Social Studies on the Radar

In the most recent Ed Week there is an article about a group that is getting together to try to focus on common standards for Social Studies. Honestly, my first thought was how sad that is. While I understand the desire to set standards that students should meet regarding a subject, I kind-of liked being under the radar of most standardized testing. It's not because I don't want to teach kids anything or because I don't think all students should know certain material, but it's primarily because I don't want the pressure of teaching to the test. It seems that the more we focus on testing, the worse the kids end up learning. Although I am not inclined to teach only the material on the test, having people focus on other subjects takes the pressure off my content area. With the eyes elsewhere, I feel like my students have the freedom to actually learn something and make a connection to it.

Attitudes About Sexual Violence

Sometimes things come together to saturate your mind on a subject...at the moment, for me that is our attitude about sexual violence. 

• First, I heard that Kansas state Republican representative Pete DeGraff urged women to plan ahead for rape just like he has a spare tire for his car by saying "The likelihood of you being raped is the same as getting a flat tire."

• Next, I heard about a study that looked at PTSD in soldiers and that women are nearly twice as likely to suffer from PTSD upon returning from combat duty. That probably sounds right to people who think women shouldn't serve in combat. However, if you adjust for those who are sexually abused during their combat duty, it becomes almost an even level with men's rates of PTSD.

• Finally, I read in Ed Week about a case in which a cheerleader was dismissed from the squad because she refused to cheer for a baseball player who she accused of sexually assaulting her. The officials asked her to leave, because it created a "disruption in the stands." 

The fact that a state (although Kansas can be a little kooky) representative likens it to getting a flat tire and that female soldiers are sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers are reprehensible. Even worse is punishing a girl for not cheering for her alleged perpetrator. What kind of role models are we if we let these attitudes prevail?! While women have come a long way, we still have a long way to go to change the attitude (and acceptance) of sexual violence. This is crazy!

Lifelong Learners - Blog Link

I found a blog post called BLAH BLAH BLAH LIFE LONG LEARNING BLAH BLAH BLAH (a friend linked recently), which makes a good point. How much easier would our job a teachers be if parents modeled the learning process they use to their kids?!

I continue to believe that I want my classroom to be a learning environment for all, not just a place for me to know and them to find out!

Teacher Distribution

There is continued talk about the fact that economically-disadvantaged areas are under-represented by highly-qualified teachers, which leads me to an honest assessment of my future career.

On one hand - professionally...

• Most teachers want to work with the most academically-proficient students, because it's a more interesting professional environment.
• Teaching in higher socioeconomic districts (or high-end private schools) can often bring a higher salary and more job-security.
• Many people are afraid to go into a community they do not know, and it is uncomfortable to be the minority if one isn't used to that situation.
• There is probably a preconceived notion about what an economically-disadvantaged area's schools look like (despite what might actually be going on there). 
• There are some elements of working in these schools that might require extra effort and emotional involvement.
• It can be emotionally draining to have students from these areas, because so many of them need so much (and it's hard if you feel like you can't provide enough for them). 

On the other hand - realistically...

• Schools in lower socioeconomic areas often come with lower salaries and less job security.
• Children do not choose the life they face. They are brought into their situations.
• These students are the ones most in need of highly-proficient teachers. Not only do they need the person who can help them the most, they also have the greatest amount of cultural capital to learn/amass in order to be successful in the wider world. 
• In a place where students have the highest access to parental support, tutors, etc., those students will probably "succeed" no matter who is teaching. In a disadvantaged area, chances are that a good teacher has the ability to make the greatest individual difference with his/her students, because the students don't always have access to much support of their education. 
• Being the minority in a situation (if one isn't used to it) can produce an incredibly profound perspective.
• There is a richness that can be found in learning about and embracing a different culture.

I can completely see why teachers and administrators want to work in more affluent schools/districts. For a profession that is inherently underpaid for its service, it's no crime to want to work in these areas. However, at the moment (without any experience either way) I find myself having a real commitment to those lower socioeconomic areas. The kids deserve good teachers and a chance at a decent education. However, in the current economic climate, that might even out a little as people take jobs where they can find them. I hope it evens out a little anyway!

