Blog

Patrick Welsh has taught English at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia for more than 30 years. Last week, he wrote an editorial for the Washington Post called A School That’s Too High on Gizmos. Patrick relates his view of T.C. Williams as a school run by an administration consumed with…

“…technolust- a disorder affecting publicity-obsessed school administrators nationwide that manifests itself in an insatiable need to acquire the latest, fastest, most exotic computer gadgets, whether teachers and students need them or want them. Technolust is in its advanced stages at T.C., where our administrators have made such a fetish of technology that some of my colleagues are referring to us as “Gizmo High.”

As Patrick provides examples of technology gone wild, the story comes to life. Valiant teachers resisting miseducative practices, hints of collusion with hardware and software vendors, administrators seeking glory and headlines, teachers marginalized and ridiculed for not falling in line. Something is definitely wrong here. This sounds like a war between administration and teachers, with technology used as a weapon.

But read on. That’s not all that’s wrong with this picture…

Of course, the big question isn’t whether teachers like spending their time learning one new gizmo after another, but whether a parade of new technologies will help kids learn. From what I can see, that’s not the case. Says one math teacher: “Math grows out of the end of a pencil. You don’t want the quick answer; you want students to be able to develop the answer, to discover the why of it. The administration seems to think that computers will make math easy, but it has to be a painful, step-by-step process.”

Math grows out of the end of a pencil? It has to be painful? Did a math teacher actually say that? Have they noticed it’s not the 19th century anymore? Maybe there’s something else going on here.

I see the same thing in my classes, especially when it comes to writing essays. Many students send their papers in over the Internet, and while the margins are correct and the fonts attractive, the writing is worse than ever. It’s as if the rule is: Write one draft, run spell check, hit “send” and pray.

OK, now the point comes clear. For these teachers, the computers are not just a symptom, they are the problem. But the computer isn’t making students worse writers or setting these “rules”. Do the teachers have any responsibility for standards, for requiring excellent writing. Are the computers to blame for this too?

It seems that technology is a convenient scapegoat for problems faced by this school. Technology doesn’t solve problems, but it doesn’t cause them either. Yes, technology is supposed to make teaching more effective. The students should be using them for authentic activities, not for online worksheets. It should have been a collaborative effort with teachers to decide what to purchase and how to use it. The professional development should have been more than edu-jargon. Yes, yes, yes–many wrongs here.

But that’s not all that’s wrong. To wrap up his editorial, Patrick finds an example of how technology “should” be used.

North Point High School for Science, Technology and Industry in Waldorf went with ceiling-mounted LCD projectors but nixed the idea of laptops for all students. “Our philosophy is to have whatever technology our teachers want to do their jobs better available to them,” Principal Kim Hill told me. “Technology is just a tool, not an end in itself. It will never replace good teaching.”

Of course, LCD projectors are the more comfortable way, the way that ensures that teaching or learning doesn’t change, but gives the illusion of progress. Notice the false choice set up here. “Technology…will never replace good teaching.” Who is claiming that technology replaces good teaching? By the way, did you notice this is the North Point High School for Science, Technology and Industry!

It’s hard to know the truth of a situation based on one article from one point of view. It certainly sounds bad, and possibly is such a poisoned environment that it will take years to undo the damage. But from my point of view, blaming technology, even extreme “technolust” for the problems described here is only half the story. The other half of the story is how many ways school reform efforts can go wrong, and how fragile and rare it is when it goes right.

So much money, so much potential, so much waste, so much time lost, so much gone wrong.

Sylvia

Eighth grade math teacher Bob Brems was unhappy with inconsistent results and reports from substitutes about student misbehavior. Then he had a brainstorm – turn over the teaching reins to his students in his absence.

In this Education World article, Brems describes his preparation process and results:

I have witnessed a handful of benefits from using students as teachers:

• Students are more alert and on task when another student is leading the class.
• Student interest is piqued by the change in approach.
• Some students benefit from instruction or review led by a classmate. The difference in presentation of the concept helps them better understand the material.
• The student-as-teacher usually displays a level of understanding of the concepts that is greater than the understanding displayed during a regular class. “I don’t want to look like an idiot in front of everyone!” one student explained.
• Students often are better behaved when the class returns to the regular format. When questioned about that, students-as-teachers often expressed empathy with a teacher in front of a class. They related how frustrating it was to repeat the same thing several times, asking: “Why don’t they listen?”

So, is this something you might try in your own classroom? Are your students ready? Do you think the subs would go along? Will your administration allow it?

Sylvia

Wikipedia is seven years of old today. While Wikipedia may be a controversial topic for educators, no one can say that it hasn’t changed the face of the web.

For educators, the rise of Wikipedia reinforces the importance of information literacy. Some schools ban while some have students contribute to Wikipedia and defend their words in public. Who is right?

Wikipedia challenges the idea that the textbook (or the teacher) is the ultimate source of facts. For some teachers this is terrifying, or represents sloppy standards and lazy research.

For other teachers it is reinforcement of lessons they’ve been teaching for years. Students need to know how to research multiple sources, learn how to evaluate conflicting information and opinions, and integrate these into their own understanding.

The discussion pages attached to each Wikipedia entry are equally instructive. They are alternately a celebration of a consensual community process, as conflicting but equally rational viewpoints are battled out in public — or bullying, in-crowd harangues that make you want to take a long hot shower. However you feel about it, the fact that Wikipedia’s projects span over 250 languages, with 9.4 million articles, 1.5 million images, and 10.3 million registered users is pretty amazing. The power of the global village is just starting to be felt.

The most popular Wikipedia pages shows a crazy mix of pop culture, video games, celebrities, notorious historical figures, and sex. By the way, Wikipedia does not censor for sexual content, but strives for objectivity in articles and definitions. Seriously, don’t click on the “sex” article with anyone looking over your shoulder. But the question for educators is always how to balance safety with authentic experiences — to pre-chew content for students or let them investigate the messy real world and learn to make good decisions for themselves.

We may not have final answers for these questions now. What we do know is that in just a few short years, K-12 students will not remember a world without Wikipedia or Google. We owe it to them to keep trying to wrap our heads around this brave new world.