Is Online Coursework Appropriate for K-12 Students?

Several recent articles, such as “Virtually Educated,” by Gail Collins, and “The New Digital Divide,” by Susan P. Crawford, explore the implications of both mandated online learning and issues of access for urban and rural poor.  While many are familiar with online — or distance — learning as part of recent efforts by universities to provide education opportunities to non-traditional students as well as those who are not able to attend traditional classes for a variety of reasons (work, family obligations, etc.), many more have no idea how recent legislative dictates are being addressed in the K-12 public school arena.

State level republican legislators have overwhelmingly supported mandating that all K-12 students take at least one online course before high school graduation. The plan eliminates the need for classroom teachers, who are replaced by adults who facilitate the computer lab where students take online courses, but also fills the coffers of for-profit education companies with funds meant for public education. In the end, current results tell us that students are either failing miserably in these environments or learning how to game the system in order to pass without actually learning anything. It’s a mess, at least in many Michigan public schools.

While online learning opportunities have become more common in university settings, I question their use for younger students. While I have seen a small minority of highly motivated students use online coursework as a means to advance through the curriculum, the new mandate applies to all students, including special education students (unless they have exceptions written into their IEPs). While I teach advanced classes, I also co-teach a core English course with over 1/3 special education students (12 of 32). For some of these students, particularly the ones with severe cognitive disabilities, online coursework without benefit of teacher interaction for questions, etc., is a recipe for disaster. We won’t even discuss my student who is a paraplegic or the one who is legally blind or the one who is deaf.

Also, when students are just enrolled in online classes without their input, which is what recently happened at the high school where I teach when 9th grade students were randomly placed into an online Health class, the students do not possess the maturity to help them succeed in an independent learning environment. This is not a factor with adult students, who have the educational scaffolding and maturity to engage in virtual learning.

Vygotsky, among others, shows us that learning is a social activity, requiring discussion and guidance, aspects of learning that don’t happen in an online environment. While some might argue that online college classes require students to participate in discussions, whether in real time or by posting comments about reading or in response to classmates’ posts, this is not how K-12 online learning functions. There is no cohort discussion.  Instead, students merely watch video lectures and take quizzes on the lecture material (all multiple choice). There is a huge difference between online courses at a university and those, like E20/20, being used by K-12 schools.

In the end, we need to ask ourselves the purpose of online education and the risks inherent in such a philosophy.  Yes, our world is increasingly driven by technology, but does that mean that K-12 students must have an online learning experience as a means to prepare for such experiences beyond high school?  Will our digital natives suddenly be lost and unable to meet expectations?  My guess is no.  However, for-profit curriculum delivery services have much to gain.  And when high school students fail en masse, for a variety of reasons, corporations will reap even more profits when students re-enroll and attempt to pass the course yet again.

Realizing the Business Model is not Universally Applicable

Though I’ve blogged frequently about the problems inherent in applying a business model to education, today’s announcement of the resignation of recently appointed New York City Schools Chancellor Cathie Black, an accomplished businesswoman with no prior education experience, does not come as a surprise.  Elissa Gootman and Michael Barbaro (NYT, City Room, April 7, 2011) report Black’s tenure as tenuous:

Ms. Black’s time as chancellor was troubled from the start. During her three months on the job, she offended parents with an offhand joke about birth control and bewildered City Hall aides when she seemed to mock a crowd of parents protesting the closing of a school. Aides complained that she required intensive tutorials on every aspect of education policy. And on Monday, a NYT-Marist poll put Ms. Black’s approval rating at 17 percent, the lowest ever for a Bloomberg administration official.

Perhaps others, including our politicians, should step back and consider that time spent as a student does not automatically qualify one as an education expert.  Similarly, successful experience as a CEO does not  automatically translate to successful public service, where people, not numbers, are most important.

Online Tutoring: How Far Will We Go?

“Wherever you fly, you’ll be the best of the best./Wherever you go, you will top all the rest.” — Dr. Seuss from Oh, The Places You’ll Go (1990)

Cope and Kalantzis (2000) suggest that the purpose of education “is to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life.”  It stands to reason, then, that we should afford our students every opportunity to succeed — and ensuring that all students, no matter their socioeconomic status, have access to affordable tutoring, should be a part of any system that advocates equal educational opportunity.

So it was with great interest that I read Julia Wedigier’s article, “British Kids Log On and Learn Math — in Punjab,” in the New York Times on Sunday.  According to the article, an relatively recent upstart U.K. online tutoring company, BrightSpark, makes its service available at a discount — affordable to many poor and working class Britons who would otherwise be unable to afford the expense of a standard tutor — by hiring tutors in India and making them available via the Internet for British schoolchildren who struggle with math.  The tutors and students conduct sessions through interactive white boards, usually for 45 minute sessions.  While teachers’ unions seem up in arms — of course, they see this as a potential threat — those in favor point to the cost-benefit:  the service opens up a new market of (cheaper) tutors.  Tutors in India are paid 1/3 of those in the U.K., and there is a wealth of expertise waiting to be tapped.

