Old School Discernment in the Digital Age

I get asked a lot about decision making in my job.  As an assistant principal, I can go from hiring to student conduct to event set up to state reports in a matter of 10 minutes.  While I am in no ways a perfect decision-maker, I have learned a few things over the years and most recently in Ignatian Leadership Seminars.  This post is built off a webinar I recent gave via the ISTE Connects Professional Learning Series (ISTE members can find the free webinar here – sorry about the pay wall folks). 

Old school discernment holds up quite well in the digital age.  While we may be making decisions about 1:1 programs, 3D printing, virtual reality or interactive screens, the process of decision-making via discernment holds.  As a Jesuit educator, discernment for me comes out of St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises. The elements of Ignatian Discernment are:

• A choice between two or more “goods” - discernment requires smart options 
• The process is dynamic - discernment requires freedom of action and reflection
• Feelings matter – trust those feelings of excitement, fear, calm, anxiety

So what does this look like in a 21^st century example?  In 2009, the technology team at Brebeuf Jesuit began to discern what a 1:1 program at the school would look like.  Feel free to peruse old posts on this blog as to the details – but in a nutshell:

• No matter what was chosen (Bring Your Own Technology, single-platform, continuation of carts) the priority was the student learning experience.  The choices could all work – and indeed had in many schools.
• The discernment process ended up taking 2 years.  The time was filled with conversation, surveys, workshops and pilot programs.  At times, one option would outweigh another and the school created “what if we….” trials to see the real life experience of a choice.  Reflection allowed us to choose what was best for our students.
• Oh the feelings – anxiety, resistance, enthusiasm, excitement were all handled respectfully.  The whys behind the feelings were considered. Many a digital aged initiative has failed because administration did not respect or address the feelings of those affected by the change.

So big picture discernment is about the choice between good choices, accepting a dynamic experience and attention to feelings.  What does the process look like in the details of digital age decision making? 

For me, the process looks something like this:

Phase One – Setting the Context

• Identify the need to be addressed as concretely as possible
• Gather all necessary information – data, interviews, sample products  

At this point, the team has a stated decision based on a need for change, choices between goods and is ready to move into an experiential phase. The catch here is detachment.  Change-makers must remain open to options and remain flexible at this phase.  Attaching oneself to any single choice will derail the process.

Phase Two – Experience

• Evaluate advantages and disadvantages of choices – this may involve pilot programs, test groups, visiting another school. 
• Test reasoning with self and others - now is the time to play with alternatives.  “What if we….”  “What would our school look like if….?”  If you have a school board or colleagues in the field, ask them to review your plan.

Again, remaining detached is key.  At this point, you may see “camps” in your decision-making team.  People start to become attached to a side and may stop listening.  The team leader should feel comfortable reminding the group to remain detached.

Phase Three – Deciding to Decide

• Make a tentative decisions – For thee record not making a decision at this time is in fact a decision.  Maybe the context and experience phases have shown it’s not a good time to change.  That is an acceptable decision.  Some tentative decisions are easy – the best choice has made itself clear along the way.  Sometimes the tentative decision is fraught with anxiety.  Listen to that anxiety.
• Live with the tentative decision for a set period of time.  This is the infamous “let’s sleep on it” stage.  What feeling arise in the decision?  If anxiety – why?  Are the reasons a deal breaker or feelings that can be lived with?  If excitement – why?  How does the team transfer that excitement to a larger group?
• Finally, confirm the decision even if the team is not 100% on board.  Consensus is tricky business, but if the discernment process has been given time, consideration and detachment the group is ready to move.

Thankfully, good decisions show some signs along the way.  A good decision leads to movement.  When the team starts easily talking about next steps and the fun of the process, you are on the right track.  A sometimes difficult criterion in strong hierarchical groups is discernment made in freedom.  Good decisions happen outside of mandates, fear or reactive situations.  A good decision involves all affected by change.  All voices feel heard along the way, even if the decision was not made in their favor.  Finally, a good decision spirals a school to deeper knowledge.

