Will Richardson

Speaker, consultant, writer, learner, parent

“Agreeing” on Student Achievement

By

From today’s New York Times:

The Chicago teachers’ strike was prompted in part by a fierce disagreement over how much student test scores will weigh in a new teacher evaluation system mandated by state law. That teachers’ unions in much of the country now agree that student achievement should count in evaluations at all reflects a major change from the past, when it was often argued that teaching was an “art” that could not be rigorously evaluated or, even more outrageously, that teachers should not be held accountable for student progress.

A couple of quick points.

1. One could argue that “unions in much of the country now agree” because they were strong armed into doing so by Race to the Top bribes of stimulus money to states who accepted these new teacher evaluation systems. Fighting it was a no win for the unions which have been the target of intense and focused attacks over the last few years. 

2. No one ever argued that teachers should not be held accountable for student progress. 

3. Most importantly, think about this piece: “unions in much of the country now agree that student achievement should count in evaluations.” Since it’s so obviously clear that “student achievement” only comes in the guise of test scores, I guess the rest of what accounts for learning doesn’t matter much.

One of my goal in the coming months is to keep being the rhetoric police when it comes to the way the mainstream media talks about this stuff. 

Learners not Knowers

By

I’m not saying that my kids don’t need teachers. But I am saying my kids don’t (won’t) need teachers any more to get them to pass the test.

Knewton’s software analyzes students’ performance on practice questions and recommends tutorials based on the student’s answers. Knewton optimizes learning by focusing only on the areas that students need to improve. The software determines subject areas at a granular level. it doesn’t just know whether you need improvement in algebra. It knows specifically whether you’re having trouble with, for example, quadratic equations.

According to COO David Liu, an afternoon of studying can give Knewton 100,000 – 150,000 data points about the student – such as how long it takes them to answer questions or what time of day they learn best.

And it’s not just math, by the way. If nothing else, the new iPhone’s integration of Siri is a clear indicator of how far technology has come in terms of understanding semantic cues and interactions. No tested subject area is “safe." 

In case it’s not obvious, this is the real danger to public education right now should we choose to continue down the path we’re currently on. If it’s all about test scores and "student acheivement” measured by test scores, immersing kids into Knewton-type environments is by far the easiest, cheapest, path of least resistance for the system’s current definition of “learning.” And it’s not just Knewton; there is big business in creating and providing these types of “learning” experiences to kids. Many others are salivating at the prospect, and education policy, just like all others, is driven by those with the deepest pockets. 

This is why we should all be feeling an acute urgency right now to take back the definition of what “learning” really is in a world filled with content and teachers and personalization. It’s not an easy task, especially when test scores and grades take such precedence in the conversation. Don’t get me wrong; there is some opportunity in the use of technology to prepare kids at a content level for the bigger learning conversations to come, the conversations that we need real teachers for, the ones which develop the dispositions of learning that are uniquely human.

Can Knewton prepare our kids to work with others around the world to solve problems? Can it show our kids how to create and share works of meaning and beauty that can change the world? Can it help them think critically about developing issues and events that impact their lives? Can it teach them to care deeply and act in ways that benefit the species?

Knewton doesn’t develop learners. It develops knowers. We’re in serious trouble if that’s all we value.

(Thanks to George Siemens’ riff on Knewton for getting me thinking…)

Kids (WE) Need a “Complex Digital Presence”

By

This danah boyd post is from a few years ago, but it still rings as true as ever. 

Bright people push the edge, but what constitutes the edge is time dependent. It’s no longer about miniskirts or rock and roll; it’s about having a complex digital presence. Naturally, there’ll always be a handful of young people who manage to go through adolescence and early adulthood without any blemishes on their record. Employers need people who play by the rules, but they also need “creatives.”…

My generation isn’t as afraid of public opinion… We face it head-on and know how to manage it. We digitally document every love story and teen drama imaginable and then go on to put out content that creates a really nuanced public persona. If you read just one entry, you’re bound to get a distorted view…

Part of living in a networked society is learning how to accessorize our digital bodies, just as we learn to put on the appropriate clothes to go to the office.

I had an amazingly good time in Toronto last week with the Ontario Teachers Federation, but despite Ontario being a fair length ahead of the change conversation being held here in the states, I was struck by how many teachers struggled with the digital presence thing. Not that that fear is anything new; needing to be Googleable is such a different reality for most adults, much less teachers. But I just still find it interesting that in a room of about 200 teachers, only about 20 indicated they had even checked on their digital presence in the last couple of months.

That speaks volumes about how few are really understanding this shift and the implications for our students. We have a lot of work to do…

Stat O' the Day: Teachers Scared to Teach

By

The January issue of District Administration Magazine has a brief titled “Who’s Keeping Students Safe Online?” (at the bottom of the link) that states this:

Fewer than 25 percent of educators feel comfortable teaching students how to protect themselves from online predators, cyberbullies and identity thieves, says a new study from the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and Educational Technology, Policy Research and Outreach (ET PRO).

I would say that’s a problem. You?

Teaching Googleableness (Con't)

By

From the “And These Teachers Got Hired How? Department” comes this downright scary quote in a Washington Post article on teachers with Facebook/MySpace sites:

In some cases, teachers apparently didn’t mind that their Web sites were raunchy and public — at least until a reporter called. Alina Espinosa, a teacher at Clopper Mill Elementary School in Montgomery, had written on her Facebook page in the “About Me” section: “I only have two feelings: hunger and lust. Also, I slept with a hooker. Be jealous. I like to go onto Jdate [an online dating service for Jewish people] and get straight guys to agree to sleep with me.”

Asked about the page, Espinosa said: “I never thought about parents and kids [seeing it] before. That’s all I’m going to say.”

Um…that kind of says it all, I think.

So who’s to blame? The schools that hired them? Their preservice programs? Their parents? Society? Technology? Or…