Ableism... What Teachers Say and Think Matter

Ableism - NCCJ. (n.d.). Www.nccj.org. https://www.nccj.org/ableism

a·ble·ism

/ˈābəˌlizəm/

noun

1. discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

There are few, if any, topics in education that impact our ability to serve students in optimized, effective, and appropriate ways than that of ableism. Ableism is the intentional or unintentional discrimination or oppression of individuals with disabilities. (Ableism - NCCJ, n.d.) 

Reading the definition of ableism above elicits thoughts of "why would anyone involved teaching discriminate or oppress already marginalized students?" It's a harsh definition describing an illogical occurrence, but nonetheless, one that happens quite routinely if we're being honest with ourselves. 

(whatisableism)

Professional Development?

flickr CC image via mikecogh

I've been grappling with the concept of professional development. Teachers tend to refer to any workshop, seminar or in-service as professional development, but I'm not sure about this.

Undoubtedly there are many valuable and purposeful workshops, seminars and in-services for teachers across many teaching and learning contexts. Teachers can be trained to do a number of specific things quite efficiently and adequately that enhance their skills as a teacher, but I don't call that professional development. I call it professional training. When we train as professionals, we learn how to do something, not why we do it, what philosophical rationale is behind it or what makes it a pedagogically sound practice. We learn new strategies so we can do our job. There is usefulness in all of this. There are loads of valuable predetermined teaching tools and resources that come with an already established set of instructions; sort of a paint-by-numbers situation. When we learn how to use these we aren't really developing anything, however. To develop as professionals means to engage in a quite different process.

I was a closet optimist...

Flickr photo via KungPaoCajun

 I am grateful for those who set me straight on why we can't get things done.

Their wisdom informs me that we must see the negative side of issues before the positive.

I've learned not to think too much to avoid possibility.      

The pessimism they share keeps me from taking risks that lead down unfamiliar paths.

After all, learning and living should be safe and predictable. Cognitive dissonance makes people feel uncomfortable so we shouldn't cram too many conflicting ideas into our heads.

We don't want to think differently; we just need to stay our course- no extras.

Things are way too intangible outside the box.

21st Century? Let's Just Call it Contemporary Teaching and Learning...

I don't write a lot about technology in education, but it is a prominent aspect of my professional development. I learned some years ago that the best way to learn in the context of professional development is to do the background work required to provide professional development for others. I did just that at the recent Alberta Technology Leaders in Education Conference (ATLE) 2010 in November. It's hard to believe I hadn't heard about this conference, and right in my backyard. Anyway, when I did hear about it via Twitter, I jumped at the opportunity to propose a session- Insights on Initiating a Technology Integration Game Plan from the Ground-Up.

My session was very-well attended and I was pleased with the dialog that it generated. I formatted my presentation in the form of a workspace; a style I'm using more and more often. I appreciate the collaborative element work spaces provide, and I think of this sort of presentation as an "open source" offering... when I'm done with my rant, those who attended can do whatever they want with it. The link is theirs to use however they want. They can even do the presentation themselves if that's what works for them. I'm learning that to be truly collaborative, (and my experience at ATLE 2010 confirmed this for me once again,) I have to let go of what I believe is a natural tendency of teachers to protect "their" stuff. If what I have to say helps a colleague advance their practice, I encourage them to leverage my message in their own way for their own purpose.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend much of the rest of the conference as a result of other responsibilities and commitments, so my learning was limited to what I discovered while preparing my presentation. My school is on a technology integration learning curve funded through the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI). Near half-way through our technology integration action research project, we've learned a great deal as a staff, and I've learned a tremendous amount personally as a leader within the project, mostly by making mistakes.

One of my larger epiphanies has surrounded the term 21st Century Learning. I'm not fond of this term. I have thought about this a great deal, and I've come to the conclusion that contemporary kids don't need to be told they are learning in the 21st Century... they just are. To me learning in the 21st Century, when boiled down to a core element is really just about change; not change as in a desired change of state from what is not good to what is, but rather change as a constant. This is how I've learned to frame change in contemporary teaching and learning. The world is shrinking and growing at the same time. This bit of irony continues to fascinate me. Technology creates accessibility among people around the globe, connecting them in affordable and efficient ways never before possible; our world is shrinking. At the same time, these networks and connections allow us exposure to new cultures, ideas and knowledge previously inaccessible; our world is expanding. This is an awesome shift.

