FutureWatch 4: Getting Rid of F’s– an exercise in idiocy!

A simple Goolge search for “getting rid of grades” will reveal something startling: RESULTS!!! As reflected by the ABC New’s article, “Are Students Coddled? Schools Get Rid of F’s,” there is a movement within education to get rid of the “F” in favor of “opportunities” like extra time during school hours, turning in any late work for credit, other means besides the work assigned to pass, and giving 50% credit for not doing any work on an assignment because a “zero” has such a negative effect on a grade. A year ago our English department was addressed by an administrator on the topic of lowering the D & F rate at our site. Did we talk about making inroads with students not receiving support and encouragement at home? Did we talk about tutorials or strategies to make unmotivated kids work? No. It was suggested that we manipulate how we calculate grades so that fewer kids would fail for not doing major assignments. Inspiring stuff. So what exactly is going on here? Why is re-labeling reality a solution at all? Why is rewarding lack of effort even considered? Where else in real life would this ever, ever, ever fly? How forgiving is a boss for an employee that isn’t performing well (aside from government workers, that is)? Run a Google search for “employee not fired for not working” and the results are all about how to fire an employee! How well would a wife receive a husband not picking up the kids from soccer practice, leaving them on the field for two extra hours? How long will your mortgage company allow you to not pay your mortgage before your house goes into foreclosure? Why do we want to promote the stereotype that elementary, junior high, and high school are not real life by adopting policies that don’t reflect real life!?!? And are kids so dumb that they won’t figure out that they are in a shell game of changing labels? The kid who is getting the cheapened, inflated grade, the kid who gets all the extra time he/she needs, the kid who re-takes the test ten times until it’s memorized is going to know eventually that they aren’t doing well– just maybe not as soon as the kid who gets a D or F right away. There are many ways a student can improve a grade– if he or she wants to. Let’s consider a couple. For one, do the work assigned. There is an amazing parallel between doing the work a teacher assigns and earning a passing grade. Weird, I know. For two, study for tests. Again, when one reviews and learns the material, test scores go up. Third, if one fails a class, make it up in summer school. In all three of these cases, it is an issue of making school a priority. In all of these cases, it is an issue of the student taking responsibility. In all three of these cases, real-world lessons are taught.

Blog #5: What’s a High School Teacher To Do?

Failure to Connect: “Learning with Computers in Elementary, Middle, and High School”

The long and the short of it:

With the doom and gloom, skull and crossbones that Healy has fomented in the first two-thirds of her book, one yearns for the light at the end of the tunnel, the anti-venom to the cobra bite, alkali to the acid– despite her heralding the danger to children posed by technology, the computer is not about to go away. And it certainly is not about to disappear from schools. Nor is there much that educators can do about what is happening in the home– students show up in class from homes that have no computer, homes where parents monitor and engage their children in positive computer experiences, and homes where the child is closer to the computer than mom or dad. Therefore the educator must implement technology appropriately in ways that are educationally profitable and justified. The bottom line: teachers should only use technology in ways that challenge students and push them to be better learners.

If/then, If/then, If/then– AAAGH!
Healy asks the question, “Can technology contribute to learning?” The answer? If. If. If. If. If. If… Then. According to Healy, in order for technology to be valid in education, kids have to be ready mentally and socially, teachers need to be ready in planning and purpose, and the technology cannot be a hollow substitute for other experiences or opportunities–including other worthy programs. That’s a tall order. For one, classes are seldom heterogeneous. A teacher gets kids at all levels, some checked in, some checked out. For an entire class to be at the point to have sufficient “cognitive skills and social development” is laughable. However, to an extent teachers can plan appropriately– maybe not to the point of Healy’s ten general principles listed later– but any instructor worth his or her salt should be able to design effective instruction whether using technology or not. Yet the Achilles’ Heel that Healy mention– that the technology “does not steal funds from more important needs” such as arts programs– is actually a matter of opinion. The debate is stymied by the fact that anyone involved in any one school program feels it is worthy of funding, from fine arts to basket weaving– including those educators that so ardently push for greater technology implementation. But the reality is, much to Healy’s chagrin, is that individual districts have, are, and will continue to invest billions in technology to the detriment of other priorities and programs. As an educator then, I am have the onus to use technology right. I am teaching a new English class for seniors this fall on non-fiction reading and writing. As a result of the Comet program, my desire is to use blogging and other web applications to augment the class. While this is still my intent, Healy’s book has given me pause and cause to ruminate on my intentions and my methods. As I move forward, I will heed Healy’s “General Principles for Meaningful Technology Use” because noone, and I mean no one, wants their kids to turn out like this.

