Irrelevance

Citing a great paper, "Tech-savvy students stuck in text-dominated schools; A summary of available research on student attitudes, perceptions, and behavior by Kim Farris-Berg, University of Minnesota professor Scott McLeod wonders: “…in their current state, schools today may actually be harming digitally-literate students, not just ignoring them.” In a response to David Warlick's powerful letter to parents citing "his" school's failure to educate their children with 21st century skills, David Jakes responds as the parent of a very high performing student who is concerned his child won't have the skills it take to do well at the university he plans to attend. (I don't agree with his conclusion that the principal is primarily the one responsible for his school not employing technology fully, however.)

Are we failing our high performing/tech-savvy students by not providing a technology-rich learning school environment? While much thought and effort has gone into closing the digital divide - helping to make sure students from challenging socio-economic backgrounds have access to technology -  are we concerned enough about the tech-saavy kids who may also be underserved by under-powered schools?

Levine, McLeod, and Jakes allude to a number of ways students in tech rich homes are at a disadvantage in tech poor schools including

•  boredom/lack of challenge
• too little attention on learning styles other than text/verbal
• too little meaningful application of technology
  
• little preparation for high tech college environments

 I'd add another serious concern - that "school" for these kids lacks relevance. I hate to think our best and brightest are simply tuning out, assuming schools and teachers have little to offer them since they can't/don't use the students' own communication methods.

Comments

[Albert Ip]

I am also very moved by the powerful letter by David Warlick. However, the last letter by Warlick was to declare the principal lost his job.

I like to continue this line of roleplaying and hence have self-nominated to be the new incoming principal. I have sent a letter to the parent. see http://elearningrandomwalk.blogspot.com/2006/02/letter-to-parents-conversation.html

Role playing is a very powerful way to gain insight in complex situation. I invite you to join this role playing game and explore the problem in any angle you like (parent, teachers, district officer, parent association president, Political party representative in the district, ....) Please let your imagination free and have fun.

[Amy Hendrickson]

Hello Doug:

That word "relevance" has been weighing on me a lot the last few school years. I tend to find that it's the "middle level" kids who lose the most when we don't make school relevant.

I've seen a lot of really good, really talented "middle" kids go through our system who simply haven't found anything that they can be passionate about in their high school education. They do what's required to get the credit, but I'm not sure how much more they're really "getting" from school. They're not the "top" of the class who gets the As and the scholarships and the challenging advanced classes. They're not the "bottom" kids who get the extra services and the extra time. They're just the "middle". They invest little in their schooling because, sadly, oftentimes, we truly invest little in them. A lot of these middle-kids are very tech savvy in an environment that simply doesn't allow them to use those skills. (Some of them aren't tech savvy, but are ignored in other ways, too - but that's a different subject.)

Although special education teachers do so much paperwork for their students to each have an "individualized educational plan" - sometimes I wish that every kid could have one.

The technology would help, but it definitely has to be applied to something that the kids find meaningful - something they find relevant. They can totally "see-through" a lame internet assignment that is basically a worksheet for the computer. They want to do more. I hope we find a way to allow them to do so.

Amy Hendrickson

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Albert,

I thought your letter was very realistic. Given the choice between good technology and good teachers, parents will go for the good teacher everytime (rightfully so).

I also thought the Jakes letter held the principal far too responsible. Until society (via curricular requirements) tells school officials that tech and IL skills are important enough to be required, administrators will make sure the required skills are taught and tested.

All the very best and thanks for writing in,

Doug

[Doug Johnson]

Amy,

Thanks so much for your very thoughtful comments.

The kids you refer to are ones I call the "C" students who need the 'A" skills. I have a son who fits that category of the plenty smart, but not motivated by school.

My sense is that you need both interesting, relevant content and a means of teaching it in interesting, relevant ways. Been doing a lot of thinking, writing and speaking on this topic See:

http://www.doug-johnson.com/pres.html#Research

Thanks again for the thoughtful response,

Doug

[Wesley Fryer]

Doug: I am thinking that 21st century literacy skills are operationally mutually-exclusive to the skills reinforced in a high stakes testing environment. The fundamental issue is that most people believe in a transmission-based curriculum, and that is not something which is engaging to students or can provide them with the skills they need today and tomorrow. I am excited about charter schools like High Tech High in Albuquerque, that is using a project based curriculum. I think the standards and the tests are part of the problem, not the solution, to education's woes. The foundation of the problem, however, is a belief in transmission-based education. We've needed this revolution for a long time, long before the digital natives ever showed up. I think the need for the revolution gets more apparent the farther along we go in the information age.

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Wes,

Always seems to be that tug between process and content. Just a couple thoughts -

Process which does not ask the learner to seriously engage in content seems useless. I think everyone acknowledges that most 21st century citizens will need to learn content - history, literature, basic mathematics, etc. The question for me is: How is that content best learned. I think it learned by actively engaging with it, rather than be "told" it.

On the issue of tests and standards, I'll defend the standards. Society has a right to articulate what it feels its schools should be teaching. You don't have to agree with them, but then as a citizen you have the right to work to change them. Or opt out by sending one's children to or working for a charter school.

I don't like tests myself, being a big fan and user of authentic assessments. But the Arabs have a saying - "It's easier to steer the camel in the direction it is already heading." I did not set education on the testing path, but I need to realize that this the direction it is heading and will continue to head. If I don't acknowledge this, I will be truly be viewed as irrelevant.

One needs to not just rail against the system, but use it.

Thanks for commenting,

Doug