I remain bemused (saddened? not surprised?) by stories in which schools actively reject new technologies on spurious premises. Why can't they see the value of these new tools? Why is there such a lack of creativity?
This week's tale of bureaucracy comes from a colleague of mine in the special education legal world. One of her clients is a 10th grader with auditory processing dysfunctions. On the recommendation of a neuropsych, his parents bought him a LiveScribe pen and he brought it to school to assist with notetaking and reviewing the lectures later on at home. (This, by the way, is precisely one of the ways that the LiveScribe pen is SO AWESOME. This is EXACTLY in line with best practices).
The teacher, however, told him he couldn't use it because it was "illegal". Now, there is one potential legal issue at hand. Some states prohibit you from recording conversations without the other party's consent (these are "two party" states). Other states have no such restriction, and you can record away (these are "one party" states). Apparently, this kid was in a one-party state, so the teacher was flat wrong. I love how people make these things up.
Now, turn your legal brain on to the next logical question: would use of the LiveScribe pen be illegal in a two party state? After all, you'd need the other party's consent to record. Well, really, what thinking teacher would refuse consent to the student's recording? What about the other students - would schools need to get consent from each and every student, if one student wanted to record a lecture (in which the other students are presumably participating)? I would argue no. Students don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what they say in a classroom, vis a vis the other people in the class. Now, maybe you'd want the student doing the recording to agree to only use the recording for educational purposes, and that seems reasonable. But again, nothing about the use of the LiveScribe pen is illegal.
So, back to the example. What was the teacher's real concern? Well, maybe the teacher was nervous that if the kid recorded her lectures, his parents would find that that she really couldn't teach! Or maybe the teacher just didn't understand the potential of the LiveScribe pen to really help the student learn. I really have no idea, but this really reinforces the principles I posted about earlier. In sum, the coolest and best technologies for learning will be entirely useless if teachers don't know how to use them and if schools don't support their inclusion in the classroom.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
What's the value of an online education?
Happy return to the school year! After a little summer break, we are back in action. And, talking about education again.
I've talked about online education before - I generally think it presents some interesting new options, but it's fairly untested. And you certainly know I'm not anti-technology or anti-choice. So I read with interest a set of surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. One survey was a telephone survey to 2,000+ random adults (the "public") and the other was a online survey to over 1,000 college presidents (2 and 4 year, private and public). You can find the link to the study here - but here are some interesting highlights:
1. The general public doesn't value online learning very highly. Only 29% of the public says online courses offer an equal value compared with courses taken in a classroom. Half (51%) of the college presidents surveyed say online courses provide the same value. What's the difference? Perception. A Harvard education is viewed to be superior to most other undergraduate colleges - but it's not necessarily true. It might be the best for some students, but other students might do better in a college with smaller class sizes and a different choice of majors. But Harvard remains "on the top" because of perception. The issue of perception arises after you've graduated, when you're trying to get a job on the basis of your academics. Online education is new, and mostly unproven. It will need to prove that it's not a fluffy option for people trying to do minimal work.
2. ....and yet, Roughly one-in-four college graduates (23%) report that they have taken a class online. Not surprisingly, the share doubles to 46% among those who have graduated in the past ten years (I mean, really, 10 years ago there wasn't even Google). Among all adults who have taken a class online, 39% say the format’s educational value is equal to that of a course taken in a classroom. But on this point, how would they know? I would argue that the value depends on the course and the curriculum - is it a topic that can be easily (or best?) taught online? Compare a law school lecture - where minimal student input is expected or required - with a class on teaching methods, where presumably you need to try your methods out on other students.
3. Despite recent evidence to the contrary, digital textbooks may well conquer. Nearly two-thirds of college presidents (62%) anticipate that 10 years from now, more than half of the textbooks used by their undergraduate students will be entirely digital. I believe this. Tablet computing is taking over, and it's replacing the 15 pounds of textbooks I carried in high school.
There are some other interesting factoids, like, how plagiarism is on the rise due to the Internet. I find this fascinating - this was simply not an option when I was in high school. Perhaps we'll explore this issue in a future post, because I think this is definitely a downside to technology, and I'd like to research what teachers and schools are doing to combat the problem. (Part of the solution might be to flip the classroom a la the Khan Academy - do lectures at home and homework at school). Another interesting point is that colleges have yet to figure out how to regulate the use of smartphones, tablets, and laptops in the classroom. Do you permit wireless? Do you require wireless? How do you keep students engaged if they can access Angry Birds at any time?
Worth some thinking!
