Here We Go Again! The Educational Hype and Promise of Generative AI in Education is a Re-Run I've Seen Before

 "Across the sciences and society, in politics and education, in warfare and commerce, new technologies do not merely augment our abilities, but actively shape and direct them, for better or worse. It is increasingly necessary to be able to think of new technologies in different ways, and to be critical of them, in order to meaningfully participate in that shaping and directing." p. 2 New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future, James Bridle

Educators are jumping on the next-best-thing...Generative Artificial Intelligence, or AI. The workshops, PD offerings, conferences, and key notes abound everywhere you look. There is money to be made and careers to be made on this latest "Silicon Valley Miracle." But how could educators be duped again by the marketing and hype about this latest technological offering by the whiz-kid computer entrepreneurs from the West Coast? 

Did we, and have we not learned anything about the failure of such technologies and their promises, such as social media's promise to connect us and make us one unified, world community? Did we not just experience the massive remote learning flop that shows us that education is really about teachers and students connecting, in person? Now, educators everywhere are all ga-ga over Generative AI, singing its praises and indoctrinating their whole communities about its"unquestionable promise." What educators need to be doing is utilizing their intellect and asking critical questions about this new gadget, instead of blindly accepting it in awe.

Bridle was on to something when he pointed out that "New Technologies" do not just "augment our abilities" they "actively shape and direct them, for better or worse." This was true of social media specifically and the web generally. Technology has not just augmented our abilities to teach and learn; it has shaped how we do these things "for better or worse" and sometimes mostly "worse." Social media has divided us more than ever and also has made it easier for students to bully and be bullied. It negatively affects the mental health of our youth as well, so it has not just augmented our abilities to connect; it has shaped and directed who we connect with, how we connect with them, and not connect as well. 

Generative AI is absolutely no different. In spite of the AI evangelists who stand to gain much through its promotion, this technology will also shape us, as well as shape and direct how we do things too, for better or worse. But let's not just focus on "the better." Let's take a breather and focus on the potential worse things this technology is already doing and also explore carefully the unintended consequences that widespread adoption might bring. Don't just accept the "hyped-up" rhetoric about how "you are going to be left behind if you don't adopt." I've heard that tune before, it is stale. Take time. Think and be critical. Ask tough questions.

If we are going to be sane about Generative AI, we have to be critical of it. We need to do that so that we can participate in "shaping and directing" it as Bridle points out. We can sanely use technological tools without the evangelical hype spouted by both these companies and other educators and educational leaders who see this as a means to promote their own careers. You can call this thinking the thinking of Luddite if you wish, but this "Silicon-Valley Promise Story" is starting to sound like a rerun.

Leadership Experts and Consultants Everywhere and How to Avoid Being Scammed By Them

 "Want to be an expert on leadership? You could get training and exposure to the relevant research literature, but it's not necessary. If you are persuasive enough, articulate enough, or attractive enough, if your have an interesting enough, uplifting story of some combination of these traits, you are or can be a very successful leadership blogger, speaker, and consultant--whether or not you have ever read, let alone contributed to, any of the relevant social science on the topic." p. ix, Jeffrey PFeffer, Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time

One thing that is more commonly found than a qualified teacher is a leadership consultant or expert. My own work inbox explodes every day with emails from some expert offering to make me and the other administrators in my organization the greatest leaders in our field. They advertise all manner of "keynotes" who have cracked the code of leadership excellence, and by just hearing their words, I will find my own leadership transformed they promise. But has anyone every really seen any data and evidence presented that shows that attending their conference delivers as promised? Probably not, if you set aside their anecdotal evidence.

Today, in the education field, if you want to be a "leadership expert" you really don't have to know a thing about leadership. If you are convincing, articulate, and looks help, you can open that leadership consulting business and make more money and be your own boss. It helps to also have a litany of inspiring stories, humor, and some overall "operational leadership model scheme" and you are on your way as a leadership guru.

But Pfeffer also points out in his book Leadership BS that "the leadership industry...has its quacks and sham artists who sell promises and stories, some true, some not, but all of them inspirational and comfortable" (p. x, Pfeffer, 2015). What is worse, there is very little "follow-up" research to see what really works and what doesn't.

I propose that the next time one of these leadership consultants sends you an email, send them one back stating: "I tell you what, I will listen to your sales pitch IF you can send me independently verified data and evidence (no anecdotal stories permitted) of how successful your services are. Or, if they dare call you, stop them mid-sales pitch and ask them if they have independently verified, supportive data (again not anecdotal stories or references). I have done this, and nothing makes these peddlers of leadership coaching services clam up faster when you ask. Most of them have not really taken the time to independently study the leadership wares they're selling.

What if we as educational leaders were able to establish our own version of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) whose task would be to test and analyze the claims of these leadership gurus and determine whether they really do produce the results claimed? Of course that is a dream unlikely to happen, but it be a means to dispense with much of the leadership consultant quackery.

The bottom line is that it is our role to be critical. I am not dazzled by individuals who brag about how many TED Talks they've done; how many books they've published; or even jobs they've once held. That is not evidence of efficacy of their consultant product. In the end, ask tough questions before you spend anything on these leadership products. Demand data and evidence and question their "success stories." If their consultancy can't stand the critical scrutiny, then spend your money wisely elsewhere.

Social Media…Emphasis on MEEEEEdia: Fatal Flaws of the 21st Century Supermarket Tabloid

Over time I have come to discovery that the flaws in the architecture of all social media platforms are irreparable and can’t be redeemed. As a thoughtful and reflective critic, I have no choice but place social media on the figurative supermarket tabloid rack where the National Enquirer and Weekly World News reside. 

