Students went back to school in September with a controversy over Technology in Schools swirling in the halls and inside the 21st century classroom. Canada’s largest public school board, the Toronto District Board, accepted the ever-present reality of students armed with smartphones and relaxed its ban on most hand-held technology devices. That move signaled the beginning of a profound shift, opening the door to the digital classroom.
Most junior and senior school students in Canada and the United States are already sneaking their phones and iPods into class in backpacks, so the move was likely inevitable. “Teachers just can’t sit at the front with the chalkboard anymore,” IT consultant Todd Sniezek conceded,” because that won’t engage them and we have to engage them using their tools.” http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/primary-to-secondary/back-to-school-for-smartphones-toronto-loosens-ban-on-devices/article2156008/?service=mobile
Allowing more open access to IT in the classroom came amidst fresh controversy over the questionable impact of hi-tech on student learning and performance. A New York Times series “Grading the Digital School” led off with IT reporter Matt Richtel’s September 3, 2011 feature story reporting on stagnating test scores in schools championing the technology-centric classroom. After analyzing the Kyrene School District, reputed to be a model high-tech school district, Richtel came to a startling conclusion: student test scores were still languishing.
Across the United States, where nearly $2 billion is now being poured into IT software alone, Richtel sounded an alarm bell. “Schools are spending billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay-off teachers,” he declared, “with little proof that this approach is improving learning.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all
Promoters of the headlong rush to digitize our schools got a jolt. There was, Larry Cuban told Richtel, “insufficient evidence to spend that kind of money. Period, period, period.” Cuban also “pooh-poohed” the “student engagement” argument for computers. “There is very little valid and reliable research that shows the engagement causes or leads to higher academic achievement,” he contended.
Brave critiques of 21st century digital orthodoxy, such as Richtel’s feature article and Nicholas G. Carr’s 2010 book, The Shallows, perform a vital role in alerting us to the spell cast by the Net and to the perils of giving it free rein in our schools.
What should we make of the recent revelation? A Senior Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Peter Meyer, provided the best and most insightful answer. While Richtel covers most of the essential bases, he simply doesn’t grasp the significance of good, sound curriculum. In Educaton Gadfly, Meyer pointed out that Richtel – like the IT zealots–is slow to recognize the most critical element in education — the importance of knowledge.
The central question, What should kids know?, still eludes education technologists and far too many education reporters.
Meyer offers these words of wisdom: “It can be done. When Ron Packard was starting his pioneering internet school, K12 Inc., in the late 1990s*, one of the first things he did was to convince Bill Bennett, the education “czar” under Ronald Reagan and co-author (with Checker Finn) of The Educated Child, to join him. This was 1999 and a major coup, in no small part because Bennett and Finn had written that there was “no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve learning.” …. Equally important – though less publicized – was Packard’s next move: hiring John Holdren, who had overseen E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge K-8 Curriculum Sequence, to design K12’s curriculum. What Packard appreciated, and too many education technologists still don’t get, is that content counts.” http://www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/09/wakeup-call-for-the-digital-revolution/
Computers are here to stay and so is IT in schools. Simply providing the latest IT gadgets and providing open access to the Web is, and never will be, enough to fully engage students in guided learning. That master “Word Processor” Nicholas G. Carr describes well how increasing numbers of “digital citizens” now report that “the Web has scattered their attention, parched their memory, and turned them into compulsive nibblers of info-snacks.” (The Shallows(2011), p. 226)
Will recent Wake-up Calls for the Digital Revolution in education register where it counts, in Departments of Education and among education policy-makers? With all the high-tech gadgets in our hands, are Tony Wagner’s “21st century skills” apostles leading us astray? Why do we tend to ignore the essential fact that knowledge and good teaching still matter most? Will the low technology of good teaching and sound curriculum eventually win the day?
As Henry Kissinger said about President Richard Nixon “even paranoids can have real enemies”.
There is a very heavy emphasis in the REAL Corporte Education Reform Movement, the one sponcered by Gates, Michael Dell, Broad, Waltons, et al encouraged by people like Terry Moe, to radically increase the speed that technology is introduced into the system. The fact that the same conservative system declares that there is NO MONEY, is offset by the clear move to increase class sizes to pay for technology to accomplish this at the same time.
In the corporate view of education a school auditorium can all get their math class from Kahn Academy at the same time and then get booster help from lower paid tutors. This is increasingly how universities run using grad students. It is a bad model, and it can only work in highly selective situations almost like an electronic guest speaker. Picture the Sociology 101 class at university with 500 students as the model.
This model does help the corporate model introduce expensive technology, pay for it from the teacher line of the budget and attempt to weaken the union at the same time. Sadly what we refer do as “class paticipation” and “student performance” does not fit the model and the early experience is that tech heavy boards have no achievement gains over “tech light” boards.
“Corporate Education Reform Movement”? “Corporate Education Reform Agenda”? Who, apart from those who’ve drank the kool-aid, actually coin such phrases?
There is much about the piece with which I agree
– the jury is out on the value of the “new technologies”, especially since they are often oversold by advocates
– they are here to stay so we have to figure out what to do: rather like mass production of books 500+ years ago
But
Tony Wagner;s skills are not pushing tech; rather he accepts their existence and noter the need for
– acquiring and assessing the info
– learning to communicate well (reading and writing)
The testing and accountability movement is on the wrong track and ignoring poverty is a major problem. The author of this Education Week article was an education researcher for the RAND corporation for many years:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/09/14/03rotberg_ep.h31.html?tkn=ZVXFRyhRzHzvf%2FOaVvy3KIfiO7MTfECXBsnF&cmp=clp-edweek
The introduction of technology rapidly is part of this misguided STEM, international competitiveness human capital agenda. It is a serious problem.
Steven Covey used to say “what is you place your ladder of life against the wall and slowly climb to the top only to find out the ladder is leaning on the wrong wall.” The tech driven agenda is a ladder on the wrong wall.
Watch the video wherein Anubhav Saxena, VP — Marketing, HCL Technologies seeks Nicholas G. Carr’s (aka Nick) [the author of The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google] viewpoint about his counter intuitive vision for mankind who find themselves at the losing end as a result of centralization of technology. http://bit.ly/iUojUB
Like every other tool, IT can be used properly or misused.
The current commentary, and the questions toward the end, reminded me of a (now infamous) piece I read in the Atlantic a few years back called, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” I’ll provide the link: http://bit.ly/cXNeCU
As an ed-tech proponent (who celebrated TDRSB’s decision loudly), some of your statements above didn’t sit right with me. For example, you extol “knowledge” as paramount for both students and teachers, and disparage 21st century “skills” in stark contrast. And I worry that you conflate “knowledge” and “content” when you assert that the ed-tech community doesn’t think “content counts”.
Some thoughts on the questions you ask at the end of your post:
1. “Why do we tend to ignore the essential fact that knowledge and good teaching still matter most?”
Nobody will dispute the fact that good teaching matters most. But how and why does “knowledge” matter? Facts and information (i.e. content) are becoming a commodity in abundance, and spending any amount of time in the classroom learning them on their own is tedious and irrelevant. Furthermore, many of the arcane skills we learn at an early age have us wasting years re-inventing the wheel instead of standing on a taller foundation provided by technology. I’d rather be doing algebra with a calculator in grade four, over learning long division with a pencil and paper.
I hope your definition of knowledge encompasses more than facts and information — not just content, but also PROCESS. Not just the information, but the ability to analyse, synthesize, and evaluate that information. But, isn’t “process” is merely a synonym for “skill”? And wouldn’t it behoove us to make sure the skills we learn are relevant to the 21st century?
Wouldn’t 21st century skills matter most, as they’re the most valuable “knowledge” that good teaching can hope to impart?
2. “Will the low technology of good teaching and sound curriculum eventually win the day?”
Again, I worry about the assumption in this question that “good teaching” is somehow related to “low technology”. Good teachers need to be engaging. One cannot expect to engage a class full of students, who spend their leisure time on computers and smartphones, without leveraging the channels they prefer to use. To adopt an “us versus them” mentality (“we have to engage them using their tools.”) is problematic. Teachers need to be steeped in these tools. We need to take ownership over them. Smartphones aren’t “their” tools. They’re “our” tools. My sympathies go out to the teachers who don’t see it that way.
I submit to you that a “sound curriculum” is made sound nowadays by outcomes that emphasize process over content. And at the lowest level, those processes involve the proficient use of technology. For example, how to assess the quality and validity of a Wikipedia article; or how to choose the right community to crowdsource a question to; or how to craft a questionnaire that yields meaningful, quantifiable data for statistical analysis; or how to create a pivot table to reveal trends.
A curriculum that doesn’t provide opportunities to acquire these elemental skills serves nobody. And “good teaching”, by the very nature of the world in which students are growing up, is necessarily high-tech.
“Facts and information (i.e. content) are becoming a commodity in abundance, and spending any amount of time in the classroom learning them on their own is tedious and irrelevant. Furthermore, many of the arcane skills we learn at an early age have us wasting years re-inventing the wheel instead of standing on a taller foundation provided by technology. I’d rather be doing algebra with a calculator in grade four, over learning long division with a pencil and paper.”
The arcane skills that are eschewed, is the foundation from which all knowledge and activities springs from. To skipped long division, in favour of doing algebra on a calculator is foolish in the long run. However would a person know the answer on the calculator is correct, without having developed the deep knowledge of the arithmetic foundation. Math knowledge is cumulative, where one can’t learn how to divide, without learning to multiply first. Likewise one can’t add, before they learn how to count first. It is the foundation skills that are essential in acquiring the knowledge of advance math skills. A weak foundation in the arithmetic skills, an individual will use the tech tools as a crutch to support their weak foundation skills, rather than as a convenient tool, to calculate faster.
” And at the lowest level, those processes involve the proficient use of technology. For example, how to assess the quality and validity of a Wikipedia article; or how to choose the right community to crowdsource a question to; or how to craft a questionnaire that yields meaningful, quantifiable data for statistical analysis; or how to create a pivot table to reveal trends.”
No matter what, a solid foundation in the 3Rs are crucial to sort out the digital world, especially when people are faced with numbers, graphs, and dense language. People need to have a solid foundation, to interpret the numbers, graphs or the dense language is speaking the truth to them. If so, the information/content is incorporated in the lives of the people. The key to accessing the technology of the 21st century, is the solid foundation to use it efficiently and to be able to customized the information/content adapting it to their lives.
Nancy,
It’s encouraging to see that you value skills like arithmetic, reading and writing. I agree that you need all three to be considered ‘literate’. However, literacy in this century goes far beyond the 3Rs. To use a tired cliché, I’ll use the term ‘digital literacy’ as a convenient shorthand for the technological skills students need to navigate their lives and acquire social capital.
The problem I’ve seen in various schools is that teachers focus on fundamentals of reading, writing and numeracy in a vacuum, and eschew digital literacy — simply because they have no digital literacy of their own, and don’t care to master those skills. This is why you see language like, “we have to engage them using their tools.” Teachers see the digital native as the Other, and don’t care to do the work of cross-cultural translation.
There simply isn’t enough “good teaching”, and it has nothing to do with innovations in technology. The “good teacher” would move on from the fundamentals as soon as possible, and put tools in the hands of students to APPLY these fundamentals. And it’s so easy to do – have students find and read the news online via Twitter, RSS and Digg; get them to collaborate on a writing project using a wiki or a Google Doc; get them to practise their math skills by writing basic computer programs or simple games with Scratch or Alice; let them explore their own thoughts on a work of fiction by writing a blog; set them to work creating their own textbook, complete with cited sources; have them use amateur-grade software to communicate ideas visually.
You’ll notice student engagement shoot up, and you’ll “cover the curriculum” without sacrificing digital literacy. And, they’ll know how to use these tools — all of which I can guarantee they’ll use again in a knowledge economy — when they join the workforce.
It doesn’t serve anybody to do arithmetic drills like long division in a vacuum. The sooner students set to work on real-world problems, the sooner you’ll see them figuring out these ‘fundamentals’ in the wash.
Your students will thank you.
Five thousand years of so called civilization, the library of Alexandria opened around 200-300 BC, now waifer thin computers to usher in digital literacy, and students consistantly use the word “like” as though it is some omnipotant 21st century skill. Is it a noun, verb, or article? It may even define a whole new sentence structure; who knows. So much for the emphasisis on “process”.
It seems every institution is fixated on “process” today – from public art galleries to online IT schools. Check out the online Kahn Academy for example.
The pale example of process today reflects back on the need for a stronger emphasis on critical thinking. Yup, that may include that insightful and knowledgeable discussion arcane. Where an object is the manifestation of content not primarily “process.” For students, in my humble opinion, this is where the phisical book disappears and the story (content) appears.
In a capitalist society it seems hard to believe students will miss out on the IT gadgets so essential to “elemental skills”; just don’t bump into the streetcar while texting about curiculum opportunities. Skills have the ability to evaporate quickly in these times. But knowledge, so essential, does not have to be saved in the favorite column. It does not need to be accessed. It can be obtained.
Steven,
I’m not quite sure I understand your point. You seem to be arguing in favour of content over skills. I maintain that skills, and process, matter more than content ever could. Knowledge of facts and trivia isn’t useful without the ability to leverage that knowledge for a greater purpose.
This is precisely why, for example, most history teachers miss the point entirely when the focus on the sequence of events in, say, the Russian Revolution or the two World Wars. We don’t — and shouldn’t — study those historical phenomena in-and-of themselves. Any phenomenon will do, so long as the activities students do require them to think critically about the evidence, and look for patterns in the information they come across.
Let me put it another way. The point of teaching history isn’t to teach “history,” but rather, to help students understand historiography. The point of teaching algebra, discrete math and calculus isn’t to reduce matrices, become versed in group theory or differentiate a complex equation — but rather, to help students think develop processes for rational, critical thinking. The point of language arts isn’t to be able to quote Shakespeare, or write essays about Orwellian dystopia, but rather, to help students expand their vocabularies, and learn how to communicate.
The “content” in all these cases is secondary. Focusing on it for any longer than aboslutely necessary is a waste of students’ time. Giving them something to DO with the content is the real point. And when we do, we are focusing on process. We are acquiring skills.
I’d rather have students be exposed to the widest array of tools forming the digital landscape around them, so they can leverage these tools in their processes, instead of producing students who can banter at cocktail parties.
I hope you can agree.
Ari, you wrote – “The “content” in all these cases is secondary. Focusing on it for any longer than absolutely necessary is a waste of students’ time. Giving them something to DO with the content is the real point. And when we do, we are focusing on process. We are acquiring skills.”
Correct me if I am wrong, is it not constructivism you desire, where content is always secondary to the construction of knowledge pulled from the content, based on the individual’s student set of knowledge and experiences?
“Constructivism modifies that role, so that teachers help students to construct knowledge rather than to reproduce a series of facts. The constructivist teacher provides tools such as problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities with which students formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment. Constructivism transforms the student from a passive recipient of information to an active participant in the learning process. Always guided by the teacher, students construct their knowledge actively rather than just mechanically ingesting knowledge from the teacher or the textbook.”
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html
As I see constructivism, which is the most common methods in our schools, is that this practice forms the basis of blaming failure, and holding the student accountable for their poor performance, and on the SEC factors, rather than the practices and administration of schools. Rather convenient that the constructivism theory, provides an easy out for poor performance, and solutions are always more of the same in remediation of students, by dumbing down the curriculum, but still allowing students to construct their own knowledge with the guidance of teacher. Look in on a SE math class, you might wonder why there is a few whiz kids in the room, with averages of 90 or higher. My child spent two years in one of the SE math class, pulling a 97 % average. What do the SE math students share, the inability to construct their own knowledge, pulling material from the content. For my child, it was easy to maintain a 97 %, because the material was two grades below. So she could construct and developed her knowledge on math processes, because she had stronger strengths than the other students, to deal with the constructivism approach, that overcame her inability to pull knowledge from content.
One of the criticism of constructivism is – “It’s elitist. Critics say that constructivism and other “progressive” educational theories have been most successful with children from privileged backgrounds who are fortunate in having outstanding teachers, committed parents, and rich home environments. They argue that disadvantaged children, lacking such resources, benefit more from more explicit instruction.”
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub5.html
Or as Hirsch has stated, “In truth, progressivism didn’t work with all “privileged” kids, just those who had advantages
at home and were smart enough to do discovery learning.
–E.D. Hirsch” http://members.iinet.net.au/~aamcarthur/4_Mar_2008_files/Instructivism.pdf
In the last link, content is important, as well as how the content is taught. As I see it, constructivism is education malpractice, and forms the basis of many of law suits in today’s education system. No student can leverage the content, without having the required background material and knowledge, needed in order to increase learning and knowledge.
Ari, as a parent I found too often that technology is not being used properly to benefit the student, or it is completely absent inside the school. I had to undertake the re-teaching of my child plus provide the foundation skills in the 3 Rs. Thank God, for computers and all the wonderful devices, it helped to turned my child into a good student, despite her dyslexia. The same cognitive weaknesses that the public school system refuses to remediate, even with the software sitting on their shelf. I never did observed much stress on the fundamentals, but rather the acquirement of knowledge. Looking back now, I always found it was insane to expect students to learned knowledge, without a solid foundation to fall back on. Technology tools helps to firm up the foundation, as well as the skills, making it easier to acquire knowledge. So I used the Internet much like you have described, with a few rules. One of the rules, when she was chatting on Facebook and other sites, she must used correct spelling and syntax. I told her it is good practice for her writing skills, and to help to change her image of dumb kid walking. I used every bit of technology that I thought would benefit her, and she became quite skillful in using the tools, to solidify the firm foundation of the 3 Rs, as well as acquiring the knowledge over and above the school’s requirement. I did this with very little support from the school and the school board. I was fighting a war of dogma, rather than discussing what would be best way of increasing her learning. All requests and even those that I was willing to purchase, were denied. My child spent a great deal of time daydreaming at school, because the tools she needed to keep up with the class were denied to her. Even the electronic Franklin dictionary was a no, including the MP3 player, filled with the audio equivalent of a novel that was being studied. The reason of the latter being turned down, because she would be wearing ear phones, and the former, it would be unfair, since the other students would be using dictionaries unlike the electronic version. All I ever heard was the excuses, and I turned to the Internet to find the support and the knowledge that I was lacking to help my youngest child. I met parents, professors, teachers, student aids, to the researchers exchanging information. I turned to them to grade simple one-paged compositions on writing, to asking the best approach to overcome a learning difficulty, and everything in between. What I learned, I brought it to the school and the rest of the educrats where I used the same edubabble to wage war on the dogma of the public education system.
A particular damning stat, is the percentage of LD students receiving a post-secondary education. The percentage is 4 % of the the LD population reaches post-secondary if they go to the public education system. My child could have easily not been in the 4 % group, if I had listen to the educrats and their expertise. Even with all the new knowledge, all the technology, the public education system is still managing to keep the number of LD students going to post-secondary schools to the same percentages as it was in the 1980s. Technology, the digital tools if used properly and customized to the student, can do wonders to improve the weaknesses, as well as the strengths of the student.
But I do get your main point, as I experience it daily, the lack of digital literacy in our educators. But is it really the fault of the educators, when it was always the educrats at the board level creating new rules, to prevent the acquisition of digital literacy, and perhaps knowledge that would make the rules and regulations of the educrats moot, and powerless to the new digital tools. In the same way, where the educrats disapprove of me urging my child to go beyond the required outcomes dictated by the school. Even though my response was based on the science, why she needed to go beyond to learned the whole concept, and not the bits and pieces that are required, they really wanted me to stopped. Belief systems are hard to overcome, especially the belief systems of the progressive dogma taught in the teachers’ colleges to trained the teachers.
Ari,
I don’t think process and skills are one and the same.
The ability to execute and solve a problem, say in math or constucting a cabinet for instance, requires apptitude and knowledge and experience. This is a skill.
However content can also suggest meaning and substance. In painting as in the language arts, for instance this can be distinguished from form.
One can never spend too much time focusing on content. However, the IT world would have us believe this isn’t so. Time is money and students must be processed.
I realize and agree we are in the world of the digital landscape. But that also is a human construct which has a history of rapid built in obsolescence, which is why over leveraging those tools can lead students to be victimized by their own processes. We must be selective.
Hi Ari
You make some excellent points here. We need to teach students how to learn, as they are preparing for a world where they will constantly have to ask good questions, conduct research, “analyse, synthesize, and evaluate” what they find. They will also need to communicate their findings and conclusions using the most appropriate media. Technology isn’t the problem, however the belief that technology alone is the solution can be a problem. We need to change educational settings and structures so that students are able to maximise their potential. Considered use of digital technologies (desktops, laptops, tablets, mobile devices) can help students to practice the process of learning (self-transformation), but only if we also reconsider traditional education and institutional priorities and objectives.
Mark McGuire
http://markmcguire.net/
Leave it to Doug, to see the Digital Classroom as a threat, predicting dire consequences for the present form of public education, classroom with grades, textbooks and teachers being the main purveyor of knowledge. Digital technology represents a threat to the public education system, where knowledge and customization of that knowledge is being incorporated outside of the public education system. The threat is that learning can take place anywhere and at any time, and not within the confines of a place called school.
It is why it is completely laughable at Doug’s future scene of a gymnasium, packed with children learning from Khan Academy, and than his version of low-cost tutors. There is a difference between schooling and .learning, and Doug’s dire warnings indicates he stuck on the schooling model, that controls inputs as well as other variables to control learning, and the knowledge that is generated from learning. The dawn of digital and computerized environments, and the tools, has now change how people learned forever. “All around us people are learning with the aid of new technologies: children are playing complex video games, workers are interacting with simulations that put them in challenging situations, students are taking courses at online high schools and colleges, and adults are consulting Wikipedia. New technologies create learning opportunities that challenge traditional schools and colleges. These new learning niches enable people of all ages to pursue learning on their own terms. People around the world are taking their education out of school into homes, libraries, Internet cafes, and workplaces, where they can decide what they want to learn, when they want to learn, and how they want to learn.”
As in this short article from Boston Consulting Group:
“Simon Targett: Technology has yet to revolutionize education. What’s holding it back?
Allison Bailey: The problem isn’t with the technology itself but rather how it’s been deployed. School systems tend to use technology to facilitate or augment existing practices. Rarely do they use it as a catalyst to transform learning and teaching. We’ve placed computers and interactive whiteboards in the classroom and plugged them into the Internet, for example, but we’ve done little to leverage that technology to restructure the school day, the classroom, the curriculum, or the ways in which students engage with teachers.
It certainly doesn’t help that the training provided to teachers and administrators focuses more on operating the technology than on exploring and explaining how it might transform learning. As a result, many instructors are uncomfortable using the tools in their classrooms, and they all too often revert to traditional teaching techniques. Similarly, many individual school systems lack sufficient resources to develop a digital-friendly curriculum—the textbook still dictates what students learn and how they are taught.”
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/interviews/education_technology_software_bailey_why_has_digital_revolution_bypassed_education/
The digital revolution threatens the very existence of the current structure of the public education system, and how they deliver education to students. But more importantly, the digital revolution threatens the expertise of those who work within the education system. The digital revolution has brought the knowledge and information to the people, allowing each and every individual to incorporate knowledge that is best suited for us, in our lives and where governments, and other public institutes are very worry how people are using this knowledge. In China, the Chinese government sees the threat from coming within, and one of the biggest threat are citizens exchanging information, questioning the policies of their government. And like China, the NA public education systems are also trying to control the use of technology in our schools, by using close systems to control the type of knowledge and how it is learned. Rather silly on their part, because at the end of the day, the students leave school, opening up their digital devices and laptops to explore the Internet, extracting knowledge that the school strives to control. For one student, it could be doing all the homework in one math unit in 3 days, by using Khan Academy, and for another it could be finding an app to practice a math concept or to understand a science concept. For another, it could be seeking out advance knowledge of an interest that the student hold. And where advance knowledge beyond grade level, are discouraged within the school walls.
Doug calls it the misuse of human capital by the STEM people. The reality is the public education system is losing their capacity to control how and when knowledge is taught, in the digital revolution. And more importantly, the public education system is longer seen as the experts in education as more and more people are discovering on their own, the knowledge and information at their fingertips. Discovering and adapting this new found knowledge into their lives. Nothing more priceless than the faces of educrats, who spew out stats, data to defend their decisions of students, when parents use the same data, following their children’s progress or lack of progress, producing colourful graphs from the free apps of the Internet. Priceless, because for once the educrats are silent, shocked by the colored graphs, and what it implies. The lousy school policies that wastes the talents and skills of their students. One minute of silence, and than the lead educrat of the board, spoke the magic words, “How can I help you Ms. _____, to improve what the school and board is doing?”. I than got out my list, instead of berating them for the past actions that hindered my child’s learning. It is the misuse of human capital in the schools of today, that is the problem, and not the STEM folks, or the digital revolution, or the quality factors of the students. It is about time for the public education to adapt, rather than using their energies to control the digital revolution within the school walls. Adapting education to the students, to where the expertise, skills and abilities of the educators can be used to customized education to the individual students, rather than the one-sized-fits-all models of learning that forces the students to learn in a restricted environment, that works best for the adults. The digital revolution allows the customization and forces the transformation from a industrial model to a digital-information model, where learning is not restricted.
