Content Standards – Build 2 (Beta)

Channeling my internal edu-ninja to cut through to the heart of what I think we should do

What defines the target that k-12 educators are aiming for?  What defines (in theory, at least) the way that we measure success?

National, State, and Local Standards

Stakeholders despairing that our education system is failing will often look to teaching strategies, class sizes, technology, teacher training/quality, and a host of other variables as flashpoints for ushering in reforms.  While I think that those are worthy areas on which to focus our attention, I believe that ultimately it is the target itself that needs  re-examined and re-defined prior to, or at least in conjunction with, implementing other reforms.

In the TED video below, “How to learn? From mistakes,” Diana Laufenberg provides a nice overview of the relationship of information to the school-house.

In the past students had to go to school because that was were the information was housed.  People at home didn’t have access, so they needed to walk five miles, uphill, in a snow storm to go to school to learn.  Eventually, books and encyclopedias were widely available so the information was a bit more diffuse.  Today information is widely available.  Students can access libraries, museums, and classrooms from anywhere with mobile devices.

If you are wondering what transformation your child should undergo by a year of education at your local public school, look at the standards (usually state standards) that define the target for that grade level’s education.  But state standards are defined based on an old model of how people learn, an old model of information storage, and an old model of how information is organized.

Old model of teaching: The transmission model of teaching saw learning as merely an input process. There is a set of ideas and knowledge in the teacher’s head that just needs transferred to the student’s brain.   So all you need to do to teach is provide the information.  State and other agencies developing standards simply needed to outline what they wanted to see stuck to the brains of students.

California Science Standard - Grade 8

Old model of information storage: Because information was historically not readily available, the focus was on teaching information to the point that it was remembered and understood.  Students would not have access to it later.  So the standards had to make sure that students retained the information and took it with them.  In fact if you look at how standards tend to be stated, they generally begin with “Students know…” as you can see by the 8th grade science standard on Motion from the state of California above.  The standards don’t outline any expected USE of the information.

Old model of information organization: Back in the days of the Dewey decimal system as the main organizational scheme, information was stored in a physical form.  A book or periodical could only be put in one place.  So books were categorized based on broad themes such as science, philosophy, literature, etc.  Where do you put Kuhn’s, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?  In science or in philosophy? You had to choose.  Since information was conceived as falling into categories, that is how students were/are instructed as well.  Students take literature, science, math, and history classes.

New model of teaching: Learning is now understood to be a complex cognitive process by which we integrate new knowledge into existing schemas and that many variables affect this process beyond the efforts of the teacher such as prior knowledge, individual aptitudes and preferences, and more.  Furthermore, we better understand now that encoding an understanding of a concept does not entail that a student will be able to use that concept in a situation where it ought to be applied.  If students are only taught information at the remembering or understanding level, it is not necessarily the case that they will be able to use the concept in more sophisticated ways, especially if they are never given the opportunity or prompting to do so.  Nowadays there is a greater push for and emphasis on helping students become critical thinkers and effective problem-solvers, but this desire is not represented very well in standards.

New model of information storage: Nowadays the reality is that information is not just abundant but ubiquitous and often intrusive (case-in-point – my Twitter app jars me every few seconds with a new link, idea, or feeling that someone is sharing).  Since much information is now digitized, we can take it with us wherever we go.  We don’t bother memorizing phone numbers any more – our phones do that for us.  Information is  now available to us whenever we need  it.

New model of information organization: Now that information is stored digitally, it can be tagged and sorted in much more complex ways.  Short stories like the Yellow Wallpaper can be categorized by databases in feminism, literature, psychology, 19th century, and many other categories.  It doesn’t need to be put in a particular information silo, such as literature, where the other relevant features of this story are only novelties or pathways to understanding the piece as literature.  When I used to teach science, at least every once in awhile a student would get indignant that I expected the class to use math to solve problems and conduct experiments.  I would make the point that math exists because of science, commerce, and construction.  It isn’t just an entity unto itself.  Scientists need math.  But the story goes to show that our organization of standards and courses reinforces an antiquated understanding of how to categorize information, namely that information and skills fall into distinct and separate categories.

