BFTP: Illusion of change

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post, March 14, 2007.  This is one of my very favorite posts and probably the most cynical thing I've ever written. And I seem to be the only one who likes it since it remains on my list of writings that have been roundly rejected by print publishers...

_________________________

Once again a strange e-mail (with a bit of a sulphuric smell) appeared in my inbox. The district’s filter seems curiously ineffective against this domain. These are sent to me now  and then. I find them interesting, if disturbing, and think others might ponder them as well. - Doug

From: "Screwdisk" <sdisk666@inferno.org> 

To: "Wormwood" <wormie@terrafirma.edu> 

Subject: Change? No need to panic.

Date: Thur March 15, 2007 :10:19 -0500 

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 7.734 

Importance: Tepid

Wormie, Wormie, Wormie, when will you learn not to press the PANIC and SEND buttons at the same time? Why in the blessed name of Beelzebub you imps were ever given e-mail addresses, I will never understand.

Change is not, I repeat, not imminent in the schools in your area. Wide-scale improvements, especially originating from within the schools themselves, I guarantee are impossible. Despite the wishful thinking in teacher and administrative preperation programs, professional journals, and educational conferences; despite the amount of money pumped into teacher training; and despite the seeming unhappiness of  politicians and the public, your schools will remain unchanged into the foreseeable future (and I can see a very long way) with any differences being cosmetic only. 

How do I know this, Wormie? How can I strut my confidence with tail held so high?  A human named Machiavelli discovered the reason 500 years ago. He wrote in the bible of political power and basic textbook on human nature, The Prince:  

"... it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new."

Stop and think, Wormster, what impetus is there for innovation if the one in charge of change has done quite well under the current system? They don’t pull superintendents, principals, or classroom teachers from the ranks of those whom the current education system failed! (Well, maybe a few tech directors, but they are different case.) College professors are the total masters the educational system –having risen to pinnacle of academia simply by being very, very good at “school.” And you expect them to change this perfect system that rewards the best - they themselves? Please.

The reason these  “leaders” have the ability, the position, the power to make change is that they have all have succeeded in some fashion in a traditional education model. And subliminal questions run through every decision they make - "Is this change going to screw up the system that has made it possible for me to hold my position?" "Why do that which might shake me from my current upper most branch?"

They will therefore only initiate those changes that don't really change anything very much, that won't threaten their standing in their school or community. Risks are for fools, especially when taken for anyone outside their own genetic make up or social class. Both Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel were, after all, quite fictional. 

You also need to remember, what passes for educational “reform” is either window-dressing or a diversion from a genuine goal. And this art needs to be encouraged, Wormwood! The illusion of movement is better than no movement at all for those of us who must defeat effective school change. 

Has technology changed anything in schools? Hah! So what if the teacher sends an email home instead of a paper note or delivers a dull lecture with dull slides instead of overhead transparencies. Reforms like privatizing education “to make it competitive” are a smoke screen by the rich to simply cut their own taxes and avoid paying for an adequate education for the great unwashed. Our boss is saving a special place for the genius who started calling vouchers, scholarships. Genius! Evil genius, to be sure, but genius!

The nature of schooling is not to foment revolution, and you should know this, you little devil. It was in your seminar last year. Did you only memorize this for the test? The mission of the school is to help maintain the current social order – keep those who are in power, in power, and those who are out, out. Do you dishonestly believe that either businesses or bureaucrats want creative, problem-solving, status climbing employees? Educated workers who may demand higher salaries? Employees who wish to use their minds as well as their backs? Do you know how hard it is to manage those unpredicatable people - and to keep them from trying to take one’s own job? Nothing personal, Wormwood, but I hired you because you work cheap, are reliable, and are not the brightest ember in the brimstone. You are my kinda’ minion.

Study, my little demon, the works of Machiavelli and Menken and Aristophanes and Twain – those who saw unchanging human nature as it is, not as humans wish it were. Know humans as they are and use their own foibles to plan and manipulate. Keep the humans rearranging the deck chairs on their sinking ships. It makes them fun to watch.

Pardon the expression, but CHILL, Wormwood. Dinosaurs liked themselves just fine – right up until the time the asteroid hit. I remember. I was there. Our Boss fears effective education more than all the holy water on the planet. But effective education has little chance of coming to pass – at least in this millennium. 