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram—even LinkedIn are all media doomed because of one major fundamental flaw: they presume that the individual should be able to choose the information they encounter and that those same individuals should be able to selfishly screen out the information that makes them uncomfortable and fundamentally question their lives, their beliefs, and even their place in the world. It is really ideas that disturb us, that make us uncomfortable that make us reflective and introspective. Without them, we unquestionably follow doctrine and demagogues, and become entangled in the webs of propaganda spun by authoritarian quacks.

Social media…which should really be spelled….social MEEEEEEEDIA, unfortunately has been responsible for much of polarization and partisan divide that exists in our country. It is a technology that allows individuals to live comfortably in alternative universes and in worlds of alternative facts. It also assumes too much, that those who inhabit their milieus know the difference.

Neil Postman somewhat prophetically captured this fatal flaw in social media way back in 1988 when he wrote: 

“Just as the language itself creates culture in its own image, each new medium of communication re-creates or modifies culture in its image; and it is extreme naïveté to believe that a medium of communication or, indeed, any technology is merely a tool, a way of doing.” Neil Postman, Conscientious Objections

We were, I was, naive to believe that social media was or ever would be, “Just a tool, a way of connecting.” It has “re-created” and “modified” our culture in its image, which is a culture where my own beliefs, biases, prejudices, and nonsense constantly validated. The “Me” in social media’s architecture has cultivated a society where what I believe is true and everything else and everyone else on on highways to hell. As a tool for connecting individuals with others, social media has failed colossally.

It is time to stop calling “social media” simply at “tool” with just a communicative purpose. With its algorithms and architecture, it is designed most exclusively as a propaganda tool (which in my thinking is simply a more harsh but correct characterization of the term “marketing”), and is not just a tool to disseminate information. It shoves only the information its users wish to see, only the most propagandistic ideas into the minds of its users. And, add the fact that one can “pay” to promote your posts, and you have the ability to promote ideas, not because they are beneficial or right or just or worthwhile, but because you have financial means to affect the minds of others.

One can only take a look at some of my past blog posts and see that I once believe the stories social media sites used to promote themselves as tools for individuals to connect. But I was wrong. Social media platforms are fatally constructed as they are. They are disinformation and malinformation machines and anyone using them now needs to keep all such sites figuratively located on the supermarket tabloid rack next to the National Enquirer when it comes to what you read therein. 

Indistar: Taking the Creativity Out of School Improvement Through Standardization and Imposed Conformity

"The problem with conformity in education is that people are not standardized to begin with." Sir Ken Robinson, Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That's Transforming Education

Let's face it, our public education system is still all about conformity and standardization. We talk a lot of rot about "innovation" and "thinking outside of the box," but in reality, many educators still adhere to the faith that there are a list of single "research-based" indicators that exist somewhere out there that can guide our schools to the promised land. Companies manufacturing educational products know this, and make all kinds of promises that their products will lead us to the "Land of Eternal Achievement." A perfect case in point is a new product that the state of North Carolina has adopted to ensure conformity and standardization of school improvement planning. This product is called Indistar.

When you check out Indistar's web site, it is immediately clear they've got their "marketing shoes on." (Check out their web site here:  http://www.indistar.org/). Immediately the promises of educational prosperity hit you square in the face with "Your Leadership Team's Best Friend." It promises that schools can "get better together." Basically, it is school improvement software that promises to help school improvement teams to academic prosperity through helping them implement its "research-based indicators."

As a principal and educator who has experienced this product for one year, I am afraid it most likely will lead, not to academic prosperity, but ensure that your school conforms to what the makers of Indistar see as an "effective school." This software isn't about empowering schools to find creative solutions to the problems they face; it is about forcing schools to apply a list of "research-based indicators" so that they conform to a single image (Indistar's) of what an effective school should look like.

It was Fenwick English (2003), educational leader and scholar, who once said, "To reduce such claims (of effective schools) or "school improvement models" based on de-contextualized behaviors [emphasis mine] on a 'research base' which itself has been standardized in 'right truth-seeking methods,' is to resort to hegemonic practices which can only be supported via political enforcement [again, italics mine]. In other words, the whole idea that one can create a list of 'de-contextualized behaviors' that will somehow solve all the ills and problems of the schools, can only be supported if it is made mandatory, as North Carolina has done. Its claim of all being 'research-based indicators' is its claim to legitimation, but what is left out of the equation is that all of these 'de-contextualized behaviors' happened in very contextual situations that may or may not be applicable to other schools. Educators would do well to be 'skeptical' of any organization, company or even other educators who throw around the term 'research-based' as support for their product. And, just keep in mind that just because they provide a 20 page bibliography, or larger, and links to research articles, that again does not necessarily translated into an effective product for every school or district. The number of bibliographical entries or research articles does not automatically mean a 'valid technology.' Anyone with an APA manual and Google Scholar can make a bibliography.

Besides its rather ponderous claims of helping schools to "get better together," the reality is that Indistar is just another one of those miracles of marketing. That explains why North Carolina has rushed to force schools across the state to adopt it. The gist of Indistar is rather simple. School improvement teams assess their school against a ponderous list of so-called "research-based" indicators to see if their school measures up to them. If they feel they have met the indicator, they must engage in the massive undertaking of collecting evidence to show they have met the indicator. They submit this evidence online, then a voice from the cloud above reviews their evidence to judge whether that evidence meets the indicator. If the judgement is that they have, they then move to the next indicator. They do this until they have made their way through a hundred or so indicators. Voila, once they have met all the indicators they should have reached the "promised land of academic achievement aplenty." If they find themselves wanting with an indicator, then that indicator becomes a school improvement goal. The school works to make that indicator happen, provides evidence, then they submit that evidence to the cloud judgement seat, and if judged in affirmative, they can move on to the next indicator. That is "school improvement" according to Indistar. What better way for district and even state education administrators to actually "control" the schools under their charge! This is truly a great tool to "manage from a distance!"

