Climbing the same mountain

A mountain climber spends weeks on a mountain undergoing terrible conditions, taxing his body and mind to the limit, working as hard as humanly possible. He finally, triumphantly reaches the summit, only to look over his shoulder to see that everyone else in his party climbed a different mountain.

The little parable above is one I often share with librarians, illustrating that a library program has to be working toward the same goals as the rest of its building if it is to be considered vital to a school.

But the same rule, of course, applies to technology departments.

A problem in many districts, my own included, is that technology, curriculum, and professional development have all lived in their own little worlds - each with its own set of goals, objects, budgets, committees, and leaders -  for a very long time. To some degree this is justified. Technology plans have parts that fall outside the interest of curriculum - school finance systems and security cameras and even basic infrastructure don't really need to be aligned to what's happening in the revision of the elementary science standards. And PD has responsibility for training teachers in skills that don't involve technology. Imagine that.

Exacerbating this separation is that CTOs often do not have an education background and (warning - over generalization here) tend to be opinionated and ambitious individuals who sort of like ruling over their own little kingdoms/queendoms. This fine if one measures success by evaluating one's technology initiatives by comparing them to the technology initiatives of other schools (the school with the most toys wins!) rather than judging technology's impact on student performance and whole school measures of success.

This seems to be a very propitious time for technology departments to redefine their role in their schools. Rather than being assigned a purely support role (think maintenance and custodial department), technology leaders must find ways to remain on the same mountain as the superintendent, school board, principals, and directors in their districts. Serious 1:1 and BYOD projects demand this redefinition.

A couple years ago, we began:

• Aligning our tech goals with the overall district strategic plan. (The plan is due for an overhaul this year and we will be active participants in the rewrite, invited or not)
• Meeting on a regular basis with the directors of curriculum and professional development to discuss mutual objectives.
• Placing a technology integration specialists on all curriculum writing teams.
• Embedding technology skills in the teacher evaluation process.

Yes, we still write a separate technology plan (state requirement) and annual technology goals that reflect non-curricular areas and infrastructure. But I can envision a day when such a plan is unnecessary - technology is simply a part of a district's strategic plan.

It's most assuredly better for kids when all the adults in a school are on the same mountain-climbing team.

BFTP: Building the capacity for empathy

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post July 12, 2008. I worry now that the Common Core ELA standards begin to stress students reading of non-fiction that fiction will take a back seat. Once again are we preparing students for yesterday's world? This post was also reincarnated as a column.

Stephen (Lighthouse) Abrams pointed out a fascinating article [link no longer working - sorry] about how reading fiction builds social skills and empathy:

A group of Toronto researchers have compiled a body of evidence showing that bookworms have exceptionally strong people skills. Their years of research ... has shown readers of narrative fiction scored higher on tests of empathy and social acumen than those who read non-fiction texts.1

I suppose for most readers, especially librarians and English teachers, this is a "Well, duh!" sort of conclusion. But it is gratifying to have our observations confirmed.

Empathy? Social acumen? Are they necessary for surviving and thriving? Our national associations and gurus seem to think so. 

From NETS 2007:

Students ... develop cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with learners of other cultures. ...use multiple processes and diverse perspectives to explore alternative solutions.

From  AASL’s Standards for the 21st Century Learner 2007 ...

Students will: Consider diverse and global perspectives in drawing conclusions. ...show social responsibility by participating actively with others in learning situations and by contributing questions and ideas during group discussions. 

From Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind:

Not just logic, but also EMPATHY. “What will distinguish those who thrive will be their ability to understand what makes their fellow woman or man tick, to forge relationships, and to care for others.

The unsung hero of success is empathy. Understanding the needs and desires of others is critical for leaders, salesmen, politicians, lotharios, preachers, CEOs, writers, teachers, consultants ... well, just about everybody. The better one understands others, the more effective one can meet their needs, appeal to their self-interests or, I suppose, manipulate them. And with a global economy, our empathy needs to extend beyond  understanding just our next door neighbor.