So what implications does all this have for redefining and reorganizing standards?  Well here’s what I think should happen:

1. Shift the Focus:

Content standards should not be the core outcome of each year of teaching.  Much content is taught one time and it’s use is not reinforced and repeated.  It is a wasted effort to spend our precious time with students in an effort to cram information into their heads.  I think that the standards should define the most important core transformations that we would like to see students make over the entire course of their academic training and that these should be the primary guide for whatever year of school or class subject that they are in.   What counts as the core transformation that students should undergo during their k-12 years is something to be negotiated by stakeholders, but here’s what I would consider core:

• Critical Thinking – be able to critically evaluate, sort, and analyze information – Using information well is more important than remembering it!
• Problem Solving – be able to break down problems, brainstorm, devise solutions, troubleshoot problems
• Collaborative Skills – be able to be good listeners, resolve disagreements, compromise, divide up tasks,
• Creativity – be able to think and express themselves creatively
• Oral, Visual, and Written Communication – be able to communicate both via their own expression and by having the ability to understand and interpret the expression of others
• Technical skills – be able to use various forms of technology as a means toward communicating, solving problems, and creative expression
• Information Literacy – be able to locate information as needed, identify trusted vs. suspect sources, etc.
• Empathy and Citizenship – seeing themselves as members of a global community as well as a country, state, and locality
• Reading – not as a subject but as a skill that is used in every course
• Math – also, not as a subject but as a skill that is used in every course

If a set of core skills, attitudes, and aptitudes are identified and agreed upon, then we can truly measure the growth of the student through time.  Right now our standardized testing is almost exclusively geared toward measuring the retention of a discreet set of facts and skills that will not have continued value for the students.  As I discuss in my previous blog post under problem #4 there is no continued use of much of the standards outlined each year in the content areas.  In eighth grade science a student may “know to interpret graphs of position vs. time” long enough for the assessment at the end of the year, but will the student ever need to know that again?  Will he or she ever be asked to use that skill again?  Realistically, probably not.   But if the main focus of instruction was geared to inspiring thinkers, communicators, creators, etc. then once students start to specialize they can learn the information that they need to do their job well but will have the benefit of their core skills and abilities rather than the current set up where students arrive at college not being particularly good writers or thinkers.

So to sum up, I think that the major focus, what we should be measuring and tracking year to year as students progress through school, should not be the tidbits of information but the important global skills that will have enduring value no matter what goals a student has for the future or what problems they face.  If we shift the focus, then we can truly gauge  progress from year to year based on established rubrics or assessments for measuring student growth.  Wouldn’t it be great if report card from year to year showed trackable, observable progress toward these core goals?  Redefining education standards in this way would go a long way to making it more possible for educators to use an instructional design model as an approach to instruction, as I discussed in my previous two posts.  In addition, it could make the curriculum more meaningful and truly useful to the future success of students.

2.  Keep Content Standards

“Huh?” you may be asking.  “What was all that ranting about tidbits of information and having access to information like never before.  I thought you were going to say that content standards aren’t important.”  Yes, I think we should keep them, but we should re-imagine them.

There are three reasons I think content standards are important, and I’ll use a story to illustrate each one:

Story #1

On the radio I heard an NPR story about Richard Holbrooke being in critical condition before he later died.  The reporter said that doctors had to “fix a tear in the large artery that moves blood from the heart.”  When I heard that I thought, why didn’t they just say ‘aorta’ instead of ‘large artery’?  What this made me realize is that one important reason for content standards is that they provide a foundation for civic dialogue.  There are certain facts, concepts, core values, ideas, etc. that should be ”common knowledge,” as the phrase goes.  In order for us to have a robust civic dialogue, there need to be certain things that we expect everyone to know.  Content standards should be carefully crafted so as to identify those things we need to know as a community.  For example, your average citizen doesn’t need to know huge amounts of detail about the process of photosynthesis, but in order for us to have a dialogue about global warming, CO2 output, and more, everyone should probably know that photosynthesis is a process by which plants take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.