Oh, but Nancy it is a threat. It is a threat to unionized teachers who will become redundant when school becomes a virtual world don’t you know. Hence the corporate agenda bafflegab…;-))
As usual Nancy, I think you totally missed the point that technology as John Myers says above is being oversold by huckster carpetbagging tech salespeople who can’t wait for the natural evolution of tech in schools but almost demand (Bill Gates Michael Dell) that we buy every “white elephant” that they push, some of which is good and some of which is terrible.
I cannot believe that you put ‘learn from’ and ‘video games’ in the same sentence when everything we are learning is that they are highly destructive of attention spans and a general “time waster”. Gaming addiction is becoming a serious problem for especially young men.
Ed tech sales people are no different than Fuller Brush sales people. They want you to buy buy buy whether it is needed or not. We must be far more discriminating with scarce public dollars.
That same “tech dollar” is FAR better spent on smaller classes, ECE/ELP, teacher training, in-service or summer programs.
Where does one go to see a credible link between IT in the classroom and a plan to take the money from the “teacher salar line” or as a means to weaken unions? One hopes this isn’t the usual paranoia being slapped on yet again.
Have you heard the phrase “content is king” applied to the internet? The problem tech providers have is that they get the machine with the bells and whistles way out in front of the significant content. They don’t understand deeper content so in history they want to create simulated “great battles in history”. The problem is that this is just fact fact fact stuff without the analysis. The big questions of history are things like “Why did WW1 happen?” “Why did Japan get so far out in front of the rest of Asia?” “What were the lasting effects of the French Revolution?” Jazzy tech hype is no big help with the important stuff. It is the same with most subjects, I just know history better.
“I just know history better”
Better than what?
Doug, are you surfing to parts of the Internet, to retain the image that the Internet is just a place of facts that does nothing for the big questions? I can with a key stroke, present to you 1000 web sites on history, discussing the big questions. And some of the best ones regarding history, are children’s sites, which is a good place to start if you are an adult that knows nothing about a history or science topic. Unlike a classroom, the web represents knowledge and information coming from all facets of viewpoints and interpretations. Since you mentioned history, my favourite history teachers who experienced WWII from two very different perspectives. The same history teachers if alive, would have jump on board with the Internet and digital classroom, to find like-minded, as well as opposing viewpoints to discuss the big questions. And they would have dragged the students for the ride. The deep content on the web is there for the taking with a push of a button, a little help from Google, and knowledge is at the tips of your fingertips.
On the BBC, there is a series called The Virtual Revolution. It is a must see, to understand the digital revolution, and the implications. Doug, you are part of the other side, who wants to control the digital revolution, in order to control the information. Now The Virtual Revolution series, which I am at Episode 3 series, which I am viewing on You Tube, is rather ironic. because an ordinary person decided to upload the whole series unto YouTube. Copyright infringement? Certainly, but in one of the clips, it is pretty hard to stopped people from uploading unto sites like YouTube, on information that the powers to be threatens their expertise, image and a host of other variables. Probably why, the cell phone bans and other devices that records are banned at school, in fear of looking foolish. Or the latest where police are demanding the public to stopped taking video and pictures, and threatening them with jail. The Virtual Revolution series is exactly that, a deep discussion exploring questions and some of the troubling paradoxes. Benefiting mankind? Perhaps, but the other side where Doug is, would rather restrict people how they used the technology, access to information, and to profit by it. His version of the net, would be a series of closed silos, where all information related to the business of educating students, where the grade 1 students would not be allowed to access grade 3 information or vice-versus. Much like the system that is in place today within the public education system, controlling every aspect of what should be learned, how it should be learned, and where all final decisions rests at the school level or higher using their expertise. After all it is not the content, but rather the messages of dogma and ideology that shapes the content.
The public education system is undergoing a huge change, with the two opposing sides with one making good use of the tools, the knowledge to benefit the students, or the other side, insisting on making a virtual clone of a real public school classroom, with all the rules and regulation, access doors, and levels to control knowledge and how knowledge is learn. At the moment, the IT sectors of the public education system are closed systems, No such thing as 24-7 access, and many other perks that benefit student’s learning and are enjoyed by students like the subscription or free education sites. Just asked any Canadian student, who had to take an onlined course being operated by the school board, or playing catch-up through the tutoring online. Between the rules and restrictions, as a parent I truly questioned why the public education on-line services for students, would like to create another carbon copy of the classroom, using the very same progressive instruction methods of the old and restricting access to information just like in the real classroom. I wonder how many times students will hear the response, “You don’t need to learn that”.
And by the way Doug, where do the thousands of teachers who sell their lesson plans and other educational products fit in? Some of them are making a pretty penny off the taxpayers-funded system, to the point of even cautioning students that their material has copy-right protection. Just in case, one of the nasty parents decided to scanned the material to benefit their children,rather than paying for it.
Perhaps the killer app for this century is
. . . wait for it . . .
a good teacher
There are plenty of good teachers. The educrats won’t allow them to do their jobs.
Teachers can and do close their doors and do the best they can. The best “educrats” and I used to be one
– present ideas for improving teaching and learning
– help teachers figure out FOR THEMSELVES the power and limits of the ideas being pushed by policy
– get out of the way
Thos of us who are seen to push the party line and fail to offer a convincing case as to why the change are quietly and quickly ignored.
Schools have changed a lot less than people think, though society has changed greatly in many ways.
Believe it or not many of the ideas pushed by governments of all parties have grains of truth in them, some more than others.
The trick is to make it work for YOU.
the best educrats get out of the way.
———————————————————————————————–
So why then have educrats flourished and mushroomed into a “Blob”, while student enrolement has decreased over the last several years?
Must be a lot of ideas for improving teaching and learning out there right now.
Smartphones, laptops, and tablets are being introduced as learning tools but I do worry about how they are being utilized and for what purpose. One of the best examples is current and potential impact upon teaching and learning in the elementary Mathematics classroom.
Anna Stokke, a professor in the mathematics and statistics department at the University of Winnipeg, has a great blog DO THE MATH and her current post provides a telling critique of Elementary Math teaching in her home province of Manitoba. She’s no friend of concept-based New Math and a staunch supporter of teaching fundamental computation skills. She is now leading an initiative to ensure that Math above Grade 3 is actually taught by teachers with the requisite knowledge and skills:
http://ahypatia.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/why-kids-fall-behind-in-math/
What’s this got to do with the advance of technology into the classroom? Dr. Stokke is adamant that Math computation skillls are in decline and that the introduction of calculators has not helped but hindered kids in this area. The combination of progressive, student-centred learning and the use of calculators has set us back in Mathematics at the elementary level.
My key point is this: With kids already falling behind in elementary Math, how is providing freer IT access going to help? It could easily become another case of “do your own thing” learning. What measures need to be taken to ensure that IT is used appropriately in schools?
I think “how” these tools are being used is the key here Paul. Just like all of those other tools we’ve been told aid in the education of our children.
One of my children was in the gifted program in elementary school. What did that consist of? Being pulled out of class and being allowed to play on the computer in the library, or help teachers and other students learn how to use the computer.
I have to agree with Doretta when she says that the biggest threat of the effective learning using IT tools is that it is much more adaptable to the student than is even the most effective educator.
The Virtual High School in the small town of Bayfield Ontario is the fastest growing high school in Ontario. No expensive overhead, no union, and they’re looking to expand to offer an elementary alternative.
Perhaps Paul as with the use of calculators the full-on press of IT in the classroom will serve to set back education and the role for educators in a way that has yet to be identified?
Paul,don`t forget the publishers-eg Nelson Math-
We have never recovered from Canada`s purchase of that curriculum,doing away with fundamental computation.It`s more complicated than you think.
This much I have learned.
I think we can all agree that technology for technology’s sake is never a good idea in the classroom. So, smartphones, laptops and tablets in-and-of themselves just afford students one more avenue for distraction, unless configured and used properly.
I can see two areas where more support and effort is needed, before any kind of educational technology can be used to its full potential. The first area is at the policy level. HRDSB is notorious for its reluctance to deploy new technologies and software, or invest in new platforms. And like almost every other government institution, the reason is because they allow their I.T. technicians to make decisions at the managerial or strategic level. Career I.T. administrators are always going to make recommendations that guarantee their job security and relevance, while requiring them to do as little work as possible. This is why you see antiquated PCs running a desktop operating system a decade old (XP), with internet access restricted to the browser and security policies ratcheted down so tight as to suffocate teachers and students. It’s just easier that way.
The solution to this is to invest in professional development for IT admins at the department level — and a reality check as well: they’re there to find solutions and make things happen, not to drag their heels and defend their policies.
The second area is more significant, and that’s proper I.T. training for teachers. There should be no excuse for an educator in a classroom nowadays who doesn’t know a thing or two about copyright and intellectual property law; or how to set up a class website; or how to create a secure online social network for students; or which of the hundreds of free tools on the internet would be best suited to a classroom activity; or how to oversee the use of handheld devices in the best possible manner; or the features and affordances of any given application, be it for an iPad, laptop or workstation.
Over and above content knowledge or teachable subjects, one or two methods courses in classroom technology should be an absolute prerequisite for any teacher to get a job nowadays. Furthermore, use of the latest tools and services should be incorporated into the methods courses a teacher takes in math, history, social studies or language arts while pursuing their Education degree. I was lucky – my school took care to ensure we had a solid foundation in technology over and above anything else we would learn.
So, Paul, to answer your question: we ensure that technology is used appropriately in schools by developing our infrastructure, and educating both the teachers that will be using them and the staff that will be supporting them in best practices.
I hope that doesn’t sound like a cop out.
One more thing,nothing has anything to do with integrity and effectiveness,where do you begin when that`s the landscape?
I have no objection to the internet Nancy. Every kid at our school has a laptop or tablet on their desk. It allows insant translation, instant access to film resources, articles, book reviews it is solid gold. Kids word process every assignment. Technology in schools goes WAY beyond the internet.
Here is an example of what needs to happen,how do we get there?
http://stopterc.com/
The Corporate Education Agenda for John explained.
Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for innovation, and production of new products. It is not so good on income distribution but can be adapted with progressive income tax, EI, welfare, education, medicare etc.
It is so efficient that it in fact it often “overproduces” products faster than the market can absorb them. The higher the level of production, the lower the unit cost we have all known since the Model T. The high tech companies can produce at a very efficient level in terms of unit cost with more customers. In the past, the military-industrial-space complex was the main government buyer of this “overproduction” in order to give American companies the economies-of-scale needed for world wide domination. In recent years Japan, later Korea, Taiwan, Germany caught on to this game and now PRC China and India are in on it.
If American companies (Microsoft, Dell, Apple,HP….) are not able to convince government agencies (education and health, E Health anyone) to soak up this capacity, they are in an unfavourable position with regard to their competition.
Thus we have Bill Gates, Michael Dell and others pushng technology on schools the way crack dealers push their products. There is an appropriate level of new technology for schools. Everyone acknowledges it is here and there will be more. The problem is that this does not satisfy the pushers.
Bill Gates wants all testing for NCLB done on “windows” software and marked instantly and returned. He gets angry when he is told “check the bubble” is not good testing and it takes armies of trained markers to look at so called “good tests”. When articles appear that even question the idea that technology may not be linked to improved academic results they blow a gasket.
Boards across the USA are laying off staff while at the same time Gates DEMANDS that they buy more tech. Gates outright suggests “raise the class sizes by 2-3 kids and you can afford it.”
Research points out that smaller classes and ECE improves results but not technology. This causes the Corporate Education Reformers blood pressure to rise. Ask Terry Moe.
A few of these “Billionaires” (Gates, Broad, Dell Waltons…) are financing Corporate Education Reform across the USA and it would die a quick death without them. Gates is now on plan #4 of education reform the first three having failed. He has Arne Duncan in his pocket and has populated the entire DOE with Gates acolytes. Still it is not enough. Plan after plan fails because all of the assumptions are wrong from the get-go.
We keep doing it “their way” NAEP scores remain flat, NCLB is going nowhere RTTT (Race to the TOP) or Race to the Trough is going nowhere but they don’t let that stop them. They are convinced “innovation” will save American education. Funny, the Finns, the Koreans, the Singaporians don’t talk “innovation”. They talk ‘proven quality”.
The issue isn’t whether or not Doug approves of Gates, Dell, etc, rather the issue is that Doug is claiming the “Corporate Education Reform Agenda” as some sort of thing actually existing outside the paranoid world of Doug. Who, apart from Doug, believes there’s a co-ordinated group actually acting in lockstep to crush teacher unions, slash teacher salaries, etc as an top priority?
Doug, you’ve gottas move beyond the “teachers ubber alles” mindset and realize that it really isn’t all about you. Read a book, take a walk, move on.
Why not open up the discussion over at your little corner of the blogospeher and invite your tens of thousands of subscribers to weigh in? One senses a little fear of allowing full and open comment on your efforts. Not indicative of someone secure in his analysis.
They leave out instruction quality and that`s the key,they haven,t found it yet,lots of noise though.
How do figure out one’s change during a power outtage and the calculator is at home….
A conundrum to be sure.
Jo-Anne Gross
They leave out instruction quality and that`s the key,they haven,t found it yet,lots of noise though.
I actually agree with that for the most part though we might disagree on what quality is.
John, the educrats that I speak of, are the same educrats that have the power to change policy, as well as the ones who had the authority to enforce the policies, rules, and goals of the school board. It was the dogma that I was confronted with, along with the belief structures of the educrats. Just think, of a parent being told to accept the limitations of your child by an educrat who had the power to make things better for your child, by discounting the health professionals and other professionals working with children, and their professional judgment. Teachers do close doors, just like some at the upper levels practiced good management working for the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, they do not hold the power reins to change policy, and as a result must follow the protocols that in place, to seek changes to policies that impact student negatively. I am sure a lot of teachers find the process to help children who are struggling in learning, an unfair process for the child. The child needs help now, and not a year later, where the child will have multiple learning problems, because the first learning difficulty was never remediated in a timely manner.
It is the cultural of the education system that dictates and defines the policies. It prevents teachers, as well as other staff, to work for the best interests of children. When they do, the work is done in stealth fashion, and sometimes a teacher will spend their own money, like the grade 2 teacher did with my child, trying to improve her writing skills. At that time my child could not string a few words together. A software program would have been nice, to put the single PC computer in the class to good use, for my child as well as 15 other children to learn the ABCs of sentence formation. The cultural of the education system, prevents an open process of exchange of information and knowledge among the stakeholders, including parents. The culture of the education system, promotes and strokes the backs of those who are very good at playing the game of politics, and other self-serving interests games. As for the educators who play the serious game of educating the students, they are rarely rewarded if working against the cultural norms of the public education system.
Paul, in his last post mentioned this, “My key point is this: With kids already falling behind in elementary Math, how is providing freer IT access going to help? It could easily become another case of “do your own thing” learning. What measures need to be taken to ensure that IT is used appropriately in schools?” This statement indicates mistrust of teachers, students and parents and their abilities to use the IT tools effectively. It is also a favourite tactic of the upper levels of the education system, using this reason for more controls over the use of IT and how it will be employed in the schools. It hinders effective software and tools from entering the school, that are not in keeping with the approved instruction methods, the dogma, ideology and belief systems of the gatekeepers. An update on Anna Stokke, “How do kids end up falling behind in math? Math is a very cumulative subject. To learn multiplication, one must be able to add; to learn division, one must be able to multiply; and to learn algebra, one must be fluent with the arithmetic of fractions. The list goes on. When children do not learn one concept properly, it makes it difficult for then to learn another on which it relies. This is why the malaise in math education starts early — in elementary school — when kids should be learning the basics so they can move on to more difficult concepts.”
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/why-our-kids-fall-behind-in-math-129938903.html
The software and tools that are prevented from entering the schools, are the same ones that run counter to the current math instruction in our schools, the curriculum, where the basics are mastered, whole concepts are learned rather than bits and pieces, and using the most efficient methods that have been used for the last 100 years or so. As Stokkes has stated, “.It is important to note that math has not changed recently — the math or arithmetic kids are supposed to learn in grades K to 12 today is the same math that has been around for hundreds of years. Yet, anyone who has a child in school in Manitoba will be aware that math teaching methods have changed. The focus seems to be on how math is taught as opposed to what is taught and these new methods for teaching math are supposedly backed by research.”
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/why-our-kids-fall-behind-in-math-129938903.html
It is not the present of IT devices and technology that is at fault, but the way IT is used in the public education system. It does not benefit a child, nor his or her future, to skipped the mastery part, in favour of learning 50 different methods to multiply two numbers or to a makeover of the math laws, that have stood the test of time, and are no longer theory, but are actual fact that represents the truth. Rather insane to skipped mastery of the basics, and math laws that represent pure logic, that paves the way to a deep understanding of math, as well as being able to do advance math with ease or little difficulty. Even worse, the culture of the public education thumbing their noses against the new ways of learning using technology, that does wonders for mastery in math, as well as promoting a deeper understand based on the logic of math and the laws. The result is that students become proficient in math, to the point they are working and learning advance math from the foundation of pure math logic, rather than the mechanical processes of math.
The use of calculators is dead wrong in elementary math, because it does not promote mastery of basic math, but as well robs students of the skills needed to do advance math in high school with some ease. But according to the educrats in my part of the world, working to mastery will hurt the self-esteem of students, and the solution is to dumb down the curriculum. Apparently math skills can be pick up anytime and there is always the calculators and software that does the work for you. If not, the sales clerk over at the hardware store, or Revenue Canada are always willing to do your calculations, always ensuring that a person has purchased supplies over and above what is required, or paying more taxes than what is actually due. And the educrats would become even more peeved at me, suggesting that others in society will take advantage of those who have weak math skills. After all, progressive dogma and ideology that is interwoven within the practices and curriculum, state that children raised in the atmosphere of inclusive environments, collaboration, are students who will always pick up the slack for each other, supporting the weaknesses by using the collective strengths of each other. The students have no choice, since basic skills of the 3 Rs are no longer taught to mastery. Quite a rude awakening for students entering the adult world, to find out inclusiveness and collaboration is not the same reality in the real world as it is in the public education system.
Although, rightfully this study belongs under accountability. but it does fit in nicely dealing with digital technology, and how it would help to maintain the high achievers, as well as increase over all achievement for all students.
“Fordham’s latest study, “Do High Flyers Maintain Their Altitude? Performance Trends of Top Students,” is the first to examine the performance of America’s highest-achieving children over time at the individual-student level. Produced in partnership with the Northwest Evaluation Association, it finds that many high-achieving students struggle to maintain their elite performance over the years and often fail to improve their reading ability at the same rate as their average and below-average classmates. The study raises troubling questions: Is our obsession with closing achievement gaps and “leaving no child behind” coming at the expense of our “talented tenth”—and America’s future international competitiveness?”
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/high-flyers.html
One of the conclusions: “If we are truly serious about providing excellence in education for all students, then we should consider changing accountability
systems to place emphasis on the growth of low-, middle-, and high-achieving students alike. Our results suggest that this type of accountability would subject some wealthy, underperforming suburban schools to fair and welcome scrutiny.”
How often have I observed over the last 35 years, that education policies are based on the needs of the wealthier students, without consideration that the policies may very well be ineffective for students of lower incomes. Take IT for example, and how the policies are shaped by the needs of the high-income students. There is an underlying assumption, that IT technology will produced the same benefits as the high-income school, as it would for the low-income schools. It certainly appears, as the study indicates that to maintain high achievement, it is necessary to have a solid foundation in the 3 Rs. It certainly rings true to me, since my 16 year old, the dyslexic she is falls just beneath the high achievers who have been replaced by those who have improved in the 3 Rs. As for my kid, steady improvement in the 3 Rs to maintain her 80 something average. It manners more on how IT technology is used, and if the policies are effective for the population of the school.
That would be the elitist POV. Closing the gap is critical.
And the usual method of “closing the gap” is to dumb down rather than moving the bottom up.
Andrew, the dumbing down of the curriculum is usually the way of improving achievement for the low achievers, thanks largely to inclusive policies, differentiating instruction, alternative pathway models (common in Canada), and the equity policies. You see, I was supposed to ecstatic on my child’s 97 average in SE math, but I was not. I wanted her out of there, and I came up with 5 different and very creative ways of following the regular grade 4 and grade 5 curriculum, with all 5 plans having one thing in common, she would not be in the regular classroom, except for unit tests. My main objective back in those days, was to improved achievement to my child’s full potential. Unfortunately, it was not the school’s or the board’s objective, because even back than, education policies have never had the priority of closing the gap, by moving all students up to the goal of reaching the 90th percentile. Now, it was my goal, knowing full well reaching the 90th percentile was a pipe dream for my child, but being in the top 25 % of the class was a realistic goal. It was easily done, since schools and school boards call it a day, after a student reaches 50 % on a quiz or test or essay. After all, the education policies are designed to do just that, the lowest bench marks so all students will see themselves as being equal to one another, in all aspects in academic work. Thanks largely to the equity policies, and in my opinion does a lot of damage to all students.
IT technology offers a leveling of the field for students who are below the 90th percentile, which virtually most students fall under. Which leaves anywhere between 1 to 5 students in the 90th percentile in a typical classroom. IT technology offers the opportunity to improve in the foundation of the 3Rs, because the difference between the top students and the rest of the students, is the foundation skills in the 3 Rs. The same foundation skills that are necessary to expressed oneself with fluency, as well to learned new knowledge as well as deep understanding of subject material.
It is a real shame, it is left up to individual teachers, and as I have observed and experienced, the educrats have always responded by questioning why I am so concerned, since she is passing, and than when I pressed them for a further explanation, the accusations come that I am trying to get better grades for my child without her earning them, and than the next set of accusations are personal attacks on my motives. These days, the educrats are still wiping the egg off their faces, while the teachers are working cooperatively with me, shooting for the 90th percentile, but we are quite willing to accept a 80 % any day. All done without accommodations, except for alternative setting for mid-terms, public exams and final exams. Even her spelling is graded. within narrowed parameters taking her dyslexia under consideration. Just like what would be done in a post-secondary education setting.
I still keep an eye on what is new in math software and other educational software. Today in my e-box, there was new math software, based on the science and not on some sloppy ideology, why automatic recall of basic facts are important for advance math. Now, I am not recommending it, or any other math software, but rather to report the reasons as given to me, why schools and school boards in Canada are not fans of subscription 24-7 access sites.
http://www.reflexmath.com/home
Reflex is only marketed to schools, teachers, and boards. American schools, the stats have shown, where subscription sites has been incorporating in the classrooms, there is significant improvement in achievement, as well as covering more material. In Canada, the reason given to me is that the subscribed sites do not meet the province’s curriculum. Is the public education system, no longer concern having students grounded in basic facts and general knowledge? The same basic math facts, that can be found in the terrible math curriculum, although one has to search for it among the textbooks that is laced with more words, than actual numbers.
The second reason is costs. It really surprised me that any school would object on the low price option, saving schools the hassles of the administration costs of providing something on their own, the paper costs, and the time collecting data. Plus it frees up the teacher, to teach fractions more quickly when the students are well-versed on math facts. For Reflex, a teacher can acquire it for $35 per student, for a year. The costs would be $3.50 per child for the school year. If a whole school decided to subscribe, the costs per student will be reduced, which is dependent on the number of students in the school. I discovered this years ago, when I was on the hunt looking for software/subscription sites that would be very helpful for my child, I walk into another world, learning about licenses, fees, and marketing strategies regarding education. As I discovered, subscription sites offer a low-cost alternative as well as benefiting all, when it comes to a solid foundation on the basics in the 3 Rs. I would think, the high school teachers would benefit the most, when they no longer have to talk about the basics that should have been taught well in grade school. Any school at any income level, why would parents object paying $2.00 a month per child, compared to the amount of money being asked over a course of a month. Fifty cents here, another dollar here, compared to 24-7 access to a subscription site that their children are having lots of fun, while learning. My child love to get her points, to purchase something at the store. It never went old for her, and I could always check on her progress, seeing steady improvement.
It is beyond me, why the public education system in any province do not see the same benefits, as I do. The educrats that have asked what was my secret, in part was the one subscription site that I paid $20 American on average, monthly for three years. The site, covered all subjects although under the standard American curriculum, but you be surprised that the foundation of basic facts in science, math, and writing are all identical. Irony is still define more or less the same way, as the multiplication tables are, as the description of the creation of mountains.
Don`t you know,they like to spend money creating their own stuff and creating PD events in far away places?
Cronyism comes way ahead of effectiveness.
The only tremendous value of public education are the teachers,they`re in a real pinch in that administrative hierarchy.
