A Piece of My Mind

Photo Credit: Tommy Merritt’s site

Oddly enough, on the day I blogged about TAKS changes the legislature is considering, I got a response from one of my state representatives from a questionnaire I sent out a little while back. Tim Holt blogged about doing the same thing with his state rep candidates, and I think Kyle Stevens might have joined in as well. I took the challenge and did the same.

I live in one House District while working in another. The advantage to this is that I get to work with both state representatives legitimately. I sent the questionnaire to both of them. One, State Rep. Tommy Merritt, Longview, completed his and returned it via email today. Thanks so much for doing that, sir. I have to say, my work with Rep. Merritt over the years has been mostly positive as it pertains to public education. Even when he votes opposite of what I would prefer, he shares his reasons. It is better than I get out of most state reps that cover our region of the state. One has a standard response of “I will vote with the recommendation of the committee.” That is political speak for “I have to see what the leadership wants me to do first before I can take a position.” But I digress.

So, get ready for more education conversation than you found in ALL of the presidential debates combined.  Rep. Merritt is unopposed in this race. Well, let me rephrase that. He had a last minute alternate party candidate join the race ONLY because he did not want to just see one name on the ballot. He is not actively campaigning.  Please find below the questions and answers directly copied and pasted from the email. I have made no changes to either of our parts of this (questions are in bold print):

Q1: Do you favor the current method of funding schools in Texas? Why or why not?  (If you do not favor the current method, what method will you suggest?)
I don’t favor the current “target revenue hold-harmless” method of funding schools because it does not reflect the actual cost of educating our children. Because of target revenue funding, more than 90% of school district funding is determined by a snapshot of what existed in the 2005-06 school year. We already have a formula system in statute that would provide a sound basis for an equitable, cost-based system. We need to fund it at an appropriate level and move away from the target revenue concept.

Q2:  Gathering from your history in the legislature, you suggest additional funding for education programs. How will you propose to pay for such programs while lowering property taxes but not generating more income via a state income tax?
As the Texas economy continues to grow faster than the rest of the nation, the increased revenue at current property tax rates should be funneled back into public education by increasing the funding yields that provide the foundation for an efficient funding system. This will go a long way in enabling districts to meet funding challenges such as those created by inflation and increasing accountability standards—and, it helps districts avoid tax rate increases because it provides more money for the district at the same tax rate.

Q3: Texas schools are behind other states in spending for technology. How will you suggest that the legislature help schools get up to the same level of technology spending that other states have been at for years and be prepared for future technology needs?
First, we need to recognize the reality of the current situation. Until the 2002-03 school year, public schools were eligible for grants from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF). Districts would not necessarily receive a grant each year, but the average annual disbursement was about $30 per student. In addition, the Available School Fund provided a $30 per student technology allotment. Now, five years later, that $60 per student average has dropped below $30—based on a “sum-certain” appropriation.
This funding level is inadequate and should be raised to at least $150 per student, perhaps with a phase-in of a $50 per student technology allotment in 2009-2000, $100 in the second year of the biennium, and $150 per student for each year thereafter, dedicated from the Available School Fund.
The third component must be efficiency. We must make sure that every technology dollar is spent wisely, but true efficiencies will not come from outside the system. They must evolve from collaboration among stake holders, from the sharing of resources, and from the use of innovative teaching.

Q4: In our part of the state, there are many families without access to the internet due to the lack of infrastructure (fiber) running into our rural communities. Yet, much if not all of the state educational information is located on the internet. We are effectively not allowing these parents to be part of the education of their children. How will you address this issue?
Given current technology and the size of Texas, providing fiber-access to every parent, regardless of where they live, would be an impossible task, as you know. An answer may eventually lie in newer technologies like broadband over cell or broadband over power lines, but those are commercial builds for the obvious reasons.

While technology has certainly enhanced communication between parents and public schools and plays a very important roll, the higher question of ensuring parent participation in the education of their children is not limited to internet access. Regular contact with your child’s teacher is the essential component.

Q5: School districts across the state must respond to unfunded mandates from both the state and federal levels. For instance, in a few years, the state will require all student statewide testing such as End of Course and TAKS tests to be administered online. The state is not providing any additional monies to districts to make sure they have the equipment, bandwidth, and facilities to provide for this. Can you address exactly what you will do to help districts with unfunded mandates, both from the state and the federal levels?

