David Warlick and Alan November

I’m working on the methods section of my teaching philosophy and trying to explain how and why I want to use technology in my classroom.  One thing that jumped out at me from David’s video was that the tools of technology are not big things we need to become literate in.  The skills we really need to develop are our information literacy skills.  I hadn’t realized or articulated the difference between technology and the flood of the information that comes with it.  In some ways, however, the two are impossible to separate because we develop and use technology to find, organize, process and analyze information.  

I was also listening to a news story this morning about how there are not enough computer programmers or computer engineers to fill those jobs in Seattle.  There is a computer science program and University of Washington that is really hard to get into because they haven’t increased their enrollment since 1999.  ¾ of students who have the prerequisite classes and try to get in, won’t get in.  It seems as though educational institutions all over the country and at all levels are not adapting to the needs of society fast enough.  

Society is changing but our educational system is not keeping up.  I think that some charter schools have been better than public schools at using the internet and technology in the classroom.  At City High in downtown Pittsburgh, students use laptops throughout the day.  http://cityhigh.org/about/.  Many public schools, on the other hand, are not getting students on the internet very much during the day and are still using top-town, teacher driven approach to teaching.  November reiterated what Sir Ken Robinson said – our schools are operating in an industrial model, which is not appropriate in today’s world.

In my teaching philosophy I am having a difficult time striking a balance between my desire for students to take responsibility for their learning, and being able to convince the people who are hiring me that I can manage a classroom and ensure that my students learn all of the content they are supposed to.  Our textbooks say that teacher driven instruction and a traditional curriculum seem to have the most research supporting their effectiveness, particularly in low income school districts.  I am wondering if this is because in more traditional classrooms children avoid the pitfalls of a student directed learning environment, which are similar to the pitfalls of technology that November describes—distraction, shortcuts, etc.  

Perhaps you could avoid these pitfalls if you talked about the fact that they exist, are easy to succumb to and can be avoided with self-control, practice, help from others.  Maybe we will teach children to turn off the computer and go outside after an hour, to ignore the cell phone when they get a text in the middle of a face-to-face conversation, to quiet their devices at night so they can sleep without interruption.  I hear these ridiculous stories about teenagers who are severely sleep deprived because they answer texts all night long.  http://www.7daysindubai.com/UAE-s-youths-turning-addicts/story-16063090-detail/story.html.  Maybe we are in a unique period of history where this technology has emerged and is being used heavily by youth, but education about the responsible and healthy use of this technology has not taken place yet. 

I also wonder how you protect youth from inappropriate content and dangers while giving them freedom to explore and respecting their privacy.  I think about how I’ll protect my son when he gets old enough to surf the web.  Will I make him give me all of his passwords, will I set parental controls, will I check his browsing history?  In many ways, not knowing what your kid is doing on the internet is a lot like not knowing what your kid is doing after school or on a Friday night.  I’m certainly familiar with lying to parents about whereabouts, or participating in activities they couldn’t even conceive of, so couldn’t begin to monitor.  Ultimately, I think it always comes back to building a relationship with your child where they don’t lie to you and they feel comfortable seeking your help and guidance.  There is no ethical way to control other people and have them be happy with you. 

Sir Ken Robinson

In Sir Ken Robinson's TED Talks, he  argues that today's system of education is ineffective. Robinson says that we need a revolution in education if we are going to educate our children to be happy and successful actors in the modern world. I think that in some ways, his talks are visionary.  His talk reached a wide audience and encourages other privileged people in positions of power to reexamine their assumptions about education.  It bothers me, however, that Robinson never names capitalism as a problem or a roadblock to the type of world he's like to see.  Robinson seems to speak from an economically and academically privileged point of view.

Robinson talked about how some people endure rather than enjoy life.  They wait for the weekend because they do not love their career. Yes, it would be great if everyone found their work meaningful and enjoyable, but most people don't.  I don't necessarily see that as a problem with the education system.  I see a problem with the economy. Workers don't have an authentic connection to the good they make or services they provide.  I don't think it helps workers to talk about how sad and unfulfilling their lives are.  I don't know that much about Robinson, but he appears to be part of a small percentage of people who benefit from capitalism.  He seems out of touch with the average human being.

I liked Robinson's recognition that we need to cultivate all different kinds of talents and abilities in our students to prepare them for jobs, not just college.  In my secondary methods class I am reading articles about what students want out of high school.  Only 1/3 of people ages 25-34 hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.  2/3 of people my age are looking for jobs without a college degree. Many students want a high school education that prepares them for life after high school.  Robinson seems to understand this.

Robinson brings up firefighting as an example of a job someone may have a passion for that doesn't require a college degree.  Sure, there are some firefighting jobs, but there are also so many jobs in America do not require special talent or abilities.  These "McDonalds jobs" pay wages that keep families in poverty and don't provide benefits.  In the United States, everyone would like to avoid these jobs and find something that was either more fulfilling or higher paying.  Millions of people are going to work these jobs anyways, even if they have talents and abilities.  I read somewhere that working a "McDonalds job" in Europe is not as devastating as it is in the United States.  European countries have safety nets and universal health care.  People can spend the 16 hours a day that they aren't working pursuing their passion without worrying about being homeless or medical bills or working a second shift. 

Okay, I've been thinking and typing for a long time, but I think I've figured out exactly what point I'm trying to make.  Sir Ken Robinson wants schools to educate students to be participants in the economy of today and tomorrow.  But the economy of today and tomorrow requires millions of drones that will work service jobs for minimum wage!!!!  Perhaps we'd be better off with an economic revolution.