Print encyclopedias - RIP

From the New York Times "Start Writing the Eulogies for Print Encyclopedias," March 16, 2008:

A series of announcements from publishers across the globe in the last few weeks suggests that the long migration to the Internet has picked up pace, and that ahead of other books, magazines and even newspapers, the classic multivolume encyclopedia is well on its way to becoming the first casualty in the end of print.

What, first no Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, and now no print encyclopedia? The world is definitely going to hell in a handbasket. (Official slogan of the 50+ club.)

I do have to say that I read this article with a twinge of sadness. As a kid, I remember spending many hours reading the two battered sets of encyclopedias in our home. (Yes, children, by lamplight.)  I particuarly liked the plastic sheets displaying human anatomy in one of the volumes, as I recall.

Will my grandson's will have the same fond memories of Worldbook Online?

On the Horizon

Vicki Davis at the Cool Cat Teacher blog reports that the 2008 Horizon Report from Educause is now available. I've enjoyed past issues of this publication that predicts those technologies that will have a major impact on education in 1 year, in 2-3 years, and in 4-5 years. I always find in these reports stuff wasn't even on my radar, let alone on my horizon. So to speak. Worth a read.

I took advantage of another Educause resource this week when I heard the term "google jockeying" used during a presentation. Since I was listening with my laptop open, I had to google the term and came up with this: 7 things you should know about... Google Jockeying published by ...  wait for it ... Educause. This is just one document in the long list of the 7 things your should know about ... series. These one-page, double-sided papers on technologies and technology uses (often social) include a scenario, a definition, and a "what are the implications for teaching and learning" sections.(I just saw that Ryan Bretag has the list on his blog.) 7 things are great to share with your less than 100% tech-oriented staff members.

 

Remember as well that Educause produced Educating the Net Generation in 2005. The first two chapters of this online book are still the summaries of demographic research done on today's kids. 

Happy reading. 

Evaluating teachers

As reported by a number of horrified bloggers, the New York schools are experimenting with evaluating teachers based on their students' test scores. Bad, bad idea. Right? No control over the input; therefore not control over the output:

... teachers are being measured on how many students in their classes meet basic progress goals, how much student performance grows each year, and how that improvement compares with the performance of similar students with other teachers.

But put yer parent hat on for minute, and consider this scenario...

Your child's school district gives a "value-added" test like the NWEA MAPS test. These computerized tests are given in the fall and again in the spring and are designed to measure individual student growth on specific skills. RIT scores show just how many months/years of progress each individual makes between tests. Whether a student has a 1st grade reading level or a 10th grade reading level on entering the 5th grade classroom, the test will tell whether that student makes one year of skill growth - or not. At least that's the theory.

Now, my little boy Skunkie Jr is going into 4th grade and there are three possible 4th grade teachers that he might get. Might not I, as a parent, want to look at the track record of each teacher the Skunkster might get next year - as demonstrated by the percent of students that made or exceeded a year of growth in each of those teachers classes, over say, the past three years. The records indicate that an average of 75% of Mr. Chip's kids make a year of growth; 90% of Ms. Brodie's kids made a year's growth; but only 50% of Mr. Holland's get that year of progress. Might that not be a good thing to know - as a parent or an administrator or a staff development coordiantor or as a taxpayer?

It certainly wouldn't be the only factor I would consider in choosing a teacher (or school) for my child, but I'd rather like knowing it. I do want little Blue to be able to read and do his sums.

Norm-referenced standardized tests can't be used to measure the quality of teachers, of course. But that doesn't sound like what NYC schools are doing. I can't see how it would be a bad thing if my son making a year's worth of progress on a set of standards was seen as very, very important to his teacher.

I suspect there are plenty of really good teachers who would welcome some form of objective evaluation criteria for the work they do. Even without merit-based pay.

I'm not that horrified. Should I be? Why?