The 21st Century Principal

 "The terrible lethality of machinery is one problem; the more banal daily drain of technology is another. A faceless and amoral machine comes to us as incessant robocalls, spam emails, algorithmically optimized ads, brainless 'customer service' chatbots, automatic fees, and leaks of private records." p. 67, John Kaag & Jonathan Van Belle, Henry at Work: Thoreau on Making a Living

Thoreau in Walden, made clear repeatedly that our "inventions" or technologies do not always represent a better means for carrying out a task. Today, the technology industry's marketing departments have worked overtime to convince us that their products are a "must-have" and that they always provide a "better way of doing things." But is that always true? Who really desires to be accosted by the "faceless and amoral machine" that replaces a friendly voice or a smile?

This particular technology problem is clearly illustrated by my own recent visit to a local car dealership for a scheduled service call. I'll admit up front that I liked the ability to make the service appointment through their app. It was easy. I simply selected a date and time and submitted it. There was no need to call the dealership, navigate through automated menus until I spoke to a living person. This "Say 'Customer Service' or "Press 1" process is undoubtedly the most miserable electronic process one can experience when trying to speak with a company representative. It might be efficient, but it makes the customer miserable.

On the day of my service appointment, I arrived, got checked in and my car was taken back to the garage. I settled in the waiting area and sat reading a book, waiting until the service was done. As is my habit, I set my phone down beside me. I do not have any beeping and chirping notifications turned on because I loathe that constant intrusion into my solitude. I also do not, purposefully, constantly check to see if I have notifications, messages, texts, etc. I check those when I decide to check them. 

Later, the service rep walked out into the lobby and informed me that my car was ready. I followed her back the garage, and checked out. I left the dealership and went to a local bookstore and browsed for a while. While in the bookstore, I checked my phone, and I saw a text message from the dealership. I opened that message, and the service department I had just left, had sent me a text message with suggested service items WHILE I SAT IN THEIR WAITING AREA. In other words, instead of briefing me on these suggested service items when I was there in person, they texted them to me. Why not walk into your own waiting area and speak to me directly? Ultimately, the dealership lost out on additional revenue because I would have chosen to have those additional service items done. This was entirely due to the reliance on technology being a better means to deliver these service recommendations to the customer.

As long as we continue to rely on technology because it is more convenient or efficient without considering the human element in our social transactions, we are always in danger of losing in the end. The dealership in this instance lost additional sales. Technology does not always offer the best solutions.

"The problem with conformity in education is that people are not standardized to begin with." Sir Ken Robinson, Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That's Transforming Education

Let's face it, our public education system is still all about conformity and standardization. We talk a lot of rot about "innovation" and "thinking outside of the box," but in reality, many educators still adhere to the faith that there are a list of single "research-based" indicators that exist somewhere out there that can guide our schools to the promised land. Companies manufacturing educational products know this, and make all kinds of promises that their products will lead us to the "Land of Eternal Achievement." A perfect case in point is a new product that the state of North Carolina has adopted to ensure conformity and standardization of school improvement planning. This product is called Indistar.

When you check out Indistar's web site, it is immediately clear they've got their "marketing shoes on." (Check out their web site here:  http://www.indistar.org/). Immediately the promises of educational prosperity hit you square in the face with "Your Leadership Team's Best Friend." It promises that schools can "get better together." Basically, it is school improvement software that promises to help school improvement teams to academic prosperity through helping them implement its "research-based indicators."

As a principal and educator who has experienced this product for one year, I am afraid it most likely will lead, not to academic prosperity, but ensure that your school conforms to what the makers of Indistar see as an "effective school." This software isn't about empowering schools to find creative solutions to the problems they face; it is about forcing schools to apply a list of "research-based indicators" so that they conform to a single image (Indistar's) of what an effective school should look like.

It was Fenwick English (2003), educational leader and scholar, who once said, "To reduce such claims (of effective schools) or "school improvement models" based on de-contextualized behaviors [emphasis mine] on a 'research base' which itself has been standardized in 'right truth-seeking methods,' is to resort to hegemonic practices which can only be supported via political enforcement [again, italics mine]. In other words, the whole idea that one can create a list of 'de-contextualized behaviors' that will somehow solve all the ills and problems of the schools, can only be supported if it is made mandatory, as North Carolina has done. Its claim of all being 'research-based indicators' is its claim to legitimation, but what is left out of the equation is that all of these 'de-contextualized behaviors' happened in very contextual situations that may or may not be applicable to other schools. Educators would do well to be 'skeptical' of any organization, company or even other educators who throw around the term 'research-based' as support for their product. And, just keep in mind that just because they provide a 20 page bibliography, or larger, and links to research articles, that again does not necessarily translated into an effective product for every school or district. The number of bibliographical entries or research articles does not automatically mean a 'valid technology.' Anyone with an APA manual and Google Scholar can make a bibliography.

