Posts
Annotated.
Student achievement and educational attainment have stagnated in the U.S., and a host of our leading economic competitors are now out-educating us. [now?]One word: dismal.
[snip]
Imagine, though, an online high-school physics course that uses videogame graphics power to teach atomic interactions, or a second-grade online math curriculum that automatically adapts to individual students' levels of knowledge.
[snip]
At its full potential, technology could personalize and accelerate instruction for students of all educational levels. [or not]
[snip]
Other countries are far ahead of us in creating 21st-century classrooms. South Korea, which has the highest college attainment rate in the world, will phase out textbooks and replace them with digital products by 2015 [note: products, not books]. Even Uruguay, a small country not known for leadership in technology, provides a computer for every student.
It is no secret that advances in educational technology have been hailed as breakthroughs in the past, only to disappoint. [true] Too often, the market for educational technology has been inefficient and fragmented. The nation's 14,000 school districts, more than a few of which have byzantine procurement systems, have been inefficient consumers and have failed to drive consistent demand. [we have to buy more technology?]
[snip]
To help remedy those gaps, the Department of Education is launching a uniquepublic-privatepublic-vendor partnership called Digital Promise.
Digital Promise is a bipartisan initiative that will be sustained primarily by the private sector [which will be sustained by a more efficient, less fragmented market and consistent demand] ... Federal seed money will fund the program's start-up, but it will be overseen by a board that includesbusiness executivesvendors—such as John Morgridge, the chairman emeritus of Cisco, and Irwin Jacobs, co-founder of Qualcomm—who will work with researchers, educators and other private-sectorleadersvendors.
Digital Promise's aim is ambitious: to advance breakthrough technologies that transform teaching and learning in and out of the classroom, while creating a business environment that rewards innovation and entrepreneurship [for vendors].
Digital Promise can show leadership in areas such as helping build a more efficient market for [vendors of] education technology.
Arne Duncan and Reed Hastings
September 19, 2011 - WSJ
Mr. Duncan is the U.S. secretary of education. Mr. Hastings is the founder, chairman and CEO of Netflix and a former president of the California Board of Education.
and see:
speaking of technology and stagnant scores
oh brave new world!
codswallop, part 2
the founder, chair, and CEO of Netflix has a really bad idea
Larry Summers has a really bad idea
Wash U professor on Reed Hastings' really bad idea
David Brooks has a really bad idea
David Brooks has a really bad idea, part 2
David Brooks has a really good idea
12 comments:
Just how many bad ideas can Reed Hastings have in one week?
"It is no secret that advances in educational technology have been hailed as breakthroughs in the past, only to disappoint. [true]"
I'll second that true, but watch what they say next.
"Too often, the market for educational technology has been inefficient and fragmented. The nation's 14,000 school districts, more than a few of which have byzantine procurement systems, have been inefficient consumers and have failed to drive consistent demand."
The problem is changed into a procurement problem. Selling stuff.
"Digital Promise's aim is ambitious: to advance breakthrough technologies that transform teaching and learning in and out of the classroom, while creating a business environment that rewards innovation and entrepreneurship."
But who controls this money? How will they create effective apps if the money flows to the same players in the educational field? Will educators suddenly demand an electronic Singapore Math? Will good apps be created that find no demand? No. Business people are smarter than that. They will create solutions that tell educators what they want to hear.
"Digital Promise can show leadership in areas such as helping build a more efficient market for education technology."
An efficient market for expensive and bad apps that still don't work. It's not a technology or a procurement problem.
Yep, get more product into the school systems.
I went back to Digital Promise and put in my name and email so that I could get to their more detailed information. I was surprised to find out that there is no more information. They just wanted my contact information. I looked around for more details and couldn't find anything.
Let's say that I'm an "innovator" who wants to write a app that will ensure mastery of math skills in K-6. It will do those things that teachers don't want (or are told not) to do. It will allow kids to advance at their own rate and prove mastery by passing timed tests. Passing grades will guarantee that kids will be ready to take a proper pre-algebra course by 7th grade.
What happens if some kids get to this point in 4th grade? Self-learning may not work for all, but do schools really want to let these kids go at their own speed? Schools push the teacher as the guide-on-the-side, but is that just what they want? I don't think so. They want a social, heterogeneous, active learning environment. The teacher may be on the side, but the kids are not quietly sitting in rows working individually on computers, no matter how effective it is.
If I write up a proposal for this type of app, do I submit it to them to get development funds? Is it a grant, or do they become part owner? How is testing done? What happens if it's shown to be effective? Is this process independent of NSF strings or influence? What is their relationship with NSF?
