Jessica Lahey explains the rhetoric gap in an Atlantic article
80 percent of the youths surveyed reported that their parents ‘are more concerned about achievement or happiness than caring for others.’ Approximately the same percentage reported that their teachers prioritize student achievement over caring.
My Note: when stripped from the commercialized plug in for Apple, this article makes a good memorization exercise for pedagogues.
According to American psychologist Abraham Maslow, all humans have the same fundamental needs (food, clothing and shelter), and these needs must be met before an individual is motivated to look beyond these basic needs. This motivational theory is commonly referred to as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Self-actualization: achieving one’s full potential
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can serve as an analogy for what is possible with instructionally-designed technology
1. Device Deployment = Basic Needs
Device deployment is the first basic need of any school looking to leverage education technology. If schools are unable to procure devices and if IT is unable to get these devices into the hands of students and educators, there is no moving forward.
2. Communication = Safety Needs
Beyond basic communications functions, apps must be made available and installed for an additional layer of connectivity. For example, learning management systems (LMS) enable communication beyond classroom walls and empower students with the learning resources they need while at home or in the community. However, how do we ensure access off-campus for those without ubiquitous internet connections
3. Productivity = Love Needs
Communication that encourages higher-level thinking and problem solving is where dramatic learning happens.
4. Transformation = Esteem and Self-Actualization Needs
IT and educators are pairing innovative teaching methods such as blended learning (a mix of technology and traditional learning) or flipped classrooms (teaching is done at home and exercises during class time) with education apps (productivity layer).
5. Let Mobile Device Management (MDM) Be Your Stepladder
an August 2017 working paper, “Education Technology: An Evidence-Based Review,” published by the National Bureau of Economic Research with clear tables on which technology improves learning and which doesn’t.
1. Computers and internet access alone don’t boost learning
Handing out laptops, providing high-speed internet access or buying most other kinds of hardware doesn’t on its own boost academic outcomes. The research shows that student achievement doesn’t rise when kids are using computers more, and it sometimes decreases.
2. Some math software shows promise
math programs such as SimCalc and ASSISTments. One popular program, DreamBox, showed small gains for students, as well. Only one piece of software that taught reading, Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy (ITSS), showed promise, suggesting that it is possible to create good educational software outside of math, but it’s a lot harder.
One commonality of the software that seems to work is that it somehow “personalizes” instruction. Sometimes students start with a pre-test so the computer can determine what they don’t know and then sends each student the right lessons, or a series of worksheet problems, to help fill in the gaps. Other times, the computer ascertains a student’s gaps as he works through problems and makes mistakes, giving personalized feedback. Teachers also get data reports to help pinpoint where students are struggling.
3. Cheap can be effective
a study in San Francisco where texts reminded mothers to read to their preschoolers. That boosted children’s literacy scores.
In 2015, former library dean purchased two large touch-screen monitors (I believe paid $3000 each). Shortly before that, I had offered to the campus fitting applications for touch screens (being that large screens or mobiles):
With the large touch screens, I proposed to have one of the large screens, positioned outside in the Miller Center lobby and used as a dummy terminal (50” + screens run around $700) to mount educational material (e.g. Guenter Grass’s celebration of his work: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/04/15/gunter-grass-1927-2015/ ) and have students explore by actively engaging, rather than just passively absorbing information. The bus-awaiting students are excellent potential users and they visibly are NOT engaged by by the currently broadcasted information on these screens, but can be potentially engaged if such information is restructured in interactive content.
The initial library administration approval was stalled by a concern with students “opening porno sites” while the library is closed which, indeed, would have been a problem.
My 2015 inquiry with the IT technicians about freezing a browser and a specific tab, which could prevent such issues, but it did not go far (pls see solution below). Failing to secure relatively frigid environment on the touch screen, the project was quietly left to rot.
I am renewing my proposal to consider the rather expensive touch screen monitors, which have been not utilized to their potential, and test my idea to engage students in a meaningful knowledge-building by using these applications to either create content or engage with content created by others.
