When 'old-timers' - that is, people of my age - say "we didn’t have computers when I was in school, and I turned out fine", they have a point. That’s why it’s necessary for educators to explain why the education we remember is not adequate for today’s students.
It is also important to understand that a "21st-century" education is not really about technology. Technology is only a tool; a means to an end. More than one school district has spent a fair sum buying new computers, only to have them sit in classrooms, collecting dust. If access to new technologies doesn’t provoke us to fundamentally re-think the teaching and learning experience, they’re not worth the investment.
So it is important to understand how technology allows us to do things in the classroom that we couldn’t do before - and why that matters. That was the opportunity that several members of the school board had on a recent visit to State High.
For members of the public who have not stepped inside a classroom in decades, this would be enlightening, and would hopefully jump-start a community-wide conversation concerning the direction of public education.
Perhaps the most significant way that education has changed (or rather, needs to change) is that it has become less about the consumption of information - which, in the information age, is not nearly as important as it once was - and more about what you can do with that information. As one teacher put it, we’re seeing s shift from "content" to "analysis."
Educators and employers have identified a set of "21st-century skills" that today’s students will need in order to be successful. The list includes critical-thinking, collaboration, broad communication skills, civics and creativity. What technology does is make it possible, or at least considerably easier, to incorporate that set of skills into the student learning experience.
As one teacher described it: we need to see computers not as "consumption" machines, but as “creation” machines.
A high school English teacher decided it was important to expand the concept of what it means to be an effective communicator beyond the "5-paragraph essay" - which is all that many high school students learn to do. So she incorporated live performance and the creation of 30-second Public Service Announcements into her college writing course.
Consider the higher-order communication skills that a performer must have in order to connect with an audience on both an emotional and intellectual level. (For me, it also validated the idea that the arts can be infused throughout the curriculum, not just as stand-alone courses.)
And consider the skills one has to learn in order to produce an effective PSA. Of course, technical editing skills are useful, but more importantly, this project requires that you grab someone's attention and make your point in 15-30 seconds. (As Mark Twain said, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time.") A record of these kinds of experiences, in a digital portfolio, provide a much fuller picture of student achievement than the results of standardized testing.
Another teacher took advantage of on-line resources to stimulate classroom deliberations on current events.
Several classes demonstrated how technology has made it easier to work on group projects, and how those projects were of higher quality, and more in depth as a result – and required collaborative skills the students will surely need in college and the workplace. It is also far easier for students to comment on and critique each other's work, which 1) makes the writing more authentic, because the teacher is not the only one who will read it, and 2) with the students acting as "teachers" their learning becomes more ingrained.
But the value of the teacher’s input is also increased. Use of the Googledocs technology allows for more frequent and timely teacher input: revisions and feedback that used to take a week or more can now happen prior to the next day’s class.
Clearly, this requires that teachers adjust from their traditional role to one of "co-collaborators". That’s not easy to do, so one theme we heard repeatedly was the necessity of quality professional development. You have to provide sufficient support and time for teachers to become comfortable with doing things differently, but the investment is both necessary and worthwhile.
Then there are the side benefits. First, a student perspective I would not have considered: "spellcheck" actually enhances good spelling, because it provides immediate feedback. And as the students told us, experiencing a subject via a virtual tour has far more impact than reading about it in a textbook. Several students commented that it is easier to organize and edit class notes.
In my mind, it's no longer a question of whether technology should be incorporated into the classroom, but what’s the most effective and efficient way to do it.
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
"Bully"
The recent release of "Bully" and the controversy over its initial "R" rating (it was eventually released "unrated") has sparked a national conversation over bullying in school. Putting aside the absurdity of the MPAA rating, I’d like to talk about the movie itself, and where we might go from here.
First, the movie is worth seeing. It is an excellent portrayal of what bullying looks like from the perspective of students. It also does a nice job of showing how clueless adults can be, adults within the school system in particular. You can imagine how frustrating that is to both affected students and parents.
It’s probably too much to ask, but where I think the movie falls short is in solutions, which don’t get much beyond insisting that the school, and the public at large, face up to the issue. While that’s a good start, it highlights the shortcomings of traditional anti-bullying efforts: they tend to be reactive, with the focus typically on changing the behavior of the “bully”. Not enough attention is paid to the behavior of the bystanders, nor on the overall climate of the school.
By contrast, a comprehensive “school climate” approach is pro-active. The emphasis is on developing a sense of community, including behavioral expectations, that make bullying less likely to occur in the first place. It is important that we address the random, casual disrespect that occurs in some school environments – places where bullying is likely to be taken for granted.
Parents have to recognize that their role is critical - a key part of which is to challenge this idea that bullying is an acceptable and unavoidable part of growing up. All that bullying accomplishes is to produce schools in which all of our children will find it harder to learn. Adults are also responsible for modeling the respect for others that we want our children to demonstrate. Bullying is a learned behavior; fortunately, so is respect.