Blog #4: Duh? Huh? What?

Failure to Connect: “Emotional, Social, and Personal Aspects of Children’s Computer Use”

Hi! I'm your best friend!

My wife tells my son constantly, “People are more important than things”—an idea Healy delves into when considering the potential impact of absentee and negligent parents combined with cyber-sitters, where the computer and Internet substitute for human interaction to the point where a child becomes stunted emotionally, socially, and cognitively, which, in the long run, will limit his or her opportunities for success in a workplace increasingly requiring collaboration, flexibility, and innovation. The questions and implications of Healy’s connections are deeply troublesome—and alarming. At one point, although she does not make the direct correlation, Healy does make a correspondence between excessive computer use in youth and Autism-like symptoms. Making wide-reaching statements does not sit well with Autism advocates–just ask Michael Savage but Healy does not want to neglect pointing out the similarities between Autistic individuals and those children stunted by excessive interaction with limiting programs and lack of human contact; Autistic children are similarly withdrawn and unable to function normally on a social level as Healy is finding in children with excessive computer time. Although this social phenomenon will definitely pose a problem for educators, once again, like so many issues schools struggle with, the problem seems to begin in the home and the deterioration of the family and the lack of parental oversight and interaction that plagues so many households. Kids aren’t motivated and don’t do homework? Lack of parental involvement, TV, video games, and the like are too often the blame– except instead educators are blamed for not capturing a child’s imagination! And if our society is churning out more and more socially and emotionally stunted children that then disrupt our educational system further, the question is not going to be how to hold these parents accountable– it’s going to be why schools are not reaching, challenging, and helping these kids!

Blog #3: FLUSH!!!

Failure to Connect: “The Bottom Line”
Uh-oh. It seems school districts might just be flushing billions down the drain even though their intentions are good. Healy’s argument is that bad-mouthing technology in education is taboo—another politically incorrect landmine waiting for the next hapless do-gooder to misstep and dare question the validity of making our schools flush with technology and jumping on every flashy innovation and unproven advance in educational hardware or software. Therefore, as class sizes are growing, staffing is being cut, and elective courses are being eliminated, schools have to pour more money into new technology and outfitting schools—and the technology already implemented requires funding for its upkeep and maintenance. In this current political climate, technology equates with relevance, and schools are pressured to “keep up with the times” whether justified, effective, or educationally sound. So how does this play out in a school? At my site, although there are many digital pioneers, there have been myriad trainings on how to use email, grade programs, and Power Point. Even this summer’s current offerings of Technology Workshops center, for the most part, around this sort of groundwork training. Although my site touts multiple computer labs, scheduling is inconvenient, and, in order to accomplish anything of significance, multiple days are mandatory. There are several course offerings based on computer use, such as web design, computer art, and multi-media workshops; however, as the closest printer is located in one such room, I often walk through and can observe what is happening on students’ computer screen—which is often web browsing, computer games, and videos. Healy’s concerns are validated by this kind of activity—that even with technology aplenty, the effectiveness and implementation can actually be detrimental to education. So what makes the difference? Instructional design and effective implementation—the same components needed to teach effectively when an instructor picks up a piece of chalk and uses it on a chalkboard. Let’s face it, chalkboards could be used for tic-tac-toe, hangman, or other time-wasting activities. Every educational tool, whether chalkboard or Smartboard, in order to be effective, requires thoughtful and measured design with clear educational goals—and a the teacher to effectuate it meaningfully. Healy’s concerns about cost-effectiveness and the validity of education’s outlay for technology are absolutely valid when seen in the light of class size, crumbling facilities, and suffering test scores; however, this concern should be weighed against any and all expenditures on educational product, not just computers.

FutureWatch 3: The future of transactional distance, behaviorism, and web 2.0

The future, ah, the future. But what is in the future for the three things I highlighted for my COMET Masters ePortfolio? (which, by the way, is pretty flipping awesome!) Are all three going to dominate the ID field or fade into obscurity?

