Every so often, it becomes necessary to clear up a misperception.
In this blog, I am quoted as being a big admirer of Ted Dintersmith, a venture capitalist who has portrayed himself as an education reformer.
The blogger cites a post I wrote in 2015 about an interview of Dintersmith by Jennifer Berkshire. I was impressed by his support for project-based learning.
I wrote:
“Dintersmith is a huge supporter of projects driven by students’ passions as opposed to adults compelling students to do what they expect of them. This is good news! A venture capitalist who has seen the light.
“I am currently reading the book and enjoying it.”
When I make mistakes, I own up to them. I did start reading Dintersmith’s book. I did enjoy it at first. But I stopped reading the book because I concluded that the underlying message was actually bashing public schools for being “obsolete” (Bill Gates’ favorite term).
Then Dintersmith began emailing and calling. He wanted my endorsement. I said no. He sent me a video based on the book. I didn’t watch it. He kept emailing. He wanted to meet. I didn’t have time.
I concluded that Dintersmith was promoting himself as an educational guru based on his business experience, and we have had too much of that already. We don’t need more business and corporate leaders—with no experience in schools—redesigning American education.
Maybe he is a good man, and I am being unfair.
But I am not a member of his fan club.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I wish you had spoken up three years ago, Diane. We were left with only the published hype, to fight him.
LikeLike
Mary,
I don’t go out of my way to put people down. If I wrote posts about everyone I disagree with, it would be very tedious for readers and consume the blog. I heard a rumor yesterday that the NEA plans to honor Dintersmith as its Friend of Education of the year, which is a very big deal. You might want to turn your ire in their direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am so sorry about this misunderstanding, but I argue for letting teachers lead the way, and trusting them in the classroom. I’m on the road constantly, listening to teachers, learning from them, and encouraging them. I fight against the data hawks and mindless accountability measures. I’m just trying to let teachers do what they entered the profession to do — engage and inspire the children they care so much about.
I do worry a lot about career paths, but describe amazing schools that offer real-world challenges that lead to real academic depth. This short video — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-a-UmoRt4&feature=youtu.be — captures the world that our children will live in as adults. I find it frightening. And as I traveled across the U.S. and saw so many hard-hit communities, I absolutely do believe kids need to see a path forward. Left adrift, they’re adrift, angry, and willing to throw hand grenades into the ballot box.
I really don’t know how best to make this point. I meet MANY business people who assume the worst about our teachers and our public schools, without doing any homework. I visit hundreds of schools and conclude that we should trust our teachers to lead the way. I have the kind of background that gives me some objective credibility with legislators and the business community about the urgent need to move away from testing and accountability, and let teachers lead the way.
And yet, here I am defending myself to a group of people I respect. But our challenges are vast. All routine jobs in the economy will be gone in fifteen years. The demands for informed citizenship (as we’re living with today) look nothing like the world of Walter Cronkite. We have Betsy DeVos in a key position, and if she leaves the replacement could be even worse. Our democracy faces challenges that were unimaginable a few years ago.
Diane, I first reached out to you in 2012. I just checked and I have sent a dozen emails over the past six years, offering to meet or talk by phone. I deeply apologize if that has come across as anything other than a sincere interest in explaining what I fight for and hearing your concerns directly, not via a blog post. You have my email and phone number if you ever want to reach me. I’m not asking for, nor do I expect, any kind of endorsement. My one request is that you and your colleagues keep an open mind about me and my work. Not for my sake, but for the sake of our children and our teachers.
LikeLike
Good for you for taking a stand. I have no idea what type of person Dintersmith is. However, he understands that your endorsement carries legitimate weight in the education world. Your endorsement would translate to a bundle of sales, and many of those sales would be from unsuspecting public education supporters. You were wise to have done your due diligence.
LikeLike
I don’t think you’re being unfair. At best, he is socially unaware and not adept. If a man asks a woman out on a date and she says no, yet he continues to email and otherwise hound her, we have words for that, none of them complimentary. Continuing to hound someone for an endorsement after being rejected is similar harassment.
