Bill Gates has plans for your child. He wants to know everything he can about your child so he can customize and personalize the deliverables.
A teacher in California told me that his principal enthusiastically signed up for the Gates plan. Here is the survey that every teacher was asked to complete. Where do you think this is going? Is this utopia or dystopia?
**********************HERE IS THE CONTENTS WHEN CLICKING THE LINK:
ORIGINAL Survey Option E: Teacher Survey
We believe in the promise of personalization to dramatically improve student learning. In the future, each student’s learning experience – what she learns, and how, when, and where she learns it – will be tailored to her individual developmental needs, skills, and interests. This is a fundamental shift from the way that students learn today, and as such, we believe that for personalization to truly transform student learning, schools will likely look dramatically different than they do today. Our current efforts support districts and partner organizations in building system-level capacity to design, launch and scale school models that embrace this bold vision of personalized learning.
The purpose of this survey is to understand the teacher perspective on the personalized learning activities happening in schools, including current instructional practices, PD, supports, etc. Further, this survey aims to gauge the level of interest for teachers to implement personalized learning in their classrooms. For this survey, personalized learning is defined as follows: Learning experiences for all students are tailored to their individual developmental needs, skills and interest. Personalized learning can, and should, include the following supporting elements: learner profiles, personal learning paths, individual mastery, and flexible learning environment. These attributes can be further defined as follows:
• Learner profiles: Captures individual skills, gaps, strengths, weaknesses, interests & aspirations of each student
• Personal learning paths: Each student has learning goals & objectives. Learning experiences are diverse and matched to the individual needs of students
• Individual mastery: Continually assesses student progress against clearly defined standards & goals. Students advance based on demonstrated mastery
• Flexible learning environments: Multiple instructional delivery approaches that continuously optimize available resources in support of student learning
While we believe that true personalized learning requires much more than the mere adoption and use of new technologies, we are optimistic about blended instruction – instructional design and delivery that incorporates the use of new technologies alongside traditional instruction – as a means of personalizing learning. As such, we are interested in hearing about your use of technology as part of your personalized learning efforts and implementation.
***************HERE IS THE FIRST PART OF THE SURVEY************
1. What is the name of your school?
*
2. What level is your school? Elementary School
Middle School
Grades K-8
Grades 6-12
High School
Other (please specify)
*
3. What grade level(s) do you teach?
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Other (please specify)

Politics can make for strange bed fellows. I am not a fan of Glen Beck. But he nails some of the deformers agenda on the head. It gives me hope. That change will come. It is not a partisan issue. Check out Beck!
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/24/did-bill-gates-admit-the-real-purpose-of-common-core/
LikeLike
Yeah. Now check out the comments. Some are calling the standardization of learning Socialism. Some of the great unwashed are using CCS as a reason for denouncing public schools. Perhaps these standards are a political ploy to get the public against public education once and for all.
LikeLike
You can not deny threads of socialism are have been making their way into the schools, and the revised texts (aligned with CC, and written by few “global agenda” publishers) pave the way.
My children, in a high performing, uber-surburban district, are getting materials that are completely biased, support UNDHR rather than our Constitution, re-define history, and then on top of it, teach them things like showing “respect for opinion” means, “advocating another persons point of view!” Telling them that if they don’t vote for “pro-environmental candidates” that they are putting their wellness at risk! Where is the debate and critical thinking?
This is a dangerous, consensus-driven view that will have our own children unaware of the risks of a federally-driven, pre-determined education. It is frightening! I am living through it, and ready to denounce public education myself. And I was a teacher!
LikeLike
Policies that involve union busting, which is at the heart of so-called education reform, are in no no way Socialist.
Try looking up the definition of Corporatism.
LikeLike
The term Socialism has become so degraded in U.S. political discourse as to have become meaningless. It is widely used by the right in the U.S. to refer to any big government program that it doesn’t like (so, SNAP is socialism but defense spending is not). The term is sometimes used to refer to what would more properly be called State Socialism–ownership of the means of production by the government. A good working definition of Socialism would be “ownership of the means of production by the workers.” If that’s the definition, then the national database has nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism.
Now, with that cleared up, people across the political spectrum, from both the right and the left, have good reason to oppose this national database. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism, and all people who care about freedom will oppose it, whatever their other political inclinations.
LikeLike
“We believe in the promise of personalization to dramatically improve student learning. In the future, each student’s learning experience – what she learns, and how, when, and where she learns it – will be tailored to her individual developmental needs, skills, and interests. This is a fundamental shift from the way that students learn today, and as such, we believe that for personalization to truly transform student learning, schools will likely look dramatically different than they do today. Our current efforts support districts and partner organizations in building system-level capacity to design, launch and scale school models that embrace this bold vision of personalized learning.”
This is almost exactly the line fed to me by an edupeneur with whom I have spoken who has Gates money for start-up. They really believe that the old school model is of a gone-by era.
LikeLike
“They really believe that the old school model is of a gone-by era.”
Or they really plan to make money by peddling this idea.
LikeLike
So true.
I would point out that if what they are peddling were really true, then why is that, with our advancements in medicine, we don’t just hook people up to a diagnostic computer type thing that tells what they need health-wise? And forget internists and GP docs. Or is that in the works somewhere too?
Seems we are trying too hard to be like automobiles.
LikeLike
And come to think of it, Ang, in that same conversation this particular edupeneur stated “I’m a capitalist. I am interested in making money.”
LikeLike
“And come to think of it, Ang, in that same conversation this particular edupeneur stated “I’m a capitalist. I am interested in making money.””
Well, at lease he is honest about that part.
When that folks start talking, hold on to your wallet and focus your critical thinking skills. The bamboozle ’em routine is coming.
😉
LikeLike
Joanna,
“Seems we are trying too hard to be like automobiles.”
Terrific image. Can’t you just see that diagnostic machine!?
LikeLike
While I don’t like the “private” turn that public schools are taking, the idea that learning should be individualized actually seems like a good one. In fact, it suggests moving away from the theory of education as standardization of knowledge and skills, the selection of which is driving by the desire for economic competitiveness, to education as a right to fulfill individual aspirations. So to the extent we can learn about the strengths, weaknesses, etc. of each child, we can teach THAT child as an INDIVIDUAL as opposed to a unit in a “box”. The question is (a) what kind of information Gates survey is seeking, (b) who will use it, and (c) for what purpose. I think the individualization approach per se actually has a lot of potential if used well (and with proper privacy safeguards).
LikeLike
The key word in the title is “Your” as he wants this experimentation for your kid, but most definitely NOT his own. The hypocrisy of our various “elites” is stark and shameless.
LikeLike
This is a nightmare coming true. Even as they’re touting “personalized” learning, what the “reformers,” instructional designers, and tech companies always leave out is the learner himself. At what point do the kids get a say? Where is the push to get them involved in their own learning? Where are the opportunities for them to build something meaningful with their classmates? They don’t seem interested.
