Take a look the map below. See all of the areas that are light green, yellow, or tan? Those are areas for which the maximum – yes, maximum – advertised download speed (as collected by ConnectIowa) is 3 to 6 Mbps or less. That’s the same as Sprint’s 4G mobile phone service. And that’s maximum advertised speed, not even regularly available speed. Those of us with ‘broadband’ access know that these are very different.

According to Akamai, the average connection speed in the U.S. is 7.6 Mbps but the average speed for Iowa is only 6.0 Mbps. Out of 12 states in the Midwest, Iowa’s average Internet connection speed is 11th, better than only Kansas. Even worse, Iowa’s broadband adoption rate dropped 11% from 3rd quarter to 4th quarter in 2012, the only state with a quarterly loss greater than 10%. Most states had adoption rate gains, not losses.

When most of Iowa has anemic Internet access, that doesn’t bode well for economic viability. When most regions in Iowa have Internet access that at best is what we get on a smartphone, that’s not a platform for economic, workforce, and entrepreneurial success.

Today the Internet is essential infrastructure, supporting the ability of individuals and organizations to innovate, build, sell, and serve. Everything is moving to the Web but right now Iowa is far, far behind what it needs for a hyperconnected, hypercompetitive digital, global economy.

Want to stop Iowa’s ‘brain drain?’ Want to provide a ‘world class education’ for Iowa students? Want to make Iowa more entrepreneurial, innovative, and globally relevant? Fix this.

Related posts:

1. Chart week – Internet access in public schools
2. In an open access world, are you giving back or just taking?
3. No Internet for me, thanks

Every student in the world, from pre-K to higher ed, needs:

• Someone who cares about their development
• To do what they like to do each day
• To do what they are best at every day

That’s it. It should be the new bill of rights for all students – and frankly, all people – worldwide.

via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-busteed/the-new-bill-of-rights-for-all-students_b_3306642.html

We already have some schools that are organized around these principles. They’re amazing, incredible, energizing places of learning. Now, if we could just get policymakers, educators, and parents on board so that we can scale…

Related posts:

1. What should be my (our) guiding questions?
2. Say no to Senate Bill 3325
3. Maybe ‘What do you want your students to do?’ is the wrong question

One cannot tell [how sophisticated the Xerox automated essay grader] is from the marketing literature, which is a concatenation of glittering vagaries. But even if one had a perfect system of this kind that almost perfectly correlated with scoring by human readers, it would still be the case that NO ONE was actually reading the student’s writing and attending to what he or she has to say and how it is said. The whole point of the enterprise of teaching kids how to write is for them to master a form of COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PERSONS, and one cannot eliminate the person who is the audience of the communication and have an authentic interchange.

via http://dianeravitch.net/2013/05/16/can-machines-grade-essays-should-they

Related posts:

1. You’ve got 6 hours of student effort per day. What will you ask of it?
2. Is computerized essay grading groundbreaking?
3. What if we removed the course schedule?

[The] data-driven focus [of Houston Independent School District's Apollo Program] contains the seed of its own destruction. Talking about tests all the time, doing test prep all the time, making kids take tests that they are not relevant to them and that they are not prepared for. . . .

I was not surprised by the emotional and physical reactions of these kids as staff kept trying to get them and keep them in school. The kids keep saying that the learning is irrelevant. They keep saying that school is boring. They keep saying that no one understands them and their plight. Telling them, “No Excuses!” is disrespectful.

via http://dianeravitch.net/2013/05/17/pbs-in-houston-watch-the-faces-of-the-students

Related posts:

1. Students will lean into the wind if given a chance
2. Listening circles
3. Engagement is not a goal, it’s an outcome of students doing meaningful work

Some of the emphases in our position announcement were a) technology infusion for the purpose of enabling cognitive complexity and student agency, b) innovation and risk-taking, and c) demonstrated success with students and teachers. In order to get at the latter, we asked for 5 URLs of personal, student, and/or educator work products and a 3- to 6-minute online video, both of which should illustrate their amazingness.

I can’t describe how helpful the URL and video components of the applications were. They allowed us to very quickly and easily see who was (and wasn’t) doing great things. Plus they were just fun! Below is the first portion of one of the videos. Is it possible to watch that and not be excited?!

In our interviews we asked questions like:

• What gets you up in the morning? What burns a fire in your belly?
• What are three concrete examples of how you have personally transformed education?
• What are you going to do for us over the next year that is awesome? How will we know at the end of the year if you were amazing?

