Will "Everybody" Come to School? (Part 1)

Bill asked a really big question in the TLN daily discussion:

So I'm reading Clay Shirky's new book, Here Comes Everybody. In it, he explores how technology is changing human interactions---and he shares an interesting example:

In 2007, several conservative parishes of the Episcopal Church in Virginia voted to break away from the American branch of their church after an openly gay bishop was ordained. The parishes chose to align themselves with the NIGERIAN branch of the Episcopal Church---whose views aligned better with theirs.

Shirky argues that this shows a shift in our thinking about how we organize ourselves. Typically, humans have used geography as the primary factor when determining how to join together with others. In the church example, we've always aligned ourselves with others who were physically close to us AND shared our views.

Technology has made it possible to align with anyone, however. While it would be nice for the parishes in Virginia to find others with likeminded beliefs who were also nearby, they were able to place a priority on likeminded beliefs instead of geography when connecting.

So my question is this: Will we eventually see similar changes in the ways that people think about schools?

Think about it: Right now, people send their students to schools based on geography. You go to the building that is closest to you, whether you are satisfied with that building or not.

Is it possible that technology may change all of that and allow families to select schools based on design and ideas that best represent their personal preferences and values INSTEAD of choosing schools based on physical location?

And if so, how will that change our work as teachers? What impact will it have on us as taxpayers? On our nation's guarantee of providing a sound basic education for all children? On any efforts at all to provide a uniform curriculum?

Renee replied:

Interesting ideas, Bill. There is much talk in many circles right now about the 24/7 digital classroom and what "schools" of the future will look like. The meeting I attended last summer at Aspen asked exactly that question, and the consensus among everyone EXCEPT the educators in the room was that schools of the future would certainly not be brick and mortar places or limited by geography.

Certainly, technology makes it possible for us to have a more fluid concept of enrollment for students and assignments for teachers. The question is -- will this necessarily make the quality of that education better?

Parents could theoretically have greater (dare I say it) choice in the source of their children's instruction. Will school systems and legislatures make it possible for students to receive full credit for a la carte education? Will colleges and jobs accept students thus prepared? Are they already?

Can you envision teachers as freelancing professionals, advertising to attract students (sort of like Socrates or Aristotle)? "Schools" might become learning cooperatives where several educators work together like lawyers or doctors in a practice together to provide either specialized or comprehensive learning services. (This could all be virtual, BTW)

To quote one of my favorite authors..."Oh, the places we could go!"

Marjorie wrote:

We’ve had open enrollment for a long time in our system – before technology. Parents can open-enroll their students in any school in the district (or state, if there is space). Here, space is supposed to be based on lottery. I would not have had my son in this public system if it were not for the open enrollment option to an diverse experiential school instead of the very traditional affluent neighborhood school.

However, it has also led to some big problems with what our district is now calling “stratification.” Without relying too much on euphemisms, what has happened is that as the population of certain schools became increasingly Latino, more and more of the middle and upper middle class liberal white parents in the neighborhood became uncomfortable and open enrolled their kids in schools with more “familiar” demographics. Generally, it is the kids who are already privileged who have the means and desire to leave their neighborhoods. Would this happen in a virtual setting as well?

There are a few schools that have managed to maintain a good balance of diversity. It is possible with a lot of intentionality and skill.

Kim wrote:

I think I'm an old fuddy-duddy who just doesn't see technology being as completely revolutionary in education as others do. There are still too many jobs -- in fact entire career fields -- where computer skills are a minimal part of the job. And for most students (at least most students that I work with), the primary draw is still the social interactions that they get during the day. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't give up my SmartBoard, document camera, or video streaming for anything, but the academics are only part of the reason kids come to school.

My high school is piloting a tech academy. It is project-based, they have their own bell schedule, and the kids are all assigned their own laptops. The kids have internet access 24/7 and are supposed to be completely paperless (which drives their English teacher a little nuts because he IS an English teachers and loves books). After the first semester, several kids dropped out because of the social limitations they felt in that program. Several more have opted out for next year so that they can go back to their districted schools to be closer to their friends. Athletic programs, music programs, drama and art programs will also draw kids to a classroom where hands-on instruction is needed.

