In education, it is often difficult to value the contributions of individuals to the education process. Yet, people on a campus know whether or not tend to know whether a person is good at what they do. Robert Pirsig’s book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", examined quality issues as they pertained to life. Quality is something people recognize, but it has an intangible quality. People just understand quality when they see and can compare it to a less qualified standard. So it is with personnel.
I’ve written a book called "Improving the Odds: A basis for long-term change" that shows that the “system” that makes up education doesn’t do enough to improve the process of education. The current system of education often implores teachers to do more, to do it better, but doesn’t provide any real tools or guidance of how it should be done. Many teachers merely hope the administrator will not impede their teaching efforts.
There are administrators, however, that make a positive difference in the education process because they understand that what happens in a classroom matters. It is rare that people who work “downtown” in school district offices ever return to a school site. However, it wasn’t a surprise to see Cliff Weaver say good-bye to the San Jacinto district office to open a new school.
Those who had served under Mr. Weaver knew that he possessed the capacity to find and deliver quality. As an administrator in San Jacinto, Mr. Weaver had already earned the “Administrator of the Year” award for his efforts in his new setting. Yet in k-12 education, quality can only go as far as the students one serves. It wasn’t surprising to see him move back toward a place where he’d make a difference.
Those of us who have served with Mr. Weaver know what his new employees will now experience. It was nice to get up in the morning and arrive at work and feel that you are on a quest. There will be changes, and you may not know exactly where you’re going, but you’ll feel that you’re destination is certain… you’ll be moving toward quality.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Learning online may be better,... well, maybe.
There was a recent post here that reported that on-line students (mostly in college) had performed better than students who were taught in the traditional classroom. Before anyone gets all charged up about effectiveness of on-line programs, one should recognize that the data were collected for people who were able to finish the class.
The beauty of statistics is that they give validity to the improbable and plausibility to the impossible. While there are reasons why on-line students might do better when tested than their classroom counterparts, one must also examine the population that completes a class versus one that completes an on-line class. It may be that there is a higher attrition rate for the on-line class, or perhaps the on-line learners may have higher skills than their classroom counterparts. This is not meant to negate the study that showed on-line studies to be superior, but to show that perhaps the superiority was skewed. Better information is necessary.
Then again, the on-line option might be the best way to go. There needs to be a system to analyze what works best. We're a country that loves freedom and self-initiative, but academic freedom is a bit of a crock when it comes to a classroom setting. As Bill Gates said with reference to problems with education, "It is the system." Bill was right. Unfortunately, we don't have the best system to make sure we're using what works the best. Until we have a means to find what works best with students, we might as well have Paris Hilton as the Secretary of Education. While not a role model, at least no one will take her seriously while she sells the bag of goods being sold by Arne Duncan.
The beauty of statistics is that they give validity to the improbable and plausibility to the impossible. While there are reasons why on-line students might do better when tested than their classroom counterparts, one must also examine the population that completes a class versus one that completes an on-line class. It may be that there is a higher attrition rate for the on-line class, or perhaps the on-line learners may have higher skills than their classroom counterparts. This is not meant to negate the study that showed on-line studies to be superior, but to show that perhaps the superiority was skewed. Better information is necessary.
Then again, the on-line option might be the best way to go. There needs to be a system to analyze what works best. We're a country that loves freedom and self-initiative, but academic freedom is a bit of a crock when it comes to a classroom setting. As Bill Gates said with reference to problems with education, "It is the system." Bill was right. Unfortunately, we don't have the best system to make sure we're using what works the best. Until we have a means to find what works best with students, we might as well have Paris Hilton as the Secretary of Education. While not a role model, at least no one will take her seriously while she sells the bag of goods being sold by Arne Duncan.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Kennedy will live on through his efforts...
There is a little less light in Congress as this day ends. Ted Kennedy's death on August 25th as the result of a malignant brain tumor ends the life of a political icon. Kennedy's life spanned from 1932 to 2009, and much of that time was spent as a member of the United State's Senate. At the time of his death, only one other senator (Robert Byrd of West Virginia) had longer tenure in the senate.
Another person that was recently lain to rest was Robert Novac, the conservative columnist who covered the politicos of the Beltway. To republicans like Novac, Ted Kennedy was akin to an evil force. In a recap of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, Novac said that Bush "had capitulated to Ted Kennedy and George Miller (California) on education," who had wanted more federal funding for education. In fact, Novac referred to NCLB as a Kennedy-Miller bill. Well, that confirms that no one seemed very happy with NCLB. It was a compromise. Senator Kennedy knew how to get what he wanted from a bill. For that his memory should be applauded.
