Comments

Once again, bells and whistles triumph over content and teaching.

The teachers are thrilled? No kidding. They're getting paid the same amount of money to teach less.

Everyone knows textbooks are boring and terrible for actually teaching history. (Psst -- especially the people who sell them to schools.)

I wonder how much it would cost to ditch BOTH the textbooks AND the laptops and move to a spine/living books approach. How much are these whiz-bang computers costing the taxpayers? I'd rather have school districts deal with lost copies of The Matchlock Gun than pilfered laptops.

In two years, the Lamont School District will probably be dealing with a mysterious and totally unforeseen epidemic of eye strain in its students.

And in ten years, their students will be even more ignorant of history than their predecessors, more allergic to real books, and more emotional in their thinking.

-- BrendaM - 02 Aug 2006

Books are the ultimate random-access device ever invented that don't require an appendix like a computer. I don't like to read anything substantial and lengthy off a computer screen and I guess a lot of other people don't either.

Giving laptops to every pupil is a bad idea. It's hugely expensive. Many pupils are destructive and dishonest. I can see laptops flying across the room and out of the window.

-- CharlesH - 02 Aug 2006

Here is another math tidbit: It takes endless time and prodigious amouts of money to train teacher in fuzzy math. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003168064_mathconference02n.html

Sarah Grim, a math teacher at Voyager Middle School in the Mukilteo School District, said it has taken her several years to master the connected mathematics curriculum or integrated math that has replaced the traditional algebra, geometry, algebra sequence in many of the region's middle and high schools.

"To be truly effective at teaching, it takes five to seven years. It's like learning a foreign language," Grim said.

-- CharlesH - 02 Aug 2006

Brenda where's your blog?

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Aug 2006

5 to 7 years - whoa

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Aug 2006

That's what James Milgram has always said (I believe).

His main objection to constructivist curricula is that they're far too difficult to teach.

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Aug 2006

As far as I can tell, few people read online - though I'm starting to know quite a few people who read newspapers online.

But when you read a newspaper online you're skimming (pretty much); you're not reading to learn and retain.

I read newspapers online, too.

I can't read anything challenging online. Period.

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Aug 2006

I can't even edit my own writing onscreen. I have to print out a hard copy.

-- CatherineJohnson - 02 Aug 2006

Read The Social History of Paper.

Yes, I'm giving you an order. Just obey it. It's good for you. :)

-- TracyW - 03 Aug 2006

"Sarah Grim, a math teacher at Voyager Middle School in the Mukilteo School District, said it has taken her several years to master the connected mathematics curriculum or integrated math that has replaced the traditional algebra, geometry, algebra sequence in many of the region's middle and high schools."

But why master something that's ultimately bad? I read the Seattle Times article. Lee Stiff features prominently. He was president of NCTM in 2002 I believe. The arguments he makes in the article are the standard "It isn't the text, it's the teacher." Which is a handy way of absolving the fuzzies of everything. "Oh, so test scores are bad in the school district where they're using Investigations? That's because the teachers aren't teaching it right."

If that doesn't work, just blame it on the tests. They're designed to test rote memorization skills. Yeah. That's the ticket. NSF, more money please! CHA CHING!

-- BarryGarelick - 03 Aug 2006

yup

-- CatherineJohnson - 03 Aug 2006

wow - I've never read that article

Thanks!

(haven't read yet, but I will)

-- CatherineJohnson - 03 Aug 2006

There is no fundamental reason why the use of computer programs and internet resources cannot improve the teaching (and learning) of history. Of course, they can also make it worse. It's hard to tell what's happening in this case, but I would wager that the "success" they report is not something I would call success.

I haven't seen any educational programs (multimedia or otherwise) that would work better than a good textbook and teacher. What they seem to be doing in this case is changing the teacher into an organizer - one who administers the program. This sounds like one step below a facilitator. If the teacher isn't teaching (based on knowledge and experience), and he/she isn't even facilitating (the kids just use the program), then schools should be able to save a lot of money.

