Sometimes you read a report and your response is “but of course!” However, before you read it, you actually may have thought differently.

Such is the case with the study Estimating The Payoff Of Attending A More Selective College: An Application Of Selection On Observables And Unobservables. The focus of the study is “On the Payoff to Attending an Elite College” and the basic findings are straight out of the textbook:

“Students who attend colleges with higher average tuition costs or spending per student tend to earn higher incomes later on.”

Such findings often lead to yet another textbook response – if accepted at an elite school, you should attend. After all, the name recognition of the school and its overall prestige will more than compensate for the additional costs of attendance.

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

The general consensus today is that it pays to get a college degree. In addition, the general consensus today is that the quality of education varies from one college to another.

Given the above data regarding career earnings, parents and students often take some liberty regarding basic cause and effect. Because elite colleges have a stronger reputation and graduates from these more expensive institutions tend to earn more money, the belief is that the college is somehow the critical factor in future success and earnings.

According to this study, the problem with this logic is that it is not one of cause and effect. Instead, the findings note that the students who attend selective schools are likely to have higher earnings potential for the very same reasons that they were admitted to the more selective schools in the first place.

So to get at the heart of the question, Stacy Berg Dale and Alan Krueger tried two novel approaches to answering the question, “Does the school make the student? Or does the student make the school?”

The researchers used data from the College and Beyond Survey to examine more than six thousand students who were accepted and rejected by a comparable set of colleges in 1976. They contrasted that information with the labor outcomes of those students in 1995. In this instance, they were looking at the students who had the same menu of school choices yet some chose to attend more or less selective schools.

In addition, the researchers compared this data to that of the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972. In this instance, the researchers sought to estimate the impact on students’ earnings when compared to the average SAT scores of all the schools the students applied to and the average SAT score of the school they attended.

School Selectivity Immaterial

The results – school selectivity is enormously overrated and does not necessarily pay off in a higher income over time.

“Students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges,” the researchers concluded.

In simplest terms, a student accepted say to Brown but rejected by Yale (perhaps their first choice) sometimes goes on to attend their own state university. In such instances, the student in question still might well achieve significant earning power.

In fact, when it comes to the best predictor, the researchers found the average SAT score of the schools students applied to but did not attend was a much stronger predictor of students’ subsequent income than the average SAT score of the school students actually attended. This big fish in a small pond view is often dubbed the Spielberg Effect (famed movie director Stephen Spielberg was rejected by two upper echelon film schools, USC and UCLA and ultimately attended Cal State Long Beach).

In a nutshell, the findings are most obvious. A student’s motivation and desire to succeed are far more important than the average academic ability of the other students around them.

However, we must recognize the authors do offer some speculation that tuition may indeed affect future earnings. The reason that this could well be part of the equation is that schools with higher tuitions can offer more resources and therefore, the potential of a higher quality product. But the researchers point not just to overall cost but to the resources schools devote to instruction.

And there is in fact one instance where the cost of an elite college does seem to matter. No matter what measurement of college quality is used, students from disadvantaged backgrounds record the greatest gains from attending an elite college.

The abstract is available online.

We have all heard the stories of the teenager in her home, her laptop open as she works on a school assignment, connected at the same time to the internet, conversing via an open chat window even as she has a cellphone pushed against her ear.

The story has it that the parents are more than a tad furious the first time they see this behavior. But after addressing their daughter on the issue they are gently reminded, well maybe not gently, that she has everything covered. The parent, still somewhat incredulous, has to acknowledge they have not heard of any issues at school and well, the last report card was quite good.

Though unable to match the feat themselves, they begin to believe that maybe there is something to this idea of multitasking, that today’s digital generation is hard-wired to handle this seemingly amazing task. Upon hearing the stories it is easy to begin to think along the same lines.

There is just one problem with such thinking – there is no data to show that those who multitask are actually any good at it.

Recent Study

Such were the findings of a recent study discussed by the BBC. In simplest terms, the findings indicated that “the people who engage in media ‘multitasking’ are those least able” to handle this task well.

In the study researchers divided folks into two test groups based on their current propensity to multitask. Those who acknowledged routinely consuming multiple media such as internet, television and mobile phones simultaneously formed one study group while those who did not engage in the behavior were assigned to a second group.

Researchers determined that the low multitaskers‘ group consistently outdid their highly multitasking counterparts on a series of classic psychology tests designed to assess attention and memory skills.

Specific Items Tested

The three classic assessments used were selected based upon the premise that multitaskers were able to multitask because of specific inherent or developed skills.