If a thing is worth mandating, then it is worth the funding it takes to respond to the mandate. If a thing is not worth funding, then it shouldn’t be a mandate.

Unfunded federal mandates should be addressed with your Congressman. State mandates that are without benefit, whether they are unfunded or not, should be eliminated.

The first step is for those directly involved in public education—educators, parents, and other taxpayers—to identify the mandates that should be eliminated. If the case can be made, then I will work to eliminate them.

Q6: How do you plan to address the continuing teacher and administrator shortages?  Which of these are viable plans in your estimation:
Recruit teachers from other countries.
Rehire retirees with few restrictions.
Help districts reimburse individuals who go to or return to school to become certified teachers.
Help districts reimburse individuals who return to college while still teaching to earn administrator certification.
All of the strategies you mention are good strategies for eliminating teacher and administrator shortages. The best approach, however, must begin with competitive salaries.

Q7: One of the greatest expenses in any school district is the installation of technology followed by the maintenance and eventual replacement of said technology.  What is your plan to give districts relief from the costs associated with these instructional and administrative tools?
Appropriate technology is essential in any school district, as are faculty and staff salaries, healthcare, transportation, and on and on. A school funding plan written with intent to address a specific cost will most likely fail to address other, equally important costs. Adequately funding a cost-based formula system—which includes solid, dependable funding for technology—should be our goal.

Q8: What is your stand on electronic textbooks as opposed to traditional paper texts?
Each has benefits, neither is a remedy. Both should be used in the best way to meet the needs of children.

Q9: Student assessment like the TAKS test has mutated over the years from a simple student diagnostic to a high stakes program where people’s jobs are placed in jeopardy if scores are not met. Do you support high stakes testing such as the TAKS test? Why or why not? How do you see these tests changing in the future?

I voted for SB1031 replacing the TAKS test with end of course exams for high school students. In addition, I support replacing the TAKS test for middle and elementary students with end of course exams. A single test should not determine a student’s or teacher’s success or failure.

Q10: What can you do specifically to help House District 7 schools and parents during your legislative session in Austin?
Listen to the concerns expressed by schools and parents. Communicate their input and feedback to my colleagues and vote for legislation that supports their needs.

Thank you for your time.
I look forward to reading and posting your responses.

Scott S. Floyd, M. Ed.
White Oak ISD Instructional Technologist
903.291.2220
http://scottsfloyd.edublogs.org

Big props to Rep. Merritt for taking the initiative to respond to my inquiry. I appreciate this candor in several of the responses.  As always, I look forward to working with him during the upcoming session.  I will leave the commentary to the comment section. Who is the first to weigh in on this?

Photo Credit: DairDair

Can it be that the pendulum is finally swinging back the other direction?  This just in from Charles at Off the Kuff:

TAKS changes coming

Stepping out of campaign coverage for a second, here’s a look ahead to some TAKS tinkering the Lege will take up next year.

Texas public school students could face less pressure on the TAKS test under a proposal that key lawmakers unveiled Tuesday to overhaul the state’s school accountability system.

Under the plan, elementary and middle school students would no longer have to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test to advance to the next grade level.

Schools still would be held accountable for low test scores, but they would get credit for improvement — even if students fell short of certain targets.

While several parents and school leaders praised the proposed changes to the school grading system as being more fair, others expressed concern that Texas would be lowering its standards. The Legislature is expected to consider the idea, offered by a special House-Senate committee on school accountability, next year.

“What this proposal does is eliminate the high-stakes testing in elementary schools, and I think that’s a very positive development,” said Spring Branch Superintendent Duncan Klussmann.

[...]

The revamped school grading system, which would require extra help for the struggling students, also would base annual performance ratings on three years of test scores instead of a single year and would give credit for student improvement. Districts would get judged on their financial health, too.

Pasadena ISD Superintendent Kirk Lewis applauded the move to averaging scores, noting that under the current system a school could be stigmatized with a low rating if it barely missed the mark in one subject one year.

