Praxis Makes Perfect

I’ve been playing with a rather simple, but interesting idea in my head, when it comes to online schools in K-12 public education. Many of the controversies in states implementing online charter schools are due to a fundamental misalignment between the policies and organizations of the established school system, with the new possibilities of online schools. I think the key for anyone interested in seeing online options for schooling, or even using the Web for “outside the box” schooling models (e.g. here), is understanding how this can and cannot happen within the current edu policy framework can be helpful. More after the jump.

(more…)

So I am currently working on a study doing some comparative case studies of cyber charter schools. Why cyber charters? Well they are interesting cases to me for several reasons. (1) They are online schools that serve K-12 students, when most of our distance learning discussions center on higher education. (2) They are charter schools, so they have their own history of policy and controversy. (3) The existence or extinction of cyber charters have important implications for issues of school choice, home-schooling, the limitations of how our public education system is currently set up, and media-based schooling. (4) They are relatively new and haven’t been studied much (which is good for a budding academic like myself).

I’ll look forward to sharing my findings and thoughts as the project progresses. But for now I want to point out that virtual, online, or cyber schools (whatever you want to call them) are concrete examples of a disruptive technology. The mere fact that using the Internet to deliver public schooling is an option now, throws many of our assumptions about education into flux as well as the policies, regulations, and funding mechanisms that are designed for brick-and-mortar schools.

The fight is happening as we speak… Check out the recent ruling in Wisconsin. Links here and here.

The teachers union sued to close down Wisconsin’s virtual academies. And for now, they have won as the courts ruled to stop sending funds to those schools. What is the issue here? Well online schools pose several problems that come into play:

• Who is responsible for paying for the education? An online school can hypothetically enroll students from anywhere. But how do those public funds (which normally get sent to a student’s resident school district) get transferred to the cyber school? Many districts get angry when they lose student funds for their kids who enroll in an online school.
• What about the quality of education? Most of the popular arguments that come from opponents center around quality of education. Certified teachers? The cyber charters I’ve spoken to hire certified teachers. Do children get the same quality schooling online versus a physically live teacher? Why wouldn’t they? The modalities of learning may be different (more text, more multimedia, more self directed) but who says physically sitting in a classroom is somehow a better experience? The cyber schools I’ve looked at so far have been able to provide a more intimate educational experience for their students, with highly independent attention… all because the use of technology.
• A thorny issue for teachers unions is the possibility that cyber schools can be more efficient with their money. Cyber charters can use curriculum and Internet based multimedia to handle basic instruction and assessments. Teachers can then play a more advisor, guidance, and coaching role. They can provide individual plans for each student, check in on each of their students efficiently via email, telephone, or other means, and make sure each student is progressing. On top of that, we might blow up the entire idea of “class size”. A teacher in a physical classroom might be overwhelmed with 30 students in a class. But the new job description of a cyber school teacher might enable them to easily handle a case-load of 30 students who they mentor, or even more! The implications are that cyber charters may spend their money in other areas, other than teachers… and I bet that is at the core of the teachers union in Wisconsin trying to kill cyber schools in their state.

Ok, so in the previous post I critiqued the problem of thinking about networks and technology in general terms. Here is an example of thinking about networks in a more focused, and I think more helpful way. Check out this link:

(more…)

I’m going to go off on a little tangent with this post, so apologies beforehand.

I attended an alumni event this weekend for my dear alma mater; it was a panel discussion discussing Mayor Villaraigosa’s takeover of LAUSD. It was moderated by Professor Kenneth Wong with panelists representing the LAUSD school board, another California school board, a member of the Mayor’s staff, and a teacher in a LAUSD charter school.

First thoughts - Amazing props to my alma mater and everyone involved for organizing and participating in such an important event. What a great commitment to dialogue and education. My reaction after the jump.

(more…)

I will be starting my PhD program soon, and I already have a full plate of reading, writing, and research ahead of me.

I’ve noticed that there are distinct differences in the ways I talk about “Education” with my colleagues in academia versus the people I know who are in the classroom everyday.

