Today the Pittsburgh Zoo hosts a reunion of sorts, and we are headed there shortly. But first I have some reading for you from the week. Remember to share the pieces that grab your attention.
Whither the Novel
Another district meets the EngageNY English language curriculum, and they are not impressed.
The Effect of Mandated 3rd Grade Retention
A study looks at Florida's policy requiring third graders to pass the BS Reading Test or be held back. How's that working out? As poorly as one would expect.
The Nation's Top Teachers Met with Betsy DeVos
DeVos met with the fifty(ish) Teachers of the Year. Some came away a bit underwhelmed.
What Do We Teach in American Schools
Jersey Jazzman looks at some current stories in education and notes that these are not great days for the treatment of women.
Virtual Schools 2018
Ready for one more study showing that cyber schools don't deliver on any of their promises? NEPC has the newest entry in this ever-growing genre.
Bond Firm Takes Sides in Texas
.
Turns out an investment firm in Texas has its own opinion about how charter schools affect the finances of public schools. It matches what many of us have been saying for years.
Full Control
Mercedes Schneider revisits a truly awful article opposing teacher unions for charter schools.
Beware the "Learning Engineers"
Wrench in the Gears looks at some of the technocrats behind new edumovements.
Important but False Claims about EVAAS in Ohio
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley debunks some Ohio baloney
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Saturday, May 5, 2018
Finn's Trouble with Teacher Strikes
Chester "Checker" Finn is the former honcho of the Fordham Institute, but he still crops up from time to time to express his thoughts about one issue or another. Last week he decided to weigh in on the teacher strikes around the country. Like many conservatives, he's having trouble finding exactly the right notes to hit when opposing these work stoppages. Let me humbly disagree.
Finn starts out by acknowledging that there are reasons to sympathize with striking teachers:
They’re not very well paid, inflation is creeping up, a lot of classrooms are crowded with kids and lacking in textbooks and supplies, and a number of state and local budgets for school operations are extremely tight and sometimes declining.
All true, and all carefully sidestepping the fact that these are not things that just kind of happened somehow, but are the results of deliberate choices deliberately made by legislators in the affected states. But Finn does note that in addition to "wearing red, shutting down schools, and marching around," teachers have been showing their dissatisfaction by walking off the job one at a time.
But having acknowledged all of these things, Finn would like us to keep four other points in mind as we understandwhy those lousy teachers should be opposed how to balance these nuanced issues.
First, "though state and local budgets in some places are tight because tight-fingered policymakers have cut taxes and slashed spending, in other places there’s just not as much revenue as was expected." He blames that on slow recovery, low growth and wealthy people running away to other states. That last one begs for some actual support-- is that really happening, really? The other two are a nicer way of observing that the expectations that weren't met are the same old magical baloney of trickle down economics. Kansas is just the most spectacular example of how the economic fantasy of austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the wealthy has failed. "Not as much revenue as was expected" is not an indictment of economic growth-- it's an indictment of state leaders whose powers of expectation were ruined by belief in voodoo economics. In short, the "low growth" is not something that "just happened" (just as the "great recession" was not a mysterious act of God and nature) but the direct result of bad policies by bad legislators who didn't do their damned jobs. This is like a head of a household spending the family budget on magic beans and then shrugging and saying, "Well, you know, some times things just don't work out. What are you going to do?"
Second, "U.S. school systems continue to use available dollars to hire more teachers rather than paying more generous salaries to the teachers they’ve already got—which also means hiring more teachers rather than better teachers."
Third is the same old teacher shaming. Teachers don't get enough respect, but they'd get more if they didn't support certain political and policy actions. Since they insist in on things like due process for firing and pay scales, well, they just lose the respect of the public. This would be a good place for Finn to insert some sort of evidence that in states where teachers don't have tenure or collective bargaining rights, they are much more respected, but oddly enough, no such evidence is offered. Finn also chides unions for protecting their weakest members, which is like criticizing lawyers for allowing defense attorneys to exist. Either you have due process or you don't, and if you want to be able to say, "Look, this guy stinks so much we should just fire him without any due process," then you are arguing that there should be no due process. Period.
Most of all, Finn wants us to pay teachers based on how excellent they are (and what they teach-- apparently Finn thinks phys ed teachers are overpaid), even though we do not have any method of effectively determining who's great and who's not. Finn refers to test results which A) are a lousy way to measure teacher awesomeness and B) currently only measure math and reading (and in some places, science). But hey-- if we magically implemented this system we don't know how to implement, people would respect teachers more.
Fourth-- well, let's go really old school. Teachers work short days and get summers off, so they don't deserve more pay. It's sad that some teachers take extra jobs, admits Finn, but he blames the school year and work day for being too short. You can pick your favorite counter-argument to this one. Compare the actual hours and days and find that teachers don't work that much less. Compare teacher wages to other workers who don't put in a full year, like pro basketball stars. Compute what you would have to pay teachers if you paid them babysitter wages (spoiler alert: a ton). Observe that teachers are frickin' professionals and not hourly workers. Or, for the free market conservatives, note that the going rate for a thing, whether it's a commodity, a manufactured good, or skilled labor, is set by the invisible hand, and not what you feel like paying. If you think the work is so short and easy, come do it yourself.
So Finn's argument against the strikes range from the creatively misguided to old-school insulting. He has, of course, completely ignored the part of this that is flummoxing many conservatives-- the strikes are not simply about teacher wages but about teaching conditions. When you say teachers should suck it up and teach classes of forty kids, you are saying that parents should be happy to put their kids in forty-student classes. When you argue that teachers should stop whining about moldy rooms, you are saying that students should gladly sit in those rooms as well. When you argue that teachers should not get fussy about forty-year-old textbooks, you are saying that students should be happy with those books as well. Teachers work conditions really are student learning conditions, and when those conditions have been deliberately degraded by people who want to save a buck or leaders who want to drive more families into charter schools-- in short, when those lousy conditions are the result of deliberate bad choices made by legislators, then all the teacher shaming in the world isn't really going to help.
