The Problem
The teacher stands
before their High School Math class. “OK, so, in calculating a slope,
you have to remember that Y=mx + b”. “Why?” responds the student. “Why
do we have to know how to calculate a slope?” Of course, the student
immediately receives a disciplinary referral for disrupting the
class. The teacher knows they have to learn this. It’s important! This
teacher spent 5 years of their life preparing to teach. They love math,
they understand the subtle thinking that learning math can open. They
have learned how to think logically, how to look at problems (not only
math, but complex life problems) from different aspects. Why don’t these
students understand that math must be learned precept upon precept? The
teacher knows that you have to know how to solve for “x” before you can
solve for “x” and “y”. That’s how the teacher learned. That’s how
everyone over 30 learned for a thousand years! The problem is, that’s
NOT how these students have learned about life
Let’s take “Johnny”
as an example. Johnny is 15 years old and just finishing his freshman
year at high school. Johnny’s grades are poor to say the least. He is
among the 50% of freshman in California that are in danger of failing
his Algebra 1 class. He doesn’t remember his multiplication tables very
well and just can’t seem to focus on mulch-step problems with any great
success. He forgets to do all the steps to solve quadratic equations,
and will often not follow the order of operations in his linear
equations. In other words, he’s a typical 9th grader in trouble.
Johnny was born in
1994. He has never seen a “record” turntable other than as a Disc-Jockey
effects machine. He has never had access to less than 50 television
channels, or had to look up a fact in an encyclopedia. He has always had
internet access, microwaves, transportation, video games, and been able
to instantly access the music he wants to hear. When Johnny wants an
answer to a question, he Google, texts, tweets, IMs, or watches a
science or history channel. He does not read news papers (which may be
extinct before this is published), listen to lectures, or experience the
frustration of not being able to find the information he seeks.
We, the Gen Xer’s,
Baby Boomers, or AARPer’s, think Johnny isn’t interested in
learning. That he wants everything done for him. He doesn’t WANT
everything done for him, it already is. This is the world he lives
in. There is a tremendous gap between what he experiences out of school,
and what he experiences in the classroom. So great is this difference
that Johnny has become convinced that formal education may not be worth
the effort. We, the establishment, are trying to convince him that It IS
important without much success. The stark fact is that education is
increasingly out of touch with what today’s student really needs to
become a successful, productive, informed citizen.
Isn’t that the goal
of education? To help a young person develop a sense of self, a well
rounded, and well founded, view of the world in which we live? That’s
classical educational philosophy. It’s still a sound point of view. The
problem seems to be, that we’re trying to prepare a student for a world
that no longer exists. This is not to say that the information we’d like
a student to learn can’t be valuable. Indeed, knowing how to
communicate, how to calculate using advanced math (Algebra and
Geometry), being familiar with science and history, and learning about
arts and other general knowledge is still important for every
person. That’s why (in America and most of the Western world) we have
public education. We want our next generation to be prepared for
assuming the responsibility of guiding our society.
“Guiding” is the
key. Education has a unique paradox which is built into the present
system. We want to prepare our students for the future, but we’re still
using the techniques of the past. Many of our students (especially those
born after 1999) can’t read, or at least have difficulty in reading
cursive. Is this a failure of education? They write in block (printing)
lettering and can’t even read a cursive note. Why is this? If we think
about it, where can they read cursive in today’s’ society? They read
print in their books, they read print in their magazines, they read
print everywhere. What source do they have to cursive writing? Do they
receive letters from friends? Or, do they get IM’s? Educational thinking
is that they need to learn cursive so that they can write more
efficiently. Realistic thinking might be they need to learn to TM at an
earlier age so that they can communicate more effectively.
The real issue
isn’t what is taught in public schools, but rather, how education is
approached in order to truly prepare young people for the future. It’s
not WHAT we’re doing; it’s the WAY in which we’re doing it. OMG!
This Ain’t Yer Daddy’s Communicator!