As bad as NCLB was, the version that the republicans wanted was even worse. For that, we owe Mr. Kennedy a great deal. Somewhere in Cape Cod, a star burns a little brighter in the sky looking down from the heavens.
Another person that was recently lain to rest was Robert Novac, the conservative columnist who covered the politicos of the Beltway. To republicans like Novac, Ted Kennedy was akin to an evil force. In a recap of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, Novac said that Bush "had capitulated to Ted Kennedy and George Miller (California) on education," who had wanted more federal funding for education. In fact, Novac referred to NCLB as a Kennedy-Miller bill. Well, that confirms that no one seemed very happy with NCLB. It was a compromise. Senator Kennedy knew how to get what he wanted from a bill. For that his memory should be applauded.
As bad as NCLB was, the version that the republicans wanted was even worse. For that, we owe Mr. Kennedy a great deal. Somewhere in Cape Cod, a star burns a little brighter in the sky looking down from the heavens.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Arne Duncan: Same old promises for education
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan recently gave the American education system a "B" grade in an article ($5 Billion bet on education). An article that quotes Duncan, "A $5 billion bet on Education," points out that the United States' students fail to graduate on-time about 25% of the time and that the country ranks 18th out of 36 industrialized countries in education. Secretary Duncan thinks that with the backing of Obama's stimulus money, he said "With unprecedented resources and unprecedented reform, I think we have a fundamental and historic breakthrough." One has to wonder what planet Mr. Duncan is on.
The "reform" that Duncan has proposed: improving teacher quality; higher standards; overhauling low-performing schools; and better tracking of student performance were all part of the Bush education plan. How is Mr. Duncan's plan supposed to evoke a historic breakthrough when there are no fundamental new ideas to base change.
There are about 2.5 million teachers in the United States and we've just completed summer break. How is the improvement of teacher quality supposed to occur? Is education supposed to improve because teachers are getting better? How? Are teachers being taught better; are they smarter? What is the change among teachers that will bring about a "breakthrough." Higher standards is a stupid idea. Let's set the standard as "Every child must learn Calculus" before graduating." Is that a high enough standard? The problem is that is that it will not happen. Setting hihger standards does not mean that change what happens in the classroom. It's good to overhaul poor schools, but what is the "newer and better" system that replaces the poor school? Finally, a tracking system is good, but unless there is a plan to keep parents and students appraised of their progress, this too can be a moot point. What Duncan needs is a coherent plan to improve the system.
Fundamental changes in the classroom will occur when the quality of instruction in the classroom occurs. At present, there is no comprehensive vehicle for improving instruction in classrooms. What we have is a new Secretary of Education promising to escape the pull of gravity without a vehicle to escape. Education will not improve using the same methods. "Improving the Odds: raising the class" describes the fundamental flaw of the education system to be the system itself. We do not have effective ways to transfer information in a classroom setting. Until we do, it will be the same promises for education.
The "reform" that Duncan has proposed: improving teacher quality; higher standards; overhauling low-performing schools; and better tracking of student performance were all part of the Bush education plan. How is Mr. Duncan's plan supposed to evoke a historic breakthrough when there are no fundamental new ideas to base change.
There are about 2.5 million teachers in the United States and we've just completed summer break. How is the improvement of teacher quality supposed to occur? Is education supposed to improve because teachers are getting better? How? Are teachers being taught better; are they smarter? What is the change among teachers that will bring about a "breakthrough." Higher standards is a stupid idea. Let's set the standard as "Every child must learn Calculus" before graduating." Is that a high enough standard? The problem is that is that it will not happen. Setting hihger standards does not mean that change what happens in the classroom. It's good to overhaul poor schools, but what is the "newer and better" system that replaces the poor school? Finally, a tracking system is good, but unless there is a plan to keep parents and students appraised of their progress, this too can be a moot point. What Duncan needs is a coherent plan to improve the system.
Fundamental changes in the classroom will occur when the quality of instruction in the classroom occurs. At present, there is no comprehensive vehicle for improving instruction in classrooms. What we have is a new Secretary of Education promising to escape the pull of gravity without a vehicle to escape. Education will not improve using the same methods. "Improving the Odds: raising the class" describes the fundamental flaw of the education system to be the system itself. We do not have effective ways to transfer information in a classroom setting. Until we do, it will be the same promises for education.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Gates Foundation - Cash for Clunkers in Education?
