The 21st Century Principal

 "...it was in the 1990s that shop class started to become a thing of the past, as educators prepared students to become 'knowledge workers.'" Matthew B. Crawford, Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work

 "...Thoreau questioned our faith in technology. First and foremost, the lives of workers in Thoreau's time, as in ours, were often forced to conform to a mechanical process, not an organic one. Machine work meant machinelike lives." John Kaag & Jonathan Van Belle, Henry at Work: Thoreau on Making a Living

Educators seem to have an "unending faith" that the gods of Silicon Valley are going to deliver to them the one magical device-tool-software-hardware that will deliver achievement results for students. As a teacher in mid-1995, I remember that the Internet was the educational promise land, where our students have at their fingertips all knowledge and learning. We opened the cyber doorways wide and brought forth this new digital world, only to discover that it had its less-than-desirable places and people. There was then a scramble to try control access through new devices and new software, clearly a boon for the tech industry but an added expense in the education budget. No one seemed to question the faith in technology.

Over the years of my career as an educator, new technologies have been invented and peddled to the schools, and in the mid 2000s, the tech industry successfully convinced the entire educational institutional establishment that schools needed to invest even more in technology in order to "stay relevant" as they called it. For example, school leaders were told to get a Twitter-Facebook account in order to connect and be a part of the twenty-first century. I even bought that blather myself. Then, through the mid-2010s, social media began to fail in its promise to "connect others" by dividing us more than ever, spewing so much misinformation, so that today, we are so polarized we might never be able to unite as a country. Somehow calling Twitter "X" seems appropriate now, for it and Facebook have been left to continue poisoning discourse and people's minds.

Next came the "one-to-one" efforts to get a "device in the hands of every student." I again bought that story from Silicon Valley as well. If students only have a device then they will be able to learn. We're about ten years into that with little to show for it. Those who were learning are still learning, and those who struggled are still struggling. It would seem that it is not the technology that matters.

Perhaps the whole problem with our 21st century education is that we have this misplaced faith in technology. I am not writing some Kaczynski diatribe here where all technology is evil, but I see this faith alive again with all the professional development and books talking about the promise of Artificial Intelligence or AI. The educational tech gurus and consultants have been converted and are proclaiming the "Promise of AI" in bringing about student learning. No seems to be questioning this faith in another technology.

John Kaag and Jonathan Van Belle (2023),  point out that in writer Henry David Thoreau's time, the faith in technology was equally strong. But Thoreau was not as enthralled, because the "machines of the time" required workers to "conform to mechanical processes." Work lost its organic quality and workers engaged in "machinelike lives." Maybe that's the issue with all this tech in our classrooms...learning is no longer an organic process of growth, but a machinelike process that students are subjected to. Teaching and learning have become work that is machinelike making the lives of both students and teachers lifeless and mechanical.

Kaag and Van Belle (2023) write:

"When we idealize the mechanical, it often comes at the cost of dehumanizing workers; laborers have 'no time to be anything but a machine ,' Thoreau complains. There is no time, no energy, no strength left to reflect on higher goals and act meaningfully toward them." (p. 61)

As educators, why we continue to idolize technology disturbs me. It has failed in its promises time and again. What's worse, I think it has in some ways "dehumanized" and continues to "dehumanize" both teaching and learning. Teachers are expected to "produce results" like machines. Students are expected to "produce test scores" like machines. No one has the time to engage in "reflection on the higher goals of life" and act in a "meaningful manner" to obtain them. There is no longer any time to learn about those higher things in the universe that matter a great deal more.

Kaag, John & Van Belle, Jonathan (2023), Henry at Work: Thoreau on Making a Living. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

"...it was in the 1990s that shop class started to become a thing of the past, as educators prepared students to become 'knowledge workers.'" Matthew B. Crawford, Shop Class as Soulcraft

"Thinking has become dangerous in the United States and the symptoms are everywhere." Henry Giroux, Dangerous Thinking: In the Age of the New Authoritarianism

 For all the talk and blather about teaching students to think critically and creatively, we need to face the reality that much of our political and educational establishment is actually more interested in conformity, and teaching others to think in certain privileged ways. For example, with all the talk that comes with education as the engine of the economy, also comes the worship of greed, free-market fundamentalism, and simple form of idolatry that places the "businessman" as the salvation of all that is good and wonderful. Schools are seen as the producers of workers for industry. Art and music is irrelevant and unnecessary. Education is not about thinking critically; it is about making sure our students accept and conform to a culture that pursues economic interests, and selfish individual interests at the expense of everything else, with the belief, that in the end, all will be well in such a society.

The current predicament we face in this 21st century isn't just about jobs for our students; it is whether or not the world we are leaving them will even be inhabitable. Instead of educating students how to work the machines in the factory down the road, we need to be teaching them to be problem-solvers, creative thinkers, and dare I say, teaching them to be willing to be non-conformists?

Non-conformity is not always a negative. There are plenty of examples of constructive non-conformity in our history. Had the forefathers of our country chosen the path of conformity, we certainly would not have the country we have today. I realize that is a bit of tired thinking, but I think it illustrates a simple point that should be a part of our educational philosophy for 21st century thinking. You simply sometimes can't think outside the box when conformity matters most. You can't always expect different results when you insist on playing by the rules set by others. Sometimes you need to invent new rules, or simply refuse to play by the old ones, and invent an entirely new game.

As Giroux points out, "Thinking has become dangerous" and I would agree it has especially become dangerous in the United States in our current political climate. But, if we are going to push the limits and be "dangerous educational innovators," we are going to have to engage in the unsafe. We are going to have to be critical and creative thinkers, and question the official, and dare I say even resist. Ultimately, we can by example teach our students to be "dangerous thinkers" who can disturb the present by being willing to question and even think dangerously ourselves.

