Thursday, October 11, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
I didn't know...
Most every single day I fix a computer problem. Though, it isn't a computer problem really. It's a veteran faculty member who can't check their e-mail, wants to know how to use our grade spreadsheet program, who doesn't understand why their computer doesn't get "The Internet." And this, not the computer is the problem. We are in the midst of a dramatic technological advance, one unprecedented in human history. As agents of human development educators are unsure, if not unprepared, how to manage such wholesale change.
It starts in any classroom. A student brings in a project they published from the Internet. The graphs are precise, the pictures hi-res, the information seamless and accurate. Only it is not their own. The teacher unabashedly scorns the student for plagiarism, claiming one's ideas as their own. The bewildered student stares back at the teacher, unsure as to what they have done wrong.
As we become a global community of knowledge, we lose the property rights to such knowledge. The information is out there, part of our collective conscience. Information is readily accessible, learning becomes based on necessity. 21st century students don't understand learning "just in case" or "one day you'll need to know this". No, give 21st century students what they need [tomorrow's knowledge], when they need it [today]. This knowledge can be collected by students, but it is difficult for today's students to evaluate and/or synthesize such large amounts of information. Acquisition is a skill already possessed by most students. Comprehension is still something that can be taught. Students have blind faith in their Internet sources; they do not weight them against their personal values or local circumstances. We must therefore balance the use of technology with the promotion of real-world activities. Students must be able to gauge the effectiveness of tech-info based on its real-world practicality. The only way to make such sound measures is to garner real-world experiences.
But how do we teach students about what really matters? Is it our place? Surely we cannot tell a student what they can/cannot learn when we don't know what will be relevant down the road. But should students decide what matters? Young students may have the world at their fingertips, but they do not have a life's worth of experience to evaluate this world. Perhaps our efforts are best utilized in a compromise between educators' life-experience and students' youthful ambition. These are all convenient philosophical arguments on which we can waste away the day.
In the meantime, other nations have fully invested themselves in the technological age. U. S. students may not know what the 21st century marketplace will look like, but they can be sure it will be globally competitive. We can be sure that if we do not embrace technological literacy and innovation, we will soon find ourselves victim to it. And to ensure the basic competencies of our students, to ensure that they can be employed satisfied adults, we must teach them the skills that matter, the skills that employers might have in demand. These skills will extend beyond tech-savvy, to an adaptive personality that willingly accepts the inevitability and acceleration of global change.
It starts in any classroom. A student brings in a project they published from the Internet. The graphs are precise, the pictures hi-res, the information seamless and accurate. Only it is not their own. The teacher unabashedly scorns the student for plagiarism, claiming one's ideas as their own. The bewildered student stares back at the teacher, unsure as to what they have done wrong.
As we become a global community of knowledge, we lose the property rights to such knowledge. The information is out there, part of our collective conscience. Information is readily accessible, learning becomes based on necessity. 21st century students don't understand learning "just in case" or "one day you'll need to know this". No, give 21st century students what they need [tomorrow's knowledge], when they need it [today]. This knowledge can be collected by students, but it is difficult for today's students to evaluate and/or synthesize such large amounts of information. Acquisition is a skill already possessed by most students. Comprehension is still something that can be taught. Students have blind faith in their Internet sources; they do not weight them against their personal values or local circumstances. We must therefore balance the use of technology with the promotion of real-world activities. Students must be able to gauge the effectiveness of tech-info based on its real-world practicality. The only way to make such sound measures is to garner real-world experiences.
But how do we teach students about what really matters? Is it our place? Surely we cannot tell a student what they can/cannot learn when we don't know what will be relevant down the road. But should students decide what matters? Young students may have the world at their fingertips, but they do not have a life's worth of experience to evaluate this world. Perhaps our efforts are best utilized in a compromise between educators' life-experience and students' youthful ambition. These are all convenient philosophical arguments on which we can waste away the day.
In the meantime, other nations have fully invested themselves in the technological age. U. S. students may not know what the 21st century marketplace will look like, but they can be sure it will be globally competitive. We can be sure that if we do not embrace technological literacy and innovation, we will soon find ourselves victim to it. And to ensure the basic competencies of our students, to ensure that they can be employed satisfied adults, we must teach them the skills that matter, the skills that employers might have in demand. These skills will extend beyond tech-savvy, to an adaptive personality that willingly accepts the inevitability and acceleration of global change.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Reading Don't Fix No Chevys
As a teacher I cherish those [few and far between] moments where students have transcended the conflict between learning and work. In these moments students are learning something to satisfy a natural curiosity, there motivation is intrinsic.
