Slashdot Mirror
Better Learning Through Expensive Software? One Principal Thinks Not
theodp writes "Instead of improving the instructional practices of teachers," laments Chicago public school Principal Michael Beyer, "we are throwing vast sums of money and time at software and digital solutions that are largely untested, unproven and highly questionable." Ed-Tech vendors' so-called "weapons of mass instruction," argues Beyer, may show "gains" on the high-stakes tests because they mimic the targeted test format, but the learning gains don't necessarily transfer to the real world, or last much longer than the end of the school year. But technology in the classroom is not going away, as one commenter notes. So, what to do? Well, since U.S. CTO Megan Smith is looking for bigger technological fish to fry than weaning the White House off floppy disks, why not give her a crack at Ed-Tech, including a healthy budget and some Lab Schools where she could have educators and technologists brainstorm-and-prototype to separate the Ed-Tech wheat from the chaff without undue vendor influence and short-term test score pressure?
Ed-Tech vendors' so-called "weapons of mass instruction," argues Beyer, may show "gains" on the high-stakes tests because they mimic the targeted test format, but the learning gains don't necessarily transfer to the real world, or last much longer than the end of the school year.
This has long been a problem with "standardized tests", schools teach only to the test because their jobs and budgets depend on high numbers. Thinking and teaching outside the test? Not allowed, hell, we already don't teach proper handwriting anymore.
We should absolutely be teaching technology in schools, starting with real actual math and reading comprehension, moving on to both software and hardware and other types of technology - I'm not a teacher, who knows... But like the house with an operating system, I think many of these new computer teaching tools are simply companies looking for ways to squeeze money out of people for things they don't really need, and if the government is paying for it, you know they paid a whole lot for it. Are we just fattening some venture capitalist's pocket with this stuff?
I'm on the fence about the textbooks themselves being on tablets, maybe that makes sense. But if we are going to hand off teaching to computers, why pay for anything more than a human babysitter - or is that what we are doing already?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
After being a teacher in Joliet , Illinois system and seeing what passes for teaching and parental involvement in the Chicago land area I can quite firmly state that it isn't the money taxpayers spend, the technology that is invested in the area, nor the opportunities that students have that is the real issue.
The real issue is that there needs to be a clean out of lazy teachers and administration that refuses to interact with parents- a gallon of bleach dumped into the leach pool.
These children need people to intervene and make sure to involve the parents in all aspects of their education. Instead, we have more people involved on getting paid and protecting their pension.
It's quite sad.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
You are certainly on the right track here, but the question of prestige is either chicken and egg or the tail wagging the dog depending on who you ask. My wife is often asked why she got a degree in education when she is apparently so intelligent. (Thanks!) She didn't. She got a BS in microbiology and molecular genetics before rejecting(!) grad school and med school. She then earned an MS in Biology (not Bio education or MST, etc.. A research oriented degree.) She lives in a rare state where she is paid a nearly fair wage.
The biggest problem to her retention is the intense disrespect she faces from nearly every stranger she meets. (And, fwiw, she isn't much worried personally about standardized test scores -- her students are almost always the highest in the district. The perfect student scorers are almost always hers.)
When people insult teachers very broadly, as they almost always do now, its hard to stay, much less to commit to what is perceived as a "sinking ship" full of stupid folk.
Fixing the professional guideposts is not enough alone -- fix the dialogue. We finally, after the Vietnam war in the US, decided to respect the majority of the troops and hold the institution responsible for the big fuck ups, and while some soldiers *are* stupid both the society at large and the military have seen the benefit, recruitment and otherwise.
TFA is a dot on the trend line of parental and educational laziness, IMHO. Parents slough off responsibility for their kids' educations to schools of questionable quality. The schools in turn palm of their work to computers. It's sad, and the only effective remedy is parental re-involvement.
I knew the schools sucked when my son was reading 3 grade levels above his peers at age 6. Now he's a sophomore in High School, and further along (knowlege-wise) toward his BSEE than most e-school juniors because I take the time to not just nurture and encourage but actually teach him at whatever level he is ready for. He's 15, and has built his own Siemens S7 PLC lab project. His science classmates won't get Ohm's Law till next year. Pity them.
We can blab all day about how to fix teh skoolz, but when it comes to your own kids, give them your best. As a parent, you owe it to them. The schools aren't going to do it for you.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.