Policy

The Whole Story

Once again, Matt Richtel of the New York Times has penned a one-sided article about technology in schools. What is his problem?

This time, he’s accusing Apple execs of influencing school decision makers. It’s true – Apple does pay for trips for teachers, superintendents, tech folks. Not being in the education field I can’t comment on what textbooks publishers, furniture suppliers, etc., do. Is this right? Not if it unjustly influences the decision and causes them to buy an inferior product.

But, really, what else is there to buy right now besides Apple? In a few years, it’ll be something else, but why would you go with another product?

My biggest beef with this article, however, is that it focuses on the Little Falls district implying that the decision makers were “bought out” by Apple executives. There is no mention of any pedagogy, teaching, or any other rationale for the purchases except for the trips from Apple.

Last spring, I had the good fortune of spending a few days talking to the staff, teachers, superintendent, school board, and yes, students in the Little Falls district.  For one session, there were Apple reps there. But they said only a few words at the beginning. It was the teachers and the students who won me over.

One of the teachers pictured in the NYT article, Shawn Aholm, talked to us. He is a 5th grade teacher who piloted iPads in his classroom last year. Not once did he mention being wined and dined by Apple. Nope, he talked the students. He talked about what he and his students did during the year. He talked about engagement – excited students who were learning, sharing, collaborating. He talked about how much he learned from the students. He talked about how empowered the students were to take charge of their learning.

His students came in to talk to us. It was no big deal to them. They zipped around the iPads, showing us how they used Google Earth, how they wrote assignments and saved them to their folder (Google Docs, I believe). They showed us a tool they use for spelling, games they are allowed to play when they are done with their assignments, books they read on iBooks. They were so excited by looking up vocabulary words, taking notes in the margins, and sharing those notes.  They taught me quite a bit.

The entire district has made a paradigm shift. Curt Tryggestad, superintendent, talked about why they’ve made this shift. It had nothing to do with dinners and trips. It had everything to do with preparing students for the future and taking responsibility for teaching students to deal with this fast-changing world.

I told Mr. Tryggestad that I wished my kids could attend school in Little Falls. Take that, Mr. Richtel.

Cheating in a Digital Age

A recent blog post on edudemic, “How Has Technology Affected Cheating And Plagiarism?” got me thinking.

First, it uses as awesome infographic to deliver most of the content. Infographics are amazing tools for delivering content.

Second, this content is a compelling argument in itself for pushing schools further towards taking responsibility for teaching digital literacy and digital responsibility. By not teaching about plagiarism in a digital world in school, schools are basically forgoing their role in teaching students academic responsibility. Let’s embrace this opportunity!

Third, some of the concerns raised in this post are, in my mind, not necessarily bad. Is it cheating or collaboration? Students see collaboration as a good thing. How do we draw the line between collaboration and cheating? This is definitely a grey area, but one that both students and teachers can explore.

Fourth, another post on edudemic discusses Siri, the iPhone 4S’s “personal assistant:”

This new tool makes it easier to cheat than ever before. It’s not too different from doing a Google search but it makes it easier and faster which means it could be quickly used to secure answers to a test without anyone knowing.

The post goes on, “easier access to resources could make students reliant on the technology and not on comprehension.”

Yes, this could happen. But really, doesn’t this give us an opportunity? If a concept is easy enough to google, then perhaps we don’t need to spend much time on it. Go further. Do analysis, create something, design it, find ways to assess knowledge in ways other than can be completed through Google.

“If you can Google it, it’s not a good assignment.”
-Brian J. Nichols

Brian Nichols is a PhD. student in 21st Century Learning. Where’d I get this quote? From Twitter. From an awesome sounding conference, Edscape.

Math & Science: Should they have separate rooms?

I had the opportunity to talk to a high school industrial technology teacher last week. He was proposing a new program for his school – Project Lead the Way. He had initially wanted to start it in high school, but as he had learned more about the project, he was proposing to start it at the middle school level with plans to move it to the high school year by year.