As I investigated BrightSpark, I was interested to discover other companies who perform the same types of services, particularly in the United States.  TutorVista is one such company and — perhaps not so amazingly — is owned by Pearson — the same company responsible for managing testing and data systems in many U.S. public schools (read:  monopoly through NCLB).  After all, their web site — and some of the press they and similar companies  have received — made it seem like their service was the best thing since sliced bread, especially for students and families who would otherwise be unable to afford services usually reserved for those from the privileged classes.  And don’t all of our students deserve these benefits?  This is their pitch, anyway.

Upon first glance at TutorVista.com’s site, I was impressed with the statistic that they’d sponsored over 5.6 million online tutoring sessions.  If I had the skills and education, I could apply to be a tutor, working from the comfort of my home, making extra income.  Scrolling down the page, I became less than impressed with the credibility of the site, as it asked me to “Read what some of our tutor’s say about being an online tutor.”  Ironically, according to the site’s main page, most subjects are available for tutoring, though one would expect a multimillion dollar multinational company to proofread its web pages — even if they are aimed at recruiting employees for whom English is a second language.

Errors notwithstanding, I was curious to see what would happen if I responded to TutorVista via email.   Here is the correspondence:

To Whom It May Concern:

I read about your company after reading about a similar British company in a New York Times article.  You may wish to have one of your tutors, or one better familiar with the English language, proofread both your Home page and the Apply Now page, as there are errors (misplaced apostrophes and incorrect words) on them.  I would expect a more professionally written page from a Pearson owned company.  Such errors do not lend very much credibility to a tutoring service.

Best,

Brigitte Knudson

Dear Tutor,

Thank you for your interest in TutorVista.

We are sorry to inform you that as per our business requirement, we are currently only considering candidates based in India.  In case there is a change in our requirement and we look at candidates from abroad, your candidature will definitely be considered.

Thanks & Regards

TutorVista HR

email: hr@tutorvista.com

My assumption is that although there are many qualified teachers in the United States who could work for TutorVista, a subsidiary of Pearson, they would rather outsource jobs to India.  Interestingly, I never asked about a position tutoring; I only wrote to draw their attention to inaccuracies on the site.

So what is the purpose of sites like this?  According to TutorVista, they have received press both in the U.S. on NBC and in the U.K. on the BBC, major television outlets.  Do they exist to fulfill a need?  Are such companies serving to both exploit cheap foreign labor while teaching to the tests written by the same companies who write and/or facilitate them?  Is any real learning happening or are students merely “learning” how to prepare to choose the best letter on a standardized test?  After all, TutorVista prepares students for SAT and AP testing.

Are we affording our students opportunities for success, or are we merely funneling them further into a system of standardization?

Freedom River: Our Fate is in Our Hands

In the early 1970s, Orson Welles narrated a short animated film, Freedom River, a parable about how American indifference and exceptionalism leads to the perpetuation of social injustice — and how change, the fight for social justice for all of our citizens, is in all of our hands.

Waiting for Superman?

 

My reading of the press surrounding Guggenheim’s film Waiting for Superman has been accompanied by intermittent outbursts of giggling mixed with gagging.  While his film presents a very real snapshot of the inequities in our public education system, particularly concerning some of our struggling urban schools, his depiction of charter schools, which represent only three percent of all public schools in the country, is nowhere near accurate.  Like our exemplary public schools, there are exemplary charter schools, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Response to his film, however, has resulted in a nationwide dialogue on education, including a website called Not Waiting for Superman, focusing on Rethinking Reform.

It cannot be argued, however, that the current focus on standardized testing is the solution to the perceived problems in American education.  What Guggenheim does draw our attention to is the reality of inequity in our schools.  Students who live in our richest neighborhoods — or who have parents who have the means to send them to private schools — receive a much different education than those who do not.  This is not only about the way we fund our schools, but also about the social supports our society has in place to ensure children and families have the security that enables equal educational opportunity.

We could learn quite a bit by following Finland’s example.  In Finland,  a country that now ranks number one in the world in K-12 education after completely overhauling its failing system 30 years ago, “more 99% of students now successfully complete compulsory basic education” (Darling-Hammond, “Steady Work:  Finland Builds a Strong Teaching and Learning System”).  In addition, instead of placing blame on teachers, the Finns embrace them and invest in them.  According to Darling-Hammond, “all teachers receive three years of high-quality graduate level preparation completely at state expense.”  The Finns equitably allocate the resources for those who need them most, have high standards for all while supporting those with special needs, ensure qualified teachers with a competitive university system where only the top 15% of students who apply are accepted into teacher education programs at universities, and maintain a delicate balance between national regulation and local autonomy.  Moreover, the Finns hold the core educational principle that they must address the whole child and, as a result, all students receive a free meal at school each day, in addition to free health care, transportation, learning materials, and counseling (Darling-Hammond). At home, social supports for the entire family exist that include health and dental care, special education services, and transportation to school (Darling-Hammond).