“Today, there is more religious activity in American public schools than there has been for the past 100 years.” Katherine Stewart, The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children

When writer Katherine Steward discovered that a program called “Good News Club” was announced as an after-school activity at her daughter’s public school, she decided to investigate further. The result was basically her book The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children. What she discovered was that the after school club was actually more than just a club that met after school; it was an attempt by an evangelical Christian organization to proselytize in public schools.
According to Stewart, the Good News Clubs advertizes  themselves as “Bible study” clubs that are only focused on those students whose parents give permission for their children to participate. But in practice, according to Stewart, those who run these clubs use tactics to try to coerce and cajole  other children to participate, even if those children’s families are of other religious persuasions. Stewart also points out that these clubs are more about instilling a fundamentalist religious doctrine in kids who participate than trying to simply study the Bible.

In her book, Stewart traces the Good News Clubs all the way back to an organization called Child Evangelism Fellowship, which is a global organization who does nothing to mask its intentions. Its intentions are clear if you look at their web site. “Child Evangelism Fellowship is a Bible-centered organization composed of born-again believers whose purpose is to evangelize boys and girls with the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the word of God in a local church for Christian living.” Through their Good News Clubs their goals are to teach and indoctrinate children in a fundamentalist Christian worldview and make sure children attend Christian churches who subscribe to that fundamentalist world-view.

Throughout her book, Stewart takes readers through the various tactics that those who lead these Good News Clubs utilize to indoctrinate and lure children to this fundamentalist worldview. She actually attends conferences and training to get a complete view about what these clubs are really about. In the end, her verdict is that these clubs are more about trying to proselytize in public schools and undermine public education than offering after school options to parents.

Perhaps someone who buys into the fundamentalist Christian perspective would find Stewart’s book offensive. After all, if you believe your worldview is the one all people should have, then whatever tactics used to disseminate that view to others is acceptable, even directed toward little children. But Stewart’s book should provide enough reason to pause, for school leaders, before allowing these kinds of clubs to move into school settings. We as school leaders in the United States also serve a broader public whose beliefs do not always fall in line with a fundamentalist Christian worldview. Our students represent many faiths, and, while clubs like the Good News Club might serve some of our students, we must not forget that there is diversity in our schools. In this sense, we become the guardians of tolerance. Stewart’s book is an excellent read in that sense. School leaders facing a decision on whether to allow Good News Clubs in their schools would do well to read this book first.

“For the first time in the history of education, the teacher, the student, and the content do not need to be in the same place at the same time.” Ian Jukes, Windows on the Future

How we handle the details of designing our “learning spaces” ultimately determines what happens in our classrooms. As Jukes points out, for the first time in history students and teachers do not even have to be in the same place when learning. Also, the content is no longer confined to textbooks. Still, our schools’ classrooms are designed for “imparting knowledge” not engaging in authentic learning. I would bet if you look at any recent plan drawn up for a new school, the spaces are still designed for traditional factory model learning. The classrooms are arranged like so many pods with desks sitting in rows with a teacher desk placed at the front of the room with a whiteboard located behind. What many still do not quite understand is  a simple principle of classroom design: How you plan the learning space ultimately determines the kinds of learning that happens in that space. Even the furniture selections can impact the learning that happens.

Take the student desk as an example (like the illustration above). These desks are still everywhere in our schools. When new schools are built, hundreds of these are ordered and then placed in neat rows in classrooms. But this particular desk is problematic if we are looking to create learning spaces where students collaborate and engage in active learning. These desks are designed to be placed in rows and to actually restrict the movement of the student sitting in it. Have you ever complained about how hard it is to move and get out of these things? But in a factory era school, student movement is discouraged and what better way to do it than by designing a desk that minimizes the movement of students? These desks are perhaps a symbol of what’s amiss about so-called 21st century education today. We still think of learning spaces as ways to control students rather than ways to engage them in real learning.

I have no way of knowing whether those who designed the first student desks in this manner really had the goal of making a desk that restricted movement, but the fact that so many of these still exist in our classrooms is symptomatic of a greater problem: We just can’t let go of the idea that schools are factories whose job is to churn out students who have been declared educated through testing and credentialing. “Get’em through the system like widgets and declare them graduated and educated if they make through the hurdles and tests.” In our classroom learning spaces we still buy furniture whose purposes is to control and attempt to make learning fit into neat orderly boxes, when those of us who’ve been teachers for some time know real learning is messy and not always subject to the controls we place on it. We keep arranging our schools’ classrooms for teacher-directed instruction instead of designing them for student-directed and inquiry learning which we know is how most of our students want to learn. In a word, for all our talk, we are trying to fit 21st century learning into classrooms designed for factory-model education systems.

Obviously, my point is obviously not to get you to throw out all the student desks in your buildings. But, the question is, how can we re-envision our learning spaces to make authentic, engaging learning happen for our students? We can begin by looking at our current classrooms and see how we can transform them from places to control to places to explore and engage learning. This doesn’t really cost us very much either.

"In the workplace, there is no getting around the fact that "the basic purpose of merit pay is manipulative." Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes

Merit pay is one of those ideas in education that just won't die. When budgets get tight, policymakers and politicians both look at the money being spent on educator salaries and the idea of paying educators based on performance starts looking attractive. "If only we identify the best teachers and pay them more, all will be well," they think. Then, the task of trying to identify and operationalize what a "best teacher" looks like begins, and it immediately falls apart. There's never been any agreement on what characterizes a "good teacher," and there probably never will. The current reform and accountability craze would have us believe "test scores a good teacher makes," but those of us who've been in classrooms for sometime know that tests don't always tell us what a good student is much less a good teacher. The pursuit of trying to find a specific, clear definition of good teaching and a good teacher is impossible, because teaching and learning, for that matter, are way too complex to reduce to a simple operationalized definition.