Finn says that if we want to ameliorate these conditions, "a great many things need to change in very big ways." He's correct, but those many things are less about teachers being uppity and more about state leaders actually committing to support public education.
They’re not very well paid, inflation is creeping up, a lot of classrooms are crowded with kids and lacking in textbooks and supplies, and a number of state and local budgets for school operations are extremely tight and sometimes declining.
All true, and all carefully sidestepping the fact that these are not things that just kind of happened somehow, but are the results of deliberate choices deliberately made by legislators in the affected states. But Finn does note that in addition to "wearing red, shutting down schools, and marching around," teachers have been showing their dissatisfaction by walking off the job one at a time.
But having acknowledged all of these things, Finn would like us to keep four other points in mind as we understand
First, "though state and local budgets in some places are tight because tight-fingered policymakers have cut taxes and slashed spending, in other places there’s just not as much revenue as was expected." He blames that on slow recovery, low growth and wealthy people running away to other states. That last one begs for some actual support-- is that really happening, really? The other two are a nicer way of observing that the expectations that weren't met are the same old magical baloney of trickle down economics. Kansas is just the most spectacular example of how the economic fantasy of austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the wealthy has failed. "Not as much revenue as was expected" is not an indictment of economic growth-- it's an indictment of state leaders whose powers of expectation were ruined by belief in voodoo economics. In short, the "low growth" is not something that "just happened" (just as the "great recession" was not a mysterious act of God and nature) but the direct result of bad policies by bad legislators who didn't do their damned jobs. This is like a head of a household spending the family budget on magic beans and then shrugging and saying, "Well, you know, some times things just don't work out. What are you going to do?"
Second, "U.S. school systems continue to use available dollars to hire more teachers rather than paying more generous salaries to the teachers they’ve already got—which also means hiring more teachers rather than better teachers."
Third is the same old teacher shaming. Teachers don't get enough respect, but they'd get more if they didn't support certain political and policy actions. Since they insist in on things like due process for firing and pay scales, well, they just lose the respect of the public. This would be a good place for Finn to insert some sort of evidence that in states where teachers don't have tenure or collective bargaining rights, they are much more respected, but oddly enough, no such evidence is offered. Finn also chides unions for protecting their weakest members, which is like criticizing lawyers for allowing defense attorneys to exist. Either you have due process or you don't, and if you want to be able to say, "Look, this guy stinks so much we should just fire him without any due process," then you are arguing that there should be no due process. Period.
Most of all, Finn wants us to pay teachers based on how excellent they are (and what they teach-- apparently Finn thinks phys ed teachers are overpaid), even though we do not have any method of effectively determining who's great and who's not. Finn refers to test results which A) are a lousy way to measure teacher awesomeness and B) currently only measure math and reading (and in some places, science). But hey-- if we magically implemented this system we don't know how to implement, people would respect teachers more.
Fourth-- well, let's go really old school. Teachers work short days and get summers off, so they don't deserve more pay. It's sad that some teachers take extra jobs, admits Finn, but he blames the school year and work day for being too short. You can pick your favorite counter-argument to this one. Compare the actual hours and days and find that teachers don't work that much less. Compare teacher wages to other workers who don't put in a full year, like pro basketball stars. Compute what you would have to pay teachers if you paid them babysitter wages (spoiler alert: a ton). Observe that teachers are frickin' professionals and not hourly workers. Or, for the free market conservatives, note that the going rate for a thing, whether it's a commodity, a manufactured good, or skilled labor, is set by the invisible hand, and not what you feel like paying. If you think the work is so short and easy, come do it yourself.
So Finn's argument against the strikes range from the creatively misguided to old-school insulting. He has, of course, completely ignored the part of this that is flummoxing many conservatives-- the strikes are not simply about teacher wages but about teaching conditions. When you say teachers should suck it up and teach classes of forty kids, you are saying that parents should be happy to put their kids in forty-student classes. When you argue that teachers should stop whining about moldy rooms, you are saying that students should gladly sit in those rooms as well. When you argue that teachers should not get fussy about forty-year-old textbooks, you are saying that students should be happy with those books as well. Teachers work conditions really are student learning conditions, and when those conditions have been deliberately degraded by people who want to save a buck or leaders who want to drive more families into charter schools-- in short, when those lousy conditions are the result of deliberate bad choices made by legislators, then all the teacher shaming in the world isn't really going to help.
Finn says that if we want to ameliorate these conditions, "a great many things need to change in very big ways." He's correct, but those many things are less about teachers being uppity and more about state leaders actually committing to support public education.
My Imaginary Gun
What if the shooter came in right.... now?
Because this is the world we live in now, I've been conducting a little thought experiment for almost two months. What would I do if a shooter entered my building, and if I were armed?
The thought experiment has been pretty simple-- at various moments during my teaching day, I imagine that a shooter has just entered the building, maybe nearby or maybe in another wing. My building is pretty spread out and sprawling, There certainly scenarios in which an active shooter situation plays out so far away from me that I don't even know about until it's over, or in which I find out from announcement, text, or fleeing students, and I simply take my students and go running out of one of the two nearby exits.
I suppose in some of those scenarios I could grab my gun and head toward the shooter. I don't know if I'm that brave or not, but I do know I would feel a primary obligation to stay with my own students and make sure that they had someone with them to help get them to safety and to help keep them from freaking out.
