Coursera and the 21st Century Classroom

After posting recently about the rise of Coursera - or the availability of full university curricula in certificate form - I was sent this graphic about the 21st Century classroom.  The significance is clear, as online learning is changing the classroom rapidly, and that will impact the way higher education is funded and delivered.  The following image and explanation was created by Open Colleges, one "of Australia's leading providers of distance learning." The concept of distance learning is not going away, and with the rise of organizations such as the Khan Academy and Coursera, educators are going to need to adapt to the shifting infrastructure.

Right Brain Rising - Push for Creativity in the Classroom

Though I'm quite the traditionalist in the classroom, I've been trying to push for more creativity in the classroom for quite a few years now - ever since I completed the Colorado Writing Project staff development and attended a poetry conference led by Georgia Heard.  Since then I have added multi-genre research papers to my writing instruction, and I ask my honors English freshman to engage in interpretive dance during our poetry unit.  Each year I am more and more surprised by how truly insightful and creative my students are - and can be - when given the opportunity.

The importance of creativity is explored in a new book by Tony Wagner called Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World.  Wagner's first book The Global Achievement Gap was instrumental in developing the concept of 21st-century skills and encouraging a development in our outdated curricula from the 19th-century model.  It was eye-opening for me and many teachers, and while critics argue that it waters down classic education, his ideas seem valid to me.  His new book is targeted toward "Waldorf parents, Montesori moms, and Koala dads," and while  I am sometimes put off by too much of a child-centered discovery approach, Wagner's ideas are worth considering.  Innovation has always been the strength of America and the key to our success.

As the push for right-brain thinking and creativity in the classroom continues, take a look at what the Lowell Milken Center is doing as well.

* thanks to Joanne Jacobs

Next Food Network Star 2012 - Malcolm Goes Home

Who will be the Next Food Network Star?  Not Malcolm.

Malcolm went home last night after an intra-team square-off against Michelle following the beach party competition.  Of course, it makes sense that Malcolm finally goes home because, while he is an exceptional executive chef and reasonably comfortable on camera, Malcolm never had a point of view.  POV is the key to success in this competition, and his idea of "cooking with soul" but not necessarily cooking "soul food" was just confusing and ultimately unmarketable.  Michelle survived, which makes sense because she was initially the one with the most star quality - great culinary skill, solid point of view with My New England, and completely comfortable on camera.  I disagree with Bob and Susie that New England is too narrow for a show, and Michelle opened that up this week.

As far as this week's show and competition?  Well, let's put it out there - Paula Deen is gross.

The idea of heading for Miami - with the goal of being there for the Miami Food and Wine Classic - and then bringing in Paula Deen is baffling to me.  For a network that is committed to culinary arts and high quality cuisine, the Paula Deen angle is depressing.  I realize she's popular - but so is McDonalds.  And Paula Deen brings nothing but crass personality and disgustingly unhealthy food to the table.  She certainly sells well among the Walmart and McD's crowd, but she has no business rubbing elbows with Bobby Flay, Alton Brown, and Giada.  And her fuzzy little connection with Marty was annoying at best.

So, about Marty.  I do not understand the judges'  fascination with this woman.  It's like the story of Herb from a couple seasons back - where they kept him around with some bizarre hope of a show for a new demographic.  But he could neither bring it in the kitchen nor handle himself on camera.  And with Marty, let's be clear:  this woman cannot cook.  Her offerings are so simple they could be done in an Easy-Bake Oven, and Justin has saved her butt countless times in this competition.  Additionally, she simply randoms along in her camera moments and apparently the only appealing quality is her accent and self-deprecating stories.  But intentionally mispronouncing the names of classic dishes and techniques is not impressive and it's not Food Network Star material.  My only explanation for this woman's "stickiness" is that the Food Network thinks they have the next PD in the making, and they don't want to lose the tater-tot casserole crowd.  For my part, cut her loose.

