The “A” word….
Around the Corner v2 – MGuhlin.net – Anemic Activism
Miguel wrote an interesting post about a group of ed tech folks in Texas that he belongs to, and their efforts to stabilize/increase funding for technology in education in his state. He wrote about some of the discussions about the approach that this group is taking. They are urging members to make personal contact with representatives to try to influence things, and Miguel said folks wondered if hiring a professional lobbyist would be more effective. My answer, based on doing grass-roots advocacy is an emphatic NO! In fact I’m in the middle of a campaign in my state on revising ESEA ("better" known as NCLB). We are being asked to send personal notes to representatives, so that it makes them more receptive to the paid lobbyist when they are visited. In other words, even when you hire a "professional" you still need to write your letters.
Okay, now for an explanation about the "a" word. You can see the title of the post up there. It did not start out that way. It read autistic activism, because Miguel wondered if perhaps ed tech types were essentially like autistics when it came to the world of politics. Someone took issue with this, and Miguel changed his post. I wrote a comment politely disagreeing with this. I think that a lot of ed tech types are definitely "fish out of water", "strangers in a strange land", use whatever analogy you like at this point. They just don’t get political organizing AT ALL. I don’t say that to be mean, or be snide, or castigate. I just shake my head, sadly. The person who disliked the analogy felt that educators were adults who had some cognition/control in their world (as opposed to someone who is autistic). They maybe educable in many ways, but honestly, I would not be at all surprised if even after I explained my points above, Miguel (bright as he is, and the man is bright) understands the points I’m making. Or he may understand, but superficially at best.
I base this on previous discussions here, and here, and here. Maybe they just don’t like my approach, or me (I’m a big girl, so that’s okay by me), but when I see what folks are saying, they seemed puzzled, bewildered, and just don’t seem to get it (look at the comments on the posts on Will Richardson’s blog). It’s not like blogging and technology are antithetical to organizing (look at MoveOn), but I think some folks just have a tin ear about this.
Stealing from Mr. Warlick, that’s my 2 cents worth.
Thanks for your follow on comments over at Miguel’s blog – what you wrote had me reflecting about my precious reaction. Indeed, the word was appropriately used – if you go back, I have commented again and clarified my initial thoughts.
Cheers, Graham.
Thanks for reconsidering. I’m impressed. You might want to chime in on the boardmaker post on Miguel’s site. You may have more to say about that.
Digressing back to the politics point, you’ll notice that almost all of the discussion on this topic is about autism, and little is about politics? I think this shows the resistance, disinterest, and probably some antipathy that there is in the edublogosphere about political action. Anyway, I beat an already dead horse.
Once again, I feel encouraged that we find it difficult to persuade politicians to commit the necessary funding to ICT in schools. Yes, ours pay lip service to it, and there are some honest souls among them, but by and large they seem to have other priorities. We are having the same debate about possible involvement in lobbying, or other forms of political activism. At present our view is: they are politicians and we are educators.
Just as an aside, we found it very useful to have politicians visit our schools to demonstrate to them what could be done. If they understand that they could get political mileage out of any support, it sometimes changes their views on financial support.
It is always nice to find someone who is willing to stand up for what they believe. I often wonder, as I have a few times over on Will’s blog, if we’re really going about this in the wrong way. First, each headline you read about teens and the internet is negative – cyberbullying, cyberstalking, cyber…., it’s all negative. There is not enough press about the learning advantages. Secondly, people are expecting this to happen, like, tomorrow. It’s not going to happen. Will and some others need to see that this will take longer than a few years because a majority of the teachers are not with the program and the focus is not on these skills – we haven’t used the skills platform like we should. As you have pointed out, there is no clear and identifiable mandate, for lack of a better expression. We are not only fighting people over content and skills but over access and use. As an administrator that uses these tools and wants to see them become part of the repitoire that my teachers can use, I need to do more than the show and tell thing. I need to work with the teachers, move them along the continuum. That is how change will happen. Being from the trenches doesn’t mean that you can lead others to promised land. You may know what they face but you have to provide them with actual things to do when faced with new things coming at them. Telling them to “just do it” won’t keep people following yet that is what we have here with, I might add, a bit of frustration about the lack of people “getting it” about the use of the new tools. The reason teachers don’t get it is the same reason that most tech-type people need people-skills coaching – strength is in one area but lacking in another. We need to provide scaffolding for the teachers, and the tech-people for that matter. I always like running across your comments!
Great comments Kelly! I think there are different groups of teachers. There are teachers who do technology well, and those that not only don’t do it, but don’t think they need to. There are teachers who are politically minded, and those that don’t think they need to do that either. Sometimes these groups intersect, sometimes they don’t. When you get say, a technophobic, it’s a pain in the butt and sets back the cause, but when you get someone who is both a techie, and politically savvy, it is can be the start of a change. Teacher’s unions (especially in my state) are very politically savvy. Some of the educators I’ve networked with in my district I’ve met through my union. They have been very helpful on blocking issues because they have the political skills and connections to confront silly policies, and make them change. I think teachers’ unions are interested in technology. First, it helps them organize (like MoveOn), next they are often providing or supporting professional development efforts; online is a growing part of that.
I’ll point out something from one of the first CASTLE talks that Scott had with a superintendent Jan Witthuhn where she talked about her efforts to transform her district to be more data driven. She cited having a cooperative union local as being helpful. Maybe Scott, Will, and others need to be building bridges to union folks (like myself) to help make their vision of the future of education a reality. Not my final thoughts on this, but, think about it????