In a surprising turn of events, Intel has joined Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Foundation. If you have been keeping up on current education news, you have probably heard about the OLPC project. Basically, OLPC wants to build laptop computers that cost less than $100 for distribution in third-world countries. It's a noble cause with the best intentions and I support the idea. The trouble began when Intel announced that it would be developing it's own "economically priced" laptop aimed at the same market. Obviously OLPC and Intel have differing views about the role of computers in education and how they want to impact education with their technology. It comes as no surprise that Intel and OLPC have argued and butted heads on this topic ever since their inceptions in 2005. The twist comes when Intel announced Friday that it was joining forces with OLPC. I believe that this is a step in the right direction because OLPC has the philosophical understanding to design a laptop that will provide the greatest results while Intel has the financial and marketing resources to build and promote a better product from day one. My only concern with this partnership is that Intel (or OLPC) have joined forces for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, this project is about improving education and providing all students, even in economically impoverished areas, more opportunities for learning. I think this follows closely on the heels of NCLB under the idea that all students should be allowed access to the same materials, resources, and opportunities, regardless of age, race, sex, or economic standing.

Source:
Markoff, John. (2007, July 14). "Intel, in shift, joins project on education." The New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/business/14chip.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

Tags: OLPC, computers, NCLB

New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein makes a great point in an article titled "How Hard Can It Be To Teach? The Challenges Go Well Beyond the Classroom," written by David Herszenhorn, which ran in The New York Times. Klein states:

“The most important thing in education is the quality of teachers,” Mr. Klein said.” The two major ingredients are what you get paid and a combination of working conditions and job satisfaction.”

A great principal and veteran teachers who can serve as mentors are among the ingredients that Mr. Klein said were needed to create “a dynamic positive feedback loop.”

Herszenhorn finishes this article by stating:

In other words, happy, well-compensated, well-supported teachers make great teachers and great schools, even in the heat.

This is a true statement because the quality of teachers is critical. However, I think there is one other ingredient that Chancellor Klein failed to mention. Another crucial ingredient is that of the experiences and background that the teacher brings to the classroom. The teacher's background will have a far more profound effect on the students' experiences in the classroom than the environmental conditions classroom and school. The teacher's background influences their thoughts, perceptions, and ideals in all aspects. And whether they intend to or not, they pass these perceptions on to their students. The richer the experiences of the teacher, the better chances the students have of receiving a more meaningful learning experience.

Source:
Herszenhorn, David. (2007, July 11). "How hard can it be to teach? The challenges go well beyond the classroom." The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/education/11education.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

Tags: NCLB

The New York Times recently published an article titled "Schools Plan to Pay Cash For Marks," a program where students would be paid monetarily for their grades and attendance. To be honest, I am amazed that this incentive program is being implemented in the fall of this year. Schools are now going to pay students to do well? This is an extrinsic motivator that will only temporarily to get students to learn the content. But here is the bigger question: What are we ultimately teaching students? By paying students for making high grades on standardized tests, they are only going to work hard to get the cash. After they have the cash, the "learned material" goes right out the window. We might as well teach to the test. I don't believe that this program will have any significant impact. The underlying motive underneath this program is to help schools meet AYP. If the schools didn't have to meet AYP, the administration wouldn't be so desperate for ways to increase student achievement, hence this hair-brained scheme of monetarily rewarding students wouldn't even be discussed. In two years when this program is up for re-evaluation, I think there are going to be quite a few disappointed administrators in the small value this program actually has.

Source:
Medina, Jennifer. (2007, June 19). Schools plan to pay cash for marks. The New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/nyregion/19schools.html?ex=1183003200&en=8767cf69c1aa10e8&ei=5024&partner=BLACKBOARD.

How useful are laptops in education? A study released by the US Department of Education last month is claiming that they may not be as beneficial as once thought. I’ve heard all the complaints about students not using the computers for educational purposes and instead surfing the web, instant messaging, and accessing inappropriate material. But there is also a huge push for put laptops in the hand of every student in every school. This may sound nice and exciting but there are many problems. Read more...

This is an article published in the Ball State Daily News about the workshops and site visit sponsored by Apple on the Ball State campus in March. It discusses the workshops and some of the projects that were presented during the showcase. I presented Portfolio +4 in the showcase and also helped with the BookPod project as well.

Read the article here.

The contest, which began in 1941, has been monopolized by New York schools because it had its roots in a local science fair and a cluster of New York personalities. Bronx Science and Stuyvesant eventually figured out the magical formula: Teach your kids to do research; don’t just offer cookbook experiments. Pair them with mentors at hospitals and universities, perhaps working on a small piece of the mentor’s puzzle, so the projects are more than garage-built contraptions. Assign high school teachers as enforcers to help students through rough patches and make sure they meet deadlines.

In today's education reform movements it is increasingly common to hear about providing students with learning opportunities that stretch outside of the classroom by offering a more hands-on approach to learning. It seems that everyone is searching "new and innovative" ways to teach students through real-world application and experience. The Intel competition is no exception. I think its great that educators are trying to teach students in unique ways. But at the same time I am slightly concerned that we are losing sight of what is really important. Its important that we realize there are certain things that students must be taught. Things that are more basic than teaching students to perform well on standardized tests, meeting standards, and excelling at everything instead of allowing them to be average at some things. This article provides a good insight at the direction in which education is quickly moving. I can see the majority of schools moving to a system where students are immersed in real-world experiences. The idea of the traditional classroom, where students listen to lectures, take tests, and sit at desk all day is on its way out. I am not saying that it is either a good thing or a bad thing. I am curious, however, how different educational practices and institutions will be twenty years from now.