Computer testing formats were utilized so as to take advantage of the digital multitaskers favorite tools. The tests involved the participant’s ability to ignore irrelevant information or distracters, the degree to which participants were able to organize their working memory and the skills at which they could switch tasks.

In all cases, low multitaskers were better at the task.

Increasing the distracters dramatically affected the high multitaskers but even with few distracters, the low multitasking group outperformed their counterparts. On the tests of working memory, not only did the high multitaskers do poorer from the outset, their performance deteriorated as time went on. And on the issue of switching tasks, the low multitaskers significantly outperformed their counterparts every step of the way.

Sum Total

According to Cliff Nass, one of the researchers, the sum total reveals a rather shocking discovery: “high multitaskers are lousy at everything that’s necessary for multitasking.”

Still the researchers acknowledge that one pressing question remains: are the results of the experiment one of simple cause and effect?

Are those people with a dearth of multitasking skills somehow drawn to multitasking lifestyles? Or does a multitasking lifestyle dull the skills necessary to multitask?

Actually, it is likely that the issue is far more complicated. One would have to assume that studies mapping the brain activity of those who multitask (against those who do not generally do so) may well be necessary to gain any real understanding of what is taking place.

But in the meantime, it would seem that a parent’s gut reaction to witnessing the efforts of that multitasking teenager is basically dead on. That teenager might be ‘managing their situation’ at that moment, but the idea that she could possibly be handling all those tasks simultaneously with as high a level of competency as she would if she were to focus on one alone seems to be up for debate.

There was a large touch of irony in an August NY Times post discussing the demise of a fixture in the world of education, the school textbook. The article, In a Digital Future, Textbooks Are History, predicts the death of an industry that is becoming “antiquated” with each passing tech innovation.

Though always considered exceedingly expensive, textbooks were once deemed as fundamental to the classroom learning experience as the teacher. These tombs were the source of knowledge, the drivers of curriculum, and the teacher’s most important resource.

But all that has changed in the digital world. According to experts, there are two critical factors.

First, there is the assessment of the value (learning produced per dollar) of these texts:

“They are expensive,” writes Seth Godin. “$50 is the low end, $200 is more typical.”

Yet,

“Textbooks have very little narrative,” writes Godin. “They don’t take you from a place of ignorance to a place of insight. Instead, even the best … textbooks surround you with a fairly non-connected series of vocabulary words, oversimplified problems and random examples.”

And of course, in today’s lightening-fast world, they are out of date before the ink is even dry.

Second, while the books are essentially considered less than ideal, we are seeing an enormous change in students based on the fact they have grown up with technology. From the NY Times:

“Kids are wired differently these days,” said Sheryl R. Abshire, chief technology officer for the Calcasieu Parish school system in Lake Charles, La. “They’re digitally nimble. They multitask, transpose and extrapolate. And they think of knowledge as infinite.

“They don’t engage with textbooks that are finite, linear and rote,” Dr. Abshire continued. “Teachers need digital resources to find those documents, those blogs, those wikis that get them beyond the plain vanilla curriculum in the textbooks.”

Beyond Textbooks

Today we offer a Q & A with Andy Chlup of the Vail School District. With experience as a classroom teacher and technology coordinator, Andy is a perfect choice to head up one of the digital learning movements cited in the aforementioned NY Times article, Beyond Textbooks.

Andy notes he has been passionate about utilizing technology in the classroom from the first day he walked into a classroom. His interest in digital learning was spurred on by the wide-spread availability of open-source web-based tools such as WordpressMU, Moodle, DekiWiki, and many more.

Below, Andy discusses the move to a digital learning model, one that actually transcends any discussion of textbooks.

What would you categorize as the three biggest advantages to moving away from textbooks and replacing that tradition with a digital learning model?

* Instant updates. Our superintendent, Calvin Baker, proudly sent out an email message to the school board when Pluto was demoted. In the message he said, we are one of the only districts in the country who’s textbooks are not obsolete.

* Collaboration. At this phase the primary collaboration is happening between teachers but as the tools become more familiar students will be working with each other, their teachers, and the community more and more.

* Costs. While the technology that enables digital learning still costs slightly more than a set of textbooks, it can do so much more. A digital device provides access to content and gives students a platform to create, share, and work.

Do you share the view that the digital world will be the real driver of educational innovations moving forward (as opposed to the concept of vouchers and charter schools)? Why or why not?

