and figure out how not to be the bad guys and live through many a transition without feeling attacked or unappreciated. Trying to get everyone to a new comfort level in use and application, while still enabling their areas of strength to come to the top and not the technology. Those successes take time and tenacity and are what keeps us going to the next implementation.
Recently though I have seen a positive change. Something I did not clearly see as an outcome of a systems change. An unanticipated outcome that has given new strength to continued innovation and acceptance of technology and the changes it makes in our world.
It was Google Apps for Education.
No - not the apps themselves or the potential for digital sharing and collaboration, the efficiency and productivity increases, the connection to others globally, the cost savings in difficult times - those were always there. Not the discussions of one source over another being better. It was the coming together of work teams and the self discovery of skill and confidence in individuals to now take on more acceptance of new systems more quickly.
The implementation of Google Apps for Education has brought the different areas of a public education entity together. The change was driven by the need for cost savings, building capacity by outsourcing instead of in-sourcing. It became an idea that everyone brought to the table instead of "tech" making us change. It gave "tech" the opportunity to be on the same team as the rest of the organization. When the look or features change, and they do quite frequently without notice - it is not the tech departments doing it to the rest of the organization and not including others in the discussions. We now are able to be on the same team as our co-workers playing quarterback instead of on the other team and seen as the offense to their defense. We are all able to work together on the same team and play the opponent.
It has been great! We had our Google Guides from each department who were the tier one support in changing over - not the tech department. We now have others who understand and have increased their independence and skill levels more quickly than any training or roll out previously. I am seeing more questioning or what other technology tools or systems could benefit and grow our work. Individuals seek others and share their discoveries instead of waiting for a tech support ticket to be answered.
So - not a planned intentional outcome at first, but definitely worth the change. It doesn't need to be Google Apps for others, but it is enlightening to realize there is an outcome that can come from change that was unexpected, but worth more than the change itself.
Recently though I have seen a positive change. Something I did not clearly see as an outcome of a systems change. An unanticipated outcome that has given new strength to continued innovation and acceptance of technology and the changes it makes in our world.
It was Google Apps for Education.
No - not the apps themselves or the potential for digital sharing and collaboration, the efficiency and productivity increases, the connection to others globally, the cost savings in difficult times - those were always there. Not the discussions of one source over another being better. It was the coming together of work teams and the self discovery of skill and confidence in individuals to now take on more acceptance of new systems more quickly.
The implementation of Google Apps for Education has brought the different areas of a public education entity together. The change was driven by the need for cost savings, building capacity by outsourcing instead of in-sourcing. It became an idea that everyone brought to the table instead of "tech" making us change. It gave "tech" the opportunity to be on the same team as the rest of the organization. When the look or features change, and they do quite frequently without notice - it is not the tech departments doing it to the rest of the organization and not including others in the discussions. We now are able to be on the same team as our co-workers playing quarterback instead of on the other team and seen as the offense to their defense. We are all able to work together on the same team and play the opponent.
It has been great! We had our Google Guides from each department who were the tier one support in changing over - not the tech department. We now have others who understand and have increased their independence and skill levels more quickly than any training or roll out previously. I am seeing more questioning or what other technology tools or systems could benefit and grow our work. Individuals seek others and share their discoveries instead of waiting for a tech support ticket to be answered.
So - not a planned intentional outcome at first, but definitely worth the change. It doesn't need to be Google Apps for others, but it is enlightening to realize there is an outcome that can come from change that was unexpected, but worth more than the change itself.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Compliance or Leading - Online PD Requirement
The state of WI established a state statute put into effect in July 2010 that all teachers grades 6-12 teaching an online course must meet a minimum of 30 hours of professional development focused on specific standards and skills.
Sounds great!
But the puck moved..........
As often happens, legislation takes time and falls into word smithing and political negotiations. While valiant in efforts and intent, the final outcome has fallen short, and in times of economic distress and unusual political climates, many have fallen back on black and white interpretations rather than what is best for kids, communities, and the public in general.
Teachers, community, and some administrators are unaware enough to believe that 30 hours of professional development will turn a teacher into a qualified online instructor. Certification of completion of professional development hours is misinterpreted as "certification to teach online". Currently there is no licensure or certification for online teaching in WI. There are policies in place as to content certification and other things, with the addition of having some professional development in online course instruction.
Seat time is not equivalent to proficiency or quality, but it is still the currency in which we barter. Educators working with students and peers in online environments should have some level of competency and continuous learning for themselves. The systems and technology change too often for anyone to have a "life" license or certification. Learning is continuous - birth to grave, it just comes in different forms through our path of life. Life is learning....look at this video.
The online PD requirement was established with good intent and the right thing to do. The final product has put us in a "behind" situation again. It is written for online "course" instruction, in a day and future that is still defining - blended, flipped, personalized, Web 2.0, collaborative, ........
