Standards Effecting Change
Last year Vermont made a splash at the national ISTE conference when we were the first state to adopt the new ISTE standards. Other states have followed suit, and ISTE is following up with a push for national teacher technology certification, asking states to consider this as part of their formal teacher credentialing process. Will this recent effort be the one to create change in classrooms?
The first computers started appearing in schools in the late 1970s, and major technology integration projects started in earnest in the ‘80s, with the IBM Model Schools Project (1983). Burlington, CVU, Essex, Milton and Camel’s Hump were each recipients of 12 PCs and 3 PCJrs, and three weeks of class for five teachers. The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) quickly followed suit (1985), providing a school and home computer to each teacher and student in seven classrooms across the country. In 1987 the Vermont legislature commissioned a state-wide study resulting in a report “Technology and Education: A Call for Action” that recommended a laptop for every teacher (rolled back from initial discussions to provide a device for every high school student). At the time, a laptop represented an investment of 2 or 3% additional to the cost of a teacher...I wonder where we would be today if that investment had been made.
“A Nation at Risk” or “A Flickering Mind”?
Through the ‘90s there were lots of different programs, ideas, practical examples, research studies, and even some one-to-one implementations. There were strong advocates like Alan November and opponents like Todd Oppenheimer writing about the boon and bane of computers in education. There was the hothouse effect, where one classroom with a motivated teacher would be doing exciting work, down the hall from classrooms without any technology use. The internet fueled the growth in the ‘00s, as schools with bandwidth were able to integrate web resources and web sites into the educational mix. Now we are at the time when every school can afford a device for every student, and the internet is available to almost every school at “FCC defined” broadband speeds.
The technology growth has been paralleled by growth in the standards movement, from the 1980’s response to Reagan’s “A Nation at Risk”, through Federal legislation “Improving America’s Schools”, “No Child Left Behind”, and “Every Student Succeeds Act.” Each successive iteration put more requirements (for Federal funding) for development of standards and assessment. In Vermont, we started with portfolio assessments, moved to performance assessments integrated with the Vermont Framework of Standards (and NECAP), to Common Core mandated testing (“SBAC hell” as IT staff used to call it), and now we are struggling with personalized learning assessment (portfolios???). National ISTE standards for students, teachers and administrators have followed suit with several updates since being introduced in 1998. And virtually every national education organization has created and updated standards along the way, all in the effort to define what every student should know and be able to do.
“Out-of Basement Ready…”
I remember Yong Zhao speaking at a Vermont Principals Association conference a few years ago, and how upset several attendees from Vermont DOE became. He spoke about “College Ready vs. Out-Of-Basement Ready”, about the misguided direction of the Common Core. Why would the US want to move to a rigid standards-based system, when China, which had been strictly standardized for years, was trying to move to a system that allows individuality? So why was the DOE upset? Perhaps because they were poised to announce an updated regime of standards and testing for Vermont?
ACOT had it right, 30 years ago. Ubiquitous access to technology for teachers and learners allows new ways of thinking and learning, shifting the roles of teacher and learner. Technology changes too quickly to put these into standards….and in the near future AI will be capable of providing any form of standards-based training you want. Vermont had it right, 30 years ago. Provide a device to every teacher and student so they can change the structure of learning to keep up with today’s world. This time is at hand in almost every Vermont school.
The costs are enormous…and the results are meager.
Can standards effect change? In fact, standards have created change in schools. Curricula has been written, aligned, rewritten. Professional development has focused on data, testing, curriculum design, PLCs and coaching aligned to each new set of standards. Report cards have been changed, student data systems and student learning management systems adopted and updated for every iteration. Testing takes a huge bite out of classroom time yearly. The direct costs are enormous….and every year the results show meager if any improvement.
So why do we put all this time and effort into standards? Money. Federal dollars. Vermont gets about $102 million compared to the almost $1.6 billion it spends on education (`6%). LMS and SMS providers understand that….they want a piece of the pie, and all their advertising touts the standards. Is that why the national organizations also buy into the standards effort….so they can get a piece of the action?
Could be….
but one thing is clear…..