I have a friend who recently just went to a job that is completely on-line because she wanted to be able to work from home to be with her daughter. She said that most of the kids who are in her classes struggle with conventional school because they are already involved in professional activities or are predominantly home-schooled. She also has said that she will be sending her daughter to a conventional public school and wouldn't let her stay at home all day just working on a computer.

Cossondra wrote:

Interesting question. I am assuming you mean a more "home-school" approach as the alternative to a traditional program, one which is technology-based, online delivery of services.

Such a program would indeed open up a diverse selection of possibilities for education opportunities for students, particularly those not serviced well in traditional settings, or those seeking special offerings more geared towards their personal interests.

I do not see such programs replacing traditional schools. One of the most important parts of school is teaching non-content skills, like socialization, working with others, being on time, prepared, learning to meet deadlines, dealing with a "boss" or simply being responsible to and for others. An independent online learning experience would not be able to provide this skill set like a classroom setting can.

Granted, careers are changing as well, and more opportunities do exist and are being created daily for people to work independently at home. However, if a majority of people become employed like that, our entire society will have changed. Will we still see restaurants, shopping malls, places of worship or other public meeting experiences in “real space”?

I would never choose for my own children to have been schooled online. I think the interaction of them with their peers is more critical than any other aspect of their education.

Ellen wrote:

Bill asked: So my question is this: Will we eventually see similar changes in the ways that people think about schools?

Yes. We already are seeing these changes. The opportunities available to families now are numerous.

Bill also wrote: Think about it: Right now, people send their students to schools based on geography. You go to the building that is closest to you, whether you are satisfied with that building or not.

Not necessarily. I teach at a charter school where kids from outside the city with LONG commutes attend. (Southern California, y'all; we're talking some kids with hour commutes.) My school is a classic example of a school community aligned with people with similar values and beliefs about education, from the staff to the parents and children.

Bill again: Is it possible that technology may change all of that and allow families to select schools based on design and ideas that best represent their personal preferences and values INSTEAD of choosing schools based on physical location? And if so, how will that change our work as teachers? What impact will it have on us as taxpayers? On our nation's guarantee of providing a sound basic education for all children? On any efforts at all to provide a uniform curriculum?

Speaking as someone who feels (almost) every day as if she's died and gone to heaven, I think it's WONDERFUL. I LOVE that my school is a school of choice. We work hard to include all of our stakeholders -- parents, children, teachers -- in our thinking and decision-making. Our school is supported by most of the people there because they've chosen us. Do we all agree 100%? Of course not! But when there is an agreement about some basic philosophical and pedagogical issues as well as what we're trying to do with children, it makes everyone's jobs easier.

And I'm going to say a "uniform" curriculum doesn't seem like something to strive for, necessarily. In a team of teachers teaching the same subject, how many do you think agree on what is valuable to teach? Where they think the emphasis should be? Now, apply that to the nation.

What is wrong with individualizing schools and curriculum to meet the needs of the specific children and families who are there? The needs differ from school to school; one-size-fits-all is ludicrous.

I'm going to say this out loud: I don't teach all the standards, and I don't think that's a bad thing at all. The curriculum is bloated and self-important and often not in touch with the needs and capabilities of the kids in front of me. What I *do* teach is KIDS. I teach them how to write in multiple genres and for a variety of purposes; I teach them how to access information from a variety of texts; I teach them how to think critically and communicate clearly in writing and speech. I teach them how to relate and connect with history and think critically about their worlds. We go deep into the content rather than wide.

And I'm at a school where this is a primary belief and approach to education practiced by all stakeholders. We believe children should go deep rather than parrot back facts; we believe children need time to soak and question and find their own answers. We believe experiential, constructivist experiences are more lasting and valuable than direct teaching. Our goals and expectations for children include the academic, but we also have 8th grade exit expectations surround the arts, physical fitness, foreign language, social-emotional growth and community service. All of us, from parents to administration to teachers hold this common vision for kids, and thus we are incredibly successful.