Educators, administrators, schools and districts can take the easy way out. They can read the statute as black and white and work around the requirements as they are not delivering online courses when they are using things like Moodle and WIKIS, and social networking along with face to face instruction or ways that engage students.
But the professionals and those who are leading education transformation towards a system that will ensure the quality of life for communities will find the high ground. Instead of digging in and pointing to the black and white of the statute, they will move forward in logical and forward moving steps to ensure that quality education is delivered in our public schools.
There is a place for doing the right thing, reaching for the target beyond the one in front of us and ultimately coming out ahead instead of making up lost ground.
I challenge our educators to stand above compliance.
I challenge our leadership to create the environments that allow for continuous growth and achievement within the capacities and resources available.
I challenge our communities to trust our schools to move forward safely and in the best interest of students and their futures.
I promise to work with those who take this path and put kids and our community futures first.
Sounds great!
But the puck moved..........
As often happens, legislation takes time and falls into word smithing and political negotiations. While valiant in efforts and intent, the final outcome has fallen short, and in times of economic distress and unusual political climates, many have fallen back on black and white interpretations rather than what is best for kids, communities, and the public in general.
Teachers, community, and some administrators are unaware enough to believe that 30 hours of professional development will turn a teacher into a qualified online instructor. Certification of completion of professional development hours is misinterpreted as "certification to teach online". Currently there is no licensure or certification for online teaching in WI. There are policies in place as to content certification and other things, with the addition of having some professional development in online course instruction.
Seat time is not equivalent to proficiency or quality, but it is still the currency in which we barter. Educators working with students and peers in online environments should have some level of competency and continuous learning for themselves. The systems and technology change too often for anyone to have a "life" license or certification. Learning is continuous - birth to grave, it just comes in different forms through our path of life. Life is learning....look at this video.
The online PD requirement was established with good intent and the right thing to do. The final product has put us in a "behind" situation again. It is written for online "course" instruction, in a day and future that is still defining - blended, flipped, personalized, Web 2.0, collaborative, ........
Educators, administrators, schools and districts can take the easy way out. They can read the statute as black and white and work around the requirements as they are not delivering online courses when they are using things like Moodle and WIKIS, and social networking along with face to face instruction or ways that engage students.
But the professionals and those who are leading education transformation towards a system that will ensure the quality of life for communities will find the high ground. Instead of digging in and pointing to the black and white of the statute, they will move forward in logical and forward moving steps to ensure that quality education is delivered in our public schools.
There is a place for doing the right thing, reaching for the target beyond the one in front of us and ultimately coming out ahead instead of making up lost ground.
I challenge our educators to stand above compliance.
I challenge our leadership to create the environments that allow for continuous growth and achievement within the capacities and resources available.
I challenge our communities to trust our schools to move forward safely and in the best interest of students and their futures.
I promise to work with those who take this path and put kids and our community futures first.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Learner Profile or LEARNER'S Profile?
As we move forward in designing and implementing personalized learning, the development of a profile of the learner has been discussed as being critical in creating the processes for assessing, diagnosing, and prescribing learning. In exploring this issue, it is clear that this idea is not new. Hundreds of models are available, including individualized education plans (IEP), individualized learning plans (ILP), and other learner profiles of all shapes, sizes, depth and direction. Is it possible however, that in our transformative work the question should really be – What is a Learner’s Profile?
What is the difference? As educators, we have created, developed, piloted, adopted, and re-created several different iterations of profiles to be used to paint the picture of a student. Depending upon the situation, they are highly effective and indispensible – but not considered transferable without some tweaks and adjustments which then creates yet another Learner Profile model to add to the list. There are countless models and descriptions. Are they truly transformative and are they what a learner really needs?
Let’s ask the question – is it a profile of a learner (used by others), or does it belong to the learner
(Learner’s Profile)? To be truly transformative, it must belong to the learner. This changes the structure and outputs of the information in the use of a profile.
Concepts of Learner Profiles to date have used assessment information, standards alignment, and recommendations of curriculum and resources to meet deficiencies in content and standards – in other words, the cumulative record of what has been achieved, leaving the decision as to what is next arbitrary. They give us a snapshot of what the learner does not know and what they know well. With some applications, they can also direct a learner to specific resources to fill those gaps. This is an excellent foundation upon which to build, but does not take the concept to its full potential.
While I have many personal ideas and designs of what a Learner’s Profile could be for the CESA #1 region to prototype, the work needs input and dialog from the network. At this time, I offer questions for discussion and thought in an effort to find the gold ring on the carousel. Our work together over the next several months will bring us to a prototype, and then an operational tool for learner achievement - not only for K12 students, but our adult learners as well.
