Only an 8th grade Education: Back to the "Enlightened Basics"

Final Reflections on A Flickering Mind

Wow. Alan, I am not sure this is what I would classify as a happy ending!

But for once I might actually try to be brief. I actually left my book twenty five miles away at my parent's cabin and a street festival replete with a bad polka band and firetruck is raging outside the cafe where I am writing this. All I can say is thank god for technology, especially wireless and an i-pod.

As I read these final chapters and afterword I continued thinking that Oppenheimer was being hyperbolic and unfair. His comparisons of Milwaukee Starms to Urban Waldorf seemed slanted to me. It just seemed and maybe this isn't true, that he spent very little time at Starms and oodles of time at various Waldorf schools. I don't so much doubt the veracity of his comments, it's just that I think he was clearly predisposed to making the judgements that he did. But his argument for back to the "enlighted basics" is fair and logical. I started thinking, would I send my son to a Waldorf school? On a side note my colleague, and interestingly a lover of technology, actually offered knitting as an elective this past year and believe or not, all boys signed up. Her class project: making i-pod covers and ski hats. Oppenheimer's discusson of a Waldorf education made me think of the amazing projects I see my students haul home from woodshop. So I do believe in hand-on, tactical, sensory learning and am pleased that my school has not neglected hands-on work. I grew up in a family where my mother and father knew how to do seemingly everything. My dad built all of the houses I have ever lived in and my mother seemed able to make money go very far by gardening, sewing, and being an amazing cook. So maybe these experiences that I take for granted need to be part of a child's school experience? I do struggle with the idea that reading will just come through interaction with the spoken word but I think I would need to know more about the Waldorf reading process to really agree or disagree with it. Are there any Waldorf graduates in our cohort?

While I truly enjoyed and appreciated the ideas presented in A Flickering Mind, I not totally sure so many schools have gotten technology as wrong as he proposes. But as much as I found myself at times naysaying Oppenheimer's arguments,or thinking that doesn't happen at my school, nothing hit home so much as a statement he made in the afterward: Who ever says what kids need is more exposure to media?
How true. That statement more than any other cements his point; technology is only one tool. Kids need good teachers. The only question left is what exactly constitutes a good teacher? I argue there is no hard and fast rule to determine a quality teacher. I think you have to see him or her in action with students to believe say with confidence, "he's a great teacher." What do you all think?

PS: Check out this link when thinking of "the enlightened basics"; this in an 8th grade graduation exam from 1895.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2e3e636e6d.htm

Reflection for A Flickering Mind Chapter 7-10
"Bulldozing the Imagination" made me think of my own son. Most parents worry about the numbing effects of computers, television and games in general. Too much technology at any age can stifle creativity. I also see again a tendency of schools to use tools at too young of an age. Further, the idea that over exposure to multimedia can present a physiologically "explosive child" is scary. I wonder if there is a correlation to hyperactivity?

The idea of losing art to technology is tragic. And the school principal who believed he wouldn't need to buy books again was frightening. Also, the lack of vocational schools in our country is a big mistake. The most reassuring aspect of this chapter had to be the level-headed parents Oppenheimer mentioned as wanting good qualified teachers over more technology. I just keep thinking throughout this chapter that music and the arts are valuable in their own right, not just because they support academic progress.

"The Spoils of Industry Partnerships" felt like a long chapter but Oppenheimer makes a clear point about the lack of scruples among big business. I kind of disliked his insinuation that teachers should know better than to be swayed by smooth corporate types; but I don't see many of these gullible teachers he finds. I also how many IT graduates want to jump into schools and I assume be paid half as much as they could make at a for profit business and work twice as hard to keep a school's system running? This chapter just backed up my political beliefs in that I think deregulation is a bad idea. Companies cannot be trusted when money is on the line.