The whole problem behind Indistar and products like it, is the faith that there are "prescriptions" out there that will fix any school problem that exists. We've been trying this approach to improving schools for more than the last 30 years, and I dare say we are not any closer to making education as a whole better. In fact, in many ways we've only made it worse. We aren't going to improve education by using software like Indistar to impose what is believed to be a set of "research-based" prescriptions on our schools, because the problems in our schools are very often unique problems that require creativity and innovation, not simple application of what some researchers in the ivory towers of quantitative research have found to be true.

Products like Indistar are not innovative; they are simply high-tech regurgitations of all the prescriptive, management from a distance strategies we've been engaged in for the past 30 years or so.

I have not doubt that the makers of Indistar mean well. I am also aware that, like so many innovative products, it makes claims based on "success stories" and with its slick web site where it markets a Utopian future for those who dare to use its product. Sadly, as a user of this product for a year now, I would say it is more about making sure schools conform to someone else's idea of school improvement rather than giving schools the freedom to be really creative in solving their problems.

The problem with Indistar and products like it is that schools are not standardized to begin with, so applying a list of so-called research-based prescriptions are not likely to bring the same results in every case, and that is a major problem with this product. The problems we deal with in our schools are very often local contextual issues. We really don't need more software to help us resolve these issues; we need the freedom to approach the unique problems we face in a creative manner.



English, F. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practice of educational administration. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Robinson, Ken. (2016). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that's transforming education. New York: Penguin.

What Do Education Leaders Really Learn from Business Leadership and Management Gurus?

"...Management theory is an immature discipline, unusually open to charlatans, or semi-charlatans, and congenitally prone to fads." Adrian Wooldridge, Masters of Management

Wooldridge (2011) writes that “management theory is an immature discipline” (p. xviii). This is true also of educational leadership or educational administration as a discipline. It too, is still an “immature discipline” as well, in spite of its existence since the turn of the 20th century, It lays claim to being a positivistic, emancipatory science very often, but at its core, it still struggles with a means to tell the truth about itself and about how to lead schools. It longs for first principles, but they are scarce. 

And, like management theory, it too is “open to charlatans” and fads. Administrators at every level of the educational system often jump on the latest fad that crosses their desk, uncritically and without question. Just look at the educational administration literature that's coming out. There's books that tell administrators how to win with "mindsets," "grit," "empowerment," "teacher-leaders," etc. What's missing is a true critical examination of these ideas as well. Leadership also requires forcing those selling these wares to go beyond their comments of being "research-based" or "proven-to-work." After all, the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century made those claims too. There needs to be much more critique of these fads, educational leadership literature, and even our still immature discipline.

What’s even worse, in their quest for short-term goals, such as increases in test scores, they do not adhere to these faddish ideas long enough to really make a difference. When administrators obsess over short-term measurement, they turn their institutions into institutions powered only to exist in the short-term.

The truth is that often there are administrators whose vision is more about their own careers than about seeing their schools through innovations and changes that can have impacts beyond their own lives. That might explain why most administrators don't stay in the same place very long. Our education system mirrors the business environment in this sense. Its innovation and creative endeavor is expended on what can raise test scores in the short term. Short term, non-visionary strategies like eliminating the arts, music, and true authentic learning are too often looked upon as valid strategies. These become casualties in the ever insistent search for higher test scores so that administrators can feel like they are having an impact. In truth, every educator who has had an impact on my life changed me in some ways that became evident much, much later in my life. 

Like management, educational leadership is going to remain an “immature discipline” as long as it continues to borrow so heavily from management theory. It is going to remain focused on short-term visions and goals, because the business world is mostly incessantly focused on short term profit and share-holder interests in the now, not making an impact that outlasts us. I submit as well, as long as administrators remain focused, as business CEOs and managers often do—creating their personal path to professional nirvana—there will be no maturity ever in our field of educational administration. True leadership is sometimes realizing our endeavor as educators reap benefits far after we're gone.

Wooldridge, A. (2011). Masters of Management: How Business Gurus and Their Ideas Have Changed the World--For Better and For Worse. Harper Collins: New York, NY

Expanding Education Leadership Innovation and Imagination by Valuing Art and Literature

I am going say something direct to those think the arts, literature, and even philosophy are frivolous and "impractical" for 21st century schools. We need these as educational leaders more than ever. 

This is because the only "truths" about leading schools are not going to be found in books located on the bookstore racks of the latest business management and business leadership, but somehow we unquestionably believe that the answers to our problems are found and can be resolved by the discourses of business management and business leadership.

Education leaders in the past 25 or 30 years have appropriated the latest book titles of authors like John Maxwell, Stephen Covey, and John Kotter (anyone else notice that these are "white" males as I do?) as if these business leaders offer the "gospel truth" regarding how to best lead schools or any organization. Schools are still struggling to find the golden fleece of reform while those peddling these "business discourses of leadership" have continued to fleece school systems out of uncounted sums of money. About the only thing the field of education leadership has to show for it is the improved bottom lines for those offering books, conferences, and official training sessions to administrators and school leaders who are genuinely searching for answers to the problems they are facing in the schools and districts where they work.


