Classroom teachers who hear stories of innovative technology-using schools may find it difficult to imagine just how the alternate models work. Stereotypes such as the assumption that students spend most of their time working through online exercises are likely and typically unfounded.
Here is a resource we recommend to offer better insights. The Kahn Academy hosts a course, Blended Learning 101, that explains the philosophy and practice of blended classrooms and schools. The “course” was developed by Silicon Schools Fund and the Clayton Christensen Institute. Of course, the series is “pro reform”, but it is well done, filled with examples that offer a feel for classroom activities, and free.
Be informed about reform and take the time to consider these models and examples.
P.S. – There are some issues with the links. If you persist and return to the original site map, you can access all of the video segments.
Watch the education blogs for the next day or so and you will likely see comments precipitated by Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Evidently, he and Michael Dell (Dell Computers) were discussing the role of technology in schools during a Texas conference on educational reform. Jobs reportedly suggested that technology would have little educational impact until unions stop protecting poor teachers.
What is interesting at present is that the blogs picking up on this story have been focused on whether a business leader should make such statements considering that the company he represents does well in the education market. I guess those concerned about Apple’s bottom line might take this perspective.
There seem to be many business leaders focused on education lately. We all have opinions on matters we understand only through peripheral vision. Often such views lack clarity, but sometimes a different angle brings new insight.
By the way, the conclusions in “Tough Choices or Tough Times” are far more critical of less competent teachers than anything Jobs said. Perhaps this report, which is far more likely to influence government eduation policy, was not read in detail by the same folks now critical of Jobs. So, if you consider criticism of weak teachers grounds for boycotting Apple, check out the list associated with Tough Choices or Tough Times – perhaps you should sell your stock in Viacom, Lucent, and Motorola. Wait – you should also give up your membership in the Toledo Federation of Teachers and the Communication Workers of America. I see a lot of Republicans on this list – wait there are a couple of democrats…
My personal experience with unions has been minimal – I did have a disagreement with a union rep when as a first-year faculty members in financially depressed New York state. I suggested that the last in, first out retrenchment policy did not encourage my union membership and the alternate “bargaining fee” seemed unnecessary because assurance that union policies were followed was not a service I needed. It was not that I felt the policy was unfair. It just seemed unfair I should have to pay to have it implemented. Perhaps I was young and foolish at the time.
There had to be a better way to make this same point. Perhaps – We need to find a way to offer incentives for effective teachers so that a greater number of capable individuals are attracted to teaching as a vocation.
Shortly before holiday break, I commented on the Dec. 18 issue of Time that considered “How to Build a Student for the 21st Century”. A major source within Time’s coverage was “Tough Choices or Tough Times” – The Report of the Commission of Skills of the American WorkForce (executive summary). I am guessing this report will generate a lot of interest among business leaders and politicians. I purchased the full report and have now read it. I agree with the statement of the problem and I think I understand the basics of the proposed plan of action. My reaction, possibly because I am a member of “the establishment” (translate older and a career educator), is that the plan is naive and based on too many untested assumptions. The plan tends to get vague just where I want details. Rather than launch into a long description, what follows is my interpretation of key points. I encourge those interested in educational policy to read the full report.
The book outlines a growing economic challenge to the US as a consequence of outsourcing – low end or routinized jobs to countries with a cheap labor force or to technology and an increasing number of high end jobs to skilled professionals from other countries who are willing to work for much lower salaries that their US counterparts. The analysis seems very similar to that provided in Friedman’s The World is Flat.
High wages and corporate growth will depend on continuing innovation. It seems our educational system is not producing enough graduates with the knowledge (translate math and science although other content areas are mentioned) and creativity to compete. This is a threat to the future standard of living of many individuals and the general economy of the country.