I started reading Dintersmith’s book but couldn’t make it through. Sure, project based learning is good, but his view of it was so ensconced in the neoliberal worldview that it made me ill. You were right to reject his request for endorsement.
LikeLike
Dienne, you should read Alison’s column in Wrench in the Gears (Diane links it above, but doesn’t name it).
It quotes your eloquent comment at the time – lifting your lone voice of truth and reason, as has so often been the case. Well done.
It’s a serious and important study, also.
LikeLike
Wow. Thanks for that. Made my day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mary,
Wrench in the Gears is linked. Anyone interested can read the post.
LikeLike
posted at https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/No-I-Do-Not-Endorse-Ted-D-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch-180322-8.html#comment694027
with this comment :
If you want to read about what is happening now read about the bogus ‘reform’ pushed by businesspeople, like Dintersmith, in her article about PRIVATIZATION. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/reform-reform
There been NO DISCUSSION in the MEDIA, about the legislative take-over of the public school systems, and the ongoing destruction — the privatization of our public education by the state legislatures that Diane Ravitch covers at her site and by the NPE — and which my series here, https://www.opednews.com/Series/PRIVITIZATION-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-150925-546.html?f=PRIVITIZATION-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-150925-546.html
re-posts with commentary that ties it all together. https://www.opednews.com/populum/comments_display.php
I get my posts from Diane Ravitch who followss the plot by the EDUCATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX to destroy schools, beginning with the war on the professional in the classroom.
Click to access eic-oct_11.pdf
Diane Ravitch Is my friend AND COLLEAGUE, and she is the foremost voice of education in America, one of Politcio’s 50 most important Americans, and SHE was FORMER UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 2 ADMOINISTRATIONS, who wrote:
* How Not to Fix Our Public Schools https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/reform-reform
* Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools.
* The Trump Devos Demolition of American Education
*Detroit: The Broken Promise of School Privatization
Read the TRUTH — at the RAVITCH BLOG or the NPE newsletter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ALL USEFUL: read the truth.
LikeLike
I read Dintersmith’s book. He promotes entrepreneurship as the goal for education, and like others, criticizes standardized tests for the damage they do to creative thinking. The whole argument is based on the idea that this sort of education is what is needed for “the economy of the future.”
But will entrepreneurship create more jobs? Or better equip students to survive in the new economy? I agree that the education Dintersmith describes is preferable to a test-driven one, but I am not sure this actually delivers a significantly more secure or prosperous future for our students. This will require some more fundamental socio-economic change. It might be beyond the scope of his book to get into how to address this systematically, but I think it is a cloud that hangs over the project. Yes, we can and must do much better at educating our young people. But that education is just one aspect of the work that must be done to create a bright future for them.
I remember when I was debating these issues a few years back with representatives of the Gates Foundation, and this question came up: “How are we educating our students to prepare them for the economy of the future?” I shared this with a sharp friend, and she responded with this: “Why don’t you ask how we are preparing the economy of the future for our students?”
Until we are willing to challenge basic assumptions about our economy and how the benefits of technological advances are shared, teaching our students to be creative innovators may only give them lots of things to do with their free time while they languish on the rolls of the unemployed.
Dintersmith has crafted an argument that fails to challenge the economic imperatives and offers false hope to those seeking to prepare students for their futures.
LikeLike
Thanks, Anthony.
LikeLike
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I’d add, thought, that I am a strong advocate for the liberal arts (I majored in English and Physics). Preparing our children to be purposeful, engaged citizens is imperative. I do advocate for helping children develop proficiencies that enable them to support themselves and their families, but don’t think one goal is our only goal. But far too many kids are spending many years, and lots of dollars, and aren’t meeting any of the goals we’d all embrace — citizenship, appreciating the greatness of nature and humanity, or having any career prospects. We can do better, and I argue that the adults best able to lead the way are our classroom teachers. So maybe we’re not polar opposites on these important issues.
