As I am shaping this blog post in my head, it is becoming more of a “This I believe” post.  If you will indulge me, allow me to give some background.  Eventually I will get to the project I have been working on for six years to help reform education in our own little way.

I grew up in education.  My mom is an educator, my dad was an educator.  Three of their four children studied education.  It’s in the air I breathe.  I was taught to explore and learned to appreciate failure as much as I enjoy success.  Thus, risk is abnormally comfortable to me.

I like to try different things.  I was an early adopter to one-to-one laptop programs (1999), online courses (2000), Linux and Open Source (2005).  When I see something that might work, I just do it.  I let my passions guide me, do what I think might be right and just figure it out as I go along.

I’ve picked up a few good tips along the way.  One is to surround yourself with other passionate people willing to participate.  It’s easier when you share the risk and have friends to support you when you hit the many hiccups.  The other is to communicate.  People won’t get it if you don’t share it.  Also, if you don’t share it, you don’t get the valuable benefit of their response.  I will admit, our current project was so large, at times I just put my nose to the grind and just worked.  I forgot to share.  Thus, our new website has this blog to remedy that.

Over the last 20 years, I have explored all sorts of education reforms, such as voucher programs, charter schools, virtual schools, aftercare programs, work-study programs and more. I have taught in large urban schools, Catholic schools, and both small and large Independent schools.  I have taught grades 6-12 (except 8^th…just never had occasion to do so).  I currently manage the technology and libraries and a K-12 school.

I believe good education comes down to culture.  I really do.

I have seen schools with all the resources in the world and if they have a bad culture for learning, learning falls shy of potential.  However, I have seen all sorts of schools, small and large, urban and rural, public and private that have great culture and exceed the imagined potential of their students.  Some examples are Science Leadership Academy, Van Meter Community Schools and Whitfield School.

I also believe teachers are a culture of their own.

Think about it.  As a class, we are more educated than average white-collar professionals.  Many of us have opportunities to work in higher paying professions.  Almost all of us work longer hours than is expected.  We do all of this for average to below average pay.  Either we’re crazy or there is something wonderful about us.  I prefer the latter, but I’m a little biased.

Based on my beliefs, I called a few friends who worked at other schools and we tried something special.  We put together a team and six of us worked together to provide the services that one consultant would typically have done.  We did this for several reasons. First, we enjoyed working and connecting with other schools.  We also believed that current educators connect better and provide more relevance to schools than those who haven’t been in a classroom for 5 or more years.  We thought that 6 minds were better than one and, quite frankly, all of us loved our current jobs too much to leave and so it took 6 of us to do the job of one full-time consultant because we were busy with our own schools.  Thus, we created Educational Collaborators.

Our little experiment worked and, over 5 years later, we have about 80 educators in our network, we’ve worked with over 100 schools, over 600 schools have taken our Free One-to-One/BYOD Readiness Assessment and we continue to grow.

That’s not the special part, though.  I believe that what makes Educational Collaborators feel like Education Reform is the way we approach problems.  We include time to listen, learn and help schools shape an identity of who they are and what they want into every engagement, even a one-day workshop.  We want to know the values of your culture and then fit that culture to help schools grow in a way that matches their culture.

One time, we were bidding for a long-range Professional Development Contract with a school district in Illinois.  When it came our turn to present, the district asked what sessions we would offer. I said, “I don’t know, I don’t know you well enough yet.”  They seemed a little surprised by my response.

“Aren’t you the expert?” they retorted.

“Well, I have a lot of experience but I’m not a mind reader!  We haven’t established precisely what you are looking for nor have we established where your teachers are and what they need relative to your goals.  I can tell you the kinds of session we could do and I can tell you how we can find out what sessions we should do but, no, at this time, I cannot answer your question.”

Yes, I was being little cheeky but I wanted to underscore what we are not.  We are not a canned “solution” that you pull off the shelf and magically have great educational technology.  We are a team of educators, just like our clients, and we work hard alongside our clients to help them build sustainable systems of innovation that make sense for their school.  That’s going to look different for every school…even if you had the same team of Collaborators.  That’s what makes it sticky and that’s what makes it reform.