One of the
television shows I truly enjoyed as a kid was “Star Trek”. Not the Next
Generation, the original. I thought Kirk and Spock we cool! As I sit
here, I remember one of the Star Trek movies in which the Kirk character
had gone back in time to the 1980’s and was sitting at a table in a
restaurant when his communicator beeped. He sheepishly responded trying
to hide the advanced technology from those present. Today, this is a
cell phone. What was once science fiction is now a part of the very
fabric of our society.
English has changed
significantly over the years. The way we speak (i.e. from “thee” and
“thou” to “you” and “your”), the way we write (from “an history” to “a
history”). These changes occurred over longer periods of time than in
the past, but today, these changes come much more rapidly. In fact, we
are presently seeing a significant shift in English language social
convention over a very short period of time. Since the change of the
century, we have added and deleted some 3000 (In a 1950’s dictionary,
the word “amn’t”, a contraction for “am not” was still acceptable) words
from our common dictionary. This has created a significant
communication gap between those who were born prior to about 1995 and
those born after. The electronic communications generation or, as many
say, “Digital Natives”[i].
These “EC” students
learned at an early age how to access the core information they sought
by using electronic media. Rather than by traditional step-by-step
processes to reach a conclusion, they accessed end result information
and incorporated that information into their knowledge base. This
creates a different learning style, which is opposed to traditional
learning. Let’s take an example from real world experience and compare
that to classroom pedagogy.
A person working
for the Department of Public Social Services in California and assigned
to Welfare cash benefits must determine a recipient’s amount each month
based on paperwork submitted on their income received. The formula goes
like this: You earned “x” dollars last month, submitted that information
this month, and will receive an amount determined by this information
next month. This is called the “3 month rule”. In short, a recipient
reports earnings from January in February, and then receives benefits in
March. When calculating (according to a pre-determined formula) this,
the employee is given (issued) a calculator or enters the information
into a computer. The formula itself uses fractions, additions,
subtractions, multiplications, products and sums. In school we are
taught how to calculate using all of these factors. Why does the county
issue a desktop calculator or computer? Shouldn’t the employee be able
to do this math using scratch paper and a pencil?
Why the
conflict? The answer is obvious. The employee must make rapid, accurate
calculations and be able to prove (via a print out) that those
calculations conform to State and Federal guidelines. Is there a company
that requires employees who must do continuous calculations that does
not issue the employee the necessary tools to do the job? Failure to
supply these tools would spell disaster in any competitive
business. Yet, rather than teach students how to use calculators,
computers, and advanced equipment which they will need in “real life”,
the system continues to propagate the notion that the student must learn
the “old school” way. It’s small wonder that students see little
connection between what they learn in school and what they need in the
job place.
An informal survey
conducted in a public high school of 100 sample students revealed that
there may be a disconnect in the students’ attitudes between their
public school experience and their career aspirations. The premise of
the survey was that (according to Piaget) every person is naturally
curious and wants to learn about something. With a brief explanation,
three questions were asked: What do you want to learn about? Do you
think you will learn about this subject in school (yes or no responses
only)? And, “If you checked ‘no’ above, where will you learn about this?
The survey showed
that 48% of the respondents were interested in a career in Science or
Medicine, 11% were interested in History or Social Sciences, 23% wanted
Careers which involved training in areas other than academic (public
safety, etc.), and 18% were interested in “Other” careers (those
occupations which do not require other than on the job training).
Although 59% of the responses indicated careers which are traditionally
associated with formal education, only 44% of those responding
associated post secondary education with career goals. 56% of those
surveyed had the opinion that they would pursue their career goals via
other than traditional education means.
Again, this was not
intended to be a scientific survey, nor were the results verified via
any other than simple means. The idea is simply to verify what we
already know from much more formal and scientific surveys; that students
today value their education less than previous
generations.
So the real
question is not “Is education broken?”, rather, “How can we fix it?”
There are many, many seminars, in services, workshops, etc. which have
ideas for fixes. Politicians and educators wrestle with, and many times,
against one another seeking the answer. We keep asking ourselves how to
fix the system, when in fact, the system may very well be beyond
repair. There is a time, when we can no longer fix up the old car, and
it’s time to buy a new one. It’s expensive, it’s full of dangers (what
looks good today may be bad tomorrow), and it requires the one thing
that teachers, administrators, politicians, and most of the public don’t
want; extensive change.
