The Curmudgeon Speaks

A change of pace – happy holiday to all. A photo from the forest trail near our second home.

There are plenty of technology legends. Sometimes legends are self proclaimed and sometimes status is achieved through deeds.

I think my wife falls into the second category. This has been the case since the mid-80s, but sometimes being experienced can be held against you. Being female and “older” could lead to some false assumptions. In appreciating talent, it is often better to watch than listen.

We arrived at the cabin for a holiday break and found that our television would not work. It seemed likely that the problem was the large accumulation of snow that buried the  dish on our roof. Cindy is more social than I so she called the provider to ask for a suggestion. I am guessing that the support person in Florida could not fully appreciate the nature of the problem, but evidently you cannot get a technician to evaluate your situation until it is clear that some sort of obstacle is not the problem. Snow is an obstacle. The fact that the dish is on a pitched roof 2 1/2 stories above the ground is evidently great for reception, but not access and maintenance.

I would have been comfortable exploring “cord cutting” until one of my kids made his/her way to the lake. Cindy had shows to watch.

What to do when a ladder cannot reach? Climb through one of the windows in the loft (I would not fit) and fix the problem.

Sure enough, the television works. I think I would have crawled back inside at this point and had a cup of coffee.

Cindy decided the view was pretty nice and had me get her iPhone so she could create a panorama. A Christmas card picture for you.

Somewhere along the way I picked up a concept I continue to find useful and I am certain quite likely annoys others. It concerns recognition of those who are “the talent”. I think this is a phrase I first heard my son use. He works in video and the phrase refers to the actors/people who are in front of the camera rather than the people who are behind the camera. What I like about the phrase is that it identifies those who in the final analysis make something work. All contribute, but some support and some must deliver.

I thought it was an important perspective while I worked as an administrator and I think it is an important perspective in the work I do now developing and supporting the skills teachers rely on in engaging students with technology. Ideas have little value until put into practice.

Perhaps it is important to identify who is not “the talent”. Administrators are not the talent. Your “vision” (one of those words I hate) is only as good as the willingness and skills of those who actually do the work. Administrators are in a support role – find good people, find the resources they need, defend them when necessary, allow those who execute to be recognized for their accomplishments.

I think tech people need to take this same perspective. I do not care if you promote each other as rock stars or as one super hero or another. You too are support personnel. You are only successful when “the talent” executes.

The problem from my perspective is that those who must actually make ideas work are not in positions that are visible and find it difficult to self promote. Too often, those in support positions have better opportunities to promote themselves and each other. So, if you have time for promotion and believe it is necessary, perhaps it would be more productive to use some of this time and skills to promote “the talent”.

I must say that I am frustrated with the topics my education colleagues address via social media. They seem unaware or uncaring when it comes to major issues that shape and control the context within which education functions. I had such high hopes for social media because I thought it provided a vehicle for each of us to voice our perspectives on important issues. We seem to have the time to discuss a few topics with like minded individuals resulting in very little change in anyone. Don’t we have the time to attempt to use the tools for broader impact? Shouldn’t we attempt to model the notion that every citizen’s view matters for our students?

Let me explain this as a researcher might. If this were a regression equation accounting for educational outcomes, too many comment and discuss the variables that account for a trivial proportion of the variability in performance. Why debate whether direct instruction or project based learning works best when neither functions work well when children and their parents have no health care and a low income? Equity issues wash out most variables when included in our equation. The method of experiencing information matters little in comparison. This was Maslow’s basic contribution. He called certain sources of motivation deficiency needs.

Maybe your local context does not expose you to these very real problems. Educators need to be more aware of big issues even if they are not personally influenced. To me, educators need to model the importance of a broad perspective. Read a major newspaper once in a while. Know how your representatives vote and offer your reaction.

I am not discouraging your personal interests in technology. I am encouraging you to use it to address more issues that matter. I am not egotistical enough to assume my perspective on various issues must be correct, but I am willing to say that taking the time to make my perspective known is an important thing for me to do.

I may be too easily annoyed, but “insider speak” annoys me. Educators should know better than use unique terminology as part of their mission is to communicate with a broad audience. When they constantly refer to PD, SAMR, NAEP, and CCSS, I am guessing the commentary that follows has little impact on the general public.

However, maybe my attitude is functioning as a personal liability. You must set yourself apart to gain recognition. Perhaps I should try to create my own “in group” and see if I can generate an acronym that I can claim as a special insight.