But perhaps the most important component of developing a positive school climate is to allow the students to acquire a sense of ownership in their school. We need to move from the traditional student perception that school is something that is “done” to them to one in which students and teachers share the responsibility for their school environment.
That’s why it is so encouraging to hear that many of our high school students will be seeing the film in the coming weeks, following up with school-wide conversations, all initiated by the students, themselves. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a conversation that includes all of us.
First, the movie is worth seeing. It is an excellent portrayal of what bullying looks like from the perspective of students. It also does a nice job of showing how clueless adults can be, adults within the school system in particular. You can imagine how frustrating that is to both affected students and parents.
It’s probably too much to ask, but where I think the movie falls short is in solutions, which don’t get much beyond insisting that the school, and the public at large, face up to the issue. While that’s a good start, it highlights the shortcomings of traditional anti-bullying efforts: they tend to be reactive, with the focus typically on changing the behavior of the “bully”. Not enough attention is paid to the behavior of the bystanders, nor on the overall climate of the school.
By contrast, a comprehensive “school climate” approach is pro-active. The emphasis is on developing a sense of community, including behavioral expectations, that make bullying less likely to occur in the first place. It is important that we address the random, casual disrespect that occurs in some school environments – places where bullying is likely to be taken for granted.
Parents have to recognize that their role is critical - a key part of which is to challenge this idea that bullying is an acceptable and unavoidable part of growing up. All that bullying accomplishes is to produce schools in which all of our children will find it harder to learn. Adults are also responsible for modeling the respect for others that we want our children to demonstrate. Bullying is a learned behavior; fortunately, so is respect.
But perhaps the most important component of developing a positive school climate is to allow the students to acquire a sense of ownership in their school. We need to move from the traditional student perception that school is something that is “done” to them to one in which students and teachers share the responsibility for their school environment.
That’s why it is so encouraging to hear that many of our high school students will be seeing the film in the coming weeks, following up with school-wide conversations, all initiated by the students, themselves. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a conversation that includes all of us.
Friday, May 4, 2012
A revolt against high-stakes testing?
Perhaps it's the arrival of spring, but I'm catching a whiff of optimism in the air: there appears to be the makings of a revolt against our national obsession with high-stakes testing. And it's originating in Texas of all places!
Even more encouraging, it's not just educators who are standing up (which begs the question: why weren't teachers consulted in the first place?); it's also parents who are beginning to say, "enough is enough!" Some parents have gone so far as to not allow their children to take these high-stakes tests. Just saying.
Truthfully, parents were never really on board in the first place. When you ask parents what they want from their schools, they've never supported the inevitable shrinking of the curriculum that occurs when you test only a narrow band of the curriculum, place enormously high stakes on those tests, and then cut resources.
From the parents' perspective, it's not just about being prepared to get a job, either. Parents have always believed that schools should also prepare students to be citizens - the original justification for public schools, by the way (ask Ben Franklin); to discover what interests them, and to be exposed to the arts.
In fact, with the exception of those relatively few places where the schools really are terrible, parents overwhelmingly rate their local school - the ones their kids go to; the ones where they know the teachers - "A" or "B".
It's those "other" schools that are failing. And why the public perception that our education system is failing? Well, because everybody seems to be saying it (e.g., "Waiting for Superman"), so it must be true. Except that it's not.
When you compare the typical, reasonably financed suburban school in the United States with similar schools in "high-performing" countries elsewhere, our schools hold their own quite well, thank you. What brings our average down, so to speak, are the schools at the lower end of the equity spectrum.
Did you know that among the industrialized countries against which the U.S. compares itself on these international benchmarks, the U.S. has the highest percentage of students in poverty?
Which brings me to this question: if we're going to hold teachers accountable for student progress, shouldn't we hold politicians accountable for the environment in which that progress does, or doesn't, occur? That's what 'high-performing' Finland did.*
Instead, we hear politicians say: "We're not responsible! - it's the teachers fault!" (Well, they're right about the first part.) And while we're on the subject of politicians and accountability, shouldn't legislators be required to take these tests, themselves? And publish the scores? And then explain to us why these tests are so important?
For all the time, effort and money that are put into Pennsylvania's version of high-stakes testing (the PSSAs) the data we get from them is almost worthless. Why? Because we don't even receive that data until six months after the student has left the class! And as limited in value as that data would be, we could get it sooner, but the Commonwealth is too cheap to pay for a quicker turnaround. I kid you not.
Almost completely off the radar is the proposal - for which the current administration appears only too happy to allocate resources - to begin implementing the newest version of high-stakes testing, the Keystone exams, for the class of students entering 9th grade a year from now. Of the three exams that students must take, one will be Biology.
