I posted recently about the desire of some to use technology resources as a replacement for classroom teaching or an excuse to raise class size. I use computer assessments and online resources in my own classroom that are extremely beneficial for the students. However, I think “technology” or its euphemism, “21st century teaching,” often become context-free buzzwords used as an end to themselves rather than a means to learning content or skills. In most cases, technology is just a tool that succeeds or fails according to the preparation and skill of the teacher. A traditional public school teacher and a dedicated homeschooling parent can both successfully use technology, especially online resources, and likewise, they can both fall for enticing gimmicks with little real educational value. I plan on posting about some current situations in Utah schools that demonstrate the hit-and-miss, politicized nature of educational technology. (I also plan to follow up on what little information I have on the implementation of the Waterford Software program and would love further information or data anyone could point me to.)
This post will talk about a recent purchase in a Utah school district that appears to fall squarely into the “enticing gimmick” category.
The Bullet Point Version for easy digestion:
1. A school district received a large amount of stimulus money earmarked for Title I schools. Title I is a 45-yr-old federal funding grant for schools designated as having a high percentage of low-income students.
2. A single employee had almost complete latitude to make the decision on how to spend that money.
3. That person had the feeling, true or false I’m not sure, that he/she had to “hurry” and spend that money.
4. The person got the idea somewhere that kids would use learning programs more willingly if they were on a Portable Play Station (PSP).
5. 60 of the PSP’s were purchased for a pilot program at a cost of $180 each. However, the district did not want to be seen as having purchased Play Stations, so employees are under strict instructions to call them “Achieve Now devices” instead, referring to the name of the learning software that was purchased to play on the non-Play Stations.
6. The Achieve Now software was purchased from a vendor the district had previous experience with, Plato Learning, but Plato had no previous experience making games for the PSP. (Many districts and schools had used Plato “lab” in the past as a remediation class where students spent time using a set math or language drill program from Plato. Both my school and the district in question had cut those labs in past years. My school changed because we found the lab was not as effective as we wished; I believe budget concerns drove the elimination of Plato in this district. I’m sure Plato programs are still in use in schools around the state.) The new Achieve Now “games” for math and language skills are not engaging or adapted for the PSP in any way. They do not use the graphic capabilities of the PSP or even the joystick. You can only use the arrow keys and the games appear to just be bumped over from Plato’s already-mentioned computer division. They are just drill games that could be played on a regular computer.
7. Furthering this unwise rush to spend money on the appearance of progress, the Achieve Now games come in a different format than the regular mini-CD-like discs used for PSP games. Instead, the learning games come on little memory cards similar to what is used in a digital camera, and the PSP has to be specially formatted to use these cards. If a child places a normal game disc into the PSP, an automatic prompt will ask them if they want to update the PSP. When the child selects yes, their game disc will work perfectly, but the PSP will no longer accept the memory cards with the Achieve Now games. This change is irreversible without shipping the PSP back to Plato for expensive reformatting. Plato has advised the district that the reformatting is not cost effective, so they should just tape the game port in back shut and lie to the kids that these PSP’s will not play the regular games.
(Insert memory of some kid named Josh sneaking a Weird Al Yankovic cassette tape into the machine at an audio learning center in 5th grade. We LOVED that center for the week or so he got away with it.)
8. Speaking of cost-effectiveness, two of these memory cards, one for math and one for language arts, were purchased for each of the 60 PSP’s. Each card cost $550, bringing the total for each PSP with two cards to $1280. If a kid reformats the PSP on the first day—sorry, no refunds. Total cost so far = $76,800.
9. At the district’s bulk pricing, that $1280 for each set is enough to buy about 2 and ½ desktop computers. A multitude of websites feature free drill games of the same quality, or in many cases higher quality than the precarious memory cards. If the computers were installed in a lab in a school, they could then be used to play math or language practice games AND ALSO be available for all of the other activities computers are used for in a school. (writing, powerpoints, grades, research, etc.)
10. These 60 PSP/2-card sets were purchased to pilot in 2 schools’ summer programs. The current plan is to soon purchase 30 sets for each of the Title I schools in the district, with each set costing that same $1280 price—$38,400 per school. I don’t believe those purchases have been made yet.