Clearly, Justin is still the only contestant who has consistently shown star quality - though I'd like to see Michelle come on.  Ippy won this week, and he certainly deserved it.  But he is not a Food Network Star.  Yvan was reasonably successful, but Martita has to go.  The only thing Martita has going for her is the way she says her name to open and blowing kisses at the end.  In between she is completely flat - and the Mexican food angle is already saturated.  She's nothing special there.  Finally, thank goodness Nikki finally pronounces the "grill-lll" next door. Other interesting points from the show that I liked were the comments from Ippy, Yvan, and Martita that when they grew up the kids ate what the adults did.  I really like that commentary.

So, Malcolm is not the Next Food Network Star, and hopefully next week we will finally learn that Marty will not be the Next Food Network Star.  And, regardless of who wins, I'd like to reiterate my hope that the Next Food Network Star starts getting some air time, so the Food Network can stop being the Guy Fieri Network.  Diners, Drive-ins, & Dives is nice, but Jeff the Sandwich King could do the same thing at least one night a week for Sandwiches.

Lowell Milken Center Discovery Award

Discover An Unsung Hero with the Lowell Milken Center


Innovation has always been the key to America's success.  Innovation and creativity are integral to the American spirit, and they have been the foundation that has led the United States to greatness for more than two hundred years.  As an educator I have written often of the importance of creativity, innovation, and discovery in the classroom.  From the speeches of Sir Ken Robinson to the writings of Malcolm Gladwell and Daniel Pink to my own experience with multi-genre writing and multi-genre research projects, I have tried to promote an emphasis on creativity and innovation in the classroom.

In the world of education reform, project-based learning has gained increased attention over the years as teachers and reformers seek ways to the move our classrooms away from the monotony of textbook-based lesson plans and the all-too-common lecture.  Students are naturally creative and unique individuals, and, thus, many struggle with a one-size-fits all education model that is, in many ways, based on 19th-century thinking.  On the other hand, giving students a path and an interactive way in which to make their journey unleashes their creativity and engagement with learning, regardless of the subject.  It's like making students into explorers and adventurers - and that's far more intriguing than being note and test takers.

One little-known organization that has been working hard to share and promote the power of project-based learning is the Lowell Milken Center.  Named for and founded by education philanthropist Lowell Milken in 2007, the Kansas-based organization has been churning out rather impressive projects that have resulted in  national and world news coverage.  And, now, they are offering students the chance to win a whopping $10,000 for their efforts in uncovering an unknown historical figure.  $10,000.  That is huge.  And, I am impressed with an organization that is so committed to creativity and innovation that they are willing to honor student work in such a way.

The winners of the Inaugural year of the Lowell Milken Center Discovery Award will be announced this July, and I can't wait to see what history students and teachers have come up with in pursuit of this goal.  If you haven't yet heard about this award, the Lowell Milken Center asked students across America to create projects around the story of an unsung hero who has changed history.  The really cool part is that students can present their discovery in a variety of genres such as documentary film, a performance, an exhibit, or a website.  That multi-genre angle is what really caught my interest and inspires me about this organization and this contest.  Far too often, these contests are essay-based, and that requirement turns off many creative and insightful students.  Students today have much to say, and they can do so in a variety of engaging and professional multi-media formats.  It is truly amazing to see what a group of young people can discover and produce when given the opportunity and a supportive teacher along for the journey.

This approach reminds me of the multi-genre research projects my students have done in our study of individuality and the American spirit.  Rather than complete an essay or research paper like they've done for countless classes, I encouraged them to research their information and then present it in whatever genres speak to them.  This lesson always produces their best work of the year.  Additionally, such an approach is much more real-world practical and represents the type of educational model we need for 21st-century learning.  So, I encourage you to check out the Lowell Milken Center and the Lowell Milken Center Discovery Award.  I know I am going to promote this organization and its award to my students and colleagues.  I hope parents and teachers encourage their students to take advantage of this cool and exciting opportunity.

The Lowell Milken Center Discovery Award is the type of creative and innovative thinking that will help improve American education.


