Digital Textbooks

I still can't figure out why Apple hasn't jumped on the textbook yet. The iPad seems to me to be the ideal platform for education. You can put all your stuff on it, it's got color, it's got video and audio capability. One device, a dozen textbooks and a boatload of reading books. More and more, colleges and schools are putting materials online. Five colleges calculus, MIT courseware, California Learning Resource Network, all of the Regents Materials you could ever want. When was the last time you actually told a kid to take notes in the book? Now you can. Okay, typing still sucks on tablets and note-takers aren't going to stop using paper anytime soon. Still ...

It's gonna happen.  For me, the only question is "When?"

From Slashdot:
South Korea plans to spend $2.4 billion buying tablets for students and digitizing materials in an effort to go completely digital in the classroom by 2015. From the article: "This move also re-ignites the age-old debate about whether or not students learn better from screens or printed material. Equally important, there's the issue of whether or not devices with smaller form factors are as effective as current textbooks, which tend to have significantly more area on each page."

Apart from the lunatic fringe who want to ban the Kindle from classrooms because blind kids can't use one, this seems like a win. All the stuff, handouts, videos, textbooks, all transferred to each students' machine and portable.

From Jacob Nielson on readability and reading speed:

Results: Books Faster Than Tablets

The iPad measured at 6.2% lower reading speed than the printed book, whereas the Kindle measured at 10.7% slower than print. However, the difference between the two devices was not statistically significant because of the data's fairly high variability.

Thus, the only fair conclusion is that we can't say for sure which device offers the fastest reading speed. In any case, the difference would be so small that it wouldn't be a reason to buy one over the other. But we can say that tablets still haven't beaten the printed book: the difference between Kindle and the book was significant at the p<.01 level, and the difference between iPad and the book was marginally significant at p=.06.

User Satisfaction: iPad Loved, PCs Hated

After using each device, we asked users to rate their satisfaction on a 1–7 scale, with 7 being the best score. iPad, Kindle, and the printed book all scored fairly high at 5.8, 5.7, and 5.6, respectively. The PC, however, scored an abysmal 3.6.

I'm sold.  Yoo-hoo! Principal PJs!
About that "Have you looked at electronic readers for your classes? What do you think of them?" comment that you uttered the last time we talked?

We need to talk.

One of the problems we face in education

I picked this up from Emergent Learner:

"I was recently emailed by a pre-K educator, Angela Yeaman, who will hopefully be using iPods in her pre-K classroom this coming school year. Below is Angela’s email to me and my response.
I recently submitted a proposal to my school division to purchase some IPods for use in my classroom. Although my proposal as been approved in principle I am now be questioned as to how developmentally appropriate IPods are in a 3-5 yr old classroom. My superintendent is wondering how a digital device like an IPod can be used to support play, exploration, learning, language, social interaction, etc.
Do you have any suggestions for information I can pass along to support the appropriateness of integrating these devices into my classroom. I guess I am facing bigger implementation obstacles than I anticipated."

The difference between education and the "Real World" ?

The real world requires that a problem exist before it feels the need to go buy technology to solve it.  The RW needs to know what to do with the new tech and be convinced that the new tech is an improvement, that it will provide better, cheaper, faster, more efficient output. Testing is done by the tech seller in order to create the glossy brochures and advertising. All this happens BEFORE purchase.  Tech is an answer to a problem in the Real World.

After purchase, and throughout the implementation phase, notes are kept as to the changes, difficulties and challenges. In-house data is recorded as to best use and procedures are setup for everyone so that the ideas of the best are understood and the best procedures are developed so that the least capable workers can effectively use the new toy.

Education, on the other hand, operates differently. Here, Shiny and New is purchased because it's Shiny and New and then teachers go try to justify the purchase and attempt to find a problem that this Shiny and New solution will hopefully solve.

Someone gets a "Great Idea" from a blog or an online PLC and implements it without considering the whats, whys, and wherefores. "Someone I know has a SmartBoard, so I need SmartBoard in my classroom." "That guy has iPods for each kid, so I need iPods for all my kids."  I don't exactly know how it'll all be used, I don't really know what problem I'm solving by implementing or whether this really will solve the problem, and I'm not sure if we'll get better, stronger, faster, cheaper, more effective output.

Money is spent and the teacher attempts to make use of the Great Idea, muddling through the implementation and adapting, reworking, to ultimately finish the year with something but no one is quite sure what. Was it worth it? Was the Shiny New Toy better or worse than the Trusty Old One? Did the students learn more, better, easier, faster, more efficiently or effectively? Will the next person (because teachers all eventually leave and the early-adopters most quickly) use the Shiny New Toy or will it be relegated to the corner to collect dust while the next teacher tries to institute the Next Big Idea using lots of money to buy the Next Shiny New Thing?

To paraphrase Reagan: Are those 4 year-olds going to be better off than last year's 4 year-olds?

Nobody knows. She may be screwing up those kids mightily or she may be on to something, but she has no idea. She's not even that invested in the iPods idea because she's getting a SmartBoard and she'll spend some time thinking about how to use that over the summer.  Isn't that cute?

Nobody has done any kind of testing; this classroom could be a source of data, but no one will record it. Nobody will set up controls to see if this works; a single class without them is unheard of because that's discrimination, don't you know?

That's American education for you.  Buy shit without knowing what, if anything, it will do.  Throw out what's working to focus on the Shiny New Toy and completely forget about the real purpose of education: education.  This is the only chance at an education this group of kids will ever get and we have no compunctions about testing new theories on them ... and we don't even give a damn about the results.

The Inverted Classroom

Robert Talbot
Casting Out Nines

People are talking about it here, and here. This is Robert Talbot, the first person I heard about it from. Here are some of his other articles. Let me throw out a few thoughts and attempt to nail down what I think. ("essay" from Fr. "Essayer", to try.) I'd love to hear what all of y'all have to say, too.

