Month: September 2017

I have read many books about technology innovators. Their lives and their struggles make for great stories. A frequent theme is the challenge these innovators face being able to actually build a company and sell products. The solution is often described as “bringing in some adult supervision” implying the skills of creativity and problem-solving involved in product or service creation do not necessarily translate in sustaining a business.

The books I have in mind often tell the story based on the different values and skills of the engineers and the marketers. Wozniak and Jobs would be a good example. Their difference in talents and values eventually led to their separation. Google founders Brin and Page would be an example of an engineer driven company. With both Apple and Google there were at least some periods of adult supervision (various CEOs with Apple – Scully and Amelio and Schmidt for Google). In both cases, although this may have involved considerable acrimony, a founder eventually returned to run the business. The transitions were not necessarily understood in this fashion, but perhaps there was a period of learning and maturation required for company leadership.

Institutions of higher education have taken note of this pattern (or understood it from the beginning) and encourage some “engineers” to take some business courses. This reminds me somehow of advice sometimes given to athletes headed for what look like pro careers. Skills in one area may leave on poorly prepared individuals for applying these skills in another.

I was thinking about this model in light of recent discussions of edupreneurs. Without weighing in on the backstory for these discussions, the argument might be made that educators (whether they continue as practitioners, become thought leaders, or both) are unlikely to have the skills and perspective necessary to market themselves and their ideas. Should those of us preparing advanced students add course work on edupreneurship to our existing offerings on learning theory and applied instructional tactics. This would probably be a requirement necessitating the hiring of a different type of higher ed faculty member. We tend to be more like the engineers. However, without some interventions are those now gaining visibility really the individuals we would prefer pushing practice forward or in different directions?

I assign the grad students in my instructional design and technology class the task of analyzing a system that allows individuals students to advance based on demonstrated competence. This my way of explaining what I learned as “mastery learning” back in the 1960s. My position is that such systems were always a good idea, but technology has not made them more practical and powerful.

Part of the challenge for students is identifying such systems. I could name many systems that meet my expectations but students are often unfamiliar with this perspective for thinking about learning environments and if they work in traditional schools unfamiliar with such systems. It is my opinion that such systems are far more common in charter schools and probably among those who home school. The exception might be the Kahn Academy, but familiarity with this online opportunity seldom includes long-term individualization.

Without giving away too much because I want students to think and explore a bit, I decided to use the example of Newsela. My take on Newsela would allow long term individualization fitting my charge to the grad students, but I am guessing the possibility I see when not be perceived in this fashion. Newsela is a very interesting service making the same stories (e.g, current events) available at different reading levels. This approach allows educators working in a group-based environment a way to address levels of reading proficiency. Because the stories come with comprehension quizzes, I see a mechanism that would allow learners to advance level to level over time based on performance. Sometimes, seeing how opportunities fit models is all it takes.

As I thought about Newsela, I flashed back to much earlier experiences with SRA reading kits (I think this was the description). If you are a little older, you may now be thinking about the same reading resource that I am. I remember a box with partitions separating groups of laminated, 8.5 x 11 laminated cards. Each card contained reading material and comprehension questions. The cards had different colored borders that allowed them to be accurately returned to a specific partition in the box. The different colors represented different levels of challenge. Each card within a color was different, but supposedly a similar level of challenge. I remember thinking at the time that this was a variant of the different mastery models I was studying and research at the time.

I searched for SRA kits and came across this post by Audrey Watters with a similar recollection. I also remember that in the 60s-70s mastery tactics were often associated with a behavioral tradition. I was a cognitivist even then and never thought that the proposed processes had to be understood within a behaviorist tradition.

I have thinking about this issue for some time. My initial interest was sparked by a growing list of individuals offering their services as educational consultants, presenters, and trainers who were teachers, but decided to leave the classroom in one of these other ways. I wondered at what point they could tout their teacher experience, often recognized in one way or another, to promote their new role. I admit this question stemmed in part from my own experience. How long after retiring as a full-time faculty member could I continue as an adjunct making the case that I was familiar with the best available research promoting one instructional tactic versus another. When did I lose credibility when I was no longer actively involved in research myself?

These folks have been described as edupreneurs as they are finding ways to generate income available from the funds available to support educational practice, but not directly from the practice of education. There are certain voids being addressed by these individuals. One might be the opportunity to provide staff development experiences and support schools do not feel they can provide themselves. With a decreasing emphasis on commercial textbook and educational resources, there is also an opportunity to create content resources available for sale (e.g., teacher paying teacher).

A recent issue has been making the rounds sparked by a New York Times article. The article holds a particular interest for us because the key example in the article is a North Dakota teacher familiar to my wife. I would describe the Times article as examining the potential conflicts of interest that may be created when educators make additional income promoting specific educational products and services. Larry Cuban has an interesting follow-up on the NY Times article. I encourage you to read both.

Some of the issues raised strike very close to home. My wife is an early Apple Distinguished Educator (ADE) and a Google certified teacher. At the time of the Apple recognition she was a strong Apple advocate, but from my perspective the causality between her promotion and her award is important to understand. She was a strong promoter first and was recognized by Apple based on the projects she developed and the recognition received. Her approach diversified as other companies offered services and products she felt were effective. The projects and the awards certainly benefited her (and my) career, but I do not think that increased income was ever much of a motive, nor much of a reward. The opportunities she delivered to students and to teachers were the motives. She did spend most of her time without a class of her own, but she used her skills within a traditional school or university framework as a teacher/faculty support person and grant writer.

The concept of “addition” or “outside” income is different. It is not new, but the frequency in K12 circles may be new or at least increasingly visible. To the point, that such issues are not new allow a personal example. I spend a good part of my university career as a university department chair (psychology). One of the graduate programs that fell within my administrative responsibilities was a Ph.D. program in clinical psychology. Several of the clinical psychologists within the department and clinical practices completely external to the university. These opportunities allowed these individuals to substantially augment their incomes in ways not available to the other faculty members and this inequity was a source of some friction. There were benefits of a sort to those individuals who spent more of their time working within the university framework (e.g., merit pay for research productivity), but these opportunities provided nowhere close to the same financial benefits. Similar opportunities exist everywhere in higher education – business schools, engineers, etc. There are certainly benefits to the institution – there is credibility and experience to be gained from practicing and applying. There is professional development to be gained without funding from underfunded institutions. However, there is always the issue of equity and pushing a good thing too far.

Administrators and school boards may need to give this situation careful consideration and come up with policies that establish guidelines. Will entrepreneurs be allowed to use school time to make money elsewhere (say doing professional development in another district or at a conference)? Is there any related compensation to the district for the time spent in such pursuits? Will schools spend funds on services and resources that educators are personally financed to promote? Should educators and administrators be required to reveal to administrators and school boards benefits they have received from companies providing educational resources? Should limits or limitations be placed on time spent or revenue generated?