“I think it will be helpful in taking some of the pressure off the schools,” Kirk said. “I believe in accountability … but the tweaks they’re making, it appears it would be a positive improvement over what we’ve got.”

Legislative leaders concede weaknesses in the current system — which rates schools on TAKS scores, graduation rates and dropout rates — and they heard complaints from educators and parents during hearings around the state this year.

“We found that the TAKS was the main focus of a lot of our education efforts, and it’s a minimal-skills test,” said House Public Education Chairman Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands.

Standardized testing has its place, but I think the consensus after ten years of it here in Texas is that it’s become an end rather than a means to an end, and that it’s high time some effort was made to scale it down a little. I think bigger changes than this are ultimately needed, but this is a step in the right direction. Kudos to Rep. Eissler for listening to the feedback from parents and educators.

My comments on this:
This could be good news for those with elementary-aged students who just might not need that kind of pressure. It is also great news for elementary teachers who have been forced to be a part of the pressure-packed system. I can say fairly confidently that this is in large part to the new leadership that the House Public Education Committee has found after the previous chair’s defeat during election time. While I have had the opportunity to testify before the Interim Committee on Accountability, I would not have expected much movement on our suggestions, yet so quickly. Glad to see it was taken serious. Thank you, Chairman Eissler. I look forward to working with you more in the coming session.

My post title comes from a quote by Carl Gustav Jung - “The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong”

Photo Credit: notanalternative

[Background: For some insight into the argument presented below, let me
share this. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) uses a government subset organization called Texas Education Telecommunications Network (TETN) to share TEA updates and other material via a distance learning network. School districts must pay to receive those connections. As budgets have been crunched due to continued shortfall funding by Texas leadership, school districts have had to trim away even the important things. You know, the things you should be getting for free like state mandated updates. This is not a plea for TETN to be free for all of their services. They also offer DL sessions for classrooms that many find very useful.]

Notes from TECSIG, October 2 & 3, 2008:

TEA - Let me begin by saying, I truly respect Anita Givens. Her work on behalf of public education and technology has been tremendous. We are lucky to have her in the new position she now holds. But I believe respect between two professionals is appreciated most when there is some honest pushback and not just a bunch of agreement. (It is the reason I like Gary Stager and the work he does.)

While TEA may rest on the idea/reason/excuse of cash-strapped and man-power lean, the rest of us are in the same boat but are utilizing the free technologies that are out there for us. Government is not thinking that way. Government wants to place a high price tag on what it does because it makes it seem more important, I presume. As a public school district employee, I find it extremely important to have timely policy and program updates from my governing body. Cost should not be an inhibitor.

A few years back I blogged about how another state passed a bill requiring all government offices to consider free, opensource options when looking at alternatives. Texas does not do that. For too many years we have listened to our state’s leadership talk about how transparent school districts need to be. Texas government doesn’t do that either.

So, to TEA, my suggestion is a simple, classic line heard many times: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. And let me add one more to that. Consider this turn of that phrase: Lead, follow, collaborate, or get out of the way. If you cannot make the system better for any of a long list of reasons, let us help. Somehow we are able to harness the free resources that are out there for our schools and classrooms. Let us use those same systems to get the word out about new programs, policy changes, and important deadlines. Don’t claim some false statement of copyright (which you do not have in this instance anyway thanks to Texas Sunshine Laws) and slow down the information superhighway. We are not talking about private conversations here. We are talking about large group policy and program updates. You know, the stuff you and the tax payers expect us to live up to.

While we can go ahead and repost the information without repercussions, it would be nice for TEA to step up and applaud the fact that Texas educators care enough about their state system and local school districts that they are willing to be a part of the solution to make it the best it can be. Why anyone would think or do otherwise is incomprehensible. We do not extend our personal learning just to aggravate the state. We’ve better things to do.

As an aside: Please don’t tell me that TEA has been “telling you for eight years” about a tech literacy assessment. We both know that is a cop out. Sure, NCLB came out then and it is a part of that, but there has never even been a hint of holding anyone accountable until May 9th when you folks shared it with the limited number of people in attendance that day. Even still, the limited funds that MIGHT be lost by ignoring the mandate is not enough to move many districts to act. Why districts would choose to defy assessment now in as an important area as any is ridiculous, with our without the consequences. But I digress. I know it was a statement made as more of a defensive measure than one that was thought out.