They are also tremendously underprepared for the complexity of the classroom and pedagogically.
The “complexity of the classroom” is one that has been created by the educrats.
Incompetent management, anyone?
complexity in kids has to do with human anatomy and physiology-whether or not a child is depressed going through a divorce,bullying,ADD,hungry,etc.,not management.
Andrew Gilmour
And the usual method of “closing the gap” is to dumb down rather than moving the bottom up.
That is the wrong way. The gap can be closed significantly by radically smaller classes, ECE from age 2, extra resources, extra teacher in-service training, reductions in poverty, health clinics, free dental care and optical care, summer programs and after school tutorial such as Pathways.
No need to dumb down.
I like this but in my meetings with Pathways,their huge problem is that kids can;t read and the teachers aren`t trained to help.Give them a call.
Closing the gap by smaller classes, ECE from age 2, resources, in-service training, reductions in poverty, health clinics, free dental/eye care, summer programs and after school tutorials, when the public education system, calls it a day when all student have a 50 % or higher, than move onto the next lesson. Never mind the fact, the students who are in need of the most help, always received the dumb-down courses and tutorials, reduced outcomes and the list goes on. Pathways is more effective, because it tries to prevent the dumbing down and reduced outcomes, by reaching for a higher standard than the 50 % grade and calling it a day.
However, I considered Pathways to cream off the top low-income students, providing they meet the criteria. “Pathways does not wait for parents or students to approach them but actively recruits across the community to ensure that all eligible families know about the Program and its benefits.
Relationships are developed with school boards and local schools before the Program is implemented. Cooperation with schools is needed to run the Program effectively, including help in adapting the Program to local needs and to identify and recruit eligible families. I highly doubt the student with weaker skills in the 3 Rs, would be recruited, or the kid who has a track record of behavioural problems. Anyway Doug, you know all about creaming, since you do just that with the wealthy Chinese students. What are the criteria that the Chinese students need to meet, before admittance in your pricey private school?
For Regent Park, “Now in its seventh year, The Pathways to Education Program continues to enroll and re-enroll over 95% of the eligible grades nine, ten, eleven and twelve students as the program has expanded to include over 835 students attending over 60 different high schools.”
http://www.pathwaystoeducation.ca/comm-regent.html
As for the other Pathways in other communities, they are not as open, to report the number of students in their pathway programs. As for the rest of the students that do not qualify for whatever reasons, they have to put up with an education system, that is perfectly happy with a 50 % and calling it a day, as well as putting up with the game of resource allocation, that educrats love to play, putting out the small fires. If it was not for the teachers, the fires would be so numerous in the high schools.
Of course it’s the wrong way but that IS the way it’s being done.
We seem to be drifting off course when the Digital Classroom is very much alive as a critical issue for educators. Over at My Island View and on #Edchat, Tom Whitby and friends are hotly debating the reasons for the slower-than-expected adoption of IT by teachers in America’s public schools. With billions being poured into IT, they express regular concern about the resistance coming from a wide cross-section of classroom teachers.
As a passionate advocate for Technology-in-the- Classroom, Tom Whitby has no patience for teacher resistors who are now labelled “digital illiterates.” His most recent post, “No Defending the Illiterates,” makes the case in the strongest terms that such teachers are doing a disservice to their students:
http://tomwhitby.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/no-defending-illiterate-educators/
Here’s the nub of Whitby’s argument:
“Educators, who are still the content experts, need to be literate in the area of media. They need to be aware of the means of delivery and learning tools for creation of content for their students.
Guttenberg’s printing press innovation carried education for years. However, it is now a new digital era and Guttenberg technology is beginning to fade. I am sure someone told Guttenberg that they would never read his printed text because they loved the feel and smell of hand written scrolls. Guttenberg would probably feel delighted to know that people feel that very same way about his printed text today. They don’t like digital and prefer the printed text. Not so much the younger generation living with texting on 4 inch screens, digital readers, iPad and tablets.”….
“Good educators need to model learning. Not being media literate in the 21st Century is a very POOR model. A teacher’s content expertise is a small rival to the internet. Teaching and guiding kids to harness that content should be the goal. Projects and speeches on paper, display boards and podiums have been replaced by many tech alternatives. Kids get it, some teachers don’t! We shouldn’t teach kids to be keepers of content, but learners of content, better yet, creators of content. It needs to be a lifelong process and tech tools are required.”….
“Media Literacy requires people enter a world that gives up a great deal of control. Many educators are not prepared for that. Comfort and control issues however, do not excuse educators from being media literate. Even one illiterate educator in a school is one too many. An even worse offense is a media illiterate administrator. We all need to model learning, especially our leadership, and moving forward technology will be a part of that learning.”
Comment:
Online discussion forums like #Edchat, founded by Tom Whitby, continue to relentlessly promote the Digital Classroom as the new panacea. Skeptics like Nicholas G. Carr are simply ignored or dismissed as “wingnuts” or 21st century Luddites. It may not have occurred to Whitby and company that those so-called “illiterate teachers” have not only read Nicholas Carr’s writings, but also such books as You are Not a Gadget, Hamlet’s Blackberry, and The Net Delusion. Some might even be aware of Sherry Turkle’s 2011 book Alone Together, a meticulously researched look at how communications technologies intended to bring us together may be pushing us apart.
As we speak my son’s teacher is away for an upgrade on the tech uses of “Smart Boards.”
In the mean time my son (grade 5) and I used an old fashion pencil and notebook last night to work on a homework story assignment. It appears graphite is used in all sorts of technology today. IT gadgets, golf clubs and even the arcane pencil.
I believe the requsite process was followed – sucessfully I might add, but questions kept arising about story content. It appears he is interested in substance and meaning. Oh what should I do…
John L
“Corporate Education Reform Movement”? “Corporate Education Reform Agenda”? Who, apart from those who’ve drank the kool-aid, actually coin such phrases?
Diane Ravitch is probably the #1 spokesperson in opposition to the reform proposals. She has asked all progressives to use the same name “Corporate Education Reform Agenda” because that is what it is.
Yep. Nothing like a new bumper sticker to rally the educrats.
Is Diane Ravitch really the “#1 spokesperson”? Who determined that? Do “progressives” simply follow the leader, as groupthink? It appears “progressive” is lemming by another name. All in all not a reassuring scenario.
Hopefully there’ll be more effort to reach out to those outside the echo chamber at some point.
When you are a carpenter, every problem looks like a nail and you advocate hammers as the solution.
Technology is coming rapidly to schools but schools have made major purchases of technology before and made big mistakes (Beta tape at TBE LOL) Beaver computers. Tech people push hardware and software that teachers find wanting.
Their is a giant lobby behind tech for schools that makes the textbook industry look like a peanut.
Some young teachers push their tech savvy abilities for job security promotion reasons. They are angry when overlooked.
There must be more “form follows function” as the architects say.
THE SMART BOARD IMPLOSION SEEMS A HUGE SUCCESS NO?
There must be more “form follows function” as the architects say.
____________________________________________________
Actually, it is engineers who say that. Architects occasionally design structural impossibilities until brought back to earth by those who have both feet firmly planted.
Andrew Gilmour
Of course it’s the wrong way but that IS the way it’s being done.
Who says that is what is being done? The calculus of grade 12 was once taught in university. The algebra of grade 7 was once taught in grade 10.
Basic numeracy was once taught starting in K. Now they’re supposed to “absorb it”… like writing.
same with literacy-kids that can`t read,spell and write have never had instruction-yes,that is what`s going on and the publishers sell these curriculums-
I remember taking algebra in Grade 8 – that’s 1960, by the way.
Doug, not when I went to school. Calculus was there, as well as full year courses in the various math areas. It is the dumbing down of math curriculum of today, and it is in the science courses of chemistry, physics, and biology where what was once taught in first year university, and in senior high school, are being taught in cumulative stages starting from grade 6 or so.However, to do well in chemistry and physics, a sound foundation in math will go a long way. It is why chemistry and physics are tougher subjects for students.
That said, Paul’s last post brings another big elephant hanging out in our schools. ” If content changes faster than the expert can adapt, maybe the expert needs to change the strategy. Teach students what to look for, and what to value in content, so they can access it in whatever form it is being delivered. More importantly, allow students to use those tools of technology and information to create new content and share it with others.”
Keeping the above in mind, take one look at the textbooks getting fatter and packs the pounds making school bags heavy. Trading a textbook, for a PDF file or another e-version, is really a difficult task for a student to obtain. The big textbook publishers have restrictions on who and by how students can access digital material. McGraw, is a case in point. which makes it very difficult for students to obtain digital material, and tight restrictions for students with disabilities. Rightfully, my child should have easy access to digital material, but it restricted just as it is restricted for a student without disabilities. After all, as a parent I can go out and purchased digital material, but my child can’t have access because under the school regulations, she does not qualify for access to PDF copies of text books.
I often scratched my head, why this is so. Today, I have a partial answer why digital technology is not opened up in our public education system. Conflict of interest, where in this case, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund, is preventing it, since it would not be the best interests of the pension fund, nor would it be the best interest of McGraw Hill, the biggest supplier of education products in Canada and United States, including digital content, as well as standardized testing.
“The breakup of the mini-conglomerate follows public demands starting in July from the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Fund and hedge fund Jana Partners LLC for a broad reorganization. The activists suggested breaking up the company into more than two pieces to highlight the value of its individual equities, commodities and financial analytics units.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-mcgrawhill-idUSTRE78B1Y620110913
Further down, the reason for the breakup is, “The move comes as the education business is under pressure from reduced spending by strapped school districts and college students. At the same time, earnings from McGraw-Hill’s ratings business have declined from their credit-bubble peak.”
At the same, it is not a coincidence that McGraw Hill has beefed up their e-learning division. Would not doubt in two years or so, the big publisher companies, with the help of those within the public education system, to take over digital learning in all aspects in education. Pushing out, the smaller players, that does provide very effective learning software for students who are struggling, But what would the training of teachers look like, under the big education publishers using their software apps? Complicated to the point, and in the long run not very useful to the teacher or to the student. As a parent, I have always found the big education publishers, their products not very useful to me and my youngest child.
So, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund has a direct conflict of interest, ensuring McGraw Hill will be successful in increasing profits, regardless if the products of McGraw Hill are well suited for the teachers and students, and does its job as well as being effective for achievement.
Another reason why teachers and board staff should be digital/techie literate, is to be able to discern from bad software apps to the good ones.
“IT Decisions is not in the business of endorsing specific software platforms, but there are a number of reasons why this tool stands out from the crowd of companies trying to sell English training in Brazil:
No software installation is required – it all runs in the cloud on any browser
The language recognition aspect adds an important dimension beyond just learning vocabulary alone… if only some Brazilian parents had checked with this tool before naming their new-born ‘Maicon’
Being a cloud-based tool, the charges are per month per user… simple, and based on what McCall explained to IT Decisions the prices seem very reasonable indeed, much lower than registering at a ‘bricks and mortar’ training school
It is entirely configurable for any language or industry – perhaps if readers of this article are interested, IT Decisions could work with Eyespeak Brasil to try designing a course focused specifically on the IT industry in Brazil?”
http://itdecs.com/2011/09/english-training-for-techies-is-in-the-cloud/
One wouldn’t get this type of innovation with the big guys in publishers of education products, unless it would serve their bottom line.
Sadly Nancy, your input has been overlooked. The professionals are in charge.
Doug in a few posts back, you state “Technology is coming rapidly to schools but schools have made major purchases of technology before and made big mistakes (Beta tape at TBE LOL) Beaver computers. Tech people push hardware and software that teachers find wanting.
Their is a giant lobby behind tech for schools that makes the textbook industry look like a peanut.
Some young teachers push their tech savvy abilities for job security promotion reasons. They are angry when overlooked.”
How does that square with you last post Doug, the professionals are in charge?
Giant lobby group behind tech?? Really Doug? That giant lobby group is composed of the big publishers in education. Their products received far less scrutiny, than the small independent companies dealing with education products.For the small companies, it takes years to get notice, more years running the famous pilot runs, and by that time, the big publisher companies rips out a watered-down version, and the small company is turned down.What is even worse, is the profit being derived from within the education system, especially with software apps and lesson plans, where the whole education system is open to them, for direct marketing without any scrutiny at all. Than there is the other set, after receiving a pension, they turned around and work for the big publisher companies. The giant lobby behind tech in Canada, is the big publisher companies Doug, and all one has to do is to check the software and apps at any school. At the high-end schools, one will find some effective software and apps, but that is because the parents have the excess cash, to make the purchase. Unlike the lower income schools, who must put up with the rules and regulations of how digital technology is control, and only approved by the board. Even if parents are willing to pay for it, it is turned down because it is against the rules. Quite frankly, what software is provided for students, and the various digital formats from the big publishers, are of poorer quality and does not do what it advertises.
But what do you expect, when the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund is in bed with one of the biggest education publishers. CBC has an article on the poor math curriculum, and once more the educrats are defending the math textbooks, and how it is taught, becoming the mouth pieces for the big publisher companies. ” “Within our curriculum, direct instruction has its place and so does discovery and problem solving,” said Simone Gareau, the ministry’s executive director of student achievement and supports.
She cautioned against thinking that the old-fashioned way of multiplying numbers is always the best approach.
“If you do the old-fashioned algorithm, 32 x 48, where students have to carry over and put in a zero to hold the spot … students can learn to do that by rote, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they understand,” she said.
“What we’re aiming for is that deep understanding. Once they have that in place, they can move to the traditional algorithm if that’s a strategy that works for them.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/21/new-math-paper.html
There really ought to be a law. I heard the above reason as well, in their attempt to stopped me from what I was doing at home. It finally cease, when it was confirmed that my child was advance two years in math, and had a deeper understanding than her classmates. Of course that does not take much, considering the math curriculum is composed of bits and pieces of concepts, that should actually be taught teaching the whole concept. What my child’s problem was in automatic recall of the facts, and software along with the Internet all helped to firm up her foundation in math.
No doubt who qualifies as a “professional” is open to interpretation. Until and unless we determine what it even means we can’t really know whether or not they’re competent to be “in charge”. I suspect one of the main hurdles to education in Ontario is keeping some self-styled “professionals” from putting themselves ahead of kids on the priority list.
there seems to be a plethora of opinion here which sees that a utopia of IT imposed on the public system is fine – as long as we use it proprerly.
Perhaps this is the begining of the end of schools and community in the same sentence.
How does “I’m a graduate of the South Shore online Academy” sound while we debate bad software from good software, or my student is learning faster than your student?
as long as we use it proprerly.
___________________________________________________________
That applies to everything in life, including education.
On the Sun News Network, Levin was a guest. Very interesting, and I do believe he is on the verge of conceding that the basics need to be addressed. Near the end, technology is mentioned. Levin states that technology should not be front and centered in the classrooms. I agree with him on that one, because all to often software is used for other reasons besides the one reason it should be used, does it raise achievement, improve weaknesses, and increase motivation in the student. Technology should be used as tools, in the same way as a plumber uses his tools. His tools does the job, just like software should do their job as advertised. I think Levin and others are reading the Canadian education blogs, small in number but certainly getting a cross-section of viewpoints that they probably rarely hear within the public education system that are always serving their best interests ahead of the students, taxpayers and society.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1148151499001
It seems to me tech is about the classroom enviornment also.
Here is a sample of (the third teacher) where there is an intermediate step by communication technologies to provide a glimpse of the enviro/tech future.
Courtesy of Bruce Mau.
http://www.brucemaudesign.com/4817/97459/work/the-third-teacher
Nancy you are in conspiracy theory territory on OTPP. The teachers have NO control whatever on investments. You would actually have to be familiar with the system to understand the relationship.
Yes, “the system”… give us your money and shut up.
Good one:)
right on Andrew! Exactly right.
Give me a break Doug,this is a duplicitous statement yet again-as if teachers choose curriculums-Nancy refers to the Union,Labour Pension funds,governments and administrators,certainly she knows it isn`t referring to teachers-they pick nothing,they usually don`t even get asked.
My only mentioned of teachers, is the profit being generated by the creation of lessons, and other educational material, within the education system. Plus the growing number of teacher sites, especially selling education material at a price. Actually the material by teachers selling it on the open market on the web, are of superior quality compared to the stuff that is offered to parents on the public education sites. I downloaded enough material such as study guides for novels, to know the quality factor of material is much superior to what is offered on the public education sites. However, the real profit that teachers are taking advantage of, is the selling of lesson plans and other educational products within the public education system. Even the union sites have their own shops, to purchase educational materials made by those who work in the educational material. http://www.etfo.ca/shopETFO/Documents/ResourceCatalogue.pdf
One doesn’t have to wonder, why curriculum is dumped down and the individual progress of students is the low boy on the totem pole after reading some of the material that is available for free, but I have stray from the topic of digital technology. Union brass have considerable interests dealing with the teachers’ pension, and it would not do if their members decided to work against the best interests of the investments and holding majority stakes of private companies. I bet if teachers would rise collectively as a group, against the questionable curriculum and digital products of one publisher company, the union brass would shut it down so quick, it would not even be register by the media. Likewise, for other investments made by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, and if I was a teacher, I would be careful on what is stated on the politics and other opinion pages, it could be your job at stake.
http://www.otpp.com/wps/wcm/connect/otpp_en/home
As for digital technology in the public education system, the present model is designed to serve the best interests of those who work within the system, and the public pays dearly for serving the best interests of the public education system, rather than the best interests of children and their future. It is much easier to view the system at the lowest level, and look up, connecting the dots, relationships, and best interests. There is a very good reason why teachers are taught how to turn on the technology, but rarely are taught on how to use the technology in the best interests of the individual students, as well as the collective. Learning the technical aspects is easy, even a 5 year old knows how to turned it on, but the tricky part is to find and take advantage of the features that suits your needs or the needs of the students. Kids do it every day, quickly discarding what does not work for them, and never look back. If teachers were taught how to use technology to benefit their students, the fear is the teachers would start to question the technology model, the software that most of it have questionable benefits for achievement of students. The technology is not being used in the proper ways, to obtain maximum benefit for students and teachers alike.
In a paper at the upper level of the federal government, “Moreover,
this distinction is not particularly useful because as with any medium of communication – whether it be writing or reading or speaking – an individual must still acquire the necessary skills in order to use digital media technologies
effectively. There is too much diversity within an entire generation to simply categorize it as being naturally digitally savvy.”
As in other papers that I have read, the public education system must assured that students have the foundation skills in the 3 Rs, to take full advantage of the digital revolution, and making best use of the digital devices and software apps, as well as the content in the digital world.
She implies there is a conflict of interest if the OTPP owns a piece of book publishers. They once owned 1/3 of the Toronto Sun. Wow what an effect that had on their editorial policy.
It is a joke to imply any influence.
And Conrad Black never had any influence at the National Post, either.
The Toronto Sun, was not selling educational products to the Public education system, nor sitting at the many tables of government influencing education policy. Nor would the Toronto Sun, would have an interest in influencing any type of education policy, since their product serves the whole population, and their main market is the person on the street. Lastly, the Toronto Sun did not a cozy relationship hiring educators to run their empire. Unlike the big education publishers, who have cozy relationships with all parts of the public education system, to serve their best interests, as well as to ensure that education systems run under the model of an monopoly, in a high centralized structure, where the bottom feeders as Doug has described, the little guys are restricted by the actions and goals of the whole system, the various arms, and of course the big education publishers.
Influence, they have, plus power + big advantages, Union brass works with it, to serve their members since a considerable amount of pension monies is attached to a big publisher company, and as such, the education material produced by the teachers’ union members are in sync with the curriculum and digital content of the big publisher company. Ethical? It depends on where one stands. Morally right? Not in my eyes, especially when it comes to the digital and printed material directed at special education. Effective, no but than it is about making money on the backs of children,and has nothing to do with the best interests of the students and their education. Or otherwise the simple cases of learning difficulties would be remediated promptly using the best methods for the individual student. And in the digital world, there is so much material from the public education system, and from the big publisher companies reproducing material that are essentially lemons for the SE students’ education.
Andrew Gilmour
Yes, “the system”… give us your money and shut up.
It would be much better if non-professionals knew what they were talking about BEFORE they opined.
Everybody thinks they know how schools work because after all “they went to school.”
I can do surgery because I once had my tonsils out.
You know absolutely nothing about me – nothing.
As usual, you speak from the perspective of ignorance.
If people had a passing clue about the OTPP they would know that it has no interest in ideology whatsoever. They have a financial interest only. I wish they had more interest. It took us many years to persuade them to divest themselves of cigarettes and South African wines before SA was democratic.
The last thing it is is a toll of the teachers’ unions. They only wish.
They have a financial interest only.
__________________________________________________________
That’s their job. It’s what fund managers are paid to do. The ideologues such as yourself tend to gum up the works.
As to how well the fund managers actually performed and whether or not they managed to fiddle the benchmarks in order to get their bonuses is still a question.
tool not toll ooops
Yes, I agree in the main. Nancy suspects a conspiracy because she confuses the OTPP with the unions.
Typical unionist – “I’m so tired of being kicked around in the media, by politicians and just by random people who think they know something about education. Everyone thinks because they went to school, they know something about teaching. If you go to a concert, does that mean you know how to play an instrument? If you go to a play, does that mean you know how to act? As a teacher, I also try to be a learner, but it isn’t quite as easy to go the other way. A lot goes on behind the scenes. ”
Typical parent – ” I’m so tired of being kicked around by teachers, by educrats, and just by anyone who works in the education system, who think they are the only ones that know what is best for my children, because they were once children. But as adults have obtained letters in behind their name, giving them carte blanche over all things education of children………..”
http://edtechpower.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html
I could continued along the same vein as the link, listing the 37 years of experienced as a parent, knowledge, the badges earned with sweat and grit, but one skill that I did acquire, is to become a teacher to my children. All parents do it, or otherwise our children would never be toilet-trained, or to tied shoelaces, or see the wonder of dew on a blade of grass. How many teachers and other educrats, plus the creators of digital and curriculum in our schools, would know the reason why some children fail miserably at the simple stuff in math, and is a sheer genius in the hard concepts, that are composed of the simple stuff? Have not met one yet, but it sure is a learning experience for those who work within the education system, when told by a parent who knows the reason based on the sciences of cognitive and learning. I posed that simple question, to the so-called professionals every year throughout the primary and junior grades. By the way it has nothing to do with being lazy, not enough focus, attention span, slow, and the various behavioural reasons that are given by those within the education system. Instruction methods and curriculum are the culprits, and not the child’s behaviour. It does not matter how many letters that are behind the name. What matters is how the knowledge is used to serve one’s best interests, and more importantly the ones with higher knowledge to communicate the knowledge and their expertise that serves the best interests of the ones who do not have the expertise. Too bad it is not the reality among the unionists, and other special interests within the public education, especially when it comes to the education of our children.
And the digital revolution or the lack of it within the public education system is a fine example of self-serving interests.
What about this Nancy,
is the IT digital landscape not about skills, but really about de-skilling?
It is a lot easier to talk about than it is to do Nancy. You ought to try it some day.
I will give you one tiny example. With inner city poor kids and, in fact, poor kids everywhere. The attendance rates of poor children is incredible. I don’t even want to call it truency because only a small part of it is that we would all think of as truency.
It is very difficult to teach a student who is on the rolls but is not at their place day after day after day. The missed days for many students soon add up to months and later years.
Then give them a reason for attending.
Interesting use of the smart board revealed to me today. Students are now conducting early morning polls with the ubiquitous device.
Is your child a picky eater?
Are men or women better drivers?
answer yes, no, or unsure.
How about that Doug! A new way to determine classroom attendance. If Sally does not partake, she must be absent.
Interesting to witness various parents lobying for inrichenment positions for little Johnny as the teacher conditions the newbies.
LeCarre would be facinated with the email secrecy provided grade 4 students by their teachers.
Give me content any day.
Sorry to be so intrusive, but why are all the so called IT inovators former Hedge Fund operators?
Steven
Then give them a reason for attending.
That has to be the absolute acme of excuses for truency, “I don’t come to school because it is boring.”
Life is a big test. School is often boring. If you stay and work you have a chance at success. If you leave or don’t show up you will never be successful.
Much as some may not like it, it is training for work life. Try truency at work. See ya.
Sure Doug. “Much as some may not like it, it is training for work life.”
Not a very Dewey thing to say coming from you!
” I believe that the school is primarily a social institution… I believe that education therefore is a process of living and not a “preparation” for future living.”