I've talked about online education before - I generally think it presents some interesting new options, but it's fairly untested. And you certainly know I'm not anti-technology or anti-choice. So I read with interest a set of surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. One survey was a telephone survey to 2,000+ random adults (the "public") and the other was a online survey to over 1,000 college presidents (2 and 4 year, private and public). You can find the link to the study here - but here are some interesting highlights:
1. The general public doesn't value online learning very highly. Only 29% of the public says online courses offer an equal value compared with courses taken in a classroom. Half (51%) of the college presidents surveyed say online courses provide the same value. What's the difference? Perception. A Harvard education is viewed to be superior to most other undergraduate colleges - but it's not necessarily true. It might be the best for some students, but other students might do better in a college with smaller class sizes and a different choice of majors. But Harvard remains "on the top" because of perception. The issue of perception arises after you've graduated, when you're trying to get a job on the basis of your academics. Online education is new, and mostly unproven. It will need to prove that it's not a fluffy option for people trying to do minimal work.
2. ....and yet, Roughly one-in-four college graduates (23%) report that they have taken a class online. Not surprisingly, the share doubles to 46% among those who have graduated in the past ten years (I mean, really, 10 years ago there wasn't even Google). Among all adults who have taken a class online, 39% say the format’s educational value is equal to that of a course taken in a classroom. But on this point, how would they know? I would argue that the value depends on the course and the curriculum - is it a topic that can be easily (or best?) taught online? Compare a law school lecture - where minimal student input is expected or required - with a class on teaching methods, where presumably you need to try your methods out on other students.
3. Despite recent evidence to the contrary, digital textbooks may well conquer. Nearly two-thirds of college presidents (62%) anticipate that 10 years from now, more than half of the textbooks used by their undergraduate students will be entirely digital. I believe this. Tablet computing is taking over, and it's replacing the 15 pounds of textbooks I carried in high school.
There are some other interesting factoids, like, how plagiarism is on the rise due to the Internet. I find this fascinating - this was simply not an option when I was in high school. Perhaps we'll explore this issue in a future post, because I think this is definitely a downside to technology, and I'd like to research what teachers and schools are doing to combat the problem. (Part of the solution might be to flip the classroom a la the Khan Academy - do lectures at home and homework at school). Another interesting point is that colleges have yet to figure out how to regulate the use of smartphones, tablets, and laptops in the classroom. Do you permit wireless? Do you require wireless? How do you keep students engaged if they can access Angry Birds at any time?
Worth some thinking!
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
How to Integrate Technology in the Classroom
Let's get back to the technology people! I encountered this fabulous list of ideas of how to effectively integrate technology into the classroom. The author, Adam Bellow, is an advocate for technology in education, and his website ( http://edutecher.net/ ) promotes new and effective technologies. He recently wrote a post on Mind/Shift, itself an interesting website on education, policy, and technology. You can see his full post on Mind/Shift, but here are his 7 Golden Rules for Using Technology in Schools:
1. Don't trap technology in a room. Remember "the computer lab"? As Bellow says, technology should be like oxygen - ubiquitous, necessary, and invisible.
2. Technology is worthless without professional development. It's more than just "how-to". It's "why" and "why this is worth your time".
4. The new "F word" is fear. Schools block access to websites, teachers are afraid that kids know more about technology than they do. So perhaps it's our responsibility to teach kids how to use technology responsibly - to know about copyright laws and licenses, for one thing - and how to be good "digital citizens", as Bellow puts it.
5. Tech tools are not just a passing fad. Sorry folks, smartphones and tablets are here to stay. And given how inexpensive some of these tools are (the iPod Touch, LiveScribe pen, etc.) and the countless uses they have, it's worth investing, and training people NOW.
6. Money is not the problem. See Khan Academy.
7. Invite every stakeholder to the conversation. And yes, that includes students too. Heck, throw in parents!
1. Don't trap technology in a room. Remember "the computer lab"? As Bellow says, technology should be like oxygen - ubiquitous, necessary, and invisible.
2. Technology is worthless without professional development. It's more than just "how-to". It's "why" and "why this is worth your time".
3. Mobile technology stretches a long way. So why are cellphones banned from most classrooms? Why not harass the power of smartphones and apps for the sake of learning (not just texting)?
4. The new "F word" is fear. Schools block access to websites, teachers are afraid that kids know more about technology than they do. So perhaps it's our responsibility to teach kids how to use technology responsibly - to know about copyright laws and licenses, for one thing - and how to be good "digital citizens", as Bellow puts it.