Ditching the Textbook

I just want to recognize the good people that are digitizing so many primary source documents. For social studies teachers, having increasing access to these letters, patents, maps, photos, recordings, etc., allows us to ditch the boring textbooks (because let's face it, textbooks are inherently boring for kids...and adults) and gives us the opportunity to help make this stuff interesting for kids (and for us as teachers). Here are just a few of the fantastic resources:

• Library of Congress

• National Archives

• National Archives Digital Vaults
  

• History Matters

• Oregon Digital Newspaper Project
  

• The New York Times (Education Section)
  

On a side note, these are not all just social studies sites (esp. the NY Times site). 

Teacher Pay = Public Mindset Issue

All of the talk regarding teacher pay is really getting me down a little, not because of the standard issues (like all of the rancorous discourse) but because it emphasizes a mindset of so many people (that doesn't go away and that some of those people wouldn't admit publicly) and a flawed discourse. That became clear during a conversation I had at work. The conversation went something like this...


Customer: Bemoaning teachers and perceived problems with "schools these days" (even though his kids were long grown and he had no idea what's going on in schools)


Me: I'm in school to be a teacher. It is unfair to blame teachers for the current economic situation. Most people go into teaching because we really want to do it, not for economic benefits.  We have to get a graduate degree and our ability to recover that extra expense is a lot lower than most fields that require graduate degrees (i.e. law, medicine, etc.). 


Customer: I didn't know teachers need graduate degrees.


Me: Yes, that's an Oregon requirement. Do you think doctors and lawyers get paid too much?


Customer: They were entitled to get whatever they can...they put all that time and money into getting the extra schooling and they should get whatever a company is willing to pay them. 


Me: Is my graduate degree a lower level than another graduate degree?


Customer: No, any extra schooling is important.


Me: If that's the case, why should I get that degree and then be looked down on for wanting to make a decent living (one that has so much less potential than the others)?


Customer: I just don't think it's fair that you get to try and take more and more of my money.


Me: Oh, I see. (Being extra nice, changing the subject, backing away slowly and trying to prevent my head from exploding in a delirious cloud of profane epithets)


Here's what I came away with...there's such a different perspective on teachers' salaries, but it is a false perspective and it all revolves around a dislike of the idea of taxes. When someone goes to see a doctor, lawyer, etc., they understand that they are paying a fee for the service. However, when the fire department comes, their kids go to school or they drive on a road, they feel entitled to those public "services", but when the tax bill comes they don't look at it as fees paid for services. Instead they look at it as though someone is trying to steal their money. How do we change that attitude and/or how do we change the dialogue we have when discussing these issues? Maybe we should just dispense with the tax code and charge the fair market value for everything the average person uses?!

Student Involvement

As I read the article Students walk out in protest over teacher layoffs it reconfirmed my belief that students (especially at the high school level) should be involved in their own educational process (and gave me hope that at least some want to be involved). 


Some students in the Katy Texas school district protested staffing cuts at their schools. One student even suggested that they need their teachers more than smart boards in the classroom. Governor Perry's response to these protesting students was...


"There are better ways to send your message than walking out of the classroom," he said. "The fact of the matter is, I feel quite confident that the Texas Legislature will fund our schools appropriately. At the end of the day, being in the classroom is a lot more important to them than protesting, particularly during school hours. If they want to come here on Saturdays and Sundays or after school, have at it."


It's ironic that teenagers get accused of having attitude problems. Gov. Perry's comments remind me what's wrong with some leadership when it comes to schools, particularly high schools...attitude. Instead of seeing these students as passionate about their school and a possible resource, his take-away of this situation is that the students' actions are inappropriate and a waste of time. If they would have "sent their message in a better way," would he have taken notice? Probably not! These students are begging for the chance to be involved, and they are pushed away and put down by the leadership of the state. 


At the most, these students are 3 1/2 years away from being on their own, faced with a variety of situations just like this. There is absolutely no reason that they should not be involved in the process of their education (since soon they will be asked to be involved in the process of figuring out their own way). Research has proven that the more perspectives we take into account, the clearer picture we get about the subject. Instead of doing education to students, why are they not involved in the process? My guess is that people like Gov. Perry think it would be too hard to figure out a way to make that happen...great example/model for those students!