Oh, and they also leave out the infinite variety of learning possibilities that exist outside the programs they’re selling. They seem to be saying, if only we could get the right proprietary learning module (designed and marketed by us) in front of the right kid at the right time. If only we had personal information on all of them. If only we could perfect our algrorithms. We could deliver so much instruction so efficiently, we’d have a super educated work force that would bring our international competition to its knees. (Unstated: And if you fall for this pitch, some of us will be a lot richer than we are now.)
There’s a potentially great future in using technology in education, but I don’t think Bill Gates knows how to bring it about. Besides, he’s seems more interested in lowering wages and reducing the “tax burden” of people who are already well off.
Are there any links to the rest of the survey and the initiative the principal signed up for?
LikeLike
Oh, and they also leave out the infinite variety of learning possibilities that exist outside the programs they’re selling.
That’s the whole point. To reduce the possibilities. One set of uniform standards, one national portal of student responses, one set of standards-correlated curricula delivered through that portal, controlled by one company.
LikeLike
Jack, this would be the time to post your “Nobody gives a shit what you think or feel” David Coleman video. We should realized that Gates’ Common Core is an attack on the development of the human self. Your child’s personalized wasteland will insure that he is on track to understand his own worthlessness, so he can be “college and career ready”.
Gates pronounces the inevitability of this twisted, wingbat project in the passive voice. Listen again:
“In the future, each student’s learning experience – what she learns, and how, when, and where she learns it – will be tailored to her individual developmental needs, skills, and interests.”
The passive construction makes it sound scientific and impartial, so let’s translate it:
“In the future, I will tailor each student’s learning experience – what she learns, and how, when, and where she learns it – to my determination of her individual developmental needs, skills, and interests.”
LikeLike
Awesome point. I will be adding this to the list when I teach The difference between active and passive voice.
LikeLike
Superb analysis, chemtchr!
LikeLike
Joanna Best: thank you for your comments. Please do not take this as quibbling.
Bill Gates and other leading charterites/privatizers do NOT believe that “the old school model is of a gone-by era.” Or rather, for the purpose [above all] of political expediency they do not fully express themselves.
They simply exclude in their oral presentations and written declamations a key phrase that would be inserted between “model” and “is”: FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN.
The model they literally went to themselves and/or support FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN is dramatically different than what they are attempting to mandate for the vast majority of K-12 students.
I do not ask you to take my word for it. Go to just the following few links:
Link: http://www.lakesideschool.org [Bill Gates]
Link: http://www.delbarton.org [Governor Chris Christie]
Link: http://schools.cranbrook.edu/home [Mitt Romney]
Link: http://www.harpethhall.org [Michelle Rhee]
Link: http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu [Mayor Rahm Emanuel]
Link: http://www.sidwell.edu [President and Mrs. Obama]
Ang: your comment is spot on. Please pardon the editing, but I would change your last sentence to “Or they really plan to make money off of OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN by peddling this idea.”
I conclude with this opinion: do not doubt that the leading charterites/privatizers are sincerely passionate about amassing as much $tudent $ucce$$ as they can squeeze out of OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN. It makes perfect ₵ent₵ to them.
Rheeally!
To the rest of us, not so much.
Thank you both for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
KTA,
I prefer your edit!
Yes…shout it form the roof tops and let it be heard that the corporatists, reformers, “rheefromers”, all their toadies and the wannabe edupeneurs…
Really plan to make money off of OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN by peddling this idea.
What they seek/want/insist upon/pay for/demand for their own children is systematically, intentionally and methodically with held/sidelined/trivialized/mocked/discredited and ultimately unavailable for OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN!
Thank you, KTA.
LikeLike
People who are not extremely frightened by and angry about this simply are not thinking. The last thing we need is a single portal through which curricular content is delivered, which is what this national database of student responses will be. The whole point of this approach is that it is not replicable by a competing vendor. This is a recipe for totalitarianism. Total information awareness about the student. Total control of the delivery gateway for curricula.
And that technology falls into the hands of ANY FUTURE public-private partnership that happens to control it, however despotic it might be.
If you create the means for totalitarian command and control, it will be used for that purpose. Inevitably.
LikeLike
Why did Bill pay for the CC$$?
Because they were the essential first step in carrying out a business plan that would result in the equivalent, in the educational materials market, of operating systems in the personal computer market–a monopolistic gateway. Uniform national standards were necessary in order for this national database of responses and curricula to be launched.
And many, many people were clueless tools used by Gates and Company to implement this strategic business plan.
LikeLike
The people who have let themselves be used in this manner–the enablers and collaborators with the establishment of the Common Core Curriculum Commissariat, have been incredibly naive. It’s time for them to wake up to what is being done here.
Mussolini defined fascism as the erasure of the distinction between government and private corporations.
A free people will stop this monster before it sinks its Total Information Awareness tentacles into our kids.
LikeLike
but I picture it as less malicious, and more just idiot savant fantasy land. I don’t know if BG is technically aspergers or what, but imagine the world if aspergers types controlled it. . .it would be orderly, predictable, etc. That’s what highly functioning folks on the spectrum like. I imagine he is on the spectrum, yes? (You know, like if he had attended public school he’d be in AIG and possibly have an IEP). Imagine that student calling the shots for everyone. I think that is more the case than malicious power hungry Lex Luthor type stuff. People saw his dollars and quit noticing that he wouldn’t do very well in a group of diverse students (like in a public school). He would need pull-out time and one on one services. That’s who’s modeling our schools.
Nice job, decision-makers. This is why they need the input of teachers. We know people. We have seen every quality expressed in every phase of development.
LikeLike
And why should they ask for our input? It’s a far bigger waste of time and resources to proceed without experienced field research guiding you. Can’t make as much money if you’re efficient–the time it will take to figure out what a huge waste it is to implement all of this will certainly yield a great many profits for the corporate players.
Yours is a fair, compassionate, and even amusing argument. (I chuckle at the Lex Luthor reference.) Somehow I don’t think profit is on the minds of most do-gooder types, but then again, I haven’t studied the Charity-Villain sector quite extensively enough. 😉
You might be onto something.
LikeLike
Joanna, LG
The whole point of a strategic plan is that it is very carefully thought through. Bill Gates has been talking about computer-adaptive curricula for decades. Everyone interested in computerized learning has been.
Now, if you want to have a national computer-adaptive learning system, there are two prerequisites:
a. You have to have uniform standards for the computer programs to correlate to
b. You have to have a single database of student abilities (as measured by tests and in real time by learning programs), also correlated to those standards
These are the necessary conditions for the creation of such a system. Bill wanted such a system. So he paid to put the necessary conditions in place.
Is there something Lex Luthor-like about this? Well, yes. But I think that Mr. Gates probably thinks that he is doing everyone a favor by rationalizing a chaotic system. There are people who think like that.
And it doesn’t hurt that he will make billions more, that his outlays will be returned many, many times over.
LikeLike
Robert et al:
Based on some thoughts on another post regarding “why now,” I conclude that Gates is a tool and benefactor of the right wing, whether or not he meant to be.
Picture it. “How can we stamp out heathen public school dens of sinful thinking and deliver all of God’s children to a peaceable Kingdom here on Earth?”