As Kohn points out, the problem with merit pay is that it is manipulative. It is simply an attempt to control educators and elicit a behavior, and in most cases, the desired behavior is the production of higher test scores. The problem is, many of us educators know "getting higher test scores" is a superficial goal. Getting a high score on a North Carolina Final Exam or End of Grade Test means very little in the lives of our students. We can't say to our students, for example, "If you get a high grade on this reading End of Grade Test, you'll be successful in life." If we do say that, we're trivializing education. So the idea of manipulating teachers to get them to raise test scores by merit pay is doomed to fail for those of us who see education's purpose as more universal and global. Educating good bubble-sheet bubblers is quite different than educating solid citizens who can take their place in the world and perhaps change things for the better.

In the end, merit pay will always fail in education, because the enterprise in which we engage is much too complex to be subject to its manipulative effects. Merit pay has been tried and it failed every time. Unfortunately, those who still have the faith in manipulation by reward just can't seem to let go of an anachronistic view of human motivation.

“Simply put, smart superintendents don’t poke hornets’ nest with sticks.” John Kuhn, Fear and Learning in America: Bad Data, Good Teachers, and the Attack on Public Education

Since the dawn of No Child Left Behind all the way through the Obama administration’s signature Race to the Top program, finding school administrators willing to criticize these federal programs and what they've done to public education is often difficult. As Kuhn points out, smart administrators “don’t poke hornets’ nests with sticks,” because it isn’t the smartest thing to do politically, but that is exactly what Kuhn does in his book, Fear and Learning in America: Bad Data, Good Teachers, and the Attack on Public Education. He takes on, with wit, energy, passion, and solid logic all the current education reforms that seem to be directed toward tearing down the teaching profession and public education brick by brick.

According to Kuhn, this anti-public education agenda began all the way back when the media, policymakers, politicians, and even educators uncritically accepted the problems with public education outlined in the Reagan-era education report, A Nation at Risk. This report set our nation on its current path of education deform because no one critically questioned its broad negative declarations about public education in the United States. As pointed out in Kuhn's book, this report "spurred a rising tide of negative reports" that were often accepted entirely at face value and uncritically, often, even by the educational establishment.

Throughout Fear and Learning in America Kuhn repeatedly takes on these education reform measures and those pushing them. He takes on the obsession with standardized testing in this country and the use of what he calls "standardized junk science" or the use of value-added measures to evaluate teachers. Kuhn also points out that "At some point education reformers stopped asking teachers to be accountable for quality teaching and started asking them to be accountable for miracles" and that the current reform movement powered by "policymakers, journalists, and think tank wonks embraced the pursuit of superteachers as a way to fix schools, and, ipso facto, society."  This "pursuit of miracales" as Kuhn calls it, has left teachers with three choices all bad: "perform miracles, fail, or cheat."

John Kuhn's book Fear and Learning in America is both entertaining and informative. He disperses anecdotes throughout the book that communicate the often unforgotten and human side to what this current reform agenda has done to our schools. He describes how all these measures have ultimately placed public education in America in "The Educational Dark Ages" where there are those well-meaning reformers who are pushing change out of noble intentions, but there are also those pushing these reforms who have more sinister and self-serving agendas. He goes on to point out that current educational reformers have conveniently discarded poverty and all other achievement-influencing variables because they have been deemed either off limits or too difficult to tackle.

Unlike some of the current books examining the anti-public education sentiments in the United States, Kuhn does not just passionately detail what's wrong with current education reform; he offers at the end of the book his own ideas on what can be done to improve education in America for all students. These all stand in contrast to the current educational reform agendas being pushed by state and federal policymakers and politicians.

I have read several books that examine this American phenomenon of attacking public schools, but Kuhn's book, Fear and Learning in America: Bad Data, Good Teachers, and the Attack on Public Education is one of the best yet! It's readable, entertaining, and passionate style make it both a page turner and an inspiration for any educator interested in the current state of public education.

“Good skeptics change their minds, according to the best evidence available. There is just one thing to be loyal to here, reality.” Guy Harrison, Think: Why You Should Question Everything

In a time of education reform peddling and of vendors selling wares claiming that this program increases student achievement and that this program will improve graduation rates, what serves an educational leader well is to be a strong skeptic. As Guy Harrison says in his book, our loyalties should lie with reality. It should not lie with friends who have left education and are now selling some latest educational ware. Our loyalties do not lie with unquestioningly listening to latest edict that comes down from the federal government as the answer to all of our school’s educational shortcomings. Our loyalty does not lie in unquestioningly implementing unfounded programs and practices. Our loyalty should lie with demanding that all of the above be demonstrated with scientific proof and reason that what they claim is true.

In his book, Think: Why You Should Question Everything, Guy Harrison offers a useful framework for being a skeptic when it comes to those making outrageous claims about anything. As the late Carl Sagan once wrote, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and any educational resource salesperson or educator pushing a pet program, saying definitively that their product or practice raises test scores, needs to provide evidence to that fact, and testimonial quotes from another school district leader or teacher is not sufficient.

Harrison offers all of us a thinking approach to question those who approach us with these kinds of claims. He encourages us to utilize the scientific process when we “bump up against weird things in everyday life,” and I must say that in my 24 years in education, I've seen some pretty weird and outrageous educational claims.

Here’s Harrison’s steps to exercising skepticism toward extraordinary claims and my own suggestions for how it would apply in a school leadership role.