Over the last few days, several school districts including the Pittsburgh Public Schools (PA), Omaha (NE), and Hillsborough (FL) have been salivating over getting grant money from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to improve schools. They are using the good old method of incentives. They are trying out the idea of merit pay since their foray into funding charter schools didn't work as well as hoped. They are trying the idea out in charter schools in California as well. This does beg the question: Will providing merit be the answer to education's ills?
If Gates is correct on this matter, it will imply that the carrot (merit pay) will alter teacher performance and therefore, student performance. Will the promise of merit pay change the way teachers approach their jobs? In Hillsborough, they are training 200 "master teachers" to give evaluations to their peers and a person's pay could be determined by the evaluation. Thirty percent of a teacher's evaluation will be done by the master teacher and principal evaluation and test scores will apparently be figured into the equation. A novel idea will allow teachers to "jump up" in the salary schedule based on the outcomes of the evaluation and student performances. People can jump up on the salary schedule and earn a lot more money. I wonder if this change in status is permanent or year-to-year? In any case, it allows teachers to make more money.
The thing that makes this interesting is that success will mean that teachers were "dogging it." This program, apparently, is based purely on market incentives. There is some element of the Hawthorne effect in play here, so test scores might be increased due higher levels of attention and appreciation for what teachers do (by the evaluators), but over the course of a year, such effects shouldn't be that great. If nothing else changes (lessons, curriculum, books, facilities), the factor measured will be the incentive offered to teachers. If successful, what this study would imply is that teachers could do more, but are not. If paid better, they would try harder to teach the students.
The implications are that the free market will change education. The Gates Foundation has tried to demonstrate the power of free market forces in charter schools, and having (at best) mixed results there, has elected to try anther free market idea - cash incentives. This is an effort to get teachers to somehow teach harder. Somehow, the quest for gold will change how the teacher approaches his or her job, and they will be better teachers. In some ways, this is like the Cash for Clunkers program that allows people to trade in their old cars to stimulate the economy and clean the air. Here, The Gates Foundation is giving the money and keeping the same teachers. If Gates has it right, then the teachers could have done a better job teaching the students, but didn't due to the lack of a financial incentive. Most taxpayers and parents will not like the idea that teachers were mailing in their effort if scores increase a great deal.
Dr. Edward Deming was a management guru who said that people who worked in a well managed system did a good job. It isn't about the money, but the system. The Gates Foundation is giving the idea of cash incentives a try. The government enacted "Cash for Clunkers" to stimulate auto spending and reduce pollution. The incentives of the program were clear; a clear exchange. The stimulous programs offered to teachers imply that teachers are not doing their best. It is amazing that Bill Gates, who said the problem with public education is "the system" seems totally clueless about how to approach the problem.
If Gates is correct on this matter, it will imply that the carrot (merit pay) will alter teacher performance and therefore, student performance. Will the promise of merit pay change the way teachers approach their jobs? In Hillsborough, they are training 200 "master teachers" to give evaluations to their peers and a person's pay could be determined by the evaluation. Thirty percent of a teacher's evaluation will be done by the master teacher and principal evaluation and test scores will apparently be figured into the equation. A novel idea will allow teachers to "jump up" in the salary schedule based on the outcomes of the evaluation and student performances. People can jump up on the salary schedule and earn a lot more money. I wonder if this change in status is permanent or year-to-year? In any case, it allows teachers to make more money.
The thing that makes this interesting is that success will mean that teachers were "dogging it." This program, apparently, is based purely on market incentives. There is some element of the Hawthorne effect in play here, so test scores might be increased due higher levels of attention and appreciation for what teachers do (by the evaluators), but over the course of a year, such effects shouldn't be that great. If nothing else changes (lessons, curriculum, books, facilities), the factor measured will be the incentive offered to teachers. If successful, what this study would imply is that teachers could do more, but are not. If paid better, they would try harder to teach the students.
The implications are that the free market will change education. The Gates Foundation has tried to demonstrate the power of free market forces in charter schools, and having (at best) mixed results there, has elected to try anther free market idea - cash incentives. This is an effort to get teachers to somehow teach harder. Somehow, the quest for gold will change how the teacher approaches his or her job, and they will be better teachers. In some ways, this is like the Cash for Clunkers program that allows people to trade in their old cars to stimulate the economy and clean the air. Here, The Gates Foundation is giving the money and keeping the same teachers. If Gates has it right, then the teachers could have done a better job teaching the students, but didn't due to the lack of a financial incentive. Most taxpayers and parents will not like the idea that teachers were mailing in their effort if scores increase a great deal.