One of the things I immediately noticed as I started conducting the experiment was that the vast majority of the time, I am surrounded by students. If a shooter enters my room and I'm on the other side, I have to shoot past students to hit him (I always assume that it will be a him). If the shooter targets a crowded area, like a school assembly or a lunch period, there would be students between us and behind him. In the hall between classes? More of the same.
In short, in the vast number of scenarios that I imagined, I would have to be a well-trained sharpshooter with a weapon more accurate than a handgun to fire at the active shooter without hitting my own students.
Many of these scenarios would also require me to be carrying the gun with me at all times, which opens up its own set of scenarios that I did not really consider, other than to note that most of those scenarios are bad.
What if my class has enough warning to lock down in place, and I'm using the firearm to defend the door? This is a problem in my case because there are two doors into my classroom, and the take cover area for my room would have to be the space between those doors. In other words, I would have to make a choice about which door to stand beside, and if I guess wrong, there will be students between me and the other door I want to defend.
I could play this morbid game for weeks because there are so many alternative scenarios, and the specifics of each one make a huge difference. What if the shooter comes when students are doing a presentation, or doing group work spread out over two classrooms and the hall? What difference will it make if the shooter shows up during the period when my students tend to listen to me as opposed to the period when the students tend to dismiss everything I say?
And what would I do if, as is often the case, the shooter is a current or former student? Could I shoot at a student?
After conducting this thought experiment, I can say this-- while I can't say that a gun would never, ever be useful in a shooter situation, I can say that 98 times out of 100, it would not be helpful at all. And that's just assuming I would be properly and regularly trained enough to stay relatively cool under pressure. If I measure that against all the possible problems of having the gun on my person or in my room, I must conclude again that arming teachers is folly. Of course, the noise about arming teachers has gotten much quieter since teachers started getting all militant with strikes and walkouts and gathering around the state capitol.
Why conduct this experiment at all? Because that's the world we live and teach in now. Why did I stop the experiment? Same reason. My wife came home yesterday after spending a half day learning about how to stop bleeding in a gunshot wound victim. She spent a half day learning about packing material into wounds so that her ten-year-old students would be less likely to bleed out in a nightmare shooter scenario.
That's the world we live in-- a world in which schools think about this stuff way too much. So I'm going to do my part by thinking about it less. Thought experiment over. Don't arm teachers.
Because this is the world we live in now, I've been conducting a little thought experiment for almost two months. What would I do if a shooter entered my building, and if I were armed?
I suppose in some of those scenarios I could grab my gun and head toward the shooter. I don't know if I'm that brave or not, but I do know I would feel a primary obligation to stay with my own students and make sure that they had someone with them to help get them to safety and to help keep them from freaking out.
One of the things I immediately noticed as I started conducting the experiment was that the vast majority of the time, I am surrounded by students. If a shooter enters my room and I'm on the other side, I have to shoot past students to hit him (I always assume that it will be a him). If the shooter targets a crowded area, like a school assembly or a lunch period, there would be students between us and behind him. In the hall between classes? More of the same.
In short, in the vast number of scenarios that I imagined, I would have to be a well-trained sharpshooter with a weapon more accurate than a handgun to fire at the active shooter without hitting my own students.
Many of these scenarios would also require me to be carrying the gun with me at all times, which opens up its own set of scenarios that I did not really consider, other than to note that most of those scenarios are bad.
What if my class has enough warning to lock down in place, and I'm using the firearm to defend the door? This is a problem in my case because there are two doors into my classroom, and the take cover area for my room would have to be the space between those doors. In other words, I would have to make a choice about which door to stand beside, and if I guess wrong, there will be students between me and the other door I want to defend.
I could play this morbid game for weeks because there are so many alternative scenarios, and the specifics of each one make a huge difference. What if the shooter comes when students are doing a presentation, or doing group work spread out over two classrooms and the hall? What difference will it make if the shooter shows up during the period when my students tend to listen to me as opposed to the period when the students tend to dismiss everything I say?
And what would I do if, as is often the case, the shooter is a current or former student? Could I shoot at a student?
After conducting this thought experiment, I can say this-- while I can't say that a gun would never, ever be useful in a shooter situation, I can say that 98 times out of 100, it would not be helpful at all. And that's just assuming I would be properly and regularly trained enough to stay relatively cool under pressure. If I measure that against all the possible problems of having the gun on my person or in my room, I must conclude again that arming teachers is folly. Of course, the noise about arming teachers has gotten much quieter since teachers started getting all militant with strikes and walkouts and gathering around the state capitol.
Why conduct this experiment at all? Because that's the world we live and teach in now. Why did I stop the experiment? Same reason. My wife came home yesterday after spending a half day learning about how to stop bleeding in a gunshot wound victim. She spent a half day learning about packing material into wounds so that her ten-year-old students would be less likely to bleed out in a nightmare shooter scenario.
That's the world we live in-- a world in which schools think about this stuff way too much. So I'm going to do my part by thinking about it less. Thought experiment over. Don't arm teachers.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Tampio: Common Core vs. Democracy
So I have another reading recommendation for you. This time it's from Nicholas Tampio, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University and friend of this blog. Common Core: National education Standards and the Threat to Democracy approaches the Common Core territory from a slightly different angle-- does such a system belong in a democratic(ish) country? The title telegraphs Tampio's conclusion, but it's still worth your time to read this book.
Tampio is impressively fair and measured, and his book lays out multiple sides of the issue clearly (well, except for some of the really crazy ones); this book is not merely an argument for one side of the Common Core debate, but a well-sourced explication of many sides. In doing so, Tampio shows an intellectual honesty and even-handedness that I appreciate-- it's not generally useful to assume that people on The Other Side of an issue disagree with you because they are evil and/or stupid. If you've been trying to understand where some Core fans are coming from, Tampio's book covers that nicely.