Not knowing much about the industrial technology curriculum, I admit at first I wasn’t particularly interested. However, as he spoke, it became clear to me that this program fits exactly with 21st Century Skills concepts and with the increasing emphasis on STEM programs. It also just MAKES SENSE.

This teacher spoke eloquently about the integration of math and science in the PLTW programs, and in the engineering classes he currently teaches. These classes, he said, are “…the first time students see how geometry applies to daily life.” He explained a project where students had to use principles from both geometry and physics in order to build something.

“Schools are the only place where math and science are put in separate rooms,” he said. This sentence floored me. Duh. It’s totally obvious, and so totally obviously WRONG. Why are math and science traditionally taught separately? I highly doubt this happens anywhere else, except perhaps the college classroom.

Here’s a quote from the PTLW site:

PLTW classes are hands-on, based in real-world experience, and engaging for students and teachers. They are most often offered as electives and complement required classes in science and math.

I love the real-world experience idea, and if you read more on their site, you see how they combine the disciplines and emphasize creativity, collaborating, and critical thinking. Sound familiar? Yup – 21st century skills!

But WHY should this be taught as an elective that complements “required classes in science and math?” Couldn’t the required science and math content be integrated into a class?

Teaching science this way could potentially pull kids who have lost interest in the traditional math/science curriculum. It baffes me how they expect kids to stay interested in algebra and higher level math when it’s taught completely outside of any real application.  Some kids are fascinated by the math itself, but I bet many other kids retain interest if they could see how it could be applied and used.

As an example (this blog is from a parent’s perspective!) my daughter is far more interested in creative curriculum (music, art, English) than math and science. For her, math is learned in a vacuum – there is NO context, no application, no visualization. It’s a bunch of numbers on paper with no meaning. It’s a struggle and she can’t WAIT to be done with the required math science courses so she can take courses where she feels more comfortable. With the current emphasis on STEM learning, perhaps kids with this learning style would be more engaged in classes that had creative problem solving, that required collaboration and communication.

A Parent’s Perspective on Standardized Tests

A recent article in the New York Times led to a short Twitter conversation with @classroomtools about  standardized tests. As Twitter doesn’t really allow for in depth explanations, I thought I would put my reasons for ranting down on electronic paper.

Because I’m not a teacher, I’ve hesitated broadcasting my feelings about standardized tests. But even parents deserve some small voice in this debate about testing.

  • Here’s what I’m not: I’m no longer a teacher. I’m not an administrator, and I don’t work for the schools.
  • Here’s what I am: I’m a former teacher with an MA in Teaching. I have been involved in informal learning experiences, mostly through museums, for 20 years.  Currently, I work for a museum developing online resources for teachers and students. I am a parent of two school age kids. And, I was a master standardized test taker as a kid.

Why did this article infuriate me? It basically said that the one district’s expenditures on technology were a waste because their standardized tests scores hadn’t gone up.  Well, duh. That’s (hopefully) because the schools are teaching kids using more creative, intuitive tools. They are (hopefully) encouraging more thoughtful learning, critical thinking and creative problem solving, rather than teaching to the test. What a stupid way to measure if that district has been successful.

Reasons I do not agree with the standardized testing movement, in no particular order:

Time: My daughter’s 8th grade algebra teacher spent three, yes THREE weeks prepping the kids for the state test. Was this three weeks of review helpful? Probably, yes, there was merit in reviewing the content learned in 7th grade (this class was one year advanced from math standards). Yet, instead of moving ahead in algebra, they spent three weeks, yes, 15 class days, going over how to take tests, what strategies to use, and reviewing content they were hopefully building on anyway. Really? This was good use of their time?

Time, part 2: An elementary librarian told me she calculated how many days her computer labs were busy for testing – meaning students couldn’t do research and creative projects using the labs. A total of 29 days. That’s SIX weeks of school time when the labs were totally unavailable. (Now, if the school had a 1:1 or BYOD program, this wouldn’t matter.  But that’s a different post.)

