coComments related to kfisch

Marlys – I’m way too tired to

2007-09-18T06:33:09.126+02:00

Marlys – I’m way too tired to do this justice. As far as technology, see my reply to Kristin. My definition of technologically literacy is apparently way, way different than everyone else’s. Technological literacy has very little to do with computers or software (although the y are helpful and necessary). And if folks have a different definition, then undoubtedly the analogy to reading and writing won’t make any sense. Technology won’t take care of itself (at least not yet, it’s not sentient yet). And I don’t care much about taking care of technology, and I see very little evidence that the younger teachers are that much more advanced (see Kristin’s comments about her lack of training in her teacher prep classes). Of course teachers can be effective using other tools, I just don’t think they can meet all the needs of our students in the 21st century without it. And I want to meet all their needs. I’m still having trouble with this intimidation thing. With all due respect (and I’m trying to not repeat my mistakes from above so please don’t take this too harshly), give me a break. First, I’m blogging right along with folks such as yourself and your colleagues who can write circles around me. Second, they have the option of writing in a Word document and emailing it to me – no one but me sees it – and they still aren’t doing it. Third, they are supposed to be professionals. Teachers. Learners. Role Models. They can go to college, graduate, and be entrusted with the lives of hundreds of teenagers each year, but they can’t figure out a way to write their thoughts down – either publicly or privately? Fourth, it’s what their students need them to do, so therefore I expect them to give it a shot. You’re right, the two statements don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But – from my perspective – way too many teachers answer with their subject area and dismiss the students. My hope is that if they truly, honestly, passionately answered students first, then things would be better. As far as “ideas,” please see my reply to Cheryl. I thought I qualified my use of “ideas” as a poor word choice, and my definition is more inclusive, but apparently not. And, I love Shakespeare, I really do. But why is he the most quoted author in English Literature? Well, undoubtedly because he has a way with words (please do not let the following take away from that, although I fear you will). But it’s also partially because he wasprolific, because he was early, and because every student in an English language classroom in the past 100+ years has had to read him. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but that certainly helps get you quoted a lot. And, English teachers like Terry quoting Shakespeare don’t count! If only I had some math teachers blogging here . . . :-) Can technology obscure the power of words? Sure, but it’s not because of the technology, it’s because of how it’s used. I think hearing Shakesepeare read live, listening to recorded actors reading Shakespeare, and watching recorded Shakespeare plays are all fantastic ways to have the ideas/truths/art delivered. But, once again, what does text messaging have to do with that? I’ve never said that text messaging would replace that. And, because I sometimes feel like what I write must be disappearing, would somebody please acknowledge that books are technology? So, if you were given one more week to teach, you’d spend it on those things. No problem, I’m with you. But, assuming from your sentence that you might not be, why the heck aren’t you doing it this week?

Kristin – I apologize. That pr

2007-09-18T05:58:13.035+02:00

Kristin – I apologize. That previous comment to you did not come out the way I intended. (After suggesting to Cheryl that she was showing disdain, I turn right around and show it myself. Bad, very bad.) The four points were a black and white response to a nuanced and complex area. They were intended to illustrate what critics outside of public education would say – as well as what many critics inside of public education would say as well. I do believe there is truth in all four of them, so I’m not completely distancing myself from them, but I should’ve made it clearer what I was trying to illustrate. Let me attempt to address the valid points I do see in them, and your additional comment. 1. I think your teacher prep program was negligent if in 2001 all they talked about was Word and copy machines. That doesn’t mean they weren’t excellent at other things, or that many fine teachers didn’t come out of the program, but we’ve got to find a way to move beyond Word and copy machines. If teacher prep programs, who have the luxury of focusing on all things educational with students who (usually) do not have all the responsibilitiesof full time teachers, can’t figure out how to explore these issues, then I’m not sure how we’re ever going to meet the needs of our kids in the 21st century. 2. I never meant to imply that the students passing through your classroom were just “passing through” your classroom - I’ve seen you teach. As I think I’ve tried to say over and over again, it’s not about the technology, it’s about the learning. But I would still suggest that the students we have right now need us to figure this out as quickly as possible, or I do think we will “jeopardize” their chances. As far as teachers not trying, well – I guess I see different things. 3. Nothing really to add here. 4. I agree that teachers are students. I also think that teachers have a higher level of responsibility at this point in their lives than students do. As far as the inappropriate bit, that was just my frustration at constantly being criticized for advocating for students and what they are capable of – it didn’t really make sense, please strike it from your memory. Overall, I think I must not be doing a very good job explaining any of this. Because to me, it’s not about “methods that can be improved with technology” or, teachers that “don’t use technology.” It’s not really about technology at all (and, okay, that means the title of my post is pretty bad). It’s about learning. And that the world is a fundamentally different place than when we were growing up, and our schools – and too many teachers - seem to be focused on perfecting a system that is preparing our students for a world that no longer exists. [And even as I read this now before posting it, I’m still not explaining it well. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll do better.]