Dr. Edward Deming was a management guru who said that people who worked in a well managed system did a good job. It isn't about the money, but the system. The Gates Foundation is giving the idea of cash incentives a try. The government enacted "Cash for Clunkers" to stimulate auto spending and reduce pollution. The incentives of the program were clear; a clear exchange. The stimulous programs offered to teachers imply that teachers are not doing their best. It is amazing that Bill Gates, who said the problem with public education is "the system" seems totally clueless about how to approach the problem.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
On-line students outperform students in classroom...
In a recent New York Times article, students (primarily college level) who learned on-line outperformed students who were taught in a traditional classroom. Barbara Means who headed the SRI study said that:
“The study’s major significance lies in demonstrating that online learning today is not just better than nothing — it actually tends to be better than conventional instruction."
Indeed, the classroom students were considered to be the "mean" and scored at the 50th percentile while the on-line students scored at the 59th percentile. Who would believe that such results were possible? Actually, if the curriculum is specialized for an on-line class, one would think that the on-line experience can actually offer significant advantages over traditional lecture classes. The first advantage to a well-thought out on-line class is that it can be continuously improved from year-to-year and can provide immediate access to additional resources to the student. The second advantage is that notes for a class are on the computer, thus a student doesn't have to "take notes" in class and risk missing vital information from an instructor. The third advantage is that an online class can be accessed from any location with an online computer link at any time.
My book, Improving the Odds: A basis for long-term change (Rowman and Littlefield), states that to improve education, we must improve the quality of lessons delivered by the classroom teacher. Our current system of education has no means for long-term improvement of the product. Teachers do not know what techniques work best in the classroom. This is because classroom teachers do not have time to perform studies to compare what they are presenting. It is the education system's job to measure the techniques that work best and to make sure the techniques are employed in the classroom. Thus, it is not surprising that on-line students do better than those in the classroom. It is entirely consistent with the premise of my book.
As with any product, the education of a student is going to depend on the quality of the lessons received. Unfortunately, while k-12 education systems quibble over school size, tougher standards, uniforms, and gender issues, the one thing that isn't mentioned is finding the best way to deliver lessons to children. They should. Apparently, the colleges should also concern themselves with the quality of classroom instruction, or they may find themselves out of work.
As the title of my book suggests, one must "raise the class" if improvement is going to succeed. If not, the students in the class turn their attention to Twitter, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, or features of the new PS3 slim. With the advent of computer, we do not have a captive audience. We must find ways to improve the deliver of the lesson if schools are to improve...
“The study’s major significance lies in demonstrating that online learning today is not just better than nothing — it actually tends to be better than conventional instruction."
Indeed, the classroom students were considered to be the "mean" and scored at the 50th percentile while the on-line students scored at the 59th percentile. Who would believe that such results were possible? Actually, if the curriculum is specialized for an on-line class, one would think that the on-line experience can actually offer significant advantages over traditional lecture classes. The first advantage to a well-thought out on-line class is that it can be continuously improved from year-to-year and can provide immediate access to additional resources to the student. The second advantage is that notes for a class are on the computer, thus a student doesn't have to "take notes" in class and risk missing vital information from an instructor. The third advantage is that an online class can be accessed from any location with an online computer link at any time.
My book, Improving the Odds: A basis for long-term change (Rowman and Littlefield), states that to improve education, we must improve the quality of lessons delivered by the classroom teacher. Our current system of education has no means for long-term improvement of the product. Teachers do not know what techniques work best in the classroom. This is because classroom teachers do not have time to perform studies to compare what they are presenting. It is the education system's job to measure the techniques that work best and to make sure the techniques are employed in the classroom. Thus, it is not surprising that on-line students do better than those in the classroom. It is entirely consistent with the premise of my book.
As with any product, the education of a student is going to depend on the quality of the lessons received. Unfortunately, while k-12 education systems quibble over school size, tougher standards, uniforms, and gender issues, the one thing that isn't mentioned is finding the best way to deliver lessons to children. They should. Apparently, the colleges should also concern themselves with the quality of classroom instruction, or they may find themselves out of work.
