"The Bargain" and what it means for school design

In the Blog - What would happen if we let them go? posted in Education Week by the Futures of School Reform Group, Richard F. Elmore of the Harvard Graduate School of Education offers bleak observations of what he finds as he observes high school classes.  Most notably he sites "The Bargain" a phrase coined by Michael Sedlak, et al. (1986) in Selling students short: Classroom bargains and academic reform in the American high school. New York: Teachers College Press.  The Bargain is between students and teachers and says you give me order and attendance and I will give you minimal homework and passing grades.  It is a sad commentary about the disengagement of both students and teachers in too many schools. 

Many of the comments are worth reading especially the one by earthnfyre which tells about his son's achievement only occurring when he was out of school.

To me this is just more evidence that we need to work harder to engage students.  How you teach, the relationships you build and the interests of students are of course key to this engagement, but I believe that the physical environment you teach in also has a key role in supporting engagement. There is not much research on this subject and it is notoriously difficult to isolate the role of environment in engagement let alone measuring engagement itself, but a few conclusions are self evident. 

• It stands to reason that students will not be engaged if they are physically uncomfortable.  If due to poor conditions, isolation or the possibility of bullying students are reluctant to use restrooms they will avoid drinking water to avoid the restrooms.  If they don't drink water they will become dehydrated.  If they become dehydrated there learning suffers.
• It stands to reason that students that can't hear well do to a poor acoustical environment will be less engaged.
• It stands to reason that students with attention spans ranging from 5 minutes for elementary students to 10 minutes for high school students in a windowless room with no visual relief will have attention difficulties.
• It stands to reason that students working on projects in the wrong size room, and with the wrong furniture will be less engaged.

There are many more examples of how facilities influence engagement and so is it any wonder that facilities are complicit in "The Bargain?"

Teacher Avatars

I came across an interesting website recently: http://www.intellitar.com/chemteach.php which is the site for Intellitar, a company in Alabama that is attempting to commercialize artificial intelligence (AI) combining it with the creation of avatars that interact with you over the web.  Part of the site talks about creating "virtual eternity" in which you create an avatar of yourself that will presumably survive you and allow future generations to have a conversation with you.  The avatar looks like you and sounds like you and is given a dossier of information about you that it uses to answer questions. 

The other part of the site has begun to explore the educational uses of the technology.  In one area students can talk to Benjamin Franklin and ask him questions about his life or the founding of the United States.  In another area, a science teacher avatar allows students to ask questions about chemistry assignments.  I found the Ben Franklin images a little hokey and couldn't get the demo to answer any questions.  The science teacher was better but still not there yet.  As a test I asked the science teacher for the chemical formula for water.  Her reply: "H twenty" not H-Two-Oh. 

The interesting thing is that the AI learns from you as it interacts and so gets better over time.  If you saw the quiz show: "Jeopardy" recently you would have seen the self contained computer "Watson" defeat the two all time Jeopardy champs.  Watson is the same sort of learning computer, but apparently far more sophisticated than the Intellitars.  Having said that, it is important to note that this is the start of this technology and it is likely to get better and progress rapidly.

What are the implications of this technology on spaces that house education?  I think they are another example of the trend toward on-line education.  It will be a while before these avatars are good enough that they are not a novelty, but once they do get better they will offer students another choice in how they learn. When students have a choice, what will make them want to come to a school rather than learn in environments of their choosing?  Schools too often have too many rules, uncomfortable furniture, lousy ventilation, no natural light, and no access to food and water.  Schools are a place to meet and be with your friends, but in the future why would you choose a school as a place to socialize when you can socialize and learn in places that are more comfortable and convenient for you while you learn on-line?

For schools to successfully compete for students, which I believe they will need to do in the future, we have to design schools that are compelling places to be and learn, not just places to minimally house learning activities.  Students, who for the first time ever will have choices about where they learn, will need to choose to come to school rather than have their learning elsewhere.  Student centered teaching and curriculum will of course be key, but as more and more of the teaching/learning transaction occurs on-line the environment might just be the difference maker that keeps schools relevant to tomorrow's learners.

Will Changing the Way you Grade Teacher Colleges Change their Effectiveness?

In reviewing Education Week last week I ran across an article: Grading of Teacher Colleges to be Revamped which is about how US News and World Report is changing the way it ranks colleges of education in the annual list it publishes.  There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding this move and both the article, and the comments which follow it amply describe this debate.  What I found interesting was the actual criteria they are using in grading colleges which can be found by clicking on a pdf. in the article.

What is interesting to me is not what is in these criteria, but what is missing.

The criteria primarily deal with curriculum, subject mastery, and evaluating effectiveness in these admittedly important areas, but there is really not much attention given to how you might organize your efforts as a teacher.  There is nothing about collaboration, nothing about how students should be organized, nothing about how the teacher should be interacting with students, nothing about techniques for individualizing teaching... you get the idea.  In short these very controversial new criteria seem just a different way to measure practices that themselves have not changed at all.