Our work is exciting! It is also continuous, utilizing a development cycle of prototype, implement,
review, re-design, and implement – a process we know well as educators. Our regional Learner’s Profile version 1.0 is in action in some places now, the current work will get us to version 1.5 by December and strong planning for 2.0 by fall of 2012. We look forward to this journey with our districts.
What is the difference? As educators, we have created, developed, piloted, adopted, and re-created several different iterations of profiles to be used to paint the picture of a student. Depending upon the situation, they are highly effective and indispensible – but not considered transferable without some tweaks and adjustments which then creates yet another Learner Profile model to add to the list. There are countless models and descriptions. Are they truly transformative and are they what a learner really needs?
Let’s ask the question – is it a profile of a learner (used by others), or does it belong to the learner
(Learner’s Profile)? To be truly transformative, it must belong to the learner. This changes the structure and outputs of the information in the use of a profile.
Concepts of Learner Profiles to date have used assessment information, standards alignment, and recommendations of curriculum and resources to meet deficiencies in content and standards – in other words, the cumulative record of what has been achieved, leaving the decision as to what is next arbitrary. They give us a snapshot of what the learner does not know and what they know well. With some applications, they can also direct a learner to specific resources to fill those gaps. This is an excellent foundation upon which to build, but does not take the concept to its full potential.
While I have many personal ideas and designs of what a Learner’s Profile could be for the CESA #1 region to prototype, the work needs input and dialog from the network. At this time, I offer questions for discussion and thought in an effort to find the gold ring on the carousel. Our work together over the next several months will bring us to a prototype, and then an operational tool for learner achievement - not only for K12 students, but our adult learners as well.
- What if Learner’s Profiles use the foundation for building, but also allow the learner to direct, design and articulate the finishing touches of their structure?
- What would different layers of the Learner’s Profile look like? Is there a daily view? A summative view?
- How formal is the updating of information?
- Who contributes information to the profile? Parents? Students? Teachers? Peers? Colleagues? Supervisors?
- What is the difference between a Learner’s Profile and a portfolio of learning? Is there a difference? Should there be a difference? (YES!)
- Who are the users of the Learner’s Profile? Is the learner the main user?
- Does a portfolio inform a Learner’s Profile or does it act as evidence? Or is it a tool the learner uses in maintaining their profile?
- Does a Learner’s Profile follow one from Kindergarten to retirement and beyond? How does it change?
- How do we create a portable profile that belongs to the learner and not the institution in which they are currently a member?
Our work is exciting! It is also continuous, utilizing a development cycle of prototype, implement,
review, re-design, and implement – a process we know well as educators. Our regional Learner’s Profile version 1.0 is in action in some places now, the current work will get us to version 1.5 by December and strong planning for 2.0 by fall of 2012. We look forward to this journey with our districts.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Lipstick on a Pig
I have been given the awesome opportunity after 7 years to design, develop, and implement a department in our agency focused on learning and technology for ALL learners - early childhood to post retirement. So exciting, and so intimidating at the same time.
Over the last seven years, I have been working with school districts in our region wearing many different hats. At-Risk programs, teacher training and licensure, grants, curriculum and instruction, 21st century skills, communications, consulting, transformation and innovation in redesigning public education, and internal agency technology oversite . Technology, whether it has been online learning, technology infrastructure, systems, or leadership has been one of my "other duties as assigned" and something that I have continued to work on and keep up with as it is my personal passion.
The rock and hard place at this point is image and delivery. For 7 years my internal and external clients have worked with me while I have expended time and energy beyond the demands of my "day job" or "infected" my areas of work with technology to move them forward. 7 years of colleagues having some interaction with learning and technology with me, but never a full implementation or focus - mostly an add on or support, a tweak, a frill. To them - there has always been education technology and it has been associated with me and my leadership. And yet, it has only been a sideline activity.
The news that our Board of Control has set a new organizational structure that now enables a full focus on what they have named Education Technology has been received as nothing new. Our board is wonderful and supportive in their vision and direction. They have given me a clear path to make a difference. I do not want to miss that mark. They are correct in that now is the time and there is a need.
Challenges include reasserting and realigning as a full participant in technology related systems transformation. Actively participating in work and leadership in:
- areas of systems for productivity (SIS, CMS, LMS, hardware and software) for the business and management side of education.
- Using technology in K12 learning - how do we move beyond just tech integration and create the transparent use of tools. We know how, but now to scale and implement.
- How does technology catapult personalized learning - for all learners K-Retirement
- Educator training - talking about good teaching and learning with technology and not how to use technology
- Building the networks and supports to maximize social networks, online resources, digital tools for students and adults.
- Establishing the culture and environment to adapt to the constant changes as a matter of fact instead of great stress.
So yes - the pig has new lipstick -but it is just to draw your attention to take a closer look and advantage of our good work together now becoming great work together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)