Building A House

Last Friday I had the opportunity to meet with our technology staff, both those that are responsible for the back end work and those responsible for the curriculum and instructional component of our work. Like most systems, we have had our share of problems with implementations and communication between these two groups. Our problems don't seem to be at the same level as many that I read about probably because of the size of our system, but they are evident and result in finger pointing and questioning.

I scheduled the meeting and as I reflect on and read the exit slips it was a good decision. These two groups had begun to change how they communicated on their own, bringing them together reinforced and energized this change effort. I learned many things during the course of this meeting. Among them are the following:

• These two groups want to become a team with a shared vision around Classroom 10 and structures for effective planning and implementation.
• We do a good job of creating a vision with teaching and learning staff while ignoring those that work the back end. I guess we think that they can create their own purpose for being and then somehow make sure that it is aligned with the system vision. This doesn't, however, stop us from making judgments when these two don't align.
• We don't share a common understanding of what Web 2.0 means though we have been using the term for quite some time.
• To a person, these people want what is best for our teachers and students, they want to be perceived as caring and competent and are tired of doing business as usual.

During our conversation a house building analogy emerged (thanks to Kimberly and Craig) to describe the tasks of the two groups in this work. The system has a vision of what we want young people to know and do and what that should look and sound like in classrooms, Classroom 10. Teaching and learning staff are the architects responsible for designing the content and process learning in these classrooms. Back end staff are the engineers responsible for designing, installing, and supporting structures that ensure effective implementation and continued use of the technology used to support learning in classrooms.

To be effective, the architects must engage their system engineers early in the process to ensure they understand not only what they want built, but the intent and purpose for the various parts of the house. This is one area we have done a poor job of, engaging the engineers in a timely way around not just the desired rooms in the house, but what the intent and learning outcomes are. Knowing this we believe, will enagage the engineers at a deeper level, will allow us to take better advantage of their expertise and experience, and will result in technology implementations that support 21st Century teaching and learning.

We will continue to meet. In fact, we have decided that the work is so important that we will meet more often than originally planned. I am encouraged and excited with the attitude and energy that these people are bringing to this effort. I am confident that they will design and implement adaptive changes to meet the challenges of supporting teaching and learning with new and promising tools. We should have seen this need long ago. Why does it sometimes seem like we lose sight of common sense? And, why can't I just feel good about this without it creating dissonance in another area? What would that be? Where do the teaching and support staff and students fit in this building analogy? Don't the users usually have significant influence before the architects take over?

Oh well, enough for now. Have a great day!