Archives for category: Technology

Nancy Bailey writes here about the public wringing of hands over the teacher shortage.

This is an excellent post. She takes no prisoners and names names.

Who created the teacher shortage?

Start with Betsy DeVos. Nancy feels sure that she would like to replace teachers with computers. She cares. Right.

Then there is Teach for America. Big corporations fell in love with the idea of sending in raw recruits to America’s toughest classroom. They chose Wendy Kopp of the nation’s queen of all teachers, even though she never taught a day in her life. They still pour millions into this “destroy-the-teaching-profession” operation.

Let’s not forget the media! In addition to the teacher bashers who get face time on TV, like Campbell Brown, Jonathan Alter, and John Stossel, never forget the covers of TIME and Newsweek that insulted every teacher in America. There was that Newsweek cover that said, again and again, “we must fire bad teachers,” as though the nation’s schools were overrun with them. And the TIME cover complaining about teachers as “Rotten Apples.” She forgot the memorable covers of Michele Rhee, who promised to sweep the human debris out of classrooms and show the world how to fix all schools.

Behind all this teacher bashing is money. Replacing teachers, who may be low paid but nonetheless cost more than a machine, with technology.

What a hoax!

Bruce Baker of Rutgers University shows in this post that the dream of cutting costs by replacing teachers with computers has been oversold and is a fantasy. It lures entrepreneurs and snake-oil salesmen into education but there is no evidence to support the claims.

Baker traces the latest iteration of the myth of cutting costs and achieving efficiency. Open the link to see the graph that promised huge savings:

“Modern edupreneurs and disrupters seem to have taken a narrow view of technological substitution and innovation, equating technology almost exclusively with laptop and tablet computers – screen time – as potential replacements for teachers – whether in the form of online schooling in its entirety, or on a course by course basis (unbundled schooling).[ii] For example, the often touted Rocketship model (a chain of charter schools), makes extensive use of learning lab time in which groups of 50 to 70 (or more) students work on laptops while supervised by uncertified “instructional lab specialists.”[iii] Fully online charter schools have expanded in many states often operated as for-profit entities.[iv] The overarching theme is that there must be some way to reduce the dependence on human resources to provide equal or better schooling, because human resources are an ongoing, inefficient expense.

“In 2011, on the invitation of New York State Commissioner of Education John King (later, replacement of Arne Duncan as U.S. Secretary of Education), Marguerite Roza, at the time a Senior Economic and Data Advisor to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,[v] presented the Productivity Curve illustration (Figure 11) at a research symposium of the New York State Board of Regents.[vi] Roza used her graph to assert that, for example, for $20,000 per pupil, tech-based learning systems could provide nearly 4x the bang for the buck as the status quo, and double the bang for the buck as merely investing in improved teacher effectiveness.

“The most significant shortcoming of this graph, however, was that it was entirely speculative[vii] (actually, totally made up! Fictional!) – a) not based on any actual empirical evidence that such affects could be or have anywhere been achieved, b) lacking any definition whatsoever as to what was meant by “tech-based learning systems” or “improve teacher effectiveness”, and c) lacking any information on the expenditures or costs which might be associated with either the status quo or the proposed innovations. That is, without any attention to the cost effectiveness frameworks I laid out in the previous chapter. The graph itself was then taken on the road by Commissioner King and used in his presentations to district superintendents throughout the state![viii]”

We now know from experience and evidence that fully online schools produce worse results with no savings in cost or efficiency (the cost savings are turned into profits for inferior education).

A very important post.

Jack Schneider is a historian of education at the College of the Holy Cross and research director of the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment.

He explains here why billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs is on the wrong track in her effort to “reinvent” the American high school. She commandeered four major networks to present a glitzy television program showcasing the ideas she is funding. While none of them is fundamentally wrong, the premise of her project is, writes Schneider.

Americans expect more of their schools than just “college-and-career-readiness.” They see them as places that develop the full spectrum of their children’s social, emotional, academic, aesthetic, cultural, and physical needs. And besides, it is a silly myth that high schools have not changed in a century. Only someone who has not spent much time in high schools believes that.

He writes:

“XQ might highlight some exciting innovations. Unfortunately, however, the project is rooted in fiction. The schools themselves may be real, and some might even turn out to be “super.” But the assumptions underlying the project are false. And given that, the entire XQ extravaganza threatens to do more harm than good, by undermining what we know to be true about our schools.

“The first falsehood of the XQ narrative is the claim that a dramatically changed world requires us to rethink public education. Students today, they argue, need a totally different kind of education because, as the XQ website puts it, “we’ve gone from the Model T to the Tesla and from the switchboard to the smartphone.”

