Ok folks, I’m rarely going to use any reader-capital to repost. But I really like this speech.
Archive - April, 2008
Netbooks Will Have No Clothes, Too: The Lack of Social Computing Tools for the Classroom
Reading about NetBooks in EdWeek, I found it odd that laptop manufacturers are still talking about the quantity of computers and the glory of the 1:1 computer/child ratio. Studies and anecdotal evidence demonstrate that there is no positive influence on learning outcomes, a la The Laptop Revolution Has No Clothes. You can find videos of college students confessing they “facebook through every class.” In public education, the measure of success is often the purchase of new technology even as schools sink. Principals show off shiny new computers and computer labs as if this is a proxy for increased performance.
In addition, the education zeitgeist seems to be pushing relevant and targeted “content.” Instead of looking at a boring old textbook, the student can get their learning materials in the form of cocoa puff commercials. However, changing the content’s entertainment value does not address the lack of interaction and educational social computing. People don’t want to just use the internet to look up articles and watch videos, they want to interact and publish. In this vein, schools are not just behind – they are a non-start, they’re not even in the race.
The discussion needs to move from the quantity of computers, to the quality of programs written specifically for educational interactions. Social Computing needs to happen to facilitate asynchronous communication and collaboration, as well as real-time classroom tools to address information asymmetries, differentiation, and data insights and reporting.
We’re working on these problems at Inigral, so if you have any ideas let us know!
Courses on Facebook Guide for Instructors
It’s no secret that I stepped out of the classroom momentarily to jump at entrepreneurial pursuits on the internet. My team and I are working on trying to create products that can manage casual, social yet academic relationships on opening social networks. Our product, Courses on Facebook, has had over 200 thousand users just in the past 8 months.
By far my most popular post has been about Facebook; it was a guide for instructors thinking about using Facebook. I figured I’d put up a guide on how to use our product more specifically. Students have entered over 500 instructors and their email addresses and we’re about to email them. I want them to have some idea what they are getting into.
So, here it is:
Courses on Facebook: A Guide for Instructors
If your campus has a buzz about Facebook, feel free to email me at mpstaton (that at sign I can’t use here so I don’t get spammed) ingral.com. I’d be happy to talk shop and arrange a training. I can even bring Facebook, the actual company, into the mix.
Cities in Crisis Addendum: How our Urban Schools Actually Fail
As a nation, we need to be thinking long and hard about how we’re failing our youth. The school system, in particular, necessitates new diagnosis, new ideas, and immediate action. One of my recurring theses – the overemphasis of core, academic subject areas at the expense of all else has the counterintuitive effect of lowering graduation rates and performance in those core subject areas – seems particularly relevant to our failures exposed in Cities in Crisis: A Special Analytic Report on High School Graduation.
The report, written by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center and sponsored by America’s Promise Alliance and the Gates Foundation, reveals poor graduation rates in the 50 most populous cities US. The statistics and conclusions were predictably appalling. Bloggers and those commenting on articles in the press are describing our school system as “failing” and the problem as a “catastrophe.” Across the country, graduation rates are 15% lower in urban areas compared to suburban schools. In Baltimore, Maryland and Columbus, Ohio, graduation is lower in urban areas by more than 40%. Cities in Crisis only brings to light what we all knew, and, as it’s been published by high profile institutions, in stereotypical form it lacks the courage to make any recommendations. I’ll gladly step in to fill that void in the dialog.
Schools fail at graduating their students for four reasons: 1) A significant minority is alienated by the core, academic subject areas and the concomitant instructional techniques often well before High School, 2) schools fail to offer or support programs that might inspire, train, or at least entertain alienated students, 3) schools fail to identify and provide effective programs for those that need remediation, and 4) surrounding communities are unable to demonstrate real-world examples of education fulfilling its promises through role-models and economic opportunity.