Tampio considers the arguments for and against any nationals stanrdas at all, and then spends a chapter each considering specific standards (ELA, math, science, history and, yes, even sexuality standards) looking in each case at the specific problems with each set of standards.
Tampio's explanation of the standards is quite good. By connecting ELA standards to David Coleman's anti-classic essay "Cultivating Wonder," showing how Coleman's idea of "thinking" is really a specialized kind of quoting and regurgitation. He breaks down how Coleman-style "close reading" is really about selecting and presenting the "correct" quotes from an excerpt-- not a critical thinking exercise at all. Quoting Dewey:
"Democracy cannot flourish where the chief influences in selecting subject matter of instruction are utilitarian ends narrowly conceived for the masses, and for the higher education of the few, the traditions of a specialized cultivated class. The notion that the 'essentials' of elementary education are the three R's mechanically treated, is based upon ignorance of the essential needed for realization of democratic ideals." We have seen that Common Core curricula and testing require studnets to repeat verbatim passages from a text. Quoting accurately is not thinking; thinking is a more complicated and fluid process that requires experimenting to solve the problem.
 |
| Another addition to your read-me stack |
Tampio considers the arguments for and against any nationals stanrdas at all, and then spends a chapter each considering specific standards (ELA, math, science, history and, yes, even sexuality standards) looking in each case at the specific problems with each set of standards.
Tampio's explanation of the standards is quite good. By connecting ELA standards to David Coleman's anti-classic essay "Cultivating Wonder," showing how Coleman's idea of "thinking" is really a specialized kind of quoting and regurgitation. He breaks down how Coleman-style "close reading" is really about selecting and presenting the "correct" quotes from an excerpt-- not a critical thinking exercise at all. Quoting Dewey:
"Democracy cannot flourish where the chief influences in selecting subject matter of instruction are utilitarian ends narrowly conceived for the masses, and for the higher education of the few, the traditions of a specialized cultivated class. The notion that the 'essentials' of elementary education are the three R's mechanically treated, is based upon ignorance of the essential needed for realization of democratic ideals." We have seen that Common Core curricula and testing require studnets to repeat verbatim passages from a text. Quoting accurately is not thinking; thinking is a more complicated and fluid process that requires experimenting to solve the problem.
Tampio's chapter on math standards shows how Core math is heavily dependent on Core-style reading, and that the requirement to explain does not, in this narrow testing environment, prove that students understand anything:
Beales and Garelick argue that writing explanations sometimes turns routine problems into "unnecessary and tedious" assignments. They observe that many students first solve the problems in their heads and then write a narrative using "verbalism" they have been taught. It is not that the students now understand how their mathematical minds work; it is that they can sufficiently repeat the words that the teacher has told them they need to do if they want a good grade.
Step by step, Tampio leads us through the various standards (some more controversial than others)to a conclusion. National standards fans may argue that we can certainly agree on a minimum set of national standards that all students need to be ready for college and career. Except that, of course, we can't. "Reasonable people disagree over how to teach literacy, numeracy, science, history and sexual health."
What Tampio provides here is the capstone to the argument that many of us make, only when education guys like moi argue against national standards, we end up conclude with sputterings about, "Well, that's just not how education is supposed to work. That's not what it's supposed to be." Which I believe with all my heart and soul, but also recognize as a fuzzy conclusion to the argument. But Tampio brings us back the threat to democracy(ish) that such standards represent.
In our country, we are witnessing powerful people granting themselves the right to decide how nearly all American children are educated. And many parents, teachers, and educators, including those in historically disadvantaged communities, are saying no to top-down, standards-based reform. People want a say in what and how the local schools teach children.
The book is brief, pithy, to-the-point and well-focused, making it a great gift for your civilian friend who wants a quick, accessible explanation of what all the fuss is about. Since it's a fuss, you may disagree with some of it (I'm solidly in the anti-national standards camp, but I know reasonable people who aren't). For those of us who are already familiar with the fuss, it's a good exercise in organizing and explaining what exactly is wrong with the national standards movement and why it's not just a bad way to run an education system, but a bad way to run a democratic(ish) society.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Another Bad Personalized Pitch
I am running out of clever titles for this sort of piece, but the sheer number of investor pitches for personalized [sic] education require me to stretch. While these may seem a bit redundant, I think it's important that we see just how many versions of this same bad pitch are out there. This is why bad policy persists-- because a whole bunch of people have convinced themselves the bad policy will make them rich.
Say hello to EVC Ventures, a $50 million Chicago-based Venture Capital fund focused globally on early-stage startups. Or, as their website listing puts it, "where start-ups become unicorns." One of their portfolios is Ed Tech, which explains why managing partner Anjil Jain is in Entrepreneur today, pitching Personalized [sic] Learning as the next bit of awesomeness. She graduated from the Horace Mann school and has a BA in Anthropology from Columbia University. She's an investment person, not an educator.
The headline is "Are You Integrating Personalized Learning Into Your Curriculum?" which seems to assume that school superintendents and curriculum planners are big readers of Entrepreneur India. But the subheading makes big, important promises-- "Personalized learning with the help of Artificial Intelligence will change the Education System." It's possible that we're trying to sell education to companies' in house training programs.
Here's the very first paragraph:
Well, a school is a place we all hold as a dear memory; however, there were also days when school seemed redundant with the same old classroom instructions, lectures, books, and other such activities. With each new day, education is taking an extra step to kill that redundancy and promote a more personalized experience for their students.
Ah, yes. Books and other such activities. And redundancy. And one more critique of public school classrooms as they were in 1962. Do we want to kill redundancy? Because repetition is a really useful learning tool. But let's not tarry too long at this first graph, because Jain is just getting warmed up.
As the old school routine became more superfluous, education needed a change for accessibility through transformative technology and personalized learning secures a good place for the same.
