Week 2 Relfection As I worked through case studies and Hammond’s continuing argument for an overhual in American education, I was struck by a theme of diversity. In case studies of schools with successful technology integration, I noticed how each school had a different model and how different teachers structured their technology use differently. As I read Hammond’s examples of adequate and equitable funding used well, I noticed that each country highlighted had significant structural and cultural differences in education.
In the case studies, it always seemed that there was a “fire-starter.” There was always a teacher or administrator or even a student who believed in what they were doing enough to overcome the obstacles of implementing their particular flavor of technology. While there are plenty of education companies and services that claim to have a mountain of research backing their approach, I do not feel like that affirming research is what is getting things started in the classroom. Technology can be difficult to acquire and can be easy to misuse. The problem is not simply financial. If it was, California would have significantly better results from its system of education. What makes a practice effective is passion and hard work. Setting up a Maker Movement or re-vamping lessons to utilize technology skills or burning the midnight oil to create podcasts for students are all things that likely go above and beyond contract requirements and hours. Technology is an educational resource with potential in the same way that PBL is a teaching method with potential. Issues of workforce, culture, equity, and community all play a large hand in educational success. Moving onto the countries, Hammond identifies Singapore, Finland and Korea as countries who have succeeded in the long and grueling process of education reform. Interestingly, each country has distinct qualities. In Korea, there is a strong culture of respect towards the teaching profession. In Singapore, education is viewed as a utilization of a great natural resource, the people of Singapore! Finland has a clear social focus on education. Even with all these different perspectives on education, all three countries find success. This again reinforces the idea of diversity in education to me. It is an “all roads lead to Rome” kind of feeling. There is no single right way to build an education system or approach pedagogy and an education system can become so much more than the sum of its parts. While all the case studies and countries examined had qualities that made them unique, they also had much in common. All the success stories I read about had a focus on the role of the teacher. The teaching profession was elevated in terms or respect or at the very least elevated above a burnt out babysitter waiting for retirement. Teachers hold respect, have social responsibility, and are constantly incentivized to improve. Teachers are also equipped to successfully fill those responsibilities and exceed those expectations. Teachers in these areas were well informed with relevant data and ample time to receive professional learning on the implications of that data. In terms of funding, the money was spent equitably and there was enough to meet the needs of a basic education. To a Californian like me, that sounds like a pipe dream but these examples show it is possible. I feel like an important concept here is the idea of what constitutes a basic education. Is education a compulsory experience that frees parents up to work or a system designed to build up those who will build the future? Ultimately, I do not know how to address the issues with our current system. The process, when successful, has been long term and racked with hardship and I wonder if our modern society has the patience and faith in the system to hang on long enough for that change to happen before tearing the system down yet again. To me, it is similar to the idea of America converting to the metric system. The government has tried to prime the pump before, but it never sticks. There is a cycle there. Adults never learn to use metric, unless their chosen career demands it. Children never learn because adults never teach it to them well enough to learn it. Those children become the adults who never use metric and then never teach metric to the next generation. The perpetuating idea in that cycle is that converting to the metric system is not worth the trouble. I sincerely hope that education is not trapped in a similar cycle. What can be done though? I can focus on my practice and my school site. The case studies of American schools prove that passionate and motivated communities can make a difference. I can show genuine care for my students. I can work to instill a growth mindset and 21st century skills in the students I have contact with. I can collaborate with my peers and try to build a team committed to making improvements in our sphere of influence. Maybe with enough small pockets of educators stepping up, the ripple effect will be large enough to spark the change needed to repair our education system.
2 Comments
I enjoyed reading this entry. It is interesting that "fixing" schools requires so much more than just money. I hadn't really thought about the idea of "fire starters" who lead the movement and get things going, but I suppose it is true. Often when you hear about a school that turned itself around, there is a dynamic leader or leaders at the center. I wonder, from a practical, and research point of view, if there is a way to turn this into something that could be repeated in more than one school. It is also important that schools find ways to continue success after those "fire starters" are gone.
Reply
Nai Saelee
2/22/2017 08:17:15 pm
Patrick,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
October 2017
Categories |