I’m sure that I see technology as an alternative to these on-going debates. What I’ve learned is that technology is an accelerant. If you use it on a system that isn’t very good it just allows you to do a bad job faster and more efficiently. I believe that technology should be used to accelerate things that are already working well. For example portfolio assessment is great, unless you’re the teacher trying to keep it all organized. Take that content and put it on a blog server and you’ve not only got an organized structure built into the system but a way to add pictures, videos, and audio to the portfolio.

The same can be said of digital instruction. If the instruction/pedagogy is poor then you are just being better at teaching badly. However, if the instruction is about understanding and connecting then technology can enable and accelerate that process by orders of magnitude.

While everyone has some sense of what is meant by a digital textbook, can you explain to readers the fundamental differences between a traditional book format and a digital text? And can you explain what is meant by a flexbook?

I’m not familiar with flex books. Alternatively, we aren’t even using a true digital text. Our teachers are connecting and/or creating their own content to meet the learning needs of their students. In my opinion, the major differences between a traditional text and digital text are:

* It is easier to copy/distribute digital texts. There are virtually no transactional costs beyond appropriate copyright compensation.

* Digital texts can be living documents with video and sounds plus hyperlinks to outside supporting materials.

* Digital texts can be more easily appended and modified either by students taking notes or teachers choosing exactly the right resource for a given lesson.

It seems that folks today have begun truly questioning the concept of a textbook, that such a resource is finite and linear yet real learning is infinite and multi-pronged. Are today’s tech-savvy kids the driving force behind the digital move or are educators finally seeing the light?

For me it is about economics. The simple fact is that it will soon be cheaper to buy a device that can be used to access digital content freely available on the web than it will be to purchase a set of textbooks. This fact has driven our Beyond Textbooks program. We want to be ready to fully embrace this dream.

We are going about it in two ways. The first is identifying subscription resources that meet our instructional needs and begin categorizing them so that they are more accessible to teachers and students. The second is to begin creating the instructional resources that will be needed to teach with these devices. That means Moodle courses, portfolio blogs, wiki projects, etc…

As schools head into the digital age, what will this new digital format do to the fundamental structures of school: grade levels, subjects, and the units of time (class periods)?

I think that as long as there is standardized testing and traditional schools it will be hard to escape these boundaries. Unless we get to a point that students no longer attend their school, I just don’t see there being much change. The systemic changes necessary to bring down these boundaries is well beyond the power of one public school district.

That being said, there is a glimmer of hope. As the instructional tools continue to develop and students become more adept at academic learning with technology tools, I think the relatively arbitrary distinctions we currently use in education will fade away.

The key is finding transformative technologies and pedagogies. At this point, it seems that teachers and students are still utilizing many web 2.0 tools in superficial ways. It is like the PowerPoint phase all over again. What I mean is teachers are impressed by the technologies that students demonstrate, not what students actually do with the technology. We’ve got to make sure that the technologies adopted positively affect student learning outcomes.

I know a lot is made of teachers making the adjustment to the digital age but how are you finding parents adapting? The idea of a course without a textbook must be troubling to parents who attended schools where the text formed the framework of every course?

It can be very difficult because parents may not be particularly computer savvy. A teacher can post their entire day as a podcast, but if a parent doesn’t understand how to access the content then they are frustrated. For the most part, parents just want to be able to help their child with school work so you have to be sure that those resources are still available.

The teachers that teach without textbooks all have course blogs that contain the content they use to teach during the day. These are run on WordpressMU and have a wide variety of access controls depending on the grade level and teacher preferences. Parents have access viewer access to these blogs, so they can see the materials their children are using.

One major concern for many is the number of students who may not have access to computers at home. Do you share the concern that the digital model could further widen the gap between the children of affluent families and those who are not able to afford such technology?

I do. The bright side is that personal computing devices are quickly dropping below the $300 mark.

What we see is a future where every student has a minimum spec device that is provided by the district. As one of my co-workers said, “It is like the bus….if you don’t have a car or your parents won’t let you drive you ride the bus.” We’d like to get to the point where all students have the option to either use the district minimum spec machine or bring their own. We feel this gives the best opportunity to both underprivileged students and those who have the means to have more.

The content and applications that we are developing as our standard are all wrapped around the web, so it doesn’t really matter if you access those application via a netbook running linux or a hot-rod Macbook pro. Obviously, those that bring their own computers still have an advantage, but to realize the potential benefits of a digital curriculum you don’t need a super fast machine.

