Early childhood development researchers have discovered that a simple, five-minute self-regulation game not only can predict end-of-year achievement in math, literacy and vocabulary, but also was associated with the equivalent of several months of additional learning in kindergarten.
Ben Grey raises one of the most fundamental questions regarding our present situation:
What are we doing for students accomplishing their most amazing feats of education outside the education system?
Information has become decentralized. It is no longer “owned”. Here are two examples of how information used to be owned:
1- Major broadcasting companies (and record labels, etc.) used to own information because they controlled what would be watched and listened to because, basically, there were NO options. In the 1970’s when I came of age (as did Chris Anderson) the majority of us watched the same TV shows. There was no option for viewing in a format other than TV until VCR’s came along. But even then there was a major limitation of freedom of choice. We also all listened to the same music because the music we ‘knew’ was the music on the radio. There was no choice for listening and the TOP HITS were decided for us.
2- Teachers used to own information (or at least we allowed this perception to linger for way too long) in the sense that they were “trained” and “knew” the content. Then teachers “delivered” the content “to” the student. Students were supposed to be grateful for this altruistic transmission of information. To a large extent, early on, there was some truth to the dichotomy between the ‘learn-ed classes’ (teachers/scholars) and the ‘unlearn-ed masses’. There were few options beyond school besides multi-volume encyclopedias and libraries. But there, too, someone controlled the information. Publishing companies decided what got published. Those were the books that wound up in libraries. Same for encyclopedias. There were few OPTIONS. And teachers were respected for being the “knowers” largely, again, because there was little choice in the matter.
But now! But now we have a zillion options. Not only do we have options for the information and media we want to interact with but we have options for the format we wish to experience the information and media. These options dilute the old notions of Best or Top Ten.
What does ‘Best’ or ‘Top Ten’ mean anymore, anyway when there are tens of thousands of well written articles, blog posts, musical works, etc. in every conceivable language? And how can any self and student-respecting teacher claim to ‘know everything’ or at any rate be the ‘only one’ who knows. Information is information and it can be gotten from multiple sources and quickly. To be sure the experience can be more dynamic than a static explanation of a thing (as with a great teacher explaining a thing). As an example, why discuss the nuance in Thelonius Monk’s playing when one can call up a You Tube video of him playing and let students see for themselves??
Maybe the new buzz words should be Relevance and Authenticity. When it comes to information, what’s relevant? And how authentic is the information? In other words, how close to primary sources are we getting so students can experience “the thing itself”. Major Broadcasting companies acted as a filter for information. They delivered what they (a group of men?) chose to deliver. And we digested it. Same thing happened in school. Teachers taught from textbooks. This acted as a dual filtering system since many inaccuracies were allowed to fester in textbooks of old and many teachers took the point of view presented in the textbook.
So, back to it. If a student pursues his interest and achieves her best education outside of school- where does that leave Education? Teachers? It all has to do with relevance and authenticity and choice. Education systems must adapt otherwise the tired saying “school s@cks” will be increasingly relevant to the subjective experience of students because, to interpret the saying, it means Education (schooling) is out of touch and irrelevant. Which it is, actually, for many students right now.
As further clarification and to elaborate on the previous blog post, I offer this post:
Some relevant background information:
1- I’ve been teaching students (to read) music for 19+ years. It’s the primary thing that I do for a living.
2- I do this within the context of a public school system
3- I am aware that, statistically speaking-even in districts where music is strongly supported,
there are still large numbers of the student body who are not involved with music (on the secondary level especially).
EXPAND THE BAND/CHORUS PARADIGM
What I’m specifically addressing is the need for a paradigm shift-away from the Band/Chorus paradigm
to a more Universal approach to music learning in secondary schools. Band and Chorus have an important place in school music programs but in the context of a school system -in these times, in particular- enrollment numbers speak to School Boards. Never mind that the Band gets Superior ratings at all festivals. Never mind that the Chorus was nominated for ‘Best State Chorus’. It increasingly comes down to numbers for School Boards and Superintendents. It begins to seem elitist when students who don’t play a musical instrument, can’t carry a tune or read music are excluded from music programs. Where’s the equity? How do we justify costs?
Yes, music is a specialized subject. Music teachers are, indeed, specialists. This distinction could be problematic if the specialization was on only one instrument or voice and on only one type of music (western). Music teachers (myself included) need to consider breaking out of our comfort zones. Why? Because of the current financial state of our country and because Globalization is real. All musics in an age of globalization are valid! It used to be (and I’m afraid still is) that music teachers would plan a concert program and leave space for a little “world music” (usually an African-based piece re-written in a Western style by an Western arranger).
So, back to my initial proposition: I believe that right here, right now, music edcuation programs need to teach music differently. First, we need to continue teaching the reading and performing of music to band and choral stdudents. But we must expand the repertoire of these groups to include authentic music of a variety of cultures and countries. Second, we need to teach all non-band/chorus students to experience, analyze and to create music-whether they can read it or not. This can be achieved in a variety of ways…from drumming to the use of software to create loop-based compositions. I believe that music education is becoming closely linked to media education and we must begin teaching both! No matter what pathway students are involved in, they must become music content creators as composers, improvisers, arrangers and performers.