Transactional distance has always been a part of delivering instruction– it was core to teaching even before it was coined “transactional distance” because at its heart is the question “Are they getting it?” As instructional designers, that’s what were about. So, two things are going to happen with transactional distance. One, people are going to keep talking and talking about it. Is it a sound theory? Is it complete? Does this theory make more sense? Remember ADDIE? Pretty solid theory, right? Sure, until ARDDIE came along! Two, it will continue to be a concern when designing instruction whether it is identified as transactional distance or not.

And what about behaviorism, sometimes treated as the eccentric uncle of learning theory? Will it finally be expunged from the family history? Or will its value be recognized and it be given a place of honor and distinction at the head table? Once again, however, behaviorism is at the core of learning– it is a starting point for all good instruction as it defines habits and knowledge. So in that sense, people will keep talking about behaviorism, and people will talk about the people talking about it! Secondly, behaviorism will continue to be a part of good instructional design and delivery. I recently viewed a movie about Ron Clark, a successful teacher in one of Harlem’s. As I am watching this innovative teacher employ all manner of learning theory, behaviorism helps him to build not only a suitable learning environment, but to build critical knowledge to help these students achieve. Bottom line: Some things take repetition and memorization to learn. Yes, other learning theories are concerned with higher-order thinking, but not everyone is going to be a researcher or inventor or college professor. In fact, the service sector is one of the fastest growing areas of employment– an area that requires repetition and memorization in order to get similar jobs done quickly and correctly. So behaviorism, whether it is identified in training or not, is going to gain in prominence in our society.

Lastly, the new kid on the block: Web 2.0. Some have gone so far to say that Web 2.0 is the future of education– with greater impact than the printing press. At any rate, the collaborative potential now possible through Web 2.0 technology is certainly taking education by storm. I believe we are just at the formative stages of seeing the extent that education will be changed by this technology. Higher education is being the most affected currently as students have more access to the technology required. As one looks at K-12 education, the issues get a little sticker: budget and accessibility. A teacher cannot employ Web 2.0 technology unless he/she goes to great lengths since it cannot be assumed that every student has access to the Internet. So the teacher must arrange computer labs, library time, and other time-consuming measures to integrate this type of technology into the classroom. But as Web 2.0 gains prominence, so will the pressure on these institutions grow, and they will be forced to keep up. But as an instructional tool, once they are learned by teaching and practice (behaviorism), they will be essential applications to help reduce transactional distance.

FutureWatch 2: Canceled by instructor

“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.”

FutureWatch 1: K12 criticism a’la You Tube

www.jennifercounseling.com/Services_Page.html

The first video I watched was the “I’m-Trying-Way-Too-Hard” Vision of K-12 Students Today. A quick scan revealed many similar videos of unhappy, solemn, and grumpy students holding up hand-written messages of how bored and uninspired they are, would much rather be listening to their iPods and watching TV, and that China, a country famous for its human rights, fair labor practices, and religious as well as free-thinking tolerance, has more honors students than the North American continent (as though ANY of these malcontent students or educators would jump at the chance to learn or teach in China’s educational system). Videos like this point out two issues to me: The tragedy of the degradation of the American parent and the imbecility and hypocrisy some make when juxtaposing disparate facts to further their agendas.

First of all, many of the notes held up by these students are a result of poor, uninvolved parenting rather than an educational issue. Where is the parent of the student spending 16 hours a week watching TV but only 3 hours reading a book? The hours spent reading a book were probably at school (but one can’t be sure), while much of the TV watching was at home, probably in their own rooms while their parents were downstairs watching DVR’d episodes of The Biggest Loser with a bowl of buttered popcorn in one hand and Diet Coke in the other. A lot of the “screen-time” touted in these videos is not of students being innovative and bettering themselves– it is due to absentee parenting and allowing technology to do the babysitting. The bottom line: More students succeed with two involved parents interested in their lives, regardless of– and even sometimes inspite of– the presence of technology. My son is at a high-performing magnet school. Why is the school high-achieving? Parent involvement. Parents at this school are so involved there is a waiting list to be a chaperon on field trips. The PTA earned enough money in one year to create a computer lab. Yes, I want my son to know how to use a computer– but at his age he needs a foundation of knowledge and skills so that one day he can autonomously fulfill a PBL assignment, not be handed one to complete in the first grade. Let’s be honest– the dioramas and projects of first graders are often the result of a parent’s toil than a student’s. There is a school in our cul-de-sac that is low performing and atrocious. They don’t even have a PTA– not enough parents are interested. Unfortunately, “America” would rather point the finger at educators not doing their job, yet there is no criticism or accountability for parents not being parents.

