Thursday, December 29, 2011

Unplugging Children

Technology is amazing. So amazing that it is completely rewiring our kids in ways that may fundamentally change the way they think and live their lives. Some believe that we can and should harness technology to ensure that our kids are prepared for the world and to assist their learning. I often disagree (I also think a flip phone is better than an Android, so maybe that says something about me). I am sick of people that can't finish a meal without sending a text, people who can't remember birthdays if they are not on facebook, and sick of being constantly interrupted from tasks at work. That said, my fear is that children who learn to depend on the immediate gratification that pressing a button provides will forget more and more and lose the ability to concentrate, immerse themselves in their passions, and ultimately realize goals that require delaying gratification.

A recent article in the New York Times notes that people are now paying big bucks to unplug, from software that disables your internet to resorts that lack wifi and phones. The article notes that those who break away and spend time in quiet settings are more attentive, remember more, and have improved cognition. Empathy, it turns out, also requires being unplugged. It is not particularly surprising, as screens distance you from people and places, so your connection to them is weaker and thus your ability to put yourself in their shoes is diminished. A recent Cracked post also notes that crutches like Google, Facebook, and Twitter allow you to forget things because you know you can "recall" them later by searching the web. The trick, however, is trying to remember all the things that you could theoretically look up and have forgotten.

Here are my fears about about using technology with kids in class:
  1. Technology is expensive and many teachers receive limited training on how to incorporate it into their pedagogy.
  2. According to researchers Paul Glewwe and Michael Kramer in their April 2005 survey of strategies for increasing student performance (smaller class sizes, teacher training, computers, etc) titled "Schools, Teachers, and Education Outcomes in Developing Countries," computers work best in environments where "both the number of qualified teachers and the quality of employed teachers is notoriously poor."
  3. Children are becoming more and more distracted. In August 2011, the Washington Post reported that nearly one in ten kids suffers from attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and that the phenomenon has increased over the past decade. Using technology poorly could contribute in a way that ultimately makes them unable to apply themselves to something complex and complete the task.
  4. Even if they are able to complete a task, I have been distracted by facebook, gmail, several text messages, and a google search while trying to write this post. Children are particularly sensitive to distraction, and we may be creating unnecessary road blocks that make completing something (and feeling the associated sense of pride and achievement) that much harder.
  5. So many skills require you to warm up and get into them: dance, language, musical instruments, writing, reading, creating ideas for businesses, etc. If kids are constantly interrupted, they may never hit that point of nirvana where they are immersed enough in a task to get that rhythm that is required to truly excel.
  6. Some people are more effective multitaskers, but being good at balancing may still prevent you from the enjoyment that you get from being immersed so totally in a task that you lose track of time and your surroundings. If we rob our kids of the joys of learning, then how do we keep them engaged?
  7. Multi-tasking also overwhelms your brain, and you may crowd out good ideas or insights that would have otherwise occurred.
  8. Pressing a button or clicking a link and getting an immediate response is actually addictive. If kids get used to this kind of response, they may find other things less interesting or worthwhile if there is no immediate response. Many things in life don't offer that immediate gratification, and that is a problem.
  9. Facebook can help you stay in touch, but it can also give the false sense of knowing someone or of being in touch. What often happens is that your friend now becomes like a news article, something distant. Further, you lose the camaraderie of sharing stories and experiences because, well, facebook already told me so why bother? We are eroding our social networks, our ability to interact with others, and our ability to put our talents together to a shared goal.

These are not the only problems, they are not always problems solely of technology, and they are not reasons to completely deny technology. I don't want to come off as a Luddite, as I think technology has a place. That said, the whole point of technology is to do more things better and faster so that we have more free time to enjoy! If we are spending that free time all on the very technology that created it...that is not a win.

My sophomore English teacher was really great at using a wide variety of technology for his classes. He would use videos, music, slideshows, but it would always be structured and usually tied to group work. He was incredibly effective at using technology as a tool, not being used like a tool by technology. I do support a more limited use of technology in schools.