As I stood and spoke with my audience during ATLE 2010, it struck me that much of the professional development we do in education fits the "change as moving to a desired outcome or state" paradigm. My session was contextualized as a primer for building a technology integration plan from scratch, and when I asked participants where they were at on the tech integration spectrum, most indicated they  arrived at a place where technology integration was evident. There was one lady though who asked me before I started who the target audience was. I explained that my initial plan for the session was to provide some insights for colleagues who were just getting started, but as I worked to prepare the session in the weeks leading up to ATLE 2010, I realized that the process of change, (in this case, change in the way we approach and utilize technology in schools,) is perpetual. Authentic change doesn't end because once we get to the state we desire, it's time to change again; that's just the nature of change within contemporary teaching and learning.

I told the lady that my session was for anyone who had an open-mind and a willingness to think deeply about the role of technology in schools, and more importantly, how teachers should be continuously upgrading and refining their technology skills and perspectives. She stayed, and participated in the back channel too. She engaged, and that made me happy.

So in retrospect maybe I should have called my session "Approaching Technological Change in Contemporary Teaching and Learning" instead, because that's what it ended up being. Imagine that, my approach changed to fit the context of my learning and what I wanted to share with my colleagues... maybe I am becoming a contemporary teacher and learner.

Too much social, not enough media...

OK, I've been thinking about the value of online collaboration lately. For the record, I really, really like #edchat. In fact I am fond of chiming in at a number of Twitter-based online collaborations... #ecosys, #ptchat, #gtchat and more. I appreciate the professional value of these online networks relative to sharing ideas and furthering the improvement of anything to do with teaching and learning... but, there is an issue.

I've been using Twitter to build my cyber-PLN (personal learning network) since late last November, and I'm beginning to notice that occasionally the conversation surrounding teaching and learning becomes imbalanced; too much social and not enough media in social media. Let me explain the context...

'Social' for the purpose of relaying my point of view here will mean, "of the group." 'Media' in kind, will mean, "a means of communication." It's my impression at times when involved in Twitter chats that some people participate more for the social element of it than the media element; primarily to be part of the group. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing inherently damaging about socializing, but when the social environment and the seemingly overwhelming need for some to preserve it, hinders open and honest dialog about the issues being addressed, this means the scales have tipped to create an imbalance between socializing and communicating professionally. I see an increasingly prevalent level of groupthink out there in Twitterland, and it's bothering me a bit. Like Professional Learning Communities (PLC's... we love our acronyms don't we...) my understanding is that the most prominent element of a PLN needs to be learning. If learning isn't happening as the major element of our professional social media interaction, then it's just socializing; again, not inherently bad, but also not productive with regard to becoming a better teacher and learner.

I don't go to professional chats to socialize per se... I go to learn- that's the essence of professional development; the reason I think we all participate via Twitter in the first place- to develop ourselves professionally. Its like those who call going out for a refreshment with coworkers on a Friday after work "team-building"- this is fun for most, and I would even submit that you may get to know your co-workers better as a result, but in the context of team-building, there is no benefit... the function of the team is not strengthened by this activity, hence it's not team-building. If I'm going to involve myself in professional conversation using Twitter (and the group chats that occur there) as my conduit, then I am professionally responsible to do this intellectually and with purpose beyond simply belonging to a group of like-minded people. I love the original version of "Twelve Angry Men"... Henry Fonda's character, Mr. Davis is the only juror in a capital murder case to cast a not-guilty vote for the accused, and he sticks to his guns despite the intense groupthink efforts of the rest of the jury to sway him... a remarkable film broaching human nature in such a visceral way- highly recommended. We all need to be reminded of the Mr. Davis' of the world, and when we're feeling the peer pressure of any group to conform at the expense of our core beliefs just so we can continue to belong in that group, we need to step back and remember our responsibility to be true to ourselves, even if that means disagreeing with the direction the group is pulling us in. We need to think independently first if we are to make a meaningful contribution to any group.

As professionals who use Twitter as a conduit for collaborative idea jamming, we must avoid groupthink. I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me... I prefer conversations where agreement is a distant possibility because its dissonance that stretches people's thoughts, not conformity. Through the process of hashing about our theses and antithesis toward that distant possibility called synthesis, we grow ideas; we formulate potential and truly evolve understanding. Many profess to appreciate having their ideas stretched until someone disagrees with them; then their true nature is revealed through defensive lashing out at the contradictory person. We have to get past this tendency to take things personally and strive for a default position that takes an objective point of view toward dissonance; one that posits conceptual growth... the evolution of ideas is impossible without contradiction. Blindly accepting the ideas of any group/cohort/ movement/etc... is a recipe for stagnating ideology... dead-end thinking.

Teachers, lets act objectively and responsibly toward the sharing of ideas and professional collaboration. We can't grow our status as leaders of thought otherwise... we have to be true intellectuals; people who invite contradiction as challenge leading to deeper and fuller understanding... aka knowledge.

Feel free to disagree with me;o)

The Teaching "Profession?"