Kristin – Thanks for joining t

2007-09-17T04:47:35.387+02:00

Kristin – Thanks for joining the conversation (and for not mentioning the word “literature” even once in your comment). Let me note for the record that my post did not suggest suspending licenses of teachers. Since I appear to be destined to play the bad guy in this scene, let me put on my devil’s advocate horns and reply to your points with some provocative statements. 1. Because your teacher prep program was negligent and incompetent, therefore it’s okay for our students to suffer? 2. Because learning in the 21st century is intimidating to you, therefore it’s okay to give you several years (decades?) to figure it out, never mind the students that pass through in the meantime? 3. How much more inclusive can a goal be – all teachers should be technologically literate. Seems inclusive to me. 4. Criticizing teachers who are professionals and getting paid to meet the needs of their students is not accusatory. And, since I’m regularly berated for suggesting that students should have a voice, that they have something to contribute, and that their feelings matter, equating teachers with students is wholly inappropriate here. ----Now, taking off the horns, I agree with what you said to a large extent. That certainly was the intent and design of 21c, and matches my personal inclination as well. But that doesn’t change any of the things I said in the post. I really don’t see anything in my post that’s accusatory (at least I don’t see the word “worrisome” as being particularly accusatory). And I don’t see the statement about being technology illiterate being equivalent to not knowing how to read and write as being accusatory either, just descriptive. Now, it very well may be wrong, but that’s not the same thing as accusatory. So, I’d ask anyone reading this to go back and focus on the original post one more time and think about the essential question I was trying to pose – is it okay to be a technologically illiterate teacher? Can we meet the needs of our students in the 21st century without being 21st century literate ourselves? (Yes, we need to define that better, but give it a shot anyway.) And, if your answer is no, then what do we do about it?

Cheryl – If you’re beginning t

2007-09-17T04:10:42.073+02:00

Cheryl – If you’re beginning to understand me, then you’re the first. Perhaps my word choice of “ideas” was not the best, because what I was trying to say is more inclusive than what you indicated. I’m not at all saying that the seven-word text message would suffice if it doesn’t convey the entire idea/message/theme/art/nuance that the full piece does. I seem to recall, however, my English teachers telling me to use all the words necessary to convey the message, but not one more. (Obviously a skill I haven’t mastered.) So, if the seven word telegram did convey the entire idea/message/theme/art/nuance, I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with it. As far as your comments on Personal Learning Networks, I’m not sure what to say since you seem to be treating me with as much disdain as Vonnegut did his young fan. Personal Learning Networks have very little to do with Googling “love,” and everything to do with finding personal as well as universal truths (if they even exist), with performing your own sifting process (alongside others) and not relying solely on others to discover the truthand deliver it to you, pre-packaged and with Sparknotes attached. (Not to mention that a key piece of PLN’s is the contribution that each individual makes to help discover and further refine those truths.) While I don’t know completely what that looks like yet, I’m positive that it is much harder work than simply relying on an agreed upon curricula (“Voila! Lesson Plans!”), so let’s not disparage teachers who are trying to figure this out, okay? This doesn’t imply at all that we should toss out the “established canon” of great works, but I would respectfully suggest that the “established canon” is not sufficient in and of itself. Unless all truths have been discovered (in which case why is anyone writing anything anymore?), we need to continue to move forward - searching, thinking and evolving as a species - as we continue to try to learn what exactly it means to be human. On another note, I’m not familiar with Zora Neale Hurston. In case anyone else is actually reading these comments, what book of hers would you recommend they start with? And, do our students get the opportunity to read her?

