Project Based Learning

Reflection: Hands On Learning in Washington, D. C.

Dr. McManus told my cadre on many occasions that the Washington policy experience would be the most unbelievable trip we’d do in our doctoral program. He was full of excitement and exuberance and anyone listening knew that this particular experiential instance was beyond the usual. I have to admit, that even though I felt my professor’s excitement, I did not fully understand the true meaning of his words. In fact, I wasn’t sure what I would actually do in Washington, D.C. other than listen to party line speeches and be a tourist. As with anything, it took the actual experiences to open the doors to my understanding.

As we planned for the trip, Jack kept the information flow coming to us at full speed. His stories laid a groundwork of images of Washington, the Capitol, senators and representatives we would encounter, hearings, official breakfasts, the presidential effect, meetings with people whose names we normally only read about. As the schedule of events took shape, it was formed and reformed almost daily, all tracked on our online spreadsheet. Different cadre members took on responsibilities of meetings and visits at the World Bank, ISTE, Pentagon, Department of Education, National Public Radio, Smithsonian Institution Education group, New York Times DC Bureau, US News & World Report, ESEA Senate hearings, FCC hearings, and others.

I think we were all quite amazed by the presence of the city itself, of the security, the energy, the connections, the magnitude, the power that was everywhere. And as Jack had said, all we needed to do was to tell people that we were Pepperdine doctoral students and doors would open – and that is exactly what happened. Our cadre 14 members were scattered about the city during the days in Washington, attending meetings and hearings, after which we’d find evening time to debrief and share experiences, knowledge, and reflections. We were well received at the Department of Education and the Apple High Tech Summit meeting, times when I could expand upon my real world education issues and policy needs face to face with people like Jim Shelton, Hal Plotkin, Karen Cator (Dept of Ed), David Byer (Apple), Hilary Goldmann (ISTE), and Karen Billings (SIIA).

My particular best moments were at the Department of Education; here is my account of talks and meetings there. The first meeting was attended by Dr. Sparks, Sunnie Kim (who arranged the meeting), Sean Mendoza, Lupe Vanderploeg, John Simonsen, and me. Mr. Plotkin and Mr. Shelton addressed us with dignity and seriousness, and took notes as we spoke. Discussion was directed straight to us: what did we want to say or ask? We asked how we could be of help with our doctoral backgrounds in educational technology. As we launched into our main points, from responses by Mr. Plotkin and associates, it was clear that there exists opposing goals from the Department of Education. On the one hand, they encourage innovation, on the other testing remains a prime focus and pressure upon K12 education throughout America. It would seem there is a great distance in understanding between what the officials in the Department of Education think about, and what really goes on in school cultures. For example, Hal Plotkin suggested that the federal government can’t really help out, that the change must happen at the local level, with petitions and surveys of what teachers really want. We responded, with all due respect, that things are different away from Washington in the day to day, stress-ridden, test conscious world of K12. Mr. Plotkin said he was not aware, for example, that twitter is blocked in most schools, so that the twitter communications coming out of the Department of Education, directed to teachers, are being blocked by school districts and failing to reach most teachers.

Jim Shelton stressed that teachers need to form communities using technology, with which I agreed: it is a powerful concept for sharing learning and moving ideas of the group forward. Mr. Shelton responded that he thought teachers had access to online communities, to which we replied that this was not the case. School district blocking filters stop access to Classroom 2.0 for example, which is a major worldwide teacher community. The reason most often given for filtering such sites is that they belong to a category called social networks, which by definition are prohibited in schools, prohibited from all school users, teachers and students alike.

My question to Mr. Shelton was this: Don’t you think that all teachers need access to the technology tools available on the Internet if they are to take advantage of the propositions and ideas laid out in the National Educational Technology Plan? He answered yes.

I asked very clearly for a statement from him directly from the Department of Education to teachers and administrators across the country: every teacher needs at least one unblocked computer to be able to fully use the resources of the Internet, to be informed, to download updates to web 2.0 tools, to seek and join professional development opportunities, and to connect their students with the larger outside world. All of this is about student engagement and teacher growth. A message like this could be invaluable for helping teachers engage in networks/Internet concepts and resources. We just need Mr. Duncan to say the word: open the Internet to teachers – do not block professional adults from information, from doing their jobs, from learning.

We all thought Mr. Plotkin and Mr. Shelton were sincere in their responses to our short presentation on situated learning, communities of practice, and real learning – even though our recommendations had little to do with the data driven focus we kept hearing from Mr. Shelton. At best, we were heard. Will it make a difference? Will they continue a dialogue on these issues? I hope so.

Karen Cator, director of the office of educational technology, received us late in the day in the conference room of the Secretary of Education. She spent a good deal of time listening as each of us described our doctoral studies, and she and was quite conversational and interested, often asking questions and taking notes. She seemed very energetic and eager to get the National Education Technology Plan implemented through American schools. Our comments were in support of the effort, but with the exception that there was a conflict of energy with the plan. The plan calls for innovation, but in an environment still devoted mainly to testing and assessment, many of us spoke to a diminished chance of success for the plan. I spoke from a K12 perspective that teachers were so geared toward testing and meeting AYP, fearing for their jobs, worrying about comparisons and punishments, that it was highly unlikely that they would undertake innovative teaching approaches such as project based learning with technology, nor would they find the time to join communities of practice under the pressure of high stakes assessment. I am not sure that Ms. Cator truly took this message to heart as she is driven by the political goals of her boss, Arne Duncan. Time will tell.

Overall, I feel empowered from my interactions on this trip. I have been in situations where my voice was heard, my questions were contemplated and answered, and where I had the chance to describe policy changes and solutions to people with the power to make something happen. My ongoing doctoral perspective is that I can function at a higher level in the world, that I can be a part of needed changes, especially in preparing new teachers for the classroom, both in terms of pedagogy and educational technology.