5. Tech tools are not just a passing fad. Sorry folks, smartphones and tablets are here to stay. And given how inexpensive some of these tools are (the iPod Touch, LiveScribe pen, etc.) and the countless uses they have, it's worth investing, and training people NOW.
6. Money is not the problem. See Khan Academy.
7. Invite every stakeholder to the conversation. And yes, that includes students too. Heck, throw in parents!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
No Child Left Behind: 101
This is another post providing some background on education laws, so that I can discuss some very recent developments.
So, No Child Left Behind is widely viewed to have been originally enacted by Bush II in 2002. The basic idea was to create standards-based accountability for K-12 nationwide. The act mandated student testing every year from 3rd to 8th grade, and once in high school, to measure student progress. Each year, a certain percentage of a state's schools must make annual yearly progress (AYP). AYP means that this year's 5th graders, for example, test better than last year's fifth graders. If a school doesn't make AYP, it is labeled "needs improvement"
The schedule of progress was defined as well - by the 2013-2014, all schools, in all states, are to be at "proficient" level. If a school doesn't, then that school faces an escalating set of sanctions - tutoring, offering students school choice, etc. (each of which costs the states money) - and also puts federal funding at risk.
A couple of points about all that: First, NCLB was simply a reauthorization of an existing law - the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was first enacted in 1965 (So sometimes, you'll see NCLB referred to as ESEA. Another example of ed law alphabet soup). So, it wasn't something that Bush II just created out of thin air.
So, No Child Left Behind is widely viewed to have been originally enacted by Bush II in 2002. The basic idea was to create standards-based accountability for K-12 nationwide. The act mandated student testing every year from 3rd to 8th grade, and once in high school, to measure student progress. Each year, a certain percentage of a state's schools must make annual yearly progress (AYP). AYP means that this year's 5th graders, for example, test better than last year's fifth graders. If a school doesn't make AYP, it is labeled "needs improvement"
The schedule of progress was defined as well - by the 2013-2014, all schools, in all states, are to be at "proficient" level. If a school doesn't, then that school faces an escalating set of sanctions - tutoring, offering students school choice, etc. (each of which costs the states money) - and also puts federal funding at risk.
A couple of points about all that: First, NCLB was simply a reauthorization of an existing law - the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was first enacted in 1965 (So sometimes, you'll see NCLB referred to as ESEA. Another example of ed law alphabet soup). So, it wasn't something that Bush II just created out of thin air.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Update! Douglas County Voucher Program Halted!
I've lost the "breaking news" aspect of this, since it happened last Friday, BUT a Denver district court judge issued an injunction to stop the implementation of the Douglas County voucher program. I think this is the correct result, based on the legal arguments. Interestingly, even though the plaintiffs only asked for a preliminary injunction (meaning, a temporary halt to the program while its legal implications were sorted out), the judge issued a permanent injunction. That means that the program is over, unless Douglas County decides to appeal.
Here's a link to the judge's ruling (pretty much a home run for the plaintiffs). I don't expect you to read it because it's 68 pages, but it's a thorough explanation of why this program violates the Colorado state constitution. And it also includes some fascinating details about some of the actions taken by the private schools - like how one school reduced the financial aid package for a student in the exact amount of the voucher. How nice. How helpful to lower-income families.
And here's some information about the implications of the decision from EdNewsColorado, a great website about educational issues, but it is focused primarily on Colorado. Since it's so close to the start of the school year, a number of families already planned to use the vouchers to attend the private schools. So, what those families will now do is murky.
Congrats to the ACLU, but really, I still think the better argument lies with the Legal Center.
Here's a link to the judge's ruling (pretty much a home run for the plaintiffs). I don't expect you to read it because it's 68 pages, but it's a thorough explanation of why this program violates the Colorado state constitution. And it also includes some fascinating details about some of the actions taken by the private schools - like how one school reduced the financial aid package for a student in the exact amount of the voucher. How nice. How helpful to lower-income families.
And here's some information about the implications of the decision from EdNewsColorado, a great website about educational issues, but it is focused primarily on Colorado. Since it's so close to the start of the school year, a number of families already planned to use the vouchers to attend the private schools. So, what those families will now do is murky.
Congrats to the ACLU, but really, I still think the better argument lies with the Legal Center.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
School Vouchers: the Discrimination Problem
This is Part III of my attempt to catch folks up on the pluses and minuses of school voucher programs, especially as they impact minorities and kids with disabilities. As I've mentioned, there's a new school voucher program here in Colorado (in Douglas County). The school district, obviously, thinks this is a good idea.