I was acutely interested in the discussion in "The Research Game" about AR and Star. When I started my job here in Jackson, I was told I needed to use the AR system. I politely refused because the program just seemed lame. ( I did the same with Inspiration: a great idea but frustrating and time consuming program.) I couldn't imagine any 8th grader being motivated by AR. I designed my way of assessing SSR and outside reading and my colleague was willing to join me so no 8th graders had to do AR. My husband happens to teaches 7th grade and he reluctantly tried SSR and shortly moved away from it because "students read 50 Captain Underpants books to earn points and gained no ability to talk about literature AND most of them fail." Soon 6th grade followed suit. I agree that the tests are very simplistic or sometimes just focused on some irrelevant details. Students feel limited by their "level" when in reality students benefit from sometimes reading above or below their lexile level. I do see a draw for some teachers as monitoring students reading is a challenging and overwhelming task. But I think the program is charade and I appreciated Oppenheimer's correlation of what success in AR and the TAAS actually means and that is that Texas sand other students are becoming proficient test takers and learning very little.

The discussion of testing was right on. Most states with the notable of exception of the New York Regent's Exam, writes lousy tests that sometimes have missing answers, poor questions and horrid writing prompts. Our partially online PAWS test is longer than the MCAT; it is excessively repetitive. This year students had nine paragraph response and two full essays. Can you imagine the average 8th grader producing nine quality paragraphs and two five to seven paragraph essays in one week about topics they have no interest in and little motivation to impress some vague testing audience? I usually try to motivate my students to endure this experience as one of their civic duties and let them know that if they don't prove they can write well, the high school will load them up with more rigid paragraph writing practice. Another problem is that out test doesn't explicitly say: respond in a paragraph including a topic sentence and supporting details but rather it asks a question that could be answered in a sentence. Neither does it mention the genre of writing expected. So in total opposition to Alfie Kohn (whom I actually admire), my inclusion homebase, motivated themselves to all write a developed paragraph or essay for every question if I allowed them to take turns bringing cakes. In a national ranking of the difficulty and quality of state tests our previous test came out 44th overall but it did get high marks for quality. If I think our test is bad; I cannot imagine the others. Filling the page on our tests goes a long way toward proficiency. Standardized tests, if you must give them should be written by teachers as in the case of New York, so then if a teacher is forced to teach to the test the work still reflects practice at reading, writing and thinking.

As far AR Math, this seems like a pretty weak tool but I can see using it in a "Math Lab" situation where student can get extra practice. This is not a replacement for a math class taught by an actual teacher who hopefully can create understanding as well as skill building.

Reflections on Streibel

When reading this article, I kept thinking: I don't use technology in these three ways. I am also realizing that many of these articles have more to do with my educational experience as a student due to the time they were written then my experience as a teacher. As I kid I don't remember much other than a black and green version of "Oregon Trail" on my dad's computer. At my school, we still had late night lay out nights where I would be frantically developing photos and again begging my dad to help me "make it less grainy." I didn't use Photoshop or any other software I can recall until college. So I am still kind of wondering when and where kids are being so over and poorly exposed to technology? However, our reading specialist has begun using Total Reader with our struggling reader in a fluency lab and I am wondering if anyone is familiar with that program? Does it pose the same pitfalls?

Links:This site is old but it ranks state tests and NY is on top:
http://www.princetonreview.com/footer/testingTesters.asp

This is Edgate's total reader I referred to as well:
http://www.edgate.com/total_reader

