Summa, Summa, Summa Time...

Yesterday blew my mind a little bit.

I found the conversation with the former MACers really interesting.  I think its great to be able to "pick the brains" of people that have been where we are, and are where we want to go.  I had never heard of IB schools before, so it was REALLY interesting to hear about that, and to jot that down as something to go back and look at (and then, I read one of the articles that Charlie sent us, and it looks like there may be one opening in Ypsi in Fall 2011... perfect timing!)

I learned a lot about new technologies that I think are really applicable both from the former MACers and our further discussion.  I think wallwishers.com is a GREAT  resource and I cant wait to use it.  Dialogue about clickers like quizdoms was enlightening, and after jotting down a few notes of things to check out when I am teaching, I was worried I wouldnt keep up on that list and remember to check it. So, I made a word document. But then I thought, what if I think of an idea and im not on MY computer? So I made a google doc. I love google docs (and have for a while... just ask my group for our reform project!)

Our discussion on the reading about students being over connected was great.  I loved that people made themselves vulnerable and shared their opinions.  I think it is a thin line of when it is rude and when it isnt, who you're with, and what you're doing. Yesterday I was with my friend Sarah -- when we were shopping in Target, it was ok to reply to a text (after mentioning to her our class conversation, and sharing a laugh.) but later, when we were having a serious conversation, i ignored calls and text messages, because it would have been inappropriate to read them given the tempo of our conversation.  I thought Joe brought up an interesting point about etiquette - and I think that is something that, at the very least, you define for your classroom. I think that's needed and appropriate.

And in this, my last blog post (potentially?) I bid you farewell, and wish you a great August. See you the 31st!

Grace&Peace,
Emily

Race to the Top (of the Top.)

This week, I decided to switch up the edublog I wanted to read. I had been following www.socratechseminars.wordpress.com, and had learned some valuable stuff about integrating Technology into the classroom in new (and easy) ways.  It was the site I did my "test" podcast about.

But, I was feeling a bit "technology-ed out" as far as my reading went, so I decided to diversify myself and consult the list of edubloggers on the ED 504 wiki.  I searched the descriptions of each blog for something to peak my interested, but eventually ended up deciding to just start from the top and head to the bottom. Luckily, I didnt have to go far (or, at all) down the list because the ASCD Community blog was the first one I chose to explore and I felt the need to explore no more.  I have only begun to poke around the site, but I am already taking a strong liking to the ease of navigation, other suggestions of blogs, and diversity of post topics (I even found another blog to follow because of an entry on this blog).  I had read a post or two the other day, but when I consulted the site today to find a topic for this post, the entry for today was of particular interest.


I will admit that I am not super well versed or knowledgeable about the Race to the Top competition, beyond what we have discussed in our MAC courses. (As an aside, since my decision to apply and the application/entry process into our program was a rather quick process to me, I wouldnt proport that current events regarding education [outside of the urban setting and its inequality] perked my ears often previously. Now, I feel like I hear about it a lot on the news, and when Brian Williams mentioned it yesterday and the finalists for round 2, I was excited to know what he was talking about and went to investigate who made the cut.) What I do know from reading this blog post, reviewing the list of round 2 candidates, and interacting with the interactive map (i used it exactly for its purpose) I am curious as to

• what were the qualifications  to make it to round 2?
• who decided which states made it?(seriously... specifically - who? and, where they elected? and, who were their campaign contributors? and, are they up for re-election soon?)
• some specifics of why those that didnt make it... didnt make it
• why some states didnt apply
• if there are limitations on how the money can be spent after it is given to states
• what kind of follow up there will be with how states spend and what is improved

And yes -- I realize I should look all these things up. And, I will. hold on. (hold on longer because its taking a long time to load, I predict a lot of people are on the page.)

What I found out:

• 50% of the funding that states receive has mandated locations for disbursement, while they have "considerable flexibility" with the rest of it
• you can go to the Race to the Top website and get a list of all the applications, access the applications, access the scores they were given, and access the comments by the person that reviewed and scored the plan
• I briefly looked at Michigan's, which only got 11/30 on an evaluation piece about increasing achievement and closing gaps
• there are maximum amounts states could request in their proposal, listed in a table, presumably by population

Even though they posted what scores states got which could be indicative of if they got passed on to phase 2 or not, I dont think that it was only based on the scores.  And, why did some states (Texas, Utah, North Dakota, Mississippi) not apply? I have a friend who is going to teach in the Mississippi Delta with Teach for America.  When I applied to TFA, they expressed there was a significant need in this region of the country. So... why arent Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama in the running? I dont profess to know much (anything) about their economies or education systems, but intuitively they seem like placed that have a need. Oh, and Michigan. But perhaps that just because I am bias.

