Archives for category: On-Line Education

Paul Horton teaches history at the University of Chicago lab School. He has been writing brilliant critiques of corporate reform. In this post, he reviews the history of efforts to make education rational, predictable, and measurable.

A few nuggets:

“Have you ever read Dr. Seuss’, The Butter-Battle Book? It made perfect sense to me, a Cold War military brat. The “boys in the backroom” were very smart. They were data whizzes and they invented computers that made them a lot smarter than everybody else. Both the “Yooks” and the “Zooks” believed that those “boys in the back room” could figure out solutions to every problem. But the biggest problem was that only human beings who could effectively communicate, not computers or data, could solve the world’s problems. “The boys in the backroom” were only doing what they were told: they were the smartest, but not the best communicators in town. None of those “boys” said, “making more weapons that can kill more people might not be the best way to go.” But everybody believed in them, almost religiously, to the brink of nuclear war. Slim Pickins didn’t bat an eye when he decided to ride his big A-bomb to victory.

“This might seem strange to you, but, from my very humble perspective, we might need another Dr. Seuss to write a book with a similar theme, but in a different setting. The question has become, what happens when the “boys in the backroom” take over after the “Yooks” and the “Zooks” have stopped threatening each other? What happens when one of the “boys in the backroom” becomes the richest guy in the world and decides that he wants to build “Gatopia”? What happens if he convinces many of the other richest guys that our country is doomed unless we completely tear down and rebuild the way that we teach our kids? And what happens when he and many of his very wealthy friends tell the red and blue politicians that he and his friends can make sure that they will not get campaign funding if they don’t support “Gatopia”?”

Gatopia “seeks to turn human beings into computers that are efficient and well behaved. Most importantly, computers do not ask questions or demand accountability: they do what they are told.”

Horton describes how he fell in love with learning and recognizes that Gatopia has no room for the experiences he had:

“Learning for me was about connecting with a human being. Learning was reflected in my ability to write something. I wanted to please my very demanding teachers, I wanted to conform to their expectations of excellence. I dreaded the conference to go over a paper that fell hopelessly below those standards, but respected my teachers for holding me to them.

I want my son to have teachers like I had, and I want the same for his kids. I do not want “the boys in the back room” telling me how my kid and grandkids should be educated. Sometimes the smartest people can’t think up the most important questions. Democracy requires citizens, and computers cannot produce citizens. Computers often mask deficits that we most need to develop. Data is not knowledge. We are in grave danger if we are tempted to believe that it is.”

This reader shared her experience with online courses:

“Several years ago I was required to get an admin certification and one of the courses I had to take was an on-line course. It was dreadful. We were all supposed to be graduate students but the on-line discussions were silly and superficial. I think the instructor could have deepened the discussion but he didn’t. It was one of the biggest wastes of time I’ve ever had to endure.

“In my district we began an on-line component for our high school students and all students had to take at least one course on-line before graduation. Again, it was horrible. Ours is a poor district so many of our students don’t reliably have electricity much less internet access at home. Schools were put in the position of having to set aside time during the school day to provide access for students. I wasn’t able to examine the on-line instruction but I know that there were constant problems with access. Even students who did have internet access at home had problems logging on and gaining access to the content.

“Any on-line course requires a certainly level of hardware and software so no older computers can be used. In addition to requirements for accessing the on-line software the computer that the student is using to access will need certain supporting programs for the on-line access to work properly. For students who are not computer savy and don’t have parents who are computer savy, the whole operation can turn into a nightmare. I interviewed a teacher who taught one of the on-line courses and she was very impressed with some of the videos involved. However, when I asked her about the long term retention of the material, there was a very awkward silence and she sheepishly admitted that she doubted that kids retained much.”

Jonathan Chait writes in New York magazine that President Obama is taking the risk of alienating his fervent supporters in higher education by his advocacy of online learning to cut costs.

The traditional Democratic response to expanding access to higher education is to increase tuition subsidies for needy students.

The President came out against that idea, and said that costs must be contained by shortening the time needed to get a degree and by using online learning.

The great virtue of online learning (MOOCs, or massive online open courses) is that it cuts costs by reducing the need for labor (i.e., professors).

In a MOOC, one person can tape lectures that will be viewed by 10,000 students at a time, or 100,000 or 150,000.

Chait says this is sure to make professors angry, because their jobs are threatened.

He suggests that the professors are just looking out for their own self-interest.

He did not mention that 70% of faculty in higher education today are “contingent faculty,” meaning adjuncts with no tenure or prospect of tenure.

What is the difference, he asks, between sitting in a large lecture hall for 500 students or watching a professor lecture on a computer?

Is skepticism about MOOCs really just about protecting the jobs and pension of professors?

Or is there something about face-to-face interactions with living persons–both faculty and other students– that is valuable?

I was invited to contribute an article of 500 words to a special issue of Scientific American. I assumed that most of the other articles would be unalloyed cheerleading for the wonders of technology. So I decided to talk about both the promise and the perils of technology.

I have seen teachers doing amazing things with the Internet. I have gone to conferences where thousands of teachers were learning how to use technology creatively. I know that technology, in the hands of inspiring teachers, can bring learning to life and empower students to self-direct their studies.

But it is in my nature to look at questions from all angles. That is what is known as critical thinking.

So I wrote about three ways in which technology may be a danger to education.

First is the for-profit online charter school, which provides a poor substitute for real education but is quite profitable.

Second is the use of computers to grade essays, which severs the teacher-student relationship and mechanizes what should not be mechanized.

Third is the effort to impose Big Data on school issues, assuming that inputting enough data will somehow tell teachers what each student needs.