I think we need less homogenization and more individualization in education. I welcome choice and competition AS LONG AS CORPORATIONS STAY OUT OF IT. As a school we don't think about competing, but we do think about offering an experience we believe in and others desire to participate in.

And it's not a cakewalk, not at all. The myth of the charter school as a skimming of the cream off of the top is just that, a myth. My school, like so many other public charters, attracts kids and families that fall into more of a U-shaped curve than the classic bell in both academics and behavior. That means we have many really bright kids (with their own interesting issues) and many struggling, far-behind kids.

We have parents who think they're choosing a private school experience (and so they want to have more say than they actually do), and parents who think they can save their kids from any negative consequence. We have kids who are incredibly well-adjusted with amazing behavior, and an equal amount who are struggling with basic social skills. We have a disproportionate number of kids with 504s and IEPs as well as GATE kids.

In short, we have the extremes, the kids who aren't being served by an overwhelmed, homogenized system that teaches down the middle OUT OF NECESSITY for their sanity and because of district hand-tying.

Beyond the fear of the corporatization of education, what isn't to like about more choices for kids and their families? For me and my colleagues, it's provided liberation from the top-down, out of touch decisions from a central office. I am more empowered at my charter than I ever was in my last (very inner city) district. I have more opportunities to have a real say in what happens in my classroom and at my school. Heck, the teachers even do all the instructional personnel hiring at my school, as well as have a teacher representative on our board!

So -- I think that the move toward more choice is good for teachers and students...and their families. Or at least that's been my experience.

Mark wrote:

As it happens, I am also reading Here Comes Everybody. Although I have not read the chapter that uses the Episcopal Church example, there is a lot of food for thought in this book in other chapters.

Bill asked, "Is it possible that technology may change all of that and allow families to select schools based on design and ideas that best represent their personal preferences and values INSTEAD of choosing schools based on physical location?"

I would contend that this is not the right question. I think the question should be, "Is it possible that technology may change all of that and allow families to select education options that best represent their personal preferences and values INSTEAD of choosing schools?"

I was talking to one of the other dads in my son’s Cub Scout pack this past Saturday. He was able to get a flat bed truck from his company for the boys to ride on instead of having to walk the parade route. I asked him about the company which led him to state that the perfect technician, in his eyes, was someone who worked on his own car because he had to. He said this is the type of person who can find creative solutions to problems.

He said he was tired of interviewing degreed engineers who could tell you everything there was to know about a resistor but had no idea what one actually looked like or who had never actually done something with one. This was a spontaneous conversation in a parking lot waiting for a parade to start, but it reflects what other business people have said to me and what I have read. What schools produce does not match what business requires. I believe that technology is coming to the point where there will be other options that are acceptable to employers.

In the chapter of Shirky’s book called “Publish, Then Filter,” there are two passages that really made me stop and think about what was going to happen to education. The first one is:

“. . .when new technology appears, previously impossible things start occurring. If enough of those impossible things are important and happen in a bundle, quickly, the change becomes a revolution. The hallmark of a revolution is that the goals of the revolution cannot be contained by the institutional structure of the existing society. As a result, either the revolutionaries are put down, or some of those institutions are altered, replaced or destroyed.”

Schools’ bans on cell phones and iPods as well as highly restrictive content filtering, in my eyes, are schools’ attempts to “put down the revolutionaries.” I don’t know how much longer this will hold the revolutionaries at bay. How successful have recording companies been in reducing file sharing by suing the people who are sharing files?

The second passage:

“All businesses are media businesses because whatever else they do, all businesses rely on the managing of information for two audiences – employees and the world. The increase in the power of both individuals and groups, outside the traditional organizational structures, is unprecedented. Many institutions we rely on today will not survive this change without significant alteration, and the more an institution or industry relies on information as its core product, the greater and more complete the change will be (emphasis added).”

Dissemination of information is the reason for the existence of schools. I think education is ill-prepared to deal with the change that is coming.

