Thoughts on Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, Ch. 11

This turned out to be one of the most galvanizing chapters in the entire book, based simply on Shirky's assertion that all effective groups must negotiate three simple things he calls: The Promise, The Tool, The Bargain. To me, these three things help explain the student engagement crisis occurring in the upper grades of K-12 education.

Shirky claims that all groups contain an implicit (and sometimes explicit) promise to all members that makes the desire for a form of collective action possible. The strength of the promise makes members willing to contribute. As teachers, we routinely conceptualize our classrooms as groups of students, but it's difficult to imagine what we offer them by way of a promise that Shirky might recognize. Most of the activities that occur in the classroom invalidate the premise of a group promise, since most of it involves students acting in isolation. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if pushed, many teachers might admit to the existence of such a promise between the teacher and the collection of students as individuals, specifically something along the lines of 'Do what I instruct, and you will pass this course'. Taken as a whole, this might be the kind of promise the school offers students individually, 'Follow our instructions and you will graduate'.

However, the kinds of classroom inquiry activities that my department has been advocating does allow for the kind of group promise Shirky discusses. In terms of science education, having students investigate elements in their school or community allows them to identify reasonable goals based on areas of interest ('we will measure the pH of the local pond' leading to a goal of 'we will help restore the pond ecosystem') lends itself to creating that kind of social consensus based not around individual rewards (top marks) but collective action (restoring the pond).

For Shirky, the tools in question are often types of social media, but even he recognizes that the group needs to find a tool that fits the needs of the group. Too often, teachers not only specify 'what is to be done' but also 'how it is to be done', robbing students of the chance to develop those crucial decision-making skills related to problem-solving and negotiating in a group dynamic. Plus, the how is often something to be done alone.

Finally, the bargain is the reward that the members of the group will get from the successful action as well as belonging to the group. Thus, rewarding a group of students with top marks is not an incentive to high-end students who might rationalize they could achieve a better performance individually, similarly some low-end students might realize that their past performance has been so poor that even superlative marks in the future will still not enable them to pass the course. The reward for cleaning up the pond might be a more interesting place for students to gather, they might earn the appreciation of the community and a sense of accomplishment, especially if an activity tied to the clean-up of the pond was how to make the pond more enjoyable with a minimal impact on the ecosystem.

I would hope that moving forward I will be able to keep those ideas of the promise, the tool, and the bargain in mind as I plan classroom activities.

It certainly seems more engaging than worksheets and readings.

Thoughts on Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, Ch.10

It was difficult finding a link to this chapter in terms of school reform, and perhaps that is the most illustrative thing about a chapter on the rise of Open Source software. I have already suggested that the emphasis on the school->teacher->classroom linear organizational strategy goes far to inhibit collaboration, both for teachers and students. Yes, the provincial teachers' union has its own online repository and collaborative space, but if it is a challenge to get teachers to collaborate and share between schools (although it's improving), it's even more difficult to facilitate that across districts.

The absence of a viable community of practice that meets beyond the school level made me question where it was teacher's get their new ideas from? Opportunities to meet and talk with other teachers from outside of our district takes on more importance and I think a real push needs to be made to incorporate this into city and provincial conferences and conventions. I don't think we need more presenters to teachers, but rather more facilitators of conversations and sharing sessions between teachers.

I'm sure there's some kind of Wikipedia re-invention of the K-12 system waiting to be created by someone, but I find the current system so deeply entrenched in my thinking that it's hard to even guess what that might look like or how it might function. But it's there, I'm sure.

My Issue With Alfie Kohn

I happened to meet a friend of mine earlier today who home schools her child. We were with a third parent and my friend mentioned the ideas of education writer Alfie Kohn. My friend was surprised to hear that Kohn's writings inform a lot of the work that I do for my large urban school board.

Granted, Kohn's ideas about progressive, constructivist education focusing on the transitioning away from such standard practices as homework and rewards are controversial, but while I find some of his ideas worth pursuing, I enjoy far more that Alfie Kohn ought to let us have a meaningful discussion about education reform.

Thus, my issue with Alfie Kohn isn't actually with him or his ideas, but rather how we go about implementing new ideas like his.

Take for example his idea that competition is counter-productive to student learning. Much of his early writing is devoted to demonstrating how deeply competition is embedded in the structure of education, particularly in the awarding of grades. In Kohn's view, grades are used primarily to rank students relative to each other, based in part on the premise that particular jobs or university seats are naturally and deservedly scarce, going only to the best and the brightest (I'd like to imagine for a second a system that allowed anyone who wanted to train to be a doctor or lawyer to try and become one). His subsequent work investigates the negative effects that grades and other forms of external rewards have on student motivation. His arrival at a constructivist position is the result of shifting the focus from external to internal student motivation.

