I work with lots of school districts but wondering for those who see value in new technologies and ideas, open content and more, why do you believe districts and schools move so slowly in such a time of transformational change around their students?
Mike, I thank you for your thoughtful response and I'm writing a small white paper on this very topic and it is always helpful to receive other people's feedback and perspective. ..One key point you have highlighted is that learning/ teachers are more relevant today than ever before which is so true and critical. You are also right that almost all my superintendents are past 50 as are many of the teachers I work with...I also think many schools invested in "technology" expecting much greater results and have since in the past decade steered away from any new creative approaches using technology.
Thank you for insightful anwers to the questions. Let me answer them from my perspective. I tend to agree with the teachers that their work products belong to them individually in lieu of no legal decision under contract. This seems reasonable to me since lesson plans and grading are often done outside of contract hours. Further at issue is that in today's culture, ownership is important. If a teacher shares lesson plans and they are then sold to someone who publishes them, the teacher is deprived of the income from her work products. As you say, this is an issue that should be decided legally, and perhaps the colleges can lead the way.
It is less teachers who are data driven, than the politicians who hold the pursestrings. During the past eight years, school districts were often denied federal monies unless the methods they used could be shown to be "data driven". You are putting the blame on the wrong entities. Talk to Arne Duncan and get him to loosen those purse strings!
What it says, that teachers and all of their generations were produced by a "failed" system, is that all the productivity and success that have been produced by these "failures" are sure-fire proof that those systems didn't "fail" after all. Or at least, that there are many who were successful in spite of the "failed" systems. In short, using the excuse that teachers are products of a "failed" system, proved that the system was not a "failure". But, the new system you are advocating COULD BE a failure. We don't know yet.
Teachers are trained to teach. Technology is to teaching as it is to other fields, merely a tool that is used to reach the goal. Five years ago, Virginia drew a line in the sand. They set technology knowledge standards that teachers had to meet in order to continue teaching. Teachers had to learn to do email, use a word processors, presentation software, a spreadsheet and a database. They were not required to learn how to make a webpage from html because being able to use a word processor means one can use the software to create a webpage. Any teacher teaching in Virginia has met those qualifications or they are no longer licensed to teach here. Now, what more "training" would you like teachers to have?
As for your criticism of "expert mode", that is the expectation of society for all teachers whether at K12 level or college. In fact, it is the "mode" adopted by almost any professional. Would you go to a doctor who did not project the confidence that he knew how to make you better? Doctors have the option of not admitting their "non-expertness" by sending you to a specialist when you are out of their range. Until the adoption of internet-ready computers available in the classroom, there was often no one else for a teacher to refer a student to who asked a question outside of their expertise. If there was a decent library and a good librarian in the building, that was an option. I've known far more teachers who looked up questions from students that they were stumped on than who brushed children aside, unless the child had developed a pattern of asking irrelevent questions in the past.
As for me, I'm still waiting for the promise of individualizing education to come back in vogue again. Twenty years ago, it was the great and promising new idea on the horizon. Those advocating change and complaining about past "failures" do not even mention tailoring instruction to the students needs and strengths. I suspect that in twenty years, you will still be defending your "new" ideas while the bright-eyed bushy-tails will be pointing out your "failures" and advocating something new. Maybe I'll hang around long enough to see individualized education come to the forefront again. Maybe not.
I am sorry you want to make points and then not defend them when they are challenged. You are like the student who insists they should get an A on the paper because they always get A's on their papers.
Generalizations are always an invitation to dispute. (and that is itself a generalization).
You take correction poorly. You have contended that teachers are not trained in technology, and I pointed out that in at least one state, there is clear and definite evidence that the teachers are knowledgeable. You did not know that. Now you want to belittle the fact by asserting that Virginia is only one of the states. You did not bother to check your assumption that "teachers are not trained in technology", you just continue with your beliefs in spite of evidence that they may well be incorrect.
So, OK, you want to persist in your ignorance and prefer to label any challenge as "bullying". That is your perogative. But, please do not expect me to "roll over and play dead" because you want to change the playground rules to suit yourself. Instead of sitting pat on your assumption that schools of ed are not properly preparing teachers to use technology, why not design a questionnaire and send it to all schools of education, and compile the results. You may be very surprised by the results. You may even (gasp!) have to stop making foolish assertions.
When someone says they "aren't sure" if something is true, it conveys an impression that the believe it is not and should be. Otherwise, why even make the statement. Perhaps it is a ego trip to post when you have nothing to say.
I do not appreciate your making the accusation that my actions to defend classroom teachers are "unprofessional". If anything, your excuses for attacking those who have dedicated their lives and more to teaching children, is most unprofessional, as was the original statement that aroused my indignation that "classrooms have not changed in 30 years".
As for "Creative Commons" it is, so far, a big nothing. A shell of an idea with no content. But a huge financial goal soliciting donations with absolutely no statement of how the donations will be used. Looks like a big scam to separate people and their money!
And you call ME unprofessional for exposing your scam????
I think you proved my point very well. The Wiki products are not Creative Commons. The science video was nothing but an ad for the scam of having an unnecessary and useless license. See my comments under Software Reviews on this forum. As I said there is NO CONTENT for Creative Commons. Just lots of hopes, wishes and dreams.
By "separating the people from their money", I was referring to their donations scam on the website. According to the audited annual report, the company has minimal "expenses", loads of "assets", and puts the money into NOTHING!!!
And this is the "new idea" that teachers are supposed to buy into? What a barrel of cow patties! No wonder you are getting so few takers - anyone who looks will be able to see it's a fat man standing in his underwear....