I was reading 1776, by David McCullough^?, and I found it very useful to do internet searches on different topics to get other perspectives. (Although McCullough^? paints a very interesting historical picture, it's his picture, not mine. His writing doesn't allow me to develop my own interpretation.) The internet searches are very useful, but they do not constitute a course or curriculum on history. That is what textbooks are for. If you eliminate textbooks, are you just eliminating paper or are you eliminating the role they play in meeting curriculum goals?

"History and social science comes to life with exciting text, vibrant media clips and activities," said Cheryl McConaughey^?, assistant superintendent at the Lamont School District ..."

Apparently, teachers cannot do this. Does she know what this means?

"No more pencils, no more books"

... and no more teachers (dirty looks and all). Maybe that's where we are already. Do teachers teach anymore? If parents sat in their children's classes, would they call what they saw teaching?

-- SteveH - 03 Aug 2006

"To be truly effective at teaching, it takes five to seven years. It's like learning a foreign language," Grim said.

Imagine what they could learn (and then teach) if they spent that time learning math and not pedagogy.

-- SteveH - 03 Aug 2006

-- KtmGuest - 03 Aug 2006

Well, you have written about your research into the K12 curriculum. For the two years we have used this, my son's history (3rd and 4th grades) have used some supplemental text materials, but no "spine" or main textbook--the lessons are all online. Once I got over my initial misgivings, it's pretty impressive. Concepts are covered quite well, with multiple reinforcing lessons. It's been good coverage of world history, multiple cultures, U.S. history, and our state history. My son certainly knows more about the Renaissance than I did at age 8.

-- KtmGuest - 03 Aug 2006

Steve, I think that part of what they learn in that 5 to 7 years is the math. In order to effectively teach with this method, it is essential to have a firm grasp of the content. With other, out-of-fashion pegagogies, you can get by with faking it.

If a teacher is effective, I really don't care what methods are in use.

If a teacher is ineffective, the first thing I'd check is: Does the teacher know the content? Improving teachers' content knowledge is going to make a huge difference in the long term. Someone who really knows the content in and out will be better equipped to adapt no matter what fad spreads across the school system.

Ineffective AND knows content? Then I'd fuss over pedagogy.

-- RudbeckiaHirta - 03 Aug 2006

If a teacher is effective, I really don't care what methods are in use.

Here's were we start getting into trouble.

A teacher with little math content knowledge and using bad pedagogy can still be quite effective with a bunch of bright kids.

Put that same teacher into a classroom full or average kids or below-kids and the teacher is becomes a lot less effective.

Teachers should be certified according to aptitude of the students they are teaching. The certification test should comprise placing the teacher in front of a classroom of average kids for a week and then testing the kids at then to see if they actually learned the anything that the teacher was supposed to teach. Then you can have a special certification if the teaching can accomplish the same thing in front of a classroom of low-aptitude kids. This special certification should have a high premium payscale attached to it.

Hopefully, this will prevent the phenomena we see today where a principal/teacher who has been wildy successful at affluent school gets brought into poor school based on past success and inevitably fails miserably.

-- KDeRosa - 03 Aug 2006

"It's been good coverage of world history, multiple cultures, U.S. history, and our state history."

That's what it's all about, isn't it? Why don't they make the point that this is a good curriculum for history and just ignore how it's presented? They could perhaps show that the consistent use of common and well-prepared material reduces inconsistent performance between teachers. However, this could be done WITHOUT any computer technology. Was the "success" due to computer technology or because they just finally got their curriculum act together? Perhaps schools like this sort of thing because they can just go out and buy a solution.

-- SteveH - 03 Aug 2006

"If a teacher is effective, I really don't care what methods are in use."

Not all teachers are effective. Then, there is the curriculum. Good teachers might be able to work around a really bad curriculum a little bit, but what happens in the next grade? Even if the next teacher is good, where does he/she begin?

-- SteveH - 03 Aug 2006