This post was originally written in Swedish. Please see the machine translation made by Google, perhaps I will edit that and publish it here later on.

Last fall LÄRA Stockholm, the magazine for staff members of Stockholm’s schools, featured an interview with me about the future of School. The article has now been translated into Spanish by Emilio Quintana and Juan Manuel Higuera. An effort that I truly appreciate, as well as Quintana’s personal remarks on some of my statements. And the latter seem to be in need of some clarifications.

As an introduction you may find my blog post in Swedish, about the interview and the magazine’s cover headline “Close down the School”, useful. The article in Spanish is available through the blog post Lo que va de Suecia a España. Entrevista con Richard Gatarski, which I have read thanks to a translation by Google.

I first met Emilio Quintana after a key note I did at IPON 2008 (ICT in education) in the Netherlands. Since then we have had some good interactions, including a few encounters here in Stockholm. Quintana’s concerns are really interesting, and I want to address them.

One-to-one before non-sense teacher qualifications

One-to-one, the idea of one computer to every student, is gaining momentum. More and more students, parents, teachers, school leaders, and politicians understand the importance of having the right digital tools on an indivudual basis. But Quintana seems to be concerned over me saying that computer equipment is more important the digital competence of teachers. Nothing could be more wrong. Quintana writes (translated by Google):

“It is true that Gatarski refers to teachers as people who should be open to new experience and contact with the culture of their environment, I think is wrong in its emphasis on computer equipment and not on the development of digital competence . Y más en un país como Suecia en el que la conexión a la red es prácticamente universal. And more in a country like Sweden where the network connection is almost universal.”

Probably a slight misunderstanding here. During the interview I argued that a computer to every student (and teacher) is more important than “qualified teachers” (swedish: behöriga lärare). In Sweden there is a big thing around “qualified teachers”, in my view a topic driven by the two largest teacher unions. Supported by vote-hungry politicians. “Qualified” is supposed to be inherent with a university degree from a teachers education program. I consider such qualification as being non-sense, given the massive critique directed to those programs. Where, for example, skills in IT-related competencies is not guaranteed by those degrees. Consequently, I feel it is more important to equip schools with contemporary tools, than “qualified teachers”.
The digital competence of teachers is of vital importance. But, as far as I can see, most of the innovative and updated digitally literate teachers have gained their insights through practical use in their schools and leisure time. Furthermore, through elaborate conversations with peers and the global web communities. Not in formal higher education. Hence, “qualified teachers” is not the important thing. Adequate tools, proper attitudes, and open conversations are. Something I also point out in the interview.
That does not mean I say give every child a laptop and wonderful things will happen. A lot of money has been wasted on IT hardware in schools, because teachers have not been given the time, support and resources to implement its use. What I am saying is simply that upgrading schools with contemporary hardware is more important than “qualified teachers” (who seems not to be qualified). And I add: digital competence, which cannot be gained withouth the “computer equipment”, is equally important. It’s chicken AND egg.

Schools must play the branding game

This concern is trickier, as I am not sure of how much Quintana knows about what I mean around branding in a school related context. And I really don’t know much about Quintana’s thinking on branding. He writes (again translated by Google):

“I am not convinced at all the way in integrating education and business, or how he [Gatarski] handles the brand concept school, although I agree with him when he gives importance to the generation of a recognizable profile (compared to those who think that ads are ‘catch’ students). Con todo, estoy mucho más de acuerdo con las ideas de Hugo Pardo Kuklinski cuando habla de ‘marcas blancas’ educativas y de geekonomía . But I am much more in accord with the ideas of Hugo Pardo Kuklinski when he speaks of ‘white label’ educational and geekonomía.”

Unfortunately I do not know much about the references Quintana gives. I only skimmed through them before writing this. But I am really stressed in not having developed, and shared, what I mean by branding in an educational context. Those ideas go far beyond tbe brand image of School (as an institution) and that of a school brand (such as Instituto Cervantes).
In short, brands have become a most important tools for children and all of us as we develop our identities and social relations. An ever-present process of human formation that schools (and teachers) more or less ignore. Worst case, even try to lock themselves and their students out from.
On the other hand, I am so happy to have learned that Richard Gerver, in his brand (sic!) new book “Creating tomorrow’s school today” seems to share similar ideas. Gerver devotes the entire third chapter “Making school matter, selling school to our children” to that subject. He ends the chapter with:

“We need to be far more considered in our thinking and the branding of our schools. We need to recognize that our children are the most targeted and, as a result, the most sophisticated consumers ever. We need to respect this and do something to counter it. It is time to swallow our pride and learn how to play the branding game!”

What I have been trying to say the last 10 years is, with Gerver’s words, that schools must play the branding game. And in order to play that game well, one has to understand its players, rules and tools. For example, the linking value of brands. Consider the brand value of “mathematics”. Do kids generally feel that math is cool and help them become a better human being? Do they feel that being good in math make them a good person to have relations with? Or is it perhaps the other way around?

Look into your nearest shopping mall. Do you see the brands?

Look into your nearest school. Where are the brands?