What Needs Fixing?
No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), was, and still is, a nightmare for most school districts
in the United States. It forced schools to accept a “play to pay” scheme
which basically stated that if schools wanted public tax monies from
the Federal government, they would have to improve test scores. In
essence, the response has been, if not in word in deed, that teachers
are now compelled to teach to those tests which are money makers. In
California, it’s California High School Exit Exam (CaHSEE), California
Standards Test (CST), and other various tests which, each year, must
achieve a higher score than the previous to receive money.
Tests, obviously,
are not the answer to improving student performance. Evaluation of
knowledge is indeed essential to measuring student achievement. However,
to test based on standardized knowledge can’t ever measure real student
achievement. Let’s look at an example of that gap between reality and
testing.
Arturo is a High
School Junior. He is currently behind some 30 credits in his graduation
track. Arturo does poorly in his math and science classes, as well as
English and History. He’s simply not interested in school. One day, in
one of his classes, he noticed an old computer tower sitting in a
corner. The tower was scheduled for re-cycling as the school site IT
administrator had dubbed it obsolete. Arturo asked his teacher if he
might work on the tower. The teacher, seeing an opportunity to get
Arturo interested in something about school allowed it. Arturo proceeded
to open the tower, collect spare parts from around the school
(legitimately) and his home, and within 2 weeks, had upgraded the old
computer, added new programming, and connected it to the schools web
integrating the old machine with newer technology.
Does Arturo know
math? Does Arturo know computer science? Not in the traditional
sense. Where has he learned the skills, both in hardware and software,
to do this? The answer is obviously not in traditional education. Arturo
wants to work with computers, they have fascinated him for years, and
he has learned, via non-traditional educational opportunities, how to
possibly enter a career as a “computer geek”. The problem for Arturo is
that few, if any, will take the time to recognize his talent with
computers if he does not fit into the mold of traditional education.
Whose
responsibility is it to help Arturo become a successful citizen? Arturo
has never been 17 years old before, he has never travelled extensively
before, he has only known his neighborhood, friends, and family, and
school. Can Arturo make wise decisions about his future? If his
experience with school has been non-successful, then how can we expect
him to find success in the same venue? Someone once said, “The
definition of insanity is expecting different results by doing the same
thing over and over again”.
Unfortunately,
Arturo’s experience is repeated more often by students than we care to
recognize. True, most students can succeed in traditional education, but
those numbers are declining every year. Thus, we have responded by
continuing to offer the same programs in the same manner as in years
past, with only minor variations (changes in scheduling, changes in
“updated” texts and materials) expecting different results. The truth
is, we need a new venue.
Solutions?
There
have been many fine studies too numerous to recount here which have
endeavored to answer the question “Are there solutions to our present
educational crisis?” There are indeed, many proposed and good solutions
being tried, and many that are indeed working. However, they are working
within a context in which, unfortunately, does not work.
One of the
fundamental issues facing education today is assessment. How do we
assess what and how students are learning? No Child Left Behind has
actually taken its cue from the educational community: The best way to
assess a student is to test them. Now, the educational community
complains that testing is NOT the real way to test a student. In every
teachers lounge across the country, teachers are complaining that they
now (in reality) have to “teach to the test”, which is actually teaching
to the standards (State and Federal educational standards). The
complaint is simple, if teachers and schools receive money and
recommendation based on how the students do on a specific test, then
that test becomes the true measure of instruction.
However, this has
been how students have been evaluated for the last 100 years. Teachers
teach, either by lecture, exposure, experiment, or text. Then, the
student is evaluated based on how well they can regurgitate that
information back to the teacher in the form of tests, quizzes, oral or
other visual response. Good teachers spend a lot of time being as
creative as possible in this process in hopes that their students can
retain as much of this information as possible in order to score at a
higher level. The greater the number of higher level student responses,
the greater the rewards are all around. Higher level students have more
access to further educational opportunities beyond High School, teachers
achieve a greater level of professional satisfaction when their classes
are filled with high achieving students, and districts get more money
as a result of the improved scores. Everybody wins.