As I have written before and point out here, when music programs achieve high levels of student involvement outside band and chorus, justifying music programs is a much simpler task when budgets dry up. The next blog post will raise the question of whether music teacher ed. students are prepared to embrace this shifting paradigm..
Music Education is traditionally thought of in terms of General Music, Band and Chorus. But, except in a few schools, the vast majority of students are not enrolled in Band and Chorus.
So, how should we teach music to everyone else? Should reading music be a priority? Notating music? Are these, perhaps, roadblocks to music creation, involvement and enjoyment?
The REALITY is that, even among people who earn a living as musicians, only a full 10% can actually read music. A popular example is Paul McCartney. Would anyone call Sir Paul musically illiterate? Hardly. He’s made quite a few dollars in his day as a performing musician.
The shift now needs to be towards experiencing, analyzing and constructing music. We have the tools, thanks to technology, to “compose” music without having to write music notation. Loop-based music software allows us to achieve this (ie…Sony Acid, Pro Tools, etc..). We music educators can and should provide access to these tools for all students in the future. When we do, we may proudly proclaim that EVERY student is a music student.
They are NEARLY ubiquitous and can alleviate some of the strain and cost of our infrastructure.
2-Cell Phones Can Help Students Be More Organized
Most students WILL NOT carry a paper planner. We need to integrate their cell phones and/or iTouch devices as their planner - giving them homework reminders, letting them poll, podcast, vodcast, blog, and study using these mobile devices. They have them with them ALL of the time which make is perfect for using as a planner. When I took the Franklin Covey planning course, rule number 1 was “Always have your planner with you.” Kids can be reminded of things from their Google Calendar, which integrates with the calendar I use for planning.
3-It Makes Kids More Safe
Because of safety issues, I think that eventually someone will have a legal liability because a student was in trouble and WAS NOT able to use their cell phone. I think that schools should all have SMS notification services in the case of emergency and that it is a vital lifeline for safety.
4-It Allows Sensitive Issues to be Kept Private
I have a real problem with kids names being called over the loud speaker for detention or even to come to the office. This is private. I think that a text message from the front office preceding such a thing is a lot more respectful and would probably get them there faster.
5-It Alleviates Strain on the Network.
Cell phones are a separate network and thus do not go over the local wireless. Their effective use can provide an alternative method of accessing the Internet and/or querying short bits of information.
6-It Alleviates Strain in the IT Department
Cell phone troubleshooting is not something that is needed. If a child has problems, let them use a laptop, check out an itouch from the library or use a computer. However, the use of cell phones for small queries and tasks alleviates the use of computers for small tasks.
7-It Speeds Up Information Retrieval
If you do not have to turn on cell phone - there is zero boot time. If you DO have to turn it on, you’re looking at 3-4 seconds. Time your laptop’s boot time. I have a PC and it takes at least 3 minutes to be functional. I find it is much easier to have my students define words and query google with a text message.
8-It Allows Us to Teach Kids Digital Responsibility and Citizenship
I was at Disney and a child was lost. He knew his phone number but NOT his area code. I found the area code using Google search and we had Mommy there within moments. Kids should KNOW how to retrieve information easily from SMS. Additionally, self control about texting is a PROVEN problem for many kids. Learning the self discipline to use this tool when appropriate is part of life. By allowing them to be present and NOT used - we’re letting kids learn the self discipline to focus and use the tool when appropriate.
I believe in allowing distractions in my classroom and coaching the kids to focus. I think this is much better than the “police state” type filtration and technology policies that many schools have.
9-It Sets a Model for Effective Change and Innovation
The difference between libraries and schools from the perspective of net caster Mac Davis. He echoes John Taylor Gotto in much of what he says. The video is not excellent quality but Mac’s points are well worth heeding. Indeed, as this blog continues to point out there are vast differences between schooling and educcation/learning.
This video causes me to also question the current mania for grouping students socially–because, presumably, students learn better in social groups. That was NEVER the case for me and I’m willing to be bet, not for this student. Take a listen…
President Barack Obama and his Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, want to do more than save teachers’ jobs or renovate classrooms with the new economic recovery law. They’re hoping to reinvent education for the 21st century–while transforming the federal government’s role in public education in the process.
Public schools will get an unprecedented amount of money–nearly double the education budget of this past year–from the stimulus bill in the next two years. With those dollars, Obama and Duncan want schools to do better.
From Duncan’s perspective, the sheer size of the stimulus bill makes it a once-in-a-lifetime chance to put lasting reforms in place.
“It’s also an opportunity to redefine the federal role in education, something we’re thinking a whole lot about,” Duncan said recently. “How can we move from being [about] compliance with bureaucracy to really the engine of innovation and change?”
The bill includes a $5 billion fund solely for these innovations, an amount that might not seem like much, considering the bill’s $787 billion price tag. But it is massive compared with the $16 million in discretionary money that Duncan’s predecessors got each year for their own priorities.