• Ask questions. According to Harrison, asking questions is critical. We should not passively accept what we are told by policymakers, politicians and even educational researchers making claims. Educators are notorious for sometimes being sheep and avoiding asking the tough questions. As Tienken and Orlich state in their book, The School Reform Landscape: Fraud, Myths and Lies, "Education professionals have a history of not asking why." Being educated, you would think educators would explode with questions in the face of educational claims, but too often they fall prey to arguments of authority or because someone has 90 years experience as an educator, as if that's somehow a substitute for real proof. Sometimes the right question, according to Harrison can derail the most invalid claim. Being an educator-skeptic doesn't mean you are being disrespectful. It means you are being loyal to reality and not to an idea, policymaker, boss, or friend.
• Observe. This is something educators sometimes don’t do well either. We need to do as Harrison suggests and “look and listen with deliberate effort.” When some policy or educational practice is implemented, and even before, we should observe it for how it works and how it affects others. Our job as educators should never be guardians of the latest educational fad or program. The burden of proof isn't on us; it's on those who push the practice. We shouldn't be marshaling evidence to defend someone else's practice. We should be willing to simply look at the evidence and decide for ourselves whether it is working as it should. And, as advocates for children, we should be willing to speak up when practices harm children and learning or are a waste of resources.
• Research. Harrison reminds us that “If you look for it, it’s not difficult to find credible information about most claims.” We should do our own “fact-checking.” As educators most of us have experience with research and how its conducted, so you would think we would demand that information we receive about a product or practice have the best scientific support and rationale. Take the claims about using value-added measures  in teacher evaluations and how it can increase student achievement. There’s no research to support that claim no matter where you look. Intuitively it makes sense, but those who advocate for its use in teacher evaluations don’t have an ounce of support for the practice, yet we've implemented it across our entire state as well as others. Educators owe their students and themselves to conduct research about claims made from outside education and from above and within.
• Experiment. So many things we do in education are obviously not subject to scientific experimentation, after all, try telling parents at your school that you’re experimenting with their kids and see how far that gets you. It’s just not ethical sometimes to perform blind studies on our students. But, that does not mean that we can’t look at the research and see if someone has examined a practice or reviewed its effectiveness to see if there is any basis in the claim. We only need to look at the effects of policy on our kids and teachers to see how it is working. We can also engage in our own case studies and collect information from those who experience the program or practice. That is data too, and perhaps the best data because it tells us how a policy and practice is affecting our students and staff locally. We should constantly study how policy and practice affects what we do.
• Share ideas and conclusions with others. As Harrison points out, this is a “great way to get feedback from people who may know more that we do about a claim.” We aren't trying to debunk or discredit. We should be trying to get at the truth. We should share how policy, practices, and products actually are working in our schools.

As Harrison points out, “Smart and honest people are sincerely wrong all the time.” The person pushing the latest education reform initiative or a new instructional approach certainly may be sincere and honest. Their intentions may be saintly; they want to do what’s best for kids. But that does not mean we give them a pass due to their saintly intentions. In the end, the obligation for proof should ideally fall in the laps of the sellers: those pushing new educational products, new policy, and new practices. But, when such proof or support will not stand up under the scrutiny of questions, observation, research, experimentation, our obligation is still with reality and our students.

Harrison definitely makes clear what can happen to unsubstantiated claims when he states, “Only hollow beliefs tremble when confronted by reason, and only false claims collapse when skeptical thinking is applied.” In an age when new reforms and approaches are being flung in our direction at light speed, skepticism should definitely be in our leadership toolbox. We owe to ourselves and our students to subject all claims to reason and thinking.

"In a linked world and a relationship economy, isolation costs too much," writes Jeff Jarvis in his book Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live. Jarvis's argument is clear: In today's digital world, the cost of not being connected is too great. We live in what he also refers to as a "relationship economy" where value is derived from the quality of our relationships, and these relationships come from our sharing of ourselves with others on the web. He was speaking mostly of businesses, but I would argue that what he says also applies in general to education, and to educators specifically. We, as 21st century educators, also participate in a "sharing economy" where our value is based on the quality of relationships we make through "Web Presence" established through Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, blogs, and other content sharing outlets. 

The problem is, too many school administrators and teachers still remain on the sidelines. They haven't engaged in the "relationship economy with other educators" so, even though they might have a Twitter account, it sits idle most of the time. Some may even view their timeline on occasion, but they miss one important piece of fostering digital relationships or connections: they do not interact and exchange through sharing. Without participation, no relationships are created, online or offline. As Jarvis so aptly points out,

"It's the same in the digital world as the real one: If you stay in your room all day, you'll never meet anyone and never know whom you've missed. It's Tinker Bell in reverse: Each time you don't share, a relationship loses its wings."

Being a digital leader is much more than boasting that you have a Twitter account or school Facebook page. If these are not used to share, relationships can't possibly be formed. To form solid 21st century relationships with other educators, you must share. This means you must give up the fear of being "public." To become a connected educator you must make a step outward and connect by sharing knowledge, ideas, tips, resources, or whatever you can to contribute to the global education conversation.

As Jarvis points out, we can't really be wallflowers or lurkers and engage the relationship economy of a linked world. To foster relationships, we have to "come out of our rooms" and engage others through the media. "To make connections we must be public and share." Moving to use the media to become public and share in order to form new relationships is a powerful New Year's Resolution!

"What today's disruptive world requires are everyday Gallileos, who ask their own versions of: What if our assumptions are wrong? How would that change how we think and what we do?" Bill Jensen, Disrupt! Think Epic. Be Epic

 "We are in the midst of a massively disruptive era, where most every system or rule for how we do things has been, and will continue to be, up for grabs," writes Bill Jensen in his book Disrupt! Think Epic. Be Epic. This same era is bringing massive disruptions to they way we do public schools too. According to Jensen, in this constantly disruptive age we live in, we have three choices basically:

• We can be extremely proactive. This means we ask the questions no one else is asking or willing to ask. These are the inventors and entrepreneurs who will be the causes of the next wave of what Jensen calls "innovative disruptions."
• We can be mainstream proactive. People who do this actively question most every "system, structure, and rule" placed before them. They choose the ones they will ignore. According to Jensen, they work around or change their lives according to these that they ignore.
• We can be reactive. These are the people who accept most everything handed to them. According to Jensen, they "hold on for dear life, waiting for the personal disruptions to subside."

