The links from the mobile devices slides didn’t work, nor does the one for the evaluation tool you posted. Can you re-post the evaluation pdf again. Thanks.

I’m put off a little by your reaction to the lady sitting beside you. I would also be a little cautious about revealing much about myself to someone who self-identified as a member of the press. Maybe if you mentioned something like “I blog about math education”, then things would have been more amicable.

Also, didn’t the 21st century start 10 years ago, not 11?

Those small critiques aside, being in IT, I’m familiar with ideologues with grand pronouncements about weak ideas being invited speakers, and it is definitely a nerve-wracking thing, especially if you notice people around you buying into it, smiling, and nodding in agreement to things that would be impossible to implement.

Thanks for the coverage.

I enjoyed reading your perspectives on the conference of such a large “educationally-focused” organization. After years of conference-attending, I am finding much less enthusiasm in doing so; rather, I would love an opportunity to interact in real-time genuine discussions with some of the people whose blogs I read and some of the people whose published works I have been mulling around in my head. I had attended a 3-day workshop by Jacobs at least 20 years ago when I was teaching in TX. Her focus then was on cross-content curriculum.

I am somewhat suspect of people who have made their fortunes as ‘consultants,’ without any demonstrated comittment to effecting positive change (i.e. update your message to fit the times, publish a new book, get paid substantial sums of money to peddle your message and increase your earnings). I think many times these types of consultants allow educators to maintain their cynicism and belief that “this too shall pass” and promote the maintenance of the status quo in teaching. Yet, there are many people who work as consultants and educational speakers, or who research and publish literature on effective educational practice who have messages that would be of value for educators to hear and think about (Will Richardson, Tony Wagner, Chris Lehman to name just a few).

How do we not lose sight of the benefit of “hearing” their messages? Or your messages about the teaching of mathematics? (As an aside, I have followed your blog for quite some time; as a former teacher of mathematics, I find it to be very compelling. I have referenced it many times in discussions with the math teachers in my school. I do not think many have looked at it; unfortunately, I am not sure some see value in looking at anyone else’s work and perspectives – which is the basis of my concerns expressed here).

Again, thank you for sharing your perspectives. I will be attending ISTE this summer (I will be part of a panel-discussion regarding the use of netbooks in a somewhat 1-1 environment). Your post has given me some food for thought about how I will select the sessions I attend.

Brendan: So yes Dan I can see why her presentation would turn you off. Her presentation wasn’t or shouldn’t have been meant for you. It was meant to excite and inspire people to look at education a bit differently.

My irritation with her talk wasn’t due to boredom or the fact that I’d already heard of a “wiki.” I found her irritating because she misled her audience time and again about the difficulty of upgrading the technological landscape of their classrooms. As I’ve pointed out, her solutions were very loosely sketched (eg. screenplays and iOS apps) and then she treated us like we were idiots for not immediately seeing their worth.

I don’t see how that behavior becomes more acceptable when the audience knows less about the content of your presentation. The reverse seems true to me.

I just read Heidi’s book recently (Curriculum 21) and I found her Tedx Talk to be basically a quick and dirty summary with a bit of sarcasm on the side.

The book itself I found to be her take (Well a compilation of others as she was editor) on a lot of the educational reform buzz I get within my PLN.

So yes Dan I can see why her presentation would turn you off. Her presentation wasn’t or shouldn’t have been meant for you. It was meant to excite and inspire people to look at education a bit differently.

However, I think your basic problem with the presentation was dead on. She is a consultant and should take more care in being reasonable with her suggestions. That the changes and reforms she would like to implement are more complex than just identifying a #2 pencil as the enemy. ASCD should have been a conference where she didn’t have to inspire teachers in a technological revolution, but rather give some concrete details on how and why it should be used to elevate our curriculum.