In reading Hofstadter, I stumbled across an idea and thought that I say has a lot of wisdom about being an intellectual leader of a school.

In his book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, Hofstadter (1962) was writing about the limitations of thinking when we get caught up with the idea of limiting our thoughts just to the practical. He describes a physicist who discounted the invention of the telephone as a "bore." But Hofstadter points out that physicist James Clark Maxwell was limiting his imagination because he was only using "physicist-thinking" or physicist mind, and that was limiting his "vistas of imagination." "For him," Hofstadter writes, "thinking as a physicist, the new instrument (the telephone) offered no possibilities for play."

When we set limits on our thinking and imagining by requiring that it be "practical,""relevant," or "data-based" we destroy the playfulness of possibility. We restrict our own "vistas of imagination" and perhaps miss being truly creative and innovative. Fruitful and innovative ideas are found beyond the edges of the limitations that shackle thinking. The answers to 21st century problems to education may lie elsewhere.

Perhaps we as school leaders need to think like poets, like novelists, like artists, like sculptors, and even life musicians, in other words, become "intellectual leaders" instead of dismissing such as "impractical" or "fluff." History is full of inventive minds who worked beyond the margins of the acceptable, For example, Leonardo Da Vinci, considered by some to be the symbolic embodiment of innovation, had an enormous horizon of imagination, and the result was inventions in both art and science that did not exist before.

As educational leaders, the first step to really addressing the problems of our times might not always be checking the latest "scientific research." The answers to our current problems in education could lie in Shakespeare, Mozart, or even Rembrandt. Limiting our "vistas of imagination" to that which fits the scientific method and the education sciences, means our imagination for the possibilities of education are shackled. So, as education leaders, go see a Shakespearean play, listen to a Mendelssohn concerto, or read a Thomas Wolfe novel. We can't really be innovative and truly creative leaders and problem-solvers unless we're willing to break free from the limits of practicality and "science" and expand the "vistas of our imaginations."

Hofstadter, R. (1962). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

What Happens When Schools and School Districts Use VAMs to Make Decisions about Teachers?

Many school administrators are using value-added measures in making decisions about teachers as if these statistical measures represent the latest, settled and unquestionable science. Those who do this are making a grave error. Despite companies such as SAS, who peddle their EVAAS data systems as the salvation of public education, the science behind VAMs is not settled, and there is even enough doubt about them, that the American Statistical Association issued a strong statement in 2014 against their use in decision-making when it comes to teachers. In that statement, ASA reminds educators that:

VAMs typically measure correlation, not causation---positive or negative---attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other factors that are not captured in the model. (ASA Statement on VAMs)

Yet, administrators still use VAMs to infer that the teacher causes those scores. SAS, who owns the EVAAS model that North Carolina pays millions of dollars for each year, arrogantly claims that it accounts for all the factors that cause student performance on test scores, even when psychometric experts caution that this isn't possible.

In addition, administrators, who use VAMs to make decisions about teachers, should know better than confuse correlation with causation, but any time they base decisions about teacher status using VAMs, they are automatically assuming that teachers cause test results. If teachers operated in a lab where they controlled all the conditions of learning and the subjects of their learning, then one could perhaps better make this inference.

But there are other concerns about VAMs too. In a recent study by Shen, Simon, and Kelcey (2016), it was found that "using value-added teacher evaluations to inform high-stakes decision-making may not make for a good teacher." Using VAMs to decide the status of a teacher may not have the long-term impact administrators desire. These researchers also recommend that VAMs not be used "to inform disincentive high stakes decisions," which are any decisions regarding the professional status of teachers.

Ultimately, though, I can't help but wonder if those who are sold on using VAMs in administrative decision-making aren't caught up in chasing short-term gains in a measurement that lacks any meaningfulness in the long-term. VAMs aren't settled science. Yet, administrators use that data as if it were. Any decisions made using this data should be balanced with other data.

Shen, Z., Simon, C., & Kelcey, B. (2016). The potential consequence of using value-added models to evaluate teachers. eJournal of Education Policy, Fall 2016.


NOTE: My just completed dissertation was on the practice of using value-added measures to determine teacher effectiveness. My plan is to share over the next several weeks and months my own insights and personal thoughts on this practice. This is the first of may posts I plan to share on this topic. 

Education Administration's History with Eugenics: What Can Be Learned from the Past

Some of our "founding fathers" of educational administration around the turn of the 20th century actually supported the "Science of Eugenics" as it is called. That's right; they supported sterilizations and other measures to "improve the human stock of America" because they considered it to be deteriorating. I realize that during this particular time period, these "founding fathers" of educational administration were products of their times and cultures as well, and that society had just begun to discover its faith in the biological sciences and other sciences, and began to exercise that faith entirely in a variety of ways. Yet, it does disturb our present to think that some of those who began our field educational administration, supposedly dedicated to the betterment of our children and society, advocated eugenics which today is unspeakable.

For example, one of these "founding fathers of educational administration" was Franklin Bobbitt, who was a professor at the University of Chicago, and who also wrote prolifically on both education administration and on curriculum. He was also clearly an advocate of eugenics and actually made an address on the topic to the Conference on Child Welfare at Clark University in July 1909. His words seem so disturbing to read today, but were actually in line with others like our President Theodore Roosevelt and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes. Society was wrestling with what to do with the new science of heredity and genetics at that time and Bobbitt was actually along for the ride.