JD
I know Doug, raising kids is harder to do, than talking about them.What is really nerve whacking are the ones from the top, looking down handing out advice whether one asked for it or not. Nothing more irritating, who dismisses, makes assumptions based on their preconceived biases, and proceeds to stereotype the group, or the individual. Something like what you did Doug in your last place. As Steven has stated, give them a reason for attending. Had the same problem, but my child learned how to hate school fairly early on, which in turn cause a number of other problems, mostly emotional at home, which in turned my child had what I called free-stressed days. Free from school, a respite from school. Call it what you want Doug, but in total absent days amounted to a year and a half, when she was not ill. Well pass the 20 days allow per year, but the school chose to ignore it, did not asked nosy questions, but they did see steady improvement in her school work. My child was learning a lot more at home, than sitting at her desk at school, getting frustrated and stressed out. The teachers assumptions were correct, but often the assumptions are wrong when dealing with students who are absent. You ought to read the horror stories from parents regarding schools, and as I observed the lower the income, the more hassles for parents and students for not making the grade in the eyes of the school. The main reason, no open and honest communication between schools and parents. As for parents, we learn very fast no matter what income, it does not pay to be frank and honest with the school and teachers.
Aside from that, back to the topic. In BC, a nice money making operation in digital medium, operating by the education ministry.. Now, I have not determined as of yet, how the education publisher companies fit in, but no doubt that they do. Tomorrow, more time to root out the information.
http://www.openschool.bc.ca/about.html
And they are turning a profit for the last two years or so. Hedge funds and a host of special interests including those within the public education system. Cozy relationships, and tomorrow I am determined to flesh them out. Note in the last link, not even a name on who is in charge.
As for skills, over the years it is a tossed up, but what I have noted, the educrats, really do not like games, and digital content that actually addresses the foundational skills in the 3 Rs. And another thing that I have observed, the higher income schools, are more than likely have quite the library of software to addressed the foundation skills, as well as subscribing to an Internet site. I often went to the school sites, looking for material, to help with the homework. One would be surprised, how the teachers provide the homework help for their students on the web, but they are not that technical savvy to ensure it being password protected. Than again, perhaps it is done on purpose so other students outside the school, can accessed the material. I remember hitting the jackpot when I was searching for three hours. It was a school of high-income, a complete breakdown of word math problems, and what the small words meant and what operation it indicated. That was in 2005, and I still have a copy, but this type of information is more common now, but it still is rare for a teacher and the curriculum to teach this crucial information, Of and Is are very important in a math problem, as well as other small words, and yet this strategy in solving math problems are only seen on some school sites who have savvy teachers, some software and mostly directed at remediation of students, and the home schooling products. On that day, I was cursing myself for throwing out the old math textbooks of the 1960s, that my father like to purchased for home use. Another fruitless adventure, was combing the used book stores looking for math books published in the 1960s or early 1970s. To me, it is the absence of skills, rather than a deliberate deskilling of basic foundation skills (if the former word is a word). I can root it out of the terrible curriculum, but than the person has to have a deep knowledge of math to root it out.
An interesting, spirited, but somewhat irrelevant discussion. Technology happens and spitting into the wind does no good. I am working with a large group of teachers to “harness” and channel the power of tech so that it works for teachers and students.
For example, the use of powerpoint slides as a substitute for lectures does not work since kids are disengaged (bored) and fail to retain the info they get.
So if we have powerpoint, how can it be used effectively?
This is true for youtube, ipads, smartboards, facebook, and several dozen other tech tools and toys out there.
Exactly.
If used properly it’s a boon.
If misused, which is far more common than not, it’s a serious drawback.
you’re right John.
Is it going to be come, once again a matter of choice? Perhaps the choice between a school brimming with the latest state of the art IT “tools” or the traditional model school that may or may not use the IT tools?
The common thread to me even with the options is being able to measure or determine when learning has effectively occurred.
you’re right also, as Paul was in discussion drifting off course.
Could it be that the education sector is dealing with the impact of IT too late?
At the pace things are going, the education sector will be forever trying to catch up – in order to make it work for teachers and students. The IT explosion in school of late goes hand in hand with centralization and other lucrative policies.
“Technology happens…”
sure it does – and some teachers just shift the same lessons over to it and then end up with the same results. Maybe there is a value factor that should be explored here.
Let’s say the wonders of google documents allow students to collaborate on the same piece of writting at the same time. Or as they say in real time. This is not optional with the old paper and pencil technique.
The question is: Is collaborative writting valued by that teacher? If not, the google opton is superfluous to that teacher no matter how effective it can be used.
excellent points and worthy of consideration.
The adoption with open arms of all things IT is going to sting the whole notion of teaching and education.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either dishonest or relying on crossed-fingers or wishful thinking.
Interesting thoughts that John has posed. I always thought power point slides was an extension and a tool to reinforced the lecture. As well as a better way for students to write their notes, instead of the scratchings on the chalkboard or the white board. As a parent, I have never heard anything negative from my youngest. Powerpoint notes, makes it easier for a student who was away that day. Otherwise, students who are in class, note taking is a big deal in my part of the world, to improved their note taking. Another lost art tossed out somewhere between the 1980s and the 1990s. This brings me to my point, retention of information. I suspect it has been a problem for most schools and students, since there is few of us that has good audio skills, along with good memory processes. For example, in my child’s class there is 4 students who I call excellent book learners, and have had an easy ride throughout school, spewing out facts, with a reasonable set of writing skills to expressed themselves, without learning how to write good notes. Now that ride isn’t so easy for the book learners, Relying on their excellent memory skills, without reinforcing the new knowledge by writing notes in classroom, and reading the textbook for tests, does not produced consistent top grades, and allow other students who are not very good book learners, to surpassed the book learners. Just like the other day, when one of the book learners questioned why my child was doing better than they were, she turned around and said, I memorized the rules, and than proceeded to tell the students where they went wrong in their physics quiz. In the process, she discovered that the 4 students, among others studied via through the text book, and did not bother to write notes on the rules concerning vectors.
The moral, ensure that the content of power point, and other digital tools are relevant to the students, and reinforces the main points of the lecture, as well as the most important information that must be learned, to do well on tests, exams and future endeavours. I have notice, even when I went to school, that instruction and the curriculum favoured the book learners, with their excellent audio and memory skills, and the rest of the students are either force to adapt to sort out the relevant information, as well as sorting out what works best for them to retain information. The difficulty that my child had, was to sort out the information, and at one time, she did not have the ability to sort out what was important, what was stressed, especially if the information was verbal. Today, she is much better at it, and the tech tools have been a tremendous help, providing the content is relevant to the verbal lecture, making the connections from verbal to printed text, to reinforcement and retaining the new knowledge.
But than again, what do I know eh Doug, as you like to put it. Or the musings of teachers on PD days, questioning the value of them, since little is useful in the classroom. As one teacher stated in my child’s class to all the students, I learned more from parents, the students than any PD day. But than again, in my area, even the i-phone is allowed to be used, and is favoured about all other cell phones, because the apps are very useful for students.
Who says I support John Dewey? Far too loosey goosey for me.
I agree with John. However I do believe that we all just need to take a valium with our technology. Some education geeks and nerds are way out ahead of themselves due to a love of technology for its own sake.
We need a calm rational discussion about the uses and abuses of technology in education. Yes, I believe every student will be working from an ipad at their desk in 3-5 years, sure but sometimes chalk, pencils and paper are just as good, sometimes not so much.
In the 1920s radio was going to “end schooling as we know it”, in the 1950s TV was going to “end education as we know it”, in the 1990s the internet was going to “end education as we know it”.
In 20 years schools will look quite similar to the way they do today.
Have to disagree with you there Doug.
In tewnty years schools will look and function very differently. The IT widgit wizzards have already seen to that.
Yep….catching up as always keeps us further and further behind.
I agree with you Doug but as I have observed with the education system and schooling, is how decisions are made regarding instruction, how tools are used. Often the reasons, is to make it easier, all the students are doing it, and other surface reasons, without digging deeper why pencils and paper benefits learning, or the i-pad. My child goes onto a site, that talks about the latest studies and advances in science, that I think helps her to connect what is being taught in school to the real world. The other day, she came downstairs, question me on a study, that reported that people read much faster on paper books and other paper printed material, than they do if the printed material is from a computer screen. She was puzzled, because she reads much better in the electronic form, than picking up a book. Now, I did not have time at that moment to review the study, but I did tell her, she reads better on a electronic screen, because she has the ability to manipulate the text, font, audio, apps to provide meaning for unknown words, the brightness of the screen, unlike a book that does not have any of the features, and of course cannot be manipulated. To my child, the book represents a slower way to read, compared to reading in digital format. There is science in behind, why children should learn how to write with paper, rather than learning keyboarding, as there is science backing up the traditional instruction methods. I too do think that future schooling will remain similar to schools of today, but very different regarding instruction and curriculum decisions, based on the science rather than the surface reasons.
By the way Doug, she writes better on paper, than she does on a keyboard. The science of learning, as well as cognitive learning and the brain sciences, are slowing solving the reasons why children learned the way they do, providing the knowledge to developed excellent instruction methods, curriculum, and resources to meet the individual learner’s needs.
Why do we need schools when IT allows a tailor-made education to come to the student’s own home?
Who says we need the physical school buildings with all of that overhead and maintenance and manpower.
One of America’s most astute education analysts, John Merrow, has just produced an insightful commentary on the rise of Blended Learning. His Taking Note post on Learning Matters, entitled, “Get out the blender, kids,’ is a real eye-opener. Teaching and learning are changing rapidly and a growing proportion of it now occurs outside “brick and mortar” schools.
Here’s the most revealing passage:
“I think I have just glimpsed the future, or at least what could be the future, of public education. I’m talking about the effective use of today’s technology to enhance learning, or what insiders are calling ‘blended education.’ Michael Horn, a co-author of Disrupting Class, provided a definition: Blended learning is any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through online delivery with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
Some, including Michael Horn and his colleagues at Innosight, are predicting that by 2019 50% or more of high school classes will be delivered online, a staggering concept until you consider that in 2007 only one million students were taking courses online, and today four million are. ‘Virtual classes’ qualify as blended learning, because most of those kids are enrolled in traditional high schools.
That’s a growth industry: Just a few years ago only eight states allowed virtual courses or schools; today, nearly 40 states allow it — and a few require students to take at least one virtual class. The best-known virtual school, Florida’s Virtual High School, now enrolls over 100,000 students.”
For the full story, see http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=5333
Comment:
Blended learning is coming to a school near you and will likely emerge through osmosis. Students already access the Internet for hours on end each day and increasing numbers of teachers recognize that they are now teaching “digital natives.” It’s just a matter of time before “virtual learning” gains wider acceptance in Canada’s provincial systems.
We have been debating whether open access to IT helps or hinders student learning. When, not if, “blended learning” arrives, I do worry about whether Canadian educators will capitalize on it to promote higher standards or simply “roll over” and allow it to further “dumb-down” the curriculum. Surely that’s worth discussing.
locally blended learning and options that option for students happened long ago. Our board (before amalgamation) was one of the first off the mark in Ontario to develop on-line curriculum and offer courses that way.
Through the amalgamation process the new board we were amalgamated has issues with the on-line program, so one of the teachers involved quit the public system and started the Virtual High School. https://www.virtualhighschool.com/
It was the growing success of the private Virtual High School that reactivated the public school’s developing it’s own program – to compete.
They’re expanding to elementary soon.
It may be coming in some form but we undervalue an important aspect of learning. There is a place for individualized learning, writing essays, etc but most people do not want to learn in isolation. Teen age social life is the life of a school. There are powerful social forces that pull us together to learn together, young love tops the list but so do extra curricular activities, the safety of younger kids, cooperative learning, learning to live together and so forth.
Most young people have not yet developed the self discipline to work at home for any more than homework and assignments.
This will transform to an extent but much more slowly than some of you expect.
nonsense Doug. You’re still catching up on what’s moving faster than you can deflect.
That’s not been the experience here at all.
From a local newspaper last year – here’s how it happened.
“VIRTUAL HIGH SCHOOL MAKING THE GRADE IN A BIG WAY
At a time when we’ve been deluged with media reports on the looming crisis in public education as a result of a predicted decline in student enrolments it was a breath of fresh air to be introduced to the Bayfield Ontario-based Virtual High School (VHS).
The school’s administration hub occupies a modest 1,000 square foot space at the north end of Bayfield.
Officially begun in 1995, VHS Principal Steve Baker speaks proudly of how the whole concept of virtual learning was actually pioneered right here in Huron County at GDCI under the Huron County Board of Education under Paul Carroll’s enabling vision.
As a matter of fact the GDCI Grade 11 biology course taught that same year was the first online courses to be taught in Canada.
The philosophy Principal Baker sees as the backbone of the VHS is that it’s a school that fits the student rather than forcing the student to fit the school.
“Not all kids do well in a traditional classroom setting. The Virtual High School allows for a student to receive a fluid and flexible education at his/her own pace,” said Baker.
“We don’t do any formal advertising. The students find us through the internet,” he explained.
Enrolment at the time of this interview stands at 3500 students from as far away as Thailand, with students from Ontario making up the bulk of the VHS student body.
Students can take one course, upgrade a mark, pick up a course to meet a post-secondary requirement or earn their high-school diploma fully online.
Students may start a course at any time during the year and progress at their own pace.
Cost to the student is per course and could range anywhere from $400 to $600 depending on the course.
VHS meets the educational needs of students with special needs, homeschooled students, students who have been bullied, and students who require more tailored and flexible learning.
The VHS is accessible to students 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, opening up lines of communication between teachers and students that further enhance the on-line learning experience.
Students are evaluated on an on-going basis and are able to get test results immediately as well as feedback from the teacher.
Final exams are closed book proctored tests usually written on a day and place chosen by the student who also is responsible for arranging for a proctor to observe the student during the test period.
Certified teachers at VHS are free to develop their own programs and are expected to be available to students around the clock.
They must be multi-faceted and anticipate the needs of the student in a very student -centric way.
Teachers are paid per student and are judged on the basis of the student results.
“We have the ability to let teachers go who don’t fit our requirements,” said Mr. Baker.
Responding to the criticism that virtual learning students suffer from lack of real-time social interaction, VHS teacher Vance McPherson doesn’t see it.
As a teacher who has worked in a traditional classroom setting, McPherson finds the nature of teacher/student relationships much broader and deeper through virtual learning.
“All students are equal at VHS. It’s very comfortable and a much more relaxed relationship with students who wouldn’t normally get noticed in a regular class setting,” he added.
Virtual learning requires a much different skill set and self-discipline from the students.
“Students are empowered because virtual learning encourages them to be their own advocates of their learning,” teacher McPherson said.
Learning at VHS is not isolated at all. Teachers and students have many different avenues for self-expression and interaction through online discussions and focus-group activities.
“The Virtual High School demonstrates as do other exceptional schools that all students can learn to a high standard,” says Malkin Dare, President of the Society of Quality Education.
Looking to the future Principal Baker shared that the school will be setting up its permanent administration centre on Main St. in Bayfield.
Baker is also looking to expand virtual learning to elementary level programs.
Having choices in education through schools like the Virtual High School means that choice is no longer the luxury afforded to urban centres.
In Canada, schools like VHS are opening up minds and possibilities to those thousands of students who feel that online learning meets their needs best.
And to think that it was pioneered right here in Huron County serves as a credit to those who saw its potential and acted on it. “
Agree, and the younger they are the more they need the classroom.
“Quite by chance, I had spent part of the previous day talking education with a friend who works in an entirely different field. When I told him about the next day’s ‘blended learning’ agenda, he laughed. “My son did that 18 years ago,” he said and proceeded to tell me the story of his 7th grader who, stuck with an uninspiring math teacher, signed up with a new program at Stanford, EPGY, for ‘education program for gifted youth.’ Via computer and with occasional meetings on the Stanford campus, the young man moved through math classes and levels at his own pace. By senior year in high school he was taking advanced calculus at Stanford. There is no new thing under the sun, it’s fair to say, but today’s students should not have to search outside the schools for opportunities to learn. It’s time for them to step up — or fade into obsolesence.”
http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=5333
And today students should not restricted in the present system, where if you did not learn it, too bad it is time to move on, or the student who is capable of advance work, and told, too bad, you don’t need to learned that to passed. Virtual High School, and other virtual schools have actually increased due to the reason the public education system are not providing the flexibility in learning. In my case, my child would have greatly benefited from primary and up, to take online courses in certain areas, as I would suspect other students would.
I just learned this today. Five years, the ministry of education purchased 30 robots, two feet tall, at the cost of $15,000 each. There is one sitting in the local high school, collecting dust on a shelf and as the tech teacher said to the students, a very expensive paper weight and a useless piece of junk for the Robotics course. Only two teachers in the province knows how to program it, and requires extensive training for the robot to do one thing, pick up things.
I wonder how much waste and useless junk being purchased concerning technology is happening, considering $450,000 could have went to other areas in need of improvement. And more importantly, who were the idiots to approve this expenditure, while students did without the benefits of technology tools that actually improve achievement.
Nancy,
it is easier to approve the “post- modern robot” rather than hire another teacher to reduce obscene class sizes for instance. It is easier to cut special needs, centralize…
Much of the dilema we as parents (and indeed educators also) are facing in the face of questionable curiculum, is the postmodern malaise. IT is the transient, not the immutable. The IT guru has opted for the first; we as parents and our children (in the publc system) have no choice but to contend with the anxiety that comes with not having something to base a vision on.
Postmodern educational practices are not interested in achievement as it relates to content. As Ari explained to me earlier, process is a synonym for skills. Spend as little time as possible on content as it is generally defined. A waste of time I guess. It is their game and I’m the spectator in this instance.
The classroom is arguably the last and most tangible and tactile experience possible for children in a time of shifting sands. Twenty years from now, I’m not so sure.
It still does not excuse the actions of idiots who spend public monies on education items that are of no value or contributed to the education of a student. Waste monies in IT, and cheat the students in other areas such as remediation of the 3 Rs, because it would cost too much, and if not that excuse, the SEC factors will do nicely.
Steven, take a look at SQE and the on going discussion between two teachers. I am on my way over there, to stick my two cents as a parent, under the post, You Wonder Where the Money Went.
Steven’s right Nancy.
I might add that because, as usual the education systems slow response to the IT rapid development and innovation means also that parents are more likely to being the most capable and ahead of the system on this front AND better able to make choices based on the slow-motion public system.
I agree, and it would be hard for me to consider it otherwise. I would never advocate school choice without sound curiculum and content in mind.
To do so would result in failure-look what happened in the U.S.-That`s my bone of contention also,however there is the very good point that if public schools are challenged and the money follows the student,they will be more conscientious and less relaxed about poor results.
“WASHINGTON – The White House will unveil plans Friday for a research center that aims to infuse more digital learning into the nation’s classrooms.
The center, dubbed “Digital Promise,” will aid the rapid development of new learning software, educational games and other technologies, in part through helping educators vet what works and what doesn’t.
Among the new ideas: a “League of Innovative Schools” that will test-drive promising technologies and use its collective purchasing power to drive down costs.
“Given the power of this technology, the administration believes that we should be doing everything we can to take advantage of it,” said Tom Kalil of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. While he acknowledged that games and online learning aren’t “a silver bullet for education,” he said the Obama administration wants to support “the ways in which technology can really make a dramatic impact on student performance and student outcomes.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-09-16/digital-promise-white-house-education/50419910/1
And the Bio of the main character – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_N._Minow
Interesting…….
Catherine,
I am quite underwhelmed. What is the % enrolement in virtual education K-12 in Ontario on a credit weighted basis. If it is 1/10 of 1% I would be shocked.
There is a place for virtual education, distance, disabled, home-school, kids who need a few more credits to graduate, and so on. Force-feeding it beyond popular demand will not be productive.
do your homework and find out for yourself. I’ve already done mine.
I think people can conclude that virtual schooling is proceeding very slowly.
no Doug. The only conclusion is that the antiquated education system just can’t keep pace with IT which is poised to challenge the old guard like never before
Nope. Wrong of me.
Make that “it’s already challenging” the old guardians but the old guard is playing the same tune.
What Canada needs is its own documentation of the success of virtual school that’s happening now.
The private virtual schools have been the pioneers. The public system sees this as another way to stop the bleed and offer up a little of that dreaded “choice” themselves.
Here’s an example.
“it’s already challenging”
http://www.khanacademy.org/
How can that be?
Given the efforts of the omnipotent Corporate Education Reform Agenda cabal it must be exploding! One wonders if the whole CERA thing is more in the paranoid and frazzled imaginations of the kool-aid crowd than actually a reality.
On the other hand it probably gives the usual suspects one less thing to fuss about 😉
It is simply another tool.
Used effectively it can be a great help. Poorly used and it becomes an expensive hindrance.
How many public school teachers know how to use SmartBoards properly? I’d be surprised if it was 10% – probably far less than that.
As a test, below is the link to download Moodle.
Wade through it all and once done try to implement a simple lesson – then think about what it would take to plan an entire year’s work.
http://moodle.org/
To Doug, virtual schooling is proceeding very slowly. But that depends on what lens one is looking at. Doug, is looking at just one set of numbers, that have been published. But virtual learning in itself has morphed into a billion dollar + industry, and not necessarily obtaining a high school credit. The public education system, no longer holds the top position as the number one place to go to, to learn something. There is numerous options since the advent of the web, where customization of learning is adapted to the individual’s life.
Take the Virtual School located in Ontario, their market is targeted at a specific population, or otherwise they would not be able to charge the $500 + for one online course. There is cheaper options for credited high school courses. But the Virtual School growth is remarkable, in the sense it indicates that students who are opting for Virtual School, are enrolling because it fits into their life style, and provides an option, other than a physical building, a desk, and a classroom. It would be interesting, how many of their students take more than one course, the types of courses, and how many actually attend a public/private school during the day. I suspect the latter one, would be popular since public schools limits a student’s subject load, because for the most part, there is required courses other than the maths, sciences, and languages, I never saw much sense in a healthy living course or careers that is a requirement, and other courses are options such as robotics or computer programming. Healthy living and careers should be options, and keep the core subjects of maths, languages and sciences as requirements. Sure is a pain, fitting in the mickey mouse required courses, among the sciences and maths courses for my 16 year old. I can see why Virtual School would be an option for some students, It was an option that was explored whether long distance education would be a viable option for my child, by the school and myself, to fit in her course load within a 4 year period. What matter, what was suitable for her learning needs, which is a rare quality inside the public education system. My kid luck out, but there is many students that the public education system are no longer meeting their needs in education.
Many options in the virtual world, where a student is no longer confined to a desk in a school. And many options for adults to learned new skills on the web, making the public education system, just one of the many options. The growth is in billion of dollars world wide, and it is fast becoming the number one choice for many people.
A personal example, and the failure of the public education system. A friend of the family, their daughter dropped out of school in grade 11. The story may have ended there, but the Internet enters the picture, transforming her life where her art work is currently being shown in a London, England art gallery. Why did she dropped out? No point in going to school, when the foundation skills in the 3 Rs, especially in math were weak. It makes it that much more difficult to do high school work. Does she have a learning difficulty? I don’t think so, nor do other people, but she was never tested in the 11 years of schooling. Just one of the many, that gets the special label of dumb on their forehead because she did not show promise in the areas of reading, writing and math. If anything, the public education system has great difficulty in addressing the remediation of the 3 Rs, the learning weaknesses of students, and ignoring the strengths and talents of students who have difficulty with the 3 Rs is some aspect. It took me 9 years of slugging it out with the educrats to acknowledge my child has strong strengths and talents, but for other students they are ignored, condemned to think they just don’t have the stuff to succeed in school. For this young woman, the Internet opened up a world of a different type of learning, improving her 3 Rs, while working on her art talent. It offer her solitude, after years of name-calling and other bullying by her classmates, and the jealously concerning her rare talent in art. It is the family’s hope, as well as mine, that there will be job offers from some of the top companies in the world, where her art talent will be put to good use.
As for the public education system, slow as snails to adapt to the new reality, as well as adapting to the new knowledge era in learning, and more importantly, people can no longer be labeled and separated, graded and made to conformed in a public education system model based on a 19th century model of industrialization. The Internet is a game changer, not only for the public education system but as well as for other government departments, and the political systems. I really believed that if the public education system does not change its tune, and start marching to the beat of the individual learner, the public education system will have a tough time in attracting students even from the kindergarten set. The internet and the digital era is the great equalizer for students, where they are in control on developing their strengths and improving their weaknesses, the same strengths and talents that the public education system tries to control and restrict, using outdated methods that belongs in the dark ages.
when we’re advised to start thinking out of the box re: education reform and improvement we need to start re-thinking the idea that the ONLY place a student can learn effectively is in a classroom (in the box).
The very myth of that all children learn at their max. in that building we call a school is being quickly dispelled.
From Northern Edge (D’Aquino/Stewart-Patterson) “Technology is opening up new avenues to excellence for parents who are unhappy with public schools and are unable to afford private schooling. In particular, virtual schooling appears to be a growing phenomenon in Canada and elsewhere. It is estimated that fifteen times as many parents chose to educate their children at home in 1996 than in 1988 and the range of material, learning tools, and other supports available through the Internet is increasing.”
