In late October, the educational world lost two disparate giants from the world of education. On October 21st, we learned of the death of the quintessential educational reformer, Theodore Sizer. A native New Englander, Sizer dramatically influenced the instructional practices of thousands of educators including those of yours truly.

One day earlier, we lost Gerald Bracey, a longtime education researcher who had the audacity to truly analyze statistics. Bracey, considered one of the foremost defenders of American public schools used long-term international comparisons to demonstrate that America’s public school actually performed much better than critics would suggest.

Ted Sizer

Ted Sizer was the founder of the Coalition of Essential Schools, a group that boasts about 600 members. These schools have adopted a specific school reform concept that construct learning experiences for students by focusing on a core set of principles.

Instead of the traditional comprehensive approach to high school Coalition schools focus on ten core principles:

• Learning to use one’s mind well
• Less is more, depth over coverage
• Goals apply to all students
• Personalization
• Student-as-worker, teacher-as-coach
• Demonstration of mastery
• A tone of decency and trust
• Commitment to the entire school
• Resources dedicated to teaching and learning
• Democracy and equity

Those of us who never taught in a Coalition school wondered aloud about some principles until we had the chance to read his groundbreaking book, Horace’s Compromise. Page by page, the book revealed the shortcomings of the 1980’s high school construct, offering a set of ideas that collectively had one wondering how we were able to accomplish anything of note in the factory model of education.

Though I never met Mr.Sizer, after reading Horace’s Compromise and his later follow-ups, Horace’s School and Horace’s Hope, I felt somehow like I actually knew him, or at least had a sense of what he was all about. At times, Mr. Sizer took on the image of his character, “Horace,” the fictionalized English teacher doing his very best to provide a meaningful educational environment for some 100 plus students a day. At other times, I was Horace, the one making all the compromises to survive, and Sizer my administrator, deftly observing and pointing out that I too was often settling for good enough.

My understanding is that Ted Sizer was the epitome of what an educational leader should be. The former Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and headmaster at Phillips Academy in Andover was a brilliant yet reflective practitioner. He clearly subscribed to the Robert Kennedy school of thought, seeing things as they could be and wondering why not.

People spoke highly of his style and his propensity to listen to teachers. His respect for the educational process also meant he spent time with students seeking to determine their views on school and what they had learned.

Most importantly, Sizer’s work represented the antithesis of the current NCLB push, that somehow educational reform can be simplified and codified. Sizer understood real learning was not linear and that mastery could and should be demonstrated in multiple ways.

The current emphases on making larger schools feel smaller and on high expectations for all students were fundamental to Sizer’s principles. Other concepts like the change in teacher role from the “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side” were fueled by Sizer’s teacher as coach model.

Gerald Bracey

Reportedly fearless in the face of power, Bracey was often described in very different terms than Sizer. Adjectives like pugnacious and abrasive were generally used to describe the man who saw Washington as being ignorant and intellectually lazy.

In 1991 he founded the Education Disinformation Detection and Reporting Agency or EDDRA. To most folks it did not seem to matter the subject – whether it was charter schools, teacher merit pay, or high-stakes testing — Bracey stood in opposition.
Even when it came to the concept of standards, Bracey stood in opposition. He was reported as offering this as one of his last Tweets:

“Thinking that the light at the end of the education tunnel is a standards freight train coming our way. Gonna hurt bad.”
Bracey taught the non-statistical world about Simpson’s paradox and the concept of averages. The concept reveals the possibility that data collectively could contradict what happened within subgroups creating the total.

Such was the case with American SAT scores. While minorities and white majorities were each increasing their scores, the large number of minorities now taking the test meant the overall average test scores were decreasing.

Once a person begins to understand Simpson’s Paradox, any thought of supporting NCLB and its various subgroup expectations goes out the window.

Bracey also pointed out in his book, Reading Educational Research, How to Avoid Getting Statistically Snookered, the workings of former President George Bush and his tax cuts. Bush used the concept of average to create the illusion that Americans as a group were seeing significant tax reductions, about $1500 per person per year.

However, Bracey pointed out that was “on average.” Citing the work of the Washington Post, Bracey noted how the typical teacher would receive a tax reduction equal to the cost of a new television set while someone earning a million dollars a year received a tax break that was roughly twice as large as the typical teacher’s salary. But when these amounts were averaged, every American appeared to receive a substantial break.

Each year Bracey would offer his annual Rotten Apples in Education awards and with it he would take no prisoners. It must be noted that while an enormous critic of George Bush and a one time advocate and campaigner for Barack Obama, he was quick to call Obama to task earlier this year regarding his assertions that three-fourths of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma.

“Not really,” Bracey was quoted. “Look it up.”

It was classic Bracey who had one consistent response to many of the claims being asserted regarding public education, “Show me the data.”

America would do well to adopt the European Model – but for more than just financial reasons.

Given that one in every ten Americans is out of work, the ever-increasing cost of college has brought about a renewed interest in an old concept, the three-year bachelor’s degree option. With Hartwick College in New York and Manchester College in Indiana creating new programs last year, the topic is once again at the forefront of educational discussions.

However, the resurgence in the concept, fueled further by the recent Newsweek article featuring the insight of former education secretary Lamar Alexander, appears centered solely upon the goal of providing a more affordable college degree option for students. Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

At Hartwick for example, the idea theoretically will save students one full year of tuition and fees, or about $42,000. That is because Hartwick has taken the extraordinary step of pricing tuition for the program independent of the number of semester credit hours.

Instead of the traditional 30 credits a year, students in the three-year bachelor’s program at Hartwick take 40. Yet, the school offers the additional five credit hours per semester, or ten per year, at the same pricing level as the 15 credit hour per semester price.

At Manchester, students continue to pay the same cost per credit hour, so tuition remains the same. Instead, the savings center more upon the reduction of one full year of room and board costs (the school is using a savings figure of $25,000).

Other schools are certainly implementing the concept but the current push is offered primarily as a way of offsetting those soaring tuition costs and reducing the enormous debt students have been taking on in recent years. It rarely ever receives attention in terms of academic rationale, either taking an in-depth look as to the reasons for the longstanding, 120-credit, four-year standard most colleges utilize today or if another standard might actually be appropriate.

Opposition by Faculty, Trustees and Students

Somewhat surprisingly, the general consensus on the three-year bachelor’s option is one of opposition to the concept. We say surprisingly as that opposition exists in three separate populations.

As one might expect, some faculty members and university trustees remain opposed. Each camp often offers different reasons for that view.

Some suggest that a student’s academic and social experience would be weakened by shortening the standard program to three years. Yet another group, the real traditionalists, fear the change would result in a shift from the idea of higher education as a broad-based learning experience to one that is focused on job training. Still others insist that such an option will produce less revenue overall for the school and potentially longer hours for faculty.

The biggest surprise is that the idea does not appear to be all that popular with students either. Most appear to prefer spending a minimum of four years in college, apparently wanting a four-year experience that offers the full package, academic, social, and athletic.

Proponents of the three-year option might suggest that students may not be all that interested in growing up quite so fast. Whatever the case, they are the clients and the fact is there has been relatively little student interest in three-year programs in prior years.

Three-Year Model Popular in other Countries

In a sign that it just might be time for review, the four-year bachelor’s degree dates back to the time of the American Revolution. The idea was to provide a broad-based education to ensure the ability of citizens to properly participate in a civic democracy.

