Getting to know you - as more than a number

Despite our efforts to carefully examine student performance and choose instructional interventions that best meet their needs, the truth is, we need to be collecting, organizing, and analyzing more robust data on our students—facts about their home lives, their likes and dislikes, their learning preferences—the things that really matter. Rethinking Data: How to Create a Holistic View of Students, Mind/Shift August 26, 2015.

In “Hacking Education: 10 Quick Fixes For Every School,”  Mark Barnes and Jennifer Gonzalez recommend using a 360 Spreadsheet to collect a more holistic set of data about each student:

I love this idea. If we are to have any hopes of educating every child, we need to treat each child as an individual that must reached by different means and through different interests and challenges.

Do other kinds of numbers also tell us whether a student is truly engaged in a class? Attendance? Assignments turned in along with their completeness and timeliness? Participation in class discussion? Number of extra books read? Appropriate use of personal technologies? Demonstration of a passion for coding or music or track or science or ...

I've said it before, I would like our mission to create graduates who love to learn - and will continue to do so long after they leave our classrooms.

Oh, and it seems at least one brave admin likes to view teachers as more than numbers as well:

Source

BFTP: Putting the fun in dys-fun-ctional

 Can a group that doesn't have a function be dysfunctional?
                                                                               - the Blue Skunk

I noticed this year that the number of meetings I've been required to attend has gone down and the meetings themselves have grown shorter. The "informational" role meetings have played is being replaced by e-mail and a great deal of collaborative work is now done online. State-wide meetings are mostly held via computer, telephone, or video teleconference.

A couple of groups of which I am a member seem to be struggling to find a purpose for continuing. One continues to meet primarily for the social value, I believe; the other simply out of tradition.

For some reason, a tremendous amount of attention has been paid in our district to groups developing "norms." A lovely buzz word - "norms." I had always considered group norms to be behaviors that developed naturally over time - "norm-al" behaviors. But I guess "norms" sounds nicer than "rules," even if rules are what are actually being created.

Ironically, the less important a group's reason for being, the more stress placed on the group's process.  I don't care how many "norms" are created, unless there is a purpose for the group, its meetings are time-burners during which everyone just secretly checks their smartphones anyway.

A committee, group, task force, whatever. can have value if it provides a means for:

• serious input into planning and problem-solving efforts - real give and take - with a range of perspecitives and areas of expertise represented
• the exchange of nuanced information and points-of-view that easily get lost in translation via electronic communications - especially that which is highly value-laden
• reporting that is taken more seriously due the public nature of the reporting venue (shame-avoidance is great motivator, and thus a good reason for meetings)
• training that is complex, essential and time-critical

One important reason meetings are still held is that some members of any group would just "never get around to reading the memo" if all communication were done electronically. At a F2F meeting there is at least the illusion of having all members' eyes and ears. If those members attend. And they are not checking their smartphones.

So, what meetings do you attend that still have value - and why?

Original post June 18, 2010

It's not a 1:1 program

This school year I will be advocating for a plan that gives every student in grades 6-12 a computing device in our district.

But I am not selling it as a 1:1 program. The device is not the point. I don't really care if our device selection task force settles on laptops, iPads, Chromebooks, or Etch-A-Sketches. The device simply enables 24/7 access to resources that are or will be important for student learning success. In fact, that access should be the major factor in determining what device is chosen.

My biggest fear of any technology implementation is that the gizmos are not used or not well-used. Smartboards used as projection screens, iPads used as gaming devices, or computers used as typewriters are common examples of technological underutilization.

What I do not want to happen once all students have those iPads in their hot little hands, is for their parents to ask, "How did you use your device in school today? and the student say, "We didn't." or "We only used it in English class." or "I just used it to text my buddy sitting next to me." Not how a lot of parents and community members want their tax dollars spent, I'd guess.

So I spent a few minutes yesterday thinking about the resources every 6-12 student should be accessing everyday. The little graphic above is a simplified version of that list. The LMS will be the main tool for 6-12 we will be supporting through PD and curriculum development.

OK, those of you who are SAMR fans may be thinking that these are all Substitution or Augmentation uses of tech. Probably. But teachers as they gain familiarity with programs and methodology will make more powerful uses.

Sometimes in technology planning we have to ask if we are shooting for broad use or transformative use. Ideally it would be both, but in the case of (not) 1:1 programs, I am going for universal use.