“Do new technologies require us to rethink the purpose of American education?

“If the primary goal of school is to teach students to build products, the answer might be yes. But interviews my research team has conducted with educators and parents show that Americans maintain broad and complex aims for education. They want students to develop interpersonal skills and citizenship traits. They want schools to teach critical thinking and an array of academic skills. They want young people to be exposed to arts and music, to have opportunities for play and creativity, and to be supported socially and emotionally.

“Many would also like to see students leaving high school with some job-ready skills. But as the latest Phi Delta Kappan poll indicates, Americans continue to support the broader purpose of education. That’s why students have always done far more in school than train for work.

“If Laurene Powell Jobs and her friends at XQ want an answer for why the Tesla and the smartphone haven’t transformed our schools, the simplest one is this: Our students don’t spend their days building cars and designing phones. Instead, they’re developing their full human potential, across a wide range of activities.”

It would have helped if anyone associated with the XQ project had any understanding of the history of American schools. They might have known of past attempts to redesign or reinvent the schools. I recall the first Bush administration’s $50 million project in 1991 to design “Break the Mold Schools.” Several teams won millions to create innovative models. Did you remember that? Neither does anyone else.

Leonie Haimson reports here on the parent revolt against the Summit platform, pushed now by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

One of their biggest concerns is data privacy and the lack thereof.

Haimson writes:

Over the course of the 2016-2017 school year, parents throughout the country rebelled against the platform, both because of its lack of privacy but also because they experienced its negative impact on their children’s learning and attitudes to school. In addition, Summit and the schools using the platform are no longer asking for parental consent, probably because so many parents refused or resisted signing the consent forms.

After the Washington Post article appeared, I expanded on the privacy concerns cited in that piece, and pointed out additional issues in my blog. I included a list of questions parents should ask Summit to clarify their data-sharing plans. Parents who sent them to Summit informed me that Summit failed to answer these questions. (I later expanded on these questions, and Rachael Stickland, the co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, submitted them to Summit representatives after personally meeting them at SXSW EDU conference in March. She also received no response.)

Meanwhile, the list of Summit schools, both public and charter, that had allegedly adopted the platform last year was taken down from the Summit website sometime between February 15 and February 18, according to the Wayback Machine – making it even more difficult to ascertain which schools and students are were actually using it. The archived list is here.

On March 3, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported on the experience of parents in Boone County, Kentucky whose schools had adopted the platform– many of whom did not want to consent to their children’s data being shared with so little specificity and so few restrictions:

At the beginning of the school year, parents had to sign a permission slip allowing Summit to access their child’s profile information. Summit uses the info to “conduct surveys and studies, develop new features, products and services and otherwise as requested,” the form states. The agreement also allows Summit to disclose information to third-party service providers and partners “as directed” by schools. That, perhaps, is the biggest source of contention surrounding Summit. … “It’s optional. Nobody has to do Summit, [Deputy Superintendent Karen] Cheser said… Summit spokeswoman declined to speak on the record with The Enquirer.”

Yet within weeks of the publication of this article, at about the same time that the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative took over, someone involved in the Summit initiative decided that parents would no longer be granted the right of consent – either for their children to be subjected to the Summit instructional program or for their data to be shared according to Summit’s open-ended policies. In fact, Summit claimed the right to access, data-mine and redisclose their children’s data in the same way as before – yet now, without asking if parents agreed to these terms.

As she notes, Summit no longer considers it necessary to get parental consent before they collect and use student data.

Psychologist Jean M. Twenge writes in the Atlantic that Smartphones have changed adolescence, and not for the better.

She calls adolescents today the iGen generation. Their lives are defined by their Smartphones:

“Why are today’s teens waiting longer to take on both the responsibilities and the pleasures of adulthood? Shifts in the economy, and parenting, certainly play a role. In an information economy that rewards higher education more than early work history, parents may be inclined to encourage their kids to stay home and study rather than to get a part-time job. Teens, in turn, seem to be content with this homebody arrangement—not because they’re so studious, but because their social life is lived on their phone. They don’t need to leave home to spend time with their friends.

“If today’s teens were a generation of grinds, we’d see that in the data. But eighth-, 10th-, and 12th-graders in the 2010s actually spend less time on homework than Gen X teens did in the early 1990s. (High-school seniors headed for four-year colleges spend about the same amount of time on homework as their predecessors did.) The time that seniors spend on activities such as student clubs and sports and exercise has changed little in recent years. Combined with the decline in working for pay, this means iGen teens have more leisure time than Gen X teens did, not less.