However, in the last dozen years, the three-year degree model has become commonplace overseas. It was in June of 1999 that European countries entered into the Bologna Accord, a set of universal educational standards for the continent. The agreement brought with it the acceptance of a three-year Bachelor Degree program though most students enrolled only after completing a further year of education at the secondary level.

In addition to Europe, countries like India and Pakistan have offered three-year degree programs for quite some time. In both countries, the three years of higher education comes after twelve years of elementary and secondary education.

Of course, there is nothing noteworthy about three or even four years for that matter. If a degree is a measurement of learning, then there should be an agreed upon set of very specific learning outcomes required for earning such a degree. When those outcomes have been accomplished and a student can demonstrate mastery, a degree should be awarded.

That is precisely what the Bologna Accord provides and what America lacks. Instead, American colleges require a collection of 120 credits and individual documentation of completion of the courses making up those credits.

It is extremely interesting to note that once upon a time American high schools required a total of 16 or 17 credits for graduation. As standards have increased, students now must collect 20+ in most school districts.

But the move nationally is to develop and implement a uniform set of standards that are used to measure the knowledge base accumulated while taking those courses. The move away from seat time as the primary measurement tool is considered long overdue. Given that sentiment, one would think such a move would be underway at the collegiate level as well.

Time for New Options May Have Come

In addition to the tuition and room and board cost savings, proponents of the three year program also note that such an option would enable students to enter the workforce a full year earlier. Such a move would of course allow students to tackle the potential issue of debt from both sides.

Right or wrong, the three year idea is catching on. Lawmakers in Rhode Island have gone so far as to approve a bill to require institutions of higher education to create three-year bachelor’s programs to begin next fall.

Still, one would think that students would much prefer the Hartwick model that continues the basic two semester approach and the flat tuition. That allows students the chance to recharge their educational batteries and to either earn some cash during the summer break or travel abroad.

Better yet, instead of simply trying to find ways for students to finish in three years, it seems to be time to examine the longstanding 120-credit standard. Coming up with an agreed upon set of standards to govern program content would result in programs that are not about time but substance instead.

Undoubtedly, students would need to be more focused if the time horizon were shortened. Changing majors and drifting academically through a number of interests is not conducive to finishing in three year’s time. Shorter programs would also mean that students would have less time to grow up before entering the world of work.

But nothing in the three-year concept would prevent students from taking greater time should they desire to do so.

But for the three-year concept to truly earn its stripes with faculty, staff and students, a different approach is required. Creating a finite set of required standards and the programming that helps students meet those standards comes first.

Otherwise, three-year programs, while saving students thousands of dollars, could actually be just less time, and unfortunately, less substance.

New comic strip site moves into the education market with BitStripsforSchools

It has been almost two years since we did our four-part feature on the use of comic books in the classroom. At that time we discussed the comics movement in light of the increased emphasis in the educational setting on student engagement and enhanced learning, two elements that spoke directly to the issue of teachers capturing the attention of their students.

Specifically, when it came to struggling young readers, it was clear that one way hook and thus engage students was to turn to the world of comics. While the initial reaction of some was that teachers were lowering their educational standards and reinforcing lazy reading habits, many others, understanding that teaching begins with getting student attention, decided to give comics a try.

For those educators still on the fence, we followed our initial post with an excellent interview with Chris Wilson of The Graphic Classroom. Most importantly, Chris clearly articulated how the graphic format could be used to enhance any reading program, not just those who struggled with the reading process.

Making Comic Strips

Teachers already using such the comics format no doubt understand how the creation of comic strips by students can become a teaching tool for reluctant writers as well.

Given what we had learned, we were extremely intrigued with a new web site called BitstripsforSchools.com. Just as one might expect, it is computer software that allows students to create their own comic book characters and story lines or strips.

Like Chris who grew up with an interest in graphic novels, Jacob Blackstock, the CEO of BitStrips Inc., always had an interest in drawing his own comics.

In fact, Jacob acknowledges that on the one hand he often got into trouble for drawing comics instead of paying attention while in class, but that on the other would get high marks for handing in comics as schoolwork.

With his site BitStrips, Jacob appears to have resolved this longstanding paradox. Having started, and stopped the university academic scene a number of times, Jacob had to teach himself classical animation, a step that helped him create his own 14-minute cartoon.

But the process of drawing the same character over 15,000 times (3 years worth of work) had him thinking of easier ways to repeat a creative process that could become tedious at times. With the help of David Kennedy, Shahan Panth, Jesse Brown, Dorian Baldwin and Tom Smahel, the group would create Bitstrips and offer just such a path for other would-be cartoonists.

Over the past ten days we posed a number of questions to the CEO of Bitstrips Inc. Below, as is our practice at OpenEducation, we offer his Q & A verbatim for our readers.

Can you give our readers a brief history of how Bitstrips came to be?

Bitstrips Inc. is a six-man team from Toronto, most of whom have been friends since high school. Collectively, we’ve been making comics, cartoons, and interactive games all our lives. After years of drawing the same things over and over again (animation and illustration can be tedious work), we found ourselves looking for a way to speed up the creation process – to minimize the time it takes to bring an idea to life in a shareable form. This quest led to the development of our Comic Builder, which we strived to make the easiest, most fun, and fastest way to make great-looking comics using a computer. As we reached this goal, we realized that the Comic Builder had a greater purpose than just speeding up the process:

Since then the response has been overwhelming, with increasingly phenomenal usage. In our first month, we’ve had over 50,000 student accounts created. Currently the students are producing more than 6000 comics every day, and this number is increasing rapidly. And, most importantly, the teachers are thrilled to see just how engaged their students are while using Bitstrips.

Can you explain the differences between the two sites, particularly the attributes that are unique to the BitstripsforSchools site?

BitstripsforSchools.com contains all the technology from Bitstrips.com, but with added security and administration features designed specifically for the school setting. Unlike Bitstrips.com, which is an entertainment site open to the public, BitstripsforSchools enables teachers to create virtual classrooms, which are essentially walled gardens that have no links to the wider web. These classrooms are just for students, and the teacher is in control. Administrative functionality allows teachers to monitor all activity within the class, and moderate content before it’s shared with the class.

Another unique aspect of BitstripsforSchools is that it gives teachers the ability to create specialized activities, and even share them with other teachers. This makes the site much more versatile and applicable to specific curricula. For example, if the class is reading a certain book, the teacher can create an activity that involves adapting a scene from the book into comic form. Any subject, from language to social studies to science, can be turned into an engaging comic-creation activity. And, as these activities are shared between teachers via the Activity Library, BitstripsforSchools will become exponentially more useful – teachers can search for activities by grade and subject, and add comments or ratings to assist other teachers in finding what they need.

Can you talk a little bit about the creativity available to students on the site – while basic character traits are available, it appears that students can customize each of their characters? And what attributes are available should they try to ‘cartoon’ themselves?

One of the key ideas behind Bitstrips is that it’s not just about making comics – it’s about making comics that star YOU and your friends. This makes the experience more personal, fun and engaging. So, when developing the character builder, we tried to make it as flexible as possible, so that it’s easy to create an appealing, recognizable caricature of yourself or anyone you know.

One of the special features we’ve added to BitstripsforSchools is a class picture that lives on your homepage. As each student creates his or her character (also known as avatars), it automatically appears in the group shot. So, when a teacher creates a Bitstrips classroom, they get to watch this scene fill itself up with cartoon versions of the whole class, which is a lot of fun for everyone.

Can you describe the types of emotions and actions available for characters? Is this fairly limited at this time?