“A new study reminds us that poverty is the giant backpack dragging down American students.” Jordan Weissmann, “Study: Almost Half of Public School Students Are Now Low-Income,”

Start talking about the poverty of American students and  you’re quickly accused of making excuses for a bad education system, or of pushing a political agenda. Truth is, poverty is real, and if speaking out against is political, then so be it! Those who haven’t experienced it or who don’t see it everyday, can easily dismiss it and comfort themselves that poverty is lifestyle choice. "Those who are poor are poor because of the decisions they've made. They deserve it," is the thinking of many politicians. That statement is political too, and I would say a bit of out of touch with reality. Poverty isn't a lifestyle choice; it is a direct result of a society that has chosen to put undying faith in an economic system based on competition, and at the end of any competition, there’s going to be winners and there’s going to be losers. Those in poverty are the losers. In the American system, those who are winning have re-written the rules to make easier for them to win. Under those conditions, I am not surprised that almost half of our public school students now classified as low-income.

As Weissmann points out in her article, “Your success in school depends largely on what your parents earn.” Those who try to erase that reality by focusing intently on the “Great Teacher Argument” as the way out of poverty are entirely dismissing poverty's effects on achievement. Sure, there are stories and anecdotes of students overcoming poverty and difficult life circumstances to become “successful” in terms of financial and economic security. But these “Horatio Alger stories” are hardly scientific evidence. Like Alger’s propaganda-like “rags-to-riches” stories peddled during the Gilded-Age,” many today have once again bought into that thinking, and they’re the ones trying to drive a reform agenda based on ideals that didn't work during the Gilded Age and will not work now. Getting out of poverty takes determination and perseverance but it also takes getting some breaks along the way too, and today, too often those breaks are in the hands of those who have wealth.

There were some other interesting data in Weismann’s article too, such as the two maps showing the long-term trends of students qualifying for free and reduced lunches. The first map (Check them out in the article here.) shows clearly where regionally the number of students qualifying for free and reduced lunches has grown. Bet you can guess where those states are? The South. In the South and the Far West, the numbers of students identified as poor by free and reduced lunch qualification has increased to 50% and beyond in most of those states. Clearly, all is not well economically with everyone. The "rags-to-riches" fairy tale is increasingly being proved wrong.

In the article, Weissmann points to 3 takeaways from this data:

• “Poverty---or in many cases, near poverty---is the 50 pound back-pack dragging down US students.” When those who bemoan the “dire conditions” of American student achievement choose to ignore this fact or dismiss it as an excuse, they ignore reality. Poverty is worsening, and no amount of faith in Ragged Dick stories are going to pull students out of it. The idea of “educating kids out of poverty” is a fairy tale of which Horatio Alger would be proud. We as educators can't just dismiss poverty as something over which we have no control. As advocates for a fair and equitable system of education, we can keep the reality of poverty in the discussions about education policy and American economic policy. I suspect that those pushing the current economic policies who favor the wealthy would like to dismiss poverty as something which is none of our business, but it is educational malpractice to simply discard it.
• “Policy makers and pundits get worked up” about American student performance on international tests. The United States does not compare well in all cases, but the idea that you can compare the scores to begin with is ludicrous. American students are much more diverse socio-economically, and head-to-head comparisons often ignore this factor. As Weismann points out, if schools are still “in a sense factories, then Massachusetts districts get much better raw material to work with than Texas districts.” The whole idea of comparing scores is based on the inherent belief that students here are not very different from students in Finland or other countries. That idea is dead wrong. Students are different even within our own country, and their experiences and opportunities are different. The next time an Arne Duncan or some other state level leader bemoans the downward spiral of American students on international tests, perhaps our best course of action is simply ignore them. Don't give credence to their blathering. They are simply using invalid comparisons to push their reform agendas.
• Worst of all, according to Weismann, “these poverty numbers are a glimpse of the future.” This is because students from low-income families tend to become parents of low-income families. By this logic, America has become one massive poverty factory, and sadly, it’s going to take more than corporatized education reform efforts system to end dismantle America's poverty machine. Our economic and educational policy should not be about perpetuating a system that favors the wealthy and haves; it should be about providing opportunities for all. My fear is that as our poverty numbers grow, more and more will find themselves in poverty.

Perhaps it’s true that the poor will always be with us. And, it can be sometimes used as an excuse for low expectations for some students. But the reality is, it exists and it does have effects that sometimes not even the most heroic teacher and principal can overcome.

The problem now is not only that poverty exists. The problem is that many education reformers dismiss it. It is often seen by educators as a subject “too political to talk about.” But part of me can’t help but wonder if that’s not what those who are enjoying this unprecedented wealth want us to believe. It is in their interest that we believe the Horatio Alger stories from the Gilded Age. As long as we believe that poverty is no excuse for being successful, then we’re not going to do anything to fix an economic and political system that is engineered to benefit the wealthy, sometimes at the expense of the not-so wealthy.

As an educator who is both passionate about public schools and the education of students, I for one, will not dismiss poverty as an obstacle students can climb over and beyond. I will continue to speak out against our American political and economic system that now mirrors that of the Gilded Age more than ever, and that gives those with means all of the breaks.

