I don't think, however, that being an educator is necessarily the best quliaification for positively impacting educational outcomes.
if I am not mistaken all of them have national curricula and national standards as opposed to our diffuse and fractured system that produces not only uneven outcomes directly correlated to the economic circumstances of local districts, but poorer outcomes overall.As it happens, I was looking over foreign national curriculum today. I actually do believe we need a national curriculum, but it needs to be carefully structured so as not to create a chokehold on teachers and learning and student needs. And as far as the perpetuated inequity goes, another think we need to take a serious look at is how schools are funded. The vicious cycle between high property taxes in wealthy areas which produce good schools which attract companies which produce more taxes which go back to the schools... Up in Vermont, they had a big fight, some years back, about sharing some of that money. Needless to say, the folks in the wealthier area didn't want their money going to the poor schools. I think something like a quarter (arbitrary number) of all property taxes should go to a state education fund that is distributed on the basis of need.
Not only do we need to invest more in education, we need to it wisely. So much of educational funding is ill-prioritized.
Ok, I'll come back for more in a bit. ;)
]]>Also, 2% of the nation's students are attending charter schools, but for all the talk of them, you'd think there's one on every corner.
For another, charter schools are much like every other school in the sense that some are great, and some fail. Additionally, the PR around the "success" of some charter schools is disingenuous at best, reporting high scores while screening admissions for the "cream of the crop" or leaving out things like high attrition rates.
]]>The biggest thing here is that for many of the ideas the "reformers" have (but definitely not all!!!), I agree with - but they need some tweaking. Charter Schools, Merit Pay. I'm in favor of both, but not the way they're done now/proposed.
]]>This isn't to say there aren't parts that I like - early childhood and higher ed stuff is mostly good. It's the in-between stuff that's got me concerned. The money he's getting from the stimulus represents a huge opportunity. I hope it's used well, but...
]]>Secondly, so much of educational funding is misplaced, ill-prioritized. How do you implement this on a nationwide scale? How much would that cost? How much would that take away from other essentials?
In Chicago, the way it worked was kids were assessed every five weeks in math, science, social sciences, English, and phys. ed. They got 50 bucks for As, $35 for Bs, and $20 for Cs. It was funded by private donations - how would we do that on a national scale?
]]>Just watch out for this:
http://myparentsjoinedfacebook.com/
;)
]]>But about your comment - the Google article is also linked to in the post - personally, I have no problems sitting down and reading a long book. And one of the things I love about the Internet is the ability to find books I never would have known existed. Discussions here, on TPM, for example, has led me to several books and authors I may never have found. Palfrey and Gasser's Digital Natives classifies me as one, but the first time I had an Internet connection full time was in college. But I look at my seven-years-younger sister and my 11-years-younger stepsister and they are both brilliant young women - who still read and socialize and reflect outside of technology - and they are more certainly "Digital Natives."
In high school, my sister was reading Sartre and I believe it was Dostoyevsky amidst checking her Myspace and instant messaging.
I think the important thing here is balance. There aren't many activities I can think of that should be done for hours and hours.
Myself - I'm less concerned that technology will decrease reading or reflecting (I think it's increased mine and also had the effect of turning me back into a writer). What I do worry about is that we are becoming a nation of indoor-people. (Or maybe more aptly never-go-outside-people.)
I still want the kids to get time to play outside. To find frogs and dig holes and play in the woods and build forts and ride bikes and all that. I was riding my bike around town up until the day I got my license. I can't say I think that technology is at fault for what seems like the decrease in that type of life - but I do think it's part of it.
]]>Even the earliest hunter-gatherer groups of humans lived and hunted in groups, which some attribute to the success of human evolution. (Hunting, specifically.) The transition and success of the move to agricultural society can also be seen through a social lens.
When you guys imagine how we discovered fire, how do you picture it?
]]>I think there are legitimate critiques of technology but I have a real hard time listening to them come from someone who appears to think that "Click, Get Flashing Lights" sums up the Internet.
]]>