Besides its rather ponderous claims of helping schools to "get better together," the reality is that Indistar is just another one of those miracles of marketing. That explains why North Carolina has rushed to force schools across the state to adopt it. The gist of Indistar is rather simple. School improvement teams assess their school against a ponderous list of so-called "research-based" indicators to see if their school measures up to them. If they feel they have met the indicator, they must engage in the massive undertaking of collecting evidence to show they have met the indicator. They submit this evidence online, then a voice from the cloud above reviews their evidence to judge whether that evidence meets the indicator. If the judgement is that they have, they then move to the next indicator. They do this until they have made their way through a hundred or so indicators. Voila, once they have met all the indicators they should have reached the "promised land of academic achievement aplenty." If they find themselves wanting with an indicator, then that indicator becomes a school improvement goal. The school works to make that indicator happen, provides evidence, then they submit that evidence to the cloud judgement seat, and if judged in affirmative, they can move on to the next indicator. That is "school improvement" according to Indistar. What better way for district and even state education administrators to actually "control" the schools under their charge! This is truly a great tool to "manage from a distance!"

The whole problem behind Indistar and products like it, is the faith that there are "prescriptions" out there that will fix any school problem that exists. We've been trying this approach to improving schools for more than the last 30 years, and I dare say we are not any closer to making education as a whole better. In fact, in many ways we've only made it worse. We aren't going to improve education by using software like Indistar to impose what is believed to be a set of "research-based" prescriptions on our schools, because the problems in our schools are very often unique problems that require creativity and innovation, not simple application of what some researchers in the ivory towers of quantitative research have found to be true.

Products like Indistar are not innovative; they are simply high-tech regurgitations of all the prescriptive, management from a distance strategies we've been engaged in for the past 30 years or so.

I have not doubt that the makers of Indistar mean well. I am also aware that, like so many innovative products, it makes claims based on "success stories" and with its slick web site where it markets a Utopian future for those who dare to use its product. Sadly, as a user of this product for a year now, I would say it is more about making sure schools conform to someone else's idea of school improvement rather than giving schools the freedom to be really creative in solving their problems.

The problem with Indistar and products like it is that schools are not standardized to begin with, so applying a list of so-called research-based prescriptions are not likely to bring the same results in every case, and that is a major problem with this product. The problems we deal with in our schools are very often local contextual issues. We really don't need more software to help us resolve these issues; we need the freedom to approach the unique problems we face in a creative manner.



English, F. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practice of educational administration. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Robinson, Ken. (2016). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that's transforming education. New York: Penguin.

If anyone has noticed, I have subtly changed the byline of this blog, for it once stated:

"Technology, Teaching, and Public School Advocate"

and now it simply states,

"Thoughts on Education, Literature, Politics, and Philosophy of Education."

Not that many even I feel I have to explain myself. Why the change? I lost my religion, or stated differently: I have increasingly began to feel as if "Technology" already has enough advocates and needs more critics.

While I am sure no one really pays attention to such things,  I have increasingly felt that the "Ed Tech" evangelists have become less critical of technology, and in some ways have come to believe that it alone offers the "salvation of education" and our students. I myself could so be judged from my various blather on this blog as one of the "technology-faithful." Yet, time, experience, and thought has cost me my own uncritical faith in the power of the PC (or the Mac) to lead to educational paradise.

Neil Postman, that powerful critic of technology himself, perhaps had in mind the malady that inflicts the current "Ed Tech" world and education when described something called "Technopoly." He stated that "technopoly is a state of mind," and that it consists in the "deification of technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes it orders from technology." It also causes the "development of a new social order," leads to the "rapid dissolution of much associated with traditional beliefs," and sees technical progress as our "supreme achievement" as well as the means by which all our problems will be solved. To me, it would seem that Postman was actually describing the basic tenants of the current "Ed Tech" religion that in some appellations appears to be a "fundamentalist religion."

Don't get me wrong, I still embrace my iPhone and PC, for they allow me to do things that make life richer, easier, and efficient. I am no Luddite. But I have become a heretic of sorts when it comes to all this uncritical promotion of everything tech in education. The tenants of "ED Tech" fundamentalism should be questioned, and every time some educator, keynote speaker, tech salesman begins to sell their wares or promote their ideas, it is time lay aside our personal enthusiasm, or friendships, and our techno-enthusiasm and ask the heretical questions of whether what is said is really truth of dogma.

