What can the Federal DofEd do?

Margaret Spellings and the US Department of Education has been soliciting feedback on what the federal government can do about educational technology, both through closed-door roundtable sessions, as well as through open calls for input (see www.nationaledtechplan.org). I was invited to attend one of the roundtable sessions with folks in educational industry, research and practice. This session occurred at San Jose State University at the beginning of May.

Three things struck me about this event: First, that there are some pockets of really great thinking and practice. Several educators discussed projects they had undertaken with technology that seem to be having an impact. Some of these were really amazing, like Jan Coleman-Knight's project at Thornton Junior High in Fremont, CA [need link here] that connects entomology and history through technology.

Second, there are still about as many opinions about what the role of educational technology is as there are people who put a little thought into it. In other words, there still isn't a general consensus about what we're trying to accomplish with edtech -- is it student engagement, individualized learning, data collection and analysis, etc? Sadly, because there is no overriding vision, there is an awful lot of wasted energy and money on these programs.

Third, the US DofEd is in a pretty interesting position to help frame the discussion and establish a way of evaluating projects. It won't be along the lines of their recent declaration that five reading and five math programs don't have any impact on student learning. Let me outline exactly what I think the federal department can do:

1. Start with a clear definition of digital literacy. There is a notion of "technology literacy" baked loosely into Title IID of NCLB. This was an interesting step, but the feds forgot to define what that was, or place any kind of framework around what states had to declare. Did they have to test their kids? Survey schools? Just state without any back up that their eighth-graders were technology literate? Lots of confusion and missed opportunities there. The feds could establish the definition of digital literacy (and a process for re-evaluating that definition) as well as a mechanism for collecting and reporting the data. This would help states establish benchmarks and work toward a set of common goals for digital literacy among students.
2. Along with #1, declare unequivocally that they are in favor of technology. Few doubt at this point that technology is going to play a role in the future and improvement of education (and even if there are doubters, all you have to do is look at that collective spending on instructional technology in districts throughout the US to see how there is an ongoing commitment to instructional technology). Foreign ministries of education see technology as a key to educational excellence going forward (UK's BECTA, Brazil's OLPC interest, etc.). The US DofEd should declare that finding the most effective ways of using technology is a priority.
3. Encourage responsible experimentation in digital learning programs. So much money gets spent on so many pet projects throughout the US. Very little of the learning -- both good and bad -- gets captured in a way that benefits more people . The US DofEd could establish a scorecard and reporting mechanism to at least evaluate programs that receive investment for a common set of outcomes -- student achievement, professional development, cost effectiveness, 21st century readiness, etc.
4. Establish a set of measures that schools can self-report to articulate their 21st century capabilities. This could be along the lines of the NCLB Blue Ribbon Schools program or other similar programs from the past. I know that some schools are motivated to achieve these designations for a variety of reasons. Whatever the reason, being able to recognize schools for their success in creating at least a digital-aware environment would be meaningful.

Could be that these suggestions are too mundane to satisfy the more visionary who would advise the US DofEd. But I believe these have the benefit of actually being doable in the current environment, and have some positive impact on the country's educational technology efforts. I'd love to hear what you think. Please leave me feedback here.

wjk

Are we headed for a 1:1 future?

The big news a few weeks ago was that after their snarky face-off on 60 Minutes in May, Intel and OLPC decided to "make up" and have Intel sit on the board of the OLPC/XO program (see news here).

The bigger question remains how the learning process utilized with millions of kids is going to change once there is a true 1:1 ratio of computers to students. It's easy for a national ministry of education spokesperson to say they're going to come up with $100 million to buy the hardware for their kids, it's quite another to describe exactly what the brave new world of 21st Century learning will look like.

Here are some key things that need to be in place for this to actually yield the outcomes we want (instead of outfitting 100 million students in developing countries with expensive toys):

1. A definitive (or at least confident) articulation of teaching methodology that takes into account the presence of the machine. Beyond saying "Kid's take to technology like bears to honey", not that many people have articulated a clear system for successfully incorporating laptops into the teaching process for any teacher (not just techno-enthusiasts). Large scale experiments (like the four-plus-year-old Maine project) have been strangely silent about what they've learned about specific teaching methods associated with the laptops, beyond the anecdotal and self-congratulatory. In some cases, large-scale efforts have failed or been scrapped for political reasons or lack of observable results. Even the research cited at the cheerleading "Anytime Anywhere Learning Foundation" is heavy on the "perceptions of participants" and light on the recommendations for scientifically-based, sustainable methodological models.

2. A system that will seamlessly allow teachers to manage the flow of content, student work, assessment data, etc. This will need to be an easy-to-use, inexpensive, web-based platform for learning and teaching. It can't be a "course management" platform like so many so-called "Learning Management Systems" are. Rather, it must deliver the ease of use of iTunes and the robust data-driven management tools of a Salesforce.com or NetSuite.

