Edging Ahead…

The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Years ago, when I was a struggling (and not particularly effective) classroom teacher, I regularly tossed out, tongue-in-cheek, “Kids actually learn in SPITE of us, rather than BECAUSE of us”. Diane Ravitch’s book has me pondering the prescience of that throwaway line. If Ravitch has it right, pretty much every educational innovation and reform movement of the last forty years has ended in failure. If we follow that thinking to its logical conclusion, then the prognosis for the current infatuation with communications technology, “data driven” assessment and technology-underpinned standardized testing is poor indeed.

To be fair, Ravitch does explore some relative successes, but only when measured through the selective lenses of external assessments. With the jury still out on whether these are accurate and relevant measures of actual learning, combined with the growing concerns about web-influenced attention deficit and changing patterns of reading and thinking, the hope for a “magic bullet” to solve all education’s woes is dim indeed.

There is hope. There’s always hope, but I’m not sure reading Ravitch’s book will convince anyone that it lies with the current generation of educational reform and technology-rich innovation. It’s probably more in the return to a simpler, more direct and more personalized form of individualized education – like the kind that produced some of western cultures most influential thinkers (Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, Dewey, …)

View all my reviews

The Book of God and Physics: A Novel of the Voynich Mystery by Enrique Joven
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I was initially fascinated by the premise of this book. Although I had come across a reference to the Voynich Mystery somewhere, I had to check my favorite online reference (Google, of course) to get up to speed. A complete novel written in code, that’s never been cracked? Possibly actually an alaborate hoax, and so effectively gibberish, even if it was cracked? A mystery involving political intrigue, social injustice and 21st century technology set in a modern monastery; a sort of 21st-century “Name of the Rose”? It had to be a great read.

Unfortunately, the book didn’t live up to its billing in Booklist and Publishers Weekly. I should have paid more attention to the Kirkus Review, which says, in part, “Attempting to combine enlightenment with entertainment, the author offers too much of the former and not enough of the latter. In addition, many of the solutions to the puzzles the trio encounters aren’t satisfying; the required clues are not necessarily provided, or they hinge on knowledge of esoteric topics in science, history and architecture. Finally, the trio never seems to be in any real danger, which robs the story of drama. Too many history lectures and not enough tension. (Kirkus Reviews, May 15, 2009)”

Without getting into the area of a “spoiler”, I would suggest that I did find myself relating to the protagonists and found the last few chapters a disappointment. In the end, the book left me unsatisfied, wishing it had been closer to Walter M. Miller’s “A Canticle for Leibowitz” than his eventual followup “Saint Leibowitz and the wild horse woman”.

View all my reviews

I’ve been reticent about blogging this, but readership of this blog is small (almost non-existent, if I’m really honest), so it’s likely to provide me the emotional closure I need without creating any big waves in the educational wading pool.

After 25 years in three different positions at International School Bangkok, I’ve resigned, effective June, 2011, to return to Canada, probably to my small hometown in Southern B.C..  I’m not recruiting internationally, and most recently, have moved away from even pursuing a job in the Canadian public school system. Although I faithfully follow Doug Johnson, and I generally agree with his sentiments, the three-ring binders post got me reflecting on how we each handle this inevitable point in our professional lives. I’ve still got a few of those 3-ring binders cluttering my life (including drafts of my  still only “self-published” novel),  but I’m not waiting around to see if the “work” binders ever get ported over to GoogleDocs.  I’m hanging up my Teacher-Librarian spurs and moving on to things which may be more relevant than either that novel – or my work at ISB – will be in the world we face in the coming decades (Greenland’s melting, Northwest Passage is open, uncontrolled methane outgassing is imminent…).

An off-the-cuff comment to a colleague this morning  pretty much sums up how I arrived at this decision. I said something like, “I’ve always believed I brought integrity to the position, and if I’m going to retain (or possibly to salvage) that, it’s time I left the profession.”

I gave my employer three reasons for my departure. At the top of my list was discontent with the relegation of ISB’s Main Library Review, Renovation and Renewal project to  continual “next-phase” status. My second reason was a compilation of concerns about Thailand’s future economic and social stability combined with growing disquiet over accelerating environmental degradation. But my own personal “tipping point”, was a realization that my parents, now in their ’80′s, and in declining health, deserve a greater sense of security than I can offer from half-way around the world – and more quality time with their first grandson (I was a late-starter ;0) than bi-yearly visits can offer.

There’s much more to it than that, of course – or perhaps much less.  It’s really about “the Third Question”, and that comment about integrity I made to a colleague.  Over the years, when asked by visitors why I was still at ISB after 10, 15, and then 20 years, my response became almost a trademark.