Further, I am proposing that I investigate with campus faculty the possibility to bring the endeavor a step further by having a regularly-meeting group to develop engaging content using these and similar apps; for their own classes or any other [campus-related] activities. The incentive can be some reward, after users and creators “vote” the best (semester? Academic year?) project. The less conspicuous benefit will be the exposure of faculty to modern technology; some of the faculty are still abiding by lecturing style, other faculty, who seek interactivity are engulfed in the “smart board” fiction. Engaging the faculty in the touch screen creation of teaching materials will allow them to expand the practice to their and their students’ mobile devices. The benefit for the library will be the “hub” of activities, where faculty can learn from each other experience[s] in the library, rather than in their own departments/school only. The reward will be an incentive from the upper administration (document to attach in PDR?). I will need both your involvement/support. Tom Hergert by helping me rally faculty interest and the administrators incentivizing faculty to participate in the initial project, until it gains momentum and recognition.
In the same fashion, as part of the aforementioned group or separate, I would like to host a regularly-meeting group of students, who besides play and entertainment, aim the same process of creating interactive learning materials for their classes/projects. Same “best voted” process by peers. My preferable reward: upper administration is leaving recommendation in the students’ Linkedin account for future employers. I will need both your involvement/support. The student union can be decisive in bringing students to this endeavor. Both of you have more cloud with the student union then only a regular faculty such as me.
In regard to the security (porn alert, see above) I have the agreement of Dr. Tirthankar Ghos with the IS Department. Dr. Ghosh will be most pleased to announce as a class project the provision of a secure environment for the touch screen monitor to be left after the group meetings for “use” by students in the library. Dr. Ghosh is, however, concerned/uncertain with the level of cooperation from IT, considering that for his students to enable such environment, they have to have the “right” access; namely behind firewalls, administrative privileges etc. Each of you will definitely be more persuasive with Phil Thorson convincing him in the merit of having IS student work with SCSU IT technician, since it is a win-win situation: the IT technician does not have to “waste time” (as in 2015) and resolve an issue and the IS student will be having a project-based, real-life learning experience by enabling the project under the supervision of the IT technician. Besides: a. student-centered, project-based learning; b. IT technician time saved, we also aim c. no silos / collaborative SCSU working environment, as promised by the reorganization process.
metadata: counts of papers by yer, researcher, institution, province, region and country. scientific fields subfields
metadata in one-credit course as a topic:
publisher – suppliers =- Elsevier processes – Scopus Data
h-index: The h-index is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the publications of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist’s most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications.
The era of e-science demands new skill sets and competencies of researchers to ensure their work is accessible, discoverable and reusable. Librarians are naturally positioned to assist in this education as part of their liaison and information literacy services.
Research data literacy and the library
Christian Lauersen, University of Copenhagen; Sarah Wright, Cornell University; Anita de Waard, Elsevier
Data Literacy: access, assess, manipulate, summarize and present data
Statistical Literacy: think critically about basic stats in everyday media
Information Literacy: think critically about concepts; read, interpret, evaluate information
data information literacy: the ability to use, understand and manage data. the skills needed through the whole data life cycle.
Shield, Milo. “Information literacy, statistical literacy and data literacy.” I ASSIST Quarterly 28. 2/3 (2004): 6-11.
Carlson, J., Fosmire, M., Miller, C. C., & Nelson, M. S. (2011). Determining data information literacy needs: A study of students and research faculty. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 11(2), 629-657.