It is, as one colleague, observed, as if Betsy DeVos was being translated by an AI.
What else can be more fitting than the ideal blend of technological betterments and the need for educational advancements? Where traditional tactics take a step back in the progressive world, advancements like AI and data analytics take the lead and stay up front to show the demanded growth.
What is the ideal blend? That's one of the many specific areas that Anjl is not going to approach at all. She will, however, quote "a report" that 16% of jobs will be lost to AI and tech over the next decade (she appears to be quoting a market research report from Forrester). AI and data analyrtics "are all set to show miracles to the world" and "prove their mettle in the education industry." And the hits just keep on coming:
Helping students at their own pace is one of the prerequisites an educational institution must focus on. Notwithstanding, the very task is not as simple as it sounds. Howbeit, AI comes to the rescue in this scenario by personalizing the learning experience for every student. This all is possible with the combined help of data analytics and AI. Where data analytics helps in gathering and presenting the behavioral as well as learning curves of the students, AI helps the students by putting emphasis on the topics they need help with. Teachers can work as a helping hand to guide the students whenever they feel the need of the additional support.
Slog through the tortured prose (yes, "howbeit" is a word, albeit an archaic one) and you see the usual promises. Students learn at their own pace. Data is collected for both academic and behavioral analysis. Teachers are sidelined. How does any of this work? Well, you know-- AI and data and magical fairy dust.
But there's good news for teachers as well.
Grading every individual is not a sweat task for the teachers anymore.
Well, thank goodness, because I have all the sweat tasks I can handle. But AI and data analytics will grade the tests. In fact, they will even generate "performance-based tests" (check one more item off the buzzword list).
The world is changing and I believe, no student is ready for an average learning experience. Every business, be it the one leading in the industry or the one, which just started talking business, is trying to lure the students around the world with their provision of enhanced learning experiences.
Want some explanation of how this could actually work? Too bad-- the end of the article is almost here, and we still have some buzzwords to work in:
Students of today won't be satisfied if you provide them with the traditional learning setups, like a classroom and a teacher reading through the notes. They want the incorporation of techniques like adaptive learning, digital courseware, and almost any technology that can help them learn as per their learning curve.
Yes, who wants learning in a stupid classroom with some teacher just, you know, teaching stuff. Hey, I can scratch off "adaptive learning" and "digital courseware" now! Let's wind up for the big finish:
Every student is unique and has a different pace of learning, personalized learning will allow students to accelerate at their own pace. The main reason why personalized learning has become such as important part of the higher education system is because of its assessment-driven features, showcasing academic advancements from time spent in a classroom to competencies mastered with experiences. There's no one size fits all in the education space. Now the question is; have you implemented this yet?
A nod to micro-competencies and the not-one-size-fits-all of what is most likely a one-size-fits-all software solution.
"Data analytics" appears eight times in this piece; "AI" appears fifteen times. An explanation of exactly what those are purported to be, or exactly how they would help anyone learn anything-- that appears zero times. Just a repetition of these and other buzzwords like a magic incantation intended to conjure up.... well, what? Investor money, I suppose. What hasn't happened here, of course, is any attempt by the investment firm to actually study up on education history, the background or application of personalized [sic] learning, or the actual practical wisdom of employing (or defining) such a system. What hasn't happened here is any attempt to acquire understanding any deeper than a shallow pile of buzzwords. I guess all of that would have been too much of a sweat task.
The headline is "Are You Integrating Personalized Learning Into Your Curriculum?" which seems to assume that school superintendents and curriculum planners are big readers of Entrepreneur India. But the subheading makes big, important promises-- "Personalized learning with the help of Artificial Intelligence will change the Education System." It's possible that we're trying to sell education to companies' in house training programs.
Here's the very first paragraph:
Well, a school is a place we all hold as a dear memory; however, there were also days when school seemed redundant with the same old classroom instructions, lectures, books, and other such activities. With each new day, education is taking an extra step to kill that redundancy and promote a more personalized experience for their students.
Ah, yes. Books and other such activities. And redundancy. And one more critique of public school classrooms as they were in 1962. Do we want to kill redundancy? Because repetition is a really useful learning tool. But let's not tarry too long at this first graph, because Jain is just getting warmed up.
As the old school routine became more superfluous, education needed a change for accessibility through transformative technology and personalized learning secures a good place for the same.
It is, as one colleague, observed, as if Betsy DeVos was being translated by an AI.
What else can be more fitting than the ideal blend of technological betterments and the need for educational advancements? Where traditional tactics take a step back in the progressive world, advancements like AI and data analytics take the lead and stay up front to show the demanded growth.
What is the ideal blend? That's one of the many specific areas that Anjl is not going to approach at all. She will, however, quote "a report" that 16% of jobs will be lost to AI and tech over the next decade (she appears to be quoting a market research report from Forrester). AI and data analyrtics "are all set to show miracles to the world" and "prove their mettle in the education industry." And the hits just keep on coming:
Helping students at their own pace is one of the prerequisites an educational institution must focus on. Notwithstanding, the very task is not as simple as it sounds. Howbeit, AI comes to the rescue in this scenario by personalizing the learning experience for every student. This all is possible with the combined help of data analytics and AI. Where data analytics helps in gathering and presenting the behavioral as well as learning curves of the students, AI helps the students by putting emphasis on the topics they need help with. Teachers can work as a helping hand to guide the students whenever they feel the need of the additional support.
Slog through the tortured prose (yes, "howbeit" is a word, albeit an archaic one) and you see the usual promises. Students learn at their own pace. Data is collected for both academic and behavioral analysis. Teachers are sidelined. How does any of this work? Well, you know-- AI and data and magical fairy dust.
But there's good news for teachers as well.