Food Fight

An Ed Week article recently (online at least) discussed the issue of the new school food policy revamping, which is such a picture of how screwy our society is when it comes to food.


Those in charge are concerned with costs and how/if they will be able to get kids to eat more fruits and vegetables. On one hand, I completely get this. Schools have no money, and kids are generally not known for wanting to eat their produce. However, in the bigger picture, what is the true cost of poor nutrition and what children's health worth? How do we measure a school's costs for the ramifications of things like obesity and lack of proper nutrition. We also know that many students are unlikely to get these things from home. Don't we want them to at least have one (if not two) healthy meals in the day? Finally, it's actually not that hard to incorporate fruits and vegetables into the things kids already like, as long as they are in an unrecognizable format. In fact, my friend's kids outwardly despise vegetables, but have they ever noticed that the brownies I make them (which they love!) have pureed spinach, carrots and whole wheat flour in them...nope because they're brownies with little chocolate chips inside!


This is not just about schools. It's about our entire nation and about us as individuals. We value what is cheap and easy right now, without caring about the ramifications later. We would rather not think about the costs on our healthcare, our society and ourselves. Maybe there would be more money for schools if we could get ourselves healthier and spend less on chronic health issues. (What if our better health kept medical costs from rising so high?...fewer fights over union members' compensation packages maybe?) It's about time we look at the real costs of our actions, take some personal responsibility and do a better job modeling for our kids. If we do, everyone wins!

Industrialized Model

As I've been doing the work for my Classroom Management plan, I've been thinking quite a lot about how we go about school. In addition, there has been a lot of talk by some education policy makers about "getting back to the basics" regarding the classroom. Especially in the high school realm, I don't think we ever have left the basics, and those basics seem to be a factory for furnishing workers to industries. Here's what's been swirling around in my mind about most high schools...

• They live and die by the bell, same as the old model of a factory.
• People want "standards"...the products that schools manufacture (students) should be measurably the same.
• Business leaders are weighing in HEAVILY on what they want from students leaving schools. 
• Those business leaders say they want creativity and teamwork, but then many absolutely do not support school models that steer away from the old model: lecture-style, heavily-tested, standards-driven classroom. (To me that seems like they give good sound bites but really want workers who will do what they're told.)
• Most high schools are run lecture-style with little input from students, and some people scoff at/question any other possible models.

We've had the same model and have been on the same path as long as we've been educating students in this country. When you have learned to be successful in that world (even if it's in spite of that world), it's really difficult to envision another model, and so I was glad to see Ed Week's Commentary section take on the subject. I do understand that we are all going to be workers in our lives, but is school's main goal to train those workers or to educate each student to the best of our abilities so that those students can actively make the decisions about where they want to go next? If it's about educating each child, why do we spend so much more effort on assessing the group using the business world's standards than we do on educating each child? If I worry about what the business world wants when I'm working with my students, it seems like I'll be cheating them out of an authentic education.

Civil War Through Photographs

Since today is the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Civil War and I'm going to be a Social Studies teacher, I feel obligated to create a blog post. The Civil War began at the dawn of the photographic age. At the time, neither side really contemplated the idea of military censorship of photojournalism. Thus, all people (including civilians) were given a glimpse of soldiers, battle scenes and the ravages of war. The public was shocked by the brutality they saw, and shattered were their previous romanticized images of the nobility of war. The number of casualties in the Civil War always shocks me. 620,000 died which was almost 2% of the total U.S. population...if the same percentage died today, it would be about 6,067,600. Astonishing!


Currently The Library of Congress has more than 400 of these images on display in an exhibit called The Last Full Measure (which you can also see online by following this link). While they are mostly photographs of individual soldiers, looking at their faces is quite powerful. The most astounding detail is how young some of them were. I've heard that the Union army had 100,000 soldiers who were 15 or younger...prime age for students in a lot of our classes. The uniforms was the other detail that stuck out, some in "street" clothes. We forget that this was still the day when our military force basically cobbled together groups of militias, most members having little military experience. That's a far cry from the "fighting unit" of today.