embedded librarianship,
Courses developed: NTRESS 6600 research data management seminar. six sessions, one-credit mini course
NEW ROLESFOR LIbRARIANS: DATAMANAgEMENTAND CURATION
the capacity to manage and curate research data has not kept pace with the ability to produce them (Hey & Hey, 2006). In recognition of this gap, the NSF and other funding agencies are now mandating that every grant proposal must include a DMP (NSF, 2010). These mandates highlight the benefits of producing well-described data that can be shared, understood, and reused by oth-ers, but they generally offer little in the way of guidance or instruction on how to address the inherent issues and challenges researchers face in complying. Even with increasing expecta-tions from funding agencies and research com-munities, such as the announcement by the White House for all federal funding agencies to better share research data (Holdren, 2013), the lack of data curation services tailored for the “small sciences,” the single investigators or small labs that typically comprise science prac-tice at universities, has been identified as a bar-rier in making research data more widely avail-able (Cragin, Palmer, Carlson, & Witt, 2010).Academic libraries, which support the re-search and teaching activities of their home institutions, are recognizing the need to de-velop services and resources in support of the evolving demands of the information age. The curation of research data is an area that librar-ians are well suited to address, and a num-ber of academic libraries are taking action to build capacity in this area (Soehner, Steeves, & Ward, 2010)
REIMAgININg AN ExISTINg ROLEOF LIbRARIANS: TEAChINg INFORMATION LITERACY SkILLS
By combining the use-based standards of information literacy with skill development across the whole data life cycle, we sought to support the practices of science by develop-ing a DIL curriculum and providing training for higher education students and research-ers. We increased ca-pacity and enabled comparative work by involving several insti-tutions in developing instruction in DIL. Finally, we grounded the instruction in the real-world needs as articu-lated by active researchers and their students from a variety of fields
Chapter 1 The development of the 12 DIL competencies is explained, and a brief compari-son is performed between DIL and information literacy, as defined by the 2000 ACRL standards.
chapter 2 thinking and approaches toward engaging researchers and students with the 12 competencies, a re-view of the literature on a variety of educational approaches to teaching data management and curation to students, and an articulation of our key assumptions in forming the DIL project.
chapter 4 because these lon-gitudinal data cannot be reproduced, acquiring the skills necessary to work with databases and to handle data entry was described as essential. Interventions took place in a classroom set-ting through a spring 2013 semester one-credit course entitled Managing Data to Facilitate Your Research taught by this DIL team.
chapter 5 embedded librar-ian approach of working with the teaching as-sistants (TAs) to develop tools and resources to teach undergraduate students data management skills as a part of their EPICS experience.
Lack of organization and documentation presents a bar-rier to (a) successfully transferring code to new students who will continue its development, (b) delivering code and other project outputs to the community client, and (c) the center ad-ministration’s ability to understand and evalu-ate the impact on student learning.
skill sessions to deliver instruction to team lead-ers, crafted a rubric for measuring the quality of documenting code and other data, served as critics in student design reviews, and attended student lab sessions to observe and consult on student work
chapter 6 Although the faculty researcher had created formal policies on data management practices for his lab, this case study demonstrated that students’ adherence to these guidelines was limited at best. Similar patterns arose in discus-sions concerning the quality of metadata. This case study addressed a situation in which stu-dents are at least somewhat aware of the need to manage their data;
chapter 7 University of Minnesota team to design and implement a hybrid course to teach DIL com-petencies to graduate students in civil engi-neering.
stu-dents’ abilities to understand and track issues affecting the quality of the data, the transfer of data from their custody to the custody of the lab upon graduation, and the steps neces-sary to maintain the value and utility of the data over time.
Librarians in universities, colleges, and community colleges can establish, assess, and link
academic library outcomes to institutional outcomes related to the following areas:
student enrollment, student retention and graduation rates, student success, student
achievement, student learning, student engagement, faculty research productivity,
faculty teaching, service, and overarching institutional quality.
Assessment management systems help higher education educators, including librarians, manage their outcomes, record and maintain data on each outcome, facilitate connections to
similar outcomes throughout an institution, and generate reports.
Assessment management systems are helpful for documenting progress toward
strategic/organizational goals, but their real strength lies in managing learning
outcomes assessments.
to determine the impact of library interactions on users, libraries can collect data on how individual users engage with library resources and services.
increase library impact on student enrollment.
p. 13-14improved student retention and graduation rates. High -impact practices include: first -year seminars and experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writing – intensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research, Value of Academic Libraries diversity/global learning, service learning/community -based learning, internships, capstone courses and projects
p. 14
Libraries support students’ ability to do well in internships, secure job placements, earn salaries, gain acceptance to graduate/professional schools, and obtain marketable skills.
librarians can investigate correlations between student library interactions and their GPA well as conduct test item audits of major professional/educational tests to determine correlations between library services or resources and specific test items.
p. 15 Review course content, readings, reserves, and assignments.
Track and increase library contributions to faculty research productivity.
Continue to investigate library impact on faculty grant proposals and funding, a means of generating institutional income. Librarians contribute to faculty grant proposals in a number of ways.