Another concerning part of this report to me was Arne Duncan's quote "Nothing moves people as quickly as the need for more funding." True, but this doesnt sit well with me (nor does, for that matter, the title of the fund itself.) Through all of our many discussions about standardizations, standardized tests, leveling the playing field, achievement gaps, legislation, space-based education (wait, what?) I cant help but think that this whole contest is in some way rigged, and is in all ways not encouraging the kind of progress we want and need.

I remember talking about this in Ed Foundations, and the idea that even if a state isnt chosen to receive funding, this creates an opportunity for states to create radical reform for their state and potentially turn around its educational policies and find success in new ideas.  But that begs the question, how are these new plans developed? Who is developing them? How are they paying the developers? (because I doubt people are making these plans out of the goodness of their hearts, or that actual educators are involved in the process at all... just a hunch.) The states that have money to pay innovators of policy are likely (in my mind) going to be the ones that have great plans and a piece of the pie.

But what about the states that dont? What about the states that create great plans but still dont get money. They have likely developed a plan that has potential, didnt receive federal funding, and cant implement the plan without that funding. Back to the same place we started.


 I have rambled on far beyond what I intended, and exceeded by far the length and scope of the actual article (which, I appreciated, was quite neutral). But in the end... my reflection lies in the idea that education, and money for it, shouldnt be something that states compete over and that results in winners or losers. Because its not the governor that proposed the plan that is losing.  Its the students that are getting screwed.

Oh, and their racing to lose.

breaking up is hard to do.

I wonder if I am the only one who felt a bit ... I don't know... self conscious while reading this chapter. Too much of this hit too close to home... and I feel like I need to update my status about it.


That was actually the first thing I thought of as I started reading -- how I had just updated my status about a number of friends moving to places that start with 'S' (Singapore, Seattle, San Francisco) And I thought.... truly, why does anyone care? And then the friend that moved to San Fran commented on it... and I felt justified.

What is that? Who really give a crap about what I think? What is potentially more disgusting is that I gave up Facebook for lent.  It was an exercise in faith and will power for me, and resulted in a few weeks (during lent and after) of being less addicted to FB. But, much to my dismay, I'm back to where I am. What is this need for connection? And now, we have to be more connected with twitter and blogging (which, apparently, we are in the minority since over half of bloggers are teens.)

I simultaneously resonate with this and hate that I resonate with it. Why do we need to be so connected? What is the yearning to know what everyone is doing, all the time? That has always been my reasoning for resisting the (now even sexier) iPhone. I just DONT need to be that connected (plus, I'm poor. Thats actually probably more of the reason.) The discussion on multitasking was super interesting. While I am currently only using one media, I have 2 other tabs open, and my phone is sitting right next to me, poised and ready for any text message that could come my way that I couldnt POSSIBLY wait 5 minutes before reading and replying.  We are to the extent that we need to create a law to prohibit texting and driving; connectedness has trumped safety. How did we let ourselves get this way?

How are we perpetuating the continued "partial" attention paying? Case and point -- how many blogs did you read last week about people who were distracted during the podcast with Buffy? We are over stimulated. We have too many options.

One thing that did puzzle me, however, was the statement in the conclusion that seemed to have a negative connotation: "For teens, life online in an extension of real life."

I dont know that I necessarily see that as a bad thing, except for where over sharing and safety is concerned.  I think its almost better to be the same person in real life extended into digital life, rather than kids creating a persona online -- perhaps, the person they want to be.  Im not sure. more thought must go into that.

In a fit of passion and disgust, i just went and deactivated my facebook account.
it only took 10 minutes to go reactivate it.
i am going to re-try my status embargo i had a few weeks ago.

we'll see how it goes.

my disgust -- I might say the fact that I am sick and tired of my over connectedness - has led me to share this gem with you -- one of my favorite poems by one of my favorite poets, Shihan. I respect Shihan a lot, especially after I saw him live, because he mixes a lot of funny with a LOT of real, and plays on words I never imagined. A few choice words are said for those that might be offended, but I dont think they take away from the overall meaning of this piece.

Gee + Podcasts.... a reflection.

I walked out of class frustrated yesterday. and the frustration had many factors:

• it was excessively humid
• my shoes had given me a blister
• i thought i was going to be late for the bus
• i had to do my podcast 8 times because i was OCD about background noise and flubbing my words
• i came into the last part of class late (shout out to Scotty for the chair... thanks Sport)
• i have tried to use google reader before and havent liked it, so I was not super psyched about learning how to use it.

whew. I feel better.