As a result of this process, we’ve got four phenomenal new hires for next year. I’m excited to get them connected with our other incredible staff!

• Mike Anderson - elementary teacher and STEM co-coordinator for Sibley-Ocheyedan CSD; has been delving deep into iPads and STEM-focused, inquiry-based learning; a great resource for robotics, iMovie, and GarageBand; does amazing video work
• Julie Graber - technology and learning consultant for AEA 267; Authentic Intellectual Work, Instructional Practices Inventory, and TPACK guru; 1:1 facilitator; knows a ton about aligning the Iowa Core, Characteristics of Effective Instruction, and ISTE’s Essential Conditions
• Erin Olson - high school English teacher for Sioux Central CSD; classroom was featured in The New York Times; KICD Teacher of the Year; Bammy Secondary Teacher of the Year Award nominee; doing powerful work around enabling student voice through blogging, video, and service learning literacy projects; active in Iowa Communities of Practice and Innovation
• Leslie Pralle Keehn - social studies teacher and PD coordinator for Northeast Hamilton CSD; Iowa Social Studies Teacher of the Year; national C-SPAN Fellow; piloting the Big History Project; wide-ranging experience with 1:1, iPads, and social media; active in Iowa Communities of Practice and Innovation

Follow ‘em on Twitter, folks, and stay tuned for more information. We’re going to (continue to) do amazing things!

Related posts:

1. Supporting effective technology integration and implementation: 2012 ISTE Leadership Forum #isteLF12
2. Memorial Day (and technology integration) tokenism
3. What does “technology integration” mean?

Perhaps some of the issues seen in schools these days comes from young people being a part of something day-in and day-out for 13 years that rarely inspires them

Jason Walsmith via http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130513/LIFE/305140019/YP-Spotlight-Program-brings-professionals-to-school-to-encourage-students-creativity?Frontpage&sf12766709=1

Related posts:

1. Reflecting on two years of 1:1 [guest post]

How many of us have heard this phrase in presentations about the need for schools to move more quickly toward an uncertain and unknowable future? [yes, I've used it myself once or twice] How many of us have had someone show us this video from EDS?

Nearly always there is a skeptic in the audience with the reasonably sarcastic response, “Would you let your own children fly in an airplane that was still being built?” The intent, of course, is to deflate the presenter’s message and to try and put some reins on whatever change is being advocated.

But here’s the thing: What choice do we have?

Most of us don’t have the option of starting over from scratch. The old saw of ‘If we had the chance to start over, would we build the schools we have today?” is great in theory but extremely difficult in practice.

Most of us don’t get to work in the Big Picture or New Tech or Envision schools. We don’t have the option of starting new like a charter school does. We don’t get to work within district- or state-created innovation zones.* Instead, we’re stuck with legacy structures, policies, facilities, personnel, and mindsets, all of which make it much, much harder to change how we do “school.”

So what CAN we do? Well, Clayton Christensen’s work shows us that the best way for an established organization to handle disruptive innovation may be to plant and protect seedlings based on different models and then grow its own replacements. And that gives us lots of internal options if we choose to exercise them as school leaders, even when we work in small systems. A great place to start would be to better nurture the change-makers that we already have in our classrooms: the teachers and students who want to push various envelopes when it comes to learning and teaching. If we’ve got educators and kids who are ready to dive deep into hands-on, technology-infused learning experiences that emphasize cognitive complexity and student agency, we should be doing everything in our power to support them. I’m amazed at how poorly many schools do at adequately supporting existing innovators. As Gloria Ladson-Billings said long ago, “Make sure the change people win.”

What else can we do as leaders? If we’ve got high-flying classrooms or schools, we can do a much better job of ‘infecting’ others with that positive work. We can carve out explicit structures and time and personnel that have the purposeful intention of fostering innovation AND connecting others to it. We can make it safe – and, indeed, expected – to take risks, to fail early and often, to engage in rapid iteration, to live in perpetual beta. We can give people permission to fail and fail again as long as they’re failing smarter each time. We can set up classroom observation rubrics and professional growth protocols and hiring criteria that focus on innovative work, not just traditional work. We can match action to rhetoric and identify concrete performances that let us know if innovative work is actually occurring. We can identify and remedy internal policies and decision-making that impede innovation. We can hold regular celebrations that highlight the innovative work that is happening. And so on…

As leaders, it is both our privilege and responsibility to create, nurture, and protect innovation within our school systems. And of course we need to engage in those efforts as thoughtfully and respectfully as we can. But we don’t get there with snarky resistance, nor do we get there by allowing such sentiments to dominate our internal conversations.