Story #2

During the 2010 midterm elections, my jaw dropped when I saw the exchange in the video below between Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons during their Delaware debate.  It worried me that there was a chance that an individual who displayed ignorance of both our Constitution’s first amendment and the science of evolution could be elected to office.  I wondered why it was that people would vote for someone like this.  Why isn’t their BS detector beeping wildly?  What I realized is that BS detector’s only work if you don’t know something about what someone is talking about.  You need to have some understanding of our nation’s history, the Constitution, and the strong grounding of evolution to recognize that what is going on in this debate is absurd.  If you don’t have that knowledge, it is easy to interpret the video differently.  So in my mind, content standards are critical.

Story #3

This isn’t really a story but rather a general observation.  Some students fall in love with a particular content; it is what makes them tick.  For me the subjects that inspired me were art, science, and philosophy.  For other students it is literature, music, and history.  There are probably infinite combinations of interests that students have.  I think content standards are important because the information will be remembered and valued by those students who truly love that subject/discipline/topic.  I mentioned earlier that most students will never have to look at a distance vs. time graph after 8th grade.  However, those that love physics definitely will.  They will take physics in high school and in college.  Having a foundation in the basics of physics at an early age will be meaningful and of enduring value to those that love it.   I think where we go wrong is expecting that type of information to have meaningful and enduring value for all students.

3. Redefine content standards.

So content standards are important because they are the foundation for much of our civic discourse, allow us to have BS detectors (at least, those are two reasons they are important), and are of keen and enduring value to some students.  But I do not believe that content standards should be formulated as they have been in the past.  How they should be newly conceived should reflect two factors:

1.  Emphasize USE of Content: Since the emphasis no longer has to be on remembering information, content standards can be redefined to reflect that.  The emphasis should no longer be on simply “knowing” information but on its use.  This should be parsed in two ways.  First of all, content standards should not be written using the “Students should know” structure.  One common method for writing objectives, the ABCD method, requires that you indicate a specific behavior.  “Know” is far too vague and does not indicate what you expect students to do or give any guidance in how you would measure success.  Since the standards don’t indicate what students should be able to do with the information, it is difficult for teachers to know what performance they are guiding students to.   For example,

“Students know how to interpret position vs time  graphs and speed vs  time graphs”

could be reformulated to:

“Students can identify when an object is speeding up, slowing down, or not changing speed in both position vs. time and speed vs. time graphs.”

There is probably a lot more that you might want students to be able to do with these types of graphs, but specifically identifying what the expectation is helps both students and teachers.  It provides a clear guide for what should be taught and measured.

The second way that standards should reflect USE of information is by identifying what the real-world use of the information is.  The real-world value should be identified as party of the standards document.  Students are always asking “why do we need to know this.”  In addition, teachers who value teaching depth rather than breadth often develop project/problem-based units of study around real-world topics.  One thing we want is for students to use the information in authentic, real-world ways.  It is by using the information to solve-problems, clarify concepts, etc. that students really own the information.  Plus, aren’t we teaching them this stuff for reasons beyond just taking tests?  The whole point is that we want students to be able to USE information in their efforts to make sense of the world, solve problems, and make their mark on the future.  I think, though, that it is incumbent on those bodies that devise these content standards to provide guidelines, examples, and suggestions for where these concepts will be used by students in the real-world.  Since teachers already have limited time, having part of the job done for them would be helpful and provide a more unified vision.

2.  Prioritize Content Standards: Many teachers believe that the content standards expect too much to be taught in a single year.   You often hear teachers express the need to make a decision - whether to go for breadth (coverage) or depth (true understanding and rich interaction with content).   So, in my mind, any re-conception of state standards should include a prioritization of the content because depth should be the expectation (with a focus on the core standards) rather than coverage, which would only allow low level interaction with content.  There are certain skills and basic knowledge that still may need to be taught to the point that students remember it and this content would be standard across classrooms.  It is these things that will be most important for continuing our civic discourse and in the development of a solid BS detector.  But there may be additional content that isn’t critical but would provide almost a menu of optional/supplemental content for teachers to choose from.