Grading every individual is not a sweat task for the teachers anymore.
Well, thank goodness, because I have all the sweat tasks I can handle. But AI and data analytics will grade the tests. In fact, they will even generate "performance-based tests" (check one more item off the buzzword list).
The world is changing and I believe, no student is ready for an average learning experience. Every business, be it the one leading in the industry or the one, which just started talking business, is trying to lure the students around the world with their provision of enhanced learning experiences.
Want some explanation of how this could actually work? Too bad-- the end of the article is almost here, and we still have some buzzwords to work in:
Students of today won't be satisfied if you provide them with the traditional learning setups, like a classroom and a teacher reading through the notes. They want the incorporation of techniques like adaptive learning, digital courseware, and almost any technology that can help them learn as per their learning curve.
Yes, who wants learning in a stupid classroom with some teacher just, you know, teaching stuff. Hey, I can scratch off "adaptive learning" and "digital courseware" now! Let's wind up for the big finish:
Every student is unique and has a different pace of learning, personalized learning will allow students to accelerate at their own pace. The main reason why personalized learning has become such as important part of the higher education system is because of its assessment-driven features, showcasing academic advancements from time spent in a classroom to competencies mastered with experiences. There's no one size fits all in the education space. Now the question is; have you implemented this yet?
A nod to micro-competencies and the not-one-size-fits-all of what is most likely a one-size-fits-all software solution.
"Data analytics" appears eight times in this piece; "AI" appears fifteen times. An explanation of exactly what those are purported to be, or exactly how they would help anyone learn anything-- that appears zero times. Just a repetition of these and other buzzwords like a magic incantation intended to conjure up.... well, what? Investor money, I suppose. What hasn't happened here, of course, is any attempt by the investment firm to actually study up on education history, the background or application of personalized [sic] learning, or the actual practical wisdom of employing (or defining) such a system. What hasn't happened here is any attempt to acquire understanding any deeper than a shallow pile of buzzwords. I guess all of that would have been too much of a sweat task.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Public
Recently Education Secretary Betsy DeVos met with the cadre of Teachers of the Year. Most of what came out of the meeting was predictable, but a special insight award goes to the TOTY from my own state:
“One of the things that was so stark and memorable in that exchange was. … Secretary DeVos trying to redefine what the word ‘public’ is,” said Michael Soskil Sr., Pennsylvania’s teacher of the year. “It was almost like Orwellian doublespeak to me.”
The charter sector has been trying to redefine "public" for years. Identifying charters as public schools solves a variety of marketing problems by giving the impression that charters include features that people expect from their public school. "Oh, a public school," the customers say. "That must mean that the school will be open forever (certainly all of this year), it is staffed with qualified professionals, and is required to meet any special needs that my child might have. Oh, and as a public school, I'm sure it must be accountable to the public as well."
Of course, none of these things are true, but the use of the word "public" is a buffer against having the questions even come up. I mean, who even thinks to ask a public school to guarantee that it will stay open all year?
"Public" when it comes to schools has been taken to mean "operated by the public, paid for by the public, serving the public, and accountable to the public." Charter fans would like it to mean "paid for by the public" and nothing else. They would like voters and taxpayers not to think of charter schools as private schools that are paid for with public money. They would like voters and taxpayers absolutely not to think of charters as businesses that allow private people and companies to make money by billing the taxpayer. They would definitely not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as schools that are "accessible" to all, but which only serve a select few (like a Lexus dealership). They would certainly not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as businesses that are accountable only to their owners and operators-- and not transparently accountable to the public. The word "public" is a handy fig leaf to cover all of that.
But DeVos would like to twist the meaning of "public" even further.
DeVos envision an education system that includes charter and private and voucher schools, with perhaps a few public schools thrown in so we have a place to put the children of Those People, the ones that the charters and private schools don't want. Her idea of public accessibility is that any member of the public can have the chance to be accepted or rejected by the school. Her idea of public accountability is that "customers" are free to choose (though the ultimate choice rests with the charter and voucher schools). By this reasoning, all businesses are public-- except that we know that's not true.
What does "public" mean in the DeVosian world? Certainly not "controlled, owned, accountable to, regulated by, and open to all of the public." Again, the public has no role except to pay. Or possibly, if they have the power and connections, members of the public are free to try to score a piece of the unprotected tax dollar pie.
Edupreneurs have long complained about the "government monopoly," about the restrictions that keep them from being able to score some of that sweet government money. Maybe that's the key to the DeVosian idea of "public"-- "public" schools are schools that give entrepreneurs and businesses the chance to funnel a bunch of public tax dollars into their private bank account."
That definition would fit the current administration, where the President and cabinet members operate their offices for their private benefit and are accountable to nobody. In their universe, "public" means "not walled off by a bunch of regulations that keep tax dollars away from enterprising businessmen." Or to shorten it, "public" means "able to be privatized."
It's not quite an Orwellian reversal. "Private" means "it's mine and you can't take any of it" and "public" means "I'm able to take a piece of it for myself." Which means we have no word left for describing something that is part of the commons, held and protected transparently by representative government for the good of all citizens. It would be nice to have a word for that, but in the world our leaders have in mind, we may not need aby such word.
“One of the things that was so stark and memorable in that exchange was. … Secretary DeVos trying to redefine what the word ‘public’ is,” said Michael Soskil Sr., Pennsylvania’s teacher of the year. “It was almost like Orwellian doublespeak to me.”
Of course, none of these things are true, but the use of the word "public" is a buffer against having the questions even come up. I mean, who even thinks to ask a public school to guarantee that it will stay open all year?
