Sometimes I feel like a lazy teacher in this student-centered world at Anastasis Academy… but that’s only because the majority of my teacher training in undergraduate (and most of my graduate) classes prepared me for a TEACHER-centered classroom.

You are the teacher. You are the deliverer of information, knowledge, skills.

As a music teacher, some of the workshops I attended helped me realize that the kids have to experience learning to gain knowledge and skills. Very few undergrad or grad classes did this.

So what does this student-centered classroom REALLY look like?

Some days, it looks pretty chaotic from an outsider’s point-of-view (actual statement from a visitor to our school).

Some days, it looks like kids working together on a project they have designed themselves.

Some days, it looks like a child excitedly running up to me, saying, “Mrs. Baldwin! Look at this! I found this really cool information about…” x,y, z.

But most of the time, it looks like kids satisfying their own curiosity without much interference from me.

I’m on the sidelines, and I love that.

Honest disclosure: it took us a while to get to this point, because even at 8-10 years of age (those are the ages of the kids I have), these kids have been programmed to look to an adult for answers. And questions. And direction. And time management. And so on. Some days are better than others. Recently, I feel like they have regressed a little bit in independence, and I have to force myself NOT to step in.

What I know in my heart, though, is these kids are developing skills that will serve them well throughout their entire lives. They are not memorizing facts provided through notes or worksheets from me. They discover… they experiment… they reflect… and they are learning to hold themselves accountable for their own learning.

The student-centered classroom is about the STUDENTS. It’s my job as their teacher to help provide an environment in which they can learn, experience, problem-solve… and then get out of their way.

[cc licensed photo by mtsofan]

• Students will face competition at every level of their lives. They need to learn to compete early and often.
• K-12 students will graduate and compete for a prime spot in a college or university.
• University students will graduate and compete globally for their own spots in a global economy.
• We have to prepare them to compete. Period.

I’ve taught in both the secondary and elementary levels in public K-12 education. I’ve witnessed kids competing for spots on athletic teams, music performing groups, art awards, National Honor Society and other honoraries… for grades, for representing the class as valedictorian, for speaker at graduation… to be first in line for lunch, first in line for recess, for the fastest time at Field Day, for a solo at the 4th grade program…

… for the biggest helping of lunch (because it’s probably the only meal of the day)… for that coat in the lost and found (because there isn’t enough money at home to buy one)… for the attention of the teacher (because attention from an adult is rare and precious outside of school)…

It seems to me that kids live and breathe competition every day of their lives.

When do they learn to work toward the good of all?

Maybe I’m just getting old and sentimental, but watching the news out of Japan after the horror they’ve experienced in the last month has me really thinking… if we spend so much time on competition and racing to be the best, that leaves a LOT of people in our dust. What if people need our help? What about those people left behind? Should we sit and smugly congratulate ourselves on being the best and beating everyone else? How does that help us as a society in the long-term?

Don’t get me wrong… I’m not advocating that we give out “participation” trophies or ribbons for just showing up and not putting forth any effort. It just feels like we’ve cultivated a culture of competition at any cost, and that’s where I see so many problems.

In my music classroom, my students and I often discuss that our goals are very different than they are in other classrooms. No matter what we’re doing, whether it’s preparing for a concert/performance, or simply learning a song for the sake of the music, we’re learning together. “In math class, it’s all about YOU. In music class, it’s all about US.” They probably tire of hearing me say that, but it sticks with them. I heard one of my students explaining the concept to a new student one day.

When we learn something new- a new recorder song, for example- there are going to be some kids who learn more quickly than others. In our environment, those “advanced” kids now have a special responsibility: help those students who haven’t yet learned the song. We do a lot of peer group work, and I am either walking around as a guide or am working with those who need the most help. With shared responsibility in the class, we see improvement in all. More importantly, I see my students building skills in patience, empathy, and caring, as well as their own musical skills.

Now for a little disclosure: I’m a highly competitive person; but I think as I’ve grown up, it’s become more about competing with myself and less about competing with others.

At what point does competition, whether it’s in the market place or in the classroom, do more harm than good? When corporations throw ethics under the bus to eke out higher profits, everyone suffers except for the people at the top. When we push kids to compete against each other in everything they do, they learn that the SELF is more important than the collective GROUP.

And in the end, nobody wins… especially not kids.

I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this subject, so let’s have it. Debate me in the comments, please.