Anyway, I thought we should all remind ourselves of the struggles we have been through in our nation as a little perspective on the struggles we face today.  

Community Involvement

With all of the heated arguments swirling around teachers lately, I have thought a lot about the aggressive, vitriolic reaction of some people (namely those who might start with "Schools these days..."). I wonder why they feel that way? The other day, I had an idea...actually it was more of a series of questions. 

• I wonder what kind of an experience some of those people had when they were in school? They might say that school was different when they went there, and they turned out just fine. If so, I'd ask them to consider whether they turned out fine because of or in spite of their experience. I wonder if some are so rancorous because there experience wasn't that great?
• I wonder how long it has been since they were inside a classroom? Have they spent any time seeing what's going on? 

The last question leads me to the common conundrum about people. If you ask them how schools are doing, they often tell you what terrible things are happening. However, if you ask them if they like their child's teacher, they often love that person and think s/he's doing well.

Would the current climate change if we could galvanize people to volunteer and help out the schools in their communities (especially those who don't have kids or whose kids are grown)? In my opinion, it might, and everyone would win. 

• Schools (incl. administration, custodians, counselors, etc.) would have more help (maybe need a little less money)
• Students would have more help and might be able to receive more one-on-one help/attention
• Students would have more exposure to the adults in their community and adults would have more exposure to the kids in their community
• Teachers would have more help with their classroom and with their prep work
• Volunteers would feel good about helping and could see the issues, commitment, and hard work from all parties

It's always easier to complain when you are not too close to an issue. I don't know how to go about galvanizing a large group of people, but I want to take this idea into my room and see if it makes a difference there.

Punishment for Good Teachers (and Students)

From a couple of different places I have heard a specific tidbit about the recent plan Bill Gates proposed for reforming education. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have not read the plan. So, I do not know the context surrounding this comment.) The suggestion is to give good teachers more students so that the teachers who need help can have lower class sizes. Those good teachers would get a monetary compensation for taking on those students.


I have mixed feelings about this suggestion. On one hand, it is possible that those good teachers:

• Would be agreeable if it's a temporary situation
• Might not mind if it allows a colleague to get help 
• May like the extra pay 
• Are up to the challenge

However, it seems more like a punishment of those teachers and their students because:

• A temporary situation for a teacher is not the same thing to a student. The student only has a finite number of terms in his/her education. Each one is as important as the last.
• More students in the classroom put strains on infrastructure, student-to-student interactions, management issues, etc.
• Most good teachers ask students for work that is harder and requires more time to grade
• Students get less(maybe no)individual time with the teacher
• Teacher must put in extra work just to learn all names (let alone learn anything about each student)
• Most teachers are not in the profession for the money (I don't know if some non-educators actually realize or believe this.)

Sometimes when trying to address one issue (like that of how to help lower performing teachers), it is easy to think of an idea that sounds good for that purpose and easier to loose sight of other perspectives. In addition, it can also be difficult to think of the unintended consequences. 

Preventing Cheating

A recent Ed Week article discussed cheating, its ramifications on students and a study done on the subject. The gist of the article is that cheaters overinflate their academic ability and potentially set themselves up for a feedback loop of poorer and poorer performance. After a student cheats, s/he ends up telling her/himself that the grade received was earned. Then on subsequent tests, the cheater thinks s/he will do better because of the last grade received (the one received through cheating) but ends up doing much worse than predicted thus adding more pressure to cheat next time. Thus a cycle is born.

The researchers looked at causes for cheating, which include the usual suspects: disinterest in material, feeling the teacher is unfair, pressure to get good grades or to get into a good college, etc. (This is no real news - we've been talking about this for years.) From my perspective this study signifies that students are not connected to what they're studying and feel like they are powerless. Cheating may be one of the only ways they feel they can control the outcome. 

