contentious.com

I love e-learning (whether on the internet, or on a standalone computer or independent network), mainly because I believe this approach holds tremendous potential for education at all levels. But I must bracket my glowing blanket statement with these caveats:

E-learning only succeeds IF:

• That delivery approach is appropriate for that individual learner. (Not all students learn well by e-learning.)
• Other learning options are readily available (if that particular lesson is required).
• Lessons are designed to achieve the correct learning goals. (That is, the top priority is meeting the student’s needs, rather than the needs/desires of administrators or other parties.)

Within that context, I’d like to draw your attention to an excellent and highly disturbing series recently published by Baltimore Sun writer Alec MacGillis: Poor schools, rich targets. Here’s the summary:

“Across the country, education software companies are trying to capitalize on the 2001 No Child Left Behind law by targeting struggling schools that are under pressure to raise their test scores and have millions in new federal funding to spend. But there is little solid research behind much of the software, which may not produce lasting results for the poor students the law claims to help.”

In other words, many schools are increasingly using educational software as an easy and generally teacher-free way to prepare students in poor schools to pass federally mandated testing. The often unstated intent is to prevent schools from flunking new national education standards.

But, as most educators and students know, “teaching to the test” rarely fosters real learning. Even worse is when efforts to “teach to the test” fail to achieve even that off-target goal – resulting in withheld funding and other penalties for schools that could scarcely afford the ineffective software in the first place.

EXCERPTS from one of the key articles in this series, Pitching the quick fix (Sept. 19, 2004):

“Struggling schools initially receive extra federal funding. But if they continue to fail, they must pay for private tutoring and allow students to transfer, cutting funding allotted to their old school. The worst performers face sanctions including staff overhauls or state takeover.”

“…Software claims of success tend to be based on dubious studies, often performed or paid for by the companies themselves – a problem that is acknowledged even by the Bush administration. While encouraging schools to use education technology to comply with No Child Left Behind, the administration is paying for millions of dollars in studies to determine which education software programs really work.”

“…The law’s pressures encourage districts to buy software to raise their scores, but the government’s research on instructional software won’t be done for two years.”

“…’We’re spending all this money on technology in schools and we don’t know where it’s effective, what the conditions are for effective teaching and learning,’ said Susan D. Patrick, the U.S. Department of Education’s director of education technology.”

“Desperate not to run afoul of the law and suffer sanctions, including state takeover, many besieged educators are succumbing to the pitch anyway, buying instructional programs that often cost more than $100,000 per school or district-wide management programs that run into the millions. And by spending much of the law’s funding on software, they are leaving less for such improvements as smaller class sizes, after-school programs or bonuses for talented teachers.”

“The new digital divide: Meanwhile, many experts in education technology worry that the push to sell test-preparation software to poor schools could deepen exactly those inequities that the law is meant to address. The law, they say, is creating a new “digital divide” just as low-income districts are finally catching up in their access to computers: While poor schools tend to buy software with repetitive math and reading exercises that produce few lasting gains, wealthier ones are using technology in ways that contribute more to in-depth learning.”

“The potential payoff for the [instructional software] industry is huge. Under the law, the federal government, which funds about a third of all school spending on computers and software, sets aside $700 million per year for education technology, most of it for poor districts. But companies are even more eager to tap into a much larger pot of money, the law’s general federal funding for needy students.”

“While it is not as much as Bush’s critics say was promised, this general funding for low-income students has increased by nearly half under the law, to almost $25 billion. Partly to encourage schools to use education technology, the law also gives districts more flexibility in how they can spend the money, making it easier for software companies to make a bid for it.”

And some excerpts from You’re wrong, but don’t ask why (Sept. 21, 2004):

“While it has long been assumed that poor schools lag in access to technology, many are at least as well-equipped as suburban schools thanks to a decade of heavy public spending, including $2.25 billion collected every year from telephone user fees through the E-rate program to pay for school Internet wiring. There is, on average, one computer for every five students in American classrooms today, and almost every school is connected to the Internet.”

“Using the billions spent on this infrastructure only for drilling programs that are often little more than electronic workbooks represents a missed opportunity, say technology experts.”

“…the programs [that focus on test prep], which cost less to design than more complex education software, often suffer for not being able to explain what students are missing when they pick the wrong answer.”

WHY THIS REALLY BUGS ME

I live in Colorado, which for several years has been consistently near the bottom of the list for per-student funding. Most of the school districts in my state are rural and poor. They can’t attract enough good teachers. I wouldn’t be surprised if this trend described in the Baltimore Sun is also playing out in schools within a 100-mile radius of where I’m sitting right now.

Education matters to me. I’ve seen so many instances where creative, thoughtful, and appropriate e-learning can help students of all ages hone and open their minds, and learn to think more effectively and solve problems independently. In my book, it’s not rocket science to do good e-learning. Therefore, I think it’s inexcusable for educational software companies that are already making hefty profits to offer anything less than first-class products.

We’re not talking about entertainment here. This is education. Without appropriate education and encouragement, people gradually lose their willingness and ability to learn. That means they lose opportunities. Even worse, they lose confidence and hope.

I’d like to see the e-learning community collectively do something constructive to address this situation.