The solution:
Create an educational system that meets or exceeds the accomplishments of the competition.
a) Assume that students will be ready for college when they are 16 (as I understand the model) because this is what must be regarded as the standard set by “the competition.”
b) Create two levels of examinations (one for what is now the sophomore year and one for what is now the senior year). The first is intended to determine mastery of knowledge and skills roughly equivalent to what we now regard as the traditional high school education. Passing this exam would allow entry into community college or trade schools. Passing the exam would also allow continuation in an advance high school curriculum equivalent to AP coursework.
c) Create a more productive system to meet these expectations.
1) Hire teachers from the top 1/3 rather than the bottom 1/3 of college students.
2) Improve early childhood education
3) Commit more resources to disadvantaged students.
While this system will cost more money, the Commission argues that there is efficiency in doing the job right the first time (moving students on to postsecondary education more quickly, reducing grade repeaters, reducing need for remedial programs).
Proposals likely to be controversial:
a) create a different model for paying teachers that allows a higher entering salary and then increases more dependent on productivity (student performance) than years of service
b) greater authority at the state level – e.g., teachers employed by the state – salary schedule would allow encouragement to work in high need areas
c) performance based system like NCLB but with an emphasis on the progress of all students rather than number of students meeting minimum standards – parents free to move students, more competition among schools, greater freedom for entities to form schools and compete for students
While the economic challenges do seem real, the assumed responsibility of the educational system for economic productivity, the focus on presently available examinations as indicators of the productivity of teachers and schools, and the validity of international comparisons of student achievement have been contested.
For example:
William’s Spady’s Paradigm Trap challenges the assumed consequences of test-based accountability systems (in reference to NCLB).
Critics of the law also can point to frightening evidence about the effects on schools and students of mandated testing-and-accountability programs that had emerged before the law was officially enacted and has been borne out since. These include lower educator motivation and morale; the loss in droves of talented and creative educators who retire or leave the system; a severe narrowing of curriculum offerings;major increases in student stress, dysfunctional behavior, failure rates, and dropout rates; and the wholesale suppression of nontraditional educational approaches.
Some years ago, Berliner and Biddle wrote a book entitled “The Manufactured Crisis” that offered me some reassurance that the US K-12 student was not the international laggard that some politicians and business leaders had contended (an online summary of some key points if you are interested). The date of this analysis is an issue (mid-1990s),
I am sure the debate is just beginning.
– – – –
Here is a follow-up to this post. I now see that Colorado is seriously considering pursuing the proposals of this commission.
I promised yesterday that I would comment on the recent Time magazine articles that have commented on education and the participatory Internet. The cover story of the Dec. 18 Time addresses the question How to Build a Student for the 21st Century?
The summary –
Today’s economy demands not only a high-level competence in the traditional academic disciplines, but also what might be called 21st century skills.
The article presents a view that should be familiar to educators who attend national conferences or follow many education bloggers. Actually, Friedman’s The World is Flat presents what I would regard as a similar and more comprehensive analysis of many of the same issues (Friedman’s work is mentioned). US students will need to acquire an expanded set of skills to compete in a flat world – greater awareness of the world including a commitment to other languages, higher order thinking skills, the capacity to use information more efficiently and more wisely, improved skills in cooperative processes, etc.
The article references a new report – Tough Choices For Tough Times – that provides the summary of a new panel offering advice on a new direction for K-12 education. My copy is on order. I hope the corporate leaders and politicians who feel empowered to set such an agenda also have answers for what should be related funding questions. I assume the Department of Education association with this report will assure an extended conversation of the findings.
The authors do acknowledge what I think is a core question when reform recommendations are advanced? How are educators supposed to meet existing expectations (e.g., NCLB) for core knowledge and take on a new array of expectations? The answer seems to be “focus” – teach core concepts and forget the details. I have encountered this idea – depth vs. breadth – in reviewing analyses of international TIMMS data. If I remember the argument, other countries who seem to score better tend to focus on fewer objectives. US schools tend to both focus on many objectives and spend a considerable time each year reviewing objectives taught in previous years.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