The meaning we derive from this research has so much potential. To me, it means that we ought to have classrooms where students have a voice about what they study, why they do it and how it's done. Apparently, I see things a little differently. The most disturbing part of this article was not about the cheaters, but it came when I read this:

"Ms. Chance and Mr. Fremer said teachers and administrators should try to reduce opportunities for students to cheat, but should also help them establish classwide and schoolwide codes for academic integrity, and then reinforce the importance of that code before every assignment."

A group does all of this research and finds out the real destructive potential on the individual student, and they advise teachers to reduce opportunities for cheating and to develop more codes to put upon students?! That seems like a cop out and like such a waste of potential. Maybe they just wanted to focus on the research and not what to do with it (but felt they needed to say something on the subject). I guess it's up to everyone else to utilize this information in the best ways possible.

     

Searching for the Magic Bullet

After reading all of the articles about RTI (response to intervention) programs and the focus it has been given lately, I'm really struck by one thing...why do we spend our time looking for the magic bullet? After all of the info. and discussions we've had in class regarding learning styles, physiological development (including brain development), intelligences, etc., we should all know by now that not one thing works for all students, but yet the policy makers seem to be looking for "the" strategy that will make our education system perfect. 


I really like the premise that each student be evaluated early and get the help s/he needs in order to catch up with other students. That seems like education at its best and something that all students deserve. However, the problem lies, like many things in our society, with implementation...particularly with commitment and follow-through. Education at its worst is implementation procedures that delay help for any student and the transformation of schools into some canned content delivery systems. 


This is not just a school problem, it's a societal problem. In the U.S., we are dreamers. We love big ideas that are going to change the world, but sometime we lack patience, long-term vision, and persistence (especially when things get difficult or when we feel like someone else's needs might be the focus instead of our own). We want the answer to be easy, quick and cheap, but don't the best things in life take more commitment than that? The princess may have gotten a prince by kissing a frog, but we're still fighting civil rights issues that we've been fighting for 300+ years. How do we teach our children not to complain about how hard a test is when we complain about how hard it is to educate them? How do we teach them that it takes less effort to do something than to complain when we don't do spend so much of our time pointing fingers? 


The main goal for myself in my classroom...a good model of what to do when things get difficult. 

Talk is Cheap

Two Ed Week articles caught my attention, because they are about Social Studies (which is a change of pace from all of the talk about STEM subjects). One article decries that 28 states received failing or near-failing grades in History standards (according to a Fordham Institute review). Of course they did, because there is no funding for a huge majority of Social Studies classes. 


The article also points out that one element to the Fordham study seems to put emphasis on names, dates & events (rather than the underlying concepts & context), by paraphrasing the Fordham president "...its analysis is about making sure students have a firm grasp of historical facts before developing concepts and ideas." What?! The two are inextricably linked. 'Facts' are meaningless without the context around them, and besides, those 'facts' are often disputable depending on the perspective. What good is it if students can parrot back the date the Civil War began if they don't know the underlying causes?! 


No wonder there's no money for Social Studies. We can't even decide what is valuable about content to begin with. If we can't agree on the value, how can we explain/justify why students should learn it?

Back to Bullying

Again Ed Week has an article about bullying that resounded with me. The article indicates that researchers are just beginning to focus on 'relational' aggression - a means by which people use bullying tactics to control friends and enemies. 


At first, I was a little surprised to learn that this was a relatively 'new' research subject, but then I realized that humans have a hard time identifying what they themselves do. (For instance, it is easy to recognize when someone is nagging you, but it is much less likely that you will recognize that you are nagging someone.) Relational aggression is not limited to K-12 schools. It happens in colleges, offices, neighborhoods, churches, and virtually every place that people come together in groups to spend significant amounts of time. In fact, it's common to see reflected in movies and on tv even. We adults just don't have the same scrutinizing eye assessing our behavior.


I completely agree that the most beneficial thing we could do is to help our kids learn to stand up for others. This helps both the person being defended and the person standing up reclaim power and build self-confidence. It build real, honest, respectful community among people. Maybe those students can take that same responsibility into the 'adult' world and make a change for the better.