As the title of my book suggests, one must "raise the class" if improvement is going to succeed. If not, the students in the class turn their attention to Twitter, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, or features of the new PS3 slim. With the advent of computer, we do not have a captive audience. We must find ways to improve the deliver of the lesson if schools are to improve...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Brett Favre is going purple...
There are two things that happen in the fall. One is that school starts all over the country. This makes teachers and kids grumpy, but allows parents to breath a sigh of relief. The second that happens is that football season starts. Thank god that principals in schools across the country don't have to deal with the personalities of professional athletes. For example, Brett Favre, formerly of the Green Bay Packers decided to come out of retirement for a second time to play quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings. Can you imagine what it would be like to be a principal of a school where you had to massage the ego of all the "star" teachers?
The principal might have to call up his star math teacher, "Linus Calculus" to see if he's willing to commit to another year. "Linus, I understand you were thinking of hanging up the chalk. What's the deal."
"Well, you know how it is. Last year I strained my shoulder trying to draw a parabola. I really wasn't the same for the rest of the year." Sighing, Linus would say, "It would be great to lead one more group and make our way to the goal...."
"You mean better test results."
"No, I mean getting though to another summer."
"I'd like to offer you more to stay, but the front office has my hands tied," the principal says.
"What can you do for me?"
"You can use my bathroom in the Administration building."
"That's not a real offer. I could never make it to the administration building and back between passing periods."
"You're right," the principal agrees. "What do you suggest?"
"Think you could give me $12 million for next year?"
"Twelve million - Are you talking dollars?" After a pause, "That's more than we get for the entire school to teach 1500 kids. That includes all administrators, counselors, teachers, staff, maintenance workers, and the entire sports budget."
"So, what can you realistically offer?"
"Linus, I'm afraid that the only thing I can promise you this year is larger class sizes."
"Wow, that's not very promising. How come this guy who throws footballs around for a living gets $12 million, and I can't even afford to go to the games?"
"I can't say. All I can do if offer you the same deal you got last year. I'll give you your room back, but it'll still have the leak. Since we cut the budget, I'm also going to allow you to help out with the Academic Decathlon. If you take the State title, we'll pay for transportation via Greyhound."
"Who can pass that up," Linus finally says.
"Well, not a teacher. You don't make enough to save for an early retirement. You're stuck, bud."
So, there is a story of Fall with football and back to school coming to the fore. On one hand, a pro athlete is being coddled back into uniform so he can play a game for three or four months. For what that player (Brett Favre) is getting to play for one season with the Vikings, a high school could be run for an entire year. So, as you're cheering for your favorite football players this fall, remember that there are lots of unsung heroes that work in classrooms who can also use a pat on the back.
The principal might have to call up his star math teacher, "Linus Calculus" to see if he's willing to commit to another year. "Linus, I understand you were thinking of hanging up the chalk. What's the deal."
"Well, you know how it is. Last year I strained my shoulder trying to draw a parabola. I really wasn't the same for the rest of the year." Sighing, Linus would say, "It would be great to lead one more group and make our way to the goal...."
"You mean better test results."
"No, I mean getting though to another summer."
"I'd like to offer you more to stay, but the front office has my hands tied," the principal says.
"What can you do for me?"
"You can use my bathroom in the Administration building."
"That's not a real offer. I could never make it to the administration building and back between passing periods."
"You're right," the principal agrees. "What do you suggest?"
"Think you could give me $12 million for next year?"
"Twelve million - Are you talking dollars?" After a pause, "That's more than we get for the entire school to teach 1500 kids. That includes all administrators, counselors, teachers, staff, maintenance workers, and the entire sports budget."
"So, what can you realistically offer?"
"Linus, I'm afraid that the only thing I can promise you this year is larger class sizes."
"Wow, that's not very promising. How come this guy who throws footballs around for a living gets $12 million, and I can't even afford to go to the games?"
"I can't say. All I can do if offer you the same deal you got last year. I'll give you your room back, but it'll still have the leak. Since we cut the budget, I'm also going to allow you to help out with the Academic Decathlon. If you take the State title, we'll pay for transportation via Greyhound."
"Who can pass that up," Linus finally says.
"Well, not a teacher. You don't make enough to save for an early retirement. You're stuck, bud."
So, there is a story of Fall with football and back to school coming to the fore. On one hand, a pro athlete is being coddled back into uniform so he can play a game for three or four months. For what that player (Brett Favre) is getting to play for one season with the Vikings, a high school could be run for an entire year. So, as you're cheering for your favorite football players this fall, remember that there are lots of unsung heroes that work in classrooms who can also use a pat on the back.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Brilliance and then ....
