Earlier this fall, New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced that five international high-tech companies had entered into investment agreements, totaling $4.4 billion, with the state. The governor boasted that the agreements would make New York “the epicenter for the new generation of computer-chip technology.” However, when it comes to using computer technology to teach its new generation of young people, New York is a straggler to the digital-learning revolution.
In a national report card issued in October, the Florida-based Foundation for Excellence in Education analyzed the performance of states across 72 different categories related to digital learning. These categories focused on government barriers affecting student access, teacher certification, and other issues. The report card gave grades of “achieved,” “partially achieved,” and “not yet achieved” to state actions in each category. In only 15 of the 72 categories did New York score an “achieved” rating. Meanwhile, out of the 72 categories, Florida scored an “achieved” rating in 41 of them, while Pennsylvania scored an “achieved” rating in 40.
Advertisement
New York does not require that students complete a course online in order to earn a high-school diploma, nor does its funding system ensure access to digital learning for all K–12 students. (Online courses are valuable because they customize curricula to students’ individual learning needs, allow students to access teachers at virtually any time of the day or night, and produce immediate and transparent progress reports on students’ performance.) In contrast, the International Association for K–12 Online Learning says that Singapore’s long-term digital-learning plan “is to train every teacher to teach online, to provide online learning in 100% of secondary schools, which means that all instructional materials are provided digitally and online, and every teacher and secondary school uses a learning management system to deliver course materials and track student progress.”
New York is not the only laggard state, however. California, home of Silicon Valley, is also struggling to implement the digital-learning revolution:
On the report card, California scored an “achieved” rating in only 14 of the 72 categories. One category in which it failed is whether it “restrict[s] access to high quality digital content, online courses and virtual schools based on geography, such as school district, county or state.” California does allow “virtual charter schools,” which are publicly funded schools through which students learn at home on their computers using interactive and adaptive online programs. Virtual charter schools allow students to learn at their own pace and access teachers at most times of the day and night. Because these students learn at home using the Internet, they could potentially live anywhere in the state and enroll in any virtual school regardless of where it is chartered and based.
As a teacher who uses technology a lot and has helped to run online teaching, I can say virtual learning isn't that great. Most programs don't tailor much of anything, they simply let you go at your own pace. This is great if you're motivated, but not so hot if you don't care. Students who haven't learned how to read to learn, as opposed to just learning to read, are at a huge disadvantage as well. For those families who view the school as a giant babysitter, virtual learning isn't for them. Students have to be responsible for their own learning, yet most aren't even held responsible for their own behavior.
On the other end of the spectrum, most virtual programs are cake compared to an actual class. Virtual programs don't challenge the higher level students. Virtual learning is cheaper, but right now, you get what you pay for.
I'd be interested to know how other states stack up as far as government regulation and union rules, as this piece really focused on California.
From my own experience, a major challenge faced by schools in terms of implementing technology based approaches to learning is funding. Most schools have looked at, and want to implement, a one to one computing program, in which all students wold have access at all times to a computing device, thus allowing the use of technology to become a part of the entire curriculum.
The problem they all face is funding. It's not just a matter of buying the computing devices, it's also a matter of having the appropriate network infrastructure (servers, switches, routers, wireless access points) in place to efficiently and securely support the use of technology throughout the curriculum be each student.
That all costs money.
There is also the issue of student access after school to continue their study and do homework. In many instances school have a concern about post school student access due to the fact that they can no guarantee that each student has access at home to a high speed connection.
I've seen first hand how technology based learning can work, our son took a couple of classes via that method in high school, and what I liked most about it was he was able to access a couple of courses of interest not available at his school, and he developed better discipline and study habits.
The use of technology for education does offer enormous potential. The issue needs to be looked at in a much broader context than a few charter schools in California. School funding and broadband infrastructure are bigger issues for the nation at large than the issues discussed in this piece.
First, let me say that I am a private school (high school) teacher, so I have no support for unions. But, I am not sure that digital learning is a panacea for all. It should be one option, but it lacks several important components:
1. With reading comprehension at all-time lows, many students aren't capable of doing the sustained reading and comprehending of complex data necessary.
2. Collaboration and discussion are crucial parts of child development. I don't see how anyone could fully grasp, say, Hamlet, without a discussion and exchange of ideas. Students need to bounce ideas off each other and a teacher to expand their thinking. Collaboration often takes learning to a higher level than the individual can reach alone. Plus, if students hope to learn to be good coworkers and team players, the need to do it as children.