NOTE: This entry is a Guest Post sponsored by the Lowell Milken Center

Good Student, Good Teacher, Good School

As part of a recent research project, I have been asking people how they define:

"a good student"
"a good teacher"
"a good school"

The general consensus about a good student is that he or she is pretty self motivated.  In fact, nearly every explanation expressed very high expectations for a "good student."  Good students are curious and generally interested in learning.  They are responsible and self aware, needing less supervision and encouragement than others.  They do their work on time and strive to always produce high quality work.  They are also respectful and, in a word, nice.  Interestingly, the issue of intelligence did not come up at all - thus, the definition of a good student seems much more geared around a natural interest and engagement with learning and a lot of diligence.

A good teacher, by most accounts, can be judged by two criteria: content knowledge and engaging personality.  It could be that simple, which is easily identifiable in one regard and nearly impossible to quantify in the other.  Teachers need to know their subject well in order to teach it.  And the fact that this is such a common expectation makes me wonder if there are a lot of unqualified teachers out there.  Actually, I don't wonder.  I know, and lament, that it is true.  The engaging personality component is the primary reason that the Gates Foundation will continue to struggle with their model of identifying great teachers.  In many ways, it seems innate and almost unteachable.  Are good teachers born, not made?

It seems only likely that if a school has good students and good teachers, it will be a good school.  Of course, most of the data shows that a good school is most likely found in safe, upper class neighborhoods.  However, plenty of good schools rise above their neighborhood and produce good results because of a shared vision of excellence throughout the school community.  That is most often seen in successful charter schools - though the charter model is by no means a guarantee of a good or successful school.  My research finds that a good school is above all a safe and caring environment that offers all students the opportunity to succeed.

What do you think?

Matt Continues to Dance

Years ago, I was introduced to the video "Where in the Hell is Matt," which chronicled a man who danced his crazy little dance wherever he was in the world.  It went viral and made a great statement.  Now, Matt is back with a new version.  And there's "nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.

Keep dancing, Matt.

And everyone.

Bus Monitor Bullies are not "Good Kids"

Every once in a while a news story on children behaving badly goes viral, and we're all given a sad bit of insight into the dark side of the human spirit and the stupidity of youth.  The latest incident is the group of middle schoolers who taunted, ridiculed, threatened, and demeaned a 68-year-old bus monitor, and then posted a video of their exploits on Facebook.  The public reaction - and outrage - has been swift and animated.  Matt Lauer on the Today Show called the kids "little monsters," and a website originally created to raise money to send the woman on a vacation has, at last count, raised nearly a half-million dollars.  While the school has yet to discipline the cruel, small-minded tweens, one father is reporting that his family is receiving death threats.  Clearly, that has gone too far.

But I have to wonder about the father who says his son "made a mistake."

The bus monitor bullies did not make a mistake - they made a conscious choice to be cruel.  They didn't accidentally insult this 68-year-old woman - they chose to be mean, they chose to psychologically brutalize a weaker person, they chose to victimize a human they saw as beneath them, they chose to be awful human beings.  This father has said his "heart was broken" when he viewed the despicable behavior of his child.  Sadly, he came face-to-face with his son's nature - and it's not a pretty picture.  Some will take exception to my criticism of these boys - because they truly are young and naive and clueless about the pain they were causing.  But these boys are mean and nasty individuals who, for some reason, lack any degree of empathy and the most basic level of human decency.  They are not good kids.

The bus monitor bullies' incident reminded of another example of atrocious teen behavior that happened in the upper class Chicago suburb of Northbrook about ten years ago.  A girls powder puff football game that was established as a ritual where the senior girls hand the school over to the juniors degraded into brutal hazing incident which resulted in girls being hospitalized with concussions and broken bones.  In one of the more disturbing aspects of the incident, the younger girls had buckets and coolers filled with fish guts, fish blood, urine, and human feces poured over their heads.  To add to the insanity, some of the girls were beat over the heads with the buckets, and some of the girls with concussions required up to ten stitches.  It was a disaster of human behavior which generated the same sort of outrage as the bus monitor bullies.  However, the aspect that really got under my skin was comments from some parents of the senior girls who said, "They're not bad kids - they're good kids who made a mistake."

Whoa, there, Nelly.