The problem is that
fewer and fewer students seem to be achieving these higher
scores. Exactly what are students expected to achieve? Good Grades. All
public schools are hooked into a grading system. This is the most
convenient way to measure student progress. With thousands of school
districts across the country, and hundreds, sometimes thousands of
teachers within each of these school districts, there is no standard
grading system adhered to in any locale. There is more often than not,
no standard grading system adhered to in any school or even any academic
department.
An example of this
might be found in any school at any level. But, let’s take a High School
Math department as the most visible and easily understood. Mr. Pavlov
and Mr. Chips are each giving a Chapter test on Chapter 3 of the Algebra
1 text book, “Understanding Exponents”. Their tests are from materials
supplied by the textbook manufacturers, so there is no difference in the
questions, presentation, or format of the test.
Johnny has some
scheduling difficulties which require his transferring from Mr. Pavlov’s
class to Mr. Chips. Johnny takes the test in Mr. Pavlov’s class and
scores a “C”. But, before the grades are given out, he is transferred
and receives a “D“from Mr. Chips. Did Mr. Chips discover wrong answers
that Mr. Pavlov missed? No, Johnny’s answers still remain the same. The
difference is that Mr. Pavlov scores on a percentage scale. So, Johnny
got 71% correct, which is a C for Mr. Pavlov, 90-100% A, 80-89% B, and
so forth. Johnny answered 37 of 52 questions correctly. In Mr.
Pavlov’s class, that’s 71%, a solid C. Mr. Chips does not use a
percentage scale to grade his students. He instead uses a 5 point
rubric. Ranges of 10.4 questions determine the corresponding letter
grade, Johnny’s score of 37 falls below the “C” cutoff, so he’s earned a
“D”. Both systems are equally fair, and both are equally valid.
Public school
systems which are honest and open about this process freely admit the
variety of methods used to grade students. “The
school district recognizes that no one method of student assessment and
grade reporting system can be all encompassing. The information
outlined below is a starting point for the mufti-faceted, comprehensive
reporting system that we strive to achieve because it is a critical
piece for students, parents, and staff in the overall educational
process. Student
assessment and grade reporting is considered a positive tool to measure
growth, progress, and the development of the student. One of several
important components of student assessment and grading systems is the
student’s report card. This is mentioned specifically because it is the
traditional and most often used format for providing information about
student progress and performance.”[ii]
There are many
different ways to assign letter grades, and so students can become
confused and frustrated in their efforts to obtain higher
marks. Colleges depend on the GPA (cumulative Grade Point Average) in
their admissions processes, and public schools depend on their state
college systems to tell them what kind of GPA’s are needed to enter the
most prestigious institutions in that state. So, the system is actually a
method of determining who gets the greatest opportunity to go to the
best schools. It’s also very convenient for these institutions in that
review of grades can actually be done by computer records and simple to
complex programming. All very inexpensive, all very fast, all very
easy. But what about Arturo?
Students like
Arturo need access too. They need to be recognized for what they can do,
not penalized for what they can’t do. Some would argue that if Arturo
wants to be successful, he needs to learn to fit into the mold. The
problem is that given the significant social paradigm shift within this
generation, the mold has become outdated. The mold is moldy!
One possible
solution is to do away with grades. This has been tried before, but only
half heatedly. What would replace grades? How can we measure student
progress? Chaos! In private industry, how is employee performance
measured? The Job Performance Review. Employees sit down with their
supervisor (and often another manager in the room) and review how they
are perceived to be performing at work. Although a very flawed system,
the fundamental principle is this, the employee is expected to know x
amount about what they do every day. They have measurable (in the best
cases) goals which they are expected to produce in a certain amount of
time. Thus, the review consists of several factors. Does the employee
show up to work on time and remain at work regularly? Does the employee
understand what is required of them in the performance of their daily
duties? Does the employee perform these duties within reasonable
expectations?
