Like many of you, I have excitedly followed along with the events in Iran. Yesterday, not by chance (the video was released because of the events), Scott McLeod posted Clay Shirky's latest TED talk and I also read Clay's Q & A on the Iranian situation.

Scott's question:

Shirky notes that we are living through "the largest increase in expressive capability in human history." Wait, isn't it a function of K-12 schools to help students be effective communicators in the media of their time?

In response, let me say this: I think democratic schools would "help students be effective communicators in the media of their time." Thus, the question fundamentally is one of the democractic nature of our education system (or lack thereof, but, we'll get back to that).

First, though, schools are resistant to this kind of democratizing change toward social media for a reason ... fear. Really, no different than the fear shown by the Iranian government right now, just a difference of degree. We block Youtube in our schools for the same reason Iran blocks Youtube in their country or China blocks Twitter ... we can't control it ... and therefore it is viewed as dangerous.

Thus, for me, the social media adoption fight in our schools has always been a democratic fight, not a technological fight. We know the technology and we could implement it fairly easily. The system is resisting though, perhaps correctly, because of fear. It is an innate resistance inherent in bureaucratic systems -- i.e. the whole reason bureaucracies are built in the first place is to resist (or stop) change.

Now, if you are a government, there really is nothing more dangerous than teaching the entire population how to communicate with each other without you (Iran has found out the hard way that too many of it's citizens knew how to tweet). And, this innate resistance, particularly because of it's heightened danger, is chiefly responsible for the nationwide bureaucratic resistance to social media adoption in schools. Particularly in schools, actually, both because the law allows the government more regulatory freedom there and, relatedly, students are much less passive than middle aged men with mortgages.

So, returning to Scott's question,"isn't it a function of K-12 schools to help students be effective communicators in the media of their time?" The answer is clearly "no" if two things are true. First, the fundamental purpose of our schools must be bureaucracy, and not democracy, and I think one can make a legitimate argument that such is the case. Second, though, the bureaucracy must not have internalized, and thus removed from fear from, the change.

And, in this second point is our lesson. Schools may well be bureaucratic - any school law scholar such as myself would be hard pressed to conclude otherwise. But, simply because schools are bureaucratic does not necessarily mean they must be anti-democratic. When one can remove the fear from a democratic initiative, bureaucracies can readily adapt. This is what Obama did in the FISA example in Clay's talk. He, or his campaign, overcame the fear of dissent and thus his bureaucracy actually promoted democracy.

So, the answer to Scott's question can be yes either if our schools are fully democratic (and maybe I am underestimating them) or, more realistically, the bureaucracy embraces the fear, removes it, and stays one step ahead of its populace. And, this is how we are, or must be, different than Iran ... one hopes.

That's what Governor Schwarzenegger wants.

It's nonsensical — and expensive — to look to traditional hard-bound books when information today is so readily available in electronic form. Especially now, when our school districts are strapped for cash and our state budget deficit is forcing further cuts to classrooms, we must do everything we can to untie educators' hands and free up dollars so that schools can do more with fewer resources.

We're seeing an interesting shift here where the digital is now seen as more efficient than the textbooks. That's a key shift in perception because conservatives now have an argument from which they can support such broad digital transitions, as we see the Governor doing in this article. You look at the healthcare debate for instance, where digital records are guaranteed to be a big part of this package. Because it is being sold as an efficiency in the healthcare system, no conservatives are voicing strong opposition to it and many support that aspect of reform. We could well see the same thing in education where digital becomes equated with efficiency. 

For a long time digital advocates have been trying to sell the digital transition on the basis of global competition, job readiness, student receptivity, and a bunch of other very good arguments - which you can see summed up in great videos like the one Scott McLeod helped produce. But efficiency ... well, that argument sells itself. I don't need a great video to sell someone if the digital is seen as the cheaper option - what I need is an economist to total the savings and testify in front of the subcommittees and we can get whatever digital transition we want.