In that address Bobbitt states:

"If a child is well-born, if he springs from sound, sane stock, if he possesses high endowment potential in the germ, then the problem of his unfoldment is well-nigh solved long before it is presented. Such a child is easily protected from adverse influences; and he is delicately and abundantly responsive to the positive influences of education. But if, on the other hand, the child is marred in the original making, if he springs from a worm-eaten stock, if the foundation plan of his being is distorted and confused in heredity before his unfoldment begins, then the problem of healthy normal development is rendered insoluble before it is presented. Such a child is difficult to protect against adverse influences, and he remains to the end stupidly unresponsive to the delicate growth factors of education." 

Franklin Bobbitt, "Practical Eugenics," Address before the Conference on Child Welfare at Clark University, Worcester, July 1909

From a 21st century perspective, it is very easy to try to excuse our forefathers in administration from advocating what we would call unspeakable. We might even be hesitant to judge individuals like Bobbitt. Still, his support of eugenics should still disturb us. He was involved in shaping the field of public education and educational administration in its infancy, and he was also an advocate for some practices that are so unjust and distasteful to us today.

In this same address he sympathetically described several eugenic measures being undertaken:

Marriage laws were passed  to "shut out from marriage those affected with tuberculosis, alcoholism, epilepsy, insanity, deaf-mutism, blindness, and other serious diseases and defects which affect posterity."

Laws were passed to "raise barriers against the unfit" and "shut out racial pollution at the bottom."

"The sterilization of criminals and defectives of every sort" was being proposed as well.

There were also proposals to abolish public charities, public schools and all other public agencies because these were only serving to "preserve the weak and incapable."

No doubt, these measures to purify the "human stock" are shocking to us today. Still, I submit that we have much to learn from this period in the history of the field of educational administration.

The founding fathers of both the fields of educational administration and education slovenly acted as sycophants to "King Science." Bobbitt accepted "eugenics" and the rationale behind it because it was "scientifically supported." He, like many, had a blind faith in the salvation wrought by science, and if the data and observations demonstrated any proposition, then it was true. That's why he saw eugenics as an attractive audience: his "science," which he uncritically accepted, led him to that conclusion.

We still in some ways are sycophants of science. We test students unendingly and incessantly in order to make "data-based" decisions. We cancel music and art classes because "participation in these don't lead to higher test scores." We load 30, 40 and even 50 students in classes because "there's no 'scientific evidence' to support having smaller classes. Education and educational administration so badly wants to be a science, that it will harm its students, its teachers to follow "science" where 'er it may lead. Just as Bobbitt did, without really asking whether that destination is really where we want to go, we accept the "science" uncritically and almost in a cult-like manner. The problem with our science, and Bobbitt's science, it will not and cannot tell us whether what we're doing is ethical, right, or just, but we pretend that it will.

In some ways, I can understand why Bobbitt supported eugenics as he did. He was caught up in a major discourse of his time. But because of his story, we have no such excuse. We can critically question our "science." Just because a study or studies says it is so, doesn't mean we have to do it. We can realize science's limitations and acknowledge that the 'scientific evidence' is not infallible. We can recognize that just because A happens, it was not necessarily because of B or C. It might have been E, F, and G along with an infinite number of causes. We don't have to believe that by doing A that B will happen.

The founding fathers of educational administration's flirtations with such a distasteful notion as "eugenics" should tell us that we as educational leaders can and do and will get it wrong. Also, there is clearly a danger when we get on a pedestal and shout that what we want is what's best for children is subject to criticism as well. Bobbitt's mistakes are our mistakes. We have to question and then question some more those making decisions. We should encourage people to question our own. That's how we might avoid Bobbitt's mistake.

Welcoming Innovative Disruption: Embracing Those Who Ask the Tough Questions

"The people who ask questions that no one else is asking are the inventors and entrepreneurs and leaders who will create the next wave of innovative disruptions." Jensen, Bill. Disrupt! Think Epic. Be Epic.: 25 Successful Habits For An Extremely Disruptive World

Often, as we work within the education system, we are actually discouraged from asking tough questions. Questioning is often seen as disrespectful and not being a team-player. The teacher at the back of our staff meetings who begins to ask question after question on some new initiative the school is preparing to roll out, is seen as a "naysayer" and a "supporter of the status quo." These are sometimes apt labels for these individuals, but sometimes, the questions being asked need to be asked. They need to be listened to, and they need to be answered carefully.

Certainly, it is possible that the one asking the questions about our new initiative and project just want to sabotage our plans as school leaders. But can we really take that chance? Especially, if as Bill Jensen points out, that these are often the inventors, entrepreneurs, and leaders who create innovative disruptions that turn our schools and the educational system upside down?

As school leaders, those who ask tough questions might or might not have ulterior motives, but if we really want to be innovative, we perhaps need to listen rather than dismiss them. As Jensen points out, those who wish to be proactive "disrupters" of our organizations need to join in and "actively question every system, structure, and rule" placed before us. This is embracing the potential of "disruptive innovation in our schools."

Empower: Should We Use That Word as School Leaders?

'Empower" is another slippery word, used with good intentions, but when we really break it down, it can have a very negative connotation." Mark Adams,Courageous Conflict: Leading with Integrity and Authenticity

I never really thought about the negative connotations that the word "empower" has until I read Mark Adams book Courageous Conflict: Leading with Integrity and Authenticity.  He makes sense when he points out that empowering someone means you are "temporarily giving them the power to do something, but that they really do not own it or possess it." It ultimately does mean that the one who is in a position of authority is granting those under his charge the authority to make decisions or take actions. Leaders like to throw around the word "empower" like it is some dispensation from on high, yet it does have the slight taint of "You can only do this because I have granted you the power to do it." Adams cautions leaders about throwing around such terminology. It can serve to actually undermine trust and morale. The word "empower" itself, suggests that the one on which power is granted is not on equal footing with the one granting that power. That's certainly fine if your intention is maintain a more authoritarian stance in regards to those you lead, but do not pretend that you are acting from a "servant leadership position" or that you are fostering a "team-like collaborative approach" to management. I suggest that we perhaps use terminology less loaded with this authoritarian bent. Words like entrust or simply calling it like it is: the person was granted the authority to take action.