Skeptics would question the objective of flow. They wonder if our goal be the pursuit of mastery to the point of mindlessness, or should we continually challenge ourselves in the pursuit of new learning experiences. More importantly, can we do both?
Students can be inspired to learn by the sense of control and competence they receive. Students "own" knowledge, it is their intellectual property. All students like to gain respect or responsibility for their performance. Students are placed above novices as a result of their expertise. This placement validates student efforts and instills a sense of self-worth and pride in one's work. Students will soon find themselves motivated to do more and discover their true potential. In order for students to have a genuine "flow" experience, they must succeed according to universally accepted, objective standards for assessment.It is important that the "flow" experience provides measurable opportunities for this growth and the rewards associated with such growth are not marginalized.
"Flow" learning carries with it the belief that in the moment is that which is most important, relevant and true. while this experience is valid, we must teach students to balance such thinking with dispositions to be planful and reflective.
Skeptics would question the objective of flow. They wonder if our goal be the pursuit of mastery to the point of mindlessness, or should we continually challenge ourselves in the pursuit of new learning experiences. More importantly, can we do both?
Students can be inspired to learn by the sense of control and competence they receive. Students "own" knowledge, it is their intellectual property. All students like to gain respect or responsibility for their performance. Students are placed above novices as a result of their expertise. This placement validates student efforts and instills a sense of self-worth and pride in one's work. Students will soon find themselves motivated to do more and discover their true potential. In order for students to have a genuine "flow" experience, they must succeed according to universally accepted, objective standards for assessment.It is important that the "flow" experience provides measurable opportunities for this growth and the rewards associated with such growth are not marginalized.
"Flow" learning carries with it the belief that in the moment is that which is most important, relevant and true. while this experience is valid, we must teach students to balance such thinking with dispositions to be planful and reflective.
Congressional Letter
Congressman Garrett,
As a NJ educator, I wanted to take the time to address the pending status of the NCLB federal education program. NCLB has heightened school accountability, increased parental awareness of school performance, and moved towards a more standard U. S. education for children. I am a firm a believer that an equal educational experience for all students is a reasonable mandate and that such a standard helps to insure our democracy. While the principles behind NCLB are congruent with those of any educator, the measures for assessment are lacking. It is therefore my recommendation that NCLB legislation be significantly revised before renewal.
Unlike other professional careers, educators begin each year with the same circumstance, new students. The NCLB mandate presents a similar challenge in 100% proficiency expectation of all New Jersey students by the year 2014. This benchmark sets high expectations for teachers and students but does not recognize certain inevitabilities of education. While we can make some improvement on the abilities of students at every grade level it is unreasonable to expect such improvement to continue. Educators in successful schools throughout the state can expect to see diminishing performance margins as we approach 100%. Statistically relevant target groups dictate the use of financial and human capital. This is to say that certain students are receiving more attention and money than others.
Assessment of what makes a school successful is a hotly debated topic. If we gauge success on purely statistical data then we miss a significant portion of a school's function. Quantitative measures are functional, streamlined, and relevant, but it is the qualitative components of schools that lend themselves more directly to student success.
I would therefore propose the formation of a New Jersey Assessment Committee. This program would oversee the testing of students at every grade level. It would work jointly with the state Curriculum Office and the Department of Education. I would recommend the involvement of teachers, administrators, private test developers, and government officials. This committee could create a more standard state curriculum complete with formal and informal assessment measures for teachers, students, and school bodies. Working jointly, this committee can more clearly ascertain what makes schools successful and create reasonable criteria for assessment.
Public education has long been considered a social experiment. Both teachers and students have been willing participants in this endeavor. Unfortunately the instruments for analysis and criteria for evaluation currently provided by NCLB are not congruent with our shared educational aims. We can work better to provide for the education of New Jersey children. Please consider this message and vote against the renewal of No Child Left Behind legislation.
Regards,
Brian D. Hutchinson
As a NJ educator, I wanted to take the time to address the pending status of the NCLB federal education program. NCLB has heightened school accountability, increased parental awareness of school performance, and moved towards a more standard U. S. education for children. I am a firm a believer that an equal educational experience for all students is a reasonable mandate and that such a standard helps to insure our democracy. While the principles behind NCLB are congruent with those of any educator, the measures for assessment are lacking. It is therefore my recommendation that NCLB legislation be significantly revised before renewal.