An example might be
a shipping clerk. He or she is expected to be at their job daily with
no more than 6 absences each year. They are expected to ship orders to
the correct customer, checking each order for accuracy with more than a
98% accuracy rate (the ideal would be 100%, anything greater than 99.5%
would be considered excellent). This is the standard. Employees who many
excessive mistakes (only 90% correct) would receive a “poor”
performance review and an employee who would be below 90% accuracy might
even be terminated.
In other words, the
employee is expected to master their job. Why can’t this standard of
Mastery be applied to students? Although we can’t expect all students
to obtain a 90% accuracy rate, a standard of accuracy may be agreed
upon, say 80%, and used to measure student success. Anything less than
80% could not be truly considered mastery.
Let’s pursue an
anecdotal case, again in math. Johnny is in Algebra 1, and he’s still
having trouble understanding exponential math. So, Johnny does not move
forward to the next concept until he obtains Mastery of this
concept. Given today’s technology, the fact that other students master
the concept prior to Johnny does not make a difference. This would only
occur in an environment where lecture is not a major component of the
instructional strategy. OMG! A class where the teacher doesn’t spend a
majority of the class time lecturing? Can education survive?
Quite well,
actually. Since many studies show that lecture is the most ineffective
method of instruction, use of general lecture should be the least amount
of time spent in the learning environment. Rather than lecture to a
class of 36 students (think of the average High School Algebra 1 class),
concept introduction should be short and collaborative learning
long. Students do want to learn, they do want to connect to learning,
and they want to learn as easily as possible.
Exchanging grades
for mastery would benefit students in several ways. Competition for
artificial grades is reduced and pursuit of knowledge
increases. Students learn cooperatively in that the sharing of
information does not risk a lessening of achievement. The student who
easily masters a concept becomes a resource for those who may take
longer to achieve mastery. Students are no longer rushed through a
concept because of scope and sequence imposed on the teacher. And,
concepts are more likely to be retained by the student who masters a
subject.
Presently, we pass
Johnny along with a D- in Algebra 1. Next year, he gets to take
Geometry! How well does Johnny understand a quadratic equation? Will he
be able to apply his knowledge in the general workforce? Wouldn’t it be
better for Johnny to give him the opportunity to complete a real course
in mathematics rather than rush him through a state required 2 or 3 year
course simply to meet an educational standard? In our increasingly high
tech world, Johnny does need advanced math. He needs even more to be
able to apply that knowledge to a career.
So, Johnny does
have a goal, he needs to be able to compute a quadratic equation and
determine angles measurements and line lengths, etc. in order to be
considered proficient in math before he leaves public school. Does it
matter if Johnny does in 2 or 4 years? The important issue is the end
result of Johnny’s educational process. Is he prepared to enter into
society as a prepared person? This holds true with all that is taught in
public schools today. Each subject is worthy of not only being taught,
but also being learned. Our students do indeed need a good foundation of
History, Science, Math, Language, and the Arts in order to be fully
rounded, fully prepared citizens.
Standards are good
in that they can give us a guideline as to how children
develop. However, when the standard becomes the absolute, it becomes
rather the measure of success than the measure of progress. The two are
very different things. The educational system has exchanged true
education for convenience. Education needs to re-think how they evaluate
progress and measure success. To exchange grades for mastery is a large
step in that direction.
What about access
to colleges? Many colleges use the GPA to determine entrance
qualifications. Most colleges also administer (or accept the results of)
entrance examinations. These examinations are, of themselves, adequate
for determining placement of students. The SAT and other tests give a
rather complete picture of student performance and student potential to
succeed in the collegiate environment. Losing the GPA as a resource
would actually simplify the process of admissions for most colleges.
The Technology Gap
Americas’ work
force can basically be divided into two groups, white collar workers and
blue collar workers. I was speaking to an eleventh grade student one
day about what he’d like to do after high school. His grades weren’t the
best, but he was passing all of his classes and on track for
graduation. He told me that he was already working on weekends and over
the last few summers at his fathers’ gardening business. That’s what he
was going to do, enter into, and eventually take over, the family
business. He was the proud son of a professional gardener and wanted to
continue his family tradition. An admirable ambition. I know the son of
another gardener. His life’s desire is to become a lawyer. He has the
grades, the determination, and the ability to reach his dreams. He’s
supported by his parents, the school staff, and others in the
community. Also, an admirable ambition.