The move towards Opensource materials has folks insisting that educational costs should drop considerably – is that so? Will there not be significant technology costs as schools attempt to stay up-to-date on the tech side?

While I’m a huge fan and proponent of open-source, it isn’t necessarily cheaper to run. For example, while Linux if free, finding somebody that understands how to set it up and keep it running is not. I think regardless of the approach you take, be it Windows, OS X, or Linux an organization needs to determine the TOC before making any big decisions.

If you have the talent to tap into open-source projects then I say go for it. Just realize there are research and development costs that cannot be ignored.

As for refresh, I have two thoughts.

First, this is where having a technology team that doesn’t understand education can be detrimental. The Tech industry is on a 12-24 month cycle and education is on a 36-60 month cycle – this causes more problems than any other tech issue I can think of. Just when a teacher is finally comfortable with a program something new comes down the pipeline.

So, if your tech department is pushing out updates every 24 months, teachers haven’t had time to fully integrate the technology into their teaching. This can eventually lead to teachers being frustrated with technology.

Basically, I encourage other ed tech professionals to start thinking about the educational cycle and not get wrapped in the technology cycle. Sometimes, it pays off. Just compare Vista to Windows 7.

Next, districts have to accept that tech costs money. I do believe that these costs will be offset when you stop buying textbooks.

While much is being made of the move away from traditional textbooks, the program you are involved with, Beyond Textbooks, seems to be far more sophisticated than simply removing a text from the equation. Can you briefly discuss the initiative?

To start with it is about moving away from the textbook as a metaphor or schema, whether paper or digital.

Beyond Textbooks is really about looking at learning objectives independent of a text. The whole approach involves using the learning objective as your starting point, then choosing the most effective resource to teach that objective to your current class.

Teachers are able to focus on what is the best way to creatively teach the learning objectives. So, often teachers are limited to teaching with the resources they have. We aim to leverage the nearly unlimited potential of the Internet to give teachers access to virtually any resource they can dream up. This includes materials created by other teachers, subscription services, and many incredible free resources out on the web.

The key is organizing these resources in a way that allows teachers to connect them to their learning objectives.

Is there anything I did not touch on that you think is a key element to the digital learning or Beyond Textbooks movement?

I think the most important thing is that BT is a grassroots, “For Teachers, By Teachers,” approach to school reform. Each of the steps involved have required input and guidance by teachers. One of the biggest problems with many educational resources is that they are written by academics or professional writers instead of professional educators.

Some advice for educators on teaching today’s digital natives.

On the Wired Campus blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education we came across a Q & A with S. Craig Watkins, an associate professor of radio, TV, and film at the University of Texas at Austin. Watkins is the author of the recently released “The Young and the Digital: What the Migration to Social Network Sites, Games, and Anytime, Anywhere Media Means for Our Future.”

Students and Social Media

In his Q & A, one clearly sees that this professor has a great feel for the implications of the “new age of social networking and media.” He does not question the move by employers and even college admissions folks who are using candidates’ Facebook and MySpace pages as a source of information when making decisions – in simplest terms, if people place information on the net for all to see then they should expect that some people will seek that information out for decision-making purposes.

In contrast, he does not support universities using postings as a way of policing student activities on campus. In other words, using social media as a way to discipline students for specific actions is not something Watkins supports.

This represented a very interesting distinction for this writer. Therefore, it is one that college students should think about very carefully.

Implications of Technology Access

More noteworthy for educators is Watkins’ assessment of students in this new age of technology.

Today’s students are “really the first generation of teenagers who grew up with the household computer and the Internet as a kind of everyday experience and everyday technology in the household,” notes Watkins. “So they’re used to a much more active way of engaging their environment, a much more active way of gauging the information landscape.”

Watkins rightfully offers that today’s digital generation expects to have access to technology in all settings including the classroom. More importantly, today’s learners have “developed habits that are simply out of step with those more traditional ways of conducting or modeling a classroom.”

As for excluding technology in the classroom, Watkins insists that will essentially be a losing battle.

“The students are walking in armed with this technology, from their mobile phones to laptops. Most college classrooms are now wired, so students can access all of their applications, all of their social networks while sitting in a classroom.

“It’s a very different technological environment, but it’s also a different social and cultural environment, too. Students are coming in with the expectation to have this technology, and they’re determined in some ways to use it while they’re in class.”

Implications for Instruction

As for the person in charge of the classroom, he or she must check his last line carefully, especially the part that suggests today’s students are “determined in some ways to use” technology while sitting in the classroom. Therefore, limit such use at your peril.