Essentially, Talbot (a university math professor) is reversing the order of his teaching.  He makes a video of his lecture which students are required to watch before class. Class time is then used for doing "homework" and practice, etc.  The theory is that lecture is very one-directional anyway (basically a video) and the students don't do well in lectures, so put the video online and have the kids do that portion of the class themselves. They can rewind, fast forward, review, whatever.  Then class time is reserved for face-to-face tutoring, direct and targeted instruction. Differentiated, if you will.

I'm ambivalent about this for high school. It sounds great in theory but so many great educational theories only work with college students or other adults who have different time pressures and levels of responsibility from the ones in front of me.

Some thoughts that occur to me are

Can 9th grade students learn this way? I'm not convinced. I think education at this level is more than just watching videos (and certainly NOT a lecture) and I'm not sure that the limited amount of time in the classroom the next day will suffice for re-teaching missed concepts or for correcting misunderstandings ... but they can watch the video over and over again, stop it and think. Listen to it again.  There are misunderstandings now and lots of time that homework would have gone much more smoothly with me to help. ("but my father said THIS was the way to do it.")

Really?  Students teach themselves? What am I here for? To teach the students.  They'll get more personalized attention the next day when you are working through the homework with them.

What about time? The college professors who have tried this are dealing with people who come to class every other day, people who have much more control over their lives, who can drive. I remember my college schedule: three to fours hours of class a day and then lots of free time to do this kind of thing. The expectation was one hour in class for every two hours outside of class. I can't see high school students ever fitting this pattern. When my son learned to drive, it immediately freed up a tremendous amount of time for him and for us. That's one huge difference - the amount of "loose time" and non-structured time. Time they can use to go to Office Hours. Our kids aren't allowed to come during free time, can't stay in the building without a teacher, can't meet at off times. But shouldn't they be developing that sense of responsibility? It's simple to require homework and any parent who won't support that shouldn't be surprised if the kid doesn't learn. We don't even allow them to go to Subway for lunch. that's my reality.

I can see a parent getting really annoyed that his daughter needs to use the living room TV every night for 45 minutes per class. I can also see that daughter being embarrassed to ask or simply giving in to the family's "American Idol" viewing habit. See previous comment.

My computer ate my homework.

The technological side bothers me too. Too many possible home configurations, IT issues. I had one set of parents tell me that they couldn't get their son to do a PowerPoint (I'd have accepted Keynote or Google apps, too) because their computer had a problem. For two months. True or not, it was out of my control - that kid would have had no instruction for two months. That kid had plenty of time to do the assignment, had plenty of resources with which to do it (town library, after-school, during class).  What he lacked was the desire. This will clarify matters.  Watch the video or fail.

An issue here in Vermont that the rest of the world hasn't had to deal with for a while is lack of broadband; probably a third of my students can't even get cellphone access at home. Poverty dictates that the school can't require certain things.  Require it and make it work. If there is a student who legitimately cannot, then deal with that issue at that point. Most complaints of this type are bogus. The real-world isn't stopping to wait. Lend him a computer, use a DVD, make a vidcast for the iPod the kid is carrying.

If they don't get the video done, what happens? I assume you'd let them watch it during class? What about the homework then? Does that kid get to re-invert the classroom because he simply won't cooperate? No. The classroom stays inverted.  If he refuses to do his assigned work, then that is the same as refusing to do homework.  If he refuses, he won't learn. If he doesn't learn, he'll fail. That seems a little draconian, but the students will rise to the level of your expectations.

Or not. The parents will bitch, the principal will be called and I'll be told to change. A lawsuit will be threatened. Hell, they do that anyway. Remember that kid and the PowerPoint? Give him some more time, during class, to get the work done.  That's the whole point of this - class time should be for working with a student, not talking at him.

What if YOU don't get the video done?  Well, shit.  You'd better prepare at least two weeks in advance, or just do the whole course over this coming summer.  No more of your "I've been doing this for years, let's just wing it today" bullshit.

Will students who play a sport or have another obligation get progressively farther behind? I can see them doing math problems on the bus (or on the bleachers while they wait for the JV game to finish) but not being able to do much more than placidly listen to a DVD (or podcast). Learning something new from scratch needs focused attention. Doing homework needs focused attention, too.  Would you rather they zoned out while listening to you in class, or zoned out while listening to you on their computer?  It might give them more responsibility because they know they have to get it done.  Slacking off has no upside. And you can help them with the more important part of learning, the reinforcement.

New isn't always better. Old isn't always better, either.

Crap. What about the time needed? In any recording endeavor, the time to create is at least four - six times the running time. You plan, record, re-record, mix, edit, review.  In the middle of October, that pile of whatever that needs grading is not going to go away and you've got videos to make and these videos can't wait. You don't have the "research" time that Talbot does. He has 3 hours of class a day, you have 6. He has lot more free time and "office hours" than you do. Once created, they stay created.  Sure, you can be replaced next year with a much cheaper TFA teacher and we'll still show your videos, but that's the risk we all take. Did I mention that all of your work is now the property of the school, that you cannot resell it or even give it away for free? Take it off YouTube. It legally belongs to the district because you created it on school time. Thanks for your effort. Now we can give a teacher 60 kids per class and a couple of cheap aides because all the learning has been done by video. Any non-learning will still be your fault. Aren't you thrilled?

Well.  It was a nice discussion.

I think that I will take the safe route this year and wait for other people who have met AYP to do the research. In the meantime, I'll put a few videos online, increase the use of the Moodle, but keep the traditional format for now.

You can't have "improvement"
if you haven't got any data.

Changing seems too much of a crapshoot to me at this point. The most important piece to all this, and one that I'm afraid will be overlooked by almost everyone, is data. I haven't seen anything other than Talbot's anecdotal information to say this works at the high school level.  I am not willing to go through the tremendous amount of time and effort required to change over without something more than pleasant stories.

We have enough trouble in this country with educational fads. An option that MIGHT work? I have seen lots of stupendous, wonderful, groundbreaking ideas come roaring in like lions and then go slinking out embarrassed like a wet toy poodle. The money spent in the meantime is obscene.


Data Questions:

Better bone up.