I’m proud of the amazing people I work with at Educational Collaborators and I’m proud of the work our client schools do and I am proud of the improvements I see them make.

I believe in the power of culture.  I believe that our teachers and administrators know their students and really want them to grow.  I believe we tap that power to create sustainable good and meaningful reform.  This makes me smile.

He was quick to say that he’d called us first with the news of his decision because we were his favorite customers–not his biggest customers, just the ones he felt closest to and fondest of. That meant a lot to me. I’ve worked hard to manage all my school’s technology vendor relationships going back to my earliest days in this position.

Jack’s departure prompted me to think about what made him such a good account exec. It also reminded me of my own role as a vendor when working on consulting engagements with Educational Collaborators. What makes a strong vendor/client relationship? What do both parties need to bring to the table to make the relationship work?

In short, it’s all about mutual trust and the steps you both take to earn it.

From the customer side of things, vendors earn my trust when they:

>>    take the time to learn about my school, my IT team, and how the team’s goals fit into the school’s big picture

>>    make certain we are both clear on what we expect from each other

>>   deliver at least what is promised (and often more) on time and on budget

>>   take responsibility for delays, missteps, or problems with products or services they sell, and act quickly and effectively to put them right

>>   advocate for our needs with their higher-ups when necessary

>>   bring us creative, worthwhile options we hadn’t thought of to achieve our goals

>>   are well-organized and efficient in following up on action steps  — getting the little things right

>>   get back to me in a reasonable amount of time when I contact them

>>   are able to hear and give constructive feedback on the working relationship we have

>>   deliver a quality product or service at a fair price (which may or may not be different from the lowest price–in general, I think you get what you pay for)

>>   are respectful of my time

These are the habits and traits that made Jack such a valued partner in our work here at my school. These same habits and traits guide my actions when I’m representing Educational Collaborators as a vendor on consulting engagements.

Looking at this relationship from the vendor side, it’s easy to build trust when clients:

>>   work with me to be crystal clear on project goals and what we both expect from one another

>>   meet deadlines for their responsibilities in a given engagement

>>  provide me with the information I need to understand the larger context in which the engagement is taking place, along with important  details that a newcomer to their school might miss

>>   provide me with a single contact person for the project who responds in a timely way

>>   are able to hear and give constructive feedback on the project while it’s in progress and also when it’s complete

>>   abide by the terms in the Statement of Work and request Change Orders when necessary

>>  take a few simple steps to make on-site work reasonably comfortable (water, network access, a quiet room to work in when not working directly with others on site, etc.)

The most effective relationships between customers and vendors are always about something more than just buying and selling equipment or services. The “value add” (a popular term I don’t much care for) starts rising when the trusting relationship you’ve set out to build makes both parties better at what they do.

____________________________________________

Curt Lieneck is the Director of Technology at an independent school in Chicago, Illinois.

A few years ago what you’d hear people discussing is laptops verse stylus-based tablets (“old school”) and whether do go Mac or PC.

Today’s conversations includes the these things, plus: models of ownership and the BYOD (Bring Your Own Device or BYOT – Technology) model, which includes a whole host of options; the type of device, including the “new school” tablets, the iPad and Android based devices; the addition of Linux, Chrome and iOS in the OS debate.

All of these things are in addition to the conversations around learning goals and the reasons for implementing a 1:1 program.  These conversations allow you to plan professional development and the infrastructure pieces that need to be in place to support any of the choices you make.

Let’s briefly look at each of these.

SCHOOL-OWNED VS STUDENT/FAMILY OWNED

Ownership… actually or implied is a key point in any 1:1 program.  Deciding this can either be where you start or where you end, but will impact many things.

Who actually owns the device will effect your options for support, procurement, software licensing, your refresh cycle(s), system requirements and what ownership means… just to name a few.