“How about that nerdy guy who loves computers and has lots of money!”
“Yes! What a fabulous idea. We can get him to lead a crusade to standardize all those whose full day is not openly centered on JC. They will follow him because he will throw money at them!”
“Yes! And maybe we can get a little of that money too to put towards our vision. ”
“Let’s go. Onward Christian soldiers.”
Now let me say this. I am a church goer of the Christian variety. I am not slamming Christian faith. But America is a place where we are free to be Christian BECAUSE everyone is free to believe how they choose and not despite that situation. At least that’s what I was raised to believe. And public schools are part of that equation.
So, in short, Bill Gates is not the enemy. (Well, he might be but it didn’t have to be that way). Somebody should have said to him, “Dude you are describing Star Trek. That’s already been done in several movies and a TV series. We will name lots of buildings and bridges after you if you dedicate your energy and money to truly civic projects.”
Who doesn’t want a building or bridge named after them?
So you see, the wrong folks got hold of Gates. And then leadership, drunk on the idea of his money, signed over our schools to him.
Again, it’s hard to be angry at a nerd who did not know any better (possibly because he had a sheltered schooling). You have to look at who was beckoning him to carry out his Star Trek fantasy, because in the end a larger celestial fantasy was looking for a vehicle to implement its vision.
LikeLike
Joanna, as I’m reading your comment, I can’t help but liken the “technology in schools” craze to an industry for those with power to take advantage of those with little say. Perhaps technology is the new “tobacco” of our country. (Or even cotton.) Although I am paid for my toil, I can see my rights as a worker moving in the wrong direction while my plantation bosses keep writing the rules.
It surely is not like the tech companies “need” any help attracting customers, but I am starting to feel like a pawn for the industry. Perhaps I should send Microsoft and Apple a bill for product endorsements like LeBron James does for Nike?
LikeLike
LG:
And what I get agitated about is that the tech guru (who does classes for teachers on integrating technology into our lessons—she’s a good teacher and I got some good things out of her course in our district) BUT every time I hear her speak she says stuff like “It’s coming! It’s not going away. Get used to it. It’s here. This is how it is.”
And I’m thinking. . .OK, how do you expect teachers to get excited about something when you give it that ominous spin? Technology can be a great tool, sure. But yes, I concur. . .it has gotten to be too much of a focus.
I am very open about that fact that in the music room the children still need to learn their left hand from their right, good breath support, how to fully cover the holes on the recorder, and how to blow, buzz or otherwise form an embouchure so they can play a musical instrument. In short, technology in a music room can be over-rated.
Would be an interesting thing to consider billing for advertising a certain tech product. Heck, 680 kids a week see me using the Smartboard and my HP laptop. Good point you make.
LikeLike
When I’m writing my lesson plans, I always include the instruments themselves in my “technology” list–this was especially appropriate when I was solely teaching instrumental music.
Philosophically, everything man-made that a person uses as a tool to reach an end can be considered technology (an absurd application of this definition can be the designation of a pencil), but the sophisticated systems of levers and slides we call instruments are ingenious machines. The skill required of the user of this instrument technology is part and parcel of what I teach. It turns my musicians into erstwhile scientists and informs them far beyond what is required in a performance only class. No one has “corrected” my terminology, yet. I’m sure my supervisors just chuckle when they read that part, if they even read it at all.
Last year, the local foundation that heaps large sums of money on my district to buy (you guessed it) technology granted my classroom with the funds for a partial keyboard lab. We were only able to put in for enough keyboards for kids to share which is quite a social and classroom management experiment in and of itself. My brand new building tech person (a former classroom teacher–hmmm, seems to be a trend) is all gung-ho about a few thousand dollars we somehow have in the budget so that the related arts team can have access to a few iPads for our students to use. My first thought was…kids need to build skills as an ensemble. Doesn’t individual learning on a personal device go against all the principals of ensemble? I mean, yeah, you can “jam” with other people in Garage Band, but do you really need a $500 machine to learn the skills that a $6 recorder or a set of step bells can teach you? Oh, tapping a piece of glass on a colorful picture is easier? By all means, why would you need me to teach them any skills about technique, then. They can just let our entertainment culture teach them and they can tap away! I’ll get a job at the Hallmark store.
A good number of the children in my school already have their own iPads and iPhones and they’re under the age of 11. Do they really need to be using these same devices in school when they’re still learning to listen to each other, work together and interact with one another? News flash: Kids love real instruments. The personal technology they are inundated with is far too common to be special anymore, and beyond using these as “training” devices for some skills, children need many modes of tactile learning. Playing a virtual tuba is nothing like playing the real thing. In fact, it takes a lot of other whole-brained skills to do so. But why should we be interested in teaching the whole brain?
LikeLike
“Is this utopia or dystopia?”
I don’t think it’s anything as interesting or dramatic as either of those choices.
This always sounds like marketing to me, honestly, and it’s almost annoying how coordinated these efforts are. Duncan is pushing blended and personalized learning too, daily.
I think it’s a way to track students obsessively and offer them “personalized learning” that will inevitably involve fewer “persons”, actually. Larger classes for low income and middle income students and data tracking to replace the attention and “personalization” of an adult human being. It doesn’t HAVE to be like that, but it WILL be like that, because it will save money. Too, it’s a giant new market for the tech industry.
Great use of language, though. My hat is off to them. Replacing a human being with data gathering and calling it “personalization” is genius.
After the last decade of reforms, I don’t have any trust left. The first kids I saw being shunted to cheap online learning programs were kids who were in our juvenile detention center. It was widely understood the state went in that direction because it’s less expensive than bringing a teacher in.
Can we please, for once, question just one of these Gates Gifts? Is it a “gift” at all? Do we want it for our kids EVEN IF it comes at no immediate cost to us?
LikeLike
“personalized learning” is a code word for kids in front of computers with a classroom aide running the shop and no teachers
It’s a tutoring centered approach to education, as tutors typically play a supporting role and often don’t choose problems or course materials, but help a student through problems and materials chosen by someone else.
Except, in this format, instead of being chosen by a teacher, the problems and course materials are chosen by the technology. This can work for about 10-20% of students, but most students need a human teacher making day-to-day and long-term decisions about content and learning activities.
Replacing human teachers with computers is a recipe for failure. The human interactions that are the foundation of our public education system have been around for thousands of years and can’t be replaced by technology. In the same way that the printing press didn’t replace human teachers, neither will computers.
But that doesn’t mean they’ll stop trying to replace teachers.$$$$$
LikeLike
Great use of language, though. My hat is off to them. Replacing a human being with data gathering and calling it “personalization” is genius.
And so is using the term “personalization” to refer to the reduction of learning to the delivery of through a single, highly regulated gateway of computer-chosen bulleted Powerpoint slides–worksheets on a screen–produced by a monopolist oligarch and his cronies.
LikeLike
Very thought provoking! Well said!
LikeLike
As usual Robert, right to the point. You cut through the crap and and the language. To be your own person, you must be merged with the masses. Matrix pods for everyone.
LikeLike
Michael,
All your base are belong to us.