1. What is your baseline? Have you got someway to measure the effectiveness of the current system before you throw it away?
2. What kind of data will convince you that this works - or doesn't?  You must develop some way to tell if this was effective or if the teacher was effective, or both, or neither.  If you can figure that out, you can sell the idea to New York.
3. When will you decide? You have to nail this point down or run the risk of picking your goalposts to suit a preconceived notion.
4. Is this tent therapy?* Are the gains simply a matter of improved attention on the teacher's part, working harder, being better because you're paying attention for the first time in a while? Is the different format making a difference or is it simply that you've made a change?  Will these gains diminish next year when the kids get used to the new method? If this goes well, will you be able to prove it?
5. Control group? Can students transfer to another class if they really don't like it? How flexible is your school? If you truly want to make this a controlled experiment - and you should - you should do it with only half of your classes and refuse to let the kids switch around.

These questions need to be answered FIRST or you are committing Egregious Research Error #1.  There's been enough of THAT already. Now for the important questions:

1. Will your principal back you up? College professor Talbot has a great deal of professional freedom. If this hits a stubborn kid or obnoxious parent in October, how much influence will be enough to shut this down? (Is 'obnoxious parent' an oxymoron or a regular moron?)
2. Do you have tenure? Is your union willing to stand by you? Do you still have a union?
3. Do you need this job? If the answer is "Yes." then you need to consider whether to take this chance. I know what the current method does. 
4. Do you have the resources to pull this off? Technology, website, bandwidth. Since you're going to be doing some of this from home, how's your home computer?
5. Do you have the time? Better start recording the lessons now.

* Tent therapy was a short-lived psychological treatment fad from early twentieth century. Patients who were brought outside and placed in tents on the lawn of the insane asylum showed improvement. In reality, the improvement came not from the tents or the fresh air but from the increased attention the staff was giving to the patients. As soon as routine settled in, the improvements disappeared.

Student videos at Dangerously Irrelevant

These kids are complaining about school (a new phenomenon, I'm sure) and, true to form, people are watching them. Some viewers take everything at face value and believe every word the kids say because the teachers are always at fault. Others, I assume, are in thrall to the idea that "If it's put on the Internet by a kid, then that's 21st Century Skills right there!" and completely miss the fact that the kid is in desperate need of some psychological counseling. Most of the ones shown at the link above are of the"whiny student" who hates his teacher "because he made me work" variety. Danzigar (left) points out the problem with that reasoning.

Scott MacLeod gathered some videos together, asking "American students generally have the legal right to express their opinions at home on their free time using non-school computer equipment. So here are a few students expressing their opinions about their teachers. Do you know what your students are saying at home about your school? Is this something that educators should care about or just ignore?"

Some of the ones he gathered are full of psychological cues for depression, others are classic student complaints -- a self-centered world-view and a total misunderstanding of what they will need in life and why the town spends the kind of money it does. The self-centeredness is nothing new, of course, but I must admit to an overwhelming desire to point out how incredibly short-sighted most of those complaints are.

A few are to the point. I always hated when anyone said "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear" but he was our President and we had to live with it. I think he was an idiot but not because of his pronunciation problems.

I worry, though, about the ramifications of these. The teachers who see them are not going to be happy and the kids seem completely unaware that people talk. They also seem unaware that most people, when attacked directly will retaliate, overtly or subtly. Stories will be told. Deadlines will become more definitive; retakes and makeup will disappear. People will be warned. Reports of threats and unsafe working environment will surface - hey, teachers are mandatory reporters and that first kid keeps picking up sharp implements. Threats will be reported to the police and the evidence is crystal clear. Admissions officers will notice. Principals will react. People will think twice about your judgment. It'll all be confidential, of course. (Sure, it will -- you put it on YouTube, you moron!.)

What's the point of it in the long haul? Why didn't some adult say, "Not a good idea."?

If I'm in one of these videos, I might change something about the way I teach but it's more likely that I would write it off as another selfish, whiny student. I can't change my accent. I teach the way I do because I believe it's a good way - backed by my 30 years of teaching experience as opposed to the kid's 2 years ignoring high school. If you hate me, I don't actually care.

But these videos persist.

• "A recommendation? Sorry." 
• "You want to join my class? Sorry, it's full." 
• "Mr. V, watch it with that one. Bad student." 
• "That just wasn't a very good essay.  I'm sorry. You made a whole lotta grammatical errors and it brawt the grade down. You're a junior. This isn't assseptable." I'd be sure to use any words she mentioned in her little tantrum and really draw out the accent.
• "This dyke isn't amused." 

A teacher could make the next parent phone call or conference REALLY uncomfortable for the parents, especially if the teacher has been there for a while and knows all the people the parent knows. Just start playing the video in everyone's presence. Watch the parent slink into the crack of the chair.

To answer MacLeod's question:

1. Ignore all of the ones that complain. They have the right to babble, off-campus. Mention the video to the teacher and suggest he/she watch and decide if there is any merit to the complaint and to ignore it or change, as he/she feels appropriate.
2. Take seriously all the ones that threaten, slander or libel. Sorry, kid. You took it public. There are always ramifications for public speech that threatens, slanders, or libels. Under current interpretations of law, statements such as "Ugh, class ... with the dyke ... 'That's the point, you suffer.' 'Fucking dyke.'" constitute harassment.
3. Take seriously all those "hidden camera, gotcha" videos. Something is wrong but remember that students can drive a teacher to it. Don't just react and fire a good teacher for a bad day with evil children. Notify and warn, but do nothing because you don't have context. (Unless you have context.)
4. If school equipment was used, then someone needs to have a serious talk with the teacher responsible for it. That classroom in #2, for example. 
1. Were they allowed into someone else's room? 
2. Did they film that for an assignment? 
3. Did the teacher know that the school resources were being used to attack another teacher? 
4. Why did he approve the script? 
5. Why did he think it was okay to let students do this?
5. If you've got violence about to happen ...
   Well, you'd better do something quick, don't you think?

