There is no box

Back in April, Adam Welcome wrote a blog post that really got me thinking entitled It’s No Longer About 1:1. As I’ve been an advocate for 1:1 in schools since 2009, I immediately drafted a response, one that I uncharacteristically then let sit for several months so I could stew on it a bit more. In that time, it looks like the post has gone away, but my thoughts on it still remain. This is what Adam said that got me thinking:

“Even if you have the money to go 1:1, I’m not sure it’s the best idea right now moving forward. Showing students a multi-pronged approach with collaborating, creativity, problem solving, investigation, art and other relevant skills is important. Leveraging those needed skills in different ways is important as it builds different capabilities for our kids. Being able to transition from Google Apps to coding an obstacle course as part of their math instruction, to taking an iPad around campus on a picture walk looking for different angles or types of trees to include on a presentation are all really important skills that produce well rounded kids.”

What caused me to pause in my initial response was that I agree with Adam on the importance of building diverse opportunity learning environments. Many valuable learning activities in class do not require every student to have access to their own device and we should be providing opportunities for students to have a variety of technology tools embedded into the learning. But I also believe that providing every student with an internet connected device must be a fundamental educational tenet given how we access information today. That doesn’t mean that kids should be on the devices all the time, but their device should be available to access information when and where needed. I think it’s too soon to stop advocating for 1:1 as not everyone is there yet.

Not going 1:1 limits options for learning. A whole class collaborative essay with real time teacher feedback is hard to do without 1:1. Blended learning is hard to do without 1:1. Flipped learning is hard to do without 1:1. Real time classroom assessment with data capture is hard to do without 1:1.

“What do your classrooms look like? What do you want your classrooms to look like? What can your classrooms look like? More importantly – how can you leverage the money you have or don’t have to give your kids a well rounded technology experience that will build their skill level in many different ways.”

The crux of Adam’s argument really revolves around funding. Fund 1:1 or fund 1:2 or 1:4 with Spheros, 3D Printers and other collaborative tools added to the classroom. Funding is a real issue for us in CA, since we have no dedicated funding source for technology and priorities are set by individual districts. Unfortunately, 1:1 is still seen in many districts as beyond their reach. This is where I struggle with what Adam was saying; if a district can afford 1:1 and chooses not to go that route, then I think they are constraining what I consider to be a foundational element of the modern learning environment.

Another reality to consider is state online adaptive testing. We call it the CAASPP here in California. Every 3rd-8th grade student needs to feel comfortable and confident with navigating their device, accessing information and responding to assessment questions online. This is infinitely harder if students don’t have access to their own device.

Spheros and 3D Printers are cool. I think things like Spheros, LittleBits, 3D Printers, Lego Robotics, Drones and their like are the modern day equivalent of the Computer Lab. We should be providing students access to these experiences. But right now, these tools are still relatively expensive, specialized tech that require a lot of care and feeding (support and technical know how) just like the Computer Labs of old. There are definitely times when being in a 1:2 or 1:4 device to student based activity is better suited to the learning objective. Classrooms should have multiple types of devices for learning, especially for Multi-Media projects. On this, I totally agree with Adam, but we shouldn’t compromise on a base line expectation of 1:1. An Internet connected device for every student is the “textbook required” equivalent for the 21st Century. Thankfully, the devices can do so much more than just access information and it’s our job as educators to make sure they are used for more than electronic versions of worksheets and textbooks.

This disruptive path we are on in education will continue. Fundamentally, how we access information has changed. Constraining access to information in a classroom does not help students learn how to successfully navigate a world of abundant information. Until classroom devices are as ubiquitous as textbooks, paper and pencils, we can’t let go of the goal of ensuring every kid has access to an Internet connected device for learning.

I’m stepping into a new role this year and I’ve already found myself getting pulled into the Binder Planning Model. You know the one, where the entire year is laid out in the binder, and you’re just turning the pages.

To me, it’s a metaphor for school planning in general. In schools, we like to organize our thinking around binders. A sequential entry of to-dos, dates, events and directions for everything that happens throughout the year, from day 1 to day 185, in one place. A binder, sitting on a shelf, within arm’s reach at a moment’s notice. It’s a practice that has perpetuated for generations.