LikeLike
Hi, I hope people don’t mind if I weigh in here. I certainly empathize with educators who have heard from too many businesspeople holding themselves out to be education experts. Point made and agreed on by me! My expertise is in innovation, and I’m humble about my education expertise. I promise. But unlike many business types, I have gone to great lengths to do my homework, including traveling to all fifty states during the 2015-2016 school year, visiting 200 schools, and meeting thousands of teachers. My new book is called What School Could Be, with the very important subtitle “Insights and Inspiration from Teachers Across America.” Over the past three years, I’ve spent more than 250 days each year in hotel rooms (generally pretty darn basic rooms, at that), doing all I can to support progress in education. I fight for all schools, and make the point that I see every bit as much innovation and inspired learning in public schools as I do in charter and private schools — and that’s despite all of the mindless policies and testing we’ve imposed on our public schools. My book isn’t my story, but the stories of bold and visionary educators across the country. And I only have one for-profit investment in anything related to education (a small start-up called MissionU, offering a one-year jump start after high school and that charges no tuition). The rest of my financial support goes to non-profit causes, and I think you’d admire all of them.
This is the fight of our collective lives. While I’m not an education expert, I am an innovation expert, and I fully understand the looming impact of machine intelligence on our society and economy — and how it’s already reshaping what’s required for career and citizenship. Our biggest national priority is to make sure all of our schools are doing right by our kids, and I take issue with the choice and testing policies which have proven so unproductive. And I will go to great lengths to support anyone, or any initiative, that can help our children — irrespective of birth circumstances — have a fighting chance in life, in the face of challenges that we should all keep fully in focus.
So while I would love your support, all I’m asking is this. For too long, too many businesspeople have cast judgment on our teachers and public schools without doing their homework. So I’d simply request that you hear me out, understand what I believe, evaluate what I support before you cast judgment on my motives. If I’m doing something counterproductive, I want to know. But I do think the best path to elevating learning outcomes for our children, and restoring trust in our teachers, is if those of us who share common principles (and I believe we do) put time and energy into seeing how we can best collaborate.
LikeLike
Mr. Dintersmith,
I would be very interested in your take on:
Learning ecosystems
Seat Time Waivers / Credit Flexibility
Credit Bearing ELOs (Extended/Expanded Enriched Learning Opportunities)
Ethics of Private Funding of Community and Work-Based Learning Programs / Especially “Social Impact” Programs
Appropriateness of Education Savings Accounts
Use of Pay for Success / Social Impact Bonds in Financing Pre-K, K-12 or Workforce Training
Role of Interoperable Student Data Systems / Blockchain Student Portfolio and Payment Systems
Tracking of Social Emotional “Soft” Skills and Competencies
Ethics of Big Data and Predictive Analytics in Schools
Ethics of Algorithmic Adaptive Learning Platforms
Appropriateness of Using Public Education as a Workforce Pipeline
Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Ted,
Email me at duaneswacker@gmail.com with a snail mail address and I will be happy to send you a copy of my book “Infidelity to Truth: Education Malpractice in American Public Education”. In it I discuss the purpose of American public education and of government in general, issues of truth in discourse, justice and ethics in teaching practices, the abuse and misuse of the terms standards and measurement which serve to provide an unwarranted pseudo-scientific validity/sheen to the standards and testing regime and how the inherent discrimination in that regime should be adjudicated to be unconstitutional state discrimination no different than discrimination via race, gender, disability, etc. . . .
Starting with falsehoods as is so often done in the edu-deformer realm, one ends up with falsehoods and harms to students. Or as it is known in business circles “Crap in = Crap out”. Without knowing what the fundamental purpose of public education is, one is only stabbing in the dark in attempting to assess and improve the teaching and learning process.
Gracias,
Duane
LikeLike
Project-based learning is snake oil, where there is no system, no rhyme, no clear path, one team can do something completely different from another using tools, rules, theorems from classes that haven’t been formally taught yet.
Investigation-based, or inquiry-based programs is another newfangled way of completely disorganising and stupidifying the curricula.
LikeLike
Heartening. Been enjoying following your blog, even if I can’t keep up, but that earlier post ab/from the project-based learning guy was the first wrong note for me. He came off like a huckster from the start. Whenever project-based learning is presented as this either/or alternative panacea you know whoever is talking is up to no good. It is fine, has its place, a valuable curriculum tool, spice up the content w/ student choice, creativity, collaboration. But it is ridiculously overhyped and oversold. I see it all the time. It’s like teaching typing in a literature class. Subject matter is reduced to irrelevancy. It doesn’t have to be this way but the tendency is unfortunately common in my experience. Regards.