Speech is not completely free in Schools, even though the Tinker decision said, "The rights of students and teachers do not end at the schoolhouse door." The later Hazelwood decision allows editing (censorship) in those school fora which were not expressly set up for a free flow of student views ... "the rights of public school students are not necessarily the same as those of adults in other settings." Essentially, the school does not have to provide full, free-speech forum and may instead provide a limited speech forum for academic purposes. This limited speech forum cannot be forced to allow full free speech, "schools aren't required to lend their resources to the dissemination of students' opinions, particularly opinions that 'associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.' "  The court also specifically allowed officials to censor material that's "biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences."

The current interpretation of this rule is that schools may "edit" (or censor) material or views that are produced using school equipment, or school resources. [The main reason I write this blog from home and never check it at school]. School resources include school-assigned emails from the school domain, internet access, class or study hall time or computer equipment use, school software or even school laptops when taken home. (Bet you didn't think of that!)

Remember that case of the school that turned on the laptop webcams? They got into $600,000 worth of trouble because an administrator went off on her own to start taking pictures of students, half-naked or in their bedrooms. Had it been properly warned and notified, had protocol been set and followed, things would have been different. They did not get into trouble for monitoring their own machines. They would not have been ni trouble if they had required all students to submit to an audit of the harddrive.

If the threats were created done at school, it's even easier.  Simply explore the kid's network account for the powerpoint or animation file and follow your current procedures when you find it.  Any kid stupid enough to attack a teacher by making a file in computer class deserves to be punished, if only for being so stupid.

Survival of the Fittest

or, "Those who do not backup the past are condemned to re-type it."

Darren was talking about his new backup system, which included a new computer and I figured I'd repeat what works really well for me. I have a good computer at home, loaded with a bunch of software and a basic machine at school that is connected to the smart board.  I do not have any other tech toys and only a basic LG phone.

I have two 8GB thumbdrives (e.g., from TigerDirect.com. You could get them from Amazon, too.) "MY Documents" has a folder for academic videos and another for academic files. These two folders are synchronized with the two thumbdrives every day or so. At school I run everything off the two thumb drives, leaving nothing on the school's network. When I return home, I synchronize and thus never go more than a couple days without a simple backup.

For all my other files, I have an external USB drive (400GB, from Staples, Amazon, and many other places, ~$70)  This is connected about once a month or so and backs up ALL my files, including the academic ones, mail folders and system files.  Except for the mail folders, there's little on the home computer other than academic stuff that changes often so I'm okay there.

If you don't have a similar plan yet, you should start.

Reform, Deform, Conform.

The other day, it was announced that Vermont had the highest scores in the nation for FRL kids. And was graded "D" by the same organization for not reforming itself enough. Joanne Jacobs: Vermont. Good results, weak reforms

In ALEC’s Report Card on American Education, Vermont is ranked first in the nation for educating low-income children, but gets a D on its reform policies. Well, maybe Vermont doesn’t need to reform. Massachusetts, second in performance, gets a C; Florida, ranked third, gets ALEC’s highest reform grade, a B+.

What I've seen and heard most, in the math network meetings and the professional development et cetera ad infinitum, is that the powers that be don't have much in the way of vision. We keep getting told "Reform" but no one ever specifies "To What?" or "In what way?"

That's right. The goal is the change itself. We are never given any other goal. I have been told point-blank that the State will never recommend any program or project or method of teaching, but they want us to change nonetheless. When we finish the change, we are supposed to change again. That's why so many of us resist and it seems to have paid off, at least for some of our kids.

Online Learning - not the fastest response.

I've been taking an online course this summer. Five weeks, the usual forums and readings with little teacher input. More on that later.

Here's the funny thing: course is over, last reflection is submitted, final grades not quite done - maybe the next day ... I get paperwork in the mail describing the course, its drop/add policy and other enrollment papers.

Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing.

I can't help it - Swearing is sometimes really funny.

But little children and pregnant women should not watch this Korean Swearing Lesson. Everyone else may ROFLYAO.

Innovation and Teacher Pay

In my wandering, I came across this little gem on how to fix edumacation:

Instead, a better solution would be:
- Get rid of the unions. Pay for performance, fire the incompetent
- Give teachers the independence to try new things and tailor to individual classrooms. Reward success.

The list continued but I particularly liked the juxtaposition of "pay for performance, fire the incompetent" and "Give teachers the independence to try new things. Reward success." Beyond the obvious (to me, at least) problem of determining teacher competence, how much do you suppose a teacher will innovate and try new things if his paycheck is based on performance, with firing being a instant option for a moronic administrator if that new idea fails?

In all of the pay-for-performance schools I have studied, the one constant factor is that the teachers all retreat into "safe" zones of teaching. Most teachers would rather be assured of a job, thus follow the demands of the administration, teach to the test and be nothing special, rather than go out on a limb and risk it all on a double or nothing bet. The feeling seems to be that it is better to be good than take a wild and unproven chance with your students' education, risking your job. It's sad, really.

There is usually a maverick who bucks this trend but he merely proves the rule - he is unmarried or for some reason doesn't need to be employed at that school. Perhaps he's a certified TIG welder or has an engineering degree with experience.

Unions and union rules allow teachers to innovate, try new things and then adjust them to work better next time. You get "The Creative Feedback Loop Of Teaching"(Thanks to Dan Meyer for the expression, in this post, near the end.), but only if you have the freedom to innovate and aren't locked into a scripted curriculum or stuck in a repressive, vindictive or moronic administrative system.

True innovation comes from those who can afford to try. Trying implies failing occasionally. If you punish failure, you stifle innovation.

Twitching and Twittering

Just musing on the state of the 21st Century Skills for a moment ... There's Live Journal, Twitter, a couple Blogs and comment applications, personal websites and class websites, a slew of email accounts, Google Office and Shared documents, edline, texting, telephone ... not to mention the other 98.34% of the communication on the web.

When I'm not using some talking head's particular favorite, why am I considered "techno-phobic"? Why do I need am account at all of these places just to communicate?