With the budget cuts at the federal, state, and local levels, politicians are creating class wars in education. Our ‘illustrious’ Secretary of Education states that we in public education will have to learn to do more with less funding. This is tagged as “The New Normal.” But what happens when budget cuts are so severe and un-funded mandates regarding test scores, AYP, etc. continue to pile on?

This is what happens:

The wealthy pull their kids out of public schools, if they haven’t done so already, and pay to have them educated in a school of their choosing. Those parents find the schools that provide the programs they want for their children. These schools are not necessarily subject to federal mandates, usually have significantly less standardized testing, and often have much of the school day devoted to enrichment studies beyond math and language arts.

Children living in poverty do not have those options. They continue to attend schools with less funding. These are the schools which are forced to cut libraries, teacher librarians, music, art, drama, theater, physical education, recess… all those teachers, classes and programs that research says are best for kids to grow, develop, and learn.

For those kids in more affluent families, even if they have no private choices for school, parents still find and pay for programs outside the school day- club sports, private music instruction, etc. – to fill the void that is missing in the public schools. Kids in less affluent families are left to their own devices.

If, as Horace Mann stated:

Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of man, – the balance-wheel of the social machinery.

… it seems as if our politicians are out to upset that “balance-wheel. ” Without a strong public education available for ALL students, we cannot have democracy, or even our representative democracy. We will have separate classes of education and an ever-growing divide between the have’s and the have-not’s.

I would argue, Mr. Duncan, that this is NOT the new normal. This is a disgrace to the children of the country you purport to serve.

I’ve been doing a lot of research with colleagues in the last few months in the realm of public school district policies, especially pertaining to internet, web 2.0, social media, filtering, etc.

What we’ve found is many schools who have vague language in their policies, and who rely on either a person or a committee to make decisions on a case by case basis. I can’t imagine that this protocol would be immediately responsive, as I’m sure the individuals or committees have other job responsibilities.

We’ve also found quite a few districts that insist upon the strictest control possible. In many cases, the justification is “we need to protect the students and/or staff from themselves.”

Internet safety education is federally mandated in all schools, but even those guidelines and requirements are somewhat vague.

I think it’s fairly obvious where I stand (if you’ve read any of my previous posts on the subject). I’m very much in favor of educating the masses about productive use of web tools, as well as discussing the inherent risks and learning about productive and responsible online behaviors. Personally, I think “control” is an illusion- and locking students and staff away from everything at school teaches them nothing when they leave those school boundaries.

However…

• where can schools draw the lines without making those lines too fuzzy?
• how does one decide if a “tool” is truly too risky for students to use within the school setting?
• if something “bad” happens as a result of using a specific web tool, what are the legal ramifications?

What are your thoughts?

1. How do your schools manage these issues?
2. Who makes those decisions?
3. When was the last time your policies were re-written to reflect the changing nature of what kids do and learn online?
4. Do you have an AUP that works well for staff and students? Why or why not?

I’m hoping for a lot of responses here, as I think it would be helpful to us all!

Also, if you haven’t seen this wiki started by educators in Missouri, take a look!
http://socialmediaguidelines.pbworks.com/

When people ask questions about what kind of technology to include in today’s classrooms, there will be the issues of cost, space, practicality, feasibility, and (hopefully) most importantly- LEARNING capabilities to consider. But if I could choose anything to have in my classroom, I would jump at the chance to have a classroom set of the iTouch (perhaps 30 of them).

The inevitable response usually goes something like this: “Why would you spend that much money on an iTouch when you could have a laptop for just a little more money?”

And here’s the response I left as a comment on Scott’s blog today (with a few minor revisions for clarity):

Adults see cost and then think that they could have a laptop for that same amount of money. Kids see the iTouch (and other similar handhelds) as a more convenient “laptop” without all the bulk.

If I need to sit down and hammer out a 25 page paper, I want a laptop. If I want to look up an answer on a webpage, download a small application that will enhance my learning, view a map, listen to a podcast or music, play the piano/guitar/drums electronically AND record my composition, play a learning game… you name it: I want a handheld device.