I read David Warlick's comments on teaching as a profession at his 2¢ Worth blog, and it conjured up a question I have struggled with ever since becoming a teacher... do I belong to a profession?

In David's post, "The Teaching Profession," he describes an ongoing conversation at Will Richardson’s Weblogg-ed blog pondering the question whether teaching is a profession. David states that,

Semi-profession might actually be generous. Much of the job, especially as addressed by NCLB, is more like being a technician, applying prescribed, researched, and government-approved techniques on students, based on high-precision measurements... I suspect that the term professional, has described teachers because they've earned a college degree, and years ago they were among the only people in many communities who were educated to that level.

It's true, teachers have been called professionals, and for all the right reasons; I agree that we are. I can't, however say that just because teachers act professionally, that we belong to a profession. Defining a profession is evidently not as easy as it sounds. Even the Wikipedia article on the subject is controversial. The article mentions its own factual accuracy as potentially questionable. The part of this article under dispute is about the vernacular vs. legally-accepted use of the term. So often in education we use terms that we don't seem to implicitly understand, and alas it appears, that referring to teachers en masse as a profession may be another one of those terms. I don't believe that acquiring a university degree automatically means a person is a professional.

 So, I think we need some context if the rest of this post is going anywhere. One thing I've noticed about other "professions" is the relative control and influence they have over their own ranks, and also their purpose for existing in the first place. I'm not sure that within this context I could confidently define teaching as a profession. Teachers as professionals don't enjoy much control or influence over their own practice, and they sure don't appear to have much control or influence over what they're expected to do and how they do it.

My friend Joe Bower wrote a great piece recently at his For the Love of Learning blog entitled Five Ways to Get Education Right. In the post Joe compares Seth Godin's perspective from his new book Small is the New Big, regarding five reasons why companies make mistakes and then do nothing to remedy them, with what he feels is wrong with education reform. I'm going to key on Godin's second reason- The people in the field aren't given the ability to influence management without appearing to be troublemakers. Joe correlates this reason with the ridiculous concepts within education of larger rewards (merit pay) for "good teachers," or that harsher punishments (mass firings) will induce poor teachers to be better. I'm not sure that's a straight across correlation, but I think there's another possibility. I think Godin's second example of a mistake the business world makes correlates well with the biggest mistake education makes, and the one I feel precludes professional teachers from membership in a true profession... a lack of control and influence from within our ranks. We don't control or influence our own people, and we don't control or influence our purpose... the autonomy true professions enjoy regarding these points is not shared by teachers.

In Canada doctors have their College of Physicians and Surgeons, lawyers have their Bar Association and engineers have their Association of Professional Engineers. Within these cohorts, accreditation is granted, and monitoring of purpose is a perpetual responsibility that defines each cohort as a profession; they control their own. Teachers belong to their associations too, but there are two critical differences. Firstly, I received my accreditation from the government Department of Education, not my professional association. Secondly, the monitoring of my professionalism is ultimately the responsibility of the same Department of Education... the Minister of Education signs my teaching certificate, and only the Minister of Education can take it away. The critical difference between the teaching cohort, and the professional cohorts that lawyers, doctors and engineers belong to, is the ability of the latter to have control and influence over their ranks, and control and influence over their purpose. Teachers don't have this same control and influence because for some reason, we are not trusted to act on them responsibly.

So it boils down to respect in my opinion. There is no better entity to direct the future of education than teachers, but the general consensus among non-teachers seems to be otherwise. Teachers need to lobby and advocate for this privilege. We need to display our professionalism and work much more closely with our associations to assert that more autonomy to do what is pedagogically sound, morally and ethically proper and professionally astute would allow teachers to be seen as the knowledgeable and responsible experts they know themselves to be.

Perhaps then we won't be a bunch of professionals without a profession anymore.

How About a Twittference?

I've been using Twitter as a professional tool for about three months now. Many of my colleagues don't understand when I tell them that using Twitter has been the most beneficial professional development experience I have had in sixteen years of teaching, and I am being totally sincere when I say that.

The connections I have made to intelligent and thoughtful people, the resources they use, the ideas they have and the stimulating dialog they offer have been unbelievable- all for free and in the simplest form of distributed learning I have experienced by far. So in the context of professional development, I've been wondering lately how this wonderful medium can be spread to include more teachers that have their own intellect, resources, ideas and conversations to share. I've been wondering too if there is a way to combine Twitter for educators with the the more traditional elements of teacher professional development conferences that people seem to remain comfortable with in our profession (face to face, keynote speakers, the social factor of networking, trade displays, etc.)