Unlike other professional careers, educators begin each year with the same circumstance, new students. The NCLB mandate presents a similar challenge in 100% proficiency expectation of all New Jersey students by the year 2014. This benchmark sets high expectations for teachers and students but does not recognize certain inevitabilities of education. While we can make some improvement on the abilities of students at every grade level it is unreasonable to expect such improvement to continue. Educators in successful schools throughout the state can expect to see diminishing performance margins as we approach 100%. Statistically relevant target groups dictate the use of financial and human capital. This is to say that certain students are receiving more attention and money than others.
Assessment of what makes a school successful is a hotly debated topic. If we gauge success on purely statistical data then we miss a significant portion of a school's function. Quantitative measures are functional, streamlined, and relevant, but it is the qualitative components of schools that lend themselves more directly to student success.
I would therefore propose the formation of a New Jersey Assessment Committee. This program would oversee the testing of students at every grade level. It would work jointly with the state Curriculum Office and the Department of Education. I would recommend the involvement of teachers, administrators, private test developers, and government officials. This committee could create a more standard state curriculum complete with formal and informal assessment measures for teachers, students, and school bodies. Working jointly, this committee can more clearly ascertain what makes schools successful and create reasonable criteria for assessment.
Public education has long been considered a social experiment. Both teachers and students have been willing participants in this endeavor. Unfortunately the instruments for analysis and criteria for evaluation currently provided by NCLB are not congruent with our shared educational aims. We can work better to provide for the education of New Jersey children. Please consider this message and vote against the renewal of No Child Left Behind legislation.
Regards,
Brian D. Hutchinson
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
NJCCCS Critique
In reviewing the Core Content Standards from the NJ website, I found several useful pages. The standards are clearly written, and deal with the information students will learn or the tasks they will be able to perform. The greatest value of these standards is maintaining uniform instruction throughout the state. The value of publishing these standards on the Internet is in making parents, teachers, and students aware of the performance expectations for each class or grade level. All told, this page is effective, but certainly open for criticism. Allow me to indulge.
The block quote from A Nation at Risk seems out of place for an official government site. This quote sets an ominous, misrepresentative tone for the linked pages and the standards they address.
I do not agree with the placement of human development skills in the Career Education and Consumer, Family and Life Skills. If this sounds like a jumbled mess, it’s because it is. The classes In reality, these topics are addressed through home-economics, career counseling classes, that have a very frail identity or purpose unto themselves.
Among the standards that should be considered are self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, work ethic, and morals. I feel that these universal standards should be featured more prominently on the page. They should be considered with the same care given to discipline-specific content standards.
I also feel that consideration should be given to developing the worldview and self-identity of each student. We cordon our standards by classical disciplines, but there is little regard given to the idea that these disciplines make up the larger human experience. To its credit, the Introduction page states, “Although the standards have been organized into separate academic disciplines, this is not meant to imply that each standard can only be met through content-specific courses.” Yet this still does not explain the utility of meeting performance standards across disciplines. Further, it does recognize that there is value to establishing perspectives that transcend classical disciplinary divisions. The standards for math, science, language arts, and history are content-driven; even when these standards discuss student behaviors the language is rarely consistent across subjects. Students must be expected to fuse these disciplines into a larger, practical understanding of their world. From such a perspective, the value of content standards comes not in their substance, but in the ability for students to connect learning across disciplines or throughout time periods.
The block quote from A Nation at Risk seems out of place for an official government site. This quote sets an ominous, misrepresentative tone for the linked pages and the standards they address.
I do not agree with the placement of human development skills in the Career Education and Consumer, Family and Life Skills. If this sounds like a jumbled mess, it’s because it is. The classes In reality, these topics are addressed through home-economics, career counseling classes, that have a very frail identity or purpose unto themselves.
Among the standards that should be considered are self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, work ethic, and morals. I feel that these universal standards should be featured more prominently on the page. They should be considered with the same care given to discipline-specific content standards.
I also feel that consideration should be given to developing the worldview and self-identity of each student. We cordon our standards by classical disciplines, but there is little regard given to the idea that these disciplines make up the larger human experience. To its credit, the Introduction page states, “Although the standards have been organized into separate academic disciplines, this is not meant to imply that each standard can only be met through content-specific courses.” Yet this still does not explain the utility of meeting performance standards across disciplines. Further, it does recognize that there is value to establishing perspectives that transcend classical disciplinary divisions. The standards for math, science, language arts, and history are content-driven; even when these standards discuss student behaviors the language is rarely consistent across subjects. Students must be expected to fuse these disciplines into a larger, practical understanding of their world. From such a perspective, the value of content standards comes not in their substance, but in the ability for students to connect learning across disciplines or throughout time periods.