Conflict of Interest

With all of the talk about private schools, especially in the article about the Swedish company managing its first school in NYC, I find myself conflicted. On one hand, I have no problem with the idea of capitalism. Companies should be able to make money in their businesses. 


However, it seems like there are some sectors where the idea of for-profit companies creates a conflict of interest which is too high and the detriment to society too great, namely: education, health care and utilities. We all absolutely need these three things to survive. Since the main goal of a for-profit business is the profit part (especially if it has shareholders), it seems too difficult to juggle that element with the best interest of the "consumer". 


I'm not saying that the government should run them, because we can all cite areas of governmental waste and inefficiency. I just think that those who do run them should be not-for-profit. Personally, I do not think that a CEO should ever have to decide between shareholder dividends vs. a better program. As a society what do we value more?

Literacy for Parents & Kids

The January 26th Ed Week had an article about a Toyota-funded initiative (and the D.C. school using it) stressing family literacy was fascinating. Basically, the grants help schools that facilitate family literacy by providing programs which boost the literacy of their children's family members. What an incredible program!


This program benefits the parent and child at the same time while providing real skills that will be a huge stepping stone for both. There are programs out there for adults who cannot read and write, but the programs to boost skills seem less obvious. That leaves a lot of people with limited literacy, in turn creating a bad feeling about their education and skills.


In this program, the student benefits by learning the skills and by having his/her parent come to school and participate with them, but they also get increased help and exposure from home. The adult gets a boost in skills, more self-confidence and the ability to help their kid in and out of school...all in an atmosphere without pressure. For the ones in this article, who dropped out of high school, I get the impression that they feel helped and helpful all at the same time. 


It is much easier to leave your mind open if you don't feel like someone is pointing out the things you can't do. I think a lot of people would learn so much just by sitting in on a class. Really, education is at its best when we understand it as a journey together. 

School Bullies

Ed Week online recently published this article on school bullies in which two researchers studied the social web of social structure at school to learn more about bullies and victims. (The task alone is mind-blowing.) They found that bullies are not who most people think they are. Instead of being the students on either extreme of the social structure (the most or least popular), the majority of bullies are the kids in the middle who are looking for an edge to maintain or upgrade their social status. The research indicates that this transcends race, class, age, grade, etc. 


This makes absolute sense to me when I think of how adults act, especially when it comes to upward mobility. Often the very wealthy (who have had that wealth for generations) are comfortable with it and don't really flaunt it. However, the recently wealthy are often the ones who use their newly found social position to bully others into doing what they want.  


Bullying seems not to be about actual rank but about underlying insecurity. The top feel sure they will stay on top, while the bottom are sure they will stay at the bottom, but the middle are not sure how they fit in and use a variety of tools at their disposal...including violence.

Teacher Leadership

Ed Week recently featured an article called "Why We Need Teacher Leadership" by Doyle Nicholson, in which Mr. Nicholson outlines the need and potential of teachers taking (or making) an active hybrid role for themselves as part-time teacher and part-time leader. I think such a collaboration is a fantastic idea, especially in the current climate of funding pressure. 


The potential benefits of this that struck me are:

• Helping to bridge the "us v. them" divide that recently has become prevalent as districts struggle to cut budgets. If there are educators who are working in both areas, then they will be able to see both sides of the issues, which could lead to less "teacher v. administration" and more cooperation. In turn the perception of fairness could increase.
• Sometimes the goal of educating students means different things to different sides because of perspective. This would help to create a common goal, with all issues represented at the same time.
• The goal is educating students--without them no on would have a job. It's crazy that there are places where these two sides do not cooperate.
• They may be able to come up with fair systems of evaluation, development and support to increase teacher effectiveness.  
• Collaboration is always the best way to create solutions, because a group is generally smarter than an individual.

In order for this to work well, there has to be real commitment on both sides (and a concerted effort to leave any ego issues behind and to reorganize the union focus a little). While the politicians may still control the larger system, there is no reason not to start one school at a time. That's how we educate a nation...one student at a time!

Student Grouping

In the January 19th issue of Ed Week, there is an article about a Detroit school's pilot program that allows 7th & 8th grade teachers to regroup their students frequently in different math & language classes based on how they're performing.  Basically, the students are grouped by their skill levels and their performance.  If a student is breezing through a class, s/he could get moved to a harder level.