Now, I have nothing against biology, per se, but by what logic is 'proficiency' in biology elevated in importance above all the other things students could, or should be learning? How much do you remember from high school biology? How important was it, really? In order to keep your high school diploma, should you be required to periodically take the new Keystone exam? Just asking.
This lack of coherence is an indication of what high-stakes testing really is: a political fig leaf; the sole purpose of which is to allow politicians to claim that they're 'doing something' about education.
What frustrates me is that a considerable amount of energy must be spent countering these really silly ideas, which only diverts us from the conversations we should be having, like: How do we improve the quality of teaching in the classroom and make it more consistent? What would a meaningful and useful system of assessment look like (including a serious discussion on what it is we ought to be assessing in the first place!). Or, more fundamentally - in what important ways does education need to change in order to meet the needs of the current generation of students?
In my imagination, teachers and parents would have a big part in that conversation. Well, it's spring; hope is in the air.
*American students in schools where less than 10 percent of children live in poverty score first in the world in reading, writes Linda Darling-Hammond in The Washington Post. Our lower international standing is because high-achieving countries like Finland and Singapore have social safety nets that ensure virtually all schools have fewer than 10 percent of students living in poverty.
Even more encouraging, it's not just educators who are standing up (which begs the question: why weren't teachers consulted in the first place?); it's also parents who are beginning to say, "enough is enough!" Some parents have gone so far as to not allow their children to take these high-stakes tests. Just saying.
Truthfully, parents were never really on board in the first place. When you ask parents what they want from their schools, they've never supported the inevitable shrinking of the curriculum that occurs when you test only a narrow band of the curriculum, place enormously high stakes on those tests, and then cut resources.
From the parents' perspective, it's not just about being prepared to get a job, either. Parents have always believed that schools should also prepare students to be citizens - the original justification for public schools, by the way (ask Ben Franklin); to discover what interests them, and to be exposed to the arts.
In fact, with the exception of those relatively few places where the schools really are terrible, parents overwhelmingly rate their local school - the ones their kids go to; the ones where they know the teachers - "A" or "B".
It's those "other" schools that are failing. And why the public perception that our education system is failing? Well, because everybody seems to be saying it (e.g., "Waiting for Superman"), so it must be true. Except that it's not.
When you compare the typical, reasonably financed suburban school in the United States with similar schools in "high-performing" countries elsewhere, our schools hold their own quite well, thank you. What brings our average down, so to speak, are the schools at the lower end of the equity spectrum.
Did you know that among the industrialized countries against which the U.S. compares itself on these international benchmarks, the U.S. has the highest percentage of students in poverty?
Which brings me to this question: if we're going to hold teachers accountable for student progress, shouldn't we hold politicians accountable for the environment in which that progress does, or doesn't, occur? That's what 'high-performing' Finland did.*
Instead, we hear politicians say: "We're not responsible! - it's the teachers fault!" (Well, they're right about the first part.) And while we're on the subject of politicians and accountability, shouldn't legislators be required to take these tests, themselves? And publish the scores? And then explain to us why these tests are so important?
For all the time, effort and money that are put into Pennsylvania's version of high-stakes testing (the PSSAs) the data we get from them is almost worthless. Why? Because we don't even receive that data until six months after the student has left the class! And as limited in value as that data would be, we could get it sooner, but the Commonwealth is too cheap to pay for a quicker turnaround. I kid you not.
Almost completely off the radar is the proposal - for which the current administration appears only too happy to allocate resources - to begin implementing the newest version of high-stakes testing, the Keystone exams, for the class of students entering 9th grade a year from now. Of the three exams that students must take, one will be Biology.
Now, I have nothing against biology, per se, but by what logic is 'proficiency' in biology elevated in importance above all the other things students could, or should be learning? How much do you remember from high school biology? How important was it, really? In order to keep your high school diploma, should you be required to periodically take the new Keystone exam? Just asking.
This lack of coherence is an indication of what high-stakes testing really is: a political fig leaf; the sole purpose of which is to allow politicians to claim that they're 'doing something' about education.
What frustrates me is that a considerable amount of energy must be spent countering these really silly ideas, which only diverts us from the conversations we should be having, like: How do we improve the quality of teaching in the classroom and make it more consistent? What would a meaningful and useful system of assessment look like (including a serious discussion on what it is we ought to be assessing in the first place!). Or, more fundamentally - in what important ways does education need to change in order to meet the needs of the current generation of students?
In my imagination, teachers and parents would have a big part in that conversation. Well, it's spring; hope is in the air.
*American students in schools where less than 10 percent of children live in poverty score first in the world in reading, writes Linda Darling-Hammond in The Washington Post. Our lower international standing is because high-achieving countries like Finland and Singapore have social safety nets that ensure virtually all schools have fewer than 10 percent of students living in poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)