Terry – that’s an interesting

2007-09-16T05:34:26.409+02:00

Terry – that’s an interesting idea, that a creative piece has to exist for a while and be recognized as having artistic value before being considered literature. So, if someone read a work by Shakespeare before it was recognized as having artistic value, was that person still reading literature? Or did it only achieve that status – and therefore actually have artistic value – once the court of public opinion deemed it so? And, of course, that makes me ask the obvious question, who decides? Who decides what has artistic value and is therefore considered literature? Or is it akin to the famous phrase by Supreme Court Justice Stewart, “I know it when I see it.” On a planet with over six billion people, and – as you said – with the court of public opinion always in session – what constitutes a consensus and who decides when it’s been reached? It certainly can’t be based simply on numbers, or Britney Spears and Professional Wrestling would have to be considered literature. Can the same piece be literature for one person and trash for another? If it’s based on artistic merit, then it’s inthe eye of the beholder. Then, of course, there’s this whole can of worms. Since I believe that the we’re in a period of transition where in the near future very few pieces of writing will ever be either isolated (because they will link to others) or finished (because it will be so easy – and necessary – to edit them), can something be considered literature for a while, but then stop being literature as it is subsequently modified?

Hi Cheryl – it’s about time yo

2007-09-16T05:07:45.436+02:00

Hi Cheryl – it’s about time you joined us. :-) Let me note that once again the comments have gone in a slightly different direction than the original post. I would hope that folks would go back and think about the original post as much as they think about the literature discussion we’re having, but I’ll do my best to address that as well. I want to clear up one thing, though. I am not passionate about technology. Technology is – literally – just a tool. What I’m passionate about is what technology enables – the learning and the communication and the creativity. It’s the transformative powers of technology that I go all ga-ga about. And I would assume the same is true for you about books. It’s not the books themselves (simply an earlier technology, yes?) that you are passionate about, it’s the ideas contained in those books. And that was the point I was trying to make. While I know how much you love books, my hope would be that you love young people more. And that what you want those young people to have is the ideas contained in those books, not so much the physical books themselves. And, again, I amin no way advocating getting rid of books or literature, or that those are bad things to be using. I would continue to use them as long as they are the best method to help children understand those ideas. The point that I’m apparently not making very well is that I still don’t think it’s about the “literature”, it’s about the ideas. And that we shouldn’t be teaching the “literature” per se, but the ideas. We don’t care so much if students can spit back the important characters and plot lines of Macbeth, but rather whether they delve deeply into the meaning and truths contained in the story and relate it to their own lives and experiences. I know some folks will view this as simply semantics (“we shouldn’t teach literature, we should teach students”), but I think it’s more than that. As far as directing you to their URL’s, I can’t. That’s something that you – along side of your students – need to search for and discover yourselves. That’s the point – you need to be developing these Personal Learning Networks together - nobody can simply point you to them. They are personal, and personally meaningful, and ever-changing, and it’s going to take persistence and hard work to develop and maintain them. I see that as a huge part of our role as teachers, and I just don’t see too many folks doing any of this with students (or even personally) at this point. So, to tie this back to the original post, that’s why I think teachers need to be literate – 21st century literate – if they are going to successfully help our students become 21st century literate.

Terry – first, I didn’t mean t

2007-09-14T05:20:49.687+02:00

Terry – first, I didn’t mean to suggest that literature has no value. It certainly does, and I’m not advocating we ignore it or stop using it in a variety of meaningful ways, but I would still argue that it’s not what we’re here for. It is certainly one way to explore those universal themes, and a really good way, but does that preclude the possibility that at some point it will not be the best way? And, just because it’s the best way for you, because it resonates and touches you, does that mean it’s the best way for your students? So, again, I would ask the question, what do we as an organization exist for? Is it to teach literature? My answer would be no. Of course, much like other comments talked about the need to define what technologically literate is, perhaps we need to better define what literature is. You talk about literature typically being a book (and I imagine most folks, including myself, think of literature this way). But, as we’ve talked about before, the book is simply an earlier piece of technology, one that was incredibly disruptive – and hated – in that earlier time. So,did literature exist before the printing press was widely adopted? There are certainly some pieces of literature that we have our students read that pre-date that time (The Odyssey comes to mind). Didn’t many pieces of literature like The Odyssey come from an oral tradition? What about Shakespeare? Definitely post-printing press, but certainly there weren’t a lot of Barnes and Noble’s (or Amazon’s) around at the time, and therefore not a lot of people reading his work. His literature was mainly conveyed through live performance, was it not? Or, given your interests, what about 2001: A Space Odyssey? Wasn’t that pretty much simultaneously developed as a book and a movie, with the movie being far more successful in conveying the themes to a large audience in the long run? As far as whether literature can exist in a text message, that makes me think of a story I heard attributed to Hemingway. In response to a contest to write a story in exactly six words he wrote, “For Sale. Baby Shoes. Never used.” Perhaps there’s an idea for an assignment utilizing texting for you . . . So, I think there are some questions to think about there. And in no way do I mean to suggest that I have all the answers to those questions. But if Homer, or Shakespeare, or Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick, or Hemingway were just getting started today, what medium would they choose? BTW, thanks for the image of you in the role of King Lear casting off your clothes – sleep will be a long time coming now. But, “there is a time for many words, and there is also a time for sleep,” so I guess I’ll post this now.