I think leaders, especially in educational leadership, do a great disservice when they try to mask or otherwise make practices seem something they are not. They often try to use business terminology that does not quite capture the action, or they use terminology that sounds innocuous at first glance, but that language has meanings not intended. Authenticity and courage in leadership means being honest and authentic in our language too. We don't engage in using words like "empowerment" unless of course we know the full meanings and connotations of words. Don't call yourself a "servant leader" unless you actually do take on qualities of being a servant to those you follow. Our authenticity as leaders begins with the language and buzzwords we use. I, for one, do not like the word empowerment.

Bloomboard: Free User-Friendly Teacher Observation-Evaluation Web Tool

One of the hottest topics in educational leadership right now is teacher evaluations and observations. Finding an effective tool to do this is problematic, especially when trying to find the right solution that gives teachers the right kind of feedback and support. Some states, like my own, have custom-designed observational tools already in place, but I am sure there are school leaders looking for tools to collect teacher evaluation data. BloomBoard is a answer for those looking for such an observational tool, and best of all, it is now free and used by over 100,000 educators.

In a recent post on the blog Getting Smart, BloomBoard is described as a tool for providing “school districts and states with user-friendly tools to collect educator effectiveness data---and then recommend personalized training for each teacher based on his or her particular professional needs.” BloomBoard is an observational-evaluation tool that allows school leaders to identify teacher weaknesses and then provide customized support to help that teacher improve.

BloomBoard Interface

I recently took BloomBoard for a trial spin, and here’s some of the positive features I immediately noticed:

• Simple to use interface. Some evaluation software, in its zeal to provide users with tons of options, makes the user interface complicated and non-intuitive. Not so with BloomBoard. Upon logging in, the interface is sleek and intuitively simple to use.
• There are options to sign in as an administrator, instructional coach or teacher.
• The learning curve for BloomBoard appears to be quite simple. Those who consider themselves “technologically challenged” will find this software easy to use.
• Best of all, once the observation is complete, the administrator is provided with a page full of resources to address specific needs identified.

BloomBoard is a solution that school leaders will find quite useful in helping teachers grow in their practice. If North Carolina did not have a state mandated solution, I could positively see using BloomBoard to help teachers grow professionally.

Making Better Decisions as School Leaders: Fighting 4 Villains of Decision-Making

Are you faced with making a major decision or decisions as the school year begins? In our educator roles, the excitement and anticipation of the new year comes packaged with anxiety and worry about decisions we face. Being "decisive" means making the right choices in these situations, and authors Chip and Dan Heath offer school leaders just the right advice on how to be decisive in their new book Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work. It is must-have addition the library of anyone tasked with making significant decisions for their school or district.

According to Chip and Dan Heath, what complicates our decision-making are what they call "The Four Villains of Decision Making." These four villains are:

• Narrow Framing: According to the Heaths, narrow framing is "the tendency to define our choices too narrowly, to see them in binary terms."  This narrowing of options is automatic and causes us to fail to see options that might be better than the ones currently in our "spotlight."
• Confirmation Bias: According to the Heaths, confirmation bias is "probably the single biggest problem in business. It causes even the most sophisticated to get things wrong." In confirmation bias, we seek information that bolsters our current beliefs, which causes us to fail to see perfectly valid information that might help us make better decisions.
• Short-Term Emotion: The villain "short-term emotion" is simply when we allow our impermanent, short-term feelings influence our decision-making. This villain causes us to make rash decisions that often make situations even worse.
• Overconfidence: The Heaths say overconfidence is when we "place too much faith in our predictions." "People think they know more than they do about how the future will unfold." The truth is, as the Heaths point out in their book Decisive, people are more often wrong in their predictions than they are right, yet we display overconfidence in how we think things will turn out.

How can we minimize the effects of these four "villains of decision-making?" What are some strategies to ensure that we can counteract them? According to Chip and Dan Heath, there are groups of strategies that can help. Their book, Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work is full of strategies that they group together under the acronym WRAP. The letters WRAP stand  for the following groups of strategies:

Widen Your Options: These are strategies designed to get you to look for options you are missing due to narrow framing. Strategies suggested by the Heaths include: multitracking, finding someone who's solved your problem, laddering, and looking at analogies from related domains.

Reality-Test Your Assumptions: Because confirmation bias causes us to look for "skewed, self-serving information" we need strategies to counteract that bias. According to the Heaths, those strategies include: asking disconfirming questions, zoom out/zoom in, and "ooching."

Attain Distance Before Deciding: To counteract the villain of short-term emotion, they suggest a group of strategies that help you attain distance before deciding. These strategies include: shifting perspective, 10/10/10, or clarifying core priorities.

Prepare to Be Wrong:  As an antidote to overconfidence, the Heath's suggest three strategies: prepare for bad outcomes(premortem)  and good outcomes (preparade), look at what would make you reconsider your decision, and set tripwires to trigger attention.