Support is always going to be a major consideration and regardless of who owns the device, it needs to work.   If a device doesn’t work during the day, what options are there for that student (or teacher) to continue with their learning (teaching)?  You’ll need to be able to troubleshoot problems, have a support plan in place and possibly a fleet of loaners.

What will be purchased? Can you standardize on a single model or will you have multiple version of the “same” device over a set period of time?  What happens in the event of a change in platform – laptop to iPad – a year after a family buys the device?

Implied ownership is something to consider. The concept of ownership, that the device is yours and you are responsible for its care and feeding, needs to be engendered in any program.

Can the student or teacher be an administrator on his or her “own” machines? Can they install their own software on the device? Can they put their picture, their music, their games and application on the device? Can I make the device my own… truly own it, regardless of who purchased the device?

DEVICE CHOICE

Today, more than any time before, there is a multitude of devices to choose from for your 1:1 programing.

The classic laptop (full-size, netbook, sub-notebook) has, and continues to be a staple of many programs. With a keyboard, bigger screen and a variety of ways to attach peripheral devices it offers all the power you need to do any type of academic work.

An “old-school” tablet provided everything of a laptop but also gave the user the ability to use a stylus for data input. Long a favorite of science and math teachers for their ease of enter equations and mathematical expressions they can be more costly than a traditional laptop and have had issues with the durability.

However, when you hear tablet people are more likely talking about an iPad or Android-based device.

The “new-school” tablet, the iPad or Android device, is all the rage.  Handheld, controlled by your touch, with a built-in on-screen keyboard and smaller and thinner than your average magazine, they can do many of the things a standard laptop or “old-school” tablet.  Their ability to use ePubs (eTexts) gives you the potential for all of your textbooks to be on one device.

Others are considering devices such as iPod Touches and smartphones, along with laptops and tablets (old and new school) in their 1:1 programs.  As long as the device meets the learning goals and can do the job needed, you can bring it.  These programs area characterized as Bring Your Own Device (BYOD or BYOD – Technology) programs.

Given all of these options there is a lot that goes into the choice of device.

THE OS

 Your choice of operating systems is no longer just that of the Apple or Windows OS, you now have open-source option like Linux as well as tablet operating systems like iOS and Android.

Each of these operating systems dictate which applications can be run, the type of support and management systems you need to have in place (physical & virtual) as well as guiding the professional development you will offer to faculty in support of the learning goals.

 THE STRAWMAN

 You are going to need help making these decisions, as none should be made lightly.  You can form Internal committees, survey your constituency to build consensus, hire consultants (like Educational Collaborators) to help, regardless of what do you’re going to need to have a process in place to guide your decision making.

When dealing with the question of whether to standardize on a single platform we, Montclair Kimberley Academy, engaged in a “Strawman” exercise where we detailed out the options.

We designed a chart with our three choices on the horizontal axis (standardized on a single device, a device that met a minimum set of system requirements or BYOD) and the various consideration and question areas we had on the vertical.

The chart included the broad topics as well the specifics in each area.  They areas included: Hardware & Software – hardware, operating system, software; Professional Development, Training and Support – professional development, student training, support, Help Desk (physical & virtual), staffing; Infrastructure – power, backup, wireless, servers.

IN THE END

When considering a 1:1 program at your school there are numerous things to consider.  While you can visit school, attend conferences and read all of the available research, not two programs are alike.  Don’t be afraid to involve people from within various areas in you school in the process and where needed bring in some help from the outside.

As long as you keep you learning goals in mind and let them drive you decisions you will always end up in the right place.

__________________________________________

William Stites is the Director of Technology at Montclair Kimberley Academy

Much has been written about ePortfolios, which combine curated archives of digitized student work, “rubrics” indicating the learning objectives the work responded to, and student-teacher commentary about how well the work met those objectives.  A list of background resources is appended below this post.