As for instructional practices, today’s digital generation is in need of a more modern teaching style, one that features extensive interaction. Watkins explains this simply:

This is “really forcing university professors to think about their teaching style and the pedagogical techniques that they use in the classroom. In other words, I’ve become increasingly dissatisfied with simply delivering a traditional lecture in the classroom.”

Remember the discussions about the slow death of the lecture format? Watkins essentially signals it is time to break out the coffin.

“I’m beginning to debate whether or not (the lecture format) it’s effective, whether or not it works, whether or not it’s a useful tool or a useful way to engage and create a kind of learning space or a learning environment. They’re active learners, as opposed to passive learners. That one-way flow of content — I don’t know how effective that is anymore.”

Of course, reading between the lines he is being kind, being suggestive instead of prescriptive. But there is no ambiguity in the suggestions.

Summation

Ultimately the advice for educators on teaching today’s digital natives is really quite simple:

Using the lecture format as your basic method for teaching today’s technology-raised youngsters is essentially a recipe for disaster. In addition, limiting technology use by students is also essentially a recipe for disaster.

The question is: Where are you as a teacher and where is your school as an institution in regards to these two educational developments.

Too many times I have now witnessed my students writing in modern day hieroglyphics. Most times, I must admit that I am not even sure what they are saying to one another.

How about you? Do you know what they are talking about?

ZUP – MUSM – ?4U

TPM – U WAN2 STUDY HERE?

YG2BK – CD9

LEMENO BOUT TPM – TLK2UL8R

While I tend to worry about all this texting and shorthand, wondering what it must be doing to kids ability to write, it seems I may be way off base. That is if you read the very surprising assessment of students and their writing skills by Clive Thompson at Wired Magazine.

First and foremost, Thompson takes exception to the conventional wisdom that student writing skills are diminishing and that the reason for the deterioration is technology. Instead, he dares to suggest that the digital age is helping students become better writers than their predecessors.

According to Thompson, our youngsters are not only actually writing more now than they ever did before, they are becoming experts in writing for specific audiences.

Common View Today

Thompson summarizes the current technology critics thus:

“Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into ‘bleak, bald, sad shorthand’ (as University College of London English professor John Sutherland has moaned).”

To which he asks, not so rhetorically:

“An age of illiteracy is at hand, right?”

Thompson goes on to answer his question by expounding on the work of Andrea Lunsford, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University. Seeking to get a grasp of how student writing is evolving, Lunsford collected nearly 15,000 writing samples over the better part of five years to analyze.

Those specimens included the traditional student work, in-class assignments, formal essays and journal entries. It also included a look at student emails, blog posts and chat sessions.

According to Lunsford, the gloom and doom is overstated. In fact, she would contend that “…technology isn’t killing our ability to write. It’s reviving it—and pushing our literacy in bold new directions.”

This new direction is one Lunsford calls life writing – it seems that “young people today write far more than any generation before them ….. so much socializing takes place online …. and it almost always involves text.”

Lunsford refers to it as life writing since 38 percent of it occurs outside of the classroom. Thompson notes:

“Before the Internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn’t a school assignment. Unless they got a job that required producing text (like in law, advertising, or media), they’d leave school and virtually never construct a paragraph again.”

And as for all that texting and the world of abbreviations, we simply must assess this development carefully. It seems that the most positive aspect of Lunsford’s research involved the concept rhetoricians call kairos.

The term is used to describe the technique of assessing the audience for whom one is writing. The basic premise focuses on the writer’s ability to adapt “their tone and technique to best get their point across.”

In other words, while texting and socializing online with friends, students might use multiple abbreviations and include smiley faces. But when it comes to writing a real academic paper, students never mistakenly insert such informality.

Perhaps most importantly, the texting and socializing appear to be incredibly meaningful in a student’s development as a writer. Lunsford found that “Stanford students were almost always less enthusiastic about their in-class writing because it had no audience but the professor: It didn’t serve any purpose other than to get them a grade.”

Authentic Learning

Teachers today are encouraged to make learning authentic, to teach real world applications that allow students to effectively comprehend the rational for studying a concept. Clearly, the online world is a location for students where authentic writing can be found.

We may raise an eyebrow or two over what some of that writing looks like. But the idea of writing is to find the right words to clearly communicate with others.

In fact, most writers would insist that the ability to get an idea across with the fewest words possible defines the best communicators. Under such a premise, it would seem our kids actually are making the fewest possible words concept into an artform.