One of the best things about building characters on Bitstrips is that there’s so much you can do with them. These characters are not just simple designs, they’re actually very expressive little puppets that can convey a lot of nuanced information without even using a word balloon.

So, from a single character design, there are truly endless possibilities when it comes to facial expressions and body language – which plays a big part in the unique way that comics can visually communicate thoughts and feelings.

How about the strips – is there a limit to the number of frames available or can a student create a story length cartoon?

A comic can have up to eight rows, with as many panels per row as the action will allow (usually no more than four). Generally this seems to be more than sufficient – though, for those students with more epic inclinations, they can build longer stories by creating multiple chapters. On Bitstrips.com we’ve had users create ongoing series with hundreds of episodes.

Talk a little bit about the art library currently available (characters, scenes and props). And what is in the works for expanding this library?

In addition to the characters, there is an art library containing a growing selection of props, furniture, backgrounds, and special effects. We like to think of the items in the library not as clip art, but rather as ‘smart art’ – that is, any given object may have multiple viewing angles as well as different states. For example, we have a banana that can be peeled, drawers that open and close, and water that transforms from a drop to a puddle. Discovering these extra states (and finding uses for them) has proven to be a fun part of exploring the library for our users.

The art library also contains full scenes, which combine backgrounds, props and furniture to make it faster and easier to create your comic. We’re working on new batches of artwork and plan on releasing regular updates throughout the year. We get lots of requests for specific items to be added to the library, and we try to make sure that the most commonly requested bits go to the top of our list of new things to design. Currently we’re working on some major updates that should really add to the fun – new clothing, animals, musical instruments, and more…

Your site notes that students can email their comics home, print them out, or paste them into other applications. What are some of the other common applications students can use?

For those who want to work beyond the confines of the comic strip format, graphics from Bitstrips can be copied and pasted into other image editing programs such as Adobe Photoshop. We’ve seen people copying their characters into posters, calendars, Powerpoint presentations, profile pics for blogs and Twitter accounts – you name it. Some industrious folks have even created flipbook animations on Youtube by exporting individual panels as frames. We’re constantly amazed to see Bitstrips art pop up in the least expected places.

What are some of the not so obvious, indirect learnings that Bitstrips can offer students?

There’s been a huge amount of emphasis lately on the power of comics as a tool for enhancing student engagement and literacy. We’ve also seen teachers use it for other subjects – art, social studies, even math.

Meanwhile, whatever the subject being studied, there is always the underlying fact that BitstripsforSchools is a social media application, and I think learning to use social media in a constructive way is very important for today’s students. While using Bitstrips, students will find themselves indirectly learning about appropriate online behavior, digital collaboration, and other essential skills for navigating the increasingly complex world of the web.

One real key aspect of comics is its ability to help students who are English as Second Language Learners. Are there other languages currently available for teachers?

BitstripsforSchools is currently available in English and French (we are a Canadian company, after all). It is very likely that in the near future we will add more versions of the site in different languages. We’ve already got users in every corner of the globe, and since the teachers write the activities and their students write the comics, there’s really nothing stopping anyone from using the tools in any language. But, as demand increases, we will certainly add more support (ie properly translated interface, activities and documentation) for other languages.

Educators are always concerned with Internet safety – talk a little bit about what filters/precautions you have in place?

While developing the site, we were very aware that safety would be a prime concern for teachers, and thus it’s been a major factor in how we set things up. Our guiding principle is that the teacher is in control. When a teacher opens an account, they create a ‘virtual classroom’ that is essentially a walled garden with no links to the wider internet. Students can still access this classroom from their home computers, but there’s no way for anyone outside the class to access it, and no way for the students to stumble upon any content that hasn’t been reviewed by their teacher.

We have a number of moderation controls, designed to help teachers track and deal with all the activity within the class. They can choose to have all comics sent to them for review before approving them to be shared with the other students. Students can flag comics or comments as inappropriate, at which point they are rendered invisible to the rest of the class and brought to the teacher’s attention. Comics containing profanities are flagged automatically.

Can you briefly go over the pricing structure and what comes with each pricing level? Can teachers sign off and on easily (so as to have access for one, two or three month periods should they choose)? And do you foresee a time when there might be a very basic option available to schools for free?

We offer subscriptions on either a monthly or annual basis. For a single-classroom account, which supports up to 40 students, it’s $9.95 per month, or $87 for a full year. Teachers with more than one class can also get a multi-classroom account, which supports up to 6 classrooms, for $29.95 per month or $265 for a year. All accounts come with free updates and upgrades, and unlimited comics and activities.

It’s possible that some day we might be able to figure out a more basic version that could be freely available – but we still have a lot of work to do before we can afford to develop something like that. In the meantime, any teacher can try the full-featured service for free by signing up for a 14-day trial account. All paid accounts also include the free trial for the first two weeks.

Can you provide teachers a couple of contacts that are currently using BitstripsforSchools should new potential users want to pursue specific questions about the site and its application?

For a contact outside our company, I’d point people to the blog of Doug Peterson, who is a Computers in the Classroom Consultant here in Ontario, and is also part of the OSAPAC committee that recommended the license to the Ministry. He’s been a great evangelist for Bitstrips, and has posted some great articles on his blog, like this one.

Meanwhile, any potential users with specific questions should feel free to get in touch with us directly anytime by emailing us at info@bitstripsforschools.com. We’re always very happy to talk with educators about the service – direct communication with teachers has been a huge part of the site’s development since day one.

ScienceCopenhagen, the YouTube channel offering that snappy and yes, sexy video that promoted the study of science recently announced The Moving Science 2010 Film Contest. The Videoer fra Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet (the Faculty of Science) at the University of Copenhagen gained a large web presence with the release of “The Power to Create.”

From its creativity and wondrously apt music to its brevity, every aspect of that little gem caught folks attention. Yet, to traditional academics, the ones who believe the world thrives way too much on packaging, the idea of using a hip video to sell the study of science has to be seen as an enormous step in the wrong direction.

In fact, two of the other posts on the YouTube channel, likely appealed only to, well the generation that just might be heading off to college in the near future. But they reveal a creative flair that has to appeal to the young man or woman who has previously been thinking that majoring in science represents the uncoolest of possible choices.

Indeed, in what appears to be a direct push to change that view, there is the classic beer bottle domino line called Cafeen Domino as well as another clever little video that features a young woman (with another wondrous track of music) using a urinal. We would have to think those did not sit well with the traditionalists either.

Moving Science 2010 Competition

To compete for a significant number of prizes, movie producers must produce a video shorter than five minutes. In fact, the recommendation is for a length of 10 to 120 seconds. Prizes are gift certificates for IT, music or video related equipment, with the top prize being 15,000 DKK or about $3,000.

To enter, you must produce a film about one of three things: why one should study science or what science can lead to in later life or the most specific, the studying of science at the University of Copenhagen. The competition is open to anyone, students as well as non-students, and virtually any movie format is acceptable.

It can be an advert, a sketch, a song, a documentary or even viral film. Movies can be shot on a cell phone, webcam or regular video camera and may of course include a killer soundtrack as long as copyright is properly dealt with.

Seven different subject categories are available: a free form category as well as videos that would feature topics related to the Department of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematical Sciences, Geography and Geology, Computer Science and Exercise and Sports Sciences.

And as for inspiration, the site offers the three gems we have already noted plus these other ingenious little YouTube stalwarts.