Ellen replied:

Mark made this comment: What schools produce does not match what business requires. I believe that technology is coming to the point where there will be other options that are acceptable to employers.

I agree. The complaint I hear over and over from my colleagues in the "business" world is that their employees aren't critical thinkers, don't know how to find innovative solutions, lack stamina and creativity, and reside in their "book knowledge" too much rather than being able to deal with what is. I think we're pushing back into a balance that integrates "What do you know?" with "What can you do with what you know?" It's not enough to have a lot of knowledge, you have to be street/work smart as well.

Our world is changing, but schools, by and large, are not so very different from the factory model instituted in the early 1900s. What radical changes need to be made to reflect the changing needs of our society?

Mark also said: Dissemination of information is the reason for the existence of schools. I think education is ill-prepared to deal with the change that is coming.

I would say that schools need to take a hard look at this viewpoint. With information widely and easily available from a variety of media, and the *amount* of information we value increasing exponentially, *should* we be focused on be disseminators of information? Or is a more process-oriented, deeply critical thinking model (where information is embedded) called for?

With my own students, I'm more concerned by the lack of critical thinking and their lack of staying power when presented with challenging tasks and situations.

Let me give you an example. I had the *ahem* pleasure of teaching sex ed to my 8th grade boys this year (our kids this year dearly needed to be separated, so I took the boys and my partner teacher took the girls). The main focus is on STDs and the potential consequences of sex.

Now, my boys could tell you a lot of factual information about STDs, what you should do to prevent and treat them, the failure rate and limitations on contraception, etc. They have all the facts down...heck, they've been in public service announcements for years. And yet, as I was reminding them that it was their right and responsibility to ask their partners to be tested and to be tested themselves, the overwhelming responses was this:

"But what if I'm in the club?" or "In the heat of the moment," etc.

They can parrot back all the facts, but they don't *get* it on a deep level. My boys thought Tia Tequila and “I Love New York” were "real" life.

So I say, our role as a school system is to help kids connect with content at a deep level, to teach them to think deeply and critically. I think we are morphing towards a more process-oriented society...and I don't know that that's a bad thing at all.

The question is, will schools adapt to address our changing society? Will we be willing to slaughter our own sacred cows? I don't know....

Nancy F. wrote:

I want to say something about the shrinking globe and aligning ourselves with those whose views match ours (isn't that the premise on which Fox News was built?) --

I am an Episcopalian, and have been watching what we call the schism in our church unfold. When Nigeria, as a developing nation, first embraced the Anglican-Episcopal church, European and American churches had to accept the open polygamy in those who wished to be Nigerian priests. Not something that was culturally comfortable in first-world nations.

So it is ironic now that African Episcopal churches are welcoming conservative churches in America--who would rather join with African churches than work out some challenging but socially critical questions and issues here at home.

I am not excited about transcending "geography is destiny." It's just another manifestation of what Robert Putnam called "bowling alone" -- where fear of rubbing elbows with those who are different keeps us from building genuine communities.

I'm a great proponent of virtual relationships, but only if they are accompanied by real human connections--and more importantly, if we are not allowed to escape our moral obligations to get along with, even care for, our neighbors, putting self-interests aside.

A couple of years ago, someone in TLN shared a video clip on how technology was molding and shaping our media exposure, based on preference. We no longer have to watch the same news as everyone else, or go to churches, schools, workplaces or civic organizations where there is diversity. We can hang out with "just our kind" (and if we can afford it, to an extreme degree) and never have to challenge our thinking. We can see and hear only what and who we are comfortable with. Is that an education? I think not.

Mark replied:

I agree with you Nancy. I guess part of what I'm saying is that we can stand back and say "that will never happen" and allow others to shape what education becomes or we can embrace the technological shift and shape what the new organization will look like.

You wrote that I'm a great proponent of virtual relationships, but only if they are accompanied by real human connections--and more importantly, if we are not allowed to escape our moral obligations to get along with, even care for, our neighbors, putting self-interests aside.