So here’s how that might look.  Content standards would be divided into Central and Supplemental content.  For biology, there are certain things that probably all students should know and remember, such as the following for example:

Biology Central Content Standard Examples

• The basic evidence and premise of evolution and why it is a unifying concept in biology
• Cells are the building blocks of living things and it contains differentiated organelles each with an important function
• The cell nucleus and mitochondria contain DNA that is used for inheritance
• Genetic inheritance accounts for many traits of offspring

Biology Supplemental Content Standard Examples

• Meiosis and Mitosis
• Memorizing the names of organelles and their corresponding functions
• Constructing branching diagrams to classify living things
• Generating Punnett squares for traits

By relegating some content to the supplemental category, I’m not trying to say that it is not useful for students to know.  In fact depending on the angle a teacher takes toward teaching the central standards, some of the supplemental standards may come into play.  However, rather than having to focus on teaching these things to the point where they are remembered for a test, the focus can be on using the supplemental content as an illustration, clarification, or example in a unit of study that delves at something deeper.

Okay I’m done.

Systemic Change – What does it mean to you?

What is systemic change?  What would it look like in a large urban school district?

SDUSD is in the process of undergoing a systemic change as the updates outlined by proposition S are planned and implemented throughout the district.  In order to identify how key individuals view systemic change, I interviewed four key individuals in the district.  Some were classroom teachers who are likely to be leaders as Prop S roles out, and others were central office staff who will likely be involved in facilitating the implementation.  Each individual was simply asked to define systemic change.

Here are some of the definitions that came up (they are nearly verbatim):

#1: it’s holistic.  It happens when a large organization makes a series of changes that are interrelated and are all focused on bringing about a single change or set of changes.  It should start from those with the vision for change, and then begin to create buy-in from the key stakeholders

Change we can believe in

#2: The outcome would truly be pervasive, omnipresent from kindergarten through 12th grade.  Every staff member would be a part of whatever that systemic process was.  The change should touch every student and every staff member.  All stakeholders should be a part of the process to make that outcome happen.

#3: change that starts in the center and goes out.  It changes the dynamics of the system and how it works.

#4: a change that takes ownership of itself over time: it remains after the change-agent is no longer present.  To have systemic change, you would need an ongoing plan with support and resources available.  Most effective when not top down, but facilitated by key people so that the mass is what ends of driving the change because they see the value.  They were included in the process and a part of creating that process over time.

Each of these reveal something about the interviewee’s take on who should be involved in the process.  Some responses such as #1 and #3 indicate that change should begin with a small cadre of individuals who create the vision.  Once that is established the vision is implemented and slowly spreads out.  In contrast, the responses of interviewee #2 and #4 indicate that they place a high value on all stakeholders being involved from the outset of the change.  These two pictures of how the change will be developed and implemented are quite different and but are not mutually exclusive.  In a large district like SDUSD, it would be virtually impossible to have all stakeholders involved in the process from the beginning.  However, it would make quite a bit of sense to organize a cadre of individuals that can speak for each of the major stakeholder groups.  This blend of these two perspectives would help to develop an agent for change that will consider the needs, limitations, strengths, and desires of all key inviduals.  Having this diversity of perspectives involved would help the group avoid major pitfalls that can occur when those involved in the planning are not well enough informed about how the elements of the system is interrelated and interdependent.

The Promise and Peril of 21st Century Learning – Differentiation?

To me one of the biggest promises of 21st century learning is the idea of differentiation.  That learning is no longer one size fits all where the teacher has to decide whether to teach to the middle or one of the extremes.  However, recently I have discovered that there are many different visions of the promise of differentiation, and one particular version worries me quite a bit.

One vision of 21st century learning emphasizes a single powerful element of differentiation only.  In this paradigm students receive instruction from software that is diagnostic and responsive.  Students come to their language arts class, for example, and turn on their computer.  They start up their APEX software, Achieve 3000, or some other online curriculum and start their work.  Instruction is differentiated because each student may be at a different spot in the curriculum. Students can learn at their own pace, and the program adapts to their needs giving them readings and questions at their current level.  This is certainly a powerful type of differentiation.  Learning is tailored to the student’s skill level.

