Hometechnology(Page 7)

technology

Beating Up on 21CS

Eduflack Math, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for the 21st century skills movement.  Last week, at an event hosted by Common Core, 21CS (embodied by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills) got pretty bloodied by the traditionalists who believe the teaching of soft 21CS mean denying our students much needed core content in reading, math, science, and the social sciences.  The Core Knowledge Foundation was the first to weigh in (http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2009/02/25/21st-century-skills-fadbusters/ ) and Eduwonk has a powerful commentary on the event, and its implications for the future (http://www.eduwonk.com/2009/02/21st-century-skills-in-critical-condition.html ).

This week, the traditional media weighs in on the controversy.  EdWeek’s Stephen Sawchuk has a terrific article on the throwdown in Education Week (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/03/04/23pushback_ep.h28.html?r=1644068071 ) and USA Today’s Greg Toppo weighs in on the same debate this morning (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-04-core-knowledge_N.htm ), pitting it as 21st century skills versus core knowledge.
Eduflack gets the controversy, don’t get me wrong.  When we start talking about teaching our students “soft skills” in what is already a severely limited academic day, it sends chills down the spines of those who fear we are already falling down on the job when it comes to teaching our kids the basics.  After all, who wants to substitute “world history with “Fun with Technology?”  Who wants to forgo advanced science so we can teach “Interpersonal Communication?”  And who would even think of sacrificing a foreign language so we can offer “Teamwork 101?”
At the end of the day, though, this is all a false debate.  Do our students need 21st century skills, like teamwork, problem solving, critical thinking, and such?  Yes.  Are these skills that many have already been teaching for decades (thus questioning whether they are really 21st century skills)?  Yes.  Should we, or do we, sacrifice our core curriculum to offer this collection of soft skills in its stead?  Of course not.
The debate over 21CS skills should not be one between one set of curricular goals versus the other.  This isn’t core knowledge versus soft skills.  No, our focus should be on how we teach those core subjects that are necessary.  How do we teach math and science so that we better integrate technology and critical thinking skills?  How do we teach the social sciences in a manner that focuses on project-based learning and team-based activities?  How do we ensure that a 21st century student is not being forced to unplug when they enter the classroom, and instead uses the technologies and interests that drive the rest of their life to boost their interest and achievement in core academic subjects?  And most importantly, how do we ensure all students are graduating with the content knowledge and skills needed to truly achieve in the 21st century economy?
If anything, 21CS is guilty of bad messaging and bad PR.  In a time when everyone is concerned about both academic quality and relevance to the economy, many 21CS advocates remain focused on the need for soft skills, believing they have discovered some long, lost map to student success.  In reality, they are calling for a reinforcement of the relevance of core instruction.  Their message has been off, and as a result, they’ve painted a nice, large target on the back of a well-meaning concept.
How do we move beyond it?  The first step is shifting from 21CS skills to STEM skills.  Science-technology-engineering-math education is a strong attempt at unifying core curriculum (at least math and science) with those skills needed in today’s workforce.  STEM literacy requires a keen understanding of core knowledge, along with an adeptness of 21CS.  Most importantly, it is a concept that policymakers and business leaders understand and are starting to embrace, seeing that how a student applies knowledge is just as important as the knowledge they acquire.
Yes, STEM education faces similar criticism to 21CS, but that’s only because some haven’t seen strong, effective STEM education at work.  It isn’t all keyboarding and web development.  It is advanced math and science.  It offers history lessons in technology.  And it even figures out how to teach topics like mechanical engineering in relevant concepts for secondary school students.  In its very soul, STEM is as core knowledge as it can be.
Regardless, this shouldn’t be an either/or debate.  When we look at our K-12 schools, we look at the pipeline into postsecondary education, and we observe the ever-evolving demands for a skilled workforce, it is clear we have miles to go before we solve the problem.  The answer is not more Latin, a better understanding of ancient Greek history, or a finer appreciation for the Great Books.  The true answer is found in how use new technologies, new approaches, and altogether new ways to teach our core subjects.  How do we cultivate new learning skills while reinforcing our tried-and-true curriculum?  How do we better engage a 21st century student on that core knowledge that they just don’t have an interest in or don’t see the relevance of?  How do we better engage students, rather than asking them to unplug and power down upon entering the schoolhouse doors?
What’s clear is the Partnership for 21CS is facing its last stand.  Its positioning and messaging is quickly making it irrelevant, while stoking the engines of those who have long lept to the defense of a deeply held sense of our core academic curriculum.  The Partnership needs to go back to the drawing board, build a new messaging platform, expand its pool of advocates and endorsers, and reassert its relevance in the debate on school improvement.  Otherwise, it is just another good idea that will have failed because of bad execution and an inability to connect with both those who must lead the change and the students we are trying to impact with the reform.

