Future of Education: Amazing Technology… but no money to pay for it.

When I started this MAT program at WOU I was convinced that standardized testing was a bad idea. Teachers know more about their students than do political bureaucrats. Standardized testing also takes away from time that could otherwise be spent learning – both the time to take the test and the time to spend teaching material that the teacher deems unnecessary. Teachers also complain that there isn’t enough time to teach and that by insisting on standardized testing things are covered minimally so that there is time to teach everything that is tested. Teachers, it was argued, can motivate themselves to be better teachers and when politicians get involved it just messes things up.

Admittedly, I have just started my MAT here and my point of view is unique and my opinions tend to waver. However after spending the term observing teachers at a local high school I can see why politicians feel that by testing the students they can improve their education. Some teachers work hard to develop interesting lessons that engage all of their students. Other teachers tell the students to read their textbooks and then proceed to sit at their desk and generally ignore them for the rest of class. Unfortunately, my mentor teacher falls into the latter category. Our department considers itself lucky that social studies learning is not measured by any standardized test that our students must receive. Honestly, it shows in the lack of care and effort put in by some of the staff. It’s almost like telling the students they need to study hard – but that they won’t be graded.

These test scores go to the government for whatever reason they see the need to have that data. It seems to change a bit over time as new politicians and parties gain favor. Steve Schoettler states that the government is not using that data very efficiently. The point of forcing districts to do standardized testing is to get feedback to districts about how they are doing. Shoettler argues that by taking two years to get this data back to teachers and administrators they aren’t doing much good. Feedback is very important when teaching teachers how to be more effective. With a turn around this long on this data is for most purposes meaningless. Additionally, he states that the things that are tested by these tests are not necessarily the most important thing to measure: they ignore multiple intelligences, learning styles, working memory, and other data. If the government were better at collecting, analyzing, and quickly returning data to schools, then districts would be able to implement some changes to make improvements to their staff. Standardized testing the way it is currently done is a bit of a waste of time. It has some potential though.

With the speed of technology where it is today it is clear that the only reason it takes the government two years to get this data published is because they aren’t using the most efficient methods to analyze it. This is often true in schools as well. Educational conferences are littered with technology vendors who want to show you what their product can do to help you teach your students. Some of these technologies are fancier ways of doing the same things that we’ve done in the past, but others actually help students learn things in ways that would have been very difficult before. An example of the former would be Microsoft’s Kinect. It is very interesting and would get students engaged, but no one has managed to convince me that it helps students learn something that would otherwise elude them (although I’m sure that fans of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences will argue that it would help “kinesthetic learners”). An example of a useful technology (especially to a geography major like me) is Google Earth. This (free!) technology can be used to show students the battle torn fields of WWI or why Hannibal’s journey across the Alps was so treacherous. When thinking about how useful new technologies are to students it is important to remember that although some can really benefit the students, others are just more exciting ways of doing things that have been done before. With the high price attached to many of these new gadgets and technology, as well as the lack of educational funding, schools must carefully weigh the benefits of buying them.

There is also an argument for having virtual computers set up. Using devices like thin clients and blade pc’s school districts can decrease the cost of buying new computers if one is broken due to carelessness or if one is stolen. I can honestly say that in my district they rarely break and have never been stolen. There’s also an argument that they also feature higher speeds and that it’s safer to store data physically away from students. If for some reason our school had to buy all new computers I could see how this would be useful.

The issue I keep coming across is funding. At my school budget cuts are severe. Yesterday I heard a teacher yell at a student for scribbling across the white board with a dry erase marker – these items were cut by the school district long ago, if teachers want to use them the money comes out of their own pocket. I’ve been to the school board meetings and I’ve seen our budget and expenses, everything that can be cut has been. Heck, we can only install a light in every other light socket to save money on the electric bill. When I went to high school the social studies department had four teachers. Now we have 10% more students and only two teachers. Class sizes were once 20-25 students – now they are 35-45 students. As exciting as it is to think of integrating new technologies into the classroom, it’s too far down the list of things that need to be done. Before mentioning new technology we would want smaller class sizes, a lit classroom (for morning classes at least), and perhaps a librarian. With budgets the way they are having a technology-based course is completely out of the question.

• Posted in: Uncategorized
• Tagged: Future of Education, Week Ten