Technology and the 21st Century

There was a nice comment on my rant the other day. I was discussing the merits of Dangerously Irrelevant's call for firing teachers who demanded training or who wouldn't learn new technology.

Sandra said "I'm wondering if DI is thinking of the same teachers I am who are perfectly happy to keep photocopying the same originals (or multiply-copied copies) they've used for 20 years, and who balk at the request to re-type them and make them available to other teachers digitally."

Before I ask for a teacher to be fired over this, I wonder if someone could explain exactly how much of this makes a difference in that teacher's classroom? Does re-typing something improve it? If that old map is still useful and correct, use it. If that hand-written worksheet still works, what is the need for change? (I am assuming it is legible. In fact, I note that many items deliberately use a handwriting font for student interest and understanding - maybe we should hand-write them sometimes?) If someone else wants to use it, why is a teacher required to put it in a convenient form? Why can't the recipient do that work?

We are too often changing without knowing that the result will be an improvement. I am very uncomfortable with forcing people to upgrade or perish.

I am in favor of technology and all the teachers I know are as well. What I disagree with is the notion that new is necessarily better and that teachers who don't jump into the bleeding edge are somehow deficient.

Change for the sake of change: Here's my take on the Frameworks, Standards, GLEs, Curriculum Mapping and Other Reasons to Re-type the Syllabus.

Sandra also asks "In addition to only using their word-processing programs for the most basic purposes, these teachers also refuse to learn how to use basic email and student grade software themselves, and either find someone more tech-savvy to give them their own personal tutorial session or insist that the school give them one."

This is a better point. I cannot imagine someone refusing to learn email. I can see the reluctance to learning gradebook software on their own. Many of those grading programs are garbage. The flaws are legendary and the implementations are often a joke. The interfaces are counterintuitive and cumbersome.

One school locally has a grading program that takes forever to use because of all the "wizards" it pops up, and then there is a different, on-line, system that the teachers HAVE TO MANUALLY RE-TYPE data into. Oh, and they're required to keep a paper gradebook and lesson plan book as well because the Principal wants to be able to review them. Any wonder why these folks don't bother doing more than one grade per marking period on-line? The retreat into "I want training" is pretty reasonable - it's a way of putting off the pain.

Then we have a philosophical question. If something is new, why should people be denied training in how to use it? Like Sandra, I am the teacher people ask for help because the tech guys are non-existent and useless. Why me? I spend hours on this stuff - I like it. I run websites with thousands of pages and I've been doing programming for years. I know how programmers think and I can teach.

Most people take a bit of time - I try for a two-hour window during the August inservice so I can get everyone done at once. It's a lecture with each teacher at a workstation. You can leave them to explore the software (taking 10 to 20 times as long to find 10 to 20 percent of the stuff they need) and do collaborative learning or 21st century on-line learning, ...

But teaching is quicker, better and more efficient.

Facts and International Tests

21st Century Skills, as promoted, are not effective without a command of some basic factual information. If you don't know any factual material, a few minutes on Google may or may not get you relevant facts. Then, of course, the student who has no knowledge cannot evaluate what facts are found, cannot compare the new knowledge to the old, cannot "stand on the shoulders of giants". An hour's worth of Powerpoint and some multimedia cribbed from Google images won't hide that lack, which is why I refer to it as Glitzenbullshit.

One commenter replied to an earlier post that
"There is a reason why the U.S. scores 35th in the world in math. It is because the rest of the world is embracing inquiry and prioritizing 'flexible' thinking...while we are still preparing to compete in the industrial age."

I'd really like to know how he arrived at this cause-effect relationship.

The US averages must naturally include many schools that have made these changes to a 21st Century Focus -- I would maintain that it is precisely because so many of our schools have changed to 21stCS that our averages have declined on tests like PISA and TIMSS. These tests don't measure 21stCS sets; they measure factual information and basic skills.

It is not, perhaps, indicative of a 'good education', but until you define THAT and determine what such should entail, you cannot use a fact-based international test to determine superiority or otherwise.

I would also point out that the whole concept of comparison conveniently ignores the fact (there's that dirty word again) that many nations to which we compare ourselves have much more homogenous culture and demographics, and most have a national curriculum and province-wide, if not national, control over schools. Almost all of the "great" successes have nationwide testing programs to finish off school. The final product is much more amenable to testing like PISA.

When I compare students and programs, talk with ex-students, visit colleges and speak with professors and admissions, converse with tradesmen and businessmen, I find one thing across the board. Success in college, life and careers is correlated more closely with schools that stressed facts and knowledge first and then blended in communication, information, literacy and critical thinking skills. Any school that tried to do it the other way invariably and ultimately did a disservice to its students.

Dangerously Irrelevant Is

Dangerously Irrelevant shows why he's irrelevant.

In many job sectors, employees are expected to keep up with relevant technologies or risk job loss. When do we require that of K-12 and postsecondary educators? At what point do we say to them “No, we’re not training you how to use this. It’s easy enough for you to learn on your own. And if you don’t, we’ll find someone else who can.”
When will we, as educational systems, redefine the job descriptions and expectations of educators to include their regular and effective incorporation of relevant digital technologies?

Like many bloggers and opinionators, DI has it wrong. There are precious few teachers who aren't technologically capable. We all use technology every day. We call on cell phones, use computers, drive cars, download things from the Internet, use graphing calculators, SmartBoards and other technology. The level of use is different, but we're ALL living in this world now.

Who defines your acceptable level? Who decides that it isn't enough? Who has actually made sure that more technology is actually USEFUL in the classroom setting? Will it be Techno-geek boy or an actual teacher in a school like Packemin High School? To accept a definition like this from someone who has such an obvious axe to grind is like calling on the Oil Companies to write an energy bill for Congress. (Oh, wait ...)

A commenter says "The obvious next question is: If we are successful in changing job descriptions to include integrating 21st tools and resources, how do we fairly assess teacher performance?"

to which I respond:

The students need to know what they are doing - that's called knowledge of subject. Those 21st century skills are mostly Glitzenbullshit, a tool that kids can pick up at any time. People like this commenter are changing the subject out of ignorance.