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy conferences and have spoken at many, but lately I'm concerned that big ideas and good messages that should stick, don't as a result of the drive through PD format that is so prevalent these days. One shot two or three hour mini-seminars leave many feeling overwhelmed and unsure where to go next with a concept before they trudge off to the next two or three hour mini-seminar. Many conferences have become so huge, with so many topics and conversations going on, that I fear that participants fail to see the trees for the forest. They get lost in the magnitude of the process at the expense of zoning in on a key bit of information that could lead to a long-term, sustainable change in the way they operate.

So here's my idea... what if the sharpness and 'get to the point' qualities of Twitter could be applied to a large scale conference? I see delegates being offered 'sessions' that would be, say fifteen minutes long (leaving lots of opportunity for in-between time to meet new people, build networks, reflect) on any number of topics, but that were organized like hashtags into broader sections (for example- assessment, technology, literature, behavior, etc.) for organizational purposes. Each fifteen minute session would include a condensed and specific introduction to the idea, topic, pedagogical idea or whatever, and once introduced, each topic could be extended and discussed via Twitter under the hashtag that corresponds to it.  Handouts would be limited to one page including a list of web links that the presenter wanted to include that correspond to the topic and could serve to extend the concept. It would be kind of like speed dating; quick and dirty, no frills and hopefully leading to a longer term connection via the extension of each topic on Twitter and through the web links each presenter would provide.

I'm thinking a cool way to introduce Twitter to delegates at this conference who aren't familiar with it would be to offer a keynote tutorial showing people the basics. For those who are familiar with Twitter, any number of extra keynotes could also be offered addressing other big picture education reform topics or inspirational messages (and I've met many via Twitter that could provide these messages.) In addition to the whole thing being planned on Twitter and marketed through the education tweeters network, I think restricting speaker proposals from those who already access Twitter would keep the project grounded in Twittilosophy. They would propose their session presentations via #Twittference2010. A small group of organizers and logistics specialists would take care of the schedule and location, and we're off!

What do you think?

Drive Through PD

flickr CC image via Robert Couse-Baker

Saying one-shot teacher professional development is a valuable and effective tool toward positive teacher growth is like saying drive through restaurants contribute to long-term health. Serious involvement and meaningful change take time and commitment, neither of which are elements of our profession's most popular form of professional development.

We need to seriously re-think how we do professional development for teachers. There is a pervasive tendency within our profession to add-on to an endless stream of the "latest and greatest" ideas pertaining to teacher growth and the provision of high-quality learning environments. We attend school, district and large (sometimes massive) scale professional development events, for the most part organized around a list of one to three hours sessions discussing (if you're lucky; if not you just sit and listen while a stream of Power Point slides flashes in front of you) virtually everything. There has to be a better way.

It seems to me that it's so easy to "add-on"... teachers are always looking for the latest trend, topic, resource, perspective, etc. to save them from the challenges they face in the classroom. The pendulum swings back and forth as we jump on, and off the bandwagon trail of teaching philosophies and "best practise" trends. I read dozens of comments via Twitter arriving in real time from the recent Association for Supervision and Curiculum Development Conference in San Antonio this past weekend mentioning the overwhelming volume of not-to-be-missed PD offered to delegates. People were saying things like, "I can't wait to put these ideas to good use," or "there's so much going on here, I don't know where to start." I'm not sure these comments are as encouraging as they first seem relative to the provision of authentic and sustainable professional development for teachers.

I must admit, as a presenter, I'm guilty of providing this drive-by style of teacher professional development. When I get my invitation to speak, the parameters regarding the room I'm assigned, the conference schedule, duration of my allotted time and the target audience are all elements that I have no control over. I simply do what fits, and strive to make the content engaging and provocative enough to make sure the participants in my session have a good experience. I try to do things outside the box as much as possible... I tell participants to leave their phones on, and feel free to use them (immediatley after the moderator asks them to please turn them off)... I insert as many interactive possibilities into my presentation as time allows (I have yet to leave a session I presented without having learned something from the session group)... and I try to present thoughts as opposed to knowledge.

Above all though, the most important point I need my session participants to understand is that I don't believe in the use it on Monday approach to teacher PD. There is nothing I can share with my colleagues in one, two or even three hours that has the capacity to change their immediate plans for their classroom. On the contrary, my goal as a PD facilitator is to plant a coneptual or philosophical seed that I encourage participants to continue exploring, and if it resonates with them, great... if not, that's OK too. I usually do alright with this approach; participants often tell me they're appreciative of the provocation.

I don't want to contribute to the never-ending supply of latest and greatest trends about how to do education better; I'm more of an ideas guy. I want to boil contemporary ideas about how to do education better down with the authentic, grassroots and timeless pedagogical ideologies we teachers prescribe to (but sometimes forget about amidst the fervor to find the latest and greatest) so old meets new in a thoughtful and critical manner. Why can't our conferences reflect this concept? Perhaps they can.

Any ideas?