Here are my worries.  This vision of 21st century learning (which I will call the “Plugged In Vision” or PIV for short)…

1. misses an important aspect of differentiation
2. will not adequately develop 21st century skills
3. places the teacher in the role of facilitator but not in a powerful or important way
4. makes technology virtually the only tool for learning

So let me explain my worries because I like to talk and I certainly like to be opinionated.

Worry #1 – The PIV misses an important aspect of differentiation. The curriculum is differentiated by skill level, and this is powerful.  However, the curriculum is not differentiated in any other way.  What other way is there you may ask?  Well, one important aspect of differentiation, in my opinion, is the ability to differentiate instruction by interest as well.  A student in the video Learning to Change, Changing to Learn hits the nail on the head when she says that when you have access to everything (via the internet) it forces you to discover what you are really interested in.  If I were teaching a unit on forces and motion and one of my students was a skilled programer, maybe one way she could demonstrate mastery would be to develop an iPhone application game on the topic.  Or if I have a student who wants to be a songwriter, he can write a song, record it in audacity or garageband on the topic and publish it to CCmixter.  To me this is the power of 21st century learning – to help students realize their dreams and develop their talents while they are learning.  This is not something that an APEX tutor can do.

Worry #2 – The PIV will not addequately develop 21st century skills. The traditional model of education tends to focus on the learning of facts.  That is what students are usually tested on (although some skills are tested such as reading comprehension, etc.)  But in a Google It world, facts are at our fingertips.  There is no reason to memorize anymore except for those things such as mathematical times tables that we need to be able to use with automaticity.  The Partnership for 21st Century Skills identifies some of the core skills students will need to develop in order to be successful in a world where things change quickly and information is infinite.  Some of these skills are innovation, creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, etc.  Now I am not an expert with these online curriculums, but from what I’ve seen and heard, these programs do not develop these important 21st century skills.  In fact, with each student staring at their own computer screen during an entire class period doing their own thing, the differentiation in skill level that the software provides hinders the ability to communicate and collaborate in the classroom.  I could ramble on about this, but I’ll stop there.

Worry #3 – The PIV places the teacher in the role of facilitator but not in a powerful or important way. It is fairly widely agreed upon that “The Sage on the Stage” model of teaching should be replaced by a model where the teacher acts as a facilitator or guide.  Although the PIV model certainly removes the “Sage on the Stage” the facilitator role that emerges is very limited.  From what I understand from proponents of the PIV model, teachers job becomes that of a helper when students are having a hard time and a manager of the classroom, and that’s about it.  The software does the teaching, the evaluation, the interaction.  What I hope for in 21st century learning facilitator is a teacher who is creative and responsive, who is constantly evaluating and adjusting.   Now I understand the worry of the PIV proponents.  The argument is that many teachers do not have the technology skill set (and unfortunately in some cases the pedagogical and content knowledge and skill set) to be able to teach in the responsive way that is possible with new technologies.  This is clearly an important point and the burden is on those of us who envision something other than the PIV model to find a way to develop these skills in our current teacher workforce and help develop skill with a new pedagogy.  Where I disagree with the PIV proponents is I believe it is possible to develop this and I believe it is worth it to find a way to do it.  Just because we have largely been unsuccessful developing this does not mean that we should give up.  To give up would be quite dismissive of teachers and their abilities.

Worry #4 – PIV makes technology virtually the only tool for learning. When students walk into a classroom, turn on their computer and plug in for the duration, instruction ignores the many tools that are possible both high tech and low tech.  Manipulatives, whiteboards (both interactive and not), PAPER, human simulations and performances, etc. are also valuable means of learning, collaborating, and commicating.  Just because computers are a VERY powerful tool does not mean that we should ignore all of the other many tools and strategies that are possible.

Now I feel it is important that I explain my vision a little bit.  My argument is not that diagnostic curriculum such as Achieve 3000 and curriculum that allows students to learn at their own pace such as APEX should not be used.  In fact, I think these tools could be very powerful integrated into a curriculum where students are challenged to do exciting things.  But I believe that project-based learning is more likely to develop the important skills that will help students become life-long learners that are adaptable and excited about learning.  I believe that I would be extremely bored and more likely to drop out of school if I went to seven periods a day where I walked into class, plugged in and did not interact with my classmates or teacher.  This to me is a bleak vision of 21st century learning.