For Brebeuf Jesuit, our 1:1 BYOT decision quickly engaged faculty and students in the possibilities it opened up.  Because 1:1 grew out of student and classroom needs, the ownership was in the hands of the learners, those who would use the technology day after day.  And over the years, this one decision has guided us in curriculum review, classroom redesign and new teaching practices.  We’ve learned a lot!  And grew as a learning community.

This is a rather long post so thanks for sticking with me!  More posts to come as I continue to gather ideas on pitfalls to avoid and conversation starters.  As always, comments welcome below!

The Mission and the Message

I have had the privilege of traveling to several educational conferences the past 3 weeks.  I am working through several observations rattling around in my brain so I figured it was time to start blogging again.

In listening to educators in a variety of settings this summer, I continue to be surprised by the anger I encounter.  Anger particularly aimed at 1:1 technology programs, but occasionally aimed at other initiatives such as curriculum review and evaluation systems.  Admittedly, I am not strong on the feelings… but the intensity of the emotional reaction of some surprised me.  These were educators of all age levels, public – private schools, K-20… I tried to move past the “WTH response” and really listen.  What I heard….

Anger happens when Mission is lost in the Message…

I was in a session on, of all things, Ignatian Burnout (when one of your foundational prayers reads “to fight and not to head the wounds… to toil and not to seek for rest”– burnout takes on a whole new level) when the conversation once again turned to technology in the classroom.  A teacher passionately argued that students were being harmed by technology.  Others jumped in (including me) and the emotions started to run a little high… the teacher arguing harm left the room, clearly frustrated.  I caught up with him later in the conference (because I am a 9 on the Enneagram and must peace-make).  Turns out, it’s not technology that is the problem.   I finally heard his real concern – that by relying so heavily on messaging the school’s 1:1 program the foundational message of Ignatian Mission was (in his opinion) being silenced. 

This is a real issue.  How we talk about our schools can act to define the reality of the school.  Communication scholars refer to this as socially constructed reality through communication.  As I have written before, ultimately the symbolic meanings placed on spaces, texts or mission is in the mind of those receiving the message.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that …

In cases where mission and identity is seemingly overshadowed by contradictory messages, feelings of hurt, anger and confusion can arise.  In the story above, as the only words being offered to socially construct the meaning of “school” were technology, 1:1, iPads… the teacher felt the entire focus of the school was shifting from the 450 year old tradition of Ignatian education.  The teacher felt threatened which led to a feeling of isolation which led to anger and eventually a relationship out of balance.

Being in “right relationship” is charism applicable to all settings.  In schools, we often hear of failures of relationship – particularly between faculty and administration (transparency anyone?).  Related to mission and the message, this is a two-fold issue.  One is an issue of leadership.  A significant danger of leadership is losing site of the message.  Who we are as articulated by mission and core values is critical.  When this message is diluted by a series of initiative jargon (IB, 1:1, STEM, PBL, Inquiry Learning, Merit Pay) we run the danger of creating harm in our learning communities.  The second is an issue of listening with good will.  When we stop active listening to each other (which includes questioning) then words become weapons.   I was surprised when the teacher told me I was the first administrator to “really listen” to his concerns.  Mind you, we had a 15 minute conversation during a coffee break – hardly an in-depth heart-to-heart.  At the same time, the teacher admitted this was the first instance of him really listening to an administrator.   Listening with good will is a powerful experience.

There are a many initiatives in our schools, large and small.  Forward movement requires a certain level of restlessness… and there is nothing bad about a little imbalance.  However, we must keep in mind our mission as we craft our message.  Words can hurt.  Words can also define, excite and motivate.  Remember the mission – the core values of your school – and frame growth in terms of that mission.   How we talk about our schools constructs the reality of the day to day experience – and our schools are only stronger with strong foundations.

Birds of a Feather Presentation...ISTE 2015

Thought to share the presentation for this afternoon.  Looking forward to conversation...what happens after 1:1?  Trust me, the fun is just beginning.

