Kevin Hunnicutt likes to use a phrase about how we “disinvite students to learning.” What he means by that is that we as educators bore students so much by teaching 21st century students with 19th century techniques, they emotionally move away from learning and we “disinvite” the students to the process. They are not interested because we don’t invite them to become part of the discussion or the process.  No emotional connection = No learning. It is that simple. Miguel Guhlin calls it “Passion Based Learning.” No passion = No Learning.

I like that phrase, even if the wording is kind of strange (disinvite?)

Who is invited and who is not invited to the table of educational technology, especially in the new world of Web 2.0? Surely not everyone has equal access to the buffet. If it were the case, then we wouldn’t have the need for all of these Web 2.0 discussion groups would we?

I guess because I work in a school district that has close to 90% of the students on free and reduced lunch, I am more keenly aware of who and who does not have access to the education technology. Does everyone have at least a fighting chance to get the technology? There is a part of our school district that is considered one of the most economically depressed areas of the entire United States. And it has been that way for years and years. I have to be aware of the have-nots just as much as I have to be aware of the have, because for the most part, the have-nots will never speak up and complain. Let’s just say I am sensitive.

Looking at the leadership.

So who is leading the charge for educational technology? 

Part of the adoption of any new way of thinking involves the community seeing a leadership also embracing the new way of thinking. If the community leaders aren’t eating at the buffet, then why should the community members eat there? (If the principal doesn’t embrace technology, why should the teachers?)

With that idea in mind, I went about looking at the “leadership” that is in the educational technology community. Now I know that educational technology community is a large one, so I focused on the areas that include the 21st Century skills as it is related to Web 2.0 technologies. I asked about, and I looked about. My criteria was decidedly unscientific, but it included things like: Web presence, who is invited to speak at conferences, and who is regarded by peers as a leader in this field.

Here is a  very unscientific and completely subjective list that I came up with the help of Bump on the Blog’s Brian Grenier:

Brian Crosby

Bud Hunt*

Darren Kuropatwa

David Jakes

Doug Johnson

Eric Langhorst

Ewan McIntosh

Graham Wagner

Jeff Utecht

Mark Ahlness

Mark Wagner

Pete Reily

Scott McLeod

Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach

Vicki Davis

Will Richardson

Marco Torres

Wes Fryer

Miguel Guhlin

Steve Dembo

David Warlick

Steve Hargedon

Kevin Honeycutt

So lets look at these folks. Each one of them is rightfully respected as a leader in ed tech. I doubt if anyone would say that David Warlick is NOT a leader. Miguel Guhlin has presented on Connected Learning/Web 2.0 from Texas to New Zealand. Marco Torres inspires wherever he speaks. So no doubt, these are the big hitters. Wes Fryer, Steve Dembo, it is a list of the luminaries in the field.

So lets look a little closer at the list, keeping in mind the earlier discussion on who is being invited to the buffet and who the leaders are.

The list is, for the most part, but not entirely dominated by white males. Just like me.

Yes, there are a few Hispanics and there are a few women, but for the most part, the dinner is being hosted by white guys. And it is being hosted by middle age, middle class white guys.  Still feel like coming to dinner?

The buffet being hosted is, for the most part, open to everyone. Remember, we collaborate, we cooperate and we speak “Web 2.0” talk. But where are the African Americans? Where are the Hispanics?  Where are the women? Where are the economically disadvantaged? They are not present at the dinner. Like Oliver they may be looking in the window and they may see everyone eating, but for the most part, they are not eating along with us.” “More food please sir…”

Is the world really flat in ed tech? I don’t know, but I don’t see that some groups are participating, based on the leadership and who is participating in the discussion. Almost every talk or discussion that I have seen talks about how the playing field has been leveled with 2.0. But I have to wonder if the playing field within education actually has been leveled.

The world isn’t flat it is lumpy in education, like mashed potatoes. Some have the 2.0, some don’t. It is flat for those that have it, or get it, or are fortunate enough to have the teachers that use it. But not everyone uses, not everyone is at the buffet.