What the old guard and old boys fail to grasp “Learning needs to occur at any time, in any place and at the pace of the individual’s choosing – not the institution’s or the faculty members’. That means lock-step timetables and limited choices for students will become ideas of the past while the most nimble and forward-thinking institutions will put together just-in-time learning opportunities geared directly to students’ needs.”
I have to smile, rather wryly, at the idea that any kind of “digital revolution” or sea change occasioned by IT or computer technology is *anywhere* in the offing, at least at the elementary level.
It is not.
While private schools, affluent neighbourhood schools, possibly secondary and tertiary education facilities (I’m not familiar with them) have extensive access to Smart Boards, Smart Phones, IPads, laptops, computers, scanners, digital cameras, document cameras, clickers and on and on, elementary schools in lower income areas are still in the one-or-no computers per classrooms, visit the computer lab one or two periods a month, state of affairs. Many of the students do not have a computer or internet access at home, either, so all these “home learning” and virtual schooling opportunities are similarly closed to them.
What we have instead is a digital divide Schools with the means can provide these tools for student use (how best to use the tools is of course a separate discussion altogether), but many schools simply don’t have the tools. There is no likelihood of this scenario changing any time soon.
But, were a sudden infusion of technology a possibility, where should it ideally be focused?
(1) On students with disabilities for whom assistive technology can be life-changing. Appropriate hardware/software can enable students with severe autism (for example) to communicate for the first time. Sometimes this leads to enormous learning growth, as the student is able to demonstrate what he or she knows and understands. Other disabilities can similarly be given quantum enhancement by appropriate tools. Facilitating the development of these students’ potential is not only a moral imperative, but a financial one: if they become moderately self-sufficient, they will be able to lead productive lives, hold jobs and contribute economically to the community.
(2) On providing students with intensive and differentiated support in basic skill mastery. Some excellent programs exist that allow students to learn and practice foundation skills in mathematics, language development , early reading skills, vocabulary and study skills and much more, but in order to be effective, these tools must be readily available to the student and used daily. In situations where this has been possible, I have seen individual students’ growth accelerated by a factor of 2 or 4.
All students should be learning to use technology effectively for writing, organizing information, research, communication in various formats, and extending their knowledge base through targeted programming in subject-specific disciplines and content areas. Without ready access to technology, they do not get the opportunity to do this, and are disadvantaged relative to their middle-class peers when they arrive in secondary school.
Thus even elementary schools need greater access to IT tools. While students benefit from the manual production of text and numerical tasks in the early years, there are very young students who cannot benefit from this (two students with cerebral palsy come to mind) who should have adaptive equipment available to them from the start. In a full inclusion setting, every classroom needs a little pod of computers to assist the students who are on modified programs and need the reinforcement or individualized learning that some high-quality programs can provide.
However, I never hear any discussion about this (including here), nor a realistic appraisal of the costs.
So I expect the Matthew Effects to continue. The middle class will continue to be advantaged, while the less affluent will make do with the leftovers. We don’t seem able to have a reasoned and solution-oriented discussion of these topics.
Trust TDSB to bring us back to earth by pointing out the realities facing educators, even in the supposedly well endowed Toronto public system.
We do need to be more aware of the Digital Divide when discussing the potential for IT in the classroom as well as “blended learning.” American IT enthusiasts like Tom Whitby, for example, tend to overlook the central issue of inequality of access to IT learning tools and resources, at school and in the home.
Kate Hammer’s Toronto Globe and Mail story on Smart phones in Toronto schools cited Board officials who claimed that access was now near universal, since the vast majority of students possessed mobile devices, even those from disadvantaged groups. I was dubious about such a claim and wondered about how it actually looked on the ground in schools.
With regard to hand-held digital devices, is there still a Digital Divide? If so, will the decision to lift the ban adversely affect kids from poorer circumstances?
“With regard to hand-held digital devices, is there still a Digital Divide? If so, will the decision to lift the ban adversely affect kids from poorer circumstances”
Certainly will affect the lower income students. Their ability to buy is governed by the devices, and the features of the devices. Take for example MP3 players, that reflects a wide range of features. The one that my child has, the ability to download e-books, records, take a picture, and highlights text as one is reading. But it does not have a dictionary, where unknown words becomes a problem. What she really needs is the device meant for LD students, that ranges from a cost of $600 (directly from the manufacturer) to the retail costs of $1000 plus. In this world, ordering devices meant for the LD population from the manufacturing is nearly impossible, because it is set up where a third party, the sales rep sells to the dealerships, retail concerns and other concerns that buys in bulk, and contracts dictating prices for a number of years. As a result, hand held devices and other technology devices for the special needs are at the highest prices that the market can demand, leaving the purchased of the devices, that are dictated by the size of the individual’s pocketbook.and budgets of the education system. For the LD population, schools, school boards and parents are left to sort it out, since the best devices with the best features that are well suited for their needs, purchases are limited due to high costs, And most school boards and parents turned to the other devices, trying to adapt the devices to fit the needs of their students or their children. What works well for one student, may not work well for another in the learning process. Take the Intel Reader, and compare it to the other e-readers on the market. Or compared the i-pad to the other notebooks on the market. The i-pad has apps that are well suited for students, and the ability to customized the apps to the needs of the individual student. Who has the i-pads, only those who can afford it, and school boards that has a population for the most part composed of high-income students.
A digital divide does exist, but it is not in cellular phones, but rather it lies on devices that compliments learning, more efficient learning, and allows access to individuals who have disabilities. And in that world, it is very difficult for a school board, to purchase in bulk, and have the device fit all the needs of their student population. In Canada, it is pretty well left to the schools and boards to sort it out, with narrowed criteria that must be met, on devices own by the school board. So access to hand-held devices are limited to the students who have the most needs, leaving the bulk of the SE population dependent on the bells and whistles of the computer systems, and software. As for cellular phone, my child is the only one without a smart phone, the kind that has the ability to go on the Internet. But since the upgrading in the infrastructure, dealing with cellular phones, and wireless technology, the low income people went wireless, dropping the land base phone, and the higher income groups have both the land based phones and cell phones. Are the smart phones effective tools? That depends on what has been subscribe to and what features. Some have more than others, and the reason why my child does not have a smart phone, her lap top is more efficient and cost less than the monthly bills of a cell phone. And a cell phone has no redeeming features that would enhance learning inside the school. It is a tool of communication, and to access social media content for the most part. And it can take pictures and video, but not the same quality as in my child’s two hand-held devices, that are quite useful tools for school learning. and quality of pictures, video and audio recordings. But if it is the i-phone, and its apps that is another different kettle of fish.
In conversation with a local secondary school teacher over the weekend about this very topic I learned that our local high school ordered and saw delivery of 200 IPADS this school year.
We must be one of those “have” schools.
From a board closing schools to find cost savings no less.
Kate Hammer’s Toronto Globe and Mail story on Smart phones in Toronto schools cited Board officials who claimed that access was now near universal, since the vast majority of students possessed mobile devices, even those from disadvantaged groups. I was dubious about such a claim and wondered about how it actually looked on the ground in schools.
Access “near-universal”??? Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Those Board officials are likely just as tuned in to reality as the Ministry official (I won’t mention his name, because it is familiar to at least some readers here) who responded, when the issue of the large numbers of Grade 9 students unprepared for the mathematics work in either the Academic or Applied streams was brought to his attention, that there was “no problem. ” I pointed out that in my particular school, more than half the graduating grade 8 students had functional skills no better than Grade 4-5, and math skills were lower than literacy. This MOE official replied that “There are NO schools like that in Ontario!!” Au contraire, I replied, there are dozens in the TDSB alone, and hundreds in the province.
The higher the bureaucrat, the less likely he knows what is going on. And also, paradoxically, the lower his IQ is likely to be (H/T Educational Testing Service). Rather scary thought.
On the ground in low-income schools, few to no children have Smart Phones, laptops, iPads or iPhones, although a minority have some kind of cell phone, usually on a plan with restricted minutes and no texting. They cannot afford the fees for all the latest whiz-bang stuff. I have only seen one student in 5 years with a Smart Phone. Even if students had these devices, they would normally be unable to use them, since the schools are not wired for these signals. Wi-fi, where it exists, is confined to the library.
With regard to hand-held digital devices, is there still a Digital Divide? If so, will the decision to lift the ban adversely affect kids from poorer circumstances?
Actually it has very little impact at all in k-8, since these devices are not available anyway. A ban on bringing your pet quagga to school would likely have a bigger effect.
I have to disagree TDSB. on a sea change. The sea change is happening underneath, much like the underground economy. Stats are not being track by government agencies, as much as it is with the private companies. There is a perception that low-income people do not have cell phones or a computer or access to the Internet. That could not be further from the truth, they do. In Canada, there is a huge digital divide because access to all digital and technology because Canadians pay the highest premium in rates, to subscribe to an internet service, cellular service, restrictive contracts, and high penalties for breaking a contract. But within the divide, people are choosing the best low cost options, that would meet their needs. Nor do the government policies federally or provincially are working to correct the digital divide, and leaves it up to the customers to sort it out and how they will use the digital technology.
“The digital divide refers to the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communications technologies (ICT’s) and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities.[1] It includes the imbalance both in physical access to technology and the resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen. Knowledge divide reflects the access of various social groupings to information and knowledge, typically gender, income, race, and by location.[2] The term global digital divide refers to differences in access between countries in regards to the internet and its means of information flow.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
Many of the activities relating to accessing education material, much of it is underground in Canada. From free and for a price, parents and their children are adapting education in their homes and in their lives. Seven years when I started with a subscription service, there was fewer on-line schools, especially in the K to 8. Not anymore, and public, charter, private schools are partnering with the on-line schools. From free to a tuition fee model to monthly fees, and parents are taking full advantage of it for their children. Pity though, Canada is at the bottom of the list in the developed countries, and many Canadians are accessing the Europe and United States on-line schools, mainly to addressed remediation, advancement, acquiring deeper knowledge, and the lower cost options, are a great way to help in homework. I discovered this, when talking to the on-line subscription school to asked more detailed questions. It turned out, they have a large base of Canadian subscribers using it for the same purposes as I was using it. Far cheaper than paying a tutor $45 dollars a hour, and now 7 years later, the on-line tutoring companies are completing for the same customer base that uses on-line schools for other purposes besides obtaining credits. Apparently, there is a price war going one, and I only wish it existed 7 years ago.
TDSB, I do agree with you on how children with disabilities/low-income and access to the digital technology is a big problem, not only in the Toronto Board, but across Canada. But outside the school walls, how many Canadians are accessing on-line education in all their different formats? It is a question that the public education systems in Canada are afraid to ask.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virtual_schools#United_Kingdom
https://www.futureschool.com/subscribe
http://www.onlineschools.com/elementary-school/list
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38229792/ns/today-parenting/t/online-school-your–year-old-depends-kid/
I agree with TDSB here Nancy,I also agree with her completely on the complete lack of awareness about the MOE re children`s competence;they are not educators ,they are politicians trained in sound bites.
The Agenda Monday night had an education segment,the Green Party leader is a teacher,he recommended eliminating EQAO-Kate Hammer from the Globe said absolutely not,we need to know how our children are doing.
With the smoke and mirror beefing up of the EQAO scores,I won`t believe for a moment they are that improved,they couldn`t be with the method of instruction unchanged,my thoughts are to eliminate the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat,they have failed our children mathematically,have an infection of cronyism and cost taxpayers 25 million a year.
Yes, we have advantaged public schools and disadvantaged ones. That’s been clear whether we’re talking IT tools, text books, extra-curricular programs.
What happened to all schools being equal under the public umbrella? Can we finally rule out that myth too?
You certainly can on Nova Scotia’s south shore.
I think that myth was ruled out in 1870 while Ryerson was putting the system together.
There is a rather profound unwillingness to consider the role of poverty in the Corporate Education Reform movement bordering on denial. The hands are over the ears and the “shut up shut up” responce is simply an inability to look social science research in the face because it undermines the core eements of CERA.
NCLB data proves it and it was demanded by conservatives. NAEP data confirms it, EQAO data in Ontario, League Tables in the UK all show exactly the same thing.
The irony is that the tests demanded by the conservatives in a belief that naming and shaming had a role in improvement, actually proves the progressive critique.
The latest seems to be that the “Merit Pay” is DOA. Too expensive and no results.
How many “reform” proposals have to crash and burn before people acknowledge that perhaps we are on the wrong track.
Once again Doug makes a profound deduction. Poverty effects public education results.
Appraisal of the IT costs to public education should be based not only on the cost benefits posed by TDSB – all certainly valid, but also on the general distraction all these devices can cause when a student needs to spend time on those important few moments of content.
We have been over this before. Costs are both tangible and social.
Poverty theory is a nice cover for the public education system, to hide the inconsistencies of policies governing resources of schools, equipment, and the rest of the stuff, that make it bearable such as toilet paper and soap. No rhyme or reason, and all done using a complicated formula where one school has more than the other school, and yet no matter how one slices it, no matter what set of students, what income, the students are cheated and impacted negatively when the school boards provide resources in such a system, that allows the shortages and over supply to occur. What really is rich when parents question it, the board blames the principal, and the school blames the board. The other arms such as unions, blame the SEC factors, to explain away the shortages in text books, or toilet paper and of course achievement rates.
There is no excuse in the City of Toronto, for every school to be well equipped with computers, the Internet, computer labs, and all the rest of the stuff that makes for a good learning environment. But than again, the lower the income, the less political capital the parents have, the local community, and is another reason for the gap. After all, the high income parents have political capital, plus the excess monies to get their way, and they are paid attention to, and the learning needs of other children are thrown the crumbs after the more able get their share. The big provinces should be ashame of themselves, when it comes to digital technology. compared to the smaller provinces. Have the big provinces ever take advantage of the federal and provincial cost sharing in technology over the last 12 years or so. What about the Bill Gates Foundation? In NL, a lot of the public libraries got their computers this way. and some schools as well. There is no excuse for the big provinces, their huge tax base, and education budgets that dwarf the smaller provinces, not to have schools equal under the public umbrella more or less when it comes to resources and technology.
Poverty theory does count for reasons suggested including those by Nancy.
BUT
it should not be used as an excuse.
Interesting that in the early 1990s when I taught in BC they, and even more so Alberta, were ahead in this area
and they still are.
By “ahead” i mean
they have though more carefully about the uses of tech. In any case when my students and teachers have done some investigating in the next 6 months I shall get a better sense.
One issue in Toronto is the number of older buildings that are not wired or have been wired lately. York region, north of Toronto has many new schools that have been set up for this stuff from the get go. Some of these have also had extensive quality professional development.
Of course, use may or may not be wise as i have seen examples of both.
The interest in this thread may be an indication of the seriousness of the issues.
This past summer I worked with a NY state tech team for a school district. The tech team consists of kids in grade 7-9
yes KIDS.
None of us- me and the kids- think school buildings will disappear, but we do think things ought to change within those buildings.
Don’t you know John, it is the latest rage, consult the students. Where I live, the local grade school, has touch screen desktops, The high school, has been upgraded and updated. They have some pretty fancy equipment in the office. One thing I can say, is that the provincial government in the last 5 years, have put in a considerable amount of money to upgrading schools. As high speed broadband was put in in each communtiy , the province follow thorough on upgrading the school, as well as other public buildings. I really do not see the problem, since there is homes built back prior to the Internet, the tech guys have no problem in installation, why should schools be any different. I myself have gone wireless, except for one desktop, which is directly connected. It is much easier, and more cost effective. The only reason that I see, holding the Toronto board is the contracts and deals struck with one of the Internet provider. But at the very least, the big cities should have all their schools completely wired for the digital age. Since the cites offers all the bells and whistles and access to numerous services, compared to the rural parts.
In Ontario though do you trust the same dude who gave us the e-health fiasco to bring our schools into THIS century and up to where they need to be?
Actually, since education is pretty much off the table in Ontario’s provincial election I have to wonder if in other provinces education IS on the election agenda anywhere?
Gifted students across the U.S. seem to be seizing upon the opportunities afforded by e-learning. Education Week is planning to have a Live Chat on the topic and here’s the promo for the event:
“Gifted Students Click on E-Learning
Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2 p.m. EDT
Gifted and talented students are increasingly turning to online learning as an educational option because of the vast array of courses available, the ability for students to move through courses at their own pace, and the individualized instruction they receive through e-learning. Our guests will discuss how best to serve gifted students in an online learning environment, as well as what challenges may arise for this population of students.”
http://www.edweek.org/ew/events/chats/2011/09/28/index.html?cmp=ENL-CM-CHAT
Access to E-Learning is becoming a critical education issue, raising all kinds of fundamental questions. It begs the question: Will e-learning further widen the “Achievement Divide”?
John Myers
Poverty theory does count for reasons suggested including those by Nancy.
BUT
it should not be used as an excuse.
I don’t think progressives offer it as an excuse but as an explanation. The way to mitigate the effects of poverty on educational achievement is known broadly as compensatory education. This as we might expect, involves the education system anticipating the problems of high poverty areas and compensating for it with much smaller classes, ECE/ELP, appropriate curriculum, high levels of in-service support, hand picked principals, system supplied lap tops for every student, free internet in public housing projects, free glasses and dental care, per and post natal care, summer and after school support, and the like. It is all worth it.
It is also the only situation where I would apply so-called merit pay, I would call it differentiated compensation, close to ‘danger pay’. The bottom 20% of schools should be identified and teacher paid $20 000 more to work there. The job would also be difficult to get. Only excellent teachers need apply.
An explanation eh? Where parents are greeted at any school, with the excuses that it is the child’s fault, if not that it is the parent’s fault for not providing, if not that it is the many other excuses of the external SEC factors, that no one has control over. But when parents raise the curriculum, or the instruction or the school environmental factors, or the training and knowledge of teachers, it is made clearly that the school is never at fault.
And merit pay based on danger pay for low-income schools would only create and stereo-type children and their families as dangerous to the rest of the population. Much like the misconception that is the prevailing belief that children who have disabilities are hard to teach. Society pays dearly for this type of thinking, that considers one part of the population dangerous by paying the teachers danger pay to educate them. It is this type of thinking, that divides and creates inequities treating one sub-population differently from another. The incentive is the goodies that you have describe for the low-income students, and the social costs are borne by the low-income people and students, are students are marked and labeled as dangerous.by the rest of society. Much in the same way, as sport teams of low-income playing at a school with a higher-income level. Or the LD students, even the accomplished ones wears the label of dumb throughout the K to 12 system. And on top of that, many of a low-income person, would object to be seen as dangerous to the public education system, and may not be all in a hurry to accept the goodies, in exchange for the label of dangerous. Classism at its best, Doug, and the social costs are always borne by the individuals.
the sooner we lose the “progressives” in any way, shape or form in moving toward the improvement of education the better IMO.
The term as applied to most issues has run its course….and does more to divide and throw up road blocks to education reform than anything else.
“Don’t you know John, it is the latest rage, consult the students.”
With all dues respect, it is not the latest rage. I do not believe we do it enough.
Some of us have done it for decades, appropriately, and to great effect.
Doctors, psychologists, and now business leaders ask more and listen more before they act.
As psychologist George Kelly said in the 1950s, “When in doubt, ask the client.
The whole formative assessment movement, which John Hattie- mentioned earlier- has pointed out, is a huge factor in improving learning.
SO
Rage? NO
Useful when appropriate? YES
I can see some professions would asked the young for their opinion and consult with them before acting. But than again, there is no outward discrimination and being selective as to the types of students. In the public education system, the students that are consulted, are the students who are normally the top achievers. Even the school trustee council, that has students, are students who are the top achievers, and not the average student. One of the reasons why I am against students evaluating their teachers, and more so students who are selected at the end of year to do the surveys and are part of the consultation process, are not a representative sample. Far from it, and for the most part, the share common trait is the good grades, except the SE population of the class or the school. Who speaks for them? One would think, they are ideal to point out the weaknesses as well as what are the strengths, and come up with solutions that are far better to improve overall conditions for the average student. As for consulting the individual child on what they think, a child like mine would rather think of themselves as being normal, and will often worked against their own best interests. The personal example, is my child rarely takes advantage of her accommodations at school, but she uses the same accommodations at home. She wants to be as normal as the other students, and today it is a little over bearing since she was the only one in the class that score a 100 % in a physics test. At the lunch hour, see Mom I don’t have a learning disability, because I did it like the other kids. Asking my child for her opinion this week, would in effect she would be working against her own best interests, and working for the best interest of the accomplished students. It is why I have asked the teachers to used their best judgment, and her opinion may not reflect her best interests.
My post never referenced student evaluation of teachers but about student input on IT, thus I would be pleased to return to this clearly important thread given the number of comments.
A simple example would be for students to survey their peers on their internet and social networking habits, similar to asking students about their TV viewing habits and their hours in an after school/weekend job habits done in the 1970s.
A 21st century survey I would do in a senior social science class is for my class
to design a survey to get frequency of cyberbullying. Ontario is just one of many jurisdictions in north america to do this with disturbing results, especially when teachers are asked about their levels of awareness of the issue.
Last summer at their request my team of grade 7-8’s did a survey in NY state at a conference. They did a great job because
– it was an important issue for them
– they were asked to take responsibility
Once again we are speaking of appropriate use, as we should in everything to do with school and beyond.
Back to the thread.
It isn’t a question of reform but one of IMPROVEMENT and EVOLUTION… reform be damned.
Great perspective Andrew, so much for improvement and evolution. “reform be damned” An educrats dream.
I was so tempted to send a similar message,yours was much nicer!
Also Andrew,I am shocked at your autocratic tone,almost like you have control over the establishment.
Dreaming in technicolor,without school choice,we will remain impotent.
ditto from me.
Sometimes I receive a new piece of knowledge in the e-mail box that leads me to new information.
“According to a recent study by Ambient Insight, the growth of blended learning will be immense in the next 4 years. Schools and districts across the country are incorporating blended learning across a continuum of models: from having fully online components of courses such as labs or help sessions to posting online resources that support the instruction that occurs entirely in a face-to-face setting. In this webinar, hear from three district leaders who have successfully implemented blended learning programs about how they set up an online learning program that worked for their administration and teachers, and helped their students achieve results. ”
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&eventid=352244&sessionid=1&key=BC0CDA3F500EB96A638B3A02DE5D764C
Ambient Insight, if anyone has any excess money for investment, this company might be just it. I can see the future impact and how it will change the public education systems of the world, and education of the world.
“At Ambient Insight, we put research into practice.
Ambient Insight is an integrity-based market research firm that uses predictive analytics to identify revenue opportunities for global learning technoogy suppliers.
Ambient Insight was founded in 2004 by the original members of the Advanced Knowledge Engineering team that built the Microsoft Online Learning Institute (MOLI), the world’s first commercial elearning business. We have a comprehensive understanding of the types of tools, systems, and best practices that are used to design, develop, and deliver the eight major types of learning technology products.
We have developed multi-year tactical roadmaps, product pipelines, revenue stream timelines, pricing models, and go-to-market strategies for high-profile clients. We have helped large and small organizations launch learning technology products and services. Ambient Insight principals are well-known learning technology experts in the global training and education industry.
We have shown industry leaders how to migrate to higher margin products and new revenues without replacing current product lines or jeopardizing legacy business practices or revenue streams.
Ambient Insight strives to make clients self-sufficient. Our project strategy is to provide continuous knowledge transfer that allows clients to own their intellectual property and to help them reduce dependencies on external consultants, including ourselves.
Ambient Insight provides market research across all the buyer segments including: consumer, preK-12 academic, higher education, local and state government, federal government, corporations, non-profits, and healthcare. We are the only research firm in the industry that has developed a learning product taxonomy based on pedagogy and information architecture principles. Ambient Insight provides market forecast research for eight pedagogically defined learning products. “
http://www.ambientinsight.com/Default.aspx
Then the “reformists” need a better PR machine because the impression the have created is one of “our way or we’ll take all our toys and go home”.
So far the educrats are winning hands down. Isn’t it time to stop doing the same thing over and over and try a new approach?
Ambient Insight appers to be the NRA of the eLearning industry.
There is nothing wrong with ‘reform’ which means nothing except ‘remake’ or change. The problem is the Corporate Education Reform Agenda with failed and failing reforms such as NCLB, RTTT, charters, vouchers, merit pay, Mayoral control, testing, and this grab bag of reforms, some of which have been tried and found wanting many times before (merit pay) and some of which are accompanied by endless amounts of hoopla but don’t deliver.
I should have gone on to explain that Dalton McGuinty is running on a reform (change) agenda including smaller classes, ELP, more graduates, slashing tuition, labour peace etc. This is a popular, educationally sound, economically sound “reform” position. Now if we could just abolish the EQAO we could really make progress.