It is nearly the time for school to start. As a classroom teacher (well, I teach in an independent study program), the last days of summer leave me longing. Today, I'm looking at studies that discuss neurobiology. The brain is such a fascinating subject. Researchers are finally making progress toward understanding how the brain develops in the embryo. The results are exciting. The studies are being done using molecular studies of the brain and by directly viewing the brain in real-time studies. While all this is being done to help medical science, it is rather disheartening to think of the level of most education research.
What exactly should education research do? One would hope that it would help teachers and administrators improve the process of education. For those who believe the current system actually accomplishes this, I suggest you read Improving the Odds: A basis for long-term change by Rodney Larson. What the education system needs to do is to figure out the best ways to present lessons to maximize teaching. It isn't being done. So, while the academic world is being brightened by work that explores the core of humanity, education comes back into session.
How much is education actually respected. Well, I notice that Tony Danza is considering a reality show in Philadelphia. That's nice. The City of Brotherly Love will have Michael Vick helping to run the team and Tony Danza in the classroom. That's a lot of reality, but it isn't very inspirational. How about a reality show with Rafe Esquith, a fifth grade teacher in Los Angeles. If you don't know who Mr. Esquith is, that is a shame. Watch The Hobart Shakespearians if you want to see something inspirational.
What exactly should education research do? One would hope that it would help teachers and administrators improve the process of education. For those who believe the current system actually accomplishes this, I suggest you read Improving the Odds: A basis for long-term change by Rodney Larson. What the education system needs to do is to figure out the best ways to present lessons to maximize teaching. It isn't being done. So, while the academic world is being brightened by work that explores the core of humanity, education comes back into session.
How much is education actually respected. Well, I notice that Tony Danza is considering a reality show in Philadelphia. That's nice. The City of Brotherly Love will have Michael Vick helping to run the team and Tony Danza in the classroom. That's a lot of reality, but it isn't very inspirational. How about a reality show with Rafe Esquith, a fifth grade teacher in Los Angeles. If you don't know who Mr. Esquith is, that is a shame. Watch The Hobart Shakespearians if you want to see something inspirational.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
We're all in this together...
When Bill Gates decided to put the power of a computer in everyone's hands, I wonder if he had any idea how consuming the technology would be to future generations of kids. Due to the computer, kids growing up today have more information available to them than at any time in history. However, if one looks at the top search terms over the last seven days, the terms are Facebook, Lyrics, Youtube, Yahoo, and MySpace ("you" and "my" were also terms for those struggling to spell Youtube or MySpace). With the exception of the term "lyrics," the rest of the terms are all directly related to computer related activities.
As the 2009-10 school year gets under way, in some ways the computer has not merely become a tool, but also a crutch for people. People use the computer for many things and are instantly updated on the trivia of the world. That is perhaps the problem with computers from an education perspective. Students want information instantly, and trudging though the process of learning isn't compatible to the computer generation. Some things take a lot of time to learn, and people have to develop skills that allow them to do more than put search terms into a computer.
Learning the basic skills such as writing, math, and application of information to the world (science) is tough. However, it is also rewarding.
American students are learning to be Twittered, Iphoned, and Facebooked so that they don't think about the future or even the present. They are thinking about looking at their electronic device in case they "miss" something. A friend asking "What's up," or that would be too taxing on time, so they would use abbreviations. It isn't just the high school group, it happens on colleges as well. As most older people know, one of the great things about going to college is having a group of people your own age, at the prime of life, who you can meet. Walking through the local university last year, I was amazed to see a class let out and a hundred kids streamed out. None of them were talking to each other, they had all whipped out their cell phones so they could discuss how boring their class or to find out if they'd missed anything in the previous hour.
There they were, all streaming out of class, ignoring the opportunity to get to know each other face-to-face. It was an appalling site. We used to think of people that behaved in that way as geeks, but I guess we're all becoming geeks in a way. The geeks I used to know were in their own world and their own thoughts. The technology geek now is consumed by thoughts of what might have happened in the last minute, and seems to have little thought of the future.
I don't know what the future holds for this country. Each generation looks at the kids that follow them and wonder if the world will continue; it does. However, it seems that as technology permeates the landscape, and instant gratification is measured in minutes and seconds, something has been lost. Obviously, we've all gained from the advantage of the computer, but perhaps there are some virtues that are lost. Life doesn't always entertain us, and sometimes we have to face problems that the internet won't solve. That's one of the lessons we should put into the school's curriculum. It might even be possible to program the lesson on a computer!
