Life on the Other Side

Jeff,

First off, Ravitch and Meiers ain't got nothing on us. We're smart and accomplished. All we need is a couple of Ph.D's, some published books, some national policy experience and a huge following. (Really, though, I think we only need the huge following) How hard could those things be?

Thanks for finally reading one of my posts. I was starting to worry that we were gonna stay in the Paul McCartney, Gerry Garcia, Keith Richards world for the rest of the summer. Nothing like old-time rock-and-roll to infuse an education discussion.

I'm gonna skip my planned discussion of Kunskappskollen. Suffice it to say that they are a Swedish Big Picture, minus the internships. Very similar structures, but with systematized ways of accomplishing those goals (their one-on-one coaching questions are awesome). If you wanna learn more about them, go here:

http://www.kunskapsgymnasiet.se/foretaget/inenglish.4.1d32e45f86b8ae04c7fff213.html

Instead, I wanna comment on your post ('cause I actually READ yours) and connect those ideas to the work that I'm doing now.

And, dude, if you keep quoting the NY Post, I'm gonna quit this. Where are we getting our information from next? Gerry Springer? National Enquirer? I mean, come on! I do NOT believe that when questioned about the release from seat time requirements the iLearnNYC principals were quiet -- I believe there was a thoughtful pause in the discussion while principals formulated their answers, which the Post reporter interpreted as silence. I'm betting that, following Scroggin's question and the accompanying pause, there was a decent discussion about performance assessments and personal mastery learning that went RIGHT over the head of the Post reporter. And so s/he reported silence. Cause it made the educators look stupid. And the Post doesn't miss an opportunity to make educators look stupid.

I'm working with 6 of those 42 principals now. There is no WAY those 6 principals would have been (COULD have been) silent at that question. I cannot believe there was a generalized lack-of-response.

Ok, let's leave that behind for a moment. It's funny that you spend so long talking about the Khan Academy. Mainly because using that sort of online environment is how I got Sage (my son) through integrated Algebra (we were using Thinkwell http://www.thinkwell.com instead of Khan, but same idea -- recorded guru gives a lesson and provides practice problems that the student does). You know I fell in love with that process, but it was the at-home availability of a couple of experts (me and Sage's brother) that allowed for continuation and clarification. When Sage didn't understand something, he came to me or Ryan for further understanding -- over what the lesson could provide. Very similar to what the teacher in the Wired article (Kami Thordarson) has done.

But the work that the Wired reporter didn't talk about (what is it with reporters?) is the personalization that Thordarson has HAD to do in response to the Khan software. She now HAS to (and has the tools to) track each kid's progress through the curriculum. She can then respond to (heretofore invisible) blocks in student understanding and create lessons (for individuals or small groups) that solidifies their understanding.

Sound familiar?

Haven't we ALWAYS charged our teachers with doing JUST THAT at the Guild. Tracking how well a student is able to accomplish tasks, figure out what the block is and target the instruction for that block?

Right now, I am in the middle of a 3 day PD for principals in our network. It's not iZone stuff, so I'm just helping out and using it as an opportunity to learn. What the non-iZone schools are learning is Universal Design for Learning. Go here for a look:

http://www.cast.org

What's so interesting about this group and their work is that they are providing lesson planning tools that REQUIRE the teacher to consider EVERY kid in EVERY class. Beyond differentiation, this is a stance to lesson planning that begins with the question "How do I create activities that will allow all learners in my classroom to grapple with this _________" (fill in the blank with skill, standard, content idea, etc.) It forces teachers to begin to KNOW their students before creating lessons -- or to create lessons with the EXPLICIT goal of knowing students.

I, of course, LOVE this. It is JUST the sort of work I want teachers doing -- what I think they SHOULD be doing. But I'm on the other side now, right? I'm now a network guy who is trying to get teachers and principals to embrace different instructional practices. It is a wonder that I actually AGREE with those practices, but I'm now THAT guy. I like to think that they listening to me more than I listened to Maria. But only time will tell. It does strike me (again) how ahead of the pack our thinking is about personalizing learning.

And yes, I'm going to continue to use this blog as a way of patting ourselves on the back. Like Ravitch and Meiers, we have a definitive stance and a body of work that informs that stance. If I don't keep referencing it, I'm gonna lose site of what's important. I don't have kids around me now. It is a bit disorienting.

Last bit. Some of the iZone schools are working with Grant Wiggin's company, Authentic Education. I just sat in on a webinar to give some tools and ideas for performance assessments. Though Grant was very dry and not-so-engaging a speaker, his thinking and materials are cool. If I had a do-over for last year's work, I might have developed rubrics and processes for assessing performance tasks that would make teachers a whole lot more comfortable giving credits. Go here to look at some of that work (the competencies are particularly interesting):

http://www.nycubd.org/

Ok, man that's all for me now. Looking forward to hearing about the facilitative leadership training. I'm trying NOT to be too jealous. How's your Issaquah?

Peace,
Al