Doug, he is not cutting tuition, but offering a grant to the middle-class families. Since the lifting of the freeze, tuition has sky-rocketed to where Ontario students pay the highest tuition fees. A 30 % decrease in a form of a grant is helpful, but there is nothing to stopped the post-secondary in raising their tuition fees. And the reform of the Liberals, is nothing more than repeating the teachers’ unions’ best interests. I can say a lot more, but what is really missing in the education platform of the Liberals, is improving the technology and the infrastructure, that is very much part of obtaining an education, and part of our lives. Funny thing, it is not on the Ontario teachers’ unions’ goals either,
For a rather humble Canadian education blog Educhatter is becoming a “cutting edge” discussion forum. Today (September 27, 2011) Education Week posted a great story on the “Flip Model” pioneered at Khan Academy. For increasing numbers of American schools, class lectures are the Homework and class time is dedicated to discussion, detailed analysis, and extensions of learning:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/09/28/05khan_ep.h31.html?tkn=ZXMF1rv4KF9cglHvMj0eaNeo%2FdRcKsBLvaMN&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1
Defenders of the status quo are on notice — the Khan Academy model is spreading because class time is more properly used “lighting a fire” rather than “stuffing a turkey.” If the “Flip Model” catches on, Alfie Kohn (The Homework Slayer) will be definitely passe!
Ho-hum, more Digital Divide. The “Flip Model” may affect kids in Rosedale, but not in Jane-Finch. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
le fonctionnaire qui sert?
Thanks for getting us back to the topic at hand Paul.
Here’s where a local board is with using IT in the classroom. Right off the board’s newswire this afternoon.
http://blog.amdsb.ca/2011/09/27/borrowing-from-the-digital-human-library/
I believed Khan Academy, and the one that Catharine posted, the Digital Human Library, which is a really great idea, are ideas that makes for great learning. Taking the technology, and using it differently, does keep people motivated. Or otherwise the Education Channel on You Tube, the University of the People, the MIT Open Course Ware, and i Tunes U (Learn anything, anytime, any where) would not be a hit with people from all over the world.
http://www.youtube.com/education
http://www.uopeople.org/
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
http://www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/
Even the kids’ facebook pages, have interesting videos posted that have education value. It is obvious, that people are learning and using the technology at home, and why not the K to 12 schools. Used the technology, just like the teacher did. It reminds me of the children’s shows of the late 50s and 60s, having guest appearances through the fake television. Sometimes the animals could not come to the show, like a giraffe or a rhino. I can see why it is a hit, because it is using real people and locations across the world.
Nancy, You labour under some misunderstanding that what is good for teachers is bad for students. Exactly the opposite is true. Teachers working conditions ARE students learning conditions. The BC Supreme Court has just found that the province CANNOT legislate away, the right of teachers to bargain for smaller classes and class composition.
If a city opens more operating rooms or courthouses do you say, “that is only good for doctors or lawyers”?
A 30% grant is fabulous. It should be limited by income. In fact post-secondary should not have tuition whatsoever.
Nancy,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/merit-based-teacher-bonus_n_901679.html
If that is the case Doug, why aren’t the teachers demanding the technology and the resources, because that is better for the students, than the working conditions of teachers, But than again, every time the union gets a raise, something else is removed from the students, or delays on maintenance, upgrading, in order to pay for the raises. It is limited by income, $250,000, and have your read that right Doug. The new line for middle class, and I guess $60,000 is the new line for low-income. The grant won’t do a bit of good, since tuition fees are set to go up, and has gone up already, and it is expected to increase, making the grant useless. Apparently Ontario is expected to stay in the top spot for the most expensive tuition in post-secondary in Canada, for the next 5 years.
So back to the topic, what are the teachers’ unions doing to get more technology in the classroom? I have not heard too much on the front, except for their usual talking points, and the extra one on resources, in the provinces that are having elections. We need more teachers like the one that Catharine has posted, Creative, innovative and not standing for the status-quo.
Could it be small class sizes which Doug approves of (me to) – or small rural schools which Doug disapproves of, (being an optimal usage kind of guy) could benefit from – lighting a fire?
http://smallschoolscoalition.com/
Townies are usually against the small rural schools. Actually, my child is receiving a better education, than the over crowded high school 52 kms away. Where class size, is exactly 33 students, and soon to balloon to fit in another 125 students, due to another school closing for mould problems. What I like about small schools, is that the teachers really get to know their students, on their strengths and weaknesses. Class size depends on the popularity of the program, but on average there is 20 students, for the local high school.
If harnessed and endorsed with the right applications, this digital landscape could also register where it counts, in small communities accross Canada.
So often is the case though, the independent schools and models of school choice are leading the way. As the public system tries to play catch up, the old problems of the achievement gap, the digital divide, and continuous centralization impede the way. So many policy makers protecting their turf.
In the local high school, as in other rural schools, there is the right mix of e-learning and classroom courses. My only complaint, access is not 24-7, and it is schedule like any course in a time-slot during the school day. But there is access to homework, study notes with any student that has their user name and pass word. Have not been on it, but soon, looking to print off whatever notes are available for my youngest. Every student has a laptop, and are connected to the web. It starts early here, since high speed access came to town, in 2004. Competition helps to keep the rates down, and a government looking over their shoulders. Also computer technology is a nice fit with our outdoor lifestyles, and minus the distractions of big city living. For kids, one will here, there is nothing to do more times, because there is limited activities. As such, the digital age was a very welcome addition that people were eager to adopt, and it helps when one of the government’s priorities is having every community connected, especially in the more remote places, where fishermen need access to the web. Up to 85 % connected, and what is left is the more remote parts of the province, that does not have high-speed access.
Getting back to the topic in the thread the jury is still out on the impact of IT learning on learning. Reminds me of a years of medical research and field trials to determine the value of a new drug. It is so much harder to see the effects of an innovation on a child’s mind. And in subjects like social studies with few hard and fast benchmarks even harder. That is why I scour for classroom accounts and am now engaged in a project looking at the effects.
Does IT improve key learnings?
Does it maintain key learning levels while making life easier for busy teachers?
Does it maintain key learnings for less $$$?
And we have to remember that
while there are many similarities with the US scene there are key differences. So just because something works or fails in the US does not mean it works or fails here.
An additional layer on this is that some decisions re IT are made strictly for $$$ reasons not learning reasons.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/lem.smith/effectiveness_of_computers_in_education
There are great studies on edweek for years,Khan Academy to me is a model that makes sense because there is a master teacher,I think it could be a game changer.
To Nancy: You seem to think the incomes of teachers are a negative to education when they are actually the most important input. Look at the quality of teachers in the US states with the low incomes. There is a direct relationship between quality incomes and quality teachers.
To Steven: I do in fact support small rural and urban schools. My motion at the TBE was when school get very small we explain the pros and cons to the parents and then let the parents themselves decide if the bes answer is open or closed. We should fill empty elementary space with child care and children’s clinics and empty secondary space with adult education and other community uses.
Nancy there is an optimum speed for new technology. There is also too fast and too slow. This takes judgement. Many studies confirm few if any learning gains.
To John, Some IT decisions are also made because IT companies are very powerful and are pushing their way through the door using political-corporate muscle.
Three related articles on IT learning.
One Million Classrooms Worldwide Connected By Skype? Wow!
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/one-million-classrooms-worldwide-connected-by-skype-wow.html#ixzz1ZFb91tjx
Is Technology Necessary For Learning?
http://www.care2.com/causes/is-technology-necessary-for-learning.html?page=2
Who’s in Charge – Our Technology. . . or Us?
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/whos-in-charge-technology-or-us.html#ixzz1ZFbUoxIj
“With a gift from Google, Canadian activists get on the map”
Very useful for the classroom. I can see students saying wow.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/with-a-gift-from-google-canadian-activists-get-on-the-map/article2182427/?cmpid=nl-news1
The Google Earth OutReach
http://earth.google.com/outreach/index.html
“CourseSmart®, the world’s largest provider of eTextbooks and digital course materials, today announced that it has expanded its higher education digital offerings by partnering with nine new publishing partners:”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coursesmart-expands-its-digital-offerings-through-nine-additional-publishers-2011-09-27
That was today, without looking. One can assume that IT and digital technology is here to stay. My question is why governments do not have the goal of ensuring all of their citizens are wired in this new world, including the schools. The digital world, opens up the classroom and brings the world into the classroom. Rather effective to show the diversity of the world, rather than reading it from a book. It opens up minds, like the Google Earth OutReach, to see parts of the Earth that many would never have the opportunity to travel to places. There is no excuse that inner city schools, are not wired. There is no excuses that students of low-income does not have a lap top or a desk-top, where in my province, refurbished laptops and desktops are handed out at a price of $169 or so. I believe, that being wired is a great equalizer, that will level the playing field between all incomes, when it comes to students. I certainly saw that, concerning my youngest child, when I purchased a desktop in 2002. It level the playing field for her, that she able to keep up with the work at school, and to work on her learning weaknesses. There is no excuses when IT is no longer a ‘nice to have’ need, but a ‘must need’ as essential as having a roof over your head. And for the education of our children. Their futures depends on it.
The small classes Doug advocates rather defeats the unproven “economy of size” rationale that is being used to close smaller schools all over the country.
Properly used, IT could overcome the lack of course options available to those smaller schools.
The question is why do educrats still listen to the Jim Gunns of the world?
not only “could” IT overcome the lack of course options in smaller schools it already is and actually has been at our local secondary for almost 6 years now. It’s working very well.
CBC featured a school in NL that has 2 students. They are bummed out because last year they had 3. I would still keep it open if that is what the community wants. With bussing going over 90 min in some communities, the solution is becoming boarding schools. That is sad. Technology can do a lot but only so much. Kids crave personal contact with kids their own age.
Keeping a school open for 2 ior 3 students is a bit much. All that would be required is a kitchen table, IT courses and a tutor at $25.00/hour for the parts the students struggle with.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fijedict.dec.uwi.edu%2Finclude%2Fgetdoc.php%3Fid%3D1659%26article%3D229%26mode%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=The%20rural%20school%20in%20Newfoundland%20that%20has%20two%20students&ei=NUGDTsTDCeH30gHL1vCJAQ&usg=AFQjCNE8p_hzicPVM15EdP1TJHVAKdWqbg&sig2=FUt07JEPZO-f_udbctEJCQ
“Rural schools as regional centres of elearning and the management of
digital knowledge: The case of Newfoundland and Labrador
Ken Stevens
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
ABSTRACT
Small schools in rural Canadian communities have had a special role in the development of elearning and the management of digital knowledge within customized electronic educational structures. In the provision of education to learners in dispersed sites, particularly for those in small schools in rural communities, the school district digital intranet provides a new educational
environment that complements and extends traditional schools. Within this digital structure, new processes, including pedagogical considerations that shape eteaching, have to be considered. The school district digital intranet challenges the traditional educational practice of teachers and learners interacting in closed learning environments and encourages them to consider the possibilities of engaging in open classrooms that are compatible with a knowledge based economy.”
It could be the template for the rural districts in all of the provinces. Instead of closing down schools, and busing students , it probably is much more cost effective than anything else. Of course it does help, when government policies strikes deals with the internet providers, like the one that Danny Williams struck with a cable company, and other policies that encourages the companies to connect communities.
And Doug, if you should ever get out of the bubble that you call Toronto, you be quite surprise how connected NL is, when pulling out your lap top, and connecting to the Internet. sitting in a rural community, overlooking the cove watching the whales. It is common to see kids with their tablets, sitting in the park surfing the net. Or the fancy equipment usually located in the school’s office that is the hub to connect and communicate for one and all inside the school. Even thermostats are set by someone 300 kms aways on a computer, and the principal can override it if it gets too cold or too warm for the day. In NL, big heating bills, and since the advent of the digital age, well cost savings and that money can be redirected in other areas of the school.
It is why, I cannot see why the City of Toronto is not the most connected place in Ontario with all the money there is in Toronto. Why each and every school, is not connected and equipped is beyond me. I can only assume, that the eggheads in the education ministry are not interested in providing for their citizens that syncs in with a knowledge based economy.
Somebody needs to be the certified teacher “in the room” with them by most provincial laws. A few laws and regs like this make that solution difficult, perhaps not impossible. Sadly, I think we are heading to boarding schools. Across northern Ontario, I met people on OSSTF travels who had their kids “stay with gramma” in Timmins while the parents continued to work in Smooth Rock Falls. Some use the “home stay” model Mon-Fri, home on the weekend. I predict the trend continues technology or not.
Only you would come up with something like that to waste precious resources.
a) Tens of thousands home school successfully.
b) There are tens of thousands of retired teachers who would like nothing better than tutoring.
c) There are probably many other ways to make it possible but that would require a bit of good management – something that is seriously lacking in the educratocracy.
you’re right Andrew.
No Doug, that is not the case in NL. There is no teacher in the room, where the kids are taking courses that have final exams and public exams attached to them. Where ever the teacher is, 350 kms away, can see and speak to his students. He knows when a student has taken his head phone away. As far as I know there has never been a problem. There will be a teacher inside the school, assigned to take care of homework problems, and things like that, but that is after the fact. There is even a small group of seniors taking the same on-line courses at home, for reasons of working, and for other reasons. And they come to school to take any tests, and exams at school, as well as hand in assignments to the school. Furthermore the CLA room, is located and attached to the office, with windows for anyone to look in. It is where my youngest spends time as her alternative setting in exam time. No point in turning on the computer, because it is a direct connection to e-learning courses and one needs a password. And besides that, the principal from where he sits, can see everything in the room either by his cameras or has a pretty good view from his chair. My youngest likes it, because it is sound proof, and keeps noise distraction down to a minimum.
Now there is another part of e-learning called independent studies, that are courses that are not the core subjects such as math or the sciences, and usually do not have a final exam or a public exam that is attached. This set of courses can be access at any time, and is the reason why they are called independent studies. Computers are used in the library or in the computer lab if it is not busy, but for the most part students accessed the independent studies course at home. My youngest in grade 12, will be taking one next year, to fulfilled the graduation requirements of NL.
And the Ontario government should be ashamed of themselves, for not providing their Northern citizens with the proper computerized environment, as well as the infrastructure, to create education that works with the life and working conditions of Northern Ontario. The link that I provided, was published in 2006, and a lot of things have change since than. With added features of tutoring that all students can assessed and specialized tutoring for the public exams. Fail the public exams, one has two choices – pay to take the rewrite or repeat the course in the new year. And it has help a lot of students in rural NL to continued on into post-secondary. And even here, there is choices that rural NL has with post-secondary. Which is another story, on how the college and university works hand in hand with the Education ministry to provide options for the rural grade 12 graduates.
I bet Northern residents are complaining about the cell phone coverage, and here in NL, one has to go really far into the remote parts of the province, to find no service. There has to be political will, as well as acknowledging the different regions of a province has education needs that will be different, from those within a city. The political will was there, as well as the understanding, since many of the power, wealth, and scholars hail from rural NL.
Nancy – don’t base the success of IT or virtual schooling on what Doug’s saying about Northern Ontario.
They’ve done wonders with e-learning and they did it out of necessity years before the rest of the province started to catch-up.
I can recall in 2001 attending a virtual meeting in Sudbury between school boards, parent councils and even some students,
Nothing was lost. It was real time discussion and they were ALL hooked up and connecting just fine.
That’s actually the way their school councils communicate and meet….over the internet.
The use of IT also ramps up the cost of education in the northern boards and as I was told their biggest expense.
The Russians have discovered IT in schools and may be falling under the influence of that dreaded “Corporate Education Reform Agenda”. (Smile) The Intel World Ahead program is certainly making major inroads in Russia.
One of the Russian republics, Tatarstan, has just rolled out a high-tech strategy for schools , The Moscow Times (September 23, 2011) reports that Tatarstan has increased its investment in education technology over the past five years to prepare students for 21st-century jobs. It’s the recognized leader in the country and hosted a recent e-learning conference attended by IT promoters from 35 different Russian provinces.
By 2015, the republic plans to provide computers and high-speed Internet in all of its 1,940 schools, use more digital content for lessons and train teachers in the technology. All 42,000 teachers will be given laptops. Schools also will use more technology to communicate with parents and the public through websites and text-messaging.
For the full story,see http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/tatarstan-seeks-high-tech-edge-in-school-with-help-of-intel/444184.html
Do not count the Russians out in the headlong rush to embrace IT in schools!
In my opinion, it w3ould make sense that at the K level IT is pretty much a non-starter unless there is no other way. But as a student learns more and matures, IT simply makes more and more sense. I should think that in the long run computers will eventually be a much cheaper way to deliver courses than is classroom attendance.
Where I see a potential problem is that the educrats will take the usual lazy way out and buy pre-packaged “systems” to the tune of billions of dollars instead of preparing IT teachers.
You want to call them “home schoolers” no problem then that is what they are. Pass legilation “no teacher req’d” but then don’t come back on the teachers when one put a pencil in the other one’s eye or burns the place down.
Home schooling with computers is available now. Most people don’t take advantage because as former U of T President Rob Prichard said “education is a full contact sport.” Dating will be fun, the school play, the basketball team, … We are going to have quite a wait for tech to replace bricks and mortar.
I had no idea Catharine. Good to hear, but it was also my impression from the few people that moved from Northern Ontario back to NL, and the stories that they carried with them. Apparently when it comes to technology, in NL we are far more advance and upgraded than places of Ontario, and other rural parts of the Western provinces. Andrew, I don’t know about other provinces, tech classes are from K to grade 8. During the years, the kids learn everything from keyboarding, software, word processing, and where each kid is quite adept using a computer. The Conservative platform is to extend e-learning to the K to 8 for the purpose of improving the 3 Rs. All 3 parties, will be carrying the tech policies forward, because they all do think it is essential and a priority.
As for pre-package programs – wouldn’t that be hard to do with the sciences. There is labs to be complete, and where the teacher at the school that is assigned takes over. Without the IT teacher, there would be a difference in quality over the classroom one. Even with the independent studies, there is still a lot of control the school has, to ensure that the student is doing their lessons. If not, they are pulled out but also based on the data that tells the school and I suppose some far away office, the times of log-in and how long spent on-line. It could not be done without the IT teachers in place, to have a quality program that makes the best options for students. Over eight years ago, there was students having to take an extra year, not because they have failed courses, but the courses needed were not available. It is no longer a problem, and where it is reasonable to expect a student to finish in 4 years. I remembered last year, and the principal was working very hard to fit in the 30 students, well passed the 10 student cap for e-learning, who had selected the sciences, advance math, for grade 11. It was the first time, all senior sciences and maths would be taken in a classroom, and not on a computer for one of them. The only good thing, the school has the qualified teachers with degrees in science or math, the trouble was the schedule. The school could used more teachers, because the teachers are busy right throughout the school day. The local school was not the only rural school, where demand for the sciences and maths increased, and perhaps one of the reasons, is the grade 11 group has been exposed to the technology program since K., and all of them have had a computer and internet connected starting around the grade 3 mark. Now the kids entering in K, have had computers since birth. And then there is the smart boards, and the other technology. I wonder what the crop of kindergartens would be like, in another 10 years, when they are selecting courses for grade 11.
But aside from the technology direction that NL has taken, there has to be political leadership and will. If Russia can do it, why not make Canada a leader on the NA side of the world.
Problem is that the little kids aren’t taught the basics since the computers can do them.
Why should they know how to write when there’s word processing?
Why should they know sums when a calculator can do the job?
Spelling? Don’t need that with spellcheck. Of course, they then don’t know the difference between their, there and they’re.
Writre a a paper? Plagiarize it or pay some online service to do it.
Etc… etc…
That is how computers are being used.
http://www.educationnation.com/index.cfm?objectid=0DA1B005-E93A-11E0-B00E000C296BA163&aka=0
Excellent debate, headline come very near to the end when Alexander Russo says, in his opinion, “reform” is a bubble that is peaking as we speak and is about to pop. Experiments have not worked, testing has not worked, merit pay on the way out and so on.
What does that have to do with the digital classroom?
Nancy
What does that have to do with the digital classroom?
Everything. I have been explaining over and over that “reform” is “data driven” testing and data driven orientation is driven by Bill Gates Michael Dell and others in the tech industry to sell more technology. These guys are the ‘players’ in reform. The rest are the pawns.
You can also see, as one guest pointed out that there is nothing new in reform, there have been these periodic waves throughout education history, usually in the USA because as the citidel of capitalism, the business community is forever trying to take over public education and turn it to its purposes but parents and the system can see the conflict of interest a mile (kilometre) off and defends public education as PUBLIC education. Eventually biz moves on and loses interest. This is where we are at.
Nancy,
Ask Terry Moe, a key figure in American reform, why technology should be “embraced” by reformers.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/teachers_unions_threat.fortune/
Everything. I have been explaining over and over that “reform” is “data driven” testing and data driven orientation is driven by Bill Gates Michael Dell and others in the tech industry to sell more technology. These guys are the ‘players’ in reform. The rest are the pawns.
______________________________________________________
So tell us, Doug, were you in favour of technology before you were against it or against it before you were in favour of technology?
Another question, Doug.
If the tech companies shouldn’t sell the technology to the schools who should be selling it?
Gremlins?
One would thing the education system and the educators have always collected data on their students. Still want them to do it the old fashioned way Doug? Or the kind of data systems built for today’s systems, would not be able to handle the change of seeing actual progress of their students in real time? Or the teacher, carrying her i-pad, making quick observation notes of some of her students, and with a push of a button, more information is added to the student’s profile, to review over a later date. A real way, of sorting out kids and anticipating a learning problem?
As for the reformers on the one side , there is the other side determined to eliminate every and stripped the The Child Left Behind, which is only the legislation that is holding the states accountable somewhat. to the federal monies, and accountability to parents and the students. Unions in behind that one big time, as well as progressive school boards loaded with unionists, determined to get rid of the strings attached to the federal monies. Rather charming to see both sides work together to add a loophole, that boards will be permitted to make cuts in SE, even when the state has receive federal SE funding. No one is winning Doug, and thankfully Canada’s education system does not look like the American one. But it does not mean that the major players in the provinces are not cutting deals in behind the scenes, for their best interests only. And in Canada, there is the added problem of declining student enrollment, and the medium age is now at 39.8, I believe if I remember it correctly this morning news.And the stats are from 2006, and probably the medium age has climbed to 40. something. And the number of births have either decline slightly, or stay the same around 16 %. In Canada, provinces and the unions, love to play politics on the birth rate and declining student enrollment for their best interests. One would think that declining enrollment with increases in education funding, and Ontario is at 22 billion dollars, every child would be well versed in reading, writing and numeracy. Oh yes, I forgot, no one wants to use the new digital technology for the purpose of students’ achievement, because the unions and and other well-heeled educrats, are threatened by the digital age, and what it would mean to them and the games they play with students and their education.
No Child Left Behind was and is an abysmal failure on all fronts.
It has become a failure, because no one has lived up to its spirit. It became a political tool for best interests. What power it had, it did help the students who are of low-income, and all others who had difficulties in the 3 Rs, and I said somewhat. The REAL laws arose from the failure of states to provide an education for children at the bottom of the achievement charts to ensure children with disabilities were protected from the politics. Unfortunately, states and school districts are quite happy to settled law suits, fight court cases using taxpayers’ monies rather than provide the resources and funding to ensure all children reached their potential. Just watch, as they dismantled NCLB, law suits and due process hearings will spike to an all time high, especially after the United States Supreme Court, rules on education malpractice. And than the fun begins, taxpayer monies being sent to the charter school, in the form of vouchers, private schools, and other private concerns to addressed the education of children that the highly politicized public education system could not.
As for Canada, be thankful for the structure and how politics are play here. But the time is coming, when the public will no longer tolerate the fault lines of the Canadian public education system.
Judging the comments on the tragic story of a 11 year old boy, 99 % of the comments are not speaking kind on the sloppy progressive policies found in our schools.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/28/if-i-have-to-go-back-to-that-school-ill-kill-myself/
As well as on other stories, speaking about other fault lines. It may be underground, but sooner or later, the feelings expressed will be the monster born out by the public education system, that decided to politicized everything about education, as well as maintaining the power to those who work within the system. Digital technology is another fault line, where cities across the country, one would think that all schools within a city would be wired,. But that is not the case, wired schools are divided by postal code, and where the low income schools are the losers. Meanwhile, the educrats fight over digital access using their sloppy progressive ideology, to justify why one school has far less access, than the high-income school. Even here, it is politics that decide the resources of a school, and an easy out for one and all to sprout rhetoric rather than providing for the needs of each and every school.
It was and is a failure because it was ill-conceived. Anything that is as poorly planned, underfunded and ill-managed will inevitably fail. It was nothing but the whacked out political sop to the right wingnuts in the US.
We need to treat new technology as we would treat alcohol. Not having any is not much fun but too much has a lot of problems as well. We need a slow, steady increase in technology, field tested, and PROVEN to have serious educational applications that improve outcomes. So far the hype vastly outdistances the practical uses.
This is far too slow for the tech companies who want us to jump at every innovation and sqander big bucks on dubious white elephants. We need to see the tech companies as “pushers” who have one sole interest which is to get us to buy as much new tech as possible. They find it very frustrating to have to wait to have their stuff vetted.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Off topic but why pass up a wee giggle?