I end thus:

“Here is the conundrum: teachers see technology as a tool to inspire student learning; entrepreneurs see it as a way to standardize teaching, to replace teachers, to make money and to market new products. Which vision will prevail?”

I was invited to write an essay on technology for “Scientific American.” I have not yet seen the issue so am not sure who else contributed. When I was invited, I was told that there would be articles by Bill Gates and Arne Duncan. As you know, there are a few differences among us. One of them is that I write every single word that is published under my name. No one else writes my books, articles, blogs, tweets, speeches, or anything else.

Here is the article in “Scientific American.” Let me know what you think.

This teacher blogger takes issue with the opinion article written by Kerrie Dallman, the president of the Colorado Education Association, supporting inBloom, a project of Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch.

She writes:

“Aside from your support of inBloom in Colorado and the glaring ethics and privacy issues the system poses, I have some real problems with your argument that teachers need inBloom as a “tool.”

“First, you claim that inBloom fixes the problem that teachers “don’t have enough time to truly personalize learning for every student to meet their individual needs.” Sure: teachers who log into 30 systems with different usernames and passwords each day (this really happens?) waste time. But the solution to that waste of time isn’t to consolidate confidential information about students into one database; it’s to reevaluate the overuse of data that you describe. After all, the best teachers in the world have been successful for hundreds of years without staring at test results and other flawed data on spreadsheets, and those teachers will continue to be successful whether the Gates Foundation gets its hands on children’s personal information or not. The idea that storing loads of statistical data about our children can “personalize learning” is counterintuitive, as the testing culture that accompanies corporate educational reform reduces students and teachers to numbers and depersonalizes the personal culture of learning teachers work so hard to achieve. As you note, “nothing can ever replace the instincts of a teacher.” Unfortunately, the people making decisions about education don’t trust the instincts of a teacher.”

Enthusiasts of online education are forever gushing about the prospects for high-quality, low-cost education, delivered to masses of students sitting at a computer.

In January, San Jose State announced a partnership with a firm called Udacity, and the results to date have been a disappointment. Udacity is funded by equity investors as the next new big thing. Technically, the Udacity program is not a MOOC because it is neither “massive” nor “open,” but it is a trial of the concept of online learning.

“According to the preliminary presentation, 74 percent or more of the students in traditional classes passed, while no more than 51 percent of Udacity students passed any of the three courses….The spring courses – a remedial math course, a college algebra course and an introductory statistics course – were chosen in part because of the wishes of Bill Gates, whose foundation gave the effort a grant,” university officials said.

The university will make improvements in the courses and try again. Udacity is expanding to Georgia, where “the company recently signed a major deal with the Georgia Institute of Technology to eventually offer a low-cost online master’s degree to 10,000 students at once.”

Idaho has a problem, and it may not be unique to Idaho.

One of the most powerful families in the state is the Albertson family, which runs the Albertson Foundation.

It seems that one of the family heirs has made millions of dollars by investing in the online charter company K12, and now the Albertson Foundation thinks the whole state should get behind the for-profit corporation and put their kids online. Follow the money.

The foundation has been running “public service ads” with the slogan “Don’t Fail, Idaho,” insisting that the kids in Idaho are doing horribly on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the federal tests. What’s the cure? One guess.

The ads claim that 60% of children in Idaho are “not proficient” on the NAEP tests, but they don’t explain that “proficient” on NAEP is a very high level of performance, what I consider a very strong A or B. The NAEP state coordinator from 2002-2012 tried to explain what the NAEP labels mean, but he probably did not persuade the Albertson Foundation.

Here are the facts:

In fourth grade reading: 31% of children in Idaho are below basic, just below the national average of 34%.

In eigth grade reading, 19% are below basic, well below the national average of 25%.

In fourth grade math, 17% are below basic, about the same as the national average.

In eighth grade math, 23% of the kids are below basic, well below the national average of 28%.

Idaho is not failing.

What would really fail Idaho would be to put large numbers of students into K12 virtual academies, which have high attrition rates, low test scores, and low graduation rates.

Idaho, don’t fall for a bill of goods.

Far-right Governor Pat McCrory has brought in an aggressive leader for his strategy to privatize public education and dismantle the teaching profession. That is Eric Guckian, the governor’s tip advisor on demolishing–re, transforming –North Carolina’s education system.

Guckian is a TFA alum with long experience in the corporate reform movement. He wants “an aggressive K-12charter school environment in the state.”

At a meeting of the governor’s task force on education (which has no teachers on it), “Guckian presented five pathways for education in North Carolina that included a call to dismantle walls and textbooks for “digital online solutions;” having the business community play a larger role in developing educational pathways; job-embedded professional training for teachers; and basing teachers’ salaries on their “outputs in the field.” You can see where this is heading: profits for corporations, a welcome mat for for-profit virtual providers, and no professional preparation for teachers.

A proposal–Senate Bill 337–is already in the works in the ALEC-dominated Legislature to set up a charter commission that takes supervision and authorization of charters away from the State Board of Education and gives it to a new charter-friendly board. This charter board will be able to authorize charters over the opposition of local school boards. Senate Bill 337 is extreme in its commitment to deregulation. Charters would be able to take any unused public space for only $1. They would not be subject to conflict of interest laws. Their employees would not be required to pass criminal background checks. Their teachers would not require certification of any kind. High school teachers need not be college graduates. They would be relieved of diversity requirements.

See more at: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/06/19/mccrory-education-advisor-eric-guckian-calls-for-aggressive-charter-school-environment-in-north-carolina/#sthash.QuvJ7V2e.dpuf

Ken Previti, a retired teacher, has been watching the evolution of school “reform,” and he wonders when the public will catch on to the schemes and fear-mongering. What is it all about? Sell-sell-sell.

Just doing what business does. Monetizing the children.