Luckily, I am just starting a class with Dr. Fred Saba at SDSU and I’m looking forward to learning more about the power of 21st century education where interaction and responsiveness are key.  I am hoping to develop a more robust and informed vision myself.

Thanks for reading!

Innovation in Education & TPACK

What is innovation?  It’s not just about change, and I don’t think it’s just about things being better.  I think innovation is a new idea or invention that makes us wonder how we ever did things before.  It can’t be just that it is better.  It has to be soooo much better that we can’t imagine a world without that invention anymore.   For example, Windows Vista might be better than Windows XP Professional…ok, just kidding.  Bad example.  For example take 2, the Leopard OS may be better than Tiger, but the difference isn’t so great that we think, “Dang, I don’t know how I managed with 10.4!” Leopard is not an innovation even though it’s better.

But some ideas and inventions are, in fact, innovations and are such that you think, “Wow, how did I ever manage?”  Take Internet search engines and all of the ever-growing content on the web.  Who did we ask pre-Google?  What did we do when we needed to figure out how to get somewhere before mapquest and Google maps?  Having vast amounts of information stored on the web in such a way that anyone with a computer and connection can query this massive database is radical and has made our life so much easier/more fair/etc.

from Open Learning at BYU

Now in education there is always change.  Every year there is a new curriculum or a new strategy that we try only to abandon it next year or a few years down the line in exchange for another “New” idea.  There are very few ideas or strategies that can truly be called innovation.  One recent idea, in my humble opinion, is a true innovation, and it has to do with teacher knowledge and how we develop that knowledge in teachers.

TPACK, or Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (if you prefer the mouthful version), is just that innovation just as it’s predecessor PCK, or Pedagogical Content Knowledge, was before it.

If you don’t know the story of TPACK, here’s a quick synopsis.  It used to be that when teachers learned how to teach they would take their content classes and then take general pedagogical classes, and they were separate.  Then this guy named Shulmann came along in the ’80s and proposed PCK.  His point was something like this:

Sure teachers need to know how to teach in a general sort of way, but if they teach science, then there are particular pedagogical concerns that are different than if you teach math.  The way you learn how to solve quadratic equations may be different than understanding ecosystems, and most likely the way you teach it is different too.

Out of this idea methods classes were born in teacher education classes.

Ever since personal computers and internet access has become a dominant force in our culture and in teaching, technology classes have been a part of teacher education programs as well.  However, they are generally separate in the way that content and pedagogy were taught separately pre-Shulmann.

TPCK from tpack.org

Recently Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler have preposed that Technology should not be taught in isolation in teacher education because the way that you use technology will be particular to your content and your pedagogical focus.  When taught in isolation, technology generally focuses on the skills of using technology.  For example, a teacher will go to a workshop and learn how to use PowerPoint or Moodle.  This workshop will teach what each menu does, what icons mean, and how to create something using those tools.  The focus is not on how to use it to teach within a content area.  This is the revolution that Mishra and Koehler are proposing (as I understand it).

Why is this a tremendous innovation?  Because it should revolutionize professional development in the use of technology.  We should no longer focus on the tools because they are just that…tools!  We need to focus more on what those tools can create and how we can use them to make amazing things happen in education.

Now as much as I think that TPACK is a truly innovative idea/framework, I’m not sold that the Learning by Design strategy for professional development is as innovative or effective, but since this blog post is already far too long, the reasons for that opinion will have to wait to be shared until next time…

Focused on the Wrong Things

Why are we always focused on the wrong things?  Okay, by we, I mean me, and by always, I mean mostly.  That way I avoid a bit of hyperbole.  But here’s the point:

Just like Kip, I love technology.  It is so exciting – thinking about what’s possible now and what soon will be possible.  Take for example several of the things that have been presented at TED that have gotten so much attention of late.  Here are a few I’ve been amazed by:

• David Merrill: Siftables, the toy blocks that think
• Pattie Maes & Pranav Mistry: Unveiling the “Sixth Sense,” game-changing wearable tech

As I watched these videos, my jaw dropped.  I began to think about this amazing new world that was on the horizon (that hopefully won’t include precrime units – despite the reference to Minority Report in the 6th sense presentation).  I reveled in the possibilities for a awhile.  I would love to be able to take a picture with my fingers.  How great would it be for my son to learn math using siftable manipulatives.  What else is coming?  Wow!