“So what are they doing with all that time? They are on their phone, in their room, alone and often distressed….

“The number of teens who get together with their friends nearly every day dropped by more than 40 percent from 2000 to 2015; the decline has been especially steep recently. It’s not only a matter of fewer kids partying; fewer kids are spending time simply hanging out. That’s something most teens used to do: nerds and jocks, poor kids and rich kids, C students and A students. The roller rink, the basketball court, the town pool, the local necking spot—they’ve all been replaced by virtual spaces accessed through apps and the web.

“You might expect that teens spend so much time in these new spaces because it makes them happy, but most data suggest that it does not. The Monitoring the Future survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and designed to be nationally representative, has asked 12th-graders more than 1,000 questions every year since 1975 and queried eighth- and 10th-graders since 1991. The survey asks teens how happy they are and also how much of their leisure time they spend on various activities, including nonscreen activities such as in-person social interaction and exercise, and, in recent years, screen activities such as using social media, texting, and browsing the web. The results could not be clearer: Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy.”

These trends are not likely to change. Parents should know what is going on.

Pearson announced it is cutting the jobs of 3,000 employees, to adjust to declining revenues.

“Chief Executive Officer John Fallon has promised to cut annual expenses by 300 million pounds ($394 million) by 2019, as he tries to create a leaner company more focused on digital education.”

Expect a renewed campaign by Pearson lobbyists to sell school leaders on the necessity of digital learning for instruction and assessment. This is also Jeb Bush’s pet passion. The research is thin to nonexistent but the profit motive is powerful.

Martin Levine writes in the Nonprofit Quarterly about the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, expressing his concerns about transparency and democratic values.

The concern has been that in structuring such a large commitment as an LLC rather than as a trust or another form of charitable gift, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg upset the norms that have protected the public interest. In an earlier NPQ story, I raised this concern directly, writing that What Zuckerberg and Chan have done is more an act of investing in themselves than a decision to give away their assets. It privatizes the way these funds will be directed and minimizes the public’s control of how charitable dollars are spent. In a time when there is a growing concentration of wealth in the United States, as illustrated by a study recently published by the D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies, the difference this makes presents a great danger to our nation’s civil society in general and to the nonprofit sector.

Levine asks the important questions about CZI:

Will Chan and Zuckerberg see the value of openness and democracy? Will they recognize the difference between the public and private sectors? Or as successful entrepreneurs, will they see no need for public checks and balances? With each step forward by CZI it appears that they see themselves as capable of balancing public and private interests with little input from the public. They are asking us to trust their good intent and their ability to protect the common good. Despite their being smart, successful, and generous, this does not bode well.

This young couple is worth about $50 billion, more or less. Because of Z’s success as a tech entrepreneur, many fear that CZI will put more money into “personalized learning,” meaning “depersonalized learning,” or replacing human teachers with machines. As with all such projects started by billionaires, we wonder, who elected them to redesign our public schools?

Open the article to see the picture of Mark Z.

I don’t mean to engage in “lookism,” but I can’t help but think “middle school” when I see him.

A California public high school received a grant of $10 million from Laurene Powell Jobs to redesign itself. Guess what? They have gone whole hog for “personalized learning.” Known on this Blog as Depersonalized Learning. This is where the computer mines your data all day long and you develop a close relationship with the computer.

Meanwhile the giants of Silicon Valley send their own children to a Waldorf school in Los Gatos that prohibits screens in school and discourages them at home. Wonder what they do at the school attended by Mrs. Jobs’ kiddoes.

“We are literally building the plane as we are flying it,” Principal Anthony Barela said”

They used to say that very thing when they introduced the Common Core. Remember that? Always a bad idea to build the plane in mid-air, especially when children are on board.

Education Week reports on the plans of billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan to redesign American education. They have launched something called the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative–or CZI Initiative–to carry out their plan for “personalized learning”‘( I.e., “depersonalized learning”) to remake education into whatever they think in their limited experience is best. They have hired James Shelton–formerly of the Gates Foundation, formerly in charge of Arne Duncan’s failed SIG program (the School Improvement Grants part of Race to the Top, which federal evaluations found produced nothing of value).

What’s wrong with CZI? First, neither of its founders understands that public education is a democratic institution, in which parents and communities make decisions about their children’s education. It is not a start-up or a venture fund or an app. Did someone elect them to redesign American education without telling the public? What arrogance! Why don’t they pick a District and ask for permission to demonstrate their vision before they spend hundreds of millions to lobby for it?