“The nation has become obsessed with ‘seat time,’ assuming that this ‘hunkering down’ at desks and tables will result in higher test scores.” Ron Nash, From Seatwork to Feetwork

What are some outmoded educational practices and ways of schooling that we need to change the most? Like the concept of "seat time" mentioned above, many of our ways of doing school and educational practices are obsolete. These obsolete practices are still embedded in many of our schools and need to be changed because they perpetuate the same kinds of teaching and learning from the old industrial model of schooling that fails to adequately prepare our students to engage life in the 21st century. Here's a list of those "Obsolete Practices."

1. The idea that more seat time = higher achievement. This assumption manifests itself in many ways. Advocating for a longer school day, longer class periods, longer school calendars, and any other scheme to try to “increase the amount of time students spend in the school building” are schemes to increase seat time. It's high time we gave up this assumption because it is simply not true. What matters the most is the quality of the learning activity the student is engaged in and the quality of the instruction. The reason studies on seat-time schemes like block scheduling and extended afterschool have not shown definitively that they work to increase achievement is because in each of these what really matters the most is the kinds of learning activities students engage in. If increased seat time only involves exposing kids to more passive learning activities instead of getting them learning actively, then there will be little return on the increased time invested.

2. Give up the idea of what Ron Nash calls, “Seeing Learning as a spectator sport.” Too often too many people see the students as passive recipients of the learning instead of active participants. As Nash points out, “When teachers talk, students often go to a better place in their minds.” They’re checking out in these passive learning classrooms and then both teachers and administrators wonder why students’ attention spans are so short. It’s time to view learning as something students engage in and not something students are subjected to.

3. The idea that teachers should be center-stage and in control of every aspect of the classroom. Yes, teachers need to focus on providing a safe and environment conducive to learning, but the most effective 21st century learning places are not places of strict control. They’re places where learning often looks messy and chaotic and failure is acceptable. As Nash points out, these “command-and-control” classrooms are not conducive to creativity, exploration, and inquiry. They are more about conformity and keeping the status quo in place.

4. The idea as Nash points out that “when the bell rings, we move from math to English.” Whose life is organized by subject areas and departments these days? Yet, we still shuffle kids through a system of bells throughout the day in a type of learning that is artificially compartmentalized. Instead, we need a system where we don’t run around like condition rats through mazes when bells ring. We need personalized schedules of learning where students also have time to explore and engage in inquiry-based activities that are real and authentic and not confined to the artificially compartmentalized, industrial-age system we have now.

5. The idea that teaching to the middle is an effective instructional strategy. This idea has long served its purpose. Nash points out that when teachers use this approach, they end up leaving those who need to move at a more rapid pace, bored, and those who need a slower pace end up being lost. Instead, when need personalized learning for all students that pushes them to learn as they can.

I’m positive there are many more instructional practices from the industrial-age model of schooling that can be piled on this slag-heap. But, we continue to insist on measures based on these outmoded ways of thinking about education. If we’re ever going to truly impact learning in the classroom, we’re going to have to change these fundamental ideas about schooling.

As Marc Prensky once pointed out, “I often liken this to Federal Express: you can have the best delivery system in the world, but if no one is home to receive the package, it doesn't much matter.” In education, we have all these schemes of command-and-control and to efficiently move students through the system, but in the end, if they’re not engaged, what’s the use?

Earlier, I posted in "We Must Redesign Our High Schools Or Else!" that we needed to redesign our high schools, or risk losing more and more students to other options. 

"The one-size-fits-all factory assembly-line high school is perfect for producing credentialed students, but often falls short of meeting the needs of all students."

Instead of having a single high school model, we really need multiple models and multiple sizes of high schools to meet the educational needs of all students. Small redesign high schools are one option for personalizing education for all students.

What are some advantages of small high schools? From my experiences of being an administrator in a small high school of 100 to 135 students, here's some things I've personally experienced:
.
1. Smaller high schools can be more flexible. When your master schedule doesn't work for everybody, you can change it. When the length of your school day is a problem, you can change it. When there's an issue that parents are concerned about, you can find a new way of approaching the problem that satisfies their concerns. Why is it written in stone that you must stay on the same master schedule of 4 period-day, 2 semesters every year? Why not be flexible and change your number of periods and schedule to meet the needs of students? With small high schools, everything is on the table and nothing is sacred, making them much more flexible.

2. Smaller high schools can be more responsive to all student needs. In our high school, I often tell potential students that they will be unable to hide in our school. Because of the smaller numbers of students,our staff can more quickly and strategically respond to any kind of crisis, whether that be an academic or a personal crisis a student is having. In a word, we get to know every single one of our students. We know our students as people, not as student ID numbers or test scores. While it is perhaps efficient to know and classify students as numbers and test scores, doing so, means you create cold, impersonal places where efficiency rules at the expense of personalization. Small high schools are nimble enough to respond to students as individuals, not as numbers.

3. In my experience, small high schools are easier to transform into places where diversity is valued and creativity thrives. Large assembly-line high schools are about "controlling" students as they progress through the credentialing system. They have to be to keep the machine running. Students move about the building by bells. They are given very little unstructured time. These schools are about making sure all students conform to the factory's norms so everything runs smoothly and efficiently. Time-on-task means carrying out what the school has determined is productive, not necessarily exploration, inquiry and creativity. In smaller high schools it is easier to have a culture that allows students to think and be independent and critical. That means that students cannot only be themselves, but also value diversity. On the other hand, large assembly-line factories aren't designed to tolerate diversity of thought and creativity. In those schools, creativity becomes a victim of a credentialing system that values conformity above all else. "Just get'em through the system with all the right parts in place."

When school districts stubbornly hold on to the idea of  large, assembly-line credentialing high schools as the only way of doing school, we are going to continue to fail to meet the needs of all students. While we might continue to increase the number of students stamped with a graduate credential, we will never meet the needs of all students. Those we stamp with appropriate credentials may or may not be outfitted with the tools they need to be successful in life. We need many models of high schools, not one that is the cheapest and most efficient way to deliver graduate credentials to students.