LikeLike
I appreciate what Ted Dintersmith has offered up in his comment on this blog,
But I always get a bit annoyed when people who place their kids in private schools then tell public school educators what they need to do to “innovate.” I also get annoyed when those with might easily be called private estates – especially private estates that enjoy sizable tax subsidies – are doing the telling.
I agree with Dintersmith that real education and genuine learning are not about filling in bubbles on standardized tests. They are based on an opening up of knowledge and experience and insight, and an application of what is gleaned to personal life and to living in a democratic society. Thus, in a democratic society, meaningful education is tied to the development and nurturance of democratic citizenship. In fact, that’s the historic mission of public schooling, and that is what should be its primary focus.
SAT and ACT tests and AP courses are all deemed to be “important” in public education today. Research proves that they are not.
We’re due for some serous change. What Dintermsith suggests — change — may be a step in the right direction. But democratic citizenship had best be a central element. Each day the front pages and top national news stories are filled with details that illustrate just how badly citizenship education is needed.
And yet, Dintersmith’s focus on schools — and on public education — is that they should be job preparation sites. His common refrain goes something like this:
“We have a 125-year-old school system that is ruthlessly efficient at preparing kids for the exact jobs that are going away. …We have to equip our kids with reasonable prospects of doing well in a world where machine intelligence is unbelievably capable.”
In an interview with Forbes, Dintersmith described what his proposed system might look like, in this case, an “academy” geared to a specific employer:
“I’d set up a Xerox Academy. And I’d go get the absolute best, the really talented and motivated kids out of high school, particularly from blue-collar communities, kids who are ggoing to be struggling to make their way forward. I’d make the school selective and say, ‘You are now a Xerox scholar.’ I’d make it a four-year residential program, with lots of intensive internships at Xerox, as well as such supplemental things as sports. I’d structure it like ROTC: ‘If you do this for four years, you’ll get your Xerox degree. But you need to stay with Xerox for a similar number of years or reimburse the company for the cost of your education.’ ”
Id’ argue that there are all kinds of snags and problems embedded in this notion. What – exactly – would determine “the absolute best, the really talented and motivated” students? If you want to serve all kids, then why would the academy be “selective,” and it it is “selective,” then doesn’t that undermine the very basis for public schools (or for public school funding)? Is structuring a school – any school – “like ROTC” really “innovative?” Aren’t there better, more doable, ways to improve schools than this?
I can think of a central Virginia school division that bills itself as “innovative.” It has pumped millions and millions of dollars into technology, mostly without any input from teachers, and some of that technology has been an abysmal – and costly – failure (the superintendent and school board are still hiding 268 requested emails that deal with one particular failure). The superintendent and the school board forced STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) “academies” on all of the county high schools. Originally, the claim was that research showed a STEM “crisis” in America, and that this move was “visionary” and “innovative.” Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin (which has laid of thousands of STEM workers), was invited to the schools to make his STEM spiel. When asked for the research to support the move to STEM academies, the superintendent couldn’t produce any. There’s a reason for that. The research shows there is no “crisis,” no “shortage.” In fact, there’s a glut.
For example, Beryl Lieff Benderly wrote this stunning statement not so long ago in the Columbia Journalism Review (see: http://www.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php?page=all ):
“Leading experts on the STEM workforce, have said for years that the US produces ample numbers of excellent science students. In fact, according to the National Science Board’s authoritative publication Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the country turns out three times as many STEM degrees as the economy can absorb into jobs related to their majors.”
Michael Teitelbaum summed up the STEM nonsense well in The Atlantic: “The truth is that there is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S. science and engineering workforce.”)
Teitelbaum added this: “A compelling body of research is now available, from many leading academic researchers and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute. No one has been able to find any evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher…All have concluded that U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.”