For more on the deadlines, specific prizes and submission details, visit The Moving Science 2010 Movie Competition and click on the various sub links noted.

Children Largely Surf the Web Unsupervised.

Ofcom recently published an interim report on media use by UK children. The details include some very interesting results that we would suspect mirror that of American children.

The report takes an in-depth look at the various media used by children ages 5-15 (computers, game consoles, cell phones, etc.), where and how frequently they use the media, and the e-safety measures imposed by parents. The results are then broken out in various tables according to age, sex and household income.

The first critical general trend to note is that access to media, be it via television, the internet or other sources, continues to increase. While actual use varies, the two other most noteworthy trends include children using the internet at ever-younger ages but that their preference for television drops off with age.

The first somewhat troubling result is that more than a third of 12-15 year-olds now have internet access in their bedrooms. Yet, just under half of the parents have implemented internet filtering or parental controls, leaving nearly 60% of youngsters in the 12-15 age group to use the internet unsupervised.

A second troubling trend is that one in six users aged 5-7 are also mostly left to use the internet unsupervised as well. According to the survey results, most parents “say that they trust [their] child to use the internet safely.”

As for utilizing parental filters for cable television or the internet, a significant number of parents (one in eight) did not know how to set such controls or were unaware that such controls existed.

While there continues to be strong advice for a different set of expectations, one that features televisions, computers and game consoles located in the family room, it would seem parents are giving in and allowing these media to migrate to their child’s bedroom.

Such results likely reinforce the notion that schools must do more in the way of educating children and their parents regarding media literacy, especially basic internet safety measures. In fact, the report may well indicate that parental education may well be the greater priority.

The full report can be found online (PDF) along with an annex (PDF) of the top fifty sites visited by UK children.

Are you still new to the Twitter process? Ever wondered if that Tweet-texting your son or daughter was doing would ever amount to anything useful?

Well, now you just may see some possible value in what that college-age son or daughter has been up to. Given our love for all good things free, we could not help but point folks in the direction of CollegeScholarships where the site supporters are offering $14,014.00 in scholarships for the best in Tweeting.

It is a contest that would make any English teacher proud, as in how can one say something extremely profound in just a few words. Given that “Twitter is Connecting the World,” the assignment is simple, “in 140 characters or less, write a Tweet highlighting how we can use Twitter to improve the world.”

OK, so it’s not so easy.

But it is a helluva an idea backed by some serious generosity.

And yes, it looks like there just might be a theme here: the total prize money, $14,014.00, seems to highlight a certain three-digit number.

The details on the 140 Scholarship can be found here.

Sometimes you read a report and your response is “but of course!” However, before you read it, you actually may have thought differently.

Such is the case with the study Estimating The Payoff Of Attending A More Selective College: An Application Of Selection On Observables And Unobservables. The focus of the study is “On the Payoff to Attending an Elite College” and the basic findings are straight out of the textbook:

“Students who attend colleges with higher average tuition costs or spending per student tend to earn higher incomes later on.”

Such findings often lead to yet another textbook response – if accepted at an elite school, you should attend. After all, the name recognition of the school and its overall prestige will more than compensate for the additional costs of attendance.

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

The general consensus today is that it pays to get a college degree. In addition, the general consensus today is that the quality of education varies from one college to another.

Given the above data regarding career earnings, parents and students often take some liberty regarding basic cause and effect. Because elite colleges have a stronger reputation and graduates from these more expensive institutions tend to earn more money, the belief is that the college is somehow the critical factor in future success and earnings.

According to this study, the problem with this logic is that it is not one of cause and effect. Instead, the findings note that the students who attend selective schools are likely to have higher earnings potential for the very same reasons that they were admitted to the more selective schools in the first place.

So to get at the heart of the question, Stacy Berg Dale and Alan Krueger tried two novel approaches to answering the question, “Does the school make the student? Or does the student make the school?”

The researchers used data from the College and Beyond Survey to examine more than six thousand students who were accepted and rejected by a comparable set of colleges in 1976. They contrasted that information with the labor outcomes of those students in 1995. In this instance, they were looking at the students who had the same menu of school choices yet some chose to attend more or less selective schools.

In addition, the researchers compared this data to that of the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972. In this instance, the researchers sought to estimate the impact on students’ earnings when compared to the average SAT scores of all the schools the students applied to and the average SAT score of the school they attended.

School Selectivity Immaterial

The results – school selectivity is enormously overrated and does not necessarily pay off in a higher income over time.

“Students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges,” the researchers concluded.

In simplest terms, a student accepted say to Brown but rejected by Yale (perhaps their first choice) sometimes goes on to attend their own state university. In such instances, the student in question still might well achieve significant earning power.

In fact, when it comes to the best predictor, the researchers found the average SAT score of the schools students applied to but did not attend was a much stronger predictor of students’ subsequent income than the average SAT score of the school students actually attended. This big fish in a small pond view is often dubbed the Spielberg Effect (famed movie director Stephen Spielberg was rejected by two upper echelon film schools, USC and UCLA and ultimately attended Cal State Long Beach).

In a nutshell, the findings are most obvious. A student’s motivation and desire to succeed are far more important than the average academic ability of the other students around them.

However, we must recognize the authors do offer some speculation that tuition may indeed affect future earnings. The reason that this could well be part of the equation is that schools with higher tuitions can offer more resources and therefore, the potential of a higher quality product. But the researchers point not just to overall cost but to the resources schools devote to instruction.

And there is in fact one instance where the cost of an elite college does seem to matter. No matter what measurement of college quality is used, students from disadvantaged backgrounds record the greatest gains from attending an elite college.

The abstract is available online.

We have all heard the stories of the teenager in her home, her laptop open as she works on a school assignment, connected at the same time to the internet, conversing via an open chat window even as she has a cellphone pushed against her ear.

The story has it that the parents are more than a tad furious the first time they see this behavior. But after addressing their daughter on the issue they are gently reminded, well maybe not gently, that she has everything covered. The parent, still somewhat incredulous, has to acknowledge they have not heard of any issues at school and well, the last report card was quite good.

Though unable to match the feat themselves, they begin to believe that maybe there is something to this idea of multitasking, that today’s digital generation is hard-wired to handle this seemingly amazing task. Upon hearing the stories it is easy to begin to think along the same lines.

There is just one problem with such thinking – there is no data to show that those who multitask are actually any good at it.

Recent Study

Such were the findings of a recent study discussed by the BBC. In simplest terms, the findings indicated that “the people who engage in media ‘multitasking’ are those least able” to handle this task well.

In the study researchers divided folks into two test groups based on their current propensity to multitask. Those who acknowledged routinely consuming multiple media such as internet, television and mobile phones simultaneously formed one study group while those who did not engage in the behavior were assigned to a second group.

Researchers determined that the low multitaskers‘ group consistently outdid their highly multitasking counterparts on a series of classic psychology tests designed to assess attention and memory skills.

Specific Items Tested

The three classic assessments used were selected based upon the premise that multitaskers were able to multitask because of specific inherent or developed skills.

Computer testing formats were utilized so as to take advantage of the digital multitaskers favorite tools. The tests involved the participant’s ability to ignore irrelevant information or distracters, the degree to which participants were able to organize their working memory and the skills at which they could switch tasks.

In all cases, low multitaskers were better at the task.

Increasing the distracters dramatically affected the high multitaskers but even with few distracters, the low multitasking group outperformed their counterparts. On the tests of working memory, not only did the high multitaskers do poorer from the outset, their performance deteriorated as time went on. And on the issue of switching tasks, the low multitaskers significantly outperformed their counterparts every step of the way.