Demonstrate and improve library support of faculty teaching.
p. 20 Internal Focus: ROI – lib value = perceived benefits / perceived costs
production of a commodity – value=quantity of commodity produced × price per unit of commodity
p. 21 External focus
a fourth definition of value focuses on library impact on users. It asks, “What is the library trying to achieve? How can librarians tell if they have made a difference?” In universities, colleges, and community colleges, libraries impact learning, teaching, research, and service. A main method for measuring impact is to “observe what the [users] are actually doing and what they are producing as a result”
A fifth definition of value is based on user perceptions of the library in relation to competing alternatives. A related definition is “desired value” or “what a [user] wants to have happen when interacting with a [library] and/or using a [library’s] product or service” (Flint, Woodruff and Fisher Gardial 2002) . Both “impact” and “competing alternatives” approaches to value require libraries to gain new understanding of their users’ goals as well as the results of their interactions with academic libraries.
p. 23 Increasingly, academic library value is linked to service, rather than products. Because information products are generally produced outside of libraries, library value is increasingly invested in service aspects and librarian expertise.
service delivery supported by librarian expertise is an important library value.
p. 25 methodology based only on literature? weak!
p. 26 review and analysis of the literature: language and literature are old (e.g. educational administrators vs ed leaders).
G government often sees higher education as unresponsive to these economic demands. Other stakeholder groups —students, pa rents, communities, employers, and graduate/professional schools —expect higher education to make impacts in ways that are not primarily financial.
p. 29
Because institutional missions vary (Keeling, et al. 2008, 86; Fraser, McClure and
Leahy 2002, 512), the methods by which academic libraries contribute value vary as
well. Consequently, each academic library must determine the unique ways in which they contribute to the mission of their institution and use that information to guide planning and decision making (Hernon and Altman, Assessing Service Quality 1998, 31) . For example, the University of Minnesota Libraries has rewritten their mission and vision to increase alignment with their overarching institution’s goals and emphasis on strategic engagement (Lougee 2009, allow institutional missions to guide library assessment
Assessment vs. Research
In community colleges, colleges, and universities, assessment is about defining the
purpose of higher education and determining the nature of quality (Astin 1987)
.
Academic libraries serve a number of purposes, often to the point of being
overextended.
Assessment “strives to know…what is” and then uses that information to change the
status quo (Keeling, et al. 2008, 28); in contrast, research is designed to test
hypotheses. Assessment focuses on observations of change; research is concerned with the degree of correlation or causation among variables (Keeling, et al. 2008, 35) . Assessment “virtually always occurs in a political context ,” while research attempts to be apolitical” (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 19) .
p. 31 Assessment seeks to document observations, but research seeks to prove or disprove ideas. Assessors have to complete assessment projects, even when there are significant design flaws (e.g., resource limitations, time limitations, organizational contexts, design limitations, or political contexts); whereas researchers can start over (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 19) . Assessors cannot always attain “perfect” studies, but must make do with “good enough” (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 18) . Of course, assessments should be well planned, be based on clear outcomes (Gorman 2009, 9- 10) , and use appropriate methods (Keeling, et al. 2008, 39) ; but they “must be comfortable with saying ‘after’ as well as ‘as a result of’…experiences” (Ke eling, et al. 2008, 35) .
Two multiple measure approaches are most significant for library assessment: 1) triangulation “where multiple methods are used to find areas of convergence of data from different methods with an aim of overcoming the biases or limitations of data gathered from any one particular method” (Keeling, et al. 2008, 53) and 2) complementary mixed methods , which “seek to use data from multiple methods to build upon each other by clarifying, enhancing, or illuminating findings between or among methods” (Keeling, et al. 2008, 53) .
p. 34 Academic libraries can help higher education institutions retain and graduate students, a keystone part of institutional missions (Mezick 2007, 561) , but the challenge lies in determining how libraries can contribute and then document their contribution
p. 35. Student Engagement: In recent years, academic libraries have been transformed to provide “technology and content ubiquity” as well as individualized support My Note: I read the “technology and content ubiquity” as digital literacy / metaliteracies, where basic technology instructional sessions (everything that IMS offers for years) is included, but this library still clenches to information literacy only.