These are not good kids, and this was not a mistake.  They are actually rather self-absorbed, obnoxious, cruel, manipulative, mean-spirited, and shallow young women.  They are not nice people.   They apparently take some sort of sick twisted pleasure from brutalizing others and seeing people suffer.  They have no empathy and they have no self control.  That is not, in my opinion, the behavior of a "good kid."  And brutalizing a person is not a mistake.  It is a representation of who you are - in your heart - even if that means you are simply an incredibly shallow and careless person.  But that's who these girls are.  So, let's not try to justify it.  Let's not claim it was about the alcohol.  Let's not pretend that mob action can be justified.  That part of their nature is indefensible.  And, while it does not represent the whole sum of their lives and personalities, it is a very significant part of who they are.

That said, I do not believe that these "children" are beyond redemption.  People can change ... their behavior.  They can be taught to control and manage that dark side.  But that darkness is in their hearts, and it cannot be explained away or justified.

The Next Food Network Star - Linky Goes Home

Not surprisingly to veteran viewers of the reality competition for who will be the "next" Food Network Star, Linky - the pastry chef with South African roots - was eliminated last night.  The basic reason for her failure was the inability to speak in front of the camera.  Additionally, critics might argue that she never really had a point of view, was not that skilled as a chef, and had been hanging around for weeks simply because her team was doing well enough to protect her.  Of course, with Linky coming from Team Giada, the team argument is weak because I still can't understand how some of these people have stuck around.  Like Linky, Ippy has no camera presence at all and he never will.  Martita is really not that interesting and her point of view - the Latina chef - is already well represented on the Food Network.  Yvan is coming along ... but he's still not going to be star quality.

It really comes down to the ability to be engaging and interesting in front of a crowd.  That simple trait goes back to the all important angle taken by Alton Brown in his initial screening.  He wanted the chefs to "teach him something" because that is what a Food Network Star needs to do.  And that was much appreciated by A Teachers View, as people don't often consider the significance of that quality.  It is an EQ - or emotional intelligence - issue, rather than an IQ or skill.  Not surprisingly, many intelligent and skilled people leave teaching - or never pursue it - because standing in front and being able to engage a group is quite tough.  It's extremely challenging when you have a reluctant audience of young people.  But it can be as tough for someone like a Food Network Star who has a very demanding and critical audience who will quickly change the channel if they don't like and buy what you're selling.

So, clearly, Linky didn't have "it."

Food Network Cookbook Holder

Are Video Games Education?

Over the years, I have had various students who are video game players and enthusiasts, and the more astute of them have often argued for the educational value of video games.  This idea has been gaining traction in the field because of the basic concepts of risk/reward, critical thinking, improvement through increasing levels and challenges, and teamwork.  Additionally, I occasionally encounter some very bright students who talk about game design as a career.  While that may sound like a fantasy job, it is by no means a slacker career.  In fact, it's mostly my advanced AP students who express a sincere interest in this career.  Thus, the value of video games as education, and the value of game design as a credible career should be considered by any education advocates.

For more information check out this short 5-minute Film Festival of clips exploring the value of video games in schools.  This presentation is from Edutopia - the site for the George Lucas Educational Foundation.  It presents examples such as a middle school in New York in which all the traditional subjects are explored and learned through game design, or the STEM video game contest sponsored by the White House.  In keeping with "a teacher's view" that whatever works in education is good policy, the idea of video games as education is worth considering.

My Education Statement of Belief

In 1983 when the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk, I was thirteen years old and preparing to enter high school.  That report established my generation as the first to suffer failing schools.  It was a call for action and change, and it forewarned of a coming national crisis.  Yet, thirty years later, even as the nation has survived several cycles of boom and bust, the public education system remains largely intact. Even as the world has been reinvented through radical growth in information technology, public education looks much as it has since its inception.  However, change is incremental, and bringing innovation and progress to public education requires informed, passionate, and prudent leadership, as well as a degree of patience and commitment.