TETN - These folks are in a bubble of sorts. They want to be relevant. They need the money stream to stay afloat. Yet, they have become an old version of what we use now with online tools. They are the land line compared to the cell phone. The HBO to NetFlix and iTunes. The post office to email.

What if you propose to place Marco Torres’s decision-making self-reflection on it: “Complain, Innovate, or Quit.” TETN is in the Complain stage. The problem with that? They’re a vendor. How long will they survive in that spot? Relevance is a limited state of being. Remember that. Go for Marco’s second option in that list. Please.

Yes, there was more to those two days in Austin than TEA and TETN, but let’s face it. We all go there to hear what is expected of us next. Yes, Apple did a fine job of professional development the first day. Maria Henderson is always pure genius (even if her old links are dead due to the Mobile.me upgrade. Sigh.). So, if you want to know more about them, go to one of their offerings for school district administrators.

But, if you want to be a part of TEA opening the virtual doors to their massive amounts of information, become part of the solution. If you want to stand in the way because you have nothing productive to do, you’re wasting your time. You cannot hold up progress. The Texas Legislature meets in January. I’ve started my game plan. Have you?

So you think you know who is running Texas education, huh? Well, take this little quiz provided by Texas Monthly to see just how knowledgeable you are about the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE). When you are finished, do me a favor. Come back here and leave me a comment and let me know which thing(s) surprised you the most.  Then register to vote in the upcoming SBOE elections after you find the right person to represent you/us.  Then consider visiting this place:

UPDATE 9/23/08: In the comments below, Scott Laleman asked about who made up the candidates in the races. I am listing them here with the incumbent named first:

District 2 – Mary Helen Berlanga (D) vs. Peter H. Johnston (R)
District 7 – David Bradley (R) vs. Laura Ewing (D)
District 13 – Mavis B. Knight (D) vs. Cindy Werner (R)
District 14 – Gail Lowe (R) vs. Edra Bogle (D)

Unopposed

District 6 – Terri Leo (R)
District 8 – Barbara Cargill (R)
District 11 – Pat Hardy (R)

Find information on registering to vote, click HERE.

My good friend and fellow education advocate, Brock Gregg, has written an article each of the last two months about just this situation. Take a look at them:

Never Make an English Teacher Mad

The Seven Dirtiest Words: Educators who show up at the polls

This is good stuff from a man is who well respected around the Capitol by all participants in the process.

Earlier this week I found a post in my blog reader from Off the Kuff political blog from Houston. Twitter was the topic, and Congress is struggling with its use from the Congressional floor. Here is what was said:

The actual issue is one that we discussed a few months back. Existing House rules actually forbid members of Congress from posting “official communications” on other sites. This was first noticed by a first-term Congressman who was worried that posting videos on YouTube violated this rule. Other Congressional Reps told him to not worry about it as everyone ignored that rule, and no one would get in trouble for using various social media sites such as YouTube. However, that Congressman pushed forward, and eventually got Congress to act. Of course, rather than fixing the real problem (preventing Reps from posting on social media sites), they simply asked YouTube to allow Reps to post videos in a “non-commercial manner.” YouTube agreed, and that was that.

However, the existing rules still stood. Culberson’s complaint stems for a letter (pdf) sent by Democratic Rep. Michael Capuano, suggesting that the rules actually be changed to be loosened to deal with this situation and make it easier to post content on various social media sites. Culberson, however, bizarrely claims that this is the Democrats trying to limit what he can say on Twitter. But that’s actually not at all what the letter states. The problem isn’t this letter, but the existing rules that are already in place. In fact, based on the letter, it would appear that this would make it possible for Congressional Reps to Twitter, so long as their bio made it clear they were Reps.

A bunch of people tried to understand this, and even I asked him to clarify why the problem was with this new letter, as opposed to the existing rules. His response did not address the question at all — but rather was the identical response he sent to dozens of people who questioned his claims. He notes that based on the letter, each Twitter message must meet “existing content rules and regulations.” Indeed, but the problem is that’s already true based on those existing content rules and regulations. The problem isn’t this new effort, but those existing rules and regulations, which mean that his existing Twitter messages violated the rules.