Reliability: In five years of standardized testing, my daughter’s scores have ranged from the 67th – 98th percentile. What is that supposed to tell us? Probably that one day she hadn’t had enough sleep, that perhaps she didn’t feel like getting the scratch paper out (which she told me once.) We’ve quickly learned that these scores are worthless and tell us nothing.

Accessibility: Many tests are given on the computer. I should be happy about this, right? Well, I was able to preview one company’s online tests. These tests are supposed to be great because they level with the student, eliminating the ceiling for gifted children. That may be – I can’t argue that point. However, I do know that the tests violate many commonly accepted web design standards. (I build websites and accessibility is a major component of my job.)

  • Font size: students were not able to change the font size – a required feature on any website. Ask any teacher about what websites work for kids – they’ll all say that font size makes a big difference.
  • Line length: the text (for the reading sections) was the entire width of the screen. When is the last time you saw a website that put text in one line over the entire width of the screen? They do that for a reason – our eyes have a hard time keeping on one line.
  • Line spacing: the spaces between lines of text was very tight. Again, standard, accessible web design has more white space between lines, rather than less.
  • Paragraph length: the text for reading excerpts was, of course, reproduced exactly as it is in the book. Standard (good) web writing limits paragraphs to about 5 lines. Our eyes have a hard time making distinctions if there are more lines. Reading on a screen is different than reading a book.
  • Contrast: the color of the screen and text had little contrast.

This is just a few things I observed quickly.  Hopefully, later versions of these tests have adjusted these issues. No, they are not technically on a website, but they ARE reading on a screen, and many of the same principles of basic web design and accessibility apply.

Content: I am not arguing that kids shouldn’t know basic skills – reading comprehension, math, science, etc. They need these skills more than ever. Yet, when these tests are so high stakes, the education program naturally gravitates to focusing on that content. There are only so many hours in a day, and it is well-documented that programs such as art, music, phy ed, recess, are being cut. This harms every child: every child needs to move around during the day, every child needs exposure to creative pursuits like art and music. Kids need to be taught creative problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration. Teaching to the standardized testing does none of that.

Teacher bonuses: Teachers deserve bonuses. They deserve far higher pay and way more respect for their professionalism. I taught for a few years, and was not a good teacher. That’s why I left. Those who are good teachers deserve CEO salaries.

That said, I know many schools are tying teacher bonuses to test results.  This naturally means teachers are more motivated to teach so their kids master the tests. In my experience, the best teachers – and the ones the kids learned the most from – were those who taught creatively, not merely focused on tests.

Gifted: Testing for gifted kids seems like it could be a good thing. Yet, not all gifted kids are good at taking tests. I know of one school district that basis qualifying for their gifted program solely on the results of one specific standardized test. I find this horrifying. What about the kid who is gifted at music? writing?  leadership? art? A child with a learning disability who might not test well?

Standardized tests have a definite ceiling, so they really don’t necessarily accurately reflect a child’s true potential. Much more discussion on problems with gifted children and standardized testing can be found through the Minnesota Council for Gifted and Talented and other organizations dedicated to advocacy for gifted children.

BYOD Discussed

Another interesting discussion on the ISTE Ning about students using their own devices in school.

There is good, healthy debate about this topic as I’ve been watching education reform and educational technology discussions over the last year. The “no way” arguments focus on the fact that not every has the tool, that there is no way to control distraction. When I bring up the topic with some schools (teachers, administrators, parents and yes, even students)  who do not encourage/allow device use, they all bring up these arguments. There is certain validity to these concerns.

However, whenever I’ve talked to a school who has moved in the direction of allowing/encouraging mobile devices or laptops, whether it is school provided or BYOD, I hear only good things and positive results. Sure, there are issues, but no issues that can’t be resolved, or that are new.

I don’t think I’ve run across reports of schools/districts who have discontinued allowing mobile devices or laptops because they found them too distracting or not serving the educational goals. One district I know of discontinued a laptop program for budget reasons, and the teachers and students were all very upset.

This school year will be telling, as it seems many many schools are moving to iPads. I will be watching closely for reports of schools/districts who back out of the 1:1 set-up and their reasons why.