Everyone, but particularly Ker

2007-09-14T04:47:04.706+02:00

Everyone, but particularly Kern and Sylvia, I agree that getting students more involved is key. I’ve found that hard to do formally in my school, our schedule – and perhaps culture - tends to get in the way. But I have said many times to my teachers that they shouldn’t be afraid of using technology they aren’t completely comfortable with, that’s it’s okay to struggle and make “mistakes” in front of the students, and to ask for help. And we’ve had many teachers take that risk, to use blogs or wikis or whatever (and non-technology things as well) and say to the students, “Here’s what we want to accomplish. Here are some technology tools that might be really useful – or might not. Figure out how best to utilize them – or not – to accomplish the goal,” and then turn them loose. It’s just really hard for teachers to give up that control, I think both by nature and because of the pressures of the current educational environment. We’re in an age where every minute counts not because every moment is precious, but because it might mean the difference between partially proficient andproficient on the CSAP. So far my school has not completely succumbed to the pressure, but I worry. I worry that soon we’ll be like other schools, where we identify “bubble” kids and make special efforts to move them to the next level. (For those of you unfamiliar with the term, “bubble” kids are those that are close to the next level on whatever test you are using to measure them – or more accurately measure the school – with.) Don’t get me wrong, I want to help those kids too, but I don’t want to focus my efforts on raising a few kids scores by 5 points so they pass the next cut score and consider ourselves successful, yet if we move hundreds of kids 50 points – but it’s from the bottom of the level to the top of the same level – we’re considered a failure. So, I need to do some more thinking about how to overcome the obstacles (or at least the things I perceive as obstacles) in my building to more formally help include the students in a “community of practice” as Sylvia so nicely phrases it.

Terry – admittedly the analogy

2007-09-13T19:41:07.130+02:00

Terry – admittedly the analogy is too simplistic. But let me say something even more provoking. I fundamentally disagree with the example you gave. Here’s one of my goals for AHS. My goal is that in the very near future, if any AHS teacher is asked what they teach, they do not answer, “I teach Math.” “I teach Social Studies.” “I teach English.” My hope is that every single teacher at AHS would automatically say, “Students. I teach students.” I think it’s the same problem I saw with our sample mission statements for AHS. They included things like “extracurricular activities” and “safe and orderly environment.” To me, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a mission statement is. We do not exist to offer extracurricular activities or a safe and orderly environment. Those may be values or goals we have, but that’s not our fundamental purpose. They are simply means to an end. The mission statement is supposed to be what we are about, who we are, why we exist as an organization. You see, I don’t think it’s your job to teach literature, that not why you “exist” as a teacher. Literature is just a means to an end. We don’t teach Macbeth in order for kids to understand Macbeth, we use Macbeth so that kids can understand good and evil and trust and betrayal. Our goal is not for kids to be experts on Macbeth and know who Malcolm is, our goal is to explore some of the universal themes of humankind and help make those themes meaningful and relevant to our students’ lives. To help our students better understand those big ideas so that they can apply them to their own lives and to the lives of those around them. And it doesn’t matter whether we use Macbeth, or some other piece of literature, or no literature at all. So I fundamentally disagree because I don’t think you should be teaching a “subject.” You shouldn’t be teaching “literature” or “grammar” or even “writing” per se, you should be teaching students. And it’s not about “assignments” or “getting the job done,” is it? If your goal is to teach literature, then you’ll undoubtedly be successful. In fact, you’re successful right now. But the problem is, it’s not about what you teach, it’s about what students learn. And what students need. If one of our goals is for students to learn and understand how to communicate effectively in the 21stcentury – Language Arts in all its many forms – then there is no possible way to do that without technology. So, I have to disagree with your statement. Today, I don’t think you can teach – or more importantly I don’t think our students can learn - without it.

Not an easy issue and just one

2007-02-28T04:25:44.739+01:00

Not an easy issue and just one of the reasons I'm glad I'm not a principal! A few thoughts, in no particular order: 1. My school is less than 10 miles from Columbine. We locked down that day, dogs searched the building the next night, lots of connections between our school and Columbine for both students and staff. That was the last time anybody thought that a cell phone ban was a possibility. 2. Have you brought your students into this discussion? They might have a lot to share . . . 3. For what it's worth, some thoughts I blogged earlier this year. Keep us posted on how this goes.