Again, the ACLU does not agree. See earlier discussion here.
Plus, as discussed in this WSJ article about the voucher program, this looks like the classic case of vouchers "skimming off the top" - since the vouchers won't actually cover the entire cost of the typical private school, low income families really can't take advantage of them. In essence, it looks like the vouches are subsidies to middle and upper class families, who can now leave public schools in favor of something they think is better.
Now, some states have actively tried to address concerns with school voucher programs by offering additional assistance to low-income families, and ancillary supports (like transportation). Some have even enacted scholarship programs (another way to describe school vouchers) for kids with disabilities - Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, and Florida, just to name a few. (The 12 year old Florida McKay Scholarship, a leader in this movement, will be the subject of another post). This is a great development (check out this interesting piece in the NY Times.)
But, not so in this case here in Colorado!
Again, the ACLU does not agree. See earlier discussion here.
Plus, as discussed in this WSJ article about the voucher program, this looks like the classic case of vouchers "skimming off the top" - since the vouchers won't actually cover the entire cost of the typical private school, low income families really can't take advantage of them. In essence, it looks like the vouches are subsidies to middle and upper class families, who can now leave public schools in favor of something they think is better.
Now, some states have actively tried to address concerns with school voucher programs by offering additional assistance to low-income families, and ancillary supports (like transportation). Some have even enacted scholarship programs (another way to describe school vouchers) for kids with disabilities - Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, and Florida, just to name a few. (The 12 year old Florida McKay Scholarship, a leader in this movement, will be the subject of another post). This is a great development (check out this interesting piece in the NY Times.)
But, not so in this case here in Colorado!
Monday, August 1, 2011
Dyslexie, or, Technology Rocks!
This video has been around for a while, but it is so cool and such a great example, again, of how technology can help kids with special needs - in this case, specifically dyslexia.
If you go to this YouTube video, you will see a demonstration of a new typeface called "dyslexie", which was designed by a guy with dyslexia to be more readable and cause fewer errors for people with dyslexia. (You can also go to the guy's website, but it's mostly in Dutch and I don't speak Dutch).
The idea is to have the font itself be a tool for reducing errors. So, as the video explains, the English alphabet was not designed with dyslexia in mind! There are only 26 letters, and many of them look alike - v and w, i and j, d and b and p and q. The problem is ascerbated by sans serif fonts that are widely used (like Arial, and Helvetica, and ones that like.) So, "dyslexie" emphasizes differences between letters, weights the letters on the bottom so that it's easier to see a "d" instead of a "p", angles some letters to make them look different, and emphasizes punctuation and the capital letters at sentence beginnings (so that it's easier to know when the sentence ends and a new sentence starts).
According to one study at the University of Twente, this actually works. Now, it wouldn't hurt to have a few more studies verifying it, but hey, the essential points are still there: (1) make letters look more distinct from each other and; (2) make it easier to know when sentences begin and end.
I think it's so awesome when people use technology in creative ways to solve problems like this. Practically speaking, I'm not sure how to get dyslexie across the pond and into books for kids (or onto computer screens). But I appreciate now knowing that a couple of simple changes in the way words are presented could make life easier for a kid with dyslexia.
If you go to this YouTube video, you will see a demonstration of a new typeface called "dyslexie", which was designed by a guy with dyslexia to be more readable and cause fewer errors for people with dyslexia. (You can also go to the guy's website, but it's mostly in Dutch and I don't speak Dutch).
The idea is to have the font itself be a tool for reducing errors. So, as the video explains, the English alphabet was not designed with dyslexia in mind! There are only 26 letters, and many of them look alike - v and w, i and j, d and b and p and q. The problem is ascerbated by sans serif fonts that are widely used (like Arial, and Helvetica, and ones that like.) So, "dyslexie" emphasizes differences between letters, weights the letters on the bottom so that it's easier to see a "d" instead of a "p", angles some letters to make them look different, and emphasizes punctuation and the capital letters at sentence beginnings (so that it's easier to know when the sentence ends and a new sentence starts).
According to one study at the University of Twente, this actually works. Now, it wouldn't hurt to have a few more studies verifying it, but hey, the essential points are still there: (1) make letters look more distinct from each other and; (2) make it easier to know when sentences begin and end.
I think it's so awesome when people use technology in creative ways to solve problems like this. Practically speaking, I'm not sure how to get dyslexie across the pond and into books for kids (or onto computer screens). But I appreciate now knowing that a couple of simple changes in the way words are presented could make life easier for a kid with dyslexia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)