CBS News aired a great segment on the importance of rural public schools. They are the heart of the community. CBS News went to an impoverished community in Appalachia and interviewed students and the principal, who is also the school bus driver. The small rural public school in Letcher County doesn’t need competition. Most of its students live below the poverty line, yet the school is one of the best in the state.
Nine million children across the nation attend rural schools.
Why does Betsy DeVos want to destroy them?
Hello, Senator Mitch McConnell. These are your constituents!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Betsy DeVos: the epitome of evil and greed.
So agree with rural schools downfall under DeVos. Even harder for students with disabilities.
She’s already having national education standards for the disabled struck down.
This public employee at the US Department of Education continues to promote charter and private schools over public schools:
DEVOS CALLS FOR ‘MORE CHARTER SCHOOLS’: Secretary DeVos called for “more charter schools” and “a multiplicity of choices” for students during an interview with NBC News that aired on Sunday night. DeVos praised Boys’ Latin high School, a Philadelphia charter school, as part of a segment that profiled the school on “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly.” Asked during the interview whether charter schools would undermine funding for traditional public schools, DeVos said: “Great public schools are going to continue to do a great job for the students that they’re serving … I think instead of talking about schools and school buildings, we should be talking about funding students and investing in individual students …”
Does anyone at the US Department of Education ever work on public schools?
It’s pretty ridiculous to have an entire division of a federal agency that focuses exclusively on 5% of schools.
Can DeVos point to one concrete action she has taken to benefit any child in any public school in the country? Why is the public paying for this privatization political campaign she’s conducting?
The US Department of Education and NBC can’t find a single solid US public school to feature and promote?
Not ONE, in the whole country?
Ridiculous, and blatantly biased against public schools.
Reblogged this on NANMYKEL.COM and commented:
I think Betsy DeVos wants to destroy public schools because she’s so deep into “us versus them.” She’s dehumanizing those less lucky and less wealthy, the “peons.”
Ed reform does have a plan for rural public schools, Diane.
They plan to sell them lots and lots of ed tech and online learning. It’s already happening.
The rural lower income students will get (cheap) garbage computer programs instead of (expensive) teachers. You should see some of this crap they’re pushing into rural schools-“world languages” online, which is not an actual language course but allows the state to pretend they’re offering a foreign language credit.
They don’t get field trips anymore – now they get “virtual field trips”. It’s basically a giant rip off to the kids- they get less but it’s marketed as more.
Most rural schools are already stretching their dollars to provide maximum impact, and many are doing a good job. More “choice” in the form of cyber products that get poor results is not needed. Betsy wants to ram “choice” down everyone’s throat whether it is needed or not.
I used to work for Western Kentucky University’s educational television station, WKYU-24. Besides broadcasting educational programs to the community, we also had long distance learning (at the university level).
The professor was in our studio in Bowling Green, KY, and the class was in the studio in Glasgow, KY (30 miles away). This setup enabled the students to attend the class, without having to drive 60 miles each day.
The same technology can be used for rural K-12 schools. One teacher in a “hub” studio, could conduct classes at several “spoke” studios. This would enable rural schools to have a wider variety of educational options.
Charles,
Online instruction is not the same for adults and K-12 students.
Every online virtual school has a terrible record of high dropout rates, low test scores, and low graduation rates.
Why would you want to expand a failed sector?
The best education for K-12 requires human, face-to-face interaction.
I am not describing “on-line” learning. Our college did video instruction, in real-time, years before the internet. I remember watching educational television, in my 5th grade classroom in 1965.
The TV station was on an airplane, which circled over Chicago. The video was transmitted on UHF channel 72, call sign KS2XGO. Schools in the midwest received the video. It was called MPATI, Midwest program on airborne television, incorporated. ( the instruction was one-way)
The video instruction that we did at my college used two-way video. The instructor was in Bowling Green, and the class was in Glasgow. The instructor presented the material, and the class watched on a wide-screen TV. The instructor viewed the class on a monitor in the studio.
The video system was human face-to-face instruction. Students who could not have been able to obtain college-level instruction, were able to do so in real-time video.
This system can work at the lower grades as well.
Two-way real time video, would enable schools in rural areas, to ahve access to instructors, who otherwise would not be able to deliver lectures in person. Specialty courses in topics like foreign languages, would be available to smaller rural schools , who otherwise could not afford to have an instructor in residence.
Give technology a chance.
Charles,
There are many K-12 online charter schools. In every state, they are near the worst performing school in the state. They have been around for 20 years. They suck away taxpayer dollars with poor results. How much longer do they need “a chance?”
