Alice Mercer’s review
of “Reign of Error” addresses the question raised by some
EdTech reviewers about where I stand on the use of technology in
the classroom. She quotes from the book to demonstrate that I
strongly believe in the value of technology as a tool to transform
and enliven teaching.
Why read a few sentences in a dull textbook
about John F. Kennedy’s electrifying Inaugural Address when you can
watch it in the same amount of time, get a visceral sense of the
man, hear his voice, watch the crowd react, and get a vivid
real-time overview of the world he was describing?
Why read about an event when technology can take you to the scene?
Mercer also understands and explains the lure of technology to those who see
the schools as an emerging market, a chance to tap into scarce
public dollars. She knows that entrepreneurs hawking
“personalization” and “individualization” are often
thinking about adaptive testing and test prep, not creative ways to
engage young minds in exploring new ways of learning. And when a
financially strapped district spends $1 billion on tablets and
iPads instead of repairing crumbling buildings, we must ask about
priorities.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Adaptive testing is nothing other than a more complex version of automated phone tree support, it is not really sophisticated and doesn’t even begin to approach the subtext that surrounds it, that the computer is adapting to the student. All of those “adaptions” are just human decisions reflected in how the software is written. The additional complexity is not the same as higher quality. It can’t even begin to compare to what happens in the human brain while it is working on the same task, to the vast array of possibilities and unexpected paths a teacher can bring to bear for the benefit of their students.
I wish I’d said that.
No, really, I wish I could have said it that well. I pulled it that together as best I could this past Friday, when I took it on myself to stand up and challenge the rollout of the Massachusetts master data system.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/edwin/
My colleague who was leading the work session was constrained to argue that data-driven instruction was a better fit for students than their teacher’s understanding. Because the EDWIN tool could use a bigger spreadsheet to profile each individual student’s answers to the standards-based assessments we had to administer through it.
Speaking of “creative ways to engage young minds in exploring new ways of learning” please check out examples of our student projects at our classroom blog, “Imagine” at:
http://weblogs.pbspaces.com/mrgoldstein/examples-of-student-work/.
These examples include Claymation, animation, lip-synching, game programming, video production, book reviews by kids, and e-books.
We started our classroom blog in December, 2008 and it has received more than 400,000 hits by visitors from every state in our country and more than 135 countries around the world.
One of our projects, INVENT! was showcased at the Microsoft Partners in Learning national forum two years ago and can be seen here:
http://www.pil-network.com/Resources/LearningActivities/Details/32e1f7a9-1e9a-424e-b21c-adcb17bbfb23.
Kids love doing these kinds of projects. They just need to be given the opportunities and time, and given some guidance on how to be creators with the technology, not just consumers.
Andy, my concern is that, unless Microsoft sponsors a specific curriculum through something like Partners in Learning, new and creative applications of technology are effectively banned from real districts under corporate tech reform domination.
Everything not compulsory is forbidden.
Here are some interesting new ideas that I’d like to see brought to my district, for instance:
http://fablearn.stanford.edu/2013/category/workshops/
I can only leave one link per post, because I’m afraid waiting for moderation will further decrease the likelihood of a conversation being ignited on this important topic. Otherwise, there are many more possibilities I’d like to discuss.
Thanks for featuring Alice’s review, Diane. Your book has stirred many pots, and one of them as you know (and I heard you address it last night in Seattle) is the concern from many long-suffering progressive edtech pioneers.
Alice has always been at the forefront of the edtech movement, and she’s consistently been a credible voice from the classroom. I respect her work very much.
Seeing computers being used more and more for testing and for test prep programs broke my heart, and it is one of the main reasons I left the teaching profession.
Those, like Alice, who are hanging in there, never giving up on pushing for creative, outside the box uses of technology with our kids, are some of the most innovative and progressive thinkers in schools today. Their voices and actions can make a difference in this battle. I hope more will join in the conversation.
Mark, I share your hope that more will join in the conversation. i’m very disappointed that more comments by progressive edtech supporters have failed to appear here.
One interesting techie I’ve kept an eye on is Audrey Watters. Alice discusses Watters’ review of Reign of Error at length, and my hope was that discussions could start about that, either here or on Alice’s post. Audrey has closed comments on her own blog because she was inundated with hate speech from irate techies when she criticized their startups.
Anyway, here is Audrey’s review.
http://hackeducation.com/2013/09/20/reign-of-error-ravitch-invent-to-learn-stager-martinez-review/
Technology is amoral. It can be employed for good or for ill, and it’s the same in education as it is in any other sector. Simple technologies like heating and air-conditioning make for more comfortable learning environments (and for anyone who has been in classrooms in schools w/o air conditioning in May/June you know what I mean).
And computers sitting in the classroom without the right kind of professional development, engagement, and use are a wasted investment at best and counterproductive at worst.
(Is that really Congressman Jared Polis? Well, okay.)
Congressman Polis says,
“…computers sitting in the classroom without the right kind of professional development, engagement, and use are a wasted investment at best and counterproductive at worst.”
I really wish “counterproductive” were the worst. Unfortunately, our own Democratic administration used the Race to the Top to pressure state legislators into enacting specific education “reform” laws, which now are used to compel public school teachers and students to submit to aggressive and intrusive applications of technology.
Here is what Massachusetts used its RttT money for:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/edwin/
My student rosters were already loaded into the system when I was informed about it yesterday. I was ordered to “pilot” test the system on the actual children I teach. I must administer four framework-aligned assessments to these specific children, and the “tool” will supposedly add those to the previous assessment file, and use “data” to track, predict and “drive” all their future instruction. Potential low-scorers on the high stakes tests will be flagged.
Should technology vendors control educational decisions about individual children, through the reach of their centralized assessment systems? Parents, and the community at large, are unaware of this proposal, and can’t even opt their children out of the experiment.
As a sitting member of congress, dis you actually intend to legislate this momentous intrusion? Its okay by me if you argue that personal decisions about every child can best be determined by standardized technology products like this. But, don’t you agree it should be argued in the light of day, where the public can participate?