"Public" when it comes to schools has been taken to mean "operated by the public, paid for by the public, serving the public, and accountable to the public." Charter fans would like it to mean "paid for by the public" and nothing else. They would like voters and taxpayers not to think of charter schools as private schools that are paid for with public money. They would like voters and taxpayers absolutely not to think of charters as businesses that allow private people and companies to make money by billing the taxpayer. They would definitely not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as schools that are "accessible" to all, but which only serve a select few (like a Lexus dealership). They would certainly not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as businesses that are accountable only to their owners and operators-- and not transparently accountable to the public. The word "public" is a handy fig leaf to cover all of that.
But DeVos would like to twist the meaning of "public" even further.
DeVos envision an education system that includes charter and private and voucher schools, with perhaps a few public schools thrown in so we have a place to put the children of Those People, the ones that the charters and private schools don't want. Her idea of public accessibility is that any member of the public can have the chance to be accepted or rejected by the school. Her idea of public accountability is that "customers" are free to choose (though the ultimate choice rests with the charter and voucher schools). By this reasoning, all businesses are public-- except that we know that's not true.
What does "public" mean in the DeVosian world? Certainly not "controlled, owned, accountable to, regulated by, and open to all of the public." Again, the public has no role except to pay. Or possibly, if they have the power and connections, members of the public are free to try to score a piece of the unprotected tax dollar pie.
Edupreneurs have long complained about the "government monopoly," about the restrictions that keep them from being able to score some of that sweet government money. Maybe that's the key to the DeVosian idea of "public"-- "public" schools are schools that give entrepreneurs and businesses the chance to funnel a bunch of public tax dollars into their private bank account."
That definition would fit the current administration, where the President and cabinet members operate their offices for their private benefit and are accountable to nobody. In their universe, "public" means "not walled off by a bunch of regulations that keep tax dollars away from enterprising businessmen." Or to shorten it, "public" means "able to be privatized."
It's not quite an Orwellian reversal. "Private" means "it's mine and you can't take any of it" and "public" means "I'm able to take a piece of it for myself." Which means we have no word left for describing something that is part of the commons, held and protected transparently by representative government for the good of all citizens. It would be nice to have a word for that, but in the world our leaders have in mind, we may not need aby such word.
CA: A Misguided Attack on Teachers' Union
Jay Matthews is an education columnist for the Washington Post, so he should know better. "I've been around," he says. Well, yes. Mathews was not always tough on Shee Who Will Not Be Named, but he did catch the echoes of the DCPS graduation scandal on the national level, even as the Washington Post completely failed to catch that story.
But last week Mathews' Been Aroundiness failed him in a wrong-headed rebuke of the California Teachers Association. He's responding to a new CTA radio ad. Here's the whole script for that ad:
They’re lining up against our local public schools. One after another, out-of-state billionaires are trying to buy our politicians. Following the lead of Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos, billionaires like Koch brothers allies Jim and Alice Walton have their own narrow education agenda to divert money out of our public schools and into their corporate charter schools. It’s true. Out-of-state billionaires investing millions into politicians who will protect corporate-run charter schools that lack accountability.
So as California chooses its next generation of leaders this election we must stand up to politicians who divert money out of our neighborhood public schools and say yes to leaders who value the promise of quality public education for all students no matter where they live. And leaders who always put kids before profits. Learn more at kidsnotprofits.com. Paid for by the California Teachers Association.
First of all, Mathews wants to trot out that old charter distinction without a difference. The spot, he says, implies that charters are all profit machines when in fact, he points out, 97% of California charters are non-profit.
This is a tired, tired talking point. It's true that for-profit charters, like cyber-school giant K-12, have committed their own sort of offenses against the state of California. But to imagine that non-profits are somehow less interested in the grubbing of money is simply counterfactual. Nonprofit charters are still businesses and are still focused on making money. True, since that money will be distributed as big fat wages or paid to for-profit contractors and not issued to shareholders, we're not strictly talking about profits. But it's a meaningless distinction. There are so many ways for non-profit charter schools to make private individuals and companies wealthy, and because California barely regulates its charters, California's charter sector is particularly vulnerable.
Take for instance the now decade-old case of California Charter Academy, a once-huge charter chain founded by Charles Steven Cox, a former insurance executive. Cox was founder and CEO the charter chain, and he hired a company to provide "management services" to the school. That company was a for-profit business, and its CEO was Charles Steven Cox.
That's the same self-dealing personal enrichment scheme used by Kendra Onkonkwo for her Wisdom Academy for Young Scientists in Watts. Or this Bay Area charter chain that used its right hand to pay its left hand.
You can find other classic examples of California charter-based profiteering in this report from In the Public Interest. These are not hard examples to find-- the techniques for using a supposedly non-profit charter to feed directly into a for-profit business (or a private pocket) are well-known and not particularly new at this point. And that's before we even get to issues like, say, increased segregation in California charters.
Mathews avows his dislike for for-profit charters, because "the best teachers I know want to help kids, not investors." He's an education reporter-- surely he understands that many non-profit charters are simply a protective layer between tax dollars and for-profit companies that collect the rent on the building, provide the educational services, and contract for other management functions. You know who's published some good pieces about this web of non-profit and for-profit companies? The Washington Post.
But Mathews is offended-- personally offended-- that CTA is spreading the scurrilous lie that charters are often in it for the money.
He'll throw around some more baloney in support of his point. For instance, charter schools are public schools. He's an education reporter, and as such, should well know that the best thing one can say about that assertion is that it's a highly-debated claim, and the worst thing you can say about is that it's a lie. Charters are privately run businesses that are paid with public dollars. He's also going to make the claim that charters cannot pick the applicants they want-- which is another careful construction. Charters can't pick who applies, though they can certainly use advertising-- paid for with public tax dollars-- to affect which families choose to apply. And they can (and do) influence who stays. He also wants to tell us that some research shows that African Americans and Hispanic students are doing better in charters; he does not discuss how that may simply show that charters have creamed successfully, nor does he discuss that "better" just means "scored higher on a single narrow standardized test."