While I understand the BIG (as in complete) difference between what is essentially the video conferencing model of education you described vs. online, computer delivered “instruction” aka depersonalized learning, I think that it probably could/should only be used as an adjunct to small to very small local schools, as in so small as to be lower in numbers than the old one room schoolhouse. An issue not discussed by you or Dianne here is that the buildout of infrastructure for online computer delivered miseducation is unlikely to occur for the same reason that rural areas lag far behind the nation in the quality and availability of Internet service, the profit margin for the major internet providers does not meet their financial targets. No big bucks to be made (without federal or state grants) by putting many hundreds of thousands of dollars or more into a market that serves an extremely low population density region. That’s much the same obstacle for the “video conferencing” model, the cost of the equipment would be out of range for the vast majority of rural families and small communities. Alaska has a model that could possibly be adapted for this in the way they deliver health care to far flung, distant villages. They all have to have an airstrip or suitable river so small planes can land, that’s also the way other goods are delivered. This would not exist without the states oil wealth which subsidizes such services and enables the “independent” way of life Alaska is famous for. Using satellite TV as a delivery method might also work, but I’m nowhere near knowledgable about the tech and costs involved in standing up a system that can do this. To finish, FWIW, I am totally against asking families who operate the massive farms in low population areas that feed the nation and the world to move off their land, and I am for equity in delivering education and other services to them.
The costs for video cameras and video teleconferencing is cheap. When you amortize the costs of the equipment out for the expected life of the equipment, it is much less costly than having a full-time teacher in residence. I am particularly excited about using video teleconferencing for specialty courses like foreign languages, and advanced mathematics.
If a particular charter school is not delivering a quality education to its students, then it should close. What does charter school problems have to do with video teleconference learning?
Chas, education for the rich is never “cheap.” Education for the poor is supposed to be “cheap.” Is that what you meant?
Teaching K-12 students is NOT the same as teaching college students/young adults. What happened to MOOC?
Q Chas, education for the rich is never “cheap.” Education for the poor is supposed to be “cheap.” Is that what you meant? END Q
Of course not. Be fair. The point that I am trying to make, is that long-distance learning by video teleconferencing, is much more economical, than having a full-time employee, in front of a classroom. Video learning, has been occurring for many decades, both in a one-way format, and in a two-way format.
Consider this. Small, rural high schools in remote areas, cannot always afford to have full-time professional instructors in residence, for specialty courses. (I am a big proponent of foreign language instruction in middle/high schools). With video teleconferencing, one instructor could conduct video conference learning with students in several locales. You could have the instructor located at the studio in a central “hub” location. And the students could be dispersed at the schools in several outlying “spoke” locations.
Through video teleconferencing, small, rural schools could have access to excellent instructors, at a fraction of the cost of having instructors in residence at the remote schools.
A program like this , is cost-effective, and not “cheap”.
Q Teaching K-12 students is NOT the same as teaching college students/young adults. END Q
I agree, that providing instruction to children, has different age-appropriate methodologies. Nevertheless, utilizing media, such as film and video, are proven to be effective for students in middle/high school. Children are in front of television and computers, long before they ever enter first grade.
I received instruction by film and video, in the third grade, way back in 1961. Instruction by electronic media, is a proven concept.
Charles,
Video conferencing education to children is a horrible idea, no matter how economical. Can you seriously propose a class of 6 year olds can be taught that way?
Imagine a class of kindergarten children learning by video. Who will keep order?
Charles If I may interject. Your basic idea is right–in SOME situations. But for children (and I think you probably agree with this): ONLY as adjunct to principled educational institutions and teaching–known developmentally-ordered methods, physical presence, etc. As you say, online or real-time video communications is good for some specialty classes like non-English languages or for medically home-bound students, etc.
HOWEVER, you’re missing the bigger point here: that the motivations presently behind online education for K-12 are totally misguided and do not have the child’s education and development at the center of those motivations: save money so investors can make money, not to mention “control the curricula.” Their purveyors want to make tele-education systematic and pervasive to the country, and for them it’s a zero-sum-game, with public education as the big loser: so that public education and credentialed teachers are a thing of the past. From what I can tell, they don’t even give these lip service.
The further issue is this: though much needs to be changed about public education (especially where civics is concerned–duh), much is also right with it–but ESPECIALLY at its foundations where it is structurally intimate with its democratic roots (small d).
But the tech-brains, oligarchs, and religious zealots only hear from your argument: YES!–let’s throw out public education and its silly identity with professional teachers, authentically elected and informed local school boards, its separation of polity from religion, and its CONSTITUTIONALLY ROOTED OVERSIGHT from Washington. (<–There, I said it–well informed government REGULATIONS.)