3. Curriculum content. I've said in previous posts that there will always be a place for premium content. Nowhere will that be more manifest than the places that try to scale up a 1:1 laptop initiative. My prediction: the more students they try to put on it, the more the teachers, parents and administrators will call for high quality content. And solutions that count on "wiki" style social content development will not deliver what these participants want -- material that will engage students, guide them in an individualized way through the material, be responsive to data trails left by previous work by the same student (and by work of similar students), etc. This is not the kind of stuff that will be developed by a dedicated 6th grade teacher in her spare time.

I am a true believer that 1:1 initiatives can work. But we've only scratched the surface about how.

wjk

The cost of an online HS education

First a quick personal story: My oldest son is a very wonderful kid. He is very intelligent, very engaging, very funny. He's also, for some reason, failed to excel in a school setting. He learns the material, and often becomes astonishingly conversant in the topic. He just won't do the work.

So now he's a senior in high school (by age anyway) and still needs to make up several classes worth of work, along with his current work load, in order to graduate with his class this spring. We have adopted a "credit recovery" approach that relies on web-based high school courses provided by Brigham Young University.

There is a lot to be said for this method of receiving credit:

• The student can self pace



• The student can be self-directed



• All assessments are performed online with instant feedback to the student



• There is a remarkable diversity of courses one can take to fill credit requirements



• It can be done anytime, anywhere



• There is access to a course instructor for questions and feedback



• Every course is accredited and (at least in our school district) accepted for equivalent credit.

So, knock on wood, we'll have a joyous graduation celebration this spring.

However, this whole experience has got me thinking about online education. It definitely does have its benefits. And it is extremely cost effective. As a little exercise I calculated what it would cost to get a complete high school education on byu.edu. It turns out to be $7,000 (which includes $25 per half-semester course to pay a proctor fee for the final exam, or $625), or $1,750 per year.

The chart shows the breakdown of costs. In addition to the coursework, students here in Multnomah County can get free online tutoring through the local library system through an arrangement with tutor.com.

I'm not advocating that everyone just get their high school courses done online, I am interested in what the implications are for the public school system. This is a far cry, economically, from a $15,000 per year private school alternative. It essentially sets the bar for a quality, diverse, guided path through the required curriculum at $7,000. The question is, what value does the public school system deliver for the remainder of the money spent. In Portland, the cost of educating a student for one year is $9,714, or $38,856. By my calculation, the coursework associated with that investment has been valued at $7,000. How is the district delivering an additional $31,856 of value over the course of a student's high school career?

I'm definitely not trying to undermine public education. I'm just pointing out that alternatives exist at a price point that is attractive. And I'm wondering if this might spur those in charge of public education policy to innovate a bit more to meet the needs of the students and parents in their systems on the basis of this new economics.

EdNet Presentation -- Chicago, Sep 11, 2007

This past September I participated on a panel at the EdNet 2007 conference in Chicago. The topic was "The Future of the Instructional Materials Market". I have made a Quicktime movie of the presentation slides with a recording of the presentation here. I welcome any comments!

Idea for a charter high school

This diagram is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills' updated scheme for the theme of 21st century learning. The core is "Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes". Surrounding that is "Life and Career Skills", "Learning and Innovation Skills" (which includes collaboration, creativity and critical thinking), and "Information, Media and Technology Skills".

Picking up the theme of my last post, about the cost of an online high school education, I'd like to make a proposal for a "21st Century" charter school in Portland Public Schools (or anywhere else for that matter).

The core curriculum would be handled with online courses from BYU.edu (or an equivalent provider of accredited HS coursework).

The environment would be similar to a modern office space, with places for people to work independently, in small groups, and in larger groups. Technology, in the form of computers, networks, printers, telephones, etc. would be provided much like an office.

Students would be allowed to work at their own pace and in their own order through the required and elective classes provided online. They could come to the "school" (probably leased space in an office building) any time it is open and work on the computers there. They could also do the course work at home or anywhere else, any time they'd like.

The day at school would be organized around A) the need for independent study on the core courses, and B) projects that are designed to help students utilize their knowledge and skills in a collaborative "real world" environment.

The projects would be initially designed and managed by the faculty. Each project would have a specific desired outcome, including a report on how the project went and what it accomplished. The definition of the project would require an articulation of the skillsets needed to complete the project, and positions on the project teams would be posted. Students who met the criteria would be welcome to apply for the positions. Every student would be guaranteed participation in some reasonable number of projects per year.

The nature of the projects could run the gamut, from identifying ecological volunteer opportunities and planning and executing the project, to doing a marketing program for a local non-profit or small business, to designing and selling a product or service. The point of the project is to provide a "real world" experience for students to apply their abilities to, with a real outcome that they can evaluate. Feedback on performance would be given to each student in a way that is reminiscent of the feedback employees in a company or non-profit organization gets.

The faculty would be there to A) provide counseling and direction for students, B) provide tutoring on course work that students need help on, and C) to plan and facilitate the project work of the students.

With the online coursework, students would complete the requirements for a state valid high school diploma. In addition, the students would have a portfolio of projects that they have completed which demonstrates their ability to apply their knowledge, to think creatively, and to work collaboratively.

This type of high school experience would meet many if not all of the goals of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and would provide a dramatically different high school experience for the students involved.