The following are some ways to use technology to improve outcomes for students:

  1. Plan your lesson carefully, embedding the technological aspects in a targeted manner for a specific purpose.
  2. Don't use technology because you can; use it because it makes sense (my teacher would be very clear later on about ways to connect the multimedia and literature and lecture components of his class through very complex worksheets).
  3. Technology is not a tool to help a teacher that is too lazy to adequately prepare: good teaching requires preparation, regardless of the amount of technology you use. (If you pull a Cameron Diaz in "Bad Teacher" that is a problem).
  4. Combine technological and social aspects (as my teacher would use technology to teach part of a concept and then follow up with group work), so that students use it as a part of their education not in place of other ways of learning.
  5. Be present and lead students through technological aspects: the technology should not replace you, but illustrate what you are trying to communicate to your students (my teacher, for example, would constantly interject or pause films to ensure that we were getting what we should have).
  6. Give the technology a fixed beginning and end: these boundaries are important to ensure that it doesn't interrupt any learning that was taking place or will take place during other parts of the lesson.
  7. Do not let the technology overoccupy your lesson plan: if you do not give kids adequate time to think about, talking about, and write about the concept, they will not commit it to memory and they will not develop higher order thinking skills (this may, actually, contribute to some of the problems of students not learning well in college: many people are on facebook during lectures or can even watch lectures online).
  8. Technology is about consumption, so be sure to balance any activity involving multimedia with plenty of questions and conversation so that the student is forced to produce as well, as that is where the learning will occur.
  9. Use technology to help in classes of mixed proficiency levels to help students advance at their own pace, but be able to monitor and engage any students that you have using divergent activities.

My optimal level of technology in classrooms is probably low to moderate compared to others, and I am probably more old-fashioned than many as time passes. That said, I think it is really important to introduce new technologies in a way that makes sense and offers more pros than cons. If it doesn't, maybe stepping a couple decades backward in your lesson would be a good idea.

Speak Out!

  • How do you feel about using technology in schools? In general, is it good or bad for children to be plugged in?
  • What are some ways you or others you know work to ensure that technology is your tool not your master?
  • Talk about some really effective or really ineffective ways that you have seen technology used in curriculum or in classroom management. Why were they good or bad? What could be improved? What lessons can we learn?

Act on it!

  • Find times to unplug so that your child (and you?) is able to interact with others, experience deep engagement with a task or project, and think enough to understand or connect to a concept or activity.
  • Ask your kids questions so that they are forced to engage with what they are doing!
  • Create finite bounds on how and when your child can use technology.
  • Offer encouragement for long-term goals and help your child to remain committed to achieving them.
  • Monkey-see-monkey-do: if you notice your child is overly addicted to technology, perhaps they are mirroring your own behavior. Find ways to improve yourself and help your kids to join you.
  • Even when your child is on the iPad or watching Teletubbies, talk to them and make them an active rather than passive consumer. Help them to use technology as a tool, rather than as an IV tube.
  • Try to limit the amount of different stimuli that are assaulting your child at any given time: encourage them to get the most out of one website; don't let them text while watching tv while computing, etc).


Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Are Universities Universally Desirable?

All children should go to college, right? You get paid way more and you are guaranteed a job, so it’s a no-brainer. When I look at friends from my Master’s program waiting tables or scrambling to find an internship after paying $75,000 at a “good school," I have to wonder. If our kids often get a subpar basic education and no support to have a goal they pursue in their educational career, why the hell would we send them to college?

So much of what I got out of college and grad school came from learning languages, traveling, working, and volunteering (not from my classes). So much of my love for learning exploded out of me after graduating (this blog is a great example). I look at my job, which is related to my masters, and I realize that I was clearly able to do this job without the “required” masters degree (I started at the same time as grad school and was able to do the same things when I started that I do now). I have to ask, what was the value?

I’ve been asking this of many friends applying to advanced degree programs, much to their chagrin. It is so ingrained that they have never gotten the “well, are you sure you need a Masters?” conversation before. I’m not trying to dissuade them, but to help them focus on what they really want and the best way to get there. Looking at my student loans, I ask the question at least once a month. You'd be surprised to hear how many aimless folks are pouring into grad schools "because the economy is bad, and hopefully it will be better when I get out." Yikes! In this post, I will attempt to dispose of the assumption that college/grad school is desirable for all students.