In the past, academic libraries functioned primarily as information repositories; now they are becoming learning enterprises (Bennett 2009, 194) . This shift requires academic librarians to embed library services and resources in the teaching and learning activities of their institutions (Lewis 2007) . In the new paradigm, librarians focus on information skills, not information access (Bundy 2004, 3); they think like educators, not service providers (Bennett 2009, 194) .
p. 38. For librarians, the main content area of student learning is information literacy; however, they are not alone in their interest in student inform ation literacy skills (Oakleaf, Are They Learning? 2011). My note: Yep. it was. 20 years ago. Metaliteracies is now.
p. 41 surrogates for student learning in Table 3.
p. 42 strategic planning for learning:
According to Kantor, the university library “exists to benefit the students of the educational institution as individuals ” (Library as an Information Utility 1976 , 101) . In contrast, academic libraries tend to assess learning outcomes using groups of students
p. 45 Assessment Management Systems
Tk20
Each assessment management system has a slightly different set of capabilities. Some guide outcomes creation, some develop rubrics, some score student work, or support student portfolios. All manage, maintain, and report assessment data
p. 46 faculty teaching
However, as online collections grow and discovery tools evolve, that role has become less critical (Schonfeld and Housewright 2010; Housewright and Schonfeld, Ithaka’s 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders 2008, 256) . Now, libraries serve as research consultants, project managers, technical support professionals, purchasers , and archivists (Housewright, Themes of Change 2009, 256; Case 2008) .
Librarians can count citations of faculty publications (Dominguez 2005)
.
+++++++++++++
Tenopir, C. (2012). Beyond usage: measuring library outcomes and value. Library Management, 33(1/2), 5-13.
methods that can be used to measure the value of library products and services. (Oakleaf, 2010; Tenopir and King, 2007): three main categories
Implicit value. Measuring usage through downloads or usage logs provide an implicit measure of value. It is assumed that because libraries are used, they are of value to the users. Usage of e-resources is relatively easy to measure on an ongoing basis and is especially useful in collection development decisions and comparison of specific journal titles or use across subject disciplines.
do not show purpose, satisfaction, or outcomes of use (or whether what is downloaded is actually read).
Explicit methods of measuring value include qualitative interview techniques that ask faculty members, students, or others specifically about the value or outcomes attributed to their use of the library collections or services and surveys or interviews that focus on a specific (critical) incident of use.
Derived values, such as Return on Investment (ROI), use multiple types of data collected on both the returns (benefits) and the library and user costs (investment) to explain value in monetary terms.
The 21st Century Skills of the Academic Librarian in Bulgaria
Applicant:
Plamen Miltenoff, PhD, MLIS, http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/faculty/
My experience and connections with the library organizations and professionals from Moldova, Bulgaria and Austria, as well as my 17+ years working at the St. Cloud State University library provides me with an opportunity for comparison and, consequently, proposal for collaborative practices with Bulgarian academic librarians.
Project Duration: one year
Problem Identification: Through the years, my work with faculty and librarians from Shoumen University (http://shu-bg.net/ ), Plovdiv University (https://uni-plovdiv.bg/), New Bulgarian University (https://nbu.bg/), the American University (https://www.aubg.edu/) and Sofia University (https://www.uni-sofia.bg/) helped me identify differences and similarities in the work of the Bulgarian educational institutions and academia from abroad.
The role of the academic librarian in the educational process is different/limited in Bulgaria compared to the United States. During a collaboration on gamifying library instruction (http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/), the NBU librarians demonstrated their propensity to shift their campus role close to the campus role of American librarians, yet in general the Bulgarian library guild remains traditional in their view of their responsibilities toward the educational process on campus.
Project Objectives:
This proposal aims regular discussions among professionals from Bulgarian and American (possibly other nations) librarians to determine the framework regarding librarian’s responsibilities. Are academic librarians faculty members or staff? Do they have teaching or service (or both) responsibilities? What are 20th century academic librarians’ responsibilities are to be preserved? Updated? What are the 21st century responsibilities to be gained? What is the relationship between academic librarians and faculty? What is expected from an academic librarians to ensure learning happens? To benefit faculty’s teaching?
A comparison of academic library structures, job descriptions, models and discourses can lead to deep[er] analysis of existing structures and possible reorganizations to improve the role of the library in particular and the efficiency of the educational institution in general.
