A subtractive education

If you are not a member of Phi Delta Kappa, you should join for no other reason to get the always delightful Phi Delta Kappan professional journal.

Herb Childress's article, "A Subtractive Education" alone make the whole issue worth obtaining. He writes:

My dream is that I will live to see the day that the modern high school will be considered the counterpart of the mission, the orphanage, and the poor farm - an institution that was taken for granted and considered beneficial in its time but has since been judged to be inhumane and unthinkable.

He lists the ideal outcome measures for high school:

• Graduates of  my ideal high school should love to read.
• Graduates of my ideal high school should enjoy numbers.
• Graduates of my ideal high school should enjoy physical exertion and activity.
• Graduates of my ideal high school should have some well-developed outlet for their creative desires.
• Graduates of my ideal high school should know how to work in groups, and they should know how to teach a skill to someone else.
• Graduates of my ideal high school should be brave and take risks.
• Graduates of my ideal high school should understand and take an interest in their community.
• Graduates of my ideal high school should be compassionate and care about people they don't know.

Not a bad list. Wish I'd written it. 

I've long been cynical about what society/business says it wants in terms of skill sets and attitudes from workers and what it really wants. Karl Fisch at the Fischbowl blog writes, "Everything I've read indicates that they want what we are trying to help our students become: creative and critical thinkers, problems solvers, producers of information, innovators, knowledgeable of and participants in a global community, expert navigators of 21st century technologies." You seem to be reading the same stuff I am, Karl.

But on the flip side, take a look at Kathy Sierra  "Knocking the exuberance out of employees" on her Creating Passionate Users blog who suggests employers are looking for robots, not "bold, creative, smart, passionate, independent" workers. She lists the advantages of hiring "robots."

Why Robots Are the Best Employees

1. They don't challenge the status quo
2. They don't ask those uncomfortable questions
3. They're 100% obedient
4. They don't need "personal" days.
5. ... because they don't have a personal life
6. They never make the boss look bad (e.g. stupid, incompetent, clueless, etc.)
7. They dress and talk the way you want them to
8. They have no strongly-held opinions
9. They have no passion, so they have nothing to "fight" for
10. They are always willing to do whatever it takes (insane hours, etc.)
11. They are the ultimate team players
12. They don't complain when you micromanage (tip: micromanaging is in fact one of the best ways to create a robot)
13. They don't care what their workspace is like, and don't complain if they don't have the equipment they need
14. They'll never threaten your job
15. They make perfect scapegoats
16. They get on well with zombies

My sense is most teachers prefer robot students as well.  Hey, as a supervisor I have to admit that there are days I'd trade some of my folks in for a few robots! And my sense is that NCLB is a lot more about creating robots than it is about creating 21st century learners. Standardized tests on very basic skills? Yup, robot manufacturing.

I'm guessing most of us would be happiest knowing that any independent thinkers we create would eventually come around to thinking exactly like we do. True independence and creativity is really pretty frightening.

 Does society really want creative, divergent thinkers?

T shirts - updated

The most current list of t-shirt saying is here: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/dougs-t-shirt-says.html 

Define "technology"

I received an interesting request in yesterday’s e-mail:

The [technology planning team] would like a definition of 'technology'. We're looking at educational tech, av, library, business, communications.  None of them are totally tech, but certainly there are tech needs in every one.  So, the team needs a working definition of technology in schools so we can [discuss budgeting] on Thursday.

So, does ISTE have an official definition of technology? Do you have a definition you would use (especially as related to budgeting and planning for technology in schools)?

Last time I thought much about this was in response to a request from our district's Technology Education teachers that my department refer to itself and its resources as Instructional Technology or Educational Technology, rather than just "technology":

April 23. 1997

Hi Jeff and Mike,

I received your memos regarding the definition of technology and our use of the word in our district communications. While I understand and even agree with the logic of many of your arguments, the educational profession does not seem to separate “technology” from “educational technology.” As evidence, I am attaching photocopies of covers of national magazines, state publications, regional publications and federal publications which all use in their titles the term “technology” instead of “educational technology.”

I would suggest that “technology” is a generic term that could (and should) be applied to nearly any device or invention humans use to increase their abilities to learn, work or play. Books, lathes, snowmobiles, and mouse traps, as well as computers, are all “technology.”

I would argue that to restrict ourselves to only the terms “educational technology” or “instructional technology” is both limiting and inaccurate. Our staff and students do use technologies that can be termed “educational” technology - instructional computer programs, videotapes, and printed texts. But also they also use:

• “communication” technology - fax machines, word processors, e-mail, and interactive video;
• “information” technology - on-line databases, CD-ROM reference materials, and cable television programming: and
• “business” technology - student record keeping systems, financial packages, and intranets

A single device (like a computer) or even a program (like a database), depending on its use, could fit into any or all of these categories. It would make no more sense for my department to only refer to what we work with as “educational” technology, than it would for your department to only use the term “industrial” technology. Our technology committees and technology coordinators do, in fact, work with a far broader spectrum of technologies than just computers, and so are aptly named.

I will agree that too many educators when they hear the word “technology” think only of computers, and that all educators don't have a clear understanding or philosophy of how technology can best be used in education. These shortcomings will only change as teachers have experiences using different technologies in multiple ways.

In the long run, I suspect what we call our tools will have a far smaller impact on our students’ lives and our community than how we use our tools. I am comfortable using “technology” in communications unless a more specific term is needed for clarity.

 I appreciate the time you’ve taken to express your views on this issue.

Doug

While I still think “technology is a generic term that could (and should) be applied to nearly any device or invention humans use to increase their abilities to learn, work or play"  is still true, it's not terribly practical since by this definition, the “technology” department would wind up budgeting for desks, pencils, library books, etc. as well as stuff that plugs in an goes beep.

What counts as technology in your school?