Checker Finn wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan (as did Marc Tucker and I, in large part to counter what Checker wrote).
Many readers wondered why anyone would write an open letter to the founder of Facebook and advise him what to do about reforming American education.
Nancy Bailey puts those concerns, that skepticism, and that sense of outrage into a post directed to Checker Finn.
Finn just wrote a letter to Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg for all of us to see, like we are the bystanders in their goofball, grand design of schools. Schools will no longer be public–other than they will still receive our tax dollars.
It is hard not to be struck by the arrogance of it all.
If one understands what a democracy is, and how it relates to public schools, they will be puzzled as to why Finn isn’t writing a letter to the American people–you know–the ones who are supposed to be the real owners of their schools.
But instead, he writes to Chan and Zuckerberg. He wants them to think about school reform. He sees them as the owners of America’s schools. They, like Gates and the other wealthy oligarchs, assume they know best how children learn because they made a lot of money and got rich.
She is especially repulsed by his reference to “personalized learning,” which is now a euphemism for sitting in front of a computer and letting the computer teach you. Some call it CBE, competency-based education, since the computer uses algorithms to judge your readiness for the next question or activity. The idea that computers might teach children with special needs is particularly troubling.
But real education is an exchange between people, not a machine and a person.
I have known Checker Finn for many years, almost forty. Our friendship was impaired when I left the board of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and publicly rejected school choice and high-stakes testing. I have always had a fondness for Checker and his family. But Checker went to Exeter, and his wonderful children also went to elite private schools. I don’t begrudge them that, but I think Checker really is out of touch with public education and with the work of teachers in public schools. I am not making excuses for him, just explaining why I think he really doesn’t understand the disastrous consequences of the ideas he has promoted and believes in–for other people’s children.

About “personalized learning,” it’s not either/or. I am all for funding public education, paying teachers exorbitant sums so as to attract the best, etc. But even brain surgeons use technology to be better. Astronauts, engineers, everyone.
A good piece of adaptive teaching software is like a Roomba to the person keeping a home clean. So let’s stop with the either/or thinking here?
LikeLike
but did you read the article about when the Roomba sucked up the dog poo?
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/15/family-hilariously-learns-that-a-roomba-will-not-clean-up-dog-po/21452121/
I think I will rely on my own vacuuming since I have a dog and I really would like my children taught by an actual, compassionate human being. Computers will never account for mishaps or errors in real life.
LikeLike
No software replaces a certified teacher. DUH! This is a grab for $$$$$. Experience counts, not some programmer. All this talk about “blended” and “personalized” learning is nothing more than marketing stupid computer programs by yahoos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh and not to be “cute” the research on sitting and stroke and heart disease is HUGE. We should not be sitting. We need movement. I wonder if there is proof that the brain wires up learning in the same way when one learns to ride a bike, for instance, online as opposed to the physical trying it all out….being facetious here, my point is multi-fold on sitting and learning and being on a computer all day. Sure there is benefit in this new world sharing info, connecting, etc. etc. but we are adults….can and will kids learn and develop as whole people this way? I think not. I have not read all of this post and letter yet, but wanted to put this out there in case I run out of time to comment further. Yes, who is running the education system. What do these people know about what works for real kids.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can not even begin to count how many children & parents have thanked me for teaching them life skills during the years that I have been teaching!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s also just dumb, because they will end up discrediting “blended learning” by over-selling it.
Parents and community members will look at the results of the private sector/government push to put kids in front of screens and feel they were misled, that they didn’t get value for the investment. It’s already happening at the local level.
I would bet 5 dollars that there will be a rush of stories on disastrous public investments in ed tech within 5 years. It is 100% foreseeable because they’re reckless. They don’t value existing public schools so they don’t take downside risk into account.
They may not even end up breaking even. They could HARM children and schools with this push. I just don’t think I have anything in common with people who refuse to consider anything other than “win/win!”
“Experiment” means something. It means it could fail. There are no “experiments” that are cost-free UNLESS they assign absolutely no value to existing schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Reformers” live in a insulated world in which members echo each others assertions with little to no evidence to support their claims. These delusional beings ignore reality and cling to their false claims fueled by arrogance and greed. Our young people serve as their personal guinea pigs in the next hairbrained scheme presented as “innovation,” while our elected officials clear the way for their next human experiment.
Personalized learning depersonalizes teaching, and teaching, especially for vulnerable students, requires establishing a relationship and developing trust. Some African nations have already been exploited by this for profit computer instruction. After seeing the impact, at least one nation has severed ties with this model. I agree with Chiara. I predict “personalized learning” will be a failed fad that will cost our young people dearly.
Parents need to stand up for their children as we have few members of Congress with any scruples. Parents need to organize and contact members of Congress to express their concerns about the market based programs being inflicted on our students. They deserve stability, certified and qualified teachers, an end to endless experimentation and authentic, well resourced public schools. We need to end the politicization and monetization of our youth and schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And sadly, I live in the state of MD where Finn sits on the BoEd at the State Level. I am watching closely!
LikeLiked by 1 person
They hold all of the positions of power in the federal government and most of the positions of power at the state level, yet they still consider themselves scrappy upstarts battling The Establishment.
It’s mystifying. I guess we’re the Power they’re bravely speaking Truth to?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is anyone else struck by Finn’s relentlessly grim outlook for US public schools? Wow.
“Abandon hope all who enter here!” No wonder they’re working as hard as they can to replace public schools. They think they’re all hellholes filled with dopes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The sad part is these self appointed “experts” never attended public schools and know little. The fact that this know nothing has been appointed to the MD state board of education speaks volumes about the direction the governor is taking. “Reformers” conclusions are based on prejudice, lies and, most of all, a desire to profit.
LikeLike
I highly recommend another excellent piece by Thomas Newkirk of the University of New Hampshire – “Speaking Out on Competency-Based Education.” His writing is clear and concise and worthy of handing to administrators contemplating jumping on this latest bandwagon.
OY!
LikeLike