“4” Social Media Listening Strategies for 21st Century School Leaders

4 Social Media Listening Strategies for 21st Century School Leaders

Summer Reading List….

Presentation at American Education Research Association

This was an honor and privilege to present a paper about the “Walmartization of Charter Schools” which focused on the accountability issues with “big box” companies and public education.

New Scoop-it about “online and blended learning”

Superintendent has the RIGHT IDEA!!!

Photo credit: Illustration by Christopher Serra |

McGill: Rating won’t help teachers or kids

The State Education Department has mandated a new evaluation scheme for New York‘s teachers. In what Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo describes as a “groundbreaking” move, everyone now will be rated on a 100-point scale that relies heavily on classroom observations and students’ test scores.

What could be wrong with that?

Pretend you want to evaluate 150 people in your organization. You have three objectives. Assure a high level of effectiveness. Constantly improve everyone’s performance. Screen out anyone whose efforts aren’t acceptable.

You want to base your evaluation plan on several principles. You know that performance improves when people collaborate and when they get good coaching. Good coaches take information from multiple sources and use it to give considered feedback. Their charges get ample opportunity to practice under supervision. Evaluators also need standards and strong evidence to hold employees accountable.

Most of the people in your organization want to succeed. A few are truly exceptional. A larger number have mixed strengths and weaknesses. A smaller group is less competent. Everyone works independently much of the time. You don’t have the resources — enough supervisors or time, for example — to give everyone the continuous, thorough feedback needed to change complex behavior intentionally. So you focus your energies.

Some of your people are relatively new. They need more support and mentoring. You get several supervisors to collaborate in observing these newcomers and in working to bring them along. You’re less interested in comparing them than in whether each is becoming fully proficient — and then getting even better .

Some people are more expert. You check in on them less often to be sure they’re meeting core standards, cooperatively plan for their development, and offer them opportunities to hone their skills and absorb emerging knowledge about their field. Again, you’re less interested in how they might rank and more in their staying vibrant and continuing to grow.

You know from your periodic checks and from informal feedback that some folks aren’t measuring up. Supervisors either collaborate to help them upgrade their performance or develop extensive evidence for their dismissal.

That’s effective evaluation in a rational world. Not in the world of Albany. Albany wants to rank people relative to one another.

But why?

If the point is to help them improve, they need insightful advice and good coaching, not numerical rankings. If it’s to screen out less competent teachers, the only relevant yardstick is whether performance is up to standard. Who cares whether Ms. Jones is number 34, 35 or 36 out of 150?

The state’s rationale is that the metrics will drive people to compete for better scores. But what’s the point when the numbers lack meaning? Everyone knows that standardized tests aren’t good measures of who’s a good teacher, for example. Few, if any, researchers believe they can be used to make fine distinctions among practitioners, as the state plan tries to do.

Regardless, quantification is the name of today’s game. Student test results or classroom observations determine at least 71 points of a teacher’s score. The local schools control the remaining 29 points, but they have to be divided up in some set way: so many for planning, so many for taking part in professional activities, and so on.

This numbers game already drives teachers to spend increasing time prepping their kids for exams at the expense of other learning, and to play the system so they can amass points strategically. It’ll discourage collaboration, as well. As one veteran recently said, “Why should I do anything that could help someone else get a higher score than I do?”

Meanwhile, no rigid scoring formula will anticipate all possible situations. Let’s say Ms. Smith’s special needs kids are constantly the brunt of her dark sarcasms when nobody’s watching. That’s unacceptable. Whatever her strengths, credible student and parent feedback should lead supervisors to judge her performance inadequate. In Albany‘s 100-point world, however, she may well pile up enough points to be “proficient.” All she has to do is deliver a coherent lesson in front of an observer, produce decent test scores and strategically get a few more points here and there.

In short, the supposed strengths of this one-size-fits-all approach are really weaknesses. The “objective” numbers don’t judge people accurately. One state-wide evaluation framework doesn’t make sense for every school, and this one restricts the human judgment that’s essential to effective evaluation.

This is teacher appreciation week. In place of well-meaning sentiment, New York State should appreciate its teachers meaningfully. Rather than impose its uniform evaluation template on everyone, it should enable districts to develop their own plans and their capacity to evaluate effectively. A real service to teachers would be to help them understand whether teaching is the right career for them and, if it is, how to do an even better job of developing the determination, initiative, and thinking skills standardized tests can’t measure.

Michael McGill, superintendent of the Scarsdale Public Schools, is participating in a panel about the misperceptions and realities of the state’s teacher evaluation system on Saturday, May 12, at Bank Street College in Manhattan.

Want a FREE subscription to eSchool News?