It’s really disappointing to see someone who had embraced the technology use it to try to whip up Twitter users into a frenzy, while misleading them to do so — and then not using the tools to respond to actual criticisms. The problem here is that the existing rules for Reps is problematic. It’s not this new effort to loosen the rules, other than in the fact that the loosening of the rules might not go far enough. That’s not, as Culberson claims, an attempt to censor him on Twitter, but simply an attempt to loosen the rules with a focus on YouTube and (most likely) with an ignorance of the fact that Twitter even exists.

Will Richardson elaborated on it some more today from his blog when he shared this NPR quote:

Given the rules in place, this clash between the old ways of talking to the Congress and the potential new ones may have been inevitable. Noyes says Culberson and Ryan are active users of the Internet. “They have been Twittering all over the place,” he says. “They’ve been Twittering back and forth, engaging one another in debates over politics and policy.” The reporter describes Culberson, in particular, as something of a Web maverick and a poster child for the issue.

Isn’t it ironic that these politicians have taken this tool and used it similarly to what educators have been doing? They realize the potential of the immediate personal learning network. And it is free. Guess that is what really bothers the politicians. They prefer something be used that costs tons of money and has too many channels of bureaucracy to be useful to anyone. At least they all don’t. But the best part of it to me as a political advocate for education is that it limits each side of the debate to 140 characters at a time. Yeah!!! No long winded, topic spinnin’, off-the-topic runnin’ fillibusters. Get to the point, and get there quickly because you only get 140 characters. Can’t you see the timeline for the debate:

Senator 1: @Senator2 We’ve got to consider the fact that schools are only able to handle so many unfunded mandates. At some point funding is required.

Senator 2: @Senator1 They’ve enough money already. Why give more when they just waste it? They buy all the best software, computers, etc. To what rslt?

Senator 1: @Senator2 You mean like the equipment in your office EACH of your staff members use EVERY day? Like the iPhone you are Twittering from?…

Senator 1: @Senator2 All of which is paid for by PUBLIC tax dollars with staff taught in PUBLIC schools to do the work for the PUBLIC?

Senator 3: @Senator2 Burn!

Senator 2: @Senator3 Shut-up! You’re in my party. I’m blocking you!

Or at least it might go something like that. I just wonder how Twitter would handle the public information requests for the Twitter conversations.

Now, let me see if I can get my state senator and representative on board for the next legislative session.

The following are my few notes from my short meeting with Anita Givens and three other school districts held 11/2007. They are strictly my thoughts/perceptions/views/etc.

tech funding to support LRPT - will be asking for new money every session headed toward 75 to 100 per student

hb 2864 (point person - Richard Lagow) -

• renewal for second year will place priority on first year districts looking at number of students served;
• in other words, if we do 200 this year, we will get first consideration for 200 next year then second consideration with the additional students;
• Anita suggests get in this year, or be prepared to miss out on the money next year due to limitations of renewal money amounts (My note as of 1/10/08 - This grant processing is not going well at TEA due to limited funds and more interest than expected; legislators should fund higher next year)

K12 databases being worked on

sb1788 (point person - Anita Givens) -

• not funded, but what can we do until it is funded;
• creating criteria for dl classes;
• criteria for educators PD and certification;
• look at web-based learning site for progress of this process;
• if student is getting full day’s worth of ADA on a campus, they are going to be eligible to take up to two online course for additional ADA;
• requires teacher to have PD about teaching online before they qualify to teach DL course; taking NCOL to help with standards/criteria for each area (student and faculty);
• these standards must be in place 6 months prior to implementation;
• bill says open program by 08-09, but no funding or time right now to get it all done in time, maybe by mid-year;
• will not lose ADA based on taking online coursework, funding is lost via the network providing the courses;
• districts will have autonomy to create their own VHS networks, rules are permissive to allowing students to take courses from other networks;
• build ADA off kids in private schools and homeschooled;
• “we do not get docked for having a kid fail and repeating a year so why would we get extra money for a kid that succeeded a year early?” (My response was that the doctor does not give me my money back for the visit and/or prescriptions when he does not heal me either.);

Tech Assessment Pilot -

• going out for RFP to figure out costs;
• waiting for this process to take place before proposal hits ISD’s;
• vendor side takin gplace this month, maybe March-May to get it in place;

Notes for after event:

email Richard Lagow about our elementary online coursework

ask about textbook updates for software between adoptions, etc

I would like to thank Mrs. Givens for taking the time our of her schedule to meet with us at that event. It is refreshing to be able to talk to a face instead of a voice mail these days. Her candid answers are exactly what we need to be able to guide us in our planning. Sometimes what is not said is almost as powerful as what is said. Thanks again!