Sum Total

According to Cliff Nass, one of the researchers, the sum total reveals a rather shocking discovery: “high multitaskers are lousy at everything that’s necessary for multitasking.”

Still the researchers acknowledge that one pressing question remains: are the results of the experiment one of simple cause and effect?

Are those people with a dearth of multitasking skills somehow drawn to multitasking lifestyles? Or does a multitasking lifestyle dull the skills necessary to multitask?

Actually, it is likely that the issue is far more complicated. One would have to assume that studies mapping the brain activity of those who multitask (against those who do not generally do so) may well be necessary to gain any real understanding of what is taking place.

But in the meantime, it would seem that a parent’s gut reaction to witnessing the efforts of that multitasking teenager is basically dead on. That teenager might be ‘managing their situation’ at that moment, but the idea that she could possibly be handling all those tasks simultaneously with as high a level of competency as she would if she were to focus on one alone seems to be up for debate.

There was a large touch of irony in an August NY Times post discussing the demise of a fixture in the world of education, the school textbook. The article, In a Digital Future, Textbooks Are History, predicts the death of an industry that is becoming “antiquated” with each passing tech innovation.

Though always considered exceedingly expensive, textbooks were once deemed as fundamental to the classroom learning experience as the teacher. These tombs were the source of knowledge, the drivers of curriculum, and the teacher’s most important resource.

But all that has changed in the digital world. According to experts, there are two critical factors.

First, there is the assessment of the value (learning produced per dollar) of these texts:

“They are expensive,” writes Seth Godin. “$50 is the low end, $200 is more typical.”

Yet,

“Textbooks have very little narrative,” writes Godin. “They don’t take you from a place of ignorance to a place of insight. Instead, even the best … textbooks surround you with a fairly non-connected series of vocabulary words, oversimplified problems and random examples.”

And of course, in today’s lightening-fast world, they are out of date before the ink is even dry.

Second, while the books are essentially considered less than ideal, we are seeing an enormous change in students based on the fact they have grown up with technology. From the NY Times:

“Kids are wired differently these days,” said Sheryl R. Abshire, chief technology officer for the Calcasieu Parish school system in Lake Charles, La. “They’re digitally nimble. They multitask, transpose and extrapolate. And they think of knowledge as infinite.

“They don’t engage with textbooks that are finite, linear and rote,” Dr. Abshire continued. “Teachers need digital resources to find those documents, those blogs, those wikis that get them beyond the plain vanilla curriculum in the textbooks.”

Beyond Textbooks

Today we offer a Q & A with Andy Chlup of the Vail School District. With experience as a classroom teacher and technology coordinator, Andy is a perfect choice to head up one of the digital learning movements cited in the aforementioned NY Times article, Beyond Textbooks.

Andy notes he has been passionate about utilizing technology in the classroom from the first day he walked into a classroom. His interest in digital learning was spurred on by the wide-spread availability of open-source web-based tools such as WordpressMU, Moodle, DekiWiki, and many more.

Below, Andy discusses the move to a digital learning model, one that actually transcends any discussion of textbooks.

What would you categorize as the three biggest advantages to moving away from textbooks and replacing that tradition with a digital learning model?

* Instant updates. Our superintendent, Calvin Baker, proudly sent out an email message to the school board when Pluto was demoted. In the message he said, we are one of the only districts in the country who’s textbooks are not obsolete.

* Collaboration. At this phase the primary collaboration is happening between teachers but as the tools become more familiar students will be working with each other, their teachers, and the community more and more.

* Costs. While the technology that enables digital learning still costs slightly more than a set of textbooks, it can do so much more. A digital device provides access to content and gives students a platform to create, share, and work.

Do you share the view that the digital world will be the real driver of educational innovations moving forward (as opposed to the concept of vouchers and charter schools)? Why or why not?

I’m sure that I see technology as an alternative to these on-going debates. What I’ve learned is that technology is an accelerant. If you use it on a system that isn’t very good it just allows you to do a bad job faster and more efficiently. I believe that technology should be used to accelerate things that are already working well. For example portfolio assessment is great, unless you’re the teacher trying to keep it all organized. Take that content and put it on a blog server and you’ve not only got an organized structure built into the system but a way to add pictures, videos, and audio to the portfolio.

The same can be said of digital instruction. If the instruction/pedagogy is poor then you are just being better at teaching badly. However, if the instruction is about understanding and connecting then technology can enable and accelerate that process by orders of magnitude.

While everyone has some sense of what is meant by a digital textbook, can you explain to readers the fundamental differences between a traditional book format and a digital text? And can you explain what is meant by a flexbook?

I’m not familiar with flex books. Alternatively, we aren’t even using a true digital text. Our teachers are connecting and/or creating their own content to meet the learning needs of their students. In my opinion, the major differences between a traditional text and digital text are:

* It is easier to copy/distribute digital texts. There are virtually no transactional costs beyond appropriate copyright compensation.

* Digital texts can be living documents with video and sounds plus hyperlinks to outside supporting materials.

* Digital texts can be more easily appended and modified either by students taking notes or teachers choosing exactly the right resource for a given lesson.

It seems that folks today have begun truly questioning the concept of a textbook, that such a resource is finite and linear yet real learning is infinite and multi-pronged. Are today’s tech-savvy kids the driving force behind the digital move or are educators finally seeing the light?

For me it is about economics. The simple fact is that it will soon be cheaper to buy a device that can be used to access digital content freely available on the web than it will be to purchase a set of textbooks. This fact has driven our Beyond Textbooks program. We want to be ready to fully embrace this dream.

We are going about it in two ways. The first is identifying subscription resources that meet our instructional needs and begin categorizing them so that they are more accessible to teachers and students. The second is to begin creating the instructional resources that will be needed to teach with these devices. That means Moodle courses, portfolio blogs, wiki projects, etc…

As schools head into the digital age, what will this new digital format do to the fundamental structures of school: grade levels, subjects, and the units of time (class periods)?

I think that as long as there is standardized testing and traditional schools it will be hard to escape these boundaries. Unless we get to a point that students no longer attend their school, I just don’t see there being much change. The systemic changes necessary to bring down these boundaries is well beyond the power of one public school district.

That being said, there is a glimmer of hope. As the instructional tools continue to develop and students become more adept at academic learning with technology tools, I think the relatively arbitrary distinctions we currently use in education will fade away.

The key is finding transformative technologies and pedagogies. At this point, it seems that teachers and students are still utilizing many web 2.0 tools in superficial ways. It is like the PowerPoint phase all over again. What I mean is teachers are impressed by the technologies that students demonstrate, not what students actually do with the technology. We’ve got to make sure that the technologies adopted positively affect student learning outcomes.

I know a lot is made of teachers making the adjustment to the digital age but how are you finding parents adapting? The idea of a course without a textbook must be troubling to parents who attended schools where the text formed the framework of every course?

It can be very difficult because parents may not be particularly computer savvy. A teacher can post their entire day as a podcast, but if a parent doesn’t understand how to access the content then they are frustrated. For the most part, parents just want to be able to help their child with school work so you have to be sure that those resources are still available.

The teachers that teach without textbooks all have course blogs that contain the content they use to teach during the day. These are run on WordpressMU and have a wide variety of access controls depending on the grade level and teacher preferences. Parents have access viewer access to these blogs, so they can see the materials their children are using.