“When people adopt technology, they do old things in new ways. When people internalize technology, they find new things to do.” James McQuivey, Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation

When it comes to engaging in innovation with technology, the mindset we take toward technology is extremely important. We can either take a "technology adopter" mindset or we can take a "digital disruptor" mindset. As James McQuivey states in his book, Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation, "Digital disruptors think about opportunity differently." To the technology adopter it's always about the technology. How can I use the technology to help me do the things I currently do better? In contrast, a person with a "digital disruptor" mindset sees the technology as the means to engage in entirely new and different possibilities. Which leads me to ask the question:  Which mindset  predominately drives technology policy in your school or district? Is it a "technology adopter" mindset  or a "Digital Disruptor" mindset?

In case you're wondering, here's some characteristics of each.

Educators with the "technology adopter" mindset:

• Immediately view a new technological device as a means to do what they have been doing, better. This type of thinking limits the view of technology as only being able to enable teaching and learning as we have been doing it under a 20th century, industrial-age school model. Some examples of this kind of thinking is using e-texts to simply replace physical textbooks. There is no change in pedagogy, just a change in how the information is delivered. Another example of this thinking would be viewing the computer as simply a more efficient means to deliver a multiple-choice test. The power of digital lies in its ability to complete reinvent assessment, not perpetuate the old.
• See technology’s potential limited by current practice. In other words, technology adopter-educators see only their current teaching practice and are not open to any other. "It's worked for hundreds of years, so why change?" is the attitude. Technology then becomes the means to deli ver what is seen as time-honored traditional forms of teaching and learning, such as lecture or heavy use of textbooks. Technology will never be used innovatively when educators limit it's potential to their current understanding of educational practice.

The opposite to the "technology adopter" mindset is the "digital disruptor" mindset. Those in education who adopt this mindset become:

• Educators who imagine new ways of doing things. Armed with new technology, they use the capabilities of those technologies to reinvent teaching and learning. These educators have been trying to do that with new online learning environments, new instructional models such as PBL and maker-based classrooms. This mindset views technology as a way to completely reinvent how we teach kids. For example, we don't just purchase e-reader devices and e-books. We ask questions that leading the use of these to transform our instruction and student learning.
• Educators who see the unlimited potential of technology to disrupt current education practice. Education is a system that is stubborn and resists efforts of transformation. That's why seeing technology's potential as a "disruptive" influence is often times viewed as a negative. Cell phone and social media bans are good examples of that. Yet, if we adopt the view of technology as and opportunity to disrupt, to turn upside-down what we do in schools, we have the potential to transform education into a system that meets the needs of every child.
• Educators open-minded and willing to let go of the old when it fails. This is a tough one for many in and outside of education. It's as if for every step forward in reforming education, we move three steps backward because of a nostalgic view many hold toward their own schools of the past. They brag about how schools in the 30s and 40s, even 50s did so well, yet forget that dropping out of school was a legitimate career path then, and schools could, and did, discard kids as defective raw materials when they didn't conform. Those schools in the past did do a good job for some, but aren't sufficient in an age where the expectation is that all kids learn. With the digital disruptor mindset, nothing is held sacred when it comes to transforming education.

After being an administrator at a “public school of choice” I can’t help but wonder: “What if we ran our schools as if our parents could choose to remove their children tomorrow if they felt we were delivering the education they wanted for their children? How would we choose to operate? How would this affect policy implementation? How would we change our decisions and decision-making processes?

While I am certainly not convinced that “school choice” or vouchers are the salvation of public education, but there is one thing inherent in the idea of choice that I think warrants consideration. That idea is that schools, when facing competition, are forced to be more responsive to student and parent needs. Public schools in our country are massive bureaucratic institutions that are too often unresponsive to student and parent needs, and more interested in preserving and promoting themselves and the status quo. For example, how many times as school leaders are we forced to use the justification, "Well, it's just board policy." Or, "It's state regulations?"

I sympathize with parents who do not feel that their public schools are meeting the needs of their kids. Whether or not their claims are true, it is still their perception. Many decisions are made, from the legislative level to the classroom, for all kinds of reasons. And, if one questions those decisions, the reaction is "How dare you question my motives!" but the reality is, as educators and school leaders, we should be hyper-vigilant and willing to question all decisions. Decisions that can't be entirely justified to be in the best interests of kids, should be questioned vehemently. As 21st century school leaders we must be willing to scrutinize decisions that are made and be willing to express our opinions when we do not feel those decisions are being made in the interests of our students.

It's too bad public schools can't adopt a customer service model in their approach to educating kids. While schools are not businesses, nor should they be considered so, the disposition of approaching our kids and parents as if what they need and want matter is what I call having a "responsive mindset." Schools with this responsive mindset approach school with a disposition that says, "What if my parents could pull their students out of my school immediately? How would that affect how I make decisions and deliver education to the students in my building?"

For all the reasons and arguments others have made, I realize treating our kids and their parents as “customers” in the business sense is not totally adequate. Still, public schools do owe students and their parents to be responsive. Perhaps if school leaders acted with responsiveness there would be fewer people who advocate for vouchers in the first place.

What would some of these responsive mindset behaviors look like? Here's three that come to mind.