I no longer adhere to the doctrine that "deifies" technology as the answer to all our educational problems. I also no longer think that "disruption" and "innovation" with technology is always a good thing. Are we really trying to improve our students' education or are we simply trying to promote technology for its own sake. Perhaps we are also only using technology to promote ourselves instead of what is truly beneficial for our students. Do we really think more and better technology is going to finally educate all our students?

Dropping the "Technology advocate" part of my byline was important to me. Technology needs no advocate but our students do. There's enough commercial and tech industry salespersons and techno-fundamentalists out there advocating for the technology. What is sorely needed are us techno-heretics, who have a sober view of technology, and who are willing to question the tenants of Ed Tech fundamentalism.

Technology can either be tools that we use to enhance our lives and the education of our students, or they can become that which directs our lives. I choose the former.

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage: New York, NY.

 The field of education “focuses on initiatives targeting computer-to-student ratios and administration process automation, not learning processes or outcomes,” according to Alan Bain and Mark Weston, authors of The Learning Edge: What Technology Can Do to Educate All Children.

Though we claim to focus on student achievement with our technology initiatives, that focus is more often on the “stuff” rather than on what we have students and teachers do or achieve with that “stuff.” It’s clear that one of the most useless statistics we keep is computer-to-student ratio. It’s deceptive to ourselves and the public and we know it. We know that just because every student has access to a computer does not mean students are accessing them to engage in meaningful learning, and we also know having 1:1 access does not necessarily mean the teacher is using the technology to engage in meaningful teaching. And, as far as administration automation software, just because our state’s fancily automated student data systems provides the slickest and most numerous data reports does not mean our students are learning any more than they normally would nor can we say teaching is better, or will get better.

If we don’t focus on the quantity of computer our schools have and the elaborate software systems, what do we do need to focus on in order to capitalize on the true potential of technology for teaching and learning?

• Instead of focusing on computer-to-student ratios, let’s revolutionize teaching and learning. We should not be purchasing technology to help us do what we've always done in our schools and classrooms. Let’s employ technology to completely reinvent instruction. We know what we are currently doing in our classrooms does not work for all students, and to try to use technology to simply automate and facilitate current educational practice is inadequate. Technology’s true potential lies in how it can create new ways of teaching and learning. We need to capitalize on that potential.
• Instead of focusing on fancy administrative data systems, let’s keep them simple. When states try to create elaborate data systems, they often keep adding feature after feature. Underlying many of these systems is the whole idea that “You can’t have too much data” as an educator.  But the opposite is actually true: it is possible to have too much data. Keeping these administrative data systems simple should be a priority. It’s a real problem when a teacher or administrator can’t run a simple student tardy report because the program is too complex. To keep this from happening, I would suggest that systems designers consult with practicing principals and teachers. Practicing educators can tell them what data they need, and what they need these systems to do.
• Repeat the mantra: “The quality of a school is never measured by the number of computers in the building.” It is not a badge of honor for a school to have 10 computers per student, especially if those computers sit in carts untouched or on desktops gathering dust.  In the end, a boast that our schools have 1:1 means very little if business is as usual in the classrooms.

The time has come for school leaders to stop talking about computer-to-student ratios and focus instead on what is much more important: teaching and learning.

As a heavy reader on my iPad, I have been looking for an RSS Feed Reader for my iPad that makes reading my Google Reader feeds easier and a more pleasant experience. I have tried several RSS feed reader apps, and I think I have found one that shows promise and offers an excellent reading experience. That app is Mr. Reader.

Screenshot Mr. Reader

While Mr. Reader looks in some ways like a normal RSS Reader, it has some features that make it a more interesting and effective.

• Fully syncrhonizes with your Google Reader Account
• Display is maximized to provide reader with lots of information at a glance
• App displays well in both landscape and portrait
• Full articles can be displayed by a simple tap
• Customization features make RSS reading even simpler and more pleasurable

Mr. Reader is an excellent RSS Feed Reader app for those who use Google Reader as their RSS aggregator. As an iPad app, it is a little bit more pricey than other apps, but its features make it an excellent app.