Click the link and get a Free eSchool News subscription…this is not a scam.

Check it out!

The difference between Learning and Instruction

One thing I am proud of is that I am an avid reader as I was reading an article tonight I thought I should write a post about it and share my opinions. The article appeared in American Educator which, essentially, argues that educators who believe in the value of experiential, problem-based learning, are misguided fools, and I thought OK let’s see where this misguided fool has gone wrong. The article titled: ‘Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction’, written by Clark, Kirschner and  Sweller seeks to basically put an end to any debate  around which mode of learning is best: partially-guided instruction (as seen in discovery learning, problem-based learning, or inquiry learning) or direct instruction. Where does this fit into the blended/hybrid world?

It’s a long article, so I’d urge you to read it for yourself, but not at night unless you have insomnia. But the basic premise of it is something like this: advocates of constructivist approaches to learning are wilfully ignoring decades of rigorous research who proves, beyond doubt, that for novice learners, (defined by the authors as almost all of us) fully-guided instruction is the way to learn. I spoke recently to a colleague who is undertaking her PhD at USC and this was one of her issues that the research they are using to frame arguments is from the 70’s and 80’s!!

I don’t know about you, but my hair on my neck rises when I see professors seeking to “put an end” to debate to make something the final word, it just wreaks of absolutism. I have issues with this as there is a detachment from schools or education and researchers many times to the reality of school today. Some of them might need to get out of their ivory towers and actually go to a school. If that’s the case then I have a few arguments to counteract their points.

There is, however, another aspect to this kind of academic arrogance that gets under my skin and raises my hair, or as I would have said a few years ago “pisses me off”.

Why do these arguments get presented in such a manner? Who said it was either/or? And, of course, minimal guidance during ‘instruction’ is pretty pointless – it barely counts as guidance.

This article points to an even bigger question, for me, though. What do we mean by ‘learning’? The authors imply that learning is simply about reaching into the long-term memory data banks to find previous ‘worked examples’ which will provide a solution to presented problems. They cite chess masters as prime examples of this, are you kidding me “chess masters'” where is their creativity or innovation? They state that by being able to beat several opponents at once by retrieving data on previous moves from their memory banks is the base for the research model. I don’t know much about chess, but I do recal Bobby Fischer emphasising the importance of speculation and intuition.

In a future where a connected mind is likely to be at a premium, should we not be seeing ‘learning’ as more than just store-and-retrieve? Sure, their ideas might help you pass a standardized test (which is another post in itself), but will it help you put two ideas together to create a new one? And, if a student becomes engaged (and inquiry and problem-based approaches seem remarkably good at engaging students) aren’t they going to be more likely to apply some discretionary energy into learning more about concepts and theories, because doing so could explain why an experimental didn’t work fully? We do know that, if knowledge isn’t re-visited regularly, we lose it. This explains why most of us can’t remember much of what we rote-learned in our childhoods, no matter how guided the instruction. If we weren’t engaged at the time of the instruction, we aren’t likely to want to re-visit it.

Solving problems, recognising the part our emotions play when learning, following hunches, daydreaming might seem to Profs Clark, Kirtchner and Sweller as ‘inefficient’. I would love to have the opportunity to argue that they all help engage the learner and without engagement, there’s no deep, or lasting, learning. It is about passion based, passion driven learning with guidance from behind.

This is a true example of how this concept is in real life,  visit Caine’s Arcade, in the video below, and ask yourself if you think that he will have long-term memories of how he solved problems through experience, experimentation, emotion and intuition? BTW a week ago when I was first sent the video (thanks Ana) I watched it five times, just to watch the look on the boys face as he saw his dreams coming true as he built his “field of dreams”. Let me know what you think..

Link to Caine’s Arcade video…http://vimeo.com/40000072

The daily scoop is out!!!

Hawaii Recession Infographic

Presentation at Alaska Society of Technology Education–Using Web 2.0 Tools to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century Learner

Presentation Details:
Title: Venturing into the Clouds: Using Web 2.0 Tools to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century Learner
Time: 8:30 AM AST
Duration: 00:58:53
Description: The Future of Cloud Computing: Innovation, Service, Sustainability, Performance and how it Affects Educational Outcomes for our Students. Economic uncertainty and competetive pressures are fundamentally raising performance demands n all aspects of education. From students and teachers to parents and administrators, the pressure to succeed has never been greater.

Success hinges on developing talent to focus on innovation and growth n the global economy. Businesses are now basing their trust and focus on cloud technologies because they offer freedom, reduced cost, and sustainability, whereas education has not. This keynote intends to show advantages of simplification and standardization to support utilizing the cloud to its fullest potential in an educational setting.