“It’s unprecedented that a secretary would have this much money and this much latitude,” said Charlie Barone, director of federal policy for the group Democrats for Education Reform.
Congress laid out broad guidelines for the fund in the stimulus bill that became law on Feb. 17. But it will be up to Duncan and the team of advisers he is assembling to decide how to dole out the money. They have until Oct. 1, when the next fiscal year begins, to start distributing the dollars.
What would the fund pay for? Rewarding states and school districts that are making big progress–and showcasing these entities and their reforms as models for others to follow.
For example, Tennessee recently overhauled its graduation requirements and academic standards as it works to boost student achievement. As part of that effort, officials want more rigorous state tests; Tennessee has been criticized because students pass state exams with flying colors, yet they do poorly on well-regarded national tests. Better tests cost money.
Or in California, school officials would like to expand the ConnectEd curricula, now in 16 high schools, that links academics to actual work in aerospace, biomedicine, and other careers. The program is aimed at getting students ready for college and keeping them from dropping out.
It doesn’t come cheaply; teacher training, equipment, and technical help all are costly.
“We ought to be able to take what’s working in the very best schools and make that common practice across all schools,” said Ted Mitchell, president of California’s state board of education.
To get the money, states will have to show they are making good progress in four areas:
- Boosting teacher effectiveness and getting more good teachers into high-poverty, high-minority schools;
- Setting up data systems to track how much a student has learned from one year to the next;
- Improving academic standards and tests; and
- Supporting struggling schools.
Also, at the urging of Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, the fund sets aside $650 million for schools or districts in partnership with nonprofit groups. This could include charter schools or other programs with a track record of boosting achievement.
The nation’s schools are in trouble, advocates of these reforms say. Three in five kids can’t read or do math at their grade level. One in four kids drops out of high school. Internationally, the U.S. is losing ground as other countries surge ahead in math and science.
“There is so much at stake today,” Duncan said. “We’re going to have significantly more resources than we have ever had. We need to use every penny of that wisely.”
Duncan has experience at turning schools around. He spent the past seven years running the Chicago Public Schools, an urban district with high dropout rates and hundreds of low-performing schools. Under Duncan, federal dollars helped create new programs that tie teacher bonuses to student performance, bring professionals from other careers into teaching, and help start more charter schools.
Those are the sort of ideas the Obama administration wants to encourage with the new fund. Duncan views the infusion as crucial, because with huge budget deficits that threaten to slash funding for schools, there may be little left over at the state level for innovation.
The ideas are not new. The No Child Left Behind education law was supposed to address the education crisis by closing the gap between minority and poor children who are driving the low achievement numbers and white students in more affluent schools.
But some ideas have been controversial. For example, teachers’ unions have resisted performance pay for teachers–raises based in some measure on student test scores–though some have begun to accept it.
Unions are watching closely to see how the fund is spent. The bill itself gives wide latitude over how the dollars are handed out, and unions want to make sure teachers have a seat at the table.
“We would certainly hope there is some requirement that the state has to collaborate with teachers’ organizations in the state in deciding what to do with the money,” said Joel Packer, a lobbyist for the National Education Association, the biggest teachers’ union.
And Republicans, who like Duncan’s ideas for fixing schools, argued against the fund because its main goal is not to create jobs right away. They also criticized the massive infusion the bill makes to No Child Left Behind and special education programs, spending that will be difficult to cut once the economy is back on track.
“I don’t like it,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., himself a former education secretary.
“Now, most people in education are delighted to get the money,” Alexander told university presidents in Washington, D.C., last week. “I think the stimulus package ought to be for programs that create jobs now, that stimulate the housing industry. And then we ought to take up the long-term investments that we make.”
In a recent article in NEA Today, Paul Barnwell makes the case for classrooms without grades. His website and blog is called Questions for Schools.
The Questions for Schools blog promotes the thoughtful critique of educational status-quos. It is Paul’s belief that challenging conventional wisdom, as it relates to classroom structure, philosophy, homework, curriculum, and discourse–among other issues–will result in positive changes in our public school classrooms.
Educational Paradigms agrees. Questions for Schools can be found here.
Save to Browser Favorites
Ask
backflip
blinklist
BlogBookmark
Bloglines
BlogMarks
Blogsvine
BUMPzee!
CiteULike
co.mments
Connotea
del.icio.us
DotNetKicks
Digg
diigo
dropjack.com
dzone
Facebook
Fark
Faves
Feed Me Links
Friendsite
folkd.com
Furl
Google
Hugg
Jeqq
Kaboodle
linkaGoGo
LinksMarker
Ma.gnolia
Mister Wong
Mixx
MySpace
MyWeb
Netvouz
Newsvine
PlugIM
popcurrent
Propeller
Reddit
Rojo
Segnalo
Shoutwire
Simpy
sk*rt
Slashdot
Sphere
Sphinn
Spurl.net
Squidoo
StumbleUpon
Technorati
ThisNext
Webride
Windows Live
Yahoo!
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the 