WHY? A few quick answers in no particular order:
1. Battery life is better, lasts longer (long-term), and charges more quickly.
2. More options for applications than on laptops… OS is not as big an obstacle as a laptop OS (think about the time and energy spent on field-testing applications on school computers for compatibility with the OS).
3. iTouch vs. iPhone- removes the “should students have access to cell phones in school” debate. No calls coming in or out, but many of the same apps available.
4. Storage for classroom sets of handhelds is a cinch, compared to laptops.
5. Collaboration with these tools is more easily facilitated than trying to organize a bunch of kids with laptops, especially where space is an issue. Plus, laptops are heavy for smaller kids.
6. Handhelds are more kid-friendly where accidents are concerned. If I drop my iTouch, chances are it’s not going to break. I can buy a cheap protective ‘case’ for it that still allows me to see and touch the screen. If I drop my laptop, there goes $500-800. I can’t use my laptop when it’s in its protective case.

I’m sure there are concerns with smaller devices, such as the fact they’re easier to steal; but I think the benefits/positives far outweigh the negatives.

Tony Vincent has been singing the praises of handhelds in the classroom for years. I was able to see first-hand what he did in the classroom with handhelds: how engaged the students were, the LEARNING opportunities students had in the palms of their hands, etc.

So, what’s your opinion?

The more I work with kids, however, I feel there are really three classes that need our attention:

Class I: this is the class of students who have digital access, at school and maybe at home– who are creators, producers, problem-solvers, etc., who have been given the opportunity to work with educators in digital environments. They have had guidance concerning how to use these tools responsibly (from educators and parents); and at some level, this class of students understands the implications of what they create and publish for the world to see. These students work in digital environments in and outside of the classroom and view their digital experiences as learning, socializing, and global responsibility opportunities. In some cases, these students also will have had an opportunity to learn about a healthy balance of “plugged in” time vs. “unplugged.”

Class II: these students also have access to digital environments, but have had less guidance from adults as to best digital practices. In their schools, their personal digital devices (e.g., cell phones, mp3 players) are usually banned, and computer use and web access is most often viewed as a reward rather than the norm. Academically speaking, this class of students will use web resources for research, but are usually digitally unaware of validity and reliability of said resources. There is little to no guidance for this class of students, either at school or at home, about what is acceptable, appropriate, and responsible behavior on the web. Their view of digital environments is generally limited to socializing opportunities… envision a social networking page with multiple inappropriate comments, photos, and videos. These students tend to stay “plugged in” more than their Class I counterparts. Although this class of students has digital access, these students probably will not have the advantages and preparation for post-secondary education and adult life that the Class I students will have.

Class III: these students do not have digital access at home. If their schools do not provide the proper balance, these students are often cheated of digital experiences entirely. In schools where technology is viewed as an extra or as a privilege, many of these students fall behind at extraordinary rates. They do not create, publish, produce, or problem-solve in digital environments, and they are usually relegated to the state of consumer in the classroom. Higher-level thinking skills are only nurtured within this group by outstanding classroom teachers; however, without the digital experiences, this group is so far behind the Class I students, they may face an unsurmountable disadvantage as adults in the 21st Century.

This post is not promoting an initiative for all schools to add a 1:1 laptop ratio into every classroom, assuming that a laptop is the panacea for the Digital Divide. Nor is it an assumption that students can’t learn higher level thinking skills without technology. Think, however, about the following examples:

Jack: has access in school and at home, has a web-enabled cell phone he is allowed to use to find answers and to communicate with the world around him, has parents who set reasonable limits for the time he spends “plugged in” and have guided him about responsible behavior. Jack creates his own podcasts about how to use digital video editing software, writes his own blog about the upcoming US elections, and creates public service announcement videos for teens that may be seen on YouTube and sometimes even local television stations.

Brittany: covertly text messages her friends during classes at school- where cell phones are banned, populates her MySpace page with provocative photos of herself and her friends, chats with strangers online and pretends she is much older than she truly is, publishes her cell phone number and home address on all her social networking sites, and writes a research-based paper for her science class on global warming using only the first five returns on Google. Brittany has no limitations on how much time she spends “plugged in.”

Delanie: Delanie does not have a cell phone or a computer at home with internet access. The only time she has any digital experiences is when her classroom teacher takes the entire class to the computer lab. There are some computers in her classroom, but she has a more difficult time in school than her peers and it takes her longer to finish classwork. The computer in this classroom is a privilege and may be used only after worksheets are completed and turned in to the teacher… with no mistakes. Delanie has no idea about the world of blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc., except for what she hears other kids talk about.

Do you know students like Jake, Brittany, and Delanie? Would it surprise you to know that, even though I changed their names, these examples are students I actually know?

How would you classify your own students? What can you do to help bridge their Digital Divide?