Again I agree with you. I don't think real human connections will ever go away. I think new social structures will take the place of the social interactions children experience at school. Just look at how children's socialization has changed in the last 40 years. My son plays soccer pretty much year round. He is also into Cub Scouts, which extends into lower grades than it did when I was a child and has activities running during the summer as well. The gym that I go to has a kids’ fitness program that my son goes to while my wife and I work out.

There are a lot of opportunities for children to socialize that don't involve school. In my area, there is a relatively small but significant home school population. There are many structures in place that allow these home schooled children to interact. Social interaction is part of what makes us human. I don't see the need to socialize going away because of technology.

Shirky talks about the impact of the printing press on a class of professionals -- the scribes. They were hugely important before the printing press. Society couldn't live without them. Along came the printing press and scribes became unnecessary. The currency of education is knowledge and computer technology gives people unprecedented access to knowledge outside of a school setting.

I wonder if 400 years from now people will view the teaching profession the way we view the profession of being a scribe.

Gail added:

I too, attend the Episcopal church, and Nancy expressed my views so eloquently I have very little to add. I think the thing I fear most is people using technology to hang out only with "just our kind" -- thereby further stratifying the haves and have-nots instead of using technology to embrace and ensure diversity in both virtual and online educational communities.

Bill wrote:

Nancy said: I'm a great proponent of virtual relationships, but only if they are accompanied by real human connections--and more importantly, if  we are not allowed to escape our moral obligations to get along with, even care for, our neighbors, putting self-interests aside.

So here's an interesting twist to this conversation:  Shirky also argues that technology will NEVER replace human interactions primarily because humans are deeply drawn to face-to-face interactions.

His primary example is the telephone.  Since it became ubiquitous, people have worried about the impact that it would have on the travel industry and face-to-face interactions. Why would you go and meet with someone in person, the fear goes, if you could communicate with them in an affordable way from home?

The crazy part is that even as long distance phone rates have dropped remarkably, the travel industry hasn't suffered at all.

As Shirky says:

"We gather together because we like to, and because it is useful. Assuming that videophones or email or virtual reality will reduce the overall amount of travel is like assuming that liquor stores will kill bars, since liquor stores sell drinks much more cheaply than bars do. In fact, the reason people go to bars is not simply to get a drink, but to do so in a convivial environment."

Shirky's point is a simple one:  For most people, "digital worlds" and "the real world" aren't different spaces with different people. They are overlapping versions of the same groups.  Technology just "greases the wheel" of interactions between individuals.

His quote:

"The internet augments real-world social life rather than providing an alternative to it.  Instead of becoming a separate cyberspace, our electronic networks are becoming deeply embedded in real life."

So what does this mean for schools?

Do schools become hybrids?  Places where students from across disparate geographical areas primarily interact with one another electronically and then come together a few times a year?

Or do schools themselves stay largely unchanged---with the exception being that learning is extended far beyond the school day by electronic interactions with peers?

Or (as some people have suggested here), do people finally realize that they don't need formal school buildings at all---instead, building networks of learners "practicing" together both online and offline?

Nancy F. wrote:

Emily asked: To our Michigan TLNers, doesn't Michigan now require for graduation that students take an online course because it will be online that "business" delivers its learning/training?

Emily's question is a good one, because it might help us understand what happens when systems try to adapt to changes pushed on to their turf by emerging technologies.

What could have happened in MI, if there had been practitioners present when the law was made, might have been some move to the flexible, innovative hybrid models Bill imagines, where an interesting array of on-line learning options was incorporated into schools.

That didn’t happen. Ironically, the law wasn't difficult for many rural districts (most of Michigan, geographically, is rural) which had already been using distance learning models.

Since the law passed, there has been some fussing about what constitutes an on-line course (and whether the state should provide funding for kids who take them outside K-12), and schools have been slow to innovate or share ideas, mostly because they are staffed with teachers and administrators who have never taken or taught an on-line course. Which means, naturally, that there are non-educator entrepreneurs providing "courses" on-line, and some of those things are junk, although they meet the requirement.