Reflection on A Flickering Mind 4-6:
To me these chapters were a serious downer. I was and still am ready for some GOOD news. For the first time I get the feeling Oppenheimer doesn't believe that teachers are hard workers or bright thinkers. He continues to note a few exceptions to a group, for which he seems to have little regard. I started to think during these chapters: come to my school. I do not teach at a perfect school but I think he sometimes isn't telling the whole story, for example, his discussion of PowerPoint. In the earlier chapters I agreed that sometimes content is lost in the face of technology but not always. Some students excel and some don't. My understanding of PowerPoint is that it is a presentation tool. My students complete a PowerPoint after they have written their poetry research paper. Creating the PowerPoint is easy because the hard work of gathering research, integrating information and writing the paper is done. I tell my students to consider that I am the audience for their paper while myself and their peers are the audience for their presentation. So might Oppenheimer judge our presentations as "academically thin" despite five pages of writing to the contrary? Maybe, but he'd be wrong. PowerPoint is a fancy poster board and it doesn't replace content or preparation. Students have to know, sometimes even memorize the information they are presenting to do well for their Speaking and Listening Standard, in this case a PowerPoint presentation. The best presentation I had this year was about Maya Angelou. My student dressed, spoke and presented as if she was Vivian Baxter, Angelou's mother. She was incredible. The PowerPoint in the background was for reference as she mesmerized her peers with her memorization of "Still I Rise" as well as her discussion of Angelou's difficult life and poetic talent. But this student is one of my "silk purses." I also had presentations where students did a lot of reading off their own project. However, I was thinking: read his or her paper. There is no doubt that it is "academically thin." So my point is: I am not sure technology deserves to be the full scapegoat here. Many of my lower performing students tend to struggle with everything: reading, writing, presentation, and social skills and they tend to be, more often than not, boys with or without IEP's. And I think this is a serious problem. Now that I have my own incredibly active two year old boy, I wonder about the lack of activity, of physical manipulation in an average wired classroom. So instead of refuting Oppenheimer's point I guess I am just piling on more blame: another dark side of technology is the promotion of a sedentary classroom.
But since the 4th of July is approaching I will get a tiny bit patriotic. Despite all of our American failures in education and I agree they are almost infinite, we as a society still attempt to educate everyone. My first grade nephew living North of London is up to two years ahead of where he was as an American kindergartener. He has started long division and frequently writes multi-paragraph stories with a demanding required vocabulary list. His teachers are also very strict. When I think about my own classroom, I know that in other countries and other times, many of the students would not even be there. By 8th grade most struggling students would have long been siphoned to vocational academies or working to support families. And I think, unlike at Blair, that all kids, especially in an English classroom deserve to be together. Putting all your "silk purses" together might look fantastic but who really loses in that situation? Sruggling students need to see excellent work in action. How does a struggling student strive to be excellent if he or she doesn't know what that looks like?

This is a general question for our cohort: Do other classmates see traditional curriculum being tossed aside regularly for the purpose of technology as they were at Tech High? Does Oppenheimer have it right in most schools? Are the three R's being lost to our e-lusions? What about the atmoshphere of chaos that he assumes accompanies technology?

My last complaint for this reflection is a lame one but I have to say it. While the percentage of money schools spend on wasted technology is inexcusable, it is a mere fraction of our military's budget. And I have to point out that despite lots of funding this other behemoth stuggles to perform as well. According to the CIA World Fact site and the Department of Education the numbers fall out like this: 518.1 billion to 56 billion for 2005. Ok, I'll admit it I am officially in defensive mode! But c'mon Oppenheimer tell us something teachers are doing is working!

Reflection On Bowe, Introduction and Chapters 1 & 2:
I found these three excerpts enlightening and important in considering how to best teach all students. I feel like I have accidentally stumbled on "Univeral Design" as a teacher but this article added depth and evidence for the adage, "What is good for one student usually helps all students." The special education teacher I collaborate with doesn't modify work or curriculum for just her students in our inclusion class like many special education teachers do. She will say, let's rethink this assignment, or can we add another option or I created a sheet of notes for everyone about that. She helps me find ways of presenting material in redundant ways to better suit all kids.
I thought the examples in these articles were very convincing. One of note for me was the discussion of larger bathrooms for the"handicapped." I always use guiltily use these facilities when I am with my son, especially when he was very small and in a stroller. Otherwise, my choice was to leave the door opened. Obviously, leaving a baby unattended in a public place is not an option. I won't feel terrible about using a better designed bathroom anymore.
I also like that Bowe noted that "Meeting all of the tremendous variety of needs these students present is not something most teachers can do. What is possible is to design and deliver instruction that responds to most of these needs" (Bowe 2). Otherwise the burden on teachers is too great.
Links for Week Three:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPoint
http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html