Advocating for Meaningful STEM Education

Eduflack Math, NGA, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

Earlier this week, www.ednews.org ran a Commentary from Eduflack on how to advocate for meaningful STEM education, particularly at the state level.  The article was originally found here — ednews.org/articles/33615/1/Advocating-STEM-Education-As-a-Gateway-To-Economic-Opportunity/Page1.html.  Thanks also to Fritz Edelstein and the Fritzwire for spotlighting the piece.

I’ve received a lot of response from folks on the piece, so I thought I would repost the original EdNews piece here, crediting EdNews as the publisher.

Advocating STEM Education As a Gateway To Economic Opportunity

By Patrick R. Riccards

Effectively integrating Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) education and its impact on the economic opportunity into the culture is more important today than anyone ever anticipated.Our nation’s recent economic struggles, coupled with concerns about career readiness and 21st century jobs, have refocused our attention on infrastructure – both physical and human.At the heart of rebuilding our nation’s intellectual infrastructure is a STEM-literate society, and students equipped with the STEM skills needed to succeed both in school and career.

But implementing a STEM education effort isn’t as easy as it seems.To some, STEM is a retread of education programs offered decades ago or a recast of vocational education.To others, it is something for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons, not for every student.To overcome these obstacles, states and school districts are forced to move into a mode of advocacy and social marketing, effectively linking K-12 education and economy and demonstrating the urgency for improvement to both.

Education improvement no longer happens in a vacuum.Call it communications, advocacy, PR, or social marketing, it all comes down to effective public engagement.For education reform efforts across the nation, ultimate success is more than just educating key constituencies about their cause and goals.True success requires specific action – implementing improvements in partnership with educators and other stakeholders to boost student success, close the achievement gap, and ultimately prepare every student for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century workforce. Such actions require us to move from informing the public to building commitment for a solution, and, finally to mobilizing around specific actions.

Making stakeholders aware of a concern like the need for STEM education is one thing.It is quite another to move the public to the more sophisticated level of informed opinion necessary to reach consensus and generate a sense of urgency that ultimately leads to the action of investing in a K-12 STEM agenda.But this is how great education reforms move from simply good ideas to great successes.

Before we can get audiences to adopt STEM education efforts and embrace the portfolio of research and recommendations available to them, we must first make them aware of the issues at hand.The informing stage makes people aware of the issue, developing a true sense of urgency for change.

While many decisionmakers recognize that there are problems in meeting the coming workforce demands, many do not agree on what those problems may be or what actions might successfully address them.Unfortunately, too many people believe that there is nothing that can be done to fix these problems. Those states that are poised to become leaders in STEM education must convince K-12 and postsecondary education leaders, current and potential employers, state and local policymakers, and the public at large that there are solutions that will work, and solutions their communities can get behind and support.

Ultimately, we do this by showing the enormous need for reforms in “schools like mine, in classes like mine, with kids like mine.” By focusing on past successes and proven-effective methods, educators can demonstrate the critical role STEM plays in our schools, economy, and community, helping make key decisionmaking constituencies understand the serious risks they face simply accepting the status quo. Thanks to groups like the National Governors Association (and a number of forward-thinking states) and the National Math and Science Initiative, such efforts are well underway.


Next, we shift into phase two — building commitment.Once parents, educators, and policymakers recognize the problem, they are ready to commit to a meaningful solution.Transforming a general need for improvement into a public call to arms for STEM education requires understanding that these solutions are the right ones to improve efficiency and success.