3. My school offers online classes, and it is fairly easy to blow through the work without grasping the material, plus cheating is ridiculously easy.
4. There is no substitute for a caring teacher. Many people trace their adult success to teachers who inspired them. I hardly think that inspiration will be possible when the student and teachers never interact.
I believe in digital learning as a supplement to a good education, but should never become the primary system of delivery.
1. Phonics help you decode (sound-out) words, but that doesn't mean you have comprehension. There are scads of students who can "read" only to find out they have no retention or comprehension of what it is they just sounded out.
2. Texting and chatrooms aren't synonymous with academic instruction or learning.
3. I think most educators realize this point, but I've yet to see a good program. If I taught a class the way the programs do, I'd be fired.
4. Getting students to use technology for something useful and productive is much harder than simply getting them to interact.
Good point. Virtual education has to have good pillars or it will not succeed. Online review/grouptank sessions. Peer to peer teaching reinforces learning as it makes a student have to explain the lesson in terms another would understand the information. I took a post graduate online program that was very cutting edge at the time. But that's a whole different age group.
It's hard for me to fathom that primary/secondary ed could be going to this pathway. But it's also very exciting. Already so much learning is digital when one thinks of all the home computers, kindles, smart phones, PDAs that are out there. Why not foster that sort of learning from an early age so that new grads hit the ground running.
But I think that Leishac makes a great point in that it is impossible to replace the motivation/inspiration that good teachers will instill. And at that age one needs role models for learning. The teacher that inspired wonderful projects and facilitated and stimulated lively decisions, tangential reflections, and brought the conversation back for summary points on what all was learned.
Hat's off to my favorite teachers that instilled my love for learning: Mrs Donner (science), Mr. Lee (math) and Mrs. Lansman (English). And the first two teachers even got a lot of students very excited at my school with the first two Apple computers to the classroom. I still remember the green prairie schooner in Oregon Trail. Good stuff.
The current Prussian model of schooling is nearly obsolete. When children can double their proficiency in a subject with adaptive programming, what is the point of continuing the charade that classroom learning is beneficial for the student. 3 University professors had created a computer lab for Calculus which was so successful that it became a pre-requisite for their traditional class. The only reason for classroom learning should be in cases where it is beneficial to work in a group, or for experimentation that would be cost-prohibitive otherwise. It's fairly obvious why the NEA, and the educational beuracracy would be against this technology. The least of their concerns may be that it actually provides an accurate measurement of a teaching method's success or failure.
The concept of online learning is evolving, and everyday people are coming to the conclusion that the monopoly of public education is going to crack wide open with this innovation. Online learning is a great substitute for secondary school in almost every respect. Here's why:
Online options will soon include more interactive courses. Not just a webex styled "lecture" that a student can consume at her leisure, but scheduled classes held online in which participants can discuss, or chat, with others and the content is delivered live by a teacher. Class notes will be available to all students, the class will be reviewable, and you can be active or passively involved, just like a real class except that bricks and mortar are no longer required and distance is no barrier.
As for cheating, that is a phenom that exists today and everyone knows it. Those that cheat, cheat themselves and they always will. Virtual classrooms won't change that very much.
In certain respects, teachers unions will have to adjust to this paradigm, or simply be cast aside, because the consumer is going to demand and get these innovations, whether traditionalists like it or not.
One hundred years from now, the traditional prussian method of teaching will still exist, but it will be clothed very differently. Exciting stuff!
"and you can be actively or passively involved, just like a real class . . ." except in a real class the teacher has some influence over the student who comes to class and puts their head down to sleep, whereas unless the teacher actively engages every student one-on-one throughout the class, regardless of the lesson or content delivery, in online class the less motivated can log on, turn on their iPod, watch TV or surf other sites simultaneously while class is in session to pass the time while registering as "present".
There's promise in offering on-line content, but like so many new technologies that are embraced because they are new, advantages to conventional learning are often lost, then masked with yet more "new" methods advertised to solve the problem.
Do those who tout on-line learning for pre-college students actually know any kids of that age? Yeah, students learn at their own pace. Great. Now, if left to their own devices, how many of those students, even some of the best, would choose to do practically nothing at all? And grieve the system when they were caught out.
Anyone with experience in education knows the answer. The law treats children as minors, as humans not yet in full possession of all their rights, because we all know children are not as fully responsible in their actions as adults due to biology. Which often entails making them do stuff they otherwise might not wish to do because it's good for them, all the while fully understanding that they would not do it if left to their own devices.
To expect them to take control of their own education at that age is farcial.