One major concern for many is the number of students who may not have access to computers at home. Do you share the concern that the digital model could further widen the gap between the children of affluent families and those who are not able to afford such technology?

I do. The bright side is that personal computing devices are quickly dropping below the $300 mark.

What we see is a future where every student has a minimum spec device that is provided by the district. As one of my co-workers said, “It is like the bus….if you don’t have a car or your parents won’t let you drive you ride the bus.” We’d like to get to the point where all students have the option to either use the district minimum spec machine or bring their own. We feel this gives the best opportunity to both underprivileged students and those who have the means to have more.

The content and applications that we are developing as our standard are all wrapped around the web, so it doesn’t really matter if you access those application via a netbook running linux or a hot-rod Macbook pro. Obviously, those that bring their own computers still have an advantage, but to realize the potential benefits of a digital curriculum you don’t need a super fast machine.

The move towards Opensource materials has folks insisting that educational costs should drop considerably – is that so? Will there not be significant technology costs as schools attempt to stay up-to-date on the tech side?

While I’m a huge fan and proponent of open-source, it isn’t necessarily cheaper to run. For example, while Linux if free, finding somebody that understands how to set it up and keep it running is not. I think regardless of the approach you take, be it Windows, OS X, or Linux an organization needs to determine the TOC before making any big decisions.

If you have the talent to tap into open-source projects then I say go for it. Just realize there are research and development costs that cannot be ignored.

As for refresh, I have two thoughts.

First, this is where having a technology team that doesn’t understand education can be detrimental. The Tech industry is on a 12-24 month cycle and education is on a 36-60 month cycle – this causes more problems than any other tech issue I can think of. Just when a teacher is finally comfortable with a program something new comes down the pipeline.

So, if your tech department is pushing out updates every 24 months, teachers haven’t had time to fully integrate the technology into their teaching. This can eventually lead to teachers being frustrated with technology.

Basically, I encourage other ed tech professionals to start thinking about the educational cycle and not get wrapped in the technology cycle. Sometimes, it pays off. Just compare Vista to Windows 7.

Next, districts have to accept that tech costs money. I do believe that these costs will be offset when you stop buying textbooks.

While much is being made of the move away from traditional textbooks, the program you are involved with, Beyond Textbooks, seems to be far more sophisticated than simply removing a text from the equation. Can you briefly discuss the initiative?

To start with it is about moving away from the textbook as a metaphor or schema, whether paper or digital.

Beyond Textbooks is really about looking at learning objectives independent of a text. The whole approach involves using the learning objective as your starting point, then choosing the most effective resource to teach that objective to your current class.

Teachers are able to focus on what is the best way to creatively teach the learning objectives. So, often teachers are limited to teaching with the resources they have. We aim to leverage the nearly unlimited potential of the Internet to give teachers access to virtually any resource they can dream up. This includes materials created by other teachers, subscription services, and many incredible free resources out on the web.

The key is organizing these resources in a way that allows teachers to connect them to their learning objectives.

Is there anything I did not touch on that you think is a key element to the digital learning or Beyond Textbooks movement?

I think the most important thing is that BT is a grassroots, “For Teachers, By Teachers,” approach to school reform. Each of the steps involved have required input and guidance by teachers. One of the biggest problems with many educational resources is that they are written by academics or professional writers instead of professional educators.

Some advice for educators on teaching today’s digital natives.

On the Wired Campus blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education we came across a Q & A with S. Craig Watkins, an associate professor of radio, TV, and film at the University of Texas at Austin. Watkins is the author of the recently released “The Young and the Digital: What the Migration to Social Network Sites, Games, and Anytime, Anywhere Media Means for Our Future.”

Students and Social Media

In his Q & A, one clearly sees that this professor has a great feel for the implications of the “new age of social networking and media.” He does not question the move by employers and even college admissions folks who are using candidates’ Facebook and MySpace pages as a source of information when making decisions – in simplest terms, if people place information on the net for all to see then they should expect that some people will seek that information out for decision-making purposes.

In contrast, he does not support universities using postings as a way of policing student activities on campus. In other words, using social media as a way to discipline students for specific actions is not something Watkins supports.

This represented a very interesting distinction for this writer. Therefore, it is one that college students should think about very carefully.

Implications of Technology Access

More noteworthy for educators is Watkins’ assessment of students in this new age of technology.

Today’s students are “really the first generation of teenagers who grew up with the household computer and the Internet as a kind of everyday experience and everyday technology in the household,” notes Watkins. “So they’re used to a much more active way of engaging their environment, a much more active way of gauging the information landscape.”

Watkins rightfully offers that today’s digital generation expects to have access to technology in all settings including the classroom. More importantly, today’s learners have “developed habits that are simply out of step with those more traditional ways of conducting or modeling a classroom.”

As for excluding technology in the classroom, Watkins insists that will essentially be a losing battle.

“The students are walking in armed with this technology, from their mobile phones to laptops. Most college classrooms are now wired, so students can access all of their applications, all of their social networks while sitting in a classroom.

“It’s a very different technological environment, but it’s also a different social and cultural environment, too. Students are coming in with the expectation to have this technology, and they’re determined in some ways to use it while they’re in class.”

Implications for Instruction

As for the person in charge of the classroom, he or she must check his last line carefully, especially the part that suggests today’s students are “determined in some ways to use” technology while sitting in the classroom. Therefore, limit such use at your peril.

As for instructional practices, today’s digital generation is in need of a more modern teaching style, one that features extensive interaction. Watkins explains this simply:

This is “really forcing university professors to think about their teaching style and the pedagogical techniques that they use in the classroom. In other words, I’ve become increasingly dissatisfied with simply delivering a traditional lecture in the classroom.”

Remember the discussions about the slow death of the lecture format? Watkins essentially signals it is time to break out the coffin.

“I’m beginning to debate whether or not (the lecture format) it’s effective, whether or not it works, whether or not it’s a useful tool or a useful way to engage and create a kind of learning space or a learning environment. They’re active learners, as opposed to passive learners. That one-way flow of content — I don’t know how effective that is anymore.”

Of course, reading between the lines he is being kind, being suggestive instead of prescriptive. But there is no ambiguity in the suggestions.

Summation

Ultimately the advice for educators on teaching today’s digital natives is really quite simple:

Using the lecture format as your basic method for teaching today’s technology-raised youngsters is essentially a recipe for disaster. In addition, limiting technology use by students is also essentially a recipe for disaster.

The question is: Where are you as a teacher and where is your school as an institution in regards to these two educational developments.

Too many times I have now witnessed my students writing in modern day hieroglyphics. Most times, I must admit that I am not even sure what they are saying to one another.

How about you? Do you know what they are talking about?

ZUP – MUSM – ?4U

TPM – U WAN2 STUDY HERE?

YG2BK – CD9

LEMENO BOUT TPM – TLK2UL8R

While I tend to worry about all this texting and shorthand, wondering what it must be doing to kids ability to write, it seems I may be way off base. That is if you read the very surprising assessment of students and their writing skills by Clive Thompson at Wired Magazine.

First and foremost, Thompson takes exception to the conventional wisdom that student writing skills are diminishing and that the reason for the deterioration is technology. Instead, he dares to suggest that the digital age is helping students become better writers than their predecessors.

According to Thompson, our youngsters are not only actually writing more now than they ever did before, they are becoming experts in writing for specific audiences.

Common View Today

Thompson summarizes the current technology critics thus:

“Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into ‘bleak, bald, sad shorthand’ (as University College of London English professor John Sutherland has moaned).”