Technorati Tags: scott_s_floyd, tea, edtech

Thanks to Google Maps Mania for the link, you can view the caucus results for Iowa inside Google Maps to see which precinct voted which direction for their 2008 presidential primary. An even neater use of this is the sidebar that has current topical links to articles, videos, and even a “How the caucuses work” article link. How sweet is that? Those Google guys and gals are some innovative folks. Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact they get 20% of their work week for personal interest research and projects? Maybe? 

Technorati Tags: Scott_S_Floyd, google, googlemaps, president2008

Dan Pink recently posted a short quote from a presidential candidate (from a NY Sun article).

“Education is only a true education if we’re developing both the left and right brain of the student,” Mr. Huckabee told scores of bloggers listening in person and on the phone. “The left brain is great for math and science and all the logical forms of education, but knowing what to do with what a student has learned is as important as what they’ve learned. Music and art, teaching the stimulation of the creative side, is absolutely critical to a total well-rounded education.”

Finally, here is a discussion of substance about education. I was wondering how long we had to go during this election cycle before we heard something more than “We need to fund our education system better” (like we have not heard that before and are still in need of it). While I may or may not agree with everything this candidate is saying during the campaign, he at least is saying the right thing here. And the media needs to listen and promote this. The rest of society needs to understand why their kids “have no common sense” or know the true answer to “What were you thinking?” (when no thinking was really going on during the bad decision). Our students are left with little or no opportunity to explore their creative side once the standardized tests kick in. It’s not fair to them, and it actually takes away a lot of the fun of teaching (remember I went from teaching primary to middle school). So you can imagine how it takes away a lot of the fun of learning.

Then that leads to the entire conversation Dan Pink started with his book A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers will Rule the Future. Even the 2.oh students are talking about it on their blogs. Anthony Chivetta wrote a post about “Teaching the Process of Design” to students. Funny thing is, design is dependent on design:

I would argue that the reason watching student videos can at times be excruciatingly painful is that they lack a cohesive design. Often, they represent a hodgepodge of ideas strewn together with very little thought to creating a unified whole. However, when students begin with picking a thesis, and then work from that thesis, a pattern, a design, begins to emerge. When the question for every single decision is “what supports my thesis?” those awkward transitions, strange cuts, and random transitions begin to make sense.

I have to say I agree here. Much of what is needed to be true designers comes from the ability to organize the design ahead of time. That come in so many fashions from basically every core subject taught in school. Papers make no sense without organization. Math results are wrong with corrupt organization. Science experiments go awry with disjointed organization. History makes no sense with a disorganized presentation of the facts.

Proper design forces abstract thinking. Abstract thinking engages the right brain. Engagement of the right brain generates new ideas, products, manipulation and processing of data, and visions. 

If we just model correct design through curricular creation and delivery, expect the same high levels of design quality from our students through problem based learning, and showcase the products with exemplary design, then maybe, just maybe, others will notice the importance. It may be just a detail in learning. But as they say, the devil is in the details. It separates the winners form the losers. In our students’ futures, it will separate the have’s from the have not’s.

So to go full circle with this somewhat rambling post…..pay attention to the presidential candidates. While we all know Congress holds the real power, we must recognize a true visionary in the White House can lead to a more innovative (some will call it catch-up) vision for education. It is about time.

Technorati Tags: Scott_S_Floyd, politics, president2008

CNN/YouTube Republican Debate on November 27, 2007:

In Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate, Sen. John McCain let slip a fairly stunning admission. The Arizona Republican assured viewers that he wouldn’t need to lean on his vice president, George W. Bush-style, for national security expertise, but might “rely on a vice president” for help on less important issues such as “information technology, which is the future of this nation’s economy.”