While it is relatively easy for “technology pioneer” teachers to adopt some pieces of the ePortfolio model with their own students, school-wide adoption requires significant investments in visioning among administration, faculty and staff; hosting expenses (Sakai hosting starts at $300/month);  LAN infrastructure (classfuls of students need to upload all their work at the same time); teacher professional development; and instructional time (processing online communication) in addition to training students to use the system.

However, all that investment can pay off.  A school that implements ePortfolios will mirror the collaborative patterns in academia and industry, where research and development are collaborative, peer-reviewed, and cumulative.  Such schools not only make the necessary evolution from individual training to community learning, but effectively prepare students for the world of knowledge work.

In short, ePortfolios are a high-cost, high-risk, and high-return pattern to adopt.  Although the State of New Hampshire (ambitiously) required all public schools to adopt ePortfolios by a common deadline, not all schools were (or are) ready for that level of technology integration into instruction and assessment.

This post considers “Google Apps for Education”  as an “intranet ecosystem” from which the patterns of ePortfolio adoption can emerge like Life from the ancient primeval molecular soup of yore.

Google Apps: an Intranet Ecosystem

Blended learning in a school environment implies online communication, creation, and collaboration in an intranet ecosystem (where outside eyes cannot pry).  That ecosystem needs to handle applications, file storage (individual and shared folders), synchronous and asynchronous communications, and authentication to manage permissions for all of these.

Some schools adopt ready-made environments that handle many of these functions (e.g. Whipple Hill, First Class, Google Apps), while others have sufficient IT expertise and user flexibility to develop, integrate, and upgrade components as needed.  Choices include local versus cloud-based file and application servers, and how working offline will be supported.

Schools that adopt Google Apps “cloud” are granted collaborative potentials that may never be fully actualized, as well as limitations that may never be fully uncovered, depending on the patterns of activity attempted, and the scale of pattern adoption.  As tasks move from simple…

1. student creates document
2. student emails teacher with attached document
3. teacher emails back comments

to complex…

1. student drafts document
2. student shares document with teacher
3. teacher gets email notification
4. teacher adds comment stream and contextual feedback to document
5. student gets email notification
6. student creates new revision and responds to some comments
7. teacher gets notification, etc.

…more potentials are explored, but with these, more time must be spent learning and mastering Google Apps management.  Two thresholds are eventually reached:

1. Time spent learning / teaching complex Google Apps patterns becomes prohibitive for all but the “early adopter” teachers and students.
2. Time required for conducting the collaborative interactions Google Apps are designed to support is found to be prohibitive.

When these thresholds are reached, there is either a “cutting back” to simpler patterns by all but the “early adopters”, or a new software product, an “overlay system” integrated with Google Apps (such as Digication, Haiku LMS or Hapara) must be purchased to accommodate whatever collaborative or instructional patterns are emerging school-wide needs.

Essential patterns that Google Apps support (until they are outgrown) include project management, learning management, distributed collaboration in real-time, and digital collection management.

“EPortfolios” describes a meta-pattern involving collaborative learning, authentic assessment and digital collection management. As such, the path towards ePortfolio implementation involves pushing the capacities of Google Apps (and of faculty learning and teaching the various steps needed to make Google Apps do complex things) to their limits.

I advocate understanding all this at the outset, and accepting it….even choosing and appreciating it.  Google Apps for Education is free, and supports all the “pieces” that make up ePortfolios, so serve as an excellent incremental training ground.  I believe that the skills learned to make Google do these complex things will remain useful, even after an “overlay system” is purchased to make ePortfolios easier for everyone. Also, once faculty appreciate the need for the additional system after trying to make “Google native” behave like a full ePortfolio solution, the new application will be more likely welcomed, rather than bemoaned as “yet another log-in.”

An overlay system for ePortfolios needs to be a school-wide (or district-wide), long-term commitment, so that digital artifacts follow students and through and past graduation.  Preparing for this commitment, a Google Apps school can pilot two or three systems, at the point when faculty and student have sufficient experience with existing limitations to appreciate what the pilot system makes possible.

ePorfolio Patterns with Google Apps

In the example at right, I will follow the evolution of an ePortfolio pattern that supports staged submission and evaluation of student work.  Imagine, for the sake of argument, a teacher assigning a piece of writing to students, an essay about, oh, Occupy Wall Street.