The podcasting was more troublesome than I thought it would be.  Once I figured out how to load the music, it was better but it was still an interestingly complicated process. On the other hand, I am excited for how I can use this in a classroom, and really appreciated the points Kristen brought up about how to use the podcasts in different ways, both as a consumer and a creator.

I appreciated our conversation in Jeff's class. I really feel like he calls us to think higher order...ly? The discussion on the symbol story was really interesting to me because I felt like I just did it sort of automatically... but in the discussion, realized how much thought and prior knowledge really went into it. 

Google reader... im still on the fence. to some extent I feel like I enjoy going to an actual blog and reading it there -- seeing the lay out of their site, poking around, etc. Its almost like having a newspaper vs. online news in a way; I feel like I have the "real thing" when I visit a blog, vs the amended (as it, not as visually appealing) version on reader.  While I see the usefulness if you are reading a bunch of blogs or have your twitter tied to it, for my needs right now, I'm not sure its vital.

Grace&Peace,
Emily

justin timberlake and james paul mcgee

hmmm.
im surprised at how much I didn't like this man or his thoughts.  I thought I would be quite open minded, and jump on board and we could go ahead and bring games into the classroom.... mr gee probably even thought we could bring sexy back together. but, then i read and found the following that i have a problem with, to one extent or another

• Players are thereby encouraged to take risks, explore, and try new things. In fact, in a game, failure is a good thing. Facing a boss, the player uses initial failures as ways to find the boss’s pattern and to gain feedback about the progress being made. School too often allows much less space for risk, exploration, and failure.
• I read this and think of how this doesn't work in the real world (or, perhaps, it shouldn't.) I don't think a good, practical skill is figuring out how to beat the boss. While I concede that assessment provides feedback on how to beat the "boss" that might be a class's curriculum, the idea he discusses of being able to read directions immediately before a task, go try the task, and then go back and read the directions again isn't realistic.  Should more opportunities for risk and exploration without the fear of consequence be worked into the learning experience? Yes. But there also needs to be communication that trial and error and going back to read the directions after you've already tried isn't always effective, and might cost you a job.
• Games almost always give verbal information either “just in time”—that is, right when players need and can use it—or “on demand”, that is, when the player feels a need for it, wants it, is ready for it, and can make good use of it. Information should work the same way in school.
• My initial response is to just say "no." Some instruction and information this way -- ok. But all? What does that teach about the learning process, about retention of knowledge, about real life? We aren't spoon fed what we need to know right when we need to know it -- it is often a painstaking process of recollection and work to arrive at the knowledge of what to do and when to do it.

The video made me calm down a bit, and realize a bit more about what he was saying. Passages like this (in the PDF) enforced taking a "chill pill":

• You have to inhabit the identity the game offers (be it Battle Mage or field biologist) and you have to play by the rules. You have to discover what the rules are and how they can best be leveraged to accomplish goals.  
• Yes. learn the rules -- figure out how to use them to help you. Rules are not just preventative or forms of limitation. I think the most important part of this is the DISCOVERY of the rules -- not just being taught them.
• Players help “write” the worlds they live in—in school, they should help “write” the domain and the curriculum they study
• This speak to the Wiggins reading for 511; spurring students to ask questions and deepen their interest and understanding.  In this way, students are writing their world, and their curriculum because of what they are interested in and what they want to know more about, because of their critical engagement with the content rather than just passively accepting it.

Some points in the video that I liked were when Gee pointed out that the group should be smarter than the smartest person in the group.  I think this is so important, and calls on groups to be mutually engaged and for every member to be active in contributing to the whole.  I also resonated with the idea of a textbook being the instruction manual to the game, and that in order to solve a problem, you must first be engaged in the "game" and have a necessity to read the manual. That the text isn't just facts; it is full of tools used to understand the game. But -- how do we get kids engaged in the subject so they WANT to read the manual?


So... in the end....

bring sexy back? yes. need to be convinced that video games in the classroom are the way to do it? also yes.

Grace&Peace,
Emily

In a lose connection, i post this video of Tracy Morgan because I have seen a lot of video of him being drunk on late night talk shows. He takes his shirt off, and I have to believe he has at one point stated he is bringing sexy back. This video is unrelated to that but... there is your bridge.





"we are a racist country, the end!" - Tracy Morgan

july sixteenth, two thousand and ten.

Class on Friday got a mix of reflections from the Emily corner.

I felt the student run conversation was great; I think people truly said what they wanted to say, and comments led to a productive and insightful conversation.  I was unsure how the "changing of the guards" as it were would go, but I thought when people wanted to switch speakers it went relatively well.  One thing I did observe, however, was that when someone else stood up to take a turn leading discussion/asking a question, I felt the person that already had the floor ended their conversation prematurely. I think this reflects a real classroom environment, though (since it was, in fact, a real classroom environment...) because as teachers we have to decide when a conversation stops furthering knowledge and being productive, and when to switch topics.