Lead bigger. Dream bigger.

—

* Be sure to check out Bob Pearlman’s list of innovation zones and the resources from Education Evolving.

Related posts:

1. It’s all about building culture
2. Which students don’t get to use technology, then?
3. Help wanted – Building a new secondary school

A number of school leaders across Iowa recently had the opportunity to spend a day with Pam Moran and Ira Socol at the Prairie Lakes AEA office in Storm Lake. Pam is the award-winning superintendent of the Albemarle County (VA) School District and is widely recognized as one of our nation’s most technology-savvy superintendents. Ira is the Program Manager for Design 2015, an innovation and school redesign initiative currently underway in the school district. This year their district received a Magna Award Grand Prize from the National School Boards Association. As you might guess, our day of learning with Pam and Ira was phenomenal. Everyone left with new ideas whirling in their heads for fostering greater innovation in their schools and districts. 

One of the key concepts from Pam and Ira that resonated with me was the idea of instructional and administrative tolerance. As they described it to us, instructional tolerance refers to what teachers are willing to tolerate from their kids: Is it okay if kids lie on the floor while they work? wear headphones to minimize outside distractions? collaborate and make noise? occasionally drift away on their laptops? and so on… Teachers exist on a continuum of instructional tolerance. As we administrators advocate for greater student collaboration, hands-on learning, technology infusion, real world projects, and student agency/ownership of their learning, these new paradigms of student work often run into many educators’ long-held notions about learning, student behavior, and teacher control.

Even more important to us as leaders is the idea of administrative tolerance. In other words, what are we willing to tolerate as principals and superintendents? Is it okay if some of our students get to experience technology-rich learning experiences but others don’t? Is it okay if some educators are facilitating problem-based learning opportunities for students but others aren’t? Is it okay that there are such wide ranges of action and inaction across staff members? Is it okay if some of your principals are on board but others aren’t? Pam and Ira pressed us to think about exactly what lines we’re willing to draw and enforce in the name of organizational consistency and progress. Throughout the day, a constant theme in our discussions was the need for a shared organizational vision AND the leadership necessary to ensure that vision is enacted. In order to create new learning opportunities for ALL students, many of us will need to have lower degrees of administrative tolerance for some existing educator behaviors.

If we think even bigger than the idea of tolerance, we can move toward the idea of celebration. For example, when it comes to differences in American society, over the past half-century most schools have moved from grudging tolerance of students of different backgrounds to celebrating what those students and cultures bring to the school environment. Similarly, how can we move from instructional / administrative tolerance of newer forms of student and teacher work to celebrating those different ways of working, thinking, and being? I think that’s a question worth some serious consideration…

When it comes to new forms of student learning and work, what are you willing to tolerate? What are you ready to celebrate?

[If you're interested in learning more about our day with Pam and Ira, see my notes.]

Related posts:

1. Take a sledgehammer to your computer labs
2. Diffusion of innovation
3. ISLLC revisions

In the article, notes that ‘teacher accountability has to be be part of it, or it’s not reform.’ This is consonant with policymakers’ general willingness to ignore the rating volatility concerns associated with VAM. As Amrein-Beardsley, et al. (2013) noted:

Policymakers have come to accept VAM as an objective, reliable, and valid measure of teacher quality. At the same time, [they ignore] the technical and methodological issues.

There appears to be a blind faith by many legislators in the objectivity of VAM, even though the actual data show that there is extremely high volatility in teacher ratings from year to year. Somehow policymakers are able to dismiss that rating instability as unimportant, even though it has tremendous impacts on teachers’ lives and reputations and public faith in the educational system. When Teachers of the Year are being rated ‘unsatisfactory’ by VAM systems, parents are rightfully suspicious. When high-achieving schools are rated as ‘needing improvement’, the public rightfully suspects that something’s not right. It’s important to note that legislators are not asking other professions to accept evaluation schemes in which 30 to 50 percent (or more) of their ratings fluctuate widely and completely randomly.

Of greater concern to me, however, is the response of Tom Narak, lobbyist for the School Administrators of Iowa (SAI). SAI represents all of the principals and superintendents in the state and is supposed to be knowledgeable about educational research and policy. Yet Mr. Narak says about VAM, “Why wouldn’t you? It’s the way (evaluations) are going now.”

Well, Mr. Narak, here are a few big reasons why we wouldn’t:

• Because year-to-year ratings for teachers are randomly varying 30%, 40%, 50%, or even higher [Di Carlo; Economic Policy Institute; Baker; National Education Policy Center]. In other words, extremely high percentages of teachers’ evaluations have absolutely nothing to do with their actual performance. As lobbyist for the administrators responsible for evaluating teachers, this should be alarming to you, not dismissed out-of-hand. Do you want principals and superintendents to send the message to their teaching staffs that they don’t care if evaluations are fair?
• Because even when student test scores are averaged over 3 to 5 years, random variation in teacher ratings still results in over 25% to 48% of teachers being rated inaccurately [U.S. Department of Education; Di Carlo]. In other words, when it comes to rating instability, looking over a longer time frame helps some but not a lot.
• Because the National Research Council, the National Academy of Education, the American Educational Research Association, RAND, the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, the National Education Policy Center, James Popham, Gerald Bracey, Robert Linn, and many, many other of our most-respected scholars and research organizations all have looked at the research and said vehemently that we shouldn’t. In short, it’s a “who’s who” of educational policy and research – the folks we have trusted to inform us on policy decisions – all unilaterally aligned against VAM systems because of their volatility and unfairness.
• Because when VAM systems are implemented, predictably ludicrous and harmful results occur. These policy decisions have real consequences for our teachers for whom we supposedly have such great respect.
• Because even if we could devise a fair VAM system (which right now no one seems to be able to do), research shows consistently that the contribution of teachers to overall student test scores is 10% to 15% at most. The rest is attributable to other school factors or non-school factors. Any VAM system that imputes greater teacher responsibility than that small percentage would be highly unethical.
• Because holding teachers ‘accountable’ for random variation and/or factors outside of their control violates both the equal protection and due process rights due teachers under the U.S. Constitution.

If Mr. Narak and SAI are going to take a policy position on teacher evaluation, they should be up on the research I cited last week. In fact, on April 21 I e-mailed Mr. Narak the research noted above. Apparently, like many legislators, he and SAI don’t seem to care that the teacher evaluation systems for which they’re expressing support are inherently unfair and probably illegal? Would they feel the same if we were talking about the principals and superintendents whom they represent?

“Dear principal, 33% of your year-to-year evaluation will be completely random. Even though what you did this year isn’t substantially different from what you did last year, you may end up being rated highly or you may be rated near the bottom. Despite the extreme rating instability, there will be real consequences for you depending on the results. Good luck.”

Our teachers deserve evaluation systems that are fair. If they’re not fair, they’re unethical. If they’re not fair, they’re illegal. And right now, despite their intuitive appeal and legislative popularity in certain circles, VAM systems are unable to meet the basic principle of fairness and thus should not be supported by SAI or any other knowledgeable educational organization or policymaker.

[I'll also note as an aside that some states are starting to talk about evaluating administrators based on student test scores. If we are rightfully concerned about volatility in teacher ratings, wait until we remove the connection to students one additional step and try to tie scores to administrators. In other words, SAI, be careful for what you advocate because the principals and superintendents you represent are next…]

Finally, I’ll close with a plea to Jason Glass, Director of the Iowa Department of Education (DE), to publicly release the research that he has which supposedly supports VAM. Over the past months Jason has said repeatedly that DE and the Governor were not advocating for VAM approaches. And yet, here at the end of the legislative session, we somehow find ourselves discussing VAM systems and both DE and the Governor are supporting them. Whatever research Jason has, it’s going to somehow have to address the concerns noted above. Given that leading scholars and our most respected educational research/policy organizations are familiar with and have summarized the literature base and yet still strongly advocate against VAM, I’m skeptical. But, hey, maybe he’s got a bunch of dispositive studies with which both I and they are unfamiliar…

—–

I recognize that this post likely is going to make me unpopular with SAI (and even more unpopular than I already am with DE), which I regret because I’ve had good relations with them for a long time. But when the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly against the policy position for which they’re advocating, I can’t just sit by and say nothing, not when it has very real, negative consequences for Iowa educators. John Ewing, President of Math for America, notes:

Of course we should hold teachers accountable, but this does not mean we have to pretend that mathematical models can do something they cannot.

I’ll state emphatically that we absolutely, under any circumstances, shouldn’t pretend that mathematical imprecision in evaluative processes has no impact on teachers’ lives and the fairness of our educational systems.

As always, I await your thoughts…

Related posts:

1. Should teachers be evaluated by student test scores?
2. Don’t give too much weight to student test scores for teacher evaluation [Report]
3. A running theme that the only thing that matters is test scores