In the image at left, students produce some digital artifact (a word processing document using any software, from Microsoft Word to Open Office), attach it to an email message and send it to the teacher, who replies to the email with comments.

With Google Apps, this process can be streamlined by instructing students to include a “hashtag” — in this case, “#OWS” — in their email subjects when they submit the assignment, mirroring good Tweeting practice.

The teacher then creates a Gmail “label” (a.k.a. folder) called OWS and a filter to move all messages with “#OWS” into that folder.

This way, the significant but postponable work of managing the student emails and documents can be set aside from the daily flow of communication in the teacher’s Inbox.

However,  the “file attachment” model above is a vestigial pattern once a school adopts Google Apps.  Rather than requiring students and teachers to manage various versions, Google Apps supports sharing access to (and even editing of) digital artifacts (like documents, slideshows, and many other file types).

The “Google Apps” way for a student to submit work is to “share” the artifact with the instructor, and in the act of sharing, generate an email message which notifies the teacher that the artifact is ready for evaluation, and includes a link to that artifact (see diagram at left).

This is a clear improvement over emailing and downloading files, but still requires the teacher and student to establish email correspondence, which can quickly fill up in-boxes. One way to “distribute the workload” is to establish a “peer review” phase prior to submitting work for teacher review, providing students with a “rubric” against which to evaluate peer work.

In the model at right, an all-class “Google Group” is established, and students share the document with that group.  The document title is included in the subject line of the share notification, so as long as students choose unique titles for their documents,  identifiable discussion threads will appear on the Google Groups page.

Problem: every student will get an email each time a message is posted to the group. Solution:  make the default group setting “no email”: messages are found only on the group page, where students easily find their own assignment thread (or the assignment they were tasked to peer-review) and also see other exchanges for models.

What about the rubric against which the work should be evaluated? In a fully collaborative classroom, editable rubrics can serve as self-evaluations by student authors, then be used as first-round feedback by peer reviewers, then last by the teacher in justifying a grade (or paving the way for final edits), each phase responding to successive revisions prompted by the last.

To associate rubrics with work, the teacher shares a read-only copy of the rubric template for this assignment with the class group  Each student then makes a personal copy.

Following the State of New Hampshire’s model, a digital portfolio requires a triad of three artifacts: the student work, the rubric against which it was developed, and a cover sheet with student comments and teacher response. One disadvantage of this “Groups method” is that the document is easily separated from its commentary, which is thus lost to the ePortfolio record.   It is appropriate for commenting prior to archiving, but not during archiving.

Google supports the commenting associated with the second, “archiving”  phase of ePortfolio submission through the  “Comment Stream.” Comments can be “free floating”  (the student’s “cover comment” and the teacher’s reply) or attached to a word or phrase in the document (as issues requiring resolution).

If the work is deemed acceptable for portfolio storage, a teacher might respond to the student’s “cover comment”, and that would conclude the archiving process.  Otherwise, a teacher might use Google’s contextual commenting feature to indicate final changes needed (see below) and students can click “resolve” as the comments are addressed, which removes them from the margin and the “stream”.

Note: the “Notifications Settings” under the “Comments” menu on documents is set to send the document author a separate email for each comment by default.  The reviewer placing the comments would not automatically receive comments.  Because many comments can be overwhelming, it is advisable to warn students ahead of time, before they open themselves up to group feedback, or even teacher feedback, without being prepared for all those emails.

Different Google Apps document types support different types of commenting, which must each be mastered along with complexities  (using Picasa to comment on images requires significant set-up) and weaknesses (using “speaker notes” in presentations for comments provides no way to track who is commenting).

Depending on your familiarity with Google Apps, student peer review models, and the ePortfolio ideal adopted by New Hampshire, you may imagine the collaborative procedures I have outlined to be either prohibitively complex or reasonably woven into the fabric of classroom interactions by your most tech-savvy teachers.

