Do what we do (not say what we do)

Hey Jeff,

What awesome video from Arenessa and Alex! Thanks so much for posting them! Miss those kids...

Another whirlwind couple of weeks in the world of innovation (or innovation according to NYC) for me. I want to tell a demoralizing and heartening (all at the same time) story of a PD session gone horribly wrong. I also want to comment on your cool and fascinating policy paper. Which one do you wanna hear first?

Yeah, I thought so...

I loved your analysis of Hess and Rothstein's opinion and prescription for narrowing the achievement gap. I particularly enjoyed your nod to objectivism while putting in nice little textual hints to your feelings about both plans. And, of course, I agree -- particularly in your assessment of Hess. It always makes me wonder, when I read simple-plan advocates like Hess, why they refuse to see some pretty big problems with their proposals (like, as you so-well point out, the cost of an effective testing regime or the difficulties in replacing the ailing teacher-prep programs). But then, given what's been happening in Washington over the past decade, it's easy to believe that our society is ready to be swayed by such sloppy thinking.

What interests me most about your paper, though, are your three remedies. You know that I would whole-heartedly agree with each of your initiatives (especially the fair and appropriate teacher performance assessment system). I believe that each of those initiatives would go a long way toward closing the gap. I'm wondering, though, about the absence of some of the staples of our work. No performance-based academic assessments for students based in real-world work? No real-world internship requirements? No replacing of the current diploma system with a certification-based achievement system? Hmmmm... I hope Fannie Lou hasn't swallowed up your ideas of real education.

:)

Let me take that smiley as an opportunity to change the subject. I want to relate to you the demoralizing and heartening PD experience of last week. I'm sure you remember me texting you during this time, ranting about the delivery methods of the presenters. Here's a little background. Last Friday, I went to a roll-out of iLearnNYC's chosen online platform, Desire2Learn. This was a PD targeted at principals with the goal of introducing them to the platform. The Desire2Learn (D2L) platform is an online-learning site with enough resources to develop online-courses for just about any credit-bearing course (from remedial courses and credit recovery to advance placement calculus). So what would have been a good way of teaching the platform to principals? I know, how about an online course that allows them to wrestle with the platform and shows them the potential? How about a scheduled time with computer access and experts around who can help? How about grouping principals together so they can work on the course at their own pace, but still have others around them who are trying to do the same thing to share tips and tricks? Sounds like a good session, right?

If only that had been the plan. Instead, they made the principals sit at computers in a hot (hot, hot) tech center (air conditioning was broken). Then they sent speaker after speaker (5 before lunch) to the lectern each with their own powerpoint with little or no real information for using the platform. One guy talked how D2L was chosen, one guy talked about how tech support would be given, one guy talked about why the content partners were chosen. One guy even talked about how what he is doing is NOT what we want teachers doing! It was miserable. Utterly miserable. After lunch, there were more speakers and finally, at around 2, they "allowed" the principals into the platform (I hear, I left right after lunch when it was clear we weren't getting real access to the platform). I sent a series of emails to the folks who were responsible for the presentation (as well as to executive director of my program) trying to get them to understand that as long as WE continue to use traditional methods to impart information, we will have one HELL of a time changing instructional practice.

So that's the demoralizing part. The heartening part was that the online course that I wanted -- well, it HAD been created. I was given access to it and it's a thing of beauty. So I am getting my teachers to learn the platform by wrestling with THAT course, rather than go to the trainings that are TELLING them what to do instead of SHOWING them what to do.

My take-aways from this experience?

1. Even the people who are in charge of innovation do NOT, themselves, default to innovative practices.
   
2. That there needs to be many, many minds examining each aspect of the change and vetting each experience through the lens of the vision.
   
3. The people who are envisioning this change might not have enough knowledge of the work and practice of the people accomplishing the change.
   

All that sound familiar?

Ok, that's it for this week. Hope all is well with you!

Peace,
Al