The question is then - can empathy be learned - and how? Is there a small muscle somewhere in the mind or soul that can be exercised, stretched, and built that allows us to more fully place ourselves in others' shoes?

Reading fiction - especially when the setting is another culture, another time - has to be the best means of building empathic sensibilities. How do you understand prejudice if you are not of a group subject to discrimination? How do you know the problems faced by gays if you are straight? How does it feel to be hungry, orphaned, or terrified when you've always lived a middle-class life? Harnessing the detail, drama, emotion, and immediacy of "the story," fiction informs the heart as well as the mind.

Viewing the world through the eyes of a narrator completely unlike oneself, draws into sharp detail the differences, but also the similarities of the narrator and reader. And it is by linking ourselves through similarities - common human traits - that we come to know others as people, not just stereotypes.

Unfortunately, as school budgets are stretched, school library funds that purchase quality fiction and school library professionals who select and promote quality fiction are too easily axed, replaced by reading programs, specialists, and tests of basic comprehension.

The question is never asked: If one can read but is not changed by reading, why bother?

Maybe I will scrap my plans for reading Shirkey, Suriwiki, et. al. this summer and pull up a few good novels on the Kindle instead... 

Oh, my nominee for best empathy building novel I've read recently is Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Reading it left me with a better understanding of autism and autistic children. A recent empathy builder you can recommend?

1. Mick, Haley “Socially Awkward? Hit the Books” Globe and Mail. 10 July 10 2008.

Are we building Google loyalty in our students?

Earlier this week, my buddy Miguel raked me over the coals for not taking privacy issues seriously enough in my somewhat-tongue-in-cheek post Google and Privacy. I'm not really interested in debating the points he raises since my sense is that he approaches the issues from an ideological point of view and I approach them on a more pragmatic basis. It's not how we feel about privacy, but how we deal with reality that's at issue.  I very much admire the character of highly principled individuals (aka wack-jobs), but it's those of us who make compromises that get the work done.

I was a bit taken aback by one assertion Miguel made. Despite my quoting from the GoogleApps for Education privacy policy, he wrote:

There is NO assurance of privacy with this product that is available at no cost for schools and raising it only suggests that Doug's real aim may be to excuse K-12 institutions from the guilt of exposing children and staff to Google products in such a way as to ensure their continued usage at a later date (for students, when they are older and for adults to use what they are most comfortable with). Even so, there is no assurance of privacy since this is for WORK purposes and is irrelevant to personal use.

Really? My hidden aim as an educator is to build brand loyalty to Google? Is this also why we use Apple and Dell computers, Microsoft Office, and Charmin toilet paper in our schools? Are we all still usin' Ticonderoga pencils having been subliminally seduced by our second grade teachers?

Yes, Miguel, I can be bought - I readily admit this - but not only has Google not met my price, they haven't even made me an offer.

Here, is why I don't feel in the least bit guilty for using GAFE in our district:

• GAFE gives students and staff privacy and confidentiality rights that private Google users do not get. Read the damn policy. Have it vetted by your school lawyers. Look at how many other schools and colleges (80% of Ivy League schools) have adopted GAFE with its privacy policy. Get over it. Google is not selling student data to either the government or to corporations.
• Free or at cost, it's the best cloud-based e-mail, calendaring, file storage, document creation and collaboration system available to schools. It works, it's easy to maintain, and it's been giving a lot of kids in my district access to powerful tools for information creation and a means of sharing these creations with others. 
• With the possible exception of our high school seniors, any product we are using today will be irrelevant or obsolete by the time students graduate. (With the exception of Charmin.) How do you build brand loyalty for products not yet in existence? 

Dude, you don't like Google, fine. But don't ascribe evil intentions to those of us who believe the value of the resources Google provides students outweighs any possible security lapses resulting from its cooperation with NSA - or Martians or whatever.