As the 2009-10 school year gets under way, in some ways the computer has not merely become a tool, but also a crutch for people. People use the computer for many things and are instantly updated on the trivia of the world. That is perhaps the problem with computers from an education perspective. Students want information instantly, and trudging though the process of learning isn't compatible to the computer generation. Some things take a lot of time to learn, and people have to develop skills that allow them to do more than put search terms into a computer.
Learning the basic skills such as writing, math, and application of information to the world (science) is tough. However, it is also rewarding.
American students are learning to be Twittered, Iphoned, and Facebooked so that they don't think about the future or even the present. They are thinking about looking at their electronic device in case they "miss" something. A friend asking "What's up," or that would be too taxing on time, so they would use abbreviations. It isn't just the high school group, it happens on colleges as well. As most older people know, one of the great things about going to college is having a group of people your own age, at the prime of life, who you can meet. Walking through the local university last year, I was amazed to see a class let out and a hundred kids streamed out. None of them were talking to each other, they had all whipped out their cell phones so they could discuss how boring their class or to find out if they'd missed anything in the previous hour.
There they were, all streaming out of class, ignoring the opportunity to get to know each other face-to-face. It was an appalling site. We used to think of people that behaved in that way as geeks, but I guess we're all becoming geeks in a way. The geeks I used to know were in their own world and their own thoughts. The technology geek now is consumed by thoughts of what might have happened in the last minute, and seems to have little thought of the future.
I don't know what the future holds for this country. Each generation looks at the kids that follow them and wonder if the world will continue; it does. However, it seems that as technology permeates the landscape, and instant gratification is measured in minutes and seconds, something has been lost. Obviously, we've all gained from the advantage of the computer, but perhaps there are some virtues that are lost. Life doesn't always entertain us, and sometimes we have to face problems that the internet won't solve. That's one of the lessons we should put into the school's curriculum. It might even be possible to program the lesson on a computer!
No medals for teachers
As summer ends and fall peaks around the corner, the President of the United States was giving out the Presidential Medal of Freedom awards. The Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian award that Americans can receive. Sixteen people earned the award. Notables who received the award included actor, Sidney Poitier, Senator Ted Kennedy, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and 13 other fortunate people. It was a little disappointing to see that President Obama couldn't find an educator in the mix. Luckily, Stephen Hawking, the physicist received an award so academia was well represented, but it would have been nice to see a rank and file teacher get the award. Bring in Jaime Escalante or Raef Esquith and pin a medal on them....
Oh well, people don't necessarily teach for either monetary awards, but it would have been a nice gesture. Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, and Margaret Thatcher were all recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. One may note that getting one of these medals is based on the choice of the President. What do Obama's choices say about him. He picked Chita Rivera, the Broadway actress... he likes talent. He gave a medal to Billie Jean King, the female tennis player who was a champion on the court and for women's rights. She was both talented and a great spokeswoman for equal rights. Ask Bobby Riggs. Many of the recipients were politicians. Gay activist, Harvey Milk; Ted Kennedy, and Jack Kemp all received the award. Nancy Brinker, a woman who championed the fight against breast cancer was a worthy recipient whose efforts had been inspired by a promise she'd made to her dying sister to help fight a deadly disease. Another scientist who received the award was Janet Rowley, a scientist who discovered a role of chromosome tranlocations in hjuman cancer. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner was given a medal. What Obama tried to do was create a good mix; science, religion, anti-poverty, women's rights, gay rights, and human rights.
It was a nice award, but it would have been nice for someone for someone who busted their tail in a classroom for years to be recognized. Yet, most teachers don't teach to be recognized, they teach so that someone else will be. Hopefully, the people who received their awards remember to thank people that helped them achieve success in life; parents; teachers; and publicity agents.
Maybe next time a teacher will get something other than an apple.
Oh well, people don't necessarily teach for either monetary awards, but it would have been a nice gesture. Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, and Margaret Thatcher were all recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. One may note that getting one of these medals is based on the choice of the President. What do Obama's choices say about him. He picked Chita Rivera, the Broadway actress... he likes talent. He gave a medal to Billie Jean King, the female tennis player who was a champion on the court and for women's rights. She was both talented and a great spokeswoman for equal rights. Ask Bobby Riggs. Many of the recipients were politicians. Gay activist, Harvey Milk; Ted Kennedy, and Jack Kemp all received the award. Nancy Brinker, a woman who championed the fight against breast cancer was a worthy recipient whose efforts had been inspired by a promise she'd made to her dying sister to help fight a deadly disease. Another scientist who received the award was Janet Rowley, a scientist who discovered a role of chromosome tranlocations in hjuman cancer. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner was given a medal. What Obama tried to do was create a good mix; science, religion, anti-poverty, women's rights, gay rights, and human rights.