One which reminds me of that old teaching adage, “Teach 25 years, not one year 25 times”. When I was new to teaching, I was handed a binder for the year and told, “here you go”. I dutifully took one look at it, realized it was mostly out of date and set about rebuilding the content from the ground up. The one thing I took from the binder was the general course outline. I put that outline into an online learning management system (Moodle at the time, I pre-date Google Classroom) and proceeded to pull in a ton of relevant content from many different sources, which I continuously updated, modified and adjusted every year.

Just as I didn’t want to fall into the same routine in the classroom year after year, I don’t want to fall into the same administrative routines year after year now.

Yes, new standards come along and new regulations are passed, and we dutifully update pages in the binder to keep current (we all do that, right?). But the binder format itself is limiting. It’s hard to adapt and update multiple copies with fidelity. It promotes sequential thinking and “sticking to the plan” even in the face of obvious need for adaptation. The binder models a “gate keeper” mode of information sharing that doesn’t apply in the connected world we now live and work. Granting access to multiple people requires lots of manual intervention (copy and send the green pages, replace page 20 with green 20, etc…). The content remains locked away on a shelf, unsearchable, and only referenced by a few. It’s a planning tool from the 20th (19th?) Century. We need a new planning model for the 21st Century.

What if we threw away the binder and every year we had a conversation about what we should do, how we should do it and why we should do it. What if instead of a binder, we had a live planning document, a shared google doc accessible to the entire staff. A scrolling sea of infinite planning possibilities. What could we accomplish if every year there was a blank slate with a running history of the years before. Not a pre-set script to be repeated, but a knowledge base on which to build and transform for they year ahead?

I think it’s time to move the annual department plan from a binder to a collaborative planning doc. I’ll let you know how it goes.

There was a trap we found ourselves falling into back in the STAR testing days with data. We spent the majority of our time and energy focused on the kids just below the line. The ones close to being proficient. The ones that theoretically should be easy to move. That was how we (and many others) moved district wide performance and attempted to avoid the dreaded PI (program improvement). Targeted intervention with a subset of kids. The bubble kids. For many districts it worked. But the unintended consequence was that it left lots of kids behind.

I will never forget a principal at a school in a district I won’t name who told a group of parents that only kids that scored just below the line were eligible for their after school support programs, because there was no point in providing services to kids that were so far below the line they wouldn’t be able to move enough to count. Straight up. Seriously?

I’m writing this in part to remind myself not to fall into the same trap. All kids deserve our very best. Not just the one’s closest to a line on a test.

I have a new title. It’s a mouth full and when people ask what it is, it actually takes my brain a few seconds to spin up to say it.

Associate Superintendent, Learning & Innovation

On more than one occasion, once I get it out, people have commented that it’s kind of cool or that it’s different. I tell them it’s totally made up and that basically I’m now responsible for Tech and EdServices. People generally get it from there but I find the initial pause interesting.

Learning & Innovation seems to throw people for a loop. As opposed to a more traditional title with Educational Services or Curriculum & Instruction in there, both of which carry a pre-existing set of expectations. Learning and Innovation are both in there for a reason. They both have purpose. Because while I don’t personally think titles make much of a difference, they do carry a message. The words in Titles can remind us of what’s important and where our focus should be.

Learning because as a school district we should be about Learning. Student Learning. Teacher Learning. Principal Learning. Staff Learning. Parent and Community Learning. School should represent a hub of life long learning in practice.

Innovation because thanks to the Internet, the world we live in is smaller than it’s ever been and as a consequence, it’s changing must faster than it ever has. Innovation because in our part of the world (Silicon Valley), Innovation is in our community’s DNA. Innovation because it promotes outside the box thinking, reflection and analysis of process and goals and practice. Innovation because learning isn’t about standing still, it’s about moving.

So I’ve got a new title and more responsibility, but really, it’s just put a label to what I’ve been all about for a while now, Learning and Innovation.

This question was on a back to school parent form from one of Kid1’s teachers. My wife asked me to fill it out…