This same “innovative” “visionary” school division sent out what it termed a “leadership” survey several years ago or so, but it wasn’t really a fair, legitimate survey. It was a skewed-question survey designed to produce pre-determined results. But it did allow for comments. Those comments –– which the superintendent tried to shield but was forced to give up –– were instructive. They included comments such as “..this is the worst leadership the county has ever had,” and “Honesty, integrity and fairness are lacking,” and “…teachers have very little voice, and “…the system does not care about me or most other employees as individuals, and “county schools leaders seem to be increasingly inept and far-removed from the day-to-day realities of public education.”
Again and again and again, commenters said these things about the top “leadership:”
* “does not listen to teachers…”
* does not ask what people think before it accepts major policies…”
* “…teachers are not listened to…our opinions have been requested and ignored…”
* “…when I offer my opinion, i has been dismissed.”
* “l..leaders seek input, but then usually, disregard the opinions of those not in agreement with the administration…decisions are made top-down before input is received.”
* “decision making is so top-down — stakeholders are seldom consulted…”
* “…decisions have already been made…”
* “…teachers feel that their professional judgment is not valued…”
* “most administrator are arrogant…and remove themselves with any type of collaborative dialogue with teachers.”
* “…they do not want to hear complaints, or you are labeled as a troublemaker…”
* “the county asks its employees for input but these requests are superficial…the decision have already been made by the people ‘downtown’…”
* “you ask people to think critically but we must toe the party line…”
* “We are not asked what we think…it is common knowledge here that you are not allowed to address concerns that may be negative…”
“I see few examples of teachers being involved in decision making.”
Obviously, “innovative” and “visionary” school systems can be places of oppression too.
As Nicholas Lemann noted three years ago in the New York Review of Books, “Today most discussions of inequality and opportunity still focus on education as the best way to prevent, or even to reverse, class divisions…One problem with this idea, appealing as it is, is that one of the most consistent findings in education research is that students’ performance in school is far more closely correlated with what kind of home they come from—parental income, education, marital status, how they make use of time, and so on—than with anything that goes on in their school.”
So, to improve schooling, those issues have to be addressed.
We’ve known for some time that poverty affects the developing brains of children. Research confirms it. A recent study at MIT “found differences in the brain’s cortical thickness between low-income and higher-income teenagers.” Not surprisingly, those differences find their way into test scores. Another recent study found that low-income children had brain surface areas 6 percent smaller than those of upper-middle class kids. That typically translates into less brain density, and then, into a lessened ability for ” language, memory, spatial skills and reasoning.” These things can be ameliorated. But not for free.
As Richard Rothstein reported in ‘Class and the Classroom’ nearly a decade-and-a-half ago in discussing literacy gaps between low-income and higher-income children, “deficits like these cannot be made up by schools alone, no matter how high the teachers’ expectations. For all children to achieve the same goals, the less advantaged would have to enter school with verbal fluency that is similar to the fluency of middle-class children.”
So, guess what? It really does take the concerted effort(s) of “a whole village” to raise a child. We are the keeper of our brother. We have an obligation to create “a more perfect Union, and to “promote the general Welfare” of the country so that we genuinely have a government “of the people, by the people for the people.” There’s nothing new or radical about any of this. It’s in the Constitution. The Framers envisioned a democratic society “ in which the common good was the chief end of government.” They agreed with John Locke’s view that the main purpose of government –– the main reason people create government –– is to protect their persons through –– as historian R. Freeman Butts put it –– a social contract that placed “the public good above private desires.” The goal was “a commonwealth, a democratic corporate society in which the common good was the chief end of government.”
This is the kind of “innovation” and “vision” that we need for our country and for public education. But it really isn’t new at all, and we have the ability to change things. But the people leading the change have to be committed to it and the values that undergird it, not to “investments” and money.
LikeLike
Democracy, your comment is appreciated. Preparing kids to be “Xerox Scholars”could backfire if Xerox disappears.
LikeLike
His innovation is more akin typical German or Finnish or Russian vocational post-secondary education. As you quoted from a research, ther is no “evidence indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher.” This is the point I agree with: the country does not need hundreds of thousands of brainiacs, if needed they can be imported.