However, the biggest drawback of Google Apps for ePortfolios is not the awkwardness of associating comments and rubrics with documents,  but the difficulty of archiving and retrieving documents, comments, and rubrics together in a standardized way, the way Sakai, Mahara and other ePortfolio management systems do. I am not aware of any schools who are using “Google Apps Native” to implement this New Hampshire model, and doubt it can be feasibly accomplished.

Before investing in school wide professional development for such complex interchanges, it is worth asking whether the time is right to make a long-term commitment to a “Google-friendly” overlay system, and thus avoid overloading faculty in ways that permanently tarnish the adoption of what might otherwise be a transformative approach to instruction, collaboration, and assessment in a 21st Century school.

My hope is that this combination of a broad overview and specific example illustrate how the component patterns for collaborative online learning and ePortfolios can be initiated within a Google Apps environment, and how faculty readiness for new software can be gradually nurtured until the point when Google Apps are outgrown and it becomes a clear necessity.

Bram Moreinis, Educational Collaborators

More About Digital Portfolios

• My ePortfolios Page: Background, video and resources:  https://sites.google.com/a/danvillek12vt.us/tech-integration/eportfolios
• Digital Portfolios Made Easy: http://www.dpme.org – a great please to start!
• Google Apps ePortfolio Mashup: http://electronicportfolios.com/google/ A great introduction to Dr. Helen Barret’s work.
• ePortfolios with Google Apps: https://sites.google.com/site/eportfolioapps – Dr. Barret’s super-resource)
• Student Work Rubrics: http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/rubrics.cfm – for assessing student digital work products.
• ISTE NETS ePortfolio Matrix Examples - http://electronicportfolios.com/nets.html – indexing an individual’s work to the 6 NETS standards.Pedagogy + Assessment + Storage

Now that my youngest child is off to college I decided it was time for me to do something for myself, so I found a program at George Mason, enrolled, and am now on my way to achieving a Master’s in Education (specifically Technology in Education).  I have been at my current school for 20 years and involved with technology for the past 15.  Like most in the educational field, I have seen a lot of changes and a lot of teachers who simply didn’t want to change.  I was always under the impression, the reason they didn’t want to change was because they just “didn’t get it”.  Perhaps for some that may be true, but I now believe for most it’s not that they “don’t get it”; they are simply overwhelmed and have no direction.

There is such a misconception in education when it comes to technology.  I have asked both students and teachers what comes to mind first when I say the word “technology” and their automatic response is always “computers”.  If I ask them what they think when I say “learning with technology” they respond, “computers in the classroom”.  Try it; you may be surprised with your findings.  To me, this is wherein the problem lies.

Technology is NOT about computers in the classroom, it’s about opening up a channel to the world so we can better communicate with it and it can better communicate with us.  Teachers are being told they have to incorporate technology in their classrooms but aside from being handed a laptop and being told to “have at it” they aren’t being given the tools they need to effectively use it.  It’s no wonder so many of them seem to appear not to “get it”.

Those that do “get it” are way ahead of the curve.  Perhaps they attended a conference session that inspired them, or they attended a class that drove home how to teach with technology in their classroom, or they are one of the lucky few who were born with it engrained in their psyche.  For those teachers who do not fall into any of the above categories it becomes a daily struggle to do what is being asked of them.

Before I began this program, I was certain I was one of those people who “got it”, but I have since learned I really didn’t.  I was of the same mindset as my students and fellow teachers; technology was all about the physical.  I didn’t give a whole lot of thought to the “mental” side of technology.  I just assumed if I sat my kids in a classroom with a laptop and showed them a few slides, sent them on a search of the Internet and lectured them a bit, I did my job.  Sure, that put the information out there, but did they really learn anything?