[pause for 5 minutes of thinking time]

I have it. I call my new education model LOYO. I considered for a moment calling my model PPD, as in personal professional development,  but decided that I am a fan of the vowel. LOYO encourages individualization, personalization, and differentiation. These must be really good things because I keep reading that these are important processes. LOYO is Learning On Your Own. Because I am a tech guy, I will first emphasize a unique version of LOYO that will hence be referred to as OLOYO (online learning on your own).

For those of you interested in becoming OLOYOs, you need to develop tools that feed you information for REFLECTION (another one of those insider terms). I kept thinking reflection was some kind of STEM term related to mirrors and physics, but it turns out after some OLOYO that it means thinking. See how well my model works for LOYO.

When engaged in LOYO via OLOYO, it is important to recognize that you are likely to have personal biases and these may limit the content you access for REFLECTION. To overcome this known bias, I recommend you both follow some folks who say things you find helpful (see Feedly) and also seek broader input in case your selection of experts runs to those I would refer to as a DOOFUS (not an acronym, but you can access a definition through Webster. To protect yourself from the DOOFUS effect, I recommend Google Alerts.

Follow this blog for further LOYO developments. Become a LOYO promoter. Become LOYO certified so you can add another honorary to your email signature block. You do not have to seek my approval or attend one of my workshops to secure this certification. In keeping with the spirit of LOYO, you are encouraged to certify yourself. I am working on some rubrics to guide your SE (self evaluation), but until I have another five minutes to develop the SE model and associated rubrics, you are on your own.

I swore I would take a break from commenting on politics. I need to take a more positive view of life. I do not want others to think I am a negative person. I need to spend my time commenting on matters of educational relevance.

Never mind, I have decided I am what I am (popeye said that) and true happiness can only be achieved by being true to yourself (I said that, but other folks probably did too.).

Let me, as an educator, start with something I am supposed to understand. Educators are now responsible for the development of 21st century skills including the improvement of higher order thinking. Sound good so far? This has always been the case, but indicating we are in the 21st century makes it sound more immediately relevant.

Anyway, one the essential 21st century skills is critical thinking. Most folks could not offer a definition, but I can. Just the word critical should be enough for you to understand how important this must be. Why get excited about uncritical thinking? Anyway, critical thinking is deemed of special significance because access to information is no longer an issue. While Walter Cronkrite is gone we do have Fox News and other sources unwilling to commit to offering a no spin zone. There is plenty of information at our  finger tips. The problem with the wealth of sources is that it is possible to find about any opinion on any topic. The existence of opposite views should be a concern. Logic should allow the conclusion that not every position taken is accurate or appropriate. We must be able to identify our own biases and the biases of those offering us opinions.

So, if you are interested in educational technology, you quickly encounter the challenge of critical thinking in the context of information literacy. How do you prepare future citizens to evaluate the content they encounter online? We have lists of suggestions readers should learn to take into consideration. The first item on the list is always the same. Who said what you are considering? What are the credentials of that person and what might be the motives of the person? If you cannot identify the source, you really should move on.

Nothing political so far. Just wait.

This morning I opened up my news reader and I found this article. Senator Cruz (yep – the pretend filibuster guy) is opposing the nomination of Tom Wheeler as FCC chair. I know paying attention to who is the FCC chair seems a little strange, but I pay attention because the FCC plays a role in setting Internet policies for schools.

So, Senator Cruz has a concern and this seems to be that (according to the Washington Post):

he “blocked the confirmation of Tom Wheeler as chairman of the FCC, saying he wanted greater assurance from President Obama’s nominee that the agency wouldn’t require more funding disclosures for political TV ads. Cruz has said that such free speech should be protected.”

“Yes, the Senator is holding the nominee until he gets answers to his questions regarding Mr. Wheeler’s views on whether the FCC has the authority or intent to implement the requirements of the failed Congressional DISCLOSE Act,” Cruz’s spokesman Sean Rushton said in a statement.

It is important that this abstracted content be read carefully. Our assumptions may lead to miscomprehension. The key phrase reads “wanted greater assurance from President Obama’s nominee that the agency wouldn’t require more funding disclosures …”.

[The DISCLOSE act]

So Cruz is concerned with first amendment rights. So am I – I think. Anyway, my understanding of these deep political issues is possibly flawed so I decided to consult wikipedia:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

So, unless I am missing something requiring a law degree, the free speech comment in the first amendment is about your right to take a public stand. It is not about whether or not you should have to own up to the stand you take. Do you read this in a different way? Find your civics book if you must.

I do understand why political candidates might want to hide the sources responsible for their funds. However, for the public to evaluate the information generated by these sources, they really do need to know the source for the information. This is what we teach you in middle school. Why would you want to prevent critical thinking?