This creates a crossroads in my mind between two things I believe. First, I think that schools (from the beginning) should not group kids by age but should allow them to move around like this to address and tap into their different skill levels. For instance, a 1st grader might be in one level of math class but then be in a much higher level of reading class. The individual student would be able to progress at the pace exactly right for him/her, and the teacher would have less trouble figuring out how to meet the needs of different levels at the same time.

However, the interceptor thought here is that the group learns better with a variety of different people who have varying levels with diverse perspectives. This would create classes with less diversity (of all kinds) and less opportunity to learn as a group. Plus, it seems like it might set up a system that segregates students and highlights issues like poverty, race, etc.

The conflict becomes about objective. Is the goal educating better individual students or is it about creating better members of society. I will be interested to follow this school to see what the outcome is for the students and if there are any unintended consequences that arise.

Simulations

In the January 12th edition of Ed Week, there was an article about simulations for pre-service teachers. Two words of it caught my attention.  In a section, the author was saying that simulations give an opportunity to "experiment--and make mistakes--without the worry of doing harm to an actual child's learning." 


While I understand that simulations are a good place to practice, especially for people who might be nervous in front of a crowd, but "doing harm" sounds a little overly dramatic when we're talking about how a child learns.  The kids might be a little bored or confused, but then they'd tune out or ask questions before any harm came to pass. This sounds like the voice of a simulation manufacturer trying to sell more simulators.

Students & Technology

In the last couple of weeks, Canby (my town) School District has been in the news for the district's technology plan.  (First in an Oregonian Article and then on an episode of OPB's show Think Out Loud.) Basically, the district is working on an ambitious plan to put an iPod Touch or iPad in the hands of every student, and they started with 3rd graders (because of the change in the OAKS testing at that grade). All of this is being done through tech grants. Each student has the opportunity to use the device in a variety of ways through apps that allow:

• Practicing math skills using a variety of game-like programs
• Reading a book while also listening to it
• Reading into a voice recorder and listening to the playback
• Writing stories, poems, etc., 
• Easy access to other resources (i.e. dictionary/thesaurus while writing a story)
• Recording rough drafts of essays, listening to the playback, and making changes to things that "don't sound right"
• Hearing recordings of correct pronunciations of words (esp. for ELL students)
• Changing font size (for students with visual impairments) or volume control (for students with hearing impairments)

The motivation for this plan boils down to: using technology to help EVERY student.  Especially when class sizes are getting bigger and staff is decreasing, these devices provide the opportunity for the teacher to reach out to every student at the student's level, in a style best-suited for each student, to boost skills.  What a terrific tool for teachers to have. Plus, it's fun!  While this program is still pretty new, the data seems to back up their idea, because they have seen marked improvement from all groups of students.


With all of the press, there have been a swirl of comments posted, and I was shocked by some of the negative ones like...(paraphrasing here) letting technology do the work so the lazy teachers don't have to, just a way to dumb-down the education process, should focus more on the basics instead of the fun technology, we should teach these kids what the real world is like, etc. First, I know that there are crazies out there who see the negative elements of everything and who are afraid of technology. However, it seems to me that it's a great day in education when we have tools that:

• Help equalize students (poor, rich, ones with disabilities and handicaps, ell learners, etc.)
• Focus on lifting up all students
• Reach each student at his/her level and learning style
• Teach students how to find answers to their own questions
• Allow students opportunities to self-correct their work
• Gives different methods to practice (and to make new pathways in the brain)
• Moves student perception from "busy work" to fun time
• Doesn't cost the district funds (since it is being done through grants)

I often wonder if those negative people (many of whom seem to be older, because they say things like "back in my day") understand the challenges facing today's schools or if they realize what some people faced back in there day. Most students, no matter what difficulties they might face, are in school and deserve an equal education.  In addition, life is much tougher for a student now who does not finish high school.  So, maybe they don't get it or maybe they're just negative.  Either way, I'm glad that technology gives us the tools to help each student do his/her best.