Last week I had the pleasure of attending a Discovery Education event in Silver Spring, Maryland. The event was titled “Future@Now” and had a host of people sharing stories about how to push some important conversations in education and technology. Many of the conversations were fantastic and I know I will be unpacking and reflecting for many weeks to come. However, I wanted to put down some of my initial three takeaways and three questions from the action packed day.
Takeaway One: Kids are the best voices we have in our battle for education reform.
Our first speaker of the day was Mary Moss Wirt, a 3rdgrade student from Cary Elementary School in North Carolina. First of all, I give her all the credit in the world for standing up and speaking in front of a room full of adults. Wow. Her message was short and to the point. She wants teachers to be teaching her the way she learns best…not the way in which her teachers learned best. This is simple yet important to remember.
Takeaway Two: Textbook companies have a stranglehold on school budgets.
Roberto Carvalho spoke passionately about changes in education and many things he was doing in his home school district. However, one of the most poignant things that stuck out to me was how he quite simply called out the textbook publishing companies for the monopoly they have on school resources. So many of our school districts are literally sinking millions of dollars into textbooks that are mostly outdated by the time they hit a student’s desk. In this economic climate, this makes no sense and needs to change.
Takeaway Three: Corporations can be our friends.
This is not going to be the most popular takeaway but it is a reality. There are companies and non-profits out there that want to invest in our students and in public education. Yes, we can argue that they have a selfish interest. They want to create future employees. How is that a bad thing though? One example was the company Siemens who was represented on the corporate panel at the event. The individual that spoke addressed that his company invests money in STEM education in schools and hosts events and provides grants for classes/schools. Now, he freely admitted there is some hope that these students would come and work for his company. However, if they don’t he was ok with it because it will increase the quality of STEM-minded people in the world. Sure we can question their motives but if the end result is better resources and access for our kids, how is that all bad?
Question One: Why are our politicians incapable of anything more than rhetoric?
This question does speak for itself. However, we had the chance to listen to not only a congressman but also a member of the US Department of Education. Both individually spoke passionately about the need for change. Yet, still we sit with no action being taken to actually improve education in our country. Some might argue the Common Core standards would be evidence of that but if those are good remains to be seen… Where is truly thoughtful conversation about teaching and learning happening at the national or even state level, especially in the area of technology integration?
Question Two: Why are we obsessed with bringing everything to scale?
Several of the speakers over the course of the day were talking about bringing various classrooms and building initiatives to scale. The superintendent panel mentioned this notion several times and I am not sure I am comfortable with that. Yes, there are some basic fundamental beliefs that we need to bring to scale in public education. However, I am not sure the procedures put in place in Miami, FL are going to be relevant in rural IL. Too often we are trying to find a blanket program that will work in all contexts but I am not sure that is possible. Regional and local context is everything. What works in your school may not work in mine. Should we be so focused on bringing things to scale or worry more about scaling down to individual students?
Question Three: Why do we think we need to provide equality of technology in classrooms?
I see this in many schools and even in my own school district. When one teacher gets a Smartboard, we feel that we need to put one in every classroom. If we give the math department clickers we feel we need to get the other departments them as well so as not to make them feel left out. Many thousands and millions of budgetary resources are wasted putting technology into classrooms and with teachers that don’t need/want it. Why not have teachers who want the tech apply for it or at least have a conversation about how it will be used? Then at least you know the technology will be used and money can be saved for other projects and resources.
This is the first of many posts about this event as I continue to delve into my notes and reflect on the amazing lineup of speakers and panels.
Thanks for your post, Josh! Sounds like a great event. I am especially interested in the answers to question two — 'regional and local context is everything' and question three — 'have teachers who want tech apply for it' nothing worse than seeing expensive equipment inadequately used or worse, never used (Though, many of these teachers would have said they wanted it so as not to appear resistant.). Looking forward to more Future@Now posts.
Josh, great post. I, too, am wondering about your question of scale. Debbie points to regional and local contexts, and I agree that all school change is inherently local. (aka bottom up, not top down) However, I really DO want to scale the types of thoughtful exchanges and interactions about learning that I have everyday. I don't think every educator is taking advantage of being connected and thinking publicly (and deeply) about best practice for kids. If we scale those practices organically, I think all kids would benefit. Make sense?
Thanks for your post, Josh! Sounds like a great event. I am especially interested in the answers to question two — 'regional and local context is everything' and question three — 'have teachers who want tech apply for it' nothing worse than seeing expensive equipment inadequately used or worse, never used (Though, many of these teachers would have said they wanted it so as not to appear resistant.). Looking forward to more Future@Now posts.