And as noted earlier, the right words vary for the audience at hand. The texting may not set well with us, but we teachers must realize it is not intended for us in the first place.

Flickr photos courtesy of ianturton and fensterbme.

Imagine heading to a college ratings/ranking site and viewing the following:

Yale – F
Cornell – F
Johns Hopkins – F
Bowdoin – F

Got your attention? How about:

Penn – D
Harvard – D
Dartmouth – C
Princeton – C

And in contrast:

University of Texas-Austin – A
Baylor University – A
City University of New York – Brooklyn College – A
City University of New York – Hunter College – A

WhatWillTheyLearn.com

Such are the ratings offered at a new web site, WhatWillTheyLearn.com, a new guide that seeks to provide interested students a different lens with which to view America’s top colleges. Focusing in on specific curriculum expectations, the site aims to identify the schools that “are making sure their students learn what they need to know” to be successful upon graduation.

To determine which universities are making sure their students are learning just that, institutions are rated on seven key subjects: English composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics, and science. In addition, the rating examines the specific curriculum within each course as well as who has been assigned to teach that course.

Utilizing that very specific criteria in relation to these seven study areas, schools are then assigned a grade based on how many core subjects students must complete while completing their bachelor degree program. In the case of those schools mentioned above receiving an F, the rating comes from requiring only 0-1 core subjects. For those receiving an A, the rating is equated to the school requiring the completion of 6-7 core subjects.

While the site does also examine college costs, the ratings focus in on what is deemed to be a troubling development in higher education, the fact that these curriculum elements have become “mere options on far too many campuses.”

Liberal Arts School Ratings

WhatWillTheyLearn.com is sponsored by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), an independent, non-profit organization that is a strong supporter of a liberal arts education model. But while focusing on a liberal arts program that features specific general education requirements, it is interesting to see that the site actually provides very poor ratings for many schools deemed the best small liberal arts colleges in America (Amherst, Bowdoin and Middlebury for example).

The reasons for the poor ratings stem from a philosophy that excellent general education programming is about the unity of knowledge and making connections between different ideas and not the combining of random ingredients that marks the curricula offered at these elite colleges today.

Of course, given how poor some of our perceived best schools score on the specific criteria, we can expect some of these colleges and universities to offer their view in the very near future. We can also expect them to find fault with the criteria being used to create the ratings.

But while the specific course expectations seemingly could receive further debate, the concept of the site is a very good one. Given the move towards standards in K-12 education, it stands to reason that higher education would sooner or later become part of such a movement.

Given that development, we would think it was time that college ranking systems measure something other than an institution’s prestige, endowment and reputation. That is where WhatWillTheyLearn.com seeks to go and why it is a site that prospective college students should look at when examining specific schools.

And it seems like an extremely viable endeavor. Taking a look at what students are actually required to learn while earning that diploma certainly ought to figure somewhere into the ratings that have been created.

Flickr photos courtesy of wallyg and Flannery626.

We have written a good many times regarding the growing concerns related to America’s poor school completion rates. In addition to all the students who disappear from our school systems prior to ever reaching high school, current data also reveals that one of every four high school students fails to graduate within the standard four-year secondary-school span.

Accompanying this sad trend is an enormous debate as to why drop out rates are so high. We noted that within the school setting there tends to be one ongoing tension between the various schooling levels:

While many elementary folks insist that schools at the upper grade levels tend to put curriculum ahead of students, folks at the secondary level insist that students all too often arrive at high school without the requisite skills needed to handle more challenging academic materials.

Those wanting to point a finger at the high school folks may be surprised to learn that Lynne Strathman, director of Lydia Urban Academy in Rockford, Ill., noted that for many students the final year of school where a significant majority of students felt successful was in fourth grade.

That led us to the conclusion that for a good many American kids, school is not an answer. It is in fact the problem, the biggest issue or obstacle they face in life.

Problem Across the Pond

As the concerns mount in America, it is interesting to note that in England drop out rates are also becoming an enormous issue. The BBC recently discussed this troubling trend, pointing out that record numbers of “young people are not in school, college or work.”

What makes the numbers from England worth examining is the fact that an additional category is used to assess those not in school: working students. In fact, the term NEET is used to describe the most troubling of groups in the UK: those not in education, employment or training.

According to the BBC, the total number of NEETS in the 18-24 age group “has risen by more than 100,000 in the past year.” In addition, the data reveals a significant “surge in the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds considered NEETS,” the total increasing by 13,000 this year when measured against the first quarter of last year and 24,000 when the second quarter time frame is examined.