Then suddenly I felt morose.  It was rather sudden, and perhaps I’m simply moody because I’m not feeling well, but my response to these technologies changed instantly.  The greatest minds in the world are developing gadgets to make our lives easier, help us learn more efficiently, have fun, but at the end of the day, these inventions, that are like mental candy to me, don’t address the greatest problems that humanity faces.  They’re just really cool.  But what about the problems that really plague us?

• crime
• poverty
• climate change
• materialism/wastefulness
• moments we probably all experience at times where recognition of our differences is used to justify hate, fear, and worse
• ignorance and lack of clear thinking and perspective

As much as I love these amazing toys that illustrate the best of human ingenuity and flexible thinking, I want the worlds greatest minds to focus on bringing the kind of change to the world that really matters!  Maybe I’m being short-sided and I’m not being flexible enough in my thinking to see how these tools and gadgets can bring about meaningful change.  Anyone got any examples of amazing innovations that address some of the problems with more gravitas to cheer me up?

Despite my rant above, I’m not meaning to pick on the two presentations above.  They are two of the most amazing innovations I’ve ever seen.  I am in awe.  They just happened to be the catalyst for my rant.  

Why are we always focused on the wrong things?   (Ok, maybe I didn’t just mean me)

A Community Educational Portal? Matching needs with resources.

I very much appreciate that we now have a president who is calling on all of us to make what we will of the world we live in – we are the change that we need.  He has called on all of us be better than we are.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who’ve been told that they cannot have what they dream, that they cannot be what they imagine. Yes, they can.” – Barack Obama during his Inauguration Address

So this is just prelude to the fact that finding a way to do things better is always at the forefront of my mind.  I am inspired.  However, I get ideas, but I don’t do a good job of following through and seeing them come to fruition.  Just today, I had a random thought that I think could lead to something valuable.  I’d love to see it realized.  So I’ll do my best to pursue it.

Here’s where the real rambling begins (sorry!):

I work for SDUSD and have had the pleasure of working with several organizations outside of education through partnerships to help bring meaningful experiences into the classroom.   I’m sure there are numerous organizations that would love to work with education to help grow a competent workforce either through providing funding, lesson resources, experts, etc.  Likewise, I’m sure there are a plethora of teachers that would love to work with a business partner.  The problem is that the two sometimes need an introduction either becuase they are bashful, don’t know who to contact, or don’t know what to talk about.

So here is my thought:  With today’s technology resources, there are limitless resources for bringing people together to help each other out.  For example, NPR recently did a story on a website called USA together.  It’s a website where injured US service members can post a need that they have and community members can offer to help.  Conversely, community members can offer to help and injured service members can accept the offer.  There are many other examples of these sorts of portals where people who have a need can be matched with those who have a resource.  (Other examples:  USAservice.org, micro-philanthropy sites, etc)  Why not create a community portal for matching educational partners with teachers and schools who would love the help.  It could become a central clearinghouse for providing at least one of the types of change that we need.

So here’s where what I think is a great idea catches a snag:

• The Talent Issue – Who has the skill to design and/or manage a portal like this?  Would you use a Google group or site?  Would you use a wiki?  There must be a better way.
• The Responsibility Issue – Who should host it?  County office of education?  A local university?  Should it be national or local?
• The Money Issue – Where would funding come for such a project?
• Self doubt – is it worth doing? Will people use it?  How do you get the message out there?
• Cynicism – are community businesses, foundations, organizations willing to help?  (obviously I assumed so above because I know of several who would be, but is interest large enough to merit a larger clearinghouse or should these partnerships continue to be formed more piecemeal?)