Inevitably, some people will reject proposed reforms. Some will be reluctant to face and accept the trade-offs that come from choosing a specific plan of action. Opponents will try to poke holes in specific reforms. The best way to avoid this resistance is to ensure that everyone is involved in the process and that all of their concerns have been heard.

After moving beyond initial resistance, stakeholders begin to weigh their choices rationally and look to a variety of options for moving recommendations into practice.Decisionmakers need to feel that they have a range of choices and a reason to make them.Successful advocacy clarifies the pros and cons of each decision and allow time and opportunity for deliberation.In Colorado, for instance, STEM leaders are working with business leaders and the P-20 Council to explore opportunities and make specific choices to meet the state’s educational and economic needs.

With that, we are finally ready to move to phase three — mobilizing for action.Changing attitudes and informing the debate is not enough. STEM education succeeds when policymakers and community leaders are actively supporting its solutions.Once our target audiences are engaged because they believe in the merits of our position, they will need to know what we want them to do to help accomplish these goals.So it is important that our communications and organizing efforts include specific actions – ideally actions that are easy and feasible – that supporters can take to help reach overall goals.

If history tells us anything, we know the public may agree that reform efforts are valid and will produce desired results, but may not be willing to change their behavior or adopt specific recommendations.This is
temporary, though.Given time, incentives, and opportunities to consider their core values in light of challenges and needs, stakeholders can reach the final stage of full intellectual and emotional acceptance of the importance of improving education opportunity for all.Now is the best time to make sure that there is a role for everyone to play in education improvement, giving stakeholders the tools and information needed to move themselves and others from awareness to action.

Education is an industry as driven by emotion as it is by fact.As a result, too often, stakeholders decide that inaction is the best action, out of fear of taking a wrong step or alienating a specific group. That is why too many groups, causes, and reforms struggle to develop true public engagement efforts that affect real outcomes.That’s where the Inform-Build Commitment-Mobilize Action model comes into play, offering education leaders one of the most effective methods to implement meaningful education solutions. Applying this model to STEM efforts is critical and will offer long-term impacts on strengthening our schools, our community, and our economy.

(Patrick R. Riccards is CEO of Exemplar Strategic Communications, an education consultancy, and author of Eduflack, an education reform blog.)

Published February 9, 2009

Keepin’ Tuesday Interesting

Eduflack ELL, national standards, PD, technology

The education headlines continue to pile in today, and most of them aren’t focused on nominations at the U.S. Department of Education nor the education implications of the economic stimulus bill.  Some ideas to consider:

Further Proof We Need National Education Standards
Over in Kentucky, legislators are looking to rewrite the state’s reading and math school standards, seeking to improve student proficiency by reducing the number of state standards they are held to.  A noble intent, particularly when it is intended to address remedial needs in postsecondary education, but by now, you’d think every state would understand core academic standards.  Our focus should be on delivering the proven-effective instruction in math and science and equipping teachers with the materials and supports they need to get the job done.  This seems like a side step when so many are calling for a large step forward.
Refocusing on Teaching
By now, we all should recognize the importance of the classroom teacher in school improvement and the need to provide those teachers ongoing, content-focused professional development.  And with expectations for our schools, teachers, and students growing higher and higher, one would think PD would gain greater attention from the education system.  But in Iowa, teachers are struggling to find the time they need for professional development.
A Little College Help
We often hear how the job of K-12 education is complete once graduation day finally arrives.  Over in Indianapolis, though, educators seem to take their commitment to boost the college-going rate just a little more seriously.  Imagine, high schools providing guidance counselors to recent high school graduates, to help them adjust to the challenges and rigors of postsecondary education.  It’s true, at least for those who attended Indianapolis Metropolitan High School.
Learnin’ the Language
While the focus on school improvement grows larger and larger with each passing week, there is still little discussion about the issue of English Language Learners.  Seems the National Association of Bilingual Education, through its former ED James Lyons, is trying to change that, talking up the need for greater ELL focus in national education policy.
Wire Me Up
According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, 25 percent of adults in the United States do not use the Internet.  While we expect the vast majority of those individuals are older Americans, one has to ask, how many parents of school-aged children are disconnected at home?

Shovel-Ready or Funding-Worthy?