DEBRA J. SAUNDERS — What Is an Educrat?January 04, 1998|By DEBRA J. SAUNDERS
WHAT IS an educrat? The word is a hybrid, combining the Latin part of educator with the Greek part of bureaucrat, an educrat. I didn’t invent the term, although I wish I did.
I use it because it captures a special kind of person in the education world: pinheads who are so process-oriented that they are more excited in the process of learning than the myriad wonders that can be learned.
Simply put, educrats believe in process — as opposed to educators, who believe in results. Educrats focus on how children learn. Educators focus on what they learn.
Can a teacher be an educrat? Yes, although I should think most teachers are educators, not educrats. (Bet that a teacher with a PhD in education is an educrat, one with a PhD in math is an educator.)
Are there any good educrats? Sure. Percentage-wise they probably average out to about the same as reformed ex-cons.
What is the difference between an educator and an educrat?
Educrats care if children feel good about reading. Educators care if children can read.
Educrats believe that children can’t enjoy math unless the lessons are all about them. They load math classes down with “fun” assignments — drawing favorite foods or writing poems about math. Educators rely on the joy of numbers.
Educrats think students don’t need to know where all American states are as long as students know how to read a map.
Educrats say they want children to think for themselves, then make them work in groups.
Educrats are obsessed with achieving racial diversity in lessons, regardless of subject area, and in school statistics. Educators are obsessed with educating.
Educrats have turned science into an ecological jihad. They think cell structure is too boring, so they sex up science class with dire warnings on the evils of global warming, trash and pesticides.
Educrats believe that the im portant thing is that children can “communicate mathematically” and scientifically. Educators think kids should know math and science.
Educrats write history standards, such as: “Students should be able to identify and explain how events and changes occurred in significant historical periods.” Educators realize the sentence is utterly meaningless.
Educrats believe social studies should make children feel good about themselves. Educators use social studies to move students beyond their parochial lives.
Educrats say public schools should teach “values,” then write “values” curricula that preach that values are relative.
http://articles.sfgate.com/1998-01-04/opinion/17711094_1_educators-education-world-math-and-science
Should get the goat of a person I know. I see the article again is making its rounds once again. Even though it was written in 1998, it really does represent reality today. I especially like the last line – “Educrats say public schools should teach “values,” then write “values” curricula that preach that values are relative.” But now, another part should be added, the students learn to preach to the parents to change their ways.
Your post on Educrats is priceless and indeed relevant to the topic.
What’s missing?
On IT in the schools, educrats see it as the panacea. opening the door to “21st century skills.” Conscious of a mountain of previous failed IT initiatives, educators know that teaching kids to think can be achieved with a good book and a bit of imagination and understand instinctively that, when it comes to the latest technology wave, “it too will pass.”
I must say that it was heartening to learn that some “educrats” (i.e., former teachers with Ed.Ds) are potentially good, in roughly the same proportion as reformed ex-cons.
Love it,as sad and true as it is,never seen anything better!
There is plenty of poor planning, poor delivery of policies in Canada too. I can think of a few that certainly keeps the low literacy rates going on a upward projection, rather than what the stated goal, to decrease low literacy rates.
Doug, it is not only the tech companies, but the educrats who should bear more responsibility and acknowledge that their processes to select software are poor, and too time consuming because most teachers are not trained in the cognitive aspects of the student, and why one software does a very good job for one student, but not for another one. Hence, whatever software is out there in the schools, is a poor selection that meets a very narrow group of students. As for software applications, a better job but it still needs vast improvement, in keeping up to date. Educrats love all the attention from the software guys, computer companies, publisher companies ( a favourite that keeps them real busy), and all of the power players, that what is often forgotten the students and what is good for them. However, if a teacher develops and wants it put into the curriculum, a rush job is done, bypassing all the checks and balances based on a very slim study of what was good in her class. After all, making a profit by those who work within, seems to be an unwritten rule and fundraise for causes 3000 miles away, while students do without the resources. Much better to keep the kids busy fundraising for causes that have little to do with their situation, and distract them from their lack of resources and inequalities that stand out like big elephants.
Landscape is a human concept.
Whether it is a romantic landscape designed, executed, and portrayed by historic painters like Turner, or an educational/experiencial landscape designed or inspired by Dewey, to improve “outcomes” (I presume that means to inhance our children’s experience through skills, process and knowledge) it will have to be predicated on the value that knowledge matters. If one has to question this, then substance and meaning are indeed in demand.
If, and that is a big if, we indeed embrace the digital landscape – one virtual and at the same time technological, there will always be a social response based on the historical soundness of content and curiculum. This should preclude any decision to open the gates to IT based on current economics.
There is no need to grasp at IT just because everyone else has the latest gadget. This would include small communities which are looking for advantages to ensure their particular school or community survives. Besides we all know the playing field is lopsided. There are other ways to make IT work with limited means.
Like the old apprenticeship system, IT is a means to an end. Not the end.
My wildest educational dreams are being realized! Once again, Educhatter finds itself on the “bleeding edge” of education reform…
Today (September 29, 2011) the Toronto Globe’s intrepid Education Reporter Kate Hammer explores an e-learning initiative in Prairie Rose School District.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/a-prairie-home-education-alberta-brings-classrooms-to-the-country/article2185868/
Could e-learning help save rural schools and salvage the odd school storm day? Down East, Dennis Mulcahy has succeeded in nudging Newfoundland in the same direction.
What’s stopping Canadian school boards from embracing the potential of e-learning? Make an educated guess. If you follow Educhatter, you probably know the answer.
“Could e-learning help save rural schools and salvage the odd school storm day?”
It already IS Paul and you don’t have to go to the east coast to see it in action. It’s happening in Huron County, where one year we had a full snow WEEK. Those students who took on-line subjects or who had teachers posting work on websites didn’t miss a beat.
Nothing’s stopping schools Paul. Many have it – you need to find those boards and schools that have found e-learning successful.
We can write this nation’s own success stories already.
(something the blob seems to like to keep very very quiet)
the success of elearning may in large part depend on the quality of the curriculum combined with the quality of the pedagogy
I agree,it is the wild wild west for bad curriculum and pedagogy,if it`s good and gets out there,fabulous,if not,it`s like a bad text book for math,the kind that has infected Canada with it`s fuzzy math and reading programs,I can`t name the publishers for fear of being sued.
Poor kid at home, no computer no internet.
Rich kid at home new computer, high speed.
Some of you simply can’t seem to understand how the system thinks. “If we cannot give it to everybody yet, we cannot give it to anybody.”
The newspapers would instantly be full of stories. Tommy is falling behind because his mother is on welfare and cannot afford a computer or internet service.
“Some of you simply can’t seem to understand how the system thinks”
Uh, no Doug. The “system” doesn’t think at all actually.
The beauty of e-learning being choice within the public system is that those who choose to opt for it can receive it…..those who can’t still can attend their classrooms in person.
If the quality of teaching were equal in both the delivery of lessons via e-learning and in the classroom, in the great equalizing system that public education claims to be there should be no disadvantaged students.
Doug, it is the usual response from the blob, to provide the excuse to promote the agenda of poverty. As for the blob on the whole, everyone inside is promoting their private agenda, using the students without regard to what are the best interests of children. What is really galling in Canada, is that the education that is deliver to the students, is based on the legal definition, providing there is no undue financial hardship. Paul’s article, is a typical example of the responses from the education system, where students are expected to adapt to the needs of the adults.
” Chris Kohlman is a special education teacher at Irvine School in Prairie Rose district. His group proposed that students move to a four-day school week with extended days. He said he prefers scheduling changes over tech solutions because some students live in areas with patchy Internet service, and those with learning disabilities might struggle without a teacher at hand.”
So not only does a child have to endure a 1 to 2 hour bus ride one way, spend more time at school for four days, without changing any aspect of the school’s practices that is inflicting undue hardship upon the students. Just asked any adult who has a two hour commute to go to work, what kind of havoc it does to their lives. The usual response, from those who are in control, move closer to work, but the reason they are 2 hours away, is that it is what they can afford in housing. The education blob is skillful to present their solutions within the school building as the only alternative, their practices are protected, and it is the students who must adapt to the new schedule of extended school days, and continued on with the long bus rides.
As for Doug, and this teacher above, what never gets solved is the inability of governments and the public education system, not to put their heads together and find solution to solve the digital divide, that was of their own making. It is the same way concerning remediation of learning problems, where the solution is to dumbed down, because the methods based on the science would mean a move away from the current model of teacher practices, just like the threat posed by digital learning, where students have more control over their learning, and the need of teachers to addressed their lack of knowledge on digital learning, and what it can do for students. Another factor that is in play, parents will be involved in ensuring their child is on the computer, but also gaining insights into the classroom, that will increase knowledge, and parents asking the pesky questions and increasing demands to customization of their children’s education.
The newspapers would instantly be full of stories. Tommy is falling behind because his mother is on welfare and cannot afford a computer or internet service.
______________________________________________________
Wrong again.
Most welfare agencies in Canada DO pay for internet. If mommy bought beer and ciggies instead of payineg the internet bill that isn’t the state’s fault.
Actually Andrew that is news to me. A few of the old people complained about those who are receiving support, their water and residence taxes are pay by welfare. But I never heard that Internet is being pay, but the heating oil there is a $1500 subsidy. Seniors around here get a bit ticked off around here because they do not received the oil subsidy, and it would be very helpful since they have fixed incomes. But that is a new one, but no doubt it is happening. About 10 days ago, I read an article about NL average working wage, and at the low income level, it is higher than the other provinces, and urged the big provinces that NL must be doing something right with their poverty strategies, that are effectively helping all working or not working. Unlike Ontario, who like to create hardship especially in not providing affordable access for the Internet, and as well as providing refurbished hardware at affordable prices for the low-income. By the way the article came from a national newspaper, and not a local paper. Doug always providing excuses, but never looking at the responsibility of governments and the role it has played in not leading to provide affordable access to the citizens who would have difficulty.
[…] The Digital Classroom: Does Open Access to IT Help or Hinder Student Learning? Students went back to school in September with a controversy over Technology in Schools swirling in the halls and inside the 21st century classroom. Canada's largest public school board, the Toro… Source: educhatter.wordpress.com […]
Most welfare agencies in Canada DO pay for internet. If mommy bought beer and ciggies instead of paying the internet bill that isn’t the state’s fault
Ontario Works does not pay for Internet or computers. Not only families on social assistance, but those with low incomes and NO social assistance, are usually unable to pay for computers and internet access. Housing is so expensive that most families below the middle-class cutoff cannot afford many discretionary items, including internet, afterschool sports and activities, and books and toys for children. Their children do not get to participate in school snack programs, field trips or instrumental music because of limited discretionary income.
In Ontario there is a foundation or agency (can’t remember the name) to which you can apply for a computer for a student, but the applicant must be able to pay for internet service himself/herself. There is some application process, involving getting recommendations from shool personnel and others, but not all applicants are approved. Parents may have access to internet at work, and some students make extensive use of the public library, but access there is limited too, because demand greatly exceeds supply.
Few of our mostly Muslim student population have parents “spending money on beer and cigarettes.” Low income is definitely a restricting factor in the Digital Divide, and our own surveys show that most students in low-income schools do not have computer and/or internet access at home. Thus, “e-learning” however promising is nowhere on the horizon. It certainly has potential for the future, but is only a “choice” for the privileged at this point in time.
Are you kidding? I have spent a lifetime saying basic dental and optical should be part of medicare. I do believe internet should be free for the poor AND remote, after school and summer programs should be free and easily found. Child care should not just be ‘subsidized” it should also be free.
Oh my who would pay for all of this? You and Conrad Black.
Rather rich coming from the unionist, that does everything to prevent effective instruction, as well as effective technology because it threatens the power structure of not only the union, but the rest of the education arms. They rather peddled their ineffective policies, that promotes the best interests of those within the public education system.
As for the Internet being free for the poor and remote areas, it is not the well-off that will pay the piper, but the ordinary joe, paying for it via through higher rates. Rather odd, Doug and people like you never look at other basic living needs that are essential to life.Where is the worry about the basics rising steadily over the past two year. So far in 2011, the price of eggs have risen 7 times. And that is just one item of the basic food basket, that are having steady price increases since the beginning of 2011, and yet what has been dropping is the rates of Internet , phone, television for those who obtain packages. Still is rather expensive to have television and basic telephone services, compared to the full package. My mother-in-law pays over $75, and for $25 more I have all the bell and whistles, including Internet. It went up for my mother-in-law, and my expenses went down, but what we both share is the rising expenses in food. I am no better off, because I am spending what I have save on basic food. And people who preach free Internet, basic dental and eye care, free programs for the lower income, are the people who are in the position to demand inflation proof salaries and in their pensions for life. You don’t have to worry about free programs, but the rest of us know full well that it is the middle-class that bears the full brunt of paying the piper in increased rates.
What never comes up with the public sector and certain stripes of government, is providing effective, low cost for all citizens. Good economic policies relating to the everyday expenses of the average household, and politicians to stopped living in the lands of the Utopian of the public sector, and look at the reality of the taxpayers who are paying the piper, and going no where too fast, watching the widening gap of wages, the digital divide, and the senior citizens in the mall, hanging out like teenagers to either keep cool or to keep warm, but little excess cash in their pocket because of the rising prices.
It is about time the government departments and the education powers to be, put their heads together, and come up with effective policies that does its job for all citizens, and not the chosen ones selected by the educrats. A good start is to stopped blaming the SEC factors and the rest of society for the creations of the elephants that are in the way, because the elephants were of your own making, to serve the best interests of those who work within the education system, as well as the rest of public sector, who are just as self-entitled as those who work in the public education system.
I may be wrong about welfare paying for internet access but I do know that there are programs in place for internet for the poor.
There is also that trusty institution called a library with CAP sites.
Oh my who would pay for all of this? You and Conrad Black.
________________________________________________
The bottomless taxpayer pocket you’re always on about.
Child care should not just be ‘subsidized” it should also be free.
__________________________________________________
Oh sure. Foist your kids out on the taxpayer. Why bother having children if they’re such a burden?
IMO, all or almost all social services should be means tested.
Steven
There is also that trusty institution called a library with CAP sites.
Are there no poor houses? MORE … you want more? (Oliver Twist)
It is FAR cheaper to educate the poor than it is to look after they for the rest of their lives.
I enjoyed countless hours in my local library when I was in school. It helped me realize the many tools I had at my disposal. Not sure Mr. Ford in TO would agree but that should be debated another time over a doughnut at Tims.
I see numerous children today using the local CAP sites in small towns around NS, as well as obtaining internet use at school. None of them have come up to me and said “please sir I want some more?”
Doug, you mission to defeat world poverty is a noble one and no one should disagree with your analysis on an idiological level.
However, E-learning is, can, and will be used. And I can understand your concerns if it impedes centralization or union growth. Everyone seems to protect their own turf nowadays in the Blob.
Doug,we`re all FOR educating the poor,is it not you who constantly states they can`t be educated because they ARE poor-and that`s why such rampant failure exists-I say failure,you say poor…see what I mean?
Doug, far cheaper to educate the poor, but the way it is being done, is a very expensive approach that dumbs down everything. Just spent an afternoon, an OISE as well as other Ontario teachers faculties are very busy redirecting monies from the public education system, to fund their little projects. One teacher faculty, has taxpayers’ money to start a band, called Songs of Schools, and their tour consists of going from school to school. No one has to wonder why the achievement is so low, while the educrats clap each other back for the very small increments in achievement, make up excuses for all the ones that are not achievement, and sing songs of schools. There is very little money left to even fund any technology, much less to fixed the broken window. No wonder the more well-off parents run to the tutors to work on the basics, and other private options for the solid foundation in the 3 Rs. Even in your private school Doug, a low-income Chinese Canadian would not have a prayer in being accepted at your school. It was an eye-opener this afternoon, where even the technology is not being used effectively for the student, but rather it is being used for the data being generated. All about process, and who cares if the students cannot answer correctly. The only bright spot, the recommendation of Khan Academy, but even here the OISE educrat states for secondary math only. Than the bright light went dark, and the OISE educrats are determined that no one student will ever learned how to do math efficiently, after all there is calculators to do that job.
It is another reason Doug, why the low income schools are not wired in the first place, all of the money is being redirected to the clones of the OISE to practice their black magic of pedagogy theories. Why you and other like minded people do not go after the ones who are draining a serious chunk of education monies away from the schools and students’ education for their pet projects using the students and the schools as their guinea-pigs. If anything, the educrats are destroying the system, while the unions have their rose-coloured glasses, watching it happened in real time. The money being wasted at the teachers’ faculties for research, and their pet pedagogy theories, could have outfitted and wired all of the low-income school, plus have a reduced to free meals twice a day with free snack for the break. OISE is at the top for stealing the money from the public education K to 12 funding, and it is about time unions and teachers start seriously question everything they do. The taxpayer is all taxed out, and can no longer support waste and the dumbing down of our students and still do without a solid foundation in the 3 Rs. .
Smartphones in schools are attracting great attention and becoming a school policy issue in the United States.
The PBS Media Shift blog broke the initial story in August 2011 and it was cited in Kate Hammer’s Globe and Mail piece on smartphones in the Toronto public school system.
“Cell phones,” Media Shift reports, “are in the hands of the vast majority of adults, and whether schools like it or not, they’re in the hands of most students. While many schools still see cell phones as a distraction rather than as an educational tool, it’s hard to deny that these devices are quickly becoming the primary means by which we communicate, in or out of schools.
For most teens, it’s not the “phone” part of a cell phone that they use most. Rather it’s text messaging. A Pew survey from last summer found that one in three teens sends more than 100 text messages a day — and more than 3,000 messages per month. Statistics like this point to all sorts of possibilities for educational opportunities around texting, particularly if you want to tap into the tools that teens are already using….”
Comment:
Whispering to your classmate and passing the odd note are truly “old school.” Sending out 100 text messages a day must be hard on the fingers! No wonder the students always seem to be looking down in today’s classrooms. Whether teachers are utilizing IT or not, many students seem to be inhabiting a parallel universe in class. It’s also another example of what Nicholas G. Carr has been warning us would happen in schools.
Are they are poor because they are uneducated or are they uneducated because they are poor?
Seems to me that giving the poor access to education (which we are doing) offers them the tools to get out of poverty. Whether or not they choose to use those tools isn’t up to me but up to them but I’ll be darned if I’ll hold their hand.
I notice that virtually no one refers to one aspect of the original question;namely, Tony Wagner’s “survival skills” and their merits
Another motivationalist for the IT world of process without end. It is one thing to recognize the need for process without realizing the outcome, but perhaps Wagner does know the desired outcome – absolute IT educational dependence on a virtual universe.
Be selective.
Having read Tony’s book and seeing him in person as well as speaking with others, including math teachers in middle and high schools, who have done similar, I think calling him a ” motivationalist for the IT world of process without end” is both inaccurate and irresponsible labelling.
Issues around education are important and “name-calling” and overgeneralizing results in
same old, same old.
That is simply not good enough.
“absolute IT educational dependence on a virtual universe. ”
That is the fear that it is the outcome, which could not be further from the truth. Decisions are being made on IT technology on the philosophical angle and dogma of the decision makers, with help from the silos of the education system, ensuring a piece of software or technology fits into their agenda or goals. Nothing to do with the welfare of the student.
How many know, what happens to a child who never went through the crawling stage and had a delay in speech? Ongoing research in the neuroscience field, and the growing list of cognitive weaknesses associated that affects their learning at the start of grade school, is in its infancy. But the above two, it is well known what are the cognitive weaknesses, except in the education world. Many within are still stating, it has nothing to do with the education of children, and of a consequence, many children with disabilities are denied software and applications that improves cognitive processes, and are given help in the form of skill building, that does little for the cognitive processes that are weak. The child becomes dependent on their strengths, to do the skills. For children with disabilities, often their strengths take a hit to, compared to students who have stronger cognitive processes, and skill building actually help to improve the skill, as well as the cognitive processes.
I see no future, where children and their education is totally dependent on IT and the virtual universe. The future I see, and the public education will have to be dragged, while kicking like a three year old who doesn’t want to go to bed, into the education based on the science, and not the observational science that is so popular within the education system. A transformation, where decisions are based on the science, and not some sloppy philosophy and dogma.
School as it stands now, and the education system is built around the book learners, and the essential skills that produces the book learners. Every student is measured against the book learner, which is the ideal student. Activities in the classroom, especially in the early grades are geared around to elicit the book-learning skills of students. And the sorting begins, where the students with the right mix of cognitive strengths and weaknesses rise to the top, becoming the book learners, and the rest are judge as being deficient and graded as such. The students soon learn that if they want to get anywhere in school, is to model themselves and try to become a book learner.
Observations have been noted, in a typical primary class. The book-learners have always been graded in the traits on a report card satisfactory or very good. Whereas all the other students, have a great many needs improvement, such as being neat, organization skills, and other traits. Today that has improve a great deal, but still a kid like mine would received a great many needs improvement, because she is essentially being measured on the book learner’s model. Most activities associated in the classroom, are activities that work on the part of the brain, where the reading and writing processes take place. The book learners have excellent skills because cognitive strengths lie in that part of the brain. Whereas other children, the cognitive strengths associated with the reading, writing processes are weak, and their strengths lie else where, and generally are not measured by the school, as part of the academic strengths. I left out numeracy, because it has been shown up to now, in the cognitive science, numeracy and the cognitive strengths is a mix that does depends less on the reading and writing processes, It is why, a top student with good reading/writing ability may have low numeracy achievement, and the child with lower writing/reading skills, are high achievers in math.
John and Steven are both right, but this technology age is offering a chance for the first time, to individualized learning to the student. But the kicker is, it can only happened, once people suspend their way of looking at education, and what the digital technology, along with the science can do for the student, and his learning. I believe the politics and dogma must be removed, before this transformation can occur. As for the politics and dogma, just check out special education, and the crazy rules and regulations preventing real learning, and achievement. But it sure looks like something else, where motives may not necessarily benefit anyone, except the person making the decision or the speaker at an IT convention.
Andrew Gilmour
Are they are poor because they are uneducated or are they uneducated because they are poor?
Seems to me that giving the poor access to education (which we are doing) offers them the tools to get out of poverty. Whether or not they choose to use those tools isn’t up to me but up to them but I’ll be darned if I’ll hold their hand.
Access to education is not enough. We must compensate for all the shortcomings in their lives by smaller classes for them, ECE booster programs in summer and evening, and many wrap around services. We must cancell out their disadvantages by giving them advantages whereever possible.
John it has been missing, speaking about Tony Wagner and the survival skills of the 21st Century. Often his ideas often are translated as threats to the status-quo.
Below is a video link in 2009, and somehow many at the lower levels would object to Wagner’s ideas and his direction for many reasons. One area in particular writing skills and critical thinking. Or in one of the comments from the video link, “Hi, I am an administrator in a small rural school. I am a huge supporter of Tony Wagner and his practical choice of educating our society with a common sense approach to the tools of education. I have started my entire student body on a neuroscience program call Brainware Safari, which builds cognitive skills in every area of learning. If we train the mind to learn, then everything else will come more readily. Our next step will be to follow with 21st Century skills.”
http://2mm.typepad.com/usa/2009/05/harvards-tony-wagner-on-21st-skills.html
How often do the policy makers within the education system, right down to the schools themselves, rejects neuroscience software, and even does not considered the cognitive development even in the primary skills. How can they, they are too busy, trying to making everyone in the ideal norm, and using equalization policies, that only offers opportunties.
On Brainwave Safari –
“BrainWare Safari:
o Develops 41 cognitive skills in a comprehensive and integrated manner.
o Incorporates clinically grounded methodologies consistent with the latest findings in neuroscience research.
o Is supported by published peer-reviewed research showing an average of over 4 years of cognitive growth in 12 weeks of using the program.
o Is the only program endorsed by Dr. Patricia Wolfe, author of Brain Matters and international authority on neuroscience applied to teaching and learning.
o Integrates the development of skills in the way the brain works, in a cross-training approach.
o Enhances any curriculum or other learning program.
o Delivers a fun and entertaining video-game experience.
People used to believe that intelligence was predetermined but today we know it’s not. Anyone, at any age, can enhance his or her mental capacity – the ability to focus, to take in more detail, to manage more information, to plan and reason”
.
http://brainwaresafari.wordpress.com/about-safari/
Called it a workout for the brain. However, the public education system in Canada, can’t quite get into their heads, that cognitive workouts are beneficial to all students, let along the students who are struggling in the 3 Rs. There is other products that have been developed as well, but they are pushed away, in favour of a teacher, small classes, and the other SEC factors, completely ignoring the cognitive abilities of students.