LikeLike
Robert’s point on the totalitarian potential of the centralized, single portal is the most important reason why this must not be allowed to go forward. In thinking back, it also occurred to me that no child-centered hardware ever emerged from the Gates-Microsoft empire. Since there was no money to be made there, it simply never emerged. He had no interest in getting up close and personal with real children and their unique learning personalities. There was no dedication to the cause over time. But suddenly the Cloud storage capacity exists and holds cash potential for any who devise a scheme to exploit it and viola, we have Gates instantly in love with the “personalized learning experiences” of everyone’s children. I don’t think so.
LikeLike
Thank you, Kathy. I feel as though very few grasp what this creation of a national portal of student responses really means.
LikeLike
I grasp it. It’s why I worry 24/7 about where to send my kid and how to use my energy (as a public school arts teacher in a right to work state).
I am glad the issues I have to think about are not life threatening (not in a quick sense, anyway—like it’s not war or famine or plague), but it is utterly unbelievable, based on history, that we are struggling through this. It shows that developed countries have the same human struggles (power, money, survival) dressed up in computer costumes.
LikeLike
“. . . schools will likely look dramatically different than they do today. . . ”
Take me up on the bet ol Billy boy. I bet that they won’t look that much different. There will still be schools with class rooms, teachers and students doing face to face human interaction teaching and learning (going both ways as it always has). Some minor details about keeping student information more organized will come about but the basic structure and teaching and learning activities will be the pretty much the same. It hasn’t changed that much in more than a century of some of the most technological advances the world has known. What’s so special now?
LikeLike
From my mother’s sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
–Randall Jarrell, “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner”
LikeLike
Don’t these ideas make Common Core already obsolete?
I mean, if it’s personalized and kids learn according to their own pace and interests, then why do we have prescriptive goals for each grade level? The two ideas are in conflict.
LikeLike
Steve, the whole point is to have a single set of standards to which all curricula would be correlated. The computer would test the kid on those standards and then deliver the worksheets on a screen at the “appropriate” level. This is the computer-adaptive curricula approach. The national standards were necessary in order for this to work, for Bill to create a national gateway of student responses and computer-adaptive curricula correlated to those responses.
LikeLike
Trust me, Robert. I don’t disagree with you. I just find it interesting that the same people promote two things that clearly differ. I guess that’s one way never to be wrong.
LikeLike
I do see your point, Steve. The resolution of the conflict that you have noticed lies, I think, in this: When Bill and Company say “personalization,” they mean placing the student in the correct place on the continuum of learning that was planned out for everyone and into one of several tracks of canned curricula correlated to that continuum–separate tracks for the alphas, betas, deltas, and epsilons. So, the vision is to have kids following a prescribed track at their own pace, and personalizing that learning means giving them the remediation for those parts of the track for which they have not yet demonstrated “proficiency.”
Most of the rest of us have a very different notion of what personalization means. We know that we are in the business not of producing perfectly conforming, perfectly milled parts for the economic machine but individuals with minds of their own and varying visions for their own futures. Most of us think that there are many ways in which to become a literate person, a writer, a thinker–that the whole point is NOT to produce conformity but the ability to do independent thinking.
There are thousands of ways to approach any of the domains covered by the CC$$ in ELA that are precluded by those putative “standards.” Individualizing learning doesn’t mean placing people into a prescribed track. It doesn’t mean placing them at a position on one of those tracks. Standardization is for nuts and bolts and other machine parts. It is not for people.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a monopolist who thinks of people as more or less conforming to a particular technocratic and totalitarian vision (his own) and, to that extent, more or less valuable.
And then there is the money–the rivers of money–to be earned from setting up and managing the totalitarian system in such a way that it becomes a single proprietary gateway.
LikeLike
Although I agree with you, I can understand the lure of computer adaptive learning for these types. It was very, very helpful to me when I was preparing for the GRE. However, I was an adult with a bachelors degree and not a child. I had a strong sense of myself as a learner and I had self-efficacy. Moreover, the purpose of my computer work was very clear: to identify weak areas in order to maximize my overall score in order to get into a good grad school. Surely it was a shortsighted goal but one I held strongly. I wasn’t trying to actually learn anything!
People learn by doing and people learn what they love. There has been, and never will be, a way to get around this simple truth. Add in the developmental factor for children and adolescents and it is a fool’s errand to try to engineer something different. Computer adaptive learning can identify and address acute deficiencies but it can’t be the whole enchilada, as it is threatening to be. I fear for how much damage this will do before the powers-that-be understand this. It is like all of that “new economy” stuff from the 90s. Nope. Same old economy. People just believed the rules were different (until it became clear they weren’t).
LikeLike
Emmy, we can have computer-adaptive curricula without having the centralized command-and-control center. Such curricula would be varied and innovative and contain diagnostic tests and modules keyed to the outcomes of those tests. But we don’t have to have the whole totalitarian apparatus to have such curricula be ONE OF MANY tools in the educator’s kit.
LikeLike
Well and the personalization part is Bill’s prize for being the right wing’s tool.
“Hey! I like this game. And I can create personalized learning and that will make the powerless feel empowered and they will buy my product!”
“Yes, Bill. We knew you would like being in our team. Stick with us! We’ll go places.”
“This is fun!”
Again, a little exposure to the realities of human development and foibles could have helped prevent this (like teachers know that six year olds will pick at a scab so they can tell you they are bleeding! And need a band aid and the lesson is disrupted and suspended briefly for them to be at the center of the teacher’s sympathies; or that if you don’t have a rule that only one person can be out of their seat at a time you will suddenly have nine five year olds following each other to the tissues to “blow their nose.” Teachers get this stuff. We see it every day. Adults are prone to these same type patterns of behavior. It’s why we have to keep each other in check. Even nerds with gobs of money. Even the Christian Right.
LikeLike
‘ if you don’t have a rule that only one person can be out of their seat at a time you will suddenly have nine five year olds following each other to the tissues to “blow their nose.”’
You’re right. Adults are no different. It’s like all the ladies at a table having to use the restroom at the same time. I’m sure there isn’t a husband that hasn’t commented on this phenomena. I’m wondering what the male equivalent is… 🙂
As to the evolution of the reformer agenda and its mantra, I think people with a similar world view tend to band together and make alliances with other groups who share elements of their belief system. I see some of the Christian right as pawns in a much more complex game that happened to gibe with their desire for schools that taught their beliefs. Some of them are perhaps too caught up in the rewards they hope to receive here on earth, but I can’t think of any major players who are driven by Christian zeal, and as CCSS has unfolded more and more people who consider themselves to be conservative are disavowing or reaffirming their opposition to common core.
LikeLike
You just described my Kindergarten/1st grade darlings! My favorite is when a child gets a tissue, hardly uses it, throws it in the trash then gets another, hardly uses it, etc. I cringe when I come in the day after a substitute was in my room and find an empty tissue box that I had just put out the day before that was completely filled.