“I always ask myself three questions at contract renewal”, I would say. “If the answers to all 3 are “Yes”, then why would I uproot my family, move to yet another country, culture and language, and start all over again to build what I hope would be a great library program?”

the three questions are;

1. Do I still love living in Thailand (and who wouldn’t? The combination of 12 month beach weather, a wonderful, accomodating host culture, and an enviable contract & benefits package makes an assignment in Thailand truly a gift that keeps on giving)
2. Do I still enjoy my work at the school? (and how could one not? Since 1986 we’ve grown from 1200 to nearly 2000 students, moved to a beautiful campus in the suburbs, and transformed libraries from moribund “bookrooms” to  warm, dynamic ”social/work-spaces” featuring an eclectic blend of technology and traditional resources (including teak shelving, and, yes, a few remaining 3-ring binders ;0) )

And finally, the clincher: Question 3…

3. Do I still believe that the school values my contribution to the work we’re doing?

I have always felt valued, respected and affirmed in my professional capacity, and beginning my third decade at ISB felt no different. Recognizing the growing deficiencies in the pre-Internet facility we had designed in the 1980′s,  I began submitting library renovation and renewal proposals in 2002. When  administrative response was lukewarm, I fired off increasingly strident evidence-rich proposals advocating for a comprehensive review in 2004, 2006 and 2007. In 2oo8, the school convened a faculty committee for a year-long review culminating in a comprehensive inhouse report and proposals for next steps. We concluded the 2008-2009 school year with a site visit by external consultants Doug Johnson and Ann Krembs who reaffirmed many of our conclusions and provided additional strong recommendations. The stage was set, it seemed, for a long-awaited revamp rooted in historical perspective,  informed by current best practice and resulting in a renewal of the program and renovation of the physical plant.

The Johnson/Krembs report was filed with ISB in May, 2009. As of November 2010, there is no standing committee analyzing the findings, no public review process discussing next steps, and no mention of the library project in the comprehensive campus review plan rolled out this fall. Instead, following this year’s opening of a new (LEEDS Gold-Standard) Fine Arts Center, there are plans for a new high-tech track, new all-weather artificial turf for the alternate playing field, relocated tennis courts on a newly purchased plot of adjacent land, and a new 50 meter pool on the current tennis court site.

‘Nuff said about Question 3.  The bald, unvarnished truth, from where I stand, is that in spite of having once been branded a “technology evangelist” with one foot over the cutting edge and the other firmly rooted in traditional reading and research, my status at ISB has become that of an unofficially tenured “elder-statesman” to be politely humored.  I don’t mean to sound maudlin, or bitter (and I feel neither), but my time has passed and it’s time to move on to other things assuming greater significance in my life than a “next-gen” library for ISB.

I have recently moved from “LibraryThing” and “Shelfari” to  ”GoodReads”, developing a community of readers exploring the “big themes” of literature. This will be my last “Edging Ahead” rant (as I suppose this could be viewed). Future entries will be my redirected Goodreads reflections on books encountered as a result of that project. I’ll still be “Edging Ahead”, but more in contemplating the philosophical underpinnings to life rather than obsessing over the frustrations of trying to move a library renewal program forward. I will leave that to my successor.

And I’ll blog about the things that have come to really matter to me at “Mai Shangri-La”,  my personal blog and sounding board on those issues.

It’s been a ride…

In the final analysis, the Extension Unit “Dystopian Literature and the Futures we Make” was a great success…or was it?

On the plus side,

1. We introduced students to a contemporary example of a literature genre strongly represented in our HS English Curriculum. From 9th to 12th grade, students study a wide assortment of literature with at least some elements of the dystopian; everything from Shakespeare’s Hamlet to Shelley’s Frankenstein to Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell’s mid-2oth century masterpieces, to Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Lowry’s The Giver, and Atwater’s Handmaid’s Tale. Notice though, that all these writers except the last are dead, and although I’ve been careful here to record that women authors are perhaps more widely represented than popular opinion would have it, there is something to the statement that we study mostly “dead white males”. And so, by reading the work of a contemporary living novelist, I believe we’ve added something of value to the mix.
2. We explored at least 3 relatively untested (at least in our high school) technologies for bringing literature and new critical analysis tools and strategies to our students. The ebook experience was a challenging new way to experience a book, the Skype author interview both raised student awareness of the many facets of novel-writing and  won over skeptics to the merits of a new author, and the Voicethread analysis provided (again, according to the students) a relevant new way of assessing a work of literature.
3. We aroused, by their own admission, several powerful sentiments in our students, from trepidation at the thought of trying something somewhat radically different to indignation at the perceived insensitivity of the writer to readers’ sensibilities to thoughtful introspection regarding the authors motives and eventual success.