““Education is faced with many challenging issues today, forcing innovative school administrators to think outside the box to turn out the best possible performing students, regardless of the challenges before them,” Stark said. He said neuroscience has increased the understanding of what learning entails, what promotes it and what diminishes its effectiveness. “Schools have changed many aspects of the learning experience through curriculum, quality of teachers and environment,“ he said. “Neuroscience is the only way to get at the causes rather than the symptoms of underperformance … If students can’t learn effectively, much of education is simply wasted.”
http://mybrainware.com/Product.htm
Sorry John,
but he strikes me as being part of a very large and influential IT industry targeting the public system in the name of global competitivity. Motivationalists have been in very big demand when bridging new ideas based on IT. Lots of profit there and always the “we must catch up” mantra. Lots of built in obsolescence too.
I’m all for e-learning when it benefits teachers and improves curiculum. When applied to small communities in order to obtain programs that are only available in more centralized locations – it is great. Lots of ways to use it effectively. But I hardly think perpetual texting and smart boards that continually break down will create a more improved citizen.
Maybe a digital citizen?
I agree Steven.
When one of my children was in Grade One, some brainiac thought it would be great to give them all Dreamwriters (a computer that was suppose to help those kids write their own best sellers).
Two problems. 1) the kids kept dropping them on the floor so the cost of repairing them was constant.
2) kids who didn’t know how to spell were home free because it had spellcheck. Those kids never did learn the right and wrong way to spell and more than a few parents had battles over their kids claiming that they didn’t need to know how to spell because the computer did it for them.
The Dreamwriters didn’t last….and more than a few in that class had to be remediated – including my own child who thanks to Hooked on Phonics and
at Grade 2 teacher who taught phonics and had spelling dictation every week, my child eventually learned to spell adequately.
Do these recent comments come from a reading of Wagner’s book?
Not to me.
He argues for all sorts the things that we need to do F2F
like
– curiosity
– initiative
– ability to collaborate
– sound reading, writing, and analytical skills
– critical thinking and problem solving
– assessing information (from ALL sources)
– adaptability to changing circumstances
Nancy,
I’m no cognitive psychologist, but any IT device can be as tyrannical as the old fashioned book. We are back to that old problem – how to measure student learning and in relationship to what model? Individualized learning? 21st cen. skills? Competativity?
The beauty of software is that it should assist students in improving their cognative processes, not replace them.
But software for educational purposes and learning purposes have multi-purposes. Some are to address skills, where cognitive processes are used to learn, to master the skills. Some are pretty good, to improve cognitive purpose but as you have mentioned, some can be tyrannical. I can probably show you a few pieces of educational software, kicking around in any school, that would be tyrannical to any student who have weaker skills in reading. Guess what, prefect for the book learners, but not so good for other students. Learning software, where there is knowledge does very little for the weaker cognitive skills for all students, but slight improvements can be made if the strengths are being used.
For children, all types of software including the software that are cognitive exercises in the form of game software. One got half the battle over, if the teacher knows the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of each student, the learning of knowledge and instruction can be better match to the student. For example, the new knowledge being found in the neuroscience and the cognitive fields, I took full advantage of it. Pity, though there were far fewer software like Brainware Safari when I started, and I had to make do by adapting what I had, to the research. My focus was not only on software that would give cognitive workouts, but as well as fun things with paper, crayons, and other every day items, that had no learning value what so ever, but the value was in the exercising of one or maybe two cognitive processes. Funny how the school is devoid of the many different things that helps in improving the cognitive processes of children. Take for example, from grade 1 and up, no painting, and in fact art consisted largely of cut and paste. Also art came only once in a cycle. In my day, it was every Thursday or Friday afternoon, for the whole afternoon. Paint, clay, and everything messy learning all forms of art and craft. Today, they know a few things how cognitive processes can be improve. I also used clay and water colours at home, to target specific cognitive processes. And throughout it all, my kid was having fun, discovering her creative processes, as well as her strengths, and more importantly she was improving her cognitive processes, in turn her reading, writing and numeracy issues became easily to overcome. The outcome is, she began to acquired knowledge with some ease, if not learning became easy for her.
It did not happen overnight, but by the middle of grade 4, teachers were noticing improvements, and by grade 7, they were asking me what I was doing at home, They knew it could not be the sole reason of drills, and workbooks. Nor anything at the board level, because I was fighting tooth and nail for accommodations and help with reading and writing. Had to learn a new dance that educrats play, and if anything I was a broken record repeating cognitive exercises does wonders for children who cannot form their letters properly, or their memory processes. The board staff, and some in the ministry, was saying it was a waste of time, and insisting she was not learning anything.
The neuroscience and cognitive learning fields are breaking through many of the old type of thinking when it comes to learning and learning difficulties. Not only for children, but as well as for adults at all ages, and relearning for people with strokes, as well as brain injury people, and keeping the old brain limber. What has been observed, especially in schools that it is the book learners have the real difficulty in dealing with cognitive workouts such as the Brainware Safari, because it is working the part of the brain where their cognitive processes needed to play the game are a bit rusty, and not their strengths. The book learners have trouble processing that they may not be as smart as they think. But if they persevere, they will become even smarter and achieve even higher grades if they persist. But they will have better strengths in high order thinking, Where my child is quite skillful, is in critical thinking, outside the box thinking, providing she has prior knowledge, and as a result the cognitive games and other games are still being used, to keep her mind limber and work on the cognitive processes dealing with reading and writing. I just learned something today, she is rapidly closing the gap between the top students and herself. Just think of it, the kid who was at grade 1 level in math at the end of grade 3, could not string a few words together, and barely was reading at the grade 3 level. In part, the cognitive exercises help a great deal, but the only believers are the teachers in both schools. For the board, there still are in the disbelieve stage. and believe I am helping her to do her school work. Perhaps answering a question or two, but she is doing it all on her own, with a little help from me in providing software that works to improve her writing skills. This past summer, grammar lessons that had some cognitive value, and now she is handing in her assignments with no grammar errors, and so far no spelling mistakes. Grammar is being graded in all of her classes, and meanwhile, over the summer, a new pathway was carved connecting the cognitive processes needed to deal with her weaker cognitive processes in the areas of language. Teachers already have noticed her new improve writing, and it was done without lifting a pen to a paper, as well as all aspects of grammar, the terms and punctuation. She had to spend 10 minutes a day, and that was it. She found it boring and interesting at the same time, and not at all hard. The teachers will be asking questions, on her vast improvement in grammar skills, and it is hard to believe that a piece of software could do this, for 10 minutes a day. The next step, which was my only order, to practice, practice and practice when school starts.
Instead of a fixation on technology, we should be here.
You all need to focus on the fact that the “technology pushers” have a vested interest in public education buying more technology whether it help or even if it doesn’t. We need to have our sceptics hat on. Some will be great some not so much. Mistakes are very expensive. Beta anyone?
Does it follow, then, that teachers and/or their unions shouldn’t be seen as useful contributors on education issues? Clearly they have a “vested interest” in promoting their agenda. I suspect one of the big issues hindering serious discussion is that there arey few folks able to evolve past partisan rhetoric and look at matters without bias.
Seems on-line education is popular- it is just not good education. On-line students not doing so well.
http://www.educationnews.org/online-schools/online-k-12-schools-growing-amid-criticism-questions/
You all need to focus on the fact that the “technology pushers” have a vested interest in public education buying more technology whether it help or even if it doesn’t. We need to have our sceptics hat on. Some will be great some not so much. Mistakes are very expensive.
_______________________________________________________
To use an analogy school boards need to stop buying second hand Yugos because “everybody else is doing it” instead of buying new Hondas.
Once again it comes down to lousy management.
Doug I bet parents would be plum pleased, the reason their kid at post-secondary level are taking remedial courses, because the students know that they do not have to achieved or work hard, for the second tier of colleges and universities. Apparently the top universities, do not have the problem. Remedial courses in Yale and Harvard, as well as in the top universities.
The first link, is a take from a globalist, unionist stances, and throw in the classism to ensure that any changes will produced the top elite coming from the upper middle-classes. Sloppy thinking, and is scary to think that there is some within the upper levels of the education system, are pushing the globalist agenda, to serve their own best interests.
Much like the second link Doug provided, in a blanket statement, online education is not good education. It is not what the article stated. “At the end of his report, Noble offered some recommendations. He suggested that the Department of Education raise the number of staff assigned to work with online schools. He also suggested that the Department review the process it uses to oversee and regulate online schools in the state. ”
http://www.educationnews.org/online-schools/online-k-12-schools-growing-amid-criticism-questions/
In NL, the achievement rate is higher on the online courses compared to students who are in the classroom. But than again, the online courses are available, where there is not enough students to warrant a class. The controls are in place, and there is a teacher in the school who is assigned, to ensure compliance of assignments and exams, The problem with Ohio, the number of staff and oversight. Correct them, the problems will go away, unless there is a real issue with quality of the course. There was no mentioned of this in the article, but has been mentioned by parents who switch from public online learning to private online learning.
[…] The Digital Classroom: Does Open Access to IT Help or Hinder Student Learning? Students went back to school in September with a controversy over Technology in Schools swirling in the halls and inside the 21st century classroom. Canada's largest public school board, the Toro… Source: educhatter.wordpress.com […]
American school superintendents must be suffering from digital shock. Will Richardson’s October 2011 District Superintendent article hails Cathy Davidson’s book Now You See It as a work of genius. The true mission of 21st century education is supposedly “unlearning” — and superintendents are exhorted to join in a new version of Deschooling Heaven (a la Summerhill).
The opening passage is alarming:
“Are you an “unlearner?” If not, you need to become one—fast. Of the many important messages articulated by Duke professor Cathy Davidson in her newest book Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn, that may be the one that is most relevant for educational leaders at this moment.”
He goes on to quote Dr. Davidson approvingly:
” Unlearning is required when the world or your circumstances in that world have changed so completely that your old habits now hold you back. You can’t just resolve to change. You need to break a pattern, to free yourself from old ways before you can adopt the new.”
Read on at http://www.districtadministration.com/article/lifelong-unlearning
The Canadian band of “21st century skills ” apostles are tweeting this article as if it has descended on tablets of stone. It raises a fundamental question — Have some North American school administrators completely lost their minds?
It strikes me as interesting that Dr. Davison considers “old habits” as a way of determining what may or may not be holding us back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deskilling
I still await a reasoned informed discussion of the skills ascribed to Tony Wagner in his book The Global Achievement Gap since these were cited in the original question for this thread.
John, threads do take on a life of their own. Paul does his best to keep us on track. Only those who have read his book are in a position to comment.
Thus, one problem with online threads of all sorts
is a lack of quality control
tant pis
(too bad)
This is why those in schools should have a degree of moderation by a teacher or student peers
so that the discussions are
– civil
– relevant
– informed
– reasoned
on October 3, 2011 at 7:31 am | Reply John Myers
I still await a reasoned informed discussion of the skills ascribed to Tony Wagner in his book The Global Achievement Gap since these were cited in the original question for this thread.
____________________________________________________
Have you read and analysed the book?
Have you read and analysed the book?
As noted in earlier posts,
yes
and there is a group of teachers and student teachers in NY State doing the same as I speak.
While interpretations can differ
we should start with the evidence from the source
as historians do.
And as Diana Ravitch (an historian) has done recently in changing some of her views about the role of testing in American schools.
I agree with Andrew, a reasoned debate, but John would rather start from the evidence as historians do, and not the outcomes of education policies.
However a recent article by Ravitch, would like to control the conversation in her latest article, on Failing Schools, by pointing out the hypocrisies on both sides.
“In these two books, we have two versions of school reform. One is devised by Wall Street financiers and politicians who believe in rigidly defined numerical goals and return on investment; they blame lazy teachers and self-interested unions when test scores are low. The other draws on the deep experience of a compassionate teacher who finds fault not with teachers, unions, or students, but with a society that refuses to take responsibility for the conditions in which its children live and learn—and who has demonstrated through her own efforts how one dedicated teacher has improved the education of poor young people.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/school-reform-failing-grade/?pagination=false
I would say, she has her own version of hypocrisy to clear up, where each foot is squarely in one camp or the another. “On the other are those who reject the reformers’ proposals and emphasize the importance of addressing the social conditions—especially poverty—that are the root causes of poor academic achievement. Many of these people—often parents in the public school system, experienced teachers, and scholars of education—favor changes based on improving curriculum, facilities, and materials, improving teacher recruitment and preparation, and attending to the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children.”
How hypocritical is Ravitch, to blame poverty as the number one issue, and them to support the poverty theory, by claiming parents, experienced teachers and scholars of education favour changes based on improving curriculum, facilities, resources, teacher training, and attending to the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children. Ditto for the reformer side, but both sides uses the very same supports, completely ignoring the outcomes, unless it supports their theories.
No one knows the feeling as parents do, especially from the Ravitches’ side, that children are not lab rats, nor are they willing participants in the war of the Reformers and the other side. Both claiming to have the interests of the students at heart. If that was so, there would be no achievement gap if they indeed had the best interests of children.
Like the digital era, where both sides argued on the political lines and their pet theories, Outcomes are ignore, as well as the shenanigans where opposing sides, are more interested in serving their own best interests and reinforcing their own biases, rather than what is the best interest of students, the parents and the communities. I don’t need to read the history of education, to see that education policies has always been decided on the politics and beliefs of the decision makers. The parents, taxpayers, and students have little power, except in playing the game that is rigged to favour those who work within the education system, as well as those who profit by the achievement gap.
A pox to both sides when it comes to e-learning in the public education system. A pox, because it is a pale, water-downed version of the homeschoolers e-learning sites. Another reason why e-learning in the Canadian public education system, has tighter controls, to prevent many of the other negative outcomes on e-learning in the United States public education e-learning.
Although it was not mentioned in the article, the students who do very well, are the homeschoolers who are returning to the public education system via through e-learning in the high school years, to obtain the graduate requirements and diploma, to take advantage of the benefits for college, work, and other benefits. And certainly not for the quality of the e-learning public education’s e-learning sites.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/10/03/06enc_online.h31.html?tkn=LQRF1BXR2tSH2L9b6MsjrHvJ7%2BVnH5B1YnN%2B&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2
I would venture to say that students are using e-tools for e-bullying and e-sex far more than they are for e-learning.
For students, there is more emphasis on e-bullying and e-sexting, and harsher punishment if a student has been caught, than the consequences of cheating or failing a test. But all blame rests squarely on the shoulders for the students, and external SEC factors, and never the actions and behaviours of those within the education system.
Here is one example, where the forces to be will play games rather than seeing their actions are creating more problems, Number one library girl on computer is having a conversation trading insults with number one home girl, and number two home girl. Number one library girl, asks number two library girl for advice how to respond, because the two home girls were at the top of the class, and number one library girl, had development delays due to a brain injury. Number two library girl, read the conversation, expressed verbally as she was walking away, “What morons”, referring to the two home girls. Two months later, the police pays a visit to all the girls involved, resulting from the complaint of the parents from the two home girls, and also insisting that number two library girl be punished with charges by the police, as well as suspension by the school. Really rich of the number one and two home girls’ parents to ignore the actions of their girls, picking on number one library girl who was not their equal in trading insults. Or picking on others who are weaker than they are. The number 2 library girl’s parents, plays the game much better than the home girls’ parents, because they know the legal definition of bullying, as well as they did not have a legal leg to stand on. The number 2 home girls, and their parents were deeply upset that number two library girl did not pay the price of being charge, and were told by the police, that there is no legal basis for charges in the first place, and does not constitute bullying under any law. About 8 months later, the two home girls’ parents receive a copy of the police investigation and the decision within, and press the matter further at the school, to demand suspension of number two library girl, Number two library girl was brief by her parents, what to expect months before, and coach her to a number of scenarios that might come up. One of the scenario that was anticipated, did indeed occur, and as such number two library girl was prepared for her response. Number two library girl walked into the office, with number one library girl present without parents for both library girls,, unlike the two home girls and their parents. The principal after asking the library girls if they did indeed do the things in the police reports, and both library girls stated yes. The principal quickly told the home girls and their parents their is no basis for suspension, other than an apology. Number two library girl, decided to speak for number one library girl, and spoke, sure I will apologized, but it does not mean that I am sincere about the apology, and an apology in this case would be condoning the actions of the home girls who have been picking on me on me since grade 1. Number two library girl, turned to the principal, phone my mother, as well as number one library girl’s parents, that the real bullies in the room are the home girls. Both sides apologized, all insincere, since no one wanted on the other side, to take it further to determined who are the bullies.
Moral to the story, the school institute new rules regarding name calling within school and on the public web, where there is no expectation of privacy. Even calling oneself stupid, will rate a detention, and as a result name calling is kept to the minimum. However, private web chats are the rage, for those who are inclined to bully behaviour, and as a result, bullying has gone under grounded, and parents need to be educated that private combos can have all conversations recorded, and as such a record can be printed out. Games are still being played, but no one is bothering to educate the students and parents on the outcomes in private combos and the temptations to speak about other students in bullying terms. As a result, there is a lot of sexting, and e-bullying going on by students, under the eyes of parents and schools.
21 Century Schools – a site that is comprehensive into understanding plus one of the oldest guys on the block. Within, many will recognized the progressive policies of today, and are in use in many forms within the school walls. Critical Pedagogy? Personally, I am very critical of it, but it does form the pedagogy behind any digital learning in the typical public school. Somehow, the basic skills are eschew in favour of the higher knowledge.
Tony Wagner’s skills are also included: “21st Century Schools, LLC recognizes the critical need for developing 21st century skills. However, we believe that authentic education addresses the “whole child”, the “whole person”, and does not limit our professional development and curriculum design to workplace readiness.
21st century skills learned through our curriculum, which is interdisciplinary, integrated, project-based, and more, include and are learned within a project-based curriculum by utilizing the seven survival skills advocated by Tony Wagner in his book, The Global Achievement Gap:
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Collaboration across Networks and Leading by Influence
Agility and Adaptability
Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
Effective Oral and Written Communication
Accessing and Analyzing Information
Curiosity and Imagination ”
http://www.21stcenturyschools.com/What_is_21st_Century_Education.htm
Actually, I like this site. But my biggest beef with this type of thinking, that could change the world, there is an underlying assumption that all is well within education and the reading, writing and numeracy skills of children. Apparently, 21st century skills, the hopes, the aspirations are only directed at the students who have a reasonable set of literacy and numeracy skills. There skills will improve over time. The 40 % or so of below reading skills at the end of grade 3, will be repeated over and over again, even if a school or a school board was a truly 21st Century school Using Tony Wagner’s seven survival skills, to close the achievement gap, for any student to achieve, it requires a solid foundation in the 3 Rs. A solid foundation in the 3 Rs, that was missing in the last half of the 20th century, is still missing in 21st century education. And I believed that it will continue, because K to 12 education is based on the learning needs of the high income group, and carbon copies with a change here and there in the other income groups, to reflect the gap in the foundation of the 3 Rs. The gap widens as income drops, and statistically the numbers shows the gap according to income.
More disconcerting, is the gap will increase, according to reading/numeracy instruction/curriculum and access to 21st century technology. The reading/numeracy instruction/curriculum only serves the high-income group well, and for the rest of the income groups, reading and numeracy levels depends on a host of external and internal factors and access to the factors. Within the public education system, the gatekeepers keep access tight as income drops, and the external factors reflects it as access to resources, are less as income drops.
The public education system is built on the ashes of the 19th century schoolhouse, but what has survived from the ashes, is the sloppy philosophy of progressivism, and the snobby classism that is so prevalent in the public education K to 12 systems.
” Classism is differential treatment based on social class or perceived social class. Classism is the systematic oppression of subordinated class groups to advantage and strengthen the dominant class groups. It’s the systematic assignment of characteristics of worth and ability based on social class.
That includes:
individual attitudes and behaviors;
systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes, resulting in drastic income and wealth inequality;
the rationale that supports these systems and this unequal valuing; and
the culture that perpetuates them.”
http://www.classism.org/about-class/what-is-classism
It is how Doug, squares his private school with his progressive beliefs concerning the public education system. It is why the SE students, as income drops are value less within the education system, and therefore do not merit the dollars to addressed their learning needs. Just think, of the many laws and rules preventing parents of lower income, to attend schools of higher income, Some have even gone to jail in the United States, and here in Canada there is no need, since it still can be control by income and access. It is how school districts justifies their policies, and the inequalities present as income drops. It is how the poverty theory emerges, to become a tool to reinforce social classes, and the main premise of Classism. The digital technology can become one of the greatest equalizer for all students, to where Tony Wagner’s seven survival skills will become relevant and a road map. But first, the inequalities created by classism ideology and progressivism must be addressed and acknowledge by those who work within the education system. Apparently children are still viewed through the lens of social class, as to their needs in society. Funny thing, apparently their basic needs as defined within an education system, runs according to income. The high income schools have higher basic education needs, than their counterparts in other schools. If one does not believe it, check it on the school web sites, and the least favoured school, is the one that is mainly composed of a typical school, composed of Canadians who are 3rd generation or more. Than check the reading and numeracy levels of students at the end of grade 3, where it rises from 40 % below grade level, to 60 % below grade level. The third check, is the breath of technology within the school. The forth check is the number of students who are identified as learning disabled among the various disorders. It rises as income drops, and the philosophy behind 21st century learning, contributes and reinforces the social class structure, where the lower the income, the harder to teach, the main excuse used by our educators to defend the many failures and negative outcomes of education policy.
Seems many American school boards are using virtual schools as “Last Chance High” for marginal failing students and, as a result it seems to be failing as well as many drop out.
Likewise Doug, the public on-line schools also is the dumping ground, for the few students in a school for the advance courses in the maths and sciences. No need to bring in the teacher, when on-line courses for 15 students or less wil suffice. Happens more often in the rural settings, and as a result, the qualified teachers to teach calculus, and other such courses are concentrated in certain high schools with population of well over 500 students. Ticked off today, in finding out my youngest may very well take calculus on-line, as well as chemistry on line. The local high school, could used two more teachers in the sciences and maths, and fat chance there will two more teachers added to the staff. The only hope is the 30 or so students in grade 11, taking a strong core of subjects in math and sciences, and it might force the board to come up with an extra teacher or two, because it is well pass 15 students. And none of the subjects are considered independent studies.
it might force the board to come up with a teacher or two…
———————————————————————————————
your board rep will just kick it back to the principal, who will say “we have to do without.”
It was the principal that I was talking to, and we both agree that what goes on at the board level, it is like talking to a brick wall, or an echo chamber. Not at all very accommodating, and why I asked him if he cannot find the math text that is presenting being used ,to make the phone call for me,because it would be faster, It is where the wisdom of the board and ministry has more or less condemn the class of 95 and 94, with no particular math textbook, except for the outcomes, and leave it up to the school to sort the resources. The class of 96, and below the present levels of grade 11 and 12, by 2013 will all be under the new curriculum, including math, and you should hear the excuses why the class of 95 or 94 were left out. For math, throughout the last 7 years or so, photocopies, and the use of old textbooks if the school has any kicking around. The only bright spot, is that the present grade 11 and grade 12 students have a much more solid understanding of advance math concepts, than their counterparts below them, Guess what, the new math curriculum the students will have less to learn in advance algebra, trig and calculus, but will the students be prepare for post-secondary? Not the only province, and I can only see that one of the outcomes, are universities demanding courses, that many will be taking on line, Such as advance calculus and advance physics and chemistry, because there isn’t any teachers qualified to teach them. By that time, the teachers who could, are retired.
My point Nancy is if the principal had the leverage the board could not play ping pong. We’re in a catch 22 and they(the board) know it.
Great article in New York Times today on the false promises of computer instruction and their effects-
I read the article too.
I have always felt the “jury is still out” on whether the bang is worth the buck.
Like many other things in education it depends on HOW it is used. My background in tech is more than 30 years and almost 30 years ago i worked with other teachers on producing elementary school curriculum for investigating what was then new tech.
I have seen and participated in a few marvellous adventures in this area.
On the other hand i am concerned at the misuse of IT and its increasing use in higher ed
not because it works
but because it is cheaper than hiring a qualified teacher.
A little history lesson.
More than 40 years ago some predicted that education TV would make teachers obsolete.
Now that we have enough quality education television to serve as the3 basis of great curriculum, who uses it?
Ahhhh, the future ain’t what it used to be. Then again, it never was.
My good friend Paul Taylor at Blue Curl has a sharp eye for breaking news about technology in schools.
Can Technology Fix American Public Education? Promoters of IT in schools regularly inflate its potential ( even Tom Whitby), but the late Steve Jobs actually said “No.” Here’s another great feature article from Matt Richtel of The New York Times. Need I say more?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/technology/apple-woos-educators-with-trips-to-silicon-valley.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
We are all so committed to improving public education that we latch on to the latest supposed panacea. For me, the acid test has always been whether it actually addresses the fundamental problem : mediocrity. (with Apologies to the late and lamented Hilda Neatby)
Lots to agree with Paul.
I just saw a Dr. TED video with Malcolm Gladwell on tech
brilliant reminder to be very careful latching on to the latest thing.
Reminds me of the conversation between 2 fools
“It is old, therefore it is good,” says the first fool
“It is new, thus it is better.” says the second