To which he asks, not so rhetorically:

“An age of illiteracy is at hand, right?”

Thompson goes on to answer his question by expounding on the work of Andrea Lunsford, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University. Seeking to get a grasp of how student writing is evolving, Lunsford collected nearly 15,000 writing samples over the better part of five years to analyze.

Those specimens included the traditional student work, in-class assignments, formal essays and journal entries. It also included a look at student emails, blog posts and chat sessions.

According to Lunsford, the gloom and doom is overstated. In fact, she would contend that “…technology isn’t killing our ability to write. It’s reviving it—and pushing our literacy in bold new directions.”

This new direction is one Lunsford calls life writing – it seems that “young people today write far more than any generation before them ….. so much socializing takes place online …. and it almost always involves text.”

Lunsford refers to it as life writing since 38 percent of it occurs outside of the classroom. Thompson notes:

“Before the Internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn’t a school assignment. Unless they got a job that required producing text (like in law, advertising, or media), they’d leave school and virtually never construct a paragraph again.”

And as for all that texting and the world of abbreviations, we simply must assess this development carefully. It seems that the most positive aspect of Lunsford’s research involved the concept rhetoricians call kairos.

The term is used to describe the technique of assessing the audience for whom one is writing. The basic premise focuses on the writer’s ability to adapt “their tone and technique to best get their point across.”

In other words, while texting and socializing online with friends, students might use multiple abbreviations and include smiley faces. But when it comes to writing a real academic paper, students never mistakenly insert such informality.

Perhaps most importantly, the texting and socializing appear to be incredibly meaningful in a student’s development as a writer. Lunsford found that “Stanford students were almost always less enthusiastic about their in-class writing because it had no audience but the professor: It didn’t serve any purpose other than to get them a grade.”

Authentic Learning

Teachers today are encouraged to make learning authentic, to teach real world applications that allow students to effectively comprehend the rational for studying a concept. Clearly, the online world is a location for students where authentic writing can be found.

We may raise an eyebrow or two over what some of that writing looks like. But the idea of writing is to find the right words to clearly communicate with others.

In fact, most writers would insist that the ability to get an idea across with the fewest words possible defines the best communicators. Under such a premise, it would seem our kids actually are making the fewest possible words concept into an artform.

And as noted earlier, the right words vary for the audience at hand. The texting may not set well with us, but we teachers must realize it is not intended for us in the first place.

Flickr photos courtesy of ianturton and fensterbme.

Imagine heading to a college ratings/ranking site and viewing the following:

Yale – F
Cornell – F
Johns Hopkins – F
Bowdoin – F

Got your attention? How about:

Penn – D
Harvard – D
Dartmouth – C
Princeton – C

And in contrast:

University of Texas-Austin – A
Baylor University – A
City University of New York – Brooklyn College – A
City University of New York – Hunter College – A

WhatWillTheyLearn.com

Such are the ratings offered at a new web site, WhatWillTheyLearn.com, a new guide that seeks to provide interested students a different lens with which to view America’s top colleges. Focusing in on specific curriculum expectations, the site aims to identify the schools that “are making sure their students learn what they need to know” to be successful upon graduation.

To determine which universities are making sure their students are learning just that, institutions are rated on seven key subjects: English composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics, and science. In addition, the rating examines the specific curriculum within each course as well as who has been assigned to teach that course.

Utilizing that very specific criteria in relation to these seven study areas, schools are then assigned a grade based on how many core subjects students must complete while completing their bachelor degree program. In the case of those schools mentioned above receiving an F, the rating comes from requiring only 0-1 core subjects. For those receiving an A, the rating is equated to the school requiring the completion of 6-7 core subjects.

While the site does also examine college costs, the ratings focus in on what is deemed to be a troubling development in higher education, the fact that these curriculum elements have become “mere options on far too many campuses.”

Liberal Arts School Ratings

WhatWillTheyLearn.com is sponsored by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), an independent, non-profit organization that is a strong supporter of a liberal arts education model. But while focusing on a liberal arts program that features specific general education requirements, it is interesting to see that the site actually provides very poor ratings for many schools deemed the best small liberal arts colleges in America (Amherst, Bowdoin and Middlebury for example).

The reasons for the poor ratings stem from a philosophy that excellent general education programming is about the unity of knowledge and making connections between different ideas and not the combining of random ingredients that marks the curricula offered at these elite colleges today.

Of course, given how poor some of our perceived best schools score on the specific criteria, we can expect some of these colleges and universities to offer their view in the very near future. We can also expect them to find fault with the criteria being used to create the ratings.

But while the specific course expectations seemingly could receive further debate, the concept of the site is a very good one. Given the move towards standards in K-12 education, it stands to reason that higher education would sooner or later become part of such a movement.

Given that development, we would think it was time that college ranking systems measure something other than an institution’s prestige, endowment and reputation. That is where WhatWillTheyLearn.com seeks to go and why it is a site that prospective college students should look at when examining specific schools.

And it seems like an extremely viable endeavor. Taking a look at what students are actually required to learn while earning that diploma certainly ought to figure somewhere into the ratings that have been created.

Flickr photos courtesy of wallyg and Flannery626.

We have written a good many times regarding the growing concerns related to America’s poor school completion rates. In addition to all the students who disappear from our school systems prior to ever reaching high school, current data also reveals that one of every four high school students fails to graduate within the standard four-year secondary-school span.

Accompanying this sad trend is an enormous debate as to why drop out rates are so high. We noted that within the school setting there tends to be one ongoing tension between the various schooling levels:

While many elementary folks insist that schools at the upper grade levels tend to put curriculum ahead of students, folks at the secondary level insist that students all too often arrive at high school without the requisite skills needed to handle more challenging academic materials.

Those wanting to point a finger at the high school folks may be surprised to learn that Lynne Strathman, director of Lydia Urban Academy in Rockford, Ill., noted that for many students the final year of school where a significant majority of students felt successful was in fourth grade.

That led us to the conclusion that for a good many American kids, school is not an answer. It is in fact the problem, the biggest issue or obstacle they face in life.

Problem Across the Pond

As the concerns mount in America, it is interesting to note that in England drop out rates are also becoming an enormous issue. The BBC recently discussed this troubling trend, pointing out that record numbers of “young people are not in school, college or work.”

What makes the numbers from England worth examining is the fact that an additional category is used to assess those not in school: working students. In fact, the term NEET is used to describe the most troubling of groups in the UK: those not in education, employment or training.

According to the BBC, the total number of NEETS in the 18-24 age group “has risen by more than 100,000 in the past year.” In addition, the data reveals a significant “surge in the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds considered NEETS,” the total increasing by 13,000 this year when measured against the first quarter of last year and 24,000 when the second quarter time frame is examined.

What is interesting to focus in on is that England differentiates between those who have dropped out of school but are gainfully employed. While we continue to insist that our young people remain in school, England notes that training and employment are viable alternatives to attending school.

It is a position we should examine more thoroughly in America.

At the same time, two other elements emerge. First, the drop out trend is not unique to America. Second, when jobs become scarce, this data further reveals the least educated are generally the most vulnerable.

In fact, many experts from across the pond insist that the growing numbers are more a sign of the employment times than a greater disinterest with school. We tend to think that it is probably a bit of both.

But the summation is unequivocal – there is a growing concern that England may see a lost generation, a group of youngsters who can never shake the government welfare ranks.