Academics talk in terms of characteristics, variables, outcomes, ideas, hopes etc… When I talk with teachers or parents of children in public school, they speak about schools being unsafe, how kids just don’t want to pay attention or do their homework, how there are so many mandates placed on teachers that even if they completed all of their requirements in a day they’d still need 1.5 more hours than they have, how curriculum is standardized and there is no room for teachers to be teachers….

I guess my point is, as I begin my PhD studies I am painfully aware that I am still unable to bridge these two worlds (academia versus “reality”), and I wonder how I will be able to do that in the next 4 years of my time studying, researching, and working.

Came across this L.A. Times article about the pending showdown between mayor Villaraigosa and the teachers’ union, concerning his desire to take over L.A. Unified: click here
The questions that always pop up for me when large scale, political, and structural changes are prescribed as a solution to education reform are:

1. Are the players involved, doing what’s right, or just vying for power?
2. If given power and responsibility to inact your plan, what measures will be in place to assess your performance? (a question for any policy maker, mayor, teachers’ union, school board etc. etc. etc.)
3. How does your prescribed changes really change anything? What is required on a micro-level, from those on the front lines of school administration and classroom teaching, for positive results to happen? What kind of support is needed at the structural, political, and macro level? Basically, what does each player in the system need to do to “buy in” and contribute to a successful initiative?

There needs to be many individuals in a system (a school system, a district, a school, at all levels) who understand that creating unity amongst stakeholders, is the only way to create real change. I believe Michael Fullan calls this “moral purpose” in his book The New Meaning of Educational Change. Think about it… any top-down or bottom-up strategy is easily killed without mutual support. We need each other, not to fight against each other, otherwise anything we try will likely fail.

I think where systems and organizations break down, is where the “bad apples”, the misinformed, those with personal agendas, those who just don’t want to buy-in create disunity… But how do we create unity in large systems?  These people exist in every school, in every school board, political office, University….
The easy answer is, everyone needs a gut check and have to ask themselves, “What do I need to do to help make this work? And what specifically do I need others to do, to make this work?” and to really follow through and do whatever these things are. Provide funding. Make hard decisions. Follow the plan. Buy in with good faith. This is easier said than done, because one breakdown creates further breakdowns. One break of trust, disintegrates the system easily. What to do? Right now we spend our time posturing our own agends and creating plans on top of plans. Anyone have any ideas on creating unity?

So the L.A. Times the other day posted this article about teachers at Carson High School, a struggling school, who voted to reject a $1.5 million gant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that would implement a new school design model called Talent Development.

From the article Talent Development focuses on two key designs:

1. Focus on 9th grade success (I guess because researchers who created the model learned that making it through 9th grade was a strong precursor to graduating).
2. Block schedules of 4, 90-minute classes, and a 4 quarter system where students take 16 “courses” per year.

Ok, as with any model that is loosely based on some statistical correlation, I don’t feel I can comment unless I know more details about the program. It seems like a promising program just from first glance; Shouldn’t all schools strive to give kids personal attention and help them make it through, while offering intensive, engaging courses? My initial questions are: Why are 9th graders failing and what does Talent Development do to support them? Why do those who make it to 10th grade graduate at a better rate, and what does Talent Development do to support students in grades 10-12? Block scheduling can be great, but does Talent Development have any philosophies in terms of pedagogy, classroom management, and utilizing those longer time periods effectively? What about teacher support and development?

Anyhow, the article focuses more on the “sensational” development of the Carson teachers utilizing their union power and voting down the school reform initiative. The administrators see the teachers as averse to change and comfortable in their mediocrity. There may be some truth to that… The teachers see yet another top-down reform that will be supported for a short period of time with a small amount of money (1.5 mil is really not that much if you’re running a school), and are threatened by outsiders coming to their school and “telling them” how to do their jobs… There may be some validity to that.

For me, I can observe as an outsider the ways in which the system breaks down. Administrators want to look at the input(money and reform ideas)/output (graduation/test results) and try anything that may improve their results. Teachers are concerned with how their daily routine and work will be affected, and naturally are averse to changing what they’re comfortable with…. Nowhere in this discussion, or in this article, do I see a concern for what is best for the children. Arvind, want to take a crack at a Senge model for this?