As controversial as his ideas are, I rarely find teachers willing to state that he is wrong, or that the education system ought to function differently from what he suggests. Rather, most teachers will suggest his ideas are "impractical" and that a modern education system could not possibly function effectively as he described.

I like this argument because it puts teachers in a position to accept his premises if a practical manner of implementing them could be found. However, this is precisely where the problems tend to occur.

The first problem happens to be that regardless of whether collaboration may be the natural and most desirous state of student learning as Kohn would have it, or whether things are indeed competitive, the fact of the matter is that there now exists students whom the education system has conditioned to be competitive and expect external rewards. The few instances I have experienced, or been made of aware, where teachers have tried to create a more Kohn-esque learning environment have often reported resistance from students, leading to complaints from parents. In retrospect, I think it is fair to expect students to complain if it appears that the so-called "rules of school" are being changed in mid-stream, especially if these are the students currently reaping the rewards.

This isn't to say that students can't or won't adapt. We have much evidence that suggests they can, even in non-constructivist situations. Students adapt to different or new learning expectations every time they change schools. In fact, students often appear to expect to have to change. Thus, more thought needs to be put into how and when such reforms are implemented. In my experience, these initiatives are often the result of individual teachers experimenting in their own classrooms with the support of the school admin, but ultimately fail when they cannot achieve a critical mass in their own building.

This is the crux of any educational reform? How do you achieve the critical mass necessary to insure the reform's survival and success? Is it better to implement gradual, incremental change, starting at the school's entry level grade? Does a school need to provide dual streams when embarking on a building-wide reform, meaning a traditional and non-traditional stream? Would the one undermine the other?

Arrival City: Thoughts, Pt.1

In Arrival City, Doug Saunders makes the claim in chapter one that certain peripheral cities, suburbs, or neighbourhoods function as transition zones for migrants. The social and economic role of these areas is to ease newcomers into an urban environment. It goes as a given then, the living conditions in these areas will be much lower than in other parts of the urban conglomeration, but still represent a step up, either in economic or social terms, than the other areas these migrants are leaving.

The problem, from an educational social reformist perspective, is how to mitigate or "raise up" the living conditions in these transition zones. But maybe, the more effective strategy is to concentrate on what happens to these zones as they build up, gaining economic and social clout, and in essence, cease acting as transition zones, forcing the urban periphery and the development of new transitions zones, further out. Perhaps this suggests we need a different idea of what a school looks like, one that encompasses a notion of different types of schools for different neighbourhoods. A school in Doug Saunders' transition zones has different social functions to fulfill than one in a more established, stabilized neighbourhood. There is a role to be played in assisting the transformation of schools from one type to another.

One of the problems with this idea however, is that the notion of different schools for different neighbourhoods also seems to suggest different learning outcomes for different neighbourhoods. The dream of educational reformers of the 1960s valued equality of outcomes for all students, regardless of locale. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the death of that dream.

The problem is time

As education budgets decline, it remain static in the face of increasing needs, school districts tend to respond by asking teachers to assume more responsibilities, ranging from increased instructional duties (teach more students in more classes) to clerical (tracking attendance, inputting student course selections), to adminsitrative (monitoring earned student credits, writing individualized student performance plans). Advances in technology has made some of this easier; teachers with computers in the classroom can enter attendance or grades directly into central systems with the students right in front of them, other advances, like email an online learning management systems, extend a teacher's responsibilities to students beyond the ringing Tod the tradional end of day bell. Currently teachers, especially new teachers, are under tremendous pressure to contribute to the culture of schools through volunteering to host extra-curricular activities, such as hosting clubs or coaching athletics, all of which occur at the margins of the school day.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for good teachers to balance teaching with other aspects of their lives. Good teachers often became involved in teaching as a way to incorporate and share passions and hobbies in a constructive way. Lengthening commitments to schools leaves less and less time for these other interests. Furthermore, many specialized teachers view themselves as members of multiple communities. A science teacher, for example, might view him or herself as a member of an educational community, as well as the larger science community. Similarly a
music teacher could have membership in the local music scene in addition to the education community. Again, participation in these other communities is made difficult by the increased demands of the school system, which often responds to these criticisms by giving teachers the option of starting a school-based club around these interests, thus involving the teacher ever more with the life of the school and increasing their professional isolation from other communities.

It is clear that teacher retention is an issue for many jurisidictioms and I would contend that a contributing factor is the inability of school systems to allow teachers to maintain healthy lives outside of the school day.