Eduflack STEM, technology, Workforce

Is it too early in the year to already assemble a list of overused words?  How about words we misuse in order to get attention?  I don’t know about you, but Eduflack is already sick-to-death of the term “shovel-ready.”  Across the nation, companies, organizations, elected officials, and individuals are seeking to take full advantage of the pending economic stimulus package.  “Shovel-ready” has become the term de jour.  The thinking is simple.  If there is a trillion dollars to be spent on infrastructure projects, we want to make sure “our project” is ready to go from the start, able to take the money now and make an immediate impact.  Our projects are shovel ready.  Heck, we may even offer a couple of jobs to hold those shovels.  We can break ground right now and start spending the federal dollars today.

When the dust settles on the economic stimulus package this month or the next (probably next), public education is likely to get its share of funding.  School construction will come first.  Technology and Internet access will be there too.  Instructional materials will get their due, and specific special education efforts may get their portion of the education pie as well.
Just check out today’s USA Today, where Greg Toppo looks at school districts looking to get their piece of federal stimulus relief — www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-12-school-stimulus_N.htm  
But as we look at an infusion of addition federal spending on K-12 education — whether it be on bricks-and-mortar infrastructure (school construction), instructional infrastructure (books and materials), or human infrastructure (teachers and teacher development) — should we be prioritizing programs that are simply shovel-ready?  Should we look to fund those initiatives that are ready to accept our checks today, like a bad infomercial, or should we make sure that those potentially hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on efforts that are worthy of such funding?
As we all line up to tap the overflowing funding keg that is the federal economic stimulus package, we should set some clear measures for funding.  How many students will be affected?  What is the expected impact?  What is the return on investment?  What is the research base to demonstrate funding-worthiness?
Yes, we will be spending significant dollars on school construction.  In doing so, we should make sure the dollars are getting into the communities that need the funding the most.  Are we building new schools in our crumbling inner cities or in those districts with the best lobbyists or the most federal juice?  But school construction is what it is.
The bigger issue is how we spend the rest of the available funds.  Investments in instructional and human K-12 infrastructure must focus on ROI.  That means we won’t necessarily see the economic impact this month or this year.  But we need to look for long-term ROI.  How do we increase student achievement and graduation numbers?  How do we ensure that all students have the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st century workforce?  How do we provide teachers the pre-service and in-service instruction they need to deliver the high-impact instruction we expect of all our classrooms?
Take STEM education, for instance.  There are real, tangible, on-the-ground STEM efforts out there that are both shovel-ready and funding-worthy.  There are STEM schools that can be constructed in cities and districts immediately.  There are K-12 programs, particularly in the secondary grades, that need the books, technology, and learning tools today to maximize opportunities  And there are teachers who need both the PD and the financial incentive (such as differential pay) to stand as effective instructors in STEM classrooms.  STEM efforts are shovel-ready.  But they are also funding-worthy.  We know that STEM programs have direct impact on the economy.  They prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow.  They prep teachers for the teaching opportunities of today.  And they serve as the strongest linkages we have between effective K-12 education and stronger, more robust economic opportunities.
There’s nothing wrong with those looking to take advantage of the economic stimulus package, even those who are preparing to make the pending federal legislation their personal post-Christmas Christmas trees, hanging their individual funding needs upon its branches.  That is the American way.  
And our schools are truly suffering.  The majority of states have cut or will soon cut K-12 budgets.  Some states are asking teachers to take pay cuts or benefit reductions.  And just last week, schools in Detroit were asking for public donations of toilet paper and other basics just to keep their doors open.  Times are tough, and the stimulus package is likely to give a needed financial boost to K-12 systems throughout the nation.  Again, look at Toppo’s piece.  School districts are doing whatever it takes to keep funding for public education as level as possible, even if that means lining up behind the banks and the auto companies.
We just need to remember that the stimulus is not intended as a bailout.  It is meant to serve as an investment in our nation.  It is meant to create jobs and strengthen economic opportunity, both now and in the future.  For our school systems, that means it shouldn’t go to the first program in line or the first idea that offers to create a job or make us feel better about ourselves.  We need to focus on the investment side of the equation, ensuring that these new federal dollars are going into efforts that will make a difference — both in the short and long term — and can demonstrate real ROI.  If K-12 dollars are in short supply, shouldn’t we make sure that new dollars are being spent on worthy efforts?  Let’s eliminate shovel-ready from our vocabulary (at least of K-12 vocabulary).  It’s time to practice saying “funding worthy.”