And for all of the money spent on Finland’s schools, there is only one standardized examination given:  for those who wish to attend university.  Students receive feedback from teachers in the form of narrative comments instead of grades or numbers, so the whole child is addressed.  The idea is to use the information to improve learning and the children’s ability to work in groups and solve problems — real world activities — not to punish students, their teachers, or schools, as is the case with No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top in the United States.

Perhaps the United States still suffers from the stigma of having always been number one.  Now we can’t swallow our pride and admit that it’s not the case anymore.  Politicians are trying to place blame on schools and teachers when, in fact, test scores are really better than they’ve ever been (really, they are).  If we really want to compete with the world, however, perhaps we should look to who is number one and study what they do.  Let’s look at Finland.  Let’s study their system and mimic it.  Let’s strive to be equitable.  Let’s eliminate all social barriers so that all of our students are on equal footing.  Let’s be sure that all of our teachers are the best and the brightest by paying them a top salary, paying for their college education (and making it competitive for them to even get into teacher education programs), and revamping the way we train and ease them into the classroom.  Let’s send our professors and teachers to Finland for exchange to study their system.  Let’s send our politicians there to see how they do it.

It took Finland only 30 years to completely turn around their system.  We don’t need to wait for Superman.  He is within us all.

Are we too proud and too stubborn to enact real change?

D.C. Schools Propose Expansion of K-12 Standardized Testing — Do We Really Know Erin McGoldrick?

An article written by Bill Turque appearing in today’s Washington Post reveals what can only be considered a controversial move by Washington D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s goal to expand the use of standardized testing to include regular testing of all students from kindergarten through twelfth grade. According to Turque, the purpose of the testing would be “to measure academic progress and the effectiveness of teachers.”

While Rhee continues to support the use of standardized tests as tools to inform data-driven decision making, Turque, nevertheless, also presents parent and community concerns about the effect that testing has on students and teachers.

And, yes, while an assessment is a tool that should serve to gauge the quality of instruction and learning, we have seen the opposite in many cases since widespread testing mandates began with NCLB.  Study after study shows that students with effective teachers make the most progress, no matter what methods those teachers use.

Think about the best teachers you had in school.  Now think about the qualities that made them that way.  I’ll bet each of the teachers you chose had qualities in common.  I’ll also bet they did quite a few things differently as well.  Teachers are not created with cookie cutters.  We cannot expect all of our seventh grade language arts teachers to walk into a classroom, open a textbook, and read the same scripted lesson to students in the same manner at the same time every day.

Guess what?  That’s what’s happening in many of our schools. How many of the teachers you thought about earlier — those really good teachers who made an impact on you — would have been able to do that if their administrator evaluated them based on whether they followed a scripted lesson plan created by a textbook company?  How many of them would have chosen the profession of teaching?

Last month, Peter Smagorinsky had a piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about the nature of teaching and how problematic it is when we begin to consider linking teacher pay to student test scores, as well as other important issues being discussed in education.  Indeed, we have a sad state of affairs when teachers who are passionate and successful in the profession advise their own children against entering it because the culture of accountability has created an environment where the very elements that drive their passion and success are sapped by standardization.

Interestingly, Turque also cites Erin McGoldrick, Rhee’s “chief of data and accountability,” who argues that “assessments … can only improve teaching.”  If there is no room within the box, the passion and success of our brightest and most creative teachers will never see the light of day.

McGoldrick’s position is no surprise given her background in both the charter school movement as well as in research design and analysis.  Before moving to Washington D.C. in tandem with Rhee, they served together on the school board for the St. Hope Public Schools, a charter school system in Sacramento, California.

According to the St. Hope web site, McGoldrick served as the Director of Data Management and Analysis for the California Charter Schools Association.  While she held a variety of positions in K-12 research, McGoldrick has never been a teacher in a classroom, so her comment in the Turque article about assessments improving teaching is interesting, particularly given her background in research.  I wonder if she’s spoken with Diane Ravitch lately.  Maybe she should.

Further, before becoming involved with Washington D.C.’s schools and California’s Charter schools, McGoldrick did research analysis for the Los Angeles Unified School District.  She has a master’s degree in public policy from UCLA and a bachelor’s degree in classics from Notre Dame.  Hmm.

School Teacher, 1940

Education Reform: Diane Ravitch’s Miraculous Transformation

In an op-ed piece appearing in today’s Washington Post, Diane Ravitch addresses how problematic accountability and choice school initiatives have become in the eight years since No Child Left Behind became the law of the land.  Given that the state of Florida is continuing with measures in recently proposed legislation that ties teacher pay to student performance, it is time not only to recognize, as Ravitch has, the problems inherent in such connections, but to engage in dialogue to propose reforms that do not diminish the broad, comprehensive education that all children deserve.  To focus on math and English to the exclusion of  history, foreign language, the arts, and physical education – subjects that are not tested according to NCLB – is shortsighted, at best.