 

This morning’s #satchat turned to a discussion about using technology to make the school administrator’s office paperless. I have actually always been “less paperful,” if I may coin a term, than other administrators because it is a by-product of relying heavily on technology, which I always have. I won’t go into the rationale for why one would want to have a paperless office because I think the reasons for doing so are rather obvious. Instead, let me just list some of my own practices that have facilitated being paperless as an administrator. I can’t hardly remember the last time I opened my file cabinet; maybe it was sometime in July. At any rate, my file cabinet lives a lonely and neglected life these days because its utility has been reduced to simply some place to put my printer. Still, I think these 6 simple strategies will go a long way in reducing the reliance on physical documents, hence paper.

• Find some free/inexpensive Web 2.0 tools to streamline your practices. For example, I have a paid Evernote account and it is well-worth the subscription price. With this software, I take meeting notes, anecdotal notes, and  share articles/resources with staff. Evernote’s simple sharing feature means I can share the minutes from our last Professional Learning Community meeting with an email. Web 2.o tools like Diigo allow means I can share web resources I find with teachers, again, through email. My tablet’s Scanner app gives me a “scanner-on-the-go” and Dropbox gives me a virtual filling cabinet that follows me everywhere with access across devices. To go paperless requires finding Web 2.0 tools and apps that help you do many of those things you currently do on paper.
• Invest in a copier that acts as a scanner and will send scanned documents to your email as PDF files. Or, you can get copiers that will scan documents and place them in specified folders on your network server. Our copier is capable of scanning any document, and with the press of button, you can send it to your email account. When I receive a document of importance in the mail, I scan and then file it electronically. To facilitate your paperless office, find the hardware that allows cut down on your need to store paper copies. A copier that scans and then sends the document to you will do just that.
• Keep your computer file system simple; only use a handful of folders, the less the better. Many use conventional wisdom and start creating folder after folder on their desktop computers to file e-documents as they come in or are created. The problem with such file systems is two-fold. First, it takes time to ponder which folder in which you should place the created or received file. And then it takes time to remember which folder you put it when needed later. Instead multple folders, create one called “Working Docs” and another called “Docs Archive.” When working on that presentation next week, keep it in the “Working Docs” folder so you can access it quickly. If you are finished with a document or just are keeping an e-copy, dump it into your Docs Archive. One thing people seem to forget is that a computer is FULLY SEARCHABLE so finding a  file is a snap. Of course you have to put a little thought in what you name your files to begin with, but I bet you five dollars I could find my copy of last month’s principal’s meeting before you can!
• When you receive a physical document in the mail that is important, always scan and then shred it. Walk in to any administrator’s office and I bet there’s a stack somewhere. In that stack are things received in the mail that are awaiting their fate, either filing in a folder or in the trashcan. I will confess that I have one of those stacks too, but I bet mine is smaller, and I use the “scan and shred” method for physical documents I receive to keep that pile in line. While sorting the mail, I immediately make a determination: doc-to-be-archived or junk. It is that simple. I handle mail only once. Docs-to-be-archived go into to pile which goes to my copier-scanner then the shredder. This keeps the paper pile at bay in my office, and immediately gets those documents into my Docs Archive, which I described in the above bullet.
• Insist that others send you documents either as email attachments or share it with you as a Google Doc. I repeat constantly to everyone who will hear: “Just send it to me as an attachment.” Or I tell them, “Create your schedule on a Google Doc and just share it with me.” The rationale here is to get others to utilize the tools that will minimize the paper coming into my office. Most happily assist me. Those who don’t? I just keep encouraging them.
• Create a simple email sorting system and avoid using multiple email folders. Keeping a simple sorting and filing system in email will also affect the paper load coming through the office too. I use a two-folder system in my email similar to that I use for my desktop. I create two email folders in my Gmail. One is called “Follow-Up” and the other is “Hold.” By using these folders and my email processing procedure, I always have an empty “Inbox” at the end of the day. I usually conduct two or three main email processing sessions a day. The first step in this processing is to read each email and immediately decide whether a) it requires action from me, b) it is information I will need in the next several days, c) it is informational, or d) it is spam or junk. If an email  requires action from me, I put it in the “Follow-Up” folder. If it is information needed in the short term, I put it in the “Hold” folder. If it is general information I  hit the “Archive” button, which automatically places it in my archive. If it is junk or spam, I hit delete. At the end of each session, my Inbox is empty. Later, I go back through the Follow Up folder and take care of each item there or add it to my “To-Do List.” Once an item in my Follow Up folder is done, I archive it. The goal is to only handle an email once or twice.

School leaders can set the example for everyone else in efforts to cut back on paper usage by employing the technological tools and the processes/procedures that help reduce both the need for paper documents and for  the file cabinets to store them.