Tapping 21st Century Skills

Eduflack High School, STEM, technology, Workforce

We’re still into the first week of the new year, and it looks like 21st century skills is quickly becoming my white whale for 2009, supplanting my doggedness on Reading First and SBRR last year.  Eduflack was prepared the let the issue sit after some of yesterday’s back and forth.  I had my say, and I acknowledge the learned opinions of those who disagree with me on said say.  But then the Christian Science Monitor has to go and tickle my interest again this morning.

CSM’s Stacy Teicher Khadaroo looks at how teachers are making the necessary adjustments to prepare their students for the challenges and opportunities of what is before them.  The full story can be found at: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What”>www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p03s03-usgn.html
What really got me, though, was the graph that accompanied the article, looking at the issue of what “creativity” means to superintendents and the business community.  The crux of this is, according to CSM, that “creativity is key for a 21st century workforce.”  What’s startling about the data is how our school leaders and our business leaders see the issue of creativity so differently.  Asked to rank issues on a scale of one to 10, what came in as number one for the business community (problem identification or articulation) ranked ninth with superintendents.  The supes’ top concern (problem solving) only scored in the top eight with our business minds.
Why is this significant?  Like it or not, our schools are preparing our future workers.  These numbers demonstrate there is a real disconnect between the learning priorities set by our schools and the expected outcomes of our employers.  It is no wonder so many business leaders I speak with say that a potential hire with only a high school diploma simply doesn’t have the skill sets needed to thrive in today’s challenging economy.  They’re looking for different things than many K-12s are prioritizing.
Let me be clear.  I am not suggesting that our business leaders should hijack the decisionmaking process in K-12, nor should our public schools be transformed into glorified trade schools serving merely as a pipeline into the workforce.  What I am suggesting is the need for greater collaboration in all areas of the learning process.  School districts need a better understanding of the skills and knowledgebase that local employers are seeking and need to better understand how to offer that within the confines of their current curriculum and state performance measures.  They need to look at innovations that open up new content and that offer the tried-and-true in ways that better engage and better inspire today’s students.  
Businesses need to move beyond simply sponsoring the sports teams and placing ads in the yearbook and become true learning partners.  How can they offer internships to students, opening their eyes to potential careers?  How can they offer externships to teachers, helping them see how their instruction links back to the opportunities that will be available to their students?  How can they help more students see the relevance of school, supporting teachers as they try to boost student achievement and avoid growing drop-out numbers?
It is trite and overused, but sometimes it really does take a village to raise a child.  It definitely takes a wide range of stakeholders to effectively educate them.  And until key stakeholders like superintendents and the business community share a common view on needs and priorities, we will continue to struggle between good intentions and missed opportunities.
   

Take Me Home, 21st Century Teachers

Eduflack Achievement gap, High School, STEM, Students, technology

Twenty-first century skills seems to be the topic of the day again today.  Over at Fordham Foundation’s Flypaper, Mike Petrilli takes a vastly different point of view from dear ole Eduflack, boiling down the issue of 21st century skills to making our kids tech savvy (http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/01/the-conceit-of-21st-century-skills/#comments).  I agree with Petrilli.  Today’s students don’t need any help at all figuring out how technology works.  My two-and-a-half year old son is already more skilled on the iPhone than the eduwife, knowing perfectly well how to turn it on, get it out of sleep mode, and flip through the pages to get to his favorite game (the one with the rabbit eating the carrots and dodging the cans, for those in the real know).