• As school leaders, we never say we are doing something simply because policy says so. While we need policy to guide us, policy should never be something to hide behind. If what we are doing can’t be argued to be in the best interest of kids, perhaps we should not do it period. Arguing that we do it because policy or the law says so makes us look like that policy or law is more important than the child. Being a responsive school leader means always making decisions for the good of kids, not because it is written down in some policy manual. It also means making sure we can meticulously explain our actions and decisions in, not hide behind the law.
• As school leaders, we should make every effort to make the rationale for what we are doing clear to our kids and their parents. Most parents, if we take the time to explain, can understand why we do what we do. They still might not agree, but we must give them the opportunity to have their say. When we make decisions that affect the lives of their kids, we must always keep in mind, even parents who struggle, most often want the best education they can get for their kids. Being a responsive school leader means taking whatever amount of time it takes to explain our decisions, allowing parents the opportunity to explain their disagreement, and being willing to change our decisions if our parents make a good argument for changing our decisions. There's no room for ego in the process for doing what's right for kids.
• As school leaders, we should make decisions as if all our parents could pull their kids out of our schools tomorrow if they so desired. Making decisions in this manner, makes us responsive when it comes to providing an education to kids. If our parents could simply go elsewhere to get an education for their kids, we would perhaps scrutinize our decisions as school leaders a bit more carefully. In a district or school that operates with a responsive mindset, every decision is viewed through a lens of its impact for all kids and for individual kids, and care is given not to delude oneself into thinking that what's being done is best for kids when it clearly is not. I would hope we would never sacrifice a single student for the good of all students, hence arguing that the needs of many outweigh needs of the few, or one, does not give us an excuse to harm the few or one at the expense of the many. Being a responsive school leader means always examining the impact of a decision on every single student.

As school leaders, we can personalize education for all kids by adopting a responsive mindset that truly places students at the center of what we do.

I think most educators would agree that interactive boards are not always 21st century classroom tools. In fact, when they are only used to reinforce lecture, worksheets and other 20th century teaching and learning methodology, they are little more than chalkboards with computer chips. The iPad is not necessarily a 21st century classroom tool either, if students are only using it to read e-texts and complete e-worksheets. It is only when students and teachers are engaged using interactive boards, iPads, and other devices, to collaborate, create, and problem-solve that they become 21st century classroom tools.

Too often, anything labeled "technology" is immediately construed to be a 21st century learning device, but that quality never lies in the tool itself, but in how teachers and students engage its use in the service of learning.  Going back to the interactive boards example. How many millions have schools and school districts spent on these devices to simply be able to brag publicly that they now have "an interactive board installed in every classroom?" Because there’s only one in the room it often becomes a device that only the teacher interacts with and uses. This kind of thinking betrays a belief that technological devices are inherently 21st century learning tools, but they are not. It is a maddening thought that a teacher would simply use a very expensive interactive board to only do the same things he used to do with an overhead projector.

In order to keep in mind when technologies are truly 21st century classroom tools, 21st century school leaders should perhaps consider the following as they think about new technologies for their schools or districts:

• If you are buying technology so you can brag about it, you are probably buying it for the wrong reasons. There is nothing magical in the simple presence of an iPad or interactive board in the classroom. Just because it's there does not mean students are engaged in 21st century learning. Being able to boast about the number of iPads, laptops, and interactive boards in your school or district does not mean the claim of being a 21st century school can be made. Rather, it is what students and teachers are doing with the devices that matter the most and the kinds of learning they are engaged in while using them. 
• Don't be afraid to ask the tough question: How is this technology going to fundamentally transform the kinds of teaching and learning in my classrooms or schools? The expectation when it comes to technology purchases should always be that students will be doing 21st century learning tasks, not 20th century learning tasks. These tasks include: collaborating, creating, and problem-solving.
• Be prepared to support teachers when introducing new technologies into your school or district. This means providing them with professional development, additional resources, and time to collaborate with colleagues as they try to integrate the devices into their classrooms. Providing technological devices without support from school leadership might as well be giving teachers a paperweight or doorstop.
• Be wary of sales pitches that focus primarily on what the technology will do rather than what students can do with the technology. Bells and whistles do not make a device into a 21st century learning tool. What is more important is how the device will empower students to engage in collaboration, creation, and problem-solving. It is important to ask, "What kinds of work can students do with the device?" not “What can the device do?” Force salespeople to do more than show features. Ask them to show what kinds of learning students can engage in while using their devices.

As indicated earlier, interactive boards and iPads are not always used as 21st century teaching and learning devices. They can be used to perpetuate 20th century learning or they can get students collaborating, creating, and problem-solving. It is only when there's a fundamental change in what students and teachers are being asked to do with the devices that they can become 21st century learning tools.

In order encourage civic engagement and to foster the idea that giving back to the community in which we live is a virtue, our school adopted a community service requirement for graduation early in its founding. At our high school, students are required to earn 150 hours of community service before they graduate. In order to make sure students earn those hours, we have implemented a rather simple system that ensures our students meet these requirements.

Here’s 4 considerations for those who wish to implement a community service graduation requirement.

• Maintain community service folders for each student. These folders need to be reviewed periodically by administration or a guidance counselor, and students and their parents need to be informed regularly about their status toward earning their community service credit for graduation. Communication and reminders to students to get their community service hours in is a must.
• Allow students to count a variety of civic activities toward their community service hours. For example, our students often engage in mission trips or work as interns during the summer months. We allow students to count those hours toward their community service credit. They only need provide a letter of documentation from someone responsible for the activity.
• Contact community and civic organizations and let them know about your community service requirements and that your students are available. For example, our county library and community theater uses our students often as volunteers, and these organizations contact us when they have possible community service opportunities. Making sure the community knows about the requirement means they will often reach out to the school when they need volunteers.
• Make it the student’s responsibility to make sure their hours are properly documented. We do not use a community service coordinator or other person to maintain this program. Students know that it is their responsibility to provide us with proper documentation. This makes implementing a community service requirement relatively inexpensive.

Adding a community service credit to graduation requirements can be done without major expenses and without overburdening an already busy staff. In our 21st century global society, it is vital our students engage in the greater community as volunteers to be proper global citizens. Implementing a community service graduation requirement will give students the opportunity to act as involved citizens.