An appalling study released in January 2011 revealed that a large chunk of students are not learning in college, and many barely study. Apparently, 36% percent of college students make no improvement in critical thinking, reasoning, or writing skills during four years of college (45% of students learn nothing during the first two years of college, which is depressing for those getting 2-year associates degrees or dropping out early with debt but no degree). Much of this probably has to do with students averaging less than 20% of their time in class, studying, or doing homework compared to the over 50% they spend on socializing. Now, I am the first to note how important social development is in college, but you are paying oodles of cash to develop intellectually and cognitively not to shoot the breeze with others who are equally excited to be moving out of years of agonizing puberty.

This raises questions about the constant push to increase the amount of students going to and graduating from college. According to the Obama Website, President Obama has doubled our investment in scholarships and financial aid so that students from working- and middle-class families can access and complete the college education they need to get the good jobs of the future” (emphasis his, not mine). In fact, policies like these have worked with college enrollment surging from 8.5 million in 1970 to over 20 million in 2009. It is good that Obama is focusing on funding elements of education that do not increase debt for students, while reducing the maximum loan payments in time and amount paid.

That said, Obama’s goal and the status quo it now represents may be quite faulty. Should everyone go to college? I would argue that the answer is no. Should everyone have the opportunity to, most definitely. I think it is really sad, however, that more and more jobs that once required no degree now require a BA, and MA, or a Ph.D. I got my Masters while working at the Department of Labor, and I can honestly say that my Masters was worthless to my job (and I got a job in the exact field I studied for). In many cases, even if the student is learning (that other 64%), what they are learning may not be close to enough for their job. That means you have people locked away in academia either not learning or not learning applicable skills for 4, 6, or even 10 years. That is up to a decade of not supporting themselves, of accruing loan debt, of often not contributing to society and the economy.

I wish more people would question the hegemony of college degrees as the golden ticket. If my plumber can quote Aristotle, that’s great, but he shouldn’t have to study Greek philosophy to do a completely unrelated job…and that’s where we are heading. There is a really interesting blogger James Altucher who notes that there are many ways to learn much more directly at the same or a lower cost than college. He lists 8 different ways of learning beyond high school that are much more productive, integrated with the real world, and diverse enough to cater to a wide variety of learning styles that are not well suited to four more years of education for the sake of a degree. The alternatives can be summarized as “create something, master a skill, or explore and reflect on the world.” Specifically he mentions things like starting a business, writing a book, mastering a skill or a sport, creating art, making people laugh, traveling the world, or volunteering for a charity.

I think some people do well in college, learn a lot, and are able to contribute to society. In the end, they often get their money’s worth. That said, to assume that everyone should or could progress down the same path is not logical. Nobody learns the same way. Further colleges are often distanced (the so-called “bubble” or “ivory tower”) from reality, so solutions developed in the academic vacuum have less practical value than one would hope. Further, with stringent cuts to departments and majors that offer concrete skills or produce products and services (languages, research facilities, etc.), the value of a college degree for those who do learn well is in question. Worse, colleges are accepting more kids without upgrading capacity or increasing teaching staff (this is a big problem in law schools,though not exclusively).

The important thing is to find the learning style that’s right for you, and the learning environment that most helps you develop. I think Altucher offers many great ideas for alternative ways to develop the same skills that college can cultivate. That said, Obama is right to make college more accessible to all people regardless of race or income. For me, college was worth it, but grad school perhaps was not. Each person is different and it would be great if we could encourage these differences. I would now like to see policies that enable people of any level to become entrepreneurs, volunteer, or create value for society in alternative venues if college is not right for them.

Speak out!

  • If you didn’t go to college, what would you have done with the time and/or money?
  • If you know you aren’t a good school learner but you get a full scholarship, should you still go to college for the sake of it?
  • What are some ways to get the most out of your college/grad school education? What are other pursuits besides college that you can think of that would cultivate similar development or skills?


Act on it!

  • Before you ship your kids off to college or before you yourself decide to apply for a Master’s degree without an actual goal in mind beyond the piece of paper…consider what will really contribute to your goals and if you need to.
  • Help a high school kid to identify their goals and understand the financial burdens they may be taking on before they go to college (according to this nifty calculator, turns out I should be making nearly $200k to pay the amount of money I pay per month for my grad school debt…if only!)
  • Identify extracurriculars you can take on or specific skills you can develop through your program to ensure that you emerge from college or grad school a more capable and fulfilled person.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Charter to Nowhere?