You need to apprise yourself of the power of the “shadow government;” for instance, Koch and friends.
Charles “delivering lectures” is not how K-12 is taught, for good reason. Live video-conference might work for highly-motivated 11th-12th graders for an advanced course that would be unavailable otherwise. But in general, to pitch this for rural kids for K-12, as tho this is the best we can do because students are so few and teachers so expensive? Sounds like an admission that tax/spending priorities are out of whack.
For-lang-learning is one of the least adaptible fields to video methods, including live video-conference, as advancement toward fluency is made in direct ratio to # of hours spent in quick, live, immediate conversational exchange. There are already plenty of canned programs available for drill&kill practice; they are good as a supplement for h.w./ studying between classes.
If we have any hope of making Dr. Ravitch’s goal that “Every school should be equipped and ready to meet the needs of all those children other than the most profoundly disabled.”, distance education will have to play an important role, especially in rural schools.
TE,
Can you imagine a kindergarten taught by video conferencing? I can’t.
Q Video conferencing education to children is a horrible idea, no matter how economical. Can you seriously propose a class of 6 year olds can be taught that way? END Q
Be fair. No one is proposing teaching kindergarten by video. I am proposing nothing of the kind. That is preposterous.
What I am proposing, is that, in addition to classroom instruction at the middle/high school level, that some specialty courses could be taught to middle/high schoolers, as a supplement to their pre-existing core curriculum.
I worked as a video engineer, for Western Kentucky University, setting up long-distance learning for college-level classes. The instructor was 30 miles away from the classroom. The program enabled students who otherwise could not attend the university in person, to attend college level courses.
A similar program could be used to provide instruction to “motivated” middle/high school age students.
Consider this: The students would sit in a classroom with a wide-screen TV. The instructor would play a video of a Shakespeare play. After the play, the instructor could critique the play, with input from the students.
I have studied foreign languages in a number of settings. I studied Russian, at the Defense Language Institute. The students attend traditional classes, and as a supplement, they watch Russian films and instructional videos, teaching grammar and sentence structure, and conversational techniques.
I was brought up in rural Kentucky. I believe sincerely, that video teleconference learning, can bring exciting educational opportunities to students in rural areas, that they otherwise could not enjoy.
I have seen video-long-distance learning work at the university level. It is not so ridiculous, to take the level of instruction down a couple of notches, and bring this technology to students who are at a pre-college level.
No one is asserting that this is “the best we can do”. What I am stating, is that this is a proven technology, and it can work at the middle/high school level, as a supplement, to existing core curriculum.
BTW- Remember the “Jack La Lane” show, and the Jane Fonda workout videos? Video instruction for physical education, has been used for half a century!
Charles,
You really think that a class of 14-year-olds will sit still for an hour of online instruction without adult supervision?
Q If we have any hope of making Dr. Ravitch’s goal that “Every school should be equipped and ready to meet the needs of all those children other than the most profoundly disabled.”, distance education will have to play an important role, especially in rural schools. END Q
@ TE: Double Thumbs Up! You are seeing my point. Distance education is a proven cost-effective method of delivering instruction, to students who otherwise could not attend schools with the myriad resources which are available with this proven technology.
Dr. Ravitch,
I think there is a vast difference between K and 12, a much larger difference in fact than between 12 and a freshman in college. I have never really understood why people here argue that the same policies should apply to K as 12 and that policies that people routinely accept for college freshman should never be applied to high school seniors.
How do you propose to have all high schools ready to meet the needs of students that are very academically strong?
TE,
I have no problem with a school’s decision to use distance learning to beam in live instruction on subjects like physics, where teachers are rare and unavailable in rural areas. I have a problem with virtual charter schools, which have a track record of failure, and requiring online courses for graduation, intended to enrich the corporations.
Q Charles,
You really think that a class of 14-year-olds will sit still for an hour of online instruction without adult supervision? END Q
Your question is valid. I am not so old, that I do not remember what it was like to be in a high-school classroom. You deserve a fair answer, to a fair question.
I cannot imagine a group of unsupervised 14 year olds, sitting still, for an hour. Point taken.
But you are missing my point. Long-distance learning, is a TWO-WAY technology. The students can see the instructor, and the instructor can see the students. If a student was behaving inappropriately, the instructor would see it. The instructor could pick up a phone, and inform the school, that a student was in trouble.
Additionally, the classroom, can be monitored in person, by a teacher, or a teacher’s aide. The students in the remote classroom have to monitored. The aide will distribute handouts, collect assignments, answer questions from the students, and serve as general liaison between the students, the instructor, and the school administration. This is what we did at my college.