The twitter and webinar portions of class were, i felt, more distracting than helpful.  Once people made twitter accounts, attention was paid more toward finding other people to follow and what background to choose than to the class discussion going on. (Hi, I'm the pot, and you kettle, are black.)  The webinar didnt go as planned (at least, I dont think) and the technology issues that we did have distracted me and caused me to become even more distant from the conversation.  I wasnt engaging with the discussion well, and I wonder if that would have been different had I been able to personally interact in the conversation. Yet, on that note, I dont really know why there were so many people in the webinar.  Kristin + Jeff clearly talked about the bandwith capabilities of the webinar, yet, there were way more people involved than there were tables.  This obviously negatively contributed to our easy of listening to the webinar, and even when Kristin asked people to get off... most either didnt, or got off and got back on.  I think its just an interesting and telling piece to what my classroom may look like -- explicit, pointed instructions are necessary or things wont work right. And, in the end, some people just wont listen to you anyways.

Grace&Peace,
Emily

Twitter and Blogs and Wordpress, oh my!

** as an aside, if you are not overly concerned with who posts what as comments on your posts, you can turn the security feature off. i am doing that, because i hate typing in the words for verification.**

Twitter has no point.

Well, thats why I had a twitter... got sucked in... and then removed it from my bookmark toolbar and signed out for the last time about 3 months ago. some of my tweets have included:

march 17th: everybody that seen the leprechaun say hey! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

march 9th: #RIPLaylaGrace @LaylaGrace (she was a little girl i stumbled upon that died at age 3 from a rare cancer. her mom has now started a foundation to research the cancer Layla died from.)

february 19th: i want to check facebook.  (i gave it up for lent.)

november 7th(09): here we go, blue!! #allin 

all the other ones I couldn't repeat because they were similar, but MORE ridiculous.  I got on twitter because Ashton Kutcher was racing CNN to see who could get 1,000,000 followers first. I followed Ashton... but, because of my allegiance to CNN, canceled my own vote by following CNN also. 

I quit twitter because I felt like it was a waste of my time.  But, after reading the possibilities in "Enhance Your Twitter Experience" I am seeing how it can be made not pointless (.... provided you follow less than 5 celebrities.)

I didnt know about twitter lists, and I found this to be a helpful link to other related topics, if you find the correct link.  The social networking aspect is I think its best asset (...and purpose) and I love the idea of being able to follow silently or chime in. I HATED the big box about twerminology... Its going to far, twitter. Too far. 

In "No, Never Alone" I loved the idea of learning together, and allowing Twitter to aid in that. The exchanges and affirmation that can happen through following different people, hash tags, and exploring (ok... stalking) new people are pretty incredible.  I love the idea of partnering with people around the country and around the world, and allowing people to use their talents in new ways and new places. 

I poked around the two blogs a bit, and felt the final paragraph of Sessums post about cheating was significant:

  In the end, what you assess is what you get. To improve student performance we must first acknowledge that essential intellectual abilities are not accurately reflected through conventional testing, and second, move toward more authentic systems of assessment that more meaningfully measure and represent student and teacher abilities.

We've talked about this in class, and I think its quite interesting in the original context of online course taking/test cheating.  I think intrinsically, every student wants to achieve.  Some will do that by "any means necessary," for a variety of motivations. I feel like I completely agree with the statement "what you assess is what you get." Scantrons have a purpose, but that is not to advance learning or comprehension.  I hope that this is something I will remember in my practice as I try to engage students and develop assessments that test what I actually want to know... and that I'm not teaching at a grade where I have to teach to the looming MEAP.

I poked around Buffy's wordpress and found an article that was written about her media center.  I was really intrigued by the format of it and how much students have "caught" it.  I think the use of cell phones in the media center (or traditional classroom) is interesting and has the potential for a big effect, yet, I still dont know to what extent you trust students with new forms of technology that seem to, at least in a way, set them up for distraction and/or failure.

Grace&Peace,
ebg


PS: No, I will not tell you my current twitter name. Yes, I will make a new one for class.

PPS: In an attempt to make my videos (which I dont think anyone watches) relevant to class, I have decided to step out on a limb and share something that I love, love, love so much. Spoken Word poetry.  In my sophomore year race&ethnicity class, my GSI shared this video about 9/11 with our class.  That night I must have watched dozens of other videos from def poetry, and recently discovered this one, which I think has relevance to discussion of parental participation in education and the trivial things we focus on in life. [disclaimer: some explicit language.]






to clarify, I dont think Fresh Prince is stupid.  Pretty much everything else I agree with.