Teachers are under a lot of pressure to perform these days and to improve student outcomes.   A considerable amount of thought has been given to preparing students to compete in the 21st Century and there are many similar approaches that require not so much a change in the subject knowledge teachers' possess, but a change in how students acquire the knowledge, attitudes and skills they will need after they graduate.  From what I can tell there is little in these criteria that address these important aspects of education, so teachers are starting their careers at a disadvantage in doing the precise job for which they were hired.

This matters to me because as an architect, one of the things I can enable through my designs is the transaction between student and teacher.  I know how to design a classroom that enables the teaching of 21st Century skills, but with few exceptions this is not the type of school that teachers and administrators (who also were trained in colleges of education) will let me design.  Instead the demand is for new buildings that enable an old model.

There is still hope for change, but it will take the efforts of all of us in continuing to challenge the status quo and advocate for both the teaching and environments that will let students succeed in the 21st Century.

Virtual Socializing

I am very interested in online learning and the affect the adoption of this approach to education will have on the planning and design of schools.  A common reaction to news of how fast online learning is being adopted is something like: "Well, you can't teach social skills online."

The January 12 2011 issue of Education Week in the article: “Cyber Students taught the value of Social Skills”  by Michelle. R. Davis uncovered some interesting findings about the development of social skills for students learning online.

The article cites studies that show that online students were rated significantly higher in various areas of social skills by both parents and the students themselves.  It also says that "problem behaviors" were "either significantly lower or not significantly different when compared with national norms."  I am not sure how this was measured.  Were the students at a regular school taking online classes?  Were they at home?

In any case it is an interesting finding which I think is probably due to the kids being more engaged in what they were learning and so had less need to misbehave.  In addition with texting, Twitter, Facebook, Skype and many other technologies for social connection available to them, its easy for me to believe the kids do have good social skills.  The net is not the object of their socializing it is only the mechanism.

The article goes on to describe how schools are partnering with YMCA's "to create drop-in classrooms outfitted with computers where students can do their work for up to five days a week."

This is a phenomenon we are likely to see more of.  With online learning, students have a choice about where they learn, so why pick school?  The prevailing wisdom says they go to school to socialize and that is probably true, but why does it need to be?  Why not go to the Y or to Starbucks or to the library to socialize and oh yes, to take online classes too?

For me this is another reason why we need to talk to educators and school administrators about making their schools so darn compelling that they will be the first choice for students that for the first time ever really have a choice.

What do you think?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/01/12/15edtech_socialization.h30.html

2010 in Review

As the year comes to a close I thought it might be interesting to look back and see what progress there has been in creating better schools for students.  This is no easy task since there is no definitive way to measure such a thing, but there is some anecdotal evidence we might consider.

First of all, the economy has been murder.  Many states are allocating capital funds for operations leaving school construction out in the cold.  Where construction is funded locally, there have been far fewer bond and capital levy elections than in the recent past, and where there has been elections many measures have failed.  the third leg of this crooked stool is the decline in property values.  In California, as in many states, property values have plummetted with the result being that school districts can't legally sell the bonds their voters approved!  This is because the lower property values have caused districts to exceed their statutory debt limits and until values go up, or bonds are paid off, they can't legally sell more bonds.

On the operations side administrators and teachers have been laid off so class sizes are getting larger. Fewer classes and electives are being offered.  Schools are not being maintained, and tech upgrades have been postponed. 

Even with all of this there actually is some news that helps to ameliorate these trends.  The Feds have pumped billions into schools through Race to the Top, assuming your state was one of the ones selected for the program.  The Feds have also made loans available and provided money to "fix-up" schools - more on this later. 

Some states have passed bonds even if these are not in the quantity that existed in the past.  See: http://www.schoolconstructionnews.com/articles/2010/03/19/voters-pass-466-billion-in-school-improvement-plans  (Note that most of the money described in this article is emergency supplemental operating funds not capital dollars)

What I wonder though is why more schools, districts, and states haven't used these terrible conditions to rethink the way they go about the business of building and operating schools?  Federal money helps, but spending money to fix-up "bad schools" does not seem like the best of investments.  It certainly makes sense to spend the money on "warm, safe, and dry" but spending money that avoids change only perpetuates archaic practices.  Similarly, overcrowding of schools could be an opportunity to change the way you teach.  Why not enlist students in class to help teach those who need more help?  Both the students helping and those being helped would benefit. You might need to rearrange the classroom to do this but that's a good thing.  What about using online learning more robustly?  It is growing by leaps and bounds and has real potential to enhance in class teaching in a blended learning environment.  Some districts and schools are trying these approaches and succeeding, but its a big job. 

2010 was a tough year but there are hopeful signs.  The Christmas shopping season was positive,  the commercial sector is showing some life, and the stock markets are up.  Looking ahead to 2011, all of us who care about the environments in which our children learn need to continue our advocacy and spread the word that the environment you learn in is important.

Happy New Year.