Certainly, the last thirty years have seen growth and development in education policy, especially with the rise of charter schools and various experiments in school choice.  Yet, despite numerous reform movements, not the least of which is the No Child Left Behind Act, the system remains virtually unchanged.  At times, that sort of intransigence can be disheartening to reformers.  However, it shouldn’t be.  There is much to praise about American education, and there is also great potential for change.  Margaret Mead said, “Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed citizens to change the world. Indeed, it has never been done otherwise.”  As an educator and leader in my community, I seek to be one of those committed citizens.

The current K-16 model of a one-size-fits-all education system is both outdated and inefficient for a nation as productive and progressive as the United States.  The system is not at all representative of American society, a culture built on diversity, innovation, and progress.  Change will come from the foundation of the American Dream – the notion of opportunity.  The greatest strength of American society and American education is the notion of “access granted.”  In Colorado, that idea is enshrined in the state constitution, which calls for a “thorough and uniform education system.”  At the most basic level that means equal opportunity for all students to access as much education as they require and desire.  As an educational leader, I seek to promote the strengths of American education while modifying its weak points, and my ultimate goal is summed up in the words of Washington Post education writer Jay Matthews who believes “The best education for the best is the best education for all.”

Having taught in Taiwan and in the United States, in both public and private schools, in the city of Chicago as well as several suburbs, my educational experience is diverse and informed.  Ultimately, as an educational leader, I seek to synthesize the best components of all systems into an exemplary system in the United States.  In the area of educational leadership, I have established a strong voice through a career dedicated to professional growth.  In twenty years of teaching classes ranging for ELA to developmental English to college prep and AP English, I have seen it all.  However, beyond the classroom, education policy has been a hobby of mine for years, and I consider myself a bit of a policy geek.  My desire to become an educational leader and reformer came during a staff development class on literacy when I discovered Chris Tovani’s book I Read It But I Don’t Get It.  That exposure kicked off a reading revolution in my classroom, and by the following year, my principal had purchased Tovani’s book for the entire department.  It was about this time that I began contributing to the world of educational commentary.  Following the publication of my first op-ed commentary on education – a piece for the Denver Post in which I challenged Sean Hannity’s assertion that the public education system was in a state of “ruin” – I discovered the world of education blogging, and truly began to develop a mindset for education reform and leadership.

As a reformer in education I firmly believe in “whatever works.”  For example, in terms of charter schools, I’d consider the plan in Mark Miller's book The 2% Solution, which should appeal to both liberals and conservatives, because while it is focused on achievement, it addresses the concerns of unions, which are made up of many passionate and committed teachers.  I’m also intrigued by reforms in the Adams 50 district, which challenge the tradition of “seat time” and “grade level.” Any program that produces results should be supported and replicated.  Additionally, I would like for Colorado to take a sincere look at the reforms in New Hampshire, which is moving toward a high school graduation at sixteen for students entering associate degree programs and trade schools. Students who stay in school for years 11 and 12 will take a rigorous AP/IB college prep curriculum that seriously prepares them for the work of a four-year college. This would radically cut down on the number of students requiring remedial courses in college or the half who quit without earning a degree.  The reforms are adapted from the “Tough Choices, Tough Times” report released by a coalition of education leaders and business professionals, and it draws on the Asian and European models that are so often cited by critics of the current system.  

Ultimately, America’s system of education has a strong tradition and foundation that can be developed and return the United States to the status of having the premier education system in the world.  The most important component of change, however, is open and honest dialogue that is grounded in the realities of the problems.  As long as Americans are committed to education, reformers can build on the strengths of innovation that are inherent in the character of the American people.

The Next Food Network Star 2012 - Eric Goes Home

As much as I am enjoying the competition for who will be the Next Food Network Star 2012 on the Food Network, I have to think Bob and Susie made a big mistake in sending Napa executive chef Eric home this week after a producers challenge with Ippy.  While both of these great chefs have a camera problem right now, Eric is clearly the far superior chef, and Bobby Flay made this obvious argument in the final segment.  While Ippy from Team Giada is a good chef and a nice guy, he can not bring it on the camera in any meaningful way.  Ultimately, I think Bob and Susie just felt like the Hawaiian angle is more marketable for the network.  But it doesn't work for me, as neither of these two men was ever really going to be the Next Food Network Star.