While I respect any teacher or institution that educates our children well, I am not the biggest fan of charter schools and the so-called “parental choice movement.” A lot of research and preliminary tests show that many charters just aren’t that good (some are, but again, so are some public schools), though parents often overestimate how good charters are for their kids. Forming a parallel (yet still “public”) education system seems like reinventing the wheel, discarding all the infrastructure, funding and thought put into the current system. The idea that a public system should cater to specific parents’ desires even though it is funded by taxpayers who may or may not have children also seems questionable, blurring the distinction between public and private benefits. I also fear that having schools who select largely based on a lottery sets up many kids to be rejected and always relegated to a bad education. Finally, we need to ask ourselves, “do we want to use our school system to track students rather than to promote an equal opportunity for them to approach the world?”



Is Your Charter Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?


Sadly, many charters are not that good. According to the most comprehensive study comparing the performance of charter and traditional public school students (Stanford, CREDO, July 2009), only 17% of charter schools students perform better than comparable students in traditional public schools. In 37% of charters students do worse than their public school, and in about half students show no significant difference. English language learners and those in poverty do slightly better in charters, but Blacks and Hispanics do significantly worse. While the results vary depending on when a kid enters the charter, the charter's location, the race and economic stratus of the child, and other factors, this is quite disturbing for what is being hailed as the future of our education system.

Worse, some charters are considered good because they invest an inordinate amount of resources, and the assumption is that this is scalable. As a recent New York Times article on the connections between poverty and educational outcomes notes:

"Another rationale for denial is to note that some schools, like the Knowledge Is Power Program charter schools, have managed to “beat the odds.” If some schools can succeed, the argument goes, then it is reasonable to expect all schools to. But close scrutiny of charter school performance has shown that many of the success stories have been limited to particular grades or subjects and may be attributable to substantial outside financing or extraordinarily long working hours on the part of teachers. The evidence does not support the view that the few success stories can be scaled up to address the needs of large populations of disadvantaged students."

Now, DC has the idea of shutting down charters that are failing relatively quickly as a remedy to bad charters. In this way, its charters do slightly better than public schools (which is not exactly an accomplishment in the nation’s worst-performing system). Think about anytime that you or your kids moved or switched jobs because the company went belly-up (not because you chose to do so): it is a stressful experience; it could be highly detrimental to the child’s learning and emotional well-being (or at least distract them with adjusting to a new setting instead of focusing on learning); it disrupts social bonds that emerge among students that facilitate interpersonal skills; and, it undermines parental connection to any given school and may negatively affect the school’s performance or the parent’s involvement in the child’s education. What this says to me: we will give up on failing charters just like we gave up on failing regular public schools. If this didn’t work for public schools in the first place, why would it work for charters?


In the end, you have to ask why we would invest public money in another parallel education system that often does just as well or worse than the system it purports to fix.



The Shadow Network


We have invested money, time, energy, thought, political capital, administration, policies, personnel, and infrastructure in developing a public school system. Charters are fixing the system by not fixing the system into which we have funneled so many resources, but rather by duplicating all that effort. Is a new system necessary? If the answer is yes, might we not recoup some of the losses from what is already in place? If some charters are good, why can't we identify those best practices and use them in all schools?


The only answers that I can think of are the supposed problem of intransigent teachers' unions and the issue of rigid or inept school and system administrators. The supposed problem of unions is that they keep inept teachers in the public system and are averse to any kind of change. Having just visited one of the most dynamic teachers I've ever had--a union member--I find it hard to believe that teachers' unions are so averse to change that a new system that excludes them is needed. I went from welfare to Stanford with unionized teachers (who even went on strike one year), so the public system can work and unions can't be that problematic. There are certainly unions that are inept and mismanaged, sometimes with the worst teachers rising highest. That said, union push-back against replacing more experienced (and thus expensive) teachers every time their is a budget shortfall is a good thing. Protecting innovative teachers is a good thing.