Secondly, certain statistics are presented in these as though they justify and validate the assertion that students in America are not being educated to compete in the world and that our educational system is wholly to blame. So we see phrases about the number of Chinese honors students followed by statistics that 1/2 of students won’t graduate from high school. The desired response is “Why do we suck and why is China so awesome?” This is such a flawed connection because it begs any number of questions and dismisses a multitude of troubling issues. What qualifies one as an honors student in China? And what opportunities await them upon graduation? What happens in China when a student does not do well in school? Undoubtedly there is shame and consequences. In America they are touted as misunderstood heroes– and our movies glorify the slacker. How many single-parent households are there in China? How many children does the typical family have (um, one)? How much welfare money does the Chinese government give to single women with multiple childr– oh wait, they aren’t allowed to have multiple children without heavy fines. What about the fact that China is an oppressive, controlling communist nation? What percentage of Chinese work in factories– just making the labels on everything that say “made in China”? How many schools attended by lower-income children would collapse on them in an earthquake while the privileged children’s school down the road is structurally sound? I mean, come on– claims and allusions of this nature in videos like these are erroneous and irresponsible. And yet the expectation is for the view to cluck his or her tongue and say “Shame on us!”

The second video I viewed was the “Star Trek idealistic” Networked Student. What I mean by that term is that whenever you watch Star Trek, everyone in Star Fleet is altruistically motivated– everyone is motivated by the nobility of the forwarding of their own intellect and understanding and take action for the good of humanity, which is why Star Trek will always be placed in the future as humans beings with such utopian souls and motives, for the most part, do not exist. The premise of videos of this ilk are that, because of technology, learners will be inspired to reach amazing heights of learning– building interconnected communities of intellectual honesty and integrity that will be a bastion of higher-level learning and thought. When given a topic or assignment, they will do thorough research, seeking out the facts; they will then evaluate blogs, separating the facts from opinion– that they inherently know how to do as they have been taught by ???– and then start their own blogs to express their own coherent and validated ideas, which they have been taught to do by ??? The flaw in the idealism expressed in this philosophy is two-fold: It circumvents a necessary knowledge and skills foundation in order to be successful at higher-level cognitive tasks and ignores the fact that human beings are inherently lazy and will usually take the path of least resistance and ease. There are some necessary components of being a disciplined, clear-thinking learner: hard-work, persistence, and accountability. People do not intrinsically think logically nor do they work assiduously– both are learned/taught behaviors. The accountability is key. One can be assigned a chapter in the book the instructor believes to be valuable– yet, most students, with a multitude of demands upon their time, are not going to read the chapter unless they know they are going to be held responsible for doing so. And not necessarily even then– if 15 years of teaching are any indicator. What is the MOST COMMON denominator of students who succeed and do the work required of them? Two involved parents– not the technology to which they have access.

795B: Blog Reflection Two

Reiser & Dempsey: ch. 21– freechoice: #1 w/a little bit of #2

prompt:
Review the prerequisite conditions that need to be in place in a school system before it can successfully engage in whole-district change. Determine if these conditions exist in your district and assess their relative strength.

Assuming the prompt is referencing the process methodology “Step-Up-To-Excellence,” there are five conditions listed that must exist for “successful whole-district change.” I will address each one separately based on my prior knowledge of having worked in the same district for 15 years. It will be interesting to apply these parameters to the district, which does not seem to be able to commit to any lasting”whole-district change.”

The first condition is “Senior leaders who act on the basis of personal courage, passion, and vision; not on the basis of fear or self-survival.” Unfortunately, the term “senior leaders” is not defined, which begs the question of whether this refers to district-level personnel or may include some school administrators, although since pre-launch activities are to be conducted by the “superintendent of schools and several hand-picked subordinates.” Also mentioned is possible inclusion of a school board member or two. At this point, this condition is not met. The district has had repeated turn-over of superintendents, including an interim at one point, and the school board elections are regularly an embittered battle. In order for this condition to be established, a long-term superintendent not perceived as adversarial by the teachers would need to be hired; also, the district would need to see an election cycle that is not draped in controversy.

The second condition is to have “Senior leaders who conceive of their districts as whole systems; not as a collection of individual schools and programs.” Overall, this condition seems to be somewhat established. Much of the administration in one school has served at other school sites as well. The district has promoted and implemented several programs across the board, including Professional Learning Communities and, in English departments, a program called Cal-Pass, with our current focus aimed at implementing non-fiction curriculum at each grade level. Technology resources has drawn participants from all school sites and established an on-line lesson-bank available to all teachers. The overall effect seems to have brought some semblance of unity among schools in the district.