The goal is education. Whether it takes place at home, one-on-one, in a classic school room, or on-line is irrelevant. But any scheme of education has to take into account how kids actually learn.
My son did terribly in the traditional boring lecture type classes, yet he excelled in take-home packets. I could threaten him with restrictions, grounding, etc. about schoolwork, to no avail; yet he needed no urging with his take-home packets.
Teachers spend a good deal of their time lecturing because it feels like they are teaching; yet it is the least effective way to transmit information. Hands-on work is far more effective than lecturing. Maybe that's why my son did so much better on his own than in a schoolroom.
interesting that traditional teachers who are criticizing on-line learning say the basis of their objections are that some students cannot read or are not otherwise prepared to take advantage of on-line learning.
interesting i say because it is the traditional education model that has produced these types of students.
in addition, if a student cannot read at the level needed to take a certain on-line course, there is an on-line course available to teach the student to read at a higher level.
in other words, the objections of these people are empty of reason.
the cost savings alone is reason enough to abandon brick and mortar schools for on-line curriculums.
only those who have a vested interest in saying otherwise, i.e. those benefitting financially from the current system, argue that a more individualized curriculum is not better for children.
Your response is just as devoid of reason. You are correct that the current education model is not working, but that is part of the reason we can't go to wholesale online learning. The same Occupy crowd that expects a cushy job and paycheck are the same students who expect a good grade for doing nothing. It doesn't matter HOW we try to teach them. Until people begin taking pride in their own education and quit expecting something for nothing, we will get the same results whether in a classrom or in front of a screen.
If there was a program that actually did help significantly raise reading scores existed, you can bet your public schools would have it. Anyone who thinks you can just whip up a better program to teach reading at a higher level has no idea what he or she is talking about.
OK, I'll bite. What do you think the purpose of education is in a "free" society?
The question/statement/snarkfest is so arrogant that it defies belief. It also defies logic. In a free society, it matters not what anything's purpose is. But, for me. the purpose for education is to provide the best possible opportunity for success. Doubtless, for you, opportunity is irrelevant, as only the end results matter. Why worry about garnering a good education and maximizing your chances for success if you can get the government to merely give you whatever you manage to convince them you are entitled too? You are so entitled, you snark off at the author for not answering a question he never intended to answer, simply because you want someone to spoonfeed you. Why think, someone else can do that for you. The beauty is that, in a "free" society, you are free to be as ignorant as you want to be. You just need not so enthusiastically exercise that right.
For a person who apparently prides himself on attacking cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error, religious or otherwise and so forth, one can only come to the conclusion that you "misread" the question as "snarky".
"Tim" no "snark" intended...that you "bit" only indicates your interest...continue your "reading"...start with Plato and Socates and move forwards with the Supreme Court decisions and amend all with WFB's "God and Man at Yale"...that is, if you have have the patience and the nerve...
Your written words indicate that you "believe" that the question "defies logic."...you go on to state, "In a free society, it matters not what anything's purpose is." REALLY - is that your conviction?
The utter sadness of this statement is only matched by its all-too-human lib-progressive herd-like ignorance and the reason our education system is the "shape" that it is today and one that your "response" illuminates...a pathetic herd-like ignorance that has allowed the "lib-progressive's" to, and here is a clue for your most gracious "Iconoclastic Tim", indoctrinate" their pupils...in other words for you "Tim", teach them "WHAT" to think.
Is that the purpose of education "Iconoclast Tim"...to tell students "WHAT" to think???
As stated earlier, continue your reading...
Apologoies for your "interpretation" of "snark"...
I am a former school board member and the way we got the unions to agree to allow on-line learning was to bargain it in. We told them that there are students who are going to finish out the math courses by the time they are sophmores and they will need more. Oregon state law now requires school districts to provide college courses for students who exceed the school's course offererings before graduation. We also argued that more and more learning is moving to on-line formats and that this is part of a well-rounded education. They reluctantly agreed.
Having said that, we have two schools in our area that have attempted to go to a full on-line curriulum format. They finally had to abandon it for several reasons--mainly because cheating was a serious problem, (this at a Christian school!). The costs to maintain and continually update the software, hardware and malware are tremendous, and finally, universities expect students to be able to read and study from a textbook.
Learning comes down to one thing: you learn what you pay attention to--it's that simple. Just because a student pays attention to his/her video game doesn't mean that they will pay attention to the history lesson on the same media format.
I've taken online classes in college, they are not that great. They do not allow you to learn more than traditional classes, in fact they are probably worse. The main advantage is that thy take less time since you don't have to drive/walk to class.
