I'm tired of looking around the corner. Everywhere I turn, I'm seeing predictions about the future. From the possibilities of nanotechnology and online interactive teaching to insect-sized drones that will monitor students' hallway behavior, everything is in play because of the possibilities of technology. It's frequently said that our phones have more computing power than was in the rockets that took men to the moon. And I'm reading about clothing that will monitor body functions, keep us from getting lost, and help us recognize faces and remind us of what we want to say to that person.
It's difficult to resist the pull of technology. I never learned how to program my VCR, yet I was recently a keynote speaker at a Twitter conference! I visit classrooms and see 7- and 8-year-old students tapping on tiny keyboards to write stories that appear on tiny screens. Does that technology make learning to write easier than erasing and erasing again while working on penmanship and opening paragraphs? Absolutely! Does that mean we're producing better writers? I'm not sure.
Regularly, I find myself in conferences with people from around the United States, but we are all in our offices, talking to our computers. People's faces look like big postage stamps on my computer screen, but they move and talk. Is this cheaper and easier than getting on the highway or a plane? Absolutely! But does it cause better discussions or help build teams? I'm not sure.
Looking ahead, I am sure that we're going to continue to ride the technology wave; it's really not a choice. But technology won't be what determines our effectiveness or the success of our schools. Technology can and should help us do our jobs, but we cannot lose sight of what's most important—both today and tomorrow. Here are my three constants, key factors in leadership and education that shouldn't change regardless of what technology brings. Indeed, we need to work to make sure they do not change.
First, leadership is built on relationships. Strong principals bring out the best in teachers by both pulling and pushing. They routinely and liberally give pats on the back—specific words of praise that recognize progress, or an achievement, or even a good try—and they let teachers know when something needs to be improved or done differently. Because they know their teachers and have earned their trust, effective principals can say the hard things that need to be heard.
Such relationships are not built by technology; in fact, sometimes technology can make it harder to develop them. Sadly, I know this for a fact. Too often, I'm guilty of firing off scores of e-mails rather than walking down the hall to talk to people. I might send an e-mail to get an item off my to-do list instead of making the time to talk to someone and explore complexities and possibilities. I'm not advocating unplugging, but I am arguing for working to build in-person connections. How often do you visit a class without having an agenda? When was the last time you hung out in the teachers' lounge?
Second, the fact that we will be able to measure student progress more quickly, accurately, and readily doesn't mean that we should do so. I understand why we have standardized tests, and I support the Common Core State Standards. But as one who espouses the value of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory and who recognizes the value of grit, I don't want to use standardized tests to assess and monitor a student's caring, understanding of others, or leadership.
Even if we could validly determine the percentile ranking of a student's appreciation for diversity, for example, should we do that? How would that discrete piece of information inform our behaviors or benefit the student? A student's appreciation for diversity should be valued, assessed, and reported, but we shouldn't try to accomplish this with a standardized test. Incorporating a bit of subjectivity in assessment can result in a richer picture. The best way to prevent the standardized boulder from rolling down the hill and taking over is to get ahead of it. We must begin to talk now about what noncognitive attributes are important and how we might sensibly measure them.
Third, the term distributed intelligence conveys that our intelligence is not limited to what is inside our own bodies. Smart people use the resources around them, whether that is the Dewey Decimal System or the latest technology. But using distributed intelligence also means tapping into other people. Smart people know who to turn to for help and with whom they will learn best. In our ever-increasing dependence on technology, we cannot forget that leaders set the tone for these kinds of interactions. We need to schedule no-tech meetings in which people take the time to understand and relate to one another without checking their phones. Sometimes reverting to an easel and marker can change both who contributes and what is said.
I'm neither a Luddite nor a digital native. I'm simply someone trying to resist being swept away by the speed, efficiency, and fun of technology. Where are you on that continuum?