Chip and Dan Heath's book Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work, methodically takes readers through these groups of strategies with clear descriptions and lots of informative examples that help you make much better decisions by defeating the four villains of decision making. It is the straightforward advice we've come to expect  from the same authors of the books Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die and Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard

6 Practices for Creating a 21st Century Engaging Classroom

“Teachers who are willing to experiment and take risks on behalf of kids are in a much better position, regardless of their age, to meet their students where they are, and my experience is that students appreciate the effort.” Ron Nash, From Seatwork to Feetwork: Engaging Students in Their Own Learning

A new school year is upon us, and the decisions we are making now as educational leaders and classroom teachers will determine whether our students are engaged learners, or are passive learners. In other words, our decisions now will determine whether education is something we do to our students or whether education is something into which we actively engage them. The time for "Planning for Student Engagement" is now.

As you and your teachers ponder questions like:

•  How do I arrange my classroom or classrooms this year?
• What kinds of technologies will I use? 
• What materials will I use?

here are some practices for moving your students from active to passive learning mode in the 2013-2014 school-year.

1. Rearrange your classroom to facilitate collaboration and cooperation, not conformity and standardized learning. How a classroom is arranged communicates to students what they are expected to do. It screams loudly to them if desks are arranged in rows in front of teacher’s desk, “I am the teacher, the imparter of all knowledge and wisdom, and you are my students, the receptacles of all my knowledge.” Take the time before school starts to really ponder your classroom arrangement. If you want student interaction and student-driven learning, you may want to move your teacher desk out into the hall (Just kidding. I know the fire marshal would have a fit). With your classroom arrangement, purposefully create places for collaboration and talk.

2. Change your mindset from “curriculum or content coverage” to a mindset that engages students in in-depth, relevant learning. In a test-driven school culture, it is easier to “cover content” rather than really examine what you are asking students to do and have them actively engage that content. Covering content means just that, and fosters a teaching attitude that says, "Well, I taught it; it's the kids responsibility to learn it." The trouble with that thinking is clear: no, you didn't really teach it. You covered it. Engaging students in content deeply means teaching that asks students to apply that content in some deep and meaningful way. The old factory maxim that puts students in the role of recipients of knowledge rarely is engaging anymore. Take on the mindset of engaging students in learning not covering content standards.

3. Take instructional risks this year. Don’t sacrifice creativity and innovation to obtain orderliness and conformity. Instructional risks, as Ron Nash aptly points out, are really appreciated by students. They are excited when teachers try new ways of teaching and learning, and teachers who try new ways of instruction are excited too. Recharge your classroom and your students by trying instructional methodology and pedagogy you haven’t done before. It will re-energize your teaching and your classrooms.

4. Accept that real student engagement and student learning is most often messy and chaotic. Places where students are actually engage in learning are often noisy places. At first glance, these chaotic and messy classrooms and schools don’t appear to foster true learning, especially if you view them through the lens of 20th century, factory-model education system. Laughter and loud talking are not necessarily a sign of off task behavior. Students who are engaged make a lot of noise. Don’t dampen their excitement by insisting on silence or sitting in seats. Let the messiness of true student engagement begin on the first day. Embrace the chaos and messy nature of student engagement.

5. Choose your tech tools wisely. Choose the tools that get students engaged in the learning you want them to engage in. Using technology because it allows students to engage content in new and novel and effective ways means you look for the tools that fit the kinds of learning you want students to do. Having students “Do PowerPoints” is often not an engaging activity by itself anymore, and having to sit through someone flitting through slides in monologue is even less so. Choose your tech with a eye to risk and to what you want your students to do with that tech.

6. Pay attention to relationships. Students behave better for teachers that care about them, period. They are more engaged in the learning and are more involved in classroom activities. Teachers who focus on relationships with students "teach students not math, or science, or social studies." Take some time this year to build solid relationships with your students. Doing so creates a climate of safety where risk-taking and mistake-making are acceptable.

As you plan out your school year, there are decisions that will greatly have an affect on whether your classrooms are places of engagement or places of boredom and passive learning. Perhaps these six classroom practices will help you transform your classroom into true 21st century classrooms where student engagement is the rule.

5 Ways Schools or Districts Can Immediately Use Technology to Engage in Authentic Learning

"Opportunities brought about by the recent developments of technology have been almost completely missed in education," writes Yong Zhao in, World Class Learners; Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students. Take a quick look in schools, and you will see that there are a great deal of "missed opportunities." You are still likely to see students sitting in rows, teachers at the front of the room lecturing, or students flipping pages in a textbook and answering questions at the end of  chapters. This is happening, while across the room sits four or five desktop computers, fully wired to the world. Or, safely tucked away in many of the students' pockets are smartphones with more computing power than the first PCs many of us owned. These missed opportunities exist for lots of reasons. Failure to provide training and support for implementation. Lack of technical support for the devices. Leadership that discourages innovation and experimentation. The list is endless.  Nonetheless, these are missed opportunities for engaging students in authentic, 21st century learning.

What, then, are ways schools and school districts can turn these missed opportunities into the means to engage students in 21st century learning? It simply involves looking at the technologies and using all of their capabilities, not just those that support the ways we've always taught. Here are five ways schools and school districts can immediately use technology to engage their students in 21st century learning.