And Robert Pondiscio over at Core Knowledge blog comments on my earlier posting about the real dangers of sacrificing content in the name of 21st century skills. Again, I agree with Pondiscio’s premise and point.  But one can teach the finer points of the War of 1812 beyond the chalkboard and mimeographed pages.  Content still remains king, but we also need to take a careful look at delivery.
We’re seeing the shift in our assessments, as bubble sheets are giving way to computer-based exams.  We’re able to use technology to determine student reading levels.  And states like Florida and Alabama are now requiring virtual education as part of their curriculum, with the latter now requiring virtual education as part of graduation requirements.  That, my friends, is 21st century skills, gaining the content knowledge we’ve prized for decades through new channels and new technologies.  Imagine the difference of studying the Civil War from a classroom in Minnesota, using a tattered grade reader and a chalkboard, versus learning it in a virtual environment with students who live around the block from the very battle sites you are studying, where you can access Brady photographs and clips from Ken Burns’ Civil War series.  That learning 21st century skills.  It’s all in the delivery.
This week’s Education Week has another interesting take on 21st century skills.  Stephen Sawchuk has a piece on how teachers in my former home state of West Virginia are adapting their practice to better meet our 21st century world.  And Sawchuk has one paragraph that helps sum it up:

Business leaders and policymakers more and more say those higher-order, critical-thinking, communication, technological, and analytical skills are the ones crucial for students to master as they enter a service-oriented, entrepreneurial, and global workplace.

I appreciate the sentiments recently offered by Petrilli, Pondiscio, WaPo’s Jay Mathews, and Andy Rotherham.  This is a real discussion that those committed to education improvement should be having.  How do we continue to adapt and improve classroom curriculum to ensure rigorous, relevant courses that hold a student’s interest?  How do we ensure the core content areas we all know are important –the reading, literature, math, science, and social sciences — remain in the curriculum and are effectively consumed by our students.  Current student performance scores show that the old way of delivering such content isn’t working with every student.  If we are going to close achievement gaps, boost performance numbers, and improve graduation rates, perhaps we need to rethink how we are delivering the content.  Some may call that a semantic matter of packaging, but I see it as a core part of 21st century skills.  21CS is about how we deliver content, not what we are delivering.

Technology in Education — Does It Work?

Eduflack STEM, technology

In keeping with Eduflack’s ongoing discussion of technology in the classroom, following is a guest post from Kelly Kilpatrick.

Schools
and colleges have undergone a sea of change from the days when I was a regular
at both. And lest you think that I’m as old as Methuselah, let me stress that I
graduated just a couple of years ago, which means that there’s been a rapid
change in a short span of time. Technology and the way it’s being leveraged in
schools is a major debating point with both pundits and laymen alike – neither
is sure if it’s a boon or a bane in the classroom. 

Take
the controversy surrounding the introduction of laptops for every child in
school – some condemned this move arguing that it would distract children from
their lessons, that they would be immersed in the world of video games and the
Internet and forget what they were in school for; others claimed that by
denying children this opportunity to explore and learn for themselves, without relying
too much on teachers and facilitators, we are setting them back in their
academic pursuit.

The
thing with technology is that it works wonders as long as the child is
interested in learning and is not easily distracted by other pastimes. Some
argue that interest is born when technology is involved, that when there are
more interesting aspects to school than just books and teachers, kids show a
keenness for learning that was never there before. But is it interest in the
technology itself or an interest for the subject that the technology allows
access to? Can we make this distinction to the advantage of the child?

Another
question that crops up with relevance to education and technology is – Does
reliance on technology make us more stupid in the long run? With the advent of
calculators, we’ve forgotten how to do mental mathematics; with the
introduction of mobile phones and storage memories, we’ve forgotten how to
remember and recollect phone numbers; and with the advent of social networking,
we’re all hiding behind screen personas that we work so hard creating that
we’ve forgotten who we really are.

What
then, does this mean for the future of technology? Are we to eschew it
altogether simply because it makes our brains lazy and prevents us from
thinking for ourselves? Or should we say to hell with the consequences and let
the march of the machines continue unchecked into every aspect of our daily
lives? The truth is, we’re not forced to choose either extreme – there’s a
middle ground that’s totally acceptable with the way things are today.

Technology
must be used as an aid to education and nothing more – the trick lies in
knowing where to draw the line between using it as an application and as an
addiction. And when students are able to make this distinction for themselves,
only then will technology truly contribute to our learning experience. 




(This
post was contributed by Kelly Kilpatrick, who writes on the subject of an online university. It represents Kelly’s opinions, and she invites
your feedback at kellykilpatrick24@gmail.com.)