Where does the attention, interest, desire (and money) go?

I first heard the term “meat LAN” (in Swedish as “kött-LAN”) from Björn Erikssen at Ocean Observations back in 2008. By “LAN” Björn was referring to LAN parties, that is when a bunch of gamers meet somewhere in physical space to hook up their computers and play through a Local Area Network. I just add a little twist and rephrase it as meat meet (Swedish “köttmöte”). Simply because IRL (in real life) connotes that the online would somehow be unreal. Furthermore, to me “physical space” simply sounds cold, boring, and less catchty.

Anyway, in a comment after my gig for F-Secure Daniel Grønbek asks about my concerns regarding how online relations affect “old values like communicating face 2 face, enjoying the companionship with fellows in eg. sports clubs, meeting with friends at the cofeehouse and more”?

Well, as far as I can see it we are genetically programmed to meet other humans in all kinds of physical ways. As a matter of fact, most parents fear the moments when their (young) kids want physical meetings with friends made online. This kind of urge is yet another proof of our need to make physical contact. And by “need” I really mean a basic human need. Meetings at LAN parties, sports clubs, coffe houses, etc are just different cultural expressions of that basic need.

Online encounters seems to drive the number of meat meets. As well as how such meetings are organized.  True, all human behaviour might turn into abnormal ways. Like individuals who isolate themselfes in front of a computer screen, reluctant to make whatever contact with the outside world. But such acts are exceptions, not the norm(al). On a personal level I tend to always want to meat meet people that I initially  have learned to know online.

A few contemporary forms of such novel meeting forms are tweetups, bar camps and unconferences (when initiated online). Again, we humans will always want meat meetings. As history goes on, and new technologies emerge, we develop new and interesting meeting formats. Of course these include online meetings too, like skype calls, MSN chats, twittering, and video conferencing.

But there is even more hope for a more humane look at business meetings. In 2006 I developed the Meeting model Connected (Swedish Mötesmodell Uppkopplad) for business purposes. Doing that I came to the realisation that as more and more of our “business meeting needs” could be satisfied with online tools, the “human needs” for effective group collaboration would become more appearant. And perhaps acknowledged with its true face. Most business meetings include a “social side”, be it as coffe breaks, dinner, dancing, bar hangouts, etc. Hence, I am looking forward to future business meetings with the sole purpose of meat meet. That is, meetings where the main (deductable) purpose actually is to satisfy our need to make physical contact (without talking business).

If you see what I mean…

Last week the Swedish PR agency Westander invited everyone to contribute to their wiki on PR and social media. Any contributions made there before February 17, 2010 might end up in Westander’s Swedish handbook on PR. The wiki in question relates only to the two pages in the hand book that concerns “social media”.

In the Swedish version of this post I elaborate somewhat on my thoughts about their handbook two years ago, and how they might improve their current wiki implementation further.

If you want other people to care about you, then tell them who you are.  Your name, photo, a short personal description and an indication of what you are doing will help others. In social media too!

How would you react if a stranger blasts up to you in the supermarket and say “hey, do you want to come along and chat for a while”? What would you think if similar things happened all the time on the street, during the conference, at the countryside etc? Most probably you would avoid that type of encounters. We have so many other things and people to think about.

Hi, my name is Richard Gatarski and I have a passionate interest for media development and social innovations. How can we together create the world’s best start in life for our children?

At physical meetings (meat meets) it is common in our culture to present ourselfes to strangers by giving our name and reaching out a hand. Fairly soon the parties then start a conversation around  anything that might lead to a common interest. Sometimes the result is the exchange of contact information, so that we can meet again. We make contact.

Like most others I like being acknowledged. We humans want to be seen. It is another story that we simply do not have time to care about everyone around us. Especially in social media, where it is all about potential contacts worldwide.

For my part, I get many notifications every day that Twitter users started to follow @RichardGatarski, people want to be friends with my profile in Facebook, connect to Richard Gatarski in LinkedIn, and so on. Typically I spend 5-30 seconds on each of those pock-on-my-attention-situations. So, it’s up to anyone to quickly identify her/himself and suggest what our common interests might be. Because I quickly decide wether to follow back or just go on.

In the case of personal Twitter accounts, a good idea is to publish your full name, a brief personal description and, preferably, a URL where one can learn more about you. It is also often useful to have a profile picture that is a more or less creative portrait of you. Even for organization’s accounts, it is a good idea the tell which persons do the twittering.

If you want to be anonymous in social media, you’re welcome. But few will care about you, and it is hardly a social presence.

Im LinkedIn I have chosen to cultivate my professional contacts only. In FaceBook I also befriend more or less closer private friends. For both services we must have had more than just a brief encounter before I connect. Regarding Twitter, I follow back a small number of users: those working with media development and children (including schools); are my private friends, or supply a service that I find useful. Since I want to have decent idea all my twitter friends doings, my solution is to follow no more than 200 accounts.

We are all different, and you do what you want. Please try to be social, that helps us all.

[Short url to this post: tinyurl.com/knownfriend]