It was a nice award, but it would have been nice for someone for someone who busted their tail in a classroom for years to be recognized. Yet, most teachers don't teach to be recognized, they teach so that someone else will be. Hopefully, the people who received their awards remember to thank people that helped them achieve success in life; parents; teachers; and publicity agents.
Maybe next time a teacher will get something other than an apple.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
John Hughes - Remember a day away....
The art of making films successful films is finding a resonant message that people can follow. One of the things that the late film director John Hughes Jr. (Feb. 18, 1950 - August 6, 2009) was able to do was tie into the discontentment that people feel with school. In films like The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, he used school as the background for looking at issues in students' lives. He managed to show that schools are mismanaged, rather bizarre places that are backdrops for showing teen angst.
When Hughes looked at school, it was merely a backdrop for the pressing issues of adolescence. In Ferris Bueller, skipping a day of school didn't appear to be a big deal. The protagonist was able to outsmart the school system and his parents. In doing so, he managed to have quite a day. One got the feeling that missing a day of school really didn't make that much difference. In The Breakfast Club, students were brought together for Saturday school to serve detention and Hughes used the occassion to show the heavy emotional toll that being a teenager in suburbia can create. The detention teacher and the school were merely backdrops and foils in the students' lives. The films were filled with the crisis that students feel and the idea was that the smart kids would outsmart the system; playing by the rules lost its way. The films, made in 1985 and 1986 said that outsmarting the system was something to admire.
Twenty years later, we have a generation that experiences a financial melt-down. It was caused by people that wanted to make money by ignoring financial reality. This generation of students built houses and created mortgages for people who had no hope of paying for them. The financial system created ways of outsmarting the typical mortgage lending environment. The problems leading to the mortgage crisis were found in Hughes movies. Living within the rules wasn't very important, and perhaps Hughes was smart enough to pick up on that. His movies were wildly successful and had a very attentive audience.
What Hughes films seemed to exploit was disenchantment with the status quo. The students in his films weren't rebelling against school or society, but they didn't seem to respect it all that much either. The truth is, schools haven't changed that much since 1986. Hughes was a master at using school as a backdrop that meant little to his students. School and the education system was shown as more or a prop than a place to prepare for the future.
The truth is, our schools need to be better. Hughes films showed the upper middle-class perception of schools from a student's perspective and for that we should thank him. We should also thank him for some laughs.
When Hughes looked at school, it was merely a backdrop for the pressing issues of adolescence. In Ferris Bueller, skipping a day of school didn't appear to be a big deal. The protagonist was able to outsmart the school system and his parents. In doing so, he managed to have quite a day. One got the feeling that missing a day of school really didn't make that much difference. In The Breakfast Club, students were brought together for Saturday school to serve detention and Hughes used the occassion to show the heavy emotional toll that being a teenager in suburbia can create. The detention teacher and the school were merely backdrops and foils in the students' lives. The films were filled with the crisis that students feel and the idea was that the smart kids would outsmart the system; playing by the rules lost its way. The films, made in 1985 and 1986 said that outsmarting the system was something to admire.
Twenty years later, we have a generation that experiences a financial melt-down. It was caused by people that wanted to make money by ignoring financial reality. This generation of students built houses and created mortgages for people who had no hope of paying for them. The financial system created ways of outsmarting the typical mortgage lending environment. The problems leading to the mortgage crisis were found in Hughes movies. Living within the rules wasn't very important, and perhaps Hughes was smart enough to pick up on that. His movies were wildly successful and had a very attentive audience.
What Hughes films seemed to exploit was disenchantment with the status quo. The students in his films weren't rebelling against school or society, but they didn't seem to respect it all that much either. The truth is, schools haven't changed that much since 1986. Hughes was a master at using school as a backdrop that meant little to his students. School and the education system was shown as more or a prop than a place to prepare for the future.
The truth is, our schools need to be better. Hughes films showed the upper middle-class perception of schools from a student's perspective and for that we should thank him. We should also thank him for some laughs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)