But getting back to civic responsibilities which was mentioned elsewhere in these comments, children learn about far more than subject areas in schools. Left to their own devices, kids will trash the bathrooms, keep their classroom spaces like pigpens, and waste paper like it’s an unlimited resource. We truly need social education now more than ever–children just aren’t coming to school with any sense of manners, even the older ones. Instead, they have little patience, often zero respect for others, and exhibit just horrific self-centered behaviors. I’m all for fostering confidence and self-esteem, but some translate that as treating a child like a peer. I’ve even seen situations where children make inappropriate comments to some of my younger colleagues who don’t take the time to correct them. It’s amazing how little kids know about social etiquette. There’s a difference between behaving like obedient little soldiers (like some complain charter schools require) and making responsible and kind choices based on a civic awareness of others. But by all means, let’s give them iPads so they can practice ignoring everybody else.
LikeLike
Yes @ Robert. Agreed. Unfortunately I think they’ll have to sink the whole ship as an epic fail before enough of the powers-that-be realize that computer adaptive resources should be used as you describe.
LikeLike
Oh my….
It is the return of Microsoft Bob! One of Bill and Melinda’s first big ideas!
LikeLike
Some basic terms:
A “push” medium is one in which a centralized command and control authority pushes media that it chooses onto an audience.
A “pull” medium is one in which an audiences chooses the media that it wishes to consume.
In the 4th century BC, one of the Ptolemy’s conceived of the Library of Alexandria, a repository of all the knowledge of the world. Diderot dreamed the same dream when he created his encyclopedia. Back in 1903, H.G. Wells dreamed in print of a time when the information of the world would be “available instantaneously, via wires.” In the 1950s, the President’s science adviser, Vannevar Bush, imagined a machine, the Memorex, that would contain the knowledge of the world, stored on magnetic cards and immediately accessible.
We are now at a point when we could have a true revolution in learning, a point at which these dreams could be realized by free people with access to knowledge and information.
Or not. The same medium, the Internet, can be turned into a vehicle for command and control, into a push medium with a single gateway and a single toll-taker.
Freedom, or standardization and centralization?
That is the question.
Which will we choose?
LikeLike
cx: one of the Ptolemies
LikeLike
“Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma!” It IS true that great, positive approaches can be co-opted for nefarious reasons. Let’s be careful not to throw the baby (personalized learning) out with the bathwater (attempts to capitalize on personalized learning for corporate gain).
LikeLike
When people have something really ugly to sell, of course they are going to dress it up. Hitler sold the Nazi ideology as a fairy tale about a perfectly happy, perfectly harmonious Aryan folk land, a place of purity and perfection from which undesirable, degenerate elements had been eliminated. His propaganda machine turned out films, posters, books, lecture tours, etc., all about that utopian vision–the creation of the perfect Aryan family. It was a vision of maypoles and festivals, of a people achieving its destiny. His mouth dripped more honey than hatred, but the honey was poison.
LikeLike
Careful, Robert! You might be accused of oversimplifying things by invoking Godwin’s Law!! And that it is atrocious to equate Hitler’s propaganda with that “good man” Gates.
LikeLike
I suspect that Bill Gates has the best of intentions–that in his mind, it’s win-win. He gets an incredibly profitable educational monopoly. The schools get rationalized education. But the totalitarian system that he is creating will inevitably be abused. It is already being abused. Already, many possibilities for our teaching are being curtailed because they do not match the national blueprint–the new “standards.”
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention Godwin’s law. Here’s the point of my comment: As bizarre as it may seem, Hitler thought, he actually believed, that he was creating a better world. He was the most frightening sort of despot–the kind who believes his own deranged vision.
LikeLike
The GL was thrown at me in a different thread today. That’s why I brought it up. It’s an automatic “I win, the other person mentioned Hitler and we know how Godwin’s Law is.”
My comment meant the same thing as yours. Those whose actions result in evil truly believe that their reasoning is sound and ethical.
LikeLike
I recommend Lisa Pine’s “Education in Nazi Germany” for those readers who would like to examine the question of whether or not history repeats itself.
LikeLike
People don’t seem to be understanding this, so I will spell it out, in order:
The Gates vision is one of computer-adaptive curricula. That curricula works like this: You have a single set of standards to which all curricula are correlated. You test kids, via computer, and record their responses, also correlated to those standards. Having done that, you deliver curricula “appropriate” to the level of the student, again via computer.
To make this happen, you need a single set of uniform national standards. So, Bill bought those. Then you need a single portal for recording student responses and correlating those to the uniform standards. And so Bill created that.
And since that portal of student responses is proprietary–since it belongs to one company–it cannot be replicated. States all have contracts with this one company.
So, the scheme completely eliminates competition and creates a single national portal through which curricula will flow with a single company a) collecting fees for maintaining the database and b) collecting fees from vendors who want to deliver curricula through that portal and c) selling its own curricula through that portal.
The national portal of student responses will be to the educational materials market what the operating system is to the personal computer market–the one part that everyone has to use and pay for.
And, incidentally, it gives its owner command and control authority unprecedented in history–absolute control over the education of the next generation.
The Common Core State Standards were the first step in a business plan. An essential first step.
Welcome to the Panopticon.
LikeLike
In his wettest dreams Benthan couldn’t have envisioned the panopticon proposed by “Almighty Gatesy”. All hail Billy the Great!!
LikeLike
Bentham…panopticon…
Stop making me look things up! 😉
LikeLike
I’m a teacher, LG. I encourage people to look things up. LOL.
LikeLike
Robert!
You have so much common sense!!
Thanks for making all very clear!
LikeLike
OY! Information for the MARKETING of BAD STUFF.
LikeLike
The future failure of this plan can be explained quite cleary and well in advance. The hopes and dreams of this reform plan is based on the incorrect assumption that schools are clinical environments where you can change one variable (delivery and customization of instruction) and the dependendent variable (student learning/outcomes) responds accordingly. Well Mr. Gates, let me try to help you here; public schools are the least clinical environment you could possibly imagine. They are chaotic, messy, and impossible to control. Your plan for customized, computerized instruction will never fly with children because they intuitively understand – far better than you do – how learning really works. It is accrued over long periods of time, through countless experiences, in through starts, and stops, and pauses, through ups and downs and back and forths. The words on your customized programs will be nothing more than white noise in the absence of classroom give and take, questions and answers. Your program will NEVER instill excitement, curiosity, persistence, motivation, wonderment, trust, or faith. You program will produce vapid boredom and an utter distaste for school – an abhorence for learning and I promise you it will wind up on the ash heep of failed educational reform initiatives.
LikeLike
Well said, NY Teacher!!! Kudos!!!
LikeLike
NYS Teacher, read the Department of Education paper on “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance.” They are working on the control part.
BTW, the entire Gates business plan–the national standards, the computerized tests, the national database of student responses, the computer-adaptive curricula–was spelled out in Arne Duncan’s technology blueprint at the very beginning of his tenure as Secretary of Education. Read that blueprint. Duncan is the wind-up toy for making this all happen.