Surely he didn’t say that. Right? I mean, how could he consider information technology “less important” while also saying the “future of this nation’s economy” is built around it? Herein lies our problems.

Legislators and congressmen are really good about trumpeting the importance of technology and its use in the classroom. They seem to realize its importance in the future of our society (as evidenced by the economy statement) and that without question our nation’s teachers and students should be masters of its use. Graduating high school and college students without the prerequisite technology skills is considered a travesty. But then they turn back around and either cut/eliminate spending on edtech or say something stupid like what the presidential hopeful said above. When it comes to technology, presidents and other national leaders have had such classic statements as “the Google” or “the Internets.” There is more than one? Are you kidding me? And we should vote for people like that? What if these same folks said things like “those Irans” or “I will only get consultation on less important things like hunger in America.” Would we accept that from a national leader we have elected to be our representative in the international spotlight?

When you consider we are on the verge of standardized testing for technology proficiency in Texas, surely we need someone who understands that you cannot teach such skills without the equipment. Equipment requires funding. Then again, it really is not about the equipment directly but more indirectly. Still, you cannot do it without the required materials.

You see, the aforementioned candidate does have it right in one way. A priority is information literacy. Our students and staff need to understand the importance of navigating the overwhelming amount of information they are receiving at ever increasing speeds. Students are required to master more and more earlier and earlier. Why they do not have the manipulation of much of that information channeled through technology tools (hardware and software, fixed and mobile, direct source and collaborative, etc.) is a little disheartening. It is cheating them in many aspects because they are going to face it in that manner after the PK-12 days are over whether they are prepared or not.

It is too easy to say the problem with our politicians is caused by a generational gap. That is ludicrous to consider as a valid excuse in today’s times (we don’t accept with our educators). What if we allow politicians to place the same treatment on other issues near and dear to our hearts? Literacy. Health Care. Poverty. AIDS.

So again I must ask, is this the type of comment we want any of our leaders to make?

I am not endorsing any candidate or party within this post. What I am advocating is that we make ourselves more educated on the candidates with the issues important to our classes full of kids, not to mention our personal futures as citizens in this great nation. McCain is expecting his VP to understand such trivial topics like information technology. Isn’t it very likely his VP choice would come from the group of folks standing next to him on the debate stage? Don’t believe that “your” candidate can just have someone really good on staff to take care of what they do not know about. They must truly understand the importance of the issues.

By the way, were you aware that one of the parties nearly did not have a CNN/YouTube debate? Too many of its candidates were scared of what it (the ability for citizens to ask questions via video online) had to offer. Funny how technology can do that to the uninformed. Don’t let our students end up like that. Uninformed in technology = illiterate in technology. Illiterate in technology = “Would you like fries with that?”

Thanks to a Tweet from Carolyn Foote (librarian at Westlake High School in Austin, TX) for bringing the article to my attention.

Technorati Tags: Scott_S_Floyd, politics, president2008, technology_literacy, edtech

Hey history and social studies teachers!  Here is a great chance to get your kids involved with the upcoming election in a 21st Century way.  Here is what their site has to say about the event:

On November 14, 2007, The EWN Foundation together with the Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government at The University of Central Florida, The Presidential Classroom and The United States Association of Former Members of Congress will conduct a three hour National Youth Presidential Forum (NYPF). The NYPF will be webcast to an estimated 25 million students, who will be first time voters.

Presidential Candidates will participate in the Forum from remote locations of their choice. The candidates will field questions from a moderator and students representing the Presidential Classroom. After the webcast, students will participate in an on-line vote for the candidate they would choose in the 2008 Presidential Election. Student’s feedback about the candidates’ responses will be collected and provided to the candidates after the event.

Each student will receive a login code from their teacher, 7-10 days before the event. They will pre-register to vote at www.rocktheweb.org. There will be pre-event class work assigned by the teachers. Then each student will attend the event at their respective venues. After the event, each student will receive a unique ballot code that will enable them to return to the web site and cast a vote and complete a survey about the Forum.

The goal of the NYPF is to increase the knowledge of our youth and to promote participation in the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election.

Check out the Rock the Web site for information and registration. 

Technorati Tags: Scott_S_Floyd, history, election, rock_the_web