Mathews angrily characterizes the CTA spot as "rubbish," but where's the rubbishy part? Billionaires want to divert public dollars to corporate coffers? Well, yes, they do-- surely he didn't miss the story about Eli Broad's plan to grab half the LA education "market" for charter schools. Do outside billionaires spend a bunch of money trying to influence local politics? Well, yesh-- surely he didn't miss the story about outside rich folks trying to crush the charter cap in Massachusetts and getting caught and spanked for cheating. And what will Mathews make of the appointment of Austin Beutner, a Wall Street money guy with no education background at all (but lots of money) and limited LA ties as Superintendent of LAUSD?
Charter do divert money away from public schools. Charters do put money ahead of students, as witnessed by the number of times charters close down during the year for financial reasons. Charters are businesses; that does not make them inherently evil or destructive, but it does mean that financial concerns come first.
Yes, the CTA is guilty of some rhetorical corner cutting by using "profits" as shorthand for the various financial aspects of the charter business. But their spot is not rubbish and it's not counter to the truth. Mathews has used arguments that I would expect from someone who never reads anything on the subject but charter promotional materials. I expect better from an education reporter who has been around.
They’re lining up against our local public schools. One after another, out-of-state billionaires are trying to buy our politicians. Following the lead of Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos, billionaires like Koch brothers allies Jim and Alice Walton have their own narrow education agenda to divert money out of our public schools and into their corporate charter schools. It’s true. Out-of-state billionaires investing millions into politicians who will protect corporate-run charter schools that lack accountability.
So as California chooses its next generation of leaders this election we must stand up to politicians who divert money out of our neighborhood public schools and say yes to leaders who value the promise of quality public education for all students no matter where they live. And leaders who always put kids before profits. Learn more at kidsnotprofits.com. Paid for by the California Teachers Association.
First of all, Mathews wants to trot out that old charter distinction without a difference. The spot, he says, implies that charters are all profit machines when in fact, he points out, 97% of California charters are non-profit.
This is a tired, tired talking point. It's true that for-profit charters, like cyber-school giant K-12, have committed their own sort of offenses against the state of California. But to imagine that non-profits are somehow less interested in the grubbing of money is simply counterfactual. Nonprofit charters are still businesses and are still focused on making money. True, since that money will be distributed as big fat wages or paid to for-profit contractors and not issued to shareholders, we're not strictly talking about profits. But it's a meaningless distinction. There are so many ways for non-profit charter schools to make private individuals and companies wealthy, and because California barely regulates its charters, California's charter sector is particularly vulnerable.
Take for instance the now decade-old case of California Charter Academy, a once-huge charter chain founded by Charles Steven Cox, a former insurance executive. Cox was founder and CEO the charter chain, and he hired a company to provide "management services" to the school. That company was a for-profit business, and its CEO was Charles Steven Cox.
That's the same self-dealing personal enrichment scheme used by Kendra Onkonkwo for her Wisdom Academy for Young Scientists in Watts. Or this Bay Area charter chain that used its right hand to pay its left hand.
You can find other classic examples of California charter-based profiteering in this report from In the Public Interest. These are not hard examples to find-- the techniques for using a supposedly non-profit charter to feed directly into a for-profit business (or a private pocket) are well-known and not particularly new at this point. And that's before we even get to issues like, say, increased segregation in California charters.
Mathews avows his dislike for for-profit charters, because "the best teachers I know want to help kids, not investors." He's an education reporter-- surely he understands that many non-profit charters are simply a protective layer between tax dollars and for-profit companies that collect the rent on the building, provide the educational services, and contract for other management functions. You know who's published some good pieces about this web of non-profit and for-profit companies? The Washington Post.
But Mathews is offended-- personally offended-- that CTA is spreading the scurrilous lie that charters are often in it for the money.
He'll throw around some more baloney in support of his point. For instance, charter schools are public schools. He's an education reporter, and as such, should well know that the best thing one can say about that assertion is that it's a highly-debated claim, and the worst thing you can say about is that it's a lie. Charters are privately run businesses that are paid with public dollars. He's also going to make the claim that charters cannot pick the applicants they want-- which is another careful construction. Charters can't pick who applies, though they can certainly use advertising-- paid for with public tax dollars-- to affect which families choose to apply. And they can (and do) influence who stays. He also wants to tell us that some research shows that African Americans and Hispanic students are doing better in charters; he does not discuss how that may simply show that charters have creamed successfully, nor does he discuss that "better" just means "scored higher on a single narrow standardized test."
Mathews angrily characterizes the CTA spot as "rubbish," but where's the rubbishy part? Billionaires want to divert public dollars to corporate coffers? Well, yes, they do-- surely he didn't miss the story about Eli Broad's plan to grab half the LA education "market" for charter schools. Do outside billionaires spend a bunch of money trying to influence local politics? Well, yesh-- surely he didn't miss the story about outside rich folks trying to crush the charter cap in Massachusetts and getting caught and spanked for cheating. And what will Mathews make of the appointment of Austin Beutner, a Wall Street money guy with no education background at all (but lots of money) and limited LA ties as Superintendent of LAUSD?
Charter do divert money away from public schools. Charters do put money ahead of students, as witnessed by the number of times charters close down during the year for financial reasons. Charters are businesses; that does not make them inherently evil or destructive, but it does mean that financial concerns come first.
Yes, the CTA is guilty of some rhetorical corner cutting by using "profits" as shorthand for the various financial aspects of the charter business. But their spot is not rubbish and it's not counter to the truth. Mathews has used arguments that I would expect from someone who never reads anything on the subject but charter promotional materials. I expect better from an education reporter who has been around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)