LikeLike
In case any one thought Robert was kidding, check this small sample from (Just google DOE grit and tenacity for the full PDF) Arne Duncan and Co:
Conclusion 1: For significant and pervasive shifts in educational priorities to promote not only
content knowledge, but also the noncognitive factors of grit, tenacity, and perseverance, there is
a strong need for growing involvement and support by all educational stakeholders.
Recommendation 1: Educators, administrators, policymakers, technology designers, parents,
and researchers should consider how to give priority to grit, tenacity, and perseverance in
curriculum, teaching practices, teacher professional development, programs, technology
adoption, and out-of-school support. They should look to the research base for best practices
and programs that are mature in development and suitable to local context. Structural supports
will need to be enhanced to enable educators to enact best practices and implementation of
productive intervention models. Progress will also require outreach to parents and advocacy to
all educational stakeholders. Research will need to continue to advance theory, measurement,
and the design of technology and learning environments. The conclusions and
recommendations that follow provide more specific guidance.
THATS SOME SCIRY SHAT
LikeLike
Now if Arne had only bothered to hire me out as a consultant on the apparent crisis regarding the non-cognitive issues of grit, tenacity, and perseverance in our school children I could have save them a lot of time and energy. The solution is really so pure and simple. Arne simply had to create a federal mandate for mixed martial arts K to 12.
Easily measurable and would scare the shat out of the Finns.
LikeLike
NY teacher, check out the part of the DOE report that recommends using galvanic skin response whistbands and retinal scanners to monitor, continually, students’ affective states as they are doing their computerized tests and worksheets. Those, too, will be fed into the database.
LikeLike
Parents will not ever let this happen.
LikeLike
NY teacher, I have given up saying, “That could never happen.” Just when I think that something is unthinkable–it becomes national policy. Did you ever think that governors of states would be turning over students’ personal data to a private corporation without parental consent? That thousands of educators would be arguing that that is necessary so that we can “personalize learning”? There are always going to be a lot of people who are not paying attention, a lot who will drink the Kool-Aid, and a lot who will willing collaborate if there is money to be made from doing so.
LikeLike
Must remain vigilant and not allow any more sneak attacks. “Remember inBloom!”
LikeLike
NYS teacher and Robert,
You make the case why NYS has clung to King and Tisch and why it will be incredibly difficult to halt online learning and data extraction. Only a handful of superintendents statewide have asked to be removed from inBloom, the first step toward surveillance in this Orwellian nightmare. That Gates business plan that Arne promotes is obscene. Now he’s promoting it in debilitated Haiti! And Haitians thought Papa Doc was bad.
LikeLike
Nimbus,
The “Baby Dunc” is trying to become a “Papa Doc”????
LikeLike
Hoping our salvation will be angry parents? Hillary? Cultural evolution?
LikeLike
Many of the changes in education are pieces of a plan to “personalize” student learning” national standards (CCS), a centralized data base (assessments, inBloom), a compliant workforce (evaluations).
Who decided this should be the future of education? Bill Gates is not the only one who espouses this vision for our future, the future of WE THE PEOPLE.
EngageNY Portal Fact Sheet, page 1:
The portal will allow “access to education data and high quality curriculum and instructional resources.”
“The Portal will help teachers provide high quality PERSONALIZED instruction to their students in a more efficient and secure way than is available in many districts.”
Who decided this should be the future of education in our country?
LikeLike
Who appointed David Coleman and Susan Pimentel absolute monarchs of education in the English language arts in the United States?
Two questions, same answer:
A small group of self-appointed autocrats.
LikeLike
“For this survey, personalized learning is defined as follows: Learning experiences for all students are tailored to their individual developmental needs, skills and interest.”
This is perhaps the most troubling statement in the survey. Where is the emphasis on the purpose of schooling that Diane has so often and so eloquently advocated: to prepare our youth to become contributing, functioning members of civil society, capable of fully participating in the cultural, social, political, economic, and humanities dimensions of our society. Gates wants to tailor student learning to their individual interests? This is a recipe for greater division in our country along social, economic and political lines. Gates hasn’t a clue as to the purpose of educating a person and helping them to develop their mind. It is all about producing functioning automatons incapable of true reflective critical thinking.
LikeLike
You are right about the absence of any civic purpose in the Gates statement. Our schools are not job-training institutions. We support them as a civic obligation to prepare people to maintain our democratic society and make it better.
LikeLike
“Our schools are not job-training institutions. We support them as a civic obligation to prepare people to maintain our democratic society and make it better.”
Bless you!
YES.
We all need to keep shouting this from every roof top!
LikeLike
Oh, and another thought. Like all utopian visions, Gates vision is highly suspect because utopian visions are delusional. They aren’t based on the reality of human behavior. They also are typically not subject to revision due to evidence because they are always, at root, held dogmatically.
LikeLike
Well said, peltonrandy!
LikeLike
This is what it will look like – child sits at a computer and is shown a lesson, then takes a test online. Based on the results of that test the next lesson and test are generated. This child is not on a “track” they can’t get off. There is no real teacher maybe some kind of facilitator becuase there will have to be some sort of adult supervision, but all the learning of through the portal. No one is seeing it or reviewing it, it just goes into the computer and is assessed that way.
There is an actual promotional video for this that shows how this will work – in the video the teacher is talking to another person via webcam but in reality it will be data and all computerized. “Based on our data, Sally responded this way, that tells us you should program her next module to the appropritate level for her type of learning”. Sounds crazy but this is what it will look like.
LikeLike
I mean the child is NOW on a track. (sorry)
LikeLike
Exactly. BTW, here in Florida we now have a highly successful chain of charter schools run by the brother of a VERY POWERFUL AND PROMINENT politician that are located in refurbished grocery stores. The kids show up to room with a hundred other kids and a teacher/facilitator whose job it is to make sure that the computers are operating, to answer questions, and to enforce discipline. The kids sit and do worksheets on a screen all day–worksheets delivered by a company started and largely owned by an ex federal Secretary of Education.
“What’s this?”
“A book.”
“What do you do with it?”
“It’s like a computer.”
“It’s nothing like a computer.”
“Kids used to use these in school.”
“What’s school?”
“Kids used to go to this place and interact with other kids, and they had human teachers.”
“Human teachers? Humans can’t be teachers.”
“I’m not making this up. And at lunchtime, they would go outside and play with the other kids.”
“What’s play?”
“I don’t know. It’s like a workforce skill or something, only more enjoyable.”
“I want to play. How do we do that?”
“Beats me. Ask the computer.”
LikeLike
The owner of the charter chain goes around telling investors that he’s not in the school business but in the real estate business. He buys buildings and leases them to the school. State tax funds pay the leases. He becomes very, very wealthy. The kids sit and do worksheets.
LikeLike
Huh, we already use a program that sounds like this in our school, but it is more like a video game than worksheets. The kids are okay with it, sometimes they enjoy it, but it is used for half an hour max (of course the publisher of this very expensive program recommends more time). Any more than that and the kids are totally bored, then their “learning gains,” which we get to see as various reports, start to diminish…
LikeLike
Would the “very expensive program” possibly be put out by Pearson?