Source:
Berger, Joseph (2007, March 7). Intel competition is where science rules and research is the key. The New York Times, Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/nyregion/07education.html?ex=1173934800&en=5a8601b772717b9b&ei=5024&partner=BLACKBOARD

This one focuses on math skills for students in New York. I understand the need for students to be able to meet certain requirements so that we can be sure they are learning. But at what point do we say enough is enough? It seems that there are more and more standardized tests coming onto the scene. I tried to take the 8th grade test from last year and didn't get as far as I thought I would be able to. Some of the questions I was able to answer rather easily but there were others that were much more difficult for me to remember how to solve them.

One interesting link I find with this standardized test on math and technology education is through Project Lead the Way (PLTW). I have written about PLTW in a previous post. However, the point I want to make is that PLTW's mission is to grow the nation's engineering workforce by bring pre-engineering education to students in high school. Engineering requires a fairly solid understanding of mathematics. This standardized test seems to me to be a push towards increasing the math skills of students.

My next question, as it always is when discussing standardized testing, is whether or not this is really beneficial. Is forcing students to take (and pass) multiple standardized tests helping them learn? Or are they simply remembering concepts and ideas long enough to pass the test and then they forget what they were supposed to have learned? Its not an easy question to answer but it is definitely something to think about.

Source:
Herszenhorn, David M. (2007, March 7). An 8th-grade test, 180 degrees from easy. The New York Times, Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/education/07test.html?ex=1173934800&en=2e9dfb0f893a40bd&ei=5024&partner=BLACKBOARD

This is an interesting article because it brings to light a debate that has been brewing for quite some time. Can Wikipedia be an acceptable research source? In my opinion, yes. But there is one caveat to that "yes." First, since Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit the information found on the site should be backed up with credible research. If a students wants to use Wikipedia as a research I think it is acceptable as long as the information they are citing has credible research and data that supports the claims.

In the case of the History Department at Middlebury College, I think that the department did what they felt they had to do. Students had the privilege of using Wikipedia as a source but failed to make sure that the information they were using was credible. Any good educational institution is going to teach students to be extra cautious and critical of online resources. The web is built on the idea that anyone can contribute and say what they want. Wikipedia is simply a concentrated form of the ideology. Since a majority of the students in the History Department at Middlebury College failed verify their sources, I think the administration took appropriate action.

Source:
Cohen, Noam (2007, February 21). A history department bans citing wikipedia as a research source. The New York Times, Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?ex=1174017600&en=87a78775b083bd05&ei=5070

This is a really interesting article because it brings to light an potentially new problem onto the education scene. I had never thought about the possibility of a student (or students) filming a teacher in order to portray them in a negative light. On one hand I think that keeping in the back of our minds that anybody could be watching might help improve teacher actions and overall demeanor in the classroom. But at the same time I also realize that everyone has moments where they lose their temper. The balance is to minimize the negative actions and words that students hear and see teachers do and see. For me, I know there will be times when I get frustrated and might lose my cool. To a certain point I can control how I convey that frustration in the classroom. If the frustration is with the students then showing them a little sternness may not be such a bad thing. However, if the frustration is a result of something that students have no control over then it is important to realize this fact and not use students as a target.

While schools try to figure out what to do about the situation with students posting videos online, I think it would be beneficial for teachers to realize that their actions do not affect them only. Obviously, the students who are filming these teachers feel they have been wronged in some way. As a teacher it is important to treat each student fairly and equally.

Source:
Abdollah, Tami (2007, February 9). Online films of teachers have schools scrambling. Los Angeles Times, Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702090449

In my opinion, allowing teachers to rate principals is a good idea. It makes principals accountable to not only their supervisors but also to those "under" them in the school hierarchy. Teachers should be able to give a formal evaluation of their supervisor. They are the ones who deal directly with the principal and if they are not happy with his or her performance, teachers should have the opportunity to voice their concerns. This also distributes the power more equally because teachers have a formal input on their supervisors' performance. The next step would be to allow students to assess and rate their teachers on their performance as well. Giving students this power allows students to be involved in the process of raising the quality of education.

Source:
Herszenhorn, David (2007, January 19). Overhaul of schools would let teachers rate principals. The New York Times, Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C14FD35540C7A8DDDA80894DF404482

Immersion 360 (EdTec 360) has finally come to an end. Presentations today went very well. I presented my project of using a Mac OS X Server to support and administer a school system with the tools to provide greater connectivity and explore possible uses of technology in the classroom. As I look back at this project I am really interested in the capabilities that are provided by the server and its range of options. I think that as technology is integrated more into the curriculum that these server technologies will be used more. As of right now, however, schools are limited in what they can do with their servers because they either lack the support system necessary to keep the hardware running and the faculty informed of the updates. They are also suffering from lack of support staff to train faculty to use the system. But most importantly, teachers are struggling to balance the use of technology while still meeting the barrage of standards that they must meet (i.e. INTASC, NCLB, etc.). In the end, I feel like I learned a lot by just getting my hands dirty and actually working with some of the technology on the back end of the system. I want to continue to learn how network and server technologies can enhance not only the students' learning experience but also for faculty and administrators.