http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/11/27/reservations-about-empowerment-without-accountability/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:04:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/11/27/reservations-about-empowerment-without-accountability/#comment-29881 Joe Makley Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:04:34 +0000 http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2006/11/27/reservations-about-empowerment-without-accountability/#comment-29881 Thanks Wesley for the response! I wanted to clarify slightly. I do believe there is certain knowledge that everyone needs to have, and that we owe to the state. I am against the lock step currriculum you describe, (which we never had in Maine and have held off even since NCLB, knocking on wood.) For the record, I'm a big proponent of Foxfire, which is about student directed projects. And I positively rage against the factory classroom. The more important point for me is that good teaching with technology is a science as well as an art, and there are certain things it's OK to make people do at this point. For instance, I have some 5th grade teachers who have a one-one program and don't yet use the mapping tools (supplied in their IBook image) with their geography unit, and they don't use GPS devices, even though they have access to them. My position is I can show them how to do that and then (shudder) require them to do it. I understand the constructivist model, but I also believe that certain technologies have matured to the point it's OK to require their use. Are we really expected to just sit on all this expensive stuff and try to "train" or "empower" the staff into using it to the benefit of kids and then have no accountability factor? There's room on the bleeding edge for early adopters, but a lot of good technology "integration" is main steam now, or ought to be. To be a Bartleby and just "prefer not to" is no longer an option, because it hurts kids too much, especially the ones on the wrong side of the divide. Students today deserve teachers who can handle technology that is appropriate to their grade level and responsibilities. (Of course this presumes we've given them working technology with good support, etc. They shouldn't have to use stuff that doesn't work 99% of the time.) Thanks again for the discussion! Joe Thanks Wesley for the response! I wanted to clarify slightly. I do believe there is certain knowledge that everyone needs to have, and that we owe to the state. I am against the lock step currriculum you describe, (which we never had in Maine and have held off even since NCLB, knocking on wood.) For the record, I’m a big proponent of Foxfire, which is about student directed projects. And I positively rage against the factory classroom. The more important point for me is that good teaching with technology is a science as well as an art, and there are certain things it’s OK to make people do at this point. For instance, I have some 5th grade teachers who have a one-one program and don’t yet use the mapping tools (supplied in their IBook image) with their geography unit, and they don’t use GPS devices, even though they have access to them. My position is I can show them how to do that and then (shudder) require them to do it. I understand the constructivist model, but I also believe that certain technologies have matured to the point it’s OK to require their use. Are we really expected to just sit on all this expensive stuff and try to “train” or “empower” the staff into using it to the benefit of kids and then have no accountability factor? There’s room on the bleeding edge for early adopters, but a lot of good technology “integration” is main steam now, or ought to be. To be a Bartleby and just “prefer not to” is no longer an option, because it hurts kids too much, especially the ones on the wrong side of the divide. Students today deserve teachers who can handle technology that is appropriate to their grade level and responsibilities. (Of course this presumes we’ve given them working technology with good support, etc. They shouldn’t have to use stuff that doesn’t work 99% of the time.)
Thanks again for the discussion!
Joe

]]>