LikeLike
This is beyond frightening, yet totally believable. Today’s children are lacking in social skills, and I fear their parents (who themselves were raised on social networking) will only encourage the demise of a socially productive culture.
Has anybody ever asked their superiors–who are pushing technology on them like it’s as essential to life as oxygen–why? Why are we forcing technology to this degree into our classrooms? Just because “that’s what kids are into?” It should be used as a tool for efficiency, not a replacement for social learning. The science-fiction writers of the last century certainly did warn us…
LikeLike
My principal has always been technology crazed and so is the Associate Superintendent of Academics for my school system. However, their level of technology craze has reached new heights this year thanks to Advanced Ed Accreditation (to the best of my knowledge, what is now SACS) which pushes it and requires students, teachers and parents to answer questions on on-line surveys pertaining to students’ use of technology in school.
LikeLike
“For this survey, personalized learning is defined as follows: Learning experiences for all students are tailored to their individual developmental needs, skills and interest.”
I think this is perhaps the most troubling statement in the survey. Where is the emphasis on the purpose of schooling that Diane has so often and so eloquently advocated: to prepare our youth to become contributing, functioning members of civil society, capable of fully participating in the cultural, social, political, economic, and humanities dimensions of our society. Gates wants to tailor student learning to their individual interests? This is a recipe for greater division in our country along social, economic and political lines. Gates hasn’t a clue as to the purpose of educating a person and helping them to develop their mind. It is all about producing functioning automatons incapable of true reflective critical thinking.
LikeLike
peltonrandy, this plan is for the training of the proles. Training for the proles. Education for the children of the oligarchy.
LikeLike
Well, I guess the Karmic Gods of Retribution will have to build another level past the 21st* for the Gatester.
*Karmic Gods of Retribution: Those ethereal beings specifically evolved to construct the 21st level in Dante’s Hell. The 21st level signifies the combination of the 4th (greed), 8th (fraud) and 9th (treachery) levels into one mega level reserved especially for the edudeformers and those, who, knowing the negative consequences of the edudeformers agenda, willing implemented it so as to go along to get along. The Karmic Gods of Retribution also personally escort these poor souls, upon their physical death, to the 21st level unless they enlighten themselves, a la one D. Ravitch, to the evil and harm they have caused so many innocent children, and repent and fight against their former fellow deformers. There the edudeformers will lie down on a floor of smashed and broken ipads and ebooks curled in a fetal position alternately sucking their thumbs to the bones while listening to two words-Educational Excellence-repeated without pause for eternity.
LikeLike
Uh, you should write a screenplay. I’m serious.
LikeLike
Don’t have the first clue how to go about doing that. I have to finish up my “Devil’s Dictionary of Education Jargon” first.
LikeLike
Perhaps a modern mime ballet, then?
LikeLike
I sat in a meeting with the Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction in my district. She was talking about how excited they were that the district was implementing NWEA MAP testing for first and second grades. I spoke of my own concerns about the test and how it often tested my child on material that she had covered in class. The Superintendent said that having this data would allow the teachers to differentiate for each student. I asked if they could do that without popping my child on an ipad, the answer was “no”.
I limit my child’s screen time at home, why would I find it acceptable for her to sit in front of a screen all day at school so that she can have a differentiated curriculum. I want the kind of personalized learning for my students that comes from a talented, dedicated education professional that understands the needs of my student and relates to her on a personal level.
LikeLike
I keep wishing that parents would speak up about too much use of technology. I did have a few parents actually thank me for sending reading books home rather than insisting that everyone log in to red their story.
LikeLike
I meant read their story!
LikeLike
I so agree…
Children are not embracing this technology…They are so sick of it.
LikeLike
For the record, I am SO INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED with some of these discussions. I am pro-public schools and worked hard on my district’s local mill levy override campaign last year and on getting pro-public school candidates elected this year. Last night’s reality? A statewide tax hike to improve education funding in Colorado failed. The Gates Foundation and NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg both donated money to the campaign to pass a very badly needed tax hike to fund education in Colorado. I wonder how many in the anti-Gates/Bloomberg/Johnston camp then decided it would be better for our schools to continue to education our children with large class sizes, fees and budget cuts than to support anything that Gates might support? I didn’t think it would pass anyhow because Colorado has serious issues when it comes to funding education or paying taxes, but it lost badly–as will my children and my nieces and nephews who actually have to attend school and live with this reality daily.
I’m also very curious to see how Dr. Ravitch will deal with the inBloom issue in Jeffco. The three conservative candidates who opposed a tax hike for education all won. They now control the majority. Ravitch may think it’s good news that they said they will oppose inBloom and presumably, they will not approve a pilot or contract with them. However, it’s also extremely likely that they will try and probably succeed in dissolving the teachers’ union, in cutting pay more than it’s already been cut in the last five years, and all three are very much in favor of expanding the number of charter and options schools. Everyone need to know that these three mainly ran on a campaign of opposing inBloom. So: in theory it’s a Ravitch win if we don’t contract with iBloom, but a huge, huge huge public school loss if everything else that this candidates agree with–including dissolving the union, expanding the number of charter schools, “holding teachers accountable” while cutting their salaries to balance the budget, and perhaps even vouchers–comes to pass. But hey, at least we won’t have inBloom, never mind the fact that the district wasn’t using all 400 data points and there were actual facts that got overlooked in order to stoke the hysteria that probably will be the downfall of our teachers and quite possibly our schools.
Win the battle but lose the war, anyone?
(For the record, I’ve appreciated the work that Dr. Ravitch does and I’ve appreciated her advocacy in many areas. However, I’ve repeatedly asked for inBloom to be dealt with as it affects individual districts. Proposed implementation here differed from other places but that was repeatedly overlooked. Now, inBloom won’t be a threat, but the threats–to our teachers, to our neighborhood schools, and to education funding for the next four years–are much bigger and much more real. I wonder who will fight with us now?)
LikeLike
Lisa, if we end up with a single national database of student responses through which most curricula flows, then we REALLY will have lost the war.
LikeLike
Technology itself is neither good nor bad. Trains can be used to take people on vacation or to take people to death camps.
The dream of the Universal Library–the dream of the Ptolemies, of Diderot, of Wells, of Vannevar Bush, and of Richard Feynmann (who described in a wonderful essay how to inscribe all of human knowledge onto a piece of metal the size of a sugar cube)–has become a reality. Right now, if you want to do so, you can sit down at your computer and use free resources to teach yourself Hebrew or Sanskrit, modal logic or macrame. You can browse the vast Internet Sacred Texts Archive or the vast Thomspon/Aarne classification system for the world’s folk tales. If you want to learn just about anything, how to drive a dirigible , how to plant a polyculture garden, how to play the kantele or the koto, you can find it. I recently sent a young friend who had inquired about this a list of over a thousand free online courses from universities. Many professors have written and placed on the net, for free, complete textbooks–quite good ones–on an enormous range of topics. If you want to read Beowulf, in the original, from the Cotton manuscript, you can do that. If you want to try your hand at deciphering the Voynich manuscript. . . . it’s just a click or two away.
