16 Comments

User's avatar
wralf's avatar

Hello-

Some background on me to help contextualize my comments. I am a reading specialist in CT. I've served in this role for a grade 5-6 school for 31 years. The school I support would be considered an affluent community. I turn to data frequently to understand my students individually and as a larger body. We have been a 1-to1 iPad school since 2017, grade 1-12. We are turning to Chrome books (without touchscreens) next year.

Much of what you've written in terms of academic smacks about right. I have also witnessed the decline in reading and math scores and would support the time frame you've listed. COVID wasn't the start of this, it merely sped up the decline.

I used a few of the sites/apps you've noted during COVID and found them to be uninspiring. Lexia comes right to mind because our school system put it into play for two years: One when we taught hybrid and another when our students returned in full to classrooms. It wasn't popular with our students. Yes, apps and AI have changed since that time, grown and improved. Still, I'd happily wager that it would remain largely ineffective in our schools today beyond our youngest-aged students.

This is not really the item I wanted to remark upon, however. I appreciate the notion of crunching reading and math into smaller windows of focus each day and then letting students pursue other endeavors and interests. This Montessori-esque idea has existed for a long while and it's come back to our corner of the country under the idea of creating greater agency and play-learning, which is close to gamifying tasks. I'm all for vested buy in and there's no better way to get it than when a student chooses this on his/her own. Where I think you undersold (vastly) the success of these approaches with the school you reviewed is that the students in these school are very likely cherry-picked. You mentioned it to some degree but should be giving it far, far greater weight than you have. When you see a school asking for 50,000 in yearly tuition and it's a school reliant upon hitting financial marks (because they all are) there's going to be careful student selections. And, sorry to lean against the optimism you're looking for, but I'll also wager that those lottery schools aren't as blind selective as they promote.

The sheer amount of free information in the world today and the opportunities to engage with it are remarkable, daunting, and most often ignored. People have had the means to educate themselves on the cheap for a long time now...and, it hasn't happened. Your optimism is cool and I want to be an optimistic pessimist when it comes to the very field I've supported for three decades, but I've seen a little too much when it comes to kids and more screen time. Your article noted that math and reading were trending up until 2013. This correlates with the giant push of kids onto screens in all places and all times, from Kindles to laptops; iPads to phones. I would gently push back that more screen time isn't the answer, though, as noted, I recognize that a two-hour reading/math window is one way to lessen the negative impact of eyes on screens.

I haven't missed the idea or spirit to your piece. I see that teachers (or guides) remain critical to the process. We are, and we are quite aware of this. If there are tools (AI or not) that can lessen our scoring, planning, and teaching tasks, many are going to pile into it. We have, in fact, and the job has grown... no less difficult. Not one bit. I'm also a large proponent of incentivizing while holding to high standards. It's feels like a weekly battle with colleagues and kids to accomplish both because kids have almost everything now and struggle to focus and have curiosity. I know, I know these incubator schools and those of the future are and can rectify both.

The tech and tools aren't going away. We know this. I've tried to be optimistic when it's comes to these tools, thinking and often saying that like any new (and powerful) tool it will take time to iron out the kinks. The problem is (and it's well documented in education) is that it can take a generation to adapt and make the best use of new ideas/tools. I'm frustrated by this because we know that pencil and paper with physical books work and work well.

Another item I'll inquire about is the decline of student performances in Maine compared to the turnaround in Mississippi. You share that it's a return to phonics for Mississippi that helped them improve and I would answer this with -well, duh, of course. If you're not teaching phonics, you're students will struggle. But, you don't explain why Maine dropped. Did Maine stop teaching phonics? I doubt this. I'll point out again that the massive push/opportunity for kids to be online all day every day is the greater culprit. If devices gave the kids down south a chance to learn phonics -awesome but it still doesn't explain NE's decline -unless they dropped phonics and other evidenced based learning.

Students need purpose and the smaller schools you shared are providing them with this. Students (all people) thrive on purpose built alongside of fun. Again, the schools that are building in breaks and projects are delivering this. Most awesome. I'm just struggling to see how this happens for all of our young minds when it takes money to do this and I'm of the belief that many of these schools are formed around our most school-ready kids.

Apologies for the long (diatribe?) post, but thirty years in a field that's been pilloried by those outside of it and pillaged by technology has made it challenging to avoid romanticizing instruction before iPads and phones. (I haven't used iPads with students in my room since 2019, for the record.) I am curious about another item you shared. It regards how you know you should read to your own child and do but also have your child engaging with Ello. You should feel more than a little guilt given you've noted the need for a human to engage another human in his/her learning. Sorry, but you opened that door. I'm interested to know how things go when reading moves past decoding and your child is older and less impressed with Ello. It's not breaking the code that's an issue, it's maintaining a life-long interest in reading, writing, and listening for understanding.

Ralph

Anders Ingemarson's avatar

Nice overview. Only one minor disagreement: if starting at age 3, kids would be done with school on average by age 15, not 18. It's ridiculous to spend as long as we currently do educating our kids.

Cheers!

14 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?