America needs both
lawyers and gardeners. Somehow, the educational system has placed more
value (Could it be a reflection of how educators value earning
potential?) on the white collar professions than on the blue. Years ago,
I made my living as a carpenter. We used sighting levels and measuring
poles at a job site to help determine levels for floors and
foundations. Today, there are laser levelers and electronic measurement
instruments to perform the task. “Star Trek” is here. Students, whether
white or blue collar workers, need exposure to technology in order to be
prepared for the workforce today.
Unfortunately, public schools do not furnish this exposure[iii]. In
schools where computers are available for students, they are first
obsolete, and secondly, used primarily for internet research,
keyboarding classes, and fundamental program (usually Microsoft Office)
introduction. Students do have access (in some schools) to scientific
calculators, but their exposure is limited to plotting curves, etc. They
have little, if any connection to practical application. If a student
is trained to use a scientific calculator in the classroom, why are they
not allowed to use that same tool on a test? The answer heard most
often is “What if they don’t have a calculator at work?” The fallacy of
that argument should be apparent. Can anyone imagine a work scenario in
which the employee is not (especially in regards to calculations)
furnished with, or at the very least supplies their own, necessary tools
to perform that job? Schools need to, given the present circumstances,
provide a practical, real world focused course of study which will
provide students the opportunity to explore the technology they will
need and use in their lives ahead. Imagine a High School auto shop which
results in a graduate obtaining a certification as a mechanic.
So, what prevents
the schools from being up to date and career focused? Money. We know
that public schools derive their funding from politicians who vote to
allocate collected taxes. When we have an economic climate where
resources decline (recession, depression), schools are often the first
to feel the cut. Politicians promise that those cuts are temporary and
that they will somehow “repay” the lost revenues. This rarely
happens. But consider that schools are public agencies, and the
philosophy of spending is very different than in private sector
business.
I was, for several
years, the divisional manager of an aerospace electronics supplier. Our
division moved over $2,000,000.00 a month of equipment to customers such
as Boeing, NASA, and overseas to other governments. My responsibility,
as the division manager, was to make sure we were operating as
efficiently as possible while meeting, or better yet, coming under our
operational budget. This strategy is a fundamental of business
operations everywhere in the world. Try not to spend everything you
have.
Much to my
surprise, the very opposite is true in public agencies. I have been told
on many occasions that the budget must be spent every year. Otherwise,
we will “loose” the money. I’ve never been quite sure how that works,
but it seems to me that the idea goes something like this. If a
department is allocated $15,000.00 for annual expenses (I’ve never seen
that much allocated to a high school department of any discipline except
sports), then they must (by a certain deadline) spend all of that
money. Otherwise, the remainder will be re-allocated to another “need”
on campus. In some cases, I’ve seen allocated money used for other than
the original purpose prior to the opportunity to spend the funds.
With this thinking,
there is seldom much more reserve on any given campus than is needed or
required by law. Many allocated funds are determined to be Designated
Funds (money that cannot be spent for another need) and so are withheld
from the general fund. There are (most rightly so) many controls of
public funds to prevent them from being misspent. However, these
controls have led to a mindset that all public funds should be spent
every year with no thought of appropriateness or long term planning
which gives at least in part, a measure of fiscal accountability.
The farmer, when
harvesting the crop, sets aside a certain amount of that harvest for
next year’s seed. The outlook of the farmer is not only to what he will
profit this year, but also what he may profit next year. The educational
system seems to have very little forward thinking (as a system). The
teacher worries about this years’ test scores. The site administrator
worries about how many will matriculate this year. The district Superintendent worries about how to meet this years’ AYP and API. The
entire system is really geared to maintaining the status quo. In doing
so, each year education falls further and further behind in technology,
in social relevance, and in meeting the needs of the very population
they are created to help. There must be a major shift in political
educational thinking. Education should (along with emergency services)
be the very last thing to be touched by budget cuts. These students are
our seed for the next successful generation of Americans.