As for school administration, that is universally viewed as a problem. When Michelle Rhee became chancellor of the DC system (the nation's worst), she found a bureaucracy so poorly managed that supplies and books were sitting in warehouses rather than classrooms. Corruption and nepotism were the norm. Regardless of your opinion of Rhee's policies regarding charters and unions (a recent report found that 15 DC charters were ranked at the bottom of the pack, compared to 5 at the top) the amount of change that she managed to achieve in the bureaucracy of the DC education machine was impressive after decades of failure and stagnation. Rhee demonstrated that change was possible within the system even as she aggressively promoted charters:. As my dear friend, who was a teacher in a charter, noted, the administration was still incompetent and she was constantly stressed until the point where she left. In that case, and in many charters, this new system did not resolve these administrational issues.



Public, but still “Mine, Mine. Mine!”


There are public and private schools for a reason, and no school will exactly fit the educational needs or desires of a given student or parent. It is incredibly unrealistic to expect this of public schools. The goal is to ensure that all of society is prepared to enter the workforce, to contribute. The idea that parental choice should exist for a public service is also questionable. The goals for a public system are to serve a societal good, not a private good. In some ways, then, it is society's benefit, not that of a particular parent or student, that is important.


The other irony in all this is that many parents cannot or chose not to be all that involved in their child's education. Vigorously promoting parental choice for a population that is not willing or able to make that choice seems weird. Given that poorer parents often (but not always, my mom was an exception) are working more and can't take the time to choose beyond their neighborhood school, it seems to me that the real goal should be to ensure that all schools provide a decent baseline.


The way parental choice works is that charters--which are assumed to be good schools--attract more and more demand. This causes public schools to close. The system is then only made of a good, charter schools. We have already seen that the myth of these schools being good is ridiculous, but we also will see that the amount of demand for these schools that still choose based on a lottery is not being met by supply. Further, we have to ask ourselves if it is acceptable for some students to get out of a sinking ship while others wait for it to be squeezed out of existence to get their shot (if it comes in time).



I Guess Some Kids Just Don’t Deserve a Good Education


According to the CREDO study mentioned earlier, while 1.4 million kids attend charters, 365,000 were on a waiting list to get into one. How is this mismatch between supply and demand decided? Usually, a student enters into a lottery and their future is chosen at random, by chance. Do we really want to play mad scientist with kid’s futures? A bad teacher or school can have detrimental effects on a student for the rest of their academic career and life, so should we not aim to provide a decent public education system to all kids, not just those that “win the lottery?”


What I suspect will happen is that parents who are most dedicated or able to invest in their children's education will do so and will be more likely to get their kids into the best schools (public, magnet, charter, wherever). The charter system, which largely depends on empowered parents who are invested enough to push for their child to go to a different school, will not best serve the children without parents, with bad parents, or with parents who are overworked or uninformed. Further, because charters have so much demand, they don't have the incentive to widely broadcast so that parents can realize there is this other option. In my case, I got into a magnet school because my mom found out through dumb luck that they were offering a test and she happened to be off that day. I might not be writing this blog if I were put up to a lottery!


There are some great charters, but they are often enabled by overworking teachers or by using private funding (why not just pay taxes or donate to schools, private donors?). Further, the idea that good performance should yield more funding is scary: if your child is at an underperforming school, they will likely see fewer resources. Perverse, no? A good friend of mine, who also has trouble with this, noted that schools with poor administration should not be rewarded with funding. I want to agree, but ultimately, you are punishing the students for the failures of the administrators. I like a lot of the changes that charters enable, but I also find it troubling to move toward a system with less accountability, fewer results, less supported teachers, and random choice of who succeed with a greater focus on testing...I would rather think of ways to make our system work than reinventing the wheel in a way that is just not working.


While I am not the biggest fan of charters, I am a big fan of all schools providing decent education to children. For this reason, I would rather see public schools better supported than charters defunded. I would like for all schools to have the same accountability. I would like to see more parents being given the information and ability to better participate in their child's education (or if they refuse, I'd like to see them compelled to participate).

Speak out!


  1. What do you think is good about charters? What could be improved?
  2. What obstacles do you see to implementing reforms in public schools? Does a charter resolve these issues? Is it the best way to resolve them?



Act on it!