11. The early feedback from those involved in the summer program has been negative. The games are boring and the employees involved had difficulty cajoling the students to play the Achieve Now games for any extended period of time. The language arts games are especially confusing and their real effect on reading comprehension, vocabulary, etc. is extremely questionable. The problem is magnified because the the PSP’s and Achieve Now games are being used exclusively in after-school settings supervised by aides. The aides are generally assigned only to supervise and are unprepared to answer questions that arise if a student is practicing a skill he/she does not understand. The classroom teachers will not be involved in order to give advice at what level of practice to place kids on the Playstations. It’s a case of throwing the kids in a room with a game and hoping they learn.
12. I believe this was a well-intentioned attempt to find creative ways to reach struggling students, but the spending decision was made hastily at a district level without input from school personnel actually working with these disadvantaged students. The district is paying an extremely high cost for a mediocre product. Just sticking a boring learning activity on a Play Station will generally not make a kid enjoy it more. If high quality learning content were developed that took advantage of the PSP’s enticing capabilities at a cost effective price, then maybe an investment into these machines would aid student achievement.
As it now stands, I believe the “Achieve Now devices” are merely an ineffective boondoggle. I hope that district personnel will seek honest feedback about the program and reconsider the upcoming purchases. There are better ways to use the hundreds of thousands of dollars from the stimulus.
Showing posts with label silver bullet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label silver bullet. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Monday, April 7, 2008
Gifted education, the "right" kind of education, and innovation in public schools
First, my bracket is shot. I joined most of the country as a Memphis non-believer and am now impressed. I was also impressed by Kansas stomping North Carolina. I had NC vs. Texas in my final. (I started this before the game, but Kansas just pulled out an overtime win.)
More to the point…Good people disagree about education. Education is not simple. Anyone who tells you they have “simple” methods that universally work is trying to sell you expensive textbooks or was fooled by someone who is. It’s a lot like parenting—there are certain important principles generally agreed on…but even which principles those are tend to be a little different depending on who you talk to. I know certain things that work with my children, but when I’m tending relatives or neighbors, they often don’t. Some of those may be because of different temperaments and abilities, and many are because of different parenting styles and practices. I definitely see things that other parents do that I disagree with and find frustrating. I’m fairly sure some of my opinions are correct. I’ve also learned some humility as my two children grow and I see how differently they behave and respond to things, even within the same family and with the same habits and rules. Outside of certain very commonly accepted bounds, it would be rude for me to angrily demand that my friends parent the way I do, even if it would make my life so much easier. Some principles are absolute, but different people have different personalities, different ways of communicating, and different priorities.
There are legitimate improvements that can be made in teaching practice. But how many of these improvements are agreed on by education “experts,” or by students and families? One person’s “tried and true” method is another’s “outdated rote memorization.” One teacher’s “discovery unit” for independent research is then derided as “fluff based on self-esteem with no fundamentals.” How much of a body of basic knowledge do we expect elementary and secondary students to “know?” (And does “know” just mean to remember the fact, date or formula, be able to find the best multiple-choice answer using the knowledge, or an actual ability to apply the knowledge?) vs. How much critical thinking, evaluation, and learning how to find your own answers do we practice at the cost of covering more information? In other words, breadth vs. depth in a given timeframe. I have had parents demand both more and less homework for their students and read articles decrying both extremes as one of the causes of the “education crisis.” Parents also express opposing opinions on how much grammar and drill I should include in class. In the comments below an article today on education funding (more on this in another post), different persons derided the UEA or the “establishment” for both resisting smaller school districts and for resisting supposedly more cost-effective school district consolidation. How important are class size, technology, and “values” in the classroom? Who decides?
Most educational decisions and mandates, both those made with an inclusive process and in good faith (A generally applicable example being classroom reduction money) and those mandated top-down from a relatively small group with little cooperation or buy-in (Investigations Math in Alpine District, vouchers), will be roundly criticized from some quarter. Here is an example from Provo District about an issue that can be very polarizing: gifted education. The two short articles describe the school board first considering, and then approving a separate magnet school for gifted students. Read the opinions in the articles and in the comments—there aren’t an overwhelming number of comments like in the previous article.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695264138,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695264718,00.html
Good people disagree on the general and specific principles. Are special programs for gifted students discriminatory favoritism or a form of “segregation” as one commenter opines? The counter-argument declares that those students have just as pressing of individual needs as special ed. kids and have the right to learn on their own level. The best and brightest should not be held back from great achievement. Beyond that, if you support programs for gifted kids, what is the correct way to administer that program? Can you meet both their academic and social needs in a separate class or school, or is a variation of the normal school program better? Does a special program stigmatize gifted students or under-prepare them to work with all types of people in the real world?