 

 

All Children Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind law has, according to many teachers and administrators I’ve talked to, directly impacted the type of education in public schools. For example, one school I’m familiar with used to have a staff person who coordinated a series of arts residencies, assemblies, and a creative, innovative program that encouraged kids to explore different, unfamiliar topics. This staff person now works ONLY on coordinating testing. No more arts residencies. Many many fewer arts related assemblies. No more creative, innovative exploration outside of the traditional classroom structure.

I was pleased to see that Minnesota is applying for a waiver for NCLB. At first I was REALLY excited — no more NCLB! Well, it’s not that great. It’s only because Congress can’t agree on reform of the law. Many schools run the risk of penalties or closure — many GOOD schools are in danger because of this crazy law that mandates test, test, test. Maybe these waivers will highlight some other, more effective tools for accountability so NCLB can finally go away!

I’d love to see the whole darn thing dismantled and let schools be more creative. Teachers spend hours teaching kids to succeed on tests.  Those hours could much better be used teaching kids to think. Can’t remember the last test I took in my daily life…..

More on Facebook

Another great blog postby Chris Wejr (@mrwejr) about why your school should be on Facebook. He also refers to a book for principals, Communicating & Connecting with Social Media, on managing social media.The arguments are compelling.

Go check out the Facebook presence for New Milford High School. The principal is Eric Sheninger (@NMHS_Principal) is honest about his transformation to embracing social media. Look closely at that Facebook presence. It doesn’t look that hard once you take a look, does it?

No, you won’t reach every parent or student using Facebook. But do you reach everyone using paper? email? Probably not.

I’m just one example, but I know I’d see communications from Facebook much more reliably and quickly than I’d see paper notes. I could be notified instantly if there were a crisis at school. I would appreciate a reminder about conferences and concerts. I’d love to hear about other things going on — with a child at a big high school, there’s a lot I don’t know.

Who’s on Facebook?

Is your school on Facebook?

Why not?

Eric Sheninger thinks you should think again. He went from a strong no social media policy two years ago to fully embracing it. He speaks eloquently (at last week’s #140edu conference) about why your school should also be there.

  • Communications: makes it far easier to communicate with stakeholders, such as parents, community, students
  • Public Relations: way easier to toot your horn on Facebook than to get an article in the paper. There might be negative comments? Well, of course. Those conversations are already happening. Wouldn’t you rather they happened where you can address rumor and misinformation or explain the situation?
  • Student Engagement: he tells of significantly increased student engagement and performance in classes where social media and technology are being used. Don’t worry, everything being done MUST be based on sound pedagogy – it doesn’t mean just bells and whistles.
Check out The Nerdy Teacher’s blog post about Eric’s talk at the #140edu conference. Do what he says – watch Eric starting at 1:14:30. It’s worth your time.

We Want Change

“Can We Try It?”

A simple question from a group of kids resulted in this awesome video. A class of  middle school kids in Texas (see edevolution for more background) came up with the idea after reading a book, and asking a different question: “Could children, using the internet, have a dramatic impact on the world around them? ”

And, here’s their product: kids asking for change. It’s saying all the things I’ve been hearing: classrooms are like they were 100 years ago, kids want to collaborate, kids want technology.

This project in itself is a great illustration of what they are talking about: creativity, collaboration, communication. If you read through their blog, you can see how they put the project together. It empowered the kids, gave them “agency” – they feel like they could have an impact. Publishing to the public is an amazing motivator, and has proven to increase the quality of student work, and I think we see that here.

I agree wholeheartedly with them that they aren’t blaming teachers or any person in particular, but rather the “system.” It’s not one person’s fault, it’s a systemic problem. It takes a whole lot of energy to shift the movement of an elephant. But it has to start somewhere, and I thank these kids for doing this.

Kudos to the teacher and administration for being the guides and mentors to these kids.

Watch the video and read their blog. Then go show it to someone else and start a conversation.

(Hat tip to Sir Ken Robinson for tweeting this video.)