It has taken the better part of the semester, but I have restructured a good portion of my curriculum by exploring fun and exciting ways to incorporate different types of software in the learning process.  I haven’t completely eliminated slides and lectures, but my kids are taking a much more active, hands-on, approach to learning and they seem to be really happy with the changes.  Only time will tell if these changes are effective, but so far so good.  One thing is for sure.  I believe if teachers are given the right tools, technology in the classroom is not a square peg for a round hole.  The key to learning with technology is making sure technology fits the assignment and the assignment fits the technology.

______________________________________

Robin Peralta is the Laptop Program Director at Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virgina

_____________________________________

Dr. Donna Lenaghan has presented workshops on brain-based learning, professional development design, educational technology, and information technology at the universities in China, Germany, Ireland, South Africa and the Dominican Republic.

We’ve all seen this.  An administrator or teacher of influence sees a great session at a conference and says to themselves, “That is exactly the message that our school needs to hear!  We totally need to do [that] or move in [that] direction!”  Now, when the administrator or teacher of influence is thinking that, he or she almost certainly has several specific people in mind.  They know those teachers who just don’t “get it.”  They just don’t move in their teaching the way they should.  “That speaker was so articulate,” they think, “if they just heard this message, this way, from this speaker, we’d be on the fast track to success!”

They book the speaker.  Everyone gathers during a professional day and the person who brought in the speaker sits proudly in the back of the room waiting for the magical transformation to occur.

At the end of the session, the people who already “get it,” say stuff like, “That was awesome! Thank you so much for bringing in that speaker!”  The pride blossoms in the back of the room.  Surely, we are merely hours away from the magical transformation!  However, as the teachers for whom this speaker was “targeted” leave, the balloon of pride is quickly deflated when the comments are overheard.  “What a waste of time.  Seriously, where do they get these guys?  I have more valuable things to do with my time!”

Money spent.  Precious professional time gone. No meaningful progress.

A lot of schools are quick the blame the grumpy teacher for choosing not to open their mind.  I think it is more complicated than that.

If the grumpy stagnant teachers were the target, what did the school do to understand the target learners?  These are educated professionals!  They have heard this message before from other colleagues.  Did we really think that the only reason they didn’t agree was because the message was not articulate enough?!  If you’ve been at a school that has made substantial reform then you already know…that is not NEARLY enough.

Our professional time is already so limited at schools.  A series of disjointed experiences where we just “plunk” someone in front of our teachers does very little to more us forward in a sustainable way.  We need something relevant that meets us where we are!

They say an expert is anyone who knows something and lives 20 miles away.  Through Educational Collaborators, I’ve been given the chance to be that expert for other schools and districts.  With those schools we have taken this larger approach and seen the fruits.  A great example is Daviess County Public Schools in Kentucky.

They looked at their four year old 1:1 program and reviewed how far they had come and where they wanted to go.  We helped them with that review.  Part of that review included the creation of new goals for the next four years.  We then created a survey for teachers.  However, we wanted to know, not only have they achieved the goal in observable ways, but, do they possess the prerequisite attitudes and skills to get there?  That gave us data to meet teachers where they were rather than where we hoped they’d be.

We also worked with the administrators.  How were they supporting and assessing the teachers?  Did they get the coaching they needed to be good managers?  Did they know what to look for and how to translate those observations into meaningful and supportive actions?  Just a few visits a year where we did Learning Walks with them helped everyone keep their eye on the prize.

We also mixed and matched the delivery methods.  We tried workshops, webinars, professional learning groups, coaching and more.  Some things worked and some didn’t.  However, because we had developed data collection methods, we knew when it was not working so we could make changes.

We all know that professional growth is a process.  We should treat it like a focused and thoughtful process.  Our teacher’s time is precious.  We should avoid “plunking” someone in front of them.  Make all of your PD for teachers part of something larger.  Make sure they understand that larger goal.  Be certain that you are meeting your teachers where they are.  If not, you are wasting money, but worse, you are wasting time.

———————————————

Alex Inman is the Director of Information Systems at Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC.  He has managed one-to-one programs at three different schools.