View the clip from Will Richardson’s UStream website. I am intrigued by the cultural shift we are encountering with the read/write web. I think it would be fair to say that I will be reading Clay Shirky’s book, “Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations” soon. Based on the interview that Will Richardson conducted and shared on UStream, there are many interesting and thoughtful ideas that educators will want to ponder after reading this book. The jist of the book is “organizing without organizations” and the idea that “group action just got easier”.
What ramifications will this cultural shift have on education? What has already happened? What is inevitable? Where should our focus be? How can we be part of the change in an effective way – a way that solves some of our inherent problems? The thoughts that follow share much of Mr. Shirky’s interview as I think about how his findings may affect education.
One of the problems, is that a majority of teachers are focused on teaching from a very narrow lens. We know that assessment drives instruction – and like it or not “No Child Left Behind” has created our official assessment tools. When teachers need PD to improve instruction, an educational system comes in and provides information that rarely includes technology innovation as a primary solution. The solutions tend to be strongly print based – especially in the area of reading interventions. At the same time, teachers are encouraged to integrate technology – not as a direct, high-stakes link to student achievement, but rather to motivate learning. Once students are motivated by technology, instruction returns to primarily print based choices. True integration and collaboration amongst teachers, specialists, administration, coordinators and students through the use of technology is still considered an option. And, in many ways the options of collaboration are controlled by the educational system. There are controlled decisions about who can collaborate with whom and why. Imagine the kinds of conversations that might occur if anyone could join any specialty’s e-mail conference. Would teachers of English find reasons to collaborate with teachers of Economics – who knows? The problem is many options are closed by the system to only those who “belong” narrowing the focus and opportunity for conversation and collaboration. Now, with technology teachers in some schools, teachers often look at technology options that are outlined within their curriculum explicitly – as something the technology teacher should take over. This magnifies their isolation and narrow focus for teaching and learning. However, it is not their fault. The system does not truly value innovation. Teachers are not assessed by their propensity to innovate. In fact, the idea of attempting something challenging or new during an official observation could be an invitation for more official observations – especially if your innovation failed!
Until the educational system changes its focus on primarily assessing the individual rather than assessing the individual’s ability to collaborate (a 21st century skill) or create a collaborated product, the focus of education will be misaligned with the needs of our cultural shift. Our focus should be in teaching students how to function within a group successfully – by adding value – and how to assess their own ability to contribute – rather than free ride. (Shirky)
Our cultural shift, thanks to the read/write web, embraces the concept of collaboration and ease of conversation – our collective intelligence to solve problems. The educational system as we know – is industrially based. Teachers are assessed individually as well as students. There is an inherent lack of flexibility in this kind of assessment. It should be of no surprise that collaboration, while discussed as an important element of both teaching and learning, is not a valued component of assessment. As long as our assessment of ourselves and our students remains rigidly based and narrowly focused – our teaching and the effects of our teaching will remain the same.
Technology teachers who are at the helm of technology integration have a near impossible mission. In the hierarchy, they are no more seen as leaders then any other teacher. They cannot be. There is no form of reward for innovation. There are numerous rewards for compliance. There is no venue in which for them to excel or prove their worth within the realm of innovation – innovation requires flexibility – and the hierarchy was not created to encourage, reward, or cultivate this kind of thinking. Change is “glacially slow” in education. Our culture, however, is rapidly changing its ability to converse and collaborate. Our systems’ answer to this high flexibility change is to control it. It can during the day, as teachers plan their lessons, and as students traverse its hallways. But, after school, students and teachers are free to explore and learn. As they do, the day to day control of information, collaborative opportunity, and the ability to reach out beyond the walls of the educational system reveals the expanding irrelevancy of the system. A contradiction occurs within the learning of both teacher and student. And, for those teachers who react in disbelief to our rapidly changing culture – they find themselves more and more in contradiction with “today’s student”. They puzzle at not being able to reach them or teach them.
The answer lies not in constantly gently pushing the envelope of providing optional technology PD for the individual teacher. The answer lies in our collective use of technology to answer the problems we see in education – and rewarding those innovations. But, alas, if we can collectively improve education without organizations as we know them, where does that leave the archaic, heavily entrenched systems like teacher’s unions and industrial hierarchies? Where do they fit in this new way of conversing and collaborating? Do we need them, or can they foresee their own limitations and as such refuse to allow us to propel forward?
The printing press is here. We can’t ignore the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore its potential, nor can we refuse it because of potential problems. Instead we should be thinking about changing our focus to a more global one, teaching our students ethics in its use, and assisting them as they stumble along the way…as WE stumble along the way. Think about the first products that came from the printing press….we certainly learned how to create a more effective, relevant product as time went on. We are on the cusp of a new method of sharing information. Education cannot afford to ignore the change. Will there come a time when students learn more after school than during school? Has that time already arrived? Buy your own copy of Mr. Shirky’s book and lets continue conversing about the future of education. Check back and let me know what you think!