The cycle is simple and can easily be personified: Student A, sometime in early middle school, becomes bored and distracted, falls behind academically, and is often in need of discipline. He looks around in his family and community and no one seems to be able to help him academically. Most of them seem to view academics past basic reading, writing, and math as irrelevant. Most of his heroes are sports stars or entertainers. He likes his art class and woodshop, but both of those programs are undersupplied and dilapidated. The principal and all the teachers just keep on emphasizing the importance of the same “irrelevant” stuff. He gets down on himself in school and starts finding confidence in his blossoming social life outside of school. No one at this point intervenes. As he gets out in his neighborhood, most of the adults are not using their education. The ones who make the most money have a trade or are involved in illegal activities. The only high school graduates he knows work retail. At this point, school is all but written off completely.
The school systems reaction to a student with this story is to keep on emphasizing core academics, which he is behind on. At the high school level, he may be forced to do some remediation, which makes him feel singled out as “dumb.” More than likely, he probably doesn’t show up after a while. The school has cut or is starving any program that might get this young person’s attention and allegiance. The school offers very few technical programs that will help him get a job. They do not foster relationships with either white collar or blue collar businesses to facilitate internships or apprenticeships which could provide role-models. The school simply tries to force him down the same path he has decided is not for him.
The value of non-core subject areas and technical programs is not to distract students; it is to keep students engaged and to offer alternative outlets where a student can find confidence in themselves and their work. If a student remains engaged in a non-core program, they are likely to remain in school. If a school can then use that time to effectively remediate (tastefully) in the core areas while facilitating real world relationships with community members in both white and blue collar sectors to show demonstrable value of an education, the kid would likely stay on to graduate.
The Hyperinflation of College and its Unintended Outcomes
Politicians these days like to talk of sending EVERY child to COLLEGE. While inspiring, it makes me think they are missing the reasons behind failing schools and our education systems’ inability to prepare EVERY child for a hopeful future. It also leads me to think about the unintended outcomes, which usually come to haunt all well meaning but poorly thought out, simplistic political initiatives.
The net effect of trying to send everyone through a four-year well-rounded degree program will be threefold:
1) the college degree will increasingly lose its value as a method of distinguishing the probable capability level of knowledge workers, thus employers will look to other criteria such as experience, graduate studies, domain expertise, and whether or not the degree is from an institution they perceive as ranked highly and exclusive;
2) the number of colleges will proliferate in the face of inelastic demand, thus driving up costs as they compete with each other by increasing marketing and admissions coddling expenditures (not just brochures but shiny new infrastructure) and building non-core programs to capitalize on the inability of prospective students to distinguish the strength of their intended programs;
3) those unfortunate souls who are not college track or those who did not go to college will likely have a negative self-image that not only will reduce the quality of life but also prevent many of them from self-educating, self-motivating, and seeking opportunities they may desire, thus debasing both the American Dream and a core driver of our economy – determined and motivated go-getters from all walks of life.
I have no data, but I would venture to say that these trends are well into already happening. For instance:
1) The hiring practices of top firms now centers exclusively on a red carpet from top ten universities while worker training programs have more or less been externalized in much of the knowledge economy – making for “talent wars” over the same set of people rather than expanding the pool of those that have the needed skill set.
2) Look to any lesser-known college or university and they are likely spending frustrating sums on not only recruitment efforts per matriculated student but also on increasing the sets of possible studies and investing in all things shiny, new, and trendy, including rebranding with some sort of “global make a difference” theme. Charles Miller, who headed the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, recently refuted the idea that college provides a return on investment of $1,000,000:
“[P]roperly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years, and excluding those graduates with advanced degrees, calculated at the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelor’s degree versus a high school degree!”
3) Pockets of sub-cultures in urban and rural areas are dependent on government assistance and conditions there are deteriorating. While attendance in college is going up, high school graduation rates are falling as those unsuccessful at pre-college track curriculum wave a white flag and drop out.
All of these effects are in no way exclusively caused by the push to send everyone to college, but certainly a relationship can be drawn. It should be evident that no solution is exclusively rhetorical or involves some sort of “political will” of the people.
And, it should be made clear that addressing even the most politically savvy mom and apple pie issues can have serious unintended consequences. Perhaps politicians and even the non-profit world should rethink the implications of even trying to send EVERY child to COLLEGE and start thinking about providing a diverse set of opportunities with the goal to prepare them to contribute to our economy, find value in their life through their work, and have a secure livelihood.