This VAST medium has ENORMOUS potential for learning. It has the potential of enabling individuals to develop their own potentials in ways never before imagined.
Or, we can put up a wall and deliver canned curricula via a single portal to kids following a single prescribed learning progression promulgated by a distant, centralized authority.
Unprecedented freedom, the realization of an age-old dream of free and open access to the knowledge of the world,
OR
Centralized command and control to ensure that students become uniform products.
This is the choice we have. We can use the technology in either of these ways. Two very different futures are being imagined here. One is the realization of the humanist’s ultimate dreams. The other is the realization of his or her ultimate nightmares.
LikeLike
No, in part because that scenario of one database monopoly was extremely unlikely for a myriad of reasons. And it’s not like the internet would have disappeared or become inaccessible in our schools never mind the fact that hmm, we’d still have all those books in the library and oh, the last time I checked our teachers use a variety of curricula and won’t suddenly turn into robots programmed to whatever the iPad tells them to do. Good grief.
Of course, you’re not here and you do have the luxury to engage in slippery slope arguments. You don’t have to deal with the real-life consequences–and here, there will be real-life consequences. (Don’t try to tell me that inBloom would have destroyed my children’s lives because the reality was that going ahead with the inBloom pilot was already seriously in question.) Likewise, the fact that the Gates foundation supported the campaign for a tax hike to put a billion dollars back in education isn’t a good reason to oppose it. Maybe you see that as a huge victory against the Gates influence or other such nonsense, but the reality is that we’re in a state that has cut a billion from education and we can’t do much to change those numbers unless we vote in a tax increase. Getting hung up on the fact that Gates happens to support increased funding for education isn’t a good reason to decide that you’re opposed to increased funding for education anymore than sacrificing the teacher’s union for inBloom is a good trade.
Education is complex and nuanced. If we fail to acknowledge that and indulge in the same inane “logic” displayed by the other side (i.e., hysteria and slippery slope arguments), I wonder why we’re bothering at all.
LikeLike
Lisa:
I got the impression that there were strings attached to the school funding ballot measure you’re talking about. David Sirota has a revealing article on recent ed policy changes in Colorado: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/04/chris_christies_demented_you_people_movement_the_rights_school_for_cash_obsession/
As for Bill Gates’s intentions. He’s made it clear that he wants the cost of education to be “dramatically lower.” This can only be translated as fewer teachers at lower salaries. He sees technology as the means to accomplish this. Watch his interview with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC during the Davos conference, January 25, 2013: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100409068 (The part about technology and education starts at 3:43 of the CNBC video.)
Gates makes some fundamental errors of fact and logic in the interview, but the basic thrust of it is that technology can and should be used to reduce the number of classroom teachers.
LikeLike
Henry Ford..
Those cars you invented are awesome..
However..I did not give up walking just because I have an automobile..
Thomas..Love the light bulbs but I do not use them 24/7
Found the sun to be much friendlier
Instead of floating on a raft..I prefer jumping in the water and moving..
Technology is a tool…..it needs to be used as a tool and not the cure-all….
LikeLike
Nice.
BTW, Henry Ford was decorated by Hitler, before the Second World War, for starting a newspaper to spread in the United States propaganda about an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers. Ford was a big believer in one of the worst pieces of propaganda ever conceived, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ford’s pro-Nazi newspaper was called The Dearborn Independent. Ford was also a big supporter of eugenics. So, he liked the idea of standardizing automobiles AND people. That’s the back story to this comment that Albert Einstein made in an interview:
“I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings. Standardization is a great peril which threatens American culture. . . . Such men [as Henry Ford] do not always realize that the adoration which they receive is not a tribute to their personality but to their power or their pocketbook.
—— Albert Einstein, Saturday Evening Post interview, 10/26/1929″
LikeLike
“Instead of floating on a raft..I prefer jumping in the water and moving..”
Well. . . I prefer to float on the river in my ancient jon boat and stay dry when we go camping, fishing and floating during the week after X-mas. Taken a dip on New Years day many a time over the years. And although hypothermia may be my choice when the need comes I don’t want it to happen before that time.
LikeLike
Ask Micro-soft executives how Mr. Gates Utopian vision is working for their company now —-and this is company Mr. Gates knows a lot about. Can’t wait to see what awaits us for his vision of education.
LikeLike
I am reminded of two classics of children’s media. In A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L’Engle starkly portrays children who exist in a uniform society, each child bouncing his ball in a monotone rhythm for scheduled “play.” Then in Wall-E, the result of the insidious creep towards narcissism and over-consumption is clearly shown in the culture of obese couch potatoes on their flying couches seeking to satisfy their personal interests.
LikeLike
Watch Maria Bartiromo’s interview with Bill Gates on CNBC during the Davos conference, January 25, 2013: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100409068 (The part about technology and education starts at 3:43 of the CNBC video.) Here’s my transcription of the ed tech segment…
Maria Bartiromo:
“Let me ask you a little bit about technology. A massive revolution continues… What’s your take on what’s going on right now and what’s most exciting to you?”
Bill Gates:
“Well, we’re taking the Internet revolution and we’re applying it in more areas. So, for example, in education the idea that not only are the best lectures online, but you can interact with people, talk to other students, that we ought to be able to deliver education that’s higher quality but dramatically lower cost. There’s a lot of excitement about that. MOOC means Massively Online Open Courseware and a lot of good pioneers that are learning and making that stuff better and better. The [Gates] Foundation is the biggest funder of that activity ’cause we see so much promise and the increasing price of education just doesn’t work. You know, a lot of our unemployment is because kids aren’t well educated enough. If you’re a college graduate, unemployment is very low. We’ve got to increase access to education, but letting the price go up won’t allow that. So it’s often these applications of the digital technology are where you see the most impact, even though it’s all built off the fast chips and cheap storage and optic fiber and all the underlying platform.”
There’s so much wrong with what he’s saying here, I just don’t have time to cover it all. Let’s just say his philosophy of education differs from mine, and so does his definition of “quality.” His ideas about investing public funds for the common good don’t square with mine, either. And his facts are shaky. Where’s the evidence that the “most impact” is coming from online teaching? Is high unemployment really caused by lack of education? (Or is it the overhang from the worst credit collapse since the Great Depression, triggered by the housing mania, fraudulent lending practices, unregulated derivatives trading, unbridled securitization of mortgages, phony bond ratings and so on?) In fact, one report from this past summer stated that of recent college graduates, 50% were in jobs that don’t require a degree.
Gates’s facts, his logic, and his meager understanding of children and learning don’t add up to anything good. His bottom line is lower costs (meaning lower taxes), not better education for more kids. When he says “the increasing price of education just doesn’t work,” I want to ask, “Doesn’t work for whom?” Yes, there’s plenty of potential for learning through technology, but I think he’s barking up the wrong tree, and for the wrong reasons.
LikeLike
““the increasing price of education just doesn’t work,” I want to ask, “Doesn’t work for whom?””
Yes, if we don’t spend the money on children, where will it go? Into the pockets and off-shore tax evading banks of the 1%.
LikeLike