As Peter Berger (Poor Elijah's Almanac) says,

The high-powered Partnership for 21st Century Skills still preaches this same doctrine, euphemistically arguing that we need to "emphasize deep understanding rather than shallow knowledge."

Unfortunately, without deep knowledge, the best you can have is a shallow understanding. Without any knowledge, meaning facts, any understanding you think you have is illusory, baseless, and void.

...

You can't attain understanding without knowledge, and you can't acquire knowledge without mastering facts. You can't skip the grunt work, even if it's often dull and painstaking. That's true in any discipline. Our children need to realize and accept this. So do the experts who mastermind our schools. So do we all. That's the new angle on teaching and learning that we desperately need. More gimmicks won’t help.

True, grappling with facts and turning them into knowledge can be hard work.

But reckoning with ignorance is even harder.

One Last Bushian Comment

Students should not be doomed to life of poverty because their parents didn’t have the financial freedom to opt out of a failing school.

Every school has some good teachers and every school has some bad ones. This should not surprise anyone. We've had good and bad Presidents, good and bad workers at Walmart, good and bad CEOs of major companies, not to mention good and bad drivers on the highway.

The school isn't "dooming anyone to failure," but its students are behind the eight-ball - and not necessarily at the fault of the school they're in.

The "school" isn't failing the kids in a good teacher's class. The smart kids who bring up the averages aren't being "doomed" by the school - they'll get where they want to go. What you get out of education depends on what you put into it.

There are good teachers and bad ones. You can get an education or not and the school is only a part of it. In my school, your school, inner city and suburbia.

If you select the students, you can get great students from any socio-economic level, just like KIPP. If you are forced to accept anyone, then that's what the public school gets. It doesn't make the school any better or worse, but it does lower the averages.

An individual is not defined by the average. You can always find an average from the individuals but you can't define an individual from the average score.

You can get a bad education (or just a hangover) at a good college or a good education at any college (or you can get a "Gentleman's C" at Yale but that costs money).

More of Jeb Bush - This time we're an 8-track tape.

This speech gets better and better.

"In this knowledge-based economy, would success be measured by how long students sit at their desk rather than what they learn? I hope not. In an age of customization, would we settle for a one-size-fits-all model that moves kids from grade to grade based on their age rather than their skill level? Hell no. Last year, I said our education system was an 8-track tape in an I-Pod world."

Jeb. Please. Try to understand this.

We don't measure students' success by how long they sit at desks. When they reach certain points in the course (called "End of the Chapter" or the "End of a Topic"), we measure their knowledge using something called a "test" or a "project". Their test or project earns a number called "a grade." We use this number because it's a convenient way for teacher, student, parent and school to communicate how well the student understands "the material". We don't throw away the rest of the information, but we do have the summary number (the "grade").

Over the years, I and many other teachers have taught math. We have learned that students, despite the claim of uniqueness that permeates the socio-political consciousness, are amazingly similar in what they can learn about our subject. (This is called "experience" and it is the reason why "experienced teachers" get paid more.) We know that some students are "good in math" and will cover eight major topics and that others will struggle to learn six. That's why we have different levels of classes - not because we are discriminating against anyone, but because we are intelligent enough to choose the right level for each type of student.

Surprisingly, these different courses COULD be used to "differentiate" the teaching for students, but non-teachers don't understand that each little snowflake is not, in fact, unique. They also don't understand that putting kids into courses that are appropriate for them is the best way for them to learn. Until they think about it, most folks don't see that putting kids into sections in which they are significantly the fastest or slowest learner is LESS effective than separating them by ability. Politicians don't really think and lawyers are paid to refuse to. That's why "tracking" is no longer used.

One other thing. Social promotion is necessary sometimes. When you insist that kids stay back, you occasionally get a non-academic kid (who else?) who is not the best influence on impressionable people. Do you really want that 17 year-old in with your 13yo daughter?

Free at Last - Jeb Bush has an Epiphany.

Jeb Bush the Philosopher King, said:

"I want to make a different comparison this year to something completely different. I wish our schools could be more like milk. You heard me, I said milk. Go down the aisle of nearly any major supermarket these days and you will find an incredible selection of milk.

You can get whole milk, low fat milk or skim milk. You can get organic milk, milk with Vitamin D or milk enzymes to improve you the way your brain functions. You can get flavored milk — chocolate, strawberry or vanilla – that doesn’t even taste like milk. Most of the time, there is a whole other refrigerator case dedicated to milk alternatives – like soy milk, almond milk and rice milk. They even make milk for people who can’t drink milk. Who would have ever thought you could improve upon milk? Yet, freedom, innovation and competition found a way."

Okay, so let me get this straight, Jedediah. You want my school to offer lots of options to our students, right? You don't feel that this is being done now? Let me larn you sumfin', Jeb.

Here are a few choices my students have:

At the Tech Center:
Business Management, Financial Accounting For Seniors, Carpentry, Culinary Arts, Electronics: Audio Engineering, Emergency & Fire Management, Engineering Technology, Graphic Technologies, Hands-On Computer Systems, Health Career Academy, Horticulture & Natural Resources, Human Services, Industrial Trades, Law Enforcement, Manufacturing, Pre-Technical Studies, Tourism & Lodging Management.

At another tech center, you can take:
Architecture Engineering Design, Auto Refinishing and Collision, Automotive Technology, Cabinet Making, Carpentry, Computer Technology: IT Systems & Solutions, Culinary Arts, Digital Arts, Electrical/Plumbing, Health Careers, Hospitality and Entrepreneurship, Human Services, Music Technology: Jazz and Contemporary, Natural Resources, Forestry & Horticulture, Power Mechanics/Welding, Public Safety Services: Law Enforcement, Video Production.

At the school:
English, Math, Science, History, Languages, Music, Art. There are some minimums but the choice is up to the student. Everything from a basic and modified all the way up to AP, college level. Electives like US military history, russian, SATprep, media studies, ethics, sociology, chess (at a neighbor school).