It is a concern we must have as well. But the similarities that our countries face reveal a message.

Sense of Entitlement?

While many want to point fingers at out-of-date and impersonal school systems, the fact that England is experiencing a similar problem just might speak to a different issue. Here in America, a good number of folks tend to think our young people carry with them such a strong sense of entitlement that the idea of working towards a goal is simply deemed as asking too much.

Indeed, the outstanding performance collectively of Asian-American students provides strong evidence that we need to look at our culture as well as our schools. Because when a sense of entitlement is removed from the mix and hard work emphasized, this group of students represents living proof that teens can and will actually focus on their education and their future in the right circumstances.

Drop outs are an important issue and schools must be part of the solution process. But to continue to insist that the problem is one that can be solved solely by schools demonstrates a dramatic failure to understand the true scope of the issue.

It has been nearly two years since Alberto Gonzales resigned as Attorney General. At the time of his departure, he left Washington with his tail between his legs and a Justice Department mired in scandal.

Whether it be the controversy over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, his post-Sept. 11 policies on presidential power, torture and domestic spying, his failure to properly see that critical evidence in the Valerie Plame leak case was preserved, his misleading if not downright false testimony before Congress, etc., etc., Gonzales’ tenure as Attorney General will forever leave a stain on the Justice Department.

One would have to think that given his performance his career might be difficult to resurrect. Apparently, not so.

It seems that on August 1st, Mr. Gonzales began a career in academia. That is correct; the former AG accepted a visiting professor post within the political science department of Texas Tech University.

University Loves their Man

According to a written university statement, Gonzales will be teaching a junior-level special topics course: “Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch.” In addition, he is expected to provide guest lectures in classes across the campus.

A Latino who was once held in high regard, Gonzales will also reportedly assist Texas Tech University and Angelo State University “with recruiting and retaining first generation and underrepresented students.”

Of the latter aspect of the Gonzales appointment, Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance had this to say:

“His own upbringing in Houston as part of a migrant family with eight children makes him qualified to tell underrepresented Texas students that college is possible.”

In the same prepared university statement, Lawrence Schovanec, interim dean of Texas Tech’s College of Arts and Sciences, offered:

“Judge Gonzales brings a unique experience to our classroom. His career in law, government and public service will provide our political science students a rich perspective of the executive branch and issues and challenges facing our nation.”

Minimal Uproar

Much to the chagrin of this writer and perhaps to the majority of the citizens of the U.S., the appointment has seen only minimal resistance. There have reportedly been a few critical editorials in various newspapers, a faculty petition, and two Facebook groups (Alberto Gonzales Doesn’t Belong At Texas Tech and Citizens Against Employing Alberto Gonzales at Texas Tech). But the protests seem rather minimal overall.

However, faculty petition creator Walter Schaller, a Tech philosophy professor since 1986, was unequivocal in explaining his opposition to the hiring of Gonzales. Stated Schaller, “With the emphasis on ethics the university has adopted, a guy that misled Congress is not the kind of person we want to represent Texas Tech.”

However, the Chronicle of Higher Education recently contrasted the Texas response with that of two other high powered institutions and their faculty appointments:

Objections to Gonzales pale “in comparison to the resistance that Condoleezza Rice has encountered in going back to Stanford University, where she was provost before joining the Bush administration, in 2001, or the debate surrounding the University of California at Berkeley’s continued employment of John C. Yoo, a law professor who, while on leave to work in the Justice Department, wrote the Bush administration’s memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques.”

One would think that Gonzales would face the same kind of fight Henry Kissinger faced when he tried to teach at Columbia. Student protesters accused the former Secretary of State of breaking the law and essentially ran him off the campus.

Perhaps it is a sign of the times or the location. A negative Facebook campaign could jump start the student body but without an uproar from this important constituency it seems that Gonzales will be able to ride out the storm.

We do have an amazing country. And Texas Tech has a new visiting professor.

He does begin with a one year contract.

The question is, will students see to it that it is his last?

Flickr photos courtesy of Mike Licht and MMMMichelle.

While many see technology as potentially unlocking an entirely new learning environment, almost as many see it as a bane to education. In fact, it now seems that at least one college dean, regretfully, believes that technology is the root cause of a boring lecture hall.

Jeffrey Young, reporting for The Chronicle of Higher Education, notes Southern Methodist University Dean José A. Bowen has gone so far as to challenge professors to teach without any machinery. Young notes that Bowen uses a more provocative phrase to describe teaching without technology.

He wants his staff to “teach naked.”

Teaching Naked

Actually, while insisting he wants to pull the plug on all technology, it seems that Bowen is primarily trying to discourage professors from using PowerPoint. Apparently, far too many instructors are using the tool as nothing more than a slide display.

These professors appear to be using the “program as a crutch rather than using it as a creative tool” according to Young. More importantly, they are apparently boring their students to death.

Still, reading a little deeper, it does seem that Dean Bowen is requesting a tad more. He appears to be advocating for the removal of most technology from the classroom.

“Class time should be reserved for discussion,” the dean contends, “especially now that students can download lectures online and find libraries of information on the Web. When students reflect on their college years later in life, they’re going to remember challenging debates and talks with their professors.”

Is Technology the Issue?

While the idea of teaching naked initially appears focused on eliminating technology from the classroom, it is clear that the issue is not one related to machines. Instead, it is the lack of skill employed by the professor and the inability to use technology wisely.

Yet, according to Young, the “biggest resistance to Mr. Bowen’s ideas has come from students, some of whom have groused about taking a more active role during those 50-minute class periods.” Unfortunately, while the standard lecture model is generally less than riveting as an educational format, it is a model that “is pretty comfortable for both students and professors.”

In other words, a bored student is also not having any demands placed on him. That suits more than a few college attendees extremely well.

Poor Message

Ironically, while presenting his ideas at a conference that was attended by Young, Bowen offered “a philosophical argument about the best way to engage students.” In it he talked of “using podcasts and video games.”

And it also seems that when Bowen first began removing some technology from classrooms, that technology was quite old and in need of an upgrade to match today’s sophistication. Apparently, there was no funds to upgrade.

That leaves one troubled.

Dave Parry at Academhack tackles the silly assertion head on.

“…..any teaching practice requires technology. Are we to imagine that these luddite professors disallow paper and pen from class? ‘Students should not take notes in class, the technology gets in the way of discussion.’

“Are we to imagine that they do not allow books in class? ‘No books, they get in the way of discussion.’

“Books, paper, pen, desks, chalkboards, whiteboards, all of these are technologies.”

Parry goes on, leveling the fallacious notion presented by Bowen:

“Teaching without digital technology is an irresponsible pedagogy. Why? The future is digital, love it or hate it. We can argue later about whether or not this is a good or a bad thing.

“But to educate students, or to attempt to educate students without developing their digital literacy is to leave them ill prepared for their futures. You wouldn’t think of educating a student and not teaching them how to read, digital literacy is this crucial. In the future if you don’t know how to use this technology you will be ‘illiterate’.”

Furthermore,

“We can’t go back to ‘teaching the way it was,’ because this will produce a generation of students who don’t know how to critically engage with, leverage, use, resist, these very technologies. Eliminating technology produces not the affect of a more engaged literate student populous, rather it produces the reverse, an ill informed, uncritical, unengaged student populous who will become at the very best passive consumers of the technology being resisted, and at the worst its willing victims.”

We could not agree more. The idea of ‘Teaching Naked,’ either figuratively or literally, simply makes no sense.