(Here is an interesting little test that you can try yourself: I assume that if you are reading this blog, then you are subscribed to several blogs and podcasts. Make a list of your subscriptions. Now, go back and see who is writing them.  White males? Bet you a bunch of them are.)

Now don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the people listed above. They all are excellent. They all are important and have lots of good things to say. And kudos to all of them for leading the charge. I do, however, have a problem with the makeup of the group.

(Of all of these leaders that I have heard speak, only Marco Torres has actually said something like “Look, all of this stuff works for my kids too.” “Minority communities can embrace this stuff just as easily as the rich kids in the Dallas suburbs.”  He then goes to show examples. THEN HE MAKES THE CONNECTION to show the audience how the kids are making the connections. Marco demonstrates what the lower income Hispanic students in his community are capable of creating using the power of technology. He leads and has become the de facto leader in the Hispanic ed tech community because , for the most part, no one else is out there!)

In education, at least in Texas, we are asked to make sure that the population demographics of groups are  equally represented throughout the district for a variety of things from test scores to special ed. For instance, if the State says that “about 5% of your population should be gifted and talented,” they get really uneasy of a district has, say, 35% of their students listed as Gifted and Talented. Same thing happens with Special Education. If the demographics look weird, the state will call districts to explain: “Hey, why do you guys say you have 15% special ed, when the state average is 7%?”

So you see how governments measure things. We all have seen how a school or district might be gigged because a subgroup of a subgroup did poorly on the standardized test. So, if demographics are important in one area, they should be important everywhere.  Demographically, the population of Web 2.0 in Ed tech in the US, SHOULD be pretty close the overall population.  Is it? Are half of the Web 2.0  gurus women? No. Sorry. It is hard to match name for name, gravitas for gravitas a woman to a man.

David Warlick…er.. ah...Marci Powell!

Steve Dembo….er..ah..

Wes Fryer…

Okay, match the Caucasians to African Americans

…to Hispanics

…to economically disadvantaged

…to the under 30 crowd

It isn’t just the traditional demographic groups we should look at either. We should also be looking at things like under 30 vs. over 30. Age is a demographic that few look at, but I find it very interesting that the age of the gurus, (and this is based on the pictures and seeing them live, not on asking them their age) probably not the same age of the people they want to reach. Do we assume that new teachers automatically have some innate connection to technology? I have heard that several times, phrases such as “These new teachers don’t know a world without video games.” So what? That doesn’t mean that they can integrate technology, nor does it mean that they can have meaningful dialog with students about technology and collaboration and cooperation. Where are the really young kids in the community leading the charge?

Guess who’s coming to dinner?

We have to make sure that everyone is invited to the buffet. And that does not mean just giving lip service and saying that “of course, anyone can use this stuff.” That is not true if large chunks of a specific population are not using the technology. If large chunks of economically disadvantaged, or Hispanics, or African Americans, or young teachers, or any group are not eating from the buffet, then the buffet is not inviting enough. We have to start looking to our education population to develop the leaders that specific populations will respond to. If you think that young Hispanics from low-socioeconomic areas will respond well to middle aged white guys with lots of money, then you are fooling yourself. If you think they will respond to people like Marco, now your getting the drift.

Teachers are the same. Lot’s of white MALES talking about how wonderful the connected world is to rooms of females don’t carry as much gravitas as a woman who can share her experiences in the male-dominated world of the web.

The problem is, how do you recruit leaders? You can’t just walk up to someone and say, “Hey, you are the person that can be a leader for ed tech.”

But we can start to look out for the Marco Torres’ of the world. We can start looking out for the campus leaders, the wiz kids on the campus. Then we can start encouraging them.

Send them to conferences. Encourage them to present, first locally, then on the state level, and then nationally. “Hey, I’ll send you to NECC if you present.” Get them online, blogging, making wikis, get them the training they need. Chances are, they may already be doing it. Then make sure that they begin to present, and present and present.

We need the David Warlicks of the world. But we also need Jose Warlicks, and a Jane Warlicks, and Dionne Warlicks. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun.) We need Wes Fryer at age 45, but we also need Wes Fryer age 25, and 35.

Go out. Look, They are there, we just need to nurture them.