Week Two Reflections on The Collaborative Team Model, Improving Student Learning, andChapters I, 2, and 3 of A Flickering Mind:
The Collaborative Team Model describes a school working together to provide an ideal learning situation: "Thoughtful, realistic integration of academic content and information and technology literacy standards happens best through collaboration" (7). I couldn't agree more. Our district is in the throes of revisiting our technology plan and realigning our tech standards to our curriculum. I hope a more consistent approach to technology results. A couple of key ideas I noticed in the article: media specialist must take an active role in teaching teachers and students. Sometimes at our library, when my class arrives to work, the librarians teach a quick, but often times dull mini-lesson that hits the average student but bores the more the technologically proficient, and loses the struggling tech student. Then they sometimes disappear to manage the media center and are difficult to find for troubleshooting. I meanwhile, am trying to assist my students with both the content of their work and the technical lapses, which I often don't always have the quickest answer. So at my school, the area that needs the most work, but seems the hardest to work on is the Grade/Level Collaboration.

Improving Student Learning delineated the way I was taught technology versus the way my students exposed to technology: "These standards emphasize learning with information and technology rather than learning about information and technology"(13). This echoes an idea in A Flickering Mind: "We have got to get computers away from the image of being separate from everything else" (9). No wonder I found computer class an incredible torture as a kid. This article also pinpointed an idea that is universally true, "As society changes, learning how to learn will be more important that recalling constantly changing factual information" (13). My only disagreement is that I think this has always been true. I consider my role as a language arts to teachers to teach kids how to write, how to develop a critical eye about their own written work and the written work of others. In terms of the 5 assessment tools mentioned I noticed that I use all of them. I rely heavily on individual conferences in my class to draw out better thinking. I use the journal the least consistently and would like to have students reflect more on the processes of learning, writing and researching. And finally, I would love to see the media specialist carve out time to meet with our grade-level teams consistently, rather than just on a desperate need basis.

My thoughts on A Flickering Mind

Some of the history presented in Chapter I made me feel like my mind was flickering but Oppenheimer's history of examples of poor tech support, less than noble intentions and planned obsolescence has established a clear disdain of the technology industry. I feel like I am getting very wordy so I will list some of my annotations..
Chapter I: Technotopia
I found schools lack of planning their technological purchases shocking.
I think that technology, like all fields, only interest some kids, about 1 in 5 according to the Time article.
Everyone wants to change school but no one says how.
Computers are always faced off with texts. Why? They are apples and oranges!
Papert proves you can perform miracles with money, expertise and small groups of kids but that doesn't mean you can change an entire school.
Is making school more relevant and fun watering down education as the report on page 27 suggests?
Now I know who to blame for the invention of standardized testing!
Teachers are not just for troubleshooting like some idiots think!
Who is naive enough to believe that automated telephone drills would be fun?
I like Weizenbaum's comments about video games teaching dissociation between actions and consequences.
I found the idea that students write more on computers but edit less thought provoking.
It is absolutely true that my special education students are much more engaged in writing when computers are involved.

Chapter 2: Harlem
This chapter is powerful. I like that Oppenheimer admits that schools can be conservative or progressive but they have to have high expectations and I would add, a common goal. Reading about how Harlem schools have been shortchanged by all branches of government was tragic. My blood was boiled as a I read the DeGrasse opinion; in my opinion he reasoned that poor schools don't need more money because we need factory workers and janitors. All schools deserve qualified teachers, small classes, new books and a chance to be part of the competitive job market. Despite all of the troubling examples of misused, abandoned and unsupported technology, I felt this chapter said unequivocally that there is no replacement for powerful, engaging teachers. Levvy's history lecture made me smile and this is the part of teaching that no one but teachers understand; you cannot mandate, force, or standardize good teaching. Good teaching requires an intense amount of knowledge and energy. I'll bet Levvy's students walk out of his class knowing three things: a solid grasp of American History, that their teacher thinks what he is saying matters to their everyday lives and that he cares about them.

