The Results Are In

There are good and bad urban public charter schools and there and good and bad urban non-charter public schools. Profound! Regardless of reformer and transformer interventions, mayoral control or not, instant principal and teacher schools, more money spent per student, more hours in the classroom, more alternative schools, less bureaucracy, less union interference, more firings and hirings, more school turn-arounds, closures and openings, and Arne's focus on whatever works, the infamous "gap" continues, whether it be the real or perceived gap between the our and other advanced nations' students or between disadvantaged and not-so-disadvantaged students. (Phew, and I surely missed a number of experiments.) So what does work? Why exactly do some school do better than others that yields significantly better test scores? And should the goal be to equalize test scores, assuming that tests are good indicators of student potential as well as current knowledge? Probably not. I think the best we can do is strive to equalize education opportunity.

It could be that the "no excuses" schools are on the right path but I'm also inclined to agree with the notion that "our urban public schools cannot succeed unless health, social and employment issues are addressed" (see Jay Mathews blog). My thoughts on this turn to basic management theory. Many will remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid: simply put, the majority of lower level needs (physiological, safety, love/belonging and esteem) must be met before one can experience self-actualization. As Deborah Meier observed

The poor kids I encountered in kindergarten were accustomed to more formal and more consistent good manners—whether it was in how to address their elders or how to dress properly. They were less whiney and more obedient.

Children of the poor get tougher and more unmannerly slowly. In time, they lose respect for authority. Perhaps because adults are rarely able (or willing) to protect them. Maybe because many public authorities quite openly treat them and their families disrespectfully. Over time, they come to depend on “the streets” and their “peer culture” for safety...

When children of the poor realize that their lower level needs are not being met, they begin to seek satisfaction elsewhere, usually from within a culture that does not place much value on education. Obviously a small percentage of urban poor children achieve educational self-actualization in spite of their communities and economic circumstances. I will bet that these children are somehow experiencing a greater degree of basic needs satisfaction than the majority as well as being indoctrinated with the no excuses concept.

How important is technology in the educational setting?

I was recently asked that question. I stumbled. I know I should be able to answer it; no, I know the answer. But I just could't seem to filter and organize the billions of synapses that were firing to form a concise response. I mumbled something about the ubiquitousness of technology and the skills and knowledge needed to perform successfully in higher education endeavors and the after-education environment. In retrospect a better response would have been to narrow the question to something like, "How important is technology in facilitating the learning process?"

I categorize educational technology into five general processes, mostly for my own use in setting priorities for providing service and support (numbering not necessarily indicative of priority):
(1) interactive education process (core subjects teaching-learning primarily within the classroom);
(2) unilateral learning process (students using technology not under the direct supervision of a teacher);
(3) technology as a separate subject area (e.g. computer courses);
(4) school administration and management (school information/management systems, course/learning management systems, routine administrative and management functions; and
(5) faculty/staff technology professional development.
To refine the question a little further, we'll remove numbers 3 through 5 from consideration. Now the answer leaps to mind--it's that tried and true buzzword, "engage". Whether or not you agree with Mark Prensky's digital native-digital immigrant concept, we can all agree that K-16 students have access to and have used a hell of a lot of digital interactive stuff. They are comfortable in that world and they bring that world to school with them, whether we allow them to do so or not. At least outside of school they operate in that world. If you are a proponent of the constructivist or constructionist pedagogy and agree that engaged students learn faster and deeper, you will allow, even encourage, them to bring their digital world into the learning process and you will use those tools to guide them.

The answer then should have been, "Kids are immersed in technology and technology is indisputably in their futures. It follows, then, that if we intend to engage them fully in the learning process, technology most be a major ingredient in the educational environment."