What is interesting to focus in on is that England differentiates between those who have dropped out of school but are gainfully employed. While we continue to insist that our young people remain in school, England notes that training and employment are viable alternatives to attending school.

It is a position we should examine more thoroughly in America.

At the same time, two other elements emerge. First, the drop out trend is not unique to America. Second, when jobs become scarce, this data further reveals the least educated are generally the most vulnerable.

In fact, many experts from across the pond insist that the growing numbers are more a sign of the employment times than a greater disinterest with school. We tend to think that it is probably a bit of both.

But the summation is unequivocal – there is a growing concern that England may see a lost generation, a group of youngsters who can never shake the government welfare ranks.

It is a concern we must have as well. But the similarities that our countries face reveal a message.

Sense of Entitlement?

While many want to point fingers at out-of-date and impersonal school systems, the fact that England is experiencing a similar problem just might speak to a different issue. Here in America, a good number of folks tend to think our young people carry with them such a strong sense of entitlement that the idea of working towards a goal is simply deemed as asking too much.

Indeed, the outstanding performance collectively of Asian-American students provides strong evidence that we need to look at our culture as well as our schools. Because when a sense of entitlement is removed from the mix and hard work emphasized, this group of students represents living proof that teens can and will actually focus on their education and their future in the right circumstances.

Drop outs are an important issue and schools must be part of the solution process. But to continue to insist that the problem is one that can be solved solely by schools demonstrates a dramatic failure to understand the true scope of the issue.

It has been nearly two years since Alberto Gonzales resigned as Attorney General. At the time of his departure, he left Washington with his tail between his legs and a Justice Department mired in scandal.

Whether it be the controversy over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, his post-Sept. 11 policies on presidential power, torture and domestic spying, his failure to properly see that critical evidence in the Valerie Plame leak case was preserved, his misleading if not downright false testimony before Congress, etc., etc., Gonzales’ tenure as Attorney General will forever leave a stain on the Justice Department.

One would have to think that given his performance his career might be difficult to resurrect. Apparently, not so.

It seems that on August 1st, Mr. Gonzales began a career in academia. That is correct; the former AG accepted a visiting professor post within the political science department of Texas Tech University.

University Loves their Man

According to a written university statement, Gonzales will be teaching a junior-level special topics course: “Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch.” In addition, he is expected to provide guest lectures in classes across the campus.

A Latino who was once held in high regard, Gonzales will also reportedly assist Texas Tech University and Angelo State University “with recruiting and retaining first generation and underrepresented students.”

Of the latter aspect of the Gonzales appointment, Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance had this to say:

“His own upbringing in Houston as part of a migrant family with eight children makes him qualified to tell underrepresented Texas students that college is possible.”

In the same prepared university statement, Lawrence Schovanec, interim dean of Texas Tech’s College of Arts and Sciences, offered:

“Judge Gonzales brings a unique experience to our classroom. His career in law, government and public service will provide our political science students a rich perspective of the executive branch and issues and challenges facing our nation.”

Minimal Uproar

Much to the chagrin of this writer and perhaps to the majority of the citizens of the U.S., the appointment has seen only minimal resistance. There have reportedly been a few critical editorials in various newspapers, a faculty petition, and two Facebook groups (Alberto Gonzales Doesn’t Belong At Texas Tech and Citizens Against Employing Alberto Gonzales at Texas Tech). But the protests seem rather minimal overall.

However, faculty petition creator Walter Schaller, a Tech philosophy professor since 1986, was unequivocal in explaining his opposition to the hiring of Gonzales. Stated Schaller, “With the emphasis on ethics the university has adopted, a guy that misled Congress is not the kind of person we want to represent Texas Tech.”

However, the Chronicle of Higher Education recently contrasted the Texas response with that of two other high powered institutions and their faculty appointments:

Objections to Gonzales pale “in comparison to the resistance that Condoleezza Rice has encountered in going back to Stanford University, where she was provost before joining the Bush administration, in 2001, or the debate surrounding the University of California at Berkeley’s continued employment of John C. Yoo, a law professor who, while on leave to work in the Justice Department, wrote the Bush administration’s memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques.”

One would think that Gonzales would face the same kind of fight Henry Kissinger faced when he tried to teach at Columbia. Student protesters accused the former Secretary of State of breaking the law and essentially ran him off the campus.