My opinions have evolved over time. I experienced some different forms of gifted education as a child, and I have worked with both gifted classes and special needs students as a teacher. Some of my educational beliefs from my own experience have not held up as universally applicable in the face of the incredible variety of students I teach. I won’t go into specifics right now as that’s not my focus. The point is that everyone who doesn’t believe the same as you about the “right” way to educate gifted individuals is not ignorant or mean. Their views are shaped by their own experiences and those of family or friends. In all probability, they want the best education possible for their own children and for Utah’s students in general. The same reality applies to most other educational programs and theories as well. A balance between inclusive vacillation and bull-headed determination to do it “my way” has to be found, and there will automatically be opposing viewpoints.
Therefore, there are no “easy” answers.
And unlike many rightwing commenters, both nationally and locally, I see the bull-headedness mostly from public education critics rather than the “education establishment.” Even with No Child Left Behind, standardized testing, and other conformist influences, teachers still practice a huge variety of teaching styles and methods. The individual personalities of the teacher and the students play a huge role in classroom activities, discipline, and atmosphere. Teachers generally appreciate the differences and love to bounce ideas off each other when they find time to do so. I have strengths and weaknesses as a professional and love to work with the other teachers in my department and school. Within some basic parameters, change and innovation are encouraged and admired. And, just like any profession, teachers themselves don’t always agree which also leads to an increased variety of methods.
I have improved by incorporating practices in my classroom from local and national sources. Do I end up hitting every possible individual sweetspot? I’m sure I don’t…BUT, I am also certain I have improved my methods and skills each year and reached a higher and higher percentage of learning styles and individuals in my class each year. Are there teachers stuck in ruts or that don’t care? Of course. But mandating your particular vision of what the curriculum or methods should be will not eliminate this problem from a public, charter, or private school.
It is the vocal proponents of particular programs or methodologies that insist the public schools are “doing it wrong” and that all students would learn if only the school would adopt their favored plan. They usually believe in a solid program with benefits, but in my perception, ignore all the students who don’t fit their vision. They accuse the public schools of being too uniform if their proposals are not implemented when a public school in fact allows more diversity of practice than most individual private schools. (Private schools are great by the way—the point is that they are often driven by a singular vision or theory that can’t always provide for all students.)
Public schools are often criticized both for being too monolithic and narrowly-focused on one hand, while on the other being attacked for using too many diverse methodologies that a specific commentator disagrees with. You can’t have it both ways. Utah public schools do struggle to meet each need of hundreds of thousands of diverse students, but individual teachers, as well as schools and districts, are always experimenting, observing, and improving.
This is not an “excuse” or an argument against improvement. It is a reality check about supposed ”silver bullets” that don’t exist and the diversity of public opinion on education, even within members of the same neighborhoods, political parties, or religions.
More to the point…Good people disagree about education. Education is not simple. Anyone who tells you they have “simple” methods that universally work is trying to sell you expensive textbooks or was fooled by someone who is. It’s a lot like parenting—there are certain important principles generally agreed on…but even which principles those are tend to be a little different depending on who you talk to. I know certain things that work with my children, but when I’m tending relatives or neighbors, they often don’t. Some of those may be because of different temperaments and abilities, and many are because of different parenting styles and practices. I definitely see things that other parents do that I disagree with and find frustrating. I’m fairly sure some of my opinions are correct. I’ve also learned some humility as my two children grow and I see how differently they behave and respond to things, even within the same family and with the same habits and rules. Outside of certain very commonly accepted bounds, it would be rude for me to angrily demand that my friends parent the way I do, even if it would make my life so much easier. Some principles are absolute, but different people have different personalities, different ways of communicating, and different priorities.