I am fascinated by narrow views of technology in education and would like to pull back our lens to the broader visioning school leaders should be practicing in the 21^st century.  Ole Jensen (Discourse Analysis and Sociospatial Transformation Processes. School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape) argues any planning process as a consideration of the “relationship between the material practices and the symbolic meaning that social agents attach to their spatial environments…” For me, this means that the tension between material practices (the day to day doings of a school) and the symbolism we attach (the sacred cows) effects how we arrange our environments.  Unfortunately, most 1:1 planning and implementation only looks at the technology infrastructure.  What about all the other material and symbolic meanings of “school”.  I’d like to discuss how considering the Physical, Virtual and Cultural elements of our schools how this broader lens might make 1:1 implementations more valuable for all learners.

The catch in bringing K-12 education into the 21^st century can partially be attributed to how many of us still attach our own experiences to “school” – sitting in rows, teacher at the front handing out content, students sitting passively.  But do we adults let our own symbolism influence how the space functions for a young visitor?  Do we realty embrace innovations that allow us to move beyond our four walls?  Will we be ready for the changes 1:1 will bring to school culture and what might those be?

http://www.slideshare.net/lamastej/birds-of-a-feather-presentation-beyond-1-to-1

Driving Bring Your Own Tech (BYOT) Forward

This weekend I loaded up Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris and curled up for 94 minutes of escapism.  It’s a good movie to meet the escape objective.  I will try not to spoil the end for those of you who haven’t seen the movie, but toward the end, the protagonist, Gil, explains how people glorify the past in order to escape the uncertainty of the present.  Well, in a much more poetic way… but that’s basically the point of the conversation.

Glorifying the past to escape the uncertainties of the present is not the solo purview of an angsty writer in a Woody Allen film.  Look around education and you can see the same glorification of the past inflicted on the uncertain present.  Just this year, Indiana House Enrolled Act 1003, focusing on school voucher program, also slipped in a variety of golden age requirements a school must incorporate in order to receive voucher funding. Reading HEA 1003 is like time traveling to the classroom of the 1950’s (scroll to Chapter 4 about half way through document).

On a smaller scale, the same past/present tension can be seen in educational technology.  I saw a tech discussion board just this week where a technology director recommended Device A because of the ability gives IT departments to block students from loading apps, accessing the web and the general ease of admin control over user experience.  Another listserv recommends Dashboard A because the entire user experience is controllable…created by adults who can grant or block any given website, app or tool student might access.  Even those of us in March 1^st #BYOTchat had to be reminded to let go of the concrete tools (nouns) and get back on track with how we encourage students and teachers to explore learning regardless of device.  Facing uncertainty does send one running back to what we know.  And in educational technology, what we know is a CPU with local hard drive, Word/Pages, attached to a printer, in the safely monitored, staffed by adult. in a computer lab.  Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) rocks this image to its knees… and that is more than a little unsettling.

Brebeuf Jesuit’s mission reads in part “Students at Brebeuf Jesuit are called to discover and cultivate the fullness of their God-given talents as a responsibility and as an act of worship.” Our determination in moving forward with 1:1 BYOT was in response to our responsibility as educators.  Cultivating choice in OS, app, web tool, word-processor creates innovation and creativity.  Christian Long advocates a comfort level with failure.  Through failure we learn divergent thinking and problem solving – the learner grows and society moves forward. Through safe, controlled environments where failure is not an option, we are comfortable, but static.  Learners guided by a sense of uncertainty make discoveries more powerful because THEY are the one’s making sense of their discord.  We have planned professional development, redesigned infrastructure, tested and retested tools and devices.  And yet, I lost some sleep in anxiety ridden restlessness pulling the trigger on 1:1 BYOT.   There will be failures – how can there not?  We’re only human.  But to cultivate individual talents, how can I do anything but move forward?

It is comforting to look back on the solid past of bulletin boards and overhead projectors and desktop computer labs… but as Gil learns in Midnight in Paris, every Golden Age looked back on the age before… reflecting on the safe glory of a time where we know how it ends.  Living looking backward will not help our students today.  So take a deep breath, let go and move forward.