Second, if they want to help children, why don’t they open a health clinic in proximity to every school that needs one? Dr. Chan is a pediatrician. Children’s health is something she knows about. Mark knows code. Children don’t need code. They need care.

Third, the article describes this as a “high-stakes venture,” but there are zero stakes for Chan and Zuckerberg. If they drop $5 billion, so what? Who will hold them accountable when they get bored and move on?

Why don’t they do what is needed, instead of foisting their half-baked ideas on the nation’s children?

And last, it is beyond obnoxious that they dare to call their tech-based approach “whole-child personalized learning,” which is an oxymoron. What part of “whole-child learning” happens on a computer?

Where are their plans to feed the hungry, heal the sick, create opportunities for play and imagination to run free?

Sad to say, this is a vainglorious and anti-democratic imposition of C and Z’s ideas on people who have nothing to say about it. The one-tenth of 1% toying with our children and our schools, for their enjoyment.

An excerpt from the Education Week article?:

“Pediatrician Priscilla Chan and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg are gearing up to invest hundreds of millions of dollars a year in a new vision of “whole-child personalized learning,” with the aim of dramatically expanding the scope and scale of efforts to provide every student with a customized education.

“The emerging strategy represents a high-stakes effort to bridge longstanding divides between competing visions for improving the nation’s schools. Through their recently established Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the billionaire couple intends to support the development of software that might help teachers better recognize and respond to each student’s academic needs-while also supporting a holistic approach to nurturing children’s social, emotional, and physical development.

“The man charged with marrying those two philosophies is former Deputy U.S. Secretary of Education James H. Shelton, now the initiative’s president of education.

“We’ve got to dispel this notion that personalized learning is just about technology,” Shelton said in an exclusive interview with Education Week. “In fact, it is about understanding students, giving them agency, and letting them do work that is engaging and exciting.”

“To advance that vision, Shelton has at his disposal a massive fortune and a wide array of levers to pull.

“Chan and Zuckerberg created CZI as a vehicle for directing 99 percent of their Facebook shares-worth an estimated $45 billion-to causes related to education and science, through a combination of charitable giving and investment.

“The initiative is structured as a limited-liability corporation, rather than a traditional foundation. That means CZI will be able to make philanthropic donations, invest in for-profit companies, lobby for favored policies and legislation, and directly support candidates for elected office ­ ­-all with minimal public-reporting requirements.

“For now, Shelton said, CZI is “one of the best-resourced startups in the world, but still a startup,” with fewer than 20 people on its education team.

“In the near future, though, he expects the initiative to give out “hundreds of millions of dollars per year” for education-related causes. Such a figure would place the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative among the highest-giving education-focused philanthropies in the country.

“Within five years, Shelton said in the June 22 interview, CZI’s work should have helped launch a “meaningful number” of schools and learning environments “where kids are performing dramatically better, and feel more engaged, and teachers feel more engaged in the work that they’re doing.”

“Chan, 32, and Zuckerberg, 33, also have embraced the idea of a long horizon for the initiative’s work, saying their support for personalized learning will extend over decades.

“From the outset, however, the couple’s attempt to engineer big changes in the U.S. education system faces significant obstacles.

“Personalized learning” was an amorphous concept even before this new attempt to integrate it with equally hard-to-define “whole child” strategies. It remains unclear how Chan, Zuckerberg, and Shelton intend to balance the organization’s support for research and development with their desire to quickly bring to scale new products and approaches, many of which have limited or no evidence to support their effectiveness.

“And CZI won’t commit to publicly disclosing all of its financial and political activity or to making the source code for its software open and accessible to the larger education community. That stance has stirred complaints about a lack of transparency.”

The Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) has collected hundreds of millions of dollars from Ohio taxpayers to pay for online schooling st home. The owner of ECOT makes large campaign gifts to legislators. The “school” delivers low-level instruction and gets terrible results. High attrition, low test scores, and (according to the New York Times) the lowest high school graduation rate in the nation.

Incredibly, the Ohio Department of Education audited ECOT and found that its enrollment numbers are vastly inflated. The state ordered ECOT to refund $60 million.

ECOT went to court to challenge the state’s right to demand accountability. ECOT lost. ECOT announced layoffs.

Now ECOT is blitzing the state with TV ads to protest the state’s efforts to recover the$60 million in overcharges.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170624/ecot-continues-tax-funded-ad-blitz-despite-layoff-announcement

This is the definition of chutzpah.