  • Support your local public schools and join their Parent Teacher Organization or Local School Council.
  • Volunteer (either to help teachers or administrators or to directly help students. Check out my blog post on one way to do this!).
  • Donate supplies to classrooms (a great site is http://www.donorschoose.org/), or go to your local school and ask what they need. Don't think in a limited way, as schools have music and art departments or gym classes that can benefit from donations that are not paper and pencils. Heck, maybe you are handy and your school needs repairs.
  • Ask a teacher you know what they need (a friend who lived in my sophomore dorm has often asked for book requests for his 9th grade English classroom on facebook, so look out and help out! As if on cue, he started a new campaign, so I hope people will support my friend Tyler's classroom by going to https://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=1002090&code=support+page+button and putting a note that you want to contribute to the "BHAG Book Fund," through which he encourages and enables his kids to read).
  • Help a parent you know (especially a struggling one) to learn about opportunities for their kids to test into good schools early on!
  • Stay vigilant and demand good schools of your local and national politicians for ALL children.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Process over Product

In reading an article about ten ways to improve your happiness at work, it struck me that one of the biggest problems with our model of education is a focus on outcomes over process. We measure schools (and perversely dole out funding) based on the outcomes of a test. We give grants to states based on the outcomes of very specific and unproven education reforms (e.g. Obama’s Race to the Bottom initiative). We count students as successful for getting into college, getting a degree, getting a job. The truth is that life is always about journeys and if everything is about the outcome, you are setting yourself up for failure regardless of whether you reach that goal.


Think about the last time that you achieved something big (got a promotion, received a degree, bought a house, got married). Now answer this question: Did realizing one of your biggest goals make you content forever? The answer is likely to be no. That isn’t because marriage, a Ph.D., or homeownership aren’t important goals or aren’t all they are cracked up to be. The reason is that all of these are parts of a process to fill yourself with knowledge, skills, companionship and stability to better take on future challenges and also fulfill them.


So think of the disservice we are doing to children when we gear them to prepare like mad for a test that will determine their future or validate them with grades. Think of the disservice we do to those who may be brilliant but don’t learn best in a structured academic setting when we count college graduation as the golden standard of success. Think of all those golden standard bearers who can’t find the dream job college was supposed to guarantee. Why are they failing? Because in most circumstances, you can’t control the outcomes as this Forbes article reminds us…but you can control the process and how you approach it.


Our education system needs to modify its goals and curricula to better support the development of processes in children. It should focus on improvement, not a final grade (note to teachers: giving someone an “A” and saying “great work” is not helpful, you should still provide good students feedback so that they continue strengthening their craft. Your laziness will only contribute to theirs. Read more about the negative effects of outcome-oriented feedback.).


Think about the skills you need in the workplace and in life: they are not outcomes in and of themselves. One of the biggest things you need is focus, and by feeding a dependency on feedback based on outputs, you reduce the ability to hunker down and consistently improve or work bit by bit towards a goal. You also need communication skills, which you can always improve. You don’t take a Kaplan course and come out with a firm handshake, the pen of Shakespeare, and a winsome pitch. You also need to be able to work in a group, which never is “attainable” given that groups (and thus the needs of any given group dynamic) change and are not static. Increasingly, you need international skills like language, which is not something you attain, but that you consistently improve upon. Even “hard skills” like cooking (home economics) or woodworking (shop) are not about outputs if done correctly: you don’t want to come out of the class knowing how to make a cake or build a birdhouse, but rather to have a sense of how to cook and build well that can be applied to other projects.


The job market is moving increasingly fast and people are switching jobs a lot more now. It is critical that we work to develop people’s ability to improve their skills and processes so that they too can be as mobile as the job market. It is also imperative that they find worth in dedication and improvement of a skill rather than jumping from output to output in a futile search for enduring happiness that one achievement can never offer.


Act on it!



  • Praise others’ efforts and processes in a specific way that helps them to consistently improve.

  • When helping others with homework or relationship advice, help them to focus on enjoying and learning from the process rather than fixating on an outcome (lord knows, some of my best assignments and dates have been unexpected but largely the result of not being stuck on a perfect result.).

  • Speak out when you see a teacher that teaches to a test or puts them above learning.

  • Write your congressmen when they pass laws that put undue weight on outcomes.

Speak out!



  • What are some processes that are critical in your professional life that you feel are or are not taught well? How could they be taught better?

  • Teaching outcomes is a lot easier than teaching processes. What are some strategies for helping people to better processes? How can curricula better guide teachers and administrators?