Sadly, I would have liked to see Eric go farther in the competition simply because he is the superior chef.  That should count for something because we're all tuning in to see people who can work culinary magic.  And, while he has regularly struggled to finish his dishes, I always love what he's doing. Ippy, on the other hand, really doesn't have much of anything interesting going on.  Despite the claims that he is simply laid back, like his culture, I am unimpressed.  And, I can't figure out how Linkie didn't go home this week, and hasn't gone out yet.  She is completely forgettable - except when I can't forget how poorly she stumbles through her presentations.  The same goes for Yvan.  Bob and Susie should just send him home - despite how well he does next week - because he simply will not be the Next Food Network Star.  Ultimately, Eric and Ippy should go because it really is all about the camera presence and personality.  All these people can cook, and the world has many magical chefs; but being able to engage an audience is the key, and that's really the answer to who will be the Next Food Network Star.  It's like teaching - no matter how well you know your subject, you won't survive in the classroom if you can't bring it on the stage.

And, I have to again assert that I am not liking this celebrity chef team format at all.  For one, Alton and Giada are clearly helping out their people quite a bit - and that's not the point of the show.  Additionally, this format is really not flattering for Giada.  She continues to come across as petty and desperate for the affection of her team and the need to simply win.  It seems like she doesn't want to find the best Next Food Network Star, for she has had nothing positive to say about any other finalists.  She just wants to win and she is coming across, quite honestly, as a real bitch.  That's a shame because I never felt that way about her.  So, Bob and Susie should definitely nix this format for next season.

So, Eric's out.  Hopefully, Linkie or Yvan or Ippy go next.

*UPDATED

Judson is another example of the problem with the team format.  As a reader recently pointed, he should have gone home last night as well.  In fact, he was every bit as bad as Eric and Ippy on camera, and he's a much worse cook.  Yet, he was protected because his team won.  And, this wasn't even a team competition.  It would almost be understandable if this - like last year - was an actual team event and his work somehow led to the team's win.  But it wasn't.  He was "safe" just by the default of having been picked by Alton.  Otherwise, he's a standard cook with absolutely no marketable "point of view," or POV, and he has no camera presence at all.  Everything he says sounds scripted - if not simply phony.  So, Judson needs to go home soon.

However, I must acknowledge the winner from Team Alton - Justin.  That kid just flat out rocks in the kitchen.  And, I think the quirky creativity is definitely going to be an asset.  My early favorite was Michelle.  But, if she doesn't get out of her own head, Justin is going to steal this competition.


** UPDATE - For the most current breakdown on Malcolm's exit this week, check out my latest:

Diane Ravitch on No Child Left Behind NCLB

About twelve years ago, as I became more interested in school policy and began reading education policy books and articles, I ran across the work of Jeanne Chall and Diane Ravitch.  And my passion for education reform was born.  Ravitch, especially, just made so much sense in her criticisms of the field of public education.  And she was not willing to sugarcoat anything to protect teachers or any other special interest.  That critical eye led her to her work in the Bush administration and her initial support of No Child Left Behind.

In recent years, however, Ravitch's views have changed, and she is not afraid of changing her mind.  Despite a lot of criticism, Ravitch has some very sound arguments against the current state of education reform.  If you haven't Diane Ravitch's criticism of No Child Left Behind, you should consider her ideas.  In countless articles and speeches, Diane has exposed the problems of high stakes testing and free market reform efforts led by groups such as the Gates Foundation and the Walton Foundation.  Ravitch published an extensive expose of the issue in her book - The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Undermined Public Education.

For a more succinct version of her criticism, check out this piece published on the NEA website.  I ran across this link while reading Darren's post at RightOntheLeftCoast.  Darren is not a fan of Ravitch - though I'm not exactly sure why.  Regardless, Ravitch has a lifetime of credibility in education and education reform.  And even if you don't agree with all her points, she is definitely worth reading and her views are worthy of respect.