Perhaps it is a sign of the times or the location. A negative Facebook campaign could jump start the student body but without an uproar from this important constituency it seems that Gonzales will be able to ride out the storm.

We do have an amazing country. And Texas Tech has a new visiting professor.

He does begin with a one year contract.

The question is, will students see to it that it is his last?

Flickr photos courtesy of Mike Licht and MMMMichelle.

While many see technology as potentially unlocking an entirely new learning environment, almost as many see it as a bane to education. In fact, it now seems that at least one college dean, regretfully, believes that technology is the root cause of a boring lecture hall.

Jeffrey Young, reporting for The Chronicle of Higher Education, notes Southern Methodist University Dean José A. Bowen has gone so far as to challenge professors to teach without any machinery. Young notes that Bowen uses a more provocative phrase to describe teaching without technology.

He wants his staff to “teach naked.”

Teaching Naked

Actually, while insisting he wants to pull the plug on all technology, it seems that Bowen is primarily trying to discourage professors from using PowerPoint. Apparently, far too many instructors are using the tool as nothing more than a slide display.

These professors appear to be using the “program as a crutch rather than using it as a creative tool” according to Young. More importantly, they are apparently boring their students to death.

Still, reading a little deeper, it does seem that Dean Bowen is requesting a tad more. He appears to be advocating for the removal of most technology from the classroom.

“Class time should be reserved for discussion,” the dean contends, “especially now that students can download lectures online and find libraries of information on the Web. When students reflect on their college years later in life, they’re going to remember challenging debates and talks with their professors.”

Is Technology the Issue?

While the idea of teaching naked initially appears focused on eliminating technology from the classroom, it is clear that the issue is not one related to machines. Instead, it is the lack of skill employed by the professor and the inability to use technology wisely.

Yet, according to Young, the “biggest resistance to Mr. Bowen’s ideas has come from students, some of whom have groused about taking a more active role during those 50-minute class periods.” Unfortunately, while the standard lecture model is generally less than riveting as an educational format, it is a model that “is pretty comfortable for both students and professors.”

In other words, a bored student is also not having any demands placed on him. That suits more than a few college attendees extremely well.

Poor Message

Ironically, while presenting his ideas at a conference that was attended by Young, Bowen offered “a philosophical argument about the best way to engage students.” In it he talked of “using podcasts and video games.”

And it also seems that when Bowen first began removing some technology from classrooms, that technology was quite old and in need of an upgrade to match today’s sophistication. Apparently, there was no funds to upgrade.

That leaves one troubled.

Dave Parry at Academhack tackles the silly assertion head on.

“…..any teaching practice requires technology. Are we to imagine that these luddite professors disallow paper and pen from class? ‘Students should not take notes in class, the technology gets in the way of discussion.’

“Are we to imagine that they do not allow books in class? ‘No books, they get in the way of discussion.’

“Books, paper, pen, desks, chalkboards, whiteboards, all of these are technologies.”

Parry goes on, leveling the fallacious notion presented by Bowen:

“Teaching without digital technology is an irresponsible pedagogy. Why? The future is digital, love it or hate it. We can argue later about whether or not this is a good or a bad thing.

“But to educate students, or to attempt to educate students without developing their digital literacy is to leave them ill prepared for their futures. You wouldn’t think of educating a student and not teaching them how to read, digital literacy is this crucial. In the future if you don’t know how to use this technology you will be ‘illiterate’.”

Furthermore,

“We can’t go back to ‘teaching the way it was,’ because this will produce a generation of students who don’t know how to critically engage with, leverage, use, resist, these very technologies. Eliminating technology produces not the affect of a more engaged literate student populous, rather it produces the reverse, an ill informed, uncritical, unengaged student populous who will become at the very best passive consumers of the technology being resisted, and at the worst its willing victims.”

We could not agree more. The idea of ‘Teaching Naked,’ either figuratively or literally, simply makes no sense.

With the passing of Frank McCourt, remembrances are understandable. His brilliant Angela Ashes, of course, marks him as a literary giant, but to many kids he was far more important, he was their teacher.

What a superb teacher he must have been. As with most of the great ones, he could create a lesson out of anything imaginable, including the art of forged notes and excuses for missing school or unfinished homework.

The true brilliance of course lay in his ability to first reach kids where they were at, then take them someplace they would never have gone on their own.

He doesn’t just get these kids to review the notes they forged, he takes them on a creative journey, having them write such notes for some of the world’s most famous historical figures.

A brilliant author.

An equally brilliant teacher.