On the other hand, “areas to be addressed” with this experience have been;

1. The almost unanimous conclusion by students at the end of the exercise that the experience of reading a full novel on the computer was not one they’ll choose to replicate for the pleasure of reading. Almost without exceptions, students report that they would rather read a novel in traditional print format.
2. The time factor. At the conclusion of the student contact part of the unit, I reported to my course supervisor that I had spent more than the requisite 30 hours in planning, preparation and analysis of this unit, while the total amount of student contact time was at best 3 class periods (our clases are 85 minutes: actually it was more like 3 hours of contact time spread over 6 contact periods). The sad fact is that with 3 or 4 class preps and a student load of 80-110 students, the time-management realities simply do not allow a classroom teacher this level of preparation time  – and unfortunately, the heavy tech-dependency of the project made extensive pre-planning, testing and checking the technology a requisite for success.
3. The impact on student learning. Once again, nothing in the analysis of this unit speaks strongly in favor of pursuing any of these strategies at the expense of traditional teaching practice. While students were very positive about the Skype session and relatively positive toward the Voicethread analysis,  a realistic appraisal of the exercise using the Assessment Rubric developed for the “unit extension effectiveness” would assess only a “small positive impact on learning”.

The question is, “Is that enough to warrant a wholesale adoption of any or all of these strategies for future literature study?”. The answers are best left to the students to give for themselves.

\”Winding Up\” the Windup Girl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4_E9MQkcQ

And that winds up…the Windup Girl.

r. rubis 07/04/10

…Why did you…?”

In my communication with the author regarding our experiment in using an ebook edition of an extension text, I also wrote;

“… we’ve had 2 students voice discomfort over the graphic sexual nature of the violence done to  Emiko in Chapter 3.  I’ve countered that her treatment is integral to both the plot and themes of the book, and therefore not gratuitous, but we’ve flagged chapter 29 (p 417-19 on my MS Reader version) to skip if chapter 3 made them uncomfortable.

We hope this will forestall any censorship attempts by parents, which is always a possibility with literature that pushes traditional boundaries. These are, of course, 15 year-olds, and while they are also reading “Catcher in the Rye” and O’Brian’s “The Things they carried”, neither of these is quite as graphic as TWG. I would be interested in knowing if you have other teen readership and if this issue has come up.”

The issues this raises are, once again, two-fold

1) How does the immediacy of access to material affect the application of traditional principles of selection (or, some might say, censorship). In other words, in the traditional world of print, would this text have been self-censored by teachers like me because they had more time to consider possible “push-back” on edgy issues?

2) How does the immediacy of access to the producer of artistic material (in this case the author) affect the way contentious or questionable passages might be addressed?

• Does immediate access to an author enhance the experience of interpreting a text, or
• Does being able to query the original author directly dilute the experience? In other words, does it limit possible interpretations to the author’s perhaps imperfect (or changing) recollection of his or her original intent?

April 1 Update (and no, not and April Fool’s posting)

Qu. 1 (Immediate access and the question of selection)

I’m happy to report that concerns over the passages in question appear to have abated. Perhaps flagging them was effective, allowing student readers the choice of reading or not. This nips in the bud niggling concerns I may have had over whether we should have “self-selected” a different title in order to avoid the problem altogether.

Probably more effective, though, in defusing the situation,  was the immediacy of the discussion between the author and the readers in which it was obvious that the author too, struggled with his decision on what, and how, to write the passages in question. Several students commented in their analyses that the author’s obvious ambivalence about this helped them see him as truly caring about his characters and so made his eventual choices in how to handle these scenes more acceptable. Two students even offered that after “meeting” the author, they were elevating him to the status of “favorite author”.

And, on Question 2 – it’s great to report that initial impressions posted by the kids at the VoiceThread analysis site suggest that “having immediate access” to an author does, indeed, enhance the experience.  Our student reflections were almost unanimous that;

1) the ebook is not likely to supplant the traditional “printed word” in the near future – even with latest generation of tech-savvy kids, but that

2) the web’s interactive capability  to bring people on each side of a literary experience (the reader with the writer) offers incredibly powerful opportunities for delving deeper into a writer’s motivations and meanings than ever before. The whole Skype-an-author experience has left them clearly wanting more!

‘Nuff said