Comparisons of topics and syllabi: multiliteraices as successor of information literacy? Is the academic library the hub for technological innovations (e.g makerspaces, 3D printing, virtual reality/augmented reality) and if not, what is the academic library role in the process?
Other relevant topics / issues are expected to transpire during such discourse.
Project Description:
The project is organized in collaboration of synchronous and asynchronous character during the span of one academic year. Three synchronous sessions each semester (six sessions for the entire semester) will provide a forum through e-conferencing tools (e.g. Adobe Connect, WebEx, Skype, Google Hangout etc.) for live discussions and planning. Weekly asynchronous dialog through social media (e.g. blog, Facebook Group, Google Group etc.) will provide the platform/ hub/ forum daily/detailed preparation for the monthly synchronous meetings.
Most valuable feedback through the weekly asynchronous discussions will be voted by participants and three best weekly contributions will be awarded badges. At the end of the academic year, the three contributors with largest collection of badges will be awarded cost for registration fee, travel and lodging to an important European conference regarding libraries and education.
The experience and lessons from the process will be summed up, published and presented at local (Bulgarian), regional (Balkans) and international (European, U.S.) educational conferences and events. Similar cross-cultural experiences and studies will be research and comparison and future collaboration will be sought.
Impact:
The use of synchronous tools will provide technological and didactical practice for academic librarians; an experience they later can apply in their service to the campus community.
Same with the asynchronous tools / social media
The practice and experience of using social media for institutional purposes can help librarians figure out pertinent outreach to the recent and incoming students (Millennials and Gen Y)
The use of social media will provide transparency and participatory governing of the process.
Sustainability:
The lessons from such endeavor aim to bring closer collaboration and understanding between academic librarians and campus faculty. Such collaboration can be measured, as well as impact of improved teaching and improved learning. The measurements should convince university administration to further support the continues process of cross-cultural collaboration between academic librarians.
Please join me September 20 for a free webinar where Dr. Sheryl Abshire, CTO of Calcasieu Parish SD and a recognized leader in K-12 technology, shares her insights on the top strategies, best practices and most valuable ideas that can reduce IT departmental costs and increase efficiencies.
What: New Ways to Measure & Leverage the Value of IT When: 09/20 @ 2:00 PM ET | 11:00 AM PT
Listen in and learn how to:
· Use data you already collect to justify needs and resources
· Create a new value proposition for IT
· Measure the strategic use of IT in the district
· Determine if your current technology is making the difference you expected
https://www.schooldude.com/ Tech support costs in K12 increased by 50% in the last four years from 14% to 21% of the technology budget. One half of the school technology leaders said that their school board understands that technology relates to district oveall goals , it is not as supportive financially. Worse, 8% felt that the school board does not believe technology is important to their district overall goals
Harvard Business Report Driving Digital Transformation. 2015 surveyed digital leaders. Driving innovation most important role breaking down internal silos
virtualization; data deluge; energy and green IT; complex resource tracking; consumerization and social software; unified communications; mobile and wireless; system density; mashups and portals; cloud computing
what is a quick recovery?
Action plan: 1. Focus on virtualization and green IT for immediate cost and flexibility benefits. 2. Look at storage virtualization, deduplication and thin provisioning. 3. Evaluate web social software to transform interactions 4. exploit mashups and cloud-based services to address immediate user needs. 5. link UC to collaboration and enterprise applications to support growth initiatives. 6. begin to track weak signals and subtle patterns – from everywhere.
managing upkeep and replacement of growing number of devices
time
perception gap (what we are doing)
tool: Insight
agentless network discovery mechanism. scanning of devices on the network. optimize hard software usage, improve planning and budgeting process with status reporting.
MDM (mobile device management). supports both BYOD and school devices. control app distribution across the network, supervise device usage, remotely manage device policy
Helpdesk: complete ticket to close helpdesk solution
++++++++++++++++++
Q&A time
technology facilitators: spend time at assigned schools; talk to teacher and try to figure out what teachers know about technology and then work the principal to customize workshops (PLCs) to build the skills based on their skills set. versus technology facilitator at every school. Help them grow their own.