Along with the start of Digital Promise, NSF seems to be jumping on the bandwagon.
"The NSF has issued a press release touting the innovative research projects and prototypes recently funded through its Cyberlearning: Transforming Education program. Among them:
•“GeoGames” that help students analyze data across geographical areas to solve real-world challenges;
•Robots that use non-verbal cues to teach vocabulary to children;
•Systems that create augmented reality for learners with hearing disabilities to support their learning; and
•Online tutors that assess a student’s real-time comprehension and tailor learning strategies to improve achievement."
So what is the relationship between NSF and Digital Promise? Is NSF worried about it's turf?
At best, I can see it highlighting the conflict between effective self-learning techniques (acceleration) and the love of heterogeneous, active learning classrooms (enrichment); the conflict between tangible criteria of learning (tests) and vague authentic learning criteria. NSF doesn't want to go there, and I expect Digital Promise will care only about getting technology in the classroom.
Just how many bad ideas can Reed Hastings have in one week?
LOLLLLLL!!!!
Hey you guys - I'm WAAYYY behind on reading comments (& email!) -- one week left 'til SAT & I'm wrassling with the educational technology at my college....
Back soon!
btw, I don't know if some of you remember my trip to WNET's "Celebration of Teaching and Learning," the big union shindig here in Manhattan...
Every speaker was breathless on the subject of TECHNOLOGY.
I'm pretty sure the "Digital Promise" was announced there (though it may have had a different name - and it had a global-shmobal theme in that incarnation, e.g.: U.S. classrooms were going to USE THE INTERNET!!!!! to communicate with classrooms in other countries...)
The govt factotem who announced the initiative (another word I abhor) as "this generation's moon shot."
I kid you not.
Which moon are they talking about?
Technology would be a wonderful tool to allow effective "differentiation" as opposed to the current lip service paid to challenging bright students. However, like Steve mentioned above, there needs to be the political will to allow students to actually maximize their own individual potential, even if that means some of them leave their peers far behind in the dust. If the powers that be are worried more about equity of outcomes rather than equity of access, technology won't do much if anything to improve education.
Catherine, it's "factotum".
That's always been the problem with real differentiation. You wind up with me -- no math class at all in 8th, and done by second period senior year -- because some kids will go far beyond what the school offers.
Honestly, that's part of why Engleman/DI never went any where -- the bottom kids improved a lot, but the top kids flew, so it made the achievement gap worse, not better.
A lot of people express skepticism about the usefulness of technology for education, but I think the potential is enormous.
The problem isn't technology; it's the education system. Good technologies, like good curricula, for a system as complex as education have to be evolved, but our educational system is a bad environment for evolving good ideas.
An educational system that can't gradually evolve a great curriculum over decades, because it can't distinguish better from worse, doesn't have what it takes to evolve great educational technologies. Ideally, the subjects taught, the curricular sequences, the teachers' skills and techniques, and the technologies should all coevolve in a system that demonstrably produces a more powerful graduating class every year. (Olympic and pro sports teams manage it, more or less.) Unfortunately, since the other factors aren't improving, just throwing technology products into the evolutionary cul-de-sac that is our education system is not likely to do much good but not because educational technology lacks potential.
I expect to see the truly extraordinary educational technologies evolving outside the public K-12 school system, in still-living ecosystems that actually want to measure results so they can adapt and improve.
"A lot of people express skepticism about the usefulness of technology for education, but I think the potential is enormous."
Yes and no. It's like calculators. I was in college when they came out. It allowed the engineering classes I took to tackle much more complicated problems. It improved education. When people talk about technology in K-12 schools, it may sound like they are against technology, but that's because of how it's being used. Digital Promise seems to be tied into solutions that fit the educational procurement system. They don't seem to appreciate that the demand will not produce good educational solutions, and good solutions can't be crammed down their throats.
Nothing is stopping developers from targeting students directly and that may have the best results. However, this isn't where the money is. Also, it's a tough job to make learning easy. You can organize things and try to make it fun, but systematic learning and skill development takes hard work.
My son got a video game a few years ago called Blazing Angels where he learned something about WWII. One could claim that many of us learned about world geography by playing Risk. But how efficient is that process? What about learning a new language? How about learning math? The best place for a solution should be the schools, but good luck with that in K-8. For high school, I don't see how technology can improve on a good textbook and a good teacher.
Could tecnology work as well as a one-on-one tutor? I haven't seen a good solution to this. Can technology offer something better than what many kids get in school? Yes. Will schools allow individual kids to work at their own speed if they can handle it. Probably not.
Post a Comment