The third condition calls for “Leaders and followers who have a clear view of the opportuniteis that systemic redesign offers them; not a view of ‘We can’t do this because…’” Interestingly enough, the issue is not that the district isn’t open to implementing different changes but that no changes are embraced long enough to make an impact. Rather than being guilty of saying “We can’t do this because,” the more apropos quote is “We can do this… temporarily.” Support has come and gone for programs such as Powerschool, PLC’s, Cal-Pass, the Visions program, while the current district forwarded program is Response To Intervention.

The fourth condition is where “Leaders and followers who possess the professional intellect, change-minded attitudes, and change-management skills to move their districts toward higher levels of performance; not people without an inkling about the requirements of systemic change management.” This condition opens an interesting issue. Clearly, there is a professional intellect and change-minded attitude at the district level– programs that have found success in other areas are assessed and implemented; however, the quick turn-over of programs brings into question the third element: change-management skills. Several questions must be asked about the lack of long-term commitment to any one program: Is the district looking for a “magic bullet“? Do programs come and go because decisions are made “on the basis of fear or self-survival” as asked in the first condition– if it doesn’t immediately work it isn’t going to work? Is the frequent turnover at the district and administrative level resulting in each new personality fostering an “out with the old, in with the new” mentality? Some possible steps would be to do more front-end research on potential programs and aligning them to the district’s demographics and resources before making any commitments– and determining the length of commitment beforehand as well as the means of evaluation.

The fifth and last condition listed would be to have “Sufficient human, financial, and technical resources to launch systemic change with the knowledge that more resources will be required to sustain the effort…” Unfortunately, due to the current budget issues in California, the response to this condition is a definite “no.” While some monies do exist for smaller needs– such as curriculum writing– district-wide systemic change is currently difficult to find long-term funding. Even long-standing programs and departments, like those at Tech Resources, are up-in-the-air. For this kind of movement to be seriously considered, the state will have to be in a more economically stable climate.

795B: Blog Reflection One

Reiser & Dempsey: Ch 4, #5

prompt:

Events that occur at one point in time are likely to influence theories that are developed some time thereafter. For example, the theory Gagné first put forth in the 1960’s was most likely influenced by his work designing military training during the 1940’s. Think about current day events and how they may shape future views of learning and instruction. Based on your ideas, describe an instructional theory that may appear in the next 20 years and discuss the events today that are likely to shape that theory.

Although some new theories may emerge in the next 20 years, I wonder if we may see a return to behavioral and cognitive learning theory ideals. In the past 10-15 years, as we have seen “innovations” in instruction influence by constructivist thinking and similar theories, the United States has seen a decline in the performance of its schools and knowledge of its students, more money being thrown at education with little effect, and a growing population in our culture enrolled in private and home school programs. Our culture highlights this problem with shows and newstories and late-night talk show segments designed to reveal the ignorance of our population, asking simple, straightforward questions most people should know that answer to– and don’t. Unfortunately, the response in some circles in education has been, in essence, to lower the standards to give the appearance of better performance. Ideas I have personally seen discussed, including reconfiguring grading periods so less students fail and eliminating grades of zero through 49% to help non-performing students “catch up,” seem more aimed at coddling kids and improving school scores than addressing the real challenges in kids’ lives and homes. I believe the homeschool, charter school, and private school movement is the beginning of the backlash for poor education theory and practice. Stories like this one reveal a rediscovery of some behavioral and cognitive teaching strategies and their successful implementation. How can the United States think to compete when so many of our learners lack the basic foundation of a sound education? I think some great ideas– like Project Based Learning– see success in the upper levels of education, and there is a rush to implement them throughout the entire scope of our educational system– from primary grades on up. Unfortunately, rather than used to lightly augment education, sometimes these types of ID dominate younger students educational experience, so you have students entering into high school not having a basic foundation of grammar and writing– which is hard work. School districts, in response, have emphasized standards and standardized testing in attempt to recapture slipping student aptitudes, much to the truculence and clamor of teachers and teacher unions. Therefore, I believe some of the future of education lies in the past– to the benefit of our students.

Student Ministry Wiki link

Here is the link to my student ministry wiki:

http://tbrent.wikispaces.com/