Virtual High School
What the title says. Computer programming, math, english, science, whatever the need, they can have it in a 21st Century Schooling sort of way. Kid gets pregnant and can't come to school in the last months? - VHS.

At the college:
Some kids take courses at the college, paid by the school district.

Alternative programs:
Not to get too specific, but these kids don't make it in the high school, so we spend $40k per year apiece to send them to programs to which they belong.

I sometimes believe that we offer TOO MANY choices. Kids get wrapped up in the belief that they know what they will do in life and so "don't see a need for this boring stuff" even though they really will need it, they just don't know much about the world or education yet.

But you don't seem to know much about the world or education either, Jeb.

Libraries are changing.

Joanne Jacobs writes of The bookless campus — with cappucino

For $44,000 a year, parents can send their sons and daughters to Cushing Academy, a Massachusetts boarding school that boasts a “bookless campus.” ... snip ...
Cushing is disburdening itself of its library’s 20,000 books and spending $500,000 to establish a “learning center” ...snip...
spending $42,000 for some large flat-screen monitors ...snip...
$20,000 for “laptop-friendly” study carrels. ...snip...
In place of the reference desk, “a $50,000 coffee shop with a $12,000 cappuccino machine.”

When I was in high school in the ’60s, our library was renamed the “Instructional Materials Center.” I got in trouble with the library staff for making fun of the change in the school newspaper. But we still had books.

Stacy felt "It’s idiotic. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why not leave the library as is and add additional resources? The students will use what is useful." Richard wondered if they had a copy of Fahrenheit 451 in their library.

Neither of these commenters or Joanne seem to get what is happening here. This private school is running an experiment and we all need to pay very close attention to the results. The world is changing and this is but one of the avenues ahead of us. We need information so we can choose correctly and wisely.

Joanne says "But we still had books." Sure, Joanne, but in the 60s, that is all we had. I remember. I was there, too. School libraries are being deserted. Their old ways of operation need to change or we're going to be hiring a librarian to sit alone amid piles of fire hazard instead of helping kids research, which is what she should be doing.

Should we spend money on computers or more books or a third option I haven't thought of? Which type of books, software, bandwidth? Should they bother with an encyclopedia if no one opens it EVER? Should they purchase the OED for $995 (leather bound, 20volumes) or for $198 on 2 CDs or tell the kids a link to an on-line resource? With every student having a computer and a campus-wide wifi, where would you spend YOUR money?

Without knowing the specifics but having been in public and private schools for years, I would point out that the books in the Cushing were probably great when bought but weren’t being replaced as needed. New books that were purchased remained unused. Somebody made the leap to "Kindle is cheaper."

“The students will use what is useful.” Obviously, Stacy has not been in education recently if she thinks that students will find books useful. There isn’t a student alive who would voluntarily use a book when Google is at hand. The library was most likely devolving into a place for computer stations and tables, with books stored “over there behind the SmartBoard.” Richard has it equally wrong - no one is getting rid of the story, just the paper it's written on.

They probably had several encyclopediae, too — how’s that working out for a library in this age of Wikipedia and Google? I’m not saying that the Internet is preferable but it’s the resource chosen by the students.

If librarians are honest with themselves, they have to admit that their job descriptions are rapidly changing and their collections are becoming outdated and ignored.

I applaud the gamble. At least the experiment is being done with private money in a voluntary setting — anyone who can afford Cushing can afford another, equally desperate for tuition, private school.

It is now up to the public school community to let this experiment to run its course, for the data to be crunched as to its effectiveness and for the surveys to be compiled detailing how the educational experience changed as a result. Did the teachers notice a drop-off that can be correlated to the library changes?

I for one, would like to know. Our library is rapidly changing, too. The librarian is putting in more workstations and the shelves are gradually moving back to the wall and closer together so they take up less space. As she retires books, the ones she purchases are less likely to be subject-oriented and more likely fiction, magazines, and other light-reading material.

While I’m sure I don’t like it, I have no evidence that the kids will miss the books. I also can’t see that the faculty can or will do much about it and don't seem to miss them either. The English department’s been building “classroom sets” for years for all the books they need – they rarely visit the library anymore. History uses the computer labs more than anyone, even science, and neither group has much in the way of “Books that aren’t Textbooks.” Heck, for most classes, the library is the “overflow” computer room rather than a reading resource.

That last paragraph is probably what bothers me the most. The librarian's JOB is to help the kids research. Why is all of that research being done in the computer lab without her? Is this why we're having a bigger problem with plagiarism? I know many of our teachers drop the kids off and "let them go for it" when they never would have done so in the library. Are they really learning how to research from the teachers? Should we ban the teachers from sending their kids to the computer room to do research? Does the librarian know how to really use the Internet or is she just going to sit there at her desk and wait for the kids to ask questions? Maybe the librarians need to take a hard look at their profession and this experiment.

So many rhetorical questions, so little time.

Time for Testing ... but not academics?

I'm worried about my kids' workloads.  I'd like to suggest that we trim some things from their to-do lists so they can concentrate on what's important.

I refer, of course, to the TEST.

I don't know about most of you, but here in the VT-NH-RI NECAP regions, we have AYP testing in the fall of the junior year. Many schools around here are getting antsy because their "didn't-make-the-grade"-checkmarks are being checked. Accumulate checkmarks in two consecutive years and you're on notice. Continue to not make AYP for any subgroup and your school is on double-secret probation. Administration might be forcibly changed. Schools might suffer sanction.

A school to the south of us is having eight days of one-hour delayed-openings ... for PRACTICE TESTING. Then they'll have six days of two-hour delayed openings for the actual tests. 9th, 10th and 12th have no school and are home sleeping for the extra hours. 11th are cramming for the test.

When did actual teaching take a backseat to the state-wide testing pogrom? When the principals started fearing for their jobs.

Few people other than the teachers and students make the connection that one of the major reasons that education is on the ropes is the tremendous number of things students miss a class for. I have kids with 10 excused absences already and it's only the 18th day of class. Sure, they're excused, but they're still not there.