Some technology teachers have fought hard to retain their contractual "right" to teach yet another year of "Introduction to Office 2003" instead of using available tools to construct on-line learning experiences kids might actually enjoy. But in Michigan we can say we are first in the nation to require on-line learning.

I believe all students should take good on-line courses because they can provide different experiences and perspectives than the ones available in their schools, not as "training" for their eventual jobs in business. (Businesses should be responsible for such site-specific training.)

My preferred future is Bill's second model -- schools remain, as community gathering places and service delivery sites, and we incorporate the world into our educational "homes" via appropriate technologies, with our first concern being intact student personalities and developing a sense of belonging and working with others. It's worth noting that there is little technology present in Finnish schools; they are focused on individual students and building confidence and collaboration.

My fear, conversely, is that in our rush to be "ahead" technologically, we will allow the digital divide to solidify, and the mobility and flexibility that technology provides will become an excuse to totally privatize schooling.

For advantaged kids--the ones who are already fluently using the tools to form productive learning networks, they don't technically need buildings, daily schedules, sports and clubs. But disadvantaged kids won't have them unless they're publicly owned. I don't want my kids to feel they have no responsibility to the community where they live, or the community 50 miles down the road, just because the people they like best can be accessed on screen. School is one of the only publicly owned enterprises these days.

We can control this, and make policies that use technologies in ways that don't destroy the fragile structures of caring and equity. But it will take some real leadership and vision. Mindlessly pegging technological innovations as progress scares me.

(The conversation is continuing. Stay tuned for Part 2.)

Comments

[Pat]

Cyber school innovation could easily be compared to the life cycle of a new software product. The preliminary expense in getting to this point is extremely costly if development is prematurely stopped. The greatest educational benefit for the money happens when the system enters the maintenance stage. In my opinion, we are still at the integration and testing stage. Teams of educators, administrators, parents and students are collaborating together to check for errors and in-operability. This stage is followed by the acceptance stage. It is in the next stage of maintenance that the real benefits of change are experienced.

The first Cyber School was only introduced in March of 2001. The On-line synchronous and asynchronous schooling platform is new. Every year there are new techniques and strategies that are introduced to increase teaching effectiveness. Correspondence schools have been around for many years. If this was the answer, then correspondence schools would have met the needs of students like those appearing in the list below 50 years ago.

Taxpayers understand that cybers account for far less than 1 percent of all public school spending. However, there is a growing niche of student groups carved out of the traditional educational platform that will suffer from funding cuts to Cyber School.

• Students who want to be on the cutting edge of technology
• Athletes and Performers with demanding schedules
• Students with mental health issues like autism
• Students who have been bullied and are now looking for a safe environment
• Students who wish to incorporate work or service learning into their educational setting
• Teen age mothers
• Students who wear religious garments that open them to student criticism
• Immigrant students whose parents embrace a different culture
• Students who have appearance or behavioral idiosyncrasies that open them to student criticism

The increasing diversity of the student population in traditional education is driving costs up. It would be ironic to cut the very changes that are facilitating these groups.

The following are some examples are meant to illustrate student initiative and their families’ and fellow student collaboration in developing tasks and activities. The structure of a student government organization can maximize student participation in a context of democracy where the student feels comfortable. Some of my students this year presented a funding proposal to Representative Sestak in Washington DC this fall. In this setting students learned how to approach a congressman to fund initiatives that their parent’s dollars pay for. The structure of service learning can be introduced on an individual basis to direct the students learning into the context of a church or ethnic activity. For example one of my students last semester held a diabetes walk a thon that generated over $4,000 in cooperation with her church to find a cure for diabetes. The structure of a problem based learning scenario for a senior project I am sponsoring may serve to identify teen violence as a familiar theme among Middle Eastern immigrants in NYC and Pennsylvania Cyber schooled students. All of these tasks or activities take place within the context of the student’s, teachers, family, community and sometimes their church.

Regards,

Pat Parris (Cyber Teacher)