This technology is proven. It has been in place for decades. It can work at the middle/high school level. I cannot understand the resistance and hostility, to expanding educational opportunities for children in remote and rural settings.
I have seen distance learning classes. They were supervised by teachers.
Given the current state of technology, I don’t think live instruction is necessarily the way to go. One of my colleagues does that that kind of approach (well not live, but recorded versions of his usual lecture), but I stayed away from that approach in designing my online course because I did not think it played to the strength of the technology.
So SICK! That dang screen again…make our young and others DULL and OBEDIENT, plus scrambles their brains and souls. Those deformers want human robots.
Diane There is also a point to this discussion that concerns children’s developmental patterns, and those patterns as supported by their comfort-from and knowledge-of their concrete GEOGRAPHICAL relationship (home to school) to a cohesive and incremental expansion of their horizons.
We know that, though children are highly adjustable, they first become secure and learn from their habitual and concrete surroundings. And we know that the family as an institution is not built on the principles of democracy, but is the bedrock of the overall healthy development of those who will live in one.
If that’s the case, then, especially for K-6, there is an optimum developmental principle hiding in the very presence of a neighborhood school where “neighborhood” is first geographically accessible to children as they develop their increments of horizons, while still remaining secure in their relationship to their early familial surroundings.
Charter schools are not necessarily CONNECTED geographically; and so we have yet another source— added to all of the other “cultural” sources of family breakdown–of potential developmental fraying of young children (psychic, social, emotional, intellectual, spiritual).
I don’t know what’s happening in the mind of that paragon of politics-only thinking, Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, but my guess is that developing rural schooling for his constituents falls far short of the optimum investment needs of his favorite anti-public school oligarchs.
As an aside, I read yesterday that the Koch group is doing whatever they can to stop homeowners from installing solar energy panels on their homes, like quashing state tax breaks. Guess why.
CBK,
I posted last night about the Koch brothers funding of a campaign to eliminate state incentives for rooftop solar panels and the ability of homeowners to sell excess power back to the utilities.
On the larger point of neighborhood and community, reformers insist on breaking any ties between home and school. My recent posts about Indianapolis show the reformer insistence that students choose their high school instead of going to the neighborhood high school. Preparing them to be consumers and eroding the community.
This is a great point on child development that I have not seen as well articulated before as you have done here, THANKS!
Do you know what just hit me over the head like a bat? Perhaps they can add subliminal messages to the computer screen learning. Something like, mind your betters, be docile, be obedient. IDK. Just a thought.
In the no excuses charters, they think they are taming the untamable. They think they are soothing the savages. They are teaching them that they are lesser than, to be silent, obedient, to assume the position, to speak only when spoken to, to walk a straight line, to use “sign language” in order to speak or use the toilet, to dress appropriately or be reprimanded, to bark answers in unison by rote when barked at by the young/inexperienced/unqualified/uncertified/unlicensed non-teacher. The scholars are being taught to comply, but they are not learning real knowledge.
There is no “magic bullet” to solve the problem of providing a solid, and proper education to children in rural, and/or depressed communities. Technology, is part of the solution, whether the student is in Clay County KY, or in the Bronx.
What this nation needs, is a commitment, to provide a solid and proper education, to all of America’s children, regardless of location, economic status, race or creed.
We cannot afford to do less.
Charles, you will be happy to know that most public schools, depending on their ability to pay the bills, are fully loaded with technology.
I have not seen this. Do all children in lower-end schools, have their own laptops? The Masonic Angel Fund, takes donations of used computers, and refurbishes them, and then provides them to families who otherwise cannot afford them.
Do most public schools have access to long-distance learning, such as I have described?
see
Click to access Wired%20to%20Learn%20K-12%20Students%20in%20the%20Digital%20Classroom.pdf
And, are school administrators and classroom teachers, ready to accept this technology , and utilize it?
Are our teacher’s colleges, adequately providing training to teacher (candidates) to properly utilize such technology?
I once offered a middle school principal in New Jersey, free wiring of the entire school for the internet. (I worked for Lucent, and we had a program to provide free internet wiring, all cables, and free installation provided by our employees volunteering their services). She turned me down cold, and said that her school did not need internet, and did not want a free web page.
What is the source of your claim that “most” public schools are “fully loaded”, as you describe?
Charles,
Public schools have collectively spent vast sums on technology. I don’t have time to do the research for you.
Fair enough. Publicly-operated schools have spent money on technology. I believe that we can agree, that the results of this spending have yet to be fully realized.
The future will tell.
see
Click to access WP-iBoss–Education_is_Going_Digital.pdf