I just finished Disrupting Class. There’s a chapter in the book about how industries (and in this case, schools) change. He talks about the most effective and lasting change happens when we agree on two things: what we want and how we get there.

I think this is the problem: we might all agree on our vision or mission for the school (a focus on student learning). However, we definitely don’t agree on how we’re going to get there and what that might look like. Even if we focus on student learning, I’m not sure all teachers (in my school anyway) would agree on how we can improve student learning.

Too many competing interests, too many personal passions, too many years of experience (gasp!). Maybe if we took the conversation entirely outside of education and focused only on society, what people need in our global society to be successful, we could agree on what improved student learning would look like? Or maybe those diverse life experiences would lead us to different conclusions anyway?

I’m still working this through in my mind, but I can see the diverse expertise of all of our teachers being a strength and also a weakness, and I’m just not sure how to move forward.

Either way, I can also share that we’ve tried to take “technology” out of the equation here. My job title being 21st Century Literacy Specialist is one piece of that task. In the end, we’re finding that taking the word out doesn’t change what we’re trying to say – and in some ways makes it more convoluted. Now we’re defining 21st Century Literacy, of course without using the word technology, but really we are talking about effectively using technology. So does that make it easier to understand or harder?

Clearly, I have no answers, only more questions. But thanks for making me think!