The pandemic has been very, very good to Sal Khan, and he's ready to grab the big sticky ball and run with it. He recently did an interview with Emily Tate for EdSurge, and it's all just as discouraging as you would expect.
Khan opens with a few thought about pandemic life in the Bay Area:“Obviously, some aspects have been suboptimal for everybody,” he says, acknowledging that his family has been extremely fortunate. “Every now and then, it's been hard to do a call while the kids are screaming or something like that, but between meetings, to see them or have lunch with them or go on a walk with them, that part has been actually quite nice.”
Then, just a few paragraphs later, Tate asks "How did you adapt to meet the needs of students during the pandemic?" Spoiler alert: his answer does not have anything to do with having lunch in person or taking walks together. But it did introduce me to another data-tastic term.
In normal times, we see about 30 million learning minutes per day on Khan Academy. When the pandemic and the closures started, we saw that go up to 90 million learning minutes per day by the end of that week.
I'm going to assume that "learning minutes" is a clever rebranding of "screen hours." If not, I'm dying the see the research that allows Khan to distinguish between minutes in which students are learning things and minutes in which students are staring blankly at a screen. But the non-answer to the question transitions into a plug for a new Khan product--Khan Academy Kids (slogan--"Joyful learning starts here!")
Khan Academy Kids is a "free, fun educational program for children ages two to eight." Tate offers Khan the chance to tell the story of this new program.
Let’s rewind to six or seven years ago. Everyone used to ask me, “What about early learning?” Honestly, I had a young family then, and I saw more than ever how important those pre-K years are. And I saw the advantages my kids had before they showed up to kindergarten. Most people who are middle-income or better, the Common Core kindergarten standards almost seem ridiculously easy. Like, of course my kid knows how to do those things. They probably got that [concept] when they were 3 or 4 years old.
But then you see so many kids who might show up in kindergarten the first day—and this was eye-opening to me—who haven't seen a book, some of them have never been read to.
And so immediately, out of the gate, in kindergarten, you're setting up a hierarchy of who's likely to succeed and who's likely not. So there's clearly a space for this, but I would tell people, “I have ideas, but that's not my expertise, and we don't have the expertise in-house.”
That expertise was shortly to arrive via Duck Duck Moose. That company was founded in 2008 to create learning apps for children. The three founders included Carol Hu Flexer (degrees in architecture, former product manager at Intuit, granddaughter of Hong Kong book publisher), and her husband Michael (software engineer at multiple start-ups). The Flexers had a two year old child who, they noticed, liked to play with their iPhone, so they went ahead and decided to start another start-up, tapping friend Nicci Gabriel, with whom Michael had done some work before, as a designer and illustrator. Gabriel started out as pre-med. The Flexers have classical music training. You'll have noticed that nobody involved has actual education background, but they do have a process, described as "Observe children. Brainstorm. Prototype. Build. Test with children. Learn. Refine. Repeat all steps again. And again. And again."
They were founded in the Bay Area as a for profit company and picked up investments of about $7 million in venture capital, backed by Stanford, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and Sequoia Capital. They developed 21 apps and won some awards. Then, in 2016, the company was "donated" to Khan Academy. Khan tells the story of them approaching him and, instead of cashing in through acquisition offers, looking to secure a legacy of "impactful education work." So now they are Khan Academy Kids.
Khan acknowledges that children need more than screen time ("outdoor play, being with friends, and ideally a pre-K program") and says that the app "leans quite heavily on social-emotional learning." And he cites a UMass study of 4-5 year olds using the app which found it got better results when compared to "two wholesome apps that did not target kindergarten readiness skills." That seems to be the source of a twenty-minute recommendation for the amount of time to park your tiny human in front of a screen.
The interview also includes plugs for schoolhouse.world, an enterprise we've covered before. Short form: peer-to-peer tutoring, micro-credentials, and a batch of shady characters including Arne Duncan.
It's appropriate that Khan tells his own story in plugging schoolhouse-- "Khan Academy started with me being an analyst at a hedge fund and I was tutoring my cousins." Khan also notes "We've always known that the gold standard has always been high-quality tutoring, but no one's ever acted on it because it's hard to scale and expensive." Spoiler alert: schoolhouse.world does not solve any of those issues , nor is it about high-quality tutoring. It's more of the stuff built on a foundation of well-connected, well-heeled amateurs who figure they can easily create an educational revolution.
I can never disdain Sal Khan enough (just as I never cease to marvel at how many True Believers/paid trolls he has to set upon people like me for not swallowing his brand). I co-authored this for the Washington Post nine years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-well-does-khan-academy-teach/2012/07/25/gJQA9bWEAX_blog.htmlReplyDelete
I stand by what we wrote at the time and seriously wonder if Sal personally has learned anything from this or any other critique about mathematics teaching, most importantly that knowing the math content is necessary but not sufficient for high-quality instruction. A decade ago, he appeared to not have the slightest notion of basic pedagogy. And he's not alone. I've seen veteran certified secondary math teachers in public schools on whom it never dawned that sticking an outrageously more difficult problem early on into a set of in-class exercises without warning students that the price of mathematical poker rose precipitously for that one was not the most student-friendly, learning-conducive approach (at least not for most kids). I've deleted teaching examples from lessons in highly-regarded progressive elementary grade math books after seeing how much of a cognitive leap they required kids to make and how horribly they foundered when it was taken for granted that they could do so seamlessly.
I'm not a believer in the John Saxon approach to making minute incremental changes from example to example as though students were incapable of making the slightest intellectual leap. But I'm not a fan of asking anyone to jump over the cognitive equivalent of the Snake River Canyon without any warning.
Has Sal figured out yet that considering order of difficulty in a set of illustrative examples might be worthwhile for making effective lessons? With the amount of smug he brings to every interview and talk, you'd think that education started and ended the day he decided to tutor those cousins of his. Somehow, I'm skeptical. Something tells me that my 30+ years in mathematics education and nearly 50 years in teaching has given me a few insights Sal hasn't had time to acquire (or motivation to even consider).
But I can't say that too loudly on the Internet, because if the Khan Kritters were fanatic and ruthless in their criticism of me a decade ago, I can only shudder at the repercussions daring to doubt his greatness will have in COVIDWorld.
And yet, it moves.
Students received tutoring under NCLB, but the impact was found to be negligible. Nobody knows for sure about the quality of the instruction. While quality tutoring can be helpful, it is no antidote for poverty.ReplyDelete
"If I film it, they will learn" claimed no real teacher in the history of education.ReplyDelete
Dear Well-Heeled Amateur Education RevolutionaryReplyDelete
Just letting you all in on one of the dirty little secrets of our craft: presenting information as part of an overall lesson is not only the easiest aspect of teaching but probably the least important. If this weren't true, 20th century classrooms would be nothing more than textbook reading centers. To think that you can exchange software and videos for those textbooks reveals a level of ignorance that disqualifies you from having a place at the table.
Now you might be left wondering, if presenting information is not all that big of a deal, then what is (And how can we monetize it)?
A year of substitute teaching might help.