Politicians need to
do a little forward thinking of their own, and look for real education
reform. We need to stop trying to fix what isn’t working, and move our
entire education system into the 21st century (it’s been here
almost 10 years now). This will require major, specified funding for
technology improvements and teacher training. Access for all students to
technology in a controlled environment where learning is technology
based from an early age. The billions of dollars required to do this is
available if public agencies spend wisely and judiciously. Computer and
software suppliers are willing to deal on a mass scale which means that
such technology installed on a State or even National scale could be had
for pennies on the dollar. This would also mean increased technological
employment in a time when we are entering into a new age of competence
in applying new methods to traditional enterprise. The Mandarin Kania
for the word “crisis” is composed of two sub characters, one means
“danger” the other “opportunity”. Where we place the emphasis on the
present crisis in education will determine whether we have responded in
fear or in faith in a brighter future. Success or failure depends not
only on the educational community, but on the political will of the
people of this country. Will we choose wisely?
A new look in the classroom
What do McDonald
and Target have in common? They both spend a lot of money researching
where to place their new stores. Public schools do the same
thing. Serving the local community is important to both national chain
stores and public schools. How similar are all Mickey D’s? How similar
are all public schools? At first, similarities in construction in public
schools may appear somewhat different, but the similarities far
outweigh the differences. Public schools all have classrooms with
student desks. They all have the least expensive equipment. They all
have administrative offices, recreation areas, sports programs, and
daily schedules of instruction.
The difference
between private and public in this case lies not in similarity of
environment, but in product served. A Big Mac will be exactly the same
in Los Angeles as it is in Moscow. The educational product served in
public school varies widely even within a single district. Schools used
different text books based on committee recommendations and thus,
information and instructional strategies vary even further based on how
individual teachers interpret the importance of the material given. One
History teacher might spend much more time giving instruction on the
Civil War, while another can’t wait to get to Civil Rights. Both are
taught from the same book in the same year.
Each state has
standards, but each standard is left to districts to interpret. And,
selling text books to public schools is BIG money. So each textbook
publisher writes and rewrites, includes flash and panache: All in order
to attract the attention of these committees. True academia takes a back
seat to bottom line profit. In an increasingly technological world,
what is the real value of traditional text books?
Children exposed to
computers as young as age 3 are able to begin their technological
“education” by playing games, coloring, and doing other activities which
familiarize them with the electronic medium. Although not every home in
America has a computer, there are very few homes that don’t have some
form of electronic communicative devices. Young children are more likely
to receive an electronic toy than a set of building blocks. Electronic
exposure (by the very nature of exposure) predisposes young children to
electronic media rather than traditional print media. Education which
takes advantage of this meets the child at their level of interest and
understanding. So, curriculum should by all rights become electronically
based.
This
revolutionizes class structure. Teachers will spend much less time
lecturing and much more time instructing. As electronic media informs
students, teachers help individual students receive individual
instruction on concepts with direct instruction in those concepts. This
would accelerate learning for some students, while allowing others to
learn at a pace they are able to maintain. This kind of instruction
requires at least two elements in place to be successful.First, the
technology needed to provide each student with a learning station. Each
student has access to what they need (computer, calculator, etc.) in
order to successfully perform the task of learning. Give each student
tools, and a comfortable place to perform their task, and they are more
likely to do that task well Secondly, we need
teachers who are knowledgeable and (simply put) like what they
do. There are a few (thank goodness relatively few) teachers who are
simply putting in time for a pay check. They need to do themselves and
their communities a favor and find another line of work. There are a
great many more teachers who are frustrated with their declining
effectiveness to touch lives. They are mainly frustrated with the very
system they help to perpetuate. They want to be effective teachers, and
so, they continue to struggle year after year, to help as many students
as they can. What keeps them coming back to teaching? Every year they
get one “thank you” from a student who understands what they are trying
to do.