• Use the technology as a media creation tool. Desktops, laptops, netbooks, and can do so much more than type research papers. While that is certainly a legitimate educational activity, our technological devices will do so much more. Educators and their leaders need to see them as tools to create media products, such as books, artwork, photos, movies, music, web pages, and blog posts. The list for media creation possibilities is limitless. In the end, you can recognize a school that gets it technologically by the media products students are asked to create.
• Use the technology as a communication tool that enlarges your school campus. Instead of using our devices to just email parents and communicate with each other in the building,  we can have students email experts, and engage national and international leaders in conversations that constitute real learning. When it comes to communication, you can recognize a school that gets it technologically by the extent of its use of global connections.
• Use the technology to engage global audiences. Instead of seeing devices as a way for students to publish and share in the classroom, use them to engage students in India, Japan, and Australia as authentic audiences. Use the world as an audience, not just the students in the classroom or the teacher. When it comes to engaging authentic audiences, you can recognize a school that gets it technologically by who their audiences are.
• Use the technology for global collaboration, not just for in-class cooperative learning. Instead of students only partnering with their peers in desks across from them, have them partner with peers in India, Argentina or Germany. Effectively engaging technology means having students work with other students on the other side of the world, rather than just the other side of the room. When it comes to collaboration, you can recognize a school that get its technologically by where the students with whom they are collaborating are located.
• Use the technology to forge partnerships with other educators in other parts of the world. Use the devices to make connections with educators and students in areas of the world that are seeing first hand what you want your students to see and what you want your students to learn. Technology offers the opportunities of global partnerships. When it comes to partnerships, you can recognize when a school that gets it technologically by whether it engages in international partnerships for learning.

One only need look around his or her schools and districts to see if there are missed opportunities for engaging in authentic learning through technology. Are there missed opportunities sitting on tables, resting in students' pockets, or sitting in storage carts? Are students still primarily learning through textbooks and chapter questions? Authentic learning can happen when we engage in learning that capitalizes on the capabilities of our technologies rather than simply using those technologies to enhance what we've always done.

Posted with Blogsy

3 Steps to Managing Your School or District's Online Reputation

In their book, Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, authors Andy Beal and Judy Strauss entitle one chapter "You Don't Own Your Company's Reputation."

That idea is equally true for schools and districts and should remind twenty-first century school leaders that they "don't own their school or school district's reputation either." It is so easy for administrators to still engage in trying to protect the reputation of their schools, because that is the conventional thinking. But with the advent of social media and self-publishing ability of the web in general, protecting your school or district's reputation becomes an exercise in futility. Instead, 21st century school leaders must shift their thinking from protecting their school or district's reputation to managing that reputation. Trying to control the conversation about your organization is impossible in the digital age.

What are some beginning steps toward "managing a school or district's online reputation?" Taking the advice of Beal and Strauss, here are some starting points to consider.

1. Begin with internal stakeholders. Since you can't really control what people say about you in social media and online anymore, you start your reputation management with those who really know you: your students, teachers, parents, and other employees. Enlist them as advocates. Get them to help you get the word out. They can also alert you to negative talk on social media, so that you can work to get the information out there that tells your side of things.

2. Monitor the web to see what people are saying about your school or district. Set up Google Alerts to catch when someone publishes something about your school. This simple tool will immediately alert you by email when someone posts something about your school on a blog, website or news article.

3. Be transparent: be honest. Managing your online reputation isn't about posting a false information to cover up the negatives about your school or district. It is about making sure what is being said is accurate, and that your side of the story is being told. It is also about proactively listening to what people's beef is about your school, and honestly responding to them. Finally, it's about just being honest and not hiding things.

These three starting points are a good place to start for school leaders who want to begin managing their school or district's reputation rather than trying to protect it. As Beal and Strauss indicate regarding companies, 21st century school leaders must realize they no longer own our school's reputation either, and must move their thinking to managing that reputation rather than protecting or controlling it.

Posted with Blogsy

North Carolina Governor Pat McCroy's Narrow View of Purpose of Education

New North Carolina governor, Pat McCroy, recently made clear his stance and philosophy regarding education. He simply sees little value in a liberal arts education. Economic interests are central to his views on education, at the exclusion of all else.

"If you want to take gender studies that's fine, go to a private school and take it. But I don't want to subsidize that if that's not going to get someone a job," stated Governor McCroy when speaking about his desire to transform higher education in this state. (Here's the Charlotte Observer article)

This statement by McCroy betrays his beliefs about the fundamental purposes of education. One can't but help wonder whether he sees education as only a means to economic interest. Of course, there is some merit in the idea of college leading to a higher paying job. After all, who does not want to a good job after spending four years time and hard-won money obtaining a college degree? But, and this is important, let's not dangerously venture too far in that direction either. The true danger in McCroy's views on education is taking a too narrow view of education's purpose, a view that lacks a vision and eye to the future.

Education's goals should include economic interests, but it should also include wider interests as well. Things like furthering human potential, bettering oneself, and expanding our horizons should equally be important. Perhaps education's goal should be simply to better ourselves as human beings, and that is not measured solely by our economic contributions. Those are measured by our greater contributions to the world around us. Seeing education as more than a pathway to a job as these goals do, means seeing all of education's potential.

Governor McCroy specifically knocks the gender studies progam at UNC in his statement, which he clearly sees as a waste of taxpayer money. But I think his statement and views are quite dangerous. We don't have to agree with all that is taught in universities and colleges, but who is omniscient enough to start making the decisions on what degree programs should be cut and what should be kept? Traveling down that road is quite slippery and could lead us to a university system that is quite capable of feeding the economic interests, but is incapable of producing people who can see beyond their own selfish economic interests.

In the end, I can only hope that many, many college graduates let Governor McCroy know that we do not want he suggests, which is to turn our university system into just a servant to economic interests alone. Higher education should not be turned into a factory that churns out workers for business and industry. It should also provide graduates who have a much larger vision for themselves and the world.