Doctor's appointments, valid sicknesses (and the cough-cough days-off, Mommy calls the school), vice-principal call-downs for discipline, counselors who talk to them about their "issues" or who counsel them on getting into college (miss class to talk about going to college - don't you just love it?). Field trips and other teacher's projects. Assemblies for anti-bullying and harassment, watching the President, pepping up the cheerleading section, Prepping for the NECAP tests, staying off drugs (as presented by seven steroid-laced muscle-bound men who stress that they've 'never done drugs'), not driving drunk, watch out for STDs and creepy Internet pedophiles. MADD, SADD, SMILE and WORLD OF DIFFERENCE taking various kids for one, two or three full days.

Then you've got in-class suggestions to "drop everything and prepare for the NECAP test" three weeks from now, not to mention the idea of giving the 9th, 10th and 12th graders time to sleep while the 11th graders practice test-taking strategies, and then six more days when they're actually taking the test. And the principal opines that it's not fair for anyone to give homework during the testing days -- and then reinforces his opinion with a direct statement "I don't want you to give homework in any class that has an 11th grader in it." For math teachers, that's quite a few of them.

Throw in the random interruptions, sports excuses, part-time job, ill parents and kids in a pissy mood cause they're teenagers with active glands. Add the nurse call-downs for swine flu, or regular flu, or the school-based physicals.

NOW is when we're taking time off for testing?

Pretty soon the students have no time to spend concentrating on math and really, don't they have enough on their plate without also demanding that they learn that, too? Let's drop the math requirement and replace it with test-taking strategies and test-taking skills. That'll learn them.

Hmmmm ...

Or we could just teach and eliminate all the other silliness. Consistent, steady progress towards a goal. No distractions, just routine.

NAH. It'll never happen. This is education. Homey don't play that.

SAT scores are linked to Family income. So what?

Just a warning ... I'm going there.

Flypaper, the edExcellence Blog, has commentary on the SAT scores that refuse to go up.

"Gaps widening a bit by race, income, parental education. Indeed, the tidiest relationships and smoothest curves are those that continue—as they have for as long as anyone can remember—to show the steady upward progression of average SAT scores (pdf) as family incomes and parents’ education rise."

Chester then goes on to show some details and to say,

What does this say about 26 years of education reforming since A Nation at Risk? For starters, it says the reform efforts haven’t seriously penetrated our high schools. Then it says that current moves (e.g., the “Common Core” national standards project of the governors and chiefs) to align high-school exit expectations to college and workforce readiness are urgently needed, indeed long overdue.

That's an interesting take. If you can't get results in 26 years of trying reform after reform, let's try another reform! (Insert sound of Bells and Whistles). Then there is the sentiment that "Reforms are obviously urgently needed."

It's true. The only correlated data that ETS has with an R-value greater than 0.1 or so is between scores and family income. The NYTimes has this:

Everyone, of course, dismisses that income-scores correlation as silly, saying "You can't just give the family more money and raise the scores, ha, ha." That's right, but I don't think that money causes good scores, although there is a lot to be said for SAT prep courses, which are really a total review of math and basic grammar and that's good no matter what.

I think the problem is an incorrect correlation, a confounding factor. It's not that A (money) causes B (scores). It's that C causes D which affects B. Simultaneously D causes A.

Parents are the confounding factor.

As I see it, smart parents are likely to have smart children. More importantly, motivated, dedicated, educated and intelligent parents are likely to have M, D, E, and I children. They are also more likely to have money because they work harder for it and are more capable of holding the job and moving up the ladder to the big bucks and higher family income. Simultaneously, their M,D,I, and E children are more likely to have better scores.

Children whose parents were poor because of misfortune or some other external factor don't tend to fit this pattern. They're the Horatio Algers of the world, the kid who worked his way up from the mailroom to CEO. There's no reason to assume the black or Hispanic kid can't be doctor, lawyer, etc. In fact, the kids of those successful (and higher income) blacks and Hispanics are likewise high-scoring and successful. The single mother who instills dedication, motivation, and a healthy respect for education into her kids might not have money but her kids will.

Children whose parents were not motivated, etc., always fit the income-score correlation. Race has rarely been a factor in determining motivation and dedication (simply look at KIPP schools to see that), but it has been an indicator of income due to longstanding segregation and migration patterns. Money doesn't seem to drive scores, but it does correlate.

The constant desire for improvement and reform and reform and change and reform again is doomed to repeat its cycle of failure.

Are reforms necessary? Sure, if you can point to a definitive improvement that will result. I'd appreciate it if you'd define "improvement," first. Improve what and by how much? Student satisfaction, tech-toys, test scores, athletic titles, graduation rates, future wages? Fundamentally, is "success" as defined by "average scores increasing yearly" or "adequate yearly progress" possible? I don't believe so.

I think we should stop looking for the perfect reform because it doesn't exist. We should instead focus our attention on doing the best we can each year with those we have in front of us.

Just sayin'.

Online Learning is in the News

Some people are linking to a new study and claiming that it says that a blend of online learning and face-to-face teaching is better than strictly face-to-face teaching. The study specifically warns against that. Take this post, for example. (Note: this is taken from a different site, which probably edited it somewhat. They might not have missed the caveats.)

Meta-Analysis Shows Online Learning Benefits
by ASCD Bloggers, Aug. 24, 2009
A recent meta-analysis of research comparing online learning with traditional classroom learning [pdf] showed that, on average, students performed better in online learning conditions as opposed to exclusively face-to-face instruction. Researchers found this effect was larger in situations that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face.

So I went to that study, helpfully linked and found the caveats in the abstract: "the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se." and "the results are derived for the most part from studies in other settings (e.g., medical training, higher education."

A glimpse at the executive summary shows: "The most unexpected finding was that an extensive initial search of the published literature from 1996 through 2006 found no experimental or controlled quasi-experimental studies that both compared the learning effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction for K–12 students and provided sufficient data for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Extending the search through July 2008 identified just five published studies meeting meta-analysis criteria."

Well, that doesn't really fit the headline all that well, does it?