Sabretooth Curriculum
“He knew how to do things his community needed to have done, and he had the energy and will to go ahead and do them. By virtue of these characteristics he was an educated man.”
New-Fist recognizes that progress is defined by our ability to improve on each generation’s performance, not to repeat it. Such thinking leads us to more secular notions of self-determination. While this creates practical doers, it does somewhat reduce the awe and appreciation students might have for those who have come before. A balance is therefore necessary between investing in the present, understanding the past, and preparing for the future.
He establishes an objective goal, to have children better prepared for the challenges of adulthood than the current elders were. He then created the three specific objectives to reach that goal, fish-grabbing, horse-clubbing, and tiger-scaring. These objectives proved worthy in that when they were met children were more likely to survive. Educational goals and curricular standards prove to be functional when we can prove their use in society. It is because our society constantly changes that curriculum must continually evolve to remain relevant. We should teach our children contemporary skills, and moreso teach them to realize that their skills must continually improve/change to meet the demands of the time.
At the same time we should always respect opinions of those who feel threatened by progress. This threat is actually concern for future generations that while technologically adept, may be lacking in the perspective or appreciation of how things came to be. The Y2K scare came about because computer codes had been written atop one another for 50 years . As we approached the year 2000, there were very few computer techs familiar with the initial code used as the foundation for future operations. There was a great degree of unraveling needed and suddenly old skills became relevant again.
We must be trained to use practical skills for our times, but maintain perspective as to why these skills are now relevant.
New-Fist recognizes that progress is defined by our ability to improve on each generation’s performance, not to repeat it. Such thinking leads us to more secular notions of self-determination. While this creates practical doers, it does somewhat reduce the awe and appreciation students might have for those who have come before. A balance is therefore necessary between investing in the present, understanding the past, and preparing for the future.
He establishes an objective goal, to have children better prepared for the challenges of adulthood than the current elders were. He then created the three specific objectives to reach that goal, fish-grabbing, horse-clubbing, and tiger-scaring. These objectives proved worthy in that when they were met children were more likely to survive. Educational goals and curricular standards prove to be functional when we can prove their use in society. It is because our society constantly changes that curriculum must continually evolve to remain relevant. We should teach our children contemporary skills, and moreso teach them to realize that their skills must continually improve/change to meet the demands of the time.
At the same time we should always respect opinions of those who feel threatened by progress. This threat is actually concern for future generations that while technologically adept, may be lacking in the perspective or appreciation of how things came to be. The Y2K scare came about because computer codes had been written atop one another for 50 years . As we approached the year 2000, there were very few computer techs familiar with the initial code used as the foundation for future operations. There was a great degree of unraveling needed and suddenly old skills became relevant again.
We must be trained to use practical skills for our times, but maintain perspective as to why these skills are now relevant.
180
For kicks one year, a fellow teacher and I had once created a school-year calendar of excuses that children could not learn on a particular day. Distractions ranged from the Christmas holiday, Student Council elections, day after the Super Bowl, etc. I found the short film “180” to parallel the ideas found in that calendar.
Teachers know that education is about quality, not quantity. Time on-task is probably one of the prime indicators of student success in a particular classroom. “Days on task” should then be the measure we use when analyzing the effectiveness of the schedule. Schools have made great strides to improve instruction through professional development, new textbooks, new staff, even new subjects.
Through all of this reform, education clings to its standard schedule Though its primary function is outdated, Americans still like their summer break, Labor Day last hurrah, and return to school. Spiral curriculum and semester long overlaps have been designed into curricula in order to accommodate this large break. Just as so many measures have been created with students’ best interest in mind so too may have come the time for this concern to be evidence in our schedule.
Teachers know that education is about quality, not quantity. Time on-task is probably one of the prime indicators of student success in a particular classroom. “Days on task” should then be the measure we use when analyzing the effectiveness of the schedule. Schools have made great strides to improve instruction through professional development, new textbooks, new staff, even new subjects.
Through all of this reform, education clings to its standard schedule Though its primary function is outdated, Americans still like their summer break, Labor Day last hurrah, and return to school. Spiral curriculum and semester long overlaps have been designed into curricula in order to accommodate this large break. Just as so many measures have been created with students’ best interest in mind so too may have come the time for this concern to be evidence in our schedule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)