But skilled workforce is a different story, and reports from Toyota, Volkswagen, Apple and other companies that require certain technical skills tell us that the country has shortage of reasonably knowledgeable skilled workforce just below the engineering level. When I go to a store and a clerk cannot calculate 15% off $16 using mental math I know something went wrong during his 13 years at school.
So, his idea is producing skilled workforce, not doctors of sciences.
LikeLike
When I go to a store, every clerk has a machine that calculates what I owe. I have no way of knowing whether the clerks can do the calculations in their head. They don’t need to. Besides, people have been saying for about 100 years that “kids today “ don’t know what the adults know. I say this generation of young people is far smarter than my generation.
LikeLike
Well stated overall, democracy. I do have a beef though with “Thus, in a democratic society, meaningful education is tied to the development and nurturance of democratic citizenship. In fact, that’s the historic mission of public schooling, and that is what should be its primary focus.”
In my review of the 50 states’ constitutions 25 have stated reasons for providing and 25 give no rationale. Of those giving a rationale 15 give the development of the individual as the main reason. 5 state the purpose of public education to enable the state to continue in its current form. And 5 give both individual and state reasons for public education. As it is 20/25 rationales state that public education is for the purpose of the individual to develop as the individual (and his/her parents) see fit. And one can argue that if one fully develops oneself, the individual will inherently understand the benefits of continuing a society based on individual freedoms and liberty.
Be that as it may I propose in my book a succinct summarization of the purposes of public education that all should be willing to accept: “The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
Now, one can argue with my suggestion if one doesn’t agree. So please do so if that is the case democracy.
LikeLike
Hi Diane,
We haven’t talked in a while, but for what it’s worth, I have known Ted since 2013 and worked very closely with him on his film Most Likely to Succeed, as well as co-authoring the book with him by the same title. Ted is the real deal. He is deeply concerned about America’s future – both are economic future and our civil future. And he has deep respect for the nations teachers and the importance of public education.
But don’t take my word for it. Why not meet with him yourself? What do you have to lose besides a few minutes of your time?
Tony Wagner
Author of Creating Innovators and The Global Achievement Gap
Former English teacher and NEA member
LikeLike
Dr Wagner, I had the opportunity to visit with you when you came to Douglas county to support a very flawed superintendent who has since been run out of town. As you know, she was as reformie as a person can get. Yet, you couldn’t get enough of her.
I valued the advice Diane gave me on connecting with you. You support a lot of the reform model as well. You support charters and by supporting Liz Fagen, it was obvious you supported a top down corporate reform model in dougco.
LikeLike
See my reply to Ted above. Feel free to contact me to get my book to help you understand some of the fundamental problems we deal with in attempting to educate our children.
LikeLike
I think most people have a healthy dose of skepticism about anything coming out of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, too Dr. Wagner.
“Tony Wagner served as founder and Co-director of the Change Leadership Group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and was the first Innovation Education Fellow at Harvard’s Technology & Entrepreneurship Center. He was also the founding executive director of Educators for Social Responsibility.”
Hmm…almost sounds like you all are positioning yourselves to sell ed-tech supported social impact interventions now doesn’t it. Some of us are catching on, though.
Did you see my questions to Mr. Dintersmith above? I’ll pose the same ones to you. Those are things next-gen reformers from Gates to iNACOL to MacArthur etc. are moving quickly on, while everyone remains preoccupied with charters and end of year testing.
So, what is your take? Do you favor a learning ecosystem model where educators become precarious gig-economy workers (more than they already are) and students are profiled for their academic and social-emotional capacity through online learning management systems and wearables? I’m sure you’ve read Elizabeth Merritt’s a Learning Day 2037, though the AAM has since pulled it offline. Did that sound like a cheery educational future to you?
LikeLike
This is about access to cheap labor by private corporations for jobs of the future. None of these innovation schemes will benefit all students. I have a challenge for education “innovators.” Come up with the innovation that removes inequities based on race, gender, and disability that is guaranteed to be properly funded by our legislators. Here’s more information about the push for coding. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/21/coding-education-teaching-silicon-valley-wages.
LikeLike