Now imagine a
classroom where the old, uncomfortable student desks (designed for
lecture and copying from a board) have been replaced with ergonomic work
stations equipped with all the appropriate technological tools students
need to perform their tasks. Specially designed computers at each
station which allow students access to and instruction in the
curriculum. Teachers who no longer spend the majority of their time
lecturing, but delivering individualized instruction on concepts to
students as they are individually needed. Software programs that
introduce curricular concepts and automatically monitor student progress
already exist and can be expanded to meet curricular needs at most
grades.The traditional
Math or English class becomes the Learning Center for that specific
subject. Can students come and go as they do in traditional
schedules? Of course, but this kind of thinking also makes rooms for
varied schedules. Let’s say that a student is doing well in language
arts, but struggling in Algebra. So, the student signs into their Math
Center and spends an additional ½ hour getting an important
concept. They are accounted for, and have spent their time wisely. Such a
change would not impact the teacher; they are already in the room
(perhaps a team of 2 or even 3 qualified teachers in the same center at
the same time) and giving instruction. The student doesn’t suffer in
their other studies as their schedule is to meet a certain number of
registered hours in each week.
Schools may be
active longer during the day (from 6 to 8 hours and perhaps even
Saturdays), but the access to education should more accurately reflect
the needs of the community. I’m old enough to remember when Banks opened
at 9:00 am and closed at 3:00 pm. Now, in response to societal needs,
we have access to banking 24/7. Should schools rethink their operational
traditions? An example of this kind of scheduling can be easily imagined. A 9th
grade student is required to have (in simplest terms) 5 hours of
English, 5 hours of Algebra 1, 5 hours of History, 5 hours of Science,
and 10 hours of elective instruction each week (a total of 30 hours in
class each week). So, Monday through Friday, they attend classes from
7:30 to 2:20 and they have fulfilled their educational obligation. It
does not matter if they pass each class with a D- (as long as they pass,
they pass along through the system). Their parents (even if they don’t
start work until 9:00 am) must have their children up and out of the
door in time to make the first class. Then, in the afternoons, the child
may as often as not, return to an empty house with no supervision until
later in the evening when the parent returns home.
Now imagine a
school in which the student arrives more coincidentally to the parents
work schedule, is able to electronically check into class, and begin
their work , still needing to meet the minimum hourly requirement of
instruction. The student works while the parent works, and can remain at
school for a longer duration of time during the day should they need to
do so. There is more adult monitoring and more adult exposure for that
student. And of course, much more academic exposure (Which all research
shows will positively influence the students’ academic
performance.). This does require more campus supervision (some students
would take advantage of the freedom such a schedule would allow) in
order to ensure safety and due diligence on the part of the
students. However, the advantage is that students begin to take more
responsibility for their educational process, and see themselves as in
more control of what and how they learn. Different
learning modalities can be easily built into such a system, as the
classroom teacher (or more likely teacher team) can adapt instructional
strategies to include students who are more kinesthetic or auditory in
their learning styles. Thus, instruction remains personal, immediate,
and responsive to student needs and goals.
In such a system,
the sum of knowledge educators feel that each student should ideally
possess would remain constant, and the value of that knowledge would
become much more apparent to the student. The process changes from age
based standards to summative based standards. Students would indeed
learn in an environment which promotes success through knowledge rather
than success through performance. In some cases, a particularly talented
student might finish their public education at 16, while another
student might finish at 19. Which of these two would be the greater
success story? In a system where knowledge is valued over performance,
both are equally successful and neither has be left behind. In Special
Education, students with special needs are addressed with the IEP (the
Individual Education Plan). In reality, each student is an individual,
and in our advanced society, has need of an individual education
plan. Such plans are impossible to deliver under our present system, but
would become standard in a truly technological system. Progress can be
monitored, and curriculum adapted to meet the struggles and the
aspirations of each student. Each student presents their own
unique gifts, talents, and challenges. These students can no longer be
forced into a “One Size Fits All” system of education. No Child Left
Behind needs to be a reality, but the entire educational system in our
nation needs a complete overhaul. We have to summon the courage to leave
what isn’t working, and buy into what will work.
Deepa Singh
Business Developer
Web Site:-http://www.gyapti.com
Blog:- http://gyapti.blogspot.com
Email Id:-deepa.singh@soarlogic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment