The Moss-Free Stone

Beginning with last Monday’s presentation by David Warlick and proceeding up to an article I just read in eSchool News, the theme of radical, disruptive change has been my constant companion the past several days. Some examples of the theme of change from David’s presentation:

• The 21st century teacher must above all things be a master learner (instead of a fount of knowledge).
• Students can learn the technology on their own. We need to focus on showing them how to “work the information.”
• Only a tiny fraction of new information is generated on paper. Why do schools spend so much time focused on its use?
• Professional and personal communications are increasingly virtual, rather than face-to-face.
• We are preparing students for their future, not ours (and these are drastically different concepts).
• Computing will continue to become more portable and compact.
• Students today DO want to learn, but the form that their learning takes is different.
• Copyright laws need to be revisited based upon the ways students use/reuse information today.
• Technology has moved toward the simple, with the exception of video games, which have gotten increasingly complex.

In the article from eSchool News, Clayton Christensen speaks of impending radical changes to the educational system as we know it. Christensen, the author of Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, asserts that schools have been trying to fit new tools into an old system, which has brought about slow implementation and limited impacts. However, he describes a model of change that can mathematically show that, once an innovation is demonstrated to be effective, affordable, accessible, etc., it takes off, dramatically altering the entire system into which it is implanted. Christensen believes e-learning will soon have such an impact on education, and that the entire system will change as a result of learning becoming individualized, available anytime, anyplace.

A third conversation about change occured between our me and our superintendent, Dr. Stephen Waddell. He is part of a panel on Web 2.0 and it’s impact on education at CoSN this week, and he has been a strong proponent for technology and change in the curriculum in our district. In our conversations, he stated that he, too, believed that a complete system change was needed to make schools more relevant and to make technology take the place that it rightfully should. Dr. Waddell believes this begins at the highest levels, and he further asserts that the schools that are slow to change will be rendered obsolete, as the new system will increase options and accessibility of quality schools for all students.

In my current doctoral course, we had to describe our vision of the 2020 classroom last week. While I see some of the changes described by Warlick, Christensen, and Dr. Waddell looming on the horizon, I also see a struggle against a system that has more inertia built into it than most. Educators are slow to change, for many reasons. Certainly the current emphasis on basic skills as the end-all-be-all form of school assessment is a strong limiting factor. So is the previous history of change in education, where one “reform” after another was hurredly implemented then just as quickly rushed out the door. Of course, the difference here is that the change will be driven not by educational researchers or policy makers, but by the changing world of students, who increasingly expect greater engagement, access to broader information, and the ability to communicate with the global audience, and who are increasingly dissatisfied with “traditional” instruction. Still, I wonder how long it will take before their voices are heard by those in the positions to quickly change the system. One of the biggest advantages they (students) have is that there are so many ways to make their voices heard today. I know some great teachers who are already listening, and some other great teachers who aren’t quite there yet. It can get frustrating, as a technology specialist, waiting on the parade to catch up, particularly at the state and federal levels, which seem to move the slowest, but also at the local level. You want teachers to embrace the change, to lead the way. The reality is, though, they are handcuffed by a system that doesn’t reward innovation and relevance, but rather rewards performance based upon minimum skills and limited knowledge. I know it will happen, but (I can line up many witnesses to verify this.) patience has never been my strong suit.