I'm wondering if there are other models out there that are similar to what I'm describing here. I do know about High Tech High in California. I'd love to learn more about these schools, especially from people who have experienced them.

The bottom line for me is that there seems to be plenty of building blocks to put together the kind of high school experience that is envisioned by the P21 work. Maybe the idea I've proposed here (or a variant of it) would help in the transformation we're looking for.

The Future of Instructional Materials

I'll be part of a panel at EdNet this September that is titled "The Future of the Instructional Materials Market". Here is how I'm planning to organize my 8 minute presentation:

Key Trends:

• Individualization. More districts are announcing at least the intent to individualize every student's education.
  
• Embrace of web-delivered curriculum. Buyers at districts are projecting an increase in purchasing of web-delivered instructional materials. More importantly, more teachers using the web means that more will be expected from materials delivered on the web:
• Anytime/anywhere learning
• Tie-in to data and data analysis tools
• Customization
• Modularization of curricula. The fact of the matter is that any basal curriculum (except maybe the most strictly prescribed curricula) will be only partially used by classroom teachers. From both a cost-effectiveness and a usefulness standpoint, delivering modular curriculum resources makes perfect sense.
• Community. Call it what you will -- web 2.0, user generated value, community-based content, etc -- the fact is that organized correctly, and made usable by the majority, mechanisms for collecting, packaging and redistributing value generated by a group of users with common goals has changed everything from bookbuying to selling second-hand items to selecting rental movies to downloading music. It should (and eventually will) change education too.
• NCLB. Love it or hate it, it's not going away. The reauthorization should fix some of the major problems with it, but the idea of measuring school performance based on improvements in student performance will only be strengthened in the coming years, regardless of who occupies the White House or Congress.
  

Forces of Inertia:

• Consolidation of the major publishers. This is not inertia in and of itself, but a sign that the major publishers see this business as a commodity. They are betting that control of distribution and political processes will preserve revenues and profits in a sort of zero-sum status quo. Innovation (either in product or economic models) is not a factor of competition in their minds.
• The existing adoption process, especially in Texas and California. The major states where there remains line-item adoption funding continue to drive the rest of the instructional materials industry. When Texas can guarantee that $180 million will be spent this year on K-5 math curricula, it drives the major publishers efforts to build products that meet the standards needs of the state. With an arcane adoption process and a logistically nightmarish sales and marketing effort associated with the adoption, small, innovation-driven players are virtually excluded from participation. This creates a barrier to new products and new forms of products gaining the foothold they need to be viable solutions to curriculum needs.
• NCLB. Having the fiasco of Reading First behind it, the US Department of Education is still fishing around for the best way to have an impact. We'll see if their math initiatives encourage innovative solutions to enter the market, or if the criteria for inclusion end up excluding things without a sufficient "scientific research base".
  

Predictions about the market:

• More web-delivered materials will be purchased. This will be especially true if tools emerge that allow teachers to seamlessly integrate a variety of web-based content to solve real world classroom problems.
  
• Economic models will emerge that will allow "just in time", or pay-for-consumption models of curriculum delivery.
• The quest for individualization will enable some powerful, open-access tools to be developed and utilized that facilitate an acceleration of the value of web-delivered curricula.
• Teachers will have a greater influence on purchasing. In a world of effective mix-and-match, modular, customizable, data-enhanced content, not only will teachers be in the best position to decide what is best for their students, school and district administrators will be able to monitor usage and recognize value.
• The overall market for content resources will not disappear ever. But it will grow smaller overall as schools are able to buy just what they need. User-generated content will not replace professionally developed content, and will never amount to more than 10% of what teachers consume in the classroom.

I would very much appreciate feedback on this logical argument. So if you feel so inclined, please post your questions, challenges, counter-examples, etc. here.

wjk

Indivisualize K12 education

The biggest trend in education over the next 20 years will be individualizing the instruction and educational experience for every student.

Why is this the case? Consider the following seemingly unrelated trends:

• The multiple learning styles movement, which, despite considerable academic criticism, has gained a probably permanent place in the minds of most educators
• The logical extension of “No Child Left Behind” is the expectation that no child will be left behind. To get there we’re going to have to actually figure out and care for the needs of every child
• Technology is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Nicolas Negroponte’'s XO program and Intel’'s Classmate are going to succeed at bringing out powerful technology at a price that allows even developing countries to provide a 1:1 computing environment
• Web technology is becoming more and more powerful. The web is the platform upon which data, content, communication and productivity can come together•
• The homeschool movement, and more importantly the increasing propensity for parents to seek alternatives and supplements to the standard education provided via the public schools.

All of these trends point to one thing for me – the fact that society is going to attempt (and eventually succeed) at customizing the education of every child.

There are a wide variety of necessary conditions for this goal that still need to be put in place. There are also a wide variety of implications that need to be explored, from the impact on the traditional educational publishing industry to what we do about students who don’t want to participate. All of these topics are of interest to me, and are the things I will explore (more or less) on this blog. I hope this will be of interest to you all, and that you will feel free to contribute in open and responsible ways. Please challenge me, please add to the thought processes.

wjk