The number of classroom examples described as chaotic is unfortunate. And I feel a bit guilty saying this because I work in a small town in Wyoming but classrooms require and crave order. A community atmosphere of learning has to be established before any business can take place. Our school employs a number of methods to create an atmosphere of learning when students are using technology: a signed code of conduct and understanding of the consequences for e-transgressions, a monitoring system that allows the lab administrators to view student screens, required keyboarding classes for 6th graders and a policy that students know exactly what to do when they happen on a site they know they shouldn't visit. Teachers have to work hard all year creating an atmosphere that establishes a work ethic that enables teachers to spend quality time conferencing with students. But this is hard.

Chapter 3: West Virginia
This chapter raised three concerns for me. I have been concerned for a while about students either willfully or inadvertently plagiarizing. I feel especially frustrated with this as an English teacher when content area teachers assign research and don't expect or teach how to give others credit for their work. The cut and paste temptation is scary. Students don't even have to READ work they are passing off as theirs. Teachers have to work extra hard to prevent this situation by requiring student commentary in writing, valuing the process of research as much as the project and creating assignments that are difficult or impossible to borrow. This all goes back to the idea of making student work authentic.
My second concern was selfish and prompted by the author's dismissal of online learning: Will this be a worthwhile program for me? I think so but Oppenheimer seems to make me doubt anything.
My last concern: are laptops a waste of money? We have three labs in our school, all with different focuses and software and four mobile carts. I like being able to leave the room and have a lab expert in a traditional setting OR being able to wheel in laptops for the whole class in our own space.

Link #1: Highlights obstacles related to Oppenheimer's concerns:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te200.htm
My media center's homepage if you are interested:
Link #2 http://www.tcsd.org/jhms_library.asp

Reflections on Introduction to A Flickering Mind
First off, I really like Oppenheimer's style of writing. His use of concrete examples, vivid diction and clear sentence structure make this a compelling and pleasurable read. I think the first two examples Oppenheimer relays perfectly demonstrate the incredible opportunity and the awesome danger of technology in the classroom. The students who topped the paid political pundits made me consider what kids can do when educators model not just using technology but adhering to a research plan and a strong work ethic. The best part of that examples is that students, who are often decried for not knowing how to work hard, made the adults look lazy and uninformed. The problem with the preventing and the "thin academics" seems to be that the project was just the project. There was no authentic audience or purpose other than rehashing information. Students love the bells and whistles of PowerPoint and they will, if allowed, spend weeks customizing animations, importing photos and making their presentations virtual collages. One of the most successful uses of PowerPoint I have taught involves in some part presenting their "poetry identity" to their classmates, a project which allows students to add themselves and their voice to their presentation.
One other concern I have that Oppenheimer alludes to is that the prevalence of technology in the classroom, "shortchanges students...capacity to observe and think critically." Embedded in that idea, I believe, is my concern for the lack of focus on critical literacy skills. I honestly believe that creating solid readers and writers who feel comfortable communicating with words has to be one of the most important focuses of education. At my school, students are given so many opportunities to research online but very few teachers help students read, understand, use and integrate what they find on the internet or any number of online subscriptions.
Finally, my only dispute with Oppenheimer's introduction is his sense, I think, that this "flickering mind" is soley the fault of educators. Students arrive in kindergarten now with an immense exposure to educational videos, television...leap frogs; I wonder if he will address the world outside the classroom in coming pages?

Links: This link article reminded me of Oppenheimer's first example of the awesome opportunity of technology:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/education/22students.html
This seemed like something I might try, an online international literary magazine:
http://www.iearn.org/avision/