Insincerely,

Screwdisk

With apologies (as always) to C.S. Lewis

E-textbook vs print textbook costs

A $14.95 textbook from Apple and its collaborators? That sounds like a heck of deal compared to the average $72 we are currently spending on the dead tree version. But let's play with the numbers a little and figure out an estimated cost for providing textbook access in both formats for a student from grades 7-12.

Paper text:

6 years X 6 courses X 1 textbook per course X $12 ($72/6 years use = $12 per year) = $432 per student

E-text:

6 years X 6 course X 1 textbook X $2.50 ($15/6 years use = $2.50 per year) + 1 iPad @ $500 = $590

There are some major, very likely erroneous or impossible to know, assumptions in this calculation:

1. This calculation assumes that e-texts can be purchased once and then re-used each year like paper textbooks. So far, publishers have not applied the first sale doctrine to other e-books, so I wonder if this will be legal.
2. This assumes that a single iPad will last six years. The oldest iPads are only two right now, so there is really no way of determining the life-span of the devices. Were I a betting man, I'd give them closer to 3 years of reliable life when used by kids.
3. This calculation gives paper textbooks a 6 year lifespan. 10 years of use is more realistic in many districts.
4. This calculation does not factor in maintenance, support, and training costs of the iPads or the e-textbooks.
5. Might e-textbooks' "value-added" features of videos, interactive tutorials, etc. decrease the need and associated costs of tutoring, special education services, and remedial work?
6. Would purchased e-textbooks provide a bridge to more self-written texts by teachers, lowering overall textbook costs?
7. What is the value of having a device like an iPad for purposes other than accessing e-textbooks for communications, collaboration, productivity? Decreased printing costs could be factored in.

Yeah, I'm being a Philistine here, just looking at costs without mentioning the la-de-dah transformational possibilities, the evilness of Apple's proprietary formatting, and other philosophical conundrums.

I'd love to hear other ways of calculating the TCO of e-textbooks...

Multiple guess tests

In a fit of unwarranted optimism last fall, I included becoming a Google Certified Teacher as one my professional growth targets.*  The weather here in Minnesota has actually felt like winter the last two days and I am completely sick of writing chapters about libraries for my book, so I figured this would be a good time to start the certification process. And did I mention that I have a meeting with my boss to discuss my progress on meeting those targets coming up in a couple weeks?

For those who aren't familiar with the process, Google certification for an individual consists of reading six training modules covering different aspects of Google Apps for Education and then taking a 60 item multiple guess choice test on each module, paying $90 for the privilege. After having helped implement Google Apps in the district, having trained others on its use, and, hell, having used it for both my personal and professional work for about five years, I though, how hard could this be?

As it turns out, it isn't particularly difficult, only long and tedious. The challenge is not knowing how to use any Google tool purposely either for professional productivity or with kids, but to be able to recall (or find) trivia about the product. (How many contacts can be imported from a spreadsheet at a time? 50, 1,000, 3,0000, or no limit.) Yes, I am picking up a few things I didn't know, but I am not sure what the time/cost pay back will be now that I know hitting shift + ? brings up keyboard shortcut commands. Oh, note to Google persons - the tutorials need significant updating since they still reference the "old" apps look. There is no more little green bottle to click on to get to the labs section.

The one other person here in the office who has completed the certification process speculates that it is Google's intention to see if one has the skills to find the right answer quickly (these are timed tests) rather than has the ability to memorize a body of content. That assumes a level of sophistication about testing that I doubt the brainacs who designed this program have. It's more likely they just designed a test that was like the tests they were accustomed to taking in school themselves.

Despite the fact I've always been a pretty good multiple guess test taker (I've passed the first two module of certification without study), using this sort of test to determine one's skills and knowledge of GoogleApps seems particularly ironic. Used in its most powerful ways, Apps is a great constructivist tool kit allowing staff and students to build personal knowledge - the antithesis of parroting trivia. 

It's probably a good thing that educators take such tests now and again just as a reminder of how meaningless they really are, especially compared to a good project that is authentically assessed.  

Oh, did I mention that although I am a good test taker, I am very baaaaad student.

* This was before reading Miguel Guhlin's excellent post on these sorts of certifications, "My Name is Irrelevant."