Flat World or Vertical diVisions?

How relevant are the NETs for Teachers and Administrators to being a "Good Educator" today?

Inevitably, we need all learning facilitators and learning leaders to be proficient and fluent in the skills of the area of learning that they are expected to facilitate for others. There are research findings in the content area of math, for example, that show that for student learning to happen the math teacher needs strong content knowledge, skills, and understanding. Therefore, we can assume that one needs to have the knowledge, skills, and understandings listed in the NETs in order to effectively guide learning in that area. Can we not assume this to be true for any type of learning?

http://www.yanswersblogth.com/b4/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/why.jpg

If we can agree on this premise, then I question WHY there are separate sets of NETs for Teachers and Administrators.

NETS for Teachers

1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity

2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments

3. Model Digital-Age Work and Learning

4. Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility

5. Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership

NETS for Administrators

1. Visionary Leadership

2. Digital Age Learning Culture

3. Excellence in Professional Practice

4. Systemic Improvement

5. Digital Citizenship

I find it interesting that we're advocating that we need to prepare kids for a "flat," collaborative world, but we continue to structure and propel hierarchical organizational models. If we believe that kids can be experts and teach others (including teachers), then why are administrators the only ones responsible for establishing a digital age culture? Isn't a culture determined by the sum of all the parts? "Excellence in Professional Practice": wouldn't this be expected of both groups? Wouldn't "Designing and Modeling Digital Age Learning and Citizenship" ideally be done by all? More importantly, when will we focus more on the learning we hope to have happen than the way learning leaders and learning facilitators help make that learning a reality?

http://blog.darrylepollack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/flatworld.jpg

When will we begin to walk the talk of this collaborative flat world?

E3: Embedded Everywhere by Everyone

Whose job is it to teach the NETs and AASL standards to students?

This question is pretty simple for me, given that we’re currently functioning in a standards-based setting at ISB. I believe the related knowledge, skills and understandings of these standards should be embedded, everywhere, across all courses. Ideally, everyone, all teachers, would be involved. The AASL standards state that we’re developing students to . . .

1. Inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge.
2. Draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations, and create new knowledge.
3. Share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as members of our democratic society.
4. Pursue personal and aesthetic growth.

Therefore, who could oppose embedding the learning targets of NETS/AASL where they naturally fit, working in concert the content-based learning outcomes already established in a given context?

However, my response is based on the following two assumptions:

Assumption #1: That these knowledge, skills, attitudes, and understandings are the underpinnings of "life-long learning literacies" and therefore should be embedded in all learning contexts. Ideally, it would be the way of “doing learning,” regardless of the curricular focus.

Assumption #2: That teachers actually philosophically agree with the underlying beliefs upon which these standards were built (i.e. wanting kids to think critically, create, be self-directed, etc.) Therefore, as with any set of standards, this one needs to be aligned with a school’s mission, vision, and definition of learning before the knowledge, skills, and understandings can be embedded and then actualized by teachers who believe in these foundational tenets.

Why not?

Ultimately, why can’t we have all learning standards embedded in authentic, interdisciplinary, relevant, collaborative and creative learning tasks? Why can’t students learn by doing and show their level of knowledge, skills, and understanding by what they are able to apply in coherent, engaging, and meaningful undertakings? Why can't we do away with the many walls and categories that break up the "whole" into seemingly endless "parts" (what David Perkins refers to as "elementitis" in his book, Making Learning Whole)? Doesn’t such an alternative approach have the potential to simultaneously reach the AASL vision above, the ISB vision, and the vision that we want all global citizens to become collaborative, self-directed, reflective, life-long learners? Just imagine . . .

• We would no longer need grades--the learning evidence would be constantly evident and used to facilitate next steps.
• We would automatically be meeting kids where they are and helping them learn in their zone of proximal development, maximizing learning time for everyone.
• We would be engaging all learners and therefore democratizing participation in creating the future.
  
• We would collaborate to solve real world problems in real time, accessing the knowledge as needed, developing the skills needed, and developing habits of mind that will last a lifetime.

This doesn't have to be a dream--it is already happening in many places around the world. (See examples in The Global Achievement Gap) Are we ready to be the risk-takers and inquirers necessary to make this a reality here and now?

Ultimately, why shouldn't we become life-long learning collaborators with our students to research and rehearse, prepare for and practice preferable futures?