There are legitimate improvements that can be made in teaching practice. But how many of these improvements are agreed on by education “experts,” or by students and families? One person’s “tried and true” method is another’s “outdated rote memorization.” One teacher’s “discovery unit” for independent research is then derided as “fluff based on self-esteem with no fundamentals.” How much of a body of basic knowledge do we expect elementary and secondary students to “know?” (And does “know” just mean to remember the fact, date or formula, be able to find the best multiple-choice answer using the knowledge, or an actual ability to apply the knowledge?) vs. How much critical thinking, evaluation, and learning how to find your own answers do we practice at the cost of covering more information? In other words, breadth vs. depth in a given timeframe. I have had parents demand both more and less homework for their students and read articles decrying both extremes as one of the causes of the “education crisis.” Parents also express opposing opinions on how much grammar and drill I should include in class. In the comments below an article today on education funding (more on this in another post), different persons derided the UEA or the “establishment” for both resisting smaller school districts and for resisting supposedly more cost-effective school district consolidation. How important are class size, technology, and “values” in the classroom? Who decides?
Most educational decisions and mandates, both those made with an inclusive process and in good faith (A generally applicable example being classroom reduction money) and those mandated top-down from a relatively small group with little cooperation or buy-in (Investigations Math in Alpine District, vouchers), will be roundly criticized from some quarter. Here is an example from Provo District about an issue that can be very polarizing: gifted education. The two short articles describe the school board first considering, and then approving a separate magnet school for gifted students. Read the opinions in the articles and in the comments—there aren’t an overwhelming number of comments like in the previous article.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695264138,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695264718,00.html
Good people disagree on the general and specific principles. Are special programs for gifted students discriminatory favoritism or a form of “segregation” as one commenter opines? The counter-argument declares that those students have just as pressing of individual needs as special ed. kids and have the right to learn on their own level. The best and brightest should not be held back from great achievement. Beyond that, if you support programs for gifted kids, what is the correct way to administer that program? Can you meet both their academic and social needs in a separate class or school, or is a variation of the normal school program better? Does a special program stigmatize gifted students or under-prepare them to work with all types of people in the real world?
My opinions have evolved over time. I experienced some different forms of gifted education as a child, and I have worked with both gifted classes and special needs students as a teacher. Some of my educational beliefs from my own experience have not held up as universally applicable in the face of the incredible variety of students I teach. I won’t go into specifics right now as that’s not my focus. The point is that everyone who doesn’t believe the same as you about the “right” way to educate gifted individuals is not ignorant or mean. Their views are shaped by their own experiences and those of family or friends. In all probability, they want the best education possible for their own children and for Utah’s students in general. The same reality applies to most other educational programs and theories as well. A balance between inclusive vacillation and bull-headed determination to do it “my way” has to be found, and there will automatically be opposing viewpoints.
Therefore, there are no “easy” answers.
And unlike many rightwing commenters, both nationally and locally, I see the bull-headedness mostly from public education critics rather than the “education establishment.” Even with No Child Left Behind, standardized testing, and other conformist influences, teachers still practice a huge variety of teaching styles and methods. The individual personalities of the teacher and the students play a huge role in classroom activities, discipline, and atmosphere. Teachers generally appreciate the differences and love to bounce ideas off each other when they find time to do so. I have strengths and weaknesses as a professional and love to work with the other teachers in my department and school. Within some basic parameters, change and innovation are encouraged and admired. And, just like any profession, teachers themselves don’t always agree which also leads to an increased variety of methods.
I have improved by incorporating practices in my classroom from local and national sources. Do I end up hitting every possible individual sweetspot? I’m sure I don’t…BUT, I am also certain I have improved my methods and skills each year and reached a higher and higher percentage of learning styles and individuals in my class each year. Are there teachers stuck in ruts or that don’t care? Of course. But mandating your particular vision of what the curriculum or methods should be will not eliminate this problem from a public, charter, or private school.
It is the vocal proponents of particular programs or methodologies that insist the public schools are “doing it wrong” and that all students would learn if only the school would adopt their favored plan. They usually believe in a solid program with benefits, but in my perception, ignore all the students who don’t fit their vision. They accuse the public schools of being too uniform if their proposals are not implemented when a public school in fact allows more diversity of practice than most individual private schools. (Private schools are great by the way—the point is that they are often driven by a singular vision or theory that can’t always provide for all students.)
Public schools are often criticized both for being too monolithic and narrowly-focused on one hand, while on the other being attacked for using too many diverse methodologies that a specific commentator disagrees with. You can’t have it both ways. Utah public schools do struggle to meet each need of hundreds of thousands of diverse students, but individual teachers, as well as schools and districts, are always experimenting, observing, and improving.
This is not an “excuse” or an argument